top of page

The Council on Foreign Relations: Anchoring the World - the New International Order

Yes you read that correctly. The CFR have just released an essay styled blue print of the pros and cons of the creation of new global governance.

"This is a number of essays from the Lloyd George Study Group on World Order, a joint project marking the centennials of Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service, Chatham House, and the Council on Foreign Relations. Published in collaboration with Foreign Affairs."

There are 8 essays in total, all need a thorough read. I have read it through once, but there is so much information, it is going to take a few reads to gain full understanding of their meanings, agendas and intention.

The essay titles are as follows:

  1. Introduction - How to Build an Order

  2. The Liberal Order Begins at Home - How Democratic Revival Can Reboot the International System

  3. Opening up the Order - A More Inclusive International System

  4. The World Still Needs the UN - Building Global Governance From Scratch Is a Fool’s Errand

  5. The Illiberal Tide - Why the International Order Is Tilting Toward Autocracy

  6. The Case for a New Engagement Consensus - A Chinese Vision of Global Order

  7. The World China Wants - How Power Will—and Won’t—Reshape Chinese Ambitions

  8. The New Concert of Powers - How to Prevent Catastrophe and Promote Stability in a Multipolar World

I suggest you read this for yourself when you can. One thing is perfectly clear, there is a "New World Order" being developed. The "conspiracy theory" is no longer a conspiracy. It is happening. Right now.

What's more, it is not the people of the world deciding what, how, if, and why we even need "global governance." It is the unelected institutions such as Chatham House, the CFR and many other unaccountable bodies like the Trilateral Commission and Club of Rome, created by a handful wealthy individuals, collaborating to create their global vision of how the world should be.

But don't worry, they make it sound like it is for your benefit, it has all the buzzwords:

  • "Inclusive" (i.e. you have no choice but to be part of it)

  • "Sustainable" (i.e. the excuse for the removal of your liberties and have a lower standard of living to save the world)

  • "Updated Human Rights" / "New Social Contract" (i.e. the removal of God-given, inalienable rights in favour of government rights that can be issued and unissued at will.)

Oh yes, they will try and make you think we'll be the winners, but I believe people can understand that the basic concept of power and centralisation. Concentration of power to an unelected few bodies (even if we're allowed our pretend democracies on certain issues) is never wise and neither does it lead to nirvana. It leads to corruption, mass deaths and a future of suffering. The danger of this particular New World Order is that it really is global, and these unelected institutions now actually have the technology to enforce their desires. I think we all need to think carefully and reflectively on this very important development.

Below are some highlights that stood out to me, but this is by no means a reflection of the whole picture. This needs to be read in detail a few times. So please, read it for yourself here.

" In 1919, Georgetown University founded the School of Foreign Service to educate students in international commerce and diplomacy. In 1920, the British Institute of International Affairs—soon to be known as Chatham House—opened its doors. Ever since, Chatham House has fostered mutual understanding among nations and their peoples through debate, dialogue, and independent analysis. The Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1921 and became the go-to venue for private-sector representatives, politicians, diplomats, military leaders, journalists, and academics to debate U.S. foreign policy.To mark and celebrate their centennials, Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, Chatham House, and the Council on Foreign Relations have teamed up to produce this compilation of essays."

"The world has arrived at a new order-building moment—one not unlike the post–World War I era. The global balance of power is shifting; the unipolarity of the early post–Cold War era is giving way to a multipolar international system. Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 U.S. presidential election represents a marked reprieve from the angry populism, nativism, and illiberalism that have of late taken hold on both sides of the Atlantic. "

" Public health joins a host of other issues—including climate change, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and disinformation—that make clear the need to both broaden traditional conceptions of security and explore new pathways toward international cooperation.This collection of essays explores alternative conceptions of how best to promote international order and stability in the twenty-first century."

"Suzanne Nossel argues that strengthening the United Nations is the best and most inclusive means to increase international cooperation and defend liberal values. She maintains that the UN remains the closest thing the world has to a comprehensive system of global governance and that it has the potential to anchor the international system."

"The essays in this volume do not present mutually exclusive visions for how to advance international order in the twenty-first century. Indeed, there is considerable common ground. Nearly all of the authors agree that the Atlantic democracies will remain a vital anchor of international order. "

"There is also an overwhelming consensus among the authors that policymakers and analysts alike must broaden the international agenda and directly take on issues such as climate change, infectious disease and public health, cybersecurity, and technological change. Such non-traditional issues were once deemed of little relevance to national security but are now front and center. Indeed, the covid-19 pandemic and its economic impact have revealed not just the gravity of non-traditional threats to security but also the degree to which countries have become irreversibly interdependent."

"Now, covid-19 has upended this already fragile situation, bringing with it the worst public health crisis since the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918–19 and one of the worst economic recessions of modern times. It has also exposed the persistence of inequality: in the United States and Europe, the wealthy have been largely shielded from the pandemic’s economic effects. Meanwhile, the virus has disproportionately affected the lives and livelihoods of citizens in poorer neighborhoods; magni-fied racial divides; destroyed low-income jobs; and spread through care homes, meatpacking plants, prisons, and immigrant populations"

"In addition, the globalization that liberal democracies once championed is now turning against them, delivering benefits to new champions that don’t share the same commitment to the liberal order on which the democracies depend. By 2028, China is expected to over-take the United States as the largest global economy. "

"Liberal democracies should also use the current fiscal stress and unprecedented government borrowing during the pandemic as an opportunity to rethink outdated national tax structures. Tax systems de-signed to attract foreign investment have created a dangerous imbalance between income and corporate rates on the one hand and public spending requirements on the other. This puts pressure on governments to levy indirect taxes on consumption and limit access to health care, among other austerity measures. To address these inequities, several European governments, including France and the United Kingdom, have already pledged to raise more revenue from personal property, gains on investments, and the revenues that global tech firms such as Facebook and Google earn in their countries."

"In the future, a cross-regional agreement between the diverse Trans-Pacific Partnership (tpp) countries and the eu could serve, as the gatt before it, to raise standards on fair and sustainable trade and investment. Regular coordination within a cross-regional group of this sort might also help address the current impasse in reforming the wto."

"The pandemic has revealed the gravity of the challenge. The question now is how democratic governments will respond. Some with high deficits, especially in Europe, may struggle to focus on necessary, long-term domestic structural changes. Public pressure could drive them toward expedient but ultimately ineffective solutions. The pandemic might also give populist parties a new boost, just as their luster was fading in the wake of a series of electoral setbacks. And in the United States, a divided Republican Party could exacerbate polarization, impeding legislative action. Still, there are signs that Western governments are starting to align around a set of targeted domestic policies and a new social contract that could deliver more sustainable and inclusive growth. Covid-19 has also served as a reminder that the rule of law and a vibrant civil society can be a source of strength in times of crisis. When democratic governments fail, opposition parties, a free press, and civil society en-sure that their failures do not go unnoticed. Contrast this with the secretive Chinese system that refuses to discuss the origins of the virus. The covid-19 pandemic is also opening new opportunities for cooperation among a wider and more inclusive group of liberal democracies. If these governments can use the pandemic recovery to strengthen co-operation, address domestic inequalities, and heal social divisions, states will draw some of the poison out of the current transatlantic and trans-pacific divisions. If they can make progress at home, liberal democracies will remain the most credible source of global governance norms deemed legitimate by the broadest segment of the world’s population. " - Utter bollocks, our Governments are paying our media to publish the stories they want. The Western Governments are exactly the same as China.

"Global problem solving is a both/and enterprise. The task is thus to figure out how best to integrate those two worlds. One promising approach would be to identify the many actors working on a specific problem (say, infectious disease) and then connect the most effective participants and help them accomplish clear goals. “We do not need new bureaucracies,” un Secretary-General António Guterres has writ-ten. “But we do need a networked multilateralism that links global and regional institutions. We also need an inclusive multilateralism that engages businesses, cities, universities and movements.”It is a dark time for global politics. States are adapting to a world of multiple power centers and complex issues that require coordination at every level of society. Four years of erratic, personality-driven leadership in the United States under President Donald Trump, moreover, have left the liberal order in tatters. To repair it, leaders need to tap the talent and resources outside the state. Humanity can-not afford to go back to a world in which only states matter."

"The institutions that form part of that order—the un system, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, nato, and the precursor to the eu, the European Economic Community—served that purpose reasonably well for decades. But the world cannot successfully address twenty-first-century threats and challenges, such as climate change, pandemic disease, cyber-conflict, and inequality, without mobilizing a new set of actors. Existing institutions, although valuable, were built for a world of concentrated power, in which a handful of states called the shots. Today, power is much more diffuse, with nonstate actors strong enough to both create international problems and help solve them. Accordingly, the current order needs to expand not by differentiating between various kinds of states but by making room for new categories of nonstate actors. Take the response to the pandemic. Unilateral action by national governments was often decisive in curbing the disease. Implementing social restrictions, closing borders, and providing emergency economic relief saved lives. Despite all the criticism they have received, international organizations were also essential. The World Health Organization was the first body to officially report the outbreak of a deadly novel coronavirus; it issued technical guidance on how to detect, test for, and manage covid-19; and it shipped tests and millions of pieces of protective gear to more than 100 countries. "

"Gavi is the clearest example of this hub-based approach. The Gates Foundation helped found Gavi in 2000 as an alliance of governments, international organizations, businesses, and nongovernmental organizations. Its small secretariat is charged with a wide array of vaccine-related functions, from research to distribution, all under the eye of a 28-person board of public, private, and civic representatives. The founders of Gavi designed it as a new type of international organization, one that sought to be representative, nimble, and effective all at the same time. The result is far from perfect, but it has enormous advantages. Purely governmental organizations are often paralyzed by politics, and purely private or civic networks are invariably interested in pursuing their own interests."

"To avoid that outcome, would-be architects of a new global order should begin by mapping the networked world. A good place to start would be to look at the actors working on each of the un’s 17 Sustain-able Development Goals (sdgs)—targets the world has agreed must be met by 2030 to achieve global peace and prosperity."

"If leaders bring together parts of both systems in a more coherent vision of a liberal order, the United States and its allies could build the capacity necessary to meet today’s global challenges. An expanded liberal order could harness networks of people, organizations, and resources from every sector of society. The existing institutions of the liberal, state-based order could become impact hubs. The result would be a messy, redundant, and ever-changing system that would never be centrally controlled. But it would be aligned in the service of peace and prosperity."

"Imagine a system of global governance fit for the twenty-first century. All nations would be bound to codified precepts restraining the use of force, fostering peaceful conflict resolution, upholding the rule of law, and enshrining respect for human rights. Grand-scale negotiating forums would shape new rules to avert crises and foster cooperation on issues including climate change, pandemics, and migration. Great powers would wield influence but be held in check by one another and a rotating cast of middle powers from every region. Countries big and small, rich and poor would participate, guaranteeing their stake in the system. Civil society organizations, businesses, and popular movements would have channels to influence decision-making. The convening body would include an array of specialized arms capable of providing technical assistance, overseeing cooperation, measuring progress toward priorities, meeting humanitarian needs, and quelling conflicts. Expenses would be shouldered based on each government’s size and wealth."

"The United Nations remains the closest thing to a system of global governance that the world has ever known and may ever achieve. And yet, as the covid-19 pandemic makes painfully clear, the system can be paralyzed, distracted, and dysfunctional just when it is needed most. The paradox of the un—an organization only as good as the collective will of its member states—is that it embodies so much potential alongside so much disappointment. No single country, organization, or institution can dictate the future of global governance. The world is too complex, diverse, and fractured to allow for that. Cooperation between the United States and China is essential but not sufficient. Neither countries nor peoples around the world want to submit to the whims of the world’s two most powerful players. To lead, Washington and Beijing need forums to rally support and reckon with opposition. A strengthened system of global governance, if it is to be, will involve overlapping forums, institutions, and coalitions that collectively shoulder the world’s challenges."

My initial thoughts

There is so much more that can be quoted, but you may as well just read the rest.

The initial message I am getting from these essays is the suggestion that these institutions are painting the picture that we NEED a global government, however, they're pretending they are just not sure what SORT of government it should be, i.e. they're just not fully decided on how it should be constructed.

I feel it is a narrative being developed that the need for global governance is just an obvious fact, but it's how it should look which is the difficult bit. Whereas in reality, they already know how it will look, it's been decided for a long time I'd suggest. This is just for our benefit, just to plant the seed.

Much like the rhetoric about the lock-downs - the narrative was "the lock-downs are a necessary action, to think otherwise is nonsense, but should we have done it sooner, harder or longer?"

You see, we're not meant to question the lock-downs in itself, i.e. are they legal? Should Governments have that power? Are they compatible with a "free" country? It's just a given it is acceptable procedure, just like Global Government is now going to be an acceptable idea.

Please find the whole document here, you need to download the PDF, it's free.

bottom of page