Because You Never Asked

 THE NEW WORLD ORDER 

            The fall of the Berlin Wall engendered the phrase that now appears as the title of this essay. For the moment, the New World Order has been a very overrated concept. The end of the Cold War was little more than a triumph for the Old World Order, which now dominates the planet's affairs in much the same way it did before the threat to its hegemony embodied in the Socialist movements of the 20^th century. Although the ideologies represented in these movements might still contribute to the improvement of mankind, the regimes that personified this challenge eventually took on personalities that were not acceptable. In spite of this fact, it can still be argued that the "bad guys" have won again.

            What now?

            Long before the appearance of Gorbachov and "perestroika", it had already dawned upon this writer that the ideological conflict inherent in the Cold War was less of an emotional threat to peace than a triumphant free market driven by competing national and corporate interests. As I write in the year 2003, at a moment when war with I- raq seems imminent, the cracks in the western alliance pitting France, Germany and western Europe in general against the Anglo colossus of the United States and its aged parent, England, might truly contain the seeds for a "new world order". Unfortunately, it would be an unhealthy, bellicose one, created by the simple minded vision of imperial power foreseen by the pea brained leaders of the, for now, world's only "super power".

            In the essay "Palestine and Europe", I've already discussed what a perfect moment in history this could be to do something positive for the human condition. With the ideological-military confrontation of the Cold War now behind us --- plus the communication technologies that have made the world such an integral community --- the highway to a more equitable distribution of the world's resources and technical advancements would seem to be wide open.

            Seem to be ...

            But the one nation that could make this happen; the one nation who's unilateral military might and unchallenged material wealth puts it in a place to lead this attempt at an improved global scenario, seems emotionally and intellectually incapable to take on this challenge. The United States, led by the Cro-Magnon mentality of the Bush Gang, has decided to use its singular strength to rule for its own benefit, to maintain and expand its empire, to push an economic system that, by its very nature, is incompatible with a peaceful, harmonious distribution of wealth and power. They've decided to be the hammer, and the rest of the world is beginning to realize that they are the nails.

            Although there had been some ominous signs of this "Yanqui" tendency to be the world's bully, up until the current joust with Saddam, there was still hope. Sure, the American intransigence with regard to environmental treaties, arms control, and an International War Crimes Tribunal, were troublesome matters. But they could still be seen as minor differences within the realm of future concordance.

The current Iraqi situation seems to have blown the game wide open. America's imperial pretensions can no longer be rationalized or appeased by those who now feel disenfranchised. The unhealthy "New World Order" mentioned near the end of this essay's second paragraph (to be outlined a bit further on), might now be entering its gestation period.

            In order to understand this, it is incumbent upon the humans of this planet to fully comprehend what this American gambit in Iraq is all about. In trying to put it into terms that even your average Jennifer Lopez fan can mentally grasp, I always start off like this:

            The first bit of intellectual rubbish you have to discard is the idea that any of this has something to do with Saddam Hussein. Saddam is a prototypical third world tyrant, an animal species that abounds throughout the world's ecosystem. He is no better nor worse than the average animal of this stripe. Some of these dictators, if they are corrupt enough and serve some purpose in the Gringo scheme of things, are our "friends". (Saddam himself once fell into this category). Most of them go unnoticed and unattended to. When one decides to be difficult and has something we want, the American propaganda machine springs into action. We now have a bad guy, a tyrant, a monster, yak, yak. Saddam --- if we overlook his ethnic Kurdish problem, which he handled with the same brutality our Turkish allies do, and is no different from what our Russian "friends" have faced and handled with massive death and destruction in Chechnya --- has been a fairly benign tyrant, spreading Iraq's oil wealth --- after taking his own hefty cut --- with some degree of altruism.

