You know, people ask me, they say, "Pat, you talk about the so-called new world order. What are you talking about?" And I explain to them that ... what is developing now -- and you can see it clearly if you look hard -- what is developing now are the embryonic institutions of a world government that is to be placed over your country. They move slowly. One step forward, two steps back, one step forward.
And what is happening? The UN is its political arm. The so-called International Monetary Fund is going to be the Federal Reserve of the world. The World Bank will provide the income transfers from the United States all over the world, take over the foreign aid responsibility.
The World Court will prosecute and convict people and their countries, take their citizens and try them in international tribunals.
The World Trade Organization that's been established, that will eventually get gradually more and more control of world trade, until one day we wake up like Gulliver, find ourselves tied down on the beach with tiny silk strands that by the thousands have been done up during the night, with the strongest nation on earth suddenly immobile.
[T]he "house of world order" will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great "booming, buzzing confusion," to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault....
The hopeful aspect of the present situation is that even as nations resist appeals for "world government" and "the surrender of national sovereignty," technological, economic and political interests are forcing them to establish more and more far-reaching arrangements to manage their mutual interdependence.
Richard N. Gardner
Generally speaking, the adherents of the internationalist agenda do not use the term "world government." They prefer instead to talk of "new world order," or "new world economic order," or ... the "international rule of law." But they mean world government.
The John Birch Society Bulletin
As George Bush fished, golfed and pondered the post-cold-war world in Maine last month, his aides say that he began to imagine a new world order ... the United States and the Soviet Union, united for crisis management around the globe.
I think what's at stake here is the new world order. What's at stake here is whether we can have disputes peacefully resolved in the future by a reinvigorated United Nations. Or will the United Nations, its peacekeeping function having been elevated to its most promising height since 1948, be sent back to the Dark Ages because we failed to fulfill its mandate?
Now that President Bush has shown that his "new world order" can work in the Persian Gulf, the UN -- with Mr. Bush's help -- might work to "solve" other global crises. In addition to "resolving" regional conflicts in the Middle East, Central America, or Africa, the UN might also declare war on environmental concerns, the international drug trade, or international terrorism. Brick by brick, the house of world order might be built under the guise of solving problems that supposedly transcend national boundaries -- until at last the United States becomes a mere province in a socialistic world government.
Environmental strains that transcend national borders are already beginning to break down the sacred boundaries of national sovereignty, previously rendered porous by the information and communication revolutions and the instantaneous global movement of financial capital. The once sharp dividing line between foreign and domestic policy is blurred, forcing governments to grapple in international forums with issues that were contentious enough in the domestic arena.
Jessica Tuchman Mathews
We should extend MFN [most favored nation trading status] to China not because it is in our economic interests but because it's in our national interest, and there's a big difference....
Many argue that MFN should not be extended to China because of its terrible record on human rights. China's record on human rights and tolerance of political opposition is indefensible. No doubt about it, you can't defend it.