We have previously discussed the power and membership of the Trilateral Commission, and we now need to discuss the use of this power and the influence of the Commission in a broader framework of associated elitist institutions.


The Trilateral Commission does not exist in a political vacuum; it co-exists with a group of organizations which have, since about 1920, effectively taken over political power in the United States, dominated domestic and foreign policy and presently appears to be totally unrepresentative of American society as a whole.

In addition to the influence of the Trilateral Commission we have:

  • The Council on Foreign Relations

  • The Foreign Policy Association

  • The Atlantic Council

  • The Commission on Critical Choices for Americans

Together with think tanks such as Brookings Institute and Hoover Institution, these organizations constitute the source of foreign and domestic policy making in the United States. This is where ideas are generated, policies discussed, and subsequent reports written. Ideas, policies and reports are subsequently considered and discussed by all interested members of the above organizations and sooner or later a large proportion of the proposals find their way into executive decisions and/or Congressional legislation.

The overriding characteristic of this procedure is one of intellectual closed-mindedness -intellectual incest might be the best way to describe these policy creating “backwaters.”

The dismal failure to create a prosperous and peaceful world during the decades-long era of American supremacy is obvious.




Founded after World War I, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has been for fifty years the undisputed creator of American foreign policy.

As far back as 1959 the CFR was explicit about a need for world government:

“The U.S. must strive to build a new international order... including states labeling themselves as ‘socialist’... to maintain and gradually increase the authority of the United Nations.”1

The site for UN headquarters in New York was donated by John D. Rockefeller, Sr., and the CFR world architects for many years tried to use the United Nations as a means to develop an image of world order.

Recently the focus of world order action has shifted to the Trilateral Commission, and CFR members have complained they have lost power and prestige. “We don’t have the cutting edge we once had. We’re not really in the center of things,” stated one CFR member.2

The problem with the CFR is that it became too large and too diverse to act as a “cutting edge” in policy creation. With several thousand members and an internal policy of bringing in membership from a diverse geographical and racial standpoint, the CFR lost its foreign affairs expertise and prestige.


Today the political action has moved from the CFR to the Trilateral Commission, as aptly described by Newsweek:

“Since the end of World War II U.S. foreign policy has been dominated largely by the circle of influential men who belong to New York’s Council on Foreign Relations. From Franklin D. Roosevelt to Jimmy Carter, every President has recruited council luminaries -its membership roll is a sort of Who’s Who of the Eastern Establishment elite -for high level diplomatic trouble-shooting missions or for top jobs in his Administration. But the council is not universally admired.


Some outsiders view it as a kind of shadow government; others dismiss it as a private club where aging foreign-policy mandarins pontificate over tea and cookies. Both views are exaggerated, but of late even some of the council’s elders have grown alarmed by a sense of their organization’s waning influence. The result has been a genteel furor within the book-lined confines of the council’s four-story headquarters on Park Avenue.”3



Founded in 1918 a little before the CFR, the Foreign Policy Association (FPA) is a tax exempt educational organization supposedly to inform citizens on “challenges and problems of the United States foreign policy.”4 The FPA is purely an elitist organization. Out of fifty-six board members no fewer than twenty-nine (fifty-two percent) are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

However, only one FPA member, Robert R. Bowie, is a Trilateral Commissioner, so the interlock with Trilateralism is minor.




The board of directors of the Atlantic Institute is comprised as follows:

  • Chairman: Kenneth Rush, former Deputy Secretary of State and Ambassador to France and Germany.

  • Vice Chairman: Henry H. Fowler, partner, Goldman Sachs & Co. and former Secretary of the Treasury.

  • W. Randolph Burgess, former Under Secretary of the Treasury and Ambassador to NATO and the OEEC.

  • Theodore C. Achilles, former Counselor of the State Department and Ambassador to Peru.

  • Harlan Cleveland, director, Aspen Program in International Affairs, and former Ambassador to NATO.

  • Emilio G. Collado, former executive vice-president, Exxon Corporation and executive director, World Bank.

  • Andrew J. Goodpastor, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

  • Wm. McChesney Martin, former chairman, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System.

  • David Packard, chairman, Hewlett-Packard Company, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense.

  • Eugene V. Rostow, professor of law, Yale University, and former Under Secretary of State.

The chairman of the Atlantic Council, Kenneth Rush, was formerly of Union Carbide Corporation. He is remembered for his actively vocal role in aiding transfer of technology with military capabilities to the Soviet Union. Union Carbide is part of the “revolving door” between Washington and the New York elite.

A vice-chairman of the Atlantic Council is David Packard,a prominent supporter of subsidization of the Soviet Union.

A comparison of the general directors of the Atlantic Council (not on the board) compared to the Trilateral Commission is significant.

The following 11 Atlantic Council directors are also Trilateral Commissioners.

  • David Packard Vice-chairman of Atlantic Council

  • David M. Abshire Director, Atlantic Council

  • Anne Armstrong Former US Ambassador

  • Sol C. Chaikin Trade unionist

  • George Franklin, Jr. Coordinator of Trilateral Commission

  • Thomas L. Hughes President, Carnegie Endowment

  • Henry A. Kissinger Executive board of Trilateral Commission

  • Winston Lord Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations

  • Charles W. Robinson Under Secretary of State

  • Robert V. Roosa Brown Brothers, Harriman

  • Philip H. Trezise Former Assistant Secretary of State

  • Marina v.N. Whitman Vice-president of General Motors

Also, George Ball is an honorary director of The Atlantic Counci1.

What are the objectives of the Atlantic Council? In its own words:

“The Atlantic Council, established seventeen years ago, seeks to promote closer mutually advantageous ties between Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. The objective is greater security and more effective harmonization of economic, monetary, energy and resource policies for the benefit of the individual in his personal, business, financial and other relations across national boundaries.”6

Then comes a key phrase:

“In an increasingly interdependent world where ‘foreign’ policy is ever more closely intertwined with ‘domestic’ policies there is a clear need for both official and private consideration of means of dealing with problems which transcend national frontiers. “7

Note the assumption of an “increasingly interdependent world.” By placing “foreign” and “domestic” in quotes, Atlanticists are clearing the way to destroy the distinction between foreign and domestic policies, a vital step in the road to a unified world under elitist control.8




In its own words,

“The Commission on Critical Choices for Americans is a nationally representative, bipartisan group of 42 prominent Americans, brought together under the chairmanship of Nelson A. Rockefeller. Their assignment: To identify the critical choices which will confront America as it embarks on its third century as a nation and to determine the realistic and desirable objectives this nation can achieve by 1985 and the year 2000. “Because of the complexity and interdependence of issues facing the world today, the Commission organized its work into six study panels, which emphasize the interrelationships of the critical choices rather than studying each one separately.


