New Global-World Order Must in the World Highlights - By: Balbir Singh Sooch-Sikh Vichar Manch

1. “The term "New World Order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.

2. One of the first and most well-known Western uses of the term was in Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points,[citation needed] and in a call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of World War II when describing the plans for the United Nations and the Bretton Woods system, and partly because of its negative associations with the failed League of Nations. However, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the World War II victors as a "new world order."

3. The most widely discussed application of the phrase of recent times came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush used the term to try to define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide-ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, not less circumscribed: “A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known.” However, given the new unipolar status of the United States, Bush's vision was realistic: "...there is no substitute for American leadership."

4. The Gulf War of 1991 was regarded as the first test of the new world order: "Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order... The Gulf war put this new world to its first test...” From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5. “The New World Order or NWO is claimed to be an emerging clandestine totalitarian world government by various conspiracy theories: The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which will replace sovereign nation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda whose ideology hails the establishment of the New World Order as the culmination of history's progress. Many influential historical and contemporary figures have therefore been purported to be part of a cabal that operates through many front organizations to orchestrate significant political and financial events, ranging from causing systemic crises to pushing through controversial policies, at both national and international levels, as steps in an ongoing plot to achieve world domination”. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Forecasts for the New World Order of 2030:

6. “Forecasts for the New World Order of 2030: At a global economic gathering in Dubai, the consensus was that by 2030, China will at least rival American power. Will the U.S. even be a player? By: Daniel Moss 15 November 2017, 03:30 GMT+5:30

7. At a global economic conference in Dubai last weekend, the U.S. was everywhere and nowhere.=

8. In conversations at the World Economic Forum's Global Future Councils, people wrestled with challenges to the global trading system, developing infrastructure for the 21st century, and restoring trust in experts and leadership. Donald Trump was never far off -- his election being a kind of shorthand for the urgent task of restoring faith in an open and integrated world economy.

9. Two parallel themes were prevalent. The first was that China will be at least as important as, if not more than, the U.S. in shaping what the world will look like in 2030. Xi Jinping's speech to the Communist Party congress last month seemed to encapsulate this, echoed by Trump's deferential visit to Asia. China now appears to be the big force for stability, predictability and defense of the global trading system.

10. The second theme was questioning whether the U.S. would even be a global player in the world of 2030. The whole premise of the global architecture built since 1945 is American leadership. Maybe this period of American introspection is a blip, and there's more to the U.S. than Trump's nationalism. There are civil societies, capital and global supply chains built by American corporations. None of these are disappearing. And for all China's gains, the U.S. economy is still the world's largest. It's kind of mind-blowing that we have come to the point where serious people in serious forums ask whether the U.S. can mount a forceful and credible defense of free markets. Yet here we are.

11. There was a pervasive sense that peak U.S. leadership has passed. That passing means a lot of assumptions need to be tested. Let's start with trade, defense of which was a topic of considerable attention. There was widespread agreement that the current system needs to be both shored up and enhanced while addressing those left behind by dislocation.

12. Of course, the more time spent trying to shore up the existing system, the less time, intellectual energy and political capital is spent on developing a system that can address the needs of the future. Here again, U.S. is critical. But can America be bothered?

13. Questions like this inevitably led to an excursion into the politics of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, the three manufacturing-rich states that narrowly swung for Trump a year ago, delivering him the election. Trump voters in those three states might be amused that their predilections figured so prominently among elite discussions in the United Arab Emirates. (Internal Chinese politics didn't get a hearing.)

14. One attendee mused that we may be in some interregnum period now, somewhere between the old U.S.-led order and a new arrangement. Trump didn't cause this interregnum, but he probably accelerated its arrival. What the new arrangement looks like is critical to how the world will look in 2030. And this is just in trade.

15. The councils press on with their task of envisaging the world of 2030. With or without the U.S.”: Courtesy by Bloomberg LP and its owners.

16. “What are the pros and cons of starting a new global organization like United Nations?=

Two Answers By Iqbal Bagus Alfiansyah:

17. Iqbal Bagus Alfiansyah, International Relations student, frequently reads about int'l politics, war, etc: Answered Dec 8, 2017 · Author has 124 answers and 193k answer views:

A. Some pros: If you're a sponsor of the new organization, you will be perceived as a guardian and peace by the entire world (well, not all but mostly).

(i) Still related to the first point, you might have a major role in determining strategic and important resolutions about world problems. You literally have a major say.

(ii) You will have a very wide spectrum of friends and foes. From those who really love you because you supported that particular country in committee sessions, to those who perceive you as if satan had a country.

(iii) Your country leader can be prominently featured in medias all around the world and have your national interests listened by the entire globe.

B. And cons too: If you're hosting the organization, that will most probably put a heavy burden on the state budget as you have additional responsibility to maintain related facilities and its security, especially if world leaders from around the world visited the HQ of the organization.

(i) Actually, you can't really tell countries what to do or say especially if they are not your allies, as organization like the UN is non-binding, i.e. their decisions cannot immediately affect national laws of member countries.

(ii) You will always have enemies who think that you're way too dominating international politics.” Quora .com


(i) As said in ‘New World Order’, every sponsor country will be perceived as a guardian and peace by the entire world (well, not all but mostly) and the fear that every sponsor country always have enemies on ground that you're way too dominating international politics and also the fear from the countries who shall not be allies to New World Order…

(ii) To allay the fears as said above, the ‘New World Order or the world government’ must be having some common budget and agenda to spend and act as a flawless moral New World Order or the world government better than UN against its- the New World Order or the world government specific agenda including of allies and or even non-allies subject to morality, perfection, human rights in the larger interest of peace and justice exactly within the ‘Rule Of Law’ to save and for the sake of humanity adequately, meaningfully and effectively.

(iii) For the purpose and development of mind, the teachings of the sacred Granth of humanity, ‘Sri Guru Granth Sahib’ could be made part of the specific agenda or test stone as guidelines provided acceptable to the ‘New World Order or the world government’ officially or unofficially to save and for the sake of humanity.

(iv) Balbir Singh Sooch of Sikh Vichar Manch as a human, devoid of pride, simple, humble, meek; disrespected, lowly; poor offer his links to click and read of his always open and independent services of thoughts, always influenced by then prevailing circumstances= and or also borrowed and copied from the learned intellectuals with their references as under based on his experience of life subjected to further requirement of analysis and are also required to be adjudged-to make judgment in the context of ‘New World Order or the world government’, which is must in the world, may prove useful for the specific agenda. THANKS

Posted on Apr 14, 18 | 1:23 pm