The idea of a New World Order has been around for a long time.
This ideal centers around the concept of a one world government led by the United Nations. Many have praised the idea of a New World Order, including some of our very own Presidents of the United States, while other stand against the idea all together. In theory the idea of a one world government would be nice, uniting the world as one, however the shortcomings, in my opinion, out weigh the positive factors. In 1989, the Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the post-war ordeals ended only two years later with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Kosovo crisis has tagged an end to ten years of disorder and uncertainty with international politics and a breakthrough of a new order for the up and coming century. Today the world is dominated by the idea of economic globalisation, that must be backed up by a new global security arrangement.
(http://www. monde-diplomatique. fr) A suggested idea for the 21st century government has been the ideology of the New World Order, one world government lead by the United Nations. It would create new forms of global economics, global politics and overlapping and diminishing cultures.
The economic system would be based financial and momentary supported by the New World Order. State borders would be either severely reduced or erased in order to create a one-world government for the New World Order. Some or all this may sound quite appealing but it would come with many strings attached, many consequences and many drawbacks. In a New World Order, as proposed by Mehdi Alavi author of A New World Order: Democracy, Civility and World Peace, government would be based on the Law of Nature, or the Natural Law.
This would consist of global peaceful participation, majority rule and respect for human rights. Although this may sound good on paper, the drawbacks and consequences are never mentioned in the book. Some of the major problems with the notion of a New World Order are that the states would experience a loss of identity, power and sovereignty as well as combined and/or lost cultures for the citizens of the world. (Alavi)In Article 3 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789, it is stated that “the principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation.
” This means that governments are entitled to settle conflicts within their own states according to their own laws without interference form the outside. By creating a New World Order state governments would not only have outside interference in upholding their laws they might not even exist at all. It is true that some states have been noting for abusing this law against their own citizens, in cases like forbidding other states to come to the help of their victims as in Yugoslavia. Such cases are not heard of quite often, and are certainly the minority. If the law from 1789 were to be broken, states would lose a great deal of authority, power, respect and ability to stay in charge.
(http://www. monde-diplomatique. fr)The concept of globalization, both economically and otherwise, will prove to cause another set of major problems. States identities as well as their sovergnity will be undermined if not lost all together. It would cause for the abolishment of states and combining cultures. Since sovereignty would now not lie solely with the states there could possibly be a new concept of a world wide system of limited sovergnity, which might possibly lead to a another concept of a sovereign individual.
. (http://www. monde-diplomatique. fr)By creating a one-world government all the various cultures of the world would be forced to mesh together creating a “monolithic, homogeneous global culture.
” (http://www. monde-diplomatique. fr) Genuine diversity and uniqueness along with roots and traditions would be destroyed. If the New World Order was to occur a world of traditional cultural and communal relations cannot be expected.
Rather a world of human beings with no distinctive ties or loyalties would result. It would lead to the destruction of community and society. The idea of a one-world order would cause for the sacrifice of people’s national interests and security, in order for the idea to profit. Citizens would also have to deny some of their independence and sovereignty in order to increase profit, allow for free flow of capital and goods and to maintain a world economy.
A one-world government would be dominated by three major geographic areas: North America, Europe and the Far East. These three major powers are also known as Trilateralists, with the United States of America as the one main superpower. A global system would be dominated by a rather small group of people, the minority, in the North sections of the world exploiting developing nations in the South sections. Dr. Ali Mazrui states that the proposed New World Order would actually turn out to be more of a “global apartheid” than beneficial concept for the upcoming centuries.
(http://www. newdawnmagazine. com)The Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), along with other groups such as the Council of 5000 and the Bilderburger Group, are working together to create and mend policies of national interest. The purpose of these groups are to expand and preserve global capitalism, the New World Order, and are funded by transnational corporations.
Their main goal is to “keep the world safe for big business. ” Once again all of the groups are made up of only three geographic area, as mentions before: North America, Western Europe and the Japan. As statistics show these three general areas are in control of the today’s society and world. Smaller and not as powerful nations are not represented and have practically no say in the matter.
(Mills)The Trilateral Commission alone is meeting and planning to “ultimately abolish the sovereignty of nations and establish one-world government,” as reported by David Mills. The establishment is considered a group of “global elite” that run today’s world. They are comprised of “high-level corporate and public-policy types” from the three major geographic areas. Members of the commission include former Presidents George Bush and Jimmy Carter and current President Bill Clinton. Although membership is not a secret, it is more of a “club for people who run the world anyway.
” By this definition the smaller ad less powerful countries are left out, violating the ideas of equality and sovereignty. (Mills)Richard Barnet and John Cavanagh have equated the New World Order to a global shopping centre populated by uniform consumers. Yes, there would be a much greater variety of foods, drinks and clothing, just to name a few, however it is estimated that out of a world that contains about 5. 4 billion people only about 1. 8 billion people would be able to afford to buy objects and things of desire.
The other 3. 6 billion would have neither the cash nor credit to buy much of anything. (http://www. newdawnmagazine. com)This idea of a New World Order and creating a one-world government, in my opinion would create an enormous amounts of problems ranging from loss of sovereignty for the states to diminishing cultures, roots and traditions of different nations.
Today’s modern world is shaped by the vast cultures and traditions held by the citizens of different countries. If we were to create one global government, traditions, cultures and cultural roots would inevitability be lost and/or destroyed. This would create a world in which its citizens would hold no national beliefs, ties or unity. It would also create a loss of sovereignty for states allowing outside interference to occur with their judgment on upholding the laws of that particular area. I feel that this New World Order would cause a great deal of resentment toward the global government.
When written down on paper the notion of a New World Order seem like a astounding idea however, when put into action it would cause mass chaos and major problems that today’s modern world could most defiantly do without. Works CitedAlavi, Mehdi. A New World Order: Democracy, Cilility and World Peace. Houston: Alavi Publishing. 1998Internet.
Online. http://www. monde-diplomatique. fr/en/1999/06/. Internet. Online.
http://www. newdawnmagazine. com. au/49c.
htm. Internet. Online. http://ww. vuw.
ac. nz/atp/atricles/Luke_9608. html. Mills, David. “Beware the Trilateral Commission! The Influential World Panel Conspiracy Theorists Love to Hate.
” The Washington Post. 25 April, 1992.