“The six study panels are:

Panel I—Energy and Its Relationship to Ecology: Economics and World Stability.
Panel II—Food, Health, World Population and Quality of Life.
Panel III—Raw Materials, Industrial Development, Capital Formation, Employment and World Trade.
Panel IV—International Trade and Monetary Systems, Inflation and the Relationships Among Differing Economics Systems.
Panel V—Change, National Security and Peace, and

Panel VI -Quality of Life of Individuals and Communities in the U.S.A.”9

In brief, the Commission is a Rockefeller study group funded by a Rockefeller organization:

“The Third Century Corporation, a New York not for-profit organization, was created to finance the work of the
Commission. Since the start of its activities in the fall of 1973, the Corporation has received contributions and pledges from individuals and from foundations well-known for their support of public interest activities. “10

The membership of the Commission reflects this Rockefeller influence:




Chairman -Nelson E. Rockefeller
Executive Director -Henry L. Diamond

Members Ex-Officio
• Gerald R. Ford
• Henry A. Kissinger
• George P. Shultz
• Mike Mansfield
• Hugh Scott
• Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr.
• John J. Rhodes

• Ivan Allen, Jr.
• Martin Anderson
• Robert O. Anderson
• William O. Baker
• Daniel J. Boorstin
• Norman E. Borlaug
• Ernest L. Boyer
• Guido Calabresi
• John S. Foster, Jr.
• Luther H. Foster
• Nancy Hanks Kissinger
• Belton Kleberg Johnson
• Clarence B. Jones
• Joseph Lane Kirkland
• John H. Knowles, M.D.
• David S. Landes
• Mary Wells Lawrence
• Sol M. Linowitz
• Ed ward J. Logue
• Clare Boothe Luce
• Paul W. McCracken
• Daniel Patrick Moynihan
• Bess Myerson
• William S. Paley
• Russell W. Peterson
• Wilson Riles
• Laurence S. Rockefeller
• William J. Ronan
• Oscar M. Ruebhausen
• Joseph C. Swidler
• Edward Teller
• Marina v.N. Whitman
• Carroll L. Wilson
• George D. Woods

Of the above members an unusual number received personal gifts from Nelson Rockefeller and were consequently under some obligation to the Rockefeller family. We know of the following cases:

  • Henry A. Kissinger. Received a $50,000.00 gift in January 1969.

  • Nancy Hanks. Later married to Henry A. Kissinger.

  • Edwin J. Logue. In 1968 received a gift of $31,389 followed by another $145,000 of which $45,000 was repaid.

  • William J. Ronan. Received a gift of $75,000 in 1958 and $550,000 in 1974.

  • Henry L. Diamond. Executive Director of the Commission, received a gift of $100,000 in December 1973. 11





To identify precisely elitist control over independent policy research organizations, we compared the membership of the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Commission on Critical Choices for Americans to find out how many members of one organization served with other organizations. (the Foreign Policy Association appears to be a special case which we will note only briefly.)

We grouped the interlocks into three categories: Quadruple, Triple and Double Hats - depending upon his/her membership in these organizations.




The Rockefeller family is represented directly in all four organizations, and also indirectly, as will be discussed later. David Rockefeller is chairman of both the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.


The late Nelson Rockefeller was an honorary director of the Atlantic Council and created the Commission on Critical Choices for Americans. In addition, Laurence Rockefeller served on the Commission on Critical Choices. In brief, there is direct, at-the-top Rockefeller family participation in all four organizations. Logically, these organizations do not reflect American society as a whole, but presumably those interests represented by the Rockefeller family - whatever those interests might be.

This extraordinary influence cannot be denied except by some intellectually dishonest mind “blank.” Those researchers and journalists who choose to ignore this unparalleled influence over domestic and foreign policy making need to reconsider their basic moral position. Without doubt, the influence of the Rockefeller family on US policy making is now and has been for many decades a topic demanding urgent and thorough investigation.

Apart from the Rockefeller family, the most notable “quadruple hat” is that of Henry Kissinger.


Let’s briefly look at the Kissinger- Rockefeller ties:

. In 1955, Kissinger, then an obscure Harvard professor, was chosen to head the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Objective? To develop studies to formulate American foreign policy for the 1960’s. An ambitious and farsighted project; however, we are unable to determine what constitutional or moral sanction gave the Rockefeller family the right to determine US policy.

. Nelson Rockefeller has described Kissinger as a “close personal friend and associate for more than eighteen years.” (1974)

. In January 1969, Kissinger resigned as a personal foreign policy consultant to Nelson Rockefeller and became assistant to President Nixon for national security affairs. Nelson Rockefeller presented Kissinger with a gift of $50,000 at that time. The gift was made in Rockefeller’s own words as a token of “my affection and appreciation.”


. The amount paid by Nelson Rockefeller to Kissinger over the period 1958 to 1968 is a matter of public record.

These amounts are not unsubstantial:

1958 $3,000
1959   7,000
1960 12,000
1961 12,000
1962 12,000
1963 14,000
1964 18,000
1965 11,250
1966   9,000
1967 15,500
1968 28,000
1969 50,000
(The last gift was on joining President Nixon.)

The official report notes that these payments were for work “done for the family rather than on a consulting basis through any governmental agency.”12 In summary, quadruple hat Kissinger can without prejudice be described as a hired intellectual servant of the Rockefeller family.




When we come to look at triple hats, we notice at least two interesting facts: 1) There are seven triple hats, compared to only three quadruple hats and 2) with minor exceptions, these triple hats have a Rockefeller or international banking association.

The triple hats that sit on the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations and the Atlantic Council include:

George S. Franklin, Winston Lord, Robert Roosa, George Ball, Thomas L. Hughes, Charles W. Robinson and Philip Trezise.

George S. Franklin was formerly coordinator of the Atlantic Council, executive director of the Council on Foreign Relations and is presently coordinator of the Trilateral Commission. Thus, in one pair of hands, there is concentrated the executive power, wielded by the secretary of a committee of three policymaking organizations. Since the Committee on Critical Choices was a temporary organization, there was no coordinating required and presumably no requirement for George Franklin’s talents.

Winston Lord is president of the Council on Foreign Relations (David Rockefeller is chairman), a director of the Atlantic Council and a Trilateral Commissioner.

Robert Roosa is a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and shuttles between a partnership in Brown Brothers, Harriman (Harriman is prominent in the military buildup of the Soviet Union through US technology) and sub-cabinet posts in Washington.

George Ball is a partner in another international Wall Street banking firm -Lehman Brothers -and a long time shuttler between Washington political and banking circles.

The remaining triple hat is Marina v. Neumann Whitman, a former professor of economics at the University of Pittsburgh and recently a vice president at General Motors.

Apart from virtually unknown Whitman, the Rockefeller interests are the only individual interests represented on all four policy-making bodies.

We might ask how the impressive investigative powers of The Washington Post and the New York Times managed to miss such an obvious conflict of interest; or, for that matter, we might ask the same question about the Conservative Digest.




When we get to double hats, the extraordinary overlap among these organizations is identified.


No less than sixty-five percent of the directors of the Atlantic Council are also members of the CFR, including its chairman Kenneth Rush, a key supporter of aid to the Soviet Union - and all seven vice-presidents except for David Packard, who is a double hat on the Trilateral Commission and CFR.) Out of eighty-two directors of the Atlantic Council, no fewer than fifty-three members of the CFR and out of twenty-four honorary directors, fourteen are also members of the CFR.


That gives us a total of seventy-four members out of a total of one hundred fourteen Atlantic Council directors.

The interlock that will interest most readers is that between the traditional elitist foreign policy base (CFR) and the newer elitist vehicle, the Trilateral Commission. The authors compared the 1977-78 CRR and the 1978 Trilateral Commission membership lists.

The highlights of the interlock are as follows:

. Out of ninety-one North American Trilateral Commissioners, forty-eight (fifty-three percent) are members of the CFR. (Remember this also includes Canadian Commissioners, so the purely US figure is closer to sixty percent.)
. When we come to the category “Former Members in Public Service,” the percentage is almost unbelievable. Of eighteen Commissioners who served in Washington in the Carter administration, fifteen were members of the CFR - This is eighty-three per cent!

The three Trilateral Commissioners not members of CFR but who were in Washington are Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Lucy Wilson Benson, who later became US Under-Secretary of State.


In conclusion, we can readily see the tremendous overlap in membership and control of these important policy-making organizations.




I. Study No. Seven, quoted in Organization #11, Network of Patriotic Letter writers.
2. New York Times, November 21,1971, p. 2 co!. 1.
3. Angus Deming and Tony Fuller, Foreign Policy: Mandarins in Trouble. Newsweek, March 28, 1977.
4. Whitney H. Shepardson, Early History of the Council on Foreign Relations. p. 8.
5. See information contained in footnote number 8.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. For further information, contact The Atlantic Council of the United States, 1616 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 and Report on the Foreign Policy Association published by Doorstep Savannah, 409 East Liberty Street, Savannah, Georgia. Enclose $1.00.
9. Helen Kitchen, Africa: From Mystery To Maze. Critical Choices for Americans, Volume XI, pp v-vi.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.

Back to Contents







Trilateral foreign policy as it was implemented in the Carter administration appeared to be intent on donating American assets and enterprises to the Marxist world as rapidly as public awareness will allow. This observation is not limited to this author.


In fact, Vermont Royster writing in The Wall Street Journal made a new high for that publication, which is normally subservient to Trilateral ambitions; Royster commented on the new Carter agreement with Communist China:

“The Carter administration has agreed to normalization of relations with the People’s Republic -i.e., full diplomatic recognition -on terms no different from those the Chinese would have welcomed at any time since 1972.

“Moreover, we suddenly accepted the Chinese terms, previously rejected by Presidents Nixon and Ford, not because of any new necessity for the U.S. to normalize those relations at this time. The U.S. could have continued the existing relationship, awkward though it was, almost indefinitely without any injury to our national interests.

“Instead we simply accepted every condition the People’s Republic has demanded all along, including a formal acceptance by us, without any qualification, of the People’s Republic claim that Taiwan is an integral part of Mainland China.”1

In short, we have one more example of the American proclivity to think that reaching an agreement is somehow more important than what’s in the agreement.

Moreover, this inclination toward giving everything away is seen by Trilaterals as an imperative. Witness Zbigniew Brzezinski writing at the time of the Communist China debacle:

“And, last but not least, we have to accommodate very broadly with the People’s Republic of China. It represents one-fourth of humanity, and as extremely gifted and creative segment of humanity, with whom we have many common interests. These interests are long-term, not tactically anti-Soviet; they are much more connected with our fundamental view of a world of diversity and not a world dominated by this or that power. “2



The Carter administration agreement with Communist China, the so-called normalization of relations, was an extraordinary treaty. All the Chinese terms, including those rejected by Presidents Nixon and Ford, were totally accepted in the Trilateral negotiations (the negotiators were all Trilaterals). On the spot in Peking was Leonard Woodcock. In Washington were Cyrus Vance and Warren Christopher (Under Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.)

There was no pressure to make an agreement at this time from the strategic or political viewpoint -so we must look to the multinationals for an answer. What do they gain? Is the China treaty a duplicate of the early 1920-30 Soviet agreement? A device to fill multinational order books and expand the loan base of international banks?

The United States was in an extremely strong bargaining position. The Chinese need US technology to survive and US credits to buy technology. They need the US as an ally against Russian intrusions over the Chinese border and recognition by the US gives the Chinese Communists a status they can achieve in no other way.

Yet the United States capitulated without a whimper, very much like the Vietnamese situation when the US got sucked into a major war without plan or purpose where some 50,000 Americans were killed. The battlefield was abandoned at a time when America still had the absolute capability to finish the military job. In other words, we apparently did not know why we were in Vietnam in the first place. When we were involved, we spent billions on war materials and even then lacked the will to use those weapons.

In this instance and others we can find a common thread, a common explanation. In science, the answer that most likely is true, is that answer which fits the largest number of cases or events. Is there profit for Wall Street in recognizing Communist China? Was there also profit in $300 billion of Vietnamese military contracts? In the same way, there was profit in saving the Soviets and building the Soviet Five-Year Plans in the 1930’s?

This is the simplest, most plausible answer. It fits the greatest number of cases -and this is where Trilateralism comes in. Trilateralism is the vehicle by which some banking interests and multinationals carry out their policy objectives.

The Trilateral opening to Communist China also reveals a total failure to recognize the human cost of Chinese Communism: 200 million Chinese dead in the thirty years of the Revolution. During one particular campaign, Let a Million Flowers Bloom, Chinese Communists lifted their restrictions on freedom of speech and action. Many Chinese then took the bait to criticize the regime. After a few months of freedom of speech the Chinese government promptly arrested the dissidents and used their own words as evidence to send them to labor camps, prisons, or to their death.

Internationalist businessmen are adept at telling each other how nonpolitical and smart they are to ignore civil and social conditions while concentrating on the business at hand. The profit statement is the guide: hard-core amorality.

The dangerous illusions Trilaterals hold about Russia and China do not therefore stem from ignorance of the facts -their actions stem from extreme shortsightedness and amorality. An upcoming contract for a multinational corporation has total precedence over any nonsense about human rights. While, for example, Trilateral J. Paul Austin3 may want to sell Coca-Cola to 800 million Chinese, Austin seems to have little interest in what happened to tens of millions of the less fortunate Chinese.

The outright betrayal of Taiwan in the clear, stark words of the official agreement reads as follows:

“The government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China, and Taiwan is part of China.”4

It is difficult to find any historical parallel where a country has acknowledged the slaughter of 200 million people by creating an alliance with that country. Possibly the closest parallel is Hitler’s alliance with Stalin in 1939 after Stalin had murdered millions of peasants and Hitler had begun to move against his enemies.

For Trilaterals, human rights are subordinate to their objective of world control. Witness the following statement:

“...the support for human rights will have to be balanced against other important goals of world order. Some Trilateral conceptions of detente with the Soviet Union and other communist states tend to conflict with a policy promoting human rights.”5

The drive to open up Communist China as a captive market for globalist corporations has its parallel in the early days of the Soviet Union.




Many of the same companies now in China (some have since changed their names or merged with other companies) were equally responsible for rescuing the infant and collapsing Soviet Russia in 1922. In the early 1920’s the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. The only industrial structure was that of the Czars. Industry was dormant, not destroyed as Soviet propagandists would have us believe. Foreign firms, mainly American and German, came in to start up the sleeping Czarist industry and remained to build the Five-Year Plans.


Why? Because the Soviets had killed or dispersed the skilled engineers and managers needed to run industry.


As Soviet Commissar Krassif phrased the problem:

“Anyone can help pull down a house; there are but a few who can rebuild. In Russia there happened to be far fewer than anywhere else.”6

Communist China today is in the same situation as Soviet Russia in the 1920’s. To quote a recent statement by Chaing Ching-Kuo of Taiwan:

“The Chinese Communists are on the verge of collapse at this moment. The United States’ establishment of relations with the Communist is to help save a bandit regime that massacres millions and millions of compatriots. Therefore, America is the biggest sinner in history. “7

The same multinationals that built the Soviet Union into a vast military power are now doing the same with Communist China. China suffers from widespread electricity shortages and has had to buy Westinghouse-engineered nuclear reactors from France. The iron and steel industry is backward and inefficient. Planned increases are based on use of Western technology, as were the Soviets’ in the early 1920’s and 1930’s.


The following table illustrates how American firms involved in the USSR -even before establishment of diplomatic relations -have also been negotiating with Communist China, and in some cases, like Coca-Cola, well before the establishment of diplomatic relations.

Take the example of Boeing Aircraft (T .A. Wilson is chairman of the board). In the 1930’s Boeing supplied technical assistance to the growing Soviets. The Soviet I-16 fighter was patterned on the Boeing P-26. The Soviet TU-4 four-engine bomber was a copy of the Boeing B-29 and could only have been reproduced with US assistance. Boeing is now selling to Communist China.

Another example is UOP (Universal Oil Products), now a subsidiary of Signal Oil Company. In the 1930s UOP had contracts in the USSR for construction of hydrogenation plants, which were of vital importance for military purposes. Up to 1938 the Soviets were unable to produce 87-94 octane gasoline for aviation use. Hydrogenation plants built by UOP converted 85 octane gasoline from the Saratov and Grozny refineries into 95 octane avgas. Currently, UOP is one of the first American firms in China to develop petrochemical industry -also vital for war purposes.

Yet another example is Ingersoll-Rand which was represented in the Soviet Union by Armand Hammer (now chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corporation) as early as 1918. At that time Armand Hammer’s father, Julius Hammer, was secretary of the Communist Party USA. Ingersoll-Rand became a prime seller of technology to the USSR. In 1979, Ingersoll Rand is following the same road with Communist China.

Dozens of firms can be cited with similar stories. As previously noted, US multinationals built Soviet power. This has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of lives in Korea and Vietnam. Now these same multinationals have begun to build Communist China. The following table demonstrates the widespread fundamental nature of the early Chinese contracts.


Apart from Coca-Cola, they involve advanced technology with outright military application.



Chase Manhattan was the first bank into Communist China and probably has the most to profit from its build-up. Back in the 1920’s the forerunner of the Chase Manhattan Bank, Chase National Bank, was deeply involved in building the Soviets - some of this activity was called illegal and was certainly against US official policy.

Both Chase National and Equitable Trust were the leaders in the Soviet credit business at a time when the State Department had specifically banned credits to Soviet Russia. Chase evaded the ban by accepting platinum from Soviet mines and advancing credit on the basis of these shipments. Again, this was strictly against US policy in the 1920’s.

The president of the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce in the 1920’s was Reeve Schley, also a vice-president of Chase National.


The Chamber was a pressure group which sought to change US policy into recognition of the USSR and open up the Russian market for some major American firms and banks. To this end, the Chamber used known Communists as agents; for example, a Chamber delegation to Russia in 1936 was lead by Charles Haddell Smith, previously described by the State Department as “in the employ of the Soviets and a member of the Soviet Peasant International.”8


Members of the Chamber in the 1920’s included many of the firms opening up the China trade today, including Deere & Co., Westinghouse and Chase National.





Some major important China contracts link to Trilateralists and their corporate affiliates are:

. The key financial backer of Jimmy Carter was Coca Cola chairman and Trilateral Commissioner J. Paul Austin, Coca-Cola will have a soft drink monopoly in China. Maybe the Chinese don’t yet know what a soft drink tastes like, but 800 million Chinese are prime market for the 21st century. Coca-Cola has been negotiating for ten years with the Chinese, i.e. long before any public surfacing of a “new” China policy and presumably while the Chinese aided the killing of Americans in Vietnam.
. A consortium of US oil companies in negotiating development of Chinese petroleum resources. These include Exxon (David Rockefeller has dominant interests), Pennzoil, Phillips and Union Oil.
. Time magazine Man-of-the-Year was the Chinese Communist leader, Teng Hsiao-Ping. Trilateralist Hedley Donovan was editor-in-chief of Time.
. The first American banks into China were Chase Manhattan and the First National Bank of Chicago.
. Japanese Trilaterals are heavily involved in construction of Communist China - as described below.

Trilateral policy on Communist China has been spelled out clearly. Trilateral-Chinese cooperation has been proposed in the following areas, but not limited to them:

1. Earthquake warning
2. Energy: Above all, it is emphasized that China’s oil potential can only be exploited by developing the offshore reserves on the continental shelf. “This would probably require outside technology. US oil companies have shown interest in investing in continental shelf oil exploration. “9

In brief, Trilateral publications outlined the Carter administration policies were later and still are being followed.




Japanese members of the Trilateral Commission reflect the Japanese establishment to an extraordinary degree. This is significant because Japan is now in the forefront of building Communist China.

The breakdown of Japanese Trilaterals is as follows:

The previous chairman of the Japanese Trilateral Executive Committee is Chujiro Funjino, chairman of the Mitsubishi Corporation. Mitsubishi has contracts in China including a large contract to modernize the Shanghai shipyards, the largest in Communist China.

Three Japanese banks are represented on the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission: The president of the Bank of Tokyo, Yusuka Kashiwagi is a former special advisor to the Minister of Finance, Saburo Okita is president of the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund, and Takeshi Watanabe is chairman of Trident International Finance, Ltd., based in Hong Kong.

Former Japanese government officials comprise more than one-third of the executive committee: Kiichi Miyazawa is a Minister of State and Chinese Cabinet Secretary, Ryuji Takeuchi is advisor to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and a former ambassador to the United States and Nobuhiko Ushiba is also a former ambassador to the United States. Japanese trade unions have two representatives, Kazuo Oikawa, who is president of the Japan Telecommunications workers union and Ichiro Shioji, president of the Confederation of Japan Automobile workers union.

The opening up of Communist China is a vital Trilateral policy and Japanese Trilaterals are in the forefront of the rush for contracts:

. Yoshizo Ikeda is president of Mitsui & Co., which has numerous Chinese contracts. Mitsui Petrochemical Industries Ltd. is involved in construction of polyethylene plants. . Seiki Tozaki is president of Itoh & Co., which is involved in trading contracts with Communist China.
. Hirokichi Yoshiyama is president of Hitachi Ltd. His firm has a $100 million contract to supply equipment for the Paoshan steelworks and will expand the Hungchi Shipyards at Luta. . Yoshihiro Inayama is chairman of Nippon Steel which is also aiding development of the Communist steel industry, including a $3 billion steel plant just outside Shanghai.

In brief:

1. The current China policy is Trilateral policy.
2. The 1978 agreement was complete capitulation to Chinese Communist terms.
3. The only rational explanation for capitulation is that the power elite is focusing more on the contracts to be won than on the long-run strategic impact on our world.



The Panama Canal Treaty handed over US property, bought and full payment made, many decades ago. The zone was under US sovereignty but handed over to a Marxist (Torrijos) regime.

Some 76% of America disapproved of the Panama treaties. Those Americans who supported the Treaties are usually described as either liberals who believe Panama is a “have not” nation more deserving of the Canal Zone or those who wish to ignore the fact of legal US ownership, although this ownership has been precisely documented to Congress.

In 1977, Congressman Robert K. Dornan identified a third group of treaty supporters -what Dornan called “the fast-money type of international banker.” Dornan demonstrated that the Panama overseas debt required 39% of the Panamanian gross national product. Further, the Torrijos government was far from stable and the banks participating in this debt wanted to protect their investment. Consequently, the Panama Canal treaties gave Torrijos a much needed boost to keep his Marxist regime in power and keep the bank debt from default.

Here is an excerpt from Congressman Dornan’s report to Congress:

“The most visible and known of this third type are the fast-money type of international banker. The Torrijos dictatorship is up to its ears in debt to banks. The debt of the Torrijos regime has now reached such proportions that 39 percent of the Panama GNP repeat 39 percent -goes to debt servicing alone. This might not cause the extreme consternation in the banking circles that it does if it were a debt owed by a stable government. But the Torrijos regime is far from stable.

The dictator was nearly ousted a few years ago by an abortive coup and there are few wagers on his staying in power long if the treaties are rejected by the Senate. And if he is not in power, the banks do not have much chance of getting their money.

“Some Members of Congress and Americans are aware of the conflict of interests involved in some of the banks’ support of the Panamanian treaties. They are aware of the Marine Midland connection through negotiator Sol Linowitz. But there are many other banks whose endorsement of the giveaway of the canal may be motivated by monetary interests. Unlike Marine Midland, they have been able to keep a lower profile. They are not generally known to be part of the banking group with a lucrative stake in the ratification of the treaties. “10

Dornan published a list of banks participating in the Torrijos debt and also pointed out that Sol Linowitz, the US negotiator, was a director of Marine Midland Bank that held part of two Panamanian loans -thus establishing clear conflict of interest for Linowitz.

The authors examined the list of banks (thirty-one for one loan and fourteen for another loan) publicized by Congressman Dornan and traced the Trilateral links to these participating banks. The results are truly astounding. There are only three hundred Trilateral Commissioners worldwide, of which about one-third are from Japan, one-third from Europe and one third from the United States, i.e., about 90 from each region.


For the two Panamanian loans cited by Congressman Dornan we found:

(1) No fewer than thirty-two Trilaterals are on the boards of the thirty-one banks participating in the Republic of Panama $115 million 10-year Eurodollar loan issued in 1972.
(2) Also, fifteen Trilaterals were on the boards of fourteen banks participating in the Republic of Panama $20 million floating rate promissory note issued in 1972.
(3) These links suggest conflict of interest on a gigantic scale, involving not only the Carter administration but the Japanese government and less importantly some European governments.

To quote Congressman Dornan again:

“But there is a third type of pro-treaty person whose motives should be impugned. These persons are well aware of the facts of the 1903 treaty and the importance of the canal to the security of the Western World. They do not endorse the treaty out of undue love of the Panamanian people or out of confusion—they do so out of self-interest. They have something to gain from the giveaway of the American people’s canal. “11




Trilateral writings on human rights is notable for its paucity. No Trilateral Task Force Report has been devoted to the basic question of individual freedoms and survival in an age of ever-increasing government. On the contrary, Trilateral writing has focused on the rights and powers of governmental authority rather than the rights of the governed.

In the arena of public discussion and political maneuvering, some rather transparent lip service is given to human rights. Trilateralists and the Carter administration expressed a superficial “deep concern” for human rights and they convinced many that human rights are a fundamental objective of Trilateralism. For example, as proclaimed by Trilateral Warren Christopher, Deputy Under Secretary of State:

“The major accomplishment of the [President’s human rights] policy is that we’ve helped to create a concern all around the world for basic human rights.”12

We have to presume that Warren Christopher and the State Department public relations officials kept straight faces when they released that statement. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.


A few examples demolish Warren Christopher’s expression of concern.




In October 1977, President Carter signed the Soviet version of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Seven previous Presidents had refused to sign the Declaration because it excludes the right to own property. Traditional American philosophy is that without property rights there can be no “human rights.”





For two years a group of seven Russian Christians have been isolated in the US Embassy in Moscow -the same State Department that Warren Christopher says has a concern for human rights. According to Associated Press:

“They pray, read their Bibles, beset by fears and doubts. On one side of the room a Russian barber loudly slurs them to customers and on the other side through an iron grilled window Soviet guards occasionally shout taunts. “13

Why are these Russian refugees slurred and taunted on US property?

Because US Embassy officials want them to return to the Soviets, even though they have already been granted political asylum. Why?

Because the Carter administration found the presence of these Russian Christians to be embarrassing. They are kept exposed to threats and taunts to “encourage” them to return to a Soviet prison rather than refuge in the US Embassy.
Comments Rev. Blakhoslav Hruby, director of the Research Center for Religion and Human Rights in Closed Societies:

“It’s a real scandal...their refuge has become a prison... although there are thousands of worse cases of human rights violations in the world this one is particularly shameful because these people are suffering-and for so long -in U.S. hands. “14

Hruby adds:

“The fate of these gentle, courageous, but defenseless Christians depends in a large part on how we in the West respond to their tragic predicament. There is no place for them to turn and nowhere for them to go. America is their last hope.

“But the embassy seems more embarrassed by their presence than concerned. They’re being treated as expendable in the name of so-called ‘broader’ diplomacy. But these are specific human lives and they aren’t being treated like human beings.

“Every week, embassy officials advise them to go, and they’re becoming terribly depressed and discouraged. Yet if they finally give up and decide to go because they’re being made so miserable, they’d be sent to Siberia to die of an ‘accident’. “15

This was the situation in the US Embassy in Moscow while Trilateralists Carter and Christopher pontificated to the world about human rights. And at the beginning of the Reagan administration, those Russian Christians still remain in captivity!
Trilateral involvement in human rights is an exercise in double standards. Some countries are criticized, some countries are not depending on political objectives.

The double standard on human rights necessitated by Trilateralist objectives, was vividly demonstrated in 1978 by State Department spokesman John Trattner. The administration decided to return the Crown of St. Stephen to Communist Hungary after safekeeping in the US since 1951.


At a press conference, Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media, Washington, D.C., pinned the administration to the wall on the double standard with dagger-like questions:

Irvine: The State Department is very much concerned with representative government these days. They are concerned in Rhodesia and South Africa. Are you at all concerned with whether the government of Hungary is representative of the people?
Trattner: Our concern about representative government around the world does not also mean that we stand up here and make judgments from this podium as to the question you are asking here.

Irvine: I see. Could you tell us when the last free election was held in Hungary?
Trattner: I would have to go back and look at the history books. I don’t really know.

Irvine: Has Janos Kadar ever submitted himself to a free election?
Trattner: I think what you ought to do is ask the Hungarians.

Irvine: You know that. You know he hasn’t.
Trattner: Well, then, why do you ask the question?

Irvine: I wanted to get the State Department’s view of why they feel that this government ...
Trattner: My answer is that from this podium we are not in the habit of making judgments on other people’s governments however much we may have opinions about them and however much to you the answer may be obvious, or it may be obvious to you that I know what the answer is. On the record, up here, up here, I am not going to give an answer.

Irvine: You don’t have opinions about representative governments in Rhodesia and South Africa?
Trattner: No, I am not saying that at all.

Irvine: You say you are returning the crown to the Hungarian people. You are returning it to the government, to Janos Kadar, who obviously doesn’t represent the people, because he has never submitted himself to an election. Therefore you are saying, it seems to me incorrectly, that the government of Hungary represents the people, and by this action you are indicating to everyone in the world that this government has your approbation.
Trattner: No, I would contest that strongly. I don’t think I am making that kind of statement at all.

Irvine: Are we getting any quid pro quo for this? Are the Hungarians doing anything -relaxing any restraints on human rights in return for this action?
Trattner: There are many Hungarian-Americans who have been in touch with us who have suggested that we should seek some concessions from the Hungarian government in return for the crown. Others in the Hungarian-American community have told us that because of the unique significance of the crown to all Hungarians, they feel it would be inappropriate and disrespectful to a centuries-old tradition to trade the crown for anything of that kind could possibly have an equivalent or comparable significance. We agree with the latter point of view, and recognizing that we received the crown for safekeeping without any other conditions, we stated our willingness to the Hungarian government to return it in the same manner.

Irvine: Could you tell us why we didn’t return it much earlier then?
Trattner: We have always said that the return of the crown would be done in the context of an improvement in relations bilaterally, and we feel that that point has been reached.

Irvine: Has there been some remarkable change in the last year that would have altered...?
Trattner: Yes, I can cite you a few things... The overall record of Hungary in implementing the Helinsinki Final Act has been among the best in the Warsaw Pact, although its performance still falls short of Western standards.

Irvine: How does it compare with South Africa?
Trattner: I am not in the business right now, at least, of making a comparison with South Africa for you.

Irvine: Do they have as much freedom of the press as South Africa?
Trattner: I can’t make a comparison for you.

Irvine: Do they have any freedom of the press? Are there any free newspapers in Hungary that are not run by the government?
Trattner: I really don’t know.

Irvine: Could you find out?
Trattner: It might be possible to find out, yes 16

For those readers who may not know the answers evaded by the State Department, the Hungarian press is totally controlled by the Hungarian government, and no opposition newspapers or publications are allowed.


South Africa, on the other hand, has one of the most vocal and critical presses in the world: read a few issues of the Rand Daily Mail or the Cape Times and this point is made amply clear.




Remember Idi Amin, the Ugandan leader, who systematically butchered his own population?

Far from Trilateral protests over Amin’s butchery we find official US government support, as reported by Jack Anderson:

“With great show of disapproval, the U.S. cut off Amin’s foreign aid in 1973. Yet he flies around in grand style in a Grumman Gulfstream jet that is serviced every year at the company plant in Savannah. Georgia Page Airways, another American company, has provided flight crews to maintain Amin’s imperial plane.


We reported last fall that still another American company, Bell Helicopter, was training 20 police pilots at Fort Worth. They now operate at least nine Bell helicopters, which were sent unarmed to Uganda, but could easily have been converted into para-military aircraft.

We have now learned that the 20 pilots, who hastily returned to Uganda after our report was published, were admitted to the U.S. on A-2 priority diplomatic visas. Confidential sources say 82 Ugandans entered the country on diplomatic visas.

Several of them belong to Amin’s notoriously brutal State Research Bureau.”17

What is the Trilateral comment? Warren Christopher merely had this observation to Anderson’s revelations:

“A small number of Ugandan pilots are being trained by private U.S. firms.”18

And Jimmy Carter then handed out a weak-handed slap officially, while unofficially allowing the training of Ugandans to continue:

“We must strengthen our efforts to condemn the practices of that government. “19



The Fall 1978 issue of Trialogue, official organ of the Trilateral Commission, was devoted to “The Politics of Human Rights.”
A leadoff interview with Trilateral Henry Kissinger summarized the Trilateral use of human rights as a policy subordinate to other policies and a tool to be used to achieve overall objectives.

Kissinger expressed it this way in reply to a question:

Q. What are the merits and chances of successes of a vocal human rights policy on the part of the U.S. Administration [sic]?

A. It has some merit for the United States to stand for its principles: the United States should definitely do so and indeed, we tried to do this also in the administrations with which I was associated. However, I think that making this a vocal objective of our foreign policy involves great dangers:

You run the risk of either showing your impotence or producing revolutions in friendly countries, or both. .. I think that fundamental goals of American policy, no matter how they are defined, should be linked to other elements of interest to the Soviets. Either a policy has relevance to other areas of national strategy, or it has no meaning whatsoever. Linkage, therefore, is synonymous with overall strategic view. It is inherent in the real world, and if we ignore it, it is only at our peril.20

That’s it in a nutshell. “Either a policy has relevance to other areas of national strategy, or it has no meaning whatsoever.” In brief, human rights have no meaning for Kissinger and his Trilateral friends -human rights are gambling chips to be used as, and when, the elitists see fit.




Trilaterals Over Washington, Volume I, detailed the links between some US multinationals and international banks with Trilateralism and argued that Trilateral objectives are no more than self-interested objectives for some MNC’s and international bankers.

Stark evidence for this argument was revealed in 1975-6 by the use of “slave-labor-at-a-profit” by Trilateral multinationals in Colombia, Latin America. While the slave labor system is not widely known even among public officials in Colombia, it apparently has widespread use.

Under the Colombian system of law an accused person can be kept in prison without bail for periods which may extend up to ten years. About 6,000 such “prisoners,” actually political detainees, work on “prison labor projects” run by corporations, including prominent US multinationals.


As the knowledge of this forced labor surfaced, comments by both American residents and Colombian officials support the authors’ argument on Trilateral human rights policy:

“It’s especially bad for multinationals to do this in an underdeveloped country,” said Fernando Umana, head of Colombia’s only public interest law firm.

Oscar A. Bradford, President of the Colombian/American Chamber of Commerce, hadn’t heard of the practice until 1975. He commented at that time, “If I were a corporate executive, I’d be inclined to look for something a little less controversial. God knows there are enough other areas of social reform in which to apply corporate efforts and resources. “21

On June 20, 1975 the Wall Street Journal reported this detail:

“Now there are plans afoot to turn the entire prison population into ‘employees’ of national and multinational companies. This is a proposal of Action in Colombia, a nonprofit group backed financially by 70 large Colombian and U.S. concerns ranging from Avianca, the national airline, to local units of Bank of America, Dow Chemical Co. and International Business Machines Corp. So far, an Action official says, Colombian and US businessmen have responded ‘very favorably’ to the plan, which is put forward as a program for rehabilitation and improvement of the prisoners’ 1ot.”22

The MNC’s and banks who use slave labor in Colombia while trumpeting “human rights” to an unsuspecting American public, include Trilateral members:

. Bank of America (Trilateralist Clausen and Wood) which is backing Action in Colombia to turn “the entire prison population of Colombia into employees of national and multinational companies.”23

. Container Corporation of America (100% owned by Mobil Oil) has operated a “slave labor” production line for many years. Container Corporation is also affiliated with Marcor Inc., another Mobil subsidiary. A Trilateralist in this group is Robert S. Ingersoll (First Chicago Corporation), also a trustee of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies.

. Chase Manhattan owns 5.2 percent of Mobil Oil stock, and there are six Trilaterals on the Chase board. IBM is also cited as a supporter of Action in Colombia. Trilateralists on the IBM board include W.T. Coleman, Jr., William W. Scranton, Harold Brown, Carla Hills and Cyrus Vance, former Secretary of State. IBM operates in Colombia through a 90%-owned subsidiary, IBM de Columbia S.A.

And note this:

“Few of the prisoners working for private companies have been convicted. Rather, they are caught up in the Colombian system of justice, in which the accused usually stays in prison until tried or until he serves time equal to the term he would have received if tried and convicted. Since bail is practically nonexistent, about 75% of the inmates fall into this category. Some have been jailed 8 to 10 years without a trial. “24

The slave labor program is well described by the previously cited Fernando Umana:

“This isn’t a rehabilitation program at all, just window dressing for what almost amounts to slave labor. “25

Only time and space limit expansion on this theme of Trilateral antihuman rights activities.

Trilateralism is the creation of a group of international bankers and multinational corporations.


One should not hesitate to criticize these bankers and multinationals for what they are -perverters of individual freedom, and subverters of the Constitution of the United States. But one must not mistake limited criticism of some bankers and some multinationals for an attack on all bankers and multinationals. It is painfully clear that most bankers and most corporations are not in the slightest involved in the end-run takeover of political power in the United States.


The distinction the authors have made is between most bankers and businessmen (who operate more or less in a free enterprise system, and respect and want this system) and a small self-perpetuating group that has perverted the system to its own narrow and feudalistic aims.

Take a well-accepted speech by Dr. J. Kirchhoff, president of Castle & Cook Inc., that was reprinted in Barrons.


In this speech, Kirchhoff lists the “enemies” of capitalism but omits the most important of these enemies - his capitalist peers who have subsidized and nurtured the enemies of the free enterprise system. Says Kirchhoff:

“Until the mid 1950’s we had a good image. Capitalism could rest on its own merits. We were effective and efficient. No one quarreled with that thesis. Visible proof of its success was witnessed in a high standard of living, political freedom and unlimited economic opportunity. We had no specific five-year plan of action. We did not program the lives of others. We were free to build and to create wherever a free market existed. We were accepted or rejected based on the quality of our performance and workmanship.

Such is not the case today: We are required to defend our very existence to a carping melodramatic ‘elite minority’ that produces absolutely nothing for its fellow man. Few, if any, of this elite ever developed blisters on their hands from any honest, productive labor. I personally refuse to accept the principles of this minority and I refuse to accept as part of corporate life increased government control, corporate abuse, terrorist attacks or other pressure which are being generated by this pseudo elite.”

Apparently some church-related groups, which also happened to be supported by totalitarian capitalists, were attacking Castle and Cooke.

Kirchhoff said,

“When a church related [sic] group contributes $85,000 to terrorist revolutionaries in Rhodesia, who oppose the concept of free elections in a multi-racial society, it forfeits any immunity from criticism. “26

We agree. But wait! Who are the prime supporters of these church groups who support terrorism? None other than some of Kirchhoffs’ fellow capitalists. In fact, the speech touches on this:

“The guises frequently used are ‘The New International Economic Order,’ ‘Alternative Economic and Social Solutions’ and ‘Economic Democracy.’ These buzz words are palatable, at least on the surface. They are, nonetheless, the siren songs of the Marxist ideologues who have simple, uncomplicated goals: the destruction of the world’s most efficient economic machine and the assumption of political power through default. “27

Trilateral Paper No. 14 is entitled Towards a Renovated International System and outlines a “global strategy” for the “New International Economic Order” castigated by Kirchhoff.


Other criticism is directed at the World Council of Churches. For example, J. Irwin Miller is chairman of the board of Cummins Engine (Cummins has been a prominent subsidizer of the Soviet Union) as well as a member of the central and executive committees of the World Council of Churches. The WCC regularly votes funds for Marxistterror groups around the world. In addition, the president of Cummins Engine is Trilateral Henry Schacht and William Scranton is a director.

The World Council of Churches also has a long record of financial support from the Communist world. For example, between 1970 and 1976 East Germany contributed almost $1 million to the WCC.

Holland has contributed even more than this to “The fund to combat racism.” In practice, of course, the fund has nothing to do with combating racism. Black Africans were threatened with death by WCC-subsidized Marxist groups such as SWAPO, ZANU and the Pan African Congress: all nine black ministers in the former Rhodesian government received death threats from WCC-supported ZANU, a black Marxist-terrorist group.

This is well documented. Individual members of Western churches affiliated with the WCC must take personal responsibility for this financial support of murder.

Targeting the WCC Kirchhoff comments:

“We must overcome Western civilization’s growing sense of guilt. There is nothing evil about profit in spite of the semantic games played by the agitators. If it were not for profit and incentive, the Western world would not be providing food, hard and soft goods, technology, services, and loans to the rest of the world...

“The survival of truth and common decency are never certain, and must be fought for constantly. We are at war, but it is a guerilla war. It is being fought in the courtroom, the board room and the media. The enemy is organized, discernible and has ample resources.

“Castle & Cooke does not intend, after 127 years, to forfeit its principles to guerrillas of any political stripe. “I am convinced that our path, rather than theirs, is the one that offers more hope for the future, but it cannot be accomplished in a vacuum or by one corporation. Let’s revitalize our corporate leadership and take the offensive, in the best tradition of American capitalism. “28

If American capitalists want public support they must first clean house. While Mr. Kirchhoff makes good sense, he needs to name names, point out responsibility and challenge J. Irwin Miller and his fellow revolutionaries before calling on aid from the American society at large.




1. Vermont Royster, Orient Express, Wall Street Journal, February 12, 1980 p. 1.

2. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Washington Star, December 31, 1978, E4.

3. J. Paul Asutin retired as president and operating officer of Coca-Cola on March I, 1981.
4. The Washington Post, December 24, 1978, p. 04.
5. Richard Cooper, et aI., Toward a Renovated International System, p. 30.
6. New York Times, June 12, 1921, p. 2 column 3.
7. Reported by AP (Taipei, Taiwan) December 24, 1980.

8. Antony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917 to 1930, p. 284.
9. Chihiro Hosoya et ai, Collaboration with Communist Countries in Managing Global Problems: and Examination of the Options. .

10. Robert K. Dornan, Banking Interests in Panama, Congressional Record (September 15, 1977).
11. Ibid.
12. Uneven Justice?, Wall Street Journal, May 11, 1978, p. 1.
13. George Cornell, AP Report, Arizona Republic, March 10, 1979.
15. Ibid.
16. Reed Irvine, Behind the News. Accuracy In Media (1978).
17. Jack Anderson, EI Paso Times, April 27, 1978.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Francois Sauzey, Henry Kissinger. Trialogue No. 19 (Fall 1978), p. 3.
21. Wall Street Journal, June 20, 1975, p.l.
22. Ibid. p. I.
23. Ibid. p. 10.
24. Ibid. p. 10.
25. Ibid., p. 25.
26. Dr. J. Kirchhoff, Corporate Missionary: those who believe in Capitalism must fight back, Barrons (February 19, 1979), p. 3.
27. Ibid., p. 3.
28. Op. cit., p. 3.

Back to Contents