A New Cold War?  The Fight Against the "New World Order" and Britain's Fate

October 15, 2003
By Martin Hutchinson

I am not, by and large, a conspiracy theorist.  Nevertheless, it is equally naïve to suppose that, because a particular regime at a particular time collapsed in ruin, "the End of History" has arrived, and the world can henceforth become united in support of the 1990s' muddled, social democratic version of the free market.

The Soviet Union, unlike Nazi Germany, was not the product of one madman. It was a regime, established almost by chance, that ruled a large portion of the world for over 70 years.  Its economic nostrums were certainly not what enabled it to do this; even at the time, they were fatally flawed to any but the most rose-tinted observer.  What enabled it to rule, and to attract so much support from outside its immediate domain, was its political formulation, which proved immensely attractive to millions of people, most of whom never had to live under its sway.

The Soviet Union became a government of infinite power, on whom all its citizens depended for their existence, whose whims could therefore totally affect their lives, yet which could never be removed.  Needless to say, participation in the upper, middle and even lower reaches of that government was an attractive opportunity for millions of mildly intellectual bureaucrats, who could use Marx's idealism to convince both themselves and their people that they were motivated by pure altruism.

That dream, of participating with like-minded people in an infinitely powerful, infinitely unresponsive government that works ceaselessly to impose ideals on the populace, was not confined to the Soviet Union, and it certainly didn't die with the Soviet Union.  George H.W. Bush, at the end of the Gulf War, heralded a "New World Order"— a term which has been appropriated by many of those willing its arrival.

The western incarnation of that dream probably originated with the French philosopher Henri de Saint-Simon and was given additional impetus by the British Fabian Society in the early 20th century. However, the greatest impetus to its incarnation as practical policy came from economist John Maynard Keynes.  Keynes propounded two theories that had not been considered economically respectable before his time: that the government could effectively allocate resources between different producers and traders, and that public spending could be used to push an economy out of recession.

Keynes' theories, propounded in his intellectually obscure General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) envisaged an economy in which, while ownership technically remained predominantly in the private sector, all significant economic decisions would be taken by omniscient left-leaning public sector intellectuals like himself.  It was not necessary for government to own the means of production; indeed Soviet experience seemed to show that such ownership was so economically counterproductive as to breed political instability.  It was simply necessary to set up a system whereby all significant economic decisions required the approval of the bureaucracy.

This was the impetus behind the Indian Congress Party's "permit raj" until 1991; it is also the impetus behind much environmental regulation, practically all telecom regulation and much trade policy.  Free trade is not an NWO objective, although establishing an international bureaucracy to oversee trade may be a useful tool.  It is much better, instead, to have a system of massive subsidization of agriculture, quantitative control over textiles and the ability to impose randomly high tariffs against "dumping" malefactors.  All three increase bureaucrat control – the object of the exercise.

It is not enough, however, for government to be all-powerful, it must also be unaccountable.  As the British Labour party found out in 1979, it is little joy to leftist Keynesian bureaucrats to establish a “New Jerusalem” where they control the economy if the electorate can come along and throw them out, reducing their finely-crafted construct to rubble.  Accordingly, some mechanism must be found whereby, even if personalities and governments change from decade to decade, central bureaucratic control remains in place.

Two mechanisms exist for this:  the voting system and the supranational body.  NWO partisans seek to impose proportional representation systems, in which a multiplicity of parties appears, and where governments then tend to be formed by negotiation between insiders. 

The other favorite mechanism for reducing accountability is the supranational body.  Both the World Bank and the IMF are classic New World Order entities, being exempt from control either by a democratic electorate or by the market and enjoying special privileges in terms of access to capital and de facto right of first repayment of their loans.  Subsequent NWO entities include the European Union, the International Court of Justice, endless United Nations bodies and the World Trade Organization (the latter not entirely an NWO creation, since it remains pretty ineffectual without the full agreement of its member governments.)  All these bodies share the characteristics of permanence, lack accountability, possess immunity from economic pressure and have the ability to overrule private or even national interests that are the NWO ideal.

The European Parliament is the ultimate NWO vehicle, being both supranational and elected by proportional representation; with 45 of the current 626 Euro-MPs, the British Conservatives are the second largest grouping in the chamber.  Of course, all resolutions of this body are settled by insider bargaining, with the EU's electorate having neither input in nor indeed knowledge of what is being decided.

The last few weeks have seen a number of successes for both sides in this Cold War:

(1)  The collapse at Cancun of the Doha round of trade talks, which removed the necessity for the U.S. and Europe to reform their agricultural, textile and steel policies, thus ensuring that U.S. and European farmers will remain dependent on their governments, and that Third World producers will remain both poor and dependent on the international aid agencies for succor. Big NWO win.

1.      The Kay report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which has successfully been spun outside the United States as "proof" that such weapons did not exist, and hence that U.S. intervention in Iraq was illegitimate. A successful rebuilding effort in Iraq would be a major setback to the NWO's agenda (but is probably unlikely, since even the U.S. aid agencies are staffed largely by NWO proponents.)

2.      The decline in popularity of the generally anti-NWO Bush Administration and its increasing budgetary difficulties are hopeful signs for the NOW, since it strongly suggests the election of a less anti-NWO (or even actively pro-NWO if it's Howard Dean) President in 2004.  U.S. trade, budgetary and economic difficulties are also hopeful signs for the NWO; they reduce Bush's popularity, they allow a pro-NWO president (if one is elected) to increase taxes, and, if they bring on a truly severe recession, they de-legitimize the private sector and allow all kinds of NWO-generated, big-government economic experiments, just as happened in the 1930s with the New Deal.

3.      The Swedish referendum on the euro was a big setback for the NWO, because it demonstrated that Swedish objections to the euro and greater Brussels control, that it would endanger their luscious welfare provisions, were from the left not the right.  To the extent that welfare payments are legally mandated, non-discretionary and transfer purchasing power directly from taxpayers to recipients, they do not increase government control, and hence are unattractive to the NWO nomenklatura.

4.      Japan's apparent emergence from recession, and the political strengthening of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi are both blows to the NWO, whose solution to Japan's problems was an increase in public spending and a huge bureaucrat-directed reorganization of the Japanese banking system.

5.      The IMF's bailout of the Kirchner government in Argentina, without either significant reforms of the Argentine economy or significant efforts to bail out private sector lenders to Argentina, is an example of the NWO in action. The "Washington Consensus" economic reforms of the 1990s were a façade; what really matters to the NWO aid providers are that a country support them in international forums and allow them to maintain a veneer of success over the policies they mandate, even when they produce economic catastrophe.

For the NWO, Britain is a particularly tricky problem.  However much publicity was poured into the "yes" side and however stacked was the deck, it is certain that, in a British referendum, the EU constitution would lose. Hence a referendum must be avoided at all costs, a necessity which is clearly understood by Prime Minister Tony Blair. However, a huge problem arises if, by forcing the constitution into effect without a referendum (which must chronologically be done in 2004-5, before the next election is due) Blair delivers the next election to the opposition. The Liberal Democrats are not a threat;  they are even more enthusiastically pro-Europe than Blair and will happily join him in a center-left, pro-NOW coalition if they are needed.  Indeed, such a coalition would help the NWO in another way;  to the extent a British government had any power left after the EU constitution had been installed, it could be delivered securely and in perpetuity to pro-NWO forces by changing the electoral system to proportional representation, a change which the Liberal Democrats would conveniently insist on as a condition for accepting a Blair-led coalition.

The only British danger to NWO hegemony therefore is an outright win by a Euro-skeptic Conservative party at the next election, due in or before June 2006.  To avoid this, the NWO and its supporters in the British media (about 90 percent of it) are attempting to destabilize the leadership of Iain Duncan-Smith by playing up attempts to remove him and by circulating (almost certainly phony) stories of financial irregularities, thus weakening him for the party conference at which he traditionally reconnects with Conservative supporters.

This benefits them in two ways; it opens the possibility of the Conservative party getting a new leader, and, at a minimum, it shows the Conservatives as a weak, divided party, thus preventing them from capitalizing on Labor's mistakes.  Of the potential leadership candidates, the only pro-NWO figure, Kenneth Clarke, now has little support in the party because of his huge distance from the party mainstream, but there are also "modernizing" factions, led by Michael Portillo and David Davis, who would blur the policy differences with Labor, as well as perpetuating internal party strife – as the removal of Margaret Thatcher in 1990 showed.  Any forced change of leadership that was not to a figure clearly in tune with the party mainstream would be deeply debilitating for several years.  To stop the NWO's Europe project, the Conservatives need to win the next election outright, picking up over 170 seats from Labor and the Liberal Democrats – only a total focus by the party on that objective will render it attainable.  Any other result allows a Labor-Liberal Democrat coalition, which perpetuates the NWO's control of Britain, and of Europe as a whole.

Martin Hutchinson is UPI's Business and Economics Editor.  This adapted text from UPI's weekly "The Bear's Lair" column is used with permission of UPI.