The Council on Foreign Relations: Promoting Global Governance for over 100 years – Re-conceptualizing “sovereignty” in an age of globalization
The Council on Foreign Relations: Promoting Global Governance for over 100 years – Re-conceptualizing “sovereignty” in an age of globalization
Visit the Council on Foreign Relations FAQ page and the first question is :
What is the Council on Foreign Relations? When and why was it formed?
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. Founded in 1921, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy and has no affiliation with the U.S. government. Visit this page to learn more about CFR.
This statement is untrue. The meaning of non-partisan is unbiased. When it comes to Foreign Policy the CFR is extremely biased. The CFR’s Foreign Policy goal for over 100 years has been to achieve Global Governance.
On May 1, 2008 the CFR published a paper titled International Institutions and Global Governance Program World Order in the 21st Century A New Initiative of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Global Governance Initiative is anything but new.
The Council on Foreign Relations was formally established in Paris in 1919 along with its British Counterpart the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute of International Affairs can trace their roots back to a secret organization founded and funded by Cecil Rhodes, who became fabulously wealthy by exploiting the people of South Africa. Rhodes is the father of Apartheid.
The Council on Foreign Relations was founded by a group of American and British imperialists and racists intent on ruling the world. Many of the American members were American intelligence officers that belonged to the first American Intelligence Agency — THE INQUIRY. Many of the British members were British Intelligence Agents. THE INQUIRY included such notable Americans as Col. Edward Mandel House, Walter Lippmann, Isaiah Bowman, and James Shotwell. The INQUIRY was America’s first Central Intelligence Agency. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, and Woodrow Wilson’s close political advisor and friend, Edward Mandel House, suggested the idea to Wilson.
House became the INQUIRY’s first director, Lippmann was House’s first recruit. The existence of the INQUIRY such a well kept secret, that to this day hardly any Americans have heard of the INQUIRY or are aware that it ever existed. Wilson paid for the INQUIRY from the President’s Fund for National Safety and Defense. He directed that it not be housed in Washington. A remote room in the New York Public Library was its first office. Later it moved to offices in the American Geographical Society at West 155th Street and Broadway. James T. Shotwell, a Columbia University historian and an early recruit, came up with the agency name the INQUIRY, which, he said, would be a “blind to the general public, but would serve to identify it among the initiated.” Shotwell probably chose the name because the word History is derived from the Greek word meaning “a learning by inquiry.” Ironically the INQUIRY would use psychological warfare techniques to warp history by stressing favorable and unfavorable truths and leaving out facts completely to shape public opinion to support INQUIRY goals.
On January 18th 1919 in Paris, France, some of the most powerful people in the world meet to begin the long, complicated negotiations that would officially mark the end of the First World War. The United States representatives included Edward Mandel House and the other members of the INQUIRY. The INQUIRY and its members wrote most of Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points. Many of the members of the INQUIRY and the US State department delegates at the Paris Peace conference belonged to the American branch of Cecil Rhodes’ secret society, the Roundtable. At the Paris Peace conference, they would trade off most of the 14 points to establish the League of Nations. After the conference, they would attend the meeting at the Hotel Majestic and become the founding fathers of the Council on Foreign Relations. Woodrow Wilson caught onto the betrayal and was so upset that he suffered a stroke and refused to speak to Edward Mandel House ever again. The American people didn’t want to belong to an organization that could force them to go to war and would be turned into an international police force. America would never join the League of Nations.
The Council on Foreign Relations would not give up their pursuit of a global governing body. It would take another World War for them to achieve their goal. On September 12, 1939, the Council on Foreign Relations began to take control of the Department of State. On that day Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Editor of Foreign Affairs, and Walter H. Mallory, Executive Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, paid a visit to the State Department. The Council proposed forming groups of experts to proceed with research in the general areas of Security, Armament, Economic, Political, and Territorial problems. The State Department accepted the proposal. The project (1939-1945) was called Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies. Hamilton Fish Armstrong was Executive director.
In February 1941 the CFR officially became part of the State Department. The Department of State established the Division of Special Research. It was organized just like the Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies project. It was divided into Economic, Political, Territorial, and Security Sections. The Research Secretaries serving with the Council groups were hired by the State Department to work in the new division. These men also were permitted to continue serving as Research Secretaries to their respective Council groups. Leo Pasvolsky was appointed Director of Research.
In 1942 the relationship between the Department of State and the Council on Foreign Relations strengthened again. The Department organized an Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policies. The Chairman was Secretary Cordell Hull, the vice chairman, Under Secretary Sumner Wells, Dr. Leo Pasvolsky ( director of the Division of Special Research) was appointed Executive Officer. Several experts were brought in from outside the Department. The outside experts were Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies members; Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Isaiah Bowman, Benjamin V. Cohen, Norman H. Davis, and James T. Shotwell.
In total there were 362 meetings of the War and Peace Studies groups. The meetings were held at Council on Foreign Relations headquarters — the Harold Pratt house, Fifty-Eight East Sixty-Eighth Street, New York City. The Council’s wartime work was confidential.17
In 1944 members of the Council on Foreign Relations The War and Peace Studies Political Group were invited to be active members at the Dumbarton Oaks conference on world economic arrangements. In 1945 these men and members of Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs were active at the San Francisco conference which ensured the establishment of the United Nations.
When the CFR states that it “takes no institutional positions on matters of policy and has no affiliation with the U.S. government” they are simply lying. Their role in in forcing Global Governance on the people of the United States stretches back over 100 years.
In 1998 Title-50 War and National Defense § 783 stated – “It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination of control of, any foreign government.”
In a letter to congress I pointed out that “The Council on Foreign Relations are in violation of Title-50 War and National Defense § 783. The Council on Foreign Relations has unlawfully and knowingly combined, conspired, and agreed to substantially contribute to the establishment of one world order under the totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and the control of members of Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and members of their branch organizations in various nations throughout the world. That is totalitarianism on a global scale.”
After pointing this out to congress Title 50 disappeared. Today we have a totally new 50 U.S.C. § 783 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 50. War and National Defense § 783. See it at: http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-50-war-and-national-defense/50-usc-sect-783.html#sthash.yiDjEuTd.dpuf
A Royal Institute of International affairs global governance paper International Economic Governance:Last Chance for the G20? is here https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/20151113InternationalEconomicGovernanceG20SubacchiPickford.pdf
The CFR Global Governance Initiative Paper Follows :
International Institutions and Global Governance Program World Order in the 21st Century A New Initiative of the Council on Foreign Relations
May 1, 2008
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has launched a comprehensive five-year program on international institutions and global governance. The purpose of this cross-cutting initiative is to explore the institutional requirements for world order in the twenty-first century. The undertaking recognizes that the architecture of global governance—largely reflecting the world as it existed in 1945—has not kept pace with fundamental changes in the international system, including but not limited to globalization. Existing multilateral arrangements thus provide an inadequate foundation for addressing today’s most pressing threats and opportunities and for advancing U.S. national and broader global interests. The program seeks to identify critical weaknesses in current frameworks for multilateral cooperation; propose specific reforms tailored to new global circumstances; and promote constructive U.S. leadership in building the capacities of existing organizations and in sponsoring new, more effective regional and global institutions and partnerships. This program is made possible by a generous grant from the Robina Foundation.
The program draws on the resources of CFR’s David Rockefeller Studies Program to assess existing regional and global governance mechanisms and offer concrete recommendations for U.S. policymakers on specific reforms needed to improve their performance, both to advance U.S. national interests and to ensure the provision of critical global public goods. The program will take an issue area approach, focusing on arrangements governing state conduct and international cooperation in meeting four broad sets of challenges: (1) Countering Transnational Threats, including terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and infectious disease; (2) Protecting the Environment and Promoting Energy Security; (3) Managing the Global Economy; and (4) Preventing and Responding to Violent Conflict. In each of these spheres, the program will consider whether the most promising framework for governance is a formal organization with universal membership (e.g., the United Nations); a regional or sub-regional organization; a narrower, informal coalition of like-minded countries; or some combination of all three. Building on these issue-area investigations, the program will also consider the potential to adapt major bedrock institutions (e.g., the UN, G8, NATO, IMF) to meet today’s challenges, as well as the feasibility of creating new frameworks. It will also address the participation of non-state actors.
The program falls squarely within CFR’s historic mission as an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. In fulfilling its mandate, the program draws on the CFR’s unique attributes as a premier think tank on matters of foreign policy; as a prominent forum for convening American and international statesmen and opinion leaders; and as a platform for forging bipartisan consensus on the priorities, terms, and conditions of the nation’s global engagement. Throughout its activities, CFR will engage stakeholders and constituencies in the United States and abroad, including governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society representatives, and the private sector, whose input and endorsement are critical to ensure the appropriateness and feasibility of any institutional reforms. The program is led by Senior Fellow Stewart Patrick.
This concept note summarizes the rationale for the program, describes potential areas of research and policy engagement, and outlines the envisioned products and activities. We believe that the research and policy agenda outlined here constitutes a potentially significant contribution to U.S. and international deliberations on the requirements for world order in the twenty-first century.
RATIONALE AND CONTEXT
The Significance of the Issue
The creation of new frameworks for global governance will be a defining challenge for the twenty-first century world, and the attitude of the United States will be among the most important factors in determining the shape and stability of the world order that results from these efforts. The need for a reformed, robust system of multilateral cooperation has never been more obvious. Today’s global agenda is dominated by a host of issues—from terrorism to climate change to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—that no single country, no matter how powerful, can address on its own. Tomorrow’s challenges and policy agendas will only be more transnational in scope. At the same time, existing multilateral institutions are increasingly divorced from global realities, hindering their capacity to deliver global public goods and mitigate global “bads.” Since the end of the Cold War, world politics have been transformed in fundamental ways. As outlined in the accompanying box, these changes include an ongoing shift in global power to non-Western countries; the rise of transnational threats to the top of the global security and development agendas; a growing concern with state weakness, as opposed to state strength; the emergence of agile and increasingly powerful non-state actors (both malignant and benign); the evolution of new norms of state sovereignty and new criteria for armed intervention; the proliferation of regional and sub-regional organizations; the increasing importance of cross-border networks; and a growing reliance on ad hoc “coalitions of the willing” as an adjunct to—and sometimes a replacement for—more formal, standing international bodies.
A New World The point of departure for the program is a recognition that the world of 1945 has evolved dramatically, fundamentally, and irrevocably. New rules and institutions of global governance will need to take into account several fundamental changes in world politics. These include:
− A shift in power to the global “South.” While the United States remains at the apex of the international system, the global distribution of power—political, economic, demographic, technological, and to some degree military— is shifting toward the developing world, driven by the rise of China, India, Brazil, and other nations (and the relative decline of Europe). Core international institutions, from the UN Security Council to the Group of Eight industrialized nations (G-8), have not yet adapted to accommodate these seismic shifts, reducing both their perceived legitimacy and their practical effectiveness.
− The rise of transnational threats. While great power war will always be possible in a system of sovereign states, the principal foreign policy challenges of the twenty-first century are likely to be transnational threats—from terrorism to pandemics to climate change. Such challenges will necessitate new forms of institutionalized cooperation and pose particular challenges to the United States, historically ambivalent toward multilateral institutions.
|− The specter of weak and failing states. For the first time in modern history, the main threats to world security emanate less from states with too much power (e.g., Nazi Germany) than from states with too little (e.g., Afghanistan). The goal of collective security has thus shifted from counter-balancing aggressive powers to assisting fragile and post-conflict countries in achieving effective sovereign statehood, including control over “ungoverned spaces.”
− The mounting influence of non-state actors. A corollary to state weakness is the rise of non-state groups and individuals that are capable of operating across multiple sovereign jurisdictions. These include illicit organizations motivated by political grievance (e.g., al-Qaeda) or simple greed (e.g., Russian crime syndicates). But non-state actors also include more benign forces, such as humanitarian NGOs and civil society actors, philanthropic institutions like the Gates Foundation, and “super-empowered” individuals like Bono, all clamoring for entrée into decision-making forums that have traditionally been the purview of states alone. How to integrate these new stakeholders into multilateral deliberations remains a major challenge for global governance.
− Evolving norms of sovereignty and intervention. There is growing recognition that each state owes certain fundamental obligations to its own citizens and to wider international society. These responsibilities include an obligation not to commit atrocities against one’s own population; a prohibition against sponsoring or providing a safe haven to transnational terrorist groups; and a duty to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Yet the effort to make these new norms operational and enforceable remains a Herculean challenge.
− The spread of regional and sub-regional organizations. Although the UN Charter of 1945 explicitly endorsed regional organizations, such bodies truly began to flower only with the end of the Cold War, both as complements to universal-membership organizations and as substitutes for them. The task for U.S. policymakers is to assess the comparative advantages of different institutions and encourage a judicious division of labor (between, say, the UN and the African Union) that ensures effective burden sharing, rather than unwarranted “burden shifting.”
− The increasing prominence of transnational government networks. In past decades, the process of multilateral cooperation and rule-making tended to be hierarchical and centralized, reflecting formal negotiations among high-level national delegations. In the twenty-first century, multilateral cooperation frequently unfolds in a distributed and networked manner, through the collaboration of transnational networks of government officials from regulatory agencies, executives, legislatures, and courts.
− A growing reliance on coalitions of the willing. A recent trend in global governance has been to rely less on large, formal organizations (like the UN), which are vulnerable to paralysis and inaction, than on narrower collective action among like-minded countries, as in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). An ongoing dilemma for U.S.
policymakers will be to exploit the flexibility of such coalitions without undercutting formal, large-membership organizations whose technical expertise, legitimacy, and resources the United States will need over the long haul.
Despite these tremendous changes in the context, content, and conduct of international relations, there has been no “act of creation” analogous to the flurry of institution building that occurred in the 1940s and early 1950s. Indeed, many of the central institutions of global governance, such as the UN, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), remain substantially unchanged since the days of Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, and Stalin. Recent efforts to reform the architecture of global governance, including at the UN High Level Summit of September 2005, have produced at best incremental change, as states disagree over how to reallocate power and authority in existing organizations and bring old rules in line with new realities. The world community thus makes do with creaky institutional machinery that is increasingly obsolete, ineffective, and unrepresentative, and which makes few allowances for the potential role of the private sector and global civil society in shaping and addressing the global agenda. As hard as it is to create rules of global governance, it is even harder to rewrite them when institutions already exist.
The United States and its partners have a critical window of opportunity to update the architecture of international cooperation to reflect today’s turbulent world. The creation of a more effective framework for global governance will depend on a clear and common understanding among the world’s major nations of the new dynamics and forces at play in world politics, and their recognition that there can be no one-size-fits-all solution to the management of transnational problems. It will also depend on the willingness of the United States to exercise the same creative, enlightened leadership that it exercised in the mid-twentieth century, when it chose to champion and defend new forms of international cooperation.
A New Era of American Leadership?
Among the most important factors determining the future of global governance will be the attitude of the United States, likely to remain the world’s most prominent actor at least until 2050. Historically, Americans have adopted an ambivalent and selective posture toward multilateral cooperation. On the one hand, no country has done as much to create the institutional infrastructure of world order, including the bedrock institutions dating from the 1940s, such as the United Nations, the Bretton Woods Institutions, and NATO. Over the past six decades, the United States has benefited tremendously from this architecture, which has helped to legitimate U.S. global leadership, improve predictability in world affairs, and permit the joint pursuit of shared objectives across a wide range of countries.
On the other hand, few countries have been as sensitive as the United States to restrictions on their freedom of action or as jealous in guarding their sovereign prerogatives. This ambivalent orientation can be attributed to at least three factors: America’s overwhelming power, its unique political culture, and its constitutional traditions. First, given its massive weight, the United States enjoys unparalleled unilateral and bilateral options, as well as a plausible claim to special exemption from some rules binding on others, since it serves as the ultimate custodian and guarantor of world order. Second, the country’s longstanding tradition of liberal “exceptionalism” inspires U.S. vigilance in protecting the domestic sovereignty and institutions from the perceived incursions of international bodies. Finally, the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress a critical voice in the ratification of treaties and endorsement of global institutions, complicates U.S. assumptions of new international obligations.
This instinctual skepticism toward multilateral cooperation, which was particularly pronounced in the first term of the administration of George W. Bush, is unlikely to disappear. Nevertheless, the first years of the new millennium have also demonstrated limits to unilateral U.S. action, military or otherwise, in mitigating the threats and taking advantage of the opportunities posed by globalization. Regardless of whether the administration that takes office in January
2009 is Democratic or Republican, the thrust of U.S. foreign policy is likely to be multilateral to a significant degree.
Multilateralism can come in many forms, however. From a U.S. perspective, the ideal vehicle for international cooperation in a given instance will depend on a number of factors, including whether other countries share a common conception of the nature of the policy challenge (to say nothing of its appropriate remedy). Although the United Nations has distinct advantages, given its perceived international legitimacy and universal membership, it will not always be the instrument of choice; regional organizations or narrower affinity groups sharing common purposes may have a comparative advantage. The United States and other countries are likely to require a diverse array of frameworks—formal and informal, universal and regional, and functional—to address particular tasks. In some cases, effective governance may require public-private partnerships involving a range of stakeholders, including private corporations and non-governmental organizations. Accordingly, global governance in the twenty-first century may well come to resemble what Francis Fukuyama terms “multi-multilateralism.”
New Thinking for a New Era
The program on international institutions and global governance aims to assist the architects of U.S. foreign policy and their counterparts in other countries and in regional and global organizations in drafting the blueprints for new structures of international cooperation that are more closely tailored to global realities, consistent with long-term U.S.
national interests, and sensitive to historic U.S. concerns about domestic sovereignty and international freedom of action. The program’s approach to global governance will remain a pragmatic and flexible one, emphasizing customized solutions rather than “one-size-fits-all” responses.
The process of formulating policy recommendations will be an open and consultative one. CFR research staff will meet with and solicit input from the main constituencies—American and foreign, public and private – with a stake in the relevant deliberations. For example, discussions on strengthening the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) would necessarily involve both arms control advocacy organizations and major chemical firms, among others. In a similar manner, deliberations on a post-Kyoto framework to respond to climate change would solicit views from environmental groups, industry representatives, developing country officials and civil society, and U.S. officials at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels. Such consultations are imperative to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the stumbling blocks to change, the trade-offs of alternative institutional options, and the feasibility of new arrangements.
CFR recognizes that identifying where current international institutions are deficient and where new ones are appropriate is but one dimension of reforming global governance. The harder chore is to persuade the relevant parties to adopt a new way of doing business, including (in some cases) the loss of current privileges. For this reason, CFR will include in any proposed recommendations a practical strategy to win multilateral support for needed changes, as well as forging domestic consensus among the major U.S. stakeholders.
The agenda of the program on international institutions and global governance is potentially vast. To make it more tractable, we have adopted a sector-based approach, in which we will assess the institutional arrangements governing specific global challenges. In each case selected, the program will work with CFR fellows to examine (a) how the nature of this particular challenge has changed in recent decades; (b) what international regimes and frameworks— informal and formal, permanent and temporary, global and regional—exist to regulate behavior or advance cooperation in this issue area; (c) whether these mechanisms are adequate to the task at hand or must be modified; and (d) what institutional reforms and new divisions of labor would be appropriate, consistent with long-term U.S. national interests, and sustainable within the U.S. domestic context. In conducting this analysis, the program will draw on expertise of many of the fifty-five full- and part-time fellows in the CFR’s Studies Program. CFR would also seek out expertise in those areas where it does not currently exist in-house. The program will employ several standards to judge the adequacy and appropriateness of existing regimes, organizations, and other arrangements of global governance. These criteria will include:
− Effectiveness, in terms of actual performance in accomplishing the stated objective(s), ideally measured through independent monitoring and evaluation.
− Legitimacy, assessed in terms of whether existing arrangements accurately reflect the current distribution of global political power and interest, are consistent with international legal regimes, and reflect broadly accepted procedures for multilateral decision-making.
− Accountability, evaluated according to whether the institutional agents can be held to account for their performance and whether the institution provides opportunities for expressions of democratic will both in the United States and abroad.
− Consistency with U.S. interests and values, including whether the proposed framework promises to advance U.S. national security and welfare, legitimate U.S. purposes abroad, and resonate with the democratically-expressed will of the American people.
Building on this sector-based audit and analysis, the program will likely recommend reforms to a number of “bedrock” institutions of world order—including the UN (particularly the composition of the Security Council), the G-8,
NATO, and the Bretton Woods institutions—as well as major regional organizations, such as the European Union
(EU), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the African Union (AU), and the Organization of American States (OAS). Where appropriate, the Council will also explore the potential for global governance arrangements that are less state-centric. Recommendations for major institutional reform will proceed from (rather than precede) this issue area analysis. Moreover, wherever such reforms are recommended, the Council will include a plausible strategy for winning international backing for this new governance framework.
Issues and Sectors for Analysis
The program has identified four critical areas of global governance where current frameworks for multilateral cooperation are increasingly outdated. These include (1) Countering Transnational Threats; (2) Protecting the
Environment and Promoting Energy Security; (3) Managing the Global Economy; and (4) Preventing and
Responding to Violent Conflict. In this section, we highlight what we consider to be the most compelling issues within these four broad clusters, and where the program might add value through policy research and engagement over its five year time frame. These clusters include:
(I) Countering Transnational Threats
− Terrorism. The struggle against Salafist-inspired Islamist terrorism is likely to be a generational one for the United States and the world community, and an effective response will require a variety of international partnerships. To date, however, the “Global War on Terrorism” has often borne a “made in the USA” stamp, rather than representing a genuinely multilateral undertaking. The United Nations has made some progress in enlisting member states in the struggle against al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations, including through UN Security Council Resolution 1373, which established the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee, as well as multilateral efforts to combat terrorist financing.
The United States has also expanded its intelligence cooperation on counterterrorism matters with scores of states. Nevertheless, the global anti-terror campaign has been less multilateral than it might be, both in terms of consolidating new norms (e.g., a common definition of terrorism) and ensuring robust operational responses to the threat (including building the counterterrorism capacity of weak but willing states). The program will work with Council Fellows to review promising multilateral initiatives and needed reforms within both UN and regional organizations that are essential if the struggle against terrorism is to become a more effective effort.
− Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The spread of catastrophic technologies has placed the ability to kill vast numbers of people in the hands of a growing number of governments and non-state actors. At the same time, the international regimes and institutions charged with controlling the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons—from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention—are under increasing strain. Despite high hopes, the Outcome Document of the UN High-Level Summit of September 2005 failed to include a single significant reform to global non-proliferation regimes. Frustrated by the shortcomings of established frameworks to halt proliferation, the United
States in recent years has experimented with a number of ad hoc, flexible groupings, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). It has also adopted a differentiated response to proliferators – most notable in the case of India’s nuclear program – that grants special treatment to regimes that Washington believes can be trusted. The program will work with CFR’s experts in arms control and international security to assess needed reforms to existing nonproliferation regimes, including the potential creation of an international facility to provide nuclear fuel to participants in the NPT regime. The program will also evaluate the appropriate balance between such formal organizations and treaties like the IAEA and NPT and narrower, informal arrangements of like-minded parties, such as PSI, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the Missile Technology Control Regime.
− Homeland Security. The rise of transnational terrorist networks and the spread of catastrophic technologies have made homeland security a priority for all nations, particularly Western democracies. The United States and other countries face a number of common challenges, including policing maritime and land frontiers and national airspace; protecting civil aviation; improving border control; regulating immigration; hardening critical infrastructure; inspecting cargo; and tagging and tracking suspicious individuals and shipments. Effective homeland security increasingly relies on creative multilateral partnerships, such as the Container Security Initiative, which among other things implies the placement of U.S. customs officials in foreign ports (and vice-versa). It also requires deeper intelligence- and information-sharing and more intensive law enforcement cooperation. These innovative partnerships have forced the United States and its allies to tolerate some sacrifice of national sovereignty, reconcile distinct constitutional and legal traditions, and (at times) overcome divergent threat perceptions. The program will work with CFR scholars to assess promising areas for expanding and formalizing multilateral cooperation in this arena.
− Infectious Disease, Biosecurity, and Global Public Health. Among the most sobering concerns on the global security agenda is the specter of massive death at the hands of naturally occurring or man-made pathogens. Over the past three decades, the world has experienced the emergence of more than thirty previously unknown disease agents, including HIV/AIDS, Ebola, SARS, and avian influenza, for which no cures are yet available, as well as the reemergence and spread of more than twenty well-known diseases, including TB, malaria, and cholera, often in more virulent and drugresistant forms. At the same time, the U.S. and other governments are increasingly fearful of the purposeful design and release of biological toxins by international terrorists. Unfortunately, as the belated response to SARS revealed, serious shortcomings exist in national and global systems for epidemiological surveillance, preparedness, and response. The program will work with CFR fellows to identify what reforms to current frameworks of global health governance, including the World Health Organization, are required to meet this burgeoning threat.
- Protecting the Environment and Ensuring Energy Security
− Global Climate Change. New international institutions to mitigate the degradation of the global commons will likely be a defining feature of global governance in the twenty-first century. The global environmental agenda includes a broad array of oceanic, terrestrial, and atmospheric challenges, from the exhaustion of marine resources like fish stocks and coral reefs to deforestation and desertification, the loss of biodiversity and endangered species, air pollution, and the depletion of the ozone layer. Nowhere is the need for a new global compact more imperative, however, than in the case of climate change, which unless corrected will irrevocably alter the biosphere on which all humanity depends. Moreover, the effects of global warming are predicted to affect most dramatically some of the most fragile, poor and unstable developing countries that are least equipped to adapt. The program will work with
CFR fellows in examining the institutional preconditions for a post-Kyoto framework agreement to which the United States and the major developing countries, including China, India, and Brazil, can agree, as well as a potential expansion of the Global Environmental Facility to create incentives for carbon-neutral development.
− Energy Insecurity. The recent dramatic rise in global petroleum prices—combined with the exhaustion of many proven oil reserves, the insatiable Chinese appetite for fossil fuels, political instability in oil-producing regions from Nigeria to Iraq, and the rise of “petro-autocracies” from Russia to Venezuela—has focused the attention of U.S. policymakers on the security of world energy supplies. The United States and its international partners need new frameworks to ensure adequate global production, refining and transportation capacity, and new strategies to prevent potential interruption of supplies. There is also growing awareness that shifting the U.S. economy away from its current heavy reliance on fossil fuels—particularly from the Middle East—makes good strategic sense. New frameworks of multilateral cooperation will be essential components of any U.S. strategy to improve global energy security and create the incentives for international movement toward cleaner and more reliable forms of energy. The program will work with CFR fellows to examine promising steps, including through the International Energy Agency, to improve long-term global and U.S. energy security.
- Managing the Global Economy
− The International Financial System. The program will support the work of the Center for Geoeconomic Studies (CGS) in casting a sober eye on the current framework of global financial and monetary relations, including rules governing exchange rates, proposals to create regional currency unions, and initiatives by individual countries to dollarize or euro-ize. It will promote work by CFR fellows to evaluate current trends in the global financial system— including strains caused by the twin U.S. deficits, the emerging role of China in the global monetary system, and the rise of alternative reserve currencies (including the euro)—and explore promising means to improve coordination among the world’s major governments and central banks in dealing with structural weaknesses. The program will also support CFR’s work in reevaluating the mandate of the IMF, which has lost much of its relevance with the growth of private capital markets.
