Nexus - 1006 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

by the late 1980s, David has since pursued with increasing vigour not only his longer-term goal of "Latin American economic integration" but the economic integration of the entire hemisphere. In 1989, David called for intensified economic cooperation between the US and Latin America; and three years later, at the COA-sponsored Forum of the Americas, attended by then President George H. W. Bush and regional leaders, he proposed creating a "Western Hemisphere free trade area".*' David later noted with some pride that participants at the Forum were "unanimous" in supporting the goal of a "full Western Hemisphere free trade area by 2000". In line with this overall objective, David was a staunch supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), declaring in the Wall Street Journal in 1993 that he did not think "criminal would be too strong a word to describe...rejecting NAFTA".* The success of David's efforts is apparent in the agreement, reached in Quebec in April 2001, to begin to establish a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), covering the whole hemi- sphere (except Cuba) by 2006. David, who had earlier lobbied hard but unsuccessfully for "fast track" trade promotion authority for Bill Clinton,* was able to claim an "integral role" for the COA—and, by implication, himself—in obtaining the same pow- ers for George W. Bush.* However, on his ultimate vision for the region, David remains circumspect, giving away little. For instance, when asked in 2002 if he supported Robert Pastor's vision of a "North American Community" modelled on the European Union, ** David was evasive, saying only that it was in "our interest" for NAFTA to be extended to South and Central America—before retreating into cant about trade being an "engine of growth and development".** One can only presume that David, like Nelson did, sees the economic integration of the region as a step toward complete global integration. in the interdependence of mankind". By the 1990s, with the concept of globalisation fast becoming the business buzzword of the decade, David could confidently talk of "the emergence of globalised competition and an integrated world economy”." Most recently, in Memoirs, David leaves no doubt that he thinks we should regard the erosion of national sovereignty as both inevitable and unstoppable: Global interdependence is not a poetic fantasy, but a concrete reality that this country's revolutions in technology, communications, and geopolitics have made irreversible. The free flow of investment capital, goods, and people across borders will remain the fundamental factor in world economic growth and in strengthening of democratic institutions everywhere.” But the more important question is, what does David believe should fill this growing vacuum? What sort of "more integrated global political and economic structure" does the plutocrat have in mind? David's own answers, though fragmentary, reveal a commitment to the concept of global governance. As defined by the Commission on Global Governance, the term refers to an international order in which nations are no longer the dominant political institution, but must share authority not only with the UN system but also with "non-governmental organizations (NGOs), citizens' movements, multinational corporations, and the global capital market". Having worked hard over the past 40 or more years to erode the power of nation-states—and having created countless other problems of a global nature in the process—David now turns to international institutions, MNCs and NGOs to fill this governmental gap. Firstly, David has long had a favourable view of international institutions, especially those founded by the US, believing they hold the key to realising his aim to "erect an enduring structure of global cooperation".* His commitment to the UN, for example, can be seen in his membership of groups including the United Nations Association of the USA, Allies of the United Nations, and the Emergency Coalition for US Financial Support for the United Nations. In his message to the UN poster exhibition, For A Better The Death of the Nation-State Like his father before him, and his brother Nelson, David has long regarded the nation-state as a dying institution. Over the past 40 years, in numerous forums, David has declared that the world either is becoming or is already "interdependent" both politically and economically—an outcome he disingenuously attributes to inevitable historical forces rather than his own deliberate design. In a 1963 address, for example, David referred to the "increasingly international character of American business and the consequent interconnectedness among the world's financial markets".” In the 1970s, he often spoke of "our interdependent world", "today's interdepen- dent world", and of how "we are all part of one global economy".* =~ As the Reagan era dawned, David aay continued to treat the death of the nation- state as a fait accompli, describing "the inevitable push toward globalism" and how "the exponential growth of world trade and international economic competition has given rise to a truly interdependent world ~., economy". In fact, in 1980, David prophesied that "[b]y the year 2000, the term ‘foreign affairs' will be an anachronism".” He even claimed in 1985 "Cat! /n. that most Americans have "a strong belief not affected, i: "Cat! /n. 1. domesticated carnivore (felis) and only lifeform not affected, influenced or outrightly controlled by David Rockefeller." NEXUS + 27 OCTOBER — NOVEMBER 2003 www.nexusmagazine.com