Over the past week, time has been spent watching C-Span videos from the 1989-1992 timeframe in which William Barr, Trump’s nominee for Attorney General (AG) appeared. There is no more perfect candidate for AG at this time in history than William Barr. If someone had planned it, they could not have picked someone more perfect. He’s so perfect in fact, it makes the anomalies of Jeff Sessions seem like Sessions was simply a placeholder until William Barr could clear his calendar.
During that timeframe Bush declared a war on crime and announced a package of changes to the criminal justice system. William Barr would have been the AG to implement them but for the fact that Clinton was elected instead of Bush. The observation has been that when a new administration comes into office, the names of the programs are changed, the players are shuffled but the underlying programs are not. They are sold to the public on different points of emphasis but there is no real difference so the changing of the guard doesn’t matter. The programs are still implemented as planned.
William Barr got his masters in Chinese Studies and he went to work for the CIA. Barr joined the Office of Policy Development for the Reagan White House in 1982 reporting to Roger Porter. According to the record posted on the Reagan Library website:
Barr was the Deputy Assistant Director for Legal Policy. His responsibilities included civil rights (fair housing, women’s equality issues, affirmative action, desegregation in education, etc.), crime, and immigration.
There is a video on C-Span where Roger Porter is interviewed about Bush’s criminal justice policy demonstrated by the crime package of legislation. The legislation was very heavily focused on guns and gun violence. The first 5 minutes of the video are spent talking about the major points of the legislation. At 6 minutes, the interviewer gives a list of Porter’s professional work history. The following is a sound clip of the segment giving Porter’s background.
• He worked for 3 presidents in economics and policy development
• IBM Professor of Government in Business at Harvard.
• Associate Director of the Utah Local Government Modernization Study.
• He studied Economics, Philosophy & Politics at Oxford
• At the time of the interview, he was working on crime policy
The significance of Roger Porter’s background is that it tells me that he was an executive level Systems Analyst and Systems Designer early in the history of the profession riding the wave of automation in government. One of the differences between government and business as it pertains to systems is the requirement for authorizing legislation that must occur between the vision of a system and the implementation of the system. That’s where the convergence of policy, law and economics occurs. Given William Barr’s background and the fact that he worked for Roger Porter, it seems likely that Barr’s function was to write law authorizing the functions of the system corresponding to the vision.
Where philosophy and economics become important is in the design of a system. If you think of communist central planners and the design of systems for administrative functions, they had no constraints in terms of the roles and procedures they designed. They were totalitarian in nature. “You will do what we tell you to do”. An American systems designer has (or used to have) the additional considerations for constitutional rights, culture and customs. During the George H.W. Bush Administration, they dropped the American constraints and began central planning and designing systems for a totalitarian communist state. The incentives for exchange of values between totalitarian systems and systems for an American capitalist system would be things like money or security (read terrorism).
The U.S.-USSR “Green” Agreement
When I first listened to the video of Roger Porter talking about the crime bill, what I heard was different than what was said. The Interviewer said Grain Agreement but I heard Green Agreement. That was a fortuitous error on my part because I set about trying to find the Agreement. And I did find it although it wasn’t called the green agreement. On the EPA’s website, there is a webpage for the U.S.-USSR Environmental Cooperation Treaty signed on May 23, 1972.
1972 was earlier than my other research would indicated for a treaty on environmental cooperation so I pursued the thread.
On the State Department history website for the 1969-1976 timeframe, these documents were found:
Memorandum from the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger) to President Nixon listing the following categories of cooperation in the bilateral agreement:
- +Agreement Category Detail
Environmental Agreement. The US and USSR agree to establish closer and longer-term cooperation between interested organizations in the environmental field. A new US–USSR Joint Committee on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection is established to approve bilateral measures and programs of cooperation and make recommendations to the two Governments. Each country will designate a principal coordinator—Russell E. Train, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, will take the lead for the US. It is planned that Train will make a post-Summit trip to Moscow to work out the details of the agreement. (See Tab C)
Health Agreement. The US and USSR undertake to develop and deepen mutual cooperation in the field of medical science and public Health. They agree to do so through the Joint Committee for Health Cooperation which was established by the February 11 exchange of letters between HEW Secretary Elliot Richardson and Soviet Minister of Health Petrovsky. As agreed in that exchange of letters, initial research efforts will be focused on cancer, heart diseases and the environmental Health sciences.
