excerpted from the book
A Century of War
Anglo-American Oil Politics and
the New World Order
by William Engdahl
Pluto Press, 2004, paperback (original
In 1919, following the Versailles peace conference, the British
Empire was at its largest extent, its dominion covering one quarter
the entire surface of the world, the empire 'upon which the sun
never set.' A mere 30 years later, by 1949, the British Empire
was disintegrating in every region as demands for colonial independence
were made against the oppressive mother country. The British Empire
was in the throes of the largest upheaval of perhaps any empire
Britain was utterly dependent on the postwar [WWII] support of
the United States. For its part, the United States, or rather,
the internationalist elements of the 'East Coast establishment'
as it was becoming known, realized that if America were to dominate
the postwar world, it needed the vast worldwide expertise and
cooperation of London. The long-discussed new concept of empire,
first introduced in the years before the First World War by Lord
Lothian, Lord Miler, Cecil Rhodes and the Round Table circle ...
was rapidly becoming reality. Britain after 1945 would exert global
influence indirectly, through developing and deepening a 'special
relationship' with the United States.
The seeds of this special relationship
had been carefully planted following Versailles, with the simultaneous
establishment of the Royal Institute of International Affairs
and the New York Council on Foreign Relations as conduits of strategic
Anglo-American petroleum interests emerged
from the Second World War in a position of enormously increased
power. In the final agreement for a postwar 'New World Order'
in monetary and economic affairs, hammered out between British
and American negotiators in 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire,
Anglo-American hegemony over world petroleum played a central
role in the thinking of Lord Keynes and his American counterpart,
Harry Dexter White, assistant U.S. Treasury secretary.
The Bretton Woods system was to be built
around the 'three pillars' of the International Monetary Fund,
whose member-country contributions would constitute an emergency
reserve available in times of balance-of-payments distress; the
World Bank, which would grant loans to member governments for
large public projects; and the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT), designed to create a managed agenda of 'free trade.'
Bretton Woods created what was called a gold exchange system.
Under this system, each member country's national currency was
pegged to the U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar was in turn set at
an official rate of $35 per fine ounce of gold, the rate set by
President Roosevelt in 1934, during the depths of the Great Depression,
and before a world war.
Because the New York Federal Reserve Bank had accumulated the
bulk of the world's official gold reserves during the war, and
because the dollar emerged from the ravages of the war as the
world's strongest currency, backed by what was unquestionably
the world's strongest economy, few were in a position to argue
with what amounted to a postwar U.S. dollar standard.
A little-noted consequence of the extraordinary global market
grab by the major American oil companies following the Second
World War was the parallel rise to international dominance of
the New York banking groups tied to oil.
... The New York banks had traditionally
been oriented toward international business, but they now held
disproportionate power over world finance, as never before. Their
power resembled that of the old London imperial banking groups
such as Midland Bank, Barclays, and the like. By 1961, the deposits
concentrated into the five largest New York banks were fully 75
per cent of all bank deposits of the entire metropolitan region,
America's largest economic region.
The membership of the increasingly influential
New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) during the 1950s,
also reflected this concentration of financial and economic power.
The CFR chairman was the Wall Street lawyer John J. McCloy, also
chairman of Chase Bank and a former lawyer for the Rockefeller
Standard Oil interests.
While most Americans only dimly realized
the ominous implications of the concentration of economic and
financial power into a small number of hands in New York banks,
corporations and related law firms during the early postwar years
in the 1950s, the point was not lost on their British cousins
in the City of London.
American society was increasingly being
reshaped along the lines of the British 'informal empire,' with
finance, raw materials control, and control of international terms
of trade as its underpinning, rather than the traditional American
foundation of technological and industrial progress.
While Washington had initially encouraged the creation of a European
Common Market, in order to provide a more efficient market for
American industrial and capital exports, the last thing certain
circles in the Anglo-American establishment wanted was a politically
and economically independent Continental Europe. This problem
took on a sinister new twist when, beginning in late 1957, the
United States underwent the first phase of a deep, persisting
postwar economic recession, with resulting industrial stagnation
and growing unemployment-a recession which lasted into the mid
The fundamental causes for the recession
were not difficult to foresee, had anyone seriously sought them.
The vast amount of investment into industrial plant and equipment,
which had lifted the U.S. economy out of the 1930s depression,
had taken place almost two decades earlier, during the wartime
industrial buildup of 193943. By 1957, plant and equipment, as
well as labor-force skill levels, needed to be rejuvenated with
more modern resources. The United States in the late 1950s faced
the demand of a huge reinvestment into its productive labor force,
education system and technology base, if she were to continue
to be the world's leading industrial economy. But, sadly for the
United States and the rest of the world, leading U.S. policy circles
ensured that precisely the wrong policy alternative dominated
Washington in the wake of the 1957 recession.
A debate took place within U.S. policy
circles over how to respond to the crisis. The New York Council
on Foreign Relations, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and others
drafted policy options. An ambitious young Harvard professor named
Henry Kissinger became an appendage of the Rockefeller group at
The issue was what to do about the deeper
implications of the U.S. recession. The natural demand of industry
and farmers for cheap credit and technological progress and capital
investment was overshadowed by the powerful combination of the
liberal East Coast establishment... by the end of the 1950s New
York banks had merged into enormously powerful concentrations
of financial power and were looking far beyond American shores
for sources of their profits.
A decisive voice in this debate was the
chairman of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, John J.
McCloy. McCloy personally brought Kissinger down from Harvard
in the late 1950s, to shape the policy options being readied for
the nation by the 'Wise Men' of McCloy's Council on Foreign Relations.
McCloy, a Wall Street lawyer, was at the time chairman of the
Chase Manhattan Bank.
Chase Manhattan ... was the bank of 'Big Oil.' The large U.S.
oil multinationals and their New York bankers viewed the entire
world market as their domain in the 1950s, not the narrow confines
of the United States. Saudi Arabia, in a certain sense, was more
'strategic' for them than Texas...
The post-1957 U.S. policy debate was tilted
to the advantage of the international banks of Lower Manhattan
and Wall Street, through the influential national television and
newspaper media which they controlled. Their control of then-emerging
network television, centered in New York, where it enjoyed intimate
links with the big international banks ... and their control over
select news media such as the New York Times, were central to
the success of these New York interests in promoting policies
which went directly counter to the best interests of the nation
and its citizens at this critical turn. It was in this period
that these interests were popularly identified as the liberal
East Coast establishment.
Henry Ford once stated that he would gladly pay the highest wages
in industry, sell the world's cheapest car, and in the process
become the world's richest man - all by using the most modern
technology. Unfortunately, by the early 1960s most influential
voices in the U.S. policy establishment had forgotten Ford's lesson.
They were too obsessed with making a 'quick buck' by the typical
merchant's game of 'buy cheap, sell dear.' By the end of the 1950s,
the U.S. establishment had walked away from investment in rebuilding
American cities, from educating a more skilled labor force and
from investing in more modern factory production and improving
the national economy. Instead, their dollars flowed out of the
United States to grab up, 'on the cheap,' already-operating industrial
companies in western Europe, South America or the emerging economies
With higher interest rates to be earned abroad by buying up operating
western European companies on the cheap, New York bankers began
to turn their back on the United States. Europe was suffering
a huge shortage of capital because of the war and the collapse
of industry. As a result, Europe was forced to pay excessively
high interest rates to attract the only 'international' currency
then available - U.S. dollars from the large New York banks.
For their part, Chase Manhattan, Citibank
and the others took the chance to make windfall profits in Europe,
often doubling what their money would have earned if they had
invested in municipal bonds to rebuild U.S. sewage systems, bridges
or housing stock. The problem was that Washington, fearful of
alienating the powerful New York financial community, refused
to address this vital problem in any serious way. The money fled
U.S. shores for higher profits abroad.
By early 1957, for the first time since
the Second World War, funds began to flow out of the United States
in amounts greater than those coming in. During the period 1957
to 1965, U.S. annual net capital export into western Europe mushroomed
from less than $25 billion to more than $47 billion, a staggering
sum at the time.
But if it were only American dollars which
were leaving U.S. shores, that would have been one problem. The
added problem was that U.S. gold reserves also began what became,
increasingly after 1958, a continuous and at times precipitous
decline. The breakdown of the postwar Bretton Woods monetary system
was rapidly approaching, but American policy makers refused to
take heed. They were listening to the voices of the New York banks,
the big oil companies and the large American corporations, which
were beginning, after the 1957 recession, to turn to cheap labor
production outside the United States to improve their profit margins.
By the end of the 1950s, what had been
the overwhelming advantage of the postwar Bretton Woods system,
the United States dollar as the world's reserve currency, had
turned into a liability with a vengeance. As western Europe began
to achieve independent industrial stature again, with far higher
rates of productivity than the aging U.S. economy, this only dramatized
the growing weakness of the U.S. economic position by the time
of President Kennedy's inauguration in early 1961.
... Washington, under the growing influence of the powerful New
York banking community, refused to play by the very rules it had
imposed on its allies in 1944 [Bretton Woods]. New York banks
began to invest abroad in new sources of higher profits. The failure
of Washington effectively to challenge this vast outflow of vital
investment capital, under both Eisenhower and his Democratic successor,
Kennedy, was at the center of a problem which turned the decade
of the 1960s into a succession of ever worsening international
What New York's international bankers
were not eager to advertise was the fact that they were earning
huge profits by walking away from investing in America's future.
Between 1962 and 1965, U.S. corporations in western Europe earned
between 12 and 14 per cent return, according to a January 1967
presidential report to Congress. The same dollar investment in
U.S. industry earned less than half of that!
The banks quietly lobbied Washington to
keep their game going. They kept their dollars in Europe rather
than repatriating the profits to invest in American development.
This was the beginning of what came to be known as the Eurodollar
market. It was to be the cancer which, by the late 1970s, threatened
to destroy its entire host-the world monetary system.
It would, of course, have been far better
for the nation, and also for the rest of the world, had the U.S.
Congress and the White House insisted on tax and credit policies
to channel those billions, at fair rates of return, into new U.S.
plant and equipment, advanced technologies, transportation infrastructure,
modernization of the rotting rail system, and developing the untapped
industrial market potential of the Third World for U.S. industrial
exports. More sensible for the nation perhaps, but not for the
power of certain influential New York banks.
Volumes have been written since the tragic Vietnam war about the
reasons and causes for it. But, on one level, it was clear that
a significant faction of the American defense industry and New
York finance had encouraged the decision of Washington to go to
war, despite its absurd military justification and a divisive
domestic reaction, because the military buildup offered their
interests a politically saleable excuse to revive a massive diversion
of U.S. industry into the production of defense goods. More and
more during the 1960s, the heart of the U.S. economy was being
transformed into a kind of military economy, in which the cold
war against communist danger was used to justify tens of billions
of dollars of spending. The military spending became the backup
for the global economic interests of the New York financial and
oil interests, another echo of nineteenth-century British Empire,
dressed in the garb of twentieth-century anticommunism.
The Vietnam war strategy was deliberately
designed by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, National Security
Adviser McGeorge Bundy, 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 this defense component
of the economy. The American voter, Washington reasoned, would
accept large costs for a new war against an alleged 'godless encroachment
of communism' in Vietnam, despite the gaping U.S. budget deficits,
if this produced local jobs in defense plants.
Under the Bretton Woods rules, by inflating
the dollar through huge spending deficits at home, Washington,
in effect, could force Europe and other trading partners to 'swallow'
this U.S. war cost in the form of cheapened dollars. So long as
the United States refused to devalue the dollar against gold to
reflect the deterioration of U.S. economic performance since 1944,
Europe had to pay the cost by accepting dollars at the same ratio
as it had some 20 years before.
To finance the enormous deficits of his
Great Society program and the Vietnam buildup during the 1960s,
Johnson, fearful of losing votes if he raised taxes, simply printed
dollars, by selling more U .S. Treasury bonds to finance the deficits.
In the early 1960s, the U .S. 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
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 U.S. allies in Europe and
Japan, the Group of Ten countries, should ease the drain on U.S.
gold reserves by retaining their growing U.S. dollar reserves
instead of redeeming the dollars for U.S. gold, as mandated under
The European central banks earned interest
on these dollars by investing in U.S. government treasury bonds.
The net effect was that the European central banks thereby 'financed'
the huge U.S. deficits of the 1960s Vietnam debacle.
... on November 22, 1963, john E Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas,
Texas. New Orleans Judge Jim Garrison, at the time involved in
investigating leads to the assassination in his capacity as New
Orleans district attorney, years later continued to insist that
the murder had been carried out by the CIA, with the aid of select
organized crime figures, including Carlos Marcello. Kennedy had
among other things been on the verge of pulling out from Vietnam,
after talks with the former general Douglas A. MacArthur days
before his murder, a policy shift confirmed by his close friend
and adviser Arthur Schlesinger.
The reasons for the assassination of John
F. Kennedy have been a subject of much speculation. But what is
clear is that the young president was moving on a variety of strategic
fronts to establish his own mold for US policy, in a direction
which, in issue after issue, began to run at odds with the powerful
financial and political interests controlling the liberal East
LBJ ... escalated Vietnam from a CIA 'technical advisory,' in
a full-scale military conflict, pouring tens of billions of dollars
and 500,000 uniformed men into a self-defeating war in southeast
Asia. The war kept Wall Street bond markets busy financing a record
level of U.S. Treasury debt, while select defense-related U.S.
companies kept their profits flowing from the Asian campaign.
The president of the United States announced formal suspension
of dollar convertibility into gold [August 15, 1971], effectively
putting the world fully onto a dollar standard with no gold backing,
thereby unilaterally ripping apart the central provision of the
1944 Bretton Woods system. No longer could foreign holders of
U.S. dollars redeem their paper for U.S. gold reserves.
... The real architects of the Nixon strategy
were in the influential City of London merchant banks. Sir Siegmund
Warburg, Edmond de Rothschild, Jocelyn Hambro and others saw a
golden opportunity in Nixon's dissolution of the Bretton Woods
gold standard that summer of 1971. London was once again to become
a major center of world finance, and again on 'borrowed money,'
this time American Eurodollars.
After August 1971, the dominant U.S. policy
under the White House national security adviser, Henry A. Kissinger,
was to control, not to develop, economies throughout the world.
U.S. policy officials began proudly calling themselves 'neo-Malthusians.'
Population reduction in developing nations, rather than technology
transfer and industrial growth strategies, became the dominating
priority during the 1970s, yet another throwback to nineteenth-century
British colonial thinking.
In May 1973 ... a group of 84 of the world's top financial and
political insiders met at Saltsjöbaden, Sweden, the secluded
island resort of the Swedish Wallenberg banking family. This gathering
of Prince Bernhard's Bilderberg group heard an American participant,
Walter Levy, outline a 'scenario' for an imminent 400 per cent
increase in OPEC petroleum revenues. The purpose of the secret
Saltsjobaden 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 U.S. Secretary of State Kissinger
later called 'recycling the petrodollar flows.'
The American speaker to the Bilderberg
on Atlantic-Japanese energy policy, was clear enough. After stating
the prospect that future world oil needs would be supplied by
a small number of Middle East producing countries, the speaker
declared, prophetically: '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.' He then projected an OPEC Middle East oil revenue
rise, which would translate into just over 400 per cent.
... in order to tilt the balance of power
back to the advantage of Anglo-American financial interests and
the dollar ... they determined to use their most prized weapon
- control of the world's oil flows. Bilderberg policy was to trigger
a global oil embargo, in order to force a dramatic increase in
world oil prices. Since 1945, world oil had by international custom
been priced in dollars, since American oil companies dominated
the postwar market. A sudden sharp increase in the world price
of oil, therefore, meant an equally dramatic increase in world
demand for U.S. dollars to pay for that necessary oil.
Never in history had such a small circle
of interests, centered in London and New York, controlled so much
of the entire world's economic destiny. The Anglo-American financial
establishment had resolved to use their oil power in a manner
no one could have imagined possible. The very outrageousness of
their scheme was to their advantage, they clearly reckoned.
On October 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria invaded Israel, igniting what
became known as the Yom Kippur War. Contrary to popular impression,
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 constellation of events surrounding
the outbreak of the October War was secretly orchestrated by Washington
and London, using the powerful secret diplomatic channels developed
by Nixon's national security adviser, Henry Kissinger. Kissinger
effectively controlled the Israeli policy response through his
intimate relation with Israel's Washington ambassador, Simcha
Dinitz. In addition, Kissinger cultivated channels to the Egyptian
and Syrian side. His method was simply to misrepresent to each
party the critical elements of the other, ensuring the war and
its subsequent Arab oil embargo.
U.S. intelligence reports, including intercepted
communications from Arab officials confirming the buildup for
war, were firmly suppressed by Kissinger, who was by then Nixon's
intelligence 'czar.' The war and its aftermath, Kissinger's infamous
'shuttle diplomacy,' were scripted in Washington along the precise
lines of the Bilderberg deliberations in Saltsjobaden the previous
May, some six months before the outbreak of the war. Arab oil-producing
nations were to be the scapegoats for the coming rage of the world,
while the Anglo-American interests responsible stood quietly in
One enormous consequence of the ensuing 400 percent rise in OPEC
oil prices was that investments of hundreds of millions of dollars
by British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell and other Anglo-American
petroleum concerns in the risky North Sea could produce oil at
a profit. It is a curious fact of the time that the profitability
of these new North Sea oilfields was not at all secure until after
the OPEC price rise.
... the oil crisis hit full force in late
1973, just as the president of the United States was becoming
personally embroiled in what came to be called the 'Watergate
affair,' leaving Henry Kissinger as de facto president, running
U.S. policy during the crisis.
The U.S. Treasury, under Jack Bennett, the man who had helped
steer Nixon's fateful August 1971 dollar policy, had established
a secret accord with the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency, SAMA,
finalized in a February 1975 memo from U.S. Assistant Treasury
Secretary Jack F. Bennett to Secretary of State Kissinger. Under
the terms of the agreement, a sizeable part of the huge new Saudi
oil revenue windfall was to be invested in financing the U.S.
government deficits. A young Wall Street investment banker with
the leading London-based Eurobond firm of White Weld & Co.,
David Mulford, was sent to Saudi Arabia to become the principal
'investment adviser' to SAMA; he was to guide the Saudi petrodollar
investments to the correct banks, naturally in London and New
York. The Bilderberg scheme was operating just as planned.
Kissinger, as Nixon's all-powerful national
security adviser already firmly in control of all U.S. intelligence
estimates, secured control of U.S. foreign policy as well, persuading
Nixon to name him secretary of state in the weeks just prior to
the outbreak of the October Yom Kippur War. Indicative of his
central role in events, Kissinger retained both titles, as head
of the White House National Security Council and as secretary
of state, something no other individual has ever done, before
or since. No other single person during the last months of the
Nixon presidency wielded as much absolute power as did Henry Kissinger.
To add insult to injury, Kissinger was given the 1973 Nobel Peace
Following a meeting in Teheran on January
1, 1974, a second price increase of more than 100 per cent brought
OPEC benchmark oil prices to $11.65. This was done on the surprising
demand of the Shah of Iran, who had been secretly put up to it
by Henry Kissinger. Only months earlier, the Shah had opposed
the OPEC increase to $3.01 for fear that this would force Western
exporters to charge more for the industrial equipment the Shah
sought to import for Iran's ambitious industrialization. The support
of Washington and the West for Israel in the October War had fed
OPEC anger at the meetings. Even Kissinger's own State Department
had not been informed of his secret machinations with the Shah.
From 1949 until the end of 1970, Middle
East crude oil prices had averaged approximately $1.90 per barrel.
They had risen to $3.01 in early 1973, at the time of the fateful
Saltsjöbaden meeting of the Bilderberg group, which discussed
an imminent 400 per cent future rise in OPEC's price. By January
1974, that 400 per cent increase was a fait accompli.
The social impact of the oil embargo on
the United States in late 1973 could be described as panic. Throughout
1972 and early 1973, the large multinational oil companies, led
by Exxon, had pursued a curious policy of creating a short supply
of domestic crude oil. They were allowed to do this under an unusual
series of decisions made by President Nixon on the advice of his
aides. When the embargo hit in November 1973, therefore, the impact
could not have been more dramatic.
While Kissinger's 1973 oil shock had a devastating impact on world
industrial growth, it had an enormous benefit for certain established
interests - the major New York and London banks, and the Seven
Sisters oil multinationals of the United States and Britain. By
1974, Exxon had overtaken General Motors as the largest American
corporation in gross revenues. Her sisters, including Mobil, Texaco,
Chevron and Gulf, were not far behind.
The bulk of the OPEC dollar revenues,
Kissinger's 'recycled petrodollars,' was deposited with the leading
banks of London and New York, the banks which dealt in dollars
as well as international oil trade. Chase Manhattan, Citibank,
Manufacturers Hanover, Bank of America, Barclays, Lloyds, Midland
Bank-all enjoyed the windfall profits of the oil crisis.
Beginning in the 1970s, an awesome propaganda offensive was launched
from select Anglo-American think tanks and journals, intended
to shape a new 'limits to growth' agenda, which would ensure the
'success' of the dramatic oil shock strategy. The American oilman
present at the May 1973 Saltsjöbaden meeting of the Bilderberg
group, Robert 0. Anderson, was a central figure in the implementation
of the ensuing Anglo-American ecology agenda. It was to become
one of the most successful frauds in history.
Anderson and his Atlantic Richfield Oil
Co. funneled millions of dollars through their Atlantic Richfield
Foundation into select organizations to target nuclear energy.
One of the prime beneficiaries of Anderson's largesse was a group
called Friends of the Earth, which was organized in this time
with a $200,000 grant from Anderson. One of the earliest actions
of Anderson's Friends of the Earth was an assault on the German
nuclear industry, through such antinuclear actions as the anti-Brockdorf
demonstrations in 1976, led by Friends of the Earth leader Holger
Strohm. The director of Friends of the Earth in France, Brice
Lalonde, was the Paris partner of the Rockefeller family law firm
Coudert Brothers, and became Mitterrand's environment minister
in 1989. It was Friends of the Earth which was used to block a
major Japanese-Australian uranium supply agreement. In November
1974, Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka went to Canberra to meet
Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. The two made a commitment,
potentially worth billions of dollars, for Australia to supply
Japan's needs for future uranium ore and enter a joint project
to develop uranium enrichment technology. British uranium mining
giant Rio Tinto Zinc secretly deployed Friends of the Earth in
Australia to mobilize opposition to the pending Japanese agreement,
resulting some months later in the fall of Whitlam's government.
Friends of the Earth had 'friends' in very high places in London
But Robert 0. Anderson's major vehicle
for spreading the new 'limits to growth' ideology among American
and European establishment circles was his Aspen Institute for
Humanistic Studies. With Anderson as chairman and Atlantic Richfield
head Thornton Bradshaw as vice-chairman, the Aspen Institute in
the early 1970s was a major financial conduit for the creation
of the establishment's new antinuclear agenda.
... Robert 0. Anderson brought in Joseph
Slater from McGeorge Bundy's Ford Foundation to serve as Aspen's
president. It was indeed a close-knit family in the Anglo-American
establishment of the early 1970s. The initial project Slater launched
at Aspen was the preparation of an international organizational
offensive against industrial growth and especially nuclear energy,
using the auspices (and the money) of the United Nations. Slater
secured support of Sweden's UN ambassador, Sverker Aastrom, who,
in the face of strenuous objections from developing countries,
steered a proposal through the United Nations for an international
conference on the environment.
From the outset, the June 1972 Stockholm
UN Conference on the Environment was run by operatives of Anderson's
The 1972 Stockholm conference created the necessary international
organizational and publicity infrastructure, so that by the time
of the Kissinger oil shock of 1973-74, a massive antinuclear propaganda
offensive could be launched, with the added assistance of millions
of dollars readily available from the oil-linked channels of the
Atlantic Richfield Company, the Rockefeller Brothers' Fund and
other such elite Anglo-American establishment circles. Among the
groups which were funded by these people at the time were organizations
including the ultra-elitist World Wildlife Fund, then chaired
by the Bilderberg's Prince Bernhard and later by Royal Dutch Shell's
Indicative of the financial establishment's
overwhelming influence in the American and British media is the
fact that during this period no public outcry was heard about
the probable conflict of interest involved in Robert 0. Anderson's
well-financed antinuclear offensive, and the fact that his Atlantic
Richfield Oil Co. was one of the major beneficiaries from the
1974 price increase of oil. Anderson's ARCO had invested tens
of millions of dollars in high-risk oil infrastructure in Alaska's
Prudhoe Bay and Britain's North Sea, together with Exxon, British
Petroleum, Shell and the other Seven Sisters.
Had the 1974 oil crisis not raised the
market price of oil to $11.65 per barrel or thereabouts, Anderson's
investments in the North Sea and Alaska, as well as those of British
Petroleum, Exxon and the others, would have brought financial
ruin. To ensure a friendly press voice in Britain, Anderson at
this time purchased the London Observer. Virtually no one asked
if Anderson and his influential friends might have known in advance
that Kissinger would create the conditions for a 400 per cent
oil price rise.
One of the most targeted countries for this new Anglo-American
antinuclear offensive was Germany. While France's nuclear program
was equally if not more ambitious, Germany was deemed an area
where Anglo-American intelligence assets had greater likelihood
of success, given their history in the postwar occupation of the
Federal Republic. Almost as soon as the ink had dried on the Schmidt
government's 1975 nuclear development program, an offensive was
A key operative in this new project was
a young woman with a German mother and an American stepfather,
who had lived in the United States until 1970, working for U.S.
Senator Hubert Humphrey, among other things. Petra K. Kelly had
developed close ties in her U.S. years with one of the principal
new Anglo-American antinuclear organizations created by McGeorge
Bundy's Ford Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Natural Resources Defense Council included Barbara Ward (Lady
Jackson) and Laurance Rockefeller among its board members at the
time. In Germany, Kelly began organizing legal assaults against
the construction of the German nuclear program during the mid
1970s, resulting in costly delays and eventual large cuts in the
entire German nuclear plan.
0n April 24, 1974, in the midst of the oil crisis, the White House
national security adviser, Henry Alfred Kissinger, issued National
Security Council Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), on the subject
of 'Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security
and Overseas Interests.' It was directed to all cabinet secretaries,
the military Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as the CIA and other
key agencies. On October 16, 1975, on Kissinger's urging, President
Gerald Ford issued a memorandum confirming the need for 'U.S.
leadership in world population matters,' based on the contents
of the classified NSSM 200 document. The document made Malthusianism,
for the first time in American history, an explicit item of security
policy of the government of the United States. More bitterly ironic
was the fact that it was initiated by a German-born Jew. Even
during the Nazi years, government officials in Germany were more
guarded about officially espousing such goals.
NSSM 200 argued that population expansion
in select developing countries which also contain key strategic
resources necessary to the U.S. economy posed potential U.S. 'national
security threats.' The study warned that, under pressure from
expanding domestic populations, countries with essential raw materials
will tend to demand higher prices and better terms of trade for
their exports to the United States. In this context, NSSM 200
identified a target list of 13 countries singled out as 'strategic
targets' for U.S. efforts at population control. The list, which
was drawn up in 1974, is instructive. No doubt, as with other
major decisions of Kissinger, the selection of countries was made
after close consultation with the British Foreign Office.
Kissinger explicitly stated in the memorandum,
'how much more efficient expenditures for population control might
be than [would be funds for] raising production through direct
investments in additional irrigation and power projects and factories.'
British nineteenth-century imperialism could have expressed it
no better. By the mid-1970s, the government of the United States,
with this secret policy declaration, had committed itself to an
agenda which would contribute to its own economic demise, as well
as bringing untold famine, misery and unnecessary death throughout
the developing sector. The 13 target countries named by Kissinger's
study were Brazil, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria,
Mexico, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, Ethiopia
A Century of War