Liberal Politicians Launched the Idea of “Free Trade Agreements” In the 1960s to Strip Nations of Sovereignty and Hand Power Over to Global Corporations

It’s Not Only Conservative Politicians Backing Giant Multinational Corporations Over National Sovereignty

Preface: Liberals might assume that it is Republicans who are cheerleaders for global corporations at the expense of government.  But, as shown below, liberal politicians have been just as bad … or worse.

Matt Stoller – who writes for Salon and has contributed to Politico, Alternet, Salon, The Nation and Reuters – knows his way around Washington.

Stoller – a prominent liberal – has scoured the Congressional Record to unearth hidden historical facts.  For example, Stoller has previously shown that the U.S. government push for a “New World Order” is no wacky conspiracy theory, but extensively documented in the Congressional Record.

Now, Stoller uses the Congressional Record to show that “free trade” pacts were always about weakening nation-states to promote rule by multinationals:

Political officials (liberal ones, actually) engaged in an actual campaign to get rid of countries with their pesky parochial interests, and have the whole world managed by global corporations. Yup, this actually was explicit in the 1960s, as opposed to today’s passive aggressive arguments which amount to the same thing.


Liberal internationalists, including people like Chase CEO David Rockefeller and former Undersecretary of State and an architect of 1960s American trade policies George Ball, began pressing for reductions in non-tariff barriers, which they perceived as the next set of trade impediments to pull down. But the idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasn’t about free trade, it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for “the benefit of mankind”. It was a weird utopian vision that you can hear today in the current United States Trade Representative Michael Froman’s speeches. I’ve spoken with Froman about this history, and Froman himself does not seem to know much about it. But he is captive of these ideas, nonetheless, as is much of the elite class. They do not know the original ideology behind what is now just bureaucratic true believer-ism, they just know that free trade is good and right and true.

But back to the 1967 hearing. In the opening statement, before a legion of impressive Senators and Congressmen, Ball attacks the very notion of sovereignty. He goes after the idea that “business decisions” could be “frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations,” and lauds the multinational corporation as the most perfect structure devised for the benefit of mankind. He also foreshadows our modern world by suggesting that commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies should just be and will inevitably be handled by supranational organizations. [Background.]

Here’s just some of that statement. It really is worth reading, I’ve bolded the surprising parts.

“For the widespread development of the multinational corporation is one of our major accomplishments in the years since the war, though its meaning and importance have not been generally understood. For the first time in history man has at his command an instrument that enables him to employ resource flexibility to meet the needs of peopels all over the world. Today a corporate management in Detroit or New York or London or Dusseldorf may decide that it can best serve the market of country Z by combining the resources of country X with labor and plan facilities in country Y – and it may alter that decision 6 months from now if changes occur in costs or price or transport. It is the ability to look out over the world and freely survey all possible sources of production… that is enabling man to employ the world’s finite stock of resources with a new degree of efficiency for the benefit of all mandkind.

But to fulfill its full potential the multinational corporation must be able to operate with little regard for national boundaries – or, in other words, for restrictions imposed by individual national governments.

To achieve such a free trading environment we must do far more than merely reduce or eliminate tariffs. We must move in the direction of common fiscal concepts, a common monetary policy, and common ideas of commercial responsibility. Already the economically advanced nations have made some progress in all of these areas through such agencies as the OECD and the committees it has sponsored, the Group of Ten, and the IMF, but we still have a long way to go. In my view, we could steer a faster and more direct course… by agreeing that what we seek at the end of the voyage is the full realization of the benefits of a world economy.

Implied in this, of course, is a considerable erosion of the rigid concepts of national sovereignty, but that erosion is taking place every day as national economies grow increasingly interdependent, and I think it desirable that this process be consciously continued. What I am recommending is nothing so unreal and idealistic as a world government, since I have spent too many years in the guerrilla warfare of practical diplomacy to be bemused by utopian visions. But it seems beyond question that modern business – sustained and reinforced by modern technology – has outgrown the constrictive limits of the antiquated political structures in which most of the world is organized, and that itself is a political fact which cannot be ignored. For the explosion of business beyond national borders will tend to create needs and pressures that can help alter political structures to fit the requirements of modern man far more adequately than the present crazy quilt of small national states. And meanwhile, commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies – and even the domiciliary supervision of earth-straddling corporations – will have to be increasingly entrusted to supranational institutions….

We will never be able to put the world’s resources to use with full efficiency so long as business decisions are frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations, reflect no common philosophy, and are keyed to no common goal.” ***

These [“free trade”] agreements are not and never have been about trade. You simply cannot disentangle colonialism, the American effort to create the European Union, and American trade efforts. After their opening statements, Ball and Rockefeller go on on to talk about how European states need to be wedged into a common monetary union with our trade efforts and that Latin America needs to be managed into prosperity by the US and Africa by Europe. Through such efforts, they thought that the US could put together a global economy over the next thirty years. Thirty years later was 1997, which was exactly when NAFTA was being implemented and China was nearing its entry into the WTO. Impeccable predictions, gents.


I guess it turns out that the conspiracy theorists who believe in UN-controlled black helicopters aren’t as wrong as you might think about trade policy, and not just because United Technologies, which actually makes black helicopters, has endorsed the Trans-Pacific Partnership.


These agreements are about getting rid of national sovereignty, and the people who first pressed for NAFTA were explicit about it. They really did want a global government for corporations.


Ball in particular expressed his idea of a government by the corporations, for the corporations, in order to benefit all mankind. Keep that in mind when you think you’re being paranoid.

The full hearing can be downloaded here, though it is a big file.

The bottom line is not that liberals – or conservatives – are evil.

It’s that neither the Democratic or Republican parties reflect the true values of the American people (and see this).

Indeed, a scripted psuedo-war between the parties is often used by the powers-that-be as a way to divide and conquer the American people, so that we are too distracted to stand up to reclaim our power from the idiots in both parties who are only governing for their own profit … and a small handful of their buddies. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Liberal Politicians Launched the Idea of “Free Trade Agreements” In the 1960s to Strip Nations of Sovereignty and Hand Power Over to Global Corporations

  1. cettel says:

    This is an excellent post by Stoller, and deserves much wider circulation, such as it does receive at the world’s best blog, here.

    However, with due respect (both to Stoller and to ‘George Washington’), I have a bone to pick, regarding the unfounded and entirely unsupported assumption that the two movements for a world government, pre-1960, and post, belong in the same pot. They importantly do not; and here is why:

    Pre-1960, the movement was chiefly concerned to overcome the existing international order’s being basically might-makes-right; i.e., without recourse to any informed global democratic authority that possessed the power to adjudicate conflicts. Everyone recognized that, but for sheer luck, Hitler could have won and now be ruling the world. This was a repulsive but true recognition — we didn’t win because we were superior; we won mainly because Hitler made the blunder of invading Russia at the time when he did. We won by the luck of the dice. This is the reason why progressives such as Albert Einstein were among the earliest supporters of the world-government movement. For example [ at… ]: “To secure peace, Einstein asserted, ‘A world government must be created which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. This government must be based on a clear-cut constitution which is approved by the governments and nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive weapons’ (1956, 138).” To suggest or imply, as Stoller is doing (and as the washingtonblog author is here accepting uncritically), that the international aristocracy (the people who control international corporations) were importantly involved with the world-government movement back then (or generally pre-1960) is to lie; it’s an unsupported falsehood — not a credible assertion, on any reasonable basis.

    The international aristocracy took over this well-intentioned movement, but it started as being fundamentally progressive, and has become fundamentally conservative (even actually fascist or extreme conservative) only because the aristocrats possess the financial wherewithal to take over and use even the best-informed and best-intentioned of social movements and to make them “their own.” However, to equate them with the aristocrats who rape them is like equating the rapist with his victim. It’s more than just false; it is vile.

    • jadan says:

      Imperial dreams have always involved the establishment of a new world order, from Hammurabi to Hitler. The tyrants have always pursued world government. This was an elite idea long before it began to be conceived as a global democratic apparatus from Woodrow Wilson to Einstein et. al. Plato’s Republic is a fascist organization, let’s remember. What is new in the new world order, then, is the element of representative governance, the idea of voting & consensus, as opposed to global dictatorship. The UN embodies a new world order to some degree. The mere idea of a new world order strikes terror in the democratic heart, but it needn’t be that way. We simply do not have a choice about creating a new world order. We either do it or we perish in chaos. And if we the people can’t do it, THEY will! They don’t want a messy representative system. They want to eliminate individual players.

  2. gozounlimited says:

    Had my run-in with a global corp today…… Comcast. Apparently they didn’t like my depiction of their weather liars on this blog….. so they selectively blocked my access to cable as a punishment. They insisted that they had to enter my home to repair the problem….. when repair required a simple increase in signal. They forgot that I have alternatives….and have the ability to act….SO got rid of Comcast and hired DIRECT TV!!!!!!!! Ba-bye Comcast. Not setting foot in my house.

  3. curri says:

    The last conservative president was Calvin Coolidge. His govt was characterized by economic protectionism, noninterventionism, low immigration and (for real) small government. Every POTUS since (with the partial exception of Hoover) has been an internationalist/globalist/imperialist who has favored a strong central government and a big military. It could be that JFK was shot because he was turning away from that-opinions differ.

  4. jadan says:

    If we are to survive as a species on this planet we have to solve some very difficult problems, the first being overpopulation, and the second, as a priority, being environmental management. Humanity is not able, or even willing, to contemplate the matter of controlling its own numbers. We’re not very good at mere politics, the control of our own local/national affairs, and the notion that we can exercise some metapolitical control over the planet as an ecosystem, seems far-fetched. But there is talk of “geo-engineering”, as though we are capable of constructive intervention in the life of our planet. We are not. The people who brought us the hydrogen bomb, Ed Teller & his descendents, are carrying on a global chemtrail operation. Fools. The world is currently being poisoned by the nuclear power industry. It goes without saying that we are utterly incompetent in the role of global stewardship.

    But our metapolitical responsibility can’t be denied. If we don’t think globally and develop local rules & regs to support global goals, we’re doomed. The people talking about a new world order were aware for the first time of a global responsibility that never existed before the human population and technical capability reached a critical mass. Nostalgia for the East India Tea Company seemed to capture their imaginations. The supranational corporation is a powerful tool. That is the best the capitalist mentality can come up with. We have to dispense with the capitalist mentality. Stewardship of the planet is strictly a non-profit undertaking.

    The new world order already exists, but we are too stupid to grasp it. It is a very old world order called “Gaia”, for lack of a better term. The natural order of things, in which all species cooperate in a planetary eco-system, has been trampled underfoot in the name of progress & development. This has been going on in a steady progression since the rise of Christianity. We have lost touch with Nature and the sacredness of life and we are destroying ourselves as a consequence. Since we can’t recognize the world order that sustain us, we will inevitable be destroyed by our own inability to manage our own affairs. It is happening right now, this self-destruction. The Gulf Oil Spill, Fukushima, are two examples of gross stupidity & incompetence. Is there any human activity that is beneficial to our planet and the livelihood of other species? Help me out here! I just can’t think of any!

  5. lawrencebaker says:

    The Free Enterprise System with competive markets free from corporate
    monopolies and fair trade- not free trade- were the foundation of the
    American Dream of self determination in ones lifetime.

    Free Trade is nothing more than the freedom of the multinational corporate
    empire to steal from you whatever they want and do it legally.

    The Trilateral Commission and members of the Counsel on Foreign Relations
    should all be arrested for treason for plotting to overthrow American
    sovereignty and our American Constitution. The traitors have been
    openly doing so for the last 50 years!

  6. Pissed Off says:

    Obama and Romney supported the TPP.

    • BR549 says:

      And the two of them have also attended Bilderberg. Meanwhile, the brain dead voters on both sides of the aisle are still blaming each other for the outcome. Of course, it is interesting how every election manages to come up with the winner of the popular vote always managing to get 49-51% of the total [with a couple minor differences].

      That way, with just a little bit of ballot manipulation by the PTB, no one winds up blaming the system, just each other. And it is this little tidbit that keeps a popular landslide from ever happening, one that would actually unite the population, if it ever occurred. It is how the PTB keep us pitted against each other instead of hanging the treasonous bastards on the Capitol steps.

      • Old Wolf says:

        The illusion of choice whilst maintaining the power, and separation of factions has always been a potent tool. The more factionalized they can make us, the more artificial separations they can put upon us, the more power they can consolidate.
        And so they make noises on both sides of the aisle as the other ‘sides’ being braindead and incompetent, being mentally ill and evil.
        The illness itself comes far deeper, though… it’s an illness of believing it right to make corporations into ‘people’, in spite of the laws dealing with people owning other people, and to allow different laws for different persons, exempting themselves from their own laws, and establishing in a far more specious and arbitrary manner the evils of slavery and ownership over a people that rightfully should own their governments, both state and federal.

        • BR549 says:

          Well, I always liked the viewpoint that if corporations can vote, everyone in that corporation gets to occupy a jail cell, too.

      • jen says:

        You have it figured out – yes, they are pitting one set of people against another, and idiot Americans have fallen for it and tea partieres, included are hell bent against war against each other. Cruz, etc.. all encourage such behavior against unity but blaming the other side.
        Obamaney are friends – tea partiers fell so much in love with Romney that they could care less as long as they can make Romney happy.

      • Mark G says:

        I dunno. Reagan won in a “landslide” I didn’t feel very united. I felt paranoid.

        • BR549 says:

          As far as I can tell, Reagan was not a real part of that treasonous globalist nonsense. He had Bush Sr., Cheney, and Rumsfeld undermining our form of government instead. And as conspiratorial as it sounds, some have said that Hinckley was one of those CIA-esque recruited nut-jobs that was sent in to “remind” Reagan about not being so damn patriotic and that he had been given his marching orders that needed adhering to.

  7. “The bottom line is not that liberals – or conservatives – are evil.”

    The hell it’s not; but what is evil if it’s not stripping people of their identity and freedom? Stealing their wealth and means of survival in a hostile world? Collectivists of all stripes – liberal, conservative, corporate – are inherently evil.

  8. Of course , Rockefeller’s head pops up in all this. We should all have the courage of this man to confront evil like Rockefeller.

    Only 327 views on Youtube…Ya right…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *