Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

The Atlantica strain and the Ukraine

Testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1950, noted globalist James P. Warburg stated: “We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.” In essence, he was implying that we can either transform the United Nations into a world government peacefully, or wait until the Soviet Union took over the world militarily.

At the time, Warburg was testifying in support of the United World Federalist’s agenda. They wanted the United States to seek the development of the United Nations into a world federation open to all nations (including the Soviet Union) with defined and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through the enactment, interpretation, and enforcement of world law. The Soviets viewed their utopian plan as a fig-leaf of American imperialism.

Atlantic Unionists, on the other hand, preferred creating a trans-Atlantic union or partnership after the Second World War. They saw, and continue to see today, the Euro-Atlantic community as a staging area for the political evolution and advancement of Western institutions and ideology. Whereas world federalists placed their emphasis on world peace through world law, proponents of Atlantic Union placed their accent on defending freedom through strength and advancing it through consent.

While prominent American leaders were sympathetic to the Atlantic Union idea, its sister philosophy, Atlanticism, prevailed and ultimately influenced U.S. foreign policy. The relative lack of European interest in federating with the United States was a major factor in this development. Few realize, however, that Clarence K. Streit’s vision of Atlantica ultimately spawned NATO, and what we now know as the European Union. Atlanticists eventually sided with power over principle.

As a political influence, utopian world order strategies were ultimately discarded by American leaders in the 1980s, and eventually replaced with global governance schemes. Rather than seek to establish a world order based on popular consent and representation, global elites decided to advance economic integration under the rubric of so-called free trade regimes. Fundamentally, the world suffers from obscene economic inequality due to the reality of globalization without adequate representation.

Imagine, for a second, if CEOs of Western multinational corporations were forced to adhere to regulations justified by business ethics on an international scale. MNCs operating in the United States are held accountable to anti-trust, anti-discrimination, labor, health and safety as well as environmental regulations. Let’s be honest, their ability to work within nations that “specialize” in avoiding regulations based on traditional American business ethics gives them a unique economic advantage. A world government could take this privilege away.

The political abandonment of the Atlantic Union idea in the U.S. Congress paved the way for the latest Atlantica strain. After the Russian people liberated themselves in the 1990s, the West had a unique opportunity to offer exploration of international federalism as a post-Cold War strategy. Shamefully, the Western establishment opted to expand NATO without Russia’s consent. Neo-conservatism prevailed as the dominant U.S. foreign policy paradigm.

How could Russians trust the economic intentions of the West under such circumstances? The United States essentially behaved after the Cold War exactly how Soviet leaders warned they would. Russians did not liberate themselves simply to fill Wal-Mart stores with cheap products. The principled thing to do would have been to offer Russia an equal opportunity to shape the post-Cold War order. Not surprisingly, the West dismissed the members of the Non-Aligned Movement as well.

Fortunately for the Russians, Osama bin Laden hated Americans more than he hated them. The antics of al-Qaeda provided Russia a reprieve from Anglo-American imperialism after the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. These conflicts significantly diminished the capability of the United States to project power and intensified the Atlantica strain. NATO Parliamentarians formally recognized this reality in 2010, and started to rebuild Atlantic unity and resolve.

NATO PA Resolution 384 on Building a More Stable and Prosperous International Order (November, 2010) declared “that a tectonic shift may be underway in the global economic balance of power that requires greater co-operation among nations to prevent the rising of major tensions and conflicts.” This statement was essentially directed against the Sino-Russian partnership. Ironically, attempts to recruit and integrate Ukraine into the EU, and eventually NATO, spawned tension and conflict.

Apparently, Victoria Nuland at the U.S. State Department didn’t get the NATO PA memo. If the United States pursues economic sanctions against Russia for checking Western imperialism, a new Atlantica strain will likely emerge. Unfortunately, it is an election year in the United States, and Obama’s legacy is on the line. Expect the United States to act unilaterally if it has to. If cooler heads, on all sides, don’t prevail, armed conflict is on the horizon.

U.S. presidential wannabe, Hillary Clinton, recently declared that Putin’s actions in Crimea were similar to Hitler’s in the late 1930s. Perhaps she should consider the fact that Hitler’s acts were fueled by the injustice Germany suffered at Versailles after World War I. The Anglo-American establishment decided to legitimately integrate Germany into the Atlantic community only after its unconditional surrender. Apparently, some states are allowed to join the West through consent; others are invited only after they have been conquered. Historical references can be unpleasant from Putin’s perspective.

If things remain as they are now, a Third World War may be on the horizon. It is time for the citizens of the free world from Vancouver to Vladivostok to unite and lead our politicians out of this crisis. The only “reset” between the United States and Russia capable of ending the current power struggle would be an agreement to “reset” the overall structure of the international economic order. Free citizens, not states, should be the foundation of world order. No more globalization without representation. It's time for a libertarian world order.

Report this ad