Monthly Archives: June 2013

Bank Deposits Confiscation: Global Outlook

Grand Theft Eurozone

06/11/2013

In March 2013 the events in Cyprus shock the world to hit the radar screen of world media. The bank deposits were confiscated. Some tried to make it look as an emergency measure, an exclusion from the rules that define banking activities and the functioning of market economy. But there is a solid ground to believe the confiscations are to become a routine feature of everyday life.

Deposit confiscation: a well-planned impromptu

The events were normally painted as some kind of poorly planned ad libbed decision on the part of the European Union carried out by Cyprus government. It was a one-time action, a step taken under the pressure of circumstances. We view it differently, in our opinion it was a well prepared concerted action approved at top level including actors outside Europe. The very operation should be defined as a precedent, an experiment or a test. Or, to be exact, the test to launch a global trend and the confiscation spread around the world.

As far back as in 2009 – 2010, when the ways out of the global crisis were discussed at international summits (G7, G8, G20 and other structures), non-standard ways of banks rescue in contingency were part of the agenda, including the schemes of bailing them out at the expense of account holders. For instance, things like introducing cuts on deposits, full or partial, or freezing accounts (either till a bank has fully recovered or by compulsive conversion into shares (authorized capital stock).

Even after the first wave of the financial crisis died down, the ideas never stopped hitting the agenda of world financial agencies (the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Financial Stability Oversight Council – FSOC), central banks, banking and financial oversight agencies of the «gold billion» countries.

For instance in December 2012, “Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions,” a joint white paper by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Bank of England, saw light. The authors cede that the recent banking crisis was in great measure managed thanks to financial injections. As they see it, the measure is wrong because by violating the market economy laws it shifts the burden on taxpayers, aggravates budget deficits and boosts state debts. The report says the use of deposits for the purpose of rescuing creditors is a more just, effective and market oriented way to tackle the issue.

The prescription envisions the following ways to use the money of account holders: a) no return subsidies; b) credits; c) investments (acquisition of shares and stock). The paper admits the deposits converted into shares of the bank make a money owner lose the right for compensation of losses guaranteed by state insurance. Let me recall that the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) offered guarantees for the deposits below $250 thousand. It is also noted in the report that the state insurances of the United States, Great Britain and other states of «gold billion» will not be able to provide safety cushions to deposits. This way the use of deposits for banks rescue becomes inevitable. 

Somehow the authors get around the question if the proposed measures are just, democratic or market like. They come to a rather under-substantiated conclusion that the state deposit insurance has obviously become an anachronism nowadays.

The idea of deposit cuts in Cyprus banks hung in the air a few months before the European Union and Cyprus announced their decision. On January 2013 the New York Times used the Russian word strizhka while describing the Cyprus happenings, «Russians, who hold about one-fifth of bank deposits in Cyprus, would take a big hit». No surprise the US journalists knew what would take place in Cyprus two months before the events. What is striking is the carelessness of many Russian clients who believed the offshore was a safe haven. According to European Commission estimates (evidently understated) the depositors of the two largest Cyprus banks – Laiki Bank and the Bank of Cyprus lost €8, 3 billion of depositors’ money because of cuts. 

In April 2013 Cyprus President Nicos Anastasiades said, «Regrettably, this fundamental EU principle was not respected. On the contrary, decisions reached beforehand by the interested parties were coercively imposed». He added, «I sincerely hope that this precedent in relation to Cyprus is not going to be applied elsewhere in Europe, although, as it is well known, the main raison d’etre of a precedent is that it can serve the purpose of establishing norms and guidelines to be repeatedly and universally applied». Indeed. Thus some countries started to discuss the Cyprus experience for practical purposes.

Some states individual initiatives

Right after what happened in Cyprus, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Greece; Slovenia came into the focus of public scrutiny. These are economically weak links; the banking bankruptcy risks are especially high. It was expected back in March the same bank rescue steps would be applied in one of these states. Significant deposit outflows went to the banks of states boasting more stable economies, especially Switzerland. Quite unexpectedly the Cyprus goings-on were echoed thousands of miles away – in New Zealand and Canada.

The government of New Zealand started activities to push through the same decision on tackling the financial institutions bail-out problem: the essence is that the deposits are to be subject to cuts in order to save the banks. The scheme is called the Open Bank Resolution (OBR) by Bill English, Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand and Minister of Finance. He had put it forward before what happened in Cyprus; the events just inspired him to shift the discussion into the parliament of the country. «Bill English is proposing a Cyprus-style solution for managing bank failure here in New Zealand – a solution that will see small depositors lose some of their savings to fund big bank bailouts». said Green Party Co-leader Dr. Russel Norman. «The Reserve Bank (central bank – author’s note) is in the final stages of implementing a system of managing bank failure called Open Bank Resolution. The scheme will put all bank depositors on the hook for bailing out their bank. «Depositors will overnight have their savings shaved by the amount needed to keep the bank afloat. While the details are still to be finalized, nearly all depositors will see their savings reduced by the same proportions».

The Open Bank Resolution is an instrument of confiscations planned in advance. Back then (March 2013) it was unprecedented. Normally the «gold billion» states practice $100-250 thousand level insurance. In the given case the money belonging to people is to be confiscated. Many experts view with bewilderment the New Zealand’s innovations thinking the implementation will bury the country’s banking system.

The government of Canada annually submits to the parliament Economic Action Plan prepared by the Department of Finance. On March 21 the 2013 Plan went to MPs. On page 155 it says, «The Government proposes to implement a – bail in regime for systemically important banks. This regime will be designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that a systemically important bank depletes its capital, the bank can be recapitalized and returned to viability through the very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital This will reduce risks for taxpayers. The Government will consult stakeholders on how best to implement a bail in regime in Canada Implementation timelines will allow for a smooth transition for affected institutions, investors and other market participants». In other words, the depositors’ money could be used to bail out banks.

The Cyprus events raised the issue of deposit cuts in the United States of America. Some lawmakers have tried to come up with initiatives aimed at introducing the right of using deposits to bail out US banks, but the efforts have failed lacking even minimum support. Here is the reason why. The Cyprus cuts decision is called a «tax for rich», and the commentators said the depositors got what they deserved because the bulk of money kept in Cyprus bank accounts was held by foreign oligarchs, tax evaders and money launders. Applying the same scheme in the United States will be tantamount to imposing a poor and middle class tax. Well to do Americans keep away from keeping the bulk of their savings in bank accounts, giving priority to stock exchange, equity, off exchange securities, gold, and silver and so on. The idea of imposing cuts on deposits has not resonated with general public in the United States of America. It contradicts the views spread around in American society calling for more equal distribution of wealth. By the way, in America they remember that it’s not deposits only that could be subject to cuts, but also the property kept in bank lockers (mainly by people of means). It has nothing to do with the Cyprus experience. It’s American know how. Back in 2010 the US Department of Home Security circulated a letter among banks with a warning that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies had a legal access to bank clients’ vaults and lockers. Papers, gold, other precious metals and valuables could be confiscated in the interests of national security if need be. Of course, at the moment (2010) the information was related to fighting organized crime, drug trafficking, funding terrorists etc. The letter was to the effectiveness of complying with the Patriot Act in force after the 9/11events. The things have changed and in 2013 some experts read the letter as saying that a bank failure is a serious threat to national security. So they have come to unexpected conclusion: a revision of lockers is allowed and valuables kept there can be used to rescue failing banks. Here is the sanctity of private property! It smells of Bolshevism which in its time taught that the «end justifies the means».

Europe gets ready for big «haircut»

Europe is leaving others behind on the way to introducing the haircuts of deposits. Or the European Union, to be exact. The first step was made on April 24 this year when the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) of the European Parliament voted on its report on the proposal for a directive on bank recovery and resolution. This is a key pillar in the reform of EU banking legislation, following the agreement on the capital requirements and single supervisor package. Gunnar Hökmark, MEP, Sweden’s Conservative Party, was one of the new system’s architects. In the middle of May the deposit cuts issue was debated by Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) session chaired by Michel Barnier, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services. On May 20 a group of lawmakers in the European Parliament’s economics committee overwhelmingly voted that, from 2016, large depositors in the EU might suffer losses if a bank gets into serious trouble. The plan was similar to a deal in Cyprus, where wealthy depositors at two banks took hits to save the country from bankruptcy. The European Parliament has joint say with the 27 countries in the EU on the law that would give regulators powers to impose losses on creditors and take other steps during a bank rescue. The legislation envisions creation of national resolution funds based on bank contributions. As of today the main provisions are:

1. Deposits under 100,000 euros would be spared.

2. A bank would dip into large deposits of over 100,000 euros once it had exhausted other avenues such as shareholders and bondholders.

3. The new banks bail out system will become effective in 2016.

4. The legislation envisions creation of national resolution funds based on bank contributions. Some lawmakers are calling for a Europe-wide resolution fund and the European Commission is due to propose such a fund in the coming months but that faces resistance from Germany.

5. Bank depositors are divided into reliable and risky. The confiscation measures are defined by what category a depositor belongs to.

The last provision is the most interesting one. There are no definite criteria for defining the depositors. But some analysts read the provision as follows.The reliable ones are «ours», that is those who belong to Eurozone. The risky ones come from outside. Evidently, the depositors from Russia will be considered to be risky account holders. This attitude towards the clients from Russia is not new. This spring the Russian Cyprus depositors started to look for «back-up airports» in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and some other states of Eastern Europe. A stern warning came from Brussels. The eurobeaurocrats said the bankers in Eastern Europe should keep away from dealing with Russian clients – the reason was that the Russian depositors’ sources of income did not meet the legitimacy requirements. So, there should be no surprise that the money of Russia’s citizens deposited in the European Union member countries will be constantly under the Damocles sword of confiscation. 

Valentin Katasonov/StrategicCulture

6 Comments

Filed under BIS, BoE, EU, FDIC, IMF

The Direct Link Between Agenda 21 & Local Planners

Agenda 21

06/05/2013

When the fight started against Agenda 21, those of us working to expose it were largely ignored by the main stream media and even the established Conservative movement and its media. Too far out there, they said, to be taken seriously.

Then, as more and more Americans began to experience the dire effects of Sustainable Development in their daily lives, suddenly our message began to take hold. Today, thousands of Americans have taken up the fight. And anti-Agenda 21 activists are storming planning meetings, demanding answers. State legislatures and even some county and city governments are passing legislation against it. It seems the Agenda 21 fight is everywhere.

So, now, proponents of the Sustainable Development policy are alarmed and working feverishly to counter our claims that such controls over local development and energy policy have their roots in international policy. In particular, our claims that these planning policies come from the United Nation’s Agenda 21, that was introduced to the world at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992.

Their most often used description of Agenda 21 is an “innocuous, 20 year old document that has no enforcement power.” Continuously we hear that local planning programs, especially from such groups like the American Planning Association (APA) have no connection to Agenda 21 or the UN. It’s all local – or as the APA says in its document, Glossary for the Public, “There is no hidden agenda.”  In its “Agenda 21: Myths and Facts” document found on the APA website, the group goes to extreme measures to distance itself and its policies from Agenda 21, specifically saying “The American Planning Association has no affiliation regarding any policy goals and recommendations of the UN.”

Well, then it would be interesting to hear the APA explain this information found in one of its own documents from 1994. The document was an APA newsletter to its members in the Northern California (San Francisco Area). The article was a commentary entitled “How Sustainable is Out Planning” by Robert Odland. It was written just two years after the UN Earth Summit at which Agenda 21 was first introduced to the world.

The fifth paragraph of the article says, “Vice President Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance addressed many of the general issues of sustainability. Within the past year, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development has been organized to develop recommendations for incorporating sustainability into the federal government. Also, various groups have been formed to implement Agenda 21, a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable development that was adopted at the recent UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro (the “Earth Summit.”)     

In one paragraph, this document brings together the APA, Agenda 21, the UN’s Earth Summit, Al Gore, Sustainable Development, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, NGO groups with the mission of implementing Agenda 21 and the description of Agenda 21 as a “comprehensive Blueprint” for Sustainable planning. It sounds like it came verbatim from one of my speeches!

A couple of paragraphs higher in the article, it says, “A common misconception is that sustainability is synonymous with self-sufficiency; on the contrary, sustainability must recognize the interconnections between different levels of societal structure.”  That “societal structure” is “social justice,” as described in Agenda 21. A visit to the PlannersNetwork.org, which the APA is a member, will find in its Statement of Principles this quote: “We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources…and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society … because the free market has proven incapable of doing this.”

The United Nations blatantly advocates that Capitalism and private property rights are not sustainable and pose the single greatest threat to the world’s ecosystem and social equity.  And, while sometimes using different words, the APA is helping communities across the nation enforce these ideas, while swearing it is all a local idea, designed from local input.

As George Orwell masterfully put it in his epic novel “Animal Farm,” it’s become difficult to see the difference between the pigs and the farmers – or the APA and the UN.

Sustainable Development is not implemented in the open, as the APA claims, but in back rooms filled with the proper NGO organizations, which surround your elected officials and pressures their actions. In that way it is changing our American society and form of government, making government more powerful and more invasive in our daily lives. Sustainability is anti free enterprise, anti private property, and anti individual – and that’s why we oppose it.

Tom DeWeese/AmericanPolicyCenter

3 Comments

Filed under APA, UN

LEAKED: CFR Newsletter (April 2013), Member Handbook (2012) & Donor Listing (2011-2012)

Related Link: LEAKED: 1,350 Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Members’ Email Addresses

4 Comments

Filed under CFR, Guccifer

CFR Cyber Task Force Report: Defending an Open, Global, Secure, and Resilient Internet

 

06/06/2013

Press Release

More:

Can Government Safeguard the Internet?

Is the threat of a “cyber Pearl Harbor” as potent as some have suggested?

Obama, Xi, and Cyberspace

Leave a comment

Filed under CFR

SIPRI Report: Israel Has At Least 80 Nukes, NPT States Working on New Nuclear Weapons or Plan to Do So

SIPRI 2013 Report - World Nuclear Forces

06/03/2013

A new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has weighed in with an educated guess about the Israeli military’s secretive nuclear weapons program, estimating the nation has around 80 “strategic” level nuclear weapons.

The estimate suggests 50 of the warheads are for Jericho II medium range missiles, with another 30 gravity bombs to be dropped from warplanes. The report says it is possible that smaller tactical nukes could also be in the nation’s arsenal.

If true, this would make Israel’s arsenal the smallest of the eight nuclear powers, though roughly in line with India and Pakistan who both, like Israel, are not signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). SIPRI put their arsenals in the range of 90-120 warheads.

Israel had been believed to have a considerably larger arsenal than this, with past estimates mostly in the 200 warhead range and some suggesting the number could be as high as 400. Israel is the only nuclear weapons state in the Middle East.

The report was critical not only of the non-NPT nations with nuclear arsenals, but also of the signatories who they reported are flouting treaty requirements to work toward disarmament, noting that all five such powers (US, UK, Russia, China, and France) are working on new nuclear weapons or plan to do so.

The countries “appear determined to retain their nuclear arsenals indefinitely”, says SIPRI in their latest yearbook report.

“Once again there was little to inspire hope that the nuclear-weapon-possessing states are genuinely willing to give up their nuclear arsenals. The long-term modernisation programmes under way in these states suggest that nuclear weapons are still a marker of international status and power,” said SIPRI senior researcher Shannon Kile.

At the start of 2013, eight states – the US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel – possessed approximately 4,400 operational nuclear weapons. Nearly 2,000 of these are kept in a state of high operational alert. If all nuclear warheads are counted, these states together possess a total of approximately 17,265 nuclear weapons.

The international arms trade in major conventional weapons grew by 17% between 2003 and 2012. The five largest suppliers over the past five years – the US, Russia, Germany, France and China – accounted for 75% of all conventional arms exports.

SIPRI estimates world military expenditure in 2012 to have been $1.756tn (£1.157tn), representing 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) – or $249 for each person in the world. Though a little lower than the previous two years, the total is higher than in any year between the end of the second world war and 2010.

4 Comments

Filed under SIPRI

Bilderberg’s 60-Year Trajectory Exposed

ExplosiveReports.Com

bilderberg

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
June 4, 2013

Incrementalism key to Bilderberg’s long-term agenda.

Some commenters in mainstream media are trying to downplay Bilderberg’s historical significance by suggesting the annual confabulation is a mostly reactionary body, contemplating current events but never steering them.

Studying the few reports that have managed to slip past the censors in the course of the previous decades, we can see that both the European Union and the European single currency have been nurtured and guided by the far-reaching hands of Bilderberg. For example, in the leaked transcript from the 1955 Bilderberg meeting (chaired by prince Bernhard of the Netherlands) participants speak of the “pressing need to bring the German people, together with the other peoples of Europe, into a common market”, and the desire is expressed to “arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common European market.”

In March…

View original post 2,833 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Bilderberg

Bilderberg 2013 Attendee List & Agenda

Bilderberg

06/03/2013

The 61st Bilderberg meeting is set to take place from 6 until 9 June 2013 in Hertfordshire, UK. A total of around 140 participants from 21 European and North American countries have confirmed their attendance. As ever, a diverse group of political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media have been invited.

ATTENDEE LIST

Chairman – FRA Castries, Henri de Chairman and CEO, AXA Group
DEU Achleitner, Paul M. Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG
DEU Ackermann, Josef Chairman of the Board, Zurich Insurance Group Ltd
GBR Agius, Marcus Former Chairman, Barclays plc
GBR Alexander, Helen Chairman, UBM plc
USA Altman, Roger C. Executive Chairman, Evercore Partners
FIN Apunen, Matti Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA
USA Athey, Susan Professor of Economics, Stanford Graduate School of Business
TUR Aydıntaşbaş, Aslı Columnist, Milliyet Newspaper
TUR Babacan, Ali Deputy Prime Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs
GBR Balls, Edward M. Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
PRT Balsemão, Francisco Pinto Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA
FRA Barré, Nicolas Managing Editor, Les Echos
INT Barroso, José M. Durão President, European Commission
FRA Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
FRA Bavinchove, Olivier de Commander, Eurocorps
GBR Bell, John Regius Professor of Medicine, University of Oxford
ITA Bernabè, Franco Chairman and CEO, Telecom Italia S.p.A.
USA Bezos, Jeff Founder and CEO, Amazon.com
SWE Bildt, Carl Minister for Foreign Affairs
SWE Borg, Anders Minister for Finance
NLD Boxmeer, Jean François van Chairman of the Executive Board and CEO, Heineken N.V.
NOR Brandtzæg, Svein Richard President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
AUT Bronner, Oscar Publisher, Der Standard Medienwelt
GBR Carrington, Peter Former Honorary Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings
ESP Cebrián, Juan Luis Executive Chairman, Grupo PRISA
CAN Clark, W. Edmund President and CEO, TD Bank Group
GBR Clarke, Kenneth Member of Parliament
DNK Corydon, Bjarne Minister of Finance
GBR Cowper-Coles, Sherard Business Development Director, International, BAE Systems plc
ITA Cucchiani, Enrico Tommaso CEO, Intesa Sanpaolo SpA
BEL Davignon, Etienne Minister of State; Former Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings
GBR Davis, Ian Senior Partner Emeritus, McKinsey & Company
NLD Dijkgraaf, Robbert H. Director and Leon Levy Professor, Institute for Advanced Study
TUR Dinçer, Haluk President, Retail and Insurance Group, Sabancı Holding A.S.
GBR Dudley, Robert Group Chief Executive, BP plc
USA Eberstadt, Nicholas N. Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy, American Enterprise Institute
NOR Eide, Espen Barth Minister of Foreign Affairs
SWE Ekholm, Börje President and CEO, Investor AB
DEU Enders, Thomas CEO, EADS
USA Evans, J. Michael Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs & Co.
DNK Federspiel, Ulrik Executive Vice President, Haldor Topsøe A/S
USA Feldstein, Martin S. Professor of Economics, Harvard University; President Emeritus, NBER
FRA Fillon, François Former Prime Minister
USA Fishman, Mark C. President, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research
GBR Flint, Douglas J. Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc
IRL Gallagher, Paul Senior Counsel
USA Geithner, Timothy F. Former Secretary of the Treasury
USA Gfoeller, Michael Political Consultant
USA Graham, Donald E. Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company
DEU Grillo, Ulrich CEO, Grillo-Werke AG
ITA Gruber, Lilli Journalist – Anchorwoman, La 7 TV
ESP Guindos, Luis de Minister of Economy and Competitiveness
GBR Gulliver, Stuart Group Chief Executive, HSBC Holdings plc
CHE Gutzwiller, Felix Member of the Swiss Council of States
NLD Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings
FIN Heinonen, Olli Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
GBR Henry, Simon CFO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
FRA Hermelin, Paul Chairman and CEO, Capgemini Group
ESP Isla, Pablo Chairman and CEO, Inditex Group
USA Jacobs, Kenneth M. Chairman and CEO, Lazard
USA Johnson, James A. Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners
CHE Jordan, Thomas J. Chairman of the Governing Board, Swiss National Bank
USA Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. Managing Director, Lazard Freres & Co. LLC
USA Kaplan, Robert D. Chief Geopolitical Analyst, Stratfor
USA Karp, Alex Founder and CEO, Palantir Technologies
GBR Kerr, John Independent Member, House of Lords
USA Kissinger, Henry A. Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
USA Kleinfeld, Klaus Chairman and CEO, Alcoa
NLD Knot, Klaas H.W. President, De Nederlandsche Bank
TUR Koç, Mustafa V. Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
DEU Koch, Roland CEO, Bilfinger SE
USA Kravis, Henry R. Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
USA Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow and Vice Chair, Hudson Institute
CHE Kudelski, André Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
GRC Kyriacopoulos, Ulysses Chairman, S&B Industrial Minerals S.A.
INT Lagarde, Christine Managing Director, International Monetary Fund
DEU Lauk, Kurt J. Chairman of the Economic Council to the CDU, Berlin
USA Lessig, Lawrence Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard Law School; Director, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University
BEL Leysen, Thomas Chairman of the Board of Directors, KBC Group
DEU Lindner, Christian Party Leader, Free Democratic Party (FDP NRW)
SWE Löfven, Stefan Party Leader, Social Democratic Party (SAP)
DEU Löscher, Peter President and CEO, Siemens AG
GBR Mandelson, Peter Chairman, Global Counsel; Chairman, Lazard International
USA Mathews, Jessica T. President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
CAN McKenna, Frank Chair, Brookfield Asset Management
GBR Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
FRA Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations
ITA Monti, Mario Former Prime Minister
USA Mundie, Craig J. Senior Advisor to the CEO, Microsoft Corporation
ITA Nagel, Alberto CEO, Mediobanca
NLD Netherlands, H.R.H. Princess Beatrix of The
USA Ng, Andrew Y. Co-Founder, Coursera
FIN Ollila, Jorma Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell, plc
GBR Omand, David Visiting Professor, King’s College London
GBR Osborne, George Chancellor of the Exchequer
USA Ottolenghi, Emanuele Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
TUR Özel, Soli Senior Lecturer, Kadir Has University; Columnist, Habertürk Newspaper
GRC Papahelas, Alexis Executive Editor, Kathimerini Newspaper
TUR Pavey, Şafak Member of Parliament (CHP)
FRA Pécresse, Valérie Member of Parliament (UMP)
USA Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
USA Petraeus, David H. General, U.S. Army (Retired)
PRT Portas, Paulo Minister of State and Foreign Affairs
CAN Prichard, J. Robert S. Chair, Torys LLP
INT Reding, Viviane Vice President and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, European Commission
CAN Reisman, Heather M. CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
FRA Rey, Hélène Professor of Economics, London Business School
GBR Robertson, Simon Partner, Robertson Robey Associates LLP; Deputy Chairman, HSBC Holdings
ITA Rocca, Gianfelice Chairman,Techint Group
POL Rostowski, Jacek Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister
USA Rubin, Robert E. Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury
NLD Rutte, Mark Prime Minister
AUT Schieder, Andreas State Secretary of Finance
USA Schmidt, Eric E. Executive Chairman, Google Inc.
AUT Scholten, Rudolf Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
PRT Seguro, António José Secretary General, Socialist Party
FRA Senard, Jean-Dominique CEO, Michelin Group
NOR Skogen Lund, Kristin Director General, Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise
USA Slaughter, Anne-Marie Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University
IRL Sutherland, Peter D. Chairman, Goldman Sachs International
GBR Taylor, Martin Former Chairman, Syngenta AG
INT Thiam, Tidjane Group CEO, Prudential plc
USA Thiel, Peter A. President, Thiel Capital
USA Thompson, Craig B. President and CEO, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
DNK Topsøe, Jakob Haldor Partner, AMBROX Capital A/S
FIN Urpilainen, Jutta Minister of Finance
CHE Vasella, Daniel L. Honorary Chairman, Novartis AG
GBR Voser, Peter R. CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
CAN Wall, Brad Premier of Saskatchewan
SWE Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB
USA Warsh, Kevin Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University
CAN Weston, Galen G. Executive Chairman, Loblaw Companies Limited
GBR Williams of Crosby, Shirley Member, House of Lords
GBR Wolf, Martin H. Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial Times
USA Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn and Company
GBR Wright, David Vice Chairman, Barclays plc
INT Zoellick, Robert B. Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics

KEY TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION

•    Can the US and Europe grow faster and create jobs?
•    Jobs, entitlement and debt
•    How big data is changing almost everything
•    Nationalism and populism
•    US foreign policy
•    Africa’s challenges
•    Cyber warfare and the proliferation of asymmetric threats
•    Major trends in medical research
•    Online education: promise and impacts
•    Politics of the European Union
•    Developments in the Middle East
•    Current affairs

Source: BilderbergMeetings.org

5 Comments

Filed under Bilderberg