Radical Reasoning
columnist: Bear Gunderson

Topic: Globalism
"Reshaping the World Order:" A Critique

---

Taxes, institutions, theories, and war.

---

by Bear Gunderson
(libertarian)
Thursday, February 26, 2009

In the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, Professors Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth of Dartmouth College continue the same old globalist diatribe of yesteryear by talking about how international institutions as they stand now are failures, yet then in the next breath claim this is not an indication of globalist failings on the whole. This is a fallacy that has been reiterated by every major crackpot elitist in the past decade because of a fundamental failure to cope with reality. Much like the neo-Keynesians have been proven wrong by current economic failings, the cosmopolitan elites of Brussels and Chicago are scrambling to salvage what they can of their ideology. In the crafting of the New World Order, everything is "business as usual," even when it costs lives and becomes painfully obvious that a political religion is dying a very slow death at the hands of justice.

The true irony in this article is their admittance that the current globalist paradigm is a complete failure, but they attribute this to lax internationalism rather than an overreliance on sustainable development and deceptive trade deals;

"No one sitting down to design the perfect global framework for the twenty-first century would come up with anything like the current one. The existing architecture is a relic of the preoccupations and power relationships of the middle of the last century, out of sync with today's world of rising powers and new challenges."

This is little more than a mandate for the creation of more strict globalist measures that govern the more practical areas of life that have been left untouched (carbon taxing, anyone?). With rising economic nationalism in Asia and South America, it becomes unlikely that they could wish for anything more than what they already have; that is, a system of neocolonialist domination through internationalist banking institutions and what I like to call "bully policies" that have people such as Hugo Chavez in the crosshairs. Barring China and India's economic rise to power, one would have to seriously consider whether or not the United States even has the ability at this point to spearhead reform of any international institution. Virtually every region of the third world is now more distrustful of America than ever, and it seems unlikely that trade deals alone are going to quell the nationalist brushfires that are being set throughout the south and east. U.S. hegemony is dying a slow death,

Again, ironically, these academics actually accuse George W. Bush of not using enough global leverage to enforce these types of existing policies. Bush was by no means as smooth as Obama, but reading this type of garbage is downright nauseating:

"The (Bush) administration did not invest much in international institutions and tended to denigrate them for hindering, rather than enabling, the realization of U.S. interests. But with the election of President Barack Obama, the United States' reluctance to push for institutional change now appears to have ended."

"Reluctance?" I was under the impression that George W. Bush was one of the most brilliant Fabian incrementalists around since FDR, but it seems these two intellectual buffoons would merely write him off as an amateur. Consider Bush's use of the IMF and WTO in South America during the FTAA debacle, and ask yourself, was that reluctance? What about when he bent over backwards for the E.U. in his first term during the steel tariff debate? And what about his reliance on NATO in Afghanistan, where as a result, things have gone from really bad to incredibly worse? This type of language is concerning, not because of the way it is phrased, but because it seems more apparent every day that the gloves are coming off with these perverts.

At one point in the article, they actually suggest that most of the convulsions in the world economy are a result of not enough global management. A weak WTO is the main attribute of failure, whereas a strong WTO/IMF is the key to success. Where have we heard this one before? President Obama is a shill just like his predecessor, but one thing has been made clear since his inauguration more than anything, and that's that he has a mega hard-on for international institutions. With talk of creating a global federal reserve, post-dollar collapse, we could easily conclude that such a step towards global governance would facilitate more economic chaos and disparity than what we have seen so far. Stocks are tumbling, credit is tightening up (if such is possible), and the printing presses can't even keep up with our new President. What is the endgame scenario here when it comes to institutional reform? Apparently it's not just controlling the flow of capital.

"Imagine, for example, a world in which a revised Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty no longer granted all states an 'inalienable right' to build nuclear enrichment and reprocessing facilities. Any state that attempted to do this would be considered a pariah, lacking the respect and rights due to legitimate members of the international community. In such a world, states would be much less likely to pursue nuclear weapons, and if any did, the path to taking tough anti-proliferation measures would be clear."

A sickly painted Orwellian picture, no? Obviously, everyone is thinking about Iran at this point and rightfully so. The neocolonialists are gearing up for a more regimented response to the Iranian question, and will certainly be advocating the use of force again in no time at all. This would only be possible with Barack Obama as president for two reasons alone: a.) Bush Doctrine and neoconservatism are spent forces with no credibility or political capital, and b.) the American public at large has already accepted the imperialist role of the United States in Afghanistan under President Obama. The use of financial institutions will be part of this, especially if there is a world reserve dictated by the WTO/IMF. Unfortunately, they forget the all important fact that international institutions have no credibility to being with. Considering this fact, it would be prudent to conclude that there is simply no way international institutions can be reformed in a way that is even humane or accepting of the third world. Similarly, we could also conclude that there is no way this reform could be spearheaded by the United States, of all countries.

With financial collapse on the horizon, it becomes evident that the globalists will need to start a new war to salvage what is left of their mutant creation of a world order, or simply accept that they now have competition from a variety of multi-polar power centers. Either way, I wish these academics would face the facts and learn that internationalism is dead, and for the better. They say that this is the result of nationalism and state-emphasized deregulation; they are wrong and they are lying. The exact policies being advocated now are the same ones that have been advocated since Bush I, and yet, the elite pride themselves on this point alone. It begs the question: is this "reshaping" of the world order going to result in reactionary behavior from other parties, breeding more nationalism from both the left and the right, or will the policies of today inevitably starve the people of the world into bondage via global institutions?

Call me an optimist, but I lean towards the former.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
6 thumbs so far

©2009 Bear Gunderson, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Thursday, February 26, 2009
Last modified: Thursday, February 26, 2009

The views expressed in this article are those of Bear Gunderson only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Bear Gunderson is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Bear Gunderson of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.