The CFR strategy for convergence of the world's monetary systems was spelled out by Harvard Professor Richard N. Cooper, a CFR member who had been the Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in the Carter Administration:
""I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all of the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy.'" How can independent states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body.
It is highly doubtful whether the American public, to take just one example, could ever accept that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes should vote on the monetary policy that would affect monetary conditions in the United States. For such a bold step to work at all, it presupposes a certain convergence of political values.
Phrases such as monetary coordination mechanisms, modern world economic order, convergence of political values, or new world order are not very specific. To the average person, they sound pleasant and harmless. Yet, to the insiders of the club, they are code phrases that have a specific meaning: the termination of national sovereignty and the creation of world government. CFR member Richard Gardner--another adviser to President Carter--explains the meaning of these phrases and also calls for the Fabian strategy of deception and gradualism.
In short, the "house of world order" will have to be built from the bottom up.... An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.
As for the programmed decline of the American economy, CFR member Samuel Huntington argues that, if higher education is
"considered to be desirable for the general population, a program is then necessary to lower the job expectations of those who receive a college education." CFR member Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, says: "The standard of living of the average American has to decline.... I don't think you can escape that."
By 1993, Volcker had become the U.S. Chairman of the Trilateral Commission. The TLC was created by David Rockefeller to coordinate the building of The New World Order in accordance with the Gardner strategy: "An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." The objective is to draw the United States, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Western Europe into political and economic union. Under slogans such as free trade and environmental protection, each nation is to surrender its sovereignty "piece by piece" until a full-blown regional government emerges from the process. The new government will control each nation's working conditions, wages, and taxes. Once that has happened, it will be a relatively simple step to merge the regionals into global government. That is the reality behind t he so-called trade treaties within the European Union (EU), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation agreement (APEC), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). They have little to do with trade. In the Trilateral Commission's annual report for 1993, Volcker explains:
"Interdependence is driving our countries toward convergence in areas once considered fully within the domestic purview. Some of these areas involve government regulatory policy, such as environmental standards, the fair treatment of workers, and taxation. "
In 1992, the Trilateral Commission released a report coauthored by Toyoo Gyohten, Chairman of the Board of the Bank of Tokyo and formerly Japan's Minister of Finance for International Affairs. Gyohten had been a Fulbright Scholar who was trained at Princeton and taught at Harvard Business School. He also had been in charge of the Japan Desk of the International Monetary Fund. In short, he represents the Japanese monetary interests within The New World Order. In this report, Gyohten explains that the real importance of "trade" agreements is not trade but the building of global government:
Regional trade arrangements should not be regarded as ends in themselves, but as supplements to global liberalization.... Regional arrangements provide models or building blocks for increased or strengthened globalism. Western Europe [the EU] represents regionalism in its truest form.... The steps toward deepening [increasing the number of agreements] are dramatic and designed to be irreversible.. A common currency.... central bank.... court and parliament--will have expanded powers.... After the Maastricht summit [the Dutch town where the meeting was held], an Economist editorial pronounced the verdict: "Call it what you will: by any other name it is federal government." In sum, the regional integration process in Europe can be seen as akin to an exercise in nation-building.1
Applying this same perspective to the NAFTA treaty, former Secretary-of-State Henry Kissinger (CFR) said it "is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system, the vital first step for a new kind of community of nations." The newspaper article that contained this statement was appropriately entitled: "With NAFTA, U.S. Finally Creates a New World Order." 2 David Rockefeller (CFR) was even more emphatic. He said that it would be "criminal" not to pass the treaty because: "Everything is in place--after 500 years--to build a true 'new world' in the Western Hemisphere."
THE NEED FOR CONVERGENCE
This sets the stage for understanding the next phase of the game that is unfolding as these words are being written. It is the inclusion of China and the former Soviet bloc into the Grand Design for global government. As with all the other countries in the world, the primary mechanism being used to accomplish this goal, at least in the field of economics, is the IMF/World Bank. The process is: (1) the transfer of money from the industrialized nations--which drags them down economically to a suitable common denominator--and (2) the acquisition of effective control over the political leaders of the recipient countries as they become dependent upon the money stream. The thing that is new and which sets this stage apart from previous developments is that the apparent crumbling of Communism has created an acceptable rationale for the industrialized nations to now allow their lifeblood to flow into the veins of their former enemies. It also creates the appearance of global, political convergence, a condition that CFR theoretician Richard Cooper said was necessary before Americans would accept having their own destinies determined by governments other than their own.
In 1990, the U.S. Export-Import Bank announced it would begin making direct loans to Russia. Meanwhile, the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation was providing free "insurance" to private companies that were willing to invest in the ex-Soviet state. In other words, it was now doing for industrial corporations what it had been doing all along for banks: guaranteeing that, if their investments turned sour, the government--make that taxpayers--would compensate them for their losses. The limit on that insurance had been $100 million, a generous figure indeed. But, to encourage an even greater flow of private capital into Russia, the Bush Administration authorized unlimited protection for 'sound American corporate investments.'
If these truly were sound investments, they would not need foreign-aid subsidies or government guarantees. What is really happening in this play is a triple score: