F. William
Engdahl
|
||||
|
Dear Reader,
I want to share
a section from my book, Wall Street and the Death of the American Century. The
death of former Federal Reserve and US Treasury official, Paul Volcker, at age
92 has led to much misplaced praise of his legacy. What is rarely mentioned is
the true role he played in what I consider the most fateful and damaging
monetary decision of the past half-century, the decision to decouple the US
dollar from gold and to open the floodgates to the greatest peacetime inflation
in US postwar history. I hope you find it interesting as we live with the
consequences today.
I would ask you
to consider buying the book or one of my other books noted at the top of my
website. Otherwise if you are able to I greatly appreciate any support
contribution via my website PayPal to allow us to maintain free content in a
time of growing media suppression of free thought on the internet.
With best
regards,
William Engdahl
www.williamengdahl.com
Copyright
© F. William Engdahl. All rights reserved.
Chapter
Fourteen:
Nixon walks away from Bretton
Woods
You’ve
shown how the United States has run rings around Britain and every other
empire-building nation in history. We’ve pulled off the greatest rip-off ever
achieved.
--Herman Kahn of Hudson Institute in
1971 when informed how US payments
deficits could be used to exploit other countries [i]
1971:
Beginning of the endgame
The
early 1970s were a watershed in policy for the American establishment. Dramatic
measures were needed to ensure the continued domination of the United States as
global economic and financial superpower. It was not at all obvious how they
would do it. Soon enough however, the powers that dominated Wall Street
developed a strategy.
With
Lyndon Johnson’s war in South-East Asia escalating, along with its costs,
international banks and central banks accelerated their selling of dollars and
buying of gold. By 1968 the Federal US budget deficit, fed by exploding costs
of the war, reached an unprecedented height of $30 billion. Gold reserves
continued to fall precariously close to the legal floor of 25% allowed by law
under the Bretton Woods treaty. Political disarray within Johnson’s
Administration increased the financial flight as Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara, widely viewed as the architect of a “no-win war” strategy, handed in
his resignation.
The
Vietnam War strategy had been deliberately designed by Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara, National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy, along with Pentagon
planners and key advisers around Lyndon Johnson, to be a “no-win war” from the
onset, in order to ensure a prolonged buildup of the military sector of the US
economy. The American voter, Washington reasoned, would accept large costs for
a new war against an alleged ‘encroachment of Godless communism’ in Vietnam,
despite the gaping US budget deficits, as long as this produced local jobs in
defense plants.
Under
the US-dictated Bretton Woods rules, by inflating the dollar through huge
spending deficits at home, Washington could, in effect, force Europe and other
trading partners to ‘swallow’ US war costs in the form of cheapened dollars. So
long as the United States refused to devalue the dollar against gold to reflect
the deterioration of US economic performance since 1944, Europe had to pay the
cost by accepting dollars at the same ratio as it had some 20 years before
despite a huge inflation over that period.
To
finance the enormous deficits of his Great Society program as well as the
Vietnam buildup during the 1960s, Johnson, fearful of losing votes if he raised
taxes, simply printed dollars by selling more US Treasury bonds to finance the
deficits. In the early 1960s, the US federal budget deficit averaged
approximately $3 billion annually. It hit an alarming $9 billion in 1967 as the
war costs soared, and by 1968 it reached a staggering $25 billion.
The
European central banks began to accumulate large dollar accounts during this
period, which they used as official reserves, the so-called Eurodollar
accumulation abroad. Ironically, Washington in 1961 had requested that US
allies in Europe and Japan, the Group of Ten countries, should ease the drain
on US gold reserves by retaining their growing dollar reserves instead of
redeeming the dollars for American gold, as mandated under the terms of Bretton
Woods.
The
European central banks in turn earned interest on these dollars by investing in
US government treasury bonds. The net effect was that the European central
banks thereby in effect 'financed' the huge US budget deficits of the 1960s
Vietnam War they so opposed.[ii]
‘Hot
Money’ in offshore Eurodollar markets
Beginning
in the late 1950s the major New York banks had greatly increased their power
and influence through a series of bank mergers.
Rockefeller’s Chase National Bank had merged with the Bank of Manhattan
to form Chase Manhattan Bank, headed by John J. McCloy, Rockefeller’s attorney
and a Rockefeller Foundation Trustee as well as Chairman of the New York
Council on Foreign Relations. McCloy had recently returned to New York after
serving as US High Commissioner in Germany. The National City Bank of New York
took over the First National Bank of New York to form City Bank of New York,
later Citibank, under the chairmanship of James Stillman Rockefeller.
Other
large New York banks, including Chemical bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust and
Bankers Trust, underwent similar mergers and consolidations. According to a
1961 US Department of Justice report, the five largest New York banks, dominated
by the two Rockefeller banks, controlled 75% of all deposits in the nation’s
largest city, the world’s international financial center. [iii]
The
remarkable concentration of money power into those few New York banks by the
1960s would prove decisive in determining international political and financial
developments for the ensuing four decades into the 21st Century and the
financial securitization crisis of 2007.
To
facilitate this extraordinary concentration of financial power, the US
Government exempted banks from US anti-trust laws prohibiting undue
concentration or cartelization.[iv]
By
the 1960s these newly consolidated and enormously influential New York banks
moved to create a new offshore market for dollars outside the United States --
the new ‘Eurodollar’ market, a name for dollars held abroad in Europe.
During
the late 1960s the New York banks, led by Chase Manhattan and Citibank, began
to develop a use for the billions of dollars accumulating overseas in London
and Continental European banks. Through astute lobbying by the New York banks,
loans made by foreign branches of American banks to foreign residents had been
declared exempt from the new 1964 US Interest Equalization Tax designed to curb
US bank lending abroad and to stop the dollar drain. The exemption of course
meant that the dollar drain continued unabated.
As
a result, US banks scrambled to establish branches in London and other
appropriate centers. Once again, the City of London, despite the weakness of
the British economy, had maneuvered to become a centerpiece of world finance
and banking through development of the vast new and unregulated dollar banking
and lending market with its center in London. [v]
The
increasing efforts of Washington to persuade overseas dollar holders not to
redeem dollars for gold led to a growing volume of dollars more or less
permanently overseas, mostly in Western Europe or London. London's sagging
fortunes began once more to brighten as the City of London, the banking
district, began to corner the market in expatriate US dollars. The Bank of
England and London banker Sir Siegmund Warburg, founder of the influential
British merchant bank, S.G. Warburg & Co., were at the heart of the growing
Eurodollar offshore money market. With the assistance of his friends in
Washington, especially Undersecretary of State George Ball, Warburg had
cleverly lured the dollars into what was to become the largest concentration of
dollar credit outside of the US itself.
