Abolishing Our Nation — Step By Step
Dennis Behreandt
|
The New American, September 6, 2004
Recognizing the futility of trying to create instant world government, the Power Elite is trying to implement their global agenda gradually — region by region. |
Global economic trade policies and regional trade blocs are radically transforming our world. They are rapidly pushing nations toward economic convergence, while simultaneously leading toward the political merger of nations. The bipartisan cheerleaders of these policies and developments insist that the onrushing, earthshaking changes are the results of unstoppable market processes and natural forces. The process of “globalization,” they proclaim, is inevitable and, ultimately, will benefit all.
Those are dangerous lies and myths. The forces propelling the globalist trade juggernaut are not forces of nature or free market forces. Nor are they unstoppable. They are forces consciously set into motion by individuals and organizations bent on transferring political and economic power from the nation state to a socialist, centralized world state controlled by themselves.
Although most people have only become aware of the effects of these forces in the past decade, the policies and actions that unleashed them were decades in the making. To understand what is happening today, we must review briefly some crucial but little-known history of the post-World War II era.
Background to Betrayal
On March 24, 1948, Will Clayton, former undersecretary of state for economic affairs under President Truman, signed the charter of the International Trade Organization (ITO) on behalf of the United States. “This is a day for history,” Clayton enthused as he signed the document. “In this achievement, a troubled world may well take hope.”
The ITO was an outgrowth of the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, one of the most infamous gatherings in history. Bretton Woods was the wellspring out of which came policies and institutions that have wrought economic havoc worldwide — and are still ruining nations with debt, inflation and planned economic chaos. The ITO was designed to work in tandem with Bretton Woods’ most well-known creations: the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
According to journalist Steve Dryden, author of Trade Warriors: USTR and the American Crusade for Free Trade, the ITO “was envisaged as the next step in a three-part plan to reconstruct the devastated world economy.” If the World Bank and the IMF would regulate and restructure the world’s monetary systems, “the ITO would carry out its economic peacekeeping role under United Nations auspices, much in the way U.N. political officers were to police the civil sphere,” notes Dryden.
As with Bretton Woods generally, the ITO initiative was the brainchild of a coterie of committed internationalists, primarily led by members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The lead official at Bretton Woods was U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White, accompanied by his assistant, Virginius Frank Coe. Both men were members of the CFR. Both men were also Communists — members of a Soviet espionage ring.
Will Clayton, a CFR member and the ITO’s chief architect, worked from inside the government, in close coordination with a private CFR “study group” headed by Charles Spofford (CFR), with David Rockefeller (CFR) as its secretary. This same CFR Spofford-Rockefeller group had earlier created the framework and drafted the original proposals for the European Recovery Program, a massive relief effort popularly known as the Marshall Plan.
Later, in 1947, Will Clayton led the U.S. delegation to Geneva and successfully concluded the negotiations that created the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). This was to be folded into the fledgling ITO.
Despite the hard work invested in the ITO by Clayton and his fellow internationalists, Congress refused to approve the fledgling world trade body. The ITO would have significantly diminished U.S. independence, subordinating the U.S. to the will of the other member nations. In opposing the ITO, the National Foreign Trade Council warned, “if the United States subscribes to the charter it will be abandoning traditional American principles and espousing, instead, planned economy and full-scale political control of production, trade, and monetary exchange.”
If the ITO was dead, GATT was not. In fact, during the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations begun in 1986, the World Trade Organization, embodying many of the provisions and structures of the old ITO, was brought into being. During the presidency of Bill Clinton (CFR), GATT/WTO was pushed through a lame-duck session of Congress with key help from Newt Gingrich (CFR), who subsequently became Speaker of the House. The internationalists had at long last achieved one of their primary goals.
The GATT/ITO/WTO saga is, in fact, illustrative of the larger globalist game plan. In his 1970 book Between Two Ages, arch internationalist Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR) argued that a new international order must be created. He proposed that a piecemeal development of ties among nations replace “already developing limitations on national sovereignty,” admitting that the goal to be reached was world government.
This founding director of the Trilateral Commission (TC), who was political tutor and national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter (CFR, TC), was even more explicit about his fellow Insiders’ one-world agenda at Gorbachev’s 1995 State of the World Forum. “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step,” Brzezinski told Gorbachev’s celebrity-studded audience. Such a grand goal, he said, “requires a process of gradually expanding the range of democratic cooperation as well as the range of personal and national security, a widening, step by step, stone by stone, [of] existing relatively narrow zones of stability in the world of security and cooperation. In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.”
Economic integration lays the groundwork for the political integration envisioned by Brzezinski and the CFR-TC internationalists. That is why they have focused on building regional and global trade arrangements and blocs. As with GATT and the WTO, these have been designed to be the foundation for the demise of the nation state and the rise of a single world government.
Union in Europe
The regional intergovernmental organizations and world-spanning regulatory bodies are the product of long-term planning and effort by a dedicated group of internationalists. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the European Union.
The movement to form a united Europe was part of a larger plan to form a world government. This movement can be traced to its relationship to the Marshall Plan. Georgetown University historian Carroll Quigley, in his authoritative history Tragedy and Hope, noted that “the integration of Western Europe began in 1948....” The move to integration, Quigley observed, was motivated by the Marshall Plan. “The United States had offered Marshall Plan aid with the provision that the European recovery be constructed on a cooperative basis. This led to the Convention for European Economic Cooperation … signed in April 1948 and the Hague Congress for European union held the following month.”
The Hague Congress called for a United Europe and issued seven resolutions on aspects of political union. Number seven stated: “The creation of a United Europe must be regarded as an essential step towards the creation of a United World.”
From this start, internationalist operatives began assembling pieces of actual union without delay. They did so, however, in such a fashion as to not arouse suspicion. The first major initiative on political union, therefore, seemed innocuous. In 1950, then French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed that the entire coal and steel production of both France and Germany be placed under the authority of one supranational body.
From this proposal came the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). “This was a truly revolutionary organization,” noted Quigley, “since it had sovereign powers, including the authority to raise funds outside any existing state’s power.” Coming into effect in 1952, the arrangement placed the coal and steel industries of six nations (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) under a single authority. “This ‘supranational’ body,” wrote Quigley, “had the right to control prices, channel investment, raise funds, allocate coal and steel during shortages, and fix production in times of surplus.” In short, “The ECSC was a rudimentary government,” Quigley concluded.
If the ECSC was the first concrete step toward political unification, the next and more important step was the formation of the European Economic Community (better known as the Common Market) with the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The CFR, unsurprisingly, had its fingers in all of this.
In September 2000, journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of London’s Telegraph newspaper reported that much of the funding and support for the movement for European unity stemmed from U.S. intelligence sources. In his stunning report, Evans-Pritchard noted that “the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.”
The primary means through which this was accomplished was the American Committee for a United Europe, led by William Donovan, the former head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, the precursor to the CIA). Another head CIA man, Allen Dulles, served as vice chairman. General Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA’s first director, served on the board. All were influential members of the CFR. The road to a supranational government of Europe, now taking form under the EU, was paved by the Council on Foreign Relations.
Alphabet Soup
The high-profile effort to unify Europe and the similar efforts to establish a North American free trade area through NAFTA have catalyzed the rapid development of similar arrangements in all other parts of the world. The globe is, in fact, rapidly becoming characterized by regional blocs with governing agencies in each bloc gradually gaining powers that supersede the authority of the governments of the individual member nations. These blocs include:
• The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN);
• The Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation group (APEC);
• The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS);
• Mercosur, South America’s Southern Common Market;
• The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC); and
• The Southern African Development Community (SADC).
Each of these regional blocs is intended to evolve into multi-state unions of the sort typified by the European Union. The little-known Southern Common Market of South America, better known by its Spanish acronym as Mercosur, is modeled directly on the European Union. Writing in the September 2001 issue of The Officer, the journal of the Reserve Officer Association, Latin American expert and former visiting CFR fellow Marc Falcoff notes that Mercosur is taking on aspects of a sovereign nation:
Mercosur pretends to be something far more ambitious than a customs union. A complex secretariat has been established in Montevideo, the Uruguayan capital, mimicking the Brussels bureaucracy of the European Union. Uniform passports of all four countries now say Mercosur or Mercosul (Portuguese) before they list the name of the respective republic. A map of the contiguous four states is stamped on the cover, with the map of the individual member country highlighted in gold. Military planners are regularly meeting to rationalize acquisitions, training and budgets. Political leaders consult frequently....
If this sounds ominous, it is, especially when you note that, according to Falcoff, Mercosur “might be regarded as a building block toward the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)....”
What is true of Mercosur is true also for the other trade blocs. Tito Mboweni, governor of the South African Reserve Bank, has stated, for instance, that the reserve banks of the SADC have been developing the financial architecture that could underpin a future monetary union of that bloc’s 14 member nations, including South Africa, Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Similar calls for a single currency have been made in Asia, notably by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. And the 15 member states of ECOWAS — including Nigeria, Niger, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Liberia — have moved rapidly toward monetary integration, creating a single ECOWAS monetary zone in 2004.
The creation of these supragovernmental bodies, however, is not an end in itself. Just as Mercosur is only a precursor to the FTAA, the FTAA and other regional blocs are simply stepping-stones to world government. To stop the further erosion of national sovereignty and protect the integrity of the United States of America and the God-given rights it was founded to protect, it is imperative that the drive for regional integration be stopped and reversed.
|
