It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The United States has a long tradition of placing American values at the center of foreign policy. Establishing a new world order that is based on three cornerstones will begin to shape a new leadership role for the U.S. This involves a shift to soft power as the core competency of foreign policy. In addition, the U.S. needs to lead in developing key innovations and developing a global economic strategy. Also, the U.S. needs to maintain military might unequaled in the world. Achieving this new strategy rests upon international organizational change with the U.S. leading the way for a new world order.
The Cold War is over and the result is a transition from a bipolar world of US vs. USSR to a multipolar world or New World Order where the US remains the only military superpower. However, this status is tentative for the United States. Like all the great superpowers in history, the US is about to let the weight of its military establishment, drag its economy into collapse. This paper looks at the implications of President Bush's new world order, and the opportunities it presents the US to preserve a peaceful international environment with an open international market system while at the same time retaining its superpower status. The paper establishes that the new world order is more than just rhetoric or simple statement of fact, it exists but is ill- defined. As a result, the paper proposes to define the term as a democratic world where all nations join together in partnership and cooperation under the framework of the United Nations to establish peace, prosperity, and justice for all.
As world change swept the globe over the very recent past, U.S. President George Bush described an emerging 'new world order.' He stated a belief that the American system should form the basis of a new international system. He further stated that the U.S. must seek to take the lead in the new order forming such an international system. China is the largest of the very few remaining Marxist-Leninist states. As the third leg of the former world strategic triangle, China remained a challenge to U.S. foreign policy throughout the Cold War. Now that the Cold War is over, China is integral to the formulation of any new order. China's long history and cultural background differ significantly from America's. It is important that the U.S. understand, to the extent possible, how those differences will be reflected in China's response to the new world order. A review of Sino-American relations since normalization in the early 1970's shows reform that brought China increasingly closer to the U.S. until the Tiananmen Square tradegy in June, 1989. Since then, world events such as the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe, the Unification of Germany, U.S. dominance in Operation Desert Storm and the Soviet Coup have had great effect on China's leaders and the course of reform.
The phrase 'New World Order' has, over the last four years, become a much overused and relatively meaningless cliche. Its original intent was to provide a conceptual illustration of a tortured world community scintillatingly close to creating a new international order in the aftermath of the Cold War. This new international order would make possible a world without conflict, pain or hunger, where people of all regions could live in freedom as equals. This concept, and its attendant utopian condition, brings tears of hope from that portion of humanity which has the time to spend thinking on such things. However, in reality, thus far in our international devolution from 40 years of Cold War, we have made little, if any, progress toward realizing a New World Order. In fact, not only have we yet to decide upon what course we should take in pursuit of this new order, we have not even decided that this new order should be. In the interim, conflict, tension and war continue to expand around the globe while the major powers of the world, those with the potential to control global events for the betterment of the world community, continue in their intellectual struggle to determine a role for themselves.
The art of statecraft has often involved efforts to improve the security of one state by taking advantage of the power and influence of other states. This is, for example, why a state typically seeks to forge military alliances with others. It is also why some states provide economic and military support to client or dependent states and why some advocate the formation of multistate trading blocs. The theory behind the trading-bloc strategy is that cooperation on security matters is more likely when there are strong economic and other mutually beneficial connections among the members of the bloc. Among the tools that have been and are being used to influence other states are trade preferences, loans, loan guarantees, concessionary pricing for military sales, export-import financing, technical assistance, foreign aid, and international disaster relief. While humanitarian altruism is a major factor in foreign aid and disaster relief, statesmen often see the reduction of suffering as a method of improving the stability of a recipient state or as an inducement for a recipient state to cooperate more fully on security matters. Many ideas for making American foreign policy more effective have been offered in recent years. Some of them involve ways of prioritizing all forms of official, state-to-state assistance on those states whose stability or cooperation will most benefit the national interests of the United States. Obviously, there are many states that are already stable and already do generally cooperate with the United States. Canada, Japan, and the states of Western Europe (disagreements over the second war with Iraq notwithstanding) fall into this category. Certainly the economically advanced and politically stable states of the collective West have a common interest in suppressing the signal threat- global terrorism- of the new, new world order that sprang from the rubble of the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 11 September 2001.
The United States has experienced numerous eras of distinct international systems which governed its relationship with other nations. The end of the Cold War symbolized a transition point between such systems. Historically, the nature of a new order as well as the transitional point between orders is fraught with uncertainty. Nonetheless, instruments of national power such as the military must respond to the changing system to remain effective. The post-Cold War era has been characterized by an increased use of the military for operations short of war to include humanitarian operations, peacekeeping, sanction enforcement, etc. Although these missions are not new to the Armed Forces, military doctrine has only begun to address the unique challenges involved in executing operations short of war. Joint Publication 3-07, Joint Doctrine for Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW), lists six fundamental principles for MOOTW. This research applies the concepts embodied in the principles of MOOTW with three MOOTW models; the Range of Military Operations Model developed by the U.S. Army, the Crises and Lesser Conflicts Model developed by Rand researchers Carl H. Builder and Theodore W. Karasik, and the MOOTW Characteristics Model developed by RAND researchers Jennifer M. Taw and John E. Peters.
The Cold War is over. The Soviet Union has been dissolved. The United States is no longer the world's preeminent economic power. Both Europe and Japan are enjoying a greater share of the world's resources. Still, from the perspective of combined military, economic, political, and diplomatic power, the United States has no equal. President Bush suggests that a 'New World Order' has emerged. Principles of democracy, shared responsibility and mutual cooperation among nations are the hallmarks of that new order. He recommends that the principles of the New World Order guide the foreign policy of the United States throughout the decade of the nineties and into the twenty-first century. This paper probes the dimensions of that New World Order. It discusses the likelihood of a unipolar or multipolar world, and concludes that a stratified world order might be a more apt description. It explores the role of international organizations within the new order. It examines implications for U.S. foreign policy, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Army. The paper concludes by revealing why President Bush's vision is compelling.
The historical events of the last decade have shifted the world system from the traditional West-East competition to cooperation and exchange of interests between the East and the West. Security and stability of the world has emerged as a very important element of the new world order. Since anything happening in any part of the world affects and gets affected by what happens in the other parts of the world, achieving peace and stability in the Middle East is important for the peace and stability of the world. Since the US is considered the leader of the new world system, the protection of international security and stability has become its responsibility. This paper begins with a description of threats and challenges to the peace of the Middle East, then discusses the bases of peace in the region, the impact of the regional peace on the new world order and the American strategy and ends with recommendations for achieving and keeping peace in the region.
The post cold war period is marked by a new multi-dimensional strategic environment giving new focus to international relations and security of small states. Though the US is the only superpower, the world is moving to multipolarity and interdependence where regional powers and international systems have an increasingly powerful role. In such an environment small states are finding themselves even more vulnerable. This paper analyzes the security challenges small states face in the evolving new world order and suggests viable security options for small states in general and Nepal in particular. It analyzes the special characteristics of small states and their vulnerability to both traditional and new forms of threats. It relates national interests with world order and makes an in depth study of the security systems of balance of power and collective security from the perspective of a small state. It analyzes Nepal's regional and internal security environment as well as her historical setting and national interests. The paper then applies the concepts of security systems in the context of Nepal to determine viable security options.
In this book, A World 2010: A New Order of Nations, the author describes the decline of the influence of the 20th century superpowers. He explores the notion of a devolution of political and economic world power and forecasts a rise of a new order of nations. Further he advances the concept of a rise of 21st century postindustrial states to preeminence. These new realities could usher in a new era of relative world peace brought about by the crumbling of the Soviet Union, the formation of new global economic interrelationships and coalitions, and the advancement of former Third World nations to become competitive industrial states. The author concludes by forecasting the notion of a U.S. national requirement for a subdued worldwide military presence that serves a passive role, deterring conflict and preserving peace.
The FOIA also requires all federal agencies to establish one or more FOIA Requester Service Centers and FOIA Public Liaisons to assist FOIA requesters with inquiries about the FOIA process in general and their FOIA requests in particular.
Also, the U.S. needs to maintain military might unequaled in the world. Achieving this new strategy rests upon international organizational change with the U.S. leading the way for a new world order.