Note: The following is
the text of an email prepared and sent by Debra Niwa on
September 19, 2008. The note regarding the pdf as an
attachment was changed to eliminate the reference to
attachment. Also, references to local pdfs was added
to ensure continued availability of the information
In the summer of 1992 (June
29 - July 1), Delaware's Senator Joseph "Joe" Biden (D)
delivered speeches to the United States' Senate. He titled
them: "The Threshold of the New World Order: The Wilsonian
Vision and American Foreign Policy in the 1990's and
Beyond." and "American Agenda for the New World Order." (See
pdf of Congressional Record)
On the first day, Biden addressed the Senate President:
"Mr. President, I
will this week, on three separate occasions, seek
the indulgence of the Senate to speak for the
better part of an hour on each occasion. The
reason is that I believe we are on the threshold
of a new world order, and the present
administration is not sure what the order is. But
I would like to suggest how we might begin to
reorganize our foreign policy in order to realize
the full potential embodied in the phrase `new
I have pulled excerpts (below)
for those who may not want to read the entire pdf, though I
strongly encourage at least looking at the July 1, 1992
speech that begins on page 28.
Critical of then-President
George H.W. Bush's use of the phrase "New World Order" as
well as Bush's failure to establish "even preliminary
meaning to the grand concept," Biden proceeds through his
lengthy speeches to revive what he claims is a Wilsonian
vision of a new world order.
(NOTE: Some objectives in Biden's speeches are already close
to being met, if not already achieved. (eg., "complete work
on a regional trade pact--the North American Free-Trade
Agreement -- that would create our own common market with
Canada and Mexico." According to the ILO, "common market"
"commodities, capital and workers circulate freely.")
Central to Biden's proposals is an increase
in United States' commitment to and involvement with the
United Nations as well as an expansion of the U.N. Security
Council's military authority and jurisdiction.
Read Biden's speeches if you want to know the
foreign policy destined to exist in a White House
administration under Barack Obama and his V.P. Joe Biden. If
you understand the bigger picture and consider the loss of
U.S. autonomy and sovereignty in order to support
globalization/collectivist mentality, the Obama/Biden team
and McCain/Palin team share much in common.
September 19, 2008
P.S. on October 1992 at the
University of Delaware, Biden gave a speech titled "On
the Threshold of the New World Order: A Rebirth for the
United Nations." Read about it in "Sen. Biden returns to
campus during United Nations week" posted at:
 Please refer to the "Remarks by John McCain to the
Los Angeles World Affairs Council," March 26, 2008. Download
>. Also see "McCain's Incoherent New World Order" by Cliff
Kincaid < http://www.usasurvival.org/ck03.29.08.html >.
Local pdf - McCain Speech
Local pdf - Kincaid Editorial
Excerpts from Senator Biden's speeches
June 29, 30, and July 1, 1992
NOTE: Emphasis added.
Senate - June 29, 1992 --
Congressional Record [Pages: S9098 - S9102]:
The Threshold of the New World Order: The Wilsonian
and American Foreign Policy in the 1990's and Beyond
. . . I shall urge that we revive the concept of a new
world order, rescue the phrase from cynicism, and
invest in it a vision that should become the organizing
principle of American foreign policy in the 1990's and into
the next century.
To be more than merely utopian the American agenda for a
new world order must not only aspire to realistic goals
internationally; It must also be grounded in the only
feasible foundation for the foreign policy of our democracy,
a sound base of public support.
Central to this vision of renewal, I submit, is a clear
conception of a new world order, though not because
foreign policy is our preeminent concern -- domestic renewal
must be the highest American priority.
. . . the moment is upon us to define a compelling concept
of a new world order to commit ourselves to it, and to lead
the world in its realization.
As America emerged from the Second World War, the supreme
legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an economic and
military superpower with a will to lead.
Those in the Truman years who sought to resume Wilson's
work the work of building a true world order brought
historic statesmanship to the task -- the United Nations,
the World Bank, the International Monetary
fund, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,
the Marshall plan, the World Health Organization
and a host of other worthy U.N. agencies, the
Fulbright Exchange Program, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization the Organization of American States
and later the European community -- became their
Our challenge demands that we conceive a new world order
that encompasses, and builds upon, the concept of collective
security that Woodrow Wilson first advanced to a nation
and a world not yet ready to comprehend its necessity.
Tomorrow, I shall outline what I conceive to be a sound and
compelling American agenda for this new world order.
Senate - June 30, 1992
Congressional Record [Pages S9173 - S9179]:
American Agenda for the New World Order:
A. Cementing the Democratic Foundation;
B. Forging A New Strategy of Containment
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President,
yesterday, in the first of three addresses on the new world
order , I sought to cast that concept in historical
Today I shall begin to describe a four-part American
agenda that I believe can give meaning to this concept
in the decade that will carry us into the 21st century.
The construction of a cooperative world order , I argued
yesterday, is a quintessential American idea that traces to
the grand vision championed by President Woodrow Wilson,
whose revolutionary proposals were in turn rooted in the
precepts of our Founding Fathers.
It seems appropriate for me that the Presiding Officer is
the Senator from Pennsylvania, whom I have known for years
as a practitioner, as an academic, as a university
president, and now a U.S. Senator. He has labored long and
hard in the vineyard of international relations in an
attempt to lay out for this country what the world order
should look like and what role the United States should play
in it. So, I am particularly pleased that Senator Wofford
happens to be in the chair today to give some assessment to
what the Senator from Delaware has to say.
The call for cooperation is precisely that, a call for
intensified, global cooperation: in scientific
research and education; in the establishment
of agreed standards, incentives, and procedures
relating to the preservation of animals, plants, and vital
resources; in treaties to control dangerous arms and
dangerous pollution; in international peacekeeping
and the deterrence and defeat of military aggression; in the
development and transfer of sound technologies for
sustainable economic growth.
. . . in setting an American agenda for a new world order
, we must begin with a profound alteration in traditional
thought -- in the habit of thinking embodied in the
terms `political,' `military' and `economic.'
Politically, we must learn to gauge our national policies
in their effect on global cooperation, and to evaluate
our national leaders in their capacity to engender that
And, most fundamentally, we must now see economics not only
as the foundation of our national strength but also as
embracing the protection of our global environment, for
economics and the environment have become inseparable
The first part of our agenda, 'cementing the democratic
foundation,' consists primarily in overcoming the
geopolitical legacy of communism.
Whereas our goal over 40 years was to check and repel, our
aim now must be to include and integrate.
If successfully accomplished, the integration of these
states into the community of democratic nations would
establish solid bedrock on which to build the new world
The joining of the second world to the first would
complete the new order's foundation: Bringing the
world's major nations into a concert of cooperating
For their part, the countries of the former Soviet empire --
the eight nations of Central and Eastern Europe and the 12
former Soviet Republics -- have already escaped the
nondemocratic category defined by Freedom House.
But success in this transition is by no means assured.
Plagued by decades of economic mismanagement and lacking
strong democratic traditions, these countries remain
vulnerable to relapse into tyranny. Their future is pivotal
to our hope for a new world order and American security.
The central and agreed premise is that the great engine
of transformation must be private initiative, and
that our goal must be to foster the conditions and
institutions necessary for a free economy and a free
body politic to thrive.
In this task, there has been unanimity among western
governments to rely primarily on the multilateral
financial institutions. Led by the International
Monetary Fund, and including the World Bank and
the new European bank for reconstruction and development.
There is also consensus that the United States and others
should supplement multilateral aid with direct assistance,
primarily educational and professional exchanges,
which can be cost-effective in building democratic
institutions, and accelerating privatization
through such fundamentals as the establishment of legal
codes governing business practice, taxation, and property
The problem is one of implementation: Despite much talk of
action, little has been done. Belying his claims to acute
foreign policy skill, the President has been negligently
slow -- slow to see the revolution that Mikhail Gorbachev
The President was slow, once he did see it, to conceive
and implement programs of transitional support for Eastern
Europe and later the Soviet Republics.
Finally, this administration was slow to disengage from
its embrace of Mikhail Gorbachev once it became clear
that others, not Gorbachev, sought full democracy.
To these ends, I have for 2 years urged creation of a
network of American business centers, beginning in
central Europe and extending eastward, as a cost-effective
means to facilitate trade and investment in a
challenging new environment.
In the military realm, our agenda for a new world order is
To impose strict worldwide constraints on the transfer of
weapons of mass destruction and to regularize the
kind of collective military action the United Nations
achieved ad hoc against Saddam Hussein.
At the same time, Moscow's reincarnation as the capital of a
democratic Russia raises the prospect of systematic
big-power cooperation, under United Nations auspices, in
deterring and defeating threats to world peace.
In short, the kind of expanded commitment to collective
security envisaged by the United Nations' founders but
blocked heretofore by cold war polarization.
At the Yeltsin-Bush summit this month, the two Presidents
compromised by agreeing to a second START Treaty.
This new treaty -- START II -- would lower the two
arsenals to levels of some 3,000-3,500 by the year 2003.
We should act promptly to include Britain, France, and China
in negotiations directed toward codification, under U.N.
auspices, of a multilateral treaty stipulating limits
and obligations for all nuclear states.
As to the size and composition of the American and Russian
arsenals, neither side should now hesitate to embrace the
concept of minimum deterrence -- that is, maintaining only
the nuclear forces necessary to inflict a devastating
retaliatory strike on any nation that might use weapons
of mass destruction.
This isolation of nuclear warheads could be accomplished by
designating special sites on Russian and American territory,
sponsored by the United Nations and guarded by U.N.
forces including troops from both Russia and the United
Nor would it mean acting on trust. U.N. inspectors would
join Russian and American inspectors in monitoring the
pace of dismantlement, and U.N. troops would join Russian
and American troops in acting, in effect, to quarantine
the warheads so that they could never be removed, at least
not without a use of force by the host government
constituting a blatant act of treaty abrogation that would
signify a total breakdown in relations.
With the innovation of U.N.-sponsored neutral storage,
we would eliminate any argument, from Moscow or our own
Pentagon, that prompt, deep reductions are technically
impossible; we would hasten by years the transfer into safe
hands of vulnerable Soviet warheads; and we would more
quickly empower ourselves to insist that all other nuclear
states become parties to a multilateral regime of strict
But financial support is not enough. IAEA inspectors must be
confident that the U.N. Security Council will take
whatever action is necessary to enforce their inspection
Our goal must be to imbue in American foreign policy --
and to instill in the international community -- a pervasive
principle: that proliferation-supporting behavior by
companies or nations is anathema, and subject to rigorous
measures of detection and punishment.
Tomorrow, I shall describe another military dimension of
America's new world order agenda: The need to organize
more effectively to sustain an expanded commitment to
collective military action -- an idea first introduced
to the world by Woodrow Wilson and rejected first by this
Congress at the end of World War I, then put on hold by a
cold war that made its implementation impossible, but now as
a consequence of that cold war holds great promise for the
future of the world.
And then, the final and most expansive part of our
agenda: the launching of a worldwide economic-environmental
Mr. KERRY. Mr.
President, I begin by congratulating my friend and
colleague, the Senator from Delaware and colleague on the
Foreign Relations Committee, for his very thoughtful
analysis of a real new world order. The Senator has
been leading the effort really to analyze the START
agreement, and in his role as chairman of one of our
subcommittees has long been watching and interested in the
issue of an appropriate arms balance and a distribution of
Senate - July 1, 1992
Congressional Record [Pages S9473 - ]:
American Agenda for the New World Order:
C. Organizing for Collective Security
D. Launching an Economic-Environmental Revolution
It is, I believe, the duty of this generation of Americans
to complete the task that Woodrow Wilson began.
Today, I shall describe the third and fourth parts of
America's agenda for a new world order: organizing for
collective military security, and launching a worldwide
In advancing, on a new world order agenda, toward an
expanded commitment to the collective use of armed force,
The first avenue involves a new role for NATO; the
second, a more regularized exercise of the enforcement
power of the United Nations Security Council.
By inviting the former states of the Warsaw Pact into a new
North Atlantic cooperation council -- the so-called NAC-C [Nack-See].
NATO has wisely moved beyond the cold war to create an
all-European consultative body that can play a useful
educational and advisory role on matters of security.
But consultation is not enough.
NATO's integrated planning and command structure
constitutes an asset unique in the world .
Of all the world's multinational institutions -- a
veritable alphabet soup -- only NATO has the ability to
bring coordinated, multinational military force to bear.
Instead of tiptoeing toward a revised mandate, NATO should
make a great leap forward -- by adopting peacekeeping
outside NATO territory as a formal alliance mission.
Two steps are essential: First, alliance political leaders
must task NATO's military commanders to undertake the
requisite preparations in both planning and force
reconfiguration, second, alliance members must agree on
a new political framework under which forces would be
Ideally, this framework will provide that NATO assets
would be used if requested by either of two legitimate
political authorities -- the U.N. Security Council,
or the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE].
In Europe under CSCE auspices, or worldwide under
the auspices of the U.N. Security Council, NATO
forces should henceforth be available for peacekeeping or
intervention when either of those political authorities, in
which our own voice will be prominent, has reached a
collective determination to act.
The second avenue toward expanded readiness for collective
military action is to equip the U.N. Security Council to
exercise the police and enforcement powers set forth in the
U.N. Charter -- but rarely used.
Progress on this avenue involves changes in membership and
in the availability of forces.
A reordering of the Security Council -- the most
prestigious and potent of U.N. organs -- is necessary
because the present structure of permanent membership --
America, Britain, France, Russia, and China -- reflects the
outcome on the battlefield of World War II and is as
outdated as NATO's current security posture.
The U.N. Security Council must reflect the reality of
world power and the reality of world problems; it
must comprise those countries with the resources -- both
material and human -- to address the full range of global
Negotiation of membership changes will be arduous; but
the clear goal will be to reconcile two objectives:
Enhancing the Security Council's stature through a
broadened membership, while avoiding the chronic stalemate
that could result from increased participation.
The price of new membership on the U.N. Security Council
should be an unconditional pledge to remain or become
With this policy, we accomplish two objectives
simultaneously: modernizing the Security Council's
membership and further demonetizing nuclear weapons as the
currency of international power.
A more pressing need, on which we should act without
awaiting the negotiation of membership change, is to
further empower the [United Nations] Security Council
through the standing availability of military forces.
One remarkable development of recent years -- a true
precursor of the new world order -- is the U.N.'s active
and competent role in fostering the settlement of conflicts
in Namibia, Angola, Western Sahara, El Salvador, and
To realize the full potential of collective security, we
must divest ourselves of the vain glorious dream of a pax
Americana -- and look instead for a means to regularize
swift, multinational decision and response.
The mechanism to achieve
this lies -- unused -- in article 43 of the United
Nations Charter, which provides that:
All members undertake to make available to the Security
Council, on its call and in accordance with a special
agreement or agreements, armed forces ..... necessary for
the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Article 43 provides that the agreement or agreements
shall be negotiated as soon as possible. But for 47 years
that condition was not met: the cold war polarization that
beset the United Nations made it impossible for such force
commitments to be negotiated.
The agreements envisaged by the U.N. founders --
under which nations would designate specific units to be
available to the Security Council -- have never been made.
Article 43, at present, is a promise unfulfilled. The
time has come: the
United States, in conjunction with other key nations, should
now designate forces under article 43 of the United Nations
In sum, the assignment to the U.N. Security Council of
American and other military units would enhance one
valuable instrument of American foreign policy -- that is,
participation in collective military action --
To encourage negotiation of [United
Nations Charter] article 43 commitments by the United
States and other powers, I will this week introduce the
collective security participation resolution.
This joint resolution would affirm congressional support
for the consummation of an article 43 agreement; and it
would reaffirm the intent of Congress expressed in the
United Nations Participation Act of 1945, in three
important respects: first, an article 43 agreement shall be
subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate act
or joint resolution. Second, the President shall not be
deemed to require [further] authorization of the Congress to
make available to the Security Council on its call the
military units designated in the agreement. Third, this
authorization may not be construed as authorization to use
forces in addition to those forces designated.
By enacting the collective security participation
resolution, Congress would affirm its support for a sound
article 43 agreement as integral to a serious American
agenda for a new world order.
If we are to find any gain from the tragedy of Yugoslavia,
it must be in the momentum it provides in moving us more
swiftly down both paths of expanded commitment to collective
military action --
The formal adoption by NATO of a peacekeeping and
intervention role, and a more formal commitment by key U.N.
members to military action under the auspices of the United
Nations Security Council.
Our simultaneous task, in continuing to open markets, is to
complete work on a regional trade pact--the North
American Free-Trade Agreement--that would create our
own common market with Canada and Mexico.
. . . I will introduce the Environmental Aid and Trade
Act -- legislation designed to establish this priority
in the organizational structure, and actions, of every
Federal agency involved in U.S. trade and aid: the
Department of Commerce, the Agency for International
Development, the Trade and Development program,
the Export-Import Bank, and the Overseas Private
Our task in achieving a sustainable prosperity for mankind
requires a revolution in human thought -- and deed.
We need, first, a worldwide consensus on a
revolutionary new direction, a consensus of which
America must be a part; and the world must then act on
that consensus, with America in the lead. In this --
indeed, in all four parts of America's new world order
agenda . . .
Taken together, the five legislative measures I am
offering to support America's new world order agenda
can, I am confident, be an asset to an activist President.
It will stand, too, but its presence here, as an affirmation
that America has accepted Woodrow Wilson's recognition that
the task of upholding a civilization based on those
ideals--requires of us, in the 20th century and beyond, a
commitment to world leadership.
But to meet that challenge, we must bring an equal measure
of determination to constructing the kind of new world
order envisaged by our 28th President
[Woodrow Wilson] as the century began.