International Affairs

The Most Effective Policy On Afghanistan For The US

Posted by on Apr 1, 2016 in International Affairs

Image by Ricardo’s Photography (Thanks to all the fans!!!)


Great politics, policies, and practices have been recorded as the three finest elements by which public event goals could be attained. This declaration means that for a public policy to realize its goals, it needs to be feasible. Nevertheless, a politically feasible policy is just workable if it does alter the immediate policy or the status quo and it should be implementable both theoretically and in practice to attain its goals (Brown & Scales, 2012). America and her NATO allies must so ensure the junction of three rules of good policies, good practices, and great politics in carrying out its operations and mandate in Afghanistan.

With these principles in position, the U.S would have long triumphed in its intervention in Afghanistan with relation to the establishment of a working government that supplies essential services to its citizens. Several reasons are mentioned to spell out the issues as well as the challenges the U.S faces as it attempts to create a secure and working authorities in Afghanistan. First, scholars and many journalists mention uncontrolled corruption in Afghanistan as a hindrance to the establishment of a working government in the state. Also, the U.S and her friends have consistently neglected to take care of the Afghans that drive out as well as kill fellow Afghans which are committed to rebuilding their nation. Corrupt Afghans and these offenders and terror groups gain from the numerous chances and tremendous inflow of cash getting into the state.

The U.S. had an opportunity and the resources to help in rebuilding Afghanistan immediately after the invasion but let the opportunity slip away. Nevertheless, there’s still time and chances for the U.S to reconstruct the nation and empower its hardworking and patriotic citizens. The U.S, in addition to the neighborhood Afghans must consequently be more than prepared and willing to expose and get rid of the non-patriotic groups and people that seek to benefit in the local, regional, and national level in the expense of hardworking Afghans (Brown & Scales, 2012). This paper investigates the very best potential policy direction that America should embrace to realize most, if not all of its targets in Afghanistan.

The Greatest Policy on Afghanistan
To realize its goals in Afghanistan such as the restoration of national security, the entrenching and spread of democracy, human rights, the balance of power in the area as well as the protection of the American troops’ and citizens’ interests, the U.S foreign policy on the country as well as the war therein should be directed by certain core principles. Principal among these principles is the requirement to stress the value of pursuing policies that ensure U.S citizens are safe. Moreover, there’s demand for the U.S to stop the amount of war and turn to a span of peace that will restore its standing in world leaders. To destroy and demoralize the leaders of terror groups in Afghanistan and other nearby terror nucleuses such as Pakistan, there’s a demand for extraordinary measures by politicians, servicemen, and policymakers for the critical second which will give results in Afghanistan to arrive even as the U.S starts to wind down and finally stop the occupation of Afghanistan (Brown & Scales, 2012). Luckily, together with the entry of President Barrack Obama, lots of favorable strategies and policies are invented and executed towards stopping the U.S occupation of Afghanistan. Nevertheless, there’s still room for progress as the Obama administration strives to attain its goals in Afghanistan. The policy therefore supports the majority of the present White House policies on Afghanistan even though other stakeholders have opposed some of Obama’s policies on Afghanistan.

The recommended policy towards Afghanistan must also summarize a national and wide-ranging strategy to counter terrorism, focusing on Taliban, its leaders, there affiliates, and supporters. Strategies to stop the war in Afghanistan in a responsible manner and remove all U.S forces from the state must subsequently be summarized and declared. It should nevertheless be clear the core goal of the recommended policy on Afghanistan must strategize to disrupt, dismantle, and overcome the Taliban and other terror groups and connections in the nation and its own neighbors (Lansford, 2003). In fulfilling this latter aim, the policy need to ensure that an established and globally built coalition of stakeholders participate in supporting the people of Afghanistan against the Taliban and other terrorists. It’s just via these coalitions that economic development and the democratic reforms which are much desired in Afghanistan may be reached. Moreover, the international community should play a fundamental function in ensuring prosperity and peace in the whole Middle East but also in Afghanistan.

It is, in addition, significant the U.S government policy on Afghanistan creates a clear differentiation between terrorism and Islam. In this particular context, the policy must strive to take up a fresh and positive relationship between America as well as the world Muslim community (Lansford, 2003). The other significant feature of the policy the Usa should embrace in Afghanistan is the mobilization of resources to help in offering aid services to the Afghans impacted by the war. In this regard, the U.S will reset and reshape its tainted relationship with Muslims along with with other nations, which have an understanding the U.S just boosts its interests in Afghanistan and not the interests of the Afghans.

Reducing the Amount Of Troops
The decrease in the amount of U.S troops in Afghanistan is the other significant part of the policy the U.S should embrace on Afghanistan as it’d demonstrate the U.S will not mean to reside in the state forever. Actually, raising the amount of U.S forces in Afghanistan would only incite and heighten anti-U.S thoughts around the planet. These anti American opinions would in turn be utilized to recruit more terrorists, suggesting the forces that the U.S and her friends seek to curtail may actually be reinforced if the erroneous policy and strategies are utilized in Afghanistan. However, some adjustments are needed in the U.S troops in Afghanistan. For example, adjustments to should be done so that the U.S soldiers in Afghanistan train Afghani soldiers and police to keep law and order and to ensure their boundaries and individuals (Auken, 2012). In training the Afghani soldiers and cops, achievable and realistic targets ought to be set. As an example, the amount of Afghani forces must be that which the central government can command.

The policy to be used in Afghanistan by the Unites States should thus not be simply intellectually and theoretically coherent but should be really and practically achievable with the aid of the Afghani authorities and those of its neighbors like Pakistan. The top policy must thus be based on effectual and adequate direction to arouse political will and support from the Afghanis and to be popular. In other words, the policy must value that support and the political will of the Afghanis is crucial that you the realization of its goals in Afghanistan than the political will of America and her friends. Support and especially hinged on the Afghani political will is the aim of making the Afghani authorities to take hold of the direction in the country’s. The direction and also the other parts of the nation ‘s people must additionally be transformed and prepared in regard to abilities, schooling, language, culture, history, economic, and literacy to take over government (Auken, 2012).

Despite of the applicability of the above mentioned policy supported by the Obama administration in realizing U.S targets in Afghanistan, resistance to such policies has emerged from different quarters. In late 2011, for instance, several US generals balked at President Obama’s strategies to withdraw soldiers from Afghanistan. Among those opposing the President’s withdrawal policy contain General John Allen and General Stanley McChrystal who was replaced by General Petraeus in 2010 as senior Afghan commander after specific posts in which he made making contemptuous comments regarding President Barrack Obama’s government (Auken, 2012).

Although the U.S has forfeited some chances to reconstruct and stabilize Afghanistan, there’s still room to design and execute a sound and successful policy to help in the realization of these aims. This policy should be economically, socially, and culturally acceptable by the Afghanis. Nevertheless, the well being as well as the interests of U.S soldiers and civilians should be provided for and protected in this policy. The truth is, the Obama administration has covered significant ground in making the Afghani authorities useful and secure. Nevertheless, there’s been some degree of resistance to Obama’s policy of pulling away U.S troops from Afghanistan at a steady speed, more so from some of his generals who say the withdrawal of troops would make hard remove insurgents as well as their sanctuaries, further complicating U.S attempts to protect supply lines ahead the scheduled 2014. !

Morgan is a writer who works with Uk Finest Writing service, he’s expertise of more than ten years in writing that is acdemic. He supplies pupils with Uk research papers, ssays writing service UK and Uk essay service online.


Learn More

Cyprus Reunification – Why it’s Important to the International Community

Posted by on Mar 30, 2016 in International Affairs

Image by feelsgoodlost


Senator Barack Obama defeat John McCain in the presidential elections for the USA, to become the first black president of the state, this week. Citizens of countries around the planet are heralding the news as a victory, calling the ascension of a citizen of African American ancestry to the White House a ‘world changing’ occasion.

Ramifications of the appointment will tremor through the planet. Already, the British press is discussing the possible reconciliation of the ‘special relationship’ with America, with Gordon Brown being one of Obama’s long standing and most outspoken supporters; the Republicans, in the run up to the result, even accused Brown of breaking international political convention and implicitly backing Senator Obama with his constant words of support.

Sarkozy and Merkel, president of France and Chancellor of Germany respectively, have also offered their support, and opinion polls before the election revealed landslide majorities for Senator Obama in Europe’s most powerful countries.

The world, then, seems set for a change, as well as the value of it cannot be refused. But as the states of America unite to vote in their very first black president as one continent finds vast change, the tiny isle of Cyprus, nestled in the Mediterranean sea between Greece and Turkey, is awaiting a remedy to its own trouble.

Cyprus Reunification as well as the Cyprus Issue

Since 1974, when Turkey invaded North Cyprus to safeguard the island below the treaty of guarantee – Greek Cypriots had mounted a coup only months before – Cyprus has been partitioned. Several efforts, usually from outside the isle, in the international diplomatic community, have neglected to reunify the island.

This is mainly as a result of long standing presidencies of Rauf Denktash in North Cyprus and Tassos Papadopoulos in the Republic of Cyprus.Both were staunch isolationists, and refused for some years to even enter into discussions.

In 2004, however, the outstanding work of former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, led to the approval of the Annan Plan Referendum in 2004. Each side of the isle was permitted to vote on reunification of the island, and if the Republic of Cyprus as well as North Cyprus voted in favour of Cyprus Reunification, afterward the two presidents agreed to take to reunification.

Sadly the powerful powers of Tassos Papadopoulos meant the the Greek Cypriots voted ‘no’ to the referendum, though North Cyprus voted ‘yes’.

The New Presidencies

One portion of the main reason that North Cyprus voted ‘yes’ was the attempt of their then-prime minister Mehmet Ali Talat, who defied Rauf Denktash in his efforts to suppress favorable voting.

He subsequently took over from Denktash as president in 2005, and has since pushed greatly on the isle and in Ankara, for a reunification resolution. From that point, Dimitris Christofias joined him at the beginning of the year, who also vowed to solve the Cyprus reunification problem and replaced Papadopoulos.

So as Barack Obama takes office in January, and starts to attempt to right the wrongs of American foreign policy as well as the Bush administration, maybe we’ll also see the return of the isle of Cyprus to a unified island, thanks to the efforts of Dimitris Christofias and Mehmet Ali Talat.

Martin Gavin is an expert on world politics as well as the Cyprus Reunification problem. He writes for
Learn More

Direct to Foreign Policy and National Security – Policy Evaluation

Posted by on Mar 28, 2016 in International Affairs

Image by kewing


In defining foreign policy, national security and the state policy, the starting point is the national interest. If we take as a reference point that just one state can give your company a feeling of protection that is political, complete and world-wide goals and national interests are the fundamental parameters of its general action of the state. Nevertheless, given many of them conflicting with each other, the jobs of reconciliation and its final expression as the state interests is the duty of those symbolizing the powers State and possess the authorities function.

This enables identifying the difference between the goals of state and government. In those, survival, security and wellbeing are the immutable features of state goals. They’re, to give its name, objects and more comprehensive national interests. As a quantifiable and real goals an exercise of administration usually correspond to a particular national job horizons created in line with the time of governing.

Therefore, national interests and goals defining the start of the policy of the state – the Great Political – and permits US to distinguish the long-term objects – the state – from the tactical – built-in in a government job – as a way to face and make sense of the procedure for political activity in its most comprehensive sense. Policy conclusions are defined behaviours and set targets and courses of action and measures taken to comply. It’s clear the determination of “national interest” cannot react only to one view. The vision of the sociological, legal, economical or military analyst, isn’t extensive enough to include all of the components of an all-inclusive comprehension of future scenarios and current reality.

