COUNTERSPY: WOMEN SPEAK OUT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 60
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 14, 2010
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: February 1, 1984
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
KAL 007 and U.S. Intelligence
WOMEN SPEAK OUT
BERNADETTE DE
MARTHA McCL
ON IRELAN
OAN COXSEDGE 0
AUSTRALIA
Also in this issue: Pershing II's Head for Europe ? Military Coup in Guatemala ? CIA and the
Philippines ? Reagan Prepares to Violate Arms Control Treaties ? Contra Terror in Nicaragua
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Editorial
A U.S. President addresses the nation. He
justifies the invasion just carried out by U.S.
Marines against a Caribbean nation "as an effort
to protect the lives of Americans and the
nationals of other countries in the face of
increasing violence and disorder." The year is
1965, and Lyndon Johnson is explaining why
23,000 troops have invaded the Dominican
Republic. When the Marines leave that country
in September 1966, a rightwing government is in
place, backed by a U.S.-trained repressive police
apparatus. Private U.S. economic interests have
been secured at the expense of a progressive
movement directed at economic and social
reforms. Today, the Dominican Republic is one
of the poorest countries in the Western
Hemisphere.
Now it is 1983. U.S. Army Rangers and
Marines have invaded a Caribbean country, says
the President, "to protect our own citizens... and
to help in the restoration of democratic
institutions." This time the object of the invasion
is Grenada. After its Prime Minister Maurice
Bishop was killed, there was "no government,"
claims President Reagan, and "chaos" reigned.
In reality, the Reagan administration had
plans to destroy the Grenadan revolution as early
as 1981. It has contemplated, and most likely
carried out, CIA operations to destabilize the
country. Military preparations for an invasion of
Grenada were put in motion in 1981. In August
of that year, U.S. Army Rangers and Marines
practiced a mock invasion of an imaginary island
nation called "Amber and the Amberdines." The
scenario: A small leftist Caribbean government
has taken U.S. hostages and troops are needed
to free them. In October 1983, the Rangers and
Marines invaded Grenada under exactly that
pretext.
The invasion illustrates the lengths to which
the U.S. government will go in its opposition to
governments and movements striving to be free
from U.S. corporate and military domination.
And it cares not one whit that U.S. actions violate
international laws and treaties such as the
Charter of the Organization of American States,
in particular the clause which states: "The
territory of a state is inviolable; it may not be
the object, even temporary, of military
occupation or of other measures of force taken
by another state, directly or indirectly, on any
grounds whatever."
At the time of the Grenada invasion,
thousands of U.S. troops are deployed in
Honduras, and the CIA is financing the
counterrevolutionary war against Nicaragua. As
that war shows no sign of rolling back the
Sandinista revolution, the Reagan administration
may soon decide that the only way to destroy
the Sandinista government is to invade Nicaragua.
Before Grenada's Prime Minister Maurice Bishop
was killed, he had warned for many months that
a U.S. invasion was imminent. Most people in
the U.S. did not believe him. Nicaragua's leaders
now say that the danger of a U.S. invasion is real.
The Nicaraguan people are prepared to
defend their country and their freedom. Inspired
SEE EDITORIAL, pq. 6
Counterspy Statement of Purpose
The United States emerged from World War II as the world's dominant political and economic
power. To conserve and enhance this power, the U.S. government created a variety of in-
stitutions to secure dominance over "free world" nations which supply U.S. corporations
with cheap labor, raw materials, and markets. A number of these institutions, some initiated
jointly with allied Western European governments, have systematically violated the funda-
mental rights and freedoms of people in this country and the world over. Prominent among
these creations was the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), born in 1947.
Since 1973, Counterspy magazine has exposed and analyzed such intervention in all its
facets: covert CIA operations, U.S. interference in foreign labor movements, U.S. aid in
creating foreign intelligence agencies, multinational corporations-intelligence agency link-
ups, and World Bank assistance for counterinsurgency, to name but a few. Our view is that
while CIA operations have been one of the most infamous forms of intervention, the CIA is
but one strand in a complex web of interference and control.
Our motivation for publishing Counterspy has been two-fold:
? People in the United States have the right and need to know the scope and nature
of their government's abrogation of U.S. and other citizens' rights and liberties in order
to defend themselves and most effectively change the' institutions.
? People in other countries, often denied access to information, can better protect
their own rights and bring about necessary change when equipped with such information.
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Konrad Ege
John Kelly
Board of Advisors
Dr. Walden Bello
Congressional Lobby
Director, Philippine
Support Committee
Dr. Noam Chomsky
Professor at MIT,
Peace Activist
Dr. Joshua Cohen
Assistant Professor, MIT
Joan Coxsedge
Member of Parliament
State of Victoria, Australia
Ruth Fitzpatrick
Member, Steering Commit-
tee of the Religious Task
Force on Central America
Dr. Laurie Kirby
Professor, City University
of New York
Tamar Kohns
Political Activist
Annie Makhijani
Chemistry Student
Dr. Arjun Makhijani
Consultant on Energy and
Econc,-nic Development
Martha Wenger
Office Worker,
Counterspy's Copy Editor
Cover Design:
Johanna Vogelsang
Cover Photo:
Barbara Pryor
Counterspy magazine
P.O. Box 647
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
ISSN 0739-4322
X.523
4
7
11
28
32
39
49
54
56
Contents
Practicing Mass Burials ... CIA Forgeries ... U.S. Helps Argentina
Build Nuclear Weapons ... CIA and Afghanistan
Pershing Its Head for Europe
Counting French and British Missiles
The Numbers Game
Three Warheads for the Pershing II?
Introduction: Reagan's Story Contradicted
Spy in the Sky by Duncan Campbell
Monitoring the Disaster
Exploiting the KAL Tragedy: A Pilot's View by Rudolf Braunburg
The CIA and Airlines: A 36-Year History by Jeff McConnell
The Philippines
CIA Taps Academia to Design Post-Marcos Scenario
by Walden Bello
Benigno Aquino and the CIA by John Kelly
Central America
Military Coup in Guatemala: Back to the Line of Command
by Jeanne Walsh and Martha Wenger
The Inhuman Face of Covert Operations against Nicaragua
by Ruth Fitzpatrick
Interview: Contra Terror in Nicaragua
Women Speak Out
Bernadette Devlin McAliskey and Martha McClelland on Ireland
Joan Coxsedge on Australia
Reagan's Arms Control Sham: Preparing to Violate the Treaties
by Konrad Ege and Arlun Makhijani
Letters to the Editor
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
News NOT in the News
Practicing
Mass Burials
Many West Germans were stunned to learn in
late September 1983 that U.S. soldiers had
conducted a "mock mass burial" as one part of
a recent military exercise near Frankfurt.
Codenamed "Confident Enterprise," the U,S.
Army exercise trained soldiers how to use
bulldozers to prepare mass gravesites in case of
war in Europe. An Army spokesperson said these
soldiers were being trained as "graves registration
personnel."
According to the Army paper Stars and
Stripes, this was the first time the U.S. had
practiced mass burials during a maneuver. Army
spokesperson Lt. Col. Lawson said such an
exercise was "necessary" even though "burying...a
lot of people" is something the public doesn't
want to talk about. The Army had to go through
the training "so that people will know what to
against the Soviet Union.
The CIA made its "KGB forgery" claim in
hearings before the House Intelligence Committee
in July 1982, but CIA officers did not specify
how they had come to this conclusion. In response
to a Freedom of Information Act request, CIA
Information and Privacy Coordinator Larry
Strawderman was no more forthcoming. The
information remains classified, he wrote in an
August 12, 1983 letter, "in the interest of national
defense and foreign policy."
Now, the CIA's allegation has been
contradicted by Desmond Ball, a fellow at the
Strategic and Defence Studies Centre of the
Australian National University and a widely
recognized authority on U.S. nuclear war
strategy. In an article in International Security
(Winter 82/83), published by Harvard University's
Center for Science and International Affairs, Ball
matter-of-factly quoted the war plan documents
as - authentic. W
do - God forbid - should it happen again as it Reagan Gives
has in the past." D
-rrrrrrrrrrrrrr-rf-rrrf W
CIA Forgeries
The CIA's claim that U.S. nuclear war plans for
Europe, published in Counterspy (vol. 7, no. 3)
and several European publications, are "KGB
forgeries" is steadily losing credibility. These
documents from the 1960s describe U.S. plans to
drop atom bombs on cities of allied and neutral
countries (e.g. Finland, Austria, West Germany),
should they be taken over by the "enemy," and
reveal that the Pentagon was drawing up
contingency plans for a "preemptive strike"
3 -- Counteispj -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
Argentina the Bomb
The time is late 1984. The Argentine military
explodes its first nuclear weapon over the South
Atlantic. A few days later, the Argentine
government informs British Prime. Minister
Margaret Thatcher that it wants her troops out
of the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The British
government must decide. Does it leave, or does
it risk war with an army equipped with sufficient
nuclear weapons to wipe out the entire British
fleet in the South Atlantic?
The precise date of this standoff cannot be
predicted, but the scenario itself is not unlikely.
The U.S., Canadian and West German
governments, as well as, indirectly, Britain itself,
have each made substantial contributions to
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Argentina's rapidly developing nuclear program.
The U.S. and West Germany demonstrated
their support again in August 1983, when .,the
Reagan administration approved the sale of 143
metric tons of heavy water to Argentina. (Heavy
water, so-called because its hydrogen atoms
contain an extra neutron, is needed to run two
nuclear reactors in Argentina.) The U.S.-
manufactured heavy water had been sold initially
to a West German nuclear research reactor in
Karlsruhe in the 1960s under an agreement
specifying that the U.S. government would have
to approve any resale.
In the late 1970s, the Carter administration
vetoed a planned sale to Argentina, arguing that
U.S. non-proliferation policies stood in the way.
The Argentine government has signed neither the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty nor the Treaty
of Tlatelolco, which declares Latin America a
nuclear-free zone.
The Reagan administration, however, has
argued that the sale is possible under a U.S.-
Argentine agreement on peaceful nuclear
collaboration and "additional non-proliferation
assurances and guarantees from the Government
of Argentina." Furthermore, claims the White
House, Argentina has agreed to adhere to
safeguard requirements set up by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The manner in which the sale was made,
however, suggests that the administration did.not
believe its own arguments. It avoided consulting
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
agency usually drawn into the decision-making
process on sales of nuclear materials. According
to Paul Buchanan, Argentine specialist for the
non-governmental Council on Hemispheric Affairs
in Washington, D.C., administration officials view
the sale of heavy water as a way "to appease
Attention
Subscribers
If your label reads "R82" or "L82," this
is your last issue of Counterspy. Please
renew right away - don't miss a single
issue. Attention prisoner subscribers:
Subscriptions to prisoners will remain
free of charge. However, we are asking
prisoners to renew their subscriptions.
If your label reads "FP82" please renew
to let us know that you have been getting
Counterspy and wish to receive it in the
future. Address changes: When notifying
Counterspy of a change of address, please
include your old label.
the military so it stays out of the October 1983
national elections in Argentina," when the seven-
year long military rule is slated to end.
Buchanan disagrees with such an argument.
If the Reagan administration were indeed intent
on using the sale of heavy water for political
leverage, a highly dangerous tactic under any
circumstances, Buchanan says, it would have
delayed the sale of heavy water until after the
elections, and then consented only if the
Argentine nuclear program was put under civilian
control.
At present, the Argentine Navy is firmly
in charge and, contrary to assertions by the State
Department and the White House, some parts of
the highly secret nuclear program have not been
placed under the (at times inadequate) safeguard
provisions of the IAEA. Argentina has the most
advanced nuclear program in Latin America, now
in its 32nd year, with two commercial reactors,
two reprocessing laboratories, a uranium
enrichment plant, a number of research reactors
and one commercial reactor under construction.
Argentina also has adequate domestic uranium
resources, and, in collaboration with a Swiss
company, is about to complete a heavy water
production facility.
Much of Argentina's nuclear technology has
come from West Germany: its scientists obtained
their "know-how" in West German research
facilities. Already shortly after World War II, a
prominent Nazi pilot, Rudel, went to Argentina
as a representative of the West German Siemens
corporation, apparently to hold "exploration" talks
about future military and nuclear collaboration.
The military junta also has become one of the
biggest buyers of West German armaments.
The Agentine Navy has never been reticent
about its intention to build nuclear weapons.
Given the advanced state of Argentine
technology, there is now nothing an outside power
could do - through commercial or other sanc-
tions - to stop Argentina's nuclear development.
C~,ukitez,5py -- Dec.83 - Feb.l4 -- 5
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
The heavy water shipment, however, may
considerably accelerate the process. So will a
greatly increased budget for the Argentine
National Atomic Energy Commission which has
tripled from 1982 to 1983 - and a stockpile of
some 200 kilograms of plutonium.
It is unlikely that the, transition to civilian
government will have significant impact on the
Navy's atomic program. There is no anti-nuclear
movement in Argentina, and the Peronists, who
are likely to dominate the civilian government,
appear to be committed to the nuclear weapons
program.
away from Andrews base because the Pentagon
determined that it could be destroyed there by
a submarine-launched missile before the president
could reach it.
Quayle told his constituents that the move
was "good news for the future of Grissom Air
Force Base and surrounding communities" because
it would create jobs. O
While Britain is not in a position to stop Afghanistan
Argentina's nuclear. weapons program, it had an
opportunity to retard it. The British Central
Electricity Generating Board could have bought
most of the heavy water West Germany has now
sold to Argentina. In 1970, the Board took out
an option for 100 metric tons of the heavy water
stored in Germany. The West German
government informed Britain soon after the.
Malvinas/Falklands war that it was no longer
willing to store the water. Britain would have
to buy it, or it would be sold to Argentina. The
British government did not exercise that option.
(For more information on the Argentine
nuclear program, see Paul Buchanan, "Argentina's
Nuclear Options," Christian Science Monitor,
9/14/83; 'Brits Sent Former Foes in Argentina
Heavy Water for Nuclear Activities," Defense
Week, 8/22/83; "U.S. Approves Heavy Water for
Argentina," Washington Report on the Hemisphere
(published by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
1900 L St. NW, Suite 201, Washington, D.C.
20036), 9/6/83; "Deutsche Beihilfe fuer die
Atombombe der Militaers," Lateinamerika
Nachrichten (West ,Berlin), 5/82; Judith Miller,
"Efforts to Halt Spread of A-Arms Said to
Falter," New York Times, 6/21/82.) G
Moving Inland
Correction
Our Afghanistan article in the last issue "CIA
Aid to the Rebels" apparently underreported the
size of the CIA budget for aiding the Pakistan-
based Afghan rebels. (Counterspy wrote that
"the United States and its allies...have spent some
$200 million to arm and train the Pakistan-based
counterrevolutionaries.") According to Newsweek
(October 10, 1983), the CIA spends $100 million
a year to finance the rebels. It appears to be
the largest CIA paramilitary operation since the
CIA's war in Angola. @)
7r rr- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
Counterspy encourages the use of its
articles in not-for-profit publications.
Other publications interested in re-
printing Counterspy materials must re-
quest permission in writing. All reprints
of Counterspy must be credited and include
Counterspy's address. Similarly, re-
searchers and journalists using documents
originally obtained by Counterspy must
credit Counterspy magazine.
EDITORIAL CONT. from pg. 2
Republican Senator Dan Quayle can't keep his by the heroic resistance of Grenadans and Cubans
mouth shut. In late September 1983, he told an against overwhelming force, the people in the
Indiana audience that the Pentagon had decided United States must now struggle to cut off the
to move the president's flying command post, a Reagan war machine here at home. To do
modified Boeing 747, from Andrews Air Force otherwise is to be complicit in crimes against
Base in Maryland to Grissom Air Force Base in humanity.
r r r r r r
Indiana. Days earlier, the Pentagon had refused
to name the new location, saying. it was highly
classified information.
This Boeing 747 is the plane the president
is to use in case of , war. It was moved inland
6 --- Countenapy -- Vee.83 - Feb.84
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Pershing Its Head for
Europe
Counting French and
British Missiles
A recent report by the Congressional Research
Service challenges a key part of the Reagan
administration's negotiating posture in the
Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) reduction talks
in Geneva. The Reagan administration clings to
its "Zero Option" or slight variations thereof:
i.e., the Soviet Union must dismantle all or most
of its existing intermediate-range nuclear missiles
(SS-4, SS-5 and SS-20). In exchange, the United
States will not deploy new cruise and Pershing II
missiles in Western Europe, or only enough
missiles to match whatever the Soviets keep.
The sticking point for the Soviet Union is that
the U.S. position does not take into account the
nuclear weapons of its NATO allies,, France and
Britain.
The Reagan administration claims that the
Soviet demand to "count" British and French
missiles in the INF talks is "without merit." The
U.S. cannot negotiate about French and British
weapons for the French and British governments,
says Ronald Reagan, because that would undercut
their sovereignty. Under Secretary of State
Lawrence Eagleburger writes that Britain and
France "consider their nuclear forces to
constitute the minimum nuclear deterrent
necessary to protect their own national interests,"
and the State Department has proclaimed that
the French and British nuclear forces are
"designed to deter attack against Britain and
France, not against the other members of NATO."
Further, the administration says the nuclear
forces of these two countries cannot be included
in the talks because they are "strategic" weapons.
Finally, the French and British nuclear forces are
said to be "small compared to the total size of
the Soviet nuclear arsenal," and therefore only a
minor threat to the Soviet Union.
The Congressional Research Service study,
"British and French Nuclear Forces in the INF
Negotiations" (Issue Brief IB83117, 7/25/83),
challenges or contradicts each one of these
assertions.
? French and British Forces are insig-
nificant when compared to the Soviet arsenal:
According to the CRS, Britain has four
submarines with 16 six-warhead missiles each.
France has five nuclear submarines with 16
multiple-warhead missiles each, plus 18 land
based missiles and 34 Mirage planes capable of
dropping nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. Both
countries' nuclear forces are at present being
its PCUI/BLE!
ITS REALLY
PaErWI-OUR
STUDIES SNOW
LI LE1A
WAR /1
PWISI E!
WE ca AD us
mwsT um
wFAM N A
*WW
W"n6uy I
Lmt>
OR RILUW !!
IT'S Too SAD.
ASWT 6UROPE__....
Gorrell, The Charlotte News
greatly expanded and within a decade are likely
to have a total of 150G warheads. There probably
is no country in the world that regards hundreds
of warheads targeted at its cities and military
forces as a "minor threat."
? British and French forces are inde-
pendent and uncommitted: The British missiles,
while under British command in peacetime, says
Ceun.te-tcapy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 7
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
the CRS study, "are scheduled to be placed under
SACEUR [Supreme Allied Commander Europe]
in time of emergency. The British SLBMs
[submarine launched ballistic missiles] are
targetted in coordination with U.S. Strategic Air
Command targetting plans." French forces will
remain under national French military command
in case of war. However, there are a number
of treaties (such as the Western European Union)
to which France and other Western European
countries are signatories which oblige France in
time of "attack" on one signatory to give "all
military...aid...in [its] power." In other words,
French and British nuclear weapons are not "just"
designed to deter an attack on these two
countries; rather France and Britain are obliged
to use them "in defense" of any Western European
country.
? British and French arms are "strategic"
and not theater nuclear weapons: Here the U.S.
government wants to have it both ways: during
the SALT negotiations in the 1970s the U.S.
characterized the British and French forces as
"theater" forces which were not to be included
in strategic arms limitation talks. Now that
"theater" or intermediate arms talks are
underway, the administration has reclassified
them as strategic. At the same time, the U.S.
has not taken "the further logical step of
proposing that those forces be included in the
[strategic arms] negotiations."
? Including the French and British
missiles would violate the sovereignty of these
countries: The Reagan administration is fond of
setting up this strawhorse and then beating it
down. The Soviet government is not demanding
that the U.S. negotiate for France and Britain;
neither is it insisting that the two countries
participate in the negotiations. What it wants,
is that French and British forces be taken into
consideration during the INF talks, i.e. by
allowing the Soviet Union to match French and
British missiles with their own intermediate range
missiles.
The Reagan administration's refusal to
include French and British weapons in the INF
negotiations has served to stall the talks from
the outset. Arguments such as those made in
"British and French Nuclear Forces in the INF
Negotiations" are simply ignored or rejected by
the administration. Yet, it is safe to assume
that if Czechoslovakia or Bulgaria were to begin
deploying nuclear missiles capable of reaching
the United States or Western Europe, the Reagan
administration would loudly argue that such
weapons were targeted against NATO in case of
war and should be taken into account in the U.S.-
Soviet negotiations.
The Numbers Game
The deployment of the first nine out of a total
of 108 Pershing II missiles in West Germany is
scheduled for December 1983. So goes the
Pentagon's public relations rap. In reality, the
Pentagon is readying 21 missiles for December
deployment - components of which were shipped
to West Germany months before the December
deadline.
That 21 and not nine is the correct number
has been confirmed by Brig. Gen. Richard Kenyon,
of the Army's Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Research, Development and Acquisition.
U.S. ?zmy depot in Frankfurt/Hausen.
8 -- Coun-tenepy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
In an April 13, 1983 hearing before the
Subcommittee on the Department of Defense of
the House Appropriations Committee, Kenyon was
asked about the status of the Pershing II program.
Kenyon replied: "...The fiscal year 1982 buy is
21 missiles. Those missiles are currently being
fabricated with fiscal year 1982 funds and will
provide the initial operational capability portion
of the deployment scheduled to begin in Europe
in December of this calendar year."
The number nine apparently relates not to
missiles per se, but to missile launchers. If 21
missiles are being deployed for nine launchers,
then the projected 108 launchers will require 252
Pershing II missiles. Adding up the 252 missiles
to be deployed in West Germany, plus the missiles
needed for training of U.S. GIs in Fort Sill,
Oklahoma, one quickly arrives at the "magic
number" - 311. This is how many Pershing II
missiles Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger
has ordered, according to his 1984 Annual Report.
Members of West Germany's anti-nuclear
Green Party who sit on the Frankfurt City
Council charged in September 1983 that some of
these Pershing Its had already arrived in West
Germany or, more specifically, in a. U.S. military
facility in Frankfurt/Hausen. As evidence, the
Green Party members produced photos showing
containers in the base labeled "Pershing Cylinder
Assembly" and "Pershing Mod Team Europe." Mod
is an abbreviation for Modification, indicating
that support equipment for the existing Pershing
la missiles - deployed in West Germany for a
number of years - is being modified at the U.S.
depot in Frankfurt/Hausen to accommodate the
new Pershing Us.
The Greens also released documents from
Martin Marietta Aerospace Corporation, the
manufacturer of the Pershing II missiles, which
confirm the existence of a Pershing "modification
facility and depot near Frankfurt," obviously the
Frankfurt/Hausen base. (See following article.)
West German and U.S. government officials, as
well as representatives of Martin Marietta,
naturally have not been eager to comment on
these allegations. Officials of the state of Hesse
in which Frankfurt is located, also took a "no
comment" stance, except to say that "the
Americans never tell us anything."
The members of the Green Party believe
that the activities in the Frankfurt/Hausen base
further demonstrate that the Reagan admin-
istration is not sincere about the Intermediate
Nuclear Force Reduction Talks in Geneva. "In
Geneva they talk, in Frankfurt they deploy," read
one of many signs at a September demonstration
at the Frankfurt/Hausen depot. The West German
government of Chancellor Helmut Kohl, mean-
while, has turned down a request by the Green
Party that the West German government neither
deploy the Pershing II missiles nor store and
prepare Pershing II components for deployment
while the Geneva talks are underway. r+~
r-rr-rr-rrrrr
Three Warheads for
the Pershing II?
"Pershing II: Flexibility for NATO" is the title
of a 1982 manual produced by the Martin Marietta
Aerospace Corporation, the company which is
building the Pershing missiles for the U.S. Army.
The manual indicates that the U.S. Army plans
for the Pershing II missiles could go far beyond
simply stationing single-warhead Pershing II
missiles in West Germany. Says the manual:
"[The Pershing II] is an extremely valuable
component of the INF [Intermediate Nuclear
Forces] . As well as being flexible in basic design,
Crate stored in the U.S. Army depot in Frankfurt/Hausen.
Ccun-te-tspy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 9
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
it permits expansion of capabilities that can be
used for leverage in negotiations. Buying the PH
system is like buying many systems and
capabilities."
The term "leverage in negotiations" refers
to the option to equip the Pershing II with three
warheads rather than one. According to Martin
Marietta, "the present terminally guided reentry
vehicle can be replaced by a MIRV [Multiple
Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicle] fore-
body containing up to three independently
targeted warheads." In addition, the Pershing II
The term "leverage in
negotiations" refers to
the option to equip the
Pershing II with three
warheads rather than one.
is designed so that it could deliver a "nuclear
earth penetrator warhead" for use against hard,
deep underground targets.
The Army may also be preparing to use the
Pershing II in wars in other countries beside West
Germany. Due to the Pershing la's "mobility and
air transportability," the Martin Marietta manual
says, it can be deployed rapidly to other
countries. Men and equipment of U.S. European
Pershing units accomplish this type of airlift
missions "several times each year during their
follow-on test firing program." ; These Pershing
operators are airlifted to Cape Canaveral in
Florida and "launch missiles under simulated
tactical conditions."
The Martin Marietta manual also indicates
that the company and the Pentagon are concerned
about West German opposition to the missile
deployment. But in a chapter entitled "Political
Acceptability," the company expresses its hope,
that the "similarity of the PII [Pershing II]
launcher to the familiar Pershing la launcher
[already deployed] should cause the German
populace little notice." o
10 -- Coun.te2epy -- Dee.83 - Feb.84
: u`' 1 "ar
I' J
U.S. Army depot in Frankfurt/Hausen.
Crate stored in the U.S. Army depot.
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
KAL 007
Introduction
Reagan's Story Contradicted
Knowingly shooting, down "an unarmed civilian
airliner," said President Reagan, "was an act of
barbarism, born of a society which wantonly
disregards individual rights and the value of
human life." Reagan was, of course, referring
to the Soviet shooting down of a Korean Air
Lines Boeing 747 in the early morning hours of
September 1, 1983, resulting in the deaths of 269
people. A Congressional resolution, adopted by
a 416 to 0 vote in the House of Representatives,
labeled the incident a "cold-blooded barbarous
murder on a commercial airliner straying off
course [and] one of the most infamous and
reprehensible acts in history."
In the weeks that followed the downing of
the jetliner, Republicans and Democrats strove
to outdo each other in their verbal condemnations
of the Soviet Union and its "wanton, calculated,
deliberate murder" of the passengers and crew
of Korean Air Lines flight 007. Reagan, in a
somewhat obscene fashion, immediately seized
upon the disaster and used it as a lever to
pressure Congress to appropriate money for his
MX missile program. Proponents of a chemical
weapons buildup likewise argued successfully that
resuming U.S. chemical weapons production was
now necessary to contain Soviet aggression.
Partly because the Soviet Union waited for
six days to concede that it had shot down the
plane, the Reagan administration pulled off a
successful propaganda campaign. During that
period, the U.S. government, aided by its
intelligence agencies, exercised a virtual
monopoly on information about the tragedy, and
U.S. newspapers took up the government's war
cry and spoke with one voice.
Information that has come to light since
the initial uproar demonstrates that the story the
Reagan administration told people around the
world about how KAL 007 was shot down is laden
with distortions and untruths.
? The Soviet pilot of the Su15 fighter
plane did fire warning shots to force the plane
down, contrary to U.S. Ambassador Jeane
Kirkpatrick's statement in the United Nations
Security Council that "the Soviet pilot makes no
mention of firing any warning shots." Kirkpatrick
was referring to a tape of radio com m uni cations
between the Soviet pilot and his ground
commander. She played excerpts of the tape at
the U.N. Security Council - Reagan did the same
during his national TV address - omitting
segments in which the Soviet pilot says: "I am
firing cannon bursts."
? A U.S. RC-135 reconnaissance plane
was near the KAL 007 when it crossed into the
Soviet defense zone. The two planes, seen from
below, look very similar, especially at night.
When the airliner was shot down, the Soviet pilot
was not, as President Reagan suggested, parallel
to the airliner, a position from which he could
have seen "the unique and distinctive silhouette"
of the Boeing 747 jetliner. National Security
Agency officers running the RC-135 themselves
might well have intentionally contributed to the
confusion of the Scviet Air Defense forces.
According to a Knight News Service article, on
occasion "the RC-135s transmit confusing radar
signals in an effort to prompt the Soviets to
scramble [send up] their fighters." (9/15/83).
? The Soviet planes did not track the
KAL 007 for two hours as has been suggested.
Soviet planes were unable to locate the KAL for
more than two hours, although their ground
personnel apparently saw it on their radar
screens. According to tape recordings not
released by the government (quoted in the New
York Times, 10/7/83), Soviet anti-aircraft missile
batteries were alerted to stop an "RC-135" while
the plane flew over Sakhalin Island; that is, some
two hours after it had entered Soviet airspace.
This indicates that at that time, the Soviets still
did not know that the plane they were pursuing
was a civilian airliner. In fact, once Soviet
interceptor planes made visual contact with the
intruding plane, they had only a few minutes to
decide what kind of aircraft it was. Even the
White House has now been forced to concede
that original government statements claiming
that the U.S. had "irrefutable evidence" the
Ccunte2.~pu -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 11
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Intercontinental and
regional missile bases
located near here.
Thursday j2:23 p.m. EDT, Wednesday) the Korean
Air likes pilot routinely reported he had increased
his altitude to 35,000 feet.
NORTH
KOREA
?*Pyongyang
SOUTH
KOREA
Sea of Japan
-'JAPAN
Tokyo' J
r
SOVIET Sakhalin ,\k
UNION
Island
a h o
Presumed ? Y
Gosh Sit* 10, SKo_riokovk
10 ~Uy
S
Island iAk
rwakkan
anoi
r Hokkaido
lj JAPAN
*Sapporo
Soviets knew they were attacking a civilian plane,
cannot be maintained.
Despite government claims to the
contrary, U.S. intelligence agencies have used and
continue' to use civilian aircraft for spy missions.
According to an editor of Defense Science
magazine, planes from the Korean Air Lines
"regularly overfly Russian airspace to gather
military intelligence." (San Francisco Examiner,
9/4/83). Contrary to U.S. assertions that spy
flights by planes are no longer necessary in the
age of satellite surveillance, planes using high
resolution cameras can provide much more
precise data than high-flying satellites.
There are many unanswered questions about
why 269 people had to die in the waters of the
Sea of Japan on September 1. Perhaps the most
urgent questions are why the Korean military
pilot flying KAL 007 was hundreds of kilometers
inside Soviet airspace in the first place, and why
he refused to obey the Soviet interceptor plane's
demand that he land. The KAL plane had several
independent sets of navigational equipment and
was flying alongside some of the most sensitive
Soviet military bases, clearly marked as
"prohibited area" on pilots' maps.
Four articles in this issue of Counterspy
shed more light on the KAL disaster. Duncan
Campbell explains that U.S. propaganda efforts
"to repudiate the Soviet claim that the dead
12 -- Countenuspy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
passengers were the victims of a U.S. intelligence
operation that went wrong" are not entirely
credible. On the contrary, Campbell concludes,
"it is clear that the airline passengers have been
innocent victims of a long, secret, electronic cold
war in the air."
A second article, drawing from statements
by two former U.S. RC-135 officers, seriously
,questions the Reagan administration's claims that
the RC-135 spy plane left the region in question
long before the KAL airliner was shot down.
These two officers also suggest that the National
Security Agency was informed at all times about
the Korean plane being in Soviet airspace and
Soviet efforts to shoot it down. The question
remains: why was there no U.S. attempt to
prevent the disaster?
West German Lufthansa pilot Rudolf
Braunburg has flown many air routes close to
sensitive military areas such as the Kamchatka
Peninsula and Sachalin Island. . His article
describes precautions usually taken by pilots to
avoid crossing into these regions, and questions
how the KAL pilot could have flown 'unknowingly
hundreds of kilometers into Soviet airspace.
Finally, Jeff McConnell's article demon-
strates that U.S. intelligence agencies have long
used commercial aircraft and details the CIA's
close relationship with dozens of U.S. and foreign
airlines.
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Spy in the Sky
Duncan Campbell
Whatever the reasons why the ill-fated flight
KAL 007 was overflying such sensitive and
prohibited areas of the Soviet Union, the incident
will undoubtedly have provided U.S. intelligence
with unique data on the performance of the Soviet
defence system. Gathering the type of intelli-
gence the U.S. will have gained is the primary
task of the RC-135 type spy plane.
U.S. officials inadvertently let slip at the
beginning of the week that there had indeed been
an RC-135 operating along the flight path of the
Korean airliner. But they claim that it flew
away from the area, and had landed an hour
before the Soviets launched their missile attack
on the jumbo jet.
U.S. officials in Washington do not deny
that the RC-135 and two other well-known
American spy planes ?- the U2 and the SR71 -
regularly fly along the borders of the Soviet Union
with a battery of monitoring devices aboard. All
three types of aircraft operate from the U.S.
airbase at Mildenhall in Suffolk, and from other
bases in Greece, Cyprus, Turkey and Okinawa.
From Mildenhall, the New Statesman has obtained
some startling evidence of the clandestine role
of the RC-135 and other planes in the U.S. spy
fleet.
? On 16 January 1982, an RC-135V spy
plane returning from Athens to its U.S. home
base landed at Mildenhall. On its nose were seen
five small red silhouettes of the distinctively
long-nosed Soviet Sukhoi interceptor (such as
were involved in last week's incident). Such
markings normally celebrate a "kill." But since
RC-135s are unarmed, except for electronic
jammers, aviation experts say that the markings,
if they are Sukhois, are most likely to mean that
the aircraft had successfully penetrated Soviet
defences - and got away with it.
? Despite promising to refrain from
manned overflight of the Soviet Union in 1960,
planes like the SR71 do regularly "taunt" Soviet
fighters to try and shoot them down, according
to Viktor Belenko, the Soviet pilot who defected
to Japan in 1976, bringing his Mig-25 with him.
? Mildenhall's SR71 unit has recently
been increased to two aircraft. But U.S.
spokesmen at Mildenhall say that they "don't
acknowledge that there are any reconnaissance
aircraft" on the base. Since early this year,
United States national markings have been
removed from the all-black planes.
? Clumsy attempts to disguise
clandestine operations with RC-135s from
Mildenhall have been detected by local aircraft
spotters who have noticed on at least two
occasions that false serial numbers had been
painted onto one RC-135. This was first done
about seven years ago, and again in 1982. An
RC-135"V" was temporarily given the tail serial
number - 14848 - belonging to a distinctively
different "U" type. On 3/4 July last year, this
manoeuvre was easy to detect when both planes
were parked side by side.
? The RC7135s, which first came to
Britain about 1966, succeeded earlier types which
are known to have penetrated Eastern Europe and
the Soviet Union, and have been shot down. The
Royal Air Force and the British Secret
Intelligence Service have been deeply involved
with the secret U.S. overflights, including the
U2s, since the late 1940s.
We asked the United States Third Air Force
spokesmen at Mildenhall to comment on and
explain the reports. On Tuesday, they promised
to "research" the questions but insisted that they
were not admitting that spy planes were ever
seen at Mildenhall. An SAC headquarters
representative, Major Mahoney, said on Tuesday
that "we can't comment on operational missions".
In the face of the rapid polarisation of the
KAL incident into a critical Soviet-American
issue, it is understandable that U.S. officials are
vigorously seeking to repudiate the Soviet claim
that the dead passengers were the victims of a
U.S. intelligence operation that went wrong. But
the U.S. claim that their RC-135 in the area was
quietly slipping home - uninterested in what was
going on - is not credible.
For decades, the United States, the Soviet
Union and their allies have fought a secret
electronic war in which radar and anti-aircraft
defence screens are repeatedly penetrated in
order to discover how they operate - and how,
in war, to evade them. This dangerous activity
has been much more extensive than is generally
known. An analysis of this secret war shows
that since 1950 the United States has lost at
least 27 aircraft forced or shot down and seen
This article is reprinted with the kind permission
of the New Statesman (14-16 Farringdon Lane, London
EC1R 3AU, England) and the author. It first
appeared in their September 9, 1983 issue. Claudia
Wright also contributed to the article.
Coun.tetspy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 13
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
60 others attacked in the course of electronic or
photographic reconnaissance activity. At least
139 U.S. servicemen have died in this re-
connaissance programme.
The high-flying spy plane, the SR71, is no
respecter of national boundaries or legal airspace
restrictions. More than 900 attempts have been
made, by the Soviet Air Force and others, to
shoot down the super-secret SR-71 "Blackbird".
None has,-succeeded, for it flies too high and too
fast. It replaced the slow-flying, glider-like U2
spy plane in which CIA pilot Gary Powers was
shot down near Sverdlovsk in May 1960.
When flying off the coast of Soviet Asia,
the primary mission of the RC-135 spy plane is
to document the "electronic order of battle" of
the Soviet defenders. The Americans want to
know where the radar stations and anti-aircraft
missile bases are and how defences will react if
the Soviet Union is penetrated by B52 nuclear
bombers. But often, important defence systems
are turned off to prevent just such eavesdropping.
U.S. officials are vigorously
seeking to repudiate the
Soviet claim that the dead
passengers were the victims
of a U.S. intelligence
operation that went wrong.
But the U.S. claim that their
RC-1 35 in the area was
quietly slipping home ... is
not credible.
Thus for decades such spy missions have involved
deliberate "provocative penetration," designed to
measure Soviet alertness and monitor the
response.
For the Elint (electronic intelligence)
analysts of U.S. Strategic Air Command, last
week's Korean incursion will have provided a
treasure trove of electronic gold. A chain of
U.S. listening stations is dotted across the
northern coast of Hokkaido Island, Japan,
including such huge eavesdropping centres as
Misawa Air Base with 1,600 intelligence operators
and analysts. They routinely listen to and monitor
14 -- Coun.tenepy -- Dee.83 - Feb.84
radio signals between Soviet pilots and their
ground controllers. Both sides know what the
other is doing; on one occasion at least, Soviet
radio operators included a Christmas greeting to
the specific U.S. station in Japan which was
monitoring them.
The Korean jumbo jet would have been
closely followed by the U.S. and Japanese Sigint
(signals intelligence) stations. The Soviet Union
was being deeply penetrated by a large
unidentified aircraft which was crossing the
highly sensitive Kamchatka peninsula on a course
for Vladivostock. In the course of two hours in
the early morning, large parts of the Soviet
military command and electronic defense systems
were suddenly activated. Gathering that part of
this sudden intelligence windfall accessible only
from the air should have been the job of the
RC-135.
The electronic spy mission of the RC-135s
has been well described by senior U.S. Air Force
officials and others. The leading U.S. military
journal Aviation Week and Space Technology
explained in May 1976 that the SR71s and RC-
135s fly:
peripheral intelligence missions...to pinpoint
locations and characteristics of potentially
hostile signal emitters... Information of this
nature helps (Strategic Air Command) to
develop ways of evading troublesome
emitters...
The reason for' all this activity is unambiguously
offensive. The purpose is to analyse:
the environment that bombers may be directed
to penetrate in the event of war...
While the Korean airliner's unaccompanied
penetration could not be mistaken for a lone
attacking bomber, it is understandable that the
Soviet Air Force might be trigger-happy if it
suspected that the ill-fated Boeing 747 might be
a U.S. Air Force RC-135 lining up a possible
bombing run.
During a flight of up to 17 hours, automatic
Elint computers on the RC-135 record Soviet
radar signals on reels of 1 inch magnetic tape.
When the plane returns to base computers use
the tapes to provide an up-to-date map of Soviet
radar stations. Prominent on the RC-135 are
flat panels near the nose, which carry "sideways
looking" radar. This produces maps to help
bombers and cruise missiles navigate to their
targets.
"Provoking" air defence systems is
necessary in order .to "trigger" interesting signals,
as the then commander of Strategic Air
Command, General R.H. Ellis, indicated to the
official Air Force Magazine in September 1978.
Referring to the RC-135, U2, and SR71, he said:
It is possible tb operate these systems in a
way that induces the "other fellow" to react
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
in a way that tells us things we want to know.
This can't be done with satellites.
The former Soviet Mig-25 interceptor pilot Viktor
Belenko has described in his autobiography how
this was done by the SR71s; they flew off the
coast of the Soviet Union:
taunting and toying with Nlig-25s sent up to
intercept them, scooting up to altitudes the
Soviet planes could not reach and circling
leisurely above them, or dashing off at speeds
the Russians could not match.
The SR71 flew faster even than Soviet air-to-air
missiles and could not be shot down. SR71s
repeatedly overflew China during the 1960s.
After Chinese protest notes, this activity was
stopped before President Nixon's 1971 visit. A
It is clear that the airline
passengers have been
innocent victims of a long,
secret, electronic cold war in
the air.
In 1958, two Oxford undergraduates who had
worked in British Sigint stations in West Germany
were jailed for publicly describing the provocative
penetration missions in a university magazine:
Since the Russians do not always provide the
required messages to monitor, they are
sometimes provoked. A plane "loses" its way;
while behind the frontier tape recorders
excitedly read the irritated messages of
Russian pilots; and when sometimes the
aeroplane is forced to land an international
incident is created. The famous Lancaster
bomber incident near Berlin was deliberately
provoked in this way.
Soon after this was written, there was to be a
succession of major international incidents of this
kind:
? 27 June 1958 - CIA spy plane was shot
down in the Caucasus, with nine men aboard. A
secret briefing to President Eisenhower about the
incident was only declassified nine months ago.
? 2 September 1958 - spy plane carrying
17 National Security Agency monitors shot down
over Soviet Armenia.
? 11 May 1960 - U2 shot down over the
Urals - the famous incident.
? 1 July 1960 - RB47 (predecessor to
the RC-135), from Brize Norton near Oxford,
shot down in the Barents Sea area; as in many
former U.S. Air Force Sigint analyst, has
explained how the SR71s would just disappear
from the view of Mig-21 interceptors. Egypt
protested about SR71 overflights during the Yom
Kippur war; meanwhile Soviet Mig-25s
successfully overflew Israel at high speed.
In 1979 the government secretly gave
permission for SR71s is to be based in Britain.
Companion U2s have disappeared from Mildenhall
since, in January this year, newly manufactured
U2s -- renamed TR1s - started arriving at
Alconbury air base, near Huntingdon. Three or
four out of an expected total of 20 TRls are
currently stationed at Alconbury. There are
usually two RC-135s at Mildenhall, on long visits
from the Strategic Air Command's 55th Strategic
Reconnaissance Wing in Nebraska.
Spy planes from this and similar units have
been coming to Britain for years. RAF and USAF
pilots based at Sculthorpe, near Fakenham in
Norfolk, shared spy missions to map bombing
routes into Eastern Europe between 1951 and
1954. The first U2s operated from the U.S. air
base at Lakenheath, before moving to Turkey.
RAF pilots also flew on U2 missions over the
Soviet Union. Decorations and medals were
awarded to RAF pilots for successful penetration
operations, which were kept a well-guarded
secret.
such incidents, the Soviet and U.S. sides disagreed
on whether the plane had encroached on national
airspace.
? 28 January 1964 - T-39 shot down over
East Germany.
? 10 March 1964 - RB-66 from Alcon-
bury shot down over East Germany.
Losses have continued at a more modest rate
since. Soviet losses as a result of their parallel
activity of this kind are not known. But the
risk-taking goes on. Apart from the exotic
devices like the SR71,. there are still continual
spy flights over East Germany by simulated U.S.
transport aircraft flying to Berlin. Codenamed
"Creek Misty," these are actually C130E Hercules
spy planes. Only six months ago, an RAF
Hercules flying the same route was shot at by
East German interceptors.,
U.S. sources, including the former Com-
mander-in-chief of Pacific forces, Admiral Noel
Gayler, are angrily dismissive of suggestions that
the Korean airliner was deliberately used by the
Americans to stir Soviet defences. But it is
clear that the airline passengers have been
innocent victims of a long, secret, electronic cold
war in the air. R
Coun-tenspy -- Vee.83 - Feb.84 -- 15
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Monitoring the Disaster
Two former crewmen of a U.S. RC-135
surveillance plane - the type of plane that was
in the vicinity of the Korean Airliner before it
was shot down - do not believe much of what
President Reagan has said about the incident.
Edward Eskelson and Tom Bernard, veteran U.S.
Air Force communications intelligence specialists
who flew RC-135 reconnaissance missions out of
Okinawa, Japan, wrote in the Denver Post
(September 13, 1983) that the Reagan
administration has engaged in "a major effort...to
bewilder the public concerning the capabilities of
the U.S. Air Force RC-135 and, more importantly,
the National Security Agency."
Eskelson and Bernard find "unbelievable"
Reagan's public statement that while the RC-135
had at one point been in the approximate area
of the Korean airliner, it had long since left the
Sakhalin-Kamchatka region and returned to its
base in Alaska when the KAL flight was shot
down. The RC-135, which flies in figure eights
We believe that the entire
sweep of events ... to the
time of the shootdown was
meticulously monitored and
analyzed instantaneously by
U.S. intelligence.
on its intelligence missions, is "a primary
intercept platform" of the National Security
Agency (NSA), say the crewmen, and "it is always
relieved on its orbit by yet another RC-135 just
prior to the conclusion of its mission." In other
words, one RC-135 may indeed have returned to
its base after a reconnaissance flight in the
Northwest Pacific, but another one certainly
would have taken its place.
Bernard and Eskelson vigorously protest
government references to the RC-135 as merely
a passive listening device or as primarily geared
to "verifying compliance with arms control
agreements." On the contrary, the RC-135 has
a number of capabilities which "we view as being
16 -- Counterspy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
offensive in nature," write the two former
intelligence specialists.
? An on-board communications system
"permits instantaneous reporting of tactical
intelligence to the Highest levels of government,
including the president, from any location in the
.world." An RC-135 message intended for the
president, Eskelson and Bernard state, "is required
to be in the president's hands no more than 10
minutes after the time of transmission,"
regardless of the geographical location of the
plane.
? Each plane carries equipment to jam
enemy radar and radio transmissions.
? An "internal warning system" is used
to "monitor the tactical air activity and air
defense radars of the target nation." With this
system, RC-135 personnel can detect immediately
any "hostile activity" of the target nation
potentially directed against them or other
friendly planes.
? The aircraft can transmit "messages
over an extremely broad range of frequencies,
including those used by other aircraft, both
civilian and military, ships, ground stations and
air controllers." During the Vietnam war, for
instance, the RC-135s were able to warn U.S.
pilots flying bombing runs over North Vietnam
that they were being tracked by Vietnamese
radar, and thus played a key role in helping them
escape. It appears the RC-135 could at least
have tried to do the same for KAL flight :007.
"Within these capabilities of the RC-135,"
Bernard and Eskelson conclude, "lie the precise
reasons we believe that the entire sweep of
events - from the time the Soviets first began
tracking KAL flight 007, to 'confusing' it with
the American reconnaissance aircraft, to the time
of the shootdown - was meticulously monitored
and analyzed instantaneously by U.S.
intelligence.... There are serious questions in our
minds as to not only what specific role did the
capabilities of the RC-135 play in the eventual
shooting down of the KAL airliner, but also why
these capabilities were never utilized in an
attempt to head off the tragedy." a
Counterspy is available on microfilm from
University Microfilms International, 300
North Zeeb Road, Dept. PR, Ann Arbor, MI
48106; or 30-32 Mort imer.Street, Dept. PR,
London W19 7RA, England. Counterspy is
indexed in Alternative Press Index, P.O.
Box 7229, Baltimore, MD 21218.
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
A Pilot's View
Exploiting the KAL Tragedy
Rudolf Braunburg
It is the nightmare of every air traffic controller:
the blip representing a civilian plane disappears
suddenly from the radar screen. At times, such
nightmares become reality; perfect air safety will
remain an elusive ideal. Yet no other plane
disaster has prompted so much political activity
as the catastrophe of the Korean Air Lines plane
over the North Pacific.
From a pilot's point of view, the incident,
with all its far-reaching consequences, can be
reduced to two simple questions. First, why did
planes when they ordered him to land. He
violated all internal and international regulations.
All airline pilots are strictly instructed to follow
planes ordering them to land if they have entered
another nation's prohibited airspace. Because
military and civilian planes have different radio
frequencies, only rarely are the two kinds of
planes able to make radio contact.
The military planes, therefore, use a variety
of optical signals to communicate. These,signals
the Boeing 747 stray so far from its course?
S
econd, why did it refuse to comply with the
Soviet request - most certainly made - to land
on a military airfield in Sakhalin?
For many years, airlines have been using
navigation systems which in actual fact preclude
navigational errors as large as the one made by
the KAL Jumbo. The Inertial Navigation System
(INS) in the DC-10 that I fly, for instance, does
not depend on ground signals or weather
conditions; it is built into the plane in
triplicate.... One flies the INS-equipped plane by
first feeding the degrees of longitude and latitude
into the computer. This input is checked by the
copilot, and by the flight engineer, as long as he
is on board. It is possible that the pilot could
make a mistake during the input process, but
whatever he does is checked by two other people.
There are cases where cosmic radiation
disturbs the computer during the flight; this might
change the data in the computer.... But even then
a pilot still has the option to at least
Every pilot knows that
disobeying an interceptor
while in prohibited airspace
means risking being shot
down. Disregarding it or
trying to sneak back into
international airspace is
seen as a suicidal attempt
by every responsible pilot.
approximately recognize his change of course by at times differ from continent to continent. But
"old-fashioned" navigation methods. For instance, the pilots carry with them in their heavy
on the Kamchatka peninsula, there are several flightbags a file listing the optical signals of the
radio beacons - in Kubaru, Kokutan and Lopatka, interceptors of all countries. For instance, if an
to name a few - whose bearings can be taken interceptor plane lowers its landing gear and then
by using the good old radio compass navigation. slowly swerves downward, that is a demand that
In addition, a pilot can use the weather radar you follow him and land at the airport he
and switch it to "ground echo." Thereby he can designates. At night, interceptors signal their
recognize the contours of the land and water demands by switching their lights on and off....
below .n even bigger riddle is why the pilot did At the time of the critical encounter it probably
A yet completely light.
not immediately obey the Soviet interceptor was not When I and other pilots were flying the
Dr. Rudolf Braunburg is a former Lufthansa Airlines Hong Kong-Bangkok route during the Vietnam
pilot. This article is excerpted from ?Die Toten
and die Vermarktung der Trauer? which originally War, and flew over the American napalm
appeared in Deutsches AZlgemeines which originally bombardments, we very carefully studied our files
West Germany. to learn about the various optical signals. Many
Coun-tenspy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 11
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
times we had to choose between flying through
monsoon thunderstorms...or leaving our assigned
route and risk being shot down - at that time
not by a Soviet but by an American plane....
Every pilot knows that disobeying an
interceptor while in prohibited air space means
risking being shot down. Disregarding it or trying
to sneak back into international airspace is seen
as a suicidal attempt by every responsible pilot,
and is forbidden by the airlines.
These rules apply - in spite of some recent
claims to the contrary - internationally. That
means they apply over India, Central Africa, and
over Turkey as much as on routes bordering the
Soviet Union. The maps that were shown on TV
recently with the wording AIRSPACE
PROHIBITED PROHIBITED AREA were obviously
of southern Kamchatka. But the same wording
can be found numerous times on maps of the
Near and Far East or on maps of South America.
Over India, for instance, there are prohibited
areas right along the air routes. Crossing that
airspace and disobeying a command to land there
would have the same consequences as doing it
over the Soviet Union...
Pilots who have flown international routes
for more than two decades often notice U.S.
military planes using civilian air routes and
behaving like civilian planes. Before the Shah
of Iran fell, the route linking Istanbul and Tehran
was the route where that happened most often.
There was one military airport after another
along the southern border with the Soviet Union,
and there were many U.S. military planes using
funny codenames flying on civilian routes to
deliver cargo to these airfields.
On the North Pacific route one can detect
the radio signals of similar planes; in addition,
one can see the exhaust trails of other, higher
flying planes which are crossing the east-west
Pacific routes coming from the north and the
south. We were never able to detect their signals
on the normal civilian radio frequencies; there
seemed to be routine traffic crossing inter-
national borders.
This air traffic is now being explained:
recent statements by the U.S. administration
admit that there are "routine flights by U.S.
reconnaissance planes north of Japan;" one of
them took place at the same time as the Korean
Boeing was in the area. At times the mixing up
of military and civilian planes was purposely
provoked by the military.
There are routes all over the world which
are very close to strictly forbidden territories.
One of the most heavily travelled areas, between
Bangkok and Hong Kong, is much closer to Red
Chinese territory than the North Pacific route is
to the Soviet Union. Not to mention flights over
countries at war or landings in Beirut airport.
18 - Coun.tenhpy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
None of the politicians... including Reagan's
staff...has mentioned that incidents such as the
one over the Soviet Union have occurred
numerous times in the past.
To be precise, if I am evaluating statistics
,correctly, it has happened thirty two times since
1947. 32 times a civilian airplane has been shot
down for the very same reason as the one over
the Soviet Union: violation of foreign air space.
This is where the real political scandal
begins.
Pilots, and not politicians, have been
protesting regulations which allowed these
downings for decades. They would have been
grateful had their governments just shed a few
tears over these incidents in the past - compared
to the many tears they are shedding now that
the Soviets are involved.
Some of the 32 cases were bad enough to
cry about. The Israelis shot down...a Libyan
airliner.... Last year a civilian plane from France
was downed by a "misfired" NATO missile over
the Mediterranean. All passengers were killed.
But there were no tearful statements of
regret or threats then. Perhaps the politicians
didn't think there were enough Americans or
Germans aboard these downed planes. But isn't
a person killed by an Israeli or a NATO missile
just as dead as one killed by a Soviet missile?
It is not the politicians but the pilots who
face the victims of this horrible catastrophe with
concern and grief.... But whoever is focusing on
the recent disaster alone has to be prepared to
be charged with marketing the grief and sadness
in order to undermine the [West German] peace
movement's demonstrations in this so-called hot
autumn.
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ~
Change Tool for the
80's
Get your library to subscribe to
the Alternative Press Index if it
doesn't already.
Institutional subscription $9000fyr.
Individual and movement group
subscription $25.00lyr.
For a free list of alternative
and radical publications and
for more information write:
Alternative Press Center
P. 0. Box 7229
Baltimore. Maryland 21218
(3011243-2471
This magazine is indexed in the
Alternative Press Index.
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
A 36-Year History
The CIA and Airlines
Jeff McConnell
In mid-July 1951, the international office of the
National Student Association received an
important phone call from Washington. For
nearly a year, the association had been writing
groups in Latin America, hoping to stimulate
interest in establishing a "Pan American Union"
of students. In May 1951, the association finally
had been invited to send representatives to attend
the Brazilian student congress in Rio de Janeiro.
With just several days left before the congress,
however, the association still did not have the
money for the trip.
Arrangements like this, the CIA has maintained,
are cleared with the top officers of the
corporations involved.2
The CIA has maintained close connections
with a number of airline companies around the
world - commercial airlines, American and
foreign, as well as its own lines and purchasing
fronts, known as "air proprietaries." The depth
and longevity of these CIA links are one of the
clearest expressions available of how American
business and government together collaborated
The message from Washington was that
funds had been found: Braniff Airways had
granted two free round trips from Havana to Rio.
The caller was John Simons, a National Student
Association founder who was well-known to many
of its members. Simons was also, unbeknownst
to most and perhaps all in the association, a CIA
employee, and was or would soon become director
for students at the Foundation for Youth and
Student Affairs, a CIA proprietary.
It was natural for Simons to be in touch
with Thomas E. Braniff, the company founder and
president who had authorized the free travel.
Braniff was a trustee of the International
Institute for Education, which was already or
would soon become linked to the CIA, and
according to NSA New he had "taken a personal
interest in furthering inter-American 'student
relations and...in the past provided travel
scholarships." Recently declassified documents
show that the CIA, for its part, had shared a
similar interest. Since September 1950, when
the National Student Association began to work
toward a "Pan American Union," U.S. government
sources had reported this effort to the CIA.
Encounters between the CIA and Braniff
Airways continued after Thomas Braniff's death
in 1954. Former CIA officer Philip Agee writes
that in late 1963, in an effort to recruit a Chilean
as an agent, the CIA station in Ecuador arranged
for Agee to be seated next to the exile on a
Braniff flight from Guayaquil, Ecuador to Lima,
Peru. The station could do this, Agee writes,
because the Braniff manager in Guayaquil was
"an American and a base support agent."1
Jeff McConnell is a political activist living in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Military analyst Fred Kaplan
reports that Korean Air Lines,
although ostensibly a private
company, is closely linked
to the Korean Central
Intelligence Agency.
with like-minded foreigners after World War II
to penetrate every region of the world, politically
and economically.
The Agency's interest in airlines is easy to
explain. As Orvis Nelson, a businessman who
cooperated with the CIA in setting up a number
of airlines, told journalist John Marks several
years ago, "If I were sitting in a position where
I was curious about what was going on in troubled
areas, there are two things I would be damned
well interested in. The first is information. The
second is transportation to get in and out, to get
any information and, perhaps, to do some other
air activities. You have mobility. You know
who and what are going in and out. You know
who people's associates are. You are in a position
to move your people about."3
Following this logic, a number of airlines
are routinely used by intelligence services. In
what is reportedly a "carefully sanitized" version
of a classified paper prepared for U.S.
Ccunte'cepy -- Dee.83 - Feb.84 -- 19
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
intelligence,4 Ralph Ostrich of BDM Corporatioti,
a defense and intelligence consulting firm,
recently wrote: "It is acknowledged that various
types of intelligence and political activities are
conducted by [some] nations' flag carriers for
their respective governments to some degree
(including the United States) ...."5 The U.S.
government has, as part of its propaganda
campaign in the aftermath of the Korean Air
Lines tragedy, emphasized that the Soviet Union
and its allies use airlines for intelligence
purposes. However, much more is known about
activities of this kind carried out by, the United
States and its allies.
El Al and Korean Air Lines
According to a CIA study of Israeli intelligence,
Israel uses El Al, its national airline, to provide
deep cover for agents of the Israeli intelligence
service, Mossad.6 The Miami Herald has reported
that the airline has "obtained what our source
characterized as 'exquisite information' using
commercial airliners."7 Zimex Aviation, a Zurich
(Switzerland) aircraft firm once secretly owned
by Mossad, sold and leased airplanes to a number
of unwitting Arab and African leaders. Among
these were Muammar Qaddafi of Libya and Idi
Amin of Uganda, whose planes were in addition
supplied with flight crews which provided cover
for Israeli spies.
Military analyst Fred Kaplan reports that
Korean Air Lines, although ostensibly a private
company, is closely linked to the Korean Central
Intelligence Agency (KCIA). Korean Air Lines
(KAL) assembles military aircraft and virtually
every one of its pilots was once an "air force
fighter pilot and still has high security clearance,
Air America
Created by reorganization of Civil Air Transport
in 1959; CIA proprietary until early 1980s; George
Doole, chairperson for most of its existence.
Air Asia
Created in 1959; CIA proprietary until 1975; Hugh
Grundy, President; sold in January 1975 to E-
Systems, a private CIA contractor which kept most
of Air Asia's personnel and functions until at least
1979.
Air Djibouti (Eritrea)
Set up by Ttansocean Air Lines around 1950.
Air Ethiopia
Set up and largely controlled by the CIA in the
1950s.
Air Jordan
Set up by Orvis Nelson of Transocean Air Lines
and largely controlled by the CIA in the 1950s.
Reportedly, CIA officer Keith Williams was assigned
to work with Air Jordan in 1953 or 1954, using
Transocean as cover; CIA ties later severed.
Ariana Afghan Airlines
Set up by Pan Am with U.S. International
Cooperation Agency (predecessor of AID); CIA
interceded with Civil Aeronautics Board on its
behalf at that time.
Bird Air
Did contract work for the CIA in Laos in the early
1960s; taken over by Continental Air Services, a
subsidiary of Continental Airlines, in 1965.
Braniff Airways
Flew National Students Association members to
Brazil in cooperation with the CIA in 1951; Thomas
E. Braniff, founder and president (died 1954) was
a trustee of CIA-linked International Institute for
Education; Philip Agee reports Braniff manager in
Guayaquil, Equador in late 1963 was a CIA agent.
Caribbean Air Services (Puerto Rico)
James Bastian, owner, has handled legal work for
most CIA air proprietaries; Bastian is former vice
president of Pacific Corporation, the holding
20 -- Coun.tenapy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
company for Air America and Air Asia when they
were CIA proprietaries; William Gilmore, treasurer,
was secretary of Southern Air Transport when it
was CIA-owned.
China Air Lines (Taiwan)
Various CIA ties before 1970.
China National Aviation Corporation
Pan American's China subsidiary, taken over by
Civil Air Transport in 1949; William Pawley, head
(see Flying Tigers).
Civil Air Transport
Set up after World War II by Gen. Claire Chennault
(see Flying Tigers). Gradually taken over by the
CIA in 1950s; developed into CIA proprietary Air
America in 1959; ' purchased Pan American's
subsidiary, China National Aviation Corporation, in
1949.
Continental Air Services
Subsidiary of Continental Airlines; set up to handle
CIA and military contracts in early 1960s; R.L.
"Dutch" Brongersma, general manager in mid-1960s,
former Bird Air manager. and former employee of
CIA's Civil Air Transport; Robert Rousselot,
president in mid-1960s, a CIA veteran.
El Al (Israel)
According to the CIA, provides deep cover for
agents of Mossad, Israel's secret intelligence
service.
-Evergreen Helicopters
In 1973, purchased some of the assets of then-CIA
proprietary Intermountain Aviation; Delford Smith,
chairperson.
Evergreen International
Subsidiary of Evergreen Helicopters; formerly
known as Johnson Flying Services; Ward Eason,
president, confirms Evergreen International has had
CIA connections; flew ousted Shah of Iran to Egypt
in 1980.
Fairways Corporation
CIA airline used to ferry agents in Washington,
D.C. area.
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
according to a former CIA official familiar with
KAL practices." Kaplan also cites a former CIA
officer stationed in South Korea: "Anything that
the Korean government wanted done that involved
international movement involved KAL .... Spies
and money were moved in and out of the country
through the airline, and senior KCIA officials, he
claims, also used KAL for their personal
international drug-smuggling operations." The
first official told Kaplan that Cho Choong Kun,
one of the two brothers who own the airline,
funneled KCIA bribes to Japanese leaders during
the mid-1970s.9
Finland reportedly has used its national
airline, Finnair, to spy on its eastern border with
the Soviet Union. Finnair pilots are said to stray
routinely into Soviet airspace.10
Taiwanese and Korean Spy Flights
In many cases, the U.S. has close ties to such
air operations. Kaplan writes: "Several U.S.
officials say intelligence agencies of small
nations, occasionally at some risk, collect
information they believe might be of value to
the United States, in hopes that they can trade
it for U.S. data that is of interest to them. One
former National Security Council official says
Taiwanese planes, for example, have flown over
military facilities in mainland China for decades.
"A country like Taiwan, South Korea or
some other small U.S. ally, he says, 'feels the
need to establish that it's not totally dependent
on the U.S. but has something to bring to the
relationship on its own.' Former intelligence
officials agree with this assessment."11
A San Francisco Examiner article indicates
Finnair (Finland)
Used to spy on Soviet-Finnish border; pilots
routinely stray into Soviet airspace.
Flying Tigers
Set up in 1941 with the help of William Pawley,
former head of China National Aviation
Corporation; run by Gen. Claire Chennault and used
by President Franklin Roosevelt to clandestinely
support Chiang Kai-shek against Japan in the 1940s.
Foreign Air Transport Development
Set up in 1954 by the CIA to manage Iran Air and
other national airlines; Richard Deichler, president,
former head of then Pan Am subsidiary,
Intercontinental Hotels; folded in December 1967.
Intermountain Aviation
Set up in early 1960s; major CIA proprietary until
1973; Rosenbalm Aviation Inc. purchased some
assets in 1973 and hired some of its CIA-linked
employees; other assets were sold to Evergreen
Helicopters.
Iran Air
Set up by Orvis Nelson of Transocean Air Lines
and largely controlled by the CIA in 1950s; CIA
ties later severed.
Korean Air Lines
Privately owned by Cho Choong Kun and his brother;
closely linked to Korean Central Intelligence
Agency (which was itself set up by the CIA in
1962); virtually all pilots are former air force
fighter pilots with high security clearance;
reportedly occasionally supplied with sideview
cameras for surveillance purposes in 1960s.
Page Airways
Founded in 1939; CIA-connected, receives numerous
U.S. government contracts; in 1980, CIA probably
intervened on its behalf in a court case regarding
questionable overseas payments; connections with
Zimex Aviation, Southern Air Transport (once CIA-
owned), and Fairways Corporation (when CIA-
owned).
Pakair (Pakistan)
Set up by Transocean Airlines in 1949.
Pan African (Nigeria)
Close CIA ties in 1950s.
Pan American Airlines
Has provided deep cover for CIA agents and has
made many of its airport managers available as
support agents for the CIA; Juan Trippe, founder,
was a long-time CIA collaborator who worked with
the CIA front, Committee for Free Asia (now the
Asia Foundation), and was a founding member of
the CIA-business-labor front, the American Institute
for Free Labor Development, in 1961; Pan Am's
Washington lobbyist Sam Pryor served as liaison to
the CIA, while Trippe was head of airline.
Philippine Air Lines
Flight operations set up by Transocean Air Lines
in 1948.
Seven Seas (Kenya)
Close CIA ties in 1950s.
Southern Air Transport
CIA proprietary from 1960 until December 31, 1973;
then sold to Stanley G. Williams who had formerly
run it for the CIA; current president, James Bastian
(see Caribbean,Air Service); current vice president,
Hugh Grundy, formerly of E-Systems (see Air Asia).
Transocean Air Lines
Set up in 1946 by Orvis Nelson; became subsidized
by the CIA in the early 1950s; Transocean set up
16 other air lines by 1976, a number with CIA help;
became the largest contract air carrier in the world,
largely with U.S. military contracts; Ray T.
Elsmore, vice president, former wartime director
of air transport for Gen. Douglas MacArthur. (See
Air Jordan, Philippine Air Lines, Pakair, Air
Djibouti, Iran Air).
Zimex Aviation (Switzerland)
Once secretly owned by Mossad, Israel's intelligence
agency; sold and leased airplanes to Muammar
Quaddafi and Idi Amin with flight crews providing
cover for Mossad agents.
Ccun,tenapy -- Vec.83 - Feb.84 -- 21
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
that collaboration with the U.S. may be even
closer. "One U.S. official with close ties to
military intelligence" told the Examiner "that
carriers owned by governments deemed friendly
to the United States are fitted in this country
with cameras and other devices for intelligence
collection. The presumption, he said, is that the
information will then be shared with the U.S.
government .... [The work is done] at a handful
of U.S. bases. Private electronic firms perform
the work, he said, but U.S. approval is needed.
One such site, he said, is Andrews Air Force
Base." There, he said, "even U.S. government -
though non-militaryy - craft are fitted with
sensoring devices." r2
It is even the case, according to Kaplan,
that a "former U.S. Army intelligence officer
remembers 'very clearly' being told in 1967 by
an Air Force intelligence instructor that 'sideview
cameras' - which take big, very clear pictures
from long distances - were occasionally attached
to commercial airliners flying along sensitive
borders, and that Korean Air Lines was among
those companies [sic] ." Experts in the field
maintain, contrary to the arguments advanced by
the U.S. government after the KAL 007 incident,
that there would be a distinct advantage to using
such cameras rather than satellites.13 (See
sidebar.)
There have always been close ties between
the CIA and the intelligence services of many of
these nations. The CIA set up the Korean Central
Intelligence Agency in 1962 and remained very
close to it at least until the Koreagate scandal
in 1977.14 There is even evidence that some of
the KCIA bribes uncovered during Koreagate were
made with the knowledge, if not the permission,
of the CIA.15 A CIA study of Israeli intelligence
indicates general, if not specific, CIA knowledge
of Mossad's use of El Al. Moreover, it is very
likely that the CIA was aware of, if not involved
in, the Mossad-Zimex Aviation deals.16
The CIA also has had various ties to
Taiwan's civilian airline, China Air Lines.17 John
Marks and Victor Marchetti, authors of The CIA
and the Cult of Intelligence, report, for example,
that after the crash of a passenger plane
belonging to the CIA's Civil Air Transport near
Taipei in 1968, the Nationalist government bowed
to public pressure and accepted a settlement of
a longstanding dispute with the CIA: China Air
Lines took over Civil Air Transport's international
flights; Civil Air Transport, "despite the Agency's
reluctance, continued to fly domestic routes on
Taiwan; and the CIA sweetened the pot with a
large cash payment to the Nationalists."18 CIA
ties to Taiwanese intelligence have always been
close, and it is reasonable to assume that the
Civil Air Transport negotiations were carried on,
at least in part, through that channel.
22 -- Countenepy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
Setting up CIA Airlines
Although apparently linked to the CIA through
their governments, El Al, Korean Air Lines and
China Air Lines are, of course, independent
entities, not controlled by the CIA. But in the
1950s and 1960s, on the other hand, many national
airlines were in large part controlled by the
Agency after having been set up by it. These
airlines were located on the borders of the Soviet
Union or China or in strategic regions undergoing
decolonialization. Among these were Air
Ethiopia, Air Jordan and Iran Air.19 One CIA
proprietary, United Business Associates, had a
plan to set up and control a national airline for
Libya in order to, as one officer put it, "offset
the communists from moving in," but that
company never finalized a deal.20 The CIA did,
however, succeed in maintaining close ties with
several African airlines. Among these were Pan
African, based in Lagos, Nigeria, and Seven Seas,
based in Nairobi, Kenya.21
Air Jordan and Iran Air were two of the
airlines that Orvis Nelson set' up in the earl
1950s, working in conjunction with the CIA.2
In 1946, Nelson had founded Transocean Air Lines,
which quickly grew to become the largest
contract air carrier in the world on a hearty diet
of U.S. military-related contracts. Nelson had
formerly flown for twelve years with United Air
Lines, a U.S. commercial airline; Transocean Air
Lines' vice president, flay T. Elsmore, had been
wartime director of air transport for Gen.
Douglas MacArthur. Besides the U.S., contracts,
they also negotiated a number of contracts to
set up new foreign airlines. Already by 1949,
Transocean Air Lines had set up flight operations
for Philippine Air Lines, a Pakistani international
airline (Pakair) and an Eritrea-based airline (Air
Djibouti).23
Before long, Nelson began working with the
Huck, United States
THE SOVIETS' DESTRUCTION
OF THE KOREAN AIRLINER
IS A TRIWIC AND COSTLY
EXAMPLE OF PARANOID
OVERREACTION I.
...I THINK I'LL USE IT
TO GET THE MX
FUNDING THROUGH
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
CIA. Wilbur Eveland, himself a CLA contract
agent, writes that Transocean Air Lines was "CIA-
subsidized" and that CIA officer Keith Williams,
a Middle East specialist, was assigned to work
with Air Jordan in 1953 or 1954, using Transocean
Air Lines as cover.24 According to John Marks,
Nelson had by 1976 set up sixteen airlines.
"Sometimes he has cooperated with the CIA,"
Marks wrote, "but he vehemently states he has
never been under the Agency's control. He won't
state which of his airline deals involved the
CIA."25
Although Transocean Air Lines was perhaps
the first, other U.S.-based contract carriers were
soon working for the CIA. In the early 1960s,
Bird Air reportedly did contract work for the
CIA in Laos. In 1965, Bird Air was taken over
by Continental Air Services, a newly-created
subsidiary of Continental Airlines, which fought
its way into the lucrative contract business in
Southeast Asia by convincing CIA officials that
it would reveal the Agency's role there unless it
was given a piece of the action.26 R. L. "Dutch"
Brongersma, formerly a Bird Air manager and
employee of the CIA's Civil Air Transport,
became general manager of Continental Air
Services, and CIA veteran Robert Rousselot
became its president.27
Another contract carrier with CIA
connections is Page Airways, which since its
creation in 1939 has received - along with the
interlocked construction firm, Wilmorite
Company - numerous contracts from the U.S.
government. In 1980, the Securities and Exchange
Commission settled a questionable overseas
payment case with Page out of court, reportedly
because the CIA intervened on its behalf.Z8 Page
had acted as an agent for Grumman Corporation
in sales to Morocco and Saudi Arabia and had
funneled some of the questionable commissions
involved in the sales through a Liechtenstein
organization managed by Alfred Biihler, who was
described in a deposition taken in a California
lawsuit as a "bagman, a courier and a paymaster"
for the CIA.29 Several other possible Page-CIA
connections may have further stimulated the
Agency's concern. In Uganda, Page paid a
commission to Zimex Aviation for assistance in
selling a jet to Idi Amin; it also subcontracted
Southern Air Transport, a Miami company
formerly owned by the CIA, to provide flight
crews and engineers, for Page's aircraft there.30
In the United States, Page occasionally arranged
flights for Fairways Corporation, an air shuttle
service owned at the time by the CIA.31
Pan Am - The Government's Airline
One U.S. airline stands above all others for its
past ties to the government. That airline, Pan
American, is described by Marylin Bender and
Selig Altschul in a recent biography of its founder
and long-time head Juan Trippe as "a private
enterprise with a peculiarly intimate relationship
to the United States government. Most observers,
and its own employees, regard the airline as a
quasi-governmental institution a business
wrapped in the American flag." ~2 And like El
Al, Korean Air Lines and the other airlines
regarded in a similar way in their own countries,
Pan Am has remained closely connected to its
nation's intelligence services. In 1941, William
Pawley, who had been head of Pan Am's China
subsidiary China National Aviation Corporation,
helped set up the Flying Tigers, an air service
which President Franklin Roosevelt used to
clandestinely support Chiang Kai-shek against the
Japanese.
After the war, Gen. Claire Chennault, who
had actually run the airline, went into the airline
business for himself, creating Civil Air Transport.
Civil Air Transport bought out the China National
Aviation Corporation and quickly was itself taken
over by the U.S. government. Civil Air Transport
later became the CIA proprietaries Air America
and Air Asia; George Doole and Amos Hiatt,
chairperson and treasurer of Air America, and
Hugh Grundy, president of Air Asia, were
recruited from Pan Am.33 Richard Deichler,
former head of then Pan Am subsidiary,
Intercontinental Hotels, became president of
another proprietary, Foreign Air Transport
Development, which had been set up by the CIA
in 1954 in order to manage Iran Air and other
such enterprises.34
Pan Am boss Trippe was a Yale graduate
and a member of the Office of Strategic Services-
CIA "old boy" network that controlled and
collaborated with U.S. intelligence in the first
two decades after the war. Like Braniff, he
worked with the CIA on propaganda operations
in its early years. In 1951, Trippe joined with
the CIA and a number of West Coast financiers
in setting up the Committee for Free Asia, an
Asian counterpart to Radio Free Europe and the
Free Europe Committee. With so many prominent
people involved, writes former CIA officer Joseph
Smith, the Committee "did not wish to respond
to daily directives from buildings beside the
Reflecting Pool," the CIA's makeshift
headquarters until the 1960s. So the CIA's
International Organizations Division under Tom
Braden was "given the job of handling the funds
for such large enterprises and trying to control
them as best they could."3'
The role of wealthy members like Trippe,
according to an internal document distributed to
them shortly after the Committee changed its
name to the Asia Foundation in 1954, was to
approve budgets, help with publicity, provide
Coun.tei5py -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 23
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
"policy guidance," and assist "with individual
contacts and activities in the particular fields of
specialization of the [ml embers."36 Trippe left
the group in 1954 and later became a founding
member of the American Institute for Free Labor
Development, a CIA-business-labor front set up
in 1961 to promote covert U.S. government
objectives among labor organizations in Latin
America.37
During the 1950s, according to his
biographers, Trippe also "volunteered information
of considerable value in the area of economic
intelligence to [CIA Director] Allen Dulles,
generally during what appeared to be chance
encounters in Florida." These meetings were
actually set up in advance by Sam Pryor, a long-
time Trippe 'friend. Pryor was Pan Am's
Washington lobbyist and the company liaison with
Commercial
spy Flights
A picture
of the
KAL
007
incident
substantially
different
from
the
official
government v
ersion was
present
ed in
a Miami
Herald article of September 11, 1983. The
article quotes former CIA Director William
Colby as maintaining that it would have been
illogical for the U.S. to have used a
commercial airliner in an ultra-sensitive
spying mission. "I never heard of such
activity," Colby told the Herald. "The idea
of risking innocent lives is a no-no." But
when confronted with the statements of
several Herald sources that chartered
freight-carriers had been used for espionage
through the 1960s, particularly over Cuba
and Southeast Asia, Colby appears to have
backed off. "But there's a great deal of
difference," he said, "between chartering a
plane and flying it yourself - and using a
regular commercial flight."
There would be obvious intelligence
advantages in using planes rather than
satellites for certain intelligence missions.
Satellites able to focus on a fixed spot on
earth must fly at an altitude of some 23,000
miles and maintain a stationary orbit. From
that height, details of military hardware or
certain construction activities cannot be
observed.
Low-flying satellites have their
drawb&cks as well. They fly in predictable
tracks, and can take pictures of desired
objects only as they fly over the actual site,
and then only for a much shorter time than
a slow-flying aircraft would be able to.
the CIA.38 (Pryor also served on important
business-government groups; he was the first vice
chairperson of one, the Business Council for
International Understanding, set up by the United
States Information Agency in 1958.)
Pan Am's Deep Cover Arrangement for the CIA
Bender and Altschul write that Trippe was
"purposely uninformed of the specifics of his
airline's activities on behalf of the Agency.
Ignorance afforded [these activities] 'legitimate
denial' - the ability to face the head of a host
country and say 'I don't know anything about it."'
These activities were extensive. In the early
1960s, the Quito airport manager of Panagra, Pan
Am's joint venture with W.R. Grace (itself heavily
CIA-involved), was the Agency "cutout" who
directed a penetration agent of the Communist
Party of Ecuador.39 The Santo Domingo manager
for Pan Am reported to the CIA on the travels
of Dominican President Rafael Trujillo's mistress.
The manager in Panama City, the main
intersection of north-south air traffic in the
1950s, gave CIA men access to baggage areas,
loading areas and ticket counters so that the
Agency, according to a former officer based in
Panama, could "keep tabs on Communist Party
membership in South America,... learn aliases, ...
photograph and destroy notes and training
materials, and ... have certain individuals
detained by Panamanian secret police so that
they would miss connections and fail to attend
Party conferences in Prague and Moscow." Pryor
himself, apparently in Europe, arranged the
bugging of a Pan Am plane chartered by
Indonesia's President Sukarno and engaged two
Hamburg prostitutes to pose as stewardesses.
Trippe's biographers write that Pan Am also
supplied cover for CIA officers "in jobs such as
assistant station manager which require no
specialized skill and afford entree to local society
with opportunities for information-gathering." As
with many other such "deep cover" arrangements,
the Agency reimbursed Pan Am for officers'
salaries through consulting contracts.40
Finally, Pan. Am did work similar to that
of Transocean Air Lines in helping the ' U.S.
government secretly force its way into
international air lanes; and in several cases picked
up where Transocean Air Lines had left off. The
CIA got Trippe's permission when its Southern
Air Transport started to move into Pan Am's
markets in the 1960s. Pan Am took on technical-
assistance contracts, financed by the Agency for
International Development, with Turkish Airlines,
.Thai Airlines, Pakistan International Airlines, Air
Guinee, Air Zaire, and after the CIA had severed
its ties, Iran Air and Air Jordan. Earlier, Pan
Am had set up Ariana Afghan Airlines under a
24 -- Coun.tenepy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
contract with the International Cooperation
Agency (the predecessor of the Agency for
International Development), and the CIA had
interceded with the Civil Aeronautics Board to
cement the deal.
The development of the U-2 plane in the
1950s, however, "lessened the importance of aerial
surveillance by a commercial airliner straying off
course into Soviet territory, but the radio
communications systems and the presence of
American technicians in the national airlines
formed part of the electronic shield erected by
the United States in the Middle East and
Southeast Asia."41
Later on, the development of high-
resolution satellite reconnaissance, the successful
creation of self-sustaining national airlines for
most American allies, cutbacks in CIA
paramilitary efforts and increasing revelations
about covert operations throughout the 1970s led
to further shifts in CIA air operations. Foreign
Air Transport Development went out of existence
in December 1967, United Business Associates
soon followed and the CIA got out of the business
of setting up national airlines. The changing
importance of the "electronic shield" was
reflected in the closure of the U-2 base at
Peshawar in northern Pakistan in 1969. However,
there is no indication that the CIA's interest in
the national airlines of major Third World allies
like South Korea or Israel waned. In 1976, at
the height of controversy in the U.S. over CIA
activities, Orvis Nelson could tell John Marks
that U.S. government involvement in foreign
airlines was as great as ever.42
CIA Plays Musical Chairs
Another significant shift in the post-Vietnam
period was the CIA's selling off its major air
proprietaries - Air America and Air Asia,
Southern Air Transport, Intermountain Aviation -
E-Systems, Continental Airlines, Lockheed and
LTV Corporation. E-Systems finalized a deal in
January 1975 to buy Air Asia, Air America's
aviation maintenance subsidiary in Taiwan.43
E-Systems, a Dallas-based electronics firm,
at this time was virtually a CIA front itself. A
1974 government report stated: "E-Systems has
ongoing CIA-funded contracts amounting to $4.7
million, and CIA has an interest in other U.S.
government contracts with E-Systems, Inc., worth
$105 million."44 E-Systems' net profits in 1973
had been $166 million. An E-Systems vice
president, Lloyd Lauderdale, had been a CIA
deputy director before joining the company in
1969. The transfer of Air Asia was handled, at
least in part, by Kenneth M. Smith, who headed
the Aircraft Systems Group at E-Systems, of
which Air Asia became a division. Smith had
just come to the company after leaving his former
job as Deputy Director of the Federal Aviation
In the 1950s and 1960s . .
many national airlines were
in large part controlled by
the (Central Intelligence)
Agency after having been
set up by it. These airlines
were located on the borders
of the Soviet Union or China
or in strategic regions under-
going decolonialization.
into private hands. Historically, CIA-linked
private corporations have provided a haven for
proprietaries that the government wanted to
continue to use but no longer wanted to operate.
In 1965, about one year after the CIA's former
clandestine operations chief, Richard Bissell,
joined the company, for example, United Aircraft
(later called United Technologies) took over a
CIA research front, the Scientific Engineering
Institute. Although the president and vice
president of the institute left, much of the rest
of the staff remained intact and its classified
work continued.
The same is often the case of CIA air
proprietaries. In July 1973, when the CIA held
a meeting of prospective bidders for the purpose
of selling off Air America, the companies showing
the most interest were four CIA contractors:
Administration,' which keeps close liaison with
the CIA.45
Air Asia retained its personnel and
functions. Long-time Air Asia officers Hugh
Grundy and Al Wueste stayed on to head the
newly private subsidiary, which continued to work
almost exclusively for the U.S. government,
servicing U.S. aircraft in Taiwan and performing
other sensitive duties. In 1979, its government
contracts were worth $10 million, almost twice
what Air Asia cost E-Systems. The dismantling
of U.S. military bases in Taiwan at the end of
1979 forced Air Asia to reorganize and seek
civilian work.46
Southern Air Transport was sold on
December 31, 1973, to Stanley G. Williams, who
Coun-te't py -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 25
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
had run it for the CIA for 11 years. Its current
president is James Bastian, a Washington lawyer
with Howard, Bastian and Poe, and owner of the
Puerto Rico-based Caribbean Air Service.
(Caribbean Air Service's current treasurer,.
William Gilmore, was a secretary of Southern Air
Transport during its CIA days.) Bastian is also
a former vice president of Pacific Corporation,
the holding company for Air America and Air
Asia. Southern Air Transport's current vice
president is Hugh Grundy, who left E-Systems
after the U.S. pullout from Taiwan.
The CIA's Intermountain Aviation sold off
many of its assets in 1973 to Rosenbalm Aviation
Inc. Rosenbalm had operated as a small Oregon-
based airline since 1956. After the, purchase, it
grew. enormously and hired several employees
previously linked to the CIA. Continental's
"Dutch" Brongersma became head of international
operations. Director of operations Arthur J.
Schmidt had worked at the CIA's special air-
warfare center at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida
before joining Intermountain in 1968. Rosenbalm
:Aviation hired James Bastian as its Washington
attorney.
Southern Air Transport and Rosenbalm
Aviation, both with about $15 million in annual
sales, are exempt from filing public reports
identifying the origins and destinations of their
cargo and passengers. In 1975, Stanley Williams
and William Rosenbalm, then the presidents of
the two companies, withdrew their joint
they have been a customer of ours."49
The details of possible joint operations
between the CIA and these private firms are
unknown. The Church Committee (a Senate
committee that investigated the CIA in the mid-
1970s) reported that in several divestitures of
proprietaries "transfer of the entity was
conditioned as an agreement that the proprietary
would continue to provide goods or services to
the CIA." However, the Committee also
admitted: "In a very real sense, it is nearly
impossible to evaluate whether a 'link' still exists
between the Agency and a former asset related
to a proprietary. In some cases, even though
forrhal and informal Agency ties are discontinued,
social and interpersonal relationships remain. The
impact of such liaisons is difficult to assess."50
Relying on Third Countries
Further shifts in covert air operations have taken
place in the Reagan administration. Several years
ago, the head of the CIA's Cover and Commercial
Staff suggested one such shift after the
divestiture of the air proprietaries: increased
reliance on third-country assets.51 CIA Director
William Casey stated in a top-secret document
of May 1981 that such a policy would be necessary
in covert operations more generally, at least until
the "post-Vietnam morning-after syndrome" had
run its course.52
application to the Civil Aeronautics Board to
acquire the Puerto Rico-based Shamrock Air
Lines when the Board set the condition that their
airlines give up this exemption.47
Other Intermountain assets, including its
Arizona base of operations, were purchased by
Evergreen Helicopters, another Oregon company.
Journalist Robert Fink was later advised by a
senior Washington intelligence official that
Johnson Flying Services, a contract carrier
acquired by Evergreen Helicopters after the
Intermountain deal, and now known as Evergreen
International, was to be used for transferring Air
America's assets back to the United States. Fink
was also informed by a former associate of
Evergreen Helicopters chairperson Delford Smith
that the Agency for International Development
approached Smith in 1974 to take over Air
America's operations in Cambodia. Smith had
turned the government down because of the short-
term nature of the proposed contract. Smith has
denied these stories.4S
In 1980, Evergreen International was the
airline contracted to fly the former Shah of Iran
out of Panama to a safe refuge in Egypt. Ward
Eason, president 'of Evergreen International,
denied any connection to the CIA, although he
admitted that "probably on some rare occasions
26 -- Coun-tenapy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
Given (CIA) Director Casey's
interest in reviving CIA ties to
U.S. businesses, it is likely that
(CIA) relationships like those
with Braniff and Pan Am are
again the norm in the airline
industry.
Reports in the wake of the KAL 007 tragedy
suggest there is or at least has been some U.S.
reliance on air assets in Israel, South Korea and
other U.S. allies. The CIA's paramilitary
operations against Afghanistan and Chad relied
heavily on the air capabilities of Egypt. In
Central America, the CIA has been regularly
using Salvadoran pilots flying C-47s owned by the
Salvadoran Air Force to resupply U.S.-backed
anti-Nicaraguan terrorists based inside
Nicaragua.
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Other reports indicate the revival of the
kind of front operations-run in the past as joint
ventures among the CIA, Washington-based
corporate lawyers, Washington-based banks, and
aircraft distributors-by which aircraft suitable
for paramilitary conflicts and pilots to fly them
were made available to U.S.-backed forces in
Indochina and Africa in the 1960s. For instance,
one twin-engine private plane, and, at one point,
U.S. civilian pilots have been employed on the
regular resupply missions to Nicara an
counterrevolutionaries financed by the CIA.5V A
number of civilian aircraft were also used to
parachute supplies to these contras after several
thousand infiltrated back into Nicaragua in
summer 1983.55
In early October 1983, a DC-3 registered in
Oklahoma was shot down in northern Nicaragua
after it flew out of Honduras with supplies for
the contras.56 A source with access to the ledger
listing CIA aid to Eden Pastora's forces told
Robert Parry of the Associated Press that the
CIA has supplied Pastora with three two-engine
Cessnas and two one-engine Cessnas. One twin-
engine plane was reportedly given to Pastora
through a CIA front known as Investair Leasing
Corporation. Investair is located in McLean,
Virginia, and shares a building with Air America.
Investair's director of marketing, Mark L.
Peterson, was secretary and treasurer for Air
America in 1977 and 1978. The firm's manager,
Edgar L. Mitchell, was vice president of
Intermountain Aviation from 1966 to 1975. The
plane sent to Pastora was used to bomb Managua's
International Airport on September 8 before it
crashed, killing the two pilots.57
Given Director Casey's interest in reviving
CIA ties to U.S. businesses, it is likely that
relationships like those with Braniff and Pan Am
are again the norm in the airline industry. And
given the pressures for new and larger
paramilitary adventures, it is likely that old
Agency ties with reliable banks and law firms
are seeing a resurgence. Whether
the
new air
warriors running these campaigns
will
opt for
public or private ownership of
their
assets
remains to be seen. But whatever
the
choices,
a new chapter in the story of the CIA's airline
connection is just starting to unfold. S
Footnotes
1) Philip Agee, Inside the Company, Bantam Books, New
York, 1976, p.315.
2) Washington Post (WP), 3/11/74.
3) WP, 7/11/76.
4) Miami Herald, 9/11/83.
5) Ralph Ostrich, "Aeroflot," Armed Forces Journal May
1981, pp.49-50.
6) Counters May-June 1982, p.43.
7) C. supra,
8) Murray Waas, "The Case of the Flying Spies," The
Nation 2/20/82, pp.204-205.
9 Boston Globe ( , 9/19/83.
10) Cl. supra, .
11) Cf. supra, #9.
12) San Francisco Examiner 9/4/83.
13) CF supra, #9.
14) Cf. supra, #4, #9; John Marks, The Search for the
"Manchurian Candidate", McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980,
p.178. Peer diSilva, Sub Rosa, Times Books, New York,
1978, p.178.
15 Jeff Stein, "A Sweetheart Deal for E-Systems,"
Inquiry, 10/16/78, pp.12-13.
16) C f. supra, #8.
17) New York Times (NYT), 4/5/70.
18) John Marks and Victor Marchetti, CIA and the Cult
of Intelligence, Dell, New York, 1980, p.129; Peter Dale
Scott, The War Conspiracy, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis,
1972, pp.194, 199-208.
19) Christopher Robbins,
York, 1979, p.68.
20) Cf. supra, #3.
21) Cf. supra, #19, p.74.
22) Cf. supra, #3.
Air America, Putnam's, New
23) Business Week, 8/14/48, p.36; Saturday Evening Post,
8/16/52, pp.103, 105.
24) Wilbur Eveland, Ropes of Sand Norton, New York,
1980, p.128.
25) Cf. supra, #3.
26) John Marks and Victor -Marchetti, CIA and the Cult
of Intelligence, Dell, New York, 1980, p.130.
27) C f. supra, #19, pp.72-73.
28) Cf. supra, #8.
29) NYT, 2/8/83.
30) Cf. supra, #8.
31) NYT, 7/8/75; WP, 7/10/75.
32) Marylin Bender and Selig Altschul, The Chosen
Instrument Simon and Schuster, New York, 1983.
33 Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy, Bobbs Merrill,
Indianapolis, 1972, pp.6-9, 199.
34) Cf. supra, #32, p.481.
35) Joseph B. Smith, Portrait of a Cold Warrior, Ballantine
Books, New York, 1981.
36) Documents in the possession of the author.
37) Lars Schoultz, Human Rights and United States Policy
Toward Latin America, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, 1981, pp.333-343; Serafino Romualdi,
Presidents and Peons, Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1967,
p.432.
38) Cf. supra, #32, p.482.
39) Cf. supra, #1, p.110.
40) Cf. supra, #32, pp.478-480.,
41) Ibid., pp.481-482.
42) Cf. supra, #3; John Marks, The Search for the
"Manchurian Candidate", McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980,
p.210.
43) Letter, George Cary to Rep. Gerry Studds, 7/5/77;
phone interview with Jack Fitzgerald, United Technologies,
10/11/83.
44)
Los Angeles Times,
2/18/77.
45)
Newsweek, 5/19/75,
p.25.
46)
Dun and Bradstreet
International;
and
10-k reports.
47)
Wall Street Journal, 2/16/79.
48)
Cf. supra, #19, pp.298-299.
49)
WP, 3/25/80.
50)
Final Report, Book I, p.239.
51)
Cf. supra, #19, p.302.
52)
WP, 8/25/81.
53)
NYT, 10/2/83.
54)
Ibid.
55)
WP, 9/29/83.
56)
BG, 10/6/83.
57)
BG, 10/7/83; NYT, 10/6/83.
Coun-teiopy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 27
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
The Philippines
CIA Taps Academia to Design
Post-Marcos Scenario
Walden Bello
As Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos' grip on
power steadily weakens, the CIA has stepped up
efforts to pinpoint "viable" policy options for the
United States. One thrust of the agency is to
furtively tap the resources of Philippine
specialists in the academic community to assess
the strengths of various Philippine opposition
groups. The CIA wants to design a "post-Marcos
scenario" congenial to the United States.
The CIA operation apparently began in the
summer of 1982, when Charles Duckman of Booze,
Allen and Hamilton, Inc., a consulting agency
hired by the CIA, contacted a number of
Philippine specialists. Duckman offered.them fat
fees to participate in a study on "political
stability" in the Philippines. One academic who
was approached revealed that the consulting
agency offered to go through his files at his
university as well as fly him to Washington for
"consultations."
"They were especially interested in my
knowledge of the Church and various groupings
within it," revealed the specialist, who requested
anonymity. "But I was bothered by the huge sums
of money they were offering and couldn't get a
clear picture of who was funding the whole thing."
By the fall, Booze, Allen and Hamilton
found its man in Justin Green, professor of
political science at Villanova University and a
well-connected figure in academic circles, who
had served as executive secretary of the
Philippine Studies Committee.
Sometime in early January .1983, Green
distributed questionnaires to various Philippine
scholars. In none of these did he mention that
his project was being funded by the CIA. On
the contrary, he attempted to convey the
Walden Bello is an associate of the southeast Asia
Resource center and a member of the advisory board
of Counterspy.
28 -- Coun.tenepy -- Vee.83 - Feb.84
impression that the study was purely academic.
In a letter to one colleague, Green wrote, "I am
asking for scholarly help where you feel you can
help as a fellow scholar." Curiously, the
questionnaires (see reprint) concentrated almost
totally on eliciting information on the strength
and composition of the New People's Army (NPA),
the armed wing of the Communist Party of the
Philippines. The instruction sheet of the
questionnaire stated: "By answering the following
questions, you will be providing information on
the NPA that we have not been able to find
elsewhere." The questionnaire also included one
question on the Moro National Liberation Front
(MNLF), an insurgent group on the Philippine
island of Mindanao.
The CIA wanted quick results, so Green
attempted to arrange a special panel on "The
Future of Philippine Politics - What Happens
after Marcos?" at the meeting of the Philippine
Studies Committee of the Association of Asian
Studies set for August 1983. Green sent
invitations to Philippine scholars Robert
Youngblood of the University of Arizona at
Tempe; Ben Muego of Bowling Green University;
David Wurfel of the University of Windsor;
Belinda Aquino of the University of Hawaii; and
Carl Lande and Linda Richter of the University
of Kansas.
Green did not mention to the invited
participants the connection between the panel
discussion and his CIA-funded work. It was clear,
however, from the "project description"
accompanying the questionnaire that the open
panel was one means of eliciting information for
the CIA study: "We might discuss various
scenarios regarding when and how Marcos might
leave, the state of the various oppositions,
possible successor regimes and what this might
mean to domestic and international futures and
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
how these might be affected by external events,
U.S. activity and the changing Philippine domestic
scene."
But Green was unable to keep his CIA work
under wraps. After more than six months of
deception and under strong pressure from his
colleagues, Green admitted during the annual
meeting of the Asian Studies Association in
February 1983 that he was working for the CIA.
.Despite heavy criticism, especially from many of
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MNLF AND FOR NPA
(Include Groups Allied With MNLF)
COERCIVE
1. What is at present the number (estimated) of committed
armed, active (mobilized) manpower in the SPA?
2. How many committed and armed but oresently inactive
(unmobili zed) people could the NPA count on if it needed them?
(by committed we mean members of a group whose behavior
is subject to group sanctions and who may withdraw from the
group only either at their peril or with the groups permission.)
3. Now many armed- supporters? of the NPA are there?
4. Now many non-armed supporters* of the MNLF ire there?
5. Any publicly available information on the kinds, numbers
and sources of NPA weapons you could provide us would be
appreciated.
ECONOMIC
1. Is then public data that estimates the total value in
dollars of weapons supplied to the NPA from supporters outside
the Philippines? If no data, would you care to make an estimate?
2. Does the NPA or individual members of the NPA control any
sizable amount of economic assets ,n the Philippines? For
example:
(a) Do they own or control sizable land holdings in the
Philippines? If yes, would you care to esiitate their vaiue
in dollars?
(b) Do they own or control any capital assets (corporations,
trade) in the Philippines? If so, would you care to estimate
their value in dollars?
(c) Do they control a sizable amount of employment ,mobs)
in the Philippines? If so, would you care to estimate now many?
NOTE: Though I suspect that the above questions are meaningless
the case of theNPA I might be wrong, and n any case the
.o.-.at for gathering data requires that the quest'-ens be aaksd)
?m? sucoorters we -ear. people who ire not corr.itted fsce above)
but whose ends and means parallel those of some :roue. They may
at the same time be supporters of another groupls) and thus sub-
;ect to cross-pressures.
armed we :lean the supporters possums some modern weacons.
INFORMATION ASSETS
1. Does the NIA own, control or influence any media, TV station,
radio station, newspapers, magazines in the Philippines, etc.?
If so how many of each? What's your estimate of the audience that
the SPA re aches through media? Now many people in any year do
they reach through direct contact?
SOCIAL COMPOSITION DATA
Fill in the appropriate of the NPA memberships for each of
the following categories:
Ethno-linquistic: what s of the SPA memberships would fall
in each of the major ethic-linguistic groups of the Philippines:
2. education: No schooling primary high
school some college or college egree
1. Region: a of NPA from Nothern Luzon Central Southern Luzon Viaayas Mindanao
4. Social class: Lover upper lower muddle
upper
5. Occupation: Slue collar and farmers, etc._whit* collar-
professionals students
those invited to participate in the upcoming Ohio
panel in August, Green attempted to defend his
activity. In a letter to Professor Ron Edgerton,
current head of the Philippine Studies Committee,
the Villanova professor protested:
The work I am doing for Booze-Allen is
legitimate scholarship. I don't feel guilty
taking CIA money to further a legitimate
scholarly endeavor. This is not the early
seventies and as long as the CIA allows me
to be [as] free as the NSF [National Science
Foundation], I don't see any difference in
their money. After all, if how money was
acquired was the basis of whether scholars
accepted it or not then even Rockefeller,
Carnegie and Ford Foundation are suspect.
What matters to me is how free am I to act.
Green's claim that his work was simply a
"scholarly endeavor" is contradicted by none other
than the chief of the CIA's "Methods and
Forecasting Division," Richard Heuer, Jr. In
Quantitative Approaches to Limited Intelligence:
The CIA Experience, Heuer writes: "While the
academic researcher is relatively free to define
a problem in his own terms, our '[CIA] research
problems are greatly defined by the requirements
of U.S. foreign policy. The academic researcher
chooses a topic for which data are available,
whereas it is often new problems (or old problems
defined in new ways) for which the policymaker
requires intelligence analysis."
Heuer also touches on the role of a panel
of analysts such as the one Green attempted to
convene at the Ohio conference: "Many of our
projects involve a panel of experts who are asked
to make qualitative judgements - that is, assign
probabilities, values or ranks to items of
information. CIA's greatest resource is its cadre
of substantive analysts with first class academic
training who then come to the agency and
immerse themselves in a given specialty under
circumstances which provide access to the full
intelligence collection resource of the U.S.
government. Our task is not to replace the
subjective wisdom of these specialists with so-
called objective data, but to use rigorous
methodological procedures to explicate and
exploit more fully the insights and judgements of
these analysts."
Once Green's CIA ties were exposed, he
was pushed to resign from the chair of the "Post-
Marcos Scenarios" panel and the. conference
substituted a panel in which Green promised to
reveal his findings to date as well as to discuss
"the moral and ethical propriety of my doing it
for the CIA." In a letter to his colleagues, Green
stated: "There is a snake in the garden of Eden
and I think we must exorcise it."
Green's confession in Ohio, however, failed
to satisfy some scholars. David Wurfel of Windsor
University and Belinda Aquino of the University
Coun.tenapy - Dee.83 - Feb.84 -- 29
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
of Hawaii drafted a resolution demanding that
Green withdraw from the Booze, Allen and
Hamilton/CIA project. As Wurfel explained it,
"we saw this [resolution] as a first step. If it
failed, then we would consider bringing up the
matter to the Association of Asian Studies to
judge according to its ethical standards for
scholarship." Wurfel and others objected to the
project not only on moral grounds but also
because of its potential impact on academic
research on the Philippines. "Filipinos will never
again trust us if they know our data will be used
for cloak-and-dagger ends," asserted one scholar.
The resolution was hotly-debated, but its sponsors
withdrew it from the floor when they determined
that a significant number of Philippine specialists
viewed the proposal as a threat to their
"independence" in choosing funding sources, and
would vote it down. "I can't believe how
threatened many of them felt," exclaimed one
proponent of the resolution.
The CIA's use of academics for non-
academic objectives is not, of course, new.
Michigan State University researchers were
recruited to study how to "implant democracy"
in South Vietnam in the late fifties in order to
undercut the Vietnamese national liberation
movement. In the early sixties, the CIA tried
to launch "Project Camelot"-an academic front
to counter revolutionary movements in Latin
America. A number of CIA operatives have
attained high academic positions in universities;
e.g., James Billington of Princeton and Douglas
Pike of the University of California at Berkeley.
Crisis periods in the Philippines. have always
elicited U.S. government-sponsored research on
the roots of insurgency, designed to counter
opposition or nip it in the bud. During the mid-
1960s, for instance, the Office of Naval Research
of the U.S. Department of Defense funneled over
$500,000 to the Institue of Philippine Culture of
the Jesuit-run Ateneo de Manila University. The
Institute was to initiate various projects to study
key dimensions of Filipino social and political life
under the rubric of "basic research'." Prior to
the imposition of martial law in the Philippines
in 1972, the Air Force think tank, the Rand
Corporation, did a study of the sources of
instability in the country.
Green's research is part of a broader CIA,
effort to tap scholars' brains to produce a "viable"
U.S. policy for a post-Marcos regime. In May
1983, a top secret conference sponsored by the
CIA in Washington, D.C. sought to bring together
a number of Philippine experts. One of the
conditions for participation, says a reliable
source, was that those invited would not publicly
divulge the proceedings. a
Benigno Aquino and the CIA
John Kelly
Benigno Aquino, the . Philippine opposition
politician who was assassinated in Manila upon
his return from exile in August 1983, was a
contradictory human being. On the one hand, a
courageous individual who knew he was risking
his life when he returned to the Philippines; on
the other hand, Aquino was a very class-conscious
politician who defined his mission as salvaging
the Philippine ruling class from the revolutionary
conflagration now sweeping the country.
Before returning to his country, the former
senator publicly announced that he was going
back to defuse the tension between an
increasingly restive population and the isolated
dictatorship through "two-man negotiations" with
Marcos for a "return to constitutional democ-
racy." That meant return to the pre-martial-law
John Kelly is Co-Editor of Counterspy.
30 -- Coun,tenapy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
system of elite democracy in which different
factions of the ruling class alternated in political
office. Aquino, in short, might have been a firm
anti-fascist, but to the end he remained a
politician of the ruling-class mold.
One aspect of Aquino's life which is not
well-known was the intersection of his political
career with the CIA. This relationship extended
back to 1954 when, as a 20-year-old journalist,
Aquino, in his capacity as a special assistant to
the CIA-sponsored President Ramon Magsaysay,
negotiated the surrender of Luis Taruc, the
Supremo of the old People's Army and of the old
Communist Party.1 Magsaysay was literally
created as a "man of the masses" by one of the
CIA's most skilled operatives in Asia, the
notorious Colonel Edward Landsdale.2
Landsdale's mission was to head off the
rising insurgency of the People's Army, popularly
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
known as Huks, right after World War II. To
accomplish this, he combined military
counterinsurgency efforts with a public relations
campaign to persuade the people that Magsaysay,
a small-time politician whom Landsdale had
snatched from provincial obscurity, was "a man
of the masses." Key in this public relations
effort were young men handpicked by Magsaysay
and Landsdale, both of whom had sensitive
antennae for talent. Not only Aquino but also
a number of others who became prominent
political figures in later years were introduced
to politics as their "special assistants." One of
the "best and brightest" was Raul Manglapus, who
served as Magsaysay's under-secretary of foreign
affairs, and went on to become a senator.
Manglapus later founded the Movement for a Free
Philippines (MFP), an anti-Marcos, anti-
Communist exile group.
One of the striking common characteristics
of the most prominent of the "Magsaysay Boys"
like Aquino was their being graduates of the
Jesuit-run Ateneo de Manila University, the
training ground of the sons of the Philippine elite.
In the early 1950s, the American Jesuits who ran
the Ateneo were at the forefront of the
ideological struggle against the progressive
nationalist movement - making them natural
allies of their secular compatriots in the CIA
like Landsdale.
Aquino's involvement with the CIA did not
end when the Huks were defeated in 1954. After
his success in the Philippines, Landsdale went on
to Vietnam, bringing with him a well-trained core
of Filipino counterinsurgents who operated under
in Manila in 1971 but failed to kill Aquino, who
had not yet arrived when grenades were thrown
onto the stage. Upon the declaration of martial
law in September 1972, Aquino was among the
first arrested by the regime. Confined to Fort
Bonifacio prison for almost eight years, Aquino
was sentenced to death by a military court in
1977 on trumped-up charges of subversion and
murder, together with the top leaders of the New
People's Army, Bernable Buscayno and Victor
Corpuz. (Buscayno and Corpuz are still in prison.)
In May 1980, Aquino was released to
undergo heart surgery in the U.S., after which
he settled in voluntary exile in Boston, first as
a fellow of Harvard's Center for International
Affairs, then of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. While abroad, Aquino went on
speaking tours denouncing the dictatorship and
developed ties with the opposition in exile. These
activities gave Marcos the pretext to refuse to
guarantee Aquino's freedom or safety if he
returned to the Philippines.
Unlike most of the other Lansdale-
Magsaysay Boys, who remained ideological anti-
communists in their later years, Aquino prided
himself as a pragmatist who could work with both
right and left. While he was governor of Tarlac
Province, it was widely rumored that he had
worked out a "modus vivendi" with the New
People's Army (NPA), the reestablished People's
Army. While in exile, he did not hestiate to
speak on the same platform with individuals
adhering to the program of the leftist National
Democratic Front (NDF). He also contributed to
a "humanitarian" front called "Operation
Brotherhood." In an interview with the Multi-
national Monitor in February 1981, Aquino
provided a glimpse of his role in the Indochina
counterinsurgency effort in the mid and late
1950s. "I've worked with your CIA on many
operations.... You know, I was assistant to three
presidents. And once upon a time I headed our
own equivalent of the CIA. We had joint
operations in Indonesia; we had joint operations
in Laos; we were in Cambodia."
By the late 1950s, Aquino's main concern
was climbing up the Philippine political ladder.
He became a town mayor at 22, provincial
governor at 28 and, at 35, the youngest person
ever elected to the Philippine Senate. By the
late 1960s, the ambitious Aquino, then secretary
general of the opposition Liberal Party, had
positioned himself as President Marcos's main
political rival. He was tagged the "wonder boy"
of Philippine politics and many confidently
predicted that he would become president, after
Marcos, who was constitutionally barred from a
third term, stepped down in 1973.
Marcos, however, had othe, glans. He
engineered the bombing of a LiberL ''arty rally
One aspect of Aquino's life
which is not well known is
the intersection of his
political career with the CIA.
fundraising campaigns headed by the left, such
as the campaign to oppose the Marcos visit in
the fall of 1982. For this, he came under fire
from his colleagues in the elite opposition, like
Manglapus. "I don't understand these people," an
exasperated Aquino told a Counterspy associate
in an interview in February 1981. "We're all
united in the objective of overthrowing Marcos.
We have differences with the Communists, yes,
but we'll worry about them when we're rid of
Marcos."
SEE MARCOS, 11)9. 38
Ccunte-espy -- Dec.43 - l,b.81 -- 31
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Central America
Military Coup in Guatemala
Back to the Line of Command
Jeanne Walsh and Martha Wenger
When military officers leading a coup against
Guatemalan President Efrain Rios Montt stormed
the presidential palace on the morning of August
8, 1983 the U.S. military attache was not far
away. Several eyewitnesses saw the U.S.
Embassy's Major William Mercado inside the
palace itself, walkie-talkie in hand, monitoring
the unfolding coup. The Reagan administration
clearly had been informed in advance of the coup,
and quite possibly had helped the coup-maker,
General Oscar Humberto Mejia Victores.
Only two days before the coup, Mejia
Victores, then Defense Minister, met with his El
Salvadoran and Honduran counterparts and Lt.
Gen. Paul F. Gorman, top officer of the Panama-
based U.S. Southern Command. He also paid a
visit to the U.S.S. Ranger, operating just off
Nicaragua's coast as part of President Reagan's
gunboat diplomacy exercise in the Caribbean.
Immediately after the coup was launched, two
U.S. C-lA Trader aircraft, possibly from the
Ranger landed in Guatemala City. They
remained dh the ground for several hours, until
Guatemalan radio announced that Mejia Victores
was the new chief of state.
Reagan administration spokespersons have
not denied these facts, but have downplayed their
significance. A U.S. Embassy official who asked
not to be identified told the Philadelphia Inquirer
(August 24, 1983), "1 can give you a whole list
of things - our man with the walkie-talkie inside
the palace, planes landing that morning, Mejia
visiting the Ranger the Saturday before - they
all had absolutely nothing to do with the coup."
State Department spokesperson John Hughes said
August 9 that the presence of a U.S. military
attache in the palace was a "customary practice"
in these cases, and could. be considered "normal."
The day after the coup, U.S. Ambassador
Frederick Chapin met privately with General
Mejia Victores and emerged to announce that
"Guatemala is now moving towards a democratic
government."
Representatives of the Guatemalan opposi-
tion movement in exile in Mexico City are
convinced that the Reagan administration had
ample reason to want Rios Montt removed. Most
notably, he was extremely reluctant to permit
Guatemala to be used as a training base for other
U.S.-backed Central American armies. Guate-
mala's own 20,000-member army is considered
the top-notch counterinsurgency force in the
region, the product of extensive U.S. training and
aid during the 1960s. A high; ranking Guatemalan
government official told the Washington Post
(August 14) that Rios Montt considered the
Salvadoran Army "an undisciplined force with
little motivation and little inclination to
improve," and he had always vetoed plans for
closer military cooperation.
Jeanne Walsh is a Co-coordinator of the National
Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala.
Martha Wenger is a freelance writer and a member
of Counterspy's advisory board.
32 -- Coun.ten4py -- Dee.83 - Feb.84
o?111111f'~~''TY
*MY~~'i1
IK W
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Mejia Victores, on the other hand, had
signaled his readiness to collaborate more closely
with El Salvador and Honduras. Just days after
the coup, the Washington Post reported on August
14, he said that Guatemalan counterinsurgency
experts would train El Salvadoran soldiers at
bases in Guatemala in exchange for light weapons
and ammunition from El Salvador's U.S.-supplied
arsenal. (This exchange represents a convenient
circumvention of the congressional ban on U.S.
military aid to Guatemala, in effect since 1977
due to human rights violations.)
Despite an obvious "coincidence of
interests" between the U.S. government and Mejia
Victores, Guatemalan opposition spokespersons
are doubtful that the Reagan administration
actually engineered the coup or handpicked the
General to succeed Rios Montt. Instead, they
believe, Mejia Victores had already decided on
the coup, motivated primarily by internal factors,
and the U.S. then gave the green light.
Rumors of coups had been flying steadily
long before Mejia Victores took concrete action.
In June 1983, an attempt - unsuccessful - was
made by another general. The Rios Montt regime
had long posed a dilemma for both the Reagan
administration and the traditional ruling elements
of Guatemala. Rios Montt's staunch public
adherence to a fanatically fundamentalist
Protestant sect had isolated him in this
overwhelmingly Catholic country. He had
alienated the traditional Guatemalan power
brokers by bringing in top members of his sect
to advise him, and had often bypassed the
traditional military hierarchy in favor of junior
officers.
During the 16 months of his rule, Rios Montt
became less and less willing to share political
power with other rightwing forces such as the
National Liberation Movement (MLN), the self-
described "party of organized violence."* In June
1982, he forced two other members of the junta
to resign and declared himself "sole ruler". The
MLN had long pushed Rios Montt to call for
elections, for they knew that among the
electorate that would vote at all, they would
certainly win. Yet to the end, Rios Montt put
off setting a date for presidential elections.
In economic terms, Rios Montt's rule had
been disastrous: unemployment and inflation
were both high and the unstable war environment
was bad for business so that even parts of the
middle and ruling classes had turned against him.
Perhaps most importantly, Rios Montt's
much vaunted Victory Plan 82 - the military
strategy which was to crush the popular
revolutionary movement - failed to disrupt the
*A leader of this party coined their slogan: "Music,
when orchestrated, is a symphony. Violence, when
organized, is strength."
infrastructure of the Guatemalan National
Revolutionary Unity, the front representing the
four main guerrilla groups. Instead, in a brutal
internal war against so-called "subversives," the
army killed between 5,000 and 15,000 people, most
of them Indian peasants, making it impossible for
the Reagan administration to win congressional
approval to resume U.S. military aid. The
Guatemalan President's indiscrete public
references to his "scorched communists" policy
did not help matters.
Mejia Victores' seizure of power represents
a return to the traditional military leadership.
His coup was endorsed by the old-line army high
command, which felt that Rios Montt had
overstepped his bounds, to their detriment. Yet
while Mejia Victores will not be as eccentric a
ruler as Rios Montt, his hands are no less bloody.
A 30-year veteran of the Guatemalan army,
Mejia Victores is an "organization" man who has
faithfully served his superiors - with the notable
recent exception. He was Deputy Defense
Minister under the brutal Lucas Garcia regime
(1978-1982). In 1977, he founded the Center of
Computation in the Ministry of Defense, which
kept a registry of peasant, Christian, labor,
student, professional and political leaders - many
of whom have since been murdered or have
disappeared. As Rios Montt's Defense Minister,
Mejia Victores was the man most directly
responsible for planning and executing the
systematic counterinsurgency war.
State Department
spokesperson John Hughes
said ... that the presence of
a U.S. military attache in the
palace (during the coup)
was a "customary practice"
... and should be
considered "normal."
In the weeks since the coup, government-
backed murders have continued unabated. In the
first week of September alone, according to the
National Police, 50 bodies, bearing the marks of
torture and with faces disfigured to prevent
identification, were found along highways and in
wastelands throughout the country. The non-
Coun,ten,5py -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 33
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
governmental Guatemalan Human Rights
Commission reports that at least 1,000 persons
were kidnapped or killed in the first two weeks
after the coup.
Still, the Reagan administration hopes that
Mejia Victores can sufficiently clean up
Guatemala's badly-tarnished international image
to permit resumption of direct U.S. military aid.
Mejia Victores is eager for that as well. He said
on September 3, after a meeting with U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State Langhorne Motley,
that "economic aid from the United States is
beginning to come through, with no conditions of
any kind attached." Four days later he
announced, somewhat prematurely, that
resumption of U.S. military aid was imminent and
r r =j f =j f ==i r r r F =i r =j r r r =j r r r i
awaited only congressional approval.
That congressional approval. may prove
difficult to win. One reason Mejia Victores was
not a favored son of the Reagan administration
is that the General has a running public feud
with Representative Clarence Long (D-MD), who
wields considerable influence on Central
American issues in Congress. When Long per-
sisted in raising human rights concerns while
visiting Guatemala earlier this year, Mejia
Victores exploded into a shouting match with the
Representative, topping it off by calling Long a
"communist" and "a member of the Guerrilla
Army of the Poor," one of the armed opposition
groups in Guatemala. a
The Inhuman Face of Covert
Operations against Nicaragua
Ruth M. Fitzpatrick
A slogan heard frequently today in Nicaragua is,
"between Revolution and Christianity, there is no
contradiction." On July 30, 1983, a mass
celebrated in the northern Nicaraguan city of
Esteli in memory of a local couple took those
words out of the realm of rhetoric and put a
human face on them for some 30 North Americans
spending time there. The story of how Felipe
and Mary Barreda lived and died propelled us into
the reality of torture and death, direct products
of the Reagan administration's war against the
Sandinista government of Nicaragua.
Felipe and Mary Barreda, both about 50 and
.married for 31 years, were greatly loved and
admired in Esteli for their deep commitment to
both their church and their revolution. Just
before Christmas 1982, they had gone to the
border area near Honduras to pick coffee on a
finca, or large farm. There, counterrevolu-
tionaries (contras), most of them former members
of Anastasio Somoza's National Guard, attacked
the coffee pickers, took them prisoner and forced
them across the border into Honduras where they
were interrogated and tortured in the contras'
Ruth McDonough Fitzpatrick is an activist on
Central America who spent a number of weeks in
Esteli, Nicaragua.
34 -- Coun.tenepy -- Dee.83 - Feb.84
La Lodosa camp. Four young men from that
coffee brigade eventually escaped and lived to
tell the story of how the Barredas were tortured
because of their unrelenting commitment to
Christianity and to the Sandinista revolution.
The Barredas, who themselves were
relatively well off - he a respected watchmaker,
she a talented hairdresser - got involved in the
revolution in 1975. Changes within the Catholic
church in the wake of the Second Vatican Council
had motivated the Barredas to become involved
in social work in poor neighborhoods and rural
areas. They began working with the Sandinista
National Liberation Front, carrying messages and
arms, looking after the wounded, and organizing
Christian base communities that became the
backbone of the revolutionary movement in
Esteli. The Barredas eventually sold their
personal belongings to help those fighting to
defeat the Somoza dictatorship.
After the triumph of the revolution, from
1979-1981, Mary held various positions in the
Esteli municipal government, while Felipe did
grassroots organizing. Both also were active in
the Esteli church, the most dynamic diocese in
Nicaragua.
According to the personal testimony of
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Jesus Rodriguez (a pseudonym), a young man who
was kidnapped with them and later escaped, the
volunteer coffee-picking brigades were organized
so that the people's fear of the counter-
revolutionaries would be broken and the coffee
near the border of Honduras harvested. He and
the Barredas joined a group of volunteers and
went to a coffee farm called Agronica, a few
kilometers from the Honduran border: "It was
perilous territory. There were 53 in the brigade.
I had never had any training in using a gun, but
the Sandinistas gave four of us guns and some
instructions on how to use them." Rodriguez
noted that contras attacked the farm even before
the volunteers' truck arrived, but members of
the Sandinista Army scared them off.
The next morning at about 11:30, Rodriguez,
out in the field working, heard the first shots of
an attack. "My mouth dried completely. It was
a perfect place for an ambush-down in a
ravine--and they were shooting from the hillsides.
I shot off my gun until that fatal moment when
I ran out of ammunition. I was shooting a lot
to protect the people and realized I had used up
even my 'medicine pill,' the final bullet you save
to kill yourself with."
The farm house and some volunteers were
captured, and Rodriguez gave himself up when
some Guardia (ex-National Guardsmen) found him.
They bound his arms behind his back with plastic
handcuffs, and marched him towards Honduras.
The Sandinista Army counterattacked the
band of contras, but they fled across the border
into Honduras, forcing the kidnapped coffee-
pickers to come with them. About ten kilometers
into Honduras, one of the Guardia began hitting
Rodriguez, saying, "You're nice, but you're a
communist." "He then took my money, checks
and photographs," Rodriguez said. "When he was
examining my literacy campaign identification,
lie asked me about teaching communism. I said,
'No, I was teaching them to read."'
Rodriguez and a companion were tied to a
pole and forced to carry the body of a contra
killed during the run for the border. "Our hands
were lashed to the pole. The dead man's head
was right at my head. It was very hard with
out wrists tied to the pole like that. We walked
for two or three hours carrying the cadaver until
the other man said he could not go on until untied
from the pole. We were then tied in a line with
a rope keeping the four of us about three feet
apart from each other."
"At about nine at night we arrived at a
house to stay for the night. Then came Felipe
Barreda and another kidnapped coffee picker.
Felipe was bleeding frorti his ears, mouth and
nose." He and Mary Barreda had been kidnapped
during the same contra attack, but were brought
into Honduras separately. "After about a half
an hour of rest," Rodriguez went on, "the Guardia
started torturing us and asking us what we did
for the revolution."
"A Honduran guard began torturing us with
a gun behind our ears. He would interrogate us
and hit the back of our heads with the gun butt.
The Hondurans were well armed. When he had
the gun to my ear, I had no idea if he would
kill me: 'Look, I hope you're not afraid of death,
you son of a whore,' he told me."
After more forced marching, they arrived
at a ranch house. Felipe Barreda was completely
exhausted and started shouting, "'I can't stand
any more! Leave me here and let me rest! Kill
me, let me die!' They beat him more forcefully,
screaming vulgarities and threatening to cut off
his ears and make others carry him."
Some of the Guardia remained behind with
Felipe while Rodriguez's group went ahead: "We
proceeded to a contra camp that was full of
Guardia. A Commandante Negra gave me food
and some coffee. Forty of them, including Mary
Barreda, were already in camp ahead of us. All
of the military things I saw there were from the
U.S. There were boxes of radio equipment; all
the gun belts and holsters were the kind they
use in the U.S." The prisoners were held in that
main camp for one day, blindfolded and tied to
trees. Then they were taken to a little shack
away from the main part of the camp.
There, says Rodriguez, "they started taking
off all of our clothes, blindfolding us, and tying
us really strongly again. When I was not yet
blindfolded, I saw they had knives. Before they
retied one prisoner, he tore away, and was
recaptured screaming, 'Please don't kill me."'
"'Get ready to die,' they warned, 'because
we're going to kill you.' I remember standing
stiff, standing waiting to die. Suddenly someone
else came and took us back into the house,
handcuffed the four of us to each other with two
handcuffs."
One Nicaraguan, who had probably been
captured like Rodriguez and forced to work for
the contras, tried to escape. The Honduran
National Guard brought him back to camp and
the Somocistas killed him. "He was forced to
dig his own grave: 'We will not waste a bullet
on you, traitor.' And so they bayonetted him to
death."
"Two days later, someone brought a blasting
loud radio to our shed. We were blindfolded and
made to stand with our noses to the wall - a
form of torture that went on all day. If I got
dizzy, and my head started to pull away from
the wall, someone slammed my nose back to the
wall. The music from the radio was to hide the
screams of Felipe, but it couldn't cover up his
piercing screams while they tortured him." The
man who brought the radio, according to
Coun.tenepy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 35
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Rodriguez, had an Argentine accent.
Rodriguez's nerves gave out listening to
Felipe being tortured, and he hoped they would
kill him rather than torture him. "I'm ashamed
to say I denied any connections with the
revolution. It was the only way I could think of
to save my life."
"On the other hand, Mary was interrogated
and she refused to deny any ties she had with
the revolution. She had a total revolutionary
conviction. Everything they said against the
revolution, she would deny and tell them what it
was like. They would strike and beat her husband
for her statements. They accused Felipe of being
a spy working for National Security of
Nicaragua."
Rodriguez said that Mary was so sick at
one point that the contras brought one of their
doctors to 'see her. "Mary had a furious fever.
She was having vaginal hemorrhaging. The doctor
gave her some pills and a piece of plastic to put
over her. We were sleeping on the ground. I
don't know what had happened to her. Had she
been raped? Who knows? I had been separated
from her."
On the third day of their captivity, says
Rodriguez, "higher level contras came to
interrogate us." There were also journalists from
Radio 15 September, the contra radio station in
Honduras. "There were also other journalists and
they took about 80 photographs. They had us
holding the blue and white flag of Nicaragua with
guards with AKA guns behind us. I think the
AKAs were what Israel had captured from the
PLO and sold to Honduras. They also had people
from America Libre (Free America), a paper
Contra Terror in Nicaragua
Patricia Hynds, a Maryknoll lay
missionary, works for the Central
American Historical Institute in
Managua, Nicaragua. She travels
frequently to the province of
Zelaya and is in close contact
with many of the remote
communities of the Atlantic
coast. Of late, counterrevolu-
tionary bands based in Honduras
have repeatedly attacked these
isolated villages. During an
October visit to Washington,
D.C., Patricia Hynds talked with
Counterspy's Joy Hackel and
described at some length a
massacre by contras which took
place August 31 through
September 2, 1983, in the Bocana
de Paiwas area in Zelaya Central.
A pastor from this desolate area,
Jim Feltz, had recounted the
atrocity to her.
While in the last few years fifty
civilians had been killed in this
particular parish, in those three
days 20 people, all of them
civilians, were done away with by
the contras. Three women were
raped, 18 farms burned to the
ground and 25 villagers kidnapped.
Peasants were hung from the
rafters of their homes, throats
were slit, beheaded bodies were
thrown into the river. This work
of the contras is the "democratic
alternative" that. U.S. money is
supporting.
What is the logic behind the
contras' terrorization of ci-
vilians'
Clearly the contra bands do not
want to engage the Sandinista
Army in battle; terrorization is
actually seen as preferable to
direct confrontation....The contra
activities have been going on
heavily since December of 1981
and they have made no substantial
military gains in that time. Their
only strength is in their ability to
brutalize the population, frighten
them into immobility and through
that wreak havoc economically,
disrupt government programs and
production....
In the countryside people
ask the government for arms so
that they can defend themselves.
For the first few days after the
attack they were issued auto-
matic weapons, but these were
needed somewhere else and soon
were taken back. So the peasants
were left with their hunting rifles
or machetes.
Has the coordination between
contra groups in the North and
those in the South improved?
There is growing evidence of
increasing cooperation. A serious
attack on September 18 on Penas
Blanca, which is on the Pan
American highway leading into
Costa Rica, came at the same
time as an attack on El Espino,
on the Pan American crossing into
Honduras. You can imagine the
devastating effect these coordi-
nated attacks have on commercial
transportation and trade.
There seem to be contradictory
opinions in the Costa Rican
government about aiding the
contras. What is the current
degree of cooperation of the
Costa Rican government and
border patrol with the contras in
the South?
During the recent attack on Penas
Blanca, which the Democratic
Revolutionary Alliance (ARDE) of
Eden Pastora claims to have held
for 15 minutes, there is consid-
erable evidence, including state-
ments by the head of the rural
guard in Costa Rica, that the
rural guard drew their people
back several kilometers and gave
ARDE free rein. ARDE people
are telling reporters that Angel
Edemundo Solano, the Costa
Rican Minister of Public Security,
is furious about the attack
because it obviously jeopardizes
Costa Rica's supposed position of
neutrality. Yet the U.S. Am-
bassador to Costa Rica, Curtin
Windsor, says that Solano was
being too vigorous in interpreting
Costa Rican President Monge's
declaration of neutrality. Wind-
36 -- Coun.tenbpy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
published in Miami." These journalists told
Rodriguez that "there were airplanes in
Guatemala waiting for an order from Reagan to
invade Nicaragua."
"For the photographs, they gave Mary new
pants, a shirt, washed her face, did her. hair,
combed it; made up her face so she would look
pleasant, happy and optimistic about what was
going on in the camp. Commandante Negra lent
me his shirt to put on over mine; I started
unbuttoning it to show my brigadista shirt
underneath. They yanked me away from the
cameras.
"There were a lot of supplies in that camp.
Blue uniforms. Black berets. Medical supplies.
A ridiculous number of guns. North American
jungle boots - green boots that breathe. The
packets on their belts where they kept medicine
sor is also a good personal friend
of Alfonso Robelo, a wealthy
Pastora supporter.
Can Costa Rica continue to
maintain a "low profile" in regard
to harboring the contras?
The situation with Costa Rica is
becoming so serious because
Honduras is having a difficult
time projecting itself as the
''victim" of the Sandinistas.
Especially with 5,000 U.S. troops
there, it's hard to picture them
as weak, as a country under
attack. There seems to be a shift
to place that image onto Costa
Rica.
Does Eden Pastora of ARDE have
any popular support among Costa
Ricans on the border area?
People in the northern Costa
Rican border area have been
supportive of Pastora. Yet his
excesses, perhaps, are beginning
to turn them. A team of
reporters I know had been in a
Costa Rican village, Santa Rosa,
a couple of months ago and the
people there at that time were
openly pulling for Pastora. The
reporters were there again three
weeks ago and said that the
atmosphere had changed con-
siderably. People were now com-
plaining about Pastora's presence.
His men had killed six people in
that town just recently because
they were suspected of being
Sandinista supporters. Yet the
contras are hiring Costa Rican
youths and paying them, in U.S.
dollars, up to $1,000 per month
to fight with Pastora. And of
all said 'U.S.A.' We were tape-recorded and
video-taped. They had a TV set, an electric
generator - all kinds of supplies.
"Eventually there came a point when they
began to act towards us as if we were not guilty.
We stayed in the camp two days longer... On
January 6th,, we were tied, blindfolded and taken
from the house we were kept in. Felipe and
Mary Barreda remained in the contra camp. They
didn't tell us where they were taking us. We
had met Commandante Suicide in the Guardia
camp and he took us to a Nicaraguan refugee
camp in a town called Danli, about 35 kilometers
from the border."
It was in this camp of people who "left
Nicaragua for one reason or another" that
Rodriguez and three companions worked and lived
under lighter security because "the Guardia had
course there is an extensive
commitment to infrastructure
work from Israel and the U.S.-to
put in roads in Costa Rica for
which there is no real function
except to have military access.
The CIA apparently gave the
contras explicit marching orders
in July 1983 that they had only
several months to "shape up
Can the contra forces, in their
present composition, make a
significant improvement in their
performance?
For the past two years the
contras have been attempting to
take over a section of Nicaragua
and for two years they have not
been able to do it, even on a brief
basis. One of the favorite stories
of newspeople is to be taken for
a ride by Pastora and being told
that they are in Nicaraguan
territory when it is obvious to
anyone who knows the area that
it is Costa Rica....Pastora does
have a certain amount of mobility
in the swamps on the border, but
there isn't anyone in the swamps
to dispute his wandering. He
always appears very hard pressed
for money. He told the press in
Costa Rica that he managed to
get the money for the airplanes
he used to do the recent bombing
of Managua, $650,000, from the
ex-Nicaraguan Ambassador to
Washington, Senor Francisco
Fiallos....But if the contras are
going to do anything effective,
ever, there is going to have to
be more cooperation between the
separate forces.
In the face of escalating contra
activity Nicaragua instituted a
military service conscription law
in August 1983. Every male be-
tween 17 and 21 is required to
register for a two year con-
scription. Opposition parties such
as the Democratic Conservative
Party have condemned the law.
How have other organizations
responded?
There has been some opposition,
which was probably mainly caused
by a lack of preparation by the
Sandinistas for the fact that the
law was coming, although the
groundwork for the law was laid
in July 1979. In Managua and
border areas the reaction has
been rather positive. In farming
areas, there is not so much
opposition to the draft but
concern about what it will mean
in terms of caring for the crops.
According to the Protestant
Church, the Sandinista govern-
ment has agreed, in practice, to
respect an individual's pacifist
beliefs and will offer alternative
service to those requesting it.
The strongest opposition to
the law has come from the
organized women, who oppose the
fact that service is not mandatory
for women. I think the women
of Nicaragua are very proud of
the strategic combative role they
played in the overthrow of
Somoza. Like women everywhere
they hope that this role will not
have to be one of their priorities,
yet they are prepared to defend
their homeland and their struggle.
Coun-tenhpy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 31
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
decided we were integrated... All the while, in
the meantime, we were planning our escape."
The final episode of Rodriguez's captivity
sounds like a second-rate Hollywood thriller: "On
January 9," he said, "two of us entered the
telecommunications office in Danli. We first
talked to Esteli Telcor [the telephone company
switchboard in Esteli, Nicaragua]. They told us
to call the Nicaraguan Embassy in Tegucigalpa
[the capital of Honduras] ." Rodriguez asked the
operator to dial the Embassy.
Then, he said, "I got really worried. The
receptionist said 'These people never answer the
phone; I'm going to hang up.' On the seventh
ring, a man answered. We told him we'd been
kidnapped and he told us to get the others and
'Stay exactly where you are.'
"We went to the house to get the other
two, and went back to the telecommunications
office. We stayed inside there so the Guardia
would not see us and be suspicious.
"Forty-five minutes after the phone call, a
person drove up in a car and asked, "Are, you
the persons kidnapped?' 'Yes.' We got into the
car and it headed toward the border. The driver
said, 'We're all in this together now: if we get
caught, we are all dead.' We passed the border
guard into free country. I felt relieved. All my
fear left. 'If I die now, I die in Nicaragua Libre,'
I thought to myself. I was happy to be free,
but sad about the companeros we had left in
Honduras."
On August 6, 1983, an independent Managua
newspaper, El Nuevo Diario, revealed that La
Lodosa, the camp where Rodriguez and his
companions were held, is a key center for contras
from the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN),
most of whom are ex-National Guard members
from the Somoza era. This expose centered on
an "Argentine Colonel, Shntiago Villegas, an agent
of the CIA in Honduras, who supplies the contra."
La Lodosa is identified as the location of a school
for commandos in which Villegas and
Commandante Suicide work. A photograph shows
the sign over the school's entrance, with the
words "Commandos Welcome, School of FDN
Commandos." Painted underneath are the contra
slogans: "Commandos Always to the Front" and
"God, Fatherland, Democracy."
The companions Rodriguez left behind --
Felipe and Mary Barreda - were killed in early
April by the contras. According to the Central
American Historical Institute of Georgetown
University in Washington, D.C., the Honduran
government has acknowledged that they are
buried at the edge of La Lodosa camp. o
MARL oS CONT. fran pg. 31
The left, nevertheless, maintained a healthy
caution in dealing with Aquino, who also revealed
that he received periodic briefings from the CIA
and the State Department while Jimmy Carter
was still president. Aquino, for his part, did not
hestiate to articulate his differences with the
National Democratic Front. Foremost among
these was his belief that the United States was
key to change in the Philippines. Part of this
conviction undoubtedly stemmed from his ruling
class origins; part from a naive belief that he
could "control" the U.S. "You know, we
overestimate the impact of the United States on
the Philippines," he remarked to a Counters
associate at Harvard in January 1982. "we can
manage the U.S. by using the carrot and the
stick. We can arrive at more equal terms with
the multinationals. What we need is more
political will and less rhetoric."
Aquino, however, grew increasingly
frustrated with the U.S. after the Reagan
administration came to power in 1981. Harassed
by FBI investigators and by customs officers
whenever he came back to the U.S. after a trip
abroad, Aquino became convinced that no amount
of lobbying could persuade Reagan to drop his
full support for Marcos. This disenchantment
was reflected in Aquino's changing position on
the presence of the U.S. bases in the Philippines:
in 1981, he saw them as necessary to ward off
38 -- Countenepy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
the Soviet Union; by mid-1983, he was calling
for their "eventual withdrawal" since they made
"the U.S. hostage to Marcos."
Had Aquino lived, he would probably have
become more and more of a nationalist, if only
to keep up with the swift movement of the
general Philippine population to the left. But he
would have remained as well a ruling class
politician. It was a contradiction with which the
progressive movement was prepared to live at a
stage when the key task was overthrowing the
U.S.-Marcos dictatorship. Indeed, right before
Aquino embarked on his fatal mission, National
Democratic Front representatives offered him
sanctuary in the Philippines in areas controlled
by the New People's Army.
Footnotes:
1) In 1968 and 1969, respectively, the Communist Party
and the People's Army were reestablished on the line that
armed struggle was a strategic priority for the movement
in the Philippines. The old People's Army and the old
Communist Party emphasized the strategy of finding a
parliamentary road to liberation; they eventually
surrendered to Marcos in 1974 and characterized his
government as a "nationalist" government, leading to their
virtual disintegration as a force within the Philippine
progressive movement.
2) For an account of Landsdale's activities in the
Philippines, see his autobiography In the Midst of Wars
(Harper and Row, New York, 1972). Joseph Burkholder
Smith, in his Portrait of a Cold Warrior (Ballantine Books,
New York, 1976) picks up the story where Landsdale left
off.
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Women Speak Out
Ireland: British Counter-
insurgency, Armed Struggle
and the Mass Movement
Bernadette Devlin McAliskey and Martha
McClelland are prominent members of the Irish
liberation movement. Both interviews were given
in the summer of 1983 during an important turning
point for the movement. In June 1983, Sinn Fein,
the political wing of the Irish Republican Army
(IRA), won 40 percent of the nationalist vote in
the British Parliamentary elections, and Sinn Fein
Vice President Gerry Adams was elected Member
of Parliament from West Belfast. . This victory
was followed by the election of the first Sinn
Fein member to the Belfast City Council.
The parliamentary and city council elections
represent Sinn Fein's first major effort to extend
the national liberation struggle beyond guerrilla
warfare to building a politically conscious mass
movement.
The movement today is a direct outgrowth
of Ireland's 800-year-old struggle against British
occupation. In 1922, in an effort to diffuse a
revolutionary nationalist movement, Britain
partitioned Ireland. Twenty-six southern counties
became the Irish Free State, while parts of nine
northern counties were gerrymandered into a pro-
British loyalist bastion under direct British rule.
This arrangement secured British financial,
industrial and agricultural interests throughout
Ireland and prevented the realization of a true
Irish republic.
In the North of Ireland, the predominately
Catholic nationalist community quickly found it
had become a despised minority underclass in a
reactionary loyalist state run by a Protestant
ascendancy. This state of affairs engendered the
civil rights movement of the 1960s. After loyalist
mobs, the Irish police and the British army
repeatedly and brutally attacked this non-violent
movement, the nearly-defunct Irish Republican
Army reemerged. Its initial mission was to
protect the nationalist community, but the
struggle soon rekindled its republican aspirations
and the Irish national liberation struggle was
reborn.
Since the early 1970s, the IRA's main
emphasis has been guerrilla warfare. The
significance of its recent return to building a
mass movement is explored in the following
interviews.
Both women speak of the hunger strike and
the H-Block prison struggle. They are referring
to the struggle the Irish republican prisoners of
H-Block prison waged against Britain's move to
replace their political status with common
criminal status. The protest culminated in the
1981 hunger strike in which ten men starved to
death before a compromise was reached. The
hunger strike engendered the largest mobilization
of the community since the 1960s civil rights
movement and induced Sinn Fein to reconsider
its sole emphasis on the guerrilla struggle and to
decide to seriously work to develop a parallel
mass movement. R
Coun.teabpy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 39
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Bernadette Devlin McAliskey
What Price Reunification?
What do you think of Sinn Fein's
participation in the recent
elections to the Belfast City
Council and the British
Parliament?
Well, I think it is very good as
far as it sharpens the issues for
Sinn Fein, as far as it puts the
muscle on Sinn Fein to stop being
vague. So far, Sinn Fein is
recognized as a broadly radical,
often as a socialist organization,
but it has no clear philosphy. I
don't mean in terms of sects or
anything like that. It has never
actually been thought out or
discussed to my knowledge the
reproduction of wealth, what that
means, what that entails. They
are for a vaguely socialist Ireland
but I don't think they have clearly
worked out or committed
themselves to any particular idea
of how things work.
One of the main problems I
see at this stage is very much
like the clays of demonstrations
during the hunger strike in 1981.
After you put your 150,000 on the
streets in Dublin, then what do
you do? Can you top that
demonstration? After they run
for the European Parliament next
year they will have more or less
peaked the electoral support.
Then they have to say: now what
are we to do? Do we seriously
go into constitutional politics?
I think there is very little
danger of that. But if Sinn Fein
is. not going to do that, if they
are not going to become a more
radical, more republican, more
principled Socialist Democratic
and Labor Party, then they have
to look for alternatives. I don't
know if Sinn Fein has thought
about that sufficiently.
This is the point in the
movement where there is a
danger of degenerating into
constituency services such as
tenants associations and social
work - basically getting sucked
into making the system work. If
they are not going to do that then
they are going to have to develop
40 -- Coun.tenspy -- Dec.83 -
between now and the European
Parliamentary elections some
means which will allow them to
develop into a mass revolutionary
party where people will become
active not just on the national
question but also on unem-
ployment and the women's
question. That, I believe, is their
next step.
People like Gerry Adams
(Sinn Fein Vice President and MP
from West Belfast) and the new
young leadership of Belfast I have
every confidence in. But it's not
going to be easy for them. The
more they move forward, the
more they are going to have to
deal with the issue of the South.
How do they retain the national
level of organization when, politi-
cally speaking, their southern
rump is -far behind them?
They will have to persuade
Bernadette Devlin McAliskey has been a leader in the
northern Ireland struggle since the civil rights days when
she was a student at Queens University. She was elected
to the British parliament in 1969 at the age of 21 and
remained a member until 1974. In 1980 and 1981, she
was public relations officer of the National H-Block
Armagh Committee, the principal mobilizing group for
the hunger strike. Her leadership in this group made
her an assassination target. She and her husband were
critically wounded in one attempt on her life in January
1981. Recently she has toured Ireland and the United
States in support of a variety of causes related to the
Irish national liberation struggle. McAliskey lives in
Coalisland, northern Ireland. a
the South (the Sinn Fein of
southern Ireland), which is on a
different wavelength altogether,
to go in their direction. That
may lead to difficulties. Hope-
fully they will be resolved
politically. But it is not totally
impossible that it may lead to a
split in the party.
What do you see as the major
issues in northern Ireland today?
Well, the central issue is still
partition. It's the underlying
factor that influences everything
else. Unemployment is another
"unemployment." But they recog-
nize that there is no way the
unemployment pattern is going to
change until the constitutional
question is changed.
Poverty is another major
problem here. The monetarist
policies in Britain have a worse
effect here than anywhere else.
People with work are paid less
than the national average. Things
that in my childhood were
dreaded but had disappeared have
come to be dreaded again. In
this area children have died of
menengitis and polio. It has to
issue. Registered unemployment
is at 20 percent. The pattern of
unemployment is comparable with
any area of America where you
have Native American, Black, and
Puerto Rican centers of popu-
lation. That is, the level of
unemployment here among the
socially deprived is, on average,
twice the national rate. In areas
like here or West Belfast, which
is predominantly Catholic na-
tionalist, unemployment is 50 to
60 percent.
When you consider the
degree of unemployment among
youth here and then you ask them
what is the major problem and
they say the Brits, you get a sense
of how crucial the national
question is. It stands to reason
when 75 percent of the young
people don't have a job their
natural response should be
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
I think in this generation, with the nuclear threat, the choice
is between Marxism or nothing ... The world is going to
have to be shared. I think Ronald Reagan would rather blow the
world up than allow it to be shared. So it is up to the rest of us
to take it away from him and people like him before they destroy it.
reflect on the quality of life when
things like rickets, polio, menen-
gitis, and gastroenteritis are
becoming commonplace. It has
to reflect on the social economic
position of the people which
suffer those diseases.
U.S. Intervention
Are you aware that there is an
effort within the republican
support movement in America
that has been encouraging the
U.S. government to intervene in
some way in Ireland? For
instance, in the New York state
legislature there is a resolution
calling for a U.S. envoy to be
appointed to resolve the northern
Ireland dispute diplomatically.
I don't have much detail on that.
I do have my own political
instincts. I do not believe in the
fellowship of countries dominated
by multinational corporations.
What is America? It is not the
American people, it is American
money and American companies.
I do not believe they are
interested in Ireland for any
purpose other than to make more
money in Ireland than they would
make if they put the money
somewhere else. For us that
would mean we would have to
accept their terms of investment,
their wage structure, and their
anti-union bias. Their invest-
ments would also stengthen their
hand for pushing against Irish
neutrality.
Joining NATO?
You are referring to NATO?
Yes, NATO. Ireland, or the
South, is outside NATO. They
want Ireland in NATO.
Do you feel the United States
would like to effect some sort of
Irish reunification at the price of
Ireland joining NATO?
I think they would. One of the
fears I have is that there hasn't
been sufficient popular work done
in this country on the question of
NATO and the nuclear arms race.
Therefore it is remote to too
many people. They do not con-
sider membership in NATO or
being part of the nuclear arms
race too high a price for freedom.
I believe that it is. If someone
said to me you can have a united
Ireland in the morning if you join
NATO, I'd say no thank you.
We'll take freedom our own way
and on our own terms.
The Women's Movement
Do you feel the women's question
has been effectively addressed by
the republican movement?
It's very difficult for the
republican movement given its
historical development and the
level of consciousness. I think it
is clear that the best feminists
in Ireland are those who have
developed through the republican
movement. We came to an
awareness of feminism almost at
the last stage of our development
in fighting against repression.
There has also been an
independent women's movement
in the South for some time. The
problem is the women's move-
ment has focussed exclusively on
the right of a woman to control
her own body.
Are you saying there is no
integration of the national and
women's question among the
feminists in the South?
Yes. And the inability of these
groups to take on the national
question is a big problem. It
reflects the whole attitude of
southern society as well as press
and other media censorship over
the reality of the struggle in the
North. The women's movement,
for example, did not support the
women in Armagh jail (where
most political prisoners are kept)
during their fight for political
status. Moreover, they supported
the women's peace movement (a
short lived movement that called
on nationalist guerrillas to lay
down their arms) despite the fact
that the women in the peace
movement were not feminists.
By and large the women in
the national movement support
the feminist struggle. It is still
very much one-way traffic. You
get the anti-imperialist women
supporting the feminists but not
the other way around. The
southern feminists are very
supportive of contraceptive and
abortion rights but are totally
opposed to women's role in the
national struggle. They are
totally opposed to what the
republican movement stands for.
They refuse to confront the fact
that we are not oppressed simply
because we are woman but also
because we are working class
women and because we are
working class republican women.
Organizing the South
Getting back to the national
question. How does the South fit
into the republican movement
today?
I think the key is that we are
talking about the reunification of
the island and the South is a
major part of it. What is not
clear is that after 50 or 60 years
of partition there is nowhere left
to run. It must take on the
question of partition.
The reason, in my opinion,
that the South has never been
able to get it together eco-
nomically is because the national
bourgeoisie and Britain, France
and the United States, who
together run the country, are
divided over the issue of the
North. Even the two major par-
ties of the South which represent
virtually the same interests and
would both be part of the
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Conservative Party if they were
in England, have different atti-
tudes on the North. Therefore
they cannot get their capitalist
act together.
Neither party is prepared to
take on the British because they
are still economically tied to the
British economy. But they are at
the end of their rope now. The
parties are going to have to opt
for either ending British rule in
the North or reinforcing it.
That is why it is crucial that
we should be organizing in the
South because the only coherent
policy is an anti-imperalist policy.
That has to be a major new
direction for Sinn Fein. They
must take on the internal politics
of the South of Ireland.
How long do you think it will take
to unite Ireland?
I give it a good 20 years.
Do you think it will be the kind
of Ireland you want?
I don't know. There are times
when I have this recurring
nightmare of large numbers of
people and bands and flags and
speeches declaring freedom. And
I'll be in the back with someone
whispering to me, "you mean
that's all we get?" I don't really
know except if that's all we really
do get, those in the back will
fight on.
On an international level
the whole system has outlived its
usefulness. That is why you have
crises everywhere. And this is
r-r-r-rr-r-rr-r-r-rrrrr
Martha McClelland-
0 Organzing the South
Could you describe Britain's
counterinsurgency strategy since
1975 when the IRA and the British
Army agreed to a ceasefire?
The 1975 truce was disastrous for
Sinn Fein and it will be the last
truce. It was used by Britain to
launch a three-part program to
destroy the movement.
One part of the program
was criminalization, which meant
any active republican would be
charged with criminal behavior
and put in jail. The 800 year
long struggle was now going to
be a criminal offense, it was now
criminal to want self-determina-
tion.
Another part was Ulsteri-
zation, which is similar to Viet-
namization. This is where you
replace the British Army with the
Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC,
northern Ireland police) and the
Ulster Defense Regiment (pro-
British paramilitary force). The
last point is "normalization",
which is to make the situation
look as normal as possible; to hide
from all the world that there is
42 -- Coun.tenepy -- Dec.83 -
a revolutionary struggle and a
guerrilla war here.
Derry is the best example
of the normalization program.
You'll notice when you come from
Belfast, where there are a lot of
British troops on the ground, that
in Derry it is really unusual to
see a heavy saturation of British
troops. Derry was picked out to
become a model city for normali-
all happening in the shadow of
nuclear war. Whatever people
may think of Marx, I think the
truest thing he said was that the
last choice for humanity would be
between Marxism and barbarism.
I think in this generation, with
the nuclear threat, the choice is
between Marxism or nothing.
Just as the South has nowhere
left to go, those who control the
world economy have nowhere left
to go. The world is going to have
to be shared. I think Ronald
Reagan would rather blow the
world up than allow it to be
shared. So it is up the rest of
us to take it away from him and
people like him before they
destroy it. C?7
zation for a lot of reasons, in-
cluding the American connection
with John Hume (Socialist Demo-
cratic and Labor Party leader
based in Derry) and including the
fact that this city can be restored
to make it look like the
Williamsburg of Europe - a
quaint little city for tourists to
come and spend their money.
Insofar as possible, the
Martha McClelland heads the Sinn Fein office in Derry
and is a prominent member of Sinn Fein's highest body,
the Ard Comhairle. ' Born in California, McClelland first
went to Ireland with a church group while a graduate
student at Berkeley. Her experiences there transformed
her from an avowed pacifist to a revolutionary. She
joined Sinn Fein in 1974, and has served in a variety
of capacities including party spokesperson and member
of the Pro Ulster Executive. She has directed several
Sinn Fein advice centers, is a leading member of the
Sinn Fein Women's Department and was a founder of
the National H-Block Armagh Committee. Like most
political women activists, McClelland has spent several
months in Armagh prison. Most recently she has been
a leader of the party's new political education
movement. a
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
So many Irish Americans would accept
U.S. government involvement in Ireland as help,
as assistance to people who are struggling.
That is simply not the case.
It's like sending in nurses with the plague to a cancer ward.
troops were taken off the streets
and replaced by sophisticated
surveillance devices along with a
very quick reaction time for
British troops. If a shot is fired
anywhere in the city, within three
to five minutes the area will be
very quickly saturated by British
troops and RUC. They catch as
many republicans that way in
Derry as they do with the
saturation techniques in Belfast.
among the people. Now the
hunger strike was a tragedy and
there were strenuous attempts by
the republican movement to
prevent it from happening. But
given that tragedy, we were able
to move a lot of people. The
deaths of those ten volunteers
helped us develop a pre-revolu-
tionary consciousness among the
people.
If we can continue that
development, we can develop
enough political awareness so that
their deaths won't be in vain.
They won't be just more martyrs
for old Ireland. Instead, their
sacrifice will be the catalyst that
directed against an occupation
force. That is quite clear to
people who live here. It must be
clear because we got 43 percent
of the nationalist vote in the
elections to the British Parlia-
ment. We are now a recognized
political force and we are here
to stay. We are people on the
move.
The 1981 Hunger Strike
What happened in 1976 when the
truce was ended?
At that stage the British moved
to close down Republican News
(Sinn Fein's newspaper), some
prominent republicans were
thrown in jail and the criminali-
zation program was instituted. In
response to criminalization of the
republican prisoners (their status
was changed to "criminal"), the
H-Block struggle began.
Republicans were thinking
very carefully about what was
going on and began to realize that
you can't win this war through
military means alone. We
realized the military struggle
alone would be fruitless unless a
political struggle was going on.
Also we realized that a political
struggle alone would never have
the force behind it to get the
British out.
So in 1977 and 1978, a lot
of people in the republican
movement knew we had to de-
velop into a political movement.
The formation of the National H-
Block Armagh Committee, which
was a large-scale mobilization of
the Irish people, was the product
of that development. Since that
time people have seen the effects
of the H-Block movement.
The hunger strike of IRA
prisoners in 1981 happened at a
time when the movement was
mature enough to use the tragedy
to develop political awareness
Building a Mass Movement
In what ways do you intend to
build the mass movement?
One of the most important things
we have to do is break down
barriers, particularly ideological
barriers that the establishment
has built. We have to break down,
for instance, the hold the
churches (both Protestant and
Catholic) have over the people's
mentality here. Now I am not
anti-church or anti-Christian or
anything like that. Y ;hat I am is
anti-sectarian.
If we build a state here, it
has to be a state that has com-
plete separation of church and
state. The churches' current
stranglehold over people's minds
is not only immoral, it prevents
us from obtaining the socialist
republic we are fighting for. Our
right to self-determination is
anti-thetical to the churches be-
cause the churches now support
and always have supported the
establishment.
In our education we have to
recognize that we have only two
years until the 1985 Ulster-wide
city council elections to build
support. All we need is another
nine percent of the vote to be
the recognized leaders of the
nationalist community. We don't
simply want the lion's share of
the vote. We want people to
know why they are voting for Sinn
Fein, A lot of people vote for
Sinn Fein for mixed reasons.
Some people vote for Sinn Fein
Countenepu 43
got the republican movement and
the people back together again.
The British were trying, very
successfully, to isolate us from
the people. Because of the
hunger strike the republican
movement was able to mobilize
the largest number of people
since the civil rights days from
1968 to 1972.
I think that the recent
series of elections sent shock
waves throughout the loyalist
community as well as to the big
powers like the United States.
You wouldn't believe the sig-
nificance of this just by reading
the papers. The fact that ordi-
nary people with the privacy of
a secret ballot would vote for the
party which the United States
government, the British govern-
ment, and the Irish establishment,
including the Catholic Church,
have spent enormous amounts of
money to get people to believe
was terrorist is significant.
People don't vote for terrorists,
right?
Terrorists are quite dif-
ferent from freedom fighters.
Terrorists use political violence
against civilian communities. I
don't think that's legitimate.
However, using legitimate fore;
is quite different from violence
i'ainst civilians. Our violence is
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
We realized the military struggle alone would be fruitless
unless a political struggle was going on.
