Tag Archives: Clinton

How the CFR Engineered The Financial Crisis

Financialization is a new term used to discuss the emergence of a new form of capitalism in which financial markets dominate over the traditional industrial economy. Traditionally capitalism was the accumulation of profit through trade and commodity production. Financialization is understood to mean the vastly expanded role of financial motives, financial markets, financial actors and financial institutions in the operation of domestic and international economies.

The Glass Steagall Act, the FDR Banking Bill, was setup over 70 years ago . On November 12, 1999 Council on Foreign Relations member William Jefferson Clinton stated the, ” Glass- Stegall is no longer appropriate for our economy. This was good for the industrial age. The Financial Modernization Bill is the key to rising paycheck and great security for ordinary Americans”. Council on Foreign Relations member William Clinton then signed the ‘Financial Modernization Bill’.

With the signing of the bill old capitalism and free market economics died and the “new capitalism” and markets controlled by a small group of elite investment bankers was born. The repeal was the foundation that provided for non transparent financial manipulation and use of leverage to revolutionize the activities of investment beginning in 1999, to amass huge fortunes for the investment bankers who designed, marketed and oversaw the use of leveraged investments, and to generate awesomely speculative endeavors at hedge funds, which have gone unregulated by government oversight.

Investment leverage snapped with the $20 Billion Council on Foreign Relations run Carlyle Group bond fund experiencing margin calls, where risk was multiplied by 33 to 1 and the underlying assets represented only 3% of the portfolio value; and those assets were illiquid, thinly traded issues: it was reasonable that this fund would be the first of many countless to break causing a sharp sell off in the finance, real estate and banking sectors as investments were sold at fire sale prices to meet the margin calls. Council on Foreign Relations member David Rubenstein, co-founder of Carlyle Group, in a keynote speech at the 15th annual venture capital and private equity conference at Harvard Business School, laid some of the blame for the private equity industry’s troubles on investment banks, “I analogize it to sex,” Council on Foreign Relations member Rubenstein said. “You realize there were certain things you shouldn’t do, but the urge is there and you can’t resist.”

A major trophy of Council on Foreign Relations member Sanford Weill is the pen Council on Foreign Relations member Bill Clinton used to sign the REPEAL of FDR’s Banking Act. In April 1998 Travelers Group announced an agreement to undertake the $76 billion merger between Travelers and Citicorp, and the merger was completed on October 8, 1998. The possibility remained that the merger would run into problems connected with federal law. Ever since the Glass-Steagall Act, banking and insurance businesses had been kept separate. Council on Foreign Relations member Sandy Weill bet that Congress would soon pass legislation overturning those regulations, which Council on Foreign Relations member Weill considered not in his interest. To speed up the process, they recruited Council on Foreign Relations member ex-President Gerald Ford (Republican) to the Board of Directors and Council on Foreign Relations member Robert Rubin (Secretary of Treasury during Democratic Council on Foreign Relations member Clinton Administration) whom Council on Foreign Relations member Weill was close to. With both Democrats and Republican on their side, the law was taken down in less than 2 years. (Many European countries, for instance, had already torn down the firewall between banking and insurance.) During a two-to-five-year grace period allowed by law, Citigroup could conduct business in its merged form; should that period have elapsed without a change in the law, Citigroup would have had to spin off its insurance businesses.

Council on Foreign Relations member Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who endorsed Mr. Obama early in his election campaign and who stood by his side during the financial crisis has some advice; he wants the nation’s banks to be prohibited from owning and trading risky securities, the very practice that got the biggest ones into deep trouble in 2008.

The only viable solution, in Council on Foreign Relations member Volcker view, is to break up the giants. JPMorgan Chase would have to give up the trading operations acquired from Bear Stearns. Bank of America and Merrill Lynch would go back to being separate companies. Goldman Sachs could no longer be a bank holding company. It’s a tall order, and to achieve it Congress would have to enact a modern-day version of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which mandated separation.

Council on Foreign Relations member Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics at Columbia and a former official in Council on Foreign Relations member Clinton’s administration. “We would have a cleaner, safer banking system,” Council on Foreign Relations member Stiglitz said, adding that while he endorses Council on Foreign Relations member Volcker’s proposal, the former Fed chairman is nevertheless embarked on a quixotic journey.

And the administration is saying no, it will not separate commercial banking from investment operations. Council on Foreign Relations member Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, and Council on Foreign Relations member Lawrence H. Summers, chief of the National Economic Council, are sympathetic to the concerns of investment bankers.

Council on Foreign Relations member Alan Greenspan, the only other former Fed chairman still living, favored the repeal of Glass-Steagall a decade ago and, unlike Council on Foreign Relations member Volcker, would not bring it back now.

On Thursday November 19th Council on Foreign Relations member Geithner took a beating as he urged Congress to pass regulatory reform as quickly as possible, arguing that delay would create uncertainty for businesses across the country. Lawmakers sharply criticized him for his role in the crisis during the tense Joint Economic Committee meeting. They were particularly critical of his involvement in the decision, as president of the New York Fed, to bail out AIG.

Council on Foreign Relations member Geithner pressed forward: “To ensure the vitality, the strength and the stability of our economy going forward, we must bring our system of financial regulation into the 21st century. Nobody in my job should ever be in the position again of having to come into a crisis like this without those basic authorities.”

The Council on Foreign Relations member spearheading the “new” financial regulation legislation is Council on Foreign Relations member Chistopher Dodd.

Council on Foreign Relations member Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, chose the marbled Caucus Room in the Russell Senate Office Building — site of past hearings on Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Wall Street abuses during the Great Depression — to open debate on a massive draft bill designed to achieve the most ambitious reworking of the financial system in decades. “This is one of those moments in our nation’s history that compels us to be bold,” Council on Foreign Relations member Dodd said.

But soon, ranking committee Republican Richard C. Shelby (Ala.) took the floor, and for 18 uninterrupted minutes he opined that nearly every element of Council on Foreign Relations member Dodd’s bill was misinformed, uninformed, unnecessarily rushed or just plain flawed. “This committee has not done the necessary work to even begin discussing changes of this magnitude. Nevertheless, you have laid a bill before the committee,” Shelby said. “I will be opposing this legislation. Not because we disagree on its ends, but rather on its means.”

Shelby said Council on Foreign Relations member Dodd was wrong not to conduct an investigation into the causes of the recent financial crisis before pushing forward with legislation. He said rather than ending the problem of institutions that are “too big to fail,” the current bill expands the government’s ability to bail out big banks. Shelby apologized for the length of his critique, expressed his hope that the two men might “yet find some common ground,” and yielded the floor.

Shelby is right there should be an investigation into the causes of the recent financial crisis. That investigation should include the role of the Council on Foreign Relations and its members in engineering and profiting from the crisis. On March 10th 2009 Council on Foreign Relations member Private equity company Blackstone Group LP (BX.N) CEO Stephen Schwarzman said “Between 40 and 45 percent of the world’s wealth has been destroyed in little less than a year and a half,” Council on Foreign Relations member Schwarzman told an audience at the Japan Society. “This is absolutely unprecedented in our lifetime.”

The money the Council on Foreign Relations members stole should be clawed back and the perpetrators of the economic destruction should be sent to a maximum security prison for the rest of their lives.


Repeal of The Glass Steagall Act Has Produced The Highly Leveraged Investment Imbroglio That Is Just Now Starting To Unwind By The Resourceful Bear Blog Monday, 10. March 2008, 01:29:42 http://my.opera.com/richardinbellingham/blog/show.dml/1796860

Volcker Fails to Sell a Bank Strategy By LOUIS UCHITELLE Published: October 20, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/business/21volcker.html

Angry Congress lashes out at Obama ECONOMIC WOES TAKING A TOLL
House Republicans call on Geithner to resign By Brady Dennis, Zachary A. Goldfarb and Neil Irwin Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 20, 2009

Sanford I. Weill From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_I._Weill

David Rubenstein: Buyout Bubble Was Like Sex by WSJ Blogs Deal Journal February 2, 2009, 9:37 AM ET http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/02/02/david-rubenstein-buyout-bubble-was-like-sex/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fdeals%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Deal+Journal+-+WSJ.com%29

The Agonist News Megan Davies and Walden Siew | New York | Mar 10 45 percent of world’s wealth destroyed: Blackstone CEO http://agonist.org/20090311/45_percent_of_worlds_wealth_destroyed_blackstone_ceo




Filed under Uncategorized

The Council on Foreign Relations – The Myth Makers of Endless Undeclared War

The article that follows is by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Micah Zenko. In his article CFR member Zenko identifies the myth makers of war. The CFR controls main stream media (MSM). MSM misinforms its readers regarding the role the CFR plays in the story by leaving the CFR connection out of the story. This is one of the main reasons CFR propaganda campaigns are so successful in shaping public opinion to conform to their goals.  Zenko misinforms his readers by leaving out that the Myth makers are CFR members.

Intervention is a CFR euphemism for undeclared war. The CFR was founded in 1921. It has surrounded every US president since then with hundreds of unelected CFR members who turn the president into a CFR puppet. The CFR tried to establish the League of Nations in 1921. The CFR were successful in establishing the United Nations. The CFR officially took over the US Department of State in 1945 and have run it ever since. CFR member corporations profit from keeping the world in a state of perpetual war. Zenko’s article quotes a US no-fly zone commander “We would fly over the Kurds in F-16s to protect the population and assure humanitarian supplies. Then the Turks would bomb the Kurds with F-16s.”

Zenko’s article has been modified to identify the CFR Myth Makers of Endless Undeclared War by placing <CFR member> before their names so the reader may easily identify them.

The Mythology of Intervention

Debating the Lessons of History in Libya

<CFR member> Micah Zenko

March 28, 2011

Article Summary and Author Biography

In the debate over whether — and how — to intervene in Libya, many commentators and policymakers have relied on a number of garbled lessons from history. Believing in these myths often leads to a more interventionist foreign policy.

This article appears in the Foreign Affairs/CFR eBook, The New Arab Revolt.

MICAH ZENKO is a Fellow at the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of Between Threats and War: U.S. Discrete Military Operations in the Post-Cold War World.

When considering how the United States should deal with persistent foreign policy problems, history can be instructive. Distorted or misremembered history, however, is dangerous. Unfortunately, in the recent debate over U.S. intervention in Libya, journalists and analysts have propagated an array of falsehoods and mischaracterizations about the United States’ uses of military force since the end of the Cold War. Believing in these myths — particularly in their supposedly successful outcomes — leads to a misunderstanding of contemporary problems and to a more interventionist U.S. foreign policy.

The first myth is that the combination of NATO <CFR member James G. Stavridis is NATO‘s Supreme Allied Commander Europe > airpower and a Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) ground offensive drove Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo in 1999. Today, proponents of intervention in Libya, such as Max Boot at the Council on Foreign Relations and Peter Juul at the Center for American Progress, have advocated replicating this supposed success. They argue that Libyan rebel forces, fighting with close air support from Western fighter planes, could wage an effective ground offensive all the way to Tripoli and force Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi from power.

But a U.S. Air Force review of its precision airpower campaign in Kosovo revealed a much darker picture than NATO’s glowing initial assessment: 14 tanks were destroyed, not 120, as previously reported; similarly, 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220, and 20 mobile artillery pieces, not 450, were eliminated. During the campaign, the Serbian military quickly adapted to NATO’s operations by constructing fake “artillery” from logs and old truck axles, and “surface-to-air missiles” made of paper.

Furthermore, the KLA failed to mount a credible and sustained opposition to the disciplined, ruthless, and better-armed Serbian ground forces. Ultimately, it was NATO’s escalation of air strikes against the Serbian military and the civilian infrastructure in Serbia proper — combined with Russia’s withdrawal of its support for Serbia — that caused Milosevic to capitulate.

Even when accurate, historical analogies can be a double-edged sword.

Second, many in and outside of government, including <CFR member> Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and the diplomat and academic <CFR member> Philip Zelikow, have called for a so-called no-drive zone, in which Libyan armored divisions would be prohibited from any movement around the country, or at least from movement against civilian populations. They cite the successful use of such a policy by U.S. forces in Iraq after the first Gulf War. In Libya, this thinking goes, a no-drive zone could be relatively easy to set up and would neutralize Qadaffi’s conventional ground capabilities and alter the military balance between the regime and rebels.

Yet there never was a no-drive zone in Iraq. In fact, in October 1994, Saddam Hussein dispatched 70,000 troops, led by two Republican Guard divisions, toward the Kuwaiti border. There, they joined six Iraqi army divisions already stationed below the 32nd parallel, the geographic marker that cordoned off the southern no-fly zone. To safeguard Kuwaiti and Saudi oil, the <CFR member> Clinton administration responded with Operation Vigilant Warrior, which rapidly deployed U.S. ground forces and armored equipment to the Persian Gulf. Deterred, Hussein quickly pulled his Republican Guard divisions back to central Iraq, where they stayed. In addition, UN Security Council Resolution 949 demanded the “withdrawal of all military units recently deployed to southern Iraq.” Washington and London used that resolution as justification for formal diplomatic warnings to Baghdad that it could not augment its ground forces beneath the 32nd parallel. But this policy applied only to military units that arrived in the region after October 1994: in other words, although Hussein may have withdrawn his two Republican Guard divisions, six Iraqi Army divisions remained and freely attacked foes of the Baghdad regime.

Third, many military analysts, along with <CFR member> U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), seem to believe that no-fly zones protect civilians on the ground. But this is often not the case. Despite the rosy memories of some interventionists, the no-fly zones over Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-95) and northern and southern Iraq (1991-2003) failed to protect civilian populations.

In Bosnia-Herzegovina the no-fly zone went largely unenforced (with one notable exception, when NATO shot down four Serbian planes in February 1994). As <CFR member> Madeline Albright, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, wrote in her memoir: “We voted to enforce no-fly zones, but the Serbs violated them hundreds of times without paying a significant price.” To a lesser degree, Croatian and Bosnian Muslim airplanes and helicopters also violated the no-fly zone. Even if it had been enforced, the no-fly zone would have been impotent against the brutal counterinsurgency attacks conducted by Serbian ground forces, which massacred 9,000 unarmed Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica.

Within both the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq, Saddam’s ground forces attacked any group that opposed the regime. In the south, in the years after the failed Shia uprising in 1991, Hussein initiated a brutal counterinsurgency campaign. His troops destroyed the marshlands that were part of the historical ecosystem of southern Iraq, building roadways through some so they could bring artillery within range of Shia insurgents and draining others so as to eliminate rebel hiding places. At the same time, Iraqi security forces cordoned off suspected rebel areas and controlled the movement of people. In the north, in August 1996 — with the no-fly zone in full operational force — Hussein viciously put down a short-lived Kurdish uprising with 40,000 troops, 300 tanks, and 300 pieces of artillery.

Outside powers, meanwhile, routinely violated the Iraqi no-fly zones. In southern Iraq, Iranian jets penetrated Iraqi airspace to bomb camps run by Mujahideen-e Khalq (an armed, Shia, anti-Tehran opposition group), which housed both civilians and fighters. In northern Iraq, Turkish fighter planes repeatedly bombed villages suspected of harboring Kurdistan Workers’ Party terrorists. According to the<CFR run> U.S. State Department’s 2000 report on human rights, in one of these attacks, Turkish planes accidentally killed 38 civilians. As one U.S. commander of the northern no-fly zone told me: “We would fly over the Kurds in F-16s to protect the population and assure humanitarian supplies. Then the Turks would bomb the Kurds with F-16s.”

The fourth myth of U.S. intervention is that NATO established a no-fly zone over Kosovo in the 1990s — which then did not stop Serbian soldiers and paramilitaries from forcibly displacing hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanians and killing 10,000 others. In debating a no-fly zone in Libya, commentators in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, among others, invoked this supposed fact, which suggested that no-fly zones were impotent, as a reason why they would fail in Libya.

In reality, after small skirmishes between Serbian forces and the KLA in early 1998, in July and August of that year, NATO debated a number of preventive deployments — such as placing military observers in Albania and Macedonia — and more intrusive measures, including a phased air campaign and the incursion of up to 200,000 NATO troops into Kosovo. Before Operation Allied Force began on March 24, 1999, however, NATO neither debated implementing a no-fly zone over Kosovo nor did it impose one.

Lastly, many believe the myth that killing political leaders neutralizes the threat their regimes pose. Citing the recent success of unmanned drone strikes in killing suspected al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan, many, including British Foreign Secretary William Hague, have asked, “Why don’t we just assassinate Qadaffi?” Although this may appear to be an easy solution, the targeted killing of political leaders does not work.

Recent, comparable efforts to use cruise missiles or bombs to eliminate U.S. adversaries — including Qadaffi himself in 1986 and again by the British last Monday, Osama Bin Laden in 1998, Milosevic in 1999, and Saddam Hussein in 1991 and 2003 — all failed. Despite the United States’ intelligence capabilities, political leaders who believe they are targeted are adaptive, resilient, and hard to kill from a distance. The U.S. record of failure in this regard is even worse than the historical average. Of the 298 publicly reported assassination attempts on national leaders between 1875 and 2004, less than 20 percent were successful. Furthermore, while decapitating the leadership certainly generates confusion, the aftermath is rarely positive — as with the killing of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963, when the United States plunged deeper into a civil war on behalf of incompetent generals in Saigon. However unpleasant a truth it may be, nothing short of a full-scale invasion can assure regime change, as shown everywhere from Grenada to Panama and Iraq to Afghanistan.

Even when accurate, historical analogies can be a double-edged sword. As <CFR member>  Ernest May and <CFR member> Richard Neustadt argued in their book, Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers, well-deployed and critically examined historical references can enhance decision-making (the <CFR run> Kennedy administration relied on the lessons of World War II to avoid a nuclear war with the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis), or degrade it (the <CFR run> Truman administration misunderstood Nazi and fascist expansionism, which led it to miscalculate in Korea).

In the debate over whether, and how, to intervene in Libya, opponents and proponents called on historical examples to bolster their case. Too often, these examples were historically inaccurate and were misapplied to Libya’s unfolding civil war. If the legacy of recent uses of U.S. military force demonstrate anything, it is that regardless of whether the objective is to protect civilians on the ground, precipitate Qaddafi’s removal from power, or stabilize a postconflict Libya, more force, time, attention, and resources will be needed than the international community has thus far proven willing to commit.



Filed under Uncategorized

How the CFR established the Chinese Elite & sold out the US & Chinese Worker

In January of 1996 Council on Foreign Relations member President Bill Clinton wrote :

Fair trade among free markets does more than simply enrich America; it enriches all partners to each transaction. It raises consumer demand for our products worldwide; encourages investment & growth; lifts people out of poverty & ignorance; increases understanding; and helps dispel long-held hatreds. That’s why we have worked so hard to help build free-market institutions in Eastern Europe, Russia, and the former Soviet republics. That’s why we have supported commercial liberalization in China-the world’s fastest-growing market. Just as democracy helps make the world safe for commerce, commerce helps make the world safe for democracy. It’s a two-way street.

In the coming years, we must continue to negotiate to lower trade barriers and insist that our trade partners play by fair trading rules. As we continue to work to open new markets, we must ensure the protection of our workers & our environment, as well as seek to advance labor and improve environmental conditions in developing countries.” (Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p. 36 Jan 1, 1996)

On November 15, 1999 Council on Foreign Relations Member Margret Warner moderated a discussion on the trade deal struck between China and the U.S. and how it might pave the way for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. The discussion took place on Council on Foreign Relations member Jim Lehrer’s a Public Broadcasting Service TV show A Newshour with Jim Lehrer. The discussion included Council on Foreign Relations member Kenneth Lieberthal, Council on Foreign Relations member Robert Kapp, Liu Xiaoming, deputy chief of mission at the Chinese embassy in Washington; and Robert E. Scott, an international economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington.

Council on Foreign Relations member Kenneth Lieberthal, was special advisor to CFR member President Bill Clinton and senior director for Asia affairs at the National Security Council. Lieberthal had just. returnedfrom the negotiations in China.

Council on Foreign Relations member Robert Kapp was president of the U.S.-China Business Council, which represented more than 250 American companies doing business in China. Two companies on the USCBC’smembership list are The Scowcroft Group, an international advisory company managed by Council on Foreign Relation member Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor to U.S. President Council on Foreign Relations member George H.W. Bush and Council on Foreign Relations member Gerald Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scowcroft_Group) (2); and Kissinger Associates, Inc., a New York City-based international consulting firm, founded and run by Council on Foreign Relations member Henry Kissinger, Council on Foreign Relations member Brent Scowcroft, and Council on Foreign Relations member Lawrence Eagleburger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissinger_Associates).(3)

Liu earned a master’s degree in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Foreign Affairs of Tufts University in 1983. The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy is the oldest school in the United States dedicated solely to graduate studies in international relations.. Every Fall, the school enrolls approximately 450 full-time students. The Fletcher School employs 30 tenured or tenure-track faculty. Council on Foreign Relations member Stephen W. Bosworth, the U.S. special representative for North Korea policy, is the current dean of The Fletcher School. CFR member Peter Ackerman is the Chairman of the Fletcher School and sits on the schools International Management Advisory Group. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Ackerman) The Fletcher School employs 30 tenured or tenure-track faculty. Seventeen faculty members are Council on Foreign Relations members.(1,2).

Robert E. Scott “joined the Economic Policy Institute as an international economist in 1996. Before that, he was an assistant professor with the College of Business and Management of the University of Maryland at College Park. His areas of research include international economics and trade agreements and their impacts on working people in the U.S. and other countries, the economic impacts of foreign investment, and the macroeconomic effects of trade and capital flows.” (http://www.epi.org/pages/economist/#scott).

The Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit Washington D.C. think tank, was created in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers. Today, with global competition expanding, wage inequality rising, and the methods and nature of work changing in fundamental ways, it is as crucial as ever that people who work for a living have a voice in the economic discourse.” ( http://www.epi.org/pages/about_the_economic_policy_institute/ )

Council on Foreign Relations member Kenneth Lieberthal, Council on Foreign Relations member Robert Kapp, and Council on Foreign Relations educated Liu Xiaoming argued for admitting China to the WTO. Robert E. Scott argued against saying it would be bad deal for middle-income Americans and their families. You can see a transcript of the show and listen to the audio at ” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec99/wto_11-15.html PBS removed the link, transcript & podcast here is a link to a copy of the transcript https://web.archive.org/web/20120704085639/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec99/wto_11-15.html

On May 1, 2000 Council on Foreign Relations member NY Times Reporter David E. Sanger moderated a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations Headquarters with Max Baucus, member, U.S. Senate. CFR member Sanger opened the discussion saying, “Thank you all for joining us and for this interesting session with Senator Baucus who, as you all know, is one of the leading proponents in the Senate of Permanent Normal Trading Relations with China. We are only about three weeks away now from the first scheduled vote which will be in the House; it seems like a good time to begin this discussion.” You can read the transcript of the discussion at http://www.cfr.org/publication/3647/why_pntr_for_china_cant_fail.html .

On July 2nd 2000 Council on Foreign Relations member President Bill Clinton wrote :

After 13 years of negotiations, the Administration concluded a landmark agreement for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. China agreed to grant the U.S. significant new access to its rapidly growing market of over one billion people, while we have agreed simply to maintain the market access policies we already apply to China by granting it permanent Normal Trade Relations. The U.S.-China agreement slashes Chinese tariffs on American goods; opens China’s markets to American services, and contains safeguards against unfair trading practices. China’s membership in the WTO will spur economic reforms in China, open China to information and ideas from around the world, and strengthen the rule of law in China.
The Administration [also] secured commitments from Asian Pacific nations to eliminate barriers to open trade in the region by 2020 for developing countries and 2010 for industrialized countries. Over the next two years, 15 sectors will be identified for tariff reductions.( Source: WhiteHouse.gov web site Jul 2, 2000 )”.

On February 16, 2000 Robert E. Scott published Issue Brief #137 The High Cost of the China-WTO Administration’s own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job The Brief states “China’s entry into the WTO, under PNTR with the U.S., will lock this relationship into place, setting the stage for rapidly rising trade deficits in the future that would severely depress employment in manufacturing, the sector most directly affected by trade. China’s accession to the WTO would also increase income inequality in the U.S. Despite the Administration’s rhetoric, its own analysis suggests that, after China enters the WTO, the U.S. trade deficit with China will expand, not contract. The contradiction between the Administration’s claims and its own economic analysis makes it impossible to take seriously its economic argument for giving China permanent trade concessions.”

On April 4, 2008 as the presidential campaign heated up in the United States-family Robert E. Scott debated Daniel J. Ikenson, associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies. The subject of the debate was whether the next U.S. president should get tougher with China on trade. The debate took place at the Council on Foreign Relations Headquarters. Scott said, “The gains from trade between the United States and China have flowed to a very small segment of both countries’ elites. The gap between the value of what U.S. workers produce and what they receive has widened dramatically, partly because deregulated trade has of all non-college educated workers (about 70 percent of the labor force). Between 1980 and 2005, U.S. percent while real compensation (including benefits) of non-supervisory workers rose just 4 percent. This measure includes all the benefits of globalization received by these workers. Most of the benefits of growth since 1980 have been captured by the top 10 percent, especially the top 1 percent, of U.S. workers. The problem is not trade, per se, but the current trading system which has encouraged a race-to-the bottom in wages and labor standards.

The systematic suppression of workers’ rights has reduced Chinese wages by 47 percent to 85 percent according to a recent labor-rights petition, and the problems are worsening. Occupational illness and injury rates have never been higher in Chinese manufacturing. Workers are frequently forced to go unpaid, and their complaints and protests are often met with violent government responses.
Fueling China’s vast trade surplus with the United States is its very high savings rates, nearing 50 percent of GDP inrecent years. Conventional wisdom is that Chinese workers save excessively because China’s pension and public health systems are so poor. However, household savings recently declined to 16 percent of GDP. Business savings, on the other hand have soared to nearly 24 percent of GDP and government savings exceeded 10 percent according to the IMF.

Thus, globalization’s benefits in China are reaped by an elite cadre who own and operate private and public enterprises. Their savings are piling up in the net worth of the rapidly expanding business empires under their control…” http://www.cfr.org/publication/15888/should_the_next_us_president_adopt_a_tougher_stance_on_trade_policy_with_china.html )

On October 14, 2010, The NY Times reported, “The United States trade deficit widened in August, with the politically charged imbalance with China reaching its highest mark on record, according to government figures released Thursday.” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/business/economy/15econ.html?_r=1).
To put this in perspective when CFR member Clinton was considering promoting China’s entry into the WTO the total trade deficit of the entire year was 68 Billion dollars in 2010 our trade deficit is 201 Billion dollars and the year is not over (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2010).
On October 7, 2010, The International Business Times reported, “Trade deficit with China costing the U.S. 500k jobs this year… Between 2001 and 2008 alone, China displaced 2.4 million U.S. jobs, and 60 percent of those were in the manufacturing sector…”
Since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, the U.S. has lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs and unemployment is at 9.6%. ( http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/69697/20101007/trade-deficit-with-china-costing-the-u-s-500k-jobs.htm)

Wake up people, Robert E. Scott is right, globalization’s benefits are being reaped by a small group of elites. You are not part of the group. The group has names, the names include: the Council on Foreign Relations, They Royal Institute of International Relations, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, the Australian Institute of International Affairs, the South African Institute of International Affairs, the Indian Institute of International Affairs, the Netherlands Institute of International Affairs, the Japanese Institute of Pacific Relations, the Chinese Institute of Pacific Relations, the Russian Institute of Pacific Relations, the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission.

End Notes

(1) Fletcher School CFR member Faculty members : CFR member Jeswald W. Salacues (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/faculty/salacuse/default.shtml), CFR member Michael J. Glennon, Professor of International Law (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/faculty/glennon/default.shtml). CFR member Eileen F. Babbitt Professor of International Conflict Management Practice, CFR member Amar Bhidé, CFR member Thomas Schmidheiny Professor of International Business, CFR member John Allen Burgess Adjunct Professor of International,CFR member, CFR member Antonia Handler Chayes Professor of Practice of International Politics and Law, Daniel W. Drezner Associate Professor of International Politics (http://www.cfr.org/bios/5471/daniel_w_drezner.html ), CFR member Steven Dunaway Adjunct Senior Fellow for International Economics (http://www.cfr.org/bios/15102/steven_dunaway.html), , CFR member Leila Fawaz Issam M. Fares Professor of Lebanese and Eastern Mediterranean Studies, CFR member Michael J. Glennon Professor of International Law, CFR member Alan K. Henrikson Associate Professor of Diplomatic History, CFR member Robert Pfaltzgraff Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies, CFR member William A. Rugh The (CFR member) Edward R. Murrow Visiting Professor Public Diplomacy, CFR member Jeswald W. Salacuse CFR Henry J. Braker Professor of Commercial Law, CFR member G. Richard Thoman Visiting Professor of International Business, and CFR member David A. WirthVisiting Professor of International Law.

(2) The Fletcher School and Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) are the only non-law schools in the US that compete in the Phillip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition. Paul H. Nitze is a member of the council on Foreign Relations. Nitze has been a fixture in Washington since 1946 and has served in the State Department and as Secretaryof the Navy. In 1989 Nitze founded the Paul H. Nitze School for AdvancedInternational Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University. In 1993 Nitze published a book titled TENSION BETWEEN OPPOSITES: REFLECTIONS ON THE PRACTICES AND THEORY OF POLITICS. 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 BombingSurvey, Nitze witnessed first-hand the effects of the A-bomb at the sites ofHiroshima and Nagasaki. (http://www.bilderberg.org/roundtable/NitzesNotSees.html )

(3) According to a March 2001 report, Selected Staff and Board Members of the Scowcroft Group included the following people: The Scowcroft Team : CFR member Brent Scowcroft, CFR member Kevin Nealer, CFR member Colin Powell, CFR member Condoleezza Rice, CFR member Richard Haass (currently CFR’s president), CFR member Ken Juster, CFR memberHoward Baker, CFR member Carla Hills(currently CFR co-Chair), CFR member Robert Strauss, CFR member Lawrence Eagleburger.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scowcroft_Group)

(4) Corporate Members of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the U.S.-China Business Council include Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Chevron Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, American Express, BP p.l.c., Citi, Hewlet Packard, JPMorgan Chase & Co., McGraw-Hill Companies, Moody’ Investors Service, Morgan Stanley, Standard Chartered Bank, ACE Ltd., AT&T, General Electric Company, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, IBM Corporation, Merck & Co. Inc., PepsiCo, Inc., Pfizer Inc., PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Prudential Financial, United Technologies, Verizon Communications and Walmart. (http://www.uschina.org/member_companies.html & http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html )


Filed under Uncategorized