Tag Archive | "globalization"

Findings & Forecasts 03/13/2013

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Depres­sione: Italy on the Brink

Gov­ern­ment aus­terity has pre­dictable after-effects, namely, a con­trac­tion of eco­nomic activity. Just ask Greece or Italy. It also has the effect of par­a­lyzing the social and polit­ical arena because trust is chal­lenged on every level.

It’s a Cache 22 sit­u­a­tion though. When gov­ern­ments accu­mu­late so much debt that the market starts to ques­tion their ability to pay it all back, then lenders start demanding pay­ment. That’s not totally unrea­son­able, con­sid­ering that a lender has every right to expect pay­ment from the borrower.

When a gov­ern­ment racks up debt faster than the economy grows, the even­tual cur­tail­ment of all reck­less spending is guaranteed.

By November 2011, Italy’s debt crisis had already grid­locked the polit­ical process. Someone was going to get seri­ously hurt no matter which way they turned. If they defaulted on debts, then investors would be burned. If they raised taxes, then cit­i­zens would be burned. If they tried to shrink the size of gov­ern­ment, the economy would con­tract and everyone would get burned.

It’s tempting to say “What a mess they had made of their national affairs” except that America has done exactly the same thing. The U.S. is on the same track, just a few miles behind.

When it became obvious that Italian politi­cians could not move for­ward with any solu­tion, the lenders stepped in and took over gov­ern­ment operation.

This is how and why Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sioner Mario Monti came to be appointed (not elected) as Prime Min­ister of Italy. He was widely hailed as a tech­no­crat, in the sense of “rule by expert” vs. demo­c­ra­t­i­cally elected gov­ern­ment. According to BBC News at the time,

Mario Monti has been asked to form a new Italian gov­ern­ment to tackle an acute debt crisis which prompted the res­ig­na­tion of Silvio Berlus­coni. Mr Monti, an ex-EU com­mis­sioner, said he was starting urgent talks on his cab­inet, aiming to restore finances.

EU leaders hailed Monti’s appoint­ment as “a fur­ther encour­aging signal… of the Italian author­i­ties’ deter­mi­na­tion to over­come the cur­rent crisis.” They com­pletely mis­read the appoint­ment: The Italian gov­ern­ment did not ask for Monti, but rather the EU lead­er­ship forced him down their col­lec­tive throats!

This was plainly evi­dent by the foot­note that stated “An EU team has begun work in Rome, mon­i­toring how Italy plans to cut its debt burden, 120% of annual eco­nomic output (GDP).” Thus, the lenders essen­tially appointed a bank­ruptcy judge who would pre­side over the affairs of the bank­rupt nation, to pro­tect the inter­ests of the lenders, not the debtors.

Over the next 12 months, Monti made sure that Italy fol­lowed the EU’s ulti­matum to reduce gov­ern­ment debt by imposing aus­terity pro­grams to cur­tail spending.

On March 12, 2013, just 14 months after Monti’s appoint­ment, the New York Times reports that

“Since a gov­ern­ment aus­terity plan took hold last year, the Italian economy has tum­bled into one of the worst reces­sions of any euro zone country… Busi­nesses of all sizes have been going belly up at the rate of 1,000 a day over the last year; espe­cially hard hit among Italy’s esti­mated six mil­lion com­pa­nies are the small and mid­size com­pa­nies that rep­re­sent the back­bone of Italy’s $2 tril­lion economy.

“But Italy’s long­standing prob­lems have grown worse in the last year as tax increases and spending cuts were pressed by Mr. Monti, who took over as prime min­ister in November 2011 after the euro crisis forced out Silvio Berlus­coni. Last year the economy shrank 2.4 per­cent.“

One small Italian busi­nessman Emanuele Tedeschi, stated “In one and a half years, every­thing changed. People started feeling afraid, and they stopped spending money. All the promises Monti made to relaunch the economy and help us enhance pro­duc­tivity never materialized.”

The article closes on a depressing note:

“Econ­o­mists worry that the pace of busi­ness clos­ings may accel­erate as long as the country lacks a func­tioning gov­ern­ment. The departing prime min­ister, Mario Monti, was ousted by austerity-weary voters, but the elec­tion left Par­lia­ment grid­locked.

Ousted, indeed. Voters rightly blame Monti for crashing their economy, but they don’t under­stand that his pri­mary goal was to “pri­va­tize” Italy’s remaining hold­ings in order to pay off debts and enrich the mer­chants of glob­al­iza­tion. Pri­va­ti­za­tion has long been a major strategy of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion and its “New Inter­na­tional World Order,” designed to con­sol­i­date wealth into the priv­i­leged few who belong to it.

In fact, pri­va­ti­za­tion has plagued Italy since at least 1992, thanks to the same people who have engi­neered modern glob­al­iza­tion. As this OECD report from 1997 shows, pri­va­ti­za­tion was in full swing by 1997 as gov­ern­ments sold off prized pos­ses­sions by the billions.

What assets Italy has left today, if fully sold off, would only pay down about 7 per­cent of its overall debt. And yet, that is what is next for Italy. After all is said and done, Italy will have no public ser­vice assets and will still be mas­sively bank­rupt with a trashed economy. In the end, the cit­i­zens will ulti­mately bear 100 per­cent of the debt. Pre­dictably, they will rebel just as they have in Greece.

Noted econ­o­mist Nouriel Roubini recently called Italy a “tsunami risk”:

“In Italy there’s the begin­ning of a polit­ical storm. The result of the Italian elec­tions signal that the majority of people are against aus­terity and not just in Italy also in Lisbon half a mil­lion people were in the streets and 25 per­cent unem­ploy­ment in Greece and Spain, 50 per­cent amongst young people and there is restlessness.

“Italy is not Greece and it has leverage within the euro zone and can cred­ibly threaten Ger­many by saying that if there is no loos­ening of con­di­tion­ality things could become implo­sive and [it could poten­tially] exit from the euro zone.”

Unfor­tu­nately, there is no fix for Italy, and it will go from bad to worse as polit­ical forces clash with each other, the finan­cial com­mu­nity and lenders. The pri­mary blockage to any for­ward progress is that trust has evap­o­rated. People don’t trust gov­ern­ment, bankers and glob­al­ists. Polit­ical par­ties don’t trust each other. The gov­ern­ment doesn’t trust the EU gov­er­nance machine. The bankers cer­tainly don’t trust the gov­ern­ment. Basi­cally, it’s reducing to a state of anarchy where society just melts from the top down.

The con­ta­gion of Greece has thor­oughly infected Italy and for all the same rea­sons. Por­tugal, Spain and France are close behind. Ger­many is also showing signs of weak­ness. When suf­fi­cient EU coun­tries are reduced to rubble, their euro cur­rency will dis­solve and Europe’s age-old rival­ries will resur­face to threaten another con­ti­nental war. All because of debt, greed and stupidity.

As I have said before, there is no pos­si­bility that America will be unaf­fected by what hap­pens in Greece, Italy and Europe. This is a global problem of the greatest mag­ni­tude, and in the end we will all sink or swim together.

Mean­while, a recent ABC head­line sums our President’s posi­tion — Pres­i­dent Obama: There Is No Debt Crisis”.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.
VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Findings & Forecasts 09/05/2012

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Global Economy

While all eyes in America focus on the Pres­i­den­tial elec­tion coming up in November, the global economy con­tinues to dete­ri­o­rate.  Our own economy is still in the longest recovery cycle from the great reces­sion since the Great Depres­sion, and shows many signs of deterioration.

One simply cannot look at the U.S. economy as if it oper­ates in a vacuum. Whether we like it or not, the global elite has pushed the con­cept of inter­de­pen­dence for almost 40 years, to the point that it is now a reality. The process of glob­al­iza­tion has inte­grated the economies of the world by tearing down national trade bar­riers such as tar­iffs and import quotas, through trade treaties and orga­ni­za­tions like the World Trade Organization.

Inter­de­pen­dence was orig­i­nally a false notion; now it is an ugly reality, because it means we are fully exposed to all the trou­bles expe­ri­enced by the rest of the world. What hap­pens in China, Japan and South Korea directly impacts the U.S. The eco­nomic and cur­rency crisis in Europe is a direct threat to our own economy.

I have long studied and cri­tiqued the elite Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, its poli­cies and it’s mem­bers for being the prime insti­gator of modern eco­nomic glob­al­iza­tion. Since many of those papers are pub­lished on this site, I will not restate them here. I would remind you, how­ever, that Com­mis­sion mem­bers cap­tured the Exec­u­tive Branch of the U.S. gov­ern­ment upon the elec­tion of James Earl Carter in 1976. Carter was a member of the Com­mis­sion, being hand picked and trained by the TC founder, Zbig­niew Brzezinski. Carter appointed almost 30 per­cent of U.S. Com­mis­sion mem­bers to his Cab­inet and other high-ranking positions.

Ever since, each suc­ces­sive Admin­is­tra­tion has been packed with Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers, including the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion. As far as trade policy is con­cerned, being Repub­lican or Demo­crat has made zero dif­fer­ence: They have “owned” both par­ties and have used each suc­ces­sive Admin­is­tra­tion to fur­ther their own agenda of a “New World Order”, as Tri­lat­eral George H. W. Bush put it.

What people don’t grasp is that a New World Order means that the Old World Order is tar­geted for destruc­tion. They want to level the playing field throughout the world. Why should you get $25 per hour when a Chi­nese is willing to work for $25 per day? This is why entire man­u­fac­turing indus­tries have moved to China, India, Mexico, etc. This is why entire ser­vice indus­tries have moved to India and Malaysia.

Don’t blame Democ­rats of Repub­li­cans for our eco­nomic woes. Look higher to those pur­veyors of glob­al­iza­tion who have sys­tem­at­i­cally dis­rupted our domestic eco­nomic and polit­ical sys­tems.  These are the ones pulling the strings of both polit­ical par­ties. Fur­ther­more, they are safe and secure as long as the par­ties con­tinue to make war on each other. If there weren’t enough divi­sive­ness already, they would esca­late the battle by throwing another meaty bone to the dog pack.

It would be a won­derful day for America if Democ­rats, Repub­li­cans and Inde­pen­dents stopped fighting and focused on this rel­a­tively small group of elit­ists to drive them out of our polit­ical and eco­nomic affairs. Without these inva­sive par­a­sites, our system might have a chance to work prop­erly again.

How­ever, the battle con­tinues at a higher tem­per­a­ture  and more highly rad­i­cal­ized with every passing week. Hate is con­ta­gious and spreads like a virus that induces blind­ness to all ratio­nality. Most impor­tantly, it cloaks the per­pe­tra­tors, giving them a free pass to con­tinue their plunder.

The World Eco­nomic Forum (WEF) just released its Global Com­pet­i­tive­ness Report 2012 – 2013 that shows the U.S. drop­ping for the fourth year in a row to 7th place. Being a major driver of glob­al­iza­tion, the WEF under­scores the impor­tance of com­pet­i­tive­ness to eco­nomic recovery. Thus, they reason, the U.S.‘s lack of Free Trade Agree­ments nego­ti­ated and signed in the last four years is a major detractor to our com­pet­i­tive­ness. Hence, it’s no sur­prise that Pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Mitt Romney will under­score the need to nego­tiate new FTA’s; after all, China has been signing new trade agree­ments all over the world while we languished.

This logic will strip even more eco­nomic and polit­ical sov­er­eignty from our already tat­tered nation, and with it, more jobs and factories.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.


VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

How to understand Globalization

Tags: ,

  1. Follow the money, follow the power
  2. Dis­cern illu­sion from reality, espe­cially with media outlets
  3. Listen to experts who offer a mean­ingful critique
  4. Study & verify sources and footnotes
  5. Apply lib­eral doses of common sense

What is Glob­al­iza­tion? It is the col­lec­tive effect of pur­poseful and amoral manip­u­la­tion that seeks to cen­tralize eco­nomic, polit­ical, tech­no­log­ical and soci­etal forces in order to accrue max­imum profit and polit­ical power to global banks, global cor­po­ra­tions and the elit­ists who run them.

“Free Trade” is the cen­tral mantra. Glob­al­iza­tion is set against national sov­er­eignty, closed bor­ders, trade tar­rifs and any­thing that would restrict its goals and methods used to achieve them.

Glob­al­iza­tion pro­motes regional and global gov­ern­ment, a one-world eco­nomic system of trade and a form of fas­cism where global cor­po­ra­tions and their elite con­trol the poli­cies and direc­tives of indi­vidual gov­ern­ments.  

The orig­inal and pri­mary per­pe­tra­tors of modern-day glob­al­iza­tion number only in the 100’s, rep­re­sen­ta­tive of which, but not exclu­sively, are mem­bers of The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion.

To under­stand the gen­esis of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, read the tran­script of the 1979 radio show between Antony C. Sutton, Patrick M. Wood and George S. Franklin, Jr. — Coor­di­nator of the Tri­lat­eral Commission! 

 Where did Glob­al­iza­tion come from? The “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” was the coinage of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion starting in 1973. This pur­pose was stated repeat­edly in its papers, jour­nals and conferences.

In 1991, Pres­i­dent George H.W. Bush, a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, began to openly talk about the New World Order, which expanded the con­cept to include gov­er­nance as well as eco­nomic unity. Click on the movie to hear Bush in his own words!


VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

The Globalization Strategy: America and Europe in the Crucible

Tags: , , , , ,

By Carl Teichrib

Editor’s Note: Glob­al­iza­tion is not a random-walk process. It moves for­ward according to a tan­gible, coherent and well-planned strategy. This article offers the reader a glimpse into one aspect of the glob­al­iza­tion strat­agem – one that recast Europe and is now reshaping north America. Region­al­iza­tion, as you will see, is a nec­es­sary stepping-stone toward and an essen­tial com­po­nent of glob­al­iza­tion. This article lays the ground­work for future arti­cles that will lay bare ele­ments of region­alism in the Amer­icas such as NAFTA and CAFTA.

“The two processes of glob­al­iza­tion and region­al­iza­tion are artic­u­lated within the same larger process of global struc­tural transformation…”
— Björn Hettne, “Globalization, the New Region­alism and East Asia,” Glob­alism and Region­alism. [1]

Strategic land­scapes are rad­i­cally changing. No longer does a person’s country rep­re­sent the core of cit­i­zen­ship or iden­tity. Today, a new murky world is dawning, one that advo­cates global gov­er­nance [2] as the por­tent to humanity’s social, polit­ical, and eco­nomic future. Indeed, in this post-Cold War envi­ron­ment, “nation-states” – like the soci­eties they serve and accom­mo­date – find them­selves in a relent­less swell of trans­for­ma­tion. National inter­ests give way to global loy­al­ties, just as world cit­i­zen­ship is touted as prefer­able to the narrow views of nation­alism; no indi­vidual, cor­po­ra­tion, or country is immune to this rev­o­lu­tion. Wel­come to “globalization,” where everyone is either a pawn or a player.

As an end to itself, the con­cept of glob­al­iza­tion seems to rest on one cen­tral pillar: the con­sol­i­da­tion of power. No matter what stripe or ide­ology glob­al­iza­tion comes pack­aged in, this sin­gular com­po­nent cannot be denied. And in a society where “power begets power,” a global system, by def­i­n­i­tion, has the capa­bility to expand this char­ac­ter­istic to new levels.

Polit­i­cally, glob­al­iza­tion rep­re­sents the lever­aging of power beyond that found in any one nation. Using the clichés of global gov­er­nance, we would call this a “new world civilization,” one that’s built with inter­na­tional man­age­ment in mind. Mikhail Gor­bachev, the last true master of the Soviet style of cen­tral­ized power explains, “The time has come to develop inte­grated global policies.” [3]

But polit­ical glob­al­iza­tion is not an overnight game. We don’t stop work Friday after­noon, take a break over the weekend, and poof, find our­selves on Monday morning immersed in global gov­er­nance. Rather, this macro-political trans­for­ma­tion is the product of gen­er­a­tions of changes, bumps and cor­rec­tions, and decades of deci­sive plan­ning. Already in 1945, leading socialist Scott Nearing penned,

“A world society cannot be hap­hazard. Since there are no prece­dents, it cannot be tra­di­tional at this stage in its devel­op­ment. It can only be delib­er­a­tive and exper­i­mental, planned and built up with par­tic­ular objectives…” [4]

Much more recently, Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion co-founder Zbig­niew Brzezinski espoused sim­ilar notions, albeit with an American-focused bent. In his book, The Grand Chess­board: Amer­ican Pri­macy and its Geostrategic Imper­a­tives, the former National Secu­rity Advisor main­tains that America’s pur­pose for global engage­ment is “that of forging an enduring frame­work of global geopo­lit­ical coop­er­a­tion” and to “unapologetically” posi­tion itself as the arbi­trator of “global management.” [5] Cap­ping off this asser­tion, Brzezinski closes with these sobering words, “Geostrategic suc­cess in that cause would rep­re­sent a fit­ting legacy of America’s role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower.” [6]

Jim Gar­rison, founder and Pres­i­dent of the Gor­bachev Foundation/USA (at the behest of Mikhail Gor­bachev), [7] like­wise sees America as the forging ele­ment in globalization.

“…America must con­sciously view itself as a tran­si­tional empire, one whose des­tiny at this moment is to act as mid­wife to a demo­c­ra­t­i­cally gov­erned global system. Its great chal­lenge is not to dom­i­nate but to cat­alyze. It must use its great strength and demo­c­ratic her­itage to estab­lish inte­grating insti­tu­tions and mech­a­nisms to manage the emerging global system so that its own power is sub­sumed by the very edi­fice it helps to build.

Pres­i­dent Wilson estab­lished the League of Nations out of the ashes of World War I. Pres­i­dent Roo­sevelt and Truman estab­lished a new inter­na­tional order after World War II. America must now build the third iter­a­tion of global gov­er­nance. If it attains this level of great­ness, it could become the final empire, for it will have bequeathed to the world a demo­c­ratic and inte­grated global system in which empire will no longer have a place or per­form a role.” [8] [italics in original]

Nearing, Brzezinski, and Gar­rison all point to the reality of inter­na­tion­alism – it’s not acci­dental. And the last two indi­vid­uals, global players in their own right, directly call for America’s guiding hand in plan­e­tary transformation.

America, how­ever, isn’t the only major agent for global change. Europe too, and more specif­i­cally for the 21st cen­tury, the Euro­pean Union, is a fan­tastic factor in the glob­al­iza­tion process. Indeed, Brzezinski calls for America to act with the Euro­pean Union “for sus­tained global polit­ical planning.” [9]

Not sur­pris­ingly, an American-European approach to global order already exists under the Transat­lantic Alliance heading. Over the years, this alliance has been greatly shaped by men such as Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, and John J. McCloy on the US side – and by key Euro­peans such as Paul-Henri Spaak, Jacques Delors and Javier Solana.

Presently this Transat­lantic system is com­prised of a myriad of polit­ical, mil­i­tary, and eco­nomic link­ages. Some of its com­po­nents include,

  • NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
  • OSCE (Orga­ni­za­tion for Secu­rity and Co-operation in Europe)
  • OECD [10] (Orga­ni­za­tion for Eco­nomic Co-operation and Devel­op­ment), which orig­i­nally started out as the Organ­i­sa­tion for Euro­pean Eco­nomic Co-operation.
  • Var­ious joint com­mis­sions and pri­vate policy groups – such as the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, [11] the Atlantic Council of the United States, the British Amer­ican Secu­rity Infor­ma­tion Council, and the less well known Streit Council – along with numerous pro­grams such as the Transat­lantic For­eign Policy Discourse.
  • Mas­sive busi­ness and cor­po­rate ties within air­craft and ship­ping indus­tries, petro­leum and petro-chemical com­pa­nies, defense and aero­space ven­tures, all major auto­mo­bile man­u­fac­turers, and many more com­mer­cial connections.

This last point bears spe­cial sig­nif­i­cance. Eliz­a­beth Pond, writing for the Euro­pean Union Studies Association’s U.S.-EU Rela­tions Project, tells us, “So inter­twined have transat­lantic com­pa­nies become, espe­cially in the past decade, that it is often impos­sible to tell if firms are actu­ally ‘American’ or ‘European’.” [12]

For many out­side observers, the ques­tion arises: Does this Transat­lantic con­nec­tion rep­re­sent the Amer­i­can­iza­tion of Europe, or is Europe shaping America?

Maybe it’s nei­ther. Too often we in North America per­ceive such quan­daries through nation­al­istic lenses, instead, when viewed through the glasses of glob­al­iza­tion, a whole new world comes into focus.

What the Transat­lantic ideal ulti­mately rep­re­sents is the “Third Wave” – the route of glob­al­iza­tion. As social scholars Alvin and Heidi Tof­fler assert, “what is hap­pening now is nothing less than a global rev­o­lu­tion, a quantum leap.” [13]

But please don’t mis­un­der­stand: this “global rev­o­lu­tion” is not a seam­less process. As one facet of the rev­o­lu­tion, the Transat­lantic part­ner­ship – like all other rela­tion­ships – has growing pains, set­backs, and observ­able dif­fer­ences. Indeed during the last number of years, size­able rifts have occurred between Euro­pean and Amer­ican pop­u­la­tion seg­ments, espe­cially in light of Middle Eastern devel­op­ments. [14] Although this fis­sure is more apparent in the gen­eral cit­i­zenry and within cer­tain policy cir­cles, and may even have spill over effects within Transat­lantic mar­kets such as defense spending, [15] it’s a rift that tem­porarily detracts from the global reality.

And what is the “global real­ity”? That America is on the threshold of having to reshape itself, just as it helped re-shape post-war Europe, and is now looked upon as the “midwife” of a new global order.

It’s the shift from nation­alism to glob­al­iza­tion, via the Euro­pean model of regionalism.

Glob­al­iza­tion, Euro­pean Region­alism, and Anti-Nationalism

Imme­di­ately after the close of the Cold War, the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion – a pri­vate policy group com­prised of Amer­ican, Euro­pean, and Asian coun­ter­parts – released its study, Region­alism in a Con­verging World. [16] According to its Introduction,

“…regionalism need not be opposed to glob­alism. The world should not have to choose between one or the other. It needs to live with both. The challenge…is how to channel the forces of region­alism in direc­tions com­pat­ible with and sup­portive of glob­alism.” [17] [italics in original]

It’s impor­tant to under­stand that spon­sor­ship for region­alism as a step in the glob­al­iza­tion process hasn’t just been con­fined to the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion and its mem­bers. Thank­fully, the many builders of this regional-global order have left their fin­ger­prints plas­tered throughout the twen­tieth cen­tury. More sig­nif­i­cantly, their motives are also discernable.

Back in 1942, The Brook­ings Insti­tute released its report, Peace Plans and Amer­ican Choices, high­lighting a variety of hopeful post-war con­cepts for “world order.” Options were reviewed such as explicit US mas­tery over inter­na­tional affairs, the cre­ation of a British-American Alliance, har­mo­nizing world order through a “Union of Democ­ra­cies” (which was being touted at the time by Clarence Streit [18] ), and the col­lab­o­ra­tion of a larger “United Nations” package. Region­alism was con­sid­ered in detail, with the Western Hemi­sphere, Europe, and Asia com­prising the main blocks.

Arthur Millspaugh, author of the Brook­ings report, was candid in his linking of region­alism to the “bigger picture,”

“Such regional arrange­ments may be con­sid­ered either as steps or stages in the evo­lu­tion of a uni­versal world order, as sub­sti­tutes for a uni­versal order, or as some­thing to be com­bined with a world-wide system.” [19]

Although the Brook­ings report focused on the antic­i­pated after­math of World War II, the idea of a Europe-State had been birthed decades ear­lier. Already in 1914, the first year of The Great War (WWI), Nicholas Murray Butler – Pres­i­dent of Columbia Uni­ver­sity and later recip­ient of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize – sug­gested that Euro­pean uni­fi­ca­tion and the advent of a supra-national gov­ern­ment was needed to replace the “existing national system.”

“What will be in sub­stance a United States of Europe, a more or less formal fed­er­a­tion of the self-governing coun­tries of Europe, may be the out­come of the demon­strated failure of the existing national system to adjust gov­ern­ment to the growth of civilization…

There is no reason why each nation in Europe should not make a place for itself in the sun of unity which I feel sure is rising there behind the war-clouds. Europe’s stu­pen­dous eco­nomic loss, which already has been appalling and will soon be incal­cu­lable, will give us an oppor­tu­nity to press this argu­ment home…

…the time will come when each nation will deposit in a world fed­er­a­tion some por­tion of its sov­er­eignty for the gen­eral good. When this hap­pens it will be pos­sible to estab­lish an inter­na­tional exec­u­tive and an inter­na­tional police, both devised for the espe­cial pur­pose of enforcing the deci­sions of the inter­na­tional court.” [20]

Attempts to pro­mote Euro­pean inte­gra­tion and coop­er­a­tion after The Great War were made. In 1923 the Pan-European Union was founded, attracting a number of indi­vid­uals who would later play a post-Word War II role, including Konrad Ade­nauer. [21] And France’s for­eign min­ister, Aris­tide Briand, envi­sioned a scheme to orga­nize Europe around uni­fied lines as opposed to nation­al­istic ten­den­cies, even bringing the debate to the League of Nations. [22] None of these cam­paigns, how­ever, were gen­er­ally effective.

Iron­i­cally, while the League of Nations and the Pan-European Union ideas floun­dered, a type of con­ti­nental inte­gra­tion almost occurred via the National Socialist German Worker’s Party – better known as the Nazis. John Laugh­land, author of The Tainted Source, details the exten­sive Euro­pean uni­fi­ca­tion plat­form espoused by the Nazi lead­er­ship, including plans for a Cen­tral Euro­pean Eco­nomic Com­mu­nity, a customs-free market area, and the even­tual cre­ation of a Euro­pean mon­e­tary area. [23] What’s more, as Laugh­land points out, “Nazi plans for Euro­pean inte­gra­tion were as polit­ical as they were economic.” [24]

The influ­ence of Nazi-era con­cepts on Euro­pean inte­gra­tion cannot be under­stated. Sta­tioned in Ger­many during the early years of World War II, George F. Kennan, one of the most impor­tant Amer­ican diplo­mats of the twen­tieth cen­tury and the first Director of Policy Plan­ning Staff at the State Depart­ment, can­didly shared his observations,

“When sta­tioned in Berlin during the war I had been struck with the fact that Hitler him­self, albeit for the wrong rea­sons and in the wrong spirit, had actu­ally accom­plished much of the tech­nical task of the uni­fi­ca­tion of Europe. He had cre­ated cen­tral author­i­ties in a whole series of areas: in trans­porta­tion, in banking, in pro­cure­ment and dis­tri­b­u­tion of raw mate­rials, in the con­trol of var­ious forms of nation­al­ized prop­erty. Why, I asked myself, could this sit­u­a­tion not be use­fully exploited after an Allied vic­tory? What was needed was an Allied deci­sion not to smash this net­work of cen­tral con­trols when the war was ended but rather to take it over, to remove the Nazi offi­cials who had made it work, to appoint others (and not nec­es­sarily all non-Germans) in their place, and then to sup­ple­ment this phys­ical uni­fi­ca­tion with a new Euro­pean fed­eral authority. When I returned from Ger­many, in 1942, I tried to win under­standing for this idea in the Depart­ment of State…” [25]

After the war, Kennan (who was a member of the Council on For­eign Rela­tions and later in life involved in the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion) became the US coun­sellor to the Euro­pean Advi­sory Com­mis­sion and a pri­mary archi­tect of the Mar­shall Plan – America’s rebuilding pro­gram for Europe. In his Mem­oirs, the diplomat noted,

“The United States gov­ern­ment, ani­mated pri­marily by a belief that some­thing should be done to ‘integrate’ the economies of the Euro­pean coun­tries in the inter­ests of eco­nomic recovery, had been adding words of encour­age­ment, if not pressure.” [26]

This imme­diate post-war “encouragement” was essen­tially chan­neled via the Mar­shall Plan, with Euro­pean inte­gra­tion “tacked on every pro­posal made in Wash­ington for export to Europe.” [27]

Theodore H. White, a US for­eign jour­nalist and later member of the Council on For­eign Rela­tions, describes the sit­u­a­tion in his book, Fire in the Ashes,

“American’s had, for many years, been loftily instructing Euro­peans in the virtues of their own great Union of the States, and chided Europe on the stu­pidi­ties of its rival­ries and sep­a­ratisms. During the war sev­eral Amer­ican brain trusters had even toyed with the idea that, come Lib­er­a­tion, it would be best to sweep away all cur­ren­cies of the Lib­er­a­tion coun­tries and replace them with one new common Euro­pean cur­rency issued by the United States Army…” [28]

White con­tinued,

“It was the Mar­shall Plan that hard­ened Amer­ican con­vic­tions that Euro­peans must unite…When vis­iting Con­gressmen asked the Mar­shall Plan­ners what they were trying to do, they would answer, ‘We’re trying to pull them together, we’re trying to inte­grate them.’ ‘Integration’ was a con­ve­nient word and each suc­ces­sive del­e­ga­tion asked sternly, ‘How far have you got with inte­gra­tion now?’ as if expecting the Mar­shall Plan to pull out of its desk drawers a draft con­sti­tu­tion and a design for a Euro­pean flag.

By 1949, in the second appro­pri­a­tion of the Mar­shall Plan, Con­gress, without debate, set the uni­fi­ca­tion of Europe as one of the major pur­poses of the Plan.” [29]

Later in life White would reflect, “The story of the Mar­shall Plan, it turned out, began with the Meaning of Money. It was also about Money and Europe, and Money and the Peace – but above all, Money and Power and America.” [30]

While the Mar­shall Plan was oper­a­tional, three mem­bers of Europe’s Chris­tian Demo­c­ratic com­mu­nity – Alcide De Gasperi, Konrad Ade­nauer, and Robert Shuman – led the way towards rousing con­ti­nental interest in uni­fi­ca­tion. Giving us some insight into the moti­va­tional fac­tors of these three “Fathers of Europe,” R.W. Key­ser­lingk, Gen­eral Man­ager of the British United Press during the 1940s, writes,

“…all three [had] been formed in their youth by the Catholic social move­ments acti­vated by the papal teach­ings of Rerum Novarum. They were all deeply reli­gious, fer­vent patriots but deter­mined anti-nationalists. All three came from fron­tier areas of border dis­putes and border contacts…This had taught them that only a Europe as a fed­er­a­tion, not Europe torn by hatreds bred by narrow nation­alism, could assure freedom and lib­erty to their beloved, more inti­mate border homelands.” [31] [italics in original]

Demon­strating the depth of this Euro­pean ideal within an anti-nationalistic frame­work and of the sub­se­quent roadmap to region­alism, Key­ser­lingk reminds us, “Integration into a fed­eral system, along polit­ical, eco­nomic and mil­i­tary lines, involving the sac­ri­fice of absolute national sov­er­eignty, was their objective.” [32]

How to achieve this objec­tive? The con­ti­nuity between assim­i­la­tion approaches is truly remarkable,

“First, the polit­ical line was attempted and although this proved almost to be putting the cart before the horse, it had con­sid­er­able merit for the future. It cre­ated the Council of Europe and the Euro­pean Parliament…

When the polit­ical approach revealed the insur­mount­able dif­fi­cul­ties of get­ting down to prac­tical working mea­sures, Robert Shuman came up with the second pos­si­bility, eco­nomic inte­gra­tion; a merging of inter­locking inter­ests, the abo­li­tion of trade bar­riers elim­i­nating eco­nomic competition…working out of common poli­cies for use of the labour market…freedom of move­ment for workers…and a gradual strength­ening of joint eco­nomic policies…” [33]

Through this decided act of eco­nomic amal­ga­ma­tion, which has since borne itself out via the Euro­pean Union and Euro cur­rency, Europe became for the rest of the world a rec­og­nized model to advance inter­na­tion­alism above single state inter­ests. This reality was per­ceived early on by Euro­pean fed­er­al­ists and is evi­dent in the 1946 Herten­stein Program,

“A Euro­pean Com­mu­nity on fed­eral lines is a nec­es­sary and essen­tial con­tri­bu­tion to any world union…The mem­bers of the Euro­pean Union shall transfer part of their sov­er­eign rights – eco­nomic, polit­ical and mil­i­tary – to the Fed­er­a­tion which they constitute…By showing that it can solve the prob­lems of its des­tiny in a fed­eral spirit, Europe will make its con­tri­bu­tion to recon­struc­tion and to the cre­ation of a world com­mu­nity of peoples.” [34]

Less than one year after the Herten­stein announce­ment, the “World Move­ment for World Fed­eral Gov­ern­ment” released a sim­ilar plat­form known as the Mon­treux Dec­la­ra­tion. After stating that national sov­er­eignty required lim­i­ta­tions and that nations needed to transfer powers to a “world fed­eral government,” the Dec­la­ra­tion added,

“We con­sider that inte­gra­tion of activ­i­ties at regional and func­tional levels is con­sis­tent with the true fed­eral approach. The for­ma­tion of regional fed­er­a­tions – insofar as they do not become an end in them­selves or run the risk of crys­tal­lizing into blocs – can and should con­tribute to the effec­tive func­tioning of a world fed­eral government.” [35]

In the decades imme­di­ately fol­lowing World War II, Transat­lantic ties between Euro-federalists and Amer­ican elites broad­ened inter­na­tional accep­tance of a Euro­pean Com­mu­nity. More­over, Europe’s march to amal­ga­ma­tion suc­cess­fully achieved strategic goals. The Euro­pean Coal and Steel Com­mu­nity, the Treaty of Rome and the sub­se­quent Euro­pean Eco­nomic Com­mu­nity and Euratom agency, and the gradual har­mo­niza­tion of agri­cul­tural and fiscal poli­cies all demon­strated the strength of this trans-national agenda.

By the time the 1970s rolled around with its OPEC petro­leum crisis and the revamping of the Bretton Woods finan­cial system, the oppor­tu­ni­ties region­alism offered as a tool for global trans­for­ma­tion was clearly evi­dent. The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, the Club of Rome, and the Insti­tute for World Order all looked to region­alism as a trump card over nation­alism. [36]

As one of the most pro­lific advo­cates of regional mod­eling, the Club of Rome – an elite body acting as a “global cat­a­lyst of change” [37] – deserves spe­cial atten­tion. Its report, Mankind at the Turning Point, envi­sioned a world zoned into ten dif­ferent blocs, and acknowl­edged that the regional view was nec­es­sary for global devel­op­ment. [38] In another report released during this same time period, the Club of Rome merged the steering of world change, anti-nationalism, and regional cooperation.

“In the present inter­na­tional order huge power is con­cen­trated in indi­vid­u­al­ized nation-States. Seen from a world view­point, this must be deemed unde­sir­able. Some of the means which could be employed to attain those objec­tives of vital impor­tance to the inter­na­tional com­mu­nity can more effec­tively be han­dled by higher levels of decision-making…the achieve­ment of some aims, such as the cre­ation of larger mar­kets through regional and sub-regional coop­er­a­tion (col­lec­tive self-reliance), would be facil­i­tated by decision-making on a level higher than the nation-State.” [39]

Richard A. Falk, a Pro­fessor of Inter­na­tional Law with con­nec­tions to the Council on For­eign Rela­tions and the World Fed­er­alist Asso­ci­a­tion, pos­tu­lated sim­ilar direc­tives in the mid-1970s. Con­tributing to the World Order Model’s Project (a pro­gram of the Insti­tute for World Order), he wrote that,

“…regionalism has con­sid­er­able appeal as a world order half-way house. It seems more fea­sible in the near term as a step beyond state sov­er­eignty that can be used to dilute nation­alist sen­ti­ments during a period when global loy­al­ties need to grow stronger.” [40]

Falk had seen the hand­writing on the wall less than a decade ear­lier. Touching on the increasing role of regional insti­tu­tions and the United Nations as it related to global tran­si­tional strate­gies, he offered an inter­esting per­spec­tive to the World Law Fund’s Strategy of World Order pro­gram: “The result of these chal­lenges to the tra­di­tional inter­na­tional legal system is to create a sit­u­a­tion of tran­si­tional crisis. For the inad­e­qua­cies of the old order have given rise to the begin­nings of a new order…” [41]

Today, global elites from both Europe and America con­sider region­alism to be a prime strat­agem for global gov­er­nance. In fact, this “new region­al­ism” is now embraced by a mul­ti­tude of key indi­vid­uals, orga­ni­za­tions, and gov­ern­mental agen­cies. As two United Nations Uni­ver­sity doc­u­ment released in 2005 state,

“…regional gov­er­nance is not incom­pat­ible with and does not negate global gov­er­nance. On the con­trary, it has the poten­tial to strengthen global gov­er­nance. The regional logic has always been inherent to the global body…” [42]


“Regional inte­gra­tion between sov­er­eign states…is a booming phe­nom­enon, and, not sur­pris­ingly, it is nowa­days seen as a process that, together with glob­al­iza­tion, chal­lenges the existing West­phalian [Ed., nation-centered] world order.” [43]

Amer­ican Choices and World Realities

Nations-states will not go away, either under region­alism or through some form of global gov­er­nance. Roles, func­tions and the sov­er­eign status of nations, how­ever, will be fun­da­men­tally altered. But the “country,” like state/provinces and city/local gov­ern­ments, will remain intact. Just add another layer to the pile – after all, it’s the Third Wave style of global transformation.

As social engi­neers Alvin and Heidi Tof­fler reminds us, “Change so many social, tech­no­log­ical and cul­tural ele­ments at once and you create not just a tran­si­tion but a trans­for­ma­tion, not just a new society but the begin­nings, at least, of a totally new civilization.” [44]

Glob­al­iza­tion and region­alism go hand-in-hand, and the rel­e­vancy of this is extra­or­di­nary. Cur­rently, the EU is assisting in the cre­ation of new regional blocs around the world: including the Gulf Coop­er­a­tion Council, an Asian zone, the devel­op­ment of the South Amer­ican Com­mu­nity of Nations, and new blocs in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.

One 2004 EU doc­u­ment spells out this strategy,

“Because of its his­tory and its own inte­gra­tion process, sup­port for regional inte­gra­tion is an area in which the EU has real added value to con­tribute. The EU is ready to share this unique expe­ri­ence with other world regional group­ings. It also hopes to help them draw on the sub­stan­tial gains made in the regional inte­gra­tion process. It there­fore encour­ages other coun­tries in the world to forge even stronger links with their neigh­bours and to orga­nize them­selves within insti­tu­tion­alised regional organisations.” [45]

In dis­cussing its own enlarge­ment we can, more­over, catch a glimpse of what the EU envi­sions: “Enlargement strengthens the role and posi­tion of the Union in the world, in external rela­tions, secu­rity, trade and in other domains relating to world governance.” [46] And, “In polit­ical terms, by adding to the power, cohe­sion and influ­ence of the Union on the inter­na­tional arena, enlarge­ment strengthens the Union’s hand when it comes to globalisation…” [47]

What does this have to do with the United States of America? Everything.

At the finan­cial level, the US has to mon­e­tarily and eco­nom­i­cally com­pete with the Euro­pean Union and its Euro cur­rency. This com­pe­ti­tion not only impacts America’s trading power with Europe directly, but the growing influ­ence of the Euro around the world raises the stakes even higher. In 2004, Toshi­hiko Fukui, a board member with the Bank for Inter­na­tional Set­tle­ments, noted; “Today, we can dis­cuss the euro’s poten­tial to bring a sea change to the global finan­cial archi­tec­ture, without being crit­i­cized for fantasizing.” [48] Fukui then talked of a time when, like the Euro­pean Union, Asia too will work as an eco­nomic bloc with a single pow­erful, glob­ally rec­og­nized cur­rency. [49]

The Euro’s impor­tance as a rival to the US dollar, and as a model for other cur­rency zones, cannot be ignored. And as dif­ferent regions develop – with the pos­si­bil­i­ties of China, India, and Brazil becoming nat­ural mag­nets for the cre­ation of mas­sive economic/regional power blocs – America, with its debt loads expanded beyond com­pre­hen­sion and its dollar losing face inter­na­tion­ally, finds itself treading eco­nom­i­cally dan­gerous waters.

But there’s one other ele­ment added to this mix. As stated ear­lier, the Euro­pean Union is involved in cre­ating other com­pet­i­tive regional blocs. Not only does this cause a deflec­tion in US dollar strength at the inter­na­tional level, it also shifts for­eign inter­ests away from the US and back to Europe. Hence Amer­ican influ­ence, espe­cially in terms of advancing US inter­ests abroad, weakens as Europe’s influ­ence grows.

These facts haven’t escaped US policy makers. The irony is that America’s answer is to follow Europe’s foot­steps, blending domestic real­i­ties with regional/global trends, and try to assist for­eign nations to inte­grate under US guid­ance. The paradox deepens: America, in order to counter the Europe it helped estab­lish, now has to create a North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity incor­po­rating itself, Canada, and Mexico into a new super-region. How­ever, this is only a paradox to those in America who view the US through nation­alist lenses, as already wit­nessed, its elite view things very differently.

North Amer­ican inte­gra­tion isn’t a pie-in-the-sky idea. It’s been batted around by a host of priv­i­leged tri-national orga­ni­za­tions, including the Cana­dian Council of Chief Exec­u­tives (Canada’s top busi­ness leaders), the Mex­ican Council on For­eign Rela­tions, the Center for Strategic and Inter­na­tional Studies (a Wash­ington DC think tank with Tri­lat­er­alist Brzezinski playing a key role), and the New York Council on For­eign Relations.

In the spring of 2005, the CFR came out with an “independent task force” report titled Building a North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity. This doc­u­ment details an eco­nomic and secu­rity man­date that binds North America by estab­lishing a common secu­rity perimeter, a North Amer­ican border pass pro­gram, common external tar­iffs, the seam­less move­ment of goods, full mobility of labor between Canada and the US, a con­ti­nental energy plat­form, and the cre­ation of a single eco­nomic tri-national region; with 2010 as a target date for many of these arrange­ments. [50]

Responding to this report, the US Embassy in Canada – “pointing to increased com­pe­ti­tion from the Euro­pean Union and raising eco­nomic powers such as India and China” – called the CFR’s agenda a “blueprint for a pow­er­house North Amer­ican trading area.” [51]

A few short weeks after the CFR announced that its upcoming inte­gra­tion report would go public, [52] US Pres­i­dent Bush, Mex­ican Pres­i­dent Fox, and Cana­dian Prime Min­ister Martin met in Texas to announce a tri-national agenda to “ensure that North America remains the most eco­nom­i­cally dynamic region of the world.” [53] The Council on For­eign Rela­tions final report directly acknowl­edged this tri-national lead­er­ship summit, and point­edly said that, “The Task Force is pleased to pro­vide spe­cific advice on how the part­ner­ship can be pur­sued and realized.” [54] And tucked into the task­force chairman’s state­ment was a simple but vital com­ment; the “process of change must be prop­erly managed.” [55]

This wasn’t any­thing new to the banking com­mu­nity. In 1991, the Dallas Fed­eral Reserve issued a research paper titled, North Amer­ican Free Trade and the Peso: The Case for a North Amer­ican Cur­rency Area. [56] In the late 1990’s the Bank of Canada pub­lished a string of working papers looking at the pros and cons of a North Amer­ican eco­nomic and mon­e­tary zone. [57] One US Trea­sury Depart­ment offi­cial, out­lining world finan­cial trends at the Fed­eral Reserve Bank of Atlanta in October 2000, can­didly remarked that “a quantum increase in global eco­nomic and finan­cial coop­er­a­tion” would be needed to meet future inter­na­tional challenges,

“Successful glob­al­iza­tion requires a par­allel inter­na­tional process of har­mo­niza­tion of rules, including rules gov­erning the finan­cial system, a process that has been going on largely silently for many years in the cen­tral banking community…

…I believe that it is at least pos­sible that in the years ahead we will wit­ness a dra­matic decline in the number of inde­pen­dent cur­ren­cies in the world…I would not like to put a time frame on an evo­lu­tion to a world with sub­stan­tially fewer cur­ren­cies, but I am sure you have noted that the pres­i­dent elect of Mexico, Vin­cente Fox, has sug­gested a long-term evo­lu­tion towards a North Amer­ican cur­rency area. Such trends may lead to new chal­lenges and insti­tu­tions in the area of inter­na­tional eco­nomic cooperation.” [58]

Region­alism as a stepping-stone to glob­al­iza­tion is the insep­a­rable blending of pol­i­tics and eco­nomics across the board. On the “political side,” con­sider what Richard N. Haass had to say when he was the Director of the Policy Plan­ning Staff at the US Depart­ment of States back in 2002 (remember George F. Kennan was its first director).

“There clearly is a con­sis­tent body of ideas and poli­cies that guides the Bush Administration’s for­eign policy. Whether these ideas and poli­cies will evolve into a formal doc­trine with a name, I’ll leave to his­tory to decide. But this coher­ence exists and can be cap­tured by the idea of integration.

In the 21st cen­tury, the prin­ciple aim of Amer­ican for­eign policy is to inte­grate other coun­tries and orga­ni­za­tions into arrange­ments that will sus­tain a world con­sis­tent with U.S. inter­ests and values.

…Integration is about bringing nations together and then building frame­works of coop­er­a­tion and, where fea­sible, insti­tu­tions that rein­force and sus­tain them even more.

…Integration reflects not merely a hope for the future, but the emerging reality of the Bush Administration.” [59]

Haass should know. Not only is he a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, he’s the Pres­i­dent of the Council on For­eign Rela­tions. In fact, Haass wrote the for­ward to the CFR report, Building a North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity.

The bottom line is this: Just as pol­i­tics and eco­nomics are bonded at the hip, region­alism and all it entails – including the uni­fi­ca­tion of North America – fits part-and-parcel with the strategy of glob­al­iza­tion. It’s the pur­suit of the Third Wave global society as a replace­ment to the archaic world of nationalism.

In con­clu­sion, the ques­tion must be asked; How far will this process reach? Alvin and Heidi Tof­fler let the cat-out-of-the-bag.

“The fact is that building a Third Wave civ­i­liza­tion on the wreckage of Second Wave insti­tu­tions involves the design of new, more appro­priate polit­ical struc­tures in many nations at once. This is a painful yet nec­es­sary project that is mind-staggering in scope…

In all like­li­hood it will require a pro­tracted battle to rad­i­cally over­haul the United States Con­gress, the House of Com­mons and the House of Lords, the French Chamber of Deputies, the Bun­destag, the Diet, the giant min­istries and entrenched civil ser­vices of many nations, their con­sti­tu­tions and court system – in short, much of the unwieldy and increas­ingly unwork­able appa­ratus of existing rep­re­sen­ta­tive governments.

Nor will this wave of polit­ical struggle stop at the national level. Over the months and decades ahead, the entire ‘global law machine’ – from the United Nations at one end to the local city or town council at the other – will even­tu­ally face a mounting, ulti­mately irre­sistible demand for restructuring.

All of these struc­tures will have to be fun­da­men­tally altered, not because they are inher­ently evil or even because the are con­trolled by this or that class or group, but because they are increas­ingly unwork­able – no longer fit­ting to the needs of a rad­i­cally changing world.” [60]

Can’t you hear it? That’s the sound of the cru­cible of glob­al­iza­tion being fired up.


[1] Björn Hettne, “Globalization, the New Region­alism and East Asia,” Glob­alism and Region­alism (Selected Papers Deliv­ered at the United Nations Uni­ver­sity Global Sem­inar ’96 Shonan Ses­sion, 2 – 6 Sep­tember 1996, Hayama, Japan).

[2] For one example of this global gov­er­nance calling see Our Global Neigh­bor­hood by The Com­mis­sion on Global Gov­er­nance, 1995. See also the reports from the Mon­treal Global Gov­er­nance con­fer­ence series, hosted by Forum Inter­na­tional de Montreal.

[3] Mikhail Gor­bachev, The Search for a New Begin­ning: Devel­oping a New Civ­i­liza­tion (Harper­San­Fran­cisco, 1995), p.26.

[4] Scott Nearing, United World (Island Press, 1945), p.221.

[5] Zbig­niew Brzezinski, The Grand Chess­board: Amer­ican Pri­macy and its Geostrategic Imper­a­tives (Basic Books, 1997), pp.214 – 215.

[6] Ibid., p.215.

[7] See, James Amon Gar­rison, Jr. Bio­graph­ical Sum­mary, released by Berrett-Koehler Pub­lishers, attached to its press release on Garrison’s book, America as Empire. Bio­graph­ical summary/press release on file.

[8] Jim Gar­rison, America as Empire: Global Lead­er­ship or Rogue Power? (Berrett-Koehler, 2004), p.9.

[9] Zbig­niew Brzezinski, The Choice: Global Dom­i­na­tion or Global Lead­er­ship (Basic Books, 2004), p.222.

[10] OSCE is the Orga­ni­za­tion for Secu­rity and Co-operation in Europe. The Orga­ni­za­tion for Eco­nomic Co-operation and Devel­op­ment, which orig­i­nally started as a transat­lantic Mar­shall Plan tool known as the Organ­i­sa­tion for Euro­pean Eco­nomic Co-operation, is pre­dom­i­nately an Atlantic-Euro-American body which has grown to include Japan, South Korea, Aus­tralia, and New Zealand.

[11] The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion also incor­po­rates Japanese inter­ests along with Amer­ican and Euro­pean players. To read more about the Tri­lat­eral his­tory and its role in the Atlantic Alliance, see The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion at 25 (Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, 1998).

[12] Eliz­a­beth Pond, Friendly Fire: The Near-Death of the Transat­lantic Alliance (EUSA, 2004), p.xiii.

[13] See, Alvin and Heidi Tof­fler, Cre­ating a New Civ­i­liza­tion: The Pol­i­tics of the Third Wave (Turner Pub­lishing, 1994/95), p.21.

[14] See Eliz­a­beth Pond, Friendly Fire (EUSA, 2004).

[15] See Ter­rence R. Guay, The Transat­lantic Defense Indus­trial Base: Restruc­turing Sce­narios and their Impli­ca­tions (USArmy­War­Col­lege, Strategic Studies Insti­tute, 2005).

[16] See, Region­alism in a Con­verging World (Tri­lat­eral Commission/Trilateral Papers #42, 1992).

[17] Ibid., p.3.

[18] Clarence Streit and his book Union Now were influ­en­tial forces in shaping the Transat­lantic ideal, and sup­ported a larger vision for NATO. Streit was a Rhode Scholar, an Amer­ican del­e­gate to the Con­fer­ence of Ver­sailles, a New York Times cor­re­spon­dent at the League of Nations, founder of the Atlantic Union Com­mittee and the Asso­ci­a­tion to United the Democ­ra­cies – which has had close ties to the World Fed­er­alist Asso­ci­a­tion. See, Clarence K. Streit, Union Now (Harper and Brothers, 1940) and Union Now with Britain (Harper and Brothers, 1941).

[19] Arthur C. Millspaugh, Peace Plans and Amer­ican Choices (The Brook­ings Insti­tute, 1942), p.49.

[20] Nicholas Murray Butler, A World in Fer­ment: Inter­pre­ta­tions of the War for a New World (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918), see the sec­tion enti­tled “The United States of Europe,” pp.27, 31 – 32, 36.

[21] Derek W. Urwin, The Com­mu­nity of Europe: A His­tory of Euro­pean Inte­gra­tion Since 1945 (Longman, 1991), p.5. The Aus­trian aris­to­crat was Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.

[22] C. Grove Haines and Ross J.S. Hoffman, The Ori­gins and Back­ground of the Second World War (Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press, 1943), p.265. See also, Urwin, The Com­mu­nity of Europe, p.6.

[23] John Laugh­land, The Tainted Source: The Unde­mo­c­ratic Ori­gins of the Euro­pean Idea (Little, Brown and Com­pany, 1997), pp.24 and 30.

[24] Ibid., p.29.

[25] George F. Kennan, Mem­oirs, 1925 – 1950 (Little, Brown and Com­pany, 1967), p.417.

[26] Ibid., p.449.

[27] Theodore H. White, Fire in the Ashes: Europe in Mid-Century (William Sloane Asso­ciates, 1953), p.272.

[28] Ibid., p.271.

[29] Ibid., p.272.

[30] Theodore H. White, In Search of His­tory (Harper and Row, 1978), p.284.

[31] R.W. Key­ser­lingk, Fathers of Europe (Palm Pub­lishers, 1972), pp.2 – 3.

[32] Ibid., p.137.

[33] Ibid., p.137.

[34] The Herten­stein Pro­gramme devel­oped out of a meeting between Euro­pean and world fed­er­al­ists, and was hosted by the Swiss Europa Union Schweiz. The con­fer­ence was held from Sep­tember 15 – 22, 1946.

[35] The Mon­treux Dec­la­ra­tion, August 23, 1947.

[36] For the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, see their 1974 report, The Crisis of Inter­na­tional Coop­er­a­tion. For the Club of Rome, see their report, Mankind at the Turning Point. For the Insti­tute for World Order, see their World Order Models Project report, On the Cre­ation of a Just World Order (1975).

[37] See About the Club of Rome at www.clubofrome.org/about/index.php.

[38] Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel, Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report to the Club of Rome (Club of Rome/Signet, 1974/76), p.39.

[39] Jan Tin­bergen (coor­di­nator), RIO: Reshaping the Inter­na­tional Order (Club of Rome, 1976), p.100.

[40] Richard A. Falk, “Toward A New World Order,” On the Cre­ation of a Just World Order (Insti­tute for World Order, World Order Model’s Project, 1975), p.229.

[41] Richard A. Falk, “Historical Ten­den­cies, Mod­ern­izing and Rev­o­lu­tionary Nations, and the Inter­na­tional Legal Order,” The Strategy of World Order, Volume 2: Inter­na­tional Law (World Law Fund, 1966), p.180.

[42] Tânia Felício, Man­aging Secu­rity as a Regional Public Good: A Regional-Global Mech­a­nism for Secu­rity (United Nations University-CRIS Occa­sional Paper, 2005). See the sec­tion, “Security as a Regional Public Good,” third last paragraph.

[43] Luk Van Lan­gen­hove and Ana-Cristina Costea, Inter-regionalism and the Future of Mul­ti­lat­er­alism (United Nations Uni­ver­sity – CRIS Occa­sional Paper, 2005), p.10.

[44] Alvin and Heidi Tof­fler, Cre­ating a New Civ­i­liza­tion, p.29.

[45] Euro­pean Com­mis­sion, The Euro­pean Union, Latin America and the Caribbean: A Strategic Part­ner­ship, 2004, p.32.

[46] Ibid., p.34.

[47] Ibid., p.35.

[48] Toshi­hiko Fukui, Gov­ernor of the Bank of Japan, “The Euro-Dollar Regime and the Role of the Yen – Their Impact on Asia,” speech given at the 13th Inter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Sym­po­sium, 12 November 2004. Speech can be accessed via the BIS.

[49] Ibid.

[50] The full report can be accessed via the Council on For­eign Rela­tions web­site (www.cfr.og).

[51] Press Release; “Task Force Urges Mea­sures to Strengthen North Amer­ican Com­pet­i­tive­ness, Expand Trade, Ensure Border Security,” Embassy of the USA in Canada, Ottawa. This press release can be accessed via the US Embassy in Ottawa home­page, www.usembassycanada.gov.

[52] This pre-release announce­ment received vir­tu­ally no media cov­erage in the US, although it was a top story in Canada, making all the news wire ser­vices and national tele­vi­sion broadcasts.

[53] “Joint State­ment by Pres­i­dent Bush, Pres­i­dent Fox, and Prime Min­ister Martin, Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship of North Amer­ica” (www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323 – 2.html).

[54] Building A North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity, p.3.

[55] Cre­ating a North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity, Chairman’s State­ment, Council of For­eign Rela­tions, 2005, p.5.

[56] Darryl McLeod and John H. Welch, North Amer­ican Free Trade and the Paso: The Case for a North Amer­ican Cur­rency Area, Fed­eral Reserve Bank of Dallas Research Paper #9115, August 1991.

[57] Three exam­ples are: Canada’s Exchange Rate Regime and North Amer­ican Eco­nomic Inte­gra­tion (1999), The Exchange Rate Regime and Canada’s Mon­e­tary Order (1999), and Why Canada Needs a Flex­ible Exchange Rate (1999).

[58] Trea­sury Assis­tant Sec­re­tary for Inter­na­tional Affairs, Edwin M. Truman, Remarks at the Fed­eral Reserve Bank of Atlanta, October 12, 2000. Speech can be accessed through the US Trea­sury Depart­ment website.

[59] Richard N. Haass, “Defining U.S. For­eign Policy in a Post-Post-Cold War World,” speech given to the For­eign Policy Asso­ci­a­tion, New York, April 22, 2002.

[60] Alvin and Heidi Tof­fler, Cre­ating a New Civ­i­liza­tion, p.91.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Premium Subscriber Access


Forgot Password

People want to know…


What is Globalization?

It is the col­lective effect of pur­poseful and amoral manip­u­la­tion that seeks to cen­tralize eco­nomic, polit­ical, tech­no­log­ical and soci­etal forces in order to accrue max­imum profit and polit­ical power to global banks, global cor­po­ra­tions and the elit­ists who run them. It is rapidly moving toward an full and final imple­men­ta­tion of Technocracy.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is the Tri­lat­eral Commission?

Founded in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, the Com­mis­sion set out to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order”, namely, Tech­noc­racy. The orig­inal mem­ber­ship con­sisted of elit­ists (bankers, politi­cians, aca­d­e­mics, indus­tri­al­ists) from Japan, North America and Europe. Col­lec­tively, they have dom­i­nated and con­trolled trade and eco­nomic policy in their respec­tive coun­tries since at least 1974.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Technocracy?

Tech­noc­racy is a move­ment started in the 1930’s by engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians that pro­posed the replace­ment of cap­i­talism with an energy-based economy. Orig­i­nally envi­sioned for North America only, it is now being applied on a global basis. Authors Aldous Huxley and George Orwell believed that Tech­noc­racy would result in a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship, as reflected in their books, “Brave New World” and “1984″.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is the national and global imple­men­ta­tion of dig­ital and Wi-fi enabled power meters that enable com­mu­ni­ca­tion between the appli­ances in your home or busi­ness, with the power provider. This pro­vides con­trol over your appli­ances and your usage of elec­tricity, gas and water.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is M. King Hubbert?

Hub­bert was a geo-physicist who co-founded Tech­noc­racy, Inc. in 1932 and authored its Tech­noc­racy Study Course. In 1954, he became the cre­ator of the “Peak Oil Theory”, or “Hubbert’s Peak” which the­o­rized that the world was rapidly run­ning out of carbon-based fuels. Hub­bert is widely con­sid­ered as a “founding father” of the global warming and green movements.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is R. Buck­min­ster Fuller?

A pio­neer in global eco­log­ical theory, Fuller (1895 – 1984) was the first to sug­gest the devel­op­ment of a Global Energy Grid that is today known as the Global Smart Grid. Fuller is widely con­sid­ered to be a “founding father” of the global green move­ment, including global warming, Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment, Agenda 21, etc.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Is the Venus Project like Technocracy?

The Venus Project, founded by Jacque Fresco, is a utopian, modern-day iter­a­tion of Tech­noc­racy. Like Tech­noc­racy, it scraps cap­i­talism and pro­poses that “a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common her­itage of all of Earth’s people, thus even­tu­ally out­growing the need for the arti­fi­cial bound­aries that sep­a­rate people.” The appli­ca­tion of tech­nology is the answer to all of the world’s prob­lems, including war, famine and poverty.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)