The Bretton Woods Committee



Posted on April 7, 2014 Leave a comment

In A.D. 1944, an international conference was held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to establish a new monetary system for the post-WWII world.  A fundamental principle of the resulting “Bretton Woods Agreement” was that the US dollar would be backed by gold and would come to be used as the world reserve currency.

In A.D. 1971, President Nixon closed the “gold window” and stopped redeeming foreign-held US dollars with gold.  Some people suppose that when the US dollar became pure fiat and was no longer redeemable in gold, the Bretton Woods Agreement ended.

However, the original Bretton Woods Agreement involved much more than merely promising to redeem foreign-held dollars with gold.  Vestiges of that Agreement continue to function and exert influence under the oversight of The Bretton Woods Committee.


According to the Bretton Woods Committee’s website,

“The Bretton Woods Committee is the nonpartisan network of prominent global citizens, which works to demonstrate the value of international economic cooperation and to foster strong, effective Bretton Woods institutions as forces for global well-being.

“The Committee was created in 1983 at the suggestion of two former Treasury officials—Secretary Henry Fowler and Deputy Secretary Charls Walker, a Democrat and a Republican—who saw the need for an organized effort to ensure that leading citizens spoke about the importance of the international financial institutions (IFIs).

“Committee members are leaders at the top of the business, finance, academicacademic, and non-profit sectors, including many industry CEOs, as well as former presidents, cabinet-level officials, and lawmakers who share the belief that international economic cooperation is essential and best served through strong and effective IFIs. Through the Committee, they champion global efforts to spur economic growtheconomic growth, alleviate poverty, and improve financial stability.”

Would you trust a group of men and woman who lived in the United States of America but who identified themselves as “prominent global citizens” to represent the best interest of the vast majority of the American people?  Would you trust that same group if they focused on building “international economic cooperation” and on supporting “international financial institutions” rather than building national (American) economic strength?

Insofar as the 32 signatories to his letter are “prominent global citizens,” are you and I also presumed to be “global [but not ‘prominent’] citizens”?


•  These “International Financial Institutions” (a/k/a “Bretton Woods Institutions”), “. . . were created in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944 during the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. At the conference, member nations agreed to create a family of institutions to address critical issues in the international financial system.”

These institutions include:  the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank Group, the International Finance Corporation, Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, World Trade Organization, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank.  Their stated objectives are to “promote economic growtheconomic growth,” “alleviate poverty,” and “improve global financial stability”.

That’s quite an impressive lineup of “international financial institutions”—all under the influence of The Bretton Woods Committee.

On reflection, The Bretton Woods Committee and its “family” of International Financial Institutions are at least close to, and almost certainly the foundation for, global governance and a New World Order.

If so, that’s more support for the “conspiracy theories” that the New World Order is primarily a coalition of banks and global bankers.   However, there’s also a faint suggestion that the backbone of the New World Order isn’t necessarily the world’s Central Banks so much as the “International  Financial Institutions” operating under, or in association with, The Bretton Woods Committee.



•  On March 12th, A.D. 2014, The Bretton Woods  Committee sent a letter to Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The letter’s purpose was to ask Congress to enact a new law to allow the US government to guarantee a total of $2.6 billion in loans to Ukraine.  A pristine copy of that letter can be downloaded from:

Perhaps this letter’s most impressive characteristic is the list of names associated with The Bretton Woods Committee and/or this particular letter:

2 Honory Co-Chairmen:  Presidents George Bush and Jimmy Carter

6 Former Committee Leaders:  Gerald R. Ford, Henry H. Fowler, Paul A. Volker, and others.

32 Signatories to this letter, including: Madeleine Albright, James Baker, Sandy Berger, Zbigniew Brezezinski, Frank C. Carlucci, Timothy Geithner, Alan Greenspan,  Henry Kissinger, Leon Panetta,  Henry Paulson, Condoleeza Rice, Robert Rubin, Brent Scowcraft, Lawrence H. Summers, three retired Generals,  and one retired Admiral.

That’s quite a crew of heavy hitters.

The letter reads as follows:

“Dear Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Boehner, Minority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Pelosi:

“We write to urge Congress to maintain strong U.S. leadership in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by enacting IMF quota reform legislation. For over 60 years, the IMF has been a principal tool for advancing U.S. national security and economic interests globally.”

The second sentence fascinates in that the Committee admits that a principal duty of The International Monetary Fund is to advance US national security and economic interests globally.  They’re admitting that the IMF is little more than a puppet for the US government.


“The immediate importance of a strong IMF role for countries in crisis is apparent now in Ukraine, which seeks help from the U.S. and IMF to maintain its independence and economic health, and to reduce its energy dependence on Russia.  Implementation of IMF quota reform would mean Ukraine would be able to borrow 60% more in rapid IMF financing (from $1B to $1.6B) than is possible today. Coupled with the U.S. $1 billion in new loan guarantees for Ukraine currently being considered by the Congress, Ukraine would have a total of $2.6 billion in emergency resources to draw upon to stabilize its economy. This enhances the geopolitical position of Ukraine’s government in the current crisis with Russia.”

The proposed “IMF quota reform” would allow Ukraine to borrow another $600 million (total $1.6 billion) from the IMF, based the US guarantee to make good on the loan, if Ukraine defaults.  These loans from the IMF would be in addition to the $1 billion in loan guarantees already contemplated by Congress.

The Committee isn’t asking the US gov-co to actually lend more currency to Ukraine.  Instead, the objective seems only to be to persuade the US government (which wields ultimate control over IMF activities) to guarantee and act as surety for whatever currency is lent by the IMF to Ukraine.   The Committee doesn’t trust Ukraine to repay its loans, so the Committee is trying to protect IMF assets by getting the US to “co-sign” for those loans.  Thus, the Committee is not representing US interests, but is instead representing IMF interests.


•  The previous paragraph from the Committee’s letter includes the word “stabilize”.  In subsequent paragraphs you’ll see six more variations on that word, including “stabilize,” “destabilize,” “instability,” “stability”.  I conclude that a principal goal of The Bretton Woods Committee (and perhaps the US and IMF) is to maintain stability and the status quo for the world’s nations and economies.

If so, that’s a very defensive and ultimately untenable position.  Whether the Committee and/or our government like it or not, the world is overrun by growing forces for change.  The Committee and/or our government may be trying to prevent that change by maintaining the status quo.    That defensive posture implies that the elite want global stability in order to hold onto whatever power they have, in part because they can’t acquire any more, and in part, because they fear loss of whatever power they’ve got.  They’re trying to maintain an “orderly” financial system and suppress all evidence of instability.

I expect that most people in Europe and America would support maintaining stability.  But I’d bet that most people in Asia and the emerging markets would support destabilizing the current “global system” so as to grab a bigger slice of the global economic “pie”.


•  In the final analysis, is political or economic instability really a bad thing?  Or, is it a natural part of life that’s needed flush institutionalized corruption and imbalance out the system every so often?

Good or bad, instability (like the poor) will always be with us.  But whenever any government or special interest fears instability, that’s evidence that that government or special interest is losing power and fears losing even more.  “Law and Order” is not the mantra of the powerful.  It’s the mantra of the weak who fear being overwhelmed by the forces of change.  If you’re going to fight instability rather than take advantage of it as “opportunity,” odds are you’re going to lose and be left behind.


•  The object behind the new “IMF quota reform” is to increase the amount of currency Ukraine is able to borrow by increasing US guarantees that Ukraine loans will be repaid.

Given that the US government recently defaulted on its treaty obligation to defend Ukraine against Russia, the value of a US guarantee of loans made to Ukraine wouldn’t seem to be particularly valuable.  In fact, there’s a good chance that lenders might laugh at the idea of lending money to Ukraine based on US guarantees.

More, what part of the U.S. Constitution instructs or empowers the U.S. gov-co to guarantee loans made to foreign countries in order to preserve that country’s “geopolitical position”?  I know that the US gov-co has loaned currency to, and/or guaranteed loansguaranteed loans on behalf of, foreign countries in the past.  But given America’s current economic condition and our government’s insolvency, wouldn’t it be imprudent take on further debt obligations that might ultimately be imposed on the American people?

Wise or not, is it constitutional for our government to guarantee loans made by a third party to another nation’s government?


“The IMF doesn’t always get it right but it has been doing important work in countries for decades to stabilize their financial situation and put them on a path toward economic growtheconomic growth for decades.  This clearly serves our interests.”


Whose “interests” are being served?  Those of the American people?  Or those of the globalists represented by the “prominent, global citizens” of The Bretton Woods Committee?

“Advancing National Security Interests:  The IMF is often the first responder of choice for the United States and our allies, to help countries prevent or manage financial crises before they destabilize an economy and give rise to conditions of economic stagnation, poverty, and political instability, which can embolden terrorism.  When Russia went to war with Georgia in 2008, the U.S-backed IMF $750 million emergency loanemergency loan to Georgia countered the early financial fallout and kept our friend on a path of market-friendly economic policies. It was the IMF that stepped in to provide financial assistancefinancial assistance to the former Eastern European countries after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  U.S -supported IMF loans helped stabilize Pakistan after 9/11, and have reinforced fragile economies such as Jordan, Tunisia and Morocco to help ensure our partners can focus on counter-terrorism cooperation and combating radical extremism.”

The phrase “National Security Interests” is a euphemism for “Government Security Interests”.  Our government’s “national security interests” have little to do with protecting the nation or its people, but are primarily intended to protect the government.

Did the IMF loans helploans helpstabilize Pakistan after 9/11”?  Or were those IMF loans used to bribe Pakistani officers and officials to maintain “market-friendly economic policies”?

Are “market-friendly economic policies” conducive to supporting or diminishing each man’s “unalienable Rights” as declared in our “Declaration of Independence”?  Or do such policies only increase the wealth and power of the globalists?

It’s interesting that the Bretton Woods Committee seems to view “terrorism” and “radical extremism” as threats to “market friend economic policies” and “economic stability” rather than threats to people’s lives or political systems.  Apparently, for that Committee, it’s all about the money.  On the other hand, “terrorists” and “radical extremists” may be defined by the globalists as anyone who fights for national identity and against the idea of world governance and the New World Order.


“Promoting U.S. Economic Interests:  In its role to promote the stability of the international monetary and financial system, the IMF consistently promotes a growth-oriented agenda based on open markets and strong macroeconomic and structural policies.

“IMF support to the Euro Area during the recent financial crisis lessened the global fallout and financial instability of highly interconnected economies, and forced long-needed structural reforms to begin to take place. The IMF was first responder to the Asian crisis in the late 1990s, and helped restore growth to Asian economies and create robust export markets for U.S. businesses, which supports American jobs.”

That’s a bunch of crap.  Did the IMF’s lending to Asia during the 1990s develop “robust export markets” for the USA?   If so, why are we still running substantial trade deficits with the world?

How were “American jobs” “supported” by the IMF’s lending to Asia over the past 20 years?   Isn’t it true that many American jobs have fled this country to take residence in China?

By lending money to foreign counties, did the IMF primarily create markets for American products?  Or did the IMF create foreign industries able to effectively compete against American industries and thereby cause the loss of American profits, jobs, high wages, and standard of living?

The proof is in the pudding.  Are Americans blessed with lower unemployment rates today than we had in the 1990s?  Are American wages rising or falling? Is the American standard of living rising or falling?

Has the IMF really worked in the best interests of the people of the United States?  Or has it worked against those interests?   The answer’s obvious.  The Bretton Woods Committee’s claims that the IMF works for the best interests of the people of the United States are lies.

If it’s true that the IMF has worked against the best interests of the American people, and it’s known that the IMF is dominated, some say, controlled, by the US government, then it follows that our government has been working against the best interests of the American people for at least a generation.


“Implementing the IMF quota reforms negotiated by the United States in 2010 bolsters our leadership in the Fund without increasing the overall U.S. financial commitment.  It requires other countries to make additional financial commitments, effectively providing a larger and more stable source of financing that the U.S.—as the largest shareholder and only country with veto power over major IMF decisions—can leverage to continue to preserve our national security and economic interests abroad. A stronger IMF keeps emerging economies secured in the system we designed without sacrificing any of our influence.

We would therefore urge the Congress to continue its longstanding, bipartisan support of the International Monetary Fund for our national self-interest and for the good of the global system.”

When the Bretton Woods Committee refers to bolstering “our leadership” and “our national self-interest” does the word “our” refer to the government of the United State, the people of the United States, or the “prominent global citizens” who comprise The Bretton Woods Committee?

Similarly, who are the “we” in the phrase “the system we designed”—the US government, American people or the Committee’s “prominent global citizens”?

Whoever those authors may be, it’s apparent that “the system we designed” is the current “global [fiat monetary] system”.

Knowing the identity of the “we” who designed that “global system” is important since that “we” will undoubtedly be the primary beneficiaries of that “global system”.

Does this “we” include the American people?  Or is that “we” only the “prominent global citizens” composed of super-rich and/or high former government officials who are closely associated with The Bretton Woods Committee and/or similar organizations?

Where does the U.S. Constitution grant powers to government, Congress or even “prominent global citizens” to “design” a “global system” and a New World Order that’s paid for, in part or in whole, by the wealth or guaranteed loans of the People of The United States of America?

If the American people aren’t part of the “we” behind this global system, they probably won’t benefit from that system—but will they even be impoverished, oppressed and even enslaved by that “global system”?

The letter concludes with “Respectfully yours,” followed by the signatures of 32 “prominent global citizens”1 who include:

7 Secretaries of the Treasury:  Nicholas Brady, Timothy Geithner, Paul H. O’Neill, Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin, John Snow, Lawrence H. Summers,

6 National Security Advisors: Sandy Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski , Stephen J. Hadley, Henry Kissinger, Robert McFarlane, Brent Scowcroft

4 Congressmen and/or Senators:  William Cohen, Lee Hamilton, Tom Ridge, Vin Weber

4 Generals and/or Admirals:  Michael W. Hagee (USMC; Ret.),  Brent Scowcroft (USAF; Ret.), Charles F. Wald (USAF; Ret.), James M. Loy (USCG; Ret.)

3 Secretaries of State:  Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger, Condoleeza Rice

3 Secretaries of Defense:  Harold Brown, Frank Carlucci, Leon Panetta

2 U.S. Trade Representatives:  Charlene Barshefsky, Carla Hills,

2 Directors and/ or Deputy Directors of the CIA:  Frank Carlucci, Leon Panetta

2 Private Bankers:  Timothy Geithner, Robert Rubin

2 Homeland Security advisors:  Lee Hamilton, Tom Ridge

2 Governors:  Bill Richardson (NM), Tom Ridge (PA)

1 White House Chief of Staff:  James Baker

1 Chairman of the Federal Reserve:  Alan Greenspan

1 Secretary of Agriculture:  Clayton Yeutter

1 Secretary of Health and Urban Development:  Carla Hills

1 President of the World Bank:  Robert Zoellick

I have little doubt that this list of names is a “Who’s Who?” of the America’s “prominent global citizens” and proponents of globalism and the New World Order.

I have much doubt that any of these “prominent global citizens” are working for the best interests of the American people.

So long as Americans remain indifferent to the forces of globalism, The United States of America will continue to decline and  possible national destruction.


1There are more than 32 offices included in this list because some of these “prominent global citizens” held more than one significant office and are therefore listed more than once.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s