With No Apologies
- The outspoken political memoirs of America’s conservative conscience
- by United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater
In 1951 and 1952 the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee under the chairmanship of Pat McCarran (D-Nev), conducted a lengthy investigation into the activities of the Institute of Pacific Relations. The establishment of a communist government in China had destroyed American prestige throughout Asia. The committee concluded that the American policy decisions which helped establish the communist control of China were made by IPR officials who were traitors or were under the influence of traitors whose allegiance lay in Moscow.
IPR was a creation of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is the American branch of a society which originated in England. Internationalist in viewpoint, the CFR, along with the Atlantic Union movement and the Atlantic Council of the United States, believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.
Professor Owen Lattimore, who headed the IPR, when it was so influential in determining American policy in the Far East, was termed a “conscious, articulate instrument of the Soviet international conspiracy.” Additionally, the committee named other highly placed members of the IPR – Lauchlin Curry, Alger Hiss, Joseph Barnes, Philip Jessup, and Harry Dexter White – as Soviet sympathizers or perhaps Soviet agents.
John Foster Dulles and his brother, Allen, were early members of the Council on Foreign Relations. When Dulles became Secretary of State, he implemented a policy of resistance to communist expansion, and his old friends at the CFR became his most severe critics.
The CFR argued that communism was changing – that the Russians felt threatened by the superior military power of the West – that its expansionist activities were really defensive. They said that once Russia caught up with the West in industrial and military power, the hostility would be modified. This is the root of the convergence theory supported by J. William Fulbright. Dulles maintained that communism, so long as it remains communism, does not change in any essential respect.
After World War I we could no longer remain isolationist. The changing times required us to become a participant in the world community of nations. Scolars turned their attention to foreign affairs. What was to become the American Council on Foreign Relations was organized in Paris in 1919 under the sponsorship of Colonel E. M. House, who had exerted much power in the Wilson administration. This nongovernmental private grouping attracted a variety of individuals who considered themselves to be, or desired to become, specialists in foreign affairs.
In its September 1, 1961 issue, the Christian Science Monitor described the Council on Foreign Relations as “probably one of the most influential, semipublic organizations in the field of foreign policy.” The Monitor said, “The CFR is composed of 1,400 of the most elite names in the world of government, labor, business, finance, communication, the foundations, and the academies. It is staffed almost every key position of every administration since that of FDR.”
In September 1939 two members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Hamilton Fish Armstrong and Walter H. Mallory, visited the U.S. State Department to offer the services of the council. They proposed to do research and make recommendations to the State Department without formal assignment or responsibility, particularly in four areas – security armaments, economic and financial problems, political problems, and territorial problems.
The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to finance the operation of this plan. From that day forward the Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy-making positions with the federal government, not limited to the State Department.
Since 1944 every American Secretary of State, with the exception of James F. Byrnes, has been a member of the CFR. Almost without exception the members of the CFR are united by a congeniality of birth, economic status, and educational background.
A number of writers disturbed by the influential role this organization has played in determining foreign policy have concluded the Council on Foreign Relations and its members are an active part of the communist conspiracy for world domination. To support this construction, they cite the fact that since the end of World War II the free world, and the United States in particular have suffered an unbroken string of defeats at the hands of world communism.
Their syllogistic argument goes something like this: The Council on Foreign Relations has dominated American foreign policy since 1945; all American policy decisions have resulted in losses to the communists; therefore, all members of the CFR are communist sympathizers.
Many of the policies advocated by the CFR have been damaging to the cause of freedom and particularly to the United States, but this is not because the members are communist or communist sympathizers. This explanation of our foreign policy reversals is too pat, too simplistic.
I believe the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors. In their pursuit of a new world order they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, monarchy, oligarchy – it’s all the same to them.
Rear Admiral Chester Ward, USN (Retd.), who was a member of the CFR for sixteen years, has written, “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common – they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States.” Their goal is to impose a benign stability on the quarreling family of nations through merger and consolidation. They see the elimination of national boundaries, the suppression of racial and ethnic loyalties as the most expeditious avenue to world peace. Their rationale rests exclusively on materialsm. They believe economic competition is the root cause of international tension. This approach dismisses as insignificant the form of government or the political ideology expressed by that form.
It may be that if the CFR vision of the future could be realized, there would be a reduction in wars, a lessening of poverty, a more efficient utilization of the world’s resources. To my mind, this would inevitably be accompanied by a loss in personal freedom of choice and the reestablishment of the restraints which provoked the American Revolution.
- He continues to explain why change in leadership(Federal elections) doesn’t result in change in our policies.
- He also explains David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.