The
resulting London Eurodollar market was also ‘offshore,’ meaning it was outside
the jurisdiction of US national laws or central bank supervision.
New
York banks and Wall Street brokerage houses set up offices in London to manage
the blossoming new Eurodollar casino, far away from the eyes of US tax
authorities. The international branches of the large New York banks got cheap
funds from the Eurodollar market as well as large multinational corporations.
Washington during the early 1960's willingly allowed the floodgates to be
opened wide to a flight of the dollar from American shores into the new ‘hot
money’ Eurodollar market.
Buyers
of these new Eurodollar bonds, called Eurobonds, were anonymous persons,
cynically called ‘Belgian dentists’ by the London and Swiss and New York
bankers running this new game. These Eurobonds were ‘bearer’ bonds meaning no buyers’ names were registered anywhere, so
they were a favorite for investors looking for tax avoidance, or even for drug
kingpins or other unsavory characters wanting to launder illegal profits. What
better way to hold onto your black earnings than in Eurodollar bonds, with
interest paid by General Motors or the Italian Autostrada Corporation? An
astute analyst of the Eurodollar process noted, “the Eurodollar market was the
most important financial phenomenon of the 1960s, for it was here that the
financial earthquake of the early 1970s originated.” [vi]
A
major turning point in the relation of the major New York banks to their
rapidly growing accumulation of Eurodollars took place in 1966. Like most major
new turns of postwar US financial policy, it began with the Rockefellers’ Chase
Manhattan Bank.
Chase
moves on Lebanon
A
confidential internal memo was circulated within the bank in 1966 on the
subject of the disadvantages that American, i.e. New York, banks had in
capturing the lucrative international market for ‘flight capital.’ The memo
pointed to the advantages enjoyed by Swiss banks that dominated the lucrative
market in managing and profiting from the hidden fortunes of dictators like
Marcos in the Philippines, Saudi princes, drug barons and the like. The memo
proposed that Chase open up a foreign entity to capture a major share of the
booming offshore flight capital, or ‘hot money,’ for itself. Citibank had
already begun such lucrative ‘hot money’ banking activity in connection with
Bernie Cornfeld, the fraud artist and founder of Investor Overseas
Services.[vii]
The
Chase internal memo identified Beirut, Lebanon as the model location. Beirut
was dominated by one bank, Intra Bank, and its affiliated Casino du Liban, the
world’s largest gambling and money laundering enterprise at the time, exceeding
even Las Vegas. [viii]
Lebanon’s
Intra Bank became insolvent under suspicious circumstances in 1966. At a time
when the bank needed to borrow to cover stock and gold trading losses, the King
of Saudi Arabia, rarely known to make bold decisions without first checking
with Washington, abruptly withdrew his substantial deposits. Then Chase
Manhattan Bank initiated a freeze on Intra Bank’s deposits in New York as
hostage to outstanding loans. The Beirut bank was forced to stop payments on
October 14, 1966. Its depositors transferred their funds to the Beirut branch
of Chase Manhattan for “safety.”
Chase
then sent an intermediary, Roger Tamraz, an ambitious Lebanese-born man who at
the time was a young executive with Wall Street’s Kidder Peabody & Co.
Tamraz successfully re-floated the large Lebanese bank. The bank had been
founded in Beirut in 1951 and owned Beirut Port Authority, Middle East
Airlines, as well as Casino du Liban. The collapse of the bank had brought the
Lebanese economy to a halt and sent shockwaves throughout the Middle East. It
was the world’s largest bank catastrophe since World War II. [ix]
Chase
Manhattan’s venture into Lebanese offshore hot money’ banking marked the onset
of a major shift by the powerful New York money center banks away from
government regulators and tax obligations. The profits were staggering. Because they were offshore and were de facto
permitted by US authorities, they were completely uncontrolled.
That
foray into offshore banking marked a sea change in New York banking practice
that would explode in importance during the next three decades and beyond.
Chase Manhattan, Citibank and other major US money center banks were to launder
hundreds of billions of dollars of illicit hot money, no questions asked, whether
the funds originated from US-friendly dictators like the Philippines’ Ferdinand
Marcos, Iran’s Shah Reza Pahlavi, Mexico’s Raúl Salinas de Gortari, or Juárez
drug cartel money being transferred to Uruguay and Argentina, or from countless
other controversial and politically sensitive transactions.[x]
It
was clearly only a matter of time before the foundational structure of the
postwar Bretton Woods system cracked.
The
crack finally occurred on August 15, 1971 when President Richard Nixon
announced to the world that he had ordered the Gold Discount Window of the New
York Federal Reserve to be permanently shut. Foreign holders of dollars had
without warning been robbed of their right to gold by the unilateral act of the
US President, and in violation of a treaty obligation of the United States.
Nixon’s
dollar coup
In
August 1971, Nixon was acting on the advice of a small circle of
Rockefeller-linked advisers, including Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a
life-long appendage of the Rockefeller interests, and budget adviser George
Shultz, later Secretary of State and chairman of the vast Bechtel construction
giant. The small circle also included Jack F. Bennett of the Treasury who went
on to become a director of Rockefeller’s Exxon Oil Co., and Treasury Under
Secretary for International Monetary Affairs and former Chase Manhattan Bank
executive, Paul Volcker, a life-long enabler of Rockefeller interests. Volcker
went on eight years later, at the urging of David Rockefeller, to become Jimmy
Carter’s nominee to head the Federal Reserve. [xi]
Nixon's
unilateral action on gold convertibility was reluctantly accepted in
international talks that December in Washington, by the leading European
governments, Japan and a few others. They saw little choice as the dollar was
the pillar of the world financial system. The talks resulted in a temporary
compromise known as the Smithsonian Agreement, which Nixon called “the most significant monetary agreement in
the history of the world.”
The
US had formally devalued the dollar, but not anywhere near the amount Europe
felt was needed to reestablish global equilibrium. They devalued by a mere 8%
against gold, placing gold at $38/fine ounce instead of the long-standing $35.
The agreement also officially permitted a range of currency value fluctuation
of 2.25 percent instead of the original one percent of the IMF Bretton Woods
rules. The French had called for a gold price of $70.
By
declaring to world dollar holders that their paper would no longer be redeemed
for gold, however, Nixon set into motion a series of events that would rock the
world. Within weeks, confidence in the Smithsonian agreement had also begun to
collapse.
Gold
itself has little intrinsic value. It has certain industrial uses and is
attractive as jewelry. But historically, because of its scarcity, it has served
as a recognized standard or store of value against which different nations have
fixed the terms of their trade and therefore their currencies. When Nixon
decided no longer to honor US currency obligations in gold, he opened the
floodgates to a worldwide Las Vegas-style speculation binge of a dimension
never before experienced in history.
Instead
of calibrating long-term economic affairs to fixed standards of exchange, after
August 1971 world trade was simply another arena of speculation about which
direction various currencies would fluctuate. The United States was now free to
create as many dollars as it wished, no longer bound by need to back the new
dollars with gold. So long as the rest of the world would take the US paper
dollars, the game proceeded. So long as the United States remained the Western
world’s major military power, the world swallowed the inflated US dollars. It
saw little choice during the Cold War. Should US-linked countries occasionally
forget, they would be rudely reminded by Washington or its Wall Street
emissaries.
As
a consequence, the total volume of US dollars in world circulation ballooned
over the next 20 years. From a rather steady level that had persisted from 1950
through to the end of the 1960s, the volume of dollars expanded exponentially
after 1971, increasing by more than 2500% by the end of the 1990s. That
printing of dollars was the source of an escalating global inflation. For the
New York bankers, their control of the expanding dollar market was a source of
vast power and profit. [xii]
The
suspension of gold redemption and the resulting international ‘floating
exchange rates’ of the early 1970s solved nothing in terms of the basic
problems of the US economy. It only bought some time for the US financial
powers to decide their next moves. By 1972, massive capital flows again left
the dollar for better returns in Japan and Europe. Then on February 12, 1973
Nixon finally announced a second devaluation of the dollar, of 10 percent
against gold, officially pricing gold where it remains as of 2009, at $42.22
per ounce.
The
devaluation did little to stem dollar selling. However, in May 1973 on a resort
island outside Stockholm, a highly secret meeting took place that gave the
dollar a new lease on life, a lease at the expense of world industrial growth.
Wall
Street and Washington power elites around Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
decided to impose a dramatic shock on the world economy in order to rescue the
falling dollar as the asset of world trade and finance, and restore it as a
pillar of the American economic imperial strategy.
Saltsjoebaden:
the Bilderberg plot
The
design behind Nixon's August 15, 1971 dollar strategy did not clearly emerge
until October 1973, and even then, few people other than a handful of insiders
grasped the connection. The New York financial establishment used Nixon’s
August 1971 de-monetization of the dollar to buy time, while policy insiders prepared
a bold new monetarist design, a ‘paradigm shift’ as some preferred to call it.
Certain influential voices in the American financial establishment had devised
a strategy to rebuild a strong dollar, and once again to assert and expand
their relative political power in the world, just when it had seemed that they
were in decisive rout.
In
May 1973, with the dramatic fall of the dollar still vivid, a group of 84 of
the world's top financial and political insiders met at the secluded island
resort of the Swedish Wallenberg banking family, at Saltsjoebaden, Sweden. This
gathering later came to be known as Prince Bernhard's Bilderberg Group. At the meeting, the group heard an American
participant outline a ‘scenario’ for an imminent 400% increase in OPEC petroleum
revenues. The purpose of the secret Saltsjoebaden meeting was not to prevent
the expected oil price shock, but rather to plan how to manage the
about-to-be-created flood of oil dollars, a process US Secretary of State
Kissinger later called “recycling the petro-dollar flows.” [xiii]
Bilderberg
annual meetings had been initiated in utmost secrecy in May1954 by an elite
trans-Atlantic establishment group which included David Rockefeller, George
Ball, Dr. Joseph Retinger, Holland's Prince Bernhard, and George C. McGhee,
then a diplomat with the US State Department and later a senior executive of
Rockefeller’s Mobil Oil.
Named
for the place of their first gathering, the Hotel de Bilderberg near Arnheim in
the Netherlands, the annual Bilderberg meetings gathered top elites of Europe
and America for secret deliberations and policy discussions. Consensus was then
“shaped” and carefully propagandized in subsequent press comments and media
coverage, but never with reference to the secret Bilderberg meetings
themselves. The Bilderberg process was one of the most effective vehicles of
postwar Anglo-American policy-shaping. [xiv]
At
the 1973 meeting, the American speaker was Walter Levy, a consultant to the
Rockefeller Standard Oil companies, Levy explained to the Bilderberg meeting on
Atlantic-Japanese Energy Policy what was to happen. After projecting that
future world oil needs would be supplied by a small number of Middle East
oil-producing countries, Levy declared prophetically that,
The
cost of these oil imports would rise tremendously, with difficult implications
for the balance of payments of consuming countries. Serious problems would be
caused by unprecedented foreign exchange accumulations of countries such as
Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi.
The
speaker added,
A
complete change was underway in the political, strategic and power
relationships between the oil producing, importing and home countries of
international oil companies and national oil companies of producing and
importing countries. [xv]
He
then projected an OPEC Middle East oil revenue rise, which would translate into
just over 400 %, the same level Kissinger was soon to demand from the Shah of
Iran.
In
May 1972, a year before the Bilderberg Saltsjoebaden talks, the Shah had met with
Kissinger and President Nixon in Teheran. Nixon and Kissinger promised the Shah
he could buy any US military equipment he wanted from the US defense arsenal
except nuclear weapons, and he would be permitted to do it without US
Congressional OK.
In
order to finance the huge purchases, the Shah would need vastly higher oil
revenues. Chase Manhattan Bank, of course, was Iran’s bank, the Shah’s personal
bank, National Iranian Oil Company’s bank, the Pahlavi family bank, and the
Pahlavi Foundation’s bank. The entire financial empire of the Pahlavi regime
was a Rockefeller operation from top to bottom. [xvi]
It
was to take just a year after the May 1972 meeting between Kissinger, Nixon and
the Shah before Wall Street’s strategy emerged, laid out for the elite
powerbrokers of Europe and the United States at the Bilderberg meeting at
Saltsjoebaden.
A
Swedish winter in May
Present
at Saltsjoebaden for the May 1973 gathering were, of course, David Rockefeller
of Chase Manhattan Bank, by then the acknowledged ‘chairman of the board’ of
the American establishment; close Rockefeller ally, Robert O. Anderson of
Atlantic Richfield Oil Co.; Lord Greenhill, chairman of British Petroleum; Sir
Eric Roll of S.G. Warburg, co-creator of Eurobonds; George Ball of Lehman Brothers
investment bank, the man who some ten years earlier as Assistant Secretary of
State, had advised Siegmund Warburg of London’s S. G. Warburg & Co. to
develop London's Eurodollar market; Zbigniew Brzezinski, the new Executive
Director of David Rockefeller’s private Trilateral Commission and soon to be
President Carter's National Security Adviser; Italy's Gianni Agnelli, a close
Rockefeller business associate and head of the Fiat auto empire; and Germany's
Otto Wolff von Amerongen, one of the most influential German postwar business
figures and the first German to be named a director of Rockefeller’s Exxon Oil
Co. Henry Kissinger had also been invited to the gathering.
The
powerful Bilderberg elite group that met in Sweden in May 1973 had evidently decided
to launch a colossal assault against industrial growth in the world, in order
to tilt the balance of power back to the advantage of American Wall Street
financial interests, and specifically to support the vulnerable dollar, the
heart of their global financial and economic power. In order to do this, they
would use their most valuable strategic weapon—their control of the world's oil
flows.
The
Bilderberg policy was put into effect six months later in October 1973 when US
diplomacy was deployed to trigger a global oil embargo, shockingly enough, in
order to force the intended dramatic increase in world oil prices. Since 1945,
world oil trade had by international custom been priced in dollars because
American oil companies dominated the postwar market. A sharp and sudden
increase in the world price of oil, therefore, meant an equally dramatic
increase in world demand for US dollars to pay for that necessary oil. In
addition to making Exxon, Mobil Oil and the other Rockefeller companies into
the largest corporations in the world, it would make their banks—Chase
Manhattan, Citibank and a handful of others—into the world’s largest banks.
The
Rockefeller-dominated American financial establishment had resolved to use
their oil power in a manner no one could imagine possible. The very
outrageousness of their scheme was to their advantage. No one could conceive
that such a thing could possibly be deliberate. It was. [xvii]
Kissinger's
Yom Kippur ‘Oil Shokku’
On
October 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria invaded Israel, igniting what became known as
the ‘Yom Kippur’ war. The Yom Kippur war was not the simple result of
miscalculation, blunder, or an Arab decision to launch a military strike
against the state of Israel. The entire series of events leading up to the outbreak
of the October war had been secretly orchestrated by Washington and London,
using powerful ‘back door’ diplomatic channels developed by Nixon's National
Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger.
Kissinger
effectively controlled the Israeli policy response through his intimate
connection with Israel's Washington ambassador, Simcha Dinitz. Kissinger had
also cultivated channels to the Egyptian and Syrian side. His method was simply
to misrepresent to each party the critical elements of the other’s position,
ensuring the outbreak of war and the subsequent Arab oil embargo.
King
Faisal of Saudi Arabia had repeatedly made clear to Kissinger and Washington
that the consequence of the US continuing its one-sided delivery of US military
supplies to Israel would be an OPEC embargo on oil supplies to the United
States.[xviii] Faisal did not make the threat to his American friends lightly.
US
intelligence reports, including intercepted communications from Arab officials,
confirmed their buildup for war. Kissinger, who was by then Nixon's
intelligence czar, reportedly suppressed the reports.
The
war brought about the very oil price shock discussed at the Bilderberg
deliberations of the previous May in Saltsjoebaden, some six months before
outbreak of the war.
OPEC
and the Arab oil-producing nations would be the scapegoats for the coming rage
of the world over the resulting oil embargo to the United States and Europe and
an ensuing huge increase in oil prices, while the Anglo-American interests that
were actually responsible, stood quietly in the background, ready to reap the
windfall. [xix]
In
mid-October 1973 the German Government of Chancellor Willy Brandt told the US
Ambassador to Bonn that Germany was neutral in the Middle East conflict and
would not permit the US to re-supply Israel from German NATO military bases. On
October 30, 1973 Nixon sent Chancellor Brandt a sharply worded protest note,
reportedly drafted by Kissinger:
We
recognize that the Europeans are more dependent upon Arab oil than we, but we
disagree that your vulnerability is decreased by disassociating yourselves from
us on a matter of this importance...You note that this crisis was not a case of
common responsibility for the Alliance, and that military supplies for Israel
were for purposes which are not part of alliance responsibility. I do not
believe we can draw such a fine line....
[xx]
Washington
would not permit Germany to declare its neutrality in the Middle East conflict.
But, significantly, Britain was allowed to clearly state its neutrality, thus
avoiding the impact of the Arab oil embargo. London had maneuvered itself
skillfully around an international crisis it had been instrumental in
precipitating. Britain was clearly an insider in matters related to
Anglo-American oil control. Germany, as a major European industrial exporter
and oil importer had the potential to disrupt that very significant game. For that
reason, Nixon and Kissinger made clear to Brandt who ran Germany -- and it
wasn’t the German Chancellor.
In
December 1973, as the dust was settling from the Yom Kippur War, the Saudi King
sent his most trusted emissary, his oil minister Sheikh Zaki Yamani, to the
Shah in Teheran to ask the Shah why Iran was demanding that such an
extraordinarily high price be formalized at the upcoming OPEC ministers
meeting. The price demanded by the Shah would raise OPEC prices, on average, a
staggering and unprecedented 400% from the level before the crisis. When Yamani
asked the Shah on behalf of his King, the Shah replied, “Tell your majesty that
if he wants the answer to this question he must go to Washington and ask Henry
Kissinger.” [xxi]
One
enormous consequence of the ensuing 400% rise in OPEC oil prices was that the
risky North Sea investments of hundreds of millions of dollars by British
Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell and other Anglo-American petroleum concerns could
produce oil at a profit. It was a curious
fact of the time that the profitability of the new North Sea oil fields was not
at all secure until after Kissinger's oil shock. At pre-1973 world oil prices,
the North Sea projects would have gone bankrupt before the first oil could
flow.
By
October 16, 1973 the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, following a
meeting on oil price in Vienna, had already raised their price by a whopping
70%, from $3.01/barrel to $5.11. That same day, the members of the Arab OPEC
countries, citing US support for Israel in the Middle East war, declared an
embargo on all oil sales to the United States and the Netherlands--the location
of the primary oil port of Western Europe.
Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Algeria announced on October 17,
1973 that they would cut their production below the September level by 5% for
October and an additional 5%, per month, “until Israeli withdrawal is completed
from the whole Arab territories occupied in June 1967 and the legal rights of
the Palestinian people are restored.” The resulting massive shortages produced
the world's first ‘oil shock,’ or as the Japanese termed it, ‘Oil Shokku.’
Notably, David Rockefeller’s good friend, the Shah of Iran was absent from the
OPEC embargo producers. In effect, the Shah, dependent on US arms and other
support, had agreed to “boycott the boycott” and to supply whatever the US and
Britain needed.[xxii]
Significantly,
the oil crisis hit full force just as the President of the United States was
becoming personally embroiled in the ‘Watergate affair,’ leaving Henry
Kissinger as de facto President, running US foreign policy during the crisis in
late 1973.
The
US Treasury ‘arrangement’ with Saudi Arabia on dollar pricing of oil was
finalized in a February 1975 memo from Treasury’s Under Secretary for Monetary
Affairs Jack F. Bennett to Secretary of State Kissinger. Under the terms of the
agreement, the huge new Saudi oil revenue windfall would be channeled largely
into financing the US government deficits. David Mulford, a Wall Street
investment banker, was sent to Saudi Arabia to become the principal ‘investment
adviser’ to SAMA, to guide Saudi petrodollar investments to the correct banks,
primarily US banks in London and New York.
The
Bilderberg scheme was operating fully as planned. The Eurodollar market that
had been built up over the previous several years was to play a decisive role
in the offshore petrodollar ‘recycling’ strategy. [xxiii] Subsequently, Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan
Bank estimated that between 1974 and the end of 1978 the oil producing
countries of OPEC generated a surplus from oil exports of $185 billion, more
than three-fourths of which passed through Western financial institutions, the
lion’s share through Chase and allied banks in New York and London, and from
thereon as loans to the Third World.[xxiv] That was a staggering sum of dollar
flows.
Kissinger,
already firmly in control of key US intelligence estimates as Nixon's
all-powerful National Security Adviser, had secured control of US foreign
policy as well, having persuaded Nixon to name him Secretary of State in 1973
just prior to the October Yom Kippur war. Kissinger retained both titles and
positions simultaneously, something not done by anyone before or since. No
other single person during the last months of the Nixon presidency wielded as
much absolute power as did Henry Kissinger.
Following
a meeting in Teheran on January 1, 1974, a second oil price increase of more
than 100% was added, bringing OPEC benchmark prices to $11.65. This was done
allegedly on the demand of the Shah of Iran, who had been secretly ordered to
do so by Henry Kissinger. The Shah knew he owed his return to power in 1953 to
the CIA and to Washington’s backing. As noted, back in 1972 he had sealed his
fate by making a secret weapons for oil deal with Nixon that would run Iran’s
national revenues, as well as the Pahlavi’s, through Rockefeller’s Chase
Manhattan Bank.[xxv] Kissinger's own
State Department had not been informed of Kissinger's secret machinations with the
Shah. [xxvi]
From
1949 until the end of 1970, Middle East crude oil prices had averaged
approximately $1.90/barrel. They had risen to $3.01 in early 1973, the time of
the fateful Saltsjoebaden meeting of the Bilderberg group who discussed the
imminent 400% future rise in OPEC's price. By January 1974 that 400% increase
was a fait accompli.
After
Nixon had eliminated the gold exchange mechanism in August 1971, the offshore
Eurodollar market exploded to a size that began to dwarf the domestic US
banking market. Then, by the mid-1970s, in the wake of the 400% OPEC oil price
rise, the Eurodollar market reached an estimated $1.3 trillion pool of ‘hot
money.’ Interestingly, by the end of the 1980s, the volume of international
narcotics revenues alone -- which had to be laundered through such offshore
‘hot money’ banks -- exceeded an estimated $1 trillion a year. The big New York
and London banks made sure they got the lion’s share of drug money.
The
London Eurodollar banking market became the centerpiece of the huge Petrodollar
recycling operation, lending OPEC oil revenue deposits from banks ‘offshore’ in
London, to Argentina, Brazil, Poland,
Yugoslavia, Africa and other oil importing nations that were starved for
dollars with which to import the more expensive OPEC oil after 1974.
The
Money Trust’s counter-revolution
As
indicated, by the early 1970s the US economy was anything but robust. The
August 1971 decision to unilaterally tear up the Bretton Woods Treaty and end
dollar-gold convertibility was, in effect, the beginning of the end of the
American Century, a system that had been based in 1944 on the world’s strongest
economy and its soundest currency.
The
dollar system, in its new incarnation as a paper or fiat currency, went through
several phases after August 1971. The first phase, described earlier, could be
called the ‘petrodollar’ currency phase in which the strength of the dollar
rested on the 400% rise in oil on the world market priced in dollars, and on
the highly profitable recycling of those petrodollars through the US and UK and
a select handful of other international banks in the City of London, the
offshore haven for Eurodollars. That phase lasted until about the end of the
1970s.
The
second phase of the post-1971 dollar system was sustained on the Volcker
interest rate coup of October 1979 and lasted until approximately 1989 when the
fall of the Berlin Wall opened a vast new domain for dollarization and asset
looting by Wall Street banks. That opening, combined with the colossal economic
growth of China as a member of the WTO, opened the world economy to a drastic
lowering of wages across the board, most dramatically in the industrial
countries.
In
1997 yet another phase in the post-1971 dollar system was initiated with a
politically-driven hedge fund attack on the vulnerable currencies of the
high-growth ‘Tiger’ economies of east Asia, beginning with Thailand, the
Philippines, Indonesia and spreading to South Korea. That phase was in large
part responsible for a massive inflow of Asian central bank dollars into the US
dollar to build dollar reserves as defense against a possible new speculative
attack. The inflow of hundreds of billions of dollars of Asian capital after
1998 fuelled the US IT stock market bubble of 1999-2002.
The
final phase of the dollar system after August 1971 was the Alan Greenspan
Revolution in finance, which he launched after the collapse of the IT stock
market bubble in 2001-2002, By his strong support of the revolution in finance,
mortgage and other assets as security to issue new bonds, Greenspan helped
engineer the ‘securitization revolution’ which ended with the collapse of his
real estate securitization bubble in 2007.
David’s
Trilateral scheme
However,
the year 1973 and the resulting oil shock marked the most pivotal turning point
in the overall strategy of the powerful American establishment around David
Rockefeller and his brothers.
The
decision of the powerful circles around the Rockefellers and the Anglo-American
oil cartel and allied bankers to engineer a major shock to global oil prices
during the October 1973 Yom Kippur war would buy several more years of life for
the dollar as the foundation of the global economic and trading system, but it
was a precarious foundation. Even bolder actions were needed to secure the
financial dominance of the giant banks and multinationals around the Council on
Foreign Relations and the Rockefellers.
In
1973 David Rockefeller was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and
head of the family’s Chase Manhattan Bank. He believed it was necessary to
broaden the political base of American influence by creating a new
international organization that would be private and by-invitation-only, like
their Bilderberg meetings. But, unlike Bilderberg, which was restricted to American
and European decision-makers, Rockefeller’s new organization would have three
poles—North America, Europe and Japan -- with which to bring the emerging vast
Asian market under their control. It was aptly named the Trilateral Commission.
With
Japan emerging as the economic wonder of Asia, it was felt that the Japanese
markets and goals had to be brought into closer coordination with the strategic
goals of the New York power circles.
Membership
in the elite Trilateral Commission was more or less taken from David
Rockefeller’s Rolodex. Founding members included primarily influential business
associates of the vast international Rockefeller interests or politicians close
to, British merchant banker and Eurodollar creator, Lord Roll of Ipsden Italian
FIAT chief Gianni Agnelli, and Royal Dutch Shell’s John Loudon. Rockefeller
chose his close friend, geopolitical strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, to be the
first Executive Director. The list also included Wall Street bankers, Alan
Greenspan and Chase Manhattan’s Paul Volcker and a then-obscure Governor of
Georgia named Jimmy Carter. [xxvii]
Indicative
of its concerns, a Trilateral Commission Task Force Report, presented at their
1975 meeting in Kyoto, Japan, was called An Outline for Remaking World Trade
and Finance. It stated:
Close
Trilateral cooperation in keeping the peace, in managing the world economy, and
in fostering economic development and in alleviating world poverty, will
improve the chances of a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global
system.[xxviii]
Another
Trilateral Commission document read:
The
overriding goal is to make the world safe for interdependence by protecting the
benefits which it provides for each country against external and internal
threats which will constantly emerge from those willing to pay a price for more
national autonomy. This may sometimes require slowing the pace at which
interdependence proceeds…More frequently however, it will call for checking the
intrusion of national government into the international exchange of both
economic and non-economic goods. (emphasis added, w.e.). [xxix]
The
Rockefeller’s Trilateral agenda was, overall, the agenda of the US
establishment that had been announced the same year by David Rockefeller’s
brother, John D. III, in a book modestly titled, The Second American
Revolution.
In
1973, John D. Rockefeller III had published the family’s landmark policy
declaration in preparation for the American Revolution’s Bi-Centennial in 1976.
In the book, the elite of the Money Trust declared their ‘Second American
Revolution,’ appropriately published by the Council on Foreign Relations,
chaired by David Rockefeller.
John
D. Rockefeller’s book called for a radical reduction in the powers of
government, for expanded ‘privatization’ of functions long performed by the
state, “moving as many government functions and responsibilities toward the
private sector as possible.” It was a clear call for abandonment of New Deal
Keynesian policies—at least the use of the state to correct imbalances in
social distribution of jobs and income that had existed since the 1930s. [xxx]
Rockefeller’s
1973 call served as the signal for launching a national media propaganda
campaign against alleged Government inefficiency, incompetence, and
obstruction, using the inevitable
bureaucratic inefficiencies of social services as a smoke screen to end all
oversight and regulation of banking and large commercial transactions. The book
used carefully selected examples that every citizen could recognize to build
support for essentially destroying the traditional and necessary role of the
state in regulating commerce and the pubic welfare, to the advantage of the
pure and unfettered profit-maximization of private companies and banks
financing those companies. It was a Darwinian world they unleashed where the
fittest were the biggest and naturally the ones with the clout to destroy their
competitors.
The
‘Trilateral President’
In
1976, the Rockefeller agenda for a ‘second American revolution’ made a
significant advance: David Rockefeller’s protégé at the Trilateral Commission,
Georgia peanut farmer turned Governor, Jimmy Carter, won an upset election
against incumbent Gerald Ford who had taken over when Nixon was driven from
office by the Watergate scandals. Carter promptly went on to staff his key
cabinet positions with 26 members of Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission,
including Vice President Walter Mondale, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance,
Defense Secretary Harold Brown, and Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal.
As
President, Carter's entire foreign policy, much of his election strategy, and
some of his domestic policy came directly from Rockefeller’s Trilateral
Commission. The architect of Carter's foreign policy from 1975 was his National
Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski who had resigned as Trilateral Commission
Executive Director in order to take the post. Brzezinski wrote Carter's major
speeches during the campaign, and crafted Carter’s foreign policy with assists
fromTrilateralists Vance, Brown and Blumenthal. The watchword for Carter's
foreign policy from 1975 on was "clear it with Brzezinski." Carter
would ask when given a memorandum on foreign policy, "has Brzezinski seen
this...?"[xxxi]
The
predominance of so many Trilateral Commission members in the Carter
Administration led some media to refer to it as the Trilateral Presidency. It
more accurately should have been called the David Rockefeller Presidency. It
was Carter who began the Rockefeller group’s long process of Government
deregulation and privatization that his successor, Ronald Reagan, would make
the centerpiece of his Presidency.
Reportedly
it was after Gerald Ford, on advice of his then White House Chief of Staff,
Donald Rumsfeld, had decided to drop Vice President Nelson Rockefeller as his
1976 running mate, that David Rockefeller introduced Democrat Jimmy Carter to
Trilateral Commission members at their meeting in Kyoto, Japan, referring to
him as, “the next President.” [xxxii]
Clawing
back New Deal concessions
The
deepening US economic crisis of the 1970s was the motivation for the
Rockefellers and other US establishment leaders to come up with radical new
strategies. The US was faced with stagnation or even decline of its market
strength and corresponding profit share globally and within the United States,
still the world’s largest market for goods and services. By 1975 the share of total wealth held by the
wealthiest 1% of American households had fallen to its lowest since 1922,
measured in terms of the combined housing, stocks, bonds, cash and other
durable wealth.[xxxiii]
Their
dramatic manipulation of world oil prices had been responsible for triggering
the most serious postwar global recession. By 1975 it was clear that the world
economy, in the wake of the declining profit rate, had entered what economists
termed a ‘structural crisis.’ It included diminished growth rates, falling per
capita productivity, a wave of unemployment, and cumulative high inflation.
From
this crises emerged a new social vision or political philosophy called
“neoliberalism,” appearing first within the countries at the center of the
industrial world—beginning with the United Kingdom and the United States—and
then gradually exporting to the “periphery,” or the so-called emerging markets
of the developing world.
Neoliberalism
had little to do with Keynesian ‘liberal’ economics. The neoliberal revolution
that was launched in the mid-1970s was a project of the US establishment and
their British counterparts. Specifically, it was a concoction of the
Rockefeller brothers, based on the radical free market dogma of Milton
Friedman, a member of the arch-conservative Mont Pelerin Society and then
Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, an institution founded
decades earlier with Rockefeller Standard Oil money. Neoliberalism could more
accurately have been called neo-feudalism.
Echoing
John D. Rockefeller’s 1973 manifesto, Friedman’s neoliberalism, enshrined in
his popular book, Free to Choose, called for untrammeled free markets and free
trade, and attacked trade unions as a “throwback to a pre-industrial period.”
[xxxiv]
The
neoliberal revolution was, in essence, a globalized version of John D.
Rockefeller’s Second American Revolution. The International Chamber of Commerce
in Paris approved heartily of the global neoliberal mandate “to break down
barriers to international trade and investment so that all countries can
benefit from improved living standards through increased trade and investment
flows.” [xxxv] It was the initial phase of what two decades later would be
called “globalization.”
The
powerful circles around the Rockefellers within the US financial establishment
called explicitly for a global restructuring to their benefit, including:
new
discipline of labor and management to the benefit of lenders and shareholders;
the diminished intervention of the state concerning development and welfare;
the dramatic growth of financial institutions; the implementation of new
relationships between the financial and non-financial sectors to the benefit of
the former; a new legal stand in favor of mergers and acquisitions; the
strengthening of central banks and the targeting of their activity toward price
stability, and the new determination to drain the resources of the periphery
toward the center. [xxxvi]
The
predominant feature of the new neoliberalism was not just its structural
arrangements, but the creation of mechanisms to extend the dollar’s reach to
the rest of the planet, the globalization of the dollar and of US finance
behind it. The destructive process of market liberalization spread with
devastating speed and efficiency, assisted by creation of new multinational
institutions such as the World Trade Organization and massive trade pressures
from Washington and its free market allies, especially Britain.
Milton
Friedman’s dogma of monetarism was the theoretical expression of the new
revolution, or more accurately, counter-revolution. The decisive year in the
economic counter-revolution was 1979 when David Rockefeller got President
Carter to name his protege, Paul Volcker, to become Chairman of the Federal
Reserve. In October 1979 Volcker imposed the most radical monetarist policy in
the history of the Federal Reserve as he allowed interest rates to soar by more
than 300% into the 20% range, and held them high until the resulting inevitable
Third World debt crisis erupted by August 1982, prompting him to reverse the
rate policy.
The
year 1979 was what some economists called the year of the neoliberal Coup.
[xxxvii] Rockefellers, Volcker and their wealthy allies in the Wall Street
Money Trust had been able to use the issue of runaway inflation -- an inflation
for which their own 1973 Bilderberg oil pricing decision had been initially
responsible -- to justify a monetary ‘shock therapy’ that allegedly would
‘squeeze inflation out of the system,’ as Volcker liked to phrase it.
In
reality the high interest policy was imposed by the wealthiest members of
the establishment as part of their
long-term strategy of clawing back the concessions forced from them during the
Great Depression in terms of the creation of the Keynesian social welfare
state, social security, and Government support for labor union organization.
The
‘Post-Industrial’ world of Wall Street
Confronted
with stagnating domestic markets, declining abolute profits and the need to invest
huge sums in order to bring their domestic US industries up to world standards,
the Rockefeller circles opted instead to walk away from renewing their domestic
US economic base, leaving it to become what their think-tanks called a
‘post-industrial society.’
Volcker‘s
interest rate policy led to ‘real’-- that is, corrected-for-inflation --
interest rates of 6-8%, a staggering windfall boon for wealthy bond holders,
the center of the financial system. It also created a recession and with it, a
rising wave of unemployment in Europe and in the United States, which created
the conditions for a new crackdown on labor implemented by both Reagan and
Thantcher in the early 1980s, dramatically weakening the influence of trade
unions on wage levels for decades to come.
The
1970s were a transition decade for the development of the American Century. As
was noted, by the late 1960s, chronic deficits of the balance of trade appeared
for the first time in the United States since World War II, related to the
on-going postwar economic recovery by Europe and Japan. Surplus dollars were
accumulating in the rest of the world and, thus, the threat of conversion of
those foreign dollar earnings into gold was increasing. The dollar had to be
devalued with respect to gold and other major currencies. The United States put
an end to the convertibility of the dollar in 1971, introducing floating
exchange rates.
By
1973 with the regime of floating exchange rates confirmed as permanent,
Washington and its allies in London, and through the Bilderberg conference of
May 1973, decided on the drastic, oil price inflation to support the falling
dollar. By 1979, boosted by the Volcker Federal Reserve coup, they were able to
reap staggering profits on their bond and other assets amid a rising dollar.
After
1980 when Republican Ronald Reagan took office, the US implemented this
deliberate deficit policy with a vengeance. Reagan’s tenure initiated what
became the most dramatic and permanent trade and budget deficits in US history.
In
hammering out its position in the multinational negotiations in 1973 to make
floating exchange rates a permanent fact, Washington made clear it would use
its military dominance within NATO and in Asia to extract maximum concessions
from its trading partners. In its bilateral negotiations with South Korea in
1973, the US demanded terms that made it “obligatory for South Korean exporters
to the American market to import a certain amount of raw materials from the
United States.” [xxxviii]
________________________________________
[i]
Michael Hudson, Super Imperialism: The Origins and Fundamentals of US World
Dominance (London: Pluto Press, 2003),
p. xiii. Hudson’s account is part of his brilliant expose of postwar US
financial manipulations that used staggering levels of US Treasury debt
combined with chronic trade deficits to do what no other country could, by
virtue of the fact the dollar was world reserve currency and the rest of the
world was dependent on US military security. They had little choice but to buy
hundreds of billions of dollars of US Treasury debt with its surplus trade
dollars, in effect, as Hudson had pointed out to Kahn, forcing those countries
to finance US wars and other exploits that were to the disadvantage of those nations
buying the US debt. The decoupling of the dollar from gold in August 1971 was
the critical step making that possible, although as Hudson points out, at first
the policy circles in Washington and Wall Street did not realize it. The entire
book is available online.
[ii]
See F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the
New World Order (London: Pluto Press, 2004), p. 114.
[iii]
Marcello De Cecco, International Financial Markets and US Domestic Policy Since
1945, International Affairs. July 1976, London, pp. 381-399.
[iv]
F. William Engdahl, op. Cit., p. 386.
[v]
Marcello de Cecco, op. cit.
[vi]
Ibid. p. 398.
[vii]
R.T. Naylor, Hot Money and the Politics of Debt (London: Unwin Paperbacks,
1988), p. 33.
[viii] Ibid.
pp. 33-35.
[ix]
Naharnet, Roger Tamraz Arrested in Morocco, Jan 29, 2009, Lebanese Forces
Official Website, accessed in
http://www.lebanese-forces.org/regional/Roger-Tamraz-Arrested-in-Morocco1002728.shtml.
[x]
Raúl Salinas de Gortari [brother of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas de
Gortari] was alleged to have laundered up to $130 million in drug money through
Citibank and various Swiss banks during the time his brother was President of
Mexico. Raul Salinas was later convicted of murder and sentenced to prison. See
Citibanker for Salinas had been Star U.S. witness, Money Laundering Alert,
April 1996, accessed in
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/mexico/family/citibankaffair.html.
[xi]
Ibid, pp. 127-128.
[xii]
Richard Duncan, The Dollar Crisis (Singapore:
John Wiley & Sons-Asia, 2003), p., Figure 1.1.
[xiii]
See David E. Spiro, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling
and International Markets, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), p.147 ff.
[xiv]
Ibid, Anonymous, Saltsjoebaden Conference, Bilderberg meetings, 11-13 May 1973.
Robert D Murphy prepared the agenda for the 1973 Bilderberg meeting.
Significantly, Murphy was the man who in 1922, as US Consul in Munich, had
sought a meeting with then unknown Adolf Hitler and sent back favorable
recommendations to his superiors in Washington. Murphy later shaped US
occupation policy in postwar Germany as Political Adviser.
[xv]
Saltsjoebaden Conference, Bilderberg meetings, 11-13 May 1973. The author
obtained an original copy of the official discussion from this meeting. The
normally confidential document was bought in a Paris used bookstore and it bore
the signature of Bilderberg insider, Shepard Stone. Walter Levy, who delivered
the Saltsjoebaden energy report at the meeting, was intimately tied to the
fortunes of big oil. In 1948 as oil economist for the Marshall Plan Economic
Co-operation Administration, Levy had tried to block a government inquiry into
allegations that the oil companies were overcharging.
[xvi]
Mark Hulbert, Interlock: The Untold Story of American banks, oil interests, the
Shah’s money, debts and the astounding connections between them (New York:
Richardson & Snyder, 1982), pp. 71-87.
[xvii]
See footnote 9, below.
[xviii]
Robert Lacey, The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Saud (New York: Avon Books, 1981), pp. 398-399.
[xix]
Matti Golan, The Secret Conversations of Henry Kissinger: Step-by-step
diplomacy in the Middle East (New York: Bantam Books Inc., 1976).
[xx]
Henry A. Kissinger, Years of Upheaval (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1982).
[xxi]
The account of this extraordinary exchange between His Excellency Sheikh Zaki
Yamani and the Shah was relayed to the author in a personal discussion between
the author and Sheikh Yamani in London in September 2000. Sheikh Yamani had
been, in 1974, Saudi Oil Minister and spokesman for OPEC during the embargo.
[xxii]
Mark Hulbert, op. Cit.
[xxiii]
Jack Bennett, Memorandum, reproduced in International Currency Review, Vol. 20,
no. 6. January 1991. London. p. 45.
[xxiv]
Ann Crittenden, Managing OPEC’s Money, The New York Times, June 24, 1979.
[xxv]
Sheikh Zaki Yamani, in a September 2000 private conversation with the author,
cited above.
[xxvi]
James Akins, interview regarding his tenure as Director of Fuels & Energy
Office of US State Department at that time, later Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
[xxvii]
For more on the Trilateral Commission founding and members see F. William
Engdahl, op. cit, Appendix I, p. 285.
[xxviii]
The Trilateral Commission, An Outline for Remaking World Trade and Finance (New
York University Press, 1975).
[xxix]
C. Fred Bergsten, Interdependence and the Reform of International Institutions,
International Organization, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Spring, 1976), pp. 361-372.
[xxx]
John D. Rockefeller III, The Second American Revolution, 1973, Harper &
Row, New York, pp. 103-112.
[xxxi]
Lawrence H. Shoup, Jimmy Carter and the Trilateralists: Presidential Roots,
excerpted from the book, Trilateralism, edited by Holly Sklar (Boston: South
End Press, 1980), accessed in
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Trilateralism/JimmyCarter_Trilat.html.
[xxxii]
Cyrus Vance, from a private discussion relayed in 1975 to the author in New
York.
[xxxiii]
Gérard Duménil and Dominique Lévy, The Neoliberal (Counter) Revolution,
contained in Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader, edited by Alfredo Saad-Filho and
Deborah Johnston (London: Pluto Press, 2004).
[xxxiv]
Milton Friedman, Free to Choose (New York: Penguin Books, 1979), p. 271.
[xxxv]
International Chamber of Commerce, Policy and Business Practices, accessed on
ICC official website, http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/trade/.
[xxxvi]
Gérard Duménil and Dominique Lévy, op. cit.
[xxxvii]
Ibid.
[xxxviii]
Ibid., p. 369.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.