Maritime Agreement. The US and USSR agree to understandings on maritime and related matters which should facilitate an expansion of commerce between the two countries. The understandings include provisions relating to port access, entry and treatment of ships of one country in the ports of the other and equal participation in cargo carriage.
Joint Commercial Commission. The US and USSR agree to establish a Joint Commercial Commission to translate bilateral commercial objectives agreed to during your visit into specific agreements and actions. The Commission would negotiate a bilateral trade agreement, work to resolve outstanding commercial and financial issues and monitor the US-Soviet trade relationship over time. The Secretary of Commerce will chair the US side. (See Tab H)
The Washington Post has an article that includes a copy of the Joint Communiqué from Nixon’s 1972 visit to Moscow. Under the heading of Bilateral Relations is written the following:
Guided by the desire to place U.S.-Soviet relations on a more stable and constructive foundation, and mindful of their responsibilities for maintaining world peace and for facilitating the relaxation of international tension, the two Sides adopted a document entitled: “Basic Principles of Mutual Relations between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” signed on behalf of the U.S. by President Nixon and on behalf of the U.S.S.R. by General Secretary Brezhnev.
Text of the Basic Principles of Relations Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, May 29, 1972. (The Basic Principles are also posted on the State Department website). There are 12 points in the Principles. The following is an excerpt of the Principles that are exceptionally important:
Moscow, May 29, 1972.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Guided by their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and by a desire to strengthen peaceful relations with each other and to place these relations on the firmest possible basis,
Third. The USA and the USSR have a special responsibility, as do other countries which are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to do everything in their power so that conflicts or situations will not arise which would serve to increase international tensions. Accordingly, they will seek to promote conditions in which all countries will live in peace and security and will not be subject to outside interference in their internal affairs.
Fourth. The USA and the USSR intend to widen the juridical basis of their mutual relations and to exert the necessary efforts so that bilateral agreements which they have concluded and multilateral treaties and agreements to which they are jointly parties are faithfully implemented.
Sixth. The Parties will continue their efforts to limit armaments on a bilateral as well as on a multilateral basis. They will continue to make special efforts to limit strategic armaments. Whenever possible, they will conclude concrete agreements aimed at achieving these purposes.
The USA and the USSR regard as the ultimate objective of their efforts the achievement of general and complete disarmament and the establishment of an effective system of international security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Tenth. The USA and the USSR will seek to ensure that their ties and cooperation in all the above-mentioned fields and in any others in their mutual interest are built on a firm and long-term basis. To give a permanent character to these efforts, they will establish in all fields where this is feasible joint commissions or other joint bodies.
On the Nixon Foundation website, there is a transcript of the meeting between Nixon and Brezhnev. Use the zoom controls to go to full screen to read it.
A copy of the text of the toasts of President Nixon and Nikolai V. Podgorny, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R is published on the UC Santa Barbara Presidency Project website presumably in celebration of their agreement.
There are always surprises when doing researching this kind of information. On my old research, I had a link to a webpage that included information on the origin of the Helsinki Accord and the “baskets” of cooperation. The following is an excerpt from this page:
On August 1, 1975, the leaders of the original 35 participating States gathered in Helsinki and signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Also known as the Helsinki Accords, the Final Act is not a treaty, but rather a politically binding agreement consisting of three main sections informally known as “baskets,” adopted on the basis of consensus. This comprehensive Act contains a broad range of measures designed to enhance security and cooperation in the region extending from Vancouver to Vladivostok.
Basket I contains a Declaration of Principles Guiding Relations between participating States, including the all-important Principle VII on human rights and fundamental freedoms. It also includes a section on confidence-building measures and other aspects of security and disarmament aimed at increasing military transparency.
Basket II covers economic, scientific, technological and environmental cooperation, as well as migrant labor, vocational training and the promotion of tourism.
Basket III is devoted to cooperation in humanitarian and other fields: freer movement of people; human contacts, including family reunification and visits; freedom of information, including working conditions for journalists; and cultural and educational exchanges. Principle VII and Basket III together have come to be known as “The Human Dimension.”
Since 1975, the number of countries signing the Helsinki Accords has expanded to 55, reflecting changes such as the breakup of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
Institutionalization of the Conference in the early 1990s led to its transformation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, effective January 1995.
The significance of the reference: the region from Vancouver to Vladivostok is that both Vancouver and Vladivostok are in the Pacific region so the Helsinki Accord was not just about Europe and the Atlantic region. Recently I wrote about Gorbachev and Vladivostok in an article titled, Gorbachev’s About Face. That report was part of a series on the establishment of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) organization.
Agreements between governments don’t cease to be operational just because the media and the public forgets about them. Within the bowels of government those agreements live in perpetuity unless changed. In 1994, Al Gore signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Russians concerning cooperation on the Environment. The 1994 agreement supercedes the 1972 agreement. Based on this, it can be assumed that subsequent cooperation agreements in all areas of the Helsinki Accord were also updated to change the reference from the Soviet Union to Russia or perhaps the Commonwealth of Independent States (new name for the Soviet Union). For example, on the University of Oregon website, there is a page showing an agreement titled, Agreement on cooperation in the field of environmental protection among the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
For more background and to provide continuity, a paper was found on the Pace University, Pace Law Faculty Publications titled, Perestroika and Priroda: Environmental Protection in the USSR.
Roger Porter and the Grain Agreement
Getting back to Roger Porter and the Grain Agreement, that was the negotiation that began the trading of real economic assets in exchange for human rights concessions in other countries. Succinctly, they sold our economy out from under us to achieve concessions from the communist countries that they were theoretically obligated under the UN system to implement anyway. They used the international system for grand theft country.
Porter wrote two books:
Presidential Decision Making
U.S.-USSR Grain Agreement
The U.S-USSR Grain Agreement is used as a case study at the Harvard School of Government. The following is the learning objective:
Based in part on The US-USSR Grain Agreement (Roger Porter, Cambridge University Press, 1984), this case is a snapshot of the information-gathering and decision-making processes at the highest level of the United States government.
It’s easy to conclude that it was the beginning of computer systems modeling to determine the economic value of what would be extracted or added from the U.S. economy and to use the output of the model in policy decisions. In the case of the grain agreement, value was added because the farmers were able to sell excess wheat to Russia. Russia’s concession for that agreement was nothing so the Grain Agreement served as a loss leader demonstration of the concept that in the future would that concept would be used to extract real wealth from this country with nothing much for the people of this country.
As time has progressed, the models upon which decision were made, were not accurate which is the problem with models. They can be jerry-rigged to produce any result desired by selection of the variables and the weight given to the variable. That accounts for the disconnect between government information about economy that said it was booming and that we were benefiting from the trade agreements when in fact, we were hemorrhaging economic vitality.
What should be clear by now is the U.S. government has been engaged in Russian collusion since 1972 not by Donald Trump, but by our own government and their independent commissions and councils. The big picture is that the American government has been a puppet government for an international system since 1945 when the U.S. Senate ratified the Act to establish the United Nations: United Nations Participation Act, December 20, 1945.
U.S.-Russia Environmental Agreement – Wildlife Without Borders
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Digest of Federal Resource Law of Interest to F&W
NAFTA – Environmental Side Agreement now incorporated into the USMCA Agreement that replaced NAFTA.
University of Colorado, International Law & Policy, Linda Allen, The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation…