Showing posts with label council foreign relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label council foreign relations. Show all posts

Monday, March 12, 2007

New World Order Drive Behind Global Warming

That the likes of Gordon Brown want a new world order to combat global warming isn't news, not really. The United Nations issues its tilted climate report every so often, and has been desirous of a global tax, too. But the people don't notice, nor do they care. What is new is the Council on Foreign Relations actually uttering the words, "new world order..." what's up with that?

Brown wants 'new world order' to fight global warming Mon Mar 12, 4:20 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Gordon Brown, likely to be the next prime minister, will deliver a speech calling for a "new world order" to combat global warming on Monday.

According to excerpts released by the finance ministry, Chancellor of the Exchequer Brown will also say the United Nations should make the fight against global warming a core "pillar" of its international mission.

Brown will praise the European Union's progress in combatting climate change after EU leaders on Friday agreed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels.

He is set to announce domestic policy proposals that are targetted at helping Britons save energy, thereby cutting their individual carbon emissions, ahead of the government's publication of its Climate Change Bill on Tuesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070312/wl_uk_afp/britainpolitics_070312082025


The New New World Order
Daniel W. Drezner
From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007


RISING AND FALLING

Throughout the twentieth century, the list of the world's great powers was predictably short: the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, and northwestern Europe. The twenty-first century will be different. China and India are emerging as economic and political heavyweights: China holds over a trillion dollars in hard currency reserves, India's high-tech sector is growing by leaps and bounds, and both countries, already recognized nuclear powers, are developing blue-water navies. The National Intelligence Council, a U.S. government think tank, projects that by 2025, China and India will have the world's second- and fourth-largest economies, respectively. Such growth is opening the way for a multipolar era in world politics.

This tectonic shift will pose a challenge to the U.S.-dominated global institutions that have been in place since the 1940s. At the behest of Washington, these multilateral regimes have promoted trade liberalization, open capital markets, and nuclear nonproliferation, ensuring relative peace and prosperity for six decades -- and untold benefits for the United States. But unless rising powers such as China and India are incorporated into this framework, the future of these international regimes will be uncomfortably uncertain.

Given its performance over the last six years, one would not expect the Bush administration to handle this challenge terribly well. After all, its unilateralist impulses, on vivid display in the Iraq war, have become a lightning rod for criticism of U.S. foreign policy. But the Iraq controversy has overshadowed a more pragmatic and multilateral component of the Bush administration's grand strategy: Washington's attempt to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy and international institutions in order to account for shifts in the global distribution of power. The Bush administration has been reallocating the resources of the executive branch to focus on emerging powers. In an attempt to ensure that these countries buy into the core tenets of the U.S.-created world order, Washington has tried to bolster their profiles in forums ranging from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the World Health Organization, on issues as diverse as nuclear proliferation, monetary relations, and the environment. Because these efforts have focused more on so-called low politics than on the global war on terrorism, they have flown under the radar of many observers. But in fact, George W. Bush has revived George H. W. Bush's call for a "new world order" -- by creating, in effect, a new new world order.

This unheralded effort is well intentioned and well advised...

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86203/daniel-w-drezner/the-new-new-world-order.html


Transcript of Interview
"The New New World Order"
Speaker: Daniel W. Drezner, Associate Professor of International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
Presider: Gideon Rose, Managing Editor, Foreign Affairs
February 26, 2007
Council on Foreign Relations


http://www.cfr.org/publication/12719/the_new_new_world_order.html

Global Tax UN agenda Bill Clinton

THE BIG PICTURE EMERGES
The agenda of the UN under the guise of the various environmental agencies and groups is not recognized for what it actually is, and when the puzzle pieces are assembled, the big picture emerges. It reveals itself to be the benevolent (despotic) controller of not only the land and its resources, but of the people and their activities as well. Under the Wildlands Project, at least 50 percent of the land area in the United States would be returned to "core wilderness areas" where human activity is barred. These areas would be connected by corridors several miles in width. The core areas and corridors would be surrounded by "buffer zones" in which "controlled" human activity would be allowed. The words of Reed Noss clarify the real agenda, "the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."

"The Reorganization of Society, " as presented in their documents, is the five step plan of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to implement their agenda within the United States and the world."...

http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/1997/08/global_warming.html

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Don't believe in The Establishment Conspiracy?

Think: what have all (but one) of the Secs. of State of this country had in common for the past 80 years?

Answer: membership in the Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.cfr.org/about/faqs.html

(c) Copyright 1996 ParaScope, Inc.:
The CFR's claim that "The Council has no affiliation with the U.S. government" is laughable. The justification for that statement is that funding comes from member dues, subscriptions to its Corporate Program, foundation grants, and so forth. All this really means is that the U.S. government does not exert any control over the CFR via the purse strings.

In reality, CFR members are very tightly affiliated with the U.S. government. Since 1940, every U.S. secretary of state (except for Gov. James Byrnes of South Carolina, the sole exception) has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or its younger brother, the Trilateral Commission. Also since 1940, every secretary of war and every secretary of defense has been a CFR member. During most of its existence, the Central Intelligence Agency has been headed by CFR members, beginning with CFR founding member Allen Dulles. Virtually every key U.S. national security and foreign policy adviser has been a CFR member for the past seventy years.

Almost all White House cabinet positions are occupied by CFR members. President Clinton, himself a member of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, employs almost one hundred CFR members in his administration. Presidents come and go, but the CFR's power--and agenda--always remains.


http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/parapolitics/CFR_NWO.htm

Donald Rumsfeld

to-be - Robert Gates

Note CFR website already has Gates designated:

Robert Gates on Iran
CFR Task Force, chaired by Rumsfeld’s designated successor Robert Gates, concludes lack of engagement with Iran threatens U.S. national interests.


The leadership and membership of the CFR includes corporate leaders like David Rockefeller, Peter G. Peterson, and Douglas Dillon, as well as key government leaders from both major parties past and present. Its 4,075 members (64 percent from New York and Washington, DC) pay as much as $2,600 a year as dues (less depending upon age, place of residence, and business status) and become members only after being approved by the Council Board of Directors. The CFR calls itself “nonpartisan” but the correct word is bipartisan; it has a large representation from both major parties. There are many members from current and past Administrations and Congress. Except where otherwise noted, the following are all listed as current CFR members or leaders in the Council’s 2002 Annual Report:

Presidents: George H.W. Bush (former member), James Earl Carter, Bill Clinton, Gerald R. Ford
Vice Presidents: Richard B. Cheney, Walter F. Mondale
Secretaries of State: Madeleine Albright, James A. Baker III, Warren Christopher, Alexander M. Haig Jr., Henry A. Kissinger, Colin L. Powell, William D. Rogers, George P. Shultz
National Security Advisors: Richard V. Allen, Samuel Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry A. Kissinger, W. Anthony Lake, Robert C. McFarlane, Condoleezza Rice, W.W. Rostow, Brent Scowcroft
Secretaries of Defense: Harold Brown, Frank C. Carlucci, Richard B. Cheney, William S. Cohen, Robert S. McNamara, Casper W. Weinberger
CIA Directors: Richard Helms, George Tenet, Stansfield Turner, William Webster, Frank G. Wisner II, R. James Woolsey
U.S. Senators and Congresspersons: Howard H. Baker Jr., Alfonse M. D’Amato, William H. Danforth, Christopher J. Dodd, Richard A. Gephardt, Newton L. Gingrich, Barney Frank, Peter H.B. Frelinghuysen, Geraldine A. Ferraro, Bob Graham, Chuck Hagel, Jane Harman, Gary Hart, Bob Kerrey, John F. Kerry, Joseph I. Lieberman, George S. McGovern, Daniel P. Moynihan, Claiborne Pell, Charles H. Percy, Warren B. Rudman, Charles E. Schumer, Steven J. Solarz, Adlai E. Stevenson, Robert G. Torricelli, John William Warner


http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Mar2003/shoup0303.html

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

reference to former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
The council would not say how many of the invitees had refused to attend. But members said they knew of more than a half-dozen, from the publisher Mort Zuckerman to the former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright. It is unclear why some declined. A few claimed scheduling conflicts, rather than moral objections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/world/middleeast/21iran.html?ex=1316491200&en=dbec4f7c2ac5fa82&ei=5088...

You get the idea

More

Rosters CFR

http://vyzygoth.com/cfr.html


http://vyzygoth.com/past.html