cj#255> Editorial: NWO & Nationalism (re: cj#253)


Richard Moore


This editorial responds to the points raised by Andy Oram in his letter


> From: Andy Oram <•••@••.•••>
> Subject: Re: Democracy & NWO -- Draft 2.0


> My disagreements revolve around the conflict between the nation state
> and the transnational organizations.  This is a very interesting
> conflict (multinational corporations are definitely getting frustrated
> with national restrictions) and no one can tell for sure how it will
> turn out.  But I think the issue is more complicated than you express
> it here.

> First, I think many of the major powers (including Germany and Japan,
> who are still our natural rivals) were unhappy with our handling of
> the Gulf War.  They know that the firepower may someday be directed
> against them once more.

Central to the NWO thesis is the claim that "natural rivals" is rapidly
becoming an outmoded concept.  As multinationals operate increasingly
globally, they are less and less dependent on a "national identity" to
protect their interests.  They increasingly push "their governments" to
cooperate with the other "great powers" in building GATT et al -- they want
a "world made safe for investment" more than special treatment compared to
other multinationals.

I think it's important to realize the degree to which rivalry among great
powers (over the past century) has traditionally been fueled by corporate
competition.  Although the rhetoric/propaganda would be about racisim and
historical resentments, the root cause was largely corporations seeking
markets or resources.  As corporations change their strategy, national
rivalries lose much of their fuel.  I think this process is very advanced
in the U.S. and Western Europe.

German _public opinion_ may have had severe misgivings about the Gulf
adventure -- I believe the media coverage was less censored than in the
U.S.  And Germany couldn't do any saber rattling, because they still hadn't
shaken off the "anti militarism syndrome".  But I believe the German NWO
constituency -- the strategic corporate elte -- are very much in support of
the NWO.

Germany seems to have a special leadership role in the NWO, as a matter of
fact.  It is Germany, more than the U.S. or anyone else, who has taken the
lead role in destabilizing the old Soviet Union and turning it into a
Latin-America style Third-World region.  And NATO's expansion plans are
targetted for the traditional German sphere of influence -- Czech Republic,
Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.  The key NWO axis is very likely to be
Washington-Berlin.  It is important to keep in mind that the Nazi
intelligence network in Eastern Europe was never disbanded after WWII --
the CIA kept it in operation with its leadership intact.

And it is Germany, even more than the U.S., who took the lead in
destabilizing the Balkans and stirring up the conflict there.  Germany's
rapid recognition of an independent Croatia (their WWII fascist ally) was
essentially an act of war against then Yugoslavia, and strongly
determinative of the subsequent breakup.  Just in the past week, we read
that Germany has finally shaken off its anti-militarism syndrome, with the
dispatch of the Luftwaffe to one of their old bases in Italy, preparing to
back up the Croats against the Serbs.

Japan is a very special case.  Its nationalism is deeply rooted, it's not
an international team player, and it doesn't yet have any military to speak
of.  I don't have an intuitive feeling for how things will develop re/
Japan or China.  Does anyone else?

> Bush would like to return to the American dominance of the 1950's
> (just as the Falklands showed England's nostalgia for its military
> past) but it's not happening.  We're so near, yet so far.  The main
> threat to the U.S., the Soviet Union, is dead.  But we just don't have
> the strength (or the public backing) to fight major wars; we couldn't
> take on Germany or Japan again.  It may happen anyway; history has
> shown that governments are willing to bring their peoples to the brink
> of destruction to fight wars they can't win.  But the New World Order
> is a complicated thing, and is going to bring out conflicts between
> various countries.

Again, I think this kind of "American dominance" is out of date.  In one
sense, American dominance is now absolute.  The U.S. could destroy every
other country in the world in less than 24 hours, and everyone knows it.
But that power isn't being used to create an Imperial America, in the
tradition of Rome or Britain -- it could be but it isn't.

It was a concious policy of the U.S. corporate elite to build up a global
system after WWII that favored multinational capitalism -- there was none
of that nationalist Treaty of Versailles spirit.  The cold war was not U.S.
vs. USSR nationalism, it was global capitalism vs. USSR nationalism & the
socialist ideology.

Version 1.0 of the NWO was NATO, SEATO, the U.N., and the Marshall Plan.

The Soviet Union was never a threat to the U.S.  The U.S. goaded Russia
into the arms race and spurned frequent appeals for negotiation.  Russia
served as an excuse to build up the U.S. superpower capability.  The
mission of that capability has been to maintain version 1.0 of the NWO, not
defend against Russian attack, which was never a credible possibility.

> I've heard predictions that the world will start to look more
> Orwellian, as the major powers build up spheres of influence and then
> come into open conflict--a recipe for WW III.

Again, I see this as a mostly outmoded frame of reference.  Germany does
seem to be getting an Eastern European sphere of influence, but not to be
operated as an exclusive German domain.  Other Western powers can also
operate there, just like Volkswagen operates in South America.  It's really
more a "sphere of responsibility" -- an NWO custodianship.

With Russia, China, and Japan, the dynamics are murkier.

> Now for another side of the question.  I don't think national
> movements will play a progressive role.  I can go along with your
> suggestion that we appeal to national pride.  But as the break-up of
> Yugoslavia shows, national movements soon take on hideous overlays.
> They bring out the worst in people.  They're ultimately a question of
> "which elite gets to oppress and squeeze the population."

When I talk about hanging onto nationalism as our only refuge against the
NWO, I'm referring to exisiting nation states, as a source of stability and
resistance to radical change.  The reason for this is that with
multinationals in ascendency everywhere, any radical change will be
dictated by them, not by anarchists or democracynow or socialist utopians.

What's happening in the Balkans is _destabilization_ of nations, not
nationalism.  In the NWO article I mentioned Maastricht, IMF, GATT, and
military action as the principal tools of undermining national sovereignty.
Destabilization/devolution deserves to be added to the next edition.
We've seen this operating first with the Soviet Union as a whole, and then
again on a smaller scale, as with Czechocslovakia.

> I'm an old-style Leninist, so you have to expect this complaint from
> me.  Once again, I think it's useful to appeal to national pride among
> oppressed and underdeveloped countries, but the emphasis has to be on
> the needs of the workers, poor, and oppressed.

I agree completely.  The weakest part of the article was clearly the
"solution" part.  But I still see the nation state as being absolutely
necessary as a refuge.  But we need a lot more than that as well.

Maybe what we need is for Green parties and Labor parties to merge into a
coalition with international ties, and with their own newspaper published
in all the languages.  Something on that scale.  Something that ties
together progressive citizens in the First and Third Worlds.  Something
that allows people to identify their common interests, and which provides
for exchange of real news -- not dictated by NBC, CNN, Reuters, and

Any ideas out there?



 Posted by Richard K. Moore (•••@••.•••) Wexford, Ireland (USA citizen)
                 Editor: The Cyberjournal (@CPSR.ORG)

    World Wide Web (shared with cyber-rights):

You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages and online materials,
pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions.  For
commercial re-use, contact the appropriate author.