Marshall Plan for Latin America:

Alliance for Progress

Communists... are what they call their rivals.  Economic Developers... are what they call their allies but they are one and the same in practice.


The Marshall Plan was a proposal by Secretary of State George C. Marshall to provide funding for rebuilding Europe after WWII.  The Alliance for Progress was a Marshall Plan for Latin America.  Kennedy's program clearly had support from the Congress because during his brief stint in the presidency, he succeeded in setting up the institutional infrastructure for what would eventually become the means for extraction of American wealth to foreign countries through foreign aid and trade. The legislative summary can be viewed on the JFK Presidential Library.  

The Office of the Historian of the State Department wrote this:

Washington policymakers saw the Alliance as a means of bulwarking capitalist economic growth, funding social reforms to help the poorest Latin Americans, promoting democracy--and strengthening ties between the United States and its neighbors. A key element of the Alliance was U.S. military assistance to friendly regimes in the region...The Alliance did not achieve all its lofty goals. According to one study, only 2 percent of economic growth in 1960s Latin America directly benefited the poor; and there was a general deterioration of United States-Latin American relations by the end of the 1960s.

Of particular note in the extensive list of legislation to establish the foreign aid infrastructure was the Foreign Aid Authorization Act of 1961.  An extract of the webpage with highlights can be viewed HERE.  A new agency, USAID was created by Executive Order 10973 to carry out the programs characterized as foreign aid.  

In April of 1967, Lyndon Baines Johnson attended the second summit of the Latin American Presidents.  He signed the Declaration of the Presidents of the Americas including an Action Plan making promises of U.S. assistance to create a Latin American Common Market. The text below are excerpts from the Declaration.




Declaration of the Presidents of Americas
Punta Del Este, Uruguay - 1967


RESOLVED to give more dynamic and concrete expression to the ideals of Latin American unity and of solidarity among the peoples of America, which inspired the founders of their countries;

...INSPIRED by the principles underlying the inter-American system, especially those contained in the Charter of Punta del Este, the Economic and Social Act of Rio de Janeiro, and the Protocol of Buenos Aires amending the Charter of the Organization of American States;

...PLEDGED to give vigorous impetus to the Alliance for Progress and to emphasize its multilateral character, with a view to encouraging balanced development of the region at a pace substantially faster than attained thus far;

Latin America will create a common market.

THE PRESIDENTS OF THE LATIN AMERICAN REPUBLICS resolve to create progressively, beginning in 1970, the Latin American Common Market, which shall be substantially in operation in a period of no more than fifteen years. The Latin American Common Market will be based on the complete development and progressive convergence of the Latin American Free Trade Association and of the Central American Common Market, taking into account the interests of, the Latin American countries not yet affiliated with these systems. This great task will reinforce historic bonds, will promote industrial development and, the strengthening of Latin American industrial enterprises, as well as more efficient production and now opportunities for employment, and will permit the region to play its deservedly significant role in world affairs. The ties of friendship among the peoples of the Continent will thus be strengthened.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for his part, declares his firm support for this promising Latin American initiative.


We will lay the physical foundations for Latin American economic integration through multinational projects.

Economic integration demands a major sustained effort to build a land transportation network and to improve transportation systems of all kinds so as to open the way for the movement of both people and goods throughout the Continent; to establish an adequate and efficient telecommunications system; to install inter-connected power systems; and to develop jointly international river basins, frontier regions, and economic areas which include the territory of two or more countries.


Read the rest of the betrayal of the people of the United States HERE    The "movement of people
and goods
"  was a plan to eliminate the American borders and de facto, a plan to destroy the standard
of living of the American middle class by flooding the country with foreign labor with the ultimate goal of unleashing monopoly capitalism without borders. 

Jacob Javits

Jacob Javits, a Ukrainian Jew from the lower east side of Manhattan, liberal Republican Senator from New York was the prime mover behind the policies to provide U.S. aid and technical assistance to create a Latin American Common Market.  According to Emilio Collado an executive for Standard Oil of New Jersey, in a 1963 CFR article titled, Economic Development through Private Enterprise, "More rapid economic development for the less developed areas of the world is something which most of us in the United States want very much.  We want it for humanitarian reasons and we want it because we believe it is in our national interest".1  Mr. Collado was recruited by Javits (and David Rockefeller) to promote the policies of Latin American economic integration.  A simplified explanation of the early policy was that financial institutions with guarantees for private investors would be set up so they could safely (and profitably) invest in Latin 


Jacob Koppel Javits
NY Senator 1957-1981

America while the governments of Latin America, Foundations and NGOs handled the social aspects of development.  Javits' intent was to build international administrative and financial structures ala the Marshall Plan to develop Latin America.  Thanks to declassified U.S. State Department documents2, we know that the real intent of the Marshall plan was not to rebuild European countries, rather, the intent was to subvert national sovereignty of European countries replacing national governments with the European Union - a regional "governance" structure.  Money for economic development was used as a weapon for that purpose.            

Toward the goal of a Marshall Plan for Latin America, "Javits and Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN) initiated a bipartisan effort to promote and secure investment of European capital in Latin America by creating a private non-profit organization known as the Atlantic Community Development Group for Latin America (ADELA).  In order to maximize the amount of European capital, the organization also sought capital from the United States and Japan to augment investment.  ADELA was intended to perform the dual functions that were viewed as mutually necessary--the promotion of economic integration in Latin America and encouraging private capital investment."3 

The name ADELA came up in my previous research connected to the Club of Rome4.  Aurelio Peccei, co-founder of the Club of Rome restarted Fiat's manufacturing operations in Argentina following World War II. Peccei was involved with ADELA from 1963 when it was created until 1974.   The other co-founder of the Club of Rome was Alexander King, Chairman of Productivity and Industrial Research Committee within the Organization for European Co-operation (OEEC) and later Director of the European Productivity Agency.  In 1961, when the OEEC became the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Alexander King became a Director and then a Director-General.  Aurelio Peccei was also instrumental in the founding of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).  The IIASA was a joint effort between the United States and the Soviet Union to allow scientists to conceive solutions to global problems (choke! gag!).  The idea for IIASA was conceived in 1966 and the charter was signed in London in 1972 - eighteen years before the cold war was supposedly ended. 

There are a couple of significant things to know about Aurelio Peccei before continuing.  Peccei got his doctorate in economics at Turin University in 1930.  His thesis was on Lenin's New Economic Policy.  He attended the Sorbonne in France on scholarship and was awarded a free trip to the Soviet Union according to Peccei's biography.  Before and during World War II, Aurelio Peccei was a member of Giustizia e Libertà (English: Justice and Liberty). 

Back to the Marshall Plan for Latin America, in Salvador Rivera's paper he wrote: 

"Javits informed the NATO group that the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (O.E.C.D.) needed to be enlisted in ADELA and the Latin
American economic integration effort because NATO was not designed as a development
agency. He warned that unless Latin America was given the necessary economic
assistance, its commodity-based economy might crumble under the weight of competition
resulting from the new trade agreements made between the European Economic
Community (EEC) and its former colonies. These agreements provided the ex-colonies
with preferential treatment within the EEC organization by giving preference to their
commodities over those of the Latin Americans."5

Going off the rails - turning this into a rant because I can't take anymore....

The OECD was the successor organization of the OEEC.  The OEEC was the administrator of the Marshall Plan in Europe.  The conclusion that I arrive at is that the 1960 reorganization of the OEEC to be the OECD was to accommodate the Latin American Marshall Plan that Jacob Javits was promoting and all of these people who were involved were what we called Communists back in the day and if you read the Wiki page about Giustizia e Libertà, you can't possibly not see the parallels between what happened to Germany when these animals were operating there - and what's happening in the U.S. today.  "Free Trade" is a tactic of international communism or fascism if you prefer because only the wealthy benefit from it - and the rest are economically devastated and when they complain, they become victims again - prisoners of a police state - run by the criminally insane who engineered their destruction.  Rather than communist or fascist, I think I prefer to call them a psychopathic, criminal syndicate because that's what they are.  Academics who write about them whitewash their image by wrapping marketing and intellectual fraud in philosophical terms to give them legitimacy.  The way this game is played is complex to be sure, but anybody who is an accredited academic who can't see through the layers of fraud and the networks of operatives, doesn't deserve the title or the respect bestowed on so-called intellectuals.

A declassified Memorandum from the OECD presumably to the State Department on the Truman Library dated August 4, 1948, contained an overview of the covert external economic planning for the economies of Europe.  Interestingly, the Bureau of Labor Statistics within the U.S. Department of Commerce published a paper about the Marshall Plan.  The content of that paper makes me think that the OEEC (OECD) was actually external agency of the BLS.  You read it and decide.  BLS and the Marshall Plan: the forgotten story

The goal of OEEC (OECD) was to collect statistics from all of the countries in Europe covered by the Marshall Plan and to use those statistics for orchestration of the economic recovery using methods of central planning.  By extension, Javits wanted the same plan to be applied to Latin America to create their "Common Market".  

