Gorbachev understood what Bush did not, that no new world order was coming, an old world order was returning. Bush lasted a year longer in office than his Soviet counterpart. And yet his own farewell speech couldn’t help but echo Bush, declaring, “we live in a new world now.”
The new world we live in now is one where Russia is trying to rebuild a Czarist empire, and China, Iran, and every other power or power that was, is fighting to recreate its glory days.
The patchwork international order had been a product of the Cold War that Bush and Gorbachev were eagerly bidding farewell to. Globalism, or the post-Cold War international order based on trade, human rights and conferences proved to be as much of a joke as the UN, the WTO, the NGOs and the multilateral organizations that served as its shaky infrastructure.
Bush envisioned "a world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle" and "nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice" on the brink of the original Gulf War.
But the only law that ever existed was the law of force enforced by self-interest or idealism.
Last year, Secretary of State Blinken declared that human rights would be at the center of our foreign policy, but that other nations would have to make it happen. “Promoting respect for human rights is not something we can do alone, but is best accomplished working with our allies and partners across the globe,” he claimed. The chosen venue for the job was the Human Rights Council whose members include China, Cuba, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia and Venezuela.
As the old political gag goes, "These are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others."
The new world order means world leaders gathering for a NATO summit that accomplishes nothing except the indignity of Finland and Sweden having to bribe an Islamist butcher in Turkey for the privilege of membership in the hope that if Russia comes for them, we’ll defend them.
In the real world, Finland will be on its own just as it was against the USSR and Germany.
The old world order is the reality that once the meetings are done and the conferences are over, every country is all alone. Virtue signaling globalism means that everyone will fly Ukrainian flags, just as they expressed solidarity with Hong Kong and will hashtag Taiwan at need.
And then they’ll move on to the next political outrage, celebrity gossip or trending news.
In his address on September 11, 1990, Bush called Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, the “first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle.” The first test also proved to be the last. The Iraq wars would shatter any bipartisan and multilateral appetite for American interventions. Obama’s Syrian red line, Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine all mark the slow collapse of the potemkin village erected in the nineties.
The myth of a new world order and its illusion of collective security is worse than the reality of the old world order, offering popular protesters and small countries the false hope that some international consensus or military intervention will come to their aid when help isn’t coming.
Instead of 19th century realpolitik or late 20th century internationalism, we have a much more expensive and imaginary version of the League of Nations. Countless billions of dollars and endless hours are spent propping up an imaginary new world order of a world without war when it would be much healthier for us and for everyone else to acknowledge that none of it is real.
The world isn’t governed by law, but by force, and no one is coming to save anyone. Not us.
The United States isn’t entirely out of the intervention business, but our international forces are deployed for deterrence purposes. Rather than fighting to change things, we are managing the decline. That’s what our troops were doing in Afghanistan for at least a decade, trying to keep one of our old potemkin villages, a “democratic” government, from its inevitable defeat and fall.
Other powers and movements, from Russia and China to Sunni and Shiite Islam, are expanding while America remains committed to a failed vision of a static world. A shrinking West, avidly being colonized by the rest of the world, touts decolonization. But the West has few colonies, instead its cities, London, Los Angeles, and Toronto, are rapidly becoming third world colonies.
America first embraced the ideal of a new world order when it ceased to expand territorially. A century of wars for democracy, along with drastically falling birth rates, convinced Europe to cease its expansionism, but the rest of the world has not decided to be happy with what it has.
World powers seek to restore or build empires, carving up regions into spheres of influence, intimidating, invading, and conquering smaller nations. That old world order was always the defining reality. The Cold War era incorporated it into a larger struggle against Communism, but afterward, the same ugliness continued stripped of any pretense of a world revolution.
With the old world order, the United States can continue to impotently preach Bush’s vision of Americans, “together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians, and Africans in defense of principle and the dream of a new world order” or think about what an American future really looks like.
One in which America is no longer declining or tethered to maintaining an illusory new order.
A century of tired arguments have reduced us to the false choice between isolationism and internationalism. But at the height of our rising power in the 19th century, the United States was neither. It was not afraid of asserting its ideals, but neither was it foolish enough to believe that the rest of the world would go along or that we were obligated to make them all behave. We primarily pursued our own interests and we were not afraid of a little expansionism either.
Most importantly, we did not see our place in the world as bound by the rest of the world.
American foreign policy has come to be a prisoner of a global construct. Its exponents have shouldered a global burden that no empire in history has ever been able to carry. Americans have been told to take on the responsibility for the freedom and happiness of the entire world. Our national policy is to first conceive of how the world should be and then try to bring it about.
