Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Similarly, former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, another avid proponent of global governance, has used the term publicly numerous times referring to this same system of institutions. In a 2008 article out of The Independent titled “Transformed UN proposed to create ‘new world order,’” we read that “Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a ‘new world order’ and ‘global society.’” It goes on to say “He will call for the World Bank to lead the fight against climate change as well as poverty in the developing world, and argue that the International Monetary Fund should prevent crises like the credit crunch rather than just resolve them.”

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, devoted NATO proponent, CFR member, and former Colorado Senator, Gary Hart suggested that, because of increased support for NATO, the crisis could be used to further George Bush Sr.’s new world order agenda. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations Hart stated, “There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster to carry out what his father…a phrase his father used I think only once, and hasn’t been used since…and that is a new world order. Think about this. We already have the support of NATO in a remarkable historic departure.” In 2008 he argued that “Unless we want to lose tens of millions of people to viral pandemics, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change and a whole host of other new realities,” we will “need a new international order.”

Many other global elites, influential politicians, and world leaders have referenced the term “new world order” in relation to these institutions, including billionaire financier George Soros. When asked in 2009 what kind of financial deal Obama should seek to strike while in China, Soros answered, “I think this would be the time because you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order.” He explains the need arising from China’s lack of “contribution” to the IMF and sees the makings of the new world order already taking place with their involvement in the G20′s current policies.

While avoiding the controversial term “new world order,” Obama’s NSSR 2010 makes clear that the international order his administration is building is synonymous with the popular euphemism. According to the document, this “international order” is to be created by revamping the system of international institutions founded after WWII, including the UN, NATO, IMF, and the World Bank.

The new strategy aims to accomplish this transformation by “modernizing” and “engaging” these international institutions while ”strengthening” their “legitimacy and authority.” Under the section titled “Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order” the report states that the new order will be tested by its ability to “facilitate cooperation” and “generate results” using a variety of tools including sanctions, isolation, and force, to change the conduct of nations it deems to be non compliant.

(Screenshot below from 21010 NSSR pages 12,13)

(Screenshot below from 2010 NSSR page 13)

Obama Doctrine In Action

The document asserts that the administration is building a new international order by modernizing the existing international infrastructure into a new global architecture by strengthening the institutions and granting them more authority. Here we can again clarify the broad language of the report; this time with the added context of its implemented policies in the illegal Libyan War of 2011. Just as the Gulf War was considered by the establishment to be a “test” of the New World Order under George Bush Sr., the Libyan War served as a test for the new international order under Barack Obama.

In a February 2011 article titled “Libya’s Test of the New International Order” from the Brookings Institute, we read that “The current dangerous situation in Libya has become a serious test for the international community’s resolve and credibility, especially in the context of a changing Arab world. In particular, it is a test of the ability of a much heralded multipolar new world order…” Later, as if to announce to the world that the operations in Libya were a showcase for the Obama doctrine, CNN featured a segment on the Libyan War prominently titled “The New World Order” with a panel discussion between representatives of establishment think tanks including the Council On Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institute.

With the war in Libya, the Obama administration was setting a new precedent. Just as directed by the 2010 NSSR, the U.N. was given more authority, in this case more than America’s own Congress, when Obama sent Speaker of the House John Boehner a letter citing authority from the United Nation’s Security Council alone as justification for military operations in Libya. Later we saw Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey’s citation of “international permission,” rather than permission from Congress, as the justification for military action in Syria. It was again suggested that the UN or NATO could provide the necessary “legal basis” for U.S. military action and that Congress might only be informed of the decision afterwards.

These examples cut to the heart of the primary concerns among opponents of the new world order: that a country’s assimilation into a global government would mean the loss of its national sovereignty and the undermining of its constitution. While some proponents openly admit that world government would necessarily involve the loss of national sovereignty, many others claim that the concern is unfounded. However, we can see for ourselves in “Libya’s test of the new international order,” that one of the most significant and critical aspects of a nation state’s government, the act of waging war, is being further removed from the control and consent of the common American citizen. In this case the sovereignty of both countries was violated, as the UN was used by the establishment to disregard and supersede the US Congress while promoting and justifying the use of force by military intervention in Libya.

The leading pretext among the propaganda used to justify the Libyan War was that of “humanitarian intervention.” This aspect of the Obama Doctrine appears to be largely drawn from the UN’s R2P doctrine or “Responsibility to Protect” which is cited in the 2010 NSSR. The “Responsibility to Protect” policy is used to disguise the imperial use of force with humanitarian rhetoric. The actual realities of the war, being anything but humanitarian, reveal the hypocritical nature of the policy’s implementation, and with all its rhetoric of cooperation with international institutions, the 2010 NSSR still retains the right to unilateral use of force.

Obama Doctrine At Home

While the Libyan War was a clear implementation of guidelines set in the 2010 NSSR, determining exactly what other policies from the document are being transmitted and put into action is more difficult. The document is intended to be a broad comprehensive outline of policy, so it is very vague and general to begin with. Another layer of vagueness is added due to it being an unclassified version of the strategy; not necessarily designed for the public, but rather designed to withstand public scrutiny.

Add to this surreptitious composition the system’s tactic of hiding its true intentions behind euphemistic propaganda, and the document becomes rather cryptic, requiring much added context to decipher its true essence and aims. Because the controlled mainstream media often work as public relations organizations for the government and elite, the job of interpreting documents like the NSSR to determine what its implementation will entail is left to the alternative media and the general public.

Along with R2P we can expect to see more UN programs, like Agenda 21 and Codex Alimentarius, being enforced in the US, as the elite further “strengthen” and “engage” these institutions of global governance. The rhetoric of “food security” and “sustainable development,” seen in the NSSR, is the commonly used jargon of Codex Alimentarius and Agenda 21 to hide their policies of corporate domination, population control and social engineering, in the same way that the humanitarian rhetoric of R2P is used to disguise the imperialistic use of force.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5