Also found on the Truman Library website was an Address given by Dean Acheson to the Delta Council at Cleveland, MS on May 8, 1947.  The title of the Address was The Requirements of Reconstruction. Acheson said one very important thing in that speech that proves that American trade policy since World War II was not in the interest of the American people.  It was in the interest of global imperialism that benefitted a few at the top - draining the United States of wealth in the process.  At the bottom of page 3, left hand column, in response to the question "What do these facts (post war surplus) of international life mean for the United States and for United States foreign policy?  They mean first that we in the United States must take as large as a volume of imports as possible from abroad in order that the financial gap between what the world needs and what it can pay for can be narrowed". 

The last time I checked America's trade deficit, it was $12 trillion as of June 30, 2007.  Under the Marshall Plan, the U.S. foreign policy was to transfer technology, money and know-how to our "competitors" for their economic well-being, while draining our own.  It began with Europe, moved to Latin America with the Alliance for Progress, after the fall of apartheid in South Africa, they demanded a Marshall Plan and it doesn't end there.  Now, as I listen to the whore politicians talk about how they are going to balance the budget and pay down the deficit - doing it on the backs of the American people with open borders for the "free movement of people and goods", it makes me think that the only exceptional thing about the American people is the degree of their gullibility and stupidity.  It's boundary-less.   

Despite popular belief, we don't have a free enterprise system in the United States and haven't had one for a long time.  We have a centrally planned economy that's failing.  The recovery idea is for the U.S. to become an exporting economy.  Really?  Export what?   Apps for the iPhone?   Recently, one of my best researcher friends found a definition under the NAICS category for manufacturing.  Here is an excerpt of what she wrote:

I was looking up the ECPC (Economic Classification Policy Committee) I found this link describing three types of manufacturing. The issue was how to classify certain industries in the NAICs code since manufacturing has changed due to technology and globalization. Specifically outsourcing of production.

There are three classes of manufacturing - 1) Traditional or Integrated Manufacturers; 2) Manufacturing Service Providers; and 3) Factoryless Goods Producers. 


"Factoryless Goods Producer

The factoryless goods producer (FGP) outsources all of the transformation steps that
traditionally have been considered manufacturing, but undertakes all of the
entrepreneurial steps and arranges for all required capital, labor, and material inputs
required to make a good. Characteristics of FGPs include:
  • Owns rights to the intellectual property or design (whether independently developed or otherwise acquired) of the final manufactured product;
  • May or may not own the input materials;
  • Does not own production facilities;
  • Does not perform transformation activities;
  • Owns the final product produced by manufacturing service provider partners; and
  • Sells the final product.
The FGP can provide information on the purchase of the manufacturing service, that is,
the cost of the contract, but would not necessarily have production worker payroll or
capital expenditures on plant and equipment. However, it can provide data on the
number of units that were produced and the market value of the final product. NAICS
United States 2007 does not provide clear or unambiguous guidance on the classification
of FGPs."

In more honest times, we called them Importers but "our government" has become so accustomed to dishonesty that I doubt it even occurred to them how absurd it is to have a category of manufacturing that is not engaged in production.  The reason "our government" is in quotes is because NAICS isn't even an American system:

NAICS is the first-ever North American industry classification system. The system was developed by the Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC), on behalf of the OMB, in cooperation with Statistics Canada and Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI) to provide comparable statistics across the three countries. For the first time, government and business analysts will be able to compare directly industrial production statistics collected and published in the three North American Free Trade Agreement countries. NAICS also provides for increased comparability with the International Standard Industrial Classification System (ISIC, Revision 3), developed and maintained by the United Nations."

Going back to the idea of export-led growth, we would do well to look at Italy.  Recently on the Real News Network in their series on Economics and Austerity, they had a video clip of a segment of the Fareed Zakaria's program in which Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti was the guest.  Apparently Italy is the showcase country for fiscal austerity having achieved a balanced budget this year and with a slight surplus next year through "fiscal consolidation" .  So what's the problem?   According to Monti, they achieved that goal by collapsing domestic demand (impoverishing their citizens) but they have not achieved the economic growth that they were told would come.  (e.g.  you have a stomach ache so the recommendation is that you commit suicide so you'll feel better in the morning.  Will you feel better?).  Now Monti is looking for the other countries in the EU to buy Italian goods - to create demand.  That's what global central economic planning does for you.   One plan fits all - except that it doesn't. 



1 Foreign Affairs, Emilio Collado, July, 1963, Economic Development through Private Enterprise,
2 Truman Library, Papers of Clark Clifford, declassified in 1960, U.S. Department of State, August 26, 1947, Summary of the Department's Position on the Content of a European Recovery Plan,
3 The Independent Institute, Working Paper No. 68, Salvador Rivera, Ph.D, August 20, 2007, Jacob K. Javits and Latin American Economic Integration,
4 The Stalking Horse, research documentation on the Club of Rome by me,
5 IBID. Salvador Rivera, Pg 9


Vicky Davis
August 30, 2012