Ryan Dawson (2011) helps illustrate the way ideology shapes foreign policy by digging into Project for a New American Century files and showing how the PNAC reports are basically a lobbying tool for Israel. Dawson refers viewers of his documentary to PNAC many times in his attempt to show how the papers lay out the blueprint for American foreign policy post-9/11: "The policy of 'containment' of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections." Such reports coupled with the yellow cake uranium story and the WMDs hoax, and of course the "harboring terrorists" myth, and the American public was read to back a war against Iraq -- even though Iraq was no threat to the U.S.
So who did deem Iraq a threat? -- enough of one to topple the regime? That question may be answered by asking another question: which nation benefits most from a war with Iran? It is not Palestine -- that much is for sure.
Thus we can see that countries' foreign policy may be shaped by corporations, geo-politics, natural resources, and ideologies. Which ones are most important? That depends upon whom you ask. When policy is based on corporate greed, rapine, and control, I would have to answer that none of these factors are crucial to devising sound foreign policy. The libertarian Ron Paul seems to make the most sense when it comes to devising sound foreign policy -- and that policy would tend more towards isolationism (with however a free and open trade agreement). But a foreign policy based on the factors listed above leads only to militarism -- and that is a major drawback, for militarism leads to war -- and war is rarely good for any country.
3) Some believe that we are eventually heading toward a new world order with one world government. Others think that this would be a terrible thing. What do you think about the prospects of a unified world government? How do international organizations such as the United Nations and other smaller alliances (NATO, EU, etc.) play into this?
The prospects of a unified world government do not appear particularly enticing when one considers the kind of government we have today. As technology has enabled the world to become a very small place in recent years, governments have seen themselves bought and sold by money men -- and the American government is no exception. The new world order is neither "for the people," nor "by the people." It is, rather, based a system of central banks like the Federal Reserve all over the world. Central banks, like the Fed, that have the power to manipulate a nation's currency essentially have the power to destroy that nation. And as those banks unite around the world their power increases.
Governments do not run the world -- Paddy Chayefsky stated it correctly in 1976 when he wrote that "the world is a business." In other words, businesses run the world and businesses are not elected -- they are self-made. That is one reason why the prospects for a unified government look dim: the new world order is not a unified government -- it is a unified business, and the business is made of the central bankers around the world. Why else would the EU have formed and given Europe the Euro?
One need only review the works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn -- most particularly The Gulag Archipelago -- his massive expose on the abuses of Stalinist Russia in the 20th century. Millions of innocents were detained and sent into prison camps (not because they posed a threat to lives and safety, but because they opposed the political and social ideas of the regime -- and in some cases, they did not even do this, but were simply "outed" by others who had been arrested and been compelled to confess the names of other "traitors" to the State). The historical perspective offers a very sobering testimony of the abuses of power of a Totalitarian State.
Ironically, the title of Ryan Dawson's book is Welcome to the USSA. Dawson, an alternative media journalist and American expat living in Japan, has written and archived extensive reels of footage concerning 9/11 and the American foreign policy concerning Israel. According to Dawson, all signs have been pointing to war in the Middle East for years -- all on the behalf of the Israeli State. Dawson's argument is that just as it took the Maine to get the U.S. To back war against Spain, the Lusitania to get the U.S. into WWI, Pearl Harbor to get the U.S. into WWII, and the Gulf of Tonkin to get the U.S. into Vietnam, it took 9/11 to get the U.S. into Iraq -- not for oil, but for Israel. At least that is Dawson's assessment. And -- Dawson continues -- it is precisely such things as the Patriot Act that keep the public keyed up to such an extent that they continue to applaud American "intervention" in the Middle East.
How does all this affect the new world order? Let us look at Max Weber before answering that question: Following Industrialization, the German sociologist Max Weber wrote a seminal work in which the bureaucratization of society was viewed as a goal for the revolutionizing of public administration. Many of Weber's ideas have since come to be discounted, yet his ideas concerning bureaucracy still linger.
Weber's bureaucracy contained six points: 1) There must be a "fixed division of labor," otherwise known as specialization -- a concept in which "individuals [have] highly specialized jobs" (BusinessMate 2009; Macionis, p. 120); 2) It must contain a "hierarchy of offices, in which "each office [is] controlled and supervised by a higher ranking office"…"with few people at the top and many at the bottom" (BusinessMate 2009; Macionis, p. 120); 3) there must exist a "rational legal authority" that operates according to "rules and regulations…in a completely predictable fashion" (BusinessMate 2009; Macionis, p. 120); 4) it must be technically competent; 5) it must be impersonal; 6) all communication should be formal and written so that there is always a record of everything.
According to Weber's model, a bureaucracy "promotes efficiency by carefully hiring workers and limiting the unpredictable effects of personal taste and opinion" (Macionis, p. 120). Essentially what such means is that a bureaucracy attempts to take all of the unexpected elements out of organization, stream-line all angles, and drum up the most productive, accessible, and competent system under which work can thrive.
The new world order is essentially Weber's dream come true. It would be a system of bureaucracy so outlandishly large (just look at the way NATO, the EU, and the UN function -- nothing but corruption and inefficiency -- right arms of the central banking systems) that the people who thought they lived in a Republic (or at least in a democratically-elected State) might as well just accept the fact that Solzhenitsyn's words have not been heeded -- because the totalitarian State is back and it is global.
If one wants to pretend that the new world order would be anything but totalitarian -- and Fascist, he need look no further than Occupy Wall Street (a protest against the bank bailouts occurring all over the world). Which new world order can help put that to rights? What can the UN do to help out the people who have been robbed by Wall Street? Nothing -- just as it did nothing to stop America from entering into Iraq on the false pre-text that the country had weapons of mass destruction. In the new world order, only the "good guys" are allowed to have such weapons. Unfortunately, the new world order gets to tell us just who the "good guys" are -- and so far, they appear to be the ones with all the money.
1962-Year in Review. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1962/Cuban-Missile-Crisis/12295509437657-6/
BusinessMate. (2009). Max Weber's Theory of Bureaucracy. BusinessMate.org.
Retrieved from http://www.businessmate.org/Article.php?ArtikelId=30
Chayevsky, P. [writer]. (1976). Network. Los Angeles: MGM.
Dawson, R. (2011). War by Deception. Retrieved from http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15034
Fursenko, A. (1998). One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-
1964. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=ksYHt-Edc8QC&pg=PA38&dq=castro+a+threat+to+us+imperialism&hl=en&ei=QuiZTvHgGsqGsgK2_rmoBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=castro%20a%20threat%20to%20us%20imperialism&f=false
Khruschev Letter to President Kennedy. (1962). Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/x2jfk.html
Krakowski, E. (2000). The Afghan Vortex. Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Retrieved from http://www.iasps.org/strategic9/strat9.htm
Macionis, J. (2006). Society: The Basics. Prentice-Hall.
Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=nJFFrLX-924C&printsec=frontcover&dq=economic+hit+man&hl=en&ei=uweaTvOzE4js0gH90ZDSBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cuba&f=false