The Global Community rearranges imperial hierarchies of value towards a model of world order values that solves the root causes of environmental destruction, war, terrorism, and inequality.

We must begin to question the choices that an imperial plutocracy has made with regard to the pursuit of not only American security, but the security of the world as well. In that regard, some scholars have developed a set of alternative concepts that rearrange the hierarchy of values exhibited within the traditional definition. New scholarship has produced a more inclusive set of values that they call, world order values. These world order values include the following: “(1) peace without national military arsenals, (2) economic well-being for all inhabitants on the earth, (3) the universal human rights and social justice, and (4) ecological balance.”8 One need only imagine how radically such a revolution in values could easily change the course of the world’s history. I would argue that the correspondence between “world order values” and action in accordance with the dictates of those values is the ultimate corrective to the occupations, vulnerabilities, and abuses that characterizes empire building. These world order values envision the rise of “Global Community.” By giving primacy to the health of the global commons, the environment would no longer be at the mercy of a narrowly driven corporate agenda “for profit.” By giving primacy to the pursuit of peace, the hypocritical equation of pursuing war in the name of peace would become obsolete. By giving primacy to human rights and social justice, the supportive structures and motivations for terrorists and terrorism would be curtailed if not entirely eliminated. By giving primacy to the realization of economic well-being for all inhabitants on the earth, there would no longer be a situation where over 2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day. Therefore, the closer that we move toward the untraditional category of world order values the closer we will move toward the rise of “Global Community.” Clearly, what separates the traditional definition of the national interest from the alternative vision of the human interest provides us with two dramatically contrasting sets of values, priorities, and policies. Let us take the example of what has happened in the early twentieth century as a result of decisions made with respect to the destabilizing impact of oil production itself. In the Middle East, the risk of disorder and conflict is heightened as ruling elites work to monopolize the distribution of oil revenues. With the rest of the population mired in poverty, the divide between the privileged and the disadvantaged can easily coincide with tribal or religious differences. As a result of this division, violence is a likely outcome. Yet, the predictability of this outcome has not, in any fundamental way, altered the decision-making processes that affect the future of American energy behavior or the policies of America’s client regimes in the Middle East.