            The second piece of intellectual rubbish that must be discarded is the idea that any of this has anything to do with --- cue the trumpets --- 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'. (Regardless of what treaties or agreements Iraq may not be in compliance with, there is something laughable and insincere when a nation with more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world combined, starts ranting about someone else's possession of such.) Iraq is a country that is hardly allowed to get its own air force --- what there is of it --- off the ground. For more than a decade, the U.S. and Britain have been patrolling the friendly skies of Saddamland. The Baghdad government has virtually no control of a substantial part of its Kurdish northern territory, where American operatives come, go, and probably stay regularly, with impunity. The idea of Iraq being a plausible threat to its neighbors, let alone the American Goliath, is about as believable as Pamela Anderson playing the lead in the "Margaret Thatcher Story".

            OK class, surprise quiz, multiple choice:

            Why is the United States so hormonally driven to fight this war?

A)    To put its hand on the spigot of the most important deposits of oil in the world.

 B) All of the above.

            Yes, you're absolutely right. In order to prove this, let's talk about "cost effectiveness".

            Being cost effective is perhaps the most essential element of life in the neo-liberal world. Cost effectiveness is the primary motivational catalyst for just about everything that happens in the Disney States of America. Cost effectiveness is as American as cleavage on a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader.

            Since this Gringo saber rattling began back around the first anniversary of 9/11, there has already been invested multi billions and billions of dollars in this operation. Imagine what it costs to activate all the reserves, to transport all the troops, to set up their operational quarters half way around the world, the food, fuel, materials, to broadcast the Super Bowl to them, on and on. Billions. Everyday. And then comes what might loosely be called the "war" itself. Easy as it might be, we're talking multi billions more. And then comes the most expensive part of all: the occupation. Contrary to Murdoch-Fox's Pravda-like propaganda, the Iraqi people are not eagerly waiting to be bombed to smithereens and then "liberated". We are going to have to protect and defend the puppet government we put in place. For how long? You tell me. Billions and gazillions more.

            Does anyone believe that such an investment is being made to simply roust out a few terrorists? Does anyone believe in an investment of this magnitude simply to find a few drums of anthrax or mustard gas, or an odd missile lying around somewhere? Would this nation burn gigantic bucks of this nature just to install a "democratic" regime, or to help those poor, downtrodden, liberty starved Iraqis?

            Please . there is no tooth fairy.

            And this leads to the unattractive possibility of a "new world order" driven by the simplistic, imperial designs of the American behemoth. You can't expect proud peoples like the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese and Japanese, nations with profound intellectual, artistic, social, technological, and yes, military achievements, to simply sit back and become irrelevant. This Iraqi affair has shown them an America more concerned for its self-interest than an improved human condition.

The future scenario I am about to outline, based upon a continuance of this unenlightened American attitude, is far from being an exact science. It's something like trying to predict the season's outcome in Spring Training. Chances are you get some of it right and some of it wrong. But it's not just a random stab in the dark either.

            I see three major poles of military-economic competition developing. 1) The North American axis with its satellites in Latin America. 2) An integrated Europe, including Russia. 3) A Sino-Japanese consortium with its satellites in all of slanty eyed Asia. At the moment, the North American axis has a clear military advantage, but its hypothetical competitors have both the technological and material resources to eventually close this gap. In the end, this tri-polar confrontation might eventually turn into a bi-polar one, with the Occidental and Oriental worlds pitted against each other. (Why not? A little racism has never helped anything.)

            I agree, this is not a very rosy picture. It is a world ripe for economic, and, eventually, military conflict. It is a world bogged down in competitive angst. It is a world incapable of dealing with the universal problems still haunting the globe. But it is not too late. The United States, with a more creative approach to foreign policy, is the only country capable of stopping it. Its current leadership has shown itself hopelessly unable to lead anyone to higher intellectual or spiritual ground. That leaves you and me, Mr. and Mrs. America . it's up to us.

            (I close with a word about England and its peculiar role in all this. As far as the current crisis in Iraq is concerned, the fact that British Petroleum and Kuwait are really the same thing, surely has something to do with the pro-American stance taken by her Majesty's government. But there also seems to be something more spiritual involved. England is having an identity crisis. Although their geo-commercial interests are more logically tied to the European Community, there is an emotional link to their offspring in North America that is very difficult to set aside. If, in the end, they decide to throw in with their head strong child, they will have become a satellite state just as Poland or Romania were in the Soviet bloc.)                  

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info