In its execution or in the development of society itself – are created flows and exchanges of information between internal and external actors involved in social dynamics. These data are quantifiable and qualitative permit accessibility, under the actual determination of objective standards, that become long-term or tactical goals, an overview of national and international reality as well as a methodical procedure. In this view is the most suitable strategy when examining foreign policy as well as the state capacity to take actions to accomplish their goals and accessibility to what it calls its interest and protection, the equilibrium of national power. Protection attempts to fulfill with the essential goals of the state of permanence and survival. This really is crucial that you highlight this further, as well the national aims and interests and get a theoretical meaning with a defined methodology for empirical validation.

There’s an orthodoxy that breaks up the power in four areas are the classic political, economic, psychosocial and military. This section must not lead us to consider treatment as an inert thing, forgetting that a dynamic association exists in human society. The ‘areas of power’ are useful for the evaluation of these in regards to the exercise of power as well as the genesis of it and are frameworks that encompass actions consistent with each other by nature. When it comes to national development uses, the National Power as a perspective for enhancing material and spiritual culture of society when it comes to national security should be used as a tactical tool, e.g. in order to conquer, neutralize or reduce the antagonisms that are filed with getting and keeping long-term national goals.

The standard way would be to diagnose the political reality in the comprehensive sense which allows you to contain the group of social relations within the state, political and tactical aims, in line with the national interest, tactical stock and strategic analysis, interpreting international phase in line with the aims and capacities of the many tools available to the state for external and internal actions, and, eventually, the action plan. The coding of information into knowledge streams “useful and essential to the survival and protection of the country,” signifying the efficient execution of the tools of power of a State, in time and more advantageous conditions reaching their aims.

National reality is the wellspring of concept of foreign policy and whose needs have to be met that through their actions in distinct regions where the state interacts with the exterior. From the reality when the preparation process begins to take on foreign policy goal and is, consequently, a mechanism that provides guidance about what the national needs, from which the foreign policy goals are courses is clear that not only regulate define the data and determine the national interest. Others variables influencing the survival of the state, territorial integrity and complete autonomy of selections of international and national policy are the greatest aim of any procedure of foreign policy. The national interest is more in relation to situational variables are thought to be important and indicate a specific behaviour, the standard by which. Additionally it is the greatest yardstick used to assess the success or failure of the state. The theory of interest is both at the starting point and goal of the foreign policy procedure, so the whole series of events gets an annular that is peculiarly.

Under the American perspective, national interest is irreducible. Henry Kissinger claims that each State must make an effort to accommodate what he considers reasonable with what he considers potential. What’s considered reasonable depends on the inner arrangement of their state. They may ride on geographical position, its resources and resolve and resources, enthusiasm and inner construction of other states. In such terms, the character of national power is concatenated to the interests and goals. For the reason the State is effective at exercising a national and responsible security policy as it’s designing and executing foreign policy, which isn’t detached from the overall policy of the state.

Learn More

U.S. Foreign Policy and Terrorism

Posted by on Mar 26, 2016 in International Affairs, Politics

Image by mellofoto85

Commentators frequently speak of hate of the U.S. as though it were a passing fad, a media development engendered by the purposeful sensationalism of a few. The reality is the fact that generally our activities appear to link the imperceptible dots of apparently disparate points into a line drawn in the figurative sand which we subsequently dare other people to cross.

The laws we pass and policies we follow have ramification beyond our own borders, which is vital that you grasp that embracing a us vs. them attitude may help nurture a powerful sense of patriotism and pride.

What does this have to do with terrorism? A wonderful, sadly. In the last three years, perfect international support for the U.S. directed war on terror, has steadily decreased. International resistance to the Iraq War.

Much of what drives the deepening bitterness all over the world is the common understanding that America establishes its foreign policy with entire disregard for some other states national interests.

Whether its true or not, even our Western allies seemingly consider the U.S. a self serving celebrity.

Growing evidence demonstrates that U.S. foreign policies influence and military bases in other states have fueled the terrorist fervor of religious extremist groups, especially the Islamic fundamentalist groups such as Al Qaeda.

Terrorism is a scourge that does not have any place in the civilized world, and rightly should be repudiated and eradicated wherever it take form. The inquiry is the way to stay true to our country ideals of democracy.

Terrorism is nothing brand new, and definitely U.S. policies don’t cause terrorism in the strictest sense of the word.

There have been centuries of individuals whose political orientations empower them to justify to themselves the most heinous of acts against complete strangers,like Al Qaeda.

Fighting against terrorism is made even more challenging by the truth that there isn’t any easy response to the glaring question. Since there are lots of variables that promote the main factors behind terrorism, the search for root causes is seemingly useless.

The awful awareness the typical terrorist is, in nearly every war, as ordinary as your next door neighbor reasonable, sober and increasingly refined makes counterterrorism a formidable undertaking.

Sometimes a theory will appear the media cause terrorism, simply because terrorism flourishes on the coverage. The raising graphic and on the spot media coverage of strikes additionally fans the flames since terrorism feeds on marketing.

Yet, increasingly media-savvy terrorist have learned how they can leverage media coverage of their mayhem into recruiting efforts.

The inclination of individuals, for example, media, to rally round the flag can hide the whole truth about significant problems, with television, newspaper and radio journalists too frequently left their watchdog functions to serious accusations of being unpatriotic.

A common misperception is the fact that the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups despise the West for its independence. Have a look at some of these liberties are do in aftermath of September 11 strikes on American land, like theUSA-Patriot Act.

In times of danger or turbulence, the U.S. Congress has responded by passing legislation that limits the civil liberties of all Americans in a misguided effort to the curtail the questionable actions of a few. Historically the U.S. Supreme Court system has overturned these reactionary abridements.

Find More Foreign Policy Posts

Learn More

A Presidential Issue: Foreign Policy

Posted by on Mar 14, 2016 in International Affairs

Foreign policy
Image by –Tico–
Pew Global Attitudes Project publishes the results of a 47-nation survey. In general, global public opinion is “increasingly wary of the world’s dominant nations and disapproving of their leaders.”


Every year close to the end of February the Senate holds a reading of President George Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address to the Folks of America. This in honoring our Founding Father, as a manner. A masterful address, pretty much and so eloquently composed deemed irreverent by members of Congress. It’s as though by automation that this tradition is continued by Congress. Sadly, our esteemed leaders of state neglect for any reason to get the real reference to what Washington was attempting to warn us about contemplating our foreign policy choices of late.

One must return to when President Theodore Roosevelt was President whose own approach to foreign policy “talk softly but carry a big stick” was an effective measure in which Roosevelt earned a Nobel Peace Prize. Now, by all reports the precise reverse of Roosevelt’s policy has marked our foreign policy. In all probability we’d do nicely to epitomize what President Roosevelt did. However, America continues to inflict policies which have just crippled our effectiveness in brokering new alliances, forge treaties that will truly benefit the US such as the Hippocratic Oath” first do no harm” and foster goodwill between all countries. This must comprise those countries whose doctrines are completely strange to that of America.

For recent decades the US has assumed the place that was unpopular as the Officer of the planet. Sadly though we can not even keep our own house in order we embark on a righteous indignatious path of visiting doctrines, and economical sanctions upon societies who by their own conventions, customs and political doctrine appear and could very well be antagonistic to that of the United States. Yet, we continue to visit such as the bully we really are, and even drive our goals.

Among the latest controversial plan of action the US has taken has become the economic sanctions. It’s these sanctions that have crippled the market of Russia. In doing so the Usa has again pushed our will upon a country whose activities didn’t endanger or have undue fiscal consequences that would be harmful to the market of America. The animosity of other countries has just raised toward America. And, in fact have proven catastrophic for many US citizens consequently.

Among the crucial effects in our foreign policy choices and following activities militarily, or either economical for the previous 40 years is mainly an immediate consequence of our present energy policy. “Big Oil” gains have consistently had a manner of sway not only on political campaigns but on policy choices which have continued to come out of Washington. Say what you will about our energy policies but the truth is our interests in following activities and foreign policy are an immediate consequence of cash on our elected officials, and petroleum conglomerates sway including Presidents.

Questions need to be inquired and no one is inquiring considering the dropping gasoline prices here in America. While amazing news of the large part of the people who purchase petrol there may be a wolf hiding in the sheep’s clothes of these petrol costs that are receding. Where national gasoline prices are dropping, with Saudi Arabia continued oil production are for the most part delusory when we take a closer look for the long term economic outlook. When gasoline costs drop so do corporate gains. As a result a general slow down of economic action, including increased joblessness. What could very well be a concise orchestrated ploy to undermine the already poor U.S. dollar and endanger an already delicate U.S. market. A ploy by nations that have aligned themselves to our foreign policy choices and activities in retaliation.

Our foreign policy for years has been flawed from the beginning. Are the bulk of Americas better off because of governmental sanctions inflicted on different nations? For the past 35 years a lot of our foreign policy conclusions which have evoked monetary and economical sanctions have done nothing to enhance equilibrium and either states market. The truth is, all opened up the doorway to uncertainty and we’ve done is weakened the ability of all to protect itself against internal strife.

That which we should be focusing on is a better comprehension of other nations precedence primarily Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, India and Pakistan. As of all we’ve done is impose economic sanctions which have just exasperated the fragile balance of international markets. It’s many of our military actions and because of this our energy policies which have consistently played an important part in sway. To date our military has had no actual concrete effects which have made the world a safer location. There are all those hot beds of violent aggression where the planet in a firestorm could ignite and engulf when we examine the landscape across the earth. More explosive scenarios have appeared as an effect of foreign policy choices and activities perpetrated by the United States in recent decades. Many American lives have been lost, trillions of dollars wasted, and too many Americans continue to be in harm’s manner.!

The Nuclear Equation:

America has to recognize that at this moment there are nine states using a combined total of over 18,000 Nuclear Warheads. The Nuclear Equation has to playan important part in almost any foreign policy choice that we make. Of those nine states two with a combined total of 300 warheads are poised at any certain notice could trigger a global thermal nuclear war and at every other. With consequences like this the United States future for national and fiscal security is in serious danger. With over 650,000 troops stationed between Pakistan and tensions where India between these two states have been jocking for water rights for years has to be a leading problem when any foreign policy choice is made.!

As of now there are at Least 8 Extreme, Islamic Factions, Including Al Qaeda as well as the Taliban that are perilously close to getting Nuclear Warheads. In Pakistan, the Taliban for years have had a possibly devastating power over much of the military. The tensions between Pakistan and India revolve around a place referred to as one river and Kashmir, the Indus river called the river of life. For Pakistan this one river supplies more than 90%of Pakistan’s freshwater for their agriculture, supplies over 50% of the nations employment opportunities and is 30% of their GDP. For Pakistan this river is actually their river of life. And, for years Pakistan has accused India of redirecting and larceny much of this rivers water.!

Our foreign policy concerns must be redirected to avail more water that is fresh even though the international market of today is centered on Petroleum. It’s water that is fresh though that all living things on this planet cannot live without it. For centuries nations have waged wars over water rights that were fresh. And, when nations are deprived of such they do that is fresh water and whatever is required to obtain the resources to support life. The escalation of tensions between Pakistan and India started in 1960 when they brokered the Indus Waters Treaty which stipulated that the Indus River and two of it’s tributaries would be commanded by Pakistan. India on the other hand could utilize the Indus river for irrigation and electricity generation. The actual issue is that back in 1960 the people of Pakistan was 45 million. It’s 178 million, now. India has found it is people grow from 448 million to over 1.2 billion during the same time period. !

Without the intervention of the United Nations and with the continuing deflection of the Indus River for irrigation purposes by India both states are confronted with a logjam that will escalate to a complete blown disaster. A disaster that can disperse through-out the remaining part of the entire world and then Asia. Now, together with the Taliban has a leading impact in governmental policies and commanding the military in Pakistan is as controversial as it gets. The truth of the matter is that with the various factions of extremist groups that traditionally are of the Islamic religion each one seeking their very own identity but yet effective at organizing reprisals against those whose ideologies are opposite or are seen as a danger to their existence have created so many hot spots of antagonism. Those violent reprisals have just intensified by groups, organizations, or people. The recent strike in Paris is a prime example.

The world has gotten to a stage of no return. On what many fear they’ll do a holy war against the West, if on one hand the various factions of Islamic extremists band will ensue. Where history is duplicated with horrible consequences we’d be wise not to continue a doctrine of combativeness. Believe what the Crusades did the Ottoman Empire did, what Lawrence of Arabia attempted to do just to be thwarted by the British authorities. History is composed in the blood of so many who through conviction of their ideals, and volition imagined by authorities the sword endures.

What was underscored in the wake of the latest strike in Paris is an emotional response to a brutal savage assault on the freedoms of guy. Yet, it’s these perpetrators of calamity who leave an indisputable mark for all societies to bear witness they will use barbaric assaults have used subversive strategies to inflict a doctrine of another political orientation or to push their political orientations on all those who presents an alternative perspective. It’s been done all through-out the USA as well as history is replicating it with activities and our foreign policy choices.

Find More Foreign Policy Posts

Learn More

Foreign Policy Issues – Foreign Policy Issues Determined By Banking Cartel

Posted by on Mar 13, 2016 in International Affairs

Foreign Policy
Image by World Economic Forum

The Council on Foreign Relations is the principal means the Banking Cartel uses to command all foreign policy problems in The United States. Among the CFR’s creators were JP Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Paul Warburg (international banker), Otto Kahn and Jacob Schiff (both international investment bankers). The stated intent at that time of the CFR was to enhance the comprehension of international affairs and US foreign policy throughout the exchange of thoughts.

The foreign policy goal of every government since at least the time of Woodrow Wilson has been to break up America into a one-world dictatorship run by the rich international banking elite.

The late Carroll Quigley (mentor and adviser to President Clinton) who was a long term member of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote in his book Disaster & Hope, ‘The CFR is the American Branch of a society… which considers that national borders should be obliterated, as well as a one-world rule established.’

By using the CFR as a front organization to push their globalist plan for America as well as the world, the Elites and International Bankers have managed to obtain vital influence and power in key decision making positions at the highest levels of our government. By using their CFR members in high government places, they CAn’t just recommend their new world order thoughts from inside the authorities, however they are able to also use research groups and individual CFR members funded by their nonprofit foundations to bring pressure from a different direction.

The international bankers use this procedure to execute the detailed conclusions that can slowly convert the US from a sovereign state to a subservient position in the New World Order run by appointed bureaucrats chosen by the global bankers.


After seeing how foreign policy is typically managed the exact same manner, whichever party is in power, it actually should be no huge surprise that America’s foreign policy decision making is controlled by a select group of elites that consistently keep control. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) consistently appears to be over-represented in each government. Whether the President is a Democrat, or a Republican, you may be certain the individuals proposing him – the ones who actually make the choices – are nearly all members of the CFR.

If we were to learn that, a group of a few thousand members had been in quite powerful positions in government since at least 1921 that would look somewhat funny. But that’s the reality of the sway the CFR wields in most state governments, together with the federal government. It ought to be a scandal that makes Watergate look as a walk in the park.

The American people have been duped into believing that a new presidential election is a chance for ‘change’ in direction, but the precise reverse is true. Regardless of who wins the elections, the exact same individuals are always in control.


This is a fraud so enormous that there would probably be a revolution if nearly all the individuals really found out the facts. The scenario becomes a whole lot more desperate when one considers that the CFR is a group dedicated to the destruction of America.

All these individuals, with allegedly distinct political ideologies, all section of the exact same group – Is it any wonder, ‘the more things change, the more things remain the same?’ The individuals should demand that foreign policy decision making be handled by those who are pro American. !

Does the truth frighten you? Constantly seek the facts!
Learn More