My opponent has made a very interesting counter by trying to say that the UN Security Council is the one and only NWO by dismissing other claims out
of hand. Now, any good scholar wants to read supporting research that may give extra details and flesh out the argument... yet we have none. Just
the statement that my question is "a blatant attempt to 'poison the well'."
Au contraire-- it's a valid question, and one you haven't answered other than by saying "well, those are just silly." That's not a response --
that's just dodging the question.
How do you know this is the true NWO? Consider the following:
The Game of Power
There have been a number of attempts to dominate the "known world", and a few of them have been fairly successful from the points of Western
Civilization. Structures such as the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, the British Empire, and the Chinese empire lasted for thousands of years.
In each case, the "dominator" (group, family, or individual) moves quickly during the first part of the campaign. Individuals and groups that
present a threat are quickly taken care of either by a political marriage (Julius Caesar's daughter to Pompey is a good example) or by military
overthrow (as Tokugawa did by aligning himself with Nobunaga and becoming his successor, giving him resources and power to rise to become the first
ruler (shogun) of a united Japan), or by placing allies and family members (sometimes unwilling ones) in key positions (such as the de Medicis
controlling the papacy.)
So the rules are as old as mankind itself: establish the base, compromise or eliminate or secure the opponents, expand, and arrange for a line of
Security Council and Power
Let's look at the scorecard of the Security Council.
Establishing the Base
We have 5 permanent members plus 10 other members (elected by the UN, not by the Security Council). Of the 5 permanent members, two have been
replaced by successor states: en.wikipedia.org...
Of the 10 elected members, there is no barrier on who can be admitted to the Security Council. The 5 permanent members can't deny membership to the
Security Council (unlike, say, the Roman emperors who controlled family by marriage, murder, and forced suicides.)
So it can't control who becomes a part of the SC, and it can't control who becomes part of the UN, and it can't override the UN vote itself.
* Ability to dominate -- nonexistant.
Given their long history of vetoing each others' actions in the Security Council (from Wikipedia: "Since the Security Council's inception, China
(ROC/PRC) has used its veto six times; France 18 times; Russia/USSR 122 times; the United Kingdom 32 times; and the United States 81 times"
), it's no surprise that most of what they've done is "recommend" actions.
Roman emperors secured political power by assassination and murder, as did the de Medicis and the Tokugawas and many other empires. The Security
Council has not been able to make its own membership secure from internal overthrow of the government. They have applied political and economic
pressure to countries to force them to enter negotiations but they have not been able to use that same pressure to swiftly end conflicts. One of many
prominent examples of this is the Palestine/Israel confict, which they've been trying to settle for nearly 60 years.
Contrast that effort with the efforts of Rome to resolve the very same issue. Rome (under Pompey, who was married to Caesar's daughter and acting
under his orders) simply settled THAT question in 64 BC by invading the whole area and declaring everyone to be Roman citizens. The issue is
"resolved" by that swift move and stays resolved until the Muslims invade in 614 AD.
* Ability to control opponents -- moderate.
The UN membership has grown, but not through the efforts of the Security Council.
Individual members of the Security Council have not expanded their territorial ranges through any move of the SC. In fact, their territorial control
has lessened (example: the fragmentation of the USSR into a dozen and more little states.)
* expansion ability for the benefit of the SC members -- nonexistant.
Lineage of Successors With The Same Ideology
The five permanent members have seen constant changes in their leadership and the ideological polarity of the leaders.
The five permanent members don't control who is voted into the non-permanent seats on the council -- and as a result we get a real hodge-podge of
members, with the ones who have been there the longest getting the most slots as members of the Security Council:
Very few of those countries have a permanent line of succession, and even governments of the permanent members can be overthrown.
* lineage of succession - none
Scorecard of World Domination
Three scores of "no power" and one of "moderate power" -- and the US under Bush and other Republicans has been threatening to leave the UN. They
haven't been able to make the US pay its membership dues.
Verdict: The Security council has none of the traits of the proposed New World order.
A Return To Previous Points
To answer some previous points that you felt were inadequately addressed:
In fact, the term New World Order's primary historical use, before being appropriated by assorted conspiracy theories, was in reference to the
League of Nations, and later the UN. It circulated relentlessly in newspapers, from the mouths of presidents, advisors, and appointed officials.
If you'll check ORIGINAL sources, you'll find this is a somewhat overblown statement.
It doesn't appear in the charter for the League of Nations (full text is here: www.rmc.ca...
) and if
you'll do some additional research in ORIGINAL sources, you'll find that there's little or no mention of the phrase, "new world order". Fourteen
citations over a 20 year period hardly counts as "endlessly circulating." I think your sources are not going back to any original documents and may
be misinterpreting things.
In debates it's essential to look at the original sources.
Your source was cherrypicking sentences out of context. The full text of the ORIGINAL Wilson speech is here:
He never says "new world order" and is in fact talking to Congress only -- he is not addressing other world leaders. Although he mentions other
peace conferences and makes supportive noises about world peace in many other speeches, the resulting League of Nations is accounted a failure.
Wilson was a Democrat. His short-lived successor, Harding, was a Repulican who ran on a campaign of isolationism and he was followed by two-termer
Calvin Coolidge who was reluctant to enter foreign alliances and saw that his election meant the people of the US rejected the idea of the League of
Nations. Hoover also refused to get involved in other nations. They're rejecting group manipulation of the world, not forming the power bloc of the
future Security Council.
The identification of Sumner Welles is interesting because he actually had no power base and ended up being ousted after only a few years on the
grounds that he was homosexual. The concept of him as a major power broker really doesn't hold up, and his later writings are not about the need to
form a world-controlling organization. It looks like the only reason he was included is because he wrote the phrase "new world order" one time.
That's not convincing.
My opponent said:
In my opening post, I explained the motives for creating such a New World Order.
It had been made quite clear that the balance of power system which dominated strategic thought under the Concert of Europe was not sufficient to
safeguard the power of nations and their rulers. I call your attention back to the words of President Wilson, "There must be not a balance of power,
but a community of power".
...which was not actually supported by any of his successors. Had he been forming a New World Order, the successors (manipulated by the power
structure from within) would have been quick to move and control the League of Nations.
I also raised the work of President Woodrow Wilson and his advisor "Colonel" House, as well as that of Cecil Rhodes, the CFR, and The Royal
Institute of International Affairs in promoting the idea.
And, as you conceded in your initial post, this was not implemented or supported by the governments.
You still haven't established that the members of the Security council (I'm assuming you mean the five permanent members) have been working together
from the beginning, that the Security Council has dominated and eliminated dissenters, that the Security Council controls vast power blocs in many
nations, that the Security Council has a lineage of successors within each state and controls who sits on the non-permanent states, and makes moves
that cannot be blocked by the United Nations itself.
[edit on 10-1-2008 by chissler]