Biden And Hagel Envision ‘New World Order’
Vice President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel have been in the news in recent days for envisioning the creation of a “new world order.”
The two politicians have a long history of using the phrase to advocate a global rebalancing through shared values, diplomacy, and participation in international organizations.
Critics of the Obama administration say major global players – notably Russia and China – are not playing by international rules and may themselves be attempting to create an alternate rebalancing of national alliances at the expense of the West.
On Wednesday, Biden used a speech at the Air Force Academy to urge graduating cadets to help create a “new world order for the 21st century.”
Last week, Hagel said during a trip to Poland that “a new and early 21st century world order [is] being built.”
Just three weeks ago, Hagel used the “new world order” term in a townhall meeting with Recruit Training Command School student instructors at Chicago’s Naval Station Great Lakes.
Hagel stated: “This is a time of great global transformation. We are seeing essentially a new world order evolving and being built. I don’t think we’ve seen such a time since right after World War II.
“And, again, the United States is an essential architect of this – of this process,” he added.
Last year, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward quoted Hagel telling President Obama during a private meeting in 2009: “We are at a time where there is a new world order. We don’t control it. You must question everything, every assumption, everything they [the military and diplomats] tell you.”
In April 2013, Hagel told Israeli President Shimon Peres: “We are living through the defining of a new world order, and it’s still within our capability to do something about it.”
Hagel was reportedly referring to turmoil in the Middle East and worldwide.
Hagel again advocated the development of a “new world order” in a March 2010 talk at The Society of the Four Arts in Palm Beach, Florida. At the time, the former senator held no formal office.
“Our country’s future as well as the future of mankind in the world today is redefining itself,” the Palm Beach Daily quoted Hagel as stating.
“We are experiencing a global reorientation. We are building, defining and framing a new world order.”
In December 2010, Hagel told delegates to the Congress of Cities and Exposition: “We are in the middle of building a new world order. We are defining a new time in the history of man.”
Hagel used the term in a September 2009 opinion piece published in the Washington Post titled “The Limits Of Force; Iraq and Afghanistan Aren’t Ours to Win or Lose.”
Wrote Hagel: “No country today has the power to impose its will and values on other nations. As the new world order takes shape, America must lead by building coalitions of common interests, as we did after World War II.”
Hagel’s described new world order encompasses an American “foreign policy underpinned by engagement – in other words, active diplomacy but not appeasement.”
Biden, meanwhile, has been calling for a “new world order” since 1992, when he gave a speech at the University of Delaware titled “On the Threshold of the New World Order: A Rebirth for the United Nations.”
Like Hagel’s conceptualization, Biden sees the potential for global rebirth through international cooperation through bodies such as the United Nations.
Not everyone is buying the rhetoric about a “new world order” of international diplomacy.
In his column last week, prominent pundit Charles Krauthammer mocked the Obama administration’s attempt to impose global norms on Russia and China.
“Chinese and Russians can only roll their eyes,” he wrote. “These norms and rules mean nothing to them. … Obama cites modern rules; Russia and China, animated by resurgent nationalism, are governed by ancient maps.”
Krauthammer warned the “alignment of the world’s two leading anti-Western powers” marks a “major alteration in the global balance of power.”
He said that if the Russian and Chinese global resurgence is “carried through, it would mark the end of a quarter-century of unipolarity.”
“And it would herald a return to a form of bipolarity – two global coalitions: one free, one not.”
Woolsey Slams Nuclear Negotiations With Iran
Former CIA director James Woolsey slammed President Obama’s continued nuclear talks with Iran as “positively Chamberlain-eqsue.”
Woolsey also warned in a radio interview Sunday that the Iranians are playing dangerous games while forging ahead with the development of a nuclear weapons capability.
Asked on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s AM 970 The Answer for his thoughts on the nuclear agreement, Woolsey stated, “It’s not only not the smartest thing, it is positively Chamberlain-eqsue.”
Continued Woolsey: “There is no chance that Iran is going to abide by limitations which keep it from moving very, very far along the road to having nuclear weapons. Might it stop a few weeks short for public relations purposes? Yes. Maybe. It doesn’t matter.
“[Iran] is enriching uranium and we have given it permission in the negotiations to do that and it can be very, very close to having nuclear weapons and everybody who analyzes this who is objective knows that.”
Woolsey headed the CIA under the Bill Clinton presidency from 1993 until January, 1995.
He likened Iran’s negotiating gambit to a “lethal” game of chess.
“The Persians invented chess,” he told this reporter. “And they are good at it, and one thing they are good at doing is messing around on one side of the board doing things that attract attention while very carefully on the other side of the board when they get a chance they are moving the pawn down to the King’s row to convert it into a queen, the most lethal piece, the analogy being to nuclear weapons.”
About the Author: Aaron Klein is a New York Times bestselling author and senior reporter for WND.com. He is also host of an investigative radio program on New York's 970 AM Radio on Sundays from 7 to 9 p.m. Eastern. His website is KleinOnline.com.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.
If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.