McCain’s Transformation of NATO and a New Global Order of Peace

Senator John McCain and his presidential campaign issued a press release followed by a policy address in early 2008 outlining his foreign policy positions. McCain expressed support for: an international 'cap-and-trade system' for 'substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions'; economic assistance for Africa; creating 'new international institutions'; expansion of NATO membership; a transformation of NATO's mission; and a 'global League of Democracies' with NATO at its core for the 'advancement of global democratic principles' and a 'new global order of peace'.

The February 8, 2008, McCain press release titled, Senator McCain Urges NATO Renaissance, stated:

“The charge before the transatlantic community today is to establish the basis for a new global order of peace, one that will last not just for a decade but for the rest of this century. And as we move forward, we know that there can be no true and lasting peace unless it is built on a foundation of freedom. Today we need a rebirth of NATO, a renaissance of the transatlantic relationship to extend peace, prosperity, and democracy far into the 21st century.

“The first step toward a rejuvenated NATO could begin at the Bucharest summit….

“The future of NATO lies not only in expanding its membership, transforming its mission, and deepening its commitments. It lies also in cooperating with states far from our shores. Today NATO and the European Union together comprise only a quarter of the more than 120 democracies around the world. Some – like Japan, Australia, and India – are proud, powerful and progressive nations committed to the values that have given our alliance such enduring strength. The 21st century world no longer divides neatly into geographic regions. Ideas, innovations and cultural influences travel rapidly and freely today as goods, services and capital. Moving just as rapidly are environmental calamities, diseases, international criminal rings, terrorist organizations, and the technologies of mass destruction. Our alliance must be as international in scope – partnering with willing democracies all over the world – as the challenges we confront.

“NATO should partner with countries across the globe to address common threats. At the same time, we should work toward a global League of Democracies – one that would have NATO members at its core – dedicated to the defense and advancement of global democratic principles.” [1]

Remarks by John McCain to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council on March 26, 2008 further clarified his foreign policy objectives:

“We must be strong politically, economically, and militarily. But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish. Perhaps above all, leadership in today's world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation.

“One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies. We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to. We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact — a League of Democracies — that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests….

“We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies….

“There is such a thing as international good citizenship. We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders. We and the other nations of the world must get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand off a much-diminished world to our grandchildren. We need a successor to the Kyoto Treaty, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner. We Americans must lead by example and encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India….

“The United States did not single-handedly win the Cold War; the transatlantic alliance did, in concert with partners around the world. The bonds we share with Europe in terms of history, values, and interests are unique. Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union as we continue to support a strong NATO. The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion.

“We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.

“While Africa's problems — poverty, corruption, disease, and instability — are well known, we must refocus on the bright promise offered by many countries on that continent. We must strongly engage on a political, economic, and security level with friendly governments across Africa, but insist on improvements in transparency and the rule of law. Many African nations will not reach their true potential without external assistance to combat entrenched problems, such as HIV/AIDS, that afflict Africans disproportionately. I will establish the goal of eradicating malaria on the continent — the number one killer of African children under the age of five. In addition to saving millions of lives in the world's poorest regions, such a campaign would do much to add luster to America's image in the world.

“We also share an obligation with the world's other great powers to halt and reverse the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States and the international community must work together and do all in our power to contain and reverse North Korea's nuclear weapons program and to prevent Iran — a nation whose President has repeatedly expressed a desire to wipe Israel from the face of the earth — from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals all around the world, starting with our own. Forty years ago, the five declared nuclear powers came together in support of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and pledged to end the arms race and move toward nuclear disarmament. The time has come to renew that commitment. We do not need all the weapons currently in our arsenal. The United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace.

“If we are successful in pulling together a global coalition for peace and freedom — if we lead by shouldering our international responsibilities and pointing the way to a better and safer future for humanity, I believe we will gain tangible benefits as a nation.” [2]

McCain's vision is far from original. Many influential persons have championed a foreign policy based on alliances, international institutions, and economic and political integration as far back as the Wilson Administration and the Progressive Era.

One recent example of federal officials openly promoting internationalism occurred during the nomination hearing of Warren M. Christopher for Secretary of State in the United States Senate on January 13, 1993. The opening statement of Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE):

“As you and I have discussed, I believe the new administration faces two overarching imperatives: to revitalize the American economy and to foster the creation of a new world order. Neither task can be neglected or postponed, but must be pursued with equal energy.

“You know that my own concept for shaping a new world order has four components. The first – cementing the Democratic foundation – means promoting democracy everywhere we can, but especially among the major powers.

“Our first priority must be the former members of the Warsaw Pact. American national security interests depend on the survival and success of Russian democracy. Investing wisely in Russian democracy is investing in American security. We should also, I believe, promote democracy in China through a powerful and proven weapon: “freedom broadcasting,” as mandated by the legislation this committee approved last fall.

“The second leg is forging a new strategy of containment. It means empowering multilateral agencies and regimes to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We must direct this containment strategy not against a particular nation or ideology, but against a pernicious technological threat. To pursue this strategy will require reorganizing our own Government to give proliferation a priority that this threat demands.

“Third – organizing for collective security – means strengthening the U.N. by assigning to the Security Council certain predesignated military forces and facilities: a conception unanimously endorsed by this committee last October. It also means converting NATO into a military instrument for peacekeeping, and peacemaking, under U.N. or CSCE auspices.

“Collective security, a multinational commitment to repel aggression and defend the peace, was the central precept of Woodrow Wilson's vision. Wilson recognized it as a principle so essential to world order that he would not yield it in the fight over the ratification of the Versailles Treaty. It is the principle that the Senate finally accepted in 1949 with the advent of NATO, though it took the carnage of the Second World War to prove Wilson right. And it is that principle we must now extend, by empowering the U.N. and transforming the Atlantic alliance.

“Fourth, launching an economic-environmental revolution, means protecting and perfecting the free trade regime by completing the new GATT agreement, and then acting to reorient the world economy to environmentally sound methods of production and consumption. And I would point out that I think that Governor Clinton is off to a good start with his meeting with President Salinas by indicating that NAFTA must, in fact, better embody that environmentally sound notion than it currently does.

“Today we stand at the threshold of this new world order. I believe the people and governments, in growing numbers worldwide, recognize what needs to be done. And I believe the American people are prepared to see the United States take the lead in engineering sweeping, visionary change….

“Mr. Secretary, the Clinton administration advances a compelling vision for a new world and begins the necessary transformation of our international institutions to meet the demands of that new world. I believe you can expect Congress to support you energetically and enthusiastically on both sides of the aisle. I sincerely urge you, as I did in our private meeting, to be bold. I sincerely urge you to suggest to the President of United States, when confirmed, that this is not a time for timidity, this is a time for bold vision.

“Without U.S. world leadership, I think there is no real possibility of putting together a new world order that bodes well for our children and our grandchildren.” [3]

The opening statement of Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT):

“We clearly need a new world order to deal with these unspeakable acts. The starting point for constructing that new order is for the new administration to restore confidence in U.S. adherence to internationally-accepted legal norms. Such confidence is absolutely essential if we and the community of nations are to build a more stable international order: one that is based upon the observance and enforcement of the rule of law, rather than the possibility of nuclear annihilation.

“To make that happen will require, among other things, that the new administration work to strengthen international institutions that can then act as impartial guardians of this new world order. While I know that none of us wants to dwell upon past grievances against the last two administrations, the fact remains that U.S. policy during the 1980's gave short shrift to international legal standards….

“With your leadership, the new administration is poised to change that unfortunate perception and to give some shape and coherence to the world in which we live.

“As part of that, as I mentioned to you when we talked last week, despite opposition in the past by the Bush Administration, I am firmly convinced that the time is particularly auspicious for the United States to call for the establishment of a permanent international crimes tribunal. Such a body could act as the forum for bringing international criminals to justice – perpetrators of war crimes, international narcotics traffickers, international terrorists. Such an international court could provide a uniform mechanism to address such criminals whose crimes transcend borders or require the coordinated effort of more than one nation to prosecute. Recent events suggest that a crimes tribunal is a critical element to restoring and maintaining the international rule of law.

“Establishing a new tribunal is only one component of the international foundation that will be needed to act as the strong underpinnings of this new world order. So too, the Clinton administration will need to continue the initiatives undertaken during the Bush administration to make international bodies such as the United Nations and the Organization of American States truly function as their founders envisioned they would. This will entail working with friends and allies around the world to encourage their active participation in these organizations, as well as their commitment to provide adequate resources to them so that they can effectively carry out their mandates.

“As we discussed the other day, Mr. Christopher, here is an opportunity to be present at the creation of a new world order. I am confident that you and your colleagues in the Clinton Administration will make the most of this opportunity. If President Clinton can look back on his first term in office having accomplished these foreign policy objectives, he will have served our nation and other nations of the world well.” [3]

Senator Biden asks Warren Christopher a long-winded question:

“From the time I have gotten here, the chairman of this committee has literally carried a copy of the U.N. Charter in his pocket. It is dogeared.

“I will never forget, it must be 13, 14 years ago, this man suggested to me that article 43 was not used appropriately, we did not understand it, the world did not respond to it properly, and so on. And now he is sitting here giving me credit for initiating some congressional activity relating to article 43.

“But having said that, and ending this mutual admiration society, I would like to discuss the need to fulfill the potential of article 43 of the U.N. Charter. And if you act to do so, you will clearly have the support of this committee based on our votes, notwithstanding the fact that I do not know how the three new members would vote, but the remainder of the committee has voted so.

“This brings me to NATO. I think it is little recognized but profoundly important that the 16 members of the Atlantic Alliance are now negotiating among themselves the precise terms under which NATO will be made available to implement decisions in the CSCE or the U.N. Security Council. And this will represent a new and broader application, if it occurs, of the principle of collective security.

“The truth is that if collective security is to work, this transformation of NATO, in my view, must succeed. For in practical terms, NATO is the one organization in the world that unifies and coordinates the military power of the major Western democracies. As we are seeing, as the world community today, and in Desert Storm, responded to Saddam Hussein.

“So what I would like to ask you, Mr. Secretary, is this. This NATO transformation has been slowed, among other things, by the foot dragging on the part of the French, who are reluctant, in my view to see NATO accorded a major role as compared to institutions like the EC and the WEU,the Western European Union, where they have a greater role.

“And I want to make it clear I am distinguishing between the French attitude on NATO and the French attitude of whether the West should intervene in Bosnia; they are two separate issues. On transforming NATO to a role in the new world order, the French are dragging their feet and on Bosnia they are not.

“But I would like to get – it is a long preamble to my question, which is, do you see an essential connection between NATO transforming its role and the ability to give any impetus to, or teeth to the implementation of article 43? Because it seems to me they go hand-in-hand, and I wonder if you could just, without committing to any particular position, discuss with me that relationship.” [3]

The response of Secretary of State Christopher:

“Senator, I think that the promise of article 43 can be fulfilled in a number of different ways. One of the most interesting options is to use organizations like NATO to fulfill it. NATO is really in search of a role. I don't mean that in any critical way, but NATO's principal role has been fulfilled, and we ought to all commend NATO and ourselves for that having been done. But through article 43 is one of the fascinating possibilities.” [3]

Article 43 of the U.N. Charter contains three parts:

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. [4]

Senator Joe Biden, three months before the Warren Christopher hearing, delivered a speech on October 29, 1992, titled, On the Threshold of the New World Order: A Rebirth for the United Nations. Biden, during the speech, stated:

“Collective security today must encompass not only the security of nations, but also mankind's security in a global environment that has proven vulnerable to debilitating changes wrought by man's own endeavors.

“Thus, in setting an American agenda for a new world order, we must begin with a profound alteration in traditional thought….

“NATO should abandon its anachronistic posture-the defense of allied territory against direct attack-to make a great leap forward and adopt peace-keeping outside NATO territory as a formal alliance mission” [5]

Another influential individual during that era promoting the expansion and transformation of NATO was George Soros. Soros authored the policy paper, Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO. Soros advocated the use of NATO to enforce international law and advance global democratic principles until the U.N. was capable of handling the role. In a 1993 speech, Soros stated:

“The United Nations might have been an effective organization if it were under the leadership of two superpowers cooperating with each other. As it is, the United Nations has already failed as an institution which could be put in charge of U.S. troops. This leaves NATO as the only institution of collective security that has not failed, because it has not been tried.” [6]

A 'new global order of peace' by McCain and a 'new world order' described by Biden, Dodd, Soros, etc. have striking similarities: strengthen and expand international institutions; create international environmental and energy policies and regulatory bodies; strengthen and expand international free trade agreements; increase economic and political integration; give economic assistance to developing nations; nuclear reduction and disarmament; expand NATO membership; and transform NATO's mission to peacekeeping, enforcing international law, and promoting global democracy.

One area of disagreement appears to be Russia. Biden viewed Russia as a potential ally in 1993 after the Soviet collapse stating the first priority in creating a 'new world order' must be the former members of the Warsaw Pact. McCain views Russia as an expansionist power and has set a priority of expanding NATO membership with former Warsaw Pact nations bordering on Russia.

Will McCain use NATO and American troops to enforce international law and act as the military arm of the U.N. under Article 43 of the U.N. Charter, as Biden suggested? Or will McCain use NATO strictly to enforce the 'collective will' of NATO nations? Either choice is an acceptable direction for the proponents of internationalism and world order.

[1] Senator McCain Urges NATO Renaissance
[2] Remarks By John McCain To The Los Angeles World Affairs Council
[3] Nomination of Warren M. Christopher to be Secretary of State
[4] Charter of the United Nations: Chapter VII
[5] Sen. Biden returns to campus during United Nations week
[6] What O'Reilly Doesn't Understand About the Soros Agenda