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. References to local pdfs were added to ensure continued availability of the information. The final printed pages of the Congressional Record containing Biden’s speeches are included at the end of this page.
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 June 29, 1992
American Agenda for the New World Order: A. Cementing the Democratic Foundation; B. Forging a New Strategy of Containment June 30, 1992
American Agenda for the New World Order: C. Organizing for Collective Security; D. Launching an Economic-Environmental Revolution July 1, 1992
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 world order.”
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” means “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.
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.
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: http://www.udel.edu/PR/UpDate/93/9/19.html (captured pdf)
 Please refer to the “Remarks by John McCain to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council,” March 26, 2008. Download pdf: <www.usatoday.com/news/mmemmottpdf/mccain-speech-mar26.pdf >. 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
** Final printed pages of the Congressional Record at the bottom
Color Revolution? Absolutely. Biden at 6 minutes.
Excerpts from Senator Biden’s speeches
June 29, 30, and July 1, 1992
Senate – June 29, 1992
Congressional Record [S9098 – S9102]
The Threshold of the New World Order: The Wilsonian Vision
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 monuments.
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 perspective.
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 cooperation.
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 order.
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 democracies.
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 ownership.
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 had begun.
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 twofold:
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 States.
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 controls.
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 demands.
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 revolution.
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 forces.
Senate – July 1, 1992
Congressional Record [Pages S9473 – end]
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 economic-environmental revolution. In advancing, on a new world order agenda, toward an expanded commitment to the collective use of armed force, where necessary.
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 committed.
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 security concerns.
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 non-nuclear.
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 Cambodia.
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 Charter.
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 Investment Corporation.
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.
September 19, 2008
Global Standards, Incentives, Procedures
Bring the world’s major nations into a concert of cooperating democracies
Engine of transformation must be private initiative
Educational and Professional Exchanges
Network of American Business Centers
Worldwide economic-environmental revolution
Adopt peacekeeping outside NATO territory
Equip the U.N. Security Council to exercise the police and enforcement powers set forth in the U.N. Charter
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
Requires a revolution in human thought — and deed
Need Worldwide consensus
Revolutionary new direction
Commitment to world leadership