Obama Doctrine: The New International Order
The global elite boldly advance their world government agenda into America’s National Security Strategy.
by Lucas Bowser
Since Obama took office in 2009, political analysts and mainstream media pundits have failed to accurately identify any central ideology or grand strategy driving the administration’s policies. The government’s National Security Strategy Report has been the most likely place to find such a doctrine expressed officially, but when Obama’s administration issued their version in 2010, the mainstream media failed to bring to light the real agenda conveyed in the document.
The establishment media’s general interpretation was that the strategy represented a shift away from past policies of unilateralism, preemptive warfare, and military preeminence, towards policies of greater cooperation with international institutions.
But an independent examination of the report, along with some of its guidelines now in operation, reveals that the document’s primary policy positions, while setting new precedents, are derived from an old, deep rooted agenda for a world empire, propelled by elite finance oligarchs and global corporatists. The document centers around the building of a new “international order” by overhauling, revitalizing and granting more authority to international institutions including the IMF, WTO, NATO, G20, the World Bank and especially the UN.
Decoding the 2010 National Security Strategy
In May of 2010, during presentations introducing and summarizing the new National Security Strategy Report, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of shaping an international order that would emphasize the role of global institutions in national security policy. While speaking at the Brookings Institute, Clinton listed this new international order as one of the government’s four central goals, saying “Our approach is to build the diverse sources of American power at home and to shape the global system so that it is more conducive to meeting our overriding objectives: security, prosperity, the explanation and spread of our values, and a just and sustainable international order.” Obama had used similar language a few days earlier at West Point saying, “So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation” and “The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times…”
Hearing the president speak of shaping a new international order as part of America’s National Security Strategy alarmed those in the alternative media who recognized the phrasing as a familiar reference to the Anglo-American elite’s efforts at establishing a world empire or “new world order.” The mainstream media, however, made no connections to a long term elitist agenda and instead framed the speech by contrasting Obama’s new strategy with those released under the Bush administration. The Washington Post claimed that “Obama pledged to shape a new ‘international order’ based on diplomacy and engagement” which distanced itself from the Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare. But when the document was later released, its contents proved to justify the concerns of so called “conspiracy theorists.” Rather than simply promoting global cooperation or representing a positive new direction in policy, the strategy is instead a bold jump forward in the overarching, multi administration spanning agenda of global finance oligarchs to construct a world government. The fact that this agenda has now openly emerged in America’s National Security Strategy doctrine illustrates the advanced degree to which this scheme has progressed outside public awareness, without any public discussion or debate.
The National Security Strategy Report (NSSR) is the primary policy document, prepared by the executive branch, outlining an administration’s formulation of grand strategy for the country. According to the National Security Strategy Archive, “It is intended to be a comprehensive statement articulating the worldwide interests, goals, and objectives of the United States that are important to its security.” Involvement in the creation of the report is regarded by many policy planners as “direct access to the President’s overall agenda and thus highly desirable.” Typically its contents have been the responsibility of National Security Council staff members, but influence has been proven to come from other sources as well. Years after the 2002 NSSR was released, its primary author was revealed to be Philip Zelikow, a former National Security Council staffer under George Bush Sr. from 1989 to 1991. Zelikow was not a member of George W. Bush’s administration at the time, but rather worked as a “consultant” to his national security advisor Condoleezza Rice. Long after the report’s publication, he was discovered to be the secret writer of its infamous preemptive (more accurately preventive) war policy, earlier formulated by Paul Wolfowitz, which came to be known as the “Bush Doctrine.”
These reports are responsible for the implementation of long term policy directives that can extend far into future administrations. Modern versions of the report have provided a continuity to national security policy by only being produced every four years in the middle of the presidential term, even though they are supposed to be released every year. According to the Goldwater-Nichols Act, “The President shall transmit to Congress each year a comprehensive report on the national security strategy of the United States,” in a “classified and unclassified form.” The notorious Bush NSSRs were issued in 2002 and 2006. Obama’s NSSR came in 2010 and the next NSSR will most likely be released in the middle of 2014.
