Thirty years of a secret institution

[A2E]

Here is the main object of my revolt, it is a bit long to read but when you have read it you will have understood what we really represent in the eyes of the manipulators of humanity!

Leaders of multinationals, rulers of wealthy countries and supporters of economic liberalism quickly understood that they had to work together if they wanted to impose their worldview. As of July 1973, in a world then bipolar, David Rockefeller launches the Trilateral Commission, which will mark the starting point of the modern ideological war. Less publicized than forum from Davos, she remains very active, through a network of influences with multiple ramifications.


By Olivier Boiral
Professor at Laval University (Canada)

Thirty years ago, in July 1973, on the initiative of Mr. David Rockefeller, a figurehead of American capitalism, the Trilateral Commission was born. Cenacle of the international political and economic elite, this very closed and always active club of senior leaders caused a lot of controversies, especially in its beginnings (1). The Commission then intends to become a private body for consultation and orientation of the international policy of the countries of the triad (United States, Europe, Japan). Its founding charter summarizes: “Focused on the analysis of the major challenges facing North America, Western Europe and Japan, the Commission is committed to developing practical proposals for joint action. The members of the Commission bring together more than 200 distinguished citizens from the three regions and involved in different fields (2). "

The creation of this opaque organization, where the leaders of multinationals, bankers, politicians, experts in international politics, or even academics coexist behind closed doors and sheltered from any media compromise. with a period of uncertainty and turbulence in world politics. The governance of the international economy seems to elude the elites of the rich countries, the forces of the left appear increasingly active, in particular in Europe, and the growing interconnection of economic issues calls for closer cooperation between the great powers. The Trilateral will quickly establish itself as one of the main instruments of this concertation, anxious both to protect the interests of multinationals and to "enlighten" by its analyzes the decisions of political leaders (3).

Like the philosophical kings of the Platonic city contemplating the world of ideas to infuse their transcendent wisdom into the management of earthly affairs, the elite gathered in this very undemocratic institution and that democracy worries when groups formerly silent get involved will work to define the criteria of international "good governance". It conveys a Platonic ideal of order and supervision, ensured by a privileged class of technocrats who place their expertise and experience above the profane demands of ordinary citizens: "A protected place, the Trilateral City, where technology is law , comments Gilbert Larochelle. And, posted overhanging, sentries watch, watch. The use of expertise is not a luxury, it offers the possibility of putting society in front of itself. Well-being comes only from the best who, in their inspired height, produce criteria to relay them down (4). "

The themes debated within this oligarchy of international politics, whose annual meetings take place in different cities of the Triad, are so discreetly that no media seems to want to disturb anymore. Each subject is the subject of annual reports (The Trialogue) and thematic work (Triangle Papers) carried out by teams of American, European and Japanese experts handpicked. Regularly published for around thirty years, these public documents translate the Trilateral's attention to global problems supposed to transcend national sovereignties and call for the intervention of rich countries: reform of international institutions, globalization of markets, environment, international finance , liberalization of economies, regionalization of trade, East-West relations (especially at the beginning), indebtedness of poor countries, etc.

These interventions revolve around a few founding ideas that have been widely reported by politicians. The first is the need for a "new international order". The national framework would be too narrow to deal with major global issues whose "complexity" and "interdependence" are constantly reaffirmed. Such an analysis justifies and legitimizes the activities of the Commission, which is both a privileged observatory and a foreman of this new international architecture.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 provided a new opportunity to recall, at the Washington meeting in April 2002, the need for an "international order" and a "global response" to which the main leaders of the planet are urged. to collaborate under American leadership. At this annual meeting of the Trilateral, MM. Colin Powell (American Secretary of State), Donald Rumsfeld (Defense Secretary), Richard Cheney (Vice-President) and Alan Greenspan (President of the Federal Reserve) were present (5).

The second founding idea, which follows from the first, is the tutelary role of the countries of the triad, in particular the United States, in the reform of the international system. The rich countries are invited to speak with one voice and to join their efforts in a mission intended to promote the “stability” of the planet through the generalization of the dominant economic model. Liberal democracies are the "vital center" of the economy, finance and technology. This center, the other countries will have to integrate it by accepting the command it has given itself. American unilateralism, however, seems to have tested the cohesion of the countries of the triad. Their dissensions are expressed in the debates of the Commission. In his speech of April 6, 2002, at the meeting mentioned above, Mr. Colin Powell defended the American position on the main points of contention with the rest of the world: refusal to sign the Kyoto agreements, opposition to the creation of an international criminal court, analysis of the "axis of evil", American intervention in Iraq, support for Israeli policy, etc.

The hegemony of liberal democracies reinforces the faith in the virtues of globalization and the liberalization of economies which is expressed in the discourse of the trilateral. Financial globalization and the development of international trade would be at the service of progress and the improvement of the living conditions of the greatest number. However, they imply the questioning of national sovereignties and the abolition of protectionist measures. This neoliberal creed is often at the center of debates.

During the annual meeting of April 2003, in Seoul, it was notably question of the economic integration of the countries of Southeast Asia and the participation of China in the dynamics of globalization. The meetings of the previous two years had been the occasion for the Director General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Mr. Mike Moore, to devoutly profess the virtues of free trade. After vilifying the anti-globalization movement, Mr. Moore even declared that it was "imperative to recall again and again the overwhelming evidence that shows that international trade boosts economic growth (6)".

The tirade of the director of the WTO against groups calling for another globalization described as "e-hippies" underlines the third founding characteristic of the Trilateral: its aversion to popular movements. It was expressed in the famous report of the Commission on the governance of democracies written by Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington and Joji Watanuki (7). As early as 1975, this text denounced the "excesses of democracy" that the protest demonstrations of the time expressed in the eyes of the authors. Those who, like today, called into question the foreign policy of the United States (role of the CIA in the Chilean coup, Vietnam War, etc.) and demanded the recognition of new social rights. This report provoked at the time a number of indignant comments, which directed their fires against the democratic administration of president James Carter, who was a member of the Trilateral (like, later, president Clinton) (.

Since the early 1980s, press attention for this type of institution seems to have focused on less closed meetings and above all more publicized, such as the forum from Davos. The importance of the issues debated within the Trilateral and the level of those who have participated in its meetings in recent years nevertheless underline its persistent influence (9).

Far from being an "old sea snake" that would resurface to the delight of some followers of esotericism and "conspiracy theory", the Trilateral Commission is a well-established institution, the discretion of which facilitates collusion between politicians and leaders companies. "I certainly hope that the views expressed by these experienced people have a real influence on international politics! Replied a former Canadian minister who participated in many of the works of the Trilateral Commission. He echoed the words of the founder, Mr. David Rockefeller: “Sometimes the ideas put forward by the reports of the Trilateral Commission have become official policies. Its recommendations have always been seriously debated outside our circle, and they have played a role in the reflections of governments and in the formulation of their decisions (10). "

Thus is drawn the web of a diffuse, opaque, almost elusive power, which weaves its links through closed clubs and international meetings whose forum by Davos represents the most ostentatious expression. In these places of meetings, exchanges, negotiations gravitate the same protagonists, elaborate the analyzes and the compromises which often precede the big decisions. The Trilateral Commission is one of the pieces of this polymorphic chessboard. It consolidates the alliance between the power of multinationals, finance and politics, thanks to a network of influences whose ramifications extend to the main sectors of society
source http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2003/11/BOIRAL/10677

: angry:: angry: