national elite. “We,” the Presidentncontinued, referring to the other leadersnof Western Europe, the MiddlenEast, Asia, North and South America,nNATO, and presumably the Red Crossnand the Knights Templars, “we agreenthat this is not an American problem orna European problem or a Middle Eastnproblem. It is the world’s problem.” Atnwhich point the citizens of every independentncountry in the world shouldnhave quietly slipped the safety catchesnon their revolvers.nIt is the emerging transnational ordernthat constitutes Mr. Bush’s “newnera,” and Saddam Hussein’s brutalitynagainst Kuwait, which produced whatnthe pundits immediately denominatednas the “first international crisis of thenpost-Cold War era,” is a definite no-nonunder the still misty codes that willngovern the new age. Not only wars ofnconquest for the satisfaction of nationalninterests and grievances but also anynaction that threatens the functioning ofnthe whole is equally illegitimate and isnfair game for coordinated multinationalnpolice measures.nIt was specifically for that reason thatnWashington Post columnist HaynesnJohnson, who has spent most of the lastntwo years spearing Mr. Bush, hailednthe President’s actions as demonstratingn”presidential leadership of highnorder.” “It’s possible,” warbled Mr.nJohnson, “given the extraordinary unanimitynof world opinion and sanctionsnendorsed across the ideological spectrumnof nations, that a new and morenhopeful world order can emerge fromnthe latest threatening actions in thenPersian Gulf. If so. Bush will receivenjustified credit for helping to create it.”nMr. Johnson’s ruminations on thennew age were soon echoed by othernpundits. The editorial page of the WallnStreet Journal instructed us a few daysnlater as to the “more significant” reasonsnwe should be in the Gulf innaddition to the narrowly selfish one ofnprotecting “the integrity of the world’snoil supply.” “With the world nownbeing made small by the wonders ofnelectronic miniaturization and instantncommunication, it has grown extraordinarilynvulnerable to this kind ofnthreat. If in the next century the worldnis to realize the promise of the interdependenciesnit has begun to create, itnwill have to learn to suppress piracy.”nZbigniew Brzezinski, ever preparednto strike his lyre in praise of the “technotronicnage,” joined in the chorusnalso. “A brutal and forcible annexationnof a member of the international communitynby a more powerful neighborncannot be accepted, and it should notnbe tolerated. The international ordernwould be in grave jeopardy if it werento be otherwise.” NeoconservativenCharles Krauthammer sang the samensong: “Today there is another value atnstake in the Gulf. It is even morenimportant than oil. It is world order.”nMr. Bush’s speech was indeed ankind of declaration of interdependencenfor that new order, and he began it lessnsonorously than Thomas Jefferson butnno less ominously. “In the life of annation,” he pronounced, “we’re callednupon to define who we are and whatnwe believe.” Mr. Bush’s speech wasnnothing less than a redefinition of thenUnited States for the new era to whichnhe will deliver us, and his remarks toldnus, perhaps more subtly than the Presidentnknew, what the U.S. role in it willnbe. Not an attack on American interestsnand security, not geopolitical andnstrategic concerns for our own securitynor treaty obligations to which we arenpublicly and legally committed, willnmobilize American troops for warfare,nbut any act of “aggression” that derailsnthe evolution of the new transnationalnregime.nThe new enemy is neither fascismnnor communism nor the ever-changingnThird World bogeyman, but rathernnational autonomy itself, and the wickednand violent autonomy asserted bynSaddam Hussein against Kuwaitnseemed to be a good place to startnmopping up the foe before he got outnof hand. Global trade, narcotics, antigenocide,nand anti-terrorism conventionsnare already helping to transcendnnational independence and midwifenthe birth of the new order, but whatnMr. Bush and the states cooperatingnwith his policy achieved in the Gulf lastnsummer brings us closer to a formalizationnof that order than any other actionnpreviously taken. What country will benthe next to feel its concerted wrath;nhow many Americans will have to dienfor it; and how long will it be beforenour own nation is punished for notnsubmitting to its universal hegemony?nTHE DEMISE OF SOCIALISMnALIENATIONn^ ^ AND THE I ^nSOVIET ECONOMYnThe Collapse of the Socialist EranRevised EdiimnPaul Craig RobertsnForeword by Aaron WildavskynnWhen Alienation and the SovietnEconomy first appeared in 1971, itnargued that socialism was ancatastrophic failure already. Today thencascade of current events has fullynvindicated every one of Paul CraignRoberts’s insights into Marxist theorynand Soviet economy.n”Professor Roberts’s explanation of Sovietneconomic development is timely . . . The book isnbeneficial reading for experts and non-expertsnalike who wish to understand the theoreticalnMarxian framework within which the Sovietneconomy grew and declined.”n—ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKInFormer National Security Advisern”The uncritical acceptance by Westernnobservers of the supposed achievements broughtnabout by central planning in the Soviet Union isnsubjected to a devastating critique in this shortnbut powerful book. … a gem of a book.”n—NATIONAL REVIEWnT^P W[ TMnRPRMnPNTT ‘^ Figures • 1 Table • Index • 145 pages, Paperback, Item #1340n•••IICIIJ liNl^Cd^iYL/E/iN i $14.95pluspostage($2.00perbook;CAresidentsaddSalesTax)nINSTITUTEnORDER TOLL FREE 1-800-927-8733nCredit card orders only. 24.hours,a day.,nThe Independent Institute, Dept. AA5,T34 Ninety-Eightli Avenue, Oakland, CA 94603nnnNOVEMBER 1990/11n