The Financial New World Order pt2

AUGUST – SEPTEMBER 2009 www.nexusmagazine.com NEXUS • 17

RReenneewweedd CCaallllss ffoorr aa GGlloobbaall CCuurrrreennccyy

On 16 March 2009, Itar-Tass reported that "Russia suggests the G20summit in London in April should start establishing a system ofmanaging the process of globalization and consider the possibilityof creating a supra-national reserve currency or a 'super-reserve

currency'...that will be issued by international financial institutions". Russiasaid that "[i]t looks expedient to reconsider the role of the IMF in thatprocess and also to determine the possibility and need for taking measuresthat would allow for the SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) to become a super-reserve currency recognized by the world community".40

On 23 March, the Financial Times reported that China's central bank"proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency witha new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund". Thegoal would be for the world reserve currency to be "disconnected fromindividual nations" and be "able to remain stable in the long run, thusremoving the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based nationalcurrencies". The chief China economist for HSBC stated: "This is a clear signthat China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concernedabout the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printingmoney." According to the article, the Governor of the People's Bank ofChina, the central bank, "suggested expanding the role of special drawingrights, which were introduced by the IMF in 1969 to support the BrettonWoods fixed exchange rate regime but became less relevant once thatcollapsed in the 1970s". The report stated: "Today, the value of SDRs isbased on a basket of four currencies—the US dollar, yen, euro and sterling—and they are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and some otherinternational organisations. China's proposal would expand the basket ofcurrencies forming the basis of SDR valuation to all major economies andset up a settlement system between SDRs and other currencies so they couldbe used in international trade and financial transactions. Countries wouldentrust a portion of their SDR reserves to the IMF to manage collectively ontheir behalf and SDRs would gradually replace existing reserve currencies."41

On 25 March, Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary and former President ofthe Federal Reserve Bank of New York, spoke at the Council on ForeignRelations. When asked a question about his thoughts on the Chineseproposal for the global reserve currency, Geithner replied: "...I haven't readthe governor's proposal. He's a remarkably—a very thoughtful, very careful,distinguished central banker. Generally [I] find him sensible on every issue.But as I understand his proposal, it's a proposal designed to increase theuse of the IMF's special drawing rights. And we're actually quite open to thatsuggestion. But you should think of it as rather evolutionary, building on thecurrent architectures, than...rather than moving us to global monetaryunion."42 (Emphasis added.)

TTTTHHEEHHEE FFFFIINNAANNCCIIAALLIINNAANNCCIIAALL

NNNNEEWWEEWW WWWWOORRLLDDOORRLLDD OOOORRDDEERRRRDDEERR

MMoovveess ttoowwaarrdd tthheeeessttaabblliisshhmmeenntt ooff aawwoorrlldd ggoovveerrnnmmeenntt,,aalloonngg wwiitthh aa gglloobbaallcceennttrraall bbaannkk aanndd aa

ssiinnggllee ccuurrrreennccyy,, wwiillll rreessuulltt iinn aa ddeecclliinnee

iinn ddeemmooccrraaccyy aanndd aa rriissee iinn

aauutthhoorriittaarriiaanniissmm..

PPaarrtt 22 ooff 22

bbyy AAnnddrreeww GG.. MMaarrsshhaallll

Research AssociateCentre for Research on

GlobalizationMontreal, Canada© 6 April 2009

Website:http://www.globalresearch.ca

18 • NEXUS www.nexusmagazine.com AUGUST – SEPTEMBER 2009

On 29 March, it was reported that "[a] United Nationspanel of economists has proposed a new globalcurrency reserve that would take over the US dollar-based system used for decades by international banks"and that "[a]n independently administered reservecurrency could operate without conflicts posed by theUS dollar and keep commodity prices more stable".43

An article in the Economic Times of 3 April stated: "Theworld is not yet ready for an international reservecurrency, but is ready to begin the process of shifting tosuch a currency. Otherwise, it would remain toovulnerable to the hegemonic nation [as in the UnitedStates]."44

Another article in the Economic Times of 3 April startedby proclaiming that "the world certainly needs aninternational currency". Further, it stated: "With anunwillingness to accept dollars and the absence of analternative, [the] internationalpayments system can go into afreeze beyond the control ofmonetary authorities, leadingthe world economy into a GreatDepression. In order to avoidsuch a calamity, theinternational community shouldimmediately revive the idea ofthe Substitution Accountmooted in 1971, under whichofficial holders of dollars candeposit their unwanted dollarsin a special account in the IMF with the values ofdeposits denominated in an international currency suchas the SDR of the IMF".45

Amidst fears of a falling dollar as a result of theincreased open discussion of a new global currency,Bloomberg reporters wrote on 3 April: "The dollar's roleas a reserve currency won't be threatened by a nine-foldexpansion in the International Monetary Fund's unit ofaccount, according to UBS AG, ING Groep NV andCitigroup Inc." This report followed the recent G20meeting in London: "Group of 20 leaders yesterday [2April] gave approval for the agency to raise $250 billionby issuing Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, the artificialcurrency that the IMF uses to settle accounts among itsmember nations. It also agreed to put another $500billion into the IMF's war chest."46 In other words, thelarge global financial institutions came to the rhetoricalrescue of the dollar so as not to precipitate a crisis in itscurrent standing, so that they can continue with quietlyforming a new global currency.

CCRREEAATTIINNGG AA WWOORRLLDD CCEENNTTRRAALL BBAANNKK In 1998, Jeffrey Garten wrote an article47 for the NewYork Times of 23 September, advocating a "global Fed".Garten is a former Dean of the Yale School ofManagement and former Undersecretary of Commercefor International Trade in the Clinton administration.

He served on the White House Council on InternationalEconomic Policy under the Nixon administration and onthe policy planning staffs of Secretaries of State HenryKissinger and Cyrus Vance of the Ford and Carteradministrations. He is a former Managing Director ofLehman Brothers and is a member of the Council onForeign Relations. In his article, he stated: "...over timethe United States set up crucial central institutions—the Securities and Exchange Commission (1933), theFederal Deposit Insurance Corporation (1934) and, mostimportant, the Federal Reserve (1913). In so doing,America became a managed national economy. Theseorganizations were created to make capitalism work, toprevent destructive business cycles and to moderate theharsh, invisible hand of Adam Smith."

He then explained: "This is what now must occur on aglobal scale. The world needs an institution that has a

hand on the economic rudderwhen the seas become stormy.It needs a global central bank."He continued: "Simply trying tocoordinate the world's powerfulcentral banks—the Fed and thenew European Central Bank, forinstance—wouldn't work...

"Effective collaborationamong finance ministries andtreasuries is also unlikely tomaterialize. These agencies areresponsible to elected

legislatures, and politics in the industrial countries ismore preoccupied with internal events than withinternational stability."

He then postulated: "An independent central bankwith responsibility for maintaining global financialstability is the only way out. No one else can do what isneeded: inject more money into the system to spurgrowth, reduce the sky-high debts of emerging markets,and oversee the operations of shaky financialinstitutions. A global central bank could provide moremoney to the world economy when it is rapidly losingsteam..." Further, he said: "Such a bank would play anoversight role for banks and other financial institutionseverywhere, providing some uniform standards forprudent lending in places like China and Mexico.[However,] [t]he regulation need not be heavy-handed..."

Garten continued: "There are two ways a globalcentral bank could be financed. It could have lines ofcredit from all central banks, drawing on them in badtimes and repaying when the markets turn up.Alternately—and admittedly more difficult to carryout—it could be financed by a very modest tariff on alltrade, collected at the point of importation, or by a taxon certain global financial transactions."

Interestingly, Garten stated: "One thing that wouldnot be acceptable would be for the bank to be at the

......tthhee llaarrggee gglloobbaall ffiinnaanncciiaalliinnssttiittuuttiioonnss ccaammee ttoo tthheerrhheettoorriiccaall rreessccuuee ooff tthheeddoollllaarr......ssoo tthhaatt tthheeyy ccaannccoonnttiinnuuee wwiitthh qquuiieettllyyffoorrmmiinngg aa nneeww gglloobbaall

ccuurrrreennccyy..


mercy of short-term-oriented legislatures." In essence,it is not to be accountable to the people of the world.So, he asked the question: "To whom would a globalcentral bank be accountable?" He then answered: "Itwould have too much power to be governed only bytechnocrats, although it must be led by the best ofthem. One possibility would be to link the new bank toan enlarged Group of Seven—perhaps a 'G-15' [or, intoday's context, the G20] that would include the G-7plus rotating members like Mexico, Brazil, South Africa,Poland, India, China and South Korea."

He further stated that there would have to be "veryclose collaboration" between a global bank and the Fed.He added: "The global bank would not operate withinthe United States, and it would not be able to overridethe decisions of our central bank. Butit could supply the missinginternational ingredient—emergencyfinancing for cash-starved emergingmarkets. It wouldn't affect Americanmortgage rates, but it could help theprofitability of American multinationalcompanies by creating a healthierglobal environment for theirbusinesses."

In 2008, Jeffrey Garten wrote anarticle48, published in the Financial Timesof 25 September, in which he stated:"Even if the US's massive financialrescue operation succeeds, itshould be followed by somethingeven more far-reaching—theestablishment of a GlobalMonetary Authority [GMA] tooversee markets that have becomeborderless." He emphasised the"...need for a new Global MonetaryAuthority. It would set the tonefor capital markets in a way thatwould not be viscerally opposedto a strong public oversightfunction with rules forintervention, and would return to capital formation thegoal of economic growth and development rather thantrading for its own sake."

Further, he stated: "A GMA would be a reinsurer ordiscounter for certain obligations held by central banks.It would scrutinise the regulatory activities of nationalauthorities with more teeth than the IMF has andoversee the implementation of a limited number ofglobal regulations. It would monitor global risks andestablish an effective early warning system with moreclout to sound alarms than the BIS has." Moreover, hesaid: "The biggest global financial companies wouldhave to register with the GMA and be subject to itsmonitoring, or be blacklisted. That includes commercialcompanies and banks, but also sovereign wealth funds,

gigantic hedge funds and private equity firms." Herecommended: "The GMA's board would have toinclude central bankers not just from the US, UK, theeurozone and Japan, but also China, Saudi Arabia andBrazil. It would be financed by mandatory contributionsfrom every capable country and from insurance-typepremiums from global financial companies—publiclylisted, government owned, and privately held alike."

On 16 October 2008, Morgan Stanley CEO John Mackwas reported as stating that "it may take continuedinternational coordination to fully unlock the creditmarkets and resolve the financial crisis, perhaps even byforming a new global body to oversee the process".49

In a Newsweek article50 posted on 25 October 2008,Jeffrey Garten stated that "leaders should begin laying

the groundwork for establishing aglobal central bank". He added:"There was a time when the US FederalReserve played this role, as the primefinancial institution of the world'smost powerful economy, overseeingthe one global currency. But with thegrowth of capital markets, the rise ofcurrencies like the euro and theemergence of powerful players such asChina, the shift of wealth to Asia andthe Persian Gulf and, of course, thedeep-seated problems in the Americaneconomy itself, the Fed no longer has

the capability to leadsinglehandedly."

He explained the criteria andoperations of a world central bank,saying: "It could be the leadregulator of big global financialinstitutions, such as Citigroup orDeutsche Bank, whose activitiesspill across borders... It could actas a bankruptcy court when bigglobal banks that operate inmultiple countries need to berestructured. It could oversee not

just the big commercial banks, such as Mitsubishi UFJ,but also the 'alternative' financial system that hasdeveloped in recent years, consisting of hedge funds,private-equity groups and sovereign wealth funds—allof which are now substantially unregulated." Further, it"could have influence over key exchange rates, andmight lead a new monetary conference to realign thedollar and the yuan, for example, for one of its firstmissions would be to deal with the great financialimbalances that hang like a sword over the worldeconomy".

He postulated: "A global central bank would noteliminate the need for the Federal Reserve or othernational central banks, which will still have frontlineresponsibility for sound regulatory policies and

""EEvveenn iiff tthhee UUSS''ssmmaassssiivvee ffiinnaanncciiaallrreessccuuee ooppeerraattiioonn

ssuucccceeeeddss,, iittsshhoouulldd bbee

ffoolllloowweedd bbyyssoommeetthhiinngg eevveenn

mmoorree ffaarr--rreeaacchhiinngg——tthheeeessttaabblliisshhmmeenntt

ooff aa GGlloobbaallMMoonneettaarryy

AAuutthhoorriittyy......""

monetary stability in their respective countries. But itwould have heavy influence over them when it comes tofollowing policies that are compatible with globalgrowth and financial stability. For example, it wouldwork with key countries to better coordinate nationalstimulus programs when the world enters a recession,as is happening now, so that the cumulative impact ofthe various national efforts do not so dramaticallyovershoot that they plant the seeds for a crisis of globalinflation. This is a big threat as government spendingeverywhere goes into overdrive."

On 10 January 2009, it was reported51 that "one clearsolution to avoid a repeat of the problems would be theestablishment of a 'global central bank'—with the IMFand World Bank being unable to prevent the financialmeltdown". Dr William Overholt, a senior researchfellow at Harvard's Kennedy School and formerly withthe RAND Institute, said in aninterview following a speech hegave at the Dubai School ofGovernment: "To avoid anothercrisis, we need an ability tomanage global liquidity.Theoretically that could beachieved through some kind ofglobal central bank, or throughthe creation of a globalcurrency, or through globalacceptance of a set of rules withsanctions and a disputesettlement mechanism."

Guillermo Calvo, Professor of Economics,International and Public Affairs at Columbia University,wrote an article52 for VOX, published on 23 March 2009.Calvo is a former Chief Economist of the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank and a former Senior Advisor in theResearch Department of the IMF. He is currently aResearch Associate at the National Bureau of EconomicResearch (NBER) and President of the InternationalEconomic Association. Calvo wrote: "Credit availabilityis not ensured by stricter financial regulation. In fact, itcan be counterproductive unless it is accompanied bythe establishment of a lender of last resort (LOLR) thatradically softens the severity of financial crisis byproviding timely credit lines. With that aim in mind, the20th century saw the creation of national or regionalcentral banks in charge of a subset of the capital market.It has now become apparent that the realm of existingcentral banks is very limited and the world has noinstitution that fulfils the necessary global role. TheIMF is moving in that direction, but it is still too smalland too limited to adequately do so."

The first proposal Calvo would like to make is "thatthe topic of financial regulation should be discussedtogether with the issue of a global lender of last resort".Further, he proposed that "international financialinstitutions must be quickly endowed with considerably

more firepower to help emerging economies throughthe deleveraging period".

AA ""NNEEWW WWOORRLLDD OORRDDEERR"" IINN BBAANNKKIINNGG Following the collapse of Bear Stearns, a Reuters

report of 17 March 2008 commented on a documentreleased by research firm CreditSights, saying that"[f]inancial firms face a 'new world order'" and that"[m]ore industry consolidation and acquisitions mayfollow after JPMorgan Chase & Co. ... said it was buyingBear Stearns..." Further, Reuters reported: "In the eventof future consolidation, potential acquirers identified byCreditSights include JPMorganChase, Wells Fargo, USBancorp, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America..."53

On 9 June 2008, Timothy Geithner, as head of theFederal Reserve Bank of New York (before he wasappointed Treasury Secretary in the Obama

administration), wrote anarticle for the Financial Timesfollowing his attendance at the2008 Bilderberg Conference.Ahead of publication, it wasreported54 that he wrote that"[b]anks and investment bankswhose health is crucial to theglobal financial system shouldoperate under a unifiedregulatory framework". He alsowrote that the US FederalReserve should play a "central

role" in this new regulatory framework, working closelywith supervisors in the US and around the world.

On 6 November 2008, The National, a prominent UnitedArab Emirates newspaper, reported on Baron David deRothschild's travelling with UK Prime Minister GordonBrown on a visit to the Middle East, although not as"part of the official party" accompanying Brown. Thereport stated: "Baron Rothschild shares most people'sview that there is a new world order. In his opinion,banks will deleverage and there will be a new form ofglobal governance."55

On 24 February 2009, the Times Online ran an opinionpiece with the headline "New world order in bankingnecessary...". The article, by Michael Lafferty, chairmanof the International Retail Banking Council, stated that"[i]t is increasingly evident that the world needs a newbanking system and that it should not bear muchresemblance to the one that has failed sospectacularly".56

But, of course, the ones that are shaping this newbanking system are the champions of the previousbanking system. The solutions that will follow aresimply the extensions of the current system, only spedup through the necessity posed by the current crisis.

AANN EEMMEERRGGIINNGG GGLLOOBBAALL GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT An article in the Financial Post of 2 April 2009 stated:


TThhee ssoolluuttiioonnss tthhaatt wwiillllffoollllooww aarree ssiimmppllyy tthhee

eexxtteennssiioonnss ooff tthhee ccuurrrreennttssyysstteemm,, oonnllyy ssppeedd uupptthhrroouugghh tthhee nneecceessssiittyy

ppoosseedd bbyy tthhee ccuurrrreenntt ccrriissiiss..

"The danger in the present course is that if the worldmoves to a 'super sovereign' reserve currencyengineered by experts, such as the 'UN Commission ofExperts' led by Nobel laureate economist JosephStiglitz, we would give up the possibility of aspontaneous money order and financial harmony for acentrally planned order and the politicization of money.Such a regime change would endanger not only thefuture value of money but, more importantly, ourfreedom and prosperity."57

A columnist writing in the Toronto Star of 3 April stated:"An uncomfortable characteristic of the new world ordermay well turn out to be that global income gaps willwiden because the rising powers, such as China, Indiaand Brazil, regard those below them on the ladder aspotential rivals..." The author furtherstated: "The new world order thuswon't necessarily be any better thanthe old one... What is certain, though,is that global affairs are going to beconsiderably different from now on."58

On 1 April, Robert Zoellick, Presidentof the World Bank, was reported assaying: "If leaders are serious aboutcreating new global responsibilities orgovernance, let them start bymodernising multilateralism toempower the WTO, the IMF, and theWorld Bank Group to monitor nationalpolicies."59

David Rothkopf, a scholar at theCarnegie Endowment forInternational Peace, a member ofthe Council on Foreign Relations,former Deputy Undersecretary ofCommerce for International Tradein the Clinton administration anda former managing director ofKissinger Associates, Inc., recentlywrote a book titled Superclass: TheGlobal Power Elite and the World Theyare Making—of which he iscertainly a member. When discussing the role andagenda of the global "superclass", he stated that "[i]n aworld of global movements and threats that don'tpresent their passports at national borders, it is nolonger possible for a nation-state acting alone to fulfillits portion of the social contract".60

He continued: "...even the international organizationsand alliances we have today, flawed as they are, wouldhave seemed impossible until recently, notably thesuccess of the European Union—a unitary democraticstate the size of India. The evolution and achievementsof such entities against all odds suggest not isolatedinstances but an overall trend in the direction of whatTennyson called 'the Parliament of Man', or 'universallaw'." He stated that he is "optimistic that progress will

continue to be made", but it will be difficult because it"undercuts many national and local power structuresand cultural concepts that have foundations deep in thebedrock of human civilization, namely the notion ofsovereignty".61

He further wrote that "[m]echanisms of globalgovernance are more achievable in today'senvironment" and that these mechanisms "are oftencreative with temporary solutions to urgent problemsthat cannot wait for the world to embrace a bigger andmore controversial idea like real global government".62

On 8 December 2008, the Financial Times ran an article63

by Gideon Rachman, a past Bilderberg attendee. Hewrote: "[F]or the first time in my life, I think theformation of some sort of world government is

plausible." He continued: "A 'worldgovernment' would involve much morethan co-operation between nations. Itwould be an entity with state-likecharacteristics, backed by a body oflaws. The European Union has alreadyset up a continental government for 27countries, which could be a model.The EU has a supreme court, acurrency, thousands of pages of law, alarge civil service and the ability todeploy military force."

Rachman then asked if the Europeanmodel could "go global", and said

there are three reasons forthinking that may be the case.First, he stated that "it isincreasingly clear that the mostdifficult issues facing nationalgovernments are international innature: there is global warming, aglobal financial crisis and a 'globalwar on terror'". Second, he statedthat "[i]t could be done", largely asa result of the transport andcommunications revolutionshaving "shrunk the world". Third,

this is made possible through an awakening "change inthe political atmosphere" as "[t]he financial crisis andclimate change are pushing national governmentstowards global solutions, even in countries such asChina and the US that are traditionally fierce guardiansof national sovereignty".

He quoted Jacques Attali, an adviser to the Presidentof France, Nicolas Sarkozy, as saying that "[g]lobalgovernance is just a euphemism for global government"and that the "core of the international financial crisis isthat we have global financial markets and no global ruleof law". However, Rachman stated that "any push for'global governance'...will be a painful, slow process". Hethen stated that a key problem in this push can beexplained with an example from the European Union,


""AA ''wwoorrllddggoovveerrnnmmeenntt''wwoouulldd iinnvvoollvvee

mmuucchh mmoorree tthhaannccoo--ooppeerraattiioonn

bbeettwweeeenn nnaattiioonnss..IItt wwoouulldd bbee aann

eennttiittyy wwiitthh ssttaattee--lliikkee

cchhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss,,bbaacckkeedd bbyy aa

bbooddyy ooff llaawwss..""

which "has suffered a series of humiliating defeats inreferendums, when plans for 'ever closer union' havebeen referred to the voters". He went on to say: "Ingeneral, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats andpoliticians—and then pushed through without directreference to the voters. International governance tendsto be effective, only when it is anti-democratic."(Emphasis added.)

In November 2008, the US National IntelligenceCouncil (NIC), the US intelligence community's "centerfor mid-term and long-term strategic thinking", releaseda report64 that it produced in collaboration withnumerous think-tanks, consulting firms, academicinstitutions and hundreds of other experts, among themthe Atlantic Council of the United States, the WilsonCenter, the RAND Corporation, the BrookingsInstitution, the American Enterprise Institute, TexasA&M University, the Council on Foreign Relations andChatham House in London. The report, titled "GlobalTrends 2025: A TransformedWorld", outlines the currentglobal political and economictrends that the world may begoing through by the year 2025.In terms of the financial crisis,it states that solving this "willrequire long-term efforts toestablish a new internationalsystem".65 It suggests that asthe "China model" fordevelopment becomesincreasingly attractive, theremay be a decline indemocratisation for emerging economies, "under-performing authoritarian regimes" and "weakdemocracies frustrated by years of economicunderperformance". Further, the dollar will cease to bethe global reserve currency, as there will likely be a"move away from the dollar".66

It states that the dollar will become "something of afirst among equals in a basket of currencies by 2025"and that "[t]his could occur suddenly in the wake of acrisis, or gradually with global rebalancing."67 The reportelaborates on the construction of a new internationalsystem, stating: "By 2025, nation-states will no longerbe the only—and often not the most important—actorson the world stage and the 'international system' willhave morphed to accommodate the new reality. But thetransformation will be incomplete and uneven." Further,"...we are unlikely to see an overarching, comprehensive,unitary approach to global governance. Current trendssuggest that global governance in 2025 will be apatchwork of overlapping, often ad hoc and fragmentedefforts, with shifting coalitions of member nations,international organizations, social movements, NGOs,philanthropic foundations, and companies." It also

notes: "Most of the pressing transnational problems—including climate change, regulation of globalizedfinancial markets, migration, failing states, crimenetworks, etc.—are unlikely to be effectively resolved bythe actions of individual nation-states. The need foreffective global governance will increase faster thanexisting mechanisms can respond."68

The report discusses the topic of regionalism, stating:"Greater Asian integration, if it occurs, could fill thevacuum left by a weakening multilaterally basedinternational order but could also further underminethat order. In the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financialcrisis, a remarkable series of pan-Asian ventures—themost significant being ASEAN + 3—began to take root.Although few would argue that an Asian counterpart tothe EU is a likely outcome even by 2025, if 1997 is takenas a starting point, Asia arguably has evolved morerapidly over the last decade than the Europeanintegration did in its first decade(s)." It further statesthat "movement over the next 15 years toward an Asian

basket of currencies—if not anAsian currency unit as a thirdreserve—is more than atheoretical possibility". Itelaborates that "Asianregionalism would have globalimplications, possibly sparkingor reinforcing a trend towardthree trade and financialclusters that could becomequasi-blocs (North America,Europe, and East Asia)". Theseblocs "would have implicationsfor the ability to achieve future

global World Trade Organization agreements andregional clusters could compete in the setting of trans-regional product standards for IT, biotech, nanotech,intellectual property rights, and other 'new economy'products".69

Of great importance to address, and reflecting similarassumptions made by Rachman in his article advocatingfor a world government, is the topic of democratisation.The report says that "advances are likely to slow andglobalization will subject many recently democratizedcountries to increasing social and economic pressuresthat could undermine liberal institutions". This islargely because "the better economic performance ofmany authoritarian governments could sow doubtsamong some about democracy as the best form ofgovernment". The report's authors state: "The surveyswe consulted indicated that many East Asians putgreater emphasis on good management, includingincreasing standards of livings [sic], than democracy."Further, the report says that "even in many well-established democracies, surveys show growing


CCoonnttiinnuueedd oonn ppaaggee 7799

""MMoosstt ooff tthhee pprreessssiinnggttrraannssnnaattiioonnaall pprroobblleemmss......

aarree uunnlliikkeellyy ttoo bbeeeeffffeeccttiivveellyy rreessoollvveedd bbyy tthhee aaccttiioonnss ooff iinnddiivviidduuaall

nnaattiioonn--ssttaatteess..""


frustration with the current workingsof democratic government andquestioning among elites over theability of democratic governments totake the bold actions necessary todeal rapidly and effectively with thegrowing number of transnationalchallenges".70

CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONN Ultimately, what this implies is

that the future of the global politicaleconomy is one of increasing movestoward a global system ofgovernance, or a world government,with a world central bank and globalcurrency; and that, concurrently,these developments are likely tomaterialise in the face of and as aresult of a decline in democracyaround the world and, thus, a rise inauthoritarianism.

What we are witnessing is thecreation of a New World Order,

composed of a totalitarian globalgovernment structure.

In fact, the very concept of a globalcurrency and a global central bank isauthoritarian in its very nature, as itremoves any vestiges of oversightand accountability away from thepeople of the world and toward asmall, increasingly interconnectedgroup of international elites.

As Carroll Quigley explained in hismonumental book Tragedy and Hope:"The powers of financial capitalismhad another far-reaching aim, nothingless than to create a world system offinancial control in private hands ableto dominate the political system ofeach country and the economy of theworld as a whole.

This system was to be controlled ina feudalist fashion by the centralbanks of the world acting in concert,by secret agreements arrived at infrequent private meetings andconferences.

The apex of the system was to be

the Bank for InternationalSettlements in Basle, Switzerland, aprivate bank owned and controlled bythe world's central banks which werethemselves private corporations."71

Indeed, the current "solutions"being proposed to the globalfinancial crisis benefit those whocaused the crisis over those who arepoised to suffer the most as a resultof the crisis: the disappearingmiddle classes; the world'sdispossessed, poor, indebtedpeople.

The proposed solutions to thiscrisis represent the manifestationsand actualisation of the ultimategenerational goals of the global eliteand thus represent the leastfavourable conditions for the vastmajority of the world's people.

It is imperative that the world'speople throw their weight againstthese "solutions" and usher in a new

CCoonnttiinnuueedd ffrroomm ppaaggee 2222

TThhee FFiinnaanncciiaall NNeeww WWoorrlldd OOrrddeerr

CCoonnttiinnuueedd oonn ppaaggee 8800


era of world order, one of thePeople's World Order; with thesolution lying in local governanceand local economies so that thepeople have greater roles indetermining the future and structureof their own political economy andthus their own society.

With this alternative of localisedpolitical economies, in conjunctionwith an unprecedented globalpopulation and internationaldemocratisation of communicationthrough the Internet, we have themeans and possibility before us toforge the most diverse manifestationof cultures and societies thathumanity has ever known.

The answer lies in the individual'sinternalisation of human power anddestiny, and a rejection of theexternalisation of power and humandestiny to a global authority towhich all but a select few people

have access. To internalise human power and

destiny is to realise the gift of thehuman mind, which has the abilityto engage in thought beyond thematerial, such as food and shelter,and venture into the realm of theconceptual.

Each individual possesses—withinthemselves—the ability to thinkcritically about themselves and theirown life. Now is the time to utilisethis ability, with the aim ofinternalising the concepts andquestions of human power anddestiny.

Why are we here? Where are wegoing? Where should we be going?How do we get there?

The supposed answers to thesequestions are offered to us by a tinyglobal elite who fears therepercussions of what would takeplace if the people of the world wereto begin to answer these questionsthemselves.

I do not know the answers to thesequestions, but I do know that theanswers lie in the human mind andspirit which have overcome and willcontinue to overcome the greatest ofchallenges to humanity, and will,without doubt, triumph over the NewWorld Order. ∞

AAbboouutt tthhee AAuutthhoorr::Andrew G. Marshall is a ResearchAssociate of the Centre for Research onGlobalization (CRG), based in Montreal(http://www.globalresearch.ca). He iscurrently studying political economyand history at Simon Fraser University,British Columbia, Canada.

EEddiittoorr''ss NNoottee::Due to space constraints, we areunable to publish the endnotesaccompanying our publication ofAndrew Marshall's article. To viewthese, go to the Global Research webpage http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13070.

CCoonnttiinnuueedd ffrroomm ppaaggee 7799

TThhee FFiinnaanncciiaall NNeeww WWoorrlldd OOrrddeerr

Documents

The Financial New World Order pt2