The unclassified version of the new National Security Strategy was released to the public in late May of 2010 with little controversy considering its alarming contents. (Screenshots of this report and other sources have been provided, with added highlighting or underlining, for quick reference.) The document centers around the old and familiar narrative of modern global crises requiring global solutions in the form of a new international order. This theme is introduced in the forward of the report and repeated throughout, with the “international order” being referenced more than 25 times in the 52 page document, including major sections and subsections devoted to it. The following screenshots from page one contain the document’s opening paragraph summarizing the report’s overview and showing the central theme of the strategy to be the creation of this new international order.
While initial use of the phrase “shape an international order” is purposefully broad, further examination of the report clarifies its language of “shape” to be synonymous with “create,” and is used in the document interchangeably with the word “build.” The report’s primary use of the term “international order” is not to generically describe the existing international system or community, but rather to denote a new world system or architecture, led by the United States. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as a “new global architecture” that the administration has “begun to build” during “a new American moment” in international affairs “when our global leadership is essential, even if we must often lead in new ways.”
The NSSR uses the term “international order” in the same way that the more controversial term “new world order” has been used in the past to describe a system of global governance centered around international institutions and organizations including the IMF, WTO, NATO, G20, the World Bank and the UN. Many high profile politicians have publicly used the phrase in relation to these institutions, as a way to signal large political changes in world affairs.
George Bush Sr. used the “new world order” phrase repeatedly during his presidency,stressing the role of the United Nations in creating a “new world order where diverse nations are drawn together…” In 1991, while addressing the General Assembly of the UN, Bush explained that the UN could offer new life to dormant institutions of freedom, saying “These institutions play a crucial role in our quest for a new world order.” He then spoke of America’s role in the new world order, saying “We will offer friendship and leadership. And in short we seek a Pax Universalis built upon shared responsibilities and aspirations.” He urged the assembly to take the challenge seriously so that future generations could say about the men and women of the UN that they “built an era of peace and understanding” and “inaugurated a new world order, an order worth preserving for the ages.” The term seemed to fade into the background somewhat after Bush receiveda backlash of criticism for its excessive use.
Similarly, former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, another avid proponent of global governance, has used the term publicly numerous times referring to this same system of institutions. In a 2008 article out of The Independent titled “Transformed UN proposed to create ‘new world order,’” we read that “Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a ‘new world order’ and ‘global society.’” It goes on to say “He will call for the World Bank to lead the fight against climate change as well as poverty in the developing world, and argue that the International Monetary Fund should prevent crises like the credit crunch rather than just resolve them.”
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, devoted NATO proponent, CFR member, and former Colorado Senator, Gary Hart suggested that, because of increased support for NATO, the crisis could be used to further George Bush Sr.’s new world order agenda. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations Hart stated, “There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster to carry out what his father…a phrase his father used I think only once, and hasn’t been used since…and that is a new world order. Think about this. We already have the support of NATO in a remarkable historic departure.” In 2008 he argued that “Unless we want to lose tens of millions of people to viral pandemics, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change and a whole host of other new realities,” we will “need a new international order.”
Many other global elites, influential politicians, and world leaders have referenced the term “new world order” in relation to these institutions, including billionaire financier GeorgeSoros. When asked in 2009 what kind of financial deal Obama should seek to strike while in China, Soros answered, “I think this would be the time because you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order.” He explains the need arising from China’s lack of “contribution” to the IMF and sees the makings of the new world order already taking place with their involvement in the G20′s current policies.
While avoiding the controversial term “new world order,” Obama’s NSSR 2010 makes clear that the international order his administration is building is synonymous with the popular euphemism. According to the document, this “international order” is to be created by revamping the system of international institutions founded after WWII, including the UN, NATO, IMF, and the World Bank. The new strategy aims to accomplish this transformation by “modernizing” and “engaging” these international institutions while ”strengthening” their “legitimacy and authority.” Under the section titled “Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order” the report states that the new order will be tested by its ability to “facilitate cooperation” and “generate results” using a variety of tools including sanctions, isolation, and force, to change the conduct of nations it deems to be non compliant...
Read more here: