Council's Push for World Government

Introduction

Personal Thoughts.

Non CFR Connected view points and observations

Calls for General World Government

World Community

Different Terms Used For World Government

minor Reasons for which they try to eliminate Sovereignty

Discussion on Sovereignty

I will need to address this strange new age view of hating soveriengty ✅

Global Health Issues

Environmental Issues

World Peace

World Constitution Page 156 of Global Class War "Constitutions are not interest-free. The Constitution of the United States reflected the powerful economic interests of the time-slave holders, to name one example. Therefore, we should not expect the people in charge of writing the global constitution to ignore their own interests in establishing the rules for "who gets what." ✅

Bush and the World-Michael Hirsch This will be my opening to the world government portion, "The current champions of exceptionalism still believe they are fighting an overweening globalism, even the threat of world government. But these worries are ludicrously exaggerated: governments and naton-states still plainly define the world. The international community, as real, powerful, and growing as it is, shows no signs of whatever of fostering a world government." Start the significance with, in all the research done on this topic, this author has never found a more defensive statement on behalf of the CFR regarding their precious globalism. ✅

The New World Order ✅

Global Governance ✅

Historical

"Our New situation of mutual national dependence is inescapable. If we would face it in a creative mood, we will have to take some risks in order to invite others to pool their sovereignty with ours on maters which none of us can control alone...As we approach the bicentennial of the Republic, perhaps what we need most for 1976 is a resounding Declaration of Interdependence. Maybe by 1987 we could then celebrate the 200th year of the Constitution of the United States with at least the beginning of global arrangements and institutions to safeguard the common defense and the general welfare of humanity everywhere." Kingman Brewster, Jr in the FA article Reflections on Our National Purpose 1972

Butler, Harold, Sir. "A New World Takes Shape." 1948 "How far can the life of nations, which for centuries
have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged
with the life of other nations? How far are they prepared to sacri-
fice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no
effective economic or political union?...
Out of the prevailing confusion a new world is taking shape.
When it finally settles into its mold, its structure will be so
different from anything that has gone before that a comfortable
Victorian risen from the dead would detect in it little resemblance
to the world which he knew." ✅

"Religion: American Malvern." Time


Ultimately, "a world government of delegated powers."
Complete abandonment of U.S. isolationism.
Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty.
International control of all armies & navies.
"A universal system of money ... so planned as to prevent inflation and deflation."
Worldwide freedom of immigration.
Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade.
"Autonomy for all subject and colo nial peoples" (with much better treatment for Negroes in the U.S.).
"No punitive reparations, no humiliating decrees of war guilt, no arbitrary dismemberment of nations."
A "democratically controlled" international bank "to make development capital available in all parts of the world without the predatory and imperialistic aftermath so characteristic of large-scale private and governmental loans."
This program was adopted last week by 375 appointed representatives of 30-odd denominations called together at Ohio Wesleyan University by the Federal Council of Churches. Every local Protestant church in the country will now be urged to get behind the program. "As Christian citizens," its sponsors affirmed, "we must seek to translate our beliefs into practical realities and to create a public opinion which will insure that the United States shall play its full and essential part in the creation of a moral way of international living."
Among the 375 delegates who drafted the program were 15 bishops of five denominations, seven seminary heads (including Yale, Chicago, Princeton, Colgate-Rochester), eight college and university presidents (including Princeton's Harold W. Dodds), practically all the ranking officials of the Federal Council and a group of well-known laymen, including John R. Mott, Irving Fisher and Harvey S. Firestone Jr. "Intellectually," said Methodist Bishop Ivan Lee Holt of Texas, "this is the most distinguished American church gathering I have seen in 30 years of conference-going."
This was the JFD thing I think


Cousins, Norman. <i>Modern Man Is Obsolete</i>. do no use as a quote Norman Cousins 1945We even debate the question of “surrendering” some of our sovereignty — as though there is still something to surrender. There is nothing left to surrender. There is something to gain. A common world sovereignty ... would men that no state could act unilaterally from the central authority as a method to achieve its aims. ...
There is no need to discuss the historical reasons pointing to and arguing for world government.

United States. <i>Report On the First Meeting, September 1946</i>. By U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, Appendix 6, P.25. N.p.: U.S. Government, 1947. Print. William Benton (CFR) "We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty and persuading the peoples of this world to study each other and cooperate with each other. In this process UNESCO can be - and indeed must be the pioneer." The next card explains a little bit about UNESCO and the stuff they said about nationalism. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d035630421;view=1up;seq=31

"Declaration of Interdependence." World Affairs Council , 1976. http://www.americaismyname.org/uploads/7/9/1/7/7917170/us_declaration_of_interdependence_1976.pdf
This is a co-council document that declared the need for world government and world citizenship. It had major backing from the Council on Foreign Relations and
among them CFR members George McGovern, Clairborne Pel, Christopher Dodd, Les Aspin, and Patricia Schroeder, sign a Declaration of Interdependence written by historian Henry Steele Commager (CFR),

WG 32 Maurice Strong
Source:
Wood, Daniel. "The Wizard of Baca Grande." <i>West Magazine</i> May 1990: n. pag. Web.
Cues:
Incomplete,Needs Further Research
Quote:
{I Need to figure out how I am going to use the climate change stuff. I think I need to find the club of rome and the iron think tank docs}
Paraphrase:
In this article, we see Maurice Strong (CFR) the main propogator of global warming saying that he would like the World of industrialization to crumble.
"Strong resumes his story. "The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
He poses this from the position of a "novel" where even he technically puts the quotes around theoretical. However, he tries to exonerate himself from this group but he stands as one of the biggest proponents of global warming and initiated the kyoto protocol.

Source:
Haass, Richard. "State Sovereignty Must Be Altered in Globalized Era - Taipei Times." <i>Taipei Times</i>. The Taipei Times, 21 Feb. 2006. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.
Cues:
Incomplete
Paraphrase:
In his article http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/2003294021 he hardcore bashes soveriegnty. He is also the president of the council on foreign relations.

Source:
Council on Foreign Relations.<i> American Public Opinion and Postwar Security Commitments.</i> New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1944.
Cues:
Incomplete,Needs Further Research
Quote:
"The Sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind, that there would appear to be little chance of winning poular assent to American membership in anything approaching a superstate organization. Much will depend on the kind of approach which is used in frther popular education"
Importance: World Government
Importance: Admission that they control the talking points at colleges (technically)

[DO NOT USE-CRANSTON WAS MISTAKENLY LABELED AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS] Source:
Jasper, William F. "Target: World Government." Conspiracy for Global Control , special issue of The New American , 16 Sept. 1996, pp. 23-25.
Cues:
Incomplete
Quote:
(11) Senator Alan Cranston (United World Federalists, CFR, TC) Back in 1949 Cranston Successfully pushed through the California Legislature a resolution memoralizing Congress to call a national convention to amend the US Constitution to "expedite and insure the participation of the United States in a world federal government."


Paraphrase:
Background on this issue. 1949 World Federalist California Resolution
was the issue at hand. Many different states with United World Federalist chapters got together and tried to Get the United States Congress to open the United States up to amending the constitution to allow for World Government. The quote provided is not from Cranston (Even though he played a huge role in trying to get this passed) himself, but from the Resolution itself. One can learn this in the book The Politics of World Federation. The article that I took this from page 23 of the magazine and the information that continues afterwards is important to the cause. One can also look at this book The Contentious History of the International Bill of Human Rights for more information. So I can direct them to two more books that talk about the subject.

Source:
Rappoport, Jon. "An International Pandemic Response Is an Excuse to Globalize the Planet." <i>Pandemics</i>. Ed. Jacqueline Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Swine Flu & Fake Epidemics: Medicalisation and the Push for Global Management." <i>New Dawn</i> 118 (2010). <i>Opposing Viewpoints In Context</i>. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.
Cues:
Incomplete
Paraphrase:
Jon Rappoport is an American investigative journalist, author, and vice president of the publishing house Truth Seeker Company, Inc. He has written articles for CBS Healthwatch, Spin, Stern, Village Voice, and LA Weekly. Also the author of many books.
Organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Health Organization are using the public's fear of pandemics to justify the creation of an international medical bureaucracy. Many people who desire such a global organization attended an October 2009 symposium at which speakers repeated the false contention that pandemics created by novel diseases, such as the swine flu or the bird flu, pose a dire threat to the world. This fear mongering is a key part of the strategy to justify an international medical authority. People who are afraid will more easily accept the suggestion that the only way to respond to a pandemic is with a global response where individual nations surrender their national sovereignty.
Importance: World Government
Importance: Credibility of the Source.

This Was Wilson's main reason. He wanted world peace. The article here has nothing to do with it, but it shows that these efforts were happening even back then. *Source:
Beneš, Eduard. "After Locarno: The Problem of Security Today." Foreign Affairs , The Council on Foreign Relations, Jan. 1926. Accessed 25 Oct. 2015.
Cues:
Incomplete,Needs Further Research
Quote:
This quote is verified (Wait until the article is read though. It is saved under FA articles in the Digital library)
Paraphrase:
"Locarno (a European Collective Security Agreement) represents an attempt to arrive at the same end by stages, by treaties and local regional pacts which are permeated with the spirit of the Geneva Protocol, these to be constatly supplemented, until at last, within the freamework of the League of Nations, they are absorbed by one great world convention guaranteeing world security and peace by the enforcing of the rule of law in interstate life"

Source:
Gardner, Richard N. "The Hard Road to World Order." <i>Foreign Affairs</i>. Council on Foreign Relations, Apr. 1974. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
Cues:
Incomplete
Quote:
"We are witnessing an outbreak of shortsighted nationalism that seems oblivious to the economic, political and moral implications of interdepence...the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. an end run around national soverignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault"

Source:
Kerr, Philip. "From Empire to Commonwealth." <i>Foreign Affairs.com</i>. The Council on Foreign Relations, Dec. 1922. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.
Cues:
Incomplete,Needs Further Research
Quote:
"Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind so long as it remains divided into fifty or sixty independent states...Equally obviously there is going to be no steady progress in civilization or self government among the more backward peoples until some kind of international system is created which will put an end to the diplomatic struggles incident to the attempt of every nation to make itself secure...The real problem today is that of world government."
Importance: World Government
only cover point 1

Clarification on the Church Quote: “Our Commission held its first full meeting in September, 1941, just after the promulgation of the Atlantic Charter. We immediately launched a campaign to educate United states public opinion for the need for world organization. Most of the protestant churches for the country set up study groups on world order. The commission conducted a “national missions on world order” which took leading ministers and laymen to principal cities of the United States.” JFD War or Peace Page 34

From Empire to Community-Amitai Etzioni In the very first paragraph, he states that transnational problems can only be fixed by a government with jurisdiction as expansive is the actual issues. He states that the beginning's of that government are already in place, but at the moment it is far from what they had hoped for.

[Use last to show why they shifted to another front] From Empire to Community-Amitai Etzioni Instead, many liberals seek to rely on the Wilsonian fantasy of democra- tizing the world to make it peaceful, a very attractive idea but also a dangerously deluding and dis- tracting idea, which, we shall see, cannot be relied on to uphold even a minimal level of global law and order in the foreseeable future. ✅

Humanitarian Reasons

A highly legitimate role for the evolving GSA is to prevent genocide, even if this entails armed inter- ventions in sovereign nations. Such interventions are legitimate on the same grounds as deprolif- eration: They entail the protection of a large number of lives from a clear and present danger, therefore discharging the elementary duty of the state on a transnational level when intrastate security fails or the forces that are supposed to provide for it are themselves the source of the danger. The fact that the value of humanitarian interventions trumps that of national sovereignty is widely recognized, more so as the years pass. From Empire to Common Wealth page 219

In short, a key source of legitimation for the new global architecture is that it will not tolerate mass killing, whether by WMD or by genocide, thus pro- viding the very first element of a state on the global level—a measure of security. The new global archi- tecture thus will draw on replacing respect for na- tional sovereignty with a growing respect for a human good—the right to live, whatever one’s na- tionality. This is a much more compelling standard for action than the enforcement of a whole slew of human rights. The list of these rights is too long (and yet some argue not long enough) and too un- clear to justify forceful intervention in the internal affairs of other countries at this stage in the devel- opment of the Global Safety Authority and the Unit- ed Nations. This standard does apply, however, for fighting terrorism and deproliferation, and increas- ingly to pacification and humanitarian inter- ventions, and—one day—to general arms reduc- tion. replacing national rights with human rights

Environmental degradation poses particular problems for national governments because most environmental damage is not limited by borders, as pollution from one country invades another, over- fishing by one country affects another country’s ability to maintain its catch, and so on. Attempting to manage the global commons goes beyond the capabilities of any one country, hence the large number of environmental treaties that have been concluded in the last thirty years. Nonetheless, the environment continues to fall behind as govern- ments flout the restrictions they agreed to in those treaties, which were to begin with often symbolic rather than substantive commitments. The struggle that preceded reaching an agreement on the text of the Kyoto Protocol highlights the difficulties in reaching agreements that often are more rhetorical than realistic. From Empire to Community Page 243

The Old System is unable to halt the spread of infectious diseases. Writing about the difficulties that WHO faced while combating severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Dr. Andy Ho notes: “Without enforcement powers, the agency can do little to stop a country from trying to hide an out- break that it finds embarrassing—until it’s spread so much that it’s no longer a secret. And even when a threat has been recognized, conflicting national policies hamper the WHO’s ability to control the re- sponse to it.”²⁴ Epidemiologist Jack Woodall adds: It’s just not practical. UN bodies are made up of member states and they are sovereign states and they will do what they want regardless of interna- tional regulations. All that the WHO could do is say, ‘You know, it really is in your own interest to invite us in to help us solve this disease problem for you.’ But they certainly can’t enforce it.²⁵ SARS, the avian flu, and God only knows what else will jump across national borders, evading our at- tempts to contain them. From Empire to Community page 245

Similarly, if the world were to face what would be a clear and present danger due to sizeable global warming, it likely would act. (Some may well argue that once warming becomes a clear and present
danger, it will be much more difficult to deal with it than it is now. However, the attentive publics must be convinced that the current and anticipated level of warming poses a serious threat before they will agree to burdensome measures that must be under- taken to reverse this trend.) Meanwhile, the global environment, which has a wider appeal than wel- fare, will draw some resources—but not enough to prevent further degradation. As with welfare, those who wish for more action are better off finding new interests to further engage the nations of the world and stronger normative arguments to present than berating the rich. 280

But what about a worldwide “we”? Are not communities typically defined by their sepa- ration from some other people? Can there be a “we” without a “they”? My response is that the new “they” are weapons of mass destruction and pandemics; they fully qual- ify as enemies of humanity. 319

...I can envision a world of perhaps twenty re- gional communities, further grouped into a smaller number of supraregional ones, crowned by a Global Authority and a global civil society. It would have many of the features of a nation, often defined as a community ensconced in a state. That is, it would not merely have the powers of a state but also a core of shared values, and it would command a measure of loyalty from the world’s citizens. These features are essential if what may be called a Global Nation is to be able to contain conflict and legiti- mately impose burdens on some parts of the citi- zenry for the benefit of others. 324

largest reason for destroying sovereignty

National Security

America's Imperial Ambition 2002 The recasting of sovereignty is paradoxical. On the one hand, the new grand strategy reaffirms the importance of the territorial nation-state. After all, if all governments were accountable and capable of enforcing the rule of law within their sovereign territory, terrorists would find it very difficult to operate. The emerging Bush doctrine enshrines this idea: governments will be held responsible for what goes on inside their borders. On the other hand, sovereignty has been made newly conditional: governments that fail to act like respectable, law-abiding states will lose their sovereignty ✅

Bush and the World-Michael Hirsch 2002 This article primarily takes jabs at sovereignty, and states that the world is falling apart due to a lack of globalization. They go further though when they state that the biggest fear is no longer ballistic missiles, but "WMD loaded into a boat or truck by a small number of hate-filled people who lack a "return address" and are undaunted by the threat of retaliation." Because of this threat, they pose, "Americans must work harder to flesh out a fuller international community." With their clear disdain of sovereignty already mentioned, a "fuller international community" can only mean the elimination of sovereignty, once again because of a boogeyman. ✅

The Unipolar Moment-Charles Krauthammer 1990 "The post-Cold War era is thus perhaps better called the era of weapons of mass destruction. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery will constitute the greatest single threat to world security for the rest of our lives. That is what makes a new international order not an imperial dream or a wilsonian fantasy but a matter of the sheerest prudence. It is slowly dawning on the west that there is need to establish some new regime to police these weapons and those who brandish them. ✅

He continues by saying that due to the Weapon's State, there is no alternative to this international regime, and that the United States must lead the way.

"We are in for abnormal times. Our best hope for safety in
such times, as in difficult times past, is in American strength
and will?the strength and will to lead a unipolar world,
unashamedly laying down the rules of world order and being
prepared to enforce them. Compared to the task of defeating
fascism and communism, averting chaos is a rather subtle call
to greatness. It is not a task we are any more eager to
undertake than the great twilight struggle just" ✅

Discussions on Boogeymen. Go to the road to damascus point 2932

From Empire to Community-Amitai Etzioni page 196 "My argument is that the best way to achieve a rea- sonable global governance is to give safety the first priority. Nor, we shall see, do I hold that Locke’s concern with liberty and rights should be ignored.⁹) "

I join here with those who hold that an arms-control approach—allowing states to keep what are, in effect, the means for pro- ducing nuclear weapons while relying on inspec- tions to ensure their peaceful use—is too risky. The new world order requires the removal of such capacities—through peaceful measures if possible and by force if necessary. Page 203, he wants to use non proliferation as a reason for global government

I fully realize the complexities of the issues involved—the long history of animosity, the inevitable religious and ethnic confrontation, and the sense of prestige that nations claim to de- rive from being members of the “nuclear club.”¹⁴ However, none of these takes precedence over sav- ing the lives of millions of their citizens and making nuclear war less likely. Page 205 saying that National sovereignty does not take precedence over safety

Finally, deproliferation—which has been pur- sued in ways similar to the war against terrorism— is adding a whole wing to the Global Antiterrorism Authority, and thus providing another element for the formation a Global Safety Authority. That is, this added mission meets the criteria of transnational institution building and hence can serve as part of the development of a global community. page 207

If deproliferation is to be accorded our top priority, it would follow that all means of persuasion— economic and ultimately military—should be ap- plied to this purpose. That is, there is a global need to move from a basically voluntary system, which the non-proliferation treaties entail, to a system that has a coercive fall back, in which force would be used if all else fails. (The European Union acknowl- edged as much when it released the “Strategy Against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruc- tion,” a document that calls for “coercive mea- sures”—including force—to prevent proliferation when all other options have been exhausted.)²⁰ Given the dangers involved, coercive deprolif- eration is justified only if all other means have been exhausted page 209-210

The most important reason, which alone justi- fies respecting national sovereignty much less than in recent generations, is the threat of wholesale ter- rorism, the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) directly by rogue states or by rogue states providing such weapons to terrorists. The value of deproliferation, of protecting the world from nu- clear devastation, trumps the respect for the na- tional sovereignty of nations that insist on clinging to WMD. 232

Similarly, if the world were to face what would be a clear and present danger due to sizeable global warming, it likely would act. (Some may well argue that once warming becomes a clear and present
danger, it will be much more difficult to deal with it than it is now. However, the attentive publics must be convinced that the current and anticipated level of warming poses a serious threat before they will agree to burdensome measures that must be under- taken to reverse this trend.) Meanwhile, the global environment, which has a wider appeal than wel- fare, will draw some resources—but not enough to prevent further degradation. As with welfare, those who wish for more action are better off finding new interests to further engage the nations of the world and stronger normative arguments to present than berating the rich. 282

Between Two Ages- Zbigniew Brzezinski page 111 These more immediately necessary changes must be reinforced by a broader effort to contain the global
tendencies toward chaos. A community of the developed nations must eventually be formed if the world is to
respond effectively to the increasingly serious crisis that in different ways now threatens both the advanced
world and the Third World. Persistent divisions among the developed states, particularly those based on
outmoded ideological concepts, will negate the efforts of individual states to aid the Third World; in the more
advanced world they could even contribute to a resurgence of nationalism. ✅

The Intimate Papers of Colonel House-Charles Seymour 41 After the Napoleonic wars public opinion
in Europe believed that Jacobinism was the great danger to
peace, just as now we believe, with more justification, that
Prussian Militarism is what we have mainly to fear. Accordingly,
the principal nations entered into the Holy Alliance,
with a view to suppressing Jacobinism whenever they saw
it raising its head. Very soon Great Britain withdrew from
the League, but it persisted with the most disastrous results
for many years in Europe . I am dreadfully afraid that we
may make the same mistake now . Prussian militarism is
indeed a portentous evil, but if, misled by our fear of it, we
try to impose on all the nations of the world a form of government
which has been indeed admirably successful in
America and this country, but is not necessarily suited for
all others, I am convinced we shall plant the seeds of very
serious international trouble . Lord Robert Cecil to House- This is an incredibly wise contention, the writer of this letter understood the boogeyman and realized that maybed the first boogeyman that they could think of was jacobinism. And then after that prussian military might, in the institution of the world order due to this is not intelligent.

The Intimate Papers of Colonel House-Charles Seymour 44 The Monroe Doctrine asserted a specific interest on the
part of the United States in preventing certain gross
breaches of the peace on the American Continent ; and when
President Wilson suggested an enlargement of the Monroe
Doctrine to take in the whole world, his proposal carried by
necessary implication the change of doctrine which I am discussing.
The change may seem so natural as to be unimportant,
but it is really crucial, for the old doctrine is asserted
and the broader doctrine is denied by approximately
half the military power of the world, and the question between
the two is one of the things about which this war is
being fought. The change involves a limitation of sovereignty,
making every sovereign state subject to the superior
right of a community of sovereign states to have the
peace preserved. The acceptance of any such principle
would be fatal to the whole Prussian theory of the state and
of government. When you have got this principle accepted
openly, expressly, distinctly, unequivocally by the whole civilized
world, you will for the first time have a Community
of Nations, and the practical results which will naturally
develop will be as different from those which have come from
the old view of national responsibility as are the results
which flow from the American Declaration of Independence
compared with the results which flow from the Divine Right
of Kings. This was Elihu Root to Colonel House

Start with Wilson- go to the World Peace part of the coggle and start with that actually.

Quelling the Teacup Wars-Leslie H. Gelb The very long process of shaping a more effective and responsible United Nations must begin. This will require some sacrifices of sovereignty. But sovereignty has already been compromised in the new world. It is impossible for Washington to contemplate unilateral military action in most consequential situations. The Persian Gulf War is a prime example; tiny Haiti is another Multilateralism, for good or ill, almost always requiring American leadership, has descended on the world. It is a fact not to be debated, but absorbed into American strategy." ✅

click to edit

Selective Global Commitment- Zbigniew Brzezinski Accordingly, in determining when and how to address such
problems the international community may have to be guided
less by traditional notions of sovereignty (i.e., is one state
violating the sovereignty of another?) and more by the scope
of the threat itself. In other words, there may develop situations
in which external intervention in the seemingly internal
affairs of a state—as in Yugoslavia yesterday and perhaps
elsewhere tomorrow—may be necessary and justified by the
potential consequences of activities that are otherwise of internal
character and that do not, of themselves, involve interstate
collision. ✅

Back to the Womb: Isolationism's Renewed Threat- Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (CFR) Surely this flinching from military enforcement calls for a reexamination of the theory of collective security. Despite two grievous hot wars, a draining Cold War, and a multitude of smaller conflicts, the Wilsonian vision is as far from realization today as it was three-quarters of a century ago. In the United States, neo-isolationism promises to prevent the most powerful nation on the planet from paying any role in enforcing the peace system. If we refuse a role, we cannot expect smaller, weaker, and poorer nations to ensure world order for us. We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money. Context: He says that Americans do not want to send their families to go die on battlefields for collective security. He even mentions this as a Wilsonian dream so for sure the New World Order in this regard is a purely internationalist global government.

The Unraveling-Richard N. Haass At the global level, the goal of U.S. policy should still be integration, trying to bring others into arrangements to manage global challenges such as climate change, terrorism, proliferation, trade, public health, and maintaining a secure and open commons. Where these arrangements can be global, so much the better, but where they cannot, they should be regional or selective, involving those actors with significant interests and capacity and that share some degree of policy consensus. Context: This entire article is how the Post-Cold War integration and world governance mechanisms are starting to lose their power, hence the unraveling One of the main things he attributes this to is that Americans no longer want to get involved after military interventions continue to let them down. The two genuine ones that he mentions are Iraq and Libya. Right now, the globalists are in a rough spot at least on the foreign policy aspect.

CFR Global Governance Program

The program draws on the resources of CFR’s David Rockefeller Studies Program to assess existing regional and global governance mechanisms and offer concrete recommendations for U.S. policymakers on specific reforms needed to improve their performance, both to advance U.S. national interests and to ensure the provision of critical global public goods. The program will take an issue area approach, focusing on arrangements governing state conduct and international cooperation in meeting four broad sets of challenges: (1) Countering Transnational Threats, including terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and infectious disease; (2) Protecting the Environment and Promoting Energy Security; (3) Managing the Global Economy; and (4) Preventing and Responding to Violent Conflict ✅

Throughout its activities, CFR will engage stakeholders and constituencies in the United States
2
and abroad, including governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society representatives, and the private sector, whose input and endorsement are critical to ensure the appropriateness and feasibility of any institutional reforms. The program is led by Senior Fellow Stewart Patrick...We believe that the research and policy agenda outlined here constitutes a potentially significant contribution to U.S. and international deliberations on the requirements for world order in the twenty-first century.

World Order 2.0-Richard Haass Haass argues for a new type of sovereignty called sovereign obligation. "By contrast, sovereign obligation is about what a country owes to other countries. It stems from a need to expand and adapt the traditional principles of international order for a highly interconnected world" He calls for World Order 2.0 where 1.0 was a world where the order was built on protecting nation states (as in their sovereignty). To take that step forward into World Order 2.0 the united states government is supposed to determine its position and other states positions in this New World Order and mold their foreign policy agendas to stay on that course. He also states that these states will need to decide to "sacrifice some autonomy" aka sovereignty to play a part in 2.0 He then goes on to put populists and authoritarian regimes side by side as the roadblocks to 2.0 "What is certain, however, is that it [World Order ] is essential for a century in which globalization will be a reality, welcome or not. Building a world order predicated on sovereign obligation is certainly ambitious, but it is an ambition born out of realism, not idealism. ✅

World Order 2.0 Richard Haass "Climate change is in many ways the quintessential manifestation of globalization. It reflects the sum total of what is going on; countries are exposed and affected unevenly by the problem regardless of their contribution to it." Haass says that Climate change fits under Sovereign Obligation, and that international incentives and penalties should be given out to nations who do not comply with the internationally established rule set. In addition, he states that the developed countries have the sovereign obligation to pick up most of the tab for the less developed countries to combat climate change. ✅

Another up and coming excuse is the regulation of Cyber Space. World Order 2.0-Richard Haass "The goal [of global regulation of cyber space] in this area should be to create international arrangements that encourage benign uses of cyberspace and discourage malign uses. Governments would then have to uphold and act consistently within this regime as part of their sovereign obligations. What might such a regime involve? Ideally, it would maintain a single, integrated global cybernetwork, limit what governments could do to stop the free flow of information and communication from within it, prohibit commercial espionage and theft of intellectual property, and limit and discourage disruptive activities in cyberspace during peacetime. Exceptions would need to allow for cyberattacks to frustrate both proliferation and terrorism." Lots of stuff to say for this. They have control over the "disruptive activities. They can shut down revolutions. They can bring the memory hole to a new level

Source:
Kerr, Philip. "From Empire to Commonwealth." <i>Foreign Affairs.com</i>. The Council on Foreign Relations, Dec. 1922. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.
Cues:
Incomplete,Needs Further Research
Quote:
"Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind so long as it remains divided into fifty or sixty independent states...Equally obviously there is going to be no steady progress in civilization or self government among the more backward peoples until some kind of international system is created which will put an end to the diplomatic struggles incident to the attempt of every nation to make itself secure...The real problem today is that of world government."
Importance: World Government


This is literally the Phillip Kerr from the Round Tables