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).
When George H.W. Bush started his presidency he spread the word that anybody talking with me he would not talk with them. Heads of state around the world were suddenly out of the building- they ignored him during his entire presidency. He used video from when he was vice-president to fake that he was doing something. His “new world order” was empty talk to get reelected because he knew nobody would answer him.
The so called “new world order” came out of post Soviet euphoria and it had no real or actual foundation or value! Some speech writer in his sleep came up with the meaningless phrase which it sounded good for the moment very similar to the meaningless phrase of “axis of evil”! Coming up with these odd and meaningless phrases must be genetically appropriate for the Bush family! Phrases like:
1. I won’t let a little shitty state push me around (GHB)
2. Browny you’ve done a heck of a job during the hurricane Katrina!
3. Mission accomplished?
The list goes on and on!
Yes, meaningless. Because world leaders were ignoring him HW said whatever he wanted. Junior Bush repeated father’s idiotic talk. One day HW called me and said for me to make the world leaders talk to him. I do not make anybody do anything so I ended the call silently. 5 minutes later Junior called me. He asked me to talk with his father. I said back to Junior: “Go kiss your father’s ass some more”. HW accomplished nothing because he was rough on people and Junior accomplished nothing because he was soft on people.
The new world order, back in the forties, was supposed to be the United Nations, not one country maintaining order. Many people invested a lot of work in constructing an organization primarily oriented upon the halting of aggression by one country on another. I remember when the blue flag was almost paramount in school.
But some people were not invested in the concept of UN world order. Especially American presidents were not, and they kept on attacking and invading as they always have done. We are the order! Now we have the US attacking and invading in — how many countries? Many.
The USA is a very strong country financially and militarily! But unfortunately it couldn’t handle and manage its power to benefit itself as well as the rest of the world post Soviet downfall! Had this country manage itself correctly then it would’ve received even more benefits from the others! It appears as if this country doesn’t have the capacity nor the wisdom to utilize its power in a right way or direction globally! It is like a drunken who likes to fight anyone who stands up to it or pulls a gun when unable to carry on with an argument! It reminds me of those whose loto ticket wins them $millions but they go bankrupt in a few short years because of NO skills to manage themselves!
Comments are closed.