Category Archives: Uncategorized
The National Endowment for Democracy a Council on Foreign Relations Deep State Covert Operations Tool
In Trojan Horses and Color Revolutions: The Role of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) William Blum writes: “How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies.
The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate – the Church committee of the Senate, the Pike committee of the House, and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.
Something had to be done. What was done was not to stop doing these awful things. Of course not. What was done was to shift many of these awful things to a new organization, with a nice sounding name – The National Endowment for Democracy. The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities.
It was a masterpiece. Of politics, of public relations, and of cynicism.
Thus it was that in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy was set up to “support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts”. Notice the “nongovernmental” – part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually every penny of its funding comes from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the financial statement in each issue of its annual report. NED likes to refer to itself as an NGO (Non-governmental organization) because this helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad that an official US government agency might not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a GO.
“We should not have to do this kind of work covertly,” said Carl Gershman in 1986, while he was president of the Endowment. “It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60’s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.”
And Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, declared in 1991: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED…”
The NED website identifies NED’s Council on Foreign Relations Connections. Council on Foreign Relations members McCloy and Donovan created the OSS, the CIA and the NSA and run the U.S. intelligence community. NED is just another CFR deep state tool for creating endless war, spreading globalization and creating one world government.
NED’s websites tell us:
Ronald Reagan Conversing with CFR member John McCloy
“NED’s non-governmental status has a number of advantages that are recognized by those institutions that really do carry out American foreign policy. As pointed out in a letter signed by seven former Secretaries of State in 1995, “We consider the non-governmental character of the NED even more relevant than it was at NED’s founding twelve years ago.” The seven were [Council on Foreign Relations members] James Baker, Laurence Eagleburger, George Shultz, Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger, Edmund Muskie and Cyrus Vance.
To commemorate the twentieth anniversary of NED’s establishment, the Board of Directors issued an invitation to President George W. Bush [son of CFR member George H.W.Bush] to make a major statement about democracy. In his address, one of the most cited of his Presidency, he articulated a vision of a more democratic Middle East, the one region of the world where democracy has failed to take hold. Much of his speech echoed one of the major themes of the Endowment’s third strategy document, which calls for promoting democratic institutions and values in countries with significant Muslim populations, while maintaining NED’s global grants program. [Was this the real goal or was the real goal to promote Middle East unrest and stir up the War on Terror?]
In January 2009, NED’s Board of Directors elected former congressional leader [CFR member] Richard Gephardt to serve as its Chairman,succeeding former congressman [CFR member] Vin Weber, who had held the position since 2001. Former U.S. Representative Martin Frost (D-TX), Ambassador Princeton Lyman, Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall, and Ambassador Stephen Sestanovich have joined the Board of Directors of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Frost and Sestanovich were elected for a three-year term on June 19, 2009; Lyman and Marshall were elected to a similar term today.
CFR member Gephardt follows Al Gore, CFR member Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton
“We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression.” — Richard Gephardt, in the Wall Street Journal (September 1990)
Ambassador Princeton N. Lyman is an adjunct senior fellow for Africa policy studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He is also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University [ a CFR rats nest]. Ambassador Lyman’s career in government included assignments as deputy assistant secretary of state for Africa, U.S. ambassador to Nigeria, director of refugee programs, ambassador to South Africa, and assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs. He has published books and articles on foreign policy, African affairs, economic development, HIV/AIDS, UN reform, and peacekeeping.
CFR Member Princeton N. Lyman
Stephen Sestanovich is the George F. Kennan senior fellow for Russian and Eurasian studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis professor of international diplomacy at Columbia University. His particular areas of expertise are Russia and the former Soviet Union, Caucasus and Central Asia, and U.S. foreign policy. From 1997 to 2001, he served as ambassador-at-large and special adviser to the secretary of state for the new independent states. In this capacity, he was the State Department’s principal officer responsible for policy toward the states of the former Soviet Union.
CFR member Stephen Sestanovich
Congressman Martin Frost is a keen observer of national politics who has held a number of leadership positions for the Democratic Party including Caucus Chair, Ranking Democrat for the Rules Committee, and Chairman of the DCCC — he is considered one of the party’s top strategists. From 1979-2005, Mr. Frost served as a member of Congress representing the Dallas-Fort Worth area in north Texas. From 1990-95, he also chaired a special House Task Force established to help eastern and central European nations transition to democracy after the fall of the Berlin Wall. He has continued democracy building efforts through work with the National Democratic Institute.
Will Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), established in 1989 as a center for political innovation in Washington, D.C. In this capacity, he has been one of the chief intellectual architects of the movement to modernize progressive politics for the global age. PPI’s policy analysis and proposals were the source for many of the “New Democrat” innovations that figured prominently in national politics over the past two decades. The Institute also has been integral to the spread of “Third Way” thinking to center-left parties in Europe and elsewhere.”
“If one group is effectively in control of national governments and multinational corporations; promotes world government through control of media, foundation grants, and education; and controls and guides the issues of the day; then they control most options available. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the financial powers behind it, have done all these things, and promote the “New World Order”, as they have for over seventy years. The CFR is the promotional arm of the ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its’ “experts” write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.”
Felix Frankfurter, Justice of the Supreme Court (1939-1962), said:
“The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.”
In a letter to an associate dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote,
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
February 23, 1954, Senator William Jenner warned in a speech:
“Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded.”
Since 1934 almost every United States Secretary of State has been a CFR member; and ALL Secretaries of War or Defense, from Henry L. Stimson through Richard Cheney. The CIA has been under CFR control almost continuously since its creation, starting with Allen Dulles, founding member of the CFR and brother of Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles. Allen Dulles had been at the Paris Peace Conference, joined the CFR in 1926, and later became its president. “The most powerful cliques in these elitist groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and national independence of the United States.” What must be remembered is that this is not some lunatic- fringe group…these are members of one of the most powerful private organizations in the world: the people who determine and control American economic, social, political, and military policy. Members’ influence and control extends to “leaders in academia, public service, business, and the media,” according to the CFR 1993 “Annual Report.”
James Warburg, son of CFR founder Paul Warburg, and a member of FDR’s “brain trust,” testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950,
“We shall have world government whether or not you like it – by conquest or consent.”
The National Endowment For Democracy was not created for supporting freedom around the world it is another Council on Foreign Relations tool for destroying freedom and creating a world government under Council on Foreign Relations control.
In 1958 the Royal Institute of International Affairs (aka Chathamhouse) founded the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). Many members on the board of directors were RIIA members and members of its U.S. Sister organization the Council on Foreign Relations. It has become the pre-eminent British think-tank peddling the “new NATO” doctrine, and pressing for the United States to accept the role of “policeman of the world.”
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 and its members, who included such notable Americans as Col. Edward Mandel House, Walter Lippmann, Isaiah Bowman, and James Shotwell, wrote most of Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points.
The CFR/RIIA method of operation is simple — they control public opinion. They keep the identity of their group secret. They learn the likes and dislikes of influential people. They surround and manipulate them into acting in the best interest of the CFR/RIIA.
The IISS website tells us IISS is “A registered charity headquartered in London, the IISS also has offices in Washington, Singaporeand Manama, Bahrain. The IISS is a non-partisan organisation, independent of government and other bodies. Its mission is to promote the adoption of sound policies to further global peace and security and maintain civilised international relations.”
This is untrue. Non-partisan is CFR/RIIA euphemism for controlling both sides of political spectrum. The groups are adept at using the media to create massive psycho-political operations used to manipulate public opinion. The psycho-political operations are often designed to create tensions between different groups of people. Keeping the world in a state of perpetual tension and warfare maximizes profits from CFR/RIIA munition, medicine, media, energy, and food businesses.
IISS is a CFR/RIIA psycho-political operations tool for achieving their goal of one world government under their control. Besides The Military Balance, the definitive reference source on the world’s armed forces, IISS publications include:
- Strategic Survey: The Annual Review of World Affairs;
- Adelphibooks on general strategic issues;
- International-relations journal Survival: Global Politics and Strategy;
- In-depth Strategic Dossiers, on particular nuclear programmes, countries of proliferation concern, military capabilities, insurgent groups etc;
- Strategic Comments, short briefings on breaking political or strategic topics; and
- The online Armed Conflict Database.
London’s IISS Steers U.S. Strategic Doctrine by Scott Thompson and The Hollinger Corp. Propaganda Empire by Scott Thompson and Jeffrey Steinberg are about IISS. They trace its roots back to the Hollinger Corpration which started out in World War II as a front for the British War machine and would grow into a media cartel. (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1999/eirv26n17-19990423/eirv26n17-19990423_039-the_hollinger_corp_propaganda_em.pdf) :
One of IISS’s main ways of reaching out to broader layers is through its publications, which include: Strategic Comments; Adelphi Papers; Survival; an annual report entitled The Military Balance; and the annual reference The World Directory of Strategic Studies Centers. The Strategic Survey 1997-1998, an IISS annual report, argues for the United States to accept its assigned role as global policeman. The only choice that the United States should make, the IISS survey argues, is whether to act unilaterally, to act through multilateral organizations like the United Nations or NATO, or through informal coalitions. “The U.S. is bound to find itself often in the future balancing the benefits of a more multinational approach . . . against the utility of a unilateral approach which allows the U.S. its preferredpolicywithoutthe encumbrancesofinter-alliedconsultation. The quality of U.S. leadership in the future is likely to be judged by the wisdom of the choice it makes between these mutually exclusive methods for dealing with crises.”
Conrad Black is the chairman and CEO of the Hollinger Corp. media cartel, which owns the Telegraph plc in Britain, the Jerusalem Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, and hundreds of other dailies and weeklies across the United States, and which has just launched a new nationwide daily in Canada. On July 6, 1998, Black addressed the annual meeting of the Center for PolicyStudiesinLondon,theflagshipthink-tankoftheradical free market Mont Pelerin Society. In his speech on “Britain’s Final Choice: Europe or America?” Black attacked the European Union as “the greatest engine for collectivism, illiberalism, and hyper-regulation in our national life.” He called upon Britain to abandon plans to join the European Monetary Union, and, instead, to formally press for membership in an expanded, transatlantic “super-NAFTA,” which he proposed be renamed as the “North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.”
“None of the continental European countries has a particular affinity with the United States and Canada,” Black lied, “or anything slightly comparable to Britain’s dramatic modern historic intimacy with North America. . . . Such an expanded NAFTA would have every commercial advantage over the EU. It is based on the Anglo-American free market model of relatively restrained taxation and social spending. The United States will make no significant concessions of sovereignty and does not expect other countries to do so.” Two years earlier, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher keynoted the founding “Prague Congress” of the New Atlantic Initiative, where she initiated the call for this super-NAFTA. Lady Thatcher chairs the international advisory board of the Hollinger Corp., and Black is a founder of the NAI.
What is today the Hollinger corporate octopus, started out during World War II as a front company for Britain’s war machine. In April 1940, Edward Plunkett Taylor was recruited into British intelligence by the Minister of Munitions and Supplies, Clarence Decatur Howe. Perhaps drawing on the Taylor family’s experience as smugglers during U.S. Prohibition, Howe assigned E.P. Taylor to secure the flow of U.S. dollars into the British Empire, and to obtain war supplies that were forbidden under the U.S. Neutrality Act. Taylor and his crew—including Conrad Black’s father, George Montagu Black—made a profit working through a British government front company that they had created, called War Supplies Ltd. The New York Times described it at the time as “a virtual merging of the economies of the United States and Canada.” At the end of the war, Taylor & Co. formed the Argus Corporation with the $1.3 billion they had amassed by procuring arms for the British government. Argus proceeded to buy up a number of strategic raw material firms, and Canada’s largest farm equipment manufaturer, Massey Ferguson. Conrad Black was groomed by his father and Taylor to take over Argus. When he assumed control in the 1970s, he changed the company’s name to Hollinger Corp., and he sold off the raw material and manufacturing subsidiaries; then he began a worldwide media grab, such that, today, Hollinger is among the largest print media cartels in the English-speaking world. Using funds from liquidated assets of the Argus Corp., supplemented by contributions from Li Kai Shing, whose family has a virtually hereditary board position on the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, the heroin bank for East Asia’s market, Black purchased 100% control of The Telegraph Ltd., publisher of the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph is the largest newspaper in London—it is a favorite of the British royal family—and quickly became a mouthpiece for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Black purchased 100% control of the Jerusalem Post, the foremost English daily in Israel, turning its policies to support for the Likudnik Greater Israel crazies, such as Foreign Minister Gen. Ariel Sharon, “the Butcher of Lebanon.” Hollinger Canadian Publishing Holdings, Inc. began buying up daily and weekly papers across Canada, through its wholly owned Sterling Newspapers Co. and Southam groups. And, in the United States, Black purchased some 240 daily and weekly papers through his Chicago Group, including the Chicago Sun-Times, the Gary, Indiana Post Tribune, and the Community Newspaper Group. The Spectator, a British establishment journal since 1828, was purchased by Hollinger shortly after the takeover of the Telegraph Group Ltd. On July 9, 1990, the Spectatorfeatured an inflammatory anti-German article Thatcher’s Minister of Industry and Trade, Nicholas Ridley. Ridley assailed Chancellor Helmut Kohl for backing reunification of his country, and equating Kohl with Adolf Hitler, and calling a reunified Germany the “Fourth Reich.” The article kicked up such controversy that he was soon thereafter forced to resign. Thatcher, in her Memoirs, the Downing Street Years, acknowledged that it was British Empire policy to do everything to block German reunification. Ridley was merely just taking orders from Thatcher, Black, and the BAC.
The boards of directors and advisory boards of Hollinger and its subsidiaries are a veritable who’s who of the British American& Canadian inner circle, from policy shapers, like Black, to field hands like Anglo-Israeli spy Richard Perle. We provide a partial listing:
Conrad M. Black, Canadian Privy Council, Queen’s Council, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Hollinger, Inc.; Hollinger International, Inc.; Hollinger Canadian Publishing Holdings Inc.; Telegraph Group, Ltd; and, Southam Inc.; 1001 Nature Trust; New Atlantic Initiative.
Barbara Amiel Black, wife of Conrad Black, and VicePresident, Editorial, London. Director, Hollinger, Inc.; and, Hollinger International, Inc. R.
Donald Fullerton, chairman of the executive committee, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Director, Hollinger, Inc.
Baroness Margaret Thatcher, LG, OM, Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1979-90).
Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.
Vale´ry Giscard d’Estaing, President of France (1974- 81). Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.
Lord Peter Rupert Carrington, KG, GCMG, Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.; and, Director, Telegraph Group Ltd.
CFR member Henry A. Kissinger, KCMG, former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Adviser; former member President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.; and, Director, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski,former U.S. National Security Adviser, former chairman, Trilaterial Commission. Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.
Dr. Giovanni Agnelli, Honorary Chairman, Fiat S.p.A. International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
Dwayne O. Andreas, Chairman, Archer Daniels Midland Co. Director, International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc. CFR member David Brinkley, ABC News senior correspondent (1981- 97). International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member William F. Buckley, Editor-at-Large, National Review. International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (1995-98). International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
Lord Hanson,Chairman, Hanson PLC, London. International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member Richard Perle, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy 1981-87; Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.; Director Hollinger International, Inc.; and, Director, Jerusalem Post Publications, Ltd.; Chairman, Hollinger Digital, Inc.
Lord Jacob Rothschild, Chairman, Jacob Rothschild Holdings PLC. International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member Paul A. Volcker, Chairman, James D. Wolfensohn Inc. (1988-96); Chairman, U.S. Federal Reserve System, 1979- 87; North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission.
CFR member Richard Burt, Chairman, International Equity Partners; Chief Negotiator in Strategic Arms Reduction Talks with U.S.S.R., 1989-91; Director, Hollinger International, Inc.
- Alfred Taubman (son William is CFR member) , Chairman, Taubman Co.; Chairman, Sotheby’s Holdings, Inc.; and, Director, Hollinger International, Inc.
Lord Weidenfeld of Chelsea, Chairman, Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., London; Director, Hollinger International, Inc.; and, Director, Jerusalem Post Publications, Ltd. Viscount Cranborne, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd.
Rupert N. Hambro; Chairman, JO Hambro & Co., Ltd.; former officer, British Special Operations Executive; and, Director, Telegraph Group Ltd.
Henry N.L. Keswick, Chairman, Matheson & Co. Ltd. and Jardine Matheson Holdings Ltd., London; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd. Lord King of Wartnaby, President, British Airways PLC and Babcock International Group, PLC, London; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd. Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, Privy Council, Queen’s Council, U.K. Solicitor-General, 1962-64 and Attorney General, 1970-74; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd.
Sir Evelyn Rothschild, Chairman, N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Ltd., London; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd.
CFR member Raymond G.H. Seitz, Senior Managing Director, Lehman Brothers and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd. Maj. Gen. Shlomo Gazit, Senior Researcher, Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University; Former Chief of Israeli Military Intelligence; and, Director, Jerusalem Post Publications, Ltd
On Tuesday May 23 2017, a federal appeals court revived a high-profile challenge to the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of internet communications. The ruling, by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, is significant because it increases the chances that the Supreme Court may someday scrutinize whether the N.S.A.’s so-called upstream system for internet surveillance complies with Fourth Amendment privacy rights. The New York Times article about the appeal says “It is currently an open question about how to apply old legal concepts to 21st-century communications technology.”
The old legal concept the New York Times is referring to is the 4th Amendment to the constitution. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This old legal concept prevents abuse by government officials against innocent people, including intrusion into their private matters. This old legal concept is not an open question that should be decided by a CFR packed SCOTUS ( current CFR members include Ginsberg, Breyer & Gorsuch) who have legalized infanticide (Roe vs Wade) and sodomy (Obergefell vs Hodges).
In July of 2013 The CFR run Obama Administration conducted a full-court press to block fugitive Edward J. Snowden from finding refuge in Latin America. Three left-leaning governments that make defying Washington a hallmark of their foreign policies had vowed to take him in.
The CFR took over the State Department in 1945 and have run it ever since. The CFR are the Military Industrial Complex. The CFR can use information gathered by the NSA for CFR corporate member profit. Snowden’s whistle blowing was a major headache to the CFR members, CFR corporate members and the CFR run intelligence community.
CFR members involved in going after Snowden included Susan Rice the 18th Council on Foreign Relations NSA director, David Petraeus the 18th CFR CIA director, Janet Napolitano the 1st CFR DHS director, John Kerry the 22nd CFR Secretary of State. The CFR run Carlyle group owns Booz-Allen the spy company Snowden worked for. CFR member Bill Richardson, a former American ambassador to the United Nations who visited Venezuela in 2013 backed Kerry up.
CFR corporate members have bought both houses of congress through legalized bribery we call lobbying. A grand jury should be convened to investigate the Council on Foreign Relations for crimes against humanity as well as other fraudulent acts committed by Council on Foreign Relations Bank and Wall Street CEOs. http://t.co/l9mCMzShttp://www.scribd.com/doc/91528610/Council-on-Foreign-Relations-Chart
CFR members in the NSA can spy on target and kill American citizens. President Obama was surrounded by CFR members and is little more than a CFR puppet, every president since Wilson has been. President Trump is also surrounding himself with CFR members. Trump’s new National Security advisor is CFR member H.R. Macmaster. Macmaster was one of Obama’s CFR devils in the details of endless war.
The article that follows was printed in the ACM journal Communications. It contains a discussion of what Snowden did and what the NSA could have done to prevent it. The constitutionality and morality aspects of the NSA’s spying on all Americans is what Snowden was trying to draw attention. Following the article is a section that explores the NSA’s spying and how it violates the 4th Amendment of the constitution. Read it carefully. Snowden is a hero.
The NSA and Snowden: Securing the All-Seeing Eye
By Bob Toxen
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 57 No. 5, Pages 44-51
Edward Snowden, while a contractor for the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) at Booz Allen Hamilton in Hawaii, copied up to 1.7 million top-secret and above documents, smuggling copies on a thumb drive out of the secure facility in which he worked and releasing many of those documents to the press.2This has altered the relationship of the U.S. government with the American people, as well as with other countries. This article examines the computer-security aspects of how the NSA could have prevented this from happening, perhaps the most damaging breach of secrets in U.S. history.19 The accompanying sidebar looks at the Constitutional, legal, and moral issues.
According to Presidential Executive Order 13526, ” ‘Top Secret’ shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”24 There are clearance levels above top secret, such as SCI (sensitive compartmented information), SAP (special access programs), and CNWDI (critical nuclear weapon design information).9 The British equivalent to top secret is most secret.
What Did Snowden Do?
Snowden was a computer system administrator. Guarding against rogue system administrators (a.k.a sys admins) is more difficult than guarding against users, but it can be done. Note that the NSA has an almost infinite budget and resources, and thus could have been following good security practices all along. In the words of White House cybersecurity adviser Richard Clarke, “If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked. What’s more, you deserve to be hacked.”20
National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” last December 17 stated the stolen documents were on Microsoft’s SharePoint document-management system. Of the 1.7 million documents likely copied, Snowden shared up to 200,000 documents with reporters; the NSA did not dispute this.2,19 Rick Ledgett, head of the NSA’s task force accessing the “damage” done by Snowden, claimed “system administrators…have passwords that give them the ability to go around those… security measures, and that’s what Snowden did.”19
That the NSA’s Ledgett claims to be unaware of the past 30 years of computer-security techniques and technology for preventing a system administrator from stealing data is puzzling.10,15,29 This is discussed later in the section “Orange Book and Two-Person Authorization.” The NSA no longer uses SharePoint for this purpose, which begs the question, why did the NSA abandon secure Orange Book compliance and other good security practices for computer systems that handle classified data?
In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” on December 15, 2013 General Keith B. Alexander, director of the NSA, admitted that part of Snowden’s job was to transfer large amounts of classified data between NSA computer systems.19 Snowden then copied files to a USB memory stick and concealed it on his person to smuggle vast amounts of data out of the NSA.11,26 A simple one-minute scan on the way out by a handheld metal detector—”wanding,” as used by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and at courthouses—would have found any flash memory device.
Rings of Security
Let’s digress briefly to discuss the important concept of rings of security, my term for the industry-standard but less obvious term security in depth. This means having multiple concentric rings of security so that if attackers get through the first or outermost ring they encounter, then, hopefully, the second or third or fourth ring will stop them; no one security measure is 100% effective. These rings mostly are about authentication and are unrelated to what a user is allowed to do once authenticated. Consider how rings of security might apply to an ordinary network; this “ordinary” level of security is insufficient where very high security is needed such as the NSA, banks, systems handling large numbers of Social Security or credit-card numbers, among others.
There are a number of security methods the NSA could have used that would have stopped Snowden. Many of these have been in use for a decade or more, yet the NSA did not use them.
Suppose we want to have a network in which sys admins are able to SSH (Secure Shell) into a server from home. In the first ring the firewall might allow SSH access only from a short list of IP addresses of the sys admins’ home systems. Thus, instead of being able to attack from any of a billion systems on the Internet someone would have to launch her attack from one of, perhaps, a dozen system administrators’ home networks, a vastly reduced vulnerability profile. Modern TCP/IP implementations, used by SSH, are very immune to IP spoofing. When combined with end-to-end encryption person-in-the-middle attacks are virtually eliminated.
The second ring might allow SSH authentication only via public/private keys on these home Linux or Unix systems. Prohibiting SSH from accepting passwords prevents password-guessing risks and thus access from unauthorized systems. The third ring would monitor log files for attacks and block those IPs, preferably automatically. The fourth ring would be a strong passphrase on that SSH private key. A fifth ring could require sys admins’ home systems (and, of course, all systems at the office) to lock the screen after a few minutes of inactivity.
There are a number of security methods the NSA could have used that would have stopped Snowden. Many of these have been in use for a decade or more, yet the NSA did not use them.
Islands of Security. The obvious place to start in this case is with preventing sys admins or others from getting into unauthorized systems. The islands-of-security concept is a safeguard in case someone manages to penetrate the network. In a high-security organization, different segments, even different systems, should be treated as islands of security that do not trust each other or the network in the vast ocean of systems. This means different systems should have different root passwords, different user passwords, different SSH passphrases, and almost all traffic between systems should be encrypted. Systems should have encrypted file systems and encrypted backups.
Physical Security. Each island of security should be physically protected against attack. This certainly would include the systems and peripherals and the network carrying any unencrypted confidential data. Even large commercial collocation facilities have steel cages around some systems and video cameras watching these areas. The payment card industry (PCI) security standard requires such protection for large credit-card processors. High-security operations should install video cameras and keep the recordings for a long time.
One simple safeguard is to put two high-security locks on each cage, each lock needing a different key possessed by a different person. Thus, two people must be present when the hardware is accessed. Similarly, networking cables could be secured (for example, inside of steel pipe), or the data encrypted before sending it around the LAN or WAN. There is no indication that Snowden took advantage of any lack of physical security, although it is critical for protection.
Prevent Unauthorized Copying. The ability to plug in a USB memory stick or insert a blank DVD for writing should be disabled. Most DVD burners and USB jacks should be removed as well. Cameras, recorders, mobile phones, and any other unauthorized storage devices should be forbidden and guarded against. Metal detectors at doors would detect violators. Radio frequency (RF) emissions should be monitored, and Faraday cages could be incorporated to block RF emissions. None of these techniques is expensive.
Two-Factor Authentication. Even Snowden’s top-secret clearance was not sufficient to allow him access to some of the documents he stole. The NSA admitted that Snowden used the higher-than-top-secret clearances of the user accounts of some top NSA officials. This was possible because he had created these accounts or used his sys admin privileges to modify the accounts to access even more highly classified documents remotely using NSAnet, the NSA’s classified intranet.13 Snowden’s access to accounts with higher security clearance than his violated the long-accepted security policy that the system should prevent anyone from accessing data with a higher clearance than the user’s. It would have been a trivial matter for the computer to prevent this and instead require the services of a system administrator with that higher clearance level to adjust those accounts as needed.
This also violated the concept of two-factor authentication. Authentication is the ability of a computer (or security guard or even a store clerk) to determine if you really are who you claim to be. Typically, an authentication method consists of what you know (password or PIN), what you have (credit card or RFID-equipped badge issued to employees and consultants or USB dongle), or what you are (your signature or fingerprint or retina scan or your picture on a hard-to-forge document such as a driver’s license, employee badge, or passport). Each of these is called a factor. None of these methods is expensive, and all are effective. While fingerprints can be faked with some effort, this is more difficult with modern high-quality fingerprint readers, which are available commercially.
Many organizations use the very popular two-factor authentication to grant access to computers or facilities or money, requiring, for example, that one does not get access without providing a password or an RFID-equipped badge and a fingerprint. Three-factor authentication would be even better.
Had the NSA required good two-factor authentication, such as a fingerprint and password compared against central databases to which Snowden did not have administrative access, it would have prevented him from impersonating others to use their accounts—which is how he obtained documents above his security clearance. Collecting these factors for the databases would be done by two different sets of people, neither being the set that manages classified documents as Snowden did. This separation of authority is critical for good security as it requires multiple people to effect a compromise.
Even if the person managing users’ passwords went rogue, she would not have access to the fingerprint database. The password manager could be prevented from seeing the user entering his password by having the user enter a separate inner room via a one-person mantrap to which the person managing password changes does not have access. That room would have a virtual keyboard on a physically hardened touchscreen, making rogue use of a keystroke logger difficult. Lack of space here does not allow discussion of deeper exploits such as spoofing fingerprints, guarding against keyloggers, TEMPEST (the NSA’s own set of security standards for radio frequency leakage of information), social engineering, and more.
Social engineering is where an attacker tricks someone into revealing information that he should not reveal. Email messages falsely claiming to be from your bank asking you to click on a link and provide your password or offering to share stolen money with you are examples. Snowden used social engineering to obtain the password of at least one NSA employee who subsequently resigned; it has been addressed extensively in other papers and books. Good recurrent education and strict policy forbidding sharing one’s passwords, badge, or dongle under any circumstance might have prevented this part of Snowden’s breach.
Orange Book and Two-Person Authorization. Someone is less likely to do something dishonest if someone else is watching. This is why many stores have at least two people working and why armored car services use two people. It also is why you see “Two signatures required for amounts over $5,000” at the bottom of some checks.
The NSA created the Orange Book specification for Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria 30 years ago, requiring the federal government and contractors to use it for computers handling data with multiple levels of security classification. This author enhanced one Orange Book-compliant Unix system to have additional security capabilities. Such a computer would prevent, say, a user with only secret clearance from viewing a top-secret document. One also could create different “compartments” in which to keep separate sets of documents. Only someone allowed access to a particular named compartment could access documents in that compartment, even if that person otherwise has sufficient security clearance.
This high-security clearance is known as “compartmentalized security” (a.k.a. “need to know”). An important aspect of protecting a body of secrets is that very few people should have access to more than a small portion of them. A person working with one critical compartment should be barred from accessing other critical compartments. Those that know many of the secrets, such as General Alexander, get constant Secret Service protection.
One compartment might be “spying on Americans’ phone records without a valid warrant.” Another might be “listening to Americans’ domestic phone conversations and reading email without a valid warrant.”3,12,17,22 A third might be “hacking the phones of leaders of allied countries.” As Snowden should not have been involved in any of those projects and thus should lack sufficient clearance, he would not have been able to access those programs’ documents or even know that they existed. In reality, however, the NSA allowed one person, Snowden, unfettered, unmonitored access to 1.7 million documents.
Also important is the Orange Book concept of not trusting any one system administrator. Instead, a role-1 sys admin queues system changes, such as new accounts or changes to an existing accounts. A second person, in role 2, cannot initiate such requests but must approve the queued requests before they can take effect. An Orange Book OS also prevents use of a login simulator by displaying a special symbol when soliciting a password that no other program can display. Snowden may have used a login simulator.
How expensive might this two-person authorization have been? In 2013, the NSA had approximately 40,000 employees and perhaps 40,000 contractors, including 1,000 system admins.8,25 Adding another 1,000 system administrators to watch the first set would have increased the payroll by a trivial 1%.
Given this, is the NSA going to adopt two-person authorization and the Orange Book policy that it created? No, the NSA is going to fire 90% of its system administrators to limit human access and put most of the servers in the NSA’s own cloud.1 A cloud is just another name for a set of computers remotely accessible over a network and typically managed by others, usually a vendor (a.k.a., contractor). Maybe it will hire Booz Allen, Snowden’s former employer, to manage this cloud.
Log Events and Monitor. The NSA should monitor how many documents one accesses and at what rate, and then detect and limit this. It is astonishing, both with the NSA’s breach and similar huge thefts of data such as Target’s late-2013 loss of data for 40 million credit cards (including mine), that nobody noticed and did anything. Decent real-time monitoring and automated response to events would have detected both events early on and could have prevented most of each breach.
The open source Logcheck and Log-watch programs will generate alerts of abnormal events in near real time, and the Fail2Ban program will lock out the attacker. All are free and easily can be customized to detect excessive quantities of downloads of documents. There are many comparable commercial applications, and the NSA certainly has the budget to create its own.
No Internet Access or Homework Whatsoever. Obvious, this policy is to prevent classified data from leaving a secure building. For after-hours problems, a sys admin either must drive to the office or be on-site at all times. One former CIA director nearly was fired for taking classified data home to work on, violating a strict policy against it. (He was not stealing the data; he just wanted to work at home.) Snowden took classified material home and worked on it with a hood covering him and the computer so that his girlfriend could not see it.19 Clearly, then, he could have photographed the screen.
Prevent Removable Media from Leaving the Building. Recall the rings of security. One ring would prevent removable media from leaving the building. Every gas-station owner has figured this out, attaching a large object to each restroom key. The NSA could put each thumb drive inside a large steel box, or it could replace the standard USB connectors and those of the computers with custom-designed connectors that are difficult to duplicate.
Creatively Use Encryption. Consider that one of Snowden’s jobs was copying large amounts of classified data from one computer to a thumb drive and then connecting that thumb drive to another computer and downloading the data. He likely secreted the thumb drive on his person after downloading the data he wanted and took it home. This theft could have been prevented rather easily with the use of public-key encryption.33In public-key encryption there are two related keys: a public key and a secret key, also called a private key. If the original “clear text” is encrypted with the public key, then it can be decrypted only with the secret key, not with the public key used to encrypt the data.
The NSA should have had a public/secret-key pair created for each sys admin needing to transfer data and a separate account on each computer for each sys admin to transfer this data. The person generating this encrypted data on the source computer (for example, Snowden) would have to provide the ID of the public key of a different sys admin—say, Julia—to the custom program allowed to write to the USB thumb drive; software would not allow his own public key to be used. The set of sys admins allowed to do transfers of data would have no members in common with the set of sys admins on the source and destination computers with root access. In other words, a “Data Transfer System Administrator” such as Snowden would not have root or physical access to computers and sys admins having root or physical access would be prohibited from transferring data between systems. This separation of responsibilities is critical. Only that custom program, not sys admins, would be allowed to write to the thumb drive. That computer would encrypt the data with Julia’s public key and write that encrypted data to the thumb drive.
Snowden then would download the encrypted data to the destination computer via the thumb drive using a custom program on the destination computer (with that program having sole access to the USB drive) after he had logged into his account. That program would prompt Snowden for the account in which to transfer that encrypted data to (for example, Julia’s), and then move the encrypted file to her account. Julia would log in to the destination computer and provide the passphrase that unlocks her encrypted secret key and her fingerprint or RFID-equipped badge to that custom program, which then would decrypt that data into Julia’s account. After that, she could move the data to the final location on the destination computer. The implementation is trivial.
An outside security audit performed quarterly or annually would have found the NSA’s problems and, perhaps, fixed them in time to stop Snowden.
Needless to say, the sys admins tasked with this data transfer would not have the root (administrative) access to these computers that would allow getting around this custom program’s restrictions, and these computers would be running modern versions of Orange Book-compliant operating systems that would require two system administrators for privileged access in any case. Furthermore, Snowden would not have Julia’s fingerprint or passphrase or, if used, her badge for authentication. The open source GNU Privacy Guard (GPG) stores private keys on disk or elsewhere in an encrypted form that can be decrypted only by providing a passphrase or other authentication.15
Thus, no sys admin acting alone could decrypt data that he or she encrypted to a thumb drive. This would have prevented Snowden’s theft by thumb drive. These custom programs (which would run on the source and destination computers) could be written in a day or two using the open source GPG encryption program by a substantial percentage of those reading this article. Thus, even if a USB drive was smuggled out of a secure NSA facility, it would have no value.
Similarly, there could be an additional ring of file-level encryption for highly classified files with separate public/secret key pairs. Only those users entitled to read these documents (and not even sys admins tasked with copying files) would have the secret keys to decrypt them. Those using the destination system (after legitimate copying by Snowden and Julia) would be able to decrypt the files. The system administrator, however, never would have seen the decrypted documents even by reading the raw disk. By itself, this simple precaution would have prevented the wholesale theft of many documents by Snowden. Combined with the use of public-key encryption for transferring data between systems, Snowden would have had to defeat two extremely challenging rings of security to steal data. Using encrypted file systems or whole-disk encryption on all computers handling classified data would offer an additional ring of security.
Plan for Break-in to Minimize Damage. The NSA’s Ledgett acknowledges, “We also learned for the first time that part of the damage assessment considered the possibility that Snowden could have left a bug or virus behind on the NSA’s system[s], like a time bomb.”19 The agency should have planned for a possible break-in to minimize the harm and quickly and reliably assess the damage. For example, it could be prepared to compare a system’s current state with a trusted backup taken before the break-in. This comparison could be run on a different and trusted system.29 The use of islands of security and not putting all of its eggs in one basket would have minimized the damage greatly. It could have been running a file-system integrity checker all along to detect tampering with files.
Periodic Security Audits. Security is an ongoing process. An outside security audit performed quarterly or annually would have found the NSA’s problems and, perhaps, fixed them in time to stop Snowden. Such an audit is quite common and considered good practice. This is similar to the outside financial audit of large companies required by… the U.S. government. The report should be reviewed by the highest levels of management to avoid lower levels simply ignoring inconvenient findings.
The NSA seemingly had become lax in utilizing even the most important, simple, and cheap good computer-security practices with predictable consequences, even though it has virtually unlimited resources and access—if it wants it—to the best computer-security experts in the country.
Most of the good security practices covered here were discussed in the author’s Real World Linux Security first published in 2000.29 The most important of these security practices also were discussed in this author’s article, “The Seven Deadly Sins of Linux Security,” published in the May/June 2007 issue of ACM Queue.
I am honored there are autographed copies of my book in the NSA’s headquarters. The vast majority of NSA employees and contractors are eminently talented law-abiding dedicated patriots. It is unfortunate that a tiny percentage no doubt ignored warnings that these security problems desperately needed fixing to avoid a serious breach.
Communications Surveillance: Privacy and Security at Risk
Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau
More Encryption Is Not the Solution
Four Billion Little Brothers?: Privacy, mobile phones, and ubiquitous data collection
- Allen, J. NSA to cut system administrators by 90 percent to limit data access. Reuters. Aug. 9, 2013; http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/09/us-usa-security-nsa-leaks-idUSBRE97801020130809.
- Block, M. Snowden’s document leaks shocked the NSA, and more may be on the way. National Public Radio. Dec. 17, 2013; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=252006951.
- Brosnahan, J. and West, T. Brief of Amicus Curiae Mark Klein. May 4, 2006; https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/kleinamicus.pdf.
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 761 (1969).
- Cohn, C. and Higgins, P. Rating Obama’s NSA reform plan: EFF scorecard explained. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Jan. 17, 2014; https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/rating-obamas-nsa-reform-plan-eff-scorecard-explained.
- Coke’s Reports 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604).
- Davidson, A. Judge Pauley to the N.S.A.: Go Big. The New Yorker. Dec. 28, 2013; http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/12/judge-pauley-to-the-nsa-go-big.html.
- Davidson, J. NSA to cut 90 percent of systems administrators. Washington Post. Aug. 13, 2013; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/08/13/nsa-to-cut-90-percent-of-systems-administrators/.
- Defense Logistics Agency. Critical nuclear weapon design information access certificate; http://www.dla.mil/dss/forms/fillables/DL1710.pdf.
- Department of Defense Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria, a.k.a., Orange Book 1985; http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/history/dod85.pdf.
- Dilanian, K. Officials: Edward Snowden took NSA secrets on thumb drive. Los Angeles Times. June 13, 2013; http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/13/news/la-pn-snowden-nsa-secrets-thumb-drive-20130613.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org). NSA spying video, includes comments from many well-known respected people and reminders of past violations; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGmiw_rrNxk.
- Esposito, R. Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say. NBC News. Aug. 28, 2013; http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/28/20234171-snowden-impersonated-nsa-officials-sources-say?lite.
- Everett, B. and Min Kim, S. Lawmakers praise, pan President Obama’s NSA plan. Politico. Jan. 17, 2014; http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/rand-paul-response-nsa-speech-102319.html.
- GNU Privacy Guard; http://www.gnupg.org.
- Howell’s State Trials 1029, 95 Eng. 807 (1705).
- Klein, M. and Bamford, J. Wiring Up the Big Brother Machine…and Fighting It. Booksurge Publishing, 2009.
- Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. Fourth Amendment: an overview; http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment.
- Miller, J. CBS News “60 Minutes.” Dec. 15, 2013; http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-speaks-out-on-snowden-spying/.
- Lemos, R. Security guru: Let’s secure the Net. ZDnet, 2002; http://www.zdnet.com/news/security-guru-lets-secure-the-net/120859.
- Mears, B. and Perez, E. Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional. CNN. Dec. 17, 2013; http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa-surveillance-court-ruling/.
- Nakashima, E. A story of surveillance. Washington Post. Nov 7, 2007; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/07/AR2007110700006.html.
- Napolitano, A.P. A presidential placebo – Obama’s massive NSA spying program still alive and well. Fox News. Jan. 23, 2014; http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/23/presidential-placebo-obama-massive-nsa-spying-program-still-alive-and-well/.
- Presidential Executive Order 13526 12/29/2009; http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information.
- Rosenbach, M. Prism exposed: Data surveillance with global implications. Spiegel Online International. June 10, 2013: 2; http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/prism-leak-inside-the-controversial-us-data-surveillance-program-a-904761.html.
- Schwartz, M. Thumb drive security: Snowden 1, NSA 0. InformationWeek. June 14, 2013; http://www.informationweek.com/infrastructure/storage/thumb-drive-security-snowden-1-nsa-0/d/d-id/1110380.
- Shiffman, J., Cooke, K. Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans. Reuters. Aug. 05, 2013; http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805.
- Smith, C. BGR. Jan. 23, 2014; http://news.yahoo.com/watchdog-says-nsa-phone-spying-program-illegal-end-130014396.html.
- Toxen, B. Real-world Linux Security: Intrusion Detection, Prevention, and Recovery. 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall, 2002.
- U. S. Courts. What does the Fourth Amendment mean?; http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/fourth-amendment/fourth-amendment-mean.aspx.
- U.S. Government Printing Office. Fourth Amendment; http://beta.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2013-10-5.pdf.
- Washington Post. Transcript of President Obama’s Jan. 17 speech on NSA reforms, 2014; http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/full-text-of-president-obamas-jan-17-speech-on-nsa-reforms/2014/01/17/fa33590a-7f8c-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html.
- Wikipedia. Public-key cryptography; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography
- Wikipedia. Edward Snowden; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#NSA_rulings_in_federal_court.
Bob Toxen (bob@VerySecureLinux.com) is chief technical officer at Horizon Network Security, which specializes in Linux and network security. He was one of the developers of Berkeley Unix.
Another critical aspect of the NSA’s spying on all Americans is the constitutionality and morality, which is what Snowden was trying to draw attention to—and succeeded in a big way. The Constitution’s Fourth Amendment says this:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Why did the framers of the Constitution care, and why should we care? In short, because when enforced by honest and competent judges, the Fourth Amendment prevents serious abuse by government officials against innocent people, including intrusion into their private matters. In colonial America, Britain’s King George empowered officials to conduct mass searches of houses, persons, their effects, and so on without a warrant or probable cause, despite the English Court’s Saman’s Case of 1603, which recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the king’s agents in the absence of a specific warrant based on probable cause.6,31 This is the meaning behind “Every man’s house is his castle.” (One of the most powerful expressions of that maxim came from William Pitt speaking to Parliament in 1763, “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail… but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”)
It was confirmed again in England in 1705 in Entick v. Carrington. The English court decided that a general warrant that caused the raiding of many homes—including Entick’s, which the king’s men broke into and whose locked desks and boxes were broken into as well, with the seizure of many documents unrelated to what was being searched for—was against English law. The court held the warrant used against Entick was too general, not based on probable cause, and allowed the seizing of unrelated material; and, further, no record was made of what was seized. Take note the court case was initiated by Entick suing the crown.16,31 Is not one’s computer and phone the modern equivalent of a locked desk? Electronics certainly qualify as personal belongings, which is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines effects. One’s effects are protected by the Fourth Amendment.
On December 28, 2013, U.S. Judge William H. Pauley III held that an American may not file suit against the NSA for spying on Americans. Specifically, he dismissed a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), saying, “The ACLU would never have learned about the section 215 order authorizing collection of telephone metadata related to its telephone numbers but for the unauthorized disclosures of Edward Snowden.”7,34 Section 215 of the Patriot Act requires that this spying on Americans be kept secret forever.
Pauley’s ruling says an American may not challenge the constitutionality of a government action because the American found out about it only through the illegal action of another. That ruling sounds more like the former Soviet Union to the author. It also is contrary to more than 200 years of U.S. Constitutional law precedent, which holds a person, regardless of citizenship, always is entitled to all Constitutional rights and always may challenge a violation. The only government defense is that no violation took place.
A 1969 U.S. court ruling found “the [Fourth] Amendment was in large part a reaction to the general warrants and warrantless searches that had so alienated the colonists and had helped speed the movement for independence [e.g., the American Revolution]. In the scheme of the Amendment, therefore, the requirement that ‘no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause’ plays a crucial part.”4,31 More similar U.S. court rulings can be found with little effort. In short, a reasonable search without a warrant requires probable cause, meaning a good reason to believe that someone possesses something illegal or evidence of a crime.
According to the judicial branch of the U.S. government, “Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of the law is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.”30 “Yet, the parameters of the Fourth Amendment do not cease in the realm of searching electronic devices.”18
President Obama’s own independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) says the NSA’s phone-spying program is illegal and should end, The Washington Post revealed. “We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation,” the 238-page report says.
PCLOB’s report also says the NSA phone data program cannot be grounded in section 215 of The Patriot Act, which “requires that records sought by the government [e.g., phone numbers] be relevant to an authorized investigation.”28 Seizing all phone records of all Americans “just in case” clearly is not reasonable by any possible interpretation of the Constitution.
On December 16, 2013, U.S. Federal Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that bulk collection of telephone metadata of American telephone companies likely violates the U.S. Constitution. The judge wrote, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary’ invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval… Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.” Leon said the government “does not cite a single instance in which… the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the government…”21
Recently my friend Josh asked me about the NSA’s spying on Americans, adding, “Well, if it helps to catch terrorists, I don’t mind them spying on me.” I pointed out that in sworn testimony before Congress, General Keith B. Alexander, director of the NSA, admitted that not a single American life has been saved from the NSA’s deliberate spying on 300 million Americans. I asked him what he thought about some NSA analyst listening in on a romantic conversation with his wife. He did not seem so happy about it now.
Josh has a young daughter, so I asked, “What if in a few years as a 16-year-old, your daughter phones you saying, ‘Daddy, I’m at a friend’s. Could you come get me? I’ve been drinking and I’m not safe to drive. I’m really sorry.’ ” How would Josh like it if the NSA listened to that conversation and provided the local police with his daughter’s location using the phone’s GPS and a transcript of that private phone conversation, and the police then arrested his daughter for underage drinking? Josh got real unhappy at this point. Are you trying to keep your sexual orientation or interests private? How about your religious beliefs or even whom you voted for in the Presidential election? What about that stock tip or patent idea? Is it the government’s business to know whom you are telephoning?
Yes, the NSA really is listening to your domestic phone calls and reading your email in addition to obtaining your private information on the people you telephone.3,12,17,22 Reuters reported on August 5, 2013, that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) admitted to covering up the use of information illegally obtained from the NSA and falsifying the source of evidence. This included information obtained by the NSA from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants, and a massive database of telephone records, all without benefit of a proper warrant or probable cause. The DEA then gave this information to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.27 Clearly this is exactly what the Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent. Is it the government’s place to be doing this?
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, the youngest person ever to serve on the New Jersey Superior Court, called President Obama’s promised NSA reforms, announced January 17, 2014, a presidential placebo.23,32 The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) rated the President’s reforms 3.5 out of 12.5 (The EFF is a nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting for people’s rights in the electronic world and is, perhaps, the most active organization to fight in the courts and elsewhere against the NSA’s spying on Americans.) Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY.) argued that Obama’s suggested changes will amount to “the same unconstitutional program with a new configuration.”14 Many of these actions by the NSA were started under the second Bush Administration following 9/11. Is the NSA’s spying on all Americans an unconstitutional and illegal violation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment? Given the 400 years of history we have examined, this author can see only one conclusion.
Copyright held by Owner/Author.
The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2014 ACM, Inc.
May 27, 2014 09:51
Just goes to show that sometimes, some entity not following good security practices can be good for the people.
July 01, 2014 04:04
There are a couple of corrections needed in the opening section.
1. There are no clearance levels above Top Secret. SCI and SAP are not clearance levels but special programs with access restrictions. CNWDI is category of classified restricted data.
2. THE UKs equivalent to US Top Secret is Top Secret as well. The old term of most secret was replaced on April 2, 2014 by the revision of HM Government Security Classifications Guide.
I have not read the entire article so I am not sure if there are any other mistakes.
December 09, 2014 03:05
Secureness is undisturbed as long as everyone refrains from doing what they are not supposed to do. The moment someone deviates from this principle, what we have is a system that has been compromised. Snowden’s actions led to an insecure environment as he did what he was not supposed to do. However, security consciousness should not be tied to people and their practices. If a piece of software or hardware cannot be refrained from doing things it is not supposed to do, then too, we have a compromised system. How do we ensure that software or hardware components are not indulging in activities that they are not supposed to do ? It is here that accessibility to software sources and accessibility to hardware design details play a crucial role in ensuring a secure environment. With proprietary binary-only software or with a proprietary closed-design hardware, therefore, we can never guarantee a fool-proof secure environment to users. It is here that Snowden-exposed documents become significant – these documents go on to elaborate on how proprietary software binaries could be tweaked for doing insecure or even unlawful things. Without Snowden, such a possibility for committing security breaches would have remained invalidated for long.
February 03, 2015 03:53
The following letter was published in the Letters to the Editor of the July 2014 CACM (http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/7/176205).
I wish reality were as simple as Bob Toxen made it out to be in his article “The NSA and Snowden: Securing the All-Seeing Eye” (May 2014) where he said, “A simple one-minute scan on the way out by a handheld metal detector — ‘wanding,’ as used by the Transportation Security Administration and at courthouses — would have found any flash memory device.” However, flash devices have shrunk to minuscule size, even as their capacity has increased dramatically. Consider the micro-SD flash storage device in a typical smartphone; it can store more than 32GB and be small enough to be hidden practically anywhere. Moreover, its small mass makes detection especially difficult for a typical handheld metal detector. A spy could even attach one with chewing gum to a tooth, defeating practically any routine check.
So the real problem in the case of Edward J. Snowden is not that Snowden carried a flash memory device in and out of National Security Agency facilities but that he was able to transfer sensitive data to the device in the first place.
In most secure environments, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to attach an external device to a secure system. If it could be done, the system would no longer be secure, as the device would be able to transfer malware to, as well as steal data from, the secure system.
In 2008, an infected USB flash drive was famously connected to a military laptop. The malicious code uploaded itself to a secure network under the control of U.S. Central Command. This incident should have alerted the NSA to the dangers inherent in the use of removable memory devices. Moreover, the Stuxnet affair, two years later, demonstrated that U.S. security services were clearly aware that removable memory devices are potential attack vectors. The NSA should have anticipated these risks and taken necessary measures well in advance of Snowden’s leaks.
The reason for the apparent indifference to such risks is that insider attacks are particularly difficult to address. The esprit-de-corps culture prevalent in the NSA made it essentially unthinkable that one in their midst could betray the organization, and is why Snowden was able, apparently, to convince coworkers to grant him additional access.
Security is an overhead; by controlling access, security makes it inherently difficult for people to carry out their work, so a compromise between utility and security must be established. In the Snowden case, though the compromise went too far toward utility, it would be a mistake to go to the other extreme by imposing security procedures that impede the NSA’s useful work.
Wanding would have caught a USB memory stick due to the metal in its plug. No security ring is perfect. Defeating the rings involving encryption, physical access to systems, and software limiting the number of documents one may access would be extremely difficult. I demonstrated that stopping even system administrator insider attacks can be done reasonably easily. The reason Prevelakis claimed for NSA “indifference” is unsubstantiated. Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, and other convicted American traitors should have convinced the NSA (and the CIA) to avoid unlimited trust. (I do not consider Snowden a traitor, as he was alerting Americans to the apparently unconstitutional and illegal actions of the government.)
February 03, 2015 03:54
The following letter was published in the Letters to the Editor of the July 2014 CACM (http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/7/176205).
I was disturbed by the cover headline — “The NSA and Snowden: How better security measures could have stopped the leak” — publicizing Bob Toxen’s article (May 2014) for implying that Snowden simply produced “leaks” that should have been “stopped.” Moreover, I found it odd that the article focused on how the NSA’s poor security allowed these leaks to take place. It would have been more appropriate to acknowledge the alternative interpretation, that Snowden’s revelations brought to light abhorrent violations of privacy on the part of the U.S. and U.K. governments. After all, the constitutionality of the NSA’s spying was critiqued in the article’s sidebar. Why not follow through to address the apparent contradiction between “good security practices” and the supposed “transparency” of agencies with the power to tap all our communications (including this one)?
Council on Foreign Relations inner circle member Zbigniew Brzezinksi joins CFR David Rockefeller’s New UnderWorld Order
In Zbigniew Brzezinski’s NYT obituary Daniel Lews May writes:
Into his 80s Mr. Brzezinski was still fully active as a teacher, author and consultant: a professor of foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a frequent expert commentator on PBS and ABC News.
Missing from Mr. May’s summary is any connection of Mr. Brzezinski and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
With meticulous detail and an abundance of original research, Patrick M. Wood uses Technocracy Rising to connect the dots of modern globalization. Wood’s maintains that dark horse of the New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or Fascism. It is Technocracy.
In the heat of the Great Depression during the 1930s, prominent scientists and engineers proposed a Utopian energy-based economic system called Technocracy. The technocracy movement was founded by Howard Scott . The term technocracy came to mean, ‘government by technical decision making’, using an energy metric of value. Scott proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates denominated in units such as ergs or joules, equivalent in total amount to an appropriate national net energy budget, and then distributed equally among the North American population, according to resource availability. This radical movement lost momentum by 1940,
In his 1970 piece Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, CFR member Brzezinski argued that a coordinated policy among developed nations was necessary to counter global instability. Out of this thesis, CFR member Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission with CFR member David Rockefeller, serving as director from 1973 to 1976. Technocracy regained its status when it was conceptually adopted by the elitist Trilateral Commission. However equal distribution of the energy budget disappeared and was replaced by people earning energy certificates by the sweat of their brow.
The Trilateral Commission is a group of prominent political and business leaders and academics primarily from the United States, Western Europe and Japan. The majority of U.S. Trilateral members are also members of the CFR. The purpose of the Trilateral Commission was to strengthen relations among the elites of the three most industrially advanced regions of the capitalist world. In 1974, CFR member Brzezinski selected Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter as a member of the Trilateral commission and the CFR.
In the ensuing 41 years, the modern expression of Technocracy and the New International Economic Order is clearly seen in global programs such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Councils of Governments, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Total Awareness surveillance initiatives and more.
Wood contends that the only logical outcome of Technocracy is Scientific Dictatorship, as already seen in dystopian literature such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932) and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (1948), both of whom looked straight into the face of Technocracy when it was still in its infancy.
In Between Two Ages CFR member Brzezinski writes :
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”
Daniel Lewis May’s Obituary follows. It’s updated to include Brzezinski’s ties to the Council on Foreign Relations. Is leaving these ties out of story good journalism or an example of disinformation to keep the people ignorant of the role the Council on Foreign Relations plays in shaping their destiny? A destiny decided by a small inner circle of members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
<CFR member> Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Adviser to <CFR member> Jimmy Carter, Dies at 89
By DANIEL LEWIS MAY 26, 2017
<CFR member> Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1987. He had considerable influence in global affairs, both before and long after his official tour of duty in the White House. Credit Terry Ashe/The LIFE Images Collection, via Getty Images
<CFR member> Zbigniew Brzezinski, the hawkish strategic theorist who was national security adviser to <CFR member> President Jimmy Carter in the tumultuous years of the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the late 1970s, died on Friday at a hospital in Virginia. He was 89.
His death, at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, was announced on Friday by his daughter, <CFR member> Mika Brzezinski, a co-host of the MSNBC program <CFR member Joe Scarbourgh’s> “Morning Joe.”
<The Morning Joe show is a Propaganda Arm of the Council on Foreign Relations used to shape public opinion to further CFR member ends – photo credit @TJefferson1976>
Like his predecessor <CFR member> Henry A. Kissinger, <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski was a foreign-born scholar (he in Poland, Mr. Kissinger in Germany) with considerable influence in global affairs, both before and long after his official tour of duty in the White House. In essays, interviews and television appearances over the decades, he cast a sharp eye on six successive administrations, including that of Donald J. Trump, whose election he did not support and whose foreign policy, he found, lacked coherence.
<CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski was nominally a Democrat <the CFR advertises they are bipartisan, a euphemism for controlling both the Deomocrat and Republican parties>, with views that led him to speak out, for example, against the “greed,” as he put it, of an American system that compounded inequality <compounded by “greed” of members of the Council on Foreign Relations who no matter how much power and money they have are never find it to be enough>. He was one of the few foreign policy experts to warn against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Seated from left in the Oval Office in 1977: Huang Chen of the Chinese Liaison Office, the interpreter Hsu Shan Wei, <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski and <CFR member> President Jimmy Carter. Credit Harvey Georges/Associated Press
But in at least one respect — his rigid hatred of the Soviet Union — he had stood to the right of many Republicans, including <CFR member> Mr. Kissinger and <CFR member> President Richard M. Nixon. And during his four years under <CFR member> Mr. Carter, beginning in 1977, thwarting Soviet expansionism at any cost guided much of American foreign policy, for better or worse.
He supported billions in military aid for Islamic militants fighting invading Soviet troops in Afghanistan. He tacitly encouraged China to continue backing the murderous regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, lest the Soviet-backed Vietnamese take over that country.
He managed to delay implementation of the SALT II arms treaty in 1979 by raising objections to Soviet behavior in Vietnam, Africa and Cuba; and when the Soviets went into Afghanistan late that year, “SALT disappeared from the U.S.-Soviet agenda,” as he noted in a memoir four years later.
<CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski, a descendant of Polish aristocrats (his name is pronounced Z-BIG-nyehv breh-ZHIHN-skee), was a severe, even intimidating figure, penetrating eyes and strong Polish accent. Washington quickly learned that he had sharp elbows as well. He was adept at seizing the spotlight and freezing out the official spokesman on foreign policy, Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance, provoking conflicts that ultimately led to Mr. Vance’s resignation.
<CFR member> Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance, right, with <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski in 1978. Conflicts between them ultimately led to <CFR member> Mr. Vance’s resignation. Credit The White House Where <CFR member> Mr. Vance had endorsed the <CFR member> Nixon-Kissinger policy of a “triangular” power balance among the United States, China and the Soviet Union, <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski scorned such “acrobatics,” as he called them. He advocated instead what he called a deliberate “strategic deterioration” in relations with Moscow, and closer ties to China.
By his own account, he blitzed <CFR member> Mr. Carter with memos until he got permission to go to Beijing in May 1978, over State Department resistance, to begin talks that would lead to full diplomatic relations seven months later. Immediately after the trip, he appeared on “Meet the Press,” unleashing a slashing attack on the Soviet Union that <CFR member> Mr. Vance deplored as “loose talk.”
<CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski was also a prime mover behind the commando mission sent to rescue the American hostages held by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s revolutionary forces in Iran after the overthrow of the shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi — a disastrous desert expedition in April 1980 that claimed eight lives and never reached Tehran. Mr. <CFR member> Vance had not been informed of the mission until a few days before. It was the final straw: He quit, “stunned and angry,” he said.
<CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski’s rationale for the rescue attempt was, perhaps inevitably, rooted in his preoccupation with Soviet influence. He contended that trying to gain the release of the hostages through sanctions and other diplomatic measures “would deliver Iran to the Soviets,” although many thought that outcome highly improbable, given the fundamentalism of the clerics running the country. Besides, he said, success would “give the United States a shot in the arm, which it has badly needed for 20 years,” a reference to the quagmire of the Vietnam War.
<CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski fingered worry beads as he watched <CFR member> Mr. Carter and Anwar el-Sadat, president of Egypt, address Parliament in Cairo in 1979. Credit Associated Press
Soviet aggression in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America was by no means a figment of <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinki’s imagination. But his strict adherence to ideas in which virtually every issue circled back to the threat of Soviet domination was remarkable even for those tense times, when many in the foreign policy establishment had come to regard détente — a general easing of the geopolitical tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States — as the best course.
In his scholarly certitude, <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski sometimes showed a tendency to believe that any disagreement between theory and reality indicated some fault on the part of reality. In his 1962 book “Ideology and Power in Soviet Politics,” for example, he asserted that the Communist bloc “is not splitting and is not likely to split” just as Beijing and Moscow were breaking apart.
With the breakup of the Soviet Union, <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski allowed that it would make sense for the United States to engage with Russia, though cautiously, as well as China, “to support global stability.” And although he condemned Russian meddling in elections in the United States and elsewhere, he thought the effects were only marginal relative to the underlying problems shaking up Western societies.
In any case, aside from his ideological principles, he had both personal and historical reasons for abhorring the Soviet system.
Visiting a Pakistani Army outpost in 1980, <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski used the sights of a machine gun to look across the Afghan border. He supported billions in military aid for Islamic militants fighting invading Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Credit Bettmann
A Soviet Refugee
<CFR member> Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski was born in Warsaw on March 28, 1928. His father, Tadeusz, was a diplomat who took the family along to France, then to Germany during the rise of Hitler in the 1930s and, fortuitously, to Canada on the eve of World War II. When the Russians took over Poland at the end of the war, Tadeusz Brzezinski chose to retire in Canada rather than return home.
The younger <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski graduated from McGill University in Montreal in 1949 and earned a master’s degree there in 1950. Then it was on to Harvard, which granted him a doctorate in political science in 1953 and appointed him as an instructor. He and <CFR member> Mr. Kissinger were among the candidates for a faculty position; when Mr. Kissinger won an associate professorship in 1959, Mr. Brzezinski decamped to Columbia University.
He was not always consistent in his positions as he moved between one situation and another. When he was appointed to the State Department’s Policy Planning Council in 1966, he had already become an outspoken defender of United States engagement in the Vietnam conflict.
In 1968, after riotous antiwar protests at Columbia and elsewhere, he wrote in The New Republic that students should not be allowed to “rally again under the same leadership,” meaning they should be tried and incarcerated.
<<CFR member> Caspar Weinberger found guilty in the Iran Contra affair and He was pardoned by <CFR member> George H. W. Bush in 1992 . He lied to Congress about his knowledge of the arms sales to Iran and efforts by other countries to help underwrite the Nicaraguan rebels but was too big to serve his time>
<CFR member> Brezezinski second from right, joined top-ranking officials from past administration sat the White House in 1981 to endorse President Ronald Reagan’s bid to sell Awacs radar planes to Saudi Arabia. Credit Bettmann
“If that leadership cannot be physically liquidated, it can at least be expelled from the country,” he wrote.
That same year, however, he resigned from the State Department planning council as a protest against expanded American involvement in the war in Indochina under President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Then he became a foreign policy adviser to <CFR member> Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, who defended the expansion in his 1968 presidential campaign.
His bond with <CFR member> Jimmy Carter developed through the Trilateral Commission, the group <CFR member> David Rockefeller created in 1973 as a forum for political and business leaders from North America, Western Europe and Japan to consider the challenges facing industrialized countries. Mr. Brzezinski was the commission’s first director. (<CFR member> Mr. Rockefeller died in March.)
<CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski, left, listened to <CFR member> President Bill Clinton in the Cabinet Room at the White House in 1995 during a meeting of the Committee for American Leadership in Bosnia. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
In 1974, <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski invited <CFR member> Mr. Carter, then the governor of Georgia and a rising Democratic star, to become a member. Two years later, <CFR member> Mr. Carter was the Democratic nominee for president, and he hired <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski as a foreign affairs adviser.
Vying for Influence
From the start of his tenure as <CFR member> Mr. Carter’s national security adviser, <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski jockeyed for power. He reserved for himself the right to give <CFR member> Mr. Carter his daily intelligence briefing, which had previously been the prerogative of the Central Intelligence Agency. He frequently called journalists to his office for what he called “exclusive” not-for-attribution briefings in which he would put his own spin on events, to the annoyance of Mr. Vance.
And although he was familiarly called Zbig and could be very engaging, he was quick to smack down reporters who dared to challenge his ideas. “I just cut off your head,” he told a journalist after one such retort.
A prolific author, <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski published a memoir in 1983 about his White House years, “Power and Principle,” in which he recalled a range of policy objectives that went beyond containing the Soviets. “First,” he wrote, “I thought it was important to try to increase America’s ideological impact on the world” — to make it again the “carrier of human hope, the wave of the future.”
<CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski, right, and <CFR member>Brent Scowcroft, another former national security adviser, testified in 2009 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a hearing on American strategy regarding Iran. Credit Matthew Cavanaugh/European Pressphoto Agency
He also said that he had aimed to restore America’s appeal in the developing world through better economic relations, but acknowledged that he had concentrated too much of his attention on those countries that he felt were threatened by Soviet or Cuban takeovers.
More recently, in opposing the invasion of Iraq, he predicted that “an America that decides to act essentially on its own” could “find itself quite alone in having to cope with the costs and burdens of the war’s aftermath, not to mention widespread and rising hostility abroad.”
In “Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower,” published in 2007, he assessed the consequences of that war and criticized the successive administrations of <CFR member> George Bush, <CFR member> Bill Clinton and <Son of a CFR member> George W. Bush for failing to take advantage of the possibilities for American leadership from the time the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. He considered <Son of a CFR member> George W. Bush’s record, especially, “catastrophic.” And in the 2008 presidential campaign, he wholeheartedly supported Barack Obama.
Four years later, he once again assessed the United States’ global standing in “Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power.” Here he argued that continued American strength abroad was vital to global stability, but that it would depend on the country’s ability to foster “social consensus and democratic stability” at home.
Essential to those goals, he wrote, would be a narrowing of the yawning income gap between the wealthiest and the rest, a restructuring of the financial system so that it no longer mainly benefited “greedy Wall Street speculators” and a meaningful response to climate change.
A United States in decline, he said — one “unwilling or unable to protect states it once considered, for national interest and/or doctrinal reasons, worthy of its engagement” — could lead to a “protracted phase of rather inconclusive and somewhat chaotic realignments of both global and regional power, with no grand winners and many more losers.”
<CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski, who had homes in Washington and Northeast Harbor, Me., was married to the Czech-American sculptor Emilie Benes, with whom he had two children in addition to Ms. Brzezinski: <CFR member> Mark Brzezinski, a lawyer and former ambassador to Sweden under President Barack Obama, and Ian Brzezinski, whose career has included serving as a deputy assistant secretary of defense. All survive him. He is also survived by a brother, Lech, and five grandchildren.
Into his 80s <CFR member> Mr. Brzezinski was still fully active as a teacher, author and consultant: a professor of foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a frequent expert commentator on PBS and ABC News.
He was, in short, a man who could be counted on to have strong opinions, and a boundless eagerness to share them. Once, in 1994, he even put forward a sort of disarmament program to solve the problem of breaking ties in the final game of the soccer World Cup.
“In the event of a tie,” he wrote to the sports editor of The Times, “the game should be resumed as a sudden-death overtime, but played with only nine players on each side, with each team compelled to remove two of its defensive players. That change increases the probability of a score and places more emphasis on offensive play. If after 10 minutes of play there is still no score, the game continues with four defenders removed from each team.”
David Binder, Daniel E. Slotnik and Matthew Haag contributed reporting.
A version of this article appears in print on May 27, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Security Adviser to Carter, Dies at 89. Order Reprints| Today’s Paper|Subscribe
Enjoy your reunion with your David Rockefeller Zbig! Get ready to greet War Criminal CFR member Henry Kissinger 😉
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