Translated into NPC: “How I Learned to Build Back Better”

How I Learned to Love the New World Order

by Biden, Joseph R Jr.
Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 23, 1992. pg.
A13

How I Learned To Love The New World Order - Joe Biden, 1992

Imagine my surprise when a Wall Street Journal editorial appointed me dean of the Pat Buchanan school of neo-isolationism. My credentials? Believing that the Pentagon’s new strategy — America as “Globocop” — could render the United States a hollow superpower. All agree we need the military capacity to defend our vital interests — by ourselves when need be. The question is grand strategy. With the Journal’s endorsement, the Pentagon has called for a Pax Americana: The U.S. should cast so large a military shadow that no rival dare emerge.

American hegemony might be a pleasant idea, but is it economically, politically or even militarily wise? Bristling with weapons, we would continue our economic decline, while rising industrial and financial giants in Europe and Asia viewed our military pretensions with indifference or contempt.

Defense Secretary Dick Cheney outdid even the Journal, dipping deep into the well of Cold War argumentation to accuse Pax Americana critics of thinking “America’s world presence is somehow immoral and dangerous.” Why doesn’t the Journal stop the namecalling, get its schools sorted out, and court an honest debate over America’s proper role in the new world order?

Pat Buchanan’s “America First” preaches martyrdom: We’ve been suckered into fighting “other” people’s battles and defending “other” people’s interests. With our dismal economy, this siren song holds some appeal.

But most Americans, myself included, reject 1930s-style isolationism. They expect to see the strong hand of American leadership in world affairs, and they know that economic retreat would yield nothing other than a lower standard of living. They understand further that many security threats — the spread of high-tech weapons, environmental degradation, overpopulation, narcotics trafficking, migration — require global solutions.

What about America as globocop? First, our 21st-century strategy has to be a shade more clever than Mao’s axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power also emanates from a solid bank balance, the ability to dominate and penetrate markets, and the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout.

Second, the plan is passive where it needs to be aggressive. The Journal endorses a global security system in which we destroy rogue-state threats as they arise. Fine, but let’s prevent such problems early rather than curing them late. Having contained Soviet communism until it dissolved, we need a new strategy of “containment” — based, like NATO, on collective action, but directed against weapons proliferation.

The reality is that we can slow proliferation to a snail’s pace if we stop irresponsible technology transfers. Fortunately, nearly all suppliers are finally showing restraint. The maverick is China, which persists in hawking sensitive weapons and technology to the likes of Syria, Iran, Libya, Algeria and Pakistan — even while pledging otherwise.

The Senate has tried to force China’s leaders to choose between Third World arms sales (1991 profits of $500 million) and open trade with the U.S. (a $12.5 billion annual Chinese surplus). Even though we have convincing intelligence that China’s leaders fear the use of this leverage, the president inexplicably refuses to challenge Beijing.

Weapons containment can’t be foolproof; and against a nuclear-armed North Korea, I would support pre-emptive military action if necessary. But let’s do our best — using supplier restraint and sanctions against outlaw sellers and buyers-to avoid having to round up the posse.
Why not an anti-proliferation “czar” in the cabinet to give this objective the prominence it urgently needs?

Third, Pax Americana is a direct slap at two of our closest allies — Japan and Germany — and a repudiation of one of our panel1. Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? great postwar triumphs.

For years, American leaders argued that building democracy in Europe and Asia would guarantee stability because democracies don’t start wars. Now the Pentagon says we must keep our military large enough to persuade Japan and Germany “not to aspire to a greater role even to protect their legitimate interests.”

How has our success suddenly become a threat? It hasn’t, but the Pentagon plan could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By insulting Tokyo and Berlin, and arrogating to ourselves military stewardship of the world, we may spark the revival no one wants.

Secretary Cheney says he wants the allies to share the burden on defense matters. But Pax Americana puts us on the wrong end of a paradox: Hegemony means that even our allies can force ever greater U.S.
defense spending the more they try to share the burden!

Fourth, collective security doesn’t rule out unilateral action. The Journal says I’m among those who want “Americans . . . to trust their security to a global committee.” But no one advocates that we repeal the “inherent” right of self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Secretary Cheney says his plan wouldn’t undermine support for the U.N. Who would know better than the U.N.’s usually understated secretary general? If implemented, says Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Pentagon’s strategy would spell “the end of the U.N.”

Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? It envisages a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action — but with a U.S. veto.

Rather than defending military extravagance, the Bush administration should be reallocating Pentagon funds to meet more urgent security needs: sustaining democracy in the former Soviet empire; supporting U.N. peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Cambodia and El Salvador; and rebuilding a weakened and debt-burdened America.

If Pentagon strategists and their kneejerk supporters could broaden their horizons, they would see how our superpower status is best assured. We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security.

Sen. Biden is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s European Affairs Subcommittee.

Thanks the great investigators at https://greatgameindia.com/ for making the transcript and all their work!

Very apt commentary from the John Birch Society

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Seriously now, what did I just see?!?!

The video below, recorded in September 2020, has been published as a Ted Talk for South-East Asia, on 12th of January 2021. It features a prominent annex of the World Bank / IMF, another soulless muppet named Michael O’Sullivan, economist and “land thematic leader” at World Bank’s Gender Innovation Lab. This came only two weeks ahead of of the Digital Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum, where the official launch of The Great Reset is planned.

I got a few main takes:
* European Union is on its deathbed, at least in this shape and form. Looks like the West wants to close its borders, had enough multiculturalism.
* China, China, China! And some other people.
* Orange Man Bad
* No mention of The Great Reset.
* Heard “New World Order” about six times, I will really count
* End of globalization, but Papa Schwab has already taught us that about two years ago.
* They’re totally improvising and they’re as confused as we are, just as I predicted. These psychos are disconnected from humanity, emotionally underdeveloped, intellectually dense but primitive.
But there’s more to it, ambiguity included, listen carefully because this dude is dropping some serious inside intel, unlike more famous alphabet soups. He does it on command, of course, but he gives us priceless clues nevertheless! You have to understand he’s a sock puppet and the Rothschilds need the peasants to hear this. What actual facts triggered this reaction from the overlords? This is the first question you need to ask yourself when you watch official communications from your masters.
My best hunch is that they got tired of Europe, too many problems per square foot, so EU is on its own while they go in a honeymoon with China, as their other puppet parties in the White house now. But I don’t know that, as of now, just rings most plausible, given all I know so far.

UPDATE: Our analysis was correct

BOMBSHELL PAPER FROM GERMANY SHOWS EU HAS BEEN HARDLY HOLDING TOGETHER FOR QUITE A WHILE
FIVE COUNTRIES LIKELY TO LEAVE EU SOON-ISH!

Flashback resources:

2010
2011
2011
2015

“European Union leaders raised the possibility of making Bulgaria’s Kristalina Georgieva, the chief executive officer of the World Bank, the next president of the EU Commission, two people familiar with the discussions said.

The position is one of three top roles up for grabs in the coming months, alongside the presidencies of the European Central Bank and the European Council. With governments engaged in intense horsetrading to fill the positions, leaders discussed potential names at a summit in Sibiu, Romania last week, with Georgieva emerging as a strong contender for the commission role, the people said.” – Bloomberg, March 2019

November 2020

Running Order

Introduction and opening remarks
Gallina A. Vincelette, Director for EU Countries, World Bank

Europe 4.0 Presentation
Mary Hallward-Driemeier, Senior Economic Adviser, World Bank

Panel session:

  • Andreas Tegge, Head of Global Government Relations, SAP
  • Cecilia Bonefeld-Dahl, Director General, DIGITALEUROPE
  • Elisabeth Gruber, Director for the Department of International Institutions at the Austrian Ministry of Finance
  • Peteris Zilgalvis, Head of Unit for Digital Innovation and Blockchain, DG CNECT, European Commission
  • Vassil Terziev, Managing Partner at Eleven Ventures and Co-Founder of Telerik

Panel Moderator:
Mary Hallward-Driemeier, Senior Economic Adviser, World Bank

Closing remarks:
Gallina A. Vincelette, Director for EU Countries, World Bank

The World Bank offers its clients
in the EU two core products—
finance and knowledge.
Four countries currently benefit from our full
portfolio of instruments, including lending
and guarantees: Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland
and Romania. Projects for each country are
guided by a full strategy document called
a Country Partnership Framework. Work
with other EU Member States is primarily
realized through advisory services, such as
economic analysis or technical assistance,
financed by clients themselves (known as
Reimbursable Advisory Services, RAS) or
through trust funds (TFs) set up by the
European Commission.
Lending commitments in the
EU totaled more than US$10
billion since 2012. Over the same
period, RAS and TF activities in
the EU totaled well over US$100
million.

World Bank – Source (PDF)

I very rarely make guesses and speculations, but as a Romania-born, in the former communist block, with years of journalistic experience there, I see this most probable scenario: WB won’t abandon its strings on EU, but will shift focus and resources to Asia, Africa or Argentina. As it drifts away, WB will take with it the countries mentioned above and try form a separate conclave and social experimentation ground. But I can’t put too much money on it, we’re in a vortex of forces and possibilities that can shift either way any minute.

As I find out more, I’ll add it here soon.
To properly put this in context, please read at least these two reports we did last year:

FINAL EVIDENCE COVID-19 IS A ‘SIMEX’ – PLANNED SIMULATION EXERCISE BY WHO AND WORLD BANK

SOROS A ROTHSCHILD FRONTMAN, FORGED IMF-CHINA ALLIANCE. WE’RE LIVING THE CONSEQUENCES

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them