Showing posts with label New World Order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New World Order. Show all posts

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Henry Kissinger on Putting Together of a New World Order

Article Source: Wall Street Journal








Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.
The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries. 
This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world's territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.
The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.
First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.
The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe's: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.
The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.
This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union's southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.
The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as "social media" event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.
The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.
The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.
A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.
To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent,only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?
For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Iran and Syria Dream of a New World Order

President Ahmadinejad and President Assad


Iran and Syria have a strong alliance. Both countries support Hezbollah.  Hezbollah receives military training, weapons, and financial support from Iran.  Syria provides the with political support (source). All three share a vision to totally wipe the nation of Israel off the face of the Earth.  Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah are Shia Muslims (Syria's ruling party are the Alwai Muslims which are self describe Shia Muslims.  All share in the belief of the soon coming 12th Imam Mahdi (source).  


Iranian's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syria's President, Bashar Al-Assad have a great relationship with each other. In May of 2009 The Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri) stated:


"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with Bashar Al -Assad in Damascus, Syria.  In a joint statement issued after the meeting, the two declared the relations between Iran and Syria were strategic and served as example to the region and to the world at large. 
They added that Iran and Syria were leading dramatic transformation in the region, as part of a new world order which would replace the old order that the U.S. has led since World War II (source)." 


Ahmadinejad believes that the appearance of the Madhi (Islamic Messiah) will be ushered in if he brings the destruction of Israel and the United States.  He is dedicated to his role to bring this to pass and to fulfill the Shia Prophecies.  Shiite teaching states that it is within man's power to facilitate the process of the end of days (source). 



Iran and Syria Vision of a New World Order

President Ahmadinejad's vision of his New World Order would be the destruction of Israel as a nation and to usher in the reign of the 12th Imam Mahdi. The Mahdi will establish Islam as a one world religion and a one world government.  The signs of the Mahdi will be:
  1. He won't come in odd year (using Islamic calendar).
  2. He will make his appearance in Mecca.
  3. He will travel from Mecca to Kufa (in Iraq).
  4. He will be a young man of medium stature with a handsome and shinig face and long beautiful hair that flows onto his shoulders.
  5. He will be 40 years old at the time of his emergence.
  6. He will remove all injustice and the entire world will experience overflowing prosperity.
  7. Jesus will return with him and be his deputy.
  8. The 313 who fought with the Prophet Muhammad at the battle of Badr will also return.
  9. People will recognize him because there will be an angel above his head shouting, "This is the Mahdi, follow him."
  10. The other imams and prophets of former ages will return.
  11. He will wear a ring that belonged to King Solomon.
  12. He will carry the wooden staff that Moses held when parting the Red Sea.
  13. His army 313 grown into 50,000(50 will be women).
  14. He will rule for seven years. (source


How would Jesus act as Mahdi deputy in this New World Order, you ask?  Islamic Jesus(Isa) will be the overseer of the institution and enforcement of Islamic shariah law.  He will descend and lead judgment according to the holy Quran.  He will be a great Islamic evangelist that will correct misrepresentations made by Jews and Christians.  He will point people to worship the Mahdi.  He will abolish Christianity and will remain on Earth for forty years, marry,  have children and then die.  He will then be buried next to the Prophet Muhammad (source).  


This is the New World Order that Ahmadinejad and Bashar envision for the world.  It will be a one-world Islamic government and a one-world Islamic religion ruled by the Mahdi.  And assisting the Mahdi will be Jesus. This is a similar scenario written about in Revelations 13 regarding the Antichrist and the False Prophet.  Interestingly enough, some End-Time Prophecy teachers are teaching this now and it could be a possible scenario.


Stories might also like:

 Prince of Persia: Iran President the 21st Century Haman


February Interfaith Week (March to One World Religion)

 Rick Warren: Purpose Driven for One World Religion

Islamic Terrorist Group Partner with Mexican Drug Cartels