But a better world doesn’t begin with American self-sacrifice, but with a greater America.
America can best serve the world by being itself. The new world order never really existed and pretending that it did does no favors to the countries who might actually depend on it. Instead of trying to mobilize the world, America can provide a meaningful alternative for the world.
The American Revolution and the Constitution ushered in the true new world order not by seeking to control the world, but by showing the human race what was possible. Every effort to outdo that order with a new world order has failed. And Bush’s, like Gorbachev’s, has joined the trash heap of history. The real new world order is not one that envisions a transformed humanity, but that empowers individuals, not nations, not from the top, but from the bottom.
The constitutional order is not the end of history, but the beginning of humanity.
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.
Click here to subscribe to my articles.
Thank you for reading.
We've seen the disaster of Carter's do-gooderReplyDelete
policy. A country that puts the world's good
ahead of its own deserves to fail. Why? For
the mortal sin of ignoring empirical truth in
favor of vain imagined virtue.
No machine or society designed on fantasy will
operate effectively to survive and serve the
purpose of its creator. Makes sense when you
think about it.
Please start thinking about it.
I believe that President Trump's America First strategy was trying to accomplish the old new order.ReplyDelete
You may have been too young to remember, one of the first UN sec. Generals was Kurt Waldheim a former Nazi whose past was not hidden just not mentioned. All these international bodies did not uphold any human rights only the international socialist ideals of their founders.ReplyDelete
I see things very differently.ReplyDelete
The invasion of Ukraine by Tsar Vladimir I horrified the civilized world and re-invigorated NATO. There was no justification for Putin’s aggression, at least none that could be made with a straight face. The entire world knew it, and most of the world condemned it. Finland and Sweden — horrified by the invasion — abandoned their “balancing act” attempting to mollify Russia and joined the NATO alliance, not in the “vain hope” of assistance if Russia attacked them, but because the U.S., Britain, Poland and to a lesser extent Germany and France and Turkey stood with Ukraine (despite the very real costs involved in doing so) and blunted the invasion.
Finland and Sweden are of considerable strategic, economic and military value to NATO. They are not shrinking violets desperately trying to hide from harm behind US might. Russia knows what it is like to fight the Finns. Stalin’s might struggled to deal with them during WW II, at a time when the US military industrial complex was backing Stalin. Now all Nordic nations, with their economic and technological prowess, are part of the NATO alliance and are increasing their military spending to counter the threat posed by Putin’s contempt for international law and conventions.
Even studiedly neutral Switzerland condemned Putin’s savagery.
A few important nations did not join the chorus of verbal disapproval, the PRC most prominent among them. But Xi has not rescued Putin from his folly by replenishing his rapidly dwindling weaponry stockpiles, as many had feared he would, suggesting that China sees the danger in Putin’s blatant aggression (as well she should, given her historical conflicts with Russia and numerous border disputes). India and Syria have made themselves somewhat dependent on Russian arms, and thus are reluctant to rebuke Putin. Other reticent nations (Venezuela, Iran) are in ongoing conflict with the US and thus support Putin because he is also in conflict with the US.
All in all, however, President Biden and his foreign policy team are doing an admirable job of rallying most nations to oppose Putin’s land grab, and of enabling Ukraine to resist it. And they have done so by carefully moving forward in concert with the other nations in the NATO alliance, not pushing them to be more aggressive in their contributions than they can realistically accomplish given local sentiment and given the inevitable threat of thermonuclear conflict that attends providing support to any nation defending itself against Russia. It does help that Biden has taken domestic political risks in opening the US taxpayers’ pocketbook to fund the bulk of the spending required (though per capita, Poland deserves at least as much credit for the sacrifices she has made to bolster Ukraine as the US).
Hopefully, when Ukraine’s nightmare concludes, more nations will see the value in a rules-based international order that collectively confronts naked military aggression, and perhaps collectively we can scale back the MAD arms race, and strengthen diplomatic alternatives to conflict.
The world would be wiser to adopt the philosophy of Eleanor Roosevelt as its lodestar, and jettison Nietzche.
Great insight as ever.ReplyDelete
We spat in Russia's begging bowl , and went seeking Chinese medicine. Presuming that they'd let Armand Hammer, the likes of Leibermann, Heath, Feinstein and Kissinger set up their surgeries over there.
My friend above puts it well. Forcing fantasies onto reality is fatal..and few today even recall the Bush madness with poor Forby!