Unity Herald/Glas Sabora, 1996.

THE WITHERING OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

Misha Fedoroff

In November 1989, the Berlin Wall fell; the Cold War was over; the Soviet Union imploded shortly thereafter. In a speech before the United Nations in December 1998, president Gorbachev stated that "further progress is only possible through a search for universal human concerns as we move to a new world order." On September 1,1990, addressing a joint session of Congress, President Bush proclaimed the advent of the New World Order. "A new era of peace, prosperity, transnationalism and integration was ahead of the long suffering humankind. It is conceivable, however, that future historians will establish that the New World Order has been very short lived, and has lasted just about 1,000 days- from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the fall of the Bush Administration and the advent of the Yugoslav civil- religious war. Shots in Sarajevo at the beginning of this century signified the end of the thousand-year-old world order,as the feudal empire of the Hapsburgs, Hohenzollerns and Romanovs collapsed. Now, at the end of this incomparable century, the sound of the gunfire from Sarajevo may have , in effect, ushered in the end of the thousand days of the New World Order.

The Yugoslav civil war and resultant crisis have certainly rattled the very foundations of the post-communist order. The New York Times (May 15,1992) asserted that the "Yugoslav carnage poses painful questions for the Western Alliance and the United Nations," possibly foretelling a "failure of the New Order." This is but one of many such similar poignant conclusions made in the course of the past four years.

Where does the world go from here? The current direction is all too clear, its signposts being renationalization, fragmentation and re-emergence of local ideologies and religious beliefs.

PROLOGUE TO THE END

Flushed with success in the Gulf War, the architects of the New Order seemed eager to address the rapidly emerging issues of nationalism and ethnic- religious strife. The cosmology of the a new World Order is rooted in the notion that nation-states are destructive to the progress of mankind. Like cancer, nationalism spreads and causes conflicts, instabilities and war. Therefore, a centralized set of dominant and enduring transnational and global institutions and mechanisms is needed to coordinate worldwide efforts in the political, cultural, religious and economic realms.

Whether the Yugoslav civil-religious war was induced from the outside or it was a spontaneous combustion of unresolved ethnic, economic and religious problems,or a combination of these forces is still debatable. What is less debatable is the fact that the key proponents of the New World Order have perceived that Yugoslav crisis as a test case for collective action by such supranational bodies as the United Nations, The European Unity, and ultimately NATO.

To be sure, Yugoslavia has been a good laboratory for the master builders of the New World Order. It was a multiethnic, multireligious society, but in the late 1980s and at the onset of the decade of 1990s, flames of raw nationalism were being fanned across the land by local undemocratic leaders bent on holding on to or gaining power, and by certain powerful foreign interests who recognized in the break-up of Yugoslavia an opportunity to advance their own geopolitical and/or religious agendas. Thus, the "Yugoslav laboratory" in the post- Berlin Wall period was a nearly perfect situation in which to experiment and test how would these international and global institutions and arrangements perform in a real life crisis situation. In addition, some novel transnational processes and structures such as the "war crimes" tribunal could be introduced and tested.

From the viewpoint of the globalists, the Yugoslav case had an additional intriguing dimension: the Serbs, a stubbornly nationalistic and profoundly independent people. Their national character is one of rugged individualism, guided by certain deeply imbedded metaphysical and spiritual commitments and understandings. They love their history, and have a strong identity. All these characteristics are most undesirable in the emerging world of "cooperation, unity and progress," insofar as its architects are concerned. How to effectively deal with and eradicate these problems has been the principal challenge to them. A blueprint for action apparently exists, or has been devised, and its pattern is visible in the Yugoslav crisis.

During the past five years, regularly as ocean waves rolling in one after another, certain "techniques" and concepts have been implemented against the Serbs. For example, they have included diplomatic initiatives aimed at ostracizing the Serbs (or any one thinking of supporting them); then the most destructive economic and financial policies of total sanctions were placed on Serbia; followed by wave after wave of public relations/propaganda blitzes and initiatives focusing solely on "misdeeds" and real or often manufactured atrocities supposedly committed by the Serbian side. The very real but hidden intent of these efforts was to demonize the Serbs and thus precondition and prepare the American public for USA military intervention under the professed goal"of reestablishing peace and security" in the Balkans. The last link in the chain of "experiments" has certainly been the establishment of the "War Crimes Tribunal" by the UN Security Council. This transnational tribunal of dubious legality and patent bias has the task of "bringing the Yugoslav war criminals to international justice," primarily targeting the Serbs.

With the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of two ideological blocks which had maintained a balance of power, many peoples and countries begin to reclaim their individual national self-interest. Yugoslavia, in fact exposed the inherent flaws in the fundamental concepts of a globalist order. The Yugo-crisis has demonstrated that geopolitical self-interest, political-national traditions and religious beliefs are still powerful factors in the world that must be reckoned with in a fair and astute manner."......new European order that looks suspiciously like the old....took a hit in Yugoslavia from which it will not soon recover," wrote Joseph Joffe, Foreign Editor of SUDDEUTCHE ZEITUNG (New York Times, September 20,1992).

In the Balkans, as elsewhere around the globe, the New World Order steamroller has now evidently detoured and is momentarily in a blind alley. The present energies in the world are much more centripetal than centrifugal. A telling example of this trend is the four recent national elections.

THE FOUR ELECTIONS

Currently, nothing defines better or foreshadows more graphically the status of the New World Order for sometime to come than four national elections-Turkey, Israel, Russia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. At the time of this writing, three have been completed, one yet to come in mid-September, its outcome but a forgone conclusion.

These elections and their outcomes reach into the core of the New World Order, inasmuch as each in its special way challenges the vision, policies and practices of the global elite. Ramifications for the Western world of the electoral results in Turkey,Israel and Russia will most likely be felt soon. The outcome of the pending election in Bosnia-Herzegovina, if not handled properly, may pose a serious challenge to the USA's European policy. In fact, there are many signs now that the outcomes of these elections will cast a long shadow into the next century.

TURKEY

In Turkey, the fundamentalist party which won the largest block of seats in parliament has just formed a new government. This is the first non-secular government since 1921. Turkey has been one of, the pivotal countries in the Western efforts to contain the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in the Winter of 1989, the USA has been tacitly supportive of Turkish megalomaniac vision to expand its influence from "Sarajevo to the Pacific Ocean." At one time, shortly after the demise of the USSR, hopes ran high that Turkey would take the Muslim Southern Rim of the former Soviet empire into its fold.

The New World Order protagonists are vocal in expounding lofty ideas of human rights, liberty, democracy and market economy. The case of Turkey illustrates in stark terms how selective and, consequently, how hypocritical these views are. Perhaps, only Saudi Arabia - another American "reliable" ally - has a worse record in this area than Turkey. Turkey's veneer of democracy and Western values is indeed thin, too thin. Military coups, corruption, violations of the political and civil liberties, drug trafficking, mistreatment of women and oppression of ethnic minorities have been standard features on the Turkish political and social landscape. The brutalities against millions of its citizens of Kurdish ethnic stock can be matched only by Sadam's Iraq. Nonetheless, in Washington, Turkey has been a perennial favorite who cannot do anything wrong.

Underlying this baffling attitude of the American foreign policy establishment ia a sacrosanct thesis that secular Turks will be the role-model for the Islamic world in the 21st Century. Turkey will stem the tide of the religious fundamentalists and secure this vulnerable plank of the New World Order.

This is the record; these are the hopes; but here is the current reality.

The new Turkish government is essentially Muslim Fundamentalist. It is led by Necmettim Erbakan, the leader of the Welfare Party. During the recent election campaign, Mr Erbakan and his party among other things advocated:

- Turkish withdrawal from NATO and closer ties with Iran and Hamas.

- Setting up "an Islamic United Nations, an Islamic NATO and an Islamic version of the European Union";

- Bringing religion back into the mainstream of Turkish life and the flight against the "Western sickness";

- Recovery of Jerusalem;

- Albanian claim to Kosovo in Serbia and the Bosnian Muslim cause;

- Creation of a Turkish-Syrian-Libyan axis against Israel.

Practically all of the aforementioned views go to the proverbial jugular of the New World Order. No doubt, Mr. Erbakan will suitably modify these stands once he starts wielding "real power," but these basic goals will remain. The confusion in Washington about Turkey is truly appalling. Following the election, this kingpin of the New World Order is now tottering and on the verge of collapse.

ISRAEL

One of the centerpieces of the New World Order strategy is the elimination of the Jewish-Arab conflict. As long as Middle East issues are festering, the likelihood of the vast Islamic block to be hinged to the new global systems and institutions is non- existent. Washington's problem with this issue is complicated and difficult due to the significant ethnic Jewish-American population. Although only about 7 million strong, American Jews as a group constitute a powerhouse. They are active in politics, have outstanding intellectuals and top financiers, command enormous wealth and connections. They still have a strong moral sense of responsibility for their kin in Israel. Thus, wishing as they may, the globalist just cannot summon the Israelis to Dayton as they did the Serbs and dictate terms of a peace settlement acceptable to Assad and Arafat. The approach had to be much more subtle,patient and deceptive.

American globalists have invested incalculable time and energy to induce to Rabin-Peres governments to "make peace with the Arabs." They have held that Fundamental Zionism has been curbed and will not revive. In this view, moreover, once hostilities and open warfare are under control, trade and pursuit for material wealth will inevitably exert their influences and slowly turn the Middle East into a smaller version of the European Common Market.

The recent election, won by the Likud against massive American preferences for the Peres' party, has turned these expectations upside down. New Prime Minister Netanyahu distrusts Americans. He is a seasoned diplomat who spent many years in the USA. As a Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel in 1990, he publicly stated that " America's foreign policy was based on distortions and lies." Then Secretary of State Baker banned Netanyahu from visiting the State Department and requested an apology and retraction, but he never got it from Netanyahu. As a result of the Israeli election, the goal of the New World Order strategists to set up an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is now out of reach. The Middle East situation is entering a new phase of instability. Because the roots of the Middle East conflict are more metaphysical than geopolitical or economic, the globalists mill most likely be unsuccessful in their efforts to redefine the Jewish-Arab problem and resolve it on their strictly secular terms

RUSSIA

The global strategists have basically held two major views in regard to Russia. One is hostile and is aimed at not letting Russia recover, but keeping it in constant turmoil, weak and directionless, with the hidden aim to slowly corrupt and eventually destroy its core values as a nation. The other view is more benign, believing that the demise of the Soviet empire permits a sized- down, weakened Russia to become a "member in good standing" in the New World Order. Apparently, judging by the Western policy towards Russia so far, neither view has taken commanding hold, nor has become the official policy. However, on balance, the Western policy towards Russia has been more arrogant than helpful. In a number of situations, Russia has been demeaned, its traditional interests ignored, while its acute economic needs received only lip service.

Under Kozyrev, Russia toed the global line perfectly: in the Balkans, in the Middle East, in regard to NATO expansion and disarmament, to mention a few examples.

Expectedly, Russian resentment has been building against the West. The ultra- nationalists gained, while Russian traditionalists emerged strong. They are coalescing around the Church and "Old Mother Russia." These two forces view many of the New World Order relics as "moles and scum."

No amount of Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola or McDonald's and Burger King's hamburgers or American pop singers can compensate Russia for the humiliation of being treated as a door mat and being divested of influence in areas where Russians were dominant or secure for many decades.

This view is not only confined to Zhirinovsky, but it extends to Yeltsin, Lebed and Solzhenitsyn.

Following the Yeltsin-Lebed election victory, Russia is going to be much more assertive. The "free ride" the globalist diplomacy has enjoyed in the course of the past four years is over. The New World Order planners have their work cut out for them. However, the odds are that Russia has slipped away. It is, therefore, plausible that the Wohlstetter/Brzezinski's wing of the New World Order strategists may in the end prevail. Mostly by default. Consequently, Russia will be again regarded as a hostile factor in the New World Order calculus. Inevitably, such a development would markedly increase conditions of instability and conflict. It may lead to a Russian alliance with Iran and eventually a geopolitical rapprochement with Germany.

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

"The international community' is halfway into the supposedly year-long implementation of the Dayton Accords. According to a report by London-based "International Crisis Group," the situation is rather grave:

"Unless bold and resolute action is taken now....the international community is looking at the imminent disintegration of Bosnia and a probable reignition of war in the Balkans. The stakes could be higher." The report went on to say: "Not just Bosnia, but neighboring countries of the region,the European Union and NATO will all be at risk if there is a renewal of fighting in Bosnia." (Los Angeles Times, June 11, 1996).

The surface of the New World architects in Bosnia have been: (1) for the USA to stay engaged in Europe's future (2)to support Bosnia's moderate Muslims as an alternative to Islamic militants who tried to gain a foothold in the geopolitical important region, and (3) to challenge the advent and menace of ultranationalism by offering "multiculturalism and pluralism" as antidotes. Judging by actual results so far, Western policy in the Balkans has essentially suggested two objectives: to back German power play for hegemony in South-East Europe and to appease the Islamic world by supporting Muslim extremists and separatists in Bosnia and Serbia (Kosovo).

For centuries, Western powers have meddled in the Balkans, often in futile attempts to create a balance of power in an area where two great empires with their respective religions-the Islamic Ottoman and the Christian Austro-Hungarian Empires- have met and clashed. A justifiable fear is that up to now our policies with respect to former Yugoslavia in fact have created conditions that are conducive to perennial instability, and could eve result in conflicts and wars reminiscent of those in the past.

The Dayton Accords which have stopped the civil war in Bosnia have at least one basic logical fault: the stubborn insistence that the people who started and carried out the bloodiest war in Europe since the end of World War II in order to separate, now somehow want to be together because their leaders signed a piece of paper under duress from the big powers.

Somehow the impending elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina are expected to eliminate "Bosnia's intractable passions." But they cannot and will not achieve it, regardless of the personal fates of Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.

It is all but certain that the September elections will reconfirm the stark reality that "Bosnia's ethnic divisions have deepened in the last eight months," according to Michael Steiner, a senior German diplomat and deputy to Carl Bildt. Thus, the current situation is curious at best-the international community led by the USA insists on holding elections on September 14 to unify the country, while quite cognizant that the results will further strengthen and expand divisions among the three hostile peoples. Most probably nationalist-separatists will win in the Croatian, Serbian and Muslim areas. Thus, it appears:

"The most useful thing the West can do is help the parties live peaceably apart until they are ready to live peacefully together," concluded Thomas Friedman in his recent column in the New York Times (6-12-96).

This outcome, however , would be a major failure of the professed policy of the globalist on Bosnia. The fact of the matter is that the USA had already prevented a peaceful partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina in March of 1992. By dispatching Ambassador Warren Zimmermann to Sarajevo, the USA internationalists prevented implementation of the Lisbon Agreement sponsored by the European community. The Bosnian Muslims agreed with the Serbs and Croats to create a loose federation. Ambassador Zimmermann convinced the Muslim leader Izetbegovic to renounce the Lisbon Agreement, eliminating the last chance for averting the full -blown war and carnage. Later,the Tony Lake team practically sabotaged the Vance-Owen plan as well.

Obviously, none of the participants in the Yugoslav tragedy (Serbs, Croats, Muslims and the "international community") occupy the moral high ground. Nevertheless, should the Yugoslav civil war reignite, the primary, if not the sole, responsibility will belong to the architects of the New World Order.

ENTROPY OF NEW WORLD ORDER

The builders of the New World Order should have seen the future in these four elections. They should start changing their agenda, recognizing first of all that there is a multitude of legitimate nationalist claims and traditions. As Professor Ronald Steel put it so aptly, "If internationalism is to command support it must not be seen as an alternative to nationalism, but as a supplement to it." ("Internationalism Reconsidered," The Washington Post National Weekly, June 12-18, 1995). Consequently, for example, the West must not continue to blame the Serbs for something they have not done; or the Israelis for something they cannot do. The "international community" may not demand and expect from these people to forsake their legitimate national interests or identities in the name of a New World Order. The post- communist world is falling into a morbid quagmire, mainly because:

"Another negative scenario for the future arises from the prospects for globalization-from-above: a world order shaped to suit the priorities of markets and finance capital, weighted down by antidemocratic manipulations, and tied to an antienvironmental endorsement of a consumerist ethos of human fulfillment."

"In search of a New World Model," Richard Falk (Current History, April 1993)

Lofty ideals cannot be achieved and sustained by hypocrisy and deceit. To paraphrase Waldo Emerson, the end is predisposed by the means used to attain it. If there is one lesson to be learned from the Gulf War, the Somalia caper, the Yugoslav civil war and the four recent elections, then it surely is that the great powers and influential leaders hoping to establish a better world must in earnest adhere to basic and time tested principles: democracy, justice, tolerance, the rule of law, and equal respect for the human rights of all people, and their religious and cultural diversities. Otherwise, the world civilizations will dissolve into chaos, frustration, despair and then a new cycle of violence and wars will ensue into the next century.

July 1996