We will examine part of an essay titled ‘The Hard Road To World Order" from a journal published by the CFR called Foreign Affairs. It is from April 1974. I will give my own analysis of various parts of this essay throughout. The purpose is to show how one think tank plays its role in a greater agenda carried out by multiple institutions and also to question the logic of that agenda. First, let’s give context of what the publication Foreign Affairs is. The following is from their website, foreignaffairs.com
About Foreign Affairs
Since its founding in 1922, Foreign Affairs has been the leading forum for serious discussion of American foreign policy and global affairs. It is now a multiplatform media organization with a print magazine, a website, a mobile site, various apps and social media feeds, an event business, and more. Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a non-profit and nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to improving the understanding of U.S. foreign policy and international affairs through the free exchange of ideas.
Here is some info about the author of the article, Richard N. Gardner, from wikipedia.org. Richard Newton Gardner (born July 9, 1927 in New York) served as the United States Ambassador to Spain and the United States Ambassador to Italy. He is currently a professor emeritus of law at Columbia Law School. Education Gardner attended Harvard, where he received an A.B. in economics in 1948. He attended Yale Law School, where he was the Note Editor for the Yale Law Journal. After graduating from Yale in 1951, Gardner was a Rhodes Scholar, and received his Doctorate in economics from Oxford University in 1954. Professional career Gardner practiced law for three years in New York after finishing his doctorate at Oxford. He joined the Columbia faculty in 1957; he taught at Columbia until his retirement in 2012. Gardner was appointed by President Kennedy as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs in 1961, a position he held until 1965, when he was appointed by President Johnson as a senior adviser to the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. After a year with the U.N., he served as a member of the President's Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy from 1970 to 1971. He served in various advisory positions in the U.N.. In 1977, he was appointed by President Carter as U.S. Ambassador to Italy, a position he held until 1981. President Clinton appointed Gardner as U.S. Ambassador to Spain, from 1993 to 1997. In 2000, he was a U.S. Public Delegate to the 55th U.N. General Assembly. He was a member of the Trilateral Commission from 1974 to 2005. Note: the entire article is available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1974-04-01/hard-road-world-order
Note: My analysis appears in bold.
…… It is instructive to ponder the institutional implications of the negotiations to which nations were already committed before the "energy crisis" preëmpted international attention in the fall of 1973. Although some of these tasks of institution-building may be complicated or postponed by the energy problem, all are now continuing fixtures on the diplomatic agenda:
My analysis: Why is energy crisis in quotes? I believe that since such a small number of banks and corporations control the world’s oil supply, that the energy ‘crisis’ was a scientific creation used for some geopolitical manipulations. Mr. Gardner, I hypothesize, was privy to this information, hence the use of quotes around ‘energy crisis’.
.......1. The non-Communist nations are embarked on a long-term negotiation for the reform of the international monetary system, aimed at developing a new system of reserves and settlements to replace the dollar standard and at improving the balance-of-payments adjustment process. The accomplishment of these objectives would almost surely require a revitalization of the International Monetary Fund, which would have unprecedented powers to create new international reserves and to influence national decisions on exchange rates and on domestic monetary and fiscal policies. Such a strengthened IMF might be given power to back its decisions by meaningful multilateral sanctions, such as uniform surcharges on the exports of uncoöperative surplus countries and the withholding of multilateral and bilateral credits and reserve facilities from recalcitrant deficit countries.
My analysis: This was written in 1974. The fact that such influential people and institutions were already planning a change from the dollar as the world reserve currency illustrates how far in advance central plans are made by the oligarchy. While the U.S. dollar, as of 2015, is still the world reserve currency, there have been many moves recently to begin the de-dolarization process. Also, the IMF has been strengthened over the years. This is evidenced by recent happenings in Europe, specifically Greece. Why should such large central institutions have so much power over ‘domestic monetary and fiscal policies’? Why should people you never meet have so much influence over your life? What is their track record? What is the state of the world right now? How much suffering is there under this system of ‘centralized planning experts’?
........2. Roughly the same wide group of nations is launched on a parallel effort to rewrite the ground rules for the conduct of international trade. Among other things, we will be seeking new rules in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to cover a whole range of hitherto unregulated nontariff barriers. These will subject countries to an unprecedented degree of international surveillance over up to now sacrosanct "domestic" policies, such as farm price supports, subsidies, and government procurement practices that have transnational effects. New standards are also envisaged to regulate protectionist measures to cope with "market disruption" from imports. To make these new rules of the game meaningful, GATT arrangements for consultation, conciliation and enforcement of its decisions will have to be greatly improved. Moreover, as will be discussed, the energy and food crises have stimulated a new concern about access to raw materials and a clear need for new ground rules on export controls.
My analysis: Do you really want multi-billion dollar corporations restricting your ability to trade goods and services? Why would you want your trade to be ‘subject to an unprecedented degree of surveillance’? Who is doing the surveillance exactly, and for what purpose? Will this be fair to you, your family, your neighbors, and your local community? What is the definition of ‘market disruption’? What does he mean by this? What market?
.......3. The trend in recent years has been toward a steady increase in the resources of the multilateral development and technical assistance agencies, in contrast to static or declining bilateral efforts. This should enhance the authority of the World Bank, the regional development banks and the U.N. Development Program over the economic policies of rich and poor nations. By the end of this decade, a portion of aid funds may be channeled to international agencies from sources independent of national decision-making-many have proposed some form of "link" between monetary reserve creation and development aid and some arrangement for the payment to international agencies of fees from the exploitation of seabed mineral resources.
My analysis: What is the World Bank? When was it begun and by whom? What is its purpose? Why should it have authority? Why should you be dependent on their decisions? Do the people working at the World Bank really know you and care about you? Really? Independent international agencies? Did you, the reader, authorize this? Will these international agencies then have free access and a monopoly over seabed mineral resources?
.......4. The next few years should see a continued strengthening of the new global and regional agencies charged with protecting the world's environment. In addition to comprehensive monitoring of the earth's air, water and soil and of the effects of pollutants on human health, we can look forward to new procedures to implement the principle of state responsibility for national actions that have transnational environmental consequences, probably including some kind of "international environmental impact statement" procedure by which at least some nations agree to have certain kinds of environmental decisions reviewed by independent scientific authorities. At the same time, international agencies will be given broader powers to promulgate and revise standards limiting air and ocean pollution.
My analysis: It is interesting to note that numerous corporations which are members and supporters of the CFR cause pollution. So these corporations gain from creating the problem and stand to gain more control over their proposed ‘solutions’ through various institutions, such as the CFR, the U.N., Agenda 21, etc. Some nations, not all, will be subject to scientific scruitiny regarding the environment? Some are more equal than others in such utopias. Who will these so-called scientific authorities be? Who will fund them? How will it effect YOU? Ask yourself this question. Do you know your local environment better than some bureaucrat a few thousand miles away? If so, shouldn’t you have more control over your local environment than them? Also, notice Mr. Gardner’s use of the word ‘authority’. Again, perceived authorities are an indispensable part of the control grid used by the oligarchy. Why should anyone dictate how you use the resources in your local environment?
End Part 2
I originally published this analysis in my book "Making The Oligarchy Obsolete".
To read more, please visit my blog @makingtheoligarchyobsolete.blogspot.com
If you'd like a paperback of the entire book go to: