On the recordMarch 8, 1991
The new world order said that a lot of countries, disparate backgrounds, with differences, can come together standing for a common principle. And that principle is: You don't take over another country by force. So, the new world order, to the degree it's emerged so far, has been enhanced by this single concept that we're going to unite, no matter what other differences we may have had, what the bilateral problems may have been, and we're going to stand up against aggression. It was enhanced by a more viable United Nations, a United Nations where the big powers didn't automatically go against each other. In the cold war days, we'd say, ``This is black,'' and the Soviets would say, ``Hey, that's white.'' And you'd have a veto, and nothing would happen. And the peacekeeping dreams of the founders of the U.N. were dashed. So, part of this new world order has been moved forward by a United Nations that functioned. We might have still been able to stand up and come to the assistance of Kuwait--the United States. I might have said, ``To hell with them. It's right and wrong. It's good and evil. He's evil; our cause is right,'' and, without the United Nations, sent a considerable force to help. But it was an enhanced--it is far better to have this collective action where the world, not just the Security Council but the whole General Assembly, stood up and condemned it. So, part of it is these more viable international organizations. And that is where we are now. Then how we build on it is the questions that will be coming up, trying to give our share of the answers when Jim Baker comes back from these consultations.
Source
govinfo.gov




