Last September, in a speech about Iraq’s invasion ofnKuwait, President Bush used for the first time a phrasenthat has come to signify his foreign policy objectives and hisnvision of the post-Cold War age: “New World Order.” Herenand in subsequent speeches the President would hint that,nwith the liberation of Eastern Europe, the end of the ColdnWar, and the crumbling of Marxist-Leninist ideology, thenworld in general and the United States in particular havenreached a juncture in history of monumental importance, anpoint when the “ground rules” could be laid for a new andnmore just international order with America paving the waynand setting the example by doing “the hard work ofnfreedom.” The Persian Gulf War was the first “hard work”nof the New Worid Order.nBush’s vision of the future and conception of the newnorder have not gone unchallenged, even among Beltwaynpundits and politicians. The New Republic’s Chades Krauthammer,nfor example, castigated President Bush last Maynfor failing to bring the new order into sharp focus. ThenPresident had failed to find that catchy, memorable slogan ornphrase that could serve as the principle around which thenAmerican people could rally, as when “Wilson invokednself-determination; FDR, Truman, and Kennedy, freedom;nCarter, human rights; Reagan, democracy and democraticnrevolution.” He argued that Bush’s emphasis on keepingn”the dangers of disorder at bay” was “too weak and passivenan idea to deal with the crises of the post-Cold War world.”nTheodore Pappas is the assistant editor of Chronicles.nThe New World OrdernJust Another Form of Cultural Amnesianby Theodore PappasnMr. Krauthammer suggested that Bush adopt the idea ofn”sub-sovereignty,” a concept the United States could use tonlead the world to “a new world order that not just enforcesnrules but breaks old rules and makes new ones.” Though it isndifiGcult to imagine Americans fighting “to make the worfdnsafe for sub-sovereignty,” Mr. Krauthammer believes this isnthe principle that could rally the country for a new woddnmission while sahsfying “national groups seeking independencenwithout fracturing the wodd.” Simply put, he arguesnthat it is possible for the United States to rewrite internationalnlaw, if not remake the world in our own image, while atnthe same time remaining on the right, “correct” side ofnhistory. Mr. Krauthammer assumes (like many of hisncolleagues) that his readers understand how the possiblendisintegration of such multinational states as Yugoslavia andnthe Soviet Union constitutes a crisis for the people of thesencountries and regions as well as for the denizens of Boisenand Des Moines. His argument is also indicative of thenunderlying premise of the entire new order: that it is notnenough merely to believe in the right of self-determinationnor secession, for in the New Wodd Order citizens have lostntheir liberty and independence and are now duty-bound tonact transnationally on their convictions.nSenator Orrin Hatch registered his review of the NewnWodd Order’s first year in a May editorial in the Wall StreetnJournal. The senator complained that Bush’s conception ofnthe new order has thus far failed to encompass enough, as innfailing to set a “coherent political and military strategy tonachieve the goal of national self-determination for Afghani-nnnSEPTEMBER 1991/23n