New World Order Must Require G-20 Nations to Pay to Play

At the G-20 meeting last week, President Obama apologized for America's "failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world." I didn't know Europe had a leading role in the world. Besides, what more could or should the U.S do to show its appreciation? The U.S. and shamefully few allies have defended Europe's as well as the rest of the world's freedom since World War II. They have also intervened to quell skirmishes, encroachments, conflicts, attacks and other acts of international aggression faithfully many times over the past 60 years. U.S. military spending exceeds one trillion dollars a year, which amounts to more than half the world's total military spending. That saves the rest of the world more than one trillion dollars every year to spend at its discretion. All America receives in return is criticism for its motives and its methods for keeping the world safe. The U.S. also spends by far more than any other nation on earth for global humanitarian endeavors for which it receives criticism for not contributing a greater percentage of its gross domestic product. Who should be apologizing to whom?

Europeans cheered the President's denigrating remarks about our nation, but the U.S. received little in return for its confession and apology. The G-20 rejected the President's plea to them to use stimulative spending to support their own economic growth. At least they agreed to spend $1.1 Trillion assisting the global financial system. France and Germany agreed to "fully support the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan" but fell short of committing troops to support our own. They will, however, provide personnel for training and development. Americans have become so riddled with guilt about its bad behavior around the world that we are conditioned to feel grateful when other nations cooperate with us, even when they contribute to their own cause!

Going forward, it will be interesting to see if the new spirit of cooperation garners any G-20 support for our security efforts with regard to Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and any other problem areas that threaten the security of the entire free world. Why should they? They know the U.S. is prepared to get the job done without their assistance. They can wash their hands, literally and figuratively, of all the dirty work and sleep soundly knowing they retain the option to criticize the U.S. if public opinion turns against the actions it chooses to take. Many nations revel in their envious positions of being both beneficiary and critic of U.S. efforts to keep them safe.

The G-20 is now discussing the concept of a transnational agency that would oversee and regulate the global financial system, promote free trade, and oversee other matters of an international economic nature. For it to work effectively it will require the U.S. and other G-20 nations to relinquish their sovereign control over significant aspects of their economies and financial institutions. If it proceeds, some global bureaucratic regulatory authority effectively accountable to no one in America would be empowered to make decisions with far-reaching impact on our economic well being. It's a bad idea and anyone willing to trade our Government "by and for the people" for such an arrangement should seriously rethink their position. Clearly, the U.S. has more to lose and less to gain than all the other parties to such a plan. Luckily, I don't see it happening any time soon.

Without sovereignty or "teeth" to enforce its policies, a transnational regulatory agency is likely to be a feckless waste of time and bureaucracy. The European Union and United Nations are living examples of transnational entities without sovereignty, and both are impotent and ineffectual to the point that many question their continued viability and existence.

Regardless of the outcome of the creation of a transnational regulatory agency, the President's effort to elicit the trust and cooperation of our global community makes sense and should be applauded. The world would be better off if the U.S. remains its leader. However, in a New World order with the U.S. sharing the status of just one nation among many, I would hope that it would share its resource burdens accordingly. Going forward every member nation wanting to "play" should have to "pay" for the privilege, because partnerships work best when all partners have a meaningful stake invested in their success. The U.S. must insist that participating nations ante up money and manpower, commensurate with their capabilities, to insure their tangible stake in and ongoing commitment to the global collaborative effort.