LobeLog on Facebook   LobeLog on Facebook











The Enduring Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

by Paul R. Pillar President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, whom the...

Analysis bush2

Published on September 12th, 2017 | by John Feffer

8

From “New World Order” to “No World Order”

by John Feffer

George H.W. Bush made a bold pronouncement on September 11, 1990.

Even though Iraq had recently invaded Kuwait and the collapse of the Soviet Union was still more than a year away, Bush proclaimed the imminent dawn of a “new world order” that would be “freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace.”

Despite the lofty sentiments, Bush’s “new world order” has dead-ended in the “no world order” of 2017.

What went wrong? For starters, it’s worth looking back at the term’s origins.

In early September 1990, the United States was pulling together a coalition of the willing, with the tacit approval of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, to repel Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Confident that he could face down Saddam Hussein, Bush anticipated not only military victory but a different kind of international community. To describe it, Bush borrowed the “new world order” concept from Gorbachev, who two years earlier had used it to support a stronger role for the United Nations and a reduced role for violence in the international arena.

Yet Bush was less interested in the United Nations and more focused on insisting that “there is no substitute for American leadership.”

Indeed, Bush devoted nearly half his 1990 speech to strengthening U.S. power by setting “America’s economic house in order” — cutting taxes, debt, energy dependency and even (prudently) Pentagon spending. In this way, Bush aimed to provide a stronger underpinning for American leadership in the emerging post-Cold War era.

Bush may have talked of “a world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle,” but the thrust of U.S. policy in the wake of Bush’s speech suggested a different world order altogether.

Bush’s decision to go to war against Iraq in early 1991 demonstrated the cold geopolitical calculations behind the “new world order.” The administration, despite considerable congressional and popular opposition, decided to pursue the military option against Saddam rather than wait to see if diplomacy or economic sanctions would achieve the same result.

America’s overwhelming use of force turned the first Gulf War into a “turkey shoot” that killed more than 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and 3,000 civilians. Rather than herald a new order for the Middle East, the war aggravated the existing Arab/Israeli, Saudi/Iranian, Shia/Sunni, and nationalist/Islamist divides.

Bush’s new world order turned out to be the Cold War warmed over. Instead of just containing the Soviet Union, the United States shouldered the burdens of the sole superpower — responsible for countering threats to peace everywhere, primarily by military means.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, Washington set about consolidating its unipolar status. The cooperative vision of Gorbachev and (to a lesser extent) Bush Sr. hardened into a post-Cold War U.S. triumphalism that would eventually expand NATO to the borders of Russia.

The prospect of a stronger United Nations became instead the a la carte multilateralism of the Bill Clinton years, when the U.S. acted with others only on a selective basis — and on Washington’s terms. U.S. meddling in the Middle East, particularly the U.S. support for (and military presence in) Saudi Arabia, helped grow radical Sunni groups like al-Qaeda, which would later attack the “new world order” on the anniversary of Bush’s speech in 2001.

A bipartisan fear of global anarchy pushed a succession of U.S. leaders to attempt to maintain American dominance. While that might have been possible for a brief moment in the early 1990s, it was inherently unsustainable. The failed efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere testify to the impossibility of imposing a new world order by force.

Donald Trump, despite his calls as presidential candidate to focus on rebuilding the U.S. economy, is just the latest adherent to the U.S. unipolarism that the “new world order” ultimately fostered. He sends more troops to Afghanistan, threatens North Korea with “fire and fury,” and continues the worldwide war without end against terrorism.

The United States could have helped build a truly cooperative world order in 1990. Because it didn’t, the world now faces the twin challenges to the international rule of law: the Islamic State and Donald Trump. The anarchy that many feared is now just around the corner.

Originally published in Inside Sources. Photo: Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush (Wikimedia Commons). 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


8 Responses to From “New World Order” to “No World Order”

Show Comments >



  1. avatar Don Bacon says:

    It’s not complicated. If one country determines what other counties ought to do, and forces them to do it, then the only actions taken would be in the furtherance of that country’s national power and the profits of its corporations. Other considerations wouldn’t matter.
    We see that illustrated in Afghanistan, for example. The US invasion of Afghanistan was a part of its New Silk Road strategy, to extend US political power and as an opening for US corporations into Central Asia. USAID was using US taxpayer funds to train people in the -stans. India was invited to build highways and a new parliament building, and to train Tajik soldiers to fight the Taliban.
    But that’s not in Pakistan’s interest, so it pays the Pashtun Taliban to kill Indian- and US-supported Tajik soldiers, and the US effort for a New World Order goes down in flames, yet again. (The US is dropping more bombs on Afghan towns now to “fix it.”)
    This is why the United Nations was established, to keep any country from trying to establish its own New World Order. It never works. Just like in our local communities where we don’t (or shouldn’t) look to a local despot to run our lives, instead we work together toward a common good. So we should do internationally.

  2. avatar Bobby Dias says:

    The union called USSR failed but the former members flourished.

  3. avatar Bobby Dias says:

    One note- the Taliban are fighters defending their lands of a thousand years or more. As the US supported the soldiers from around Heart on their march east the US media and government called those defenders Taliban. Turn the name back to defenders to show how the US is helping those steal land and every place else along through there. When the Republic of Afghanistan was created in 1973 they sent me a map of the new country. The area is only about 100-200 miles wide and high, with Herat in the center. Every other place they are trying to steal from others.

All comments are moderated. Comments with links will not be published. Read our Comment Policy page for further information.


About the Author

avatar

John Feffer is the the editor of LobeLog and the director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies. He is also the author, most recently, of the dystopian novel Splinterlands (Dispatch Books). He is a former Open Society fellow, PanTech fellow, and Scoville fellow, and his articles have appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Review of Books, Salon, and many other publications.



Back to Top ↑
  • Named after veteran journalist Jim Lobe, LobeLog provides daily expert perspectives on US foreign policy toward the Middle East through investigative reports and analyses from Washington to Tehran and beyond. It became the first weblog to receive the Arthur Ross Award for Distinguished Reporting and Analysis of Foreign Affairs from the American Academy of Diplomacy in 2015.

  • Categories

  • Subscribe

    Enter your email address to subscribe to our site and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Popular Posts

  • Comments Policy

    We value your opinion and encourage you to comment on our postings. To ensure a safe environment we will not publish comments that involve ad hominem attacks, racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory language, or anything that is written solely for the purpose of slandering a person or subject.

    Excessively long comments may not be published due to their length. All comments are moderated. LobeLog does not publish comments with links.

    Thanks for reading and we look forward to hearing from you!