
<p>I had a college professor who often said that before you can debate an issue, you need to define terms – so that both sides understand what they mean when they say something. ; It is not only important. ; It is essential to intelligent dialogue.</p>



<p>We hear a lot of discussion about “the world order” – and especially a “new world order.” ; There is a lot of confusion as to what that means. ; I shall try to give it some definition and meaning.</p>



<p>Let us begin with the core term, “world order.” ; Basically, that means a configuration of nations, agreements, and policies that exist over a period of time. ; It generally means a balance of factors that maintain general international stability. ; It generally takes dramatic events to change the world order – to create a new world order.</p>



<p>We saw the world order change in 1776 when the colonies of Great Britain broke away and created a new world order of emerging democracies. ; The world order based on European colonization had essentially ended. ; We saw a new world order after the Civil War with the ending of slavery and a realignment of international allies. ; President Franklin Roosevelt created a new world order by introducing welfare state socialism to the democracy menu. ; And World War II produced a world order with Russian hegemony over half of Europe. ; The world order changed when President Nixon led China out from behind the Bamboo Curtain – and again when President Reagan ended the cold war.</p>



<p>In a very real sense, we are still living in the Reagan world order – but seemingly on the precipice of change. ; That means a lot of talk about a new world order – an event that has two meanings today. ; The term is used to define the factual major changes in the configuration and relationships between nations – and the agreement and policies that are changing. ; ;</p>



<p>There’s another definition for many people. ; It refers to the belief in the existence of a sinister cabal of powerful people who are manipulating the events for their own benefit – for power and profit. ; Oddly, they are best known by folks sitting in front of their computers browsing through the Internet’s dark corners – the birthplace of conspiracy theories. ; There is little validity to the theories, but they do impact on political discourse. ; In the extreme, it is the politics of paranoia.</p>



<p>Having said that, I am not suggesting that there are no powerful interests – in and out of government – who are promoting change in the post-Reagan world order. ; ;</p>



<p>In my lifetime – since World War II &#8212; the world order changed from an imperial Europe and a world order based on a conflict between democracy and Communist autocracy. ; It was the era of the Cold War – and not much changed until the fall of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a new world order. ; ;</p>



<p>That new world order saw the end of the Russian occupation of scores of nations, the re-emergence of China into the world community of nations (with great national success), the end of European factionalism in favor of the European Union and NATO, and the dominance of the United States as the most powerful and influential nation on earth … by far. ; ;</p>



<p>But that world order is now under attack. ; In many ways, the instruments of change are not seeking a “new” world order, but the return of the old world order. ; Russia and China – two nations that developed closer ties to the United States and commenced free-market reforms – have returned to the more autocratic and doctrinaire communist approach. ; They have formed an alliance against American leadership, not unlike the days of the Cold War. ; Vladimir Putin has launched an invasion of Ukraine as his next step in regaining hegemony over what was once called the “captive nations.” ; China is looking to bring Taiwan back under the rule of Beijing – and to extend its hegemony over Southeast Asia, and its influence throughout the world.</p>



<p>For the first time since World War I, the new, new world order may not have America at its peak. ; We seem to lack both the strong leaders and cultural resolve to maintain world leadership. ; Comparisons to Great Britain may be, unfortunately, apt. ; London once led the world with an empire upon which the sun never set. ; Today, Great Britain is a formidable nation – but only one of many formidable nations.</p>



<p>The questions are: ; Can the United States return to a positive headship role and maintain a world order based on peace &#8212; freedom, and democracy &#8212; or is decline inevitable and irreversible? ; </p>



<p>Are we at a transition point between the old American-led world order and the new configuration of international power and governing philosophy? What will the future new world order look like?</p>



<p>I have no idea – but I am not optimistic.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

New World Order Versus Old World Order
