bilderberg meetings conference report 1970

7/29/2019 Bilderberg Meetings Conference Report 1970

1/47

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o m3 2044 057 195 240PERSONAL AND

STRICTLY CONFIDENTlALNOT FOR PUBLICATION

EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART

BILDERBERG MEETINGS.

82982

BAD Ri\GAZ

CONFERENCE17- 19 April 1970

B/\RVARDi' !liiM1

!DC '>';D"/Lt

f


2/47

rnCj

~

~

N

C)

~

~z

0

~

r-

:g

\!

~0>

.

z.


3/47

CONTENTS

of Participants

First Item of the Agenda\' "Future Function of the University in our Society" _Summary of and Introduction to the American Working Paper

Summary of and Introduction to the English Working Paper-Summary of an d Introduction to the French Working Paper.

Item of the Agenda ,in Foreign Policy" .--

c ~ 1 , , S u m m a r y of and Introduction to the American Working PaperA General Reaction by an American Participant to the Working PaperDiscussion on "Priorities in Foreign Policy" . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary of and Introduction to the German Working Paper on theEnvironmental Problem . . . . . . . .Discussion on the Environmental Problem. . .

AnnexIntroductory remarks by a German Participant on the German Issue

59

13J62228

455051

6670

and its Consequences for Europe and th e Western System . . . . 85

\.\


4/47

L I S T O F P A R T I C I P A N T S

HONOR AR Y S E C R E T A R Y G E N E R A L F O R E U R O P E :ERNST H . VAN DER BEUGEL

H O N O R A R Y S E C R E T A R Y G E N E R A L F O R T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S :

JosEPH E. JoHNSON

H O N O R A R Y T R E A S U R E R :JoHANNES MEYNEN

AoNELLI, GrovANNIALLIOT, MICHELALLISON, GRAHAMALTISSIMO, RENATOAsHBY, SrR E m cBALL, GEORGE w.BAUMGARTNER, WILFRID s.BENEDIKTSSON, BJARNIBENNETT, SI R FREDERICBERCHTOLD, WALTERBERNARDINI, GILBERTOBEUVE-MERY, HuBERTBIRGI, M . N URIBRINKHORST, LAURENS jA NBROUWER, L. E . .JANBRUGSMA, WrLLEM L.CAMU, LoursCoLLADO, EMILIO G .CoRNU, DANIEL

ITALYFRANCEUNITED STATESITALYUNITED KINGDOMUNITED STATESFRANCEIcELANDUNITED KINGDOMSwiTZERLANDITALYFRANCETuRKEYNETHERLANDSNETHERLANDSNETHERLANDSBELGIUMUNITED STATESSwiTzERLAND

5


5/47

CuLVER, J OHN C. UNITED STATESDEAN, ARTHUR H .

MEYERSON, MARTIN UNITED STATES

DEURINCK, GASTONUNITED STATES MoBERG, SvEN

SwEDEN

DRAKE, SIR ERICBELGIUM MoYERS, BILL D .

UNITED STATES

Du c HENE, L. FRANCOisUNITED KINGDOM NoGUEIRA, ALBERTO F .

PoRTUGAL

EDwARDs, SIR RoNALDINTERNATIONAL NYKOPP, JoHAN A .

FINLAND

F ASCELL, DANTE B .UNITED KINGDOM 0RVIK, NILS

NoRWAY

FAURE, EDGARUNITED STATES PRICE, CHRISTOPHER

UNITED KINGDOM

FILION, GERARDFRANCE REINHARDT, EBERHARD

SWITZERLAND

FROSCHMAIER, FRANZCANADA RHODES JR. , JOSEPH

UNITED STATES

FURGLER, KURTINTERNATIONAL RICHARDSON, ELLIOT L. UNITED STATES

GERWIG, ANDREAS A.SwiTZERLAND RoBERTs, JoHN

CANADA

GISCARD D'EsTAING, OLIVIERSWITZERLAND RocKEFELLER, DAvm

UNITED STATES

GooDPASTER, ANDREW J .FRANCE RocKEFELLER, IV , JoHN D .

UNITED STATES

GRIFFIN, ANTHONY G . s.INTERNATIONAL RoLL, SIR ERIC

UNITED KINGDOM

HATTERSLEY, RoYCANADA RoTHSCHILD, BARON EDMOND DE

FRANCE

HAUGE, GABRIELUNITED KINGDOM ScHAEFER, ALFRED

SWITZERLAND

HEAD, IvANUNITED STATES ScHMIDHEINY, MAx

SWITZERLAND

HEINZ II , HENRY J .CANADA SILVERS, RoBERT

UNITED STATES

H0 EGH, LEIFUNITED STATES S0RENSEN, SvEND 0.

DENMARK

HOLLAND, STUARTNoRW AY STOLTENBERG, GERHARD

GERMANY

JANSSEN, DANIELUNITED KINGDOM STONE, SHEPARD

UNITED STATES

JoRDAN ]R., VERNON E .BELGIUM STREICHENBERG, GEORGES

SWITZERLAND

KAISER, KARLUNITED STATES TERKELSEN, TERKEL M .

DENMARK

KEPPEL, FRANCISGERMANY TIDEMAND, OTTO G . NoRW AY

KING, ALEXANDERUNITED STATES TscHuDI, HANS P .

SWITZERLAND

KNOPPERS, ANTONIEINTERNATIONAL UMBRICHT, VICTOR H .

SWITZERLAND

KoHNSTAMM, MAxUNITED STATES vANCE, CYRUS R .

UNITED STATES

KROGH, PETER F .INTERNATIONAL VEDEL, GEORGES

FRANCE

LANGSLET, LARS R .UNITED STATES WALLENBERG, M AR CUS

SwEDEN

LENNEP, JoNKHEER EMILE VA NNoRW AY WARIS, KLAUS

FINLAND

LEPAN, Do u GLAs v. INTERNATIONALWEIZSAECKER, RICHARD FREIHERR VON GERMANY

CANADA WoLFF voN AMERONGEN, OTTOGERMANY

LESGUILLONS, HENRILEVI, ARRIGO

INTERNATIONAL

LIOTARD-VOGT, PIERREITALY IN ATTENDANCE :

LIPSET, SEYMOUR, M .' SwiTZERLANDUNITED STATES

CrTTADINI CEsi , MARCHESE GIANG . ITALY

Lu Ns , JosEPH M .A . H . NETHERLANDSREUTLINGER, pAUL SwiTZERLAND

MACH, BERNARD SwiTZERLANDRo Y, BERTIE LE NETHERLANDSVERNEDE, EDWIN NETHERLANDS

MATHIAs jR . , CHARLES M cC . UNITED STATESMAUDLING, REGINALD UN ITED KINGDOM

,,l ' 76


6/47

I N T RO D U CT I O N

The nineteenth Bilderberg Meeting was held at Hotel Quellenhof in BadRagaz (Switzerland) on q , 18 and 19 April 1970 under the Chairmanshipof H.R.H. The Prince of the Netherlands.

There were 95 participants from the United States, Canada and 14 WesternEuropean countries as well as from various international organizations. Theyconsisted of members of governments, politicians, prominent businessmen,journalists, leading national and international civil servants and outstandingrepresentatives of the academic world and other groups.

In accordance with the rules adopted at each Meeting, all participantsspoke in a purely personal capacity without in any way committing whatevergovernment or organization to which they might belong. In order to enableparticipants to speak with the greatest possible frankness the discussions wereconfidential, with no representatives of the press being admi tted.

The Agenda was as follows:I. Future Function of the University in our Society.

II. Priorities in Foreign Policy.

9

;;;,'JtIt\ft,I

jtl


7/47


8/47

H.R.H. Th e Prince of the Netherlands opened the Meeting an d recalled the Bilderberg rules of procedure.The Prince expressed the gratitude of the Conference for the hospitality in

Switzerland to the President of the Swiss Confederation who was present as aparticipant.

FUTURE FUNCTION OF THE UN IVERSITYIN O UR SOCIETY

The discussion of this item on the agenda was prepared by three introductoryworking papers written respectively by an American professor (who wasprevented at the last moment from attending the conference), an Englishparticipant; and a French participant.

SUMMARY OF TH E AMERICAN WORKING PAPER ON THEUNIVERSITY AN D SOCIETYThe University in the United States is under pressure, but it does no t

prosper under pressure-at least of the kind to which it has been subjectedover the past five years.

Its relations with society are delicate. Since it must be a servant of societyand independent of t, the University is at one and the same time an instrumentof social cohesion and national identity, and an indispensable instrument forsocial criticism. In times of social stability this relationship is manageable.But changes induced by the prospects and promises of recent years have beenso rapid that few institutions have been able to prepare for the inevitabledemands resulting from them.

A numb er of particularly serious pressures are currently being exerted onthe University.

Th e first is the increased demand for admission, especially in the field ofhigher education. The root cause is to be found in the requirements of moderntechnological society, whose need for trained manpower is insatiable. Nocountry can hope to provide the leadership necessary for a modern society ifonly a very small fraction acquire the equivalent of a college or University

13


9/47


10/47


11/47


12/47


13/47


14/47


15/47


16/47


17/47


18/47


19/47


20/47


21/47


22/47


23/47


24/47

PRIORITIES IN FOREIGN POLICY

The groundwork for discussion of this item consisted of a paper concerning"Young Americans' attitudes towards foreign policy for the 1970's" preparedby an American participant.

SUMMARY OF AND INTRODUCTION TOTHE AMERICAN WORKING PAPERThe paper commences with a Harris Poll quiz dated May 1969 in which

1200 Americans of all ages were asked whether they would favour sendingUS troops to the support of respectively, Thailand, Italy, West Berlin andIsrael, in case they were invaded by communist military forces; the affirmativeanswers to these questions are (in that same order) as follows: 25%, 27%, 26%and g%.The author feels that from the perspective of the year 2000, historians willconclude that in the quarter century after World Wa r II the predominantchange in the distribution of international power was caused by the expansionof American economic, polhical and cultura l influence.

This expansion was primarily affected by two major developments: on theone hand by the decline of European influence in Asia, Africa an d even LatinAmerica, on the other hand by the communist threat to the independence ofnations around the globe. In both instances the us rejoinder was so obviouslydefensive, that few Americans appreciated the scope of the us commitment.Nevertheless, 25 years after the end of World Wa r II , the United States founditself, more by default than design, an imperial power."Imperium Americana" has demonstrated the following four differenceswhen compared to the trad itional meaning of the word "empire": first, theUnited States has rarely insisted on direct political control of the affairs of itshost countries or cLient states; second, the United States has been unique in itsextent of ra ther selfless, idealistic commitment to the maintenance of inter-national order, generation of economic growth and encouragement of demo-cratic government; third, the American empire has arisen in an era of dramaticincreases in national power and independence. Its size is, therefore, no measureof its influence relative to previous empires; fourth, the basic guidelines of

45


25/47


26/47


27/47


28/47


29/47


30/47


31/47


32/47


33/47


34/47


35/47


36/47


37/47


38/47


39/47


40/47


41/47


42/47


43/47


44/47

]

1

1Ijl

Intervention by the German author of the working paper on the Second Itemof the Agenda.Royal Highness, Gentlemen,

The steering committee ha d originally asked r:Pe to lead off the discussionby making a number of observations on d e v e l o p m in Europe and the Westin general; but now, due to the vicissitudes of German politics, the representatives of the Government and those of the parliamentary parties could no tcome. For that reason I am afraid that in the I 5 minutes at my disposal I shallnot be able to cover all the subjects mentioned in the questionaire distributed toyou for the discussion.

Therefore I shall try to focus in particular on the German question and itsconsequences for Europe and the Western system, as well as on the development of German policy and its implications for the West.

I would like to analyze the German problem and present German policiesfrom three different bu t interconnected angles: first, in the context of the historical process; second, in the context of the Western system and East-Westrelations in Europe; and, third, in the context of the goals as they are intendedby the Government, goals of the policies vis-a-vis Poland, vis-a-vis East Germany, and vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as a whole.

Let me from the outset declare my point of view: I think I am rather biassedin favour of the Government's policy. But I hope that, if I am carried awaytoo much by my prejudices, the members of the Opposition present will dulyadd corrections to what I say.

Let me turn to my first point-the German problem and West Germanpolicies in the context of the historical process. Although I share the lack ofinhibition, characteristic of political scientists, in making statements about theenvironment and the present, I would not dare to make a prediction aboutthe future of the historical process, bu t I think the German problem has nowbeen with us for a sufficiently long time to allow for conclusions about a certaintrend.

Here, in my view, the crucial event in the last years that helps us to markthis trend, is the Czechoslovakian crisis, the intervention of several EasternEuropean countries in Czechoslovakia. This event demonstrated with cruelclarity a number of things, particularly the fundamental and indeed irrecon-

Bs


45/47


46/47


47/47

bilderberg meetings conference report 1970

Documents