− International Trade: The stagnation of the current Doha Round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations and the ongoing expansion of bilateral and regional trade arrangements have called into question the commitment of the United States and other major countries to the vision of an open, reciprocal, and non-discriminatory system of international trade and payments. Stumbling blocks in the current WTO round include the resistance of wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to liberalize trade in protected agricultural commodities and the unwillingness of developing countries to quicken their own embrace of Western standards on foreign investment, intellectual property, and trade in manufactures. In the absence of sustained forward movement on global trade liberalization, we are likely to see an increased fragmentation of world trade into
regional—and potentially discriminatory and protectionist—blocs. The program will support the ongoing work of the
CGS in examining the preconditions for a North-South compromise, and in assessing the trade-offs for the United States of bilateral, regional, and global approaches to trade liberalization. The program will also seek to advance CFR’s work on new regional and international frameworks to regulate global labor mobility.
− International Investment. The economic gains from cross-border investment are as great as those from cross-border trade, and corporate investment in multi-country supply chains is a large driver of growing trade flows. Moreover, the rapidly growing sovereign wealth funds of several East Asian countries and energy–exporting states are complicating the picture. The huge capital surpluses now in the hands of foreign governments may trigger a political backlash in the countries where these funds are invested). Yet international investment is not subject to any multilateral regime comparable to the World Trade Organization. Instead, a crazy-quilt of bilateral investment treaties, together with an OECD-effort led by the OECD, attempt to set global norms for investment rules. In the 1990s an effort to upgrade this framework with a Multilateral Agreement on Investment was defeated by civil society critics. The program will support work by CFR fellows to consider the case for a global investment agreement, as well as to examine the need for rules to govern sovereign wealth funds and the recipients of their capital.
− Global Development Policy. Contemporary policy discourse concerning global development has been dominated by two extreme camps: advocates of enormous expenditures of foreign aid to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, on the one hand, and skeptics of development assistance, on the other, who contend that it is wasteful, redundant (given private sources of investment) and often counterproductive (since it breeds dependency). Often missing from this dialogue of the deaf is a careful appraisal of what targeted foreign aid can (and cannot) accomplish, as well as a recognition that aid is but one component—and rarely the most important—in development outcomes. The program will support efforts by CFR fellows to evaluate the continued relevance and appropriate mission of the World Bank, the regional multilateral development banks, the UN Development Program, and other UN development agencies, with an eye to assessing how their aid windows and technical expertise complement one another and the capacities of donor governments. The analysis will also consider arguments for institutional reforms, such as transforming the governing structure of the World Bank and correcting the UN’s fragmented approach to global development. It will consider ways to harness the growing interest of the private sector in corporate social responsibility programs in developing countries: While spending by multinational corporations on development is growing, the sophistication with which these funds are disbursed is perhaps two decades behind that of the public sector. This work will be undertaken in collaboration with the CGS.
(4) Preventing and Responding to Violent Conflict
− Preventing State Failure and Internal Conflict. In an age of transnational threats, states that cannot control their borders and territory and that collapse into violence pose a danger not simply to their own populations but indeed to the entire world. Unfortunately, the international community continues to struggle in its efforts to prevent states from sliding into failure and internal violence. To date, no major international actor—whether the United States, other major governments, or international institutions like the United Nations, World Bank, and African Union—has made prevention a strategic priority. Notwithstanding the UN’s rhetorical commitment to conflict prevention, its actual policy remains modest, ad hoc and reactive, limited in most cases to occasional “good offices” efforts by the SecretaryGeneral. The G8, likewise, has devoted little attention to reducing critical sources of insecurity and instability in the developing world, including cutting the illicit revenue streams that fuel corruption and violence in weak states and conflict zones, curbing illegal trade in weapons, shutting down offshore financial havens for the ill-gotten gains, and insisting on transparent management of natural resource revenues. The program will collaborate with CFR’s Center for Preventive Action (CPA) to assess what institutional reforms can be made to improve the capacity of the UN, G8, World Bank, AU and other international frameworks and partnerships to address the underlying sources of instability and mitigate and manage conflict in the world’s most vulnerable states through a mixture of diplomatic, economic, political, and military means. It will also address private sector and public-private initiatives to reduce conflict, such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and the Kimberley Process for conflict diamonds.
− The Use of Force. Today more than at any other time in the past sixty years, the rules governing the use of armed force are up for grabs. The diplomatic deadlock over Iraq during 2002-2003—like the preceding Kosovo crisis of 1999— raised fundamental questions about the recourse available to the United States when disagreement among the Permanent Five blocks Security Council action. In the aftermath of both episodes, some observers have suggested the need for alternative (or surrogate) sources of legitimacy for armed force, whereas others have cautioned against setting a dangerous precedent. At the same time, there has been growing international support—particularly among Western governments—for a doctrine of contingent sovereignty, whereby countries guilty of genocide, terrorism, and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction would forfeit their presumption against external intervention. Despite these normative shifts, however, the United States and its international partners have made little headway in determining the circumstances in which the Security Council might be legitimately bypassed or the evidentiary criteria required to justify armed intervention into a sovereign state. The program will work with CPA and CFR fellows to clarify these criteria, building on the CFR’s previous work on such questions, including on the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine.
− Peace Operations and Post-Conflict Peace-Building. Notwithstanding setbacks and shortcomings in UN peace operations since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations is being called upon as never before to keep – and in some cases enforce – peace between warring parties, as well as to pick up the pieces when the shooting stops. Today, more than 100,000 blue helmets are deployed in a score of operations around the globe – more than at any time in the
UN’s history. Yet the complexity and pace of such multidimensional efforts have strained the modest capacities of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, which struggles on its modest budget and capabilities to develop a robust doctrine; to procure logistical support from member states; to ensure the quality and discipline of contributed troops; to negotiate an effective division of labor with regional organizations (such as the AU); and to realize the vision of “integrated missions” that unite the humanitarian, reconstruction, governance, and security components of international interventions. Meanwhile, the UN Peacebuilding Commission—one of the few significant results of the 2005 UN High Level Summit—has thus far failed to live up to its potential in ensuring effective state-building and sustainable recovery in war-torn societies. The program will collaborate with the Center for Preventive Action and CFR fellows on proposals to deepen recent UN reforms, as well as explore potential partnerships between the UN and the AU as well as other regional and sub-regional bodies.
In advancing this ambitious agenda, the program will draw on both core program staff and also the fifty-five other permanent and adjunct members of CFR’s Studies Program. This will permit the program to generate a steady stream of research, publication, and policy engagement in all four clusters over the five-year span of the program.
Reforming the Bedrock Institutions of World Order
Building on these issue-area investigations and the identified shortcomings of existing organizations and frameworks, the program will, over five years, seek to propose reforms to some of the bedrock institutions of world order, including the United Nations, regional organizations, and major ad hoc groupings.
− The United Nations Security Council. Among the biggest disappointments of the UN High-Level Summit of September 2005 was the failure of UN member states to cut the Gordian knot with respect to UN Security Council Membership, particularly the extension of permanent (or semi-permanent) membership to accommodate the shifting balance of world power since 1945. Although the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel outlined two realistic and balanced alternatives for enlargement, forward progress was blocked by a combination of regional rivalries, intraEuropean differences, and U.S. disengagement. The program will examine prospects and preconditions for a renewed reform effort that would satisfy the aspirations of critical players (including Japan, India, Germany, and Brazil) while extending Security Council representation to Africa and the Middle East.
− The Group of Eight. The obsolescence of current mechanisms of global governance is increasingly apparent in the management of the world economy, not least during the annual summits of the G-8. It simply makes no sense to exclude from this ostensible global directorate the world’s largest emerging economies, including China, India, and Brazil, as well as multiple other middle powers. The program will examine the merits of recent proposals to expand the membership of the G-8 (such as the “L-20” proposal championed by former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin); as well as to create unique groupings tailored to discrete political, economic, or functional issues (e.g., energy or migration).
− Regional and Sub-Regional Organizations. One of the hallmarks of the past two decades has been the formation, deepening, and enlargement of formal regional organizations in many corners of the globe. The mandates, competencies, capacities, and effectiveness of these heterogeneous bodies vary enormously. The United States has a critical interest—and a central role to play—in ensuring that these bodies play their full and appropriate role in managing global insecurity and in providing public goods for their respective regions. The program intends to examine the current status and potential role of multilateral bodies in at least some of the following regions, drawing on relevant CFR scholars:
− Europe, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
− Asia-Pacific, including the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the ASEAN Regional Forum, and potential sub-regional security architecture for Northeast Asia.
− Africa, notably the African Union (including its new Peace and Security Council), the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), and other relevant organs.
− South and Central Asia, including the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and other potential multilateral arrangements for these two subregions.
− Latin America, including the Organization of American States, the Summit of the Americas, sub-regional trade groupings (e.g., NAFTA, CAFTA, Mercosur), and potential groupings of like-minded countries to manage transnational challenges like energy security, migration and narcotics.
− The Middle East, including the G-8 sponsored Forum for the Future, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
Big Picture Issues
As we explore the most appropriate international frameworks to address today’s global agenda, the program will seek to break new ground on three big picture issues: the changing nature of sovereignty in an age of globalization; the challenges of accommodating non-state actors in global decision-making; and the preconditions for democratic accountability in multilateral institutions.
− Re-conceptualizing “sovereignty” in an age of globalization. The post-Cold War era has posed challenges to traditional concepts of state sovereignty, in at least four respects. First, some failing and post-conflict states have become wards of the international community, submitting to a form of UN “neo-trusteeship.” Second, some countries by their conduct have lost their immunity from intervention, as part of an emerging doctrine of “contingent sovereignty.” Third, nearly all states – including the United States – have voluntarily forfeited some historic freedom of action to manage transnational threats and exploit international opportunities. Finally, some countries, particularly in the EU, have chosen to “pool” their sovereignty in return for economic, social, and political benefits. The program could provide a valuable intellectual contribution by tracing the scope and implications of these transformations.
− Accommodating non-state actors in global governance. Although states remain the foundation of international order, they face growing competition as wielders of influence and (often) legitimacy from non-state actors. In designing new frameworks of global governance, the United States and other governments must provide opportunities for partnership with and input from interested stakeholders, including civil society actors, advocacy groups, and corporations—without allowing the global agenda to be hijacked by unrepresentative interests. The program can identify lessons from recent experience about how to strike this delicate balance.
− Overcoming the “democratic deficit” in global governance arrangements. Efforts at international cooperation, particularly of a supranational character (as in the European Union), often become divorced from the democratic will of the national publics of member states. By examining multilateral institutions across a variety of sectors, the program may generate useful insights about how to improve the democratic accountability of multilateral bodies. It might also evaluate the frequent contention that an Alliance of Democracies represents a plausible framework for global order and a realistic alternative to the UN (which obviously includes authoritarian as well as democratic regimes).
THE PROGRAM’S VALUE ADDED
CFR’s program on international institutions and global governance seeks to make a significant contribution to U.S. and international understanding of the institutional infrastructure required for effective multilateral cooperation in the twenty-first century. The program is envisioned as a multi-year effort, rather than a one to two-year project geared toward a specific event or electoral cycle. This relative permanence will hopefully permit CFR to become a center of excellence in thinking about global governance, and a repository of useful knowledge and lessons learned available to other scholars and institutions. It will also facilitate the difficult process of building domestic political consensus— within the executive and legislative branches, the policy community, and the informed public—about the appropriate parameters of U.S. engagement in multilateral cooperation.
The program’s location within the Council on Foreign Relations will prove invaluable in furthering its ambitious aims. The program will exploit the CFR’s convening power, offering forums in New York, Washington, and around the country where domestic and international opinion leaders can debate proposed institutional reforms with the Council’s membership. Through co-hosting events with partner institutions in the United State and abroad, the program will solicit input and buy-in from foreign governments and publics, as well as representatives from civil society and the private sector, for proposed recommendations on global governance. Finally, the program will serve a broader role in bipartisan consensus-building and public education by engaging administration officials and members of Congress on new directions in global governance, and by making its products widely available through a variety of media.
Google Chairman CFR member Eric Schmidt shares a joke with Hillary Clinton, wife of CFR member Bill Clinton, during a special “fireside chat” with Google staff. The talk was held on 21 Jul 2014 at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California.
Julian Assange’s article The Banality of Don’t Be Evil appeared in the New York Times on June 1, 2013. It is about Google, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt and Google’s director of Google Ideas Jared Cohen. Missing from the article are connections to the Council on Foreign Relations. Both Schmidt and Cohen are members. Just about every other person mentioned in the article is also a CFR member.
Assange’s book Google Met Wikileaks makes the connection clear. I have modified the article to make the connection clear in The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ too.
The golden rule of CFR members is the ends justify the means. CFR member Madeleine Albright gives a disturbing illustration of this in a video where she rationalizes the murder of 500,000 women and children.
The CFR took control of the government of the U.S. in 1921`and has kept the world in a state of endless war ever since. They are now in the process of developing a new kind of war – cyberwar. They will add a new cyberwar branch to the military which will become another CFR military industrial complex profit center. The CFR membership is evil and is the rat in RATionalization. Read all about them.
SundayReview | Opinion
The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’
By JULIAN ASSANGE JUNE 1, 2013
“THE New Digital Age” is a startlingly clear and provocative blueprint for technocratic imperialism, from two of its leading witch doctors, [CFR member] Eric Schmidt and [CFR member] Jared Cohen, who construct a new idiom for United States global power in the 21st century. This idiom reflects the ever closer union between the [CFR run] State Department and Silicon Valley, as personified by [CFR member] Mr. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, and [CFR member] Mr. Cohen, a former adviser to [CFR member] Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton [wife of CFR member Bill Clinton & mother of CFR member Chelsea Clinton] who is now director of Google Ideas.
Director of Google Ideas, and “geopolitical visionary” CFR member Jared Cohen shares his vision with US Army recruits in a lecture theater at West Point Military Academy on 26 Feb 2014 (Instagram by Eric Schmidt) The vision includes censoring the internet using his new software being developed in project Jigsaw. Do you think the NSA/CIA might be helping Jared develop jigsaw?
The authors met in occupied Baghdad in 2009, when the book was conceived. [Could the authors met long before at the CFR and been sent to Baghdad by the CFR run NSA/CIA to try and help shape things?] Strolling among the ruins, the two became excited that consumer technology was transforming a society flattened by United States military occupation. They decided the tech industry could be a powerful agent of American foreign policy.
The book proselytizes the role of technology in reshaping the world’s people and nations into likenesses of the world’s dominant superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not. The prose is terse, the argument confident and the wisdom — banal. But this isn’t a book designed to be read. It is a major declaration designed to foster alliances.
“The New Digital Age” is, beyond anything else, an attempt by Google to position itself as America’s geopolitical visionary — the one company that can answer the question “Where should America go?” It is not surprising that a respectable cast of the world’s most famous warmongers has been trotted out to give its stamp of approval to this enticement to Western soft power. The acknowledgments give pride of place to [CFR member] Henry Kissinger, who along with [Chatham House member] Tony Blair and the former C.I.A. director [CFR member] Michael Hayden provided advance praise for the book.
Google’s Chairman, CFR member Eric Schmidt, photographed in a New York elevator, carrying CFR member Henry Kissinger’s new book, “World Order”, 25 Sep 2014
In the book the authors happily take up the white geek’s burden. A liberal sprinkling of convenient, hypothetical dark-skinned worthies appear: Congolese fisherwomen, graphic designers in Botswana, anticorruption activists in San Salvador and illiterate Masai cattle herders in the Serengeti are all obediently summoned to demonstrate the progressive properties of Google phones jacked into the informational supply chain of the Western empire.
The authors offer an expertly banalized version of tomorrow’s world: the gadgetry of decades hence is predicted to be much like what we have right now — only cooler. “Progress” is driven by the inexorable spread of American consumer technology over the surface of the earth. Already, every day, another million or so Google-run mobile devices are activated. Google will interpose itself, and hence the United States government, between the communications of every human being not in China (naughty China). Commodities just become more marvelous; young, urban professionals sleep, work and shop with greater ease and comfort; democracy is insidiously subverted by technologies of surveillance, and control is enthusiastically rebranded as “participation”; and our present world order of systematized domination, intimidation and oppression continues, unmentioned, unafflicted or only faintly perturbed.
The authors are sour about the Egyptian triumph of 2011. They dismiss the Egyptian youth witheringly, claiming that “the mix of activism and arrogance in young people is universal.” Digitally inspired mobs mean revolutions will be “easier to start” but “harder to finish.” Because of the absence of strong leaders, the result, or so [CFR member] Mr. Kissinger tells the authors, will be coalition governments that descend into autocracies. They say there will be “no more springs” (but China is on the ropes).
CFR member Eric Schmidt’s Instagram of CFR spouse Hillary Clinton and CFR member David Rubinstein, taken at the Holbrooke Forum Gala, 5 Dec 2013. CFR member Richard Holbrooke (who died in 2010) was a high-profile US diplomat, managing director of Lehman brothers, a board member of NED, CFR, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg steering group and an advisor to Hillary Clinton and CFR member John Kerry. CFR member Schmidt donated over $100k to the the Holbrooke Forum
The authors fantasize about the future of “well resourced” revolutionary groups. A new “crop of consultants” will “use data to build and fine-tune a political figure.”
“His” speeches (the future isn’t all that different) and writing will be fed “through complex feature-extraction and trend-analysis software suites” while “mapping his brain function,” and other “sophisticated diagnostics” will be used to “assess the weak parts of his political repertoire.”
The book mirrors State Department institutional taboos and obsessions. It avoids meaningful criticism of Israel and Saudi Arabia. It pretends, quite extraordinarily, that the Latin American sovereignty movement, which has liberated so many from United States-backed plutocracies and dictatorships over the last 30 years, never happened. Referring instead to the region’s “aging leaders,” the book can’t see Latin America for Cuba. And, of course, the book frets theatrically over Washington’s favorite boogeymen: North Korea and Iran.
Google, which started out as an expression of independent Californian graduate student culture — a decent, humane and playful culture — has, as it encountered the big, bad world, thrown its lot in with traditional Washington power elements, from the State Department to the National Security Agency.
Despite accounting for an infinitesimal fraction of violent deaths globally, terrorism is a favorite brand in United States policy circles. This is a fetish that must also be catered to, and so “The Future of Terrorism” gets a whole chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into buildings, shutting down power grids and launching nuclear weapons. The authors then tar activists who engage in digital sit-ins with the same brush.
I have a very different perspective. The advance of information technology epitomized by Google heralds the death of privacy for most people and shifts the world toward authoritarianism. This is the principal thesis in my book, “Cypherpunks.” But while [CFR members] Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Cohen tell us that the death of privacy will aid governments in “repressive autocracies” in “targeting their citizens,” they also say governments in “open” democracies will see it as “a gift” enabling them to “better respond to citizen and customer concerns.” In reality, the erosion of individual privacy in the West and the attendant centralization of power make abuses inevitable, moving the “good” societies closer to the “bad” ones.
The section on “repressive autocracies” describes, disapprovingly, various repressive surveillance measures: legislation to insert back doors into software to enable spying on citizens, monitoring of social networks and the collection of intelligence on entire populations. All of these are already in widespread use in the United States. In fact, some of those measures — like the push to require every social-network profile to be linked to a real name — were spearheaded by Google itself.
THE writing is on the wall, but the authors cannot see it. They borrow from William Dobson the idea that the media, in an autocracy, “allows for an opposition press as long as regime opponents understand where the unspoken limits are.” But these trends are beginning to emerge in the United States. No one doubts the chilling effects of the investigations into The Associated Press and Fox’s James Rosen. But there has been little analysis of Google’s role in complying with the Rosen subpoena. I have personal experience of these trends.
The Department of Justice admitted in March that it was in its third year of a continuing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks. Court testimony states that its targets include “the founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks.” One alleged source, Bradley Manning, faces a 12-week trial beginning tomorrow, with 24 prosecution witnesses expected to testify in secret.
This book is a balefully seminal work in which neither author has the language to see, much less to express, the titanic centralizing evil they are constructing. “What [CFR member Corporation] Lockheed Martin was to the 20th century,” they tell us, “technology and cybersecurity companies will be to the 21st.” Without even understanding how, they have updated and seamlessly implemented George Orwell’s prophecy. If you want a vision of the future, imagine Washington-backed Google Glasses strapped onto vacant human faces — forever. Zealots of the cult of consumer technology will find little to inspire them here, not that they ever seem to need it. But this is essential reading for anyone caught up in the struggle for the future, in view of one simple imperative: Know your enemy.
Julian Assange is the editor in chief of WikiLeaks and author of “Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet.”
Somehow the text on the Charleston Voice web page has become hidden. Go to the page and it appears blank. Type ctrl-A to select the page and the text appears. Wonder how that happened. Since it did I am posting a copy of the page here.
NOPE. YOU WON’T FIND ANY SMEDLEY BUTLERS AMONGST THESE TRAMPS.
AMERICA’S CFR-led US Military:
Once a Marine, always a Marine until
you betray your countrymen.
|Colonel Willard Buhl
“I am currently a military fellow,
GEN David Petraeus – Director CIA (Aug. 2011) Resigned 11/9/12 Admitted Adulterer present Commander of U.S. and Coalition forces in Afghanistan,
former Commander of Central Command (CENTCOM), former Commander of U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq, former Commander of 101st Airborne Division
GEN John Abizaid – former Commander of Central Command (CENTCOM)
GEN John Shalikashvili – former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff (1993-1997)
GEN Colin Powell – former Secretary of State (2001-2005); former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-1993)
GEN Richard Myers – former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff (2001-2005)
GEN Wesley Clark – former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe under Clinton; a Rhodes Scholar; “Clark commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATOfrom 1997 to 2000.” US Presidential candidate 2004
GEN Carl Vuono – former Army Chief of Staff (1987-1991)
ADM William Crowe – USN – former Ambassador to Great Britain (1994-1997); former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff (1985-1989)
GEN Fred Woerner – former Commander of U.S. Southern Command (1987-1989)
GEN Larry Welch – former Air Force Chief of Staff (1986-1990)
MAJ GEN William Usher – former Air Force general
GEN William Westmoreland – Chief of Staff of the United States Army (1968-1972), commanded US military operations in the Vietnam War (1964-1968), former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1960-1963)
ADM Harry Train II – former Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (1978-1982); former Commander of Sixth Fleet (1976-1978)
GEN Gordon Sullivan – former Army Chief of Staff (1991-1995)
MAJ GEN Perry Smith – United States Air Force – former Commandant of National War College (1983-1986)
GEN Eric Shinseki – former Army Chief of Staff (1999-2003)
LTG Brent Scowcroft – USAF – former National Security Advisor (1989-1993, 1975-1977)
GEN Norton Schwartz – USAF – Commander of U.S. Transportation Command (begin 2005)
GEN Michael Ryan – former Air Force Chief of Staff (1997-2001)
VICE ADM Ann Rondeau – Director of Navy Staff; former Commander of Naval Training Center Great Lakes
BG Frederick Roggero – USAF – Deputy Director of Operations at the Air Mobility Command Headquarters
GEN Dennis Reimer – former Army Chief of Staff (1995-1999)
ADM William Owens – former Vice Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff (1994-1996)
COL Douglas Murray – USAF – Head of Department of Political Science at Air Force Academy
GEN Carl Mundy – former Commandant of the Marine Corps (1991-1995)
GEN Teed Moseley – USAF – Air Force Chief of Staff (begin 2005)
GEN Edward Meyer – former Army Chief of Staff (1979-1983)
GEN Merrill McPeak – USAF – former Air Force Chief of Staff (1990-1994)
GEN Barry McCaffrey – former Commander of U.S. Southern Command (1994-1996); Clinton’s “drug czar”
CPT David Marquet – United States Navy (O-6) – former Commander of Submarine Squadron Three
COL Thomas Lynch – former Commander, U.S. Army Forces Central Command at Qatar
LTG William Lennox – former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (2001-2006)
ADM Charles Larson – USN – former Superintendent of U.S. Naval Academy under Reagan and Clinton
LTG James Lampert – former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1963-1966), Lampert was a member of the Board of Director[s] of West Point’s Association of Graduates (AOG) and became AOG’s president in 1978.
MG William Knowlton – former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1970-1974)
LTG Frank Klotz – USAF – Vice Commander of Air Force Space Command (begin 2005); a Rhodes Scholar
LTG Jack Klimp – USMC – former Commander of Task Force Mogadishu in 1993
GEN Paul X. Kelley – USMC – former Commandant of the Marine Corps (1983-1987)
GEN John Jumper – USAF – former Air Force Chief of Staff (2001-2005)
LTG Bradley Hosmer – USAF – former Superintendent of U.S. Air Force Academy (1991-1994)
GEN Joseph Hoar – USMC – Marine Corps general; former CENTCOM commander (1991-1994)
COL Peter Henry – former Chief of Staff of Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq and former Deputy Commander of Civilian Police Assistance Training Team in Baghdad, Iraq.
ADM Thomas Hayward – USN – former Chief of Naval Operations (1978-1982)
LTG Michael Hamel – USAF – Commander of Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space Command
MG Craig Hackett – Commander, U.S. Army Security Assistance Command at Fort Belvoir, Virginia
REAR ADM Jeffrey Fowler – USN – Commander, U.S. Navy Recruiting Command
ADM Robert Foley Jr. – USN – former Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet (1982-1985); former Commander of Seventh Fleet
GEN Ronald Fogleman – USAF – former Air Force Chief of Staff (1994-1997)
BG George Flynn – USMC – Chief of Staff, U.S. Special Operations Command under [ President George W. Bush ]
GEN Ralph Eberhart – USAF – former Commander of Northern Command and NORAD (2000-2004)
LTG Daniel Christman – former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1996-2001)
GEN Burwell Bell – Commander, U.S. Forces Korea; former Commander of U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR)
LTG Sid Berry – former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1974-1977) – USMA Superintendent when U.S. Congress ruinously forced admission of females into the U.S. Service Academies for the first time in 1976.
GEN Lew Allen Jr. – USAF – former Air Force Chief of Staff (1978-1982); director of National Security Agency (1973-1977)
A ‘limited hangout’ is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting–sometimes even volunteering–some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.
On October 27th Sean Hannity, who works for FOX news interviewed Newt Gingrich. Newt’s topic was Newt Gingrich on Clinton corruption, liberal bias. FOX news is owned by Council on Foreign Relations member Rupert Murdoch. Newt Gingrich is a CFR member and a paid contributor to FOX news. The Gingrich interview attacks CFR spouse Hillary Clinton whose daughter Chelsea is also a CFR member. The story faults a liberal main stream media run by the “elite” as misleading the American people. What is never discussed in the interview is that the CFR runs all the media – conservative and liberal. What is never discussed in the interview is that CFR member Walter Lippmann and his sidekick Bernay’s are the fathers of modern propaganda. What is left out of the interview is that 22 Secretaries of State, 18 CIA directors and 18 NSA directors are members of the CFR. By leaving out the CFR role in the story, in main stream media and in our government Hannity and Gingrich are doing exactly what they accuse the liberal elite media of doing – mis-directing their audience and participating in a limited hangout.
CFR member Newt tells us “… it’s almost unpatriotic to have the level of deliberate disinformation and deliberate censorship that we’re getting out of the elite media. And I think it’s something the average American gets…” What the average American doesn’t seem to get, largely because the news media doesn’t make it known, is that the problem is the CFR shadow government that moves from administration to administration. What the average American doesn’t seem to get is that they must insist the Justice department investigate the CFR and their connection to the JFK assassination, Iran Contra affair, the FED, the Economic Crisis, the Endless Wars, Main Stream Media, the Intelligence Department, The Banks, the Defense Industry, the Universities and insist all members be tried for treason and caged for the rest of their lives.
Below is the Hannity-Gingrich transcript. The transcript has been modified to clarify CFR connections in the story.
Newt Gingrich on Clinton corruption, liberal bias
Here with reaction, the author of the best-seller “Treason,” former speaker of the House, Fox News contributor [CFR member] Newt Gingrich is with us.
We’re talking about $116 million. I want to put these revelations next to an AP story that said, remember, 55 percent of individuals that got to see [CFR spouse] Hillary when she was secretary of state were either donors or people committing money to the foundation.
Now add that to the Haiti story. They raise this money, separate list for foundation donors and friends of [CFR member] Bill so they can cash in on the contracts after 150,000 people died and they raised money and they would be first in line to make more money so they could funnel it back to the[CFR run] Clinton Foundation.
How does this not get picked up — how is this not Watergate in the minds of the rest of the media?
[CFR member] NEWT GINGRICH, R, FMR. HOUSE SPEAKER, FOX CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it’s beginning to get picked up. You know, I think somebody pointed out that on [CFR member Joe Scarbourgh’s] “Morning Joe,” they spent 13 minutes attacking the [CFR member] Clintons [yet never made reference to their CFR affiliations] this morning.
Now, that’s unheard of. That’s a breakdown in [CFR member run aka] elite media discipline that is hard to imagine. [BTW CFR member Gingrich is a paid contributor to CFR member Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News]
And I’ll be interesting to see by tomorrow, where is The Washington Post [Founded by the CFR member Graham family], where’s [The CFR run] The New York Times. This stuff’s getting so big and smelling so bad that I think they’re going to have a very hard time hiding from it.
You know, if the Federal Bureau of Investigation was still a law enforcement agency, we would have a grand jury impaneled to be taking testimony right now and not negotiating but issuing subpoenas.
HANNITY: Well, wait a minute. I beg to differ. On, no, they’re a law enforcement organization because if you did it, they would have impaneled that grand jury right now. If I did it, that grand jury would be impaneled right now. Therein lies a big problem with have with our Justice Department.
[CFR member] GINGRICH: Right because — because that’s not law enforcement. That’s selective prosecution. Law enforcement says that all of us are under the law. All of us have to obey the law. All of us have to face the same consequences.
We know for a fact from all this stuff that you have the head of the [CFR family] Clinton campaign, John Podesta, going off to dinner with the Justice Department. You have weird negotiations with various Clinton officials, things nobody gets from the FBI. You have the president — the former president [CFR member Bill Clinton] and the attorney general meeting on a plane in secret the same week they’re going to interrogate Hillary.
I mean, this is the kind of stuff that in a place like Venezuela, you would understand because they don’t have the rule of law. [ This is the kind of stuff orchestrated by a CFR run government]
But what we’re seeing right now — and WikiLeaks, in a sense, is ripping the scar off of the largest amount of corruption in American history. This beats any prior corruption scandal I know of, including the 1868 period where Grant was president, including the Harding administration, I mean, including some of the things that happened under Truman. None of those things were like this.
This is the largest scandal affecting a senior American politician I think in the history of the United States. And it’s as you yourself just pointed out, you have Hillary Clinton clearly trading on the office of secretary of state in a way which has to be — I’m not a lawyer, but my guess is you’ve got probably 60 or 70 counts against her just in terms of scheduling people to come into her office…[ What CFR member Gingrich fails to point out is that the Office of secretary of state was taken over officially by the CFR and the scandal and the failure to explore the CFR role in the scandle is due to him and other CFR members in the media and government leaving the CFR connection out of the story]
HANNITY: And yet she could be elected president.
[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: … who they knew…
HANNITY: And yet according to polls, she’s in this race.
[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: And she might (INAUDIBLE)
HANNITY: In 12 days, she could possibly win this election. What does that say?[It says the American people’s reality world is being tampered with by a CFR run government and main stream media – of which you Sean and Newt are a part of]
[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: That’s right. Well, it says that our country is a culture in crisis. Our country has got to decide, does the rule of law apply to everyone, or are we now going to be a country where some people are above the law, and no matter how corrupt they are — you know, putting [CFR member] Bill Clinton back in the White House, given everything we’re learning, I think would be almost a sign of sickness.
And I [also a member of the CFR just like Bill, his daughter Chelsea, 22 Secretaries of State 18 CIA directors and 18 NSA directors] personally — this is why I’ve always told you I thought that she would lose and Donald Trump would win. In the end, I don’t think the majority of American people are going to put somebody who is a liar and a crook in the White House. I just — I have enough faith in the American people that when they get down to voting — I’ve had several people say this to me this week, that when they got right down to it, they simply couldn’t vote for her.
HANNITY: All right, we’ll take a break. We’ll come back. We have more with Newt Gingrich right after this break.
HANNITY: And we continue with former speaker of the House [CFR member] Newt Gingrich.
“The greatest pile-on in history” — in many ways, you know, we’ve discussed, for example, last night we’ve learned Wikileaks that a lot of these reporters, mainstream media, they’re being wined and dined by the [CFR run] Clinton campaign. And this is from [CFR run] ABC, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS, CNBC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Politico, The Hill, The Wall Street Journal!
I never got the invitation. Did you get one? Because I’ve never been invited to any of these things.
[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: Well, I don’t think you’re going to be, either. [says CFR member Newt Gingrich who avoided the answer to the question because he has a tight relationship with CFR member Bill Clinton ]
HANNITY: I don’t want to be. I really don’t want it!
[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: I don’t think — I don’t think the Clintons have you on their list of possible allies. [ where as Bill and Newt not only are fellow CFR members but have a lot in common in the way they treat their women ]
HANNITY: But let me tell you one other thing! I’ve never been to Mar-a- Lago. I’ve never stayed in a Trump hotel. I’ve never been to a Trump golf course, and never been invited there, either. Everyone hates me, I guess!
You know, what’s up with that? I’m beginning to get a complex.
[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: Well, I don’t know. I think — you know, I’m confident that if you ask, Donald will get you on a golf course.
HANNITY: I’ll pay my way. I don’t need anything for free.
[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: I don’t know. I don’t know — I don’t know — that’s right.
You’re (INAUDIBLE) Look, a couple quick things just so the audience gets the full flavor of this. And let me say, by the way, because I know you’re going to cover later on on a very important part of this show, the “New Deal” for African-Americans and for the black community is a really big idea.
Donald Trump has done more to communicate concern and to communicate solutions to the African-American community than any Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime. And the speech yesterday was a big deal.
I know it’s going to be on later on in the show, and I just want to tell you — I think people should note how many things he’s saying and doing that are substantive, his contract with the American voter, which, again, as a guy who wrote the “Contract With America,” I’m very sympathetic to contracts. It’s a great contract. Everybody should go look at it and should see at the Web site for the contract, that in fact, this is something that’s real. It is specific. It is totally different from where Hillary Clinton would take us. And I think these are big breakthroughs, but you’re not going to see much of it in the elite media because it’s all positive.
HANNITY: I actually have — and this is actually signed by Trump. This is his “Contract With America.” Now, he talks about six measures to clean up corruption, drain the swamp, as he calls it, special interests, seven actions to protect American workers, five actions to restore security and constitutional rule of law, middle class tax simplification, Ending the Offshoring Act, American Energy and Infrastructure Act, School Choice and Education Opportunity Act, Repeal and Replace “Obama care” Act, Affordable Child Care and Elder Care Act, Illegal — End the Illegal Immigration Act, Restoring Community Safety Act, Restoring National Security Act and cleaning up corruption in Washington.
There are two pages. I’ve put it up on my Web site, Hannity.com, and people say he’s not substantive. They don’t want to cover the substance of Donald Trump. They don’t want to cover this. And maybe he needs to do what you did when you were running, pull it out of his pocket in every interview and say, This is what I’m going to do. I don’t want to talk about A, B and C, what you want to talk about.
[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: Look, I mean, I think he should probably hold it up at every single rally and tell people that they can go to his Web site and they can sign up and they can be part of this contract between him and the American people, and I think — you know, because we did it and he knows how we did it, he knows we kept our word, he knows we voted on every single thing in the 1994 “Contract With America.”
And I think he’s trying to make a case here that he is really committed to very, very dramatic change. I think it’s pathetic that The New York Times, The Washington Post, et cetera, NBC, CBS, ABC — none of these guys can serve America by letting them see that there is a real alternative.
I mean, it’s almost unpatriotic to have the level of deliberate disinformation and deliberate censorship that we’re getting out of the elite media.[Which is run by the CFR – the organization Newt and Fox News owner Murdoch belong & like Newt and Murdoch leave the CFR out of story – a lie of omission and same mis-direction technique used by the CFR run liberal media and the CFR run intelligence community. The technique even has a name – Limited Hangout.]
And I think it’s something the average American gets. And one of the reasons you’re getting these huge voter turnouts, I think, is to send a signal to the news media, You’re not going to dictate to us that we have to vote for some corrupt left-winger. We’re going to show you. And I think you’re going to find some very surprising results this fall.[ What the average American doesn’t seem to get, or which the news media doesn’t make known is that the problem is the CFR shadow government that moves from administration to administration. What the average American doesn’t seem to get is that they must insist the Justice department investigate the CFR and their connection to the JFK assassination, Iran Contra affair, the FED, the Economic Crisis, the Endless Wars, Main Stream Media, the Intelligence Department, The Banks, the Defense Industry, the Universities and insist all members be tried for treason and caged for the rest of their lives.]
HANNITY: All right, can only hope so. Twelve days to go, Mr. Speaker.
Appreciate you being with us.
Council on Foreign Relations Member Paul Nitze
In “A DIFFERENT FORM OF CAPITALISM” for Johns Hopkins Magazine, Dale Keiger wrote:
“In working on his latest book, CHALLENGE TO AMERICA, Pulitzer Prize winner Hedrick Smith has been observing the enormous rise in power of the East Asian economy. “Not just Japan,” he says, “but the ‘mini-dragons’ [Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong], and beyond them Malaysia, Indonesia, and, the biggest of all, China..
“Their economies operate differently from ours,” notes Smith, an editor-in-residence at Hopkins’s Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. “They have a different form of capitalism. They operate from Confucian standards.” Smith contrasts the Confucian ideal with standard American capitalism. The traditional American belief has been that each person working for individual gain will result in the greatest common good. A good American is supposed to work hard for his or her own aggrandizement; a good American corporation for the immediate profit of the shareholders..
Confucianism, he says, emphasizes hard work “as an obligation to society, not just to personally getting ahead.” In the Confucian tradition, a worker feels strong social pressure to work hard as a form of respect to ancestors, the company, and the broader society. Professional obligations are mutual, Smith points out; for example, companies in Confucian societies go to great lengths to retain their workers. –DK”
Paul Henry Nitze, and Hedrick Smith are Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) members. Not many people heard of the CFR or know how they operate. The group has purposely maintained a low profile while controlling public opinion throughout the world for over 100 years. Branches in Western European and Commonwealth nations are called Institutes of International Affairs (Britain (R(oyal)IIA, Canadian(CIIA), New Zealand(NZIIA), Australian(AIIA), South African(SAIIA),. India(IIIA), and Netherlands(NIIA)). Branches in Eastern European and East Asian Nations are called Institutes of Pacific Relations (Japanese (JIPR), Chinese (CIPR), and Russian (RIPR)).
Nitze has been a fixture in Washington since 1946 and has served in the State Department and as Secretary of the Navy. In 1989 Nitze founded the Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University. In 1993 Nitze published a book titled TENSION BETWEEN OPPOSITES: REFLECTIONS ON THE PRACTICES AND THEORY OF POLITICS.
CFR member Paul Nitzie Paul Nitze served as a national security adviser to the 1960 presidential campaign of Senator John F. Kennedy.
When a CFR member tries to make a difference it is a difference designed to create tension between two or more target groups. Nitze’s targets have been the US, Russia, and Asia. When nuclear weapons made their ominous debut at the end of World War II, Nitze was there. As Vice-Chairman of the US Strategic Bombing Survey, Nitze witnessed first-hand the effects of the A-bomb at the sites of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Deputy Secretary of Defense CFR member Paul H. Nitze, third from left, at a National Security Council meeting with President Lyndon B. Johnson and Secretary of Defense CFR member Robert S. McNamara. February 7, 1968.
Hadley Cantril and Lloyd Free were Princeton University Social Psychologists; researchers; and members of the intelligence community. CFR member Nelson Rockefeller funded them to develop psycho-political policy strategies and techniques. In “How Nations See Each Other.” (1953) Cantril writes about a tool, developed prior to 1939, to investigate people’s perception of their nationality and other nationalities. The tool became known as the Buchanan-Cantril “Adjective Check List.” 
The “Adjective Check List”, contained twelve adjectives: Hard-working; Intelligent; Practical; Generous; Brave; Progressive; Self-Controlled; Peace-Loving; Conceited; Cruel; Domineering; Backward. It was based on the observation people tend to ascribe to their group a set of characteristics different from the character traits ascribed to other groups. The resulting self-image is predominantly flattering, while their picture of “others” is strongly influenced by how much they perceive those others to be like themselves. The relative “similarity” or dissimilarity” between group stereotypes is a useful indicator of the degree of like or dislike between groups or nations. 
The adjective check-list is used to help script and test the effectiveness of psycho-political operations focused at entire nations. Groups are tested to determine the degree of like/dislike between them. The Information is used to script the PSYOP. The PSYOP is carried out without the groups knowledge. The groups are tested again. The increase or decrease of like/dislike indicates the PSYOP’s effectiveness.
Adolph Hitler, and his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels warped History by ignoring it completely, and stressing favorable and unfavorable truths to cause tension and hate between different groups of people. Goebbels’ work fascinated CFR member Edward R. Murrow. The Rockefeller Foundation funded Murrow to perform a systematic analysis of Nazi radio propaganda techniques and the political use of radio.
Murrow, with help from Cantril and Free, began the project at Princeton in 1940. The Princeton Listening Center was set up in an old house on Alexander Street, belonging to Princeton’s Institute of Advanced Study (IASP). IASP was a reasonable copy of the Royal Institute of International Affairs chief Oxford headquarters, All Souls College. CFR member Abraham Flexner of Rockefeller’s General Education Board and foundation administrator, organized it from plans drawn by Tom Jones, one of the Royal Institute of International Affairs most active intriguers and foundations administrators. 
This project resulted in a worldwide monitoring and broadcasting Government agency called the Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service (FBIS). Monitoring stations sprang up near Washington DC, Portland, San Francisco, Texas, Puerto Rico, and a London office in liaison with the British Broadcasting Corporation. FBIS would 1. broadcast our propaganda; 2. monitor enemy propaganda; 3. provide special reports analyzing propaganda, ours and the enemies; and 4. collect and disseminate intelligence to predict Axis moves, both military and political. FBIS collected around 500,000 words a day in 15 languages from 25 transmitters. Daily reports and analyses of the information were furnished to over 500 government officials. FBIS became a regular part of the Government’s intelligence service.
FBIS was a Psychological Warfare machine. FBIS became the United States Information Agency (USIA). The USIA was established to achieve US foreign policy by influencing public attitude at home and abroad using psycho-political policy strategies. The USIA Office of Research and reference service prepares data on psychological factors and propaganda problems considered by the Policy Planning Board in formulating psycho-political information policies for the National Security Council. Murrow would subsequently be named head of the USIA. Murrow became the Propaganda minister for the US — America’s Joseph Goebbels. 
In his book The Human Dimension (Rutgers Univ. Press 1967), Cantril recommends learning about people’s wants, desires and beliefs. He recommends using this information to manipulate people’s reality worlds so they perceive their own best interests are being served, while in fact, some other plan and policy are carried out. The NSC, the CIA. the USIA, and the Department of State would decide the policy. Cantril writes about a special group, called the Psychological Strategy Board, tasked with coordinating this effort.
Cantril doesn’t tell the reader the CFR controls the NSC, the CIA, the USIA and the State Department. Or, that the Psychological Strategy board was designed and directed by CFR member Gordan Gray and his consultant CFR member Henry Kissinger. Or, that the Psychological Strategy board, would later became the Operations Coordinating Board, and then the “Special Group.” This small group was helped by a “Secret Team” of about 3000 Council of Foreign Relations members within the administration and spread throughout private industry. Cantril doesn’t tell the reader the CFR is a branch of an International Group of co-conspirators.
Cantril’s misinformation is an example of a tactic of deception called a “Limited Hangout.” “Limited Hangouts” are used to shape public opinion to support the aims of well planned psychological operations. Stories are carefully crafted to contain some of the truth while withholding key information. “Tactics of Deception” are nothing more than a sophisticated form of lying.
The Psychological Strategy Board became the renamed super-powered Operations Coordinating Board (OCB). The OCB had a vague ambiguous name that didn’t provoke curiosity. It had more members than the Psychological Strategy board. It had the same mission, to use psychological strategy, propaganda, and mass media, to manipulate huge groups of individuals. It had a psychological warfare machine — the United States Information Agency at its disposal. The USIA would be responsible for foreign policy propaganda for the NSC.
After taking office in 1981, incoming President Ronald Reagan appointed CFR member Paul Nitze to lead the U.S. delegation to the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) talks in Geneva.
The National Security Council is responsible for recommending national security policy. The President for having the policy approved. The Operations Coordinating Board for coordinating interdepartmental aspects of operational policy plans to insure their timely and coordinated execution.
The National Security Council’s recommended national security policy is the de facto foreign policy of the United States.The Department of State’s Policy Planning Board scripted the policy for the NSC. The USIA Office of Research and Reference service prepared data on psychological factors and propaganda problems. The Policy Planning Board used the data in formulating psycho-political information policies for the NSC. In 1955 the Director of the USIA became a voting member of the Operations Coordinating board; USIA representatives were invited to attend meetings of the NSC Planning Board; and the USIA Director was invited to Cabinet meetings. 
In 1947 Council on Foreign Relations members George Kennan, Walter Lippmann, Paul Nitze, Dean Acheson, and Walter Krock took part in a psycho-political operation forcing the Marshall Plan on the American public. The PSYOP included an “anonymous” letter credited to Kennan which appeared in the Council on Foreign Relations magazine FOREIGN AFFAIRS. The letter opened the door for the CFR controlled Truman administration to take a hard line against the threat of Soviet expansion.
The Council on Foreign Relations controls public opinion by controlling both sides of an argument. The winning argument costs the American taxpayer billions of dollars. The billions are funneled into CFR controlled medicine, munitions, food, and media industries at home and abroad. The billions are used to create and deliver massive psycho-political operations that manipulate people’s reality worlds so they perceive their own best interests are being served, while in fact, some other plan and policy are carried out. The billions are used to keep the American’s and people in other nations throughout the world in a state of controlled insanity and eternal war.
CFR members are placed on each side of the debate. The outcome is decided in advance. The side meant to lose withholds key information that would cause public opinion to go against Council plans. In the Marshall Plan PSYOP Kennan was for the plan and Lippmann against it. Kennan’s side won. Years later in his memoirs Kennan would say that upon reflection Lippmann was right.
In 1950 another PSYOP resulted in NSC-68, a key cold war document. The National Security Council didn’t write it — the Department of State Policy Planning Staff did. The cast of characters included CFR members George Kennan, Paul Nitze, and Dean Acheson. CFR member Kennan took the losing position, CFR members Acheson and Nitze the winning position. CFR engineered policies such as NSC-68 and the Marshall Plan have more to do with shaping Western and East Asian economies then Confucian or Judeo/Christian ethics ever did.
In September 1949 the Soviets exploded an atom bomb. Four months latter President Truman ordered the Atomic Energy Commission to begin H-bomb development. He also directed the NSC to reappraise American policies. The reappraisal was National Security Council Document 68 (NSC-68). According to NSC-68, “Events since the end of World War II have created a new power relationship in the world which must be viewed not as a temporary distortion but as a long-range fundamental realignment among nations…The US and USSR are the terminal poles of this new international axis.”
NSC-68 was a document of dire expectations. It said the Soviet Union, was “animated by a new fanatical faith, antithetical to our own, and seeks to impose its absolute authority over the rest of the world.” NSC-68 set up three premises — (1) the Soviets wanted to conquer the world (2) there was a growing Soviet military superiority, and (3) it was impossible to negotiate with Soviet Leadership. NSC-68 warned, “Based on these premises an indefinite period of tension and danger is foreseen for the United States and for the West — a period that should be defined less as a short-term crisis than as a permanent and fundamental alteration in the in the shape of international relations.”
Acheson, the hard-liner in the PSYOP, laid the foundations for increased mobilization. Kennan took the other side arguing the end result would be exclusively a plea for military buildup, resulting in the virtual elimination of diplomacy. Acheson prevailed. CFR member Kennan asked to be relieved as chairman of the Policy Planning Staff early in 1950. CFR member Paul Nitze replaced him. Kennan was sent on a mission to South America — some punishment! 
Under Nitze’s direction, the State Department’s drafts of NSC-68 became increasingly warlike. Acheson took to the road “preaching the premise of NSC-68.” Since NSC-68 was conducted under the guise of the National Security Council — Acheson didn’t have to reveal its exact content. This made for lots less nosy and distracting questions from elected representatives of the people. 
NSC-68 set up and struck down three straw men: (1) a retreat to isolationism, (2) another preventive war, (3) a continuation of the status quo of reduced defense budgets and limited capabilities. NSC-68 called for America to “strike out on a bold and massive program of rebuilding the West’s defensive potential to surpass that of the Soviet world, and of meeting each fresh challenge promptly and unequivocally.” NSC-68 was a psycho-political operation to change the two hundred year old way Americans thought about war and taxes — NSC-68 concluded:
“This means virtual abandonment by the United States of trying to distinguish between national and global security. It also means the end of subordinating security needs to the traditional budgeting restrictions; of asking ‘How much security can we afford?’ In other words, security must henceforth become the dominant element in the national budget, and other elements must be accommodated to it.
The wealth potential of the country is such that as much as 20 per cent of the gross national product can be devoted to security without causing national bankruptcy. This new concept of the security needs of the nation calls for annual appropriations of the order of $50 billion, or not much below their former wartime levels.” 
NSC-68 was given to Truman on April 7, 1950. NSC-68 was a practical extension of the Truman doctrine. It had the US assume the role of world policeman and use 20 per cent of its gross national product ($50 billion in 1953) for arms. NSC-68 provided the justification — the WORLD WIDE COMMUNIST THREAT! CFR member Under Secretary of State James Webb sent a memo to Truman warning he would face “the problem of how to get up enough public steam to support … starting to build up our strength, and at the same time … not get up so much as to look provocative.” 
An Ad Hoc Committee met on May 2nd. William Schaub of the Budget Bureau started asking some basic questions: Wouldn’t the buildup force the Russians into military action? What were the commitments, and at what point would the US fight to defend them? What would everything cost? Did it make sense to reduce complex world problems to a clash between the “free world” and a “slave society?” Were there no valid reasons why people under despotic governments turned to communism? Why did the research group minimize, “economic and social change as a factor in the underlying conflict?” Schaub’s questions never saw the light of day. On the 25th of June 1950 tanks and troops of the Soviet Puppet State of North Korea crossed the border into the American protectorate of South Korea. The United Nations authorized the United States to repel the invasion. It was not hard to get the national support needed for NSC-68 to become reality.
NSC-68 realized a major Council on Foreign Relations aim — building the largest military establishment in Peace Time History. Within a year of drafting NSC-68, the security-related budget leaped to $22 billion, armed forces manpower was up to a million — CFR medicine, munitions, food, and media businesses were humming again. The following year the NSC-68 budget rose to $44 billion. In fiscal 1953 it jumped to $50 billion. Today (1997) we are still running $300 billion dollar defense budgets despite our enemy giving up because it went bankrupt. America would never turn back from the road of huge military spending. Spending that included the purchase of radioactive fallout on American citizens in the 50’s, and buying thermonuclear waste from the Russians as we approach the year 2000. Spending resulting in a national debt of $5 Trillion Dollars that continues to grow, and interest payments of over $270 billion a year. Is the Council on Foreign Relations trying to make the United States economically vulnerable to influence from outside sources? Isn’t that treason?
In 1953 Dean Acheson gave a seminar at Princeton, home of the Council on Foreign Relations Institute for Advanced Study (IASP). Acheson talked about NSC-68. Acheson was questioned as to how resistance to the policy was overcome. Acheson explained “Korea came along and saved us.” What Acheson didn’t explain was how Korea came along, and who made it happen — the Council on Foreign Relations, the Institutes of International Affairs, and the Institutes of Pacific Relations.
In CHALLENGE TO AMERICA, Hedrick Smith targets Americans and Chinese and people of faith. Attacking your targets faith is an effective psychological warfare technique for demoralizing an enemy. Legalizing and encouraging immoral actions is one way of attacking a target groups faith. The CFR controls the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial systems. Encouraging witnesses to lie under oath encourages people to take the Lords name in vain; condones bearing false witness against ones neighbors; and allows the guilty to go free while encouraging people to steal and murder. Legalizing divorce legalizes and encourages adultery and promiscuity. Legalizing abortion legalizes and encourages murder. Smith attacks his targets faith by creating tension between followers of Western and Eastern religions. Smith creates the false impression that Western and Eastern religions are based upon different ethical theisms. This is misinformation. The ethical and moral foundations of Western and Eastern religions are remarkably similar. They are founded upon the God’s algorithm for intelligently designed morality, the golden rule.
Hedrick Smith is a Pulitzer Prize-winning correspondent who worked for The New York Times for 26 years. He worked in Washington, Moscow, Cairo, Saigon and Paris. Smith authored several national bestselling books, including THE RUSSIANS (1976), THE POWER GAME: HOW WASHINGTON WORKS (1988), THE NEW RUSSIANS (1990) and AND RETHINKING AMERICA: A NEW GAME PLAN FROM AMERICAN INNOVATORS (1995).
Smith produced more than 20 documentaries. “INSIDE GORBACHEV’S USSR,” provided viewers with candid, close-up portraits of the Soviet people, as they grappled with Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts to transform the Soviet political and economic system. “RETHINKING AMERICA” expanded on Smith’s PBS documentary series, “CHALLENGE TO AMERICA” which showed how innovators in America, Japan and Germany are making schools, businesses, jobs and people work more effectively to meet the challenge of the new global economy.
Smith’s documentaries are globalony. Smith’s propaganda shifts the focus away from the America’s Council on Foreign Relations, Western European/Commonwealth Institutes of International Affairs, and Eastern European/East Asian Institutes of Pacific Relations — the real reason for the enormous rise in power of the East Asian economy. Smith’s propaganda implies the East Asian economic system is somehow better than the American system. Meanwhile in East Asia psycho-political operations with an opposite spin are taking place. The East Asian people are being told the American system is superior to the East Asian system. By creating tension, confusion, and hate between Americans and East Asians the CFR fraternity of international co-conspirators can control trade and industry in both countries without competition. Pretty slick!
Smith’s arguments confuse and misled. We are told the East Asian economic system,including Communist China, is a form of capitalism. We are told East Asian Capitalism is based upon Confucian ethics, which emphasize “an obligation to society, not just to personally getting ahead.” We are told the American economic system emphasizes workers who work for their own aggrandizement and corporations that work for the profit of the shareholders. Smith is creating the perception that the American system is based upon selfishness and the East Asian system upon self-sacrifice.
If you feel anger toward East Asians Smith’s propaganda effectively manipulated you. The truth is neither economic system is driven by the ethical and moral codes of the people of East Asia or America. The economic systems in East Asia and America are driven by a group of greedy, avaricious cheats and liars like Hedrick Smith, that belong to the CFR and its fraternal organizations throughout the world.
The Chinese Institute of Pacific Relations runs Chinese government and industry. In April of 1989 the Chinese Government demonstrated the great lengths it would go to to retain its workers. Students camped out in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square protesting economic and political corruption in Chinese Government. Over 100,000 students and workers marched. Twenty other cities in China saw similar protests. Martial law was imposed. Army troops crushed protests in Tiananmen Square. Death toll estimates were between 500-7000. Ten thousand people were injured. Ten Thousand dissidents were arrested. Thirty-one dissidents were tried and executed.
CFR member Congressman Richard Gephardt (D-MO), recently informed the TV audience America will soon have to relinquish control to an “International Regime.” Are we approaching the day when students and workers marching in the United States will be crushed by UN Peacekeeping Forces under the control of this International Regime? Who will control the Regime? The Council on Foreign Relations?
Are documentaries and books such as Smith’s used to brainwash the American public while informing knowledgeable intelligence operatives about the climate of public opinion the Council on Foreign Relations wishes to achieve? Are historians and economists who try and present an accurate picture blacklisted by members of the CFR who pick and choose what to present the Public through Newspapers, Radio, and TV? Are they in competition with trained operatives who lead double lives and work for the USIA, State Department, and various intelligence organizations?
Suppressing opponents views is as important a propaganda technique as getting your side of the story out. Ignoring history is a “tactic of deception” used to warp historical truth. Conspicuously absent from Pulitzer Prize winner Hedrick Smith’s books and documentaries are the CFR role in world economic affairs. CHALLENGE TO AMERICA warps historical truth by failing to include the Council on Foreign Relations role in engineering the East Asian Rise to power. This is no accident. If the public is ignorant of the group responsible for instigating tension, it can’t prevent that group from archiving its aims.
Is failure to report accurately a criteria for winning a Pulitzer? Is being a CFR member or insider a criteria for winning a Pulitzer?
In his book CLOAK & GOWN, CFR member Robin Winks explores the underlying bonds between the university and intelligence community. Winks, warps historical fact in the same manner as Smith. What Winks fails to explore is the underlying bonds between the Council on Foreign Relations and the Intelligence Community.
Is the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, a training ground for CFR controlled State Department and Intelligence Organization operatives specializing in economic warfare? Is Yale University a Spy School? Do University Professors and students connected with intelligence organizations use their University status as a cover for the parts they play in well planned CFR State Department run psycho-political operations? Are unwitting Teachers and Students used as extras and set up as decoys and bait in well planned psycho-dramas? Do Smith and members of his documentary crew also work for the CIA, NSC, USIA, State Department, or other intelligence agencies?
In America the Council on Foreign Relations controls the State Department, the Intelligence Agencies, the Federal Reserve, the Executive office, and both houses of Congress. In East Asian countries, the Governments and Economic systems are run by Institutes of Pacific Relations — CFR fraternal organizations. It is the CFR members and their fraternity brothers in other nations who work for their own aggrandizement while at the same time making sure corporations at home and abroad maximize their profits at the expense of their fellow countrymen.
In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s Council leaders Zbigniew Brzezinski, and David Rockefeller created the Trilateral Commission (TC), which included 60 members from Japan and 60 from Western Europe and 205 Americans. Almost all the American members belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. The Trilateral Commission’s publicized goal was to develop closer economic and political cooperation among the industrialized democracies in dealing with economic competition among themselves and with challenges from underdeveloped countries. Its real goal was exactly the opposite — to control the global economy through well planned psycho-political operations creating tension between peoples of different nations and faiths resulting in an eternal state of conflict and war.
The CFR and the Trilateral Commission dominate key positions in America’s government, military, industries, media outlets and educational foundations and institutions. The CFR’s membership is limited to 3,000, and the Trilateral Commission to 325 members. The Council on Foreign Relations propaganda machine manipulates American Citizens to accept the particular climate of opinion the CFR seeks to achieve in the world. CFR members working in an ad hoc committee called the “Special Group” and through a vast intragovernmental undercover infrastructure called the “Secret Team” formulate this opinion in the US. The CFR, has methodically taken over the Department of State, The Federal Reserve, and the CIA.
CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski is also employed by Hopkins’s Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). CFR members Brzezinski (Public Law and Government Professor, Columbia ); Frederick C. Barghoorn (Political Science Professor, Yale ); and George A. Kelly (Politics Professor, Brandeis ); contributed to THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS. The book contains a series of case studies sponsored by the US Department of the Army.
Other CFR members and insiders employed by SAIS are Christian Herter, and Council on Foreign Relations Fellows Andrew J. Bacevich and Wilford L. Kohl.
Missing from the numerous articles, books, and documentaries of SAIS faculty members Nitze, Smith, Brzezinski , Herter, Bacevich, and Kohl is a connection between the Council on Foreign Relations and their influence in world affairs. Such oversight can hardly be coincidental. CFR member Nitze’s “Not-Sees” are using American Tax payer dollars to create and deliver massive psycho-political operations that manipulate the American publics reality worlds so they perceive their own best interests are being served, while in fact, some other plan and policy is carried out to profit CFR members and their coconspirators in other nations. CFR member Nitze’s “Not-Sees” are using American Tax-payer dollars to keep the American’s in a state of controlled insanity and eternal war. Senator, that is treason.
Senator, Council on Foreign Relations members are a group of subtle fascists intent on creating one world order under their control. It is time to investigate the members of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Institutes of International Affairs, and the Institutes of Pacific Relations.
 Pollock, Daniel C Project Director & Editors De Mclaurin,Ronald, Rosenthal, Carl F., Skillings, Sarah A., The Art and Science of Psychological Operations: Case Studies of Military Application Volume One, Pamphlet No. 725-7-2, DA Pam 525-7-2, Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC, 1 April 1976 Vol 2 pg 806 – The Hungarian Self-Image And The Hungarian Image of Americans and Russians by Radio Free Europe, Audience and Public Opinion Research Department, February 1970 Excerpts from “The Hungarian Self-Image and the Hungarian Image of Americans, Russian, Germans, Rumanians, and Chinese”; Buchanan, W. Cantril, H. “How Nations See Each Other,” University of Illinois Press, Urbana 1953; Cantril H. and Strunk M.: “Public Opinion 1935-1946” Princeton University Press
 Hadley Cantril, The Human Dimension: Experiences in Policy Research, Rutgers The State University, 1967 pg 32-34, 30-31; he War and Peace Studies of The Council On Foreign Relations 1939-1945, The Harold Pratt House 58th E. 68th Street, NY, 1946, pg. 24; Quigley, Carroll, Tragedy and Hope, Macmillan, New York 1966, p. 953
[4 ]Hadley Cantril, The Human Dimension: Experiences in Policy Research, Rutgers The State University, 1967 pg 32-34, 30, 33-34
Henderson, John W.,The United States Information Agency, 1966, pg. 52-53 Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, New York, Washington, London, Book 14 in the Praeger Library of US Government Departments and Agencies series, consulting editors Ernest S. Griffith, former Dean and Professor Emeritus, School Of International Service, American University. Hugh Langdon Elsbree, former Chairmen, Department of Political Science, Dartmouth College. Both editors are formed directors, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress.
 Bernard A. Weisberger, Cold War Cold Peace The United States and Russia Since 1945, American Heritage 1984, Forbes Building, 60 Fifth Avenue, NY, NY 10011, Houghton Mifflin Company 1987 pg. 98; George J.A. O’Toole, Honorable Treachery, A History of US Intelligence, Espionage, and Covert Action from the American Revolution to the CIA, A Morgan Entrekin Book The Atlantic Monthly Press, New York (1991) pgs 301; Ronald Steel, Walter Lippmann and the American Century, Boston: Little Brown, 1980 p 448-449
Bernard A. Weisberger, Cold War Cold Peace The United States and Russia Since 1945, American Heritage 1984, Forbes Building, 60 Fifth Avenue, NY, NY 10011, Houghton Mifflin Company 1987 pg. 99
 IBID 99
 IBID 99
 IBID 101
 IBID 103
 IBID 103
 IBID 103
Chief Editors note:
The following article is from The Daily Bell. If you click the link you will find it is no longer there. It is an important article and is a technique used by the Council on Foreign Relations to shape the mind of the herd. CFR founding father Walter Lippmann and his sidekick Edward Bernays, the fathers of propaganda, used it well.
The Hegelian Dialectic is a philosophical approach that in principle explains how human beings progress toward a better and more egalitarian condition but in practice provides the power elite with a strategy for controlling society.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was among the most consequential philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. His was heavily influenced by Plato, whose social ideal was rule by an elite composed of philosopher-kings. Though Hegel may not have intended to provide a Platonic methodology for the modern-day control of the many by the few, that is how his insights have been used.
The Platonic influence on Hegel was reinforced by the age in which he worked. Hegel accepted that “enlightened” human beings are responsible for their own destiny, and that culture and history are a product of human development, which in turn is driven by reason. Hegel subscribed to the Rousseauian notion that humans are a blank slate, a tabula rasa. In fact, Hegel was a big fan of the French, in cluding the authoritarian leader Napoleon and the French Revolution itself, a bloodbath he described as the realization of more perfect freedom.
Today most behavioral scientists see human beings not as purely rational or perfectly elastic but as complex creatures many of whose behaviors are instinctual or biologically programmed. This has not hindered the practical application of Hegel’s conceptual tools, however, which have been used as an effective methodology of control for at least the past century.
It is necessary to examine the dialectic in a little more detail to understand this. Hegel postulated that each stage of human advance – and the course of history itself – was driven by an argument (thesis), a counterargument (anti-thesis) and finally a synthesis of the two into a more advanced argument – at which point the process restarted. For Hegel, the dialectic could explain everything – art, culture, history, even nature.
From our more modern vantage point, Hegel’s dialectic may not seem so persuasive as an explanation of all things – and in fact, it probably is not. But for the elite of his day, and for the monetary elite today, the Hegelian dialectic provides tools for the manipulation of society.
To move the public from point A to point B, one need only find a spokesperson for a certain argument and position him or her as an authority. That person represents Goalpost One. Another spokesperson is positioned on the other side of the argument, to represent Goalpost Two.
Argument A and B can then be used to manipulate a given social discussion. If one wishes, for instance, to promote Idea C, one merely needs to promote the arguments of Goalpost One (that tend to promote Idea C) more effectively than the arguments of Goalpost Two. This forces a slippage of Goalpost Two’s position. Thus both Goalpost One and Goalpost Two advance downfield toward Idea C. Eventually, Goalpost Two occupies Goalpost One’s original position. The “anti-C” argument now occupies the pro-C position. In this manner whole social conversations are shifted from, say, a debate over market freedom vs. socialism to a debate about the degree of socialism that is desirable.
The Hegelian dialectic is a powerful technique for influencing the conversations of cultures and nations, especially if one already controls (owns) much of the important media in which the arguments take place. One can then, as the monetary elite characteristically do, emphasize one argument at the expense of the other, effectively shifting the positions of Goalposts One and Two.
Clinton-Bush-Obama CFR policy planning network http://files.isanet.org/ConferenceArchive/dcb70c61c06c4071b36d9e774e4645b4.pdf
(Excerpted from Chapter 3: The House of Saud & JP Morgan: Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf…)
Bechtel insider George Pratt Schultz is also the current director at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a powerful US foreign policy think tank whose geopolitical imperatives are more often than not adopted by the US State Department.
View original post 856 more words
CFR’s Newt Gingrich, Thomas Donohue CFR corporate member U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Author and investigative reporter Mark Dowie published an article in the Washington Spectator titled Corporate Lobby: The Third Chamber. Dowie’s story is about the transformation of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce into a corporate lobbying group who use their powerful government connections and large corporate donations to influence elections and buy the passage or defeat of legislation. He explains how Newt Gingrich was the architect of the new U.S. Chamber of Commerce and made Thomas Donohue its new leader. What Dowie failed to investigate was the Council on Foreign Relations connection. Gingrich and Donohue are Council on Foreign Relations members. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a Council on Foreign Relations Member Corporation. Many other influential CFR members worked behind the scenes in government and industry to pull off the transformation. The real story is that the Council on Foreign Relations has taken over the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and is using it to further the interest of member corporations, destroy the sovereignty of the United States and help achieve its goal of global governance.
Corporate Lobby: The Third Chamber
by Mark Dowie
Why do we criticize people for doing what they’re hired to do? Take [Council on Foreign Relations member] Thomas J. Donohue, for example. Day after day the poor guy gets pummeled by Washing ton non-profits and mainstream media for doing his job. He’s out there challenging health care reform; suing the SEC to stifle the regulation of financial markets; lobbying Congress to reduce punitive damages in product liability litigation; attempting to gut the Foreign Corrupt Practices and False Claims Acts; undermining carbon pollution standards; questioning the causes of climate change; opposing a federal minimum wage; defending high-salt processed foods; attacking “net metering” of solar energy panels; interfering in the election of state supreme court justices; shilling for American tobacco overseas; opposing environmental legislation; fighting paid maternity leave; persuading -American businesses to fight campaign-finance disclosure: opposing net neutrality; defending high pharmaceutical prices; and laundering large “anonymous” donations from the Koch Brothers’ Freedom Partners and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads Super Pac.
Why, should [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue be rebuked for this very abbreviated list if those tasks were handed to him in 1997, when he began serving as CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [a Council on Foreign Relations corporate member], whose core mission was then, and still is, “to advance human progress through an economic, political, and social system based on individual freedom. incentive, initiative, opportunity and responsibility-“?
This would be a fair question were [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue committed to that mission and doing what he does for all American enterprise, or even for the 150 members of the U.S. Chamber Board of Directors, or the 3 million small businesses, 7,ooo state and local chambers, and 116 overseas American chambers he daims to represent in 103 countries.
But he’s not. He is, in fact, doing the bidding of a few national politicians and their mostly anonymous corporate sponsors who believed in 1996, and evidently still do, that a pragmatic, staid national chamber, founded to be “in touch with business associations and chambers of commerce throughout the country'” was wasting its time and treasure.
A truly valuable trade association, according to this small group of Republican politicians and their corporate sponsors, could transform itself from a high-minded affinity group (described by a tobacco executive as a “weak sister”) into a fighting force for a few troubled American industries and products-tobacco for one, but also banking, health insurance, pharmaceuticals, firearms. coal. and other fossil fuels. All were threatened by progressive idealists and the excesses of federal regulation, according to a warning from corporate lawyer Lewis Powell. It is time, members of this corporate cabal argued, for “capitalists to carry the banner” of what Powell described as “confrontation politics” and “not to hesitate to attack liberals and push politicians for the support of the free enterprise system.”
Powell made his argument in a “confidential” memorandum written in 1971 at the invitation of his friend Eugene B. Sydnor Jr., chairman of the U.S. Chamber’s Education Committee. Powell, a former American Bar Association president, champion of winner-take-all capitalism, and a member of 11 corporate boards, warned that American business was “under broad attack” from political and social interests and organizations that wanted to institutionalize “socialism or some form of statism.” “We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few, extremists or even from the minority of socialist cadre,” Powell wrote. “Rather the assault on the enterprise system is broadly .based and consistently, pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.” The enemies of -American enterprise he descried included, “not unexpectedly’ the Communists. New Leftists, and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system both political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history”
Here was a memo from a man who had sought to keep the government from regulating cigarettes Iong after it was known that they’ were killing countless Americans and who one year later would be elevated to the Supreme Court. Powell was whining at full volume.
“Few elements of American society today- have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders. .. Business must learn the lesson, Iong ago learned by ‘labor and other self- interest groups, that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously [sic] cultivated; and that when necessary it must be used aggressively and with determination.” To silence the “disquieting voices” the national chamber “would require far more generous support from American corporations than it has ever received in the past.” The memo was leaked to investigative columnist Jack Anderson and widely circulated.
The pro-corporate movement it spawned would a few years later elevate men like [Council on Foreign Relations member] Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, and John Boehner to national prominence. Powell’s thinking would ultimately inspire like [Council on Foreign Relations member] Gingrich and his allies to transform the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Richard Lesher was a bright, conservative Pennsylvania gentleman who had been running the chamber for 22 years, when in 1994 he decided to support the [CFR member run] Clinton administration’s health care package. Like [Council on Foreign Relations member]Gingrich, Armey, and DeLay let the Chamber board know that Lesher had to go.
By 1997, [Council on Foreign Relations member]Gingrich had consolidated his power as Speaker of the House, and identified a replacement for Lesher, like [Council on Foreign Relations member]Tom Donohue, a take-no-prisoners Lobbyist for the trucking industry. The chamber, he told like [Council on Foreign Relations member] Gingrich and The Wall Street Journal, was a “sleeping giant, missing in in action from many important political battles.”
The deal was sealed over a three-hour dinner during which [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue expressed his opinions on tort reform, workers’ rights, businesses’ bottom lines, and financial regulation.
[Council on Foreign Member] Donohue turned out to be a near-perfect choice. Not only has he quadrupled the chamber’s annual budget by scaring billions of dollars out of the corporations Powell said should be funding the counter-revolution. he has transformed the organization into the largest business lobby in Washington given the tobacco industry a global reprieve, offered wall Street protection from Elizabeth Warren. Provided Big Pharma some hope for its future. And he can be credited with creating and maintaining a Republican majority-in both the House and Senate.
Biggest gorilla in town
“My goal is simple-to build the biggest gorilla in this town-the most aggressive and rigorous business advocate our nation has ever seen,” [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue wrote to Roy Mardin. the Philip Morris exec who had described the chamber as a weak sister. He then promised Marden to eliminate punitive damages in lawsuits against tobacco companies, who by then, it was clear, were killing and debilitating millions of people around the world.
“If there’s one thing I know, how to do it’s to provide great value to those who really step up to the plate…By agreeing to be a strong supporter, you will always be heard here and always have a voice,” he wrote to Marden . A check for $180,000 from Philip Morris arrived on [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue’s desk a few days later, $100,000 of which immediately paid for TV ads opposing a bill Senator [Council on Foreign Relations member] John McCain had introduced to increase cigarette taxes to pay for an anti-smoking program for children,
The new chamber president also threatened to “make life miserable” for politicians he didn’t like and promised anonymous deniability to America’s most embarrassing industries.
The chamber’s culture changed overnight, reflecting [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donahue’s announcement that he planned “to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed.” In less than two decades, with a chauffeured Lincoln, a private jet, and a $5.5 million annual pay, package, [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue became the nation’s most generously compensated American lobbyist.
[Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue started by, expanding his lobbying team from two to 10. Today the chamber boasts 150 registered lobbyists, 87 of them in-house. It spends more on lobbying Congress ($124 million in 2014) than the next four organizations combined, and provides more election campaign support than either of the political parties, almost all of it for Republican candidates, who receive carefully laundered money from donors seeking the political cover a restructured chamber offers them.
Most of the money [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue raises is kept dark and its donors anonymous. “I want to give them all the deniability they need,” he declared as he began telling his donors that “people seem to listen to you more when you’ve got a bagful of cash.” It was an appealing pitch to businesses and industries with questionable conduct to hide. Yet with public anonymity comes private disclosure. Recipients of dark money must eventually be told who their donors are so they will know whom to reward with anti- regulatory law, policy, and other favors. Not long after [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue placed a “show me the money” sign on his desk, he quadrupled the chamber’s annual budget from under $50 million to more than $200 million. He soon became the nation’s largest political campaign contributor, created an entirely new internal legal subsidiary- and expanded another. He formed the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) to fight the power of trial lawyers’. The U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, an in-house, non-profit law firm, files more than 100 suits a year against federal regulatory agencies, mostly the EPA, SEC, and the Departments of Labor (including OSHA), Transportation, and Interior, whose regulations are perceived by [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue and his clients to stifle profit.
But his major accomplishment has been the recruitment of reliable, super-generous corporations. In 1997, only a quarter of Fortune 1,000 companies were members, and most of them paid paltry annual dues. Today almost all 1000 are members, and many of them part with very generous sums. Yet only a handful of donors provide the lion’s share of the chamber’s strategic assault funds. In 209 for example, 16 companies provided 55 percent of the chamber’s total budget, most of it targeting the Affordable Care Act.
Health insurers like Aetna, [CFR corporate member] Cigna, Humana, Kaiser, United- Health Group, and Wellpoint, stood to lose billions if the law passed. A retrospective examination of their charitable contributions showed, they secretly handed the chamber a stunning $86.2 million in August 2009. Aetna alone ponied up more than $7 million. That money accounted for 40 percent of the chambers $214.6 million expenditures in 2009. These companies are capable of producing their own ads and PR. But they use the chamber as a convenient and compliant front group.
Of the 1523 donations made to the U.S. Chamber in 2012, more than 95 percent were small and inconsequential. But that year more than half the chamber income came from 64 anonymous donors giving $121 million. To its campaign to rewrite the nation’s financial regulations. Prudential contributed $2 million. [CFR corporate member] Goldman Sachs followed suit with an undisclosed eight-figure donation. When the chamber promised to attack tighter security requirements at chemical plants, Dow contributed $1.7 million. Another donor, to this day anonymous, gave more than $15 million. Donations of that size are not membership dues, they’re protection money.
The chamber claims to represent the “interests of more than three million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions.” Although that may be accurate, the claim is often made to sound as if three million firms are dues-paying members. While the chamber will not reveal membership numbers, or identities, it has admitted in the past to having fewer than 300,000 dues-paying members, many of them loosely affiliated through membership in state and local chambers that pay dues to the national organization.
[Council on Foreign Relations member] Donahue values his alleged small-firm members because some in Congress are more likely to listen to them than to big business. They’re real people rather than “corporate personhood” fictions that possess free speech and the right to make unlimited contributions but can’t vote. Moreover, they “provide the foot soldiers, and often the political cover, for issues big companies want pursued,” [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue explains.
A bagful of cash
But it’s the money that provides the leverage. By 2010 the chamber was raising five times what it was before [Council on Foreign Relations member]Donohue arrived, almost $250 million in contributions and grants. Most of the new money has been spent on lobbying, electoral campaigns. and fighting trial lawyers through the ILR, which also contributes dark money to campaigns, mostly to candidates opposing state supreme court justices with an affection for punitive damages against corporate defendants.
While one might expect that amount of money to produce consistently impressive election results, some cycles are better than others. The 2010 elections did bring a Republican majority to the House, thanks largely to chamber support of Tea Party candidates.
The 2012 election didn’t tum out too well for the chamber, which spent nearly $24 million to defeat several high-profile Democrats in Senate races, including Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio, former governor Timothy Kaine in Virginia, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, and Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, all of whom are still in office. Of 15 Senate races to which the chamber contributed that year, only two event its way. The results were not much better in the House, where $7 million was pumped into 22 races and only four of [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue chosen candidates won.
Chamber spending in 2014, was again aimed at electing Republicans, with, for example, $5,697,144 invested in Thom Tillis’s successful campaign against Democratic Senator Kay Hagan and $3,701,491 to defeat progressive Democratic Senator Mark Udall in Colorado.
[Council on Foreign Relations member]Donohue promises to commit $100 million to candidates in 2016. He rarely spends as much as he promises, but even half that amount, strategically spent, could keep both houses of Congress in his camp. Three million has already gone to replace retiring Senator Harry Reid in Nevada, and $10 million to support Senators Rob Portman (R_Ohio), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H), and Pat Toomey, R-Penn. r.
In 2005, the Council of State Chambers of Commerce commissioned Republican consultant Frank Luntz’s firm [ Luntz is a CFR pollster exposed by Penn and Teller in 1996 CFR member Grover Norquist and Luntz debated Christopher Hitchens ] to poll 1000 local, state, and national senior corporate executives who are current or prospective chamber members. The survey revealed that chamber members nationwide overwhelmingly support progressive social and business policies the U.S. Chamber is fighting.
For example, 8o percent of current or prospective members support raising their state’s minimum wage; 73 percent support paid sick- days; 72 percent support increased maternity leave time; and 82 percent support increased paternity-leave time.
In response, Luntz’s firm prepared a web seminar hosted by the Council of State Chambers in February of this year, providing “a few helpful hints on how to combat these reforms in your states.” Several local chambers had already left the national organization. Luntz’s insulting response to his own survey will , almost certainly lead to the exodus of others. And corporations I could follow Apple, Mohawk Paper, Pacific Gas and Electric, Exelon, and PNM Resources, who pulled out last fall, citing the chamber pro-fossil-fuel climate policy as their reason for leaving. CVS Health Corporation, with its 7,800 retail drug stores, followed, revolted by the chamber’s overseas promotion, for another hazardous product, tobacco.
More recently, the staffs of about half a dozen U.S. Senators who were curious about the chamber selecting targets and taking positions contrary to the interests of many of its members, in particular regarding tobacco, surveyed the 108 corporations with executive representatives on the U.S. chamber Board of Directors. The Senate investigators found that approximately, half the corporate board members have anti-tobacco and/or pro-climate positions. And not one of their CEOs explicitly supported the chamber’s lobbying actions on tobacco or climate change.
If the chamber board and funders don’t mind the slow but steady exodus of state and local chambers, and the departure of some of the most distinguished corporations in American business, they will keep their consummate Washington fixer at the helm. Yet only a handful the nation’s business and political Ieaders brought [Council on Foreign Relations member]Tom Donohue to Washington. What can be done can be undone.
Mark Dowie is an author and investigative reporter. This article appeared in the Washington Spectator but couldn’t be found on-line at the time I updated it to expose the CFR role in the Chamber of Commerce takeover. (http://washingtonspectator.org)
18 CIA directors are Council on Foreign Relations 18 NSA directors are CFR – Booze Allen is owned by CFR run Carlyle corporation. Edward Snowden worked for Booze Allen. If you use the CFR membership list ( http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html ) to look up the people in this article you will find that most of the Americans are CFR members. https://tomjefferson1976.wordpress.com/?s=snowden https://tomjefferson1976.wordpress.com/?s=carlyle
Adam Werritty: Liam Fox’s friend ‘bankrolled by corporate intelligence firm and Israel lobbyist’
Adam Werritty, the Defence Secretary’s unofficial “adviser”, was funded by a corporate intelligence company and the chairman of an Israeli lobbying organisation, documents have disclosed….
Liam Fox & Adam Werritty, but no mention of Luke Coffey, CIA agent with access all areas pass at the MOD
The big story is of Liam Fox & his special relationship with Adam Werritty, homo-honeytraps aside, the real story here is of another one of Fox’s special advisors Luke Coffey that is going unreported.
Liam “I’m not a homo” Fox hired an American, Luke Coffey to work in the Defence Department as a special advisor.
On 6 June 2010, The Sunday Times reported that Liam Fox, the UK Defence Minister lets a US ‘mole’ roam the Ministry of Defence
According to the Sunday Times in June 2010:
View original post 7,395 more words