China is replacing the liberal globalist world order with “Civilization-States”

The days we are living in are historic, and they will go down in history books forever. What we see is a huge shift in the balance of power. A New World Order. The term «New World Order» refers to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power in international relations.

Despite varied interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of world governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address global problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.

It started about 100 years ago. The phrase «New World Order» or similar language was used in the period toward the end of the first World War in relation to Woodrow Wilson`s vision for international peace;

Wilson called for a League of Nations to prevent aggression and conflict.

Photo by Pixabay on

The League of Nations was the first worldwide intergovernmental organization whose principal mission was to maintain world peace. It was founded on 10. January 1920 by the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War.

The main organization ceased operations on 20 April 1946 but many of its components were relocated to the new United Nations.

The League`s primary goals were stated in its Covenant. They included preventing wars through collective security and disarmament and settling international disputes through negotiations and arbitration.

Its other concerns included labor conditions, just treatment of native inhabitants, human and drug trafficking, the arms trade, global health, prisoners of war, and protection of minorities in Europe. In 1919, U.S president Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role as the leading architect of the League.

But, the League of Nations failed, and neither Franklin Roosevelt nor Harry S. Truman used the phrase «New World Order» much when speaking publicly on international peace and cooperation. Indeed, in some instances when Roosevelt used the phrase «New World Order» it was to refer to Axis powers for world dominance.

Axis powers, better known as the Rome-Berlin Axis, was a military coalition that initiated World War II and fought against the Allies. The Axis grew out of successive diplomatic efforts by Germany, Italy, and Japan to secure their own specific expansionist interests in the mid-1930s.

The Allies, formally referred to as the United Nations from 1942, was an international military coalition formed during the Second World War (1939-1945) to oppose the Axis powers. Its principal members by the end of 1941 were the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union.

Truman’s speeches have phrases such as «better world order», «peaceful world order», «moral world order» and «world order based on law», but not so much «new world order».

The phrase «new world order» was explicitly used in connection with Woodrow Wilson`s global zeitgeist during the period just after World War I during the formation of the League of Nations. «The war to end all wars» had been a powerful catalyst in international politics, and many felt the world could simply no longer operate as it once had.

World War I had been justified not only in terms of U.S. national interest but in moral terms. To «make the world safe for democracy».

After the war, Wilson argued for a new world order which transcended traditional great power politics, instead emphasizing collective security, democracy, and self-determination. However, the United States Senate rejected membership in the League of Nations, which Wilson believed to be the key to a new world order.

Nazi activist and future German leader Adolf Hilter also used the term in 1928. World War II started in 1939, and a year later, H.G. Wells wrote a book entitled «The New World Order.» It addressed the ideal of a world without war in which law and order emanated from a world governing body, and examined various proposals and ideas.

I don`t the Nazis read the book, and World War II continued until 1945. It was goodbye to the United Kingdom, as the United States was the new leader with a new world order. But then the Cold War started. A war that ended in 1989, and believe it or not; that was the beginning of a new world order. Once again.

The principal statement creating the new world order concept came from Mikhail Gorbachev`s December 7, 1988 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. Gorbachev described a phenomenon that could be described as a global political awakening:

«We are witnessing the most profound social change. Whether in the East or the South, the West or the North, hundreds of millions of people, new nations and states, new public movements, and ideologies have moved to the forefront of history.

Broad-based and frequently turbulent popular movements have given expression in a multidimensional and contradictory way, to a longing for independence, democracy, and social justice.

The idea of democratizing the entire world order has become a powerful sociopolitical force. At the same time, the scientific and technological revolution has turned many economic, food, energy, environmental, information, and population problems, which only recently we treated as national or regional ones, into global problems.

Thanks to the advances in mass media, and means of transportation, the world seems to have become more visible and tangible. International communication has become easier than ever before.»

Later on, in June 1990, Gorbachev said: «For a new type of progress throughout the world to become a reality, everyone must change. Tolerance is the alpha and omega of a new world order.»

Former United Kingdom Prime Minister, and British Middle East envoy Tony Blair stated on November 13, 2000, in his Mansion House speech: «There is a new world order like it or not». In 2003, he stated that «the call was for a new world order. But a new order presumes a new consensus. It presumes a shared agenda and a global partnership to do it.»

Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated on December 17, 2001: «This is not the first time the world has faced this question. So fundamental and far-reaching. In the 1940s, after the greatest of wars, visionaries in America, and elsewhere looked ahead to a new world and, in their day and for their times, built a new world order.»

Brown also called for a «new world order» in a 2008 speech in New Delhi to reflect the rise of Asia and growing concerns over global warming and finance. Brown said the new world order should incorporate a better representation of «the biggest shift in the balance of economic power in the world in two centuries».

He went on to say: «To succeed now, the post-war rules of the game and the post-war international institutions, fit for the Cold War, and a world of just 50 states, must radically reform to fit our world of globalization.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for a «new world order» based on new ideas, saying the era of tyranny has come to a dead-end. He also said that it is time to propose new ideologies for running the world.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul said: «I don`t think you can control all the world from one center. There are big nations. There are huge populations. There is unbelievable economic development in some parts of the world.

So what we have to do is, instead of unilateral actions, act all together, make common decisions, and have consultations with the world. A new world order, if I can say it, should emerge.

Some scholars of international relations have advanced the thesis that the declining global influence of the U.S., and the rise of largely illiberal powers such as China threaten the established norms, and beliefs of the liberal rule-based world order.

They describe three pillars of the prevailing order that are upheld and promoted by the West, namely peaceful international relations (the Westphalian norm), democratic ideals, and free-market capitalism.

Stewart Patrick suggests that emerging powers, China included, «often oppose the political and economic ground rules of the inherited Western liberal order», and Elizabeth Economy argues that China is becoming a «revolutionary power» that is seeking «to remake global norms, and institutions».

Russian political analyst Leonid Grinin believes that despite all the problems, the U.S. will preserve the leading position within a new world order since no other country is able to concentrate so many leaders’ functions. Yet, he insists that the formation of a new world order will start from an epoch of new coalitions.

Xi Jinping, China`s paramount leader, called for a new world order, in his speech to the Boao Forum for Asia, in April 2021. He criticized U.S. global leadership and its interference in other countries internal affairs. «The rules set by one or several countries should not be imposed on others, and the unilateralism of individual countries should not give the whole world a rhythm,» he said.

U.S President Joe Biden said during a gathering of business leaders at the White House in March 2022 that the recent changes in global affairs caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine provided an opportunity for a new world order with U.S leadership, stating that this project would have to be carried out in partnership with «the rest of the free world.»

According to Tony Blair`s annual Ditchley lecture in July 2022, China, not Russia, will bring about the most significant geopolitical change of this century. The era of western political, and economic domination is to an end.

The world’s future will be at the very least bipolar, and possibly multipolar.

The east and west can now coexist on equal levels for the first time in contemporary history.

Now, it is March 2023, and a new world is rising. Once again. A new world that is crushing the old Globalist Order. The Globalist order will be replaced with the reawakening of renewed Civilization-States.

The war in Ukraine strengthens the ties between Russia and China as the liberal world order is fading out, while we see a rise in the Civilization States. Putin rips the West and said Biden and the U.S. are trying to hold back the economic development of both Russia and China.

«The crisis in Ukraine, which was provoked and is being diligently fueled by the West, is the most striking, yet not the only, manifestation of its desire to retain its international dominance, and preserve the unipolar world order,» Putin added.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, political scientist, political economist, international relations scholar, and writer Francis Fukuyama came out with a book called «The End of History, and the Last Man».

He argues that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies, free-market capitalism of the West, and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity`s sociocultural evolution and political struggle, and become the final form of human government.

Fukuyama claimed that there is no alternative to liberal democracy, so the unipolar liberal world order started with the invasion of Iraq, and the plan was the democratization of the Middle East. But it was a mistake.

Charles Krauthammer argued that the unipolar moment after the fall of the Berlin Wall made the U.S. a remarkably powerful country and that the U.S. could do a lot of things with that power. Both Fukuyama and Krauthammer admit that the unipolar moment and the end of history is coming to an end.

Fukuyama is now saying that this is the end of the American hegemony. Afghanistan does not mark the end of the American era; the challenge to its global standing is political polarisation at home, he says.

The peak period of American hegemony lasted less than 20 years, from the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 to around the financial crisis in 2007-2009. The country was dominant in many domains of power back then.

Military, economic, political, and cultural. The height of American hubris was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 when it hoped to be able to remake not just Afghanistan and Iraq, but the whole of the Middle East, Fukuyama said.

Right after the fall of Kabul back in August of 2021, Fukuyama said it was the end of the neo-liberal era. The end of the neo-globalist era. The end of liberal democracy. The end of leftist wokism, and cultural Marxism.

On that day, exactly 20 years after the invasion of Iraq, Putin and Xi had a three-day meeting, and that marked the end of the liberal globalist world order. Now, we`re seeing a rise of a new world with Russia and China and the rise of the «civilization state».

Civilization states are not united by politics but by culture. The civilization states up-end the old liberal international order that`s centered on the nation-state.

Russia, China, India, Turkey, Iran, Hungary, France, and Poland are all indicators of a rising polycentric world. The liberal world order cares nothing about your culture, except for how it violates liberal woke norms. How it manifests racist, sexist, and phobic tendencies.

Liberal globalists don`t care about your culture, because liberalism is all about imposing a system rather than a civilization on all people`s times and places. It`s about making nations more liberal democracies.

The liberal order tries to incorporate others into common institutions like the WTO and IMF to name a few. They all operate according to the same rules, understandings, and goals. But now it has changed. What we see now is the rise of a world where many populations are returning to culture custom and tradition, and as such the old civilizations are reawakening

A neo-orthodox Russia, neo-confusion China, Shinto-Japan, Hindu India, Neo-Ottoman Turkey, theocratic Iran and Afghanistan, and so on. A civilization world is dawning as the liberal world is coming to an end.

The term «civilization-state» was first used by American political scientist Lucian Pye in 1990 to categorize China as having a distinct sociopolitical character, as opposed to viewing it as a nation-state in the European model.

The use of this new term implies that China was and still is an «empire state» with a unique political tradition and governmental structure, and its proponents asserted that the nation-state model fails to properly describe the evolution of the Chinese state.

Proponents of the label describe China as having a unique historical and cultural unity, derived from a continuous process of cultural syncretism. The term was further popularized by its use in «When China Rules the World» by British political scientist Martin Jacques.

Putin and Xi are crushing the liberal globalist order, and replacing it with «civilization states».

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.


Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.