Forging World Order Paradigms: 'Good Civilization' vs. 'Global Terror'

Where these civilizations brushed up against each other, cultural fault lines could be identified, and it was along these fault lines that future wars were most likely to be located. A 'Clash of Civilizations' paradigm emerged to challenge that of the `End of History'.

Neither of these paradigms was assumed to have the sufficient explanatory power to account for the full range of dynamics that drove and characterized the international system. By the mid- to late 1990s, globalization was increasingly promoted as a process that offered to account for integratory pressures and fragmentation processes ('fragmegration') unleashed by ever-closer global interconnectedness.

However, critiques of international capitalism increasingly argued that it was a force for oppression, exploitation and injustice in general, undermining traditional cultures and communities in particular. The markets, multinationals, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organization diminished the role and function of the state, state sovereignty and, indeed, democracy. Violent anti-globalist movements appeared as the radical cutting edge of a transnational undercurrent of unease at the perceived destructiveness of globalization.

The events of 11 September were the catalyst for the project of creating an international coalition to promote justice and to wage war over years or decades against the networks, groupings and states that sponsored 'global terror'. In an effort to legitimize this enterprise, political elites in the USA and the UK have fused together the paradigms of Fukuyama and Huntington within the context of globalization discourse.

Bush Years: "Us vs Them" and the Axis of Evil

President Bush explicitly addressed the issue of 11 September in terms of mounting a defence of the values of 'freedom-loving peoples' in democratic states. The world was to be divided between Civilization, underpinned by global justice and a new moral order, and its antithesis: violence, terror and 'evil'. Implicitly, those who were not 'for' Western liberalism, embracing market democracy and the universal modernization benefits it promised for peace and stability, were 'against us'.

Under the Obama years, the aggressive policy advocated by the Atlantic Council was implemented within NATO. See especially Ivo Daalder and Gen. Breedlove ... a hard-nosed military hawk.

China: Crash Course Into Unknown

Making Russia a "pariah" state ...

The Ukraine is an ideal nation to illustrate the "Imperial Danger" of the Russian Bear | May 1, 2014 |

Of course I mocked top EU diplomat Josep Borrell for his fascist statement in his speech. However, his remarks are an extension of aggressive policy underlying America, UK and NATO to rule the world by denying other nations their cultural and sovereign rights.

Spaniard Borrell's Fascist Gaffe Us vs Them

'Sapere aude'