FREE ESSAY ON NEW WORLD ORDER

NEW WORLD ORDER

The New World Order
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 Cited
Alavi, Mehdi. A New World Order: Democracy, Cilility and World Peace. Houston: Alavi
Publishing. 1998
Internet. 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.