Brown calls for shake-up of world order

[Steve Gardner]

I know a lot of 'level-headed' people scoff at the idea that there is a conspiracy focussed on the creation of a so-called New World Order, but that is clearly where we're heading. The only real question is whether such a route is ultimately beneficial to society as a whole or only the elite.

Here, British PM, Gordon Brown, talks about "a new global society".

Source: Reuters

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on Monday for an overhaul of global institutions to counter financial crises, deal with new priorities such as climate change and recognise the rise of new powers like India.

In a wide-ranging speech, he said the international institutions formed after World War Two, such as the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), had to be radically reformed to fit the new, globalised world.

"I see a world that harnesses for the common good the growing inter-dependence of nations, cultures and peoples -- a new global society," he said in a speech to business groups in New Delhi.

Brown is on an official visit to India drumming up support for business with the growing economic powerhouse, which is also increasingly playing a more important diplomatic role in Asia.

He said he supported India's bid to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, where Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States have wielded exclusive veto power since 1945.

And he called for changes to the IMF, World Bank and the Group of Eight leading industrial countries to reflect the rising economic clout of India and Asia in general.

Brown proposed turning the IMF into an independent watchdog that would form the heart of a global early warning system against financial turbulence.

He suggested there should be rapid response teams of police and experts that could move quickly to restore order and begin rebuilding after conflicts.

NEW FUNDS

He called for a new U.N. crisis prevention and recovery fund and for a multi-billion-dollar global climate change fund within the World Bank to finance environmentally sustainable development in the poorest countries.

He said Britain would play a leading role in efforts to speed up nuclear disarmament "and to ultimately achieve a world freer from nuclear weapons".

London would also press for early agreement on a new international system to help non-nuclear states acquire new sources of energy, he said.

Brown believes the rapid spread of the credit crisis last year, after problems with U.S. sub-prime mortgages, points to failings in global financial supervision which must be fixed.

"I propose that the IMF should act with the same kind of independence as a central bank in a national country," he said.

"It should make its focus the surveillance of the global economic and financial system. Its role should be to prevent crises and not simply to manage or resolve them as in the past," said Brown, nearing the end of a four-day trip to China and India.

"The IMF, working with the global Financial Stability Forum, should be at the heart of ... an early warning system, involving regulators and supervisors in all countries, for financial turbulence affecting the global economy," he added.

The Financial Stability Forum groups central banks, regulators and international bodies.

He said the IMF should develop a financial instrument to insure "well-managed economies against sudden reversals of capital flows" but gave no details.

The credit crunch claimed a high-profile casualty in Britain when mortgage lender Northern Rock suffered the country's first bank run in more than a century last year.

Northern Rock has borrowed about 26 billion pounds from the Bank of England, creating a huge political headache for Brown.

Brown meets the leaders of France, Germany and Italy in London on January 29 to discuss a response to the crisis.

(Editing by Alistair Scrutton and Sanjeev Miglani)

[RedRepublic]

admin said:

The only real question is whether such a route is ultimately beneficial to society as a whole or only the elite.

This whole 'New World Order' idea will probably benefit everyone. This whole idea is great, because a world government can solve all problems that affect our whole society. I don't know where you got the idea that this would only be good for a select group of 'elite' people. Plus I have no idea who the 'elite' actually are...are you referring to the people who will be in the new world order?

[Steve Gardner]

This is a complex subject and I wouldn't want to do it an injustice by giving a poorly thought out reply. Instead, take a look at the post teddy made in 'Commentators of Note', entitled Freedom Force International. Read the material teddy refers to and then, if it whets your appetite - and if you have time for some heavy-duty reading committment - read the book I'm gradually importing into the forum. It's called Final Warning: A History of the News World Order.

Bear in mind, should you decide to read the essays at Freedom Force International (beginning with Part One: The Chasm), most people's world view is shaped by the way history is taught. But as Napoleon once said, "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." As the essays explain, the history we're taught has been 'agree[d] upon' by people with self-serving agendas.

Also, there's a great allegory I want to share with you. You may know of it, it's all about boiling a frog. It may or may not be true, but that really doesn't matter. It goes like this:

If you place a frog in a pan of boiling water, it'll jump straight out. If, however, you place a frog in a pan of cool water and very, very slowly heat the water, the frog will allow itself to be cooked.