Patrick M. Wood
Friday, October 14, 2005
Volume 5, Issue 11
Who controls global
monetary affairs? The BIS! Based in Basle, Switzerland,
the BIS is central bank to central banks. The BIS has
greater immunity than a sovereign nation, is accountable
to no one, runs global monetary affairs and is privately
owned. This is a must-read report to understand the
David Rockefeller and
Zbigniew Brzezinski founded
Trilateral Commission in 1973, the intent was to create a "New
International Economic Order" (NIEO). To this end, they brought
together 300 elite corporate, political and academic leaders from
North America, Japan and Europe.
Few people believed us when we wrote about their nefarious plans
back then. Now, we look back and clearly see that they did what they
said they were going to do... globalism is upon us like an 8.6
The question is, "How did they do it?"
Keep in mind, they had no
public mandate from any country in the world. They didn’t have the
raw political muscle, especially in democratic countries where
voting is allowed. They didn’t have global dictatorial powers.
Indeed, how did they do it?
The answer is the Bank for International Settlements (BIS),
self-described as the "central bank for central bankers", that
controls the vast global banking system with the precision of a
This report offers a concise summation of BIS history, structure and
The famous currency expert Dr. Franz Pick once stated,
of the currency is, and always will be, the destiny of a nation."
With the advent of rampant globalization, this concept can certainly
be given a global context as well:
"The destiny of currencies are,
and always will be, the destiny of the world."
Even though the BIS is the oldest international banking operation in
the world, it is a low profile organization, shunning all publicity
As a result, there is very little critical analysis
written about this important financial organization. Further, much
of what has been written about it is tainted by its own
The BIS can be compared to a stealth bomber. It flies high and fast,
is undetected, has a small crew and carries a huge payload. By
contrast, however, the bomber answers to a chain of command and must
be refueled by outside sources.
The BIS, as we shall see, is not
accountable to any public authority and operates with complete
autonomy and self-sufficiency.
Leading up to Founding
As we will see, the BIS was founded in 1930 during a very troubled
time in history. Some knowledge of that history is critical to
understanding why the BIS was created, and for whose benefit.
There are three figures that play prominently in the founding of the
Charles G. Dawes was director of the U.S. Bureau of the Budget in
1921, and served on the Allied Reparations Commission starting in
1923. His latter work on "stabilizing Germany’s economy" earned him
the Nobel Peace Prize in 1925.
After being elected Vice President
under President Calvin Coolidge from 1925-1929, and appointed
Ambassador to England in 1931, he resumed his personal banking
career in 1932 as chairman of the board of the City National Bank
and Trust in Chicago, where he remained until his death in 1951.
Owen D Young was an American industrialist. He founded RCA (Radio
Corporation of America) in1919 and was its chairman until 1933. He
also served as the chairman of General Electric from 1922 until
1939. In 1932, Young sought the democratic presidential nomination,
but lost to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
More on Hjalmar Schacht later.
In the aftermath of World War I and the impending collapse of the
German economy and political structure, a plan was needed to rescue
and restore Germany, which would also insulate other economies in
Europe from being affected adversely.
The Versailles Treaty of 1919 (which officially ended WWI) had
imposed a very heavy reparations burden on Germany, which required a
repayment schedule of 132 billion gold marks per year. Most
historians agree that the economic upheaval caused in Germany by the
Versailles Treaty eventually led to Adolph Hitler’s rise to power.
In 1924 the Allies appointed a committee of international bankers,
led by Charles G. Dawes (and accompanied by J.P. Morgan agent,
Young), to develop a plan to get reparations payments back on track.
Historian Carroll Quigley noted that the Dawes Plan was "largely a
J.P. Morgan production"1 The plan called for $800 million in foreign
loans to be arranged for Germany in order to rebuild its economy.
In 1924, Dawes was chairman of the Allied Committee of Experts,
hence, the "Dawes Plan."
He was replaced as chairman by Owen Young
in 1929, with direct support by J.P. Morgan. The "Young Plan" of
1928 put more teeth into the Dawes Plan, which many viewed as a
strategy to subvert virtually all German assets to back a huge
mortgage held by the United States bankers.
Neither Dawes nor Young represented anything more than banking
interests. After all, WWI was fought by governments using borrowed
money made possible by the international banking community. The
banks had a vested interest in having those loans repaid!
In 1924, the president of Reichsbank (Germany’s central bank at that
time) was Hjalmar Schacht. He had already had a prominent role in
creating the Dawes Plan, along with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen and other prominent German bankers and industrialists.
The Young Plan was so odious to the Germans that many credit it as a
precondition to Hitler’s rise to power.
Fritz Thyssen, a leading
Nazi Industrialist, stated
"I turned to the National socialist party only after I became
convinced that the fight against the Young Plan was unavoidable if
complete collapse of Germany was to be prevented."
Some historians too quickly credit Owen Young as the idea-man for
the Bank for International Settlements.
It was actually Hjalmar
Schacht who first proposed the idea3, which was then carried forward
by the same group of international bankers who brought us the Dawes
and Young Plans.
It is not necessary to jump to conclusions as to the intent of these
elite bankers, so we will instead defer to the insight of renowned
Georgetown historian, Carroll Quigley:
"The Power of financial capitalism had another far reaching plan,
nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in
private hands able to dominate the political system of each country
and the economy of the world as a whole.
This system was to be
controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the
world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent
meetings and conferences.
The apex of the system was to be the
for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank
owned and controlled by the world’s central banks, which were
themselves private corporations.
Each central bank, in the hands of
men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of
the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of
France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate
its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to
manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic
activity in the country, and to influence co-operative politicians
by subsequent rewards in the business world."4
So here we have a brief sketch of what led up to the founding of the
Now we can examine the
nuts and bolts of how the BIS was
actually put together.
The Hague Agreement of 1930
The formation of the BIS was agreed upon by its constituent central
banks in the so-called Hague Agreement on January 20, 1930, and was
in operation shortly thereafter.
According to the Agreement,
The duly authorized representatives of the Governments of Germany,
of Belgium, of France, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, of Italy and of Japan of the one part.
duly authorized representatives of the Government of the Swiss
Confederation of the other part Assembled at the Hague Conference in
the month of January, 1930, have agreed on the following:
Article 1. Switzerland undertakes to grant to the
International Settlements, without delay, the following Constituent
Charter having force of law: not to abrogate this Charter, not to
amend or add to it, and not to sanction amendments to the Statutes
of the Bank referred to in Paragraph 4 of the Charter otherwise than
in agreement with the other signatory Governments.5
As we will see, German reparation payments (or lack thereof) had
little to do with the founding of the BIS, although this is the weak
explanation given since its founding.
Of course, Germany would make
a single payment to the BIS, which in turn would deposit the funds
into the respective central bank accounts of the nations to whom
payments were due. (It would be the subject of another paper to show
the shallowness of this operation: Money and gold were shuffled
around, but the net amount that Germany actually paid was very
The original founding documents of the BIS have little to say about
Germany, however, and we can look directly to the BIS itself to see
its original purpose:
“The objects of the Bank are: to promote the co-operation of central
banks and to provide additional facilities for international
operations; and to act as trustees or agent in regard to
international financial settlements entrusted to it under agreements
with the parties concerned.” 6
Virtually every in-print reference to the
BIS, including their own
documents, consistently refer to it as "the central banker’s central
So, the BIS was established by an international charter and was
headquartered in Basle, Switzerland.
According to James C. Baker, pro-BIS author of The Bank for
International Settlements: Evolution and Evaluation,
"The BIS was
formed with funding by the central banks of six nations, Belgium,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the
United Kingdom. In addition,
three private international banks from the United States also
assisted in financing the establishment of the BIS."7
Each nation’s central bank subscribed to 16,000 shares.
the Federal Reserve, did not join the
BIS, but the
three U.S. banks that participated got 16,000 shares each. Thus,
U.S. representation at the BIS was three times that of any other
Who were these private banks? Not surprisingly, they were,
On January 8, 2001, an Extraordinary General Meeting of the
approved a proposal that restricted ownership of BIS shares to
Some 13.7% of all shares were in private hands at
that time, and the repurchase was accomplished with a cash outlay of
$724,956,050. The price of $10,000 per share was over twice the book
value of $4,850.
It is not certain what the repurchase accomplished. The BIS claimed
that it was to correct a conflict of interest between private
shareholders and BIS goals, but it offered no specifics.
It was not
a voting issue, however, because private owners were not allowed to
vote their shares.8
Sovereignty and Secrecy
It is not surprising that the BIS, its offices, employees, directors
and members share an incredible immunity from virtually all
regulation, scrutiny and accountability.
In 1931, central bankers and their constituents were fed up with
government meddling in world financial affairs. Politicians were
viewed mostly with contempt, unless it was one of their own who was
Thus, the BIS offered them a once-and-for-all
opportunity to set up the "apex" the way they really wanted it -
private. They demanded these conditions and got what they demanded.
A quick summary of their immunity, explained further below, includes
diplomatic immunity for persons and what they carry with them (i.e.,
no taxation on any transactions, including salaries paid to
embassy-type immunity for all buildings and/or offices operated by
no oversight or knowledge of operations by any government authority
freedom from immigration restrictions
freedom to encrypt any and all communications of any sort
m from any legal jurisdiction
Further, members of the BIS board of directors (for instance,
Greenspan) are individually granted special benefits:
“immunity from arrest or imprisonment and immunity from seizure of
their personal baggage, save in flagrant cases of criminal offence”
“inviolability of all papers and documents”
“immunity from jurisdiction, even after their mission has been
accomplished, for acts carried out in the discharge of their duties,
including words spoken and writings”
“exemption for themselves, their spouses and children from any
immigration restrictions, from any formalities concerning the
registration of aliens and from any obligations relating to national
service in Switzerland ”
“the right to use codes in
official communications or to receive or send documents or
correspondence by means of couriers or diplomatic bags”
Lastly, all remaining officials and employees of the BIS have the
“immunity from jurisdiction for acts accomplished in the discharge
of their duties, including words spoken and writings, even after
such persons have ceased to be Officials of the Bank”
“exemption from all Federal, cantonal and communal taxes on
salaries, fees and allowances paid to them by the Bank…”
exempt from Swiss national
obligations, freedom for spouses and family members from
immigration restrictions, transfer assets and properties - including internationally
- with the same degree of benefit
as Officials of other international organizations.11
Of course, a corporate charter can say anything it wants to say and
still be subject to outside authorities.
Nevertheless, these were
the immunities practiced and enjoyed from 1930 onward.
10, 1987, a more formal acknowledgement called the "Headquarters
Agreement" was executed between the BIS and the Swiss Federal
Council and basically clarified and reiterated what we already knew:
The buildings or parts of buildings and surrounding land which,
whoever may be the owner thereof, are used for the purposes of the
Bank shall be inviolable.
No agent of the Swiss public authorities
may enter therein without the express consent of the Bank. Only the
President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorized
representative shall be competent to waive such inviolability.
The archives of the Bank and, in general, all documents and any data
media belonging to the Bank or in its possession, shall be
inviolable at all times and in all places.
The Bank shall exercise supervision of and police power over its
Immunity from jurisdiction and execution
The Bank shall enjoy immunity from criminal and administrative
jurisdiction, save to the extent that such immunity is formally
waived in individual cases by the President, the General Manager of
the Bank, or their duly authorized representative.
The assets of the Bank may be
subject to measures of compulsory execution for enforcing
monetary claims. On the other hand, all deposits entrusted to
the Bank, all claims against the Bank and the shares issued by
the Bank shall, without the prior agreement of the Bank, be
immune from seizure or other measures of compulsory execution
and sequestration, particularly of attachment within the meaning
of Swiss law. 12
As you can see, the BIS, its directors and
employees (past and
present) can do virtually anything and everything they want, with
complete secrecy, immunity and with no one looking over their
It was truly a banker’s dream come true, and it paved the
international freeway for the rampant financial globalism that we
see manifest today.
Acting as a central bank, the BIS has sweeping powers to do anything
for its own account or for the account of its member central banks.
It is like a two-way power-of-attorney - any party can act as agent
for any other party.
Article 21 of the original BIS statutes define day-to-day
buying and selling of gold coin
or bullion for its own account or for the account of central
holding gold for its own account
under reserve in central banks
accepting the supervision of
gold for the account of central banks
making advances to or borrowing
from central banks against gold, bills of exchange, and
other short-term obligations of prime liquidity or other
purchasing, or selling with or without its endorsement bills
of exchange, checks, and other short-term obligations of
buying and selling foreign
exchange for its own account or for the account of central
buying and selling negotiable
securities other than shares for its own account or for the
account of central banks
discounting for central banks
bills taken from their portfolio and rediscounting with
central banks bills taken from its own portfolio
opening and maintaining current
or deposit accounts with central banks
accepting deposits from central
banks on current or deposit account
accepting deposits in connection with trustee agreements that may be
made between the BIS and governments in connection with
accepting such other deposits that, as in the opinion of the
of the BIS, come within the scope of the BIS’ functions.13
The BIS also may,
act as agent or correspondent for any central bank
arrange with any central bank
for the latter to act as its agent or correspondent
enter into agreements to act as trustee or agent in connection with
international settlements, provided that such agreements will not
encroach on the obligations of the BIS toward any third parties.14
Why is "agency" an important issue?
Because any member of the
network can obscure transactions from onlookers. For instance, if
Brown Brothers, Harriman wanted to transfer money to a company in
Nazi Germany during WWII (which was not "politically correct" at
that time), they would first transfer the funds to the BIS thus
putting the transaction under the cloak of secrecy and immunity that
is enjoyed by the BIS but not by Brown Brothers, Harriman.
(Such laundering of Wall Street money was painstakingly noted in
Wall Street And The Rise of Hitler, by Antony C. Sutton.)
There are a few things that the BIS cannot do. For instance, it does
not accept deposits from, or provide financial services to, private
individuals or corporate entities. It is also not permitted to make
advances to governments or open current accounts in their name.15
These restrictions are easily understood when one considers that
each central bank has an exclusive franchise to loan money to their
respective government. For instance, the U.S. Federal Reserve does
not loan money to the government of Canada.
In like manner, central
banks do not loan money directly to the private or corporate clients
of their member banks.
How Decisions are Made
The board of directors consist of the heads of certain member
central banks. Currently, these are:
Nout H E M Wellink, Amsterdam (Chairman of the Board of Directors)
Hans Tietmeyer, Frankfurt am Main (Vice-Chairman)
Axel Weber, Frankfurt am Main
Vincenzo Desario, Rome
Antonio Fazio, Rome
David Dodge, Ottawa
Toshihiko Fukui, Tokyo
Timothy F Geithner, New York
Alan Greenspan, Washington
Lord George, London
Hervé Hannoun, Paris
Christian Noyer, Paris
Lars Heikensten, Stockholm
Mervyn King, London
Guy Quaden, Brussels
Jean-Pierre Roth, Zürich
Alfons Vicomte Verplaetse, Brussels 16
Of these, five members ( Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and
Switzerland) are currently elected by the shareholders. The majority
of directors are "ex officio," meaning they are permanent and are
automatically a part of any sub-committee.
The combined board meets at least six times per year, in secret, and
is briefed by BIS management on financial operations of the bank.
Global monetary policy is discussed and set at these meetings.
It was reported in 1983 that there is an inner club of the half
dozen central bankers who are more or less in the same monetary
boat: Germany, U.S., Switzerland, Italy, Japan and England.17 The
existence of an inner club is neither surprising nor substantive:
the whole BIS operation is 100% secret anyway.
It is not likely that
members of the inner club have significantly different beliefs or
agendas apart from the BIS as a whole.
How the BIS works with the IMF and the World Bank
The interoperation between the three entities is understandably
confusing to most people, so a little clarification will help.
International Monetary Fund (IMF) interacts with governments
whereas the BIS interacts only with other central banks. The IMF
loans money to national governments, and often these countries are
in some kind of fiscal or monetary crisis. Furthermore, the IMF
raises money by receiving "quota" contributions from its 184 member
countries. Even though the member countries may borrow money to make
their quota contributions, it is, in reality, all tax-payer money.18
The World Bank also lends money and has 184 member countries. Within
the World Bank are two separate entities, the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International
Development Association (IDA).
The IBRD focuses on middle income and
credit-worthy poor countries, while the IDA focuses on the poorest
of nations. In funding itself, the World Bank borrows money by
direct lending from banks and by floating bond issues, and then
loans this money through IBRD and IDA to troubled
The BIS, as central bank to the other central banks, facilitates the
movement of money. They are well-known for issuing "bridge loans" to
central banks in countries where IMF or World Bank money is pledged
but has not yet been delivered. These bridge loans are then repaid
by the respective governments when they receive the funds that had
been promised by the IMF or World Bank.20
The IMF is the BIS’ "ace in the hole" when monetary crisis hits. The
1998 Brazil currency crisis was caused by that country’s inability
to pay inordinate accumulated interest on loans made over a
protracted period of time. These loans were extended by banks like
Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and FleetBoston, and they stood to lose
a huge amount of money.
The IMF, along with the World Bank and the U.S., bailed out Brazil
with a $41.5 billion package that saved Brazil, its currency and,
not incidentally, certain private banks.
Congressman Bernard Sanders (I-VT), ranking member of the
International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, blew the
whistle on this money laundry operation. Sander’s entire
congressional press release is worth reading:
IMF Bailout for Brazil is Windfall to Banks, Disaster for US
Taxpayers Says Sanders
BURLINGTON, VERMONT - August 15 - Congressman Bernard Sanders
(I-VT), the Ranking Member of the International Monetary Policy and
Trade Subcommittee, today called for an immediate Congressional
investigation of the recent $30 billion International Monetary Fund
(IMF) bailout of Brazil.
Sanders, who is strongly opposed to the bailout and considers it
corporate welfare, wants Congress to find out why U.S. taxpayers are
being asked to provide billions of dollars to Brazil and how much of
this money will be funneled to U.S. banks such as Citigroup,
FleetBoston and J.P. Morgan Chase. These banks have about $25.6
billion in outstanding loans to Brazilian borrowers. U.S. taxpayers
currently fund the IMF through a $37 billion line of credit.
"At a time when we have a $6 trillion national debt, a
growing federal deficit, and an increasing number of unmet social
needs for our veterans, seniors, and children, it is unacceptable
that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being sent to the IMF to
"This money is not going to significantly help the poor people of
that country. The real winners in this situation are the large,
profitable U.S. banks such as Citigroup that have made billions of
dollars in risky investments in Brazil and now want to make sure
their investments are repaid.
This bailout represents an egregious
form of corporate welfare that must be put to an end. Interestingly,
these banks have made substantial campaign contributions to both
political parties," the Congressman added.
Sanders noted that the neo-liberal policies of the
IMF developed in
the 1980’s pushing countries towards unfettered free trade,
privatization, and slashing social safety nets has been a disaster
for Latin America and has contributed to increased global poverty
throughout the world.
At the same time that Latin America countries
such as Brazil and Argentina followed these neo-liberal dictates
imposed by the IMF, from 1980-2000, per capita income in Latin
America grew at only one-tenth the rate of the previous two decades.
"The policies of the IMF over the past 20 years
advocating unfettered free trade, privatizing industry, deregulation
and slashing government investments in health, education, and
pensions has been a complete failure for low income and middle class
families in the developing world and in the United States. Clearly,
these policies have only helped corporations in their constant
search for the cheapest labor and weakest environmental regulations.
Congress must work on a new global policy that protects workers,
increases living standards and improves the environment."
One can surmise that a financial circle exists where
the World Bank
helps nations get into debt, then when these countries can’t pay
their massive loans, the IMF bails them out with taxpayer money -
and in the middle stands the BIS, collecting fees as the money
travels back and forth like the ocean tide, while assuring everyone
that all is well.
BIS dumps gold-backed Swiss Francs for SDR’s
On March 10, 2003, the BIS abandoned the Swiss gold franc as the
bank’s unit of account since 1930, and replaced it with the SDR.
SDR stands for Special Drawing Rights and is a unit of currency
originally created by the IMF.
According to Baker,
"The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in
1969 to supplement the existing official reserves of member
countries. SDR’s are allocated to member countries in proportion to
their IMF quotas. The SDR also serves as the unit of account of the
IMF and some other international organizations. Its value is based
on a basket of key international currencies."
This "basket" currently consists of the
euro, Japanese yen, pound
sterling and the U.S. dollar.
The BIS abandonment of the 1930 gold Swiss franc removed all
restraint from the creation of paper money in the world. In other
words, gold backs no national currency, leaving the central banks a
wide-open field to create money as they alone see fit.
that almost all the central banks in the world are privately-held
entities, with an exclusive franchise to arrange loans for their
respective host countries.
Regional and Global Currencies: SDR’s, Euros and Ameros
There is no doubt that the BIS is moving the world toward regional
currencies and ultimately, a global currency. The global currency
could well be an evolution of the SDR, and may explain why the
recently adopted the SDR as its primary reserve currency.
The Brandt Equation, 21st Century Blueprint for the
Economy notes, for instance, that,
Since the SDR is the world’s only means of meeting international
payments that has been authorized through international contract,
"The SDR therefore represents a clear first step towards a
stable and permanent international currency"
As to regional currencies, the BIS has already been hugely
successful in launching the euro in Europe. Armed with new technical
and social know-how, the BIS’ next logical step is to focus on
America and Asia.
For instance, according to BIS Papers No. 17, Regional currency
areas and the use of foreign currencies,
"Canada, Mexico and the United States are members of the trade group
NAFTA. Given the high proportion of Canada and Mexico’s trade with
the United States, a NAFTA dollar or “Amero” has been proposed by
some Canadian academics such as Grubel (1999). See also Beine and
Coulombe (2002) and Robson and Laidler (2002)."
Assuming that NAFTA permanently identifies
Canada, the U.S. and
Mexico as one trading block, then North America will look like the
European Union and
the Amero will function like
All of the
work put into the SDR would be perfectly preserved by simply
substituting the Amero for the U.S. dollar when they choose to bring
the Amero to ascendancy over the dollar.
For those American readers who do not grasp the significance of the
adoption of the euro by European Union countries, consider how one
American globalist describes it.
C. Fred Bergsten is a prominent and core
member and head of the Institute for International Economics. On
January 3, 1999, Bergsten wrote in the Washington Post,
"The adoption of a common currency is by far the boldest chapter of
European integration. Money traditionally has been an integral
element of national sovereignty ...and the decision by Germany and
France to give up their mark and franc ...represents the most
dramatic voluntary surrender of sovereignty in recorded history. The European Central Bank that will manage the euro is a
truly supranational institution". 24
Bergsten will have to rephrase this when the U.S. gives up the
dollar for the amero - that will become the most dramatic voluntary
surrender of sovereignty in recorded history!
Our credo is "Follow the money, follow the power." This report has
endeavored to follow the money. We find that:
The BIS is central bank to all major central banks in the world
It is privately owned by central banks themselves, most of whom are
It was founded under questionable circumstances by questionable
It is accountable to no one, especially government bodies
It operates in complete secrecy and is inviolable
Movement of money is obscured and hidden when routed through the
The BIS is targeting regional currency blocks and ultimately, a
It has been hugely successful at building the
Economic Order, along with its attendant initiatives on global
As to "follow the power," another paper will more fully explore the
influence of power that the BIS exerts over other banks, nations and
governments. For your own consideration in the meantime, Proverbs
22:7 provides a useful compass: "The rich rule over the poor, and
the borrower is servant to the lender".
NOTE: Carl Teichrib, World Research Library Senior Fellow,
contributed to this report.
Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, (MacMillan, 1966), p.308
Edgar B Nixon, ec., Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs,
Volume III (Cambridge: Balknap Press, 1969) p. 456
Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, (GSC & Associates, 2002)
Quigley, op cit, p. 324
BIS web site, Extracts from the Hague Convention,
BIS, Statutes of the Bank for International Settlements Article 3
[as if January 1930, text as amended on March 10,2003], Basic Texts
(Basle, August 2003), p. 7-8
Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: Evolution and
Evaluation, (Quorum, 2002), p. 20
ibid., p. 16
BIS, Protocol Regarding the Immunities of the Bank for International
Settlements, Basic Texts, (Basle, August 2003), p. 33
ibid, Article 12, p.43.
ibid, p. 44
BIS, Extracts from the Headquarters Agreement,
Baker, op cit, p. 26-27
ibid, p. 27
BIS, The BIS in profile, Bank for International Settlements flyer,
BIS, Board of Directors,
Epstein, Ruling the World of Money, Harper’s Magazine, 1983
IMF web site,
World Bank web site.
Baker, op cit, p. 141-142
IMF web site,
The Brandt Equation: 21 st Century Blueprint for the New Global
Economy. The Brandt Proposals - A Report Card: Money and Finances.
BIS, Regional currency areas and the use of foreign currencies, BIS
Papers No. 17, September, 2003
Washington Post, The Euro Could Be Good for Trans-Atlantic
Relations, C. Fred Bergsten, January 3, 1999