Idea Of A New World Order example essay topic

It is not a secret that today America is the most influential country in the world. Americas rise to world power is a consequence of the nations geographical position, natural resources, and dynamic energy. (Carpenter 1992, 74) For relatively short period, America became so strong that today it is a single superpower in the world. After the First World War, the European nations assumed that the United States would continue to involve itself in international matters, particularly in helping to reconstruct Europe and help maintain the balance of power. However, America showed no inclination to become involved. On the one hand, this was seen in Europe as evidence of selfishness and immaturity.

On the other, whilst many Americans shared the Europeans sense of disillusionment with the war and its aftermath, they also believed that their involvement had been both unnecessary and a grave mistake. The Nye Committee (1935) proclaimed that the United States had been lured into the war by armaments manufacturers and by Wall Street bankers who wanted to save their fortunes. Foreign policy had seldom interested many Americans, and there was no earthly reason in the inter-war years why they felt that they should become involved in what they considered the affairs of other nations. They were not threatened. Activities that are more important were available, to which they wanted to devote their time and money.

Many thought of relations with other nations in terms of trade and finance, which belonged in the realm of the private sector and that there was little need for political and hence public involvement with other countries. As a result, the American approach to foreign policy in the inter-war years appears to be confused. Public opinion, and Congress, appeared to be predominantly isolationist and this had to be taken into account by presidents and policy makers who wished to be more active. During the 1920's, Republican Party administrators implemented a foreign policy consisting of two main themes.

First, the reconstruction of Europe in which the government would take a back seat to the private sector, and second the backing of moves for the reduction of armaments and limitation in which the government itself took the lead. From 1933, the Democratic Party came to power and isolationism continued to be a dominant strain in United States politics and foreign policy. Roosevelt announced at the World Economic Conference in 1933 that the United States would concentrate on domestic economic recovery. In addition a series of Neutrality Acts were passed by Congress which were intended to fence off the United States from future conflicts by ensuring that businessmen and financiers could not do business with those waging war. Public opinion continued to remain strong the severity of the Depression led many to conclude that their efforts and attention ought to be focused on home affairs rather than abroad. Isolationism also had a historical source as well.

America was largely a land of immigrants, of people who had left Europe and its problems behind. They had no desire and need to be involved in the problems again. The idea of a New World Order has been around for a long time. This ideal centers on the concept of a one-world government led by the United Nations. Many have praised the idea of a New World Order, including some of our very own Presidents of the United States, while other stand against the idea all together. In theory the idea of a one world government would be nice, uniting the world as one, however, the shortcomings, in my opinion, out weigh the positive factors.

A suggested idea for the 21st century government has been the ideology of the New World Order, one world government lead by the United Nations. It would create new forms of global economics, global politics and overlapping and diminishing cultures. The economic system would be based financial and momentary supported by the New World Order. State borders would be either severely reduced, or erased to create a one-world government for the New World Order. Some or all this may sound quite appealing but it would come with many strings attached, many consequences and many drawbacks. In a New World Order, as proposed by Mehdi Alavi author of A New World Order: Democracy, Civility and World Peace, government would be based on the Law of Nature, or the Natural Law.

This would consist of global peaceful participation, majority rule and respect for human rights. Although this may sound good for many, however, the drawbacks and consequences are never mentioned in the book. Some of the major problems with the notion of a New World Order are that the States would experience a loss of identity, power and sovereignty as well as combined or lost cultures for the citizens of the world (Alavi 1998, 23). The concept of globalization, both economically and otherwise, will prove to cause another set of major problems. States identities as well as their sovereignty will be undermined if not lost all together.

It would cause for the abolishment of states and combining cultures. Since sovereignty would now not lie solely with the states, there could possibly be a new concept of a worldwide system of limited sovereignty, which might possibly lead to another concept of a sovereign individual (web). However, the State and Treasury Departments had a vision of a multilateral, peaceful world without trade barriers. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthaus ambition was to return the international economy to a world of freely convertible currencies. He made small headway in 1936 by negotiating the Tripartite Stabilization Agreement with France and Britain. Secretary of State at the time, Cordell Hull was convinced that free trade and non-discrimination might have prevented war in Europe.

However, both Morgenthau and Hull lacked clear-cut political support for their policies.