A new world order

Vusi, what the hell do you know about the NWO. When you actually realize what that is and how it is going to effect you, you are going to shit yourself. Now, go back to your Gov job and quietly just milk the system, but don't sprout bullshit.

Good one Vusi, and precisely why pertinent efforts such as the African Renaissance and Nepad should not be thrown into the waste bin. We can’t afford to have them peter out, not in this hour. The more we as Africans delay the process towards African unity, renewal and coherence, the longer it will take the world to solve most of its pervasive theoretical and structural problems. One fundamental hindrance towards the reawakening and unity of Africa is of course the spiritual and material cleavage that exists between rulers and their subjects. This cleavage can in the first instance be attributed to the centuries old and foreign nature of institutions of governance that continue to inform the modus vivendi in the African continent. When Thomas Hobbes advocated for the idea of a Common-wealth he obviously was oblivious of the existence of something similar and already in operation in the “dark continent”. Other reasons for the existence of this divide include inter alia: loss of a sense of responsibility, a deep sense of entitlement and top-bottom chicanery.

@Apocalyse there is a saying that goes "empty tins make the loudest of noise" and if one wastes their time arguing or trying to prove a point with is simply worthless because such individuals suffer from an illness called "intellectual bankruptcy". Well thought of article Dr. Vusi and lets hope that concrete steps will come out of Copenhagen climate summit as a first towards correcting the wrongs humans have made to mother Earth.

Apocalypse, I am very disturbed with your input and comment, your writing was ad homine(attack to man)i think it's wise that we engage on the subject matter and find a solution to the problem bequeathing mankind. I think our leaders due to their selfish interest have failed the upcoming generation-our leaders failed to invest in important and vital sectors of human life.
I believe that if a strong consensus is reached in Copenhagen and the leaders commit themselves, then we will be forming a new order which the latter generation would be proud of and live their lives to the fullest.

Kizito and Thabileng: Thanks for respectfully addressing “Apocalyse Now” – I am often tempted to rain on these kinds of characters. One of them used to be some “Mgeve”. I wonder if they should be taken serious at all. I appreciate your efforts in engaging this lost soul – I doubt s/he read the article at all; s/he cannot even spell “apocalypse”: I doubt s/he can understand what the article is about, even if s/he tries to read it. I would also love to engage him or her, at least to give a “lecture” on the subject I am working on (of which the article highlights a few main arguments) or perhaps to understand where s/he is coming from.

This article is a glimpse on a bigger project I am working on. I am hoping for rigorous comments that can shape the final product. That is why I am very interested on what characters like “Apocalyse Now” have in mind about the NWO which will cause me to do the things s/he estimates.

The New World Order is hardly the answer to "the democratic deficit". 27 European heads of state have chosen a little-known Belgian Euro-fanaticist as the "President" of the EU without any form of election. These same 27 states did not afford their citizens referenda on the EU Constitution (actually Lisbon Treaty) because they knew that these would fail.

Oh, Ireland did vote. No. And then Ireland was made to vote again because they got the "wrong" answer.

Copenhagen aims to tax all international transactions without any representation (remember that democratic principle, "no taxation without representation"), and then have an unlected "global governance" to oversee things.

Apocalypse Now, I fully agree with you. The Doctor would be shocked!

Songezo Mpongoshe!

The new world order that you are talking about is just using the sale of what the old world order built up, to line the pockets of a few, and when the old worlds assets have been wasted, and new assets are required, there will be nothing.
Take education in this country. The assets that used to be there to educate the people have largely been destroyed. Education is worse today than it has even been in the past. It is now recognised that the assets that we had, land and buildings, teachers, and moral standards, are no longer there. They have been destroyed and now there is nothing to left to be used to uplift the people. The new world order, forget it. Merely a short cut to poverty except for the new world order leaders.

Strangely enough we are stupid enough to believe that all over the world we elected leaders of our various countries to govern and they not only "misgoverned" but they have caused utter chaos and pandemonium with their lust and greed for power!and now we believe that those very same idiots are going to be able to run the entire world when they actually failed so miserably at running their own countries! Give me a break - time to catch a wake up and recognize these "elitists" for what they are and also the "fact" that we are their slaves!

Welcome to slavery - Can someone tell me who the hell is going to run Africa as a "United States of Africa"? Just imagine having that lunatic Gadaffi as a President! Thank God that I am old now and not that "new born infant" coming into this planet which we have ALL allowed to be pillaged, abused and almost totally detroyed without caring about her or all the other infants to follow! We have stolen their future and do not be so smug about it - nor place blind faith in those who were given the mandate by you and me to do as they wished to destroy their future! Feel sorry please for a moment for the future generations as we have already created the base in order for them to become enslaved and abused and there is no way we can even begin to ask forgiveness for our transgressions!

We always have been and will remain a scourge on this planet until it detroys us and we are no more!

Amen to that! Enjoy your Thanksgiving and spare a thought for all of us including our Evil Governors!

When was slavery abolished? Sorry - did,nt hear you!

Dear Vusi, I have decided, against my better judgement to comply with your request to a more adequate response to your “article”. I have listed my comments interspersed within your article. All bracketed and in italics. THE END.

Eric Hobsbawm’s exposition is constrained by the main question he asked in the Mail & Guardian recently (“Beyond the free market”, November 6). He argues that “only one thing is already clear [as a result of the global economic recession] -- a major shift away from the old North Atlantic economies to [the] South and, above all, East Asia”.

This might be correct, but perhaps the most important fact, propelled by the recession, is that a new world order is in the making. Put ¬differently, there is an emergence of new coalescing forces -- a distinct characteristic of the current times. (What you should have said is, “ FURTHER propelled by the expertly contrived recession a NWO is now in the implementation stage. This NWO, hatched originally by an untouchable global cabal, is being openly forced on the unsuspecting goyim of the so called “free” world.”)

This is far more profound than the “major shift” that Hobsbawm focuses on. For the first time, the unipolar world is a thing of the past -- very different players are grouping, globally, to bring about the new world order. (The profound shift you speak about is profound indeed. It has little or nothing to do with the shift of capital from west to east but everything to do with the wholesale “looting” or “shift” of tax funds. The “very different” players you refer to are in fact and always have been the same players.)

The countries constituting the G20 are an example of this. Another example is the ¬reference to a “global government” in the negotiating documents for the forthcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen. (The countries of the G20 and other constituted economic alliances are but the devices being used as a means to an end. An end that has been well documented, extremely well managed and highly contrived in its last dash for the finish line.)

An instructive case, besides renewed calls for reforming the United Nations Security Council, is a proposal for a “global economic coordination council”.

How did we forget?

The fundamental question, to which Hobsbawm alludes, but does not explicitly ask, is: how did the self-evident goals of safeguarding and fostering the human condition elude global human society, even in long periods of unprecedented ¬economic growth? (This paragraph is subjective in the extreme. The fundamental question you refer to depends entirely on the end goal, who ask’s the question, or better yet who is able to shape the answer and for what purposes. I think you will find, when you delve slightly deeper into this “ global unifying movement” and not just a cursory comment on somebody else’s perceptions, that the safeguarding and fostering of the human condition has certainly not been eluded, regardless of the economic conditions.)

There are three possible explanations. The world has so far been characterised by what British politician William Dunn called the “democratic deficit”.

In other words the masses are unable to influence the decisions or public policies that affect their lives. The state, which is effectively synonymous with “capital”, serves its own interests and the market has established itself as an end in itself instead of a means to desirable ends, such as freedom from poverty and from under¬development. (British politician, Dunn, was far closer to the truth, I suspect because he was far closer to the reality, that indeed the masses have been unable to influence, aside from some short lived, rare instances, the direction the decision makers of global capital, in all its forms, takes. This is not be accident but by design. Mr Dunn’s comment is empirical proof of this.)


This has unleashed consequences of catastrophic proportions for the world -- the impoverishment of the South, and some parts of the West, and the enrichment of the West.

It is here that Hobsbawm is spot on in his argument that the important issue about an economic -system is its “social and moral ¬priorities”. The social processes that have led to a democratic deficit are both socially reprehensible and morally bankrupt. (These consequences of catastrophic proportions are such only to them that are in the reality of the catastrophe. However it is a fundamental necessity of the extremely well managed “machiavellian maneuverings” of the controllers that both Hobsbawn and Dunn were ultimately referring or eluding to, hence their comments. I am intrigued by their insight and or acknowledgement (however misplaced and futile) of this being both socially reprehensible and morally bankrupt. If one considers, based on both of their perceptions and comments, as you stated in your article, then the democratic deficit, as it is termed, was not, has not, and will never be in any way or form linked to the well being of the masses.)

Leadership challenges

The other possible explanations are leadership challenges and ethics dilemmas. (And this is where you diverge from the topic, the imminent inflicting, by the nefarious, of a much vaunted NWO, on the unsuspecting masses.)

Leaders are not ensuring equitable distribution in critical fields such as education and healthcare. Governments and their public ¬servants do not do what they commit to do; the markets betray human development; and the global governance system serves the interests of the dominant forces, who happen to be well off, at the expense of the already vulnerable. (Your point about the global governance system is well taken and insightful, but, why is this a leadership problem? Who’s or what leadership? If you are referring to your identified G20, then why? Because you have already acknowledged that the masses are not part of this decision making process, is not education and health a mere by product? Your comment about the equitable distribution of education and healthcare in inconsequential and or even, I dare say, completely irrelevant.)
In about 1 000 days’ time a seven-billionth person will be born -- she, as the child is most likely to be a female -- will arrive in a world in which the human condition will probably be the same as today, or even worse. Hopefully, the new forces that are emerging will expedite the expansion of human capabilities. As an example, the G20 should focus its efforts on the goals that have eluded us for so long. (There are no “New forces” emerging, as I stated above these “forces” you unwittingly refer to are certainly not new and trust me, the G20 are absolutely focusing on exactly these goals that have been worked on for so long. No efforts have been spared and I can assure you, nothing has been eluded. There might have been temporary setbacks but every aspect of minute detail has been attended to. I suspect however, in fact I am most certain, that you and I are referring to two totally different realities.)

Similarly, the Copenhagen ¬climate change conference should prioritise commitments towards saving our planet, at least so we can tell the seven-billionth infant that we are on the right track. It would be tragic if the emerging coalescing forces failed to create the new world order, which society is longing for. We are missing another rare opportunity -- one presented by the recession. (Your naivety is touching but dangerous. If you think that any opportunity, even the most insignificant item in your perception, has been missed, then you are sorely mistaken and in fact you then and are assuredly, completely and utterly a product of exactly what the “human condition” should be.)


The philosopher John Rawls gives insightful pointers to what we should be doing, at least in terms of the moral compass that should guide the world we inhabit. In short, just as Immanuel Kant or Luke the Evangelist pleaded, we need to do to others as we would have them do to us. (Good intellectual intention, but largely misplaced, based on the premise of this article. The only inclusion that will allow me to clearly understand this paragraph is your mention of the moral compass, however, you are again missing the direction of the forces you naively mentioned, and there is no considered moral inclusion in this infliction.)

One way of thinking about what Rawls calls the “veil of ignorance” could be to think of what John Locke termed a “social contract” -- or what Hannah Arendt better formulated as a perspective of the interdependence of human beings. Besides a contract we each make with our nation-states, there is a contract between one another. (This is an unfortunate but I believe unintentional diversion. There is no veil of ignorance at all on the part of the well defined and complete forces. There is absolutely an interdependence, but unfortunately not the way you or in fact Hannah and ultimately the goyim perceives this interdependence to be. This interdependence and in fact contract which Hannah intuitively mentions is in fact the complete and utter control of society as you know it. The Copenhagen “climate” control is an ingenious finale to this contract.)

Human rights approach

The question is whether this could be done at a global level. Linked to this is the idea of the human rights approach to development. Simply put, having a meal is just as important as civil and political rights. (Absolute nonsense, you have already clearly stated, again, I suspect unwittingly, otherwise this paragraph makes absolutely no sense, that, in fact this is a global governance issue, which is exactly correct.)

The emergence of the new global governance also requires new accountability. This could help those who would introduce the girl-child to a new world in the making. She could be assured that, as the seven-billionth person, her children and their children might live in a better world than she.

The direction and content of the new world is up for grabs. It is our duty to ensure that it results in a better world. (The accountability you mention is an absolute misnomer, I am amazed you even suggest this. The control and or “force” you so eloquently mention, but have no idea what you are espousing, is accountable to itself and itself only. Or do you honestly believe, contrary to what you stated above, that in fact you do have a roll or a say? There is nothing “up for grabs”. All has or certainly post Copenhagen, been accounted for. A better world it will certainly be, but not the one you are thinking of.)

Your article argues in the main that the new world order is in the making because, thanks to a recession, world leaders are coalescing their forces to bring about this new world order. You use the G20, the forthcoming Climate Change Conference and the proposal for a global economic coordination council as some of the main illustrations of these coalescing forces working towards making this new world order a reality - in your conclusion, a reality for the 7th billion child to be born in 1000 days.

While I appaud and respect your optimism, and to a certain extent share some of your optimism for no other reason other than I am an optimist myself, I however find it difficult to share it fully. I am not sure that the examples, perhaps except for the G20, are new. I am not sure of the tangible or visible impact of some of the G8 - G20 meetings at the national levels.

Worse, there is no shortage of global conferences on a number of critical challenges facing the world today. The most recent one was the World Food Summit, June 2008, in Rome. The world leaders came together to address the impact of the food prices hikes on the world pupulation, particularly the poor. What came out was a general declaration of intent to put in place mitigating mechanisms. Some of the recommendations were very weak. While they may have been a drop in the prices of certain food items, on the other hand, the question is to what extent have the prices dropped, really. Has this claimed drop been felt by the poor? Studies are yet to tell in this regard. All we do know is that there was a sharp increase in the number of people who went hungry soon after the food price hikes. That number has not decreased as yet. Of course, it is now worsened by the recession.

The point I am driving here is that these global conferences and structural and institutional reforms must bring about tangible change to communities if they are to be believed to bring the new world order. The world has seen world leaders come together on more occassions than they have seen the changes they meet to bring about.

I am perhaps unfair because the challenges are huge and endemic, that no sufficient amount of conferences and structural reforms would be able to address. President Obama was being honest in his opening address when he said some of the challenges we face will not be resolved in a term (his term) or a life time. I have seen too much of the same: conferences, declarations, plans of action and more conferences, declarations and plans of action and structural reforms. Lets just hope that you are right, that this time, things will be different. Well, the taste of the pudding is in the eating.

On the human rights approach to development, you are quite right. One cannot separate governance from human rights or vice versa. However, to simplify your point, having a meal has always been as important as having securty, freedom, voting rights. The world decided to ignore calls for the equal treatment of both sets of rights, civil and political rights (the so called first generation rights) and social and economic rights (traditionally referred to as second generation rights). The biggest mistake was done soon after the first World War when the so called International Bill of Rights was adopted but was split into two Covenants, one containing civil and political rights and the other social, econnomic and cultural rights. The consequence has been that the one on civil and political rights has been ratified by almost all the countries in the world (indicative of the fact that they think these rights are more important). The same cannot be said about the latter. (Embarrassingly and ironically, SA is one of the countries, along with the US, that hasn't ratified the Covenant on Cultural, Social and Cultural Rights yet it has the most comprehensive bill of rights including a catalogue of socio-economic rights as enforceable rights in the courts of law).

The human rights community has always tried to create an understanding that having a meal is just as important as voting, but many countries have been non-committal to socio-economic rights simply because they believe these rights require a higher and more onerous standard of accountability and resources than civil and political rights - a very naive view point. I could go on about this, but not now.

In sum, I am really not sure if the new world is now in the making. What were the previous leaders doing all along, maintaining the old world order? What other examples can we use to substantiate your optimism? What tangible impact have seen or do you think we will see from the coalescing forces and why do you believe such impact will be made or seen before the 1000 days, before that 7th billion child is born, so that she can say: we are on the right track.

Sibonile – like Peter, Ross, Africa, Mike, to name a few– you are raising critical points. I had tried to deal with them in my response to Apocalypse Now’s detailed critique of the article. It seems that the Mail and Guardian online moderators do not allow the author of the article to respond in the matter I did. Lets engage further on these points in the Blog (as the Blog appears flexible). I will be posting a detailed piece, either in December 2009 or January 2010, on the issues that this article is about and also attempt to answer your questions and those of others.

Just to clarify, quickly, the main argument – which you capture well Sibonile – is that unlike the previous global forces/players what seems to be taking place is that different players/forces are joining hands. I problematize this; whether it is addressing the correct problem (which to me is poverty) – hence I think this development is “up for grabs” which implies that those of us who have influence could possibly shape the direction it takes – think of the Club de Madrid as an example. I observe “sea change” – we all seem to want better global governance/accountability arrangements at minimum and/or radical transformation of the social processes (which are “capitalist” in nature, hence greed, dishonesty, etc) – check out Joseph Stiglitz’s current arguments/writes-up, as an example. All of this is of course debatable. The second part of the argument, which is not debatable in my view, is that the “human condition” has not improved especially in the past 10 years or so, at least for Africa. By the “human condition” I refer to what Amartya Sen termed the expansion of human capabilities. It is a fact that economic growth, globally, has grown significantly in the past 10 years or so. It is also a fact that poverty has not declined, at least in the south of the Sahara. It is also estimated that poverty would likely increase in the next couple of years. I therefore argue, based on hard data and statistical/econometric estimations, that the goals of safeguarding and fostering the human condition have eluded us. I however see a chance for addressing this goal as I see “sea change” – it would take a lot of space and time to elaborate this point. Fareed Zakaria alludes to this in his Post-American World (published last year). As for my optimism, I must concede that it is debatable. I think some of the examples I give above and the approach of President Obama on global affairs give some sense of hope.