Also we realized that a political struggle alone
would never have the force behind it
to get the British out.
just to get the Brits out.
Now the republican
movement is not so much just a
"Brits-out" party. We specifically
want a social revolution and we
want a socialist republic. We
want to create and define our
socialism for the Irish people and
we'll take bits and pieces of
whatever is the best in other
socialist systems to create it. We
need to make people demand that
kind of socialism.
Another obstacle we have to
counteract here is the media.
The state controls people's
learning processes by controlling
television and radio stations here.
BBC and RTE (Republic of Ireland
broadcastingr network) are con-
trolled by the state and the
newspapers are controlled by the
establishment. The fact that
television, is controlled by the
state is very important. It is a
powerful passive learning tool. It
keeps people off of the streets.
You don't breed revolutionaries in
front of a television set.
Another controlling force is
the way the housing estates are
designed. The British Army, for
example, has a veto over any
housing estate design. In all the
new estates you'll see there is
only one entrance and exit.
Yes, I've noticed the estates are
full of cul-de-sacs.
That's right. You'll note that in
the old Bogside (section of Derry)
the streets were crisscrossed and
there were wee alleys and there
were ways you could get away so
if the Brits came up one street
you could go through Mrs.
Doherty's back door and up
through the alleys and over
somebody's fence and you would
be away. But now it is quite a
simple matter for the Brits to
block off an estate. There is only
one entrance and one exit.
We have to get people to
open their eyes and look at the
44 -- Countenepy -- Dec.83 -
images around them. Look out
that window, what do you see?
You see the state coming in the
form of the RUC, you see people
hanging around the street corners
day after day with nothing to do
because they are unemployed.
You see a cemetery up the road
filled with young people. You see
dilapidated older houses. You see
all the things that control
people's lives. Our job is to get
people to stop passively accepting
these things; to open their eyes
and see what's around them and
to be able to analyze it all.
That's the sort of education we
have to do.
Between now and the 1985
elections we have to do more than
just 'get more votes, we have to
build a revolutionary force. We
must do this so we do not become
coopted. I am very concerned
that this revolution is not
coopted. In 1916, you had a
republic declared by a bunch of
high-minded people who were
immediately executed. Within
five years you had the republic
betrayed.
Despite the fact that Sinn
Fein won 80 percent of the vote
in 1918, you had a sell-out and
you had a sell-out for good
political reasons. People in Sinn
Fein were not so much repub-
licans but nationalists, people
confused in their political
thinking. We don't need that this
time. If you have people who are
confused politically that means
they can be bought off. We've
paid too much in people's lives
and in people's deaths to settle
for that. The struggle has cost
too much, so in the end of the
day it has to be worth the price
we've paid for it.
The Southern Strategy
Where does the South fit into your
strategy right now?
Feb. 84
The South is very important
because the majority of the Irish
live in the South. At the same
time, the South is light years
behind the North in both political
awareness and experience. They
haven't gone through the kind of
struggle we have. In the North
the average person you talk to is
aware that the media is trying to
control their minds.
People are aware of control
and repression. They are also
aware of international struggles
such as the struggles in South
Africa, Guatemala and El Sal-
vador. In the South, because
there hasn't been a broad-based
struggle, they're very content to
ignore the struggle here. They
are apathetic; some are hostile.
They just don't get the news and
they haven't had the experience.
The church also is much stronger
in the South.
The southern government
has been able to sell the people
on the hope that allowing foreign
investments to develop the
country will make Ireland into a
West Germany or a United States.
There are good historical reasons
why they should hope for some-
thing which will make their lives
more comfortable. But people
are confused. They have relatives
in America and they admire their
life-style, but what they don't see
is how American involvement in
other countries is destroying
America. They think of Vietnam
as an aberration as opposed to
what America usually does to
countries when all else fails.
People in the South have a
short-term view of their own
country. By and large, I think
they have a slave mentality.
Ireland has been occupied for over
800 years and that has had a
tremendous affect on people's
mentality.
The economic situation in
the South is pushing people to
consider the republican movement
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
now. Fifty percent of the Irish
population is under the age of 25.
There are lots and lots of young
people coming put of schools with
no jobs. They are not prepared
to accept it. What's happening
in the South is just like what's
been going on in the North, the
state is no longer able to provide
for the needs of the people.
Though we can organize the
South, we operate under a big
handicap. Under Section 31
(Republic of Ireland broadcast
statute), no republican can be
interviewed on radio or television.
Republicans can't even be quoted.
It's a major factor operating
against us because people just
don't get the chance to hear what
Gerry Adams and people like him
have to say. The newspapers and
media build the picture of what
republicans are and we get no
chance to respond. Unless you
have experience in the North or
have relatives up here you simply
don't have an alternative source
of information.
Is there a priority to organize in
the South now or are you still
emphasizing consolidating the
North?
We are trying to do both. We
spent half-a-million dollars fight-
ing two elections recently. Was
that a good thing to do, we have
to ask ourselves. Should we have
bought SAM missiles for the same
amount of money? Or is this a
diversion created by the British
government? If we are becoming
the authentic voice of the
nationalist community then that's
a very good thing, but if we are
simply playing electoral politics
so we can sit on this committee
or that committee, then that is
wrong.
We have a revolution on our
hands and if we are sucked- into
local politics in a repressive
state, our talents and energies
will be wasted. We don't want
to work to make the system work.
If the Housing Executive isn't
meeting the needs of the people
we don't want to push it to work
better.
U.S. "Mediation"?
George Bush was in Dublin on the
4th of July. Henry Kissinger was
in Dublin two days before that.
In the united states there is an
effort within the republican
support movement to lobby for a
special U.S. envoy to diplo-
matically arrange for a reunified
Ireland. Also, there is a bill in
Congress which would allow $50
million in aid to Ireland on the
condition that Britain withdraws
from the North. How do you feel
about U.S. government involve-
ment in the struggle in northern
Ireland?
It is not surprising that I feel
about American involvement the
same way the Vietnamese people
did. The U.S. government
wouldn't want to get involved
here with no strings attached. I
am deeply upset that George Bush
and Henry Kissinger were in
Ireland at all. They are arch
enemies of the Irish people. Now
when I say that I don't mean that
Irish people and American people
don't have a lot in common.
The loans and talk of
Marshall plan for Ireland, the fact
that Ted Kennedy and John Hume
(leader of the Socialist and
Democratic Labor Party) are
close, I view with extreme alarm.
The prospect of a special envoy
is extremely threatening to us.
We have struggled long and hard,
and we want to create our own
country. We have no obligations
to reproduce American institu-
tions of government here. Self-
determination is up to us and has
nothing to do with what the
American government wants for
Ireland.
Most American people
would probably accept our right
to self-determination. Most
Americans, however, have no idea
what we want. The struggle is
censored. I am very fearful that
Irish Americans who support us,
and good-hearted as they are,
might unwittingly become
involved in something which is
actually a front for U.S. covert
operations here.
For instance, they might
think that an Alliance Plan or a
Marshall Plan or sending AID
(U.S. Agency for International
Development) funds over here
would be a good thing - things
that were tried in Central
America and Vietnam before they
sent in military advisors. The
American government does not
want a free Ireland. It does not
want self-determination for the
Irish people. So many Irish
Americans would accept U.S.
government involvement in
Ireland as help, as assistance to
people here who are struggling.
That is simply not the case. It's
like sending in nurses with the
plague to a cancer ward.
The potential American
involvement here is very, very
dangerous. Politicians in America
who everywhere else in the world
have done nothing for struggling
people, politicians who are tied
in with the big monied interests
in America, politicians who are
tied in with the concept of
America as the superpower
dominating the rest of the
world - they want to help us?
We don't believe it. Irish
Americans who favor bank loans
and U.S. government intervention
are actually wheeling a Trojan
horse into Ireland.
Ireland into NATO?
Do you feel threatened by the
possibility of the South ending its
neutrality and joining NATO?
I don't feel threatened, I am
threatened. It's a threat to my
life and to the. '=life of the
community here. One thing most
Irish agree on is maintaining
neutrality. The American govern-
ment very much wants Ireland in
NATO. If that happens we will
never achieve our freedom.
We want a socialist republic
where people have control over
their own lives. NATO would not
only tie us in with the super-
powers but also with nuclear
weapons. We are fighting a war
here with armalite rifles, M16
machine guns and maybe a dream
of a SAM missile. NATO is
discussing placing nuclear wea-
pons here. In this very city they
have a NATO tracking station.
This means Derry is a nuclear
target. Everybody - North,
South, Catholic, Protestant - is
against nuclear weapons. As
republicans we are openly opposed
to NATO. Everything that NATO
is doing is alien to our philosophy.
Our fight against Britain is also
a fight against NATO involve-
ment.
- r r r r r r r r r r r r
Coun.te46py -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 45
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9 1
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Joan Coxsedge
U.S. Pulls Strings in
Australia
This interview with Joan
Coxsedge was conducted in
Washington, D.C. in August 1983.
Coxsedge is the founder of the
Committee for the Abolition of
Political Police and serves in the
Victorian Parliament as a member
of the Australian Labor Party.
With Ken Coldicutt and Gerry
Harant, she is author of Rooted
in Secrecy: the Clandestine Ele-
ment in Australian Politics
(published by CAPP, 8 Leicester
Street, North Balwyn, Victoria,
3104, Australia).
You have a new government, a
Labor Party government with Bob
Hawke as Prime Minister. What
does that ' mean for U.S.-
Australian relations?
For some reason, the United
States government has apparently
never had any reservation about
Bob Hawke, unlike their previous
totally unjustified fears of the
Whitlam Labor government of ten
years ago. Gough Whitlam was
the Prime Minister from 1972 to
1975, when he was ousted from
office with the assistance of the
CIA.
Long before Bob Hawke was
even a Parliamentarian, the CIA's
top secret National Intelligence
Daily, a small publication pre-
pared by the CIA for the U.S.
President and his closest advisors
to read each morning, stated on
March 10, 1976, that "Hawke is
the best qualified candidate to
succeed Whitlam," and "it would
appear to be in Hawke's interest
until establishing his own eligi-
bility either to retain Whitlam as
a virtual lameduck leader or have
him replaced by an obvious
interim figure." Statements of
support coming from such a
source at such an apparently
premature stage worry Australian
Labor Party members.
It is equally worrying that
Hawke enjoys the support of
organizations like Business Inter-
national and the American
Chamber of Commerce. Business
International's links with the CIA
were first exposed in the New
York Times in 1977. It is an
association of executives of
multinational corporations. In
Australia, it appears to be a
closed club, representing about 20
of the most powerful multina-
tionals operating here, such as
IBM, General Electric and the
Chase Manhattan Bank.
Recently a speech by Allan
Carroll, Business International's
Director of Client Services for
Australia and South East Asia was
leaked to the public. Carroll
made that speech in April 1981
to a handful of elite corporate
officials in Melbourne. In it he
predicted accurately that Hawke
would come to power, and how
he would do it, alluding to his,
Carroll's, own efforts to make
that happen.
Why is Australia important for
the Pentagon and for U.S.
business interests?
Firstly, we have very important
mineral-resources and roughly 20
percent of the world's uranium
reserves. And the U.S. needs
Australia as a stable land base in
the South Pacific. Our sub-
servient position in security mat-
ters is probably best illustrated
by the chain of U.S. bases and
military support facilities dotted
across the country, including the
highly sophisticated joint CIA/
National Security Agency elec-
tronic monitoring station near
Alice Springs; Nurrungar, which is
one' of the two ground stations
for the American satellite early
warning system; and North West
Cape, another vital link in U.S.
military strategy because its Very
Low Frequency system is the
largest and most powerful in its
global submarine communications
system.
,What role does Australia play in
U.S. war plans?
That's the irony. Australia would
become a prime target in a war
situation because of these vital
bases without most Australians
ever knowing why. Australia has
no say in U.S. war strategy.
The U.S. Takes Charge
How did the Australian gov-
ernment agree to the presence of
bases on their soil?
You have to go back to World
War II. When Japan entered the
war, Australia was threatened by
Japan militarily. As you know,
the United States was deeply
involved in that war and used
Australia as a base; after the war
was over it continued to do so.
Australian governments always
claim we cannot survive militarily
without a "big brother" of some
sort. What happened at the end
of the war was that we exchanged
our client status with Britain for
that of the United States.
Then came the cold war.
The CIA was founded in 1947, and
the U.S. and Britain demanded
that Australia should establish a
security agency. So the
Australian, Security Intelligence
Organization (ASIO) was set up in
1949. A British security chief
came to Australia to establish the
agency.
In the early 1950s we had
the establishment of the
Australian Secret Intelligence
Service (ASIS), an outfit that is
supposed to be concerned with
Australia's external security, like
the CIA in the United States. The
Australian Labor Party wasn't
told of the existence of ASIS until
it came to office in 1972. ASIS
played a role in aiding the CIA
in "destabilizing" the Sihanouk
government in Cambodia and the
government of Salvador Allende
in Chile.
46 -- Coun-tenapy -- Vee.83 - Feb.84
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
As well as all that, we have
treaties that lock us into U.S. war
games. Open treaties like
ANZUS, and other treaties with
secret details like the , Quadri-
partite Pact of 1947, involving
the interchange of military
hardware information between
the U.S., Britain, Canada and
Australia.
But more significantly, the
same countries are also signa-
tories to the highly secret and
vastly more important UKUSA
Treaty or SIGINT (Signals Intelli-
gence) Pact which links the
western world's intelligence
agencies under the umbrella of
the U.S. National Security
Agency. Australia is "respon-
sible" for South East Asia and
parts of the Indian Ocean.
The contents of secret
treaties are not known to
Australian governments. For
instance, the Defence Signals
Directorate (DSD), the agency the
U.S. relies on most, signed the
UKUSA Treaty on behalf of
Australia, without the govern-
ment even knowing about the
existence of the DSD, let alone
the existence of UKUSA.
Australia has just gone
along on the U.S. coattails. We
sent troops into Korea and
Vietnam. But the Vietnam war
was a painful learning experience
for many Australians. Opposition
to that war was very deep and
some of the largest demon-
strations ever seen in Australia
took place at that time.
I understand there was a break of
some kind between Australia and
the United States in the early
1970s.
There was a break because the
mildly reformist Labor govern-
ment of Gough Whitlam was
elected in 1972. It wasn't a
radical government by any means,
but the U.S. leadership regarded
it with deep-seated hostility.
Nixon was in the White House and
he had a personal hatred of
Whitlam, shared by Henry
Kissinger.
The first real indication
that Nixon was concerned about
the new Labor government was
his appointment of Marshall
Green as ambassador in March
1973. Green was quite blatant
about his role. A senior Labor
minister reported how, in the
Minister's own office, Green
threatened that if Labor handed
over control of U.S. multinational
subsidiaries to the Australian
people, "we would move in."
Green was the only professional
diplomat we have ever had as an
American ambassador. This is
true right up to the present time
where the current U.S.
ambassador is just another politi-
cal nonentity.
There was also a certain
ineptitude on the part of the
Labor government - remember,
they hadn't been in power for 23
years. The Labor Party's Minister
for Minerals and Energy wanted
to "buy back the farm," that is,
take back the control of our
minerals, which was a very
reasonable thing to do. To do
that, he was seeking loans outside
the traditional borrowing areas
such as Wall Street. He looked
in the Arab world.
That caused great ripples in
the U.S. business establishment.
But the minister had money
brokers who were highly sus-
picious characters, who were
unreliable and later proved to
have CIA connections, so that
showed ineptitude on his part.
But what he was trying to do was
right. He was attacked most
bitterly and lost his portfolio.
Whitlam should have stood up and
defended him, and explained to
the Australian people why he was
doing what he was doing.
The Constitutional Coup
Soon thereafter Whitlam too was
ousted?
Yes, he was ousted in what we
call the Constitutional Coup of
1975 when Governor General John
Kerr dismissed him. Kerr's ties
to American intelligence go back
to World War II when he worked
for a top secret Australian
military intelligence unit. Even
when he was Governor General,
his interest in intelligence
matters persisted. But in earlier
years he was a member of the
CIA-sponsored Australian Asso-
ciation of Cultural Freedom
(Australian offshoot of the world-
wide Congress for Cultural
Freedom). He also made the
inaugural presidency of Law Asia,
which is funded by the notorious
Asia Foundation. Kerr was on
the far right of Australian
politics - Whitlam's choice of
Kerr as Governor General has
never been properly explained. In
fact, when he was selected, some
Labor people correctly forecast
Kerr's role.
In the event, Kerr dismissed
Whitlam on November 11, 1975.
It was an unprecedented action.
The Governor General is the
representative of the Queen of
England, Australia being part of
the Commonwealth. Very few
knew he had the power to oust
the Prime Minister, and there was
absolute shock and disbelief
among the people. The army was
recalled to the barracks, the
police were put on alert, and
leave was cancelled, because the
powers-that-be expected a strong
reaction.
Bob Hawke, as the President
of the Australian Council of
Trade Unions, issued an appeal to
people to cool it. And people
did. Many have regretted it
profoundly since then.
Ceun-tenapy -- Dee.83- Feb.84 -- 47
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9 1
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
A senior Labor Minister reported how,
in the Minister's own office,
(U.S. Ambassador) Green threatened that if
Labor handed over control of U.S. multinational subsidiaries
to the Australian people, "we would move in."
Task Force 157
You say the CIA was involved in
that "constitutional coup"?
One has to go back a bit. The
Labor government was being
destabilized. I don't look for
conspiracies, because I have
always felt that if the capitalist
system was a conspiracy then it
would have to work a hell of a
lot better than it does. But it
would be stupid to deny that
conspiracies exist within the
system. And I would say that
this destabilization was a
conspiracy.
I believe the job of
destabilizing' the Whitlam gov-
ernment was given to Task Force
157. This was a mini-CIA set up
in the mid-1960s under the
umbrella of U.S. Naval Intelli-
gence, so that its real controller,
Henry Kissinger, could deny any
connections with the CIA.
But the CIA contact point
for Task Force 157 was Ted
Shackley, a very senior figure who
became the, chief of the CIA's
East Asia Division in 1975.
Shackley had formerly run CIA
sabotage operations against Cuba,
Vietnam and Chile. So he was
well qualified. But one of the
most important CIA fronts in
Australia at that time was
undoubtedly the Nugan Hand
Merchant Bank. Nugan Hand was
used as a conduit for funds to buy
politicians, trade union leaders
and journalists and to finance a
media campaign against the Labor
Party.
The U.S. government felt
threatened by this Labor
government - in fact, by 1975
there was talk that the U.S.
military establishment now
regarded Australia as "unstable"
and was contemplating moving
Pine Gap back to the island of
Guam at a cost of $1 billion.
First there was the loans
48 -- Coun.teaepy -- Dec.83 -
.affair, which was played up to
the hilt in the mass media,
without any evidence of actual
wrongdoing. Australia lost its
AAA credit rating among foreign
banks for reasons unknown to the
Australian government.
U.S. corporations, mainly
Westinghouse, were also des-
perately trying to get their hands
on our uranium. There was a very
interesting article in Nucleonics
Week by a Westinghouse lawyer
about five weeks before the coup.
It said that "if there was a change
of government within five weeks
time" then Westinghouse would
get full access to our uranium,
mining of which was barred under
Australian Labor Party policy. It
was a remarkable prediction.
There were a number of
other factors. Whitlam, an arro-
gant man, got very angry when
he found out certain things were
happening that he hadn't been
told about. Some of these
involved intelligence agencies.
Whitlam found out, for example,
that ASIS had agents operating in
Papua New Guinea, and he hadn't
been informed. Whitlam sacked
the head of ASIS which angered
ASIS a great deal, and they then
appealed to the CIA. Whitlam
also sacked the head of ASIO and
proceeded to ask questions about
Pine Gap, and the presence of
CIA officers in Australia.
At the same time, the
Senate, which was controlled by
the rightwing Liberal Party,
withheld funds from the govern-
ment. Whitlam was running out
of money to pay the bills. And
this was the pretext Kerr used to
dismiss him.
Bob Hawke and ASIO
How is Prime Minister Bob Hawke
going to deal with the question
of intelligence agencies - the
issue that brought about his
predecessor's downfall?
Feb. 84
Hawke's attitude to intelligence
agencies is obvious from the way
he has behaved in the present
Combe/Ivanov affair. In April
1983, ASIO, in line with the CIA's
worldwide campaign against the
Soviet Union, recommended the
expulsion of Soviet diplomat
Ivanov as a spy. At the same
time, ASIO implicated a senior
Labor Party figure and associate
of Bob Hawke, David Combe, and
in the process destroyed his
career.
Hawke not only accepted
ASIO's phoney arguments without
question but suggested that ASIO
should intensify its surveillance of
Combe and his contacts. Hawke
also set up a Royal Commission
into these events. He appointed
Justice Hope, who, in a previous
Royal Commission into Aus-
tralia's secret agencies, showed
his bias in favor of them. You
might find it hard to believe but
during the present inquiry, Harvey
Barnett, head of ASIO, actually
stated that he regarded any
Australian who criticized the
CIA's role in Australia as a
traitor.
God only knows how Justice
Hope will manage to turn Harvey
Barnett's ineptitudes to ASIO's
advantage, but we know he will
try, because last time around
when Hope found ASIO guilty of
crimes, he not only recommended
that the spooks should be for
given, but that their crimes
should be legalized.
This was done subsequently
in 1979 when the ASIO Act was
passed in Parliament. This means
ASIO can now quite legally walk
into your home or your office or
trade union and demand any
information they like. If you
resist in any way or publicize the
circumstances, you could be
slugged with a heavy fine and/or
a jail sentence. This also applies
to identifying or naming agents.
SEE COXSEDGE, pg. 55
- Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Feature
Reagan's Arms Control Sham
Preparing to Violate
the Treaties
Konrad Ege and Arjun Makhijani
In its quest for military superiority, the Reagan
administration is systematically sabotaging ex-
isting arms control treaties. To accomplish this
without giving the appearance of warmongering,
the administration has been waging a campaign
charging that it i~ the Soviet Union that is
violating arms control treaties. Furthermore, the
Reagan administration claims that new arms
control treaties are difficult to conclude because
the Soviet Union refuses to agree to adequate
verification provisions. Existing treaties,
President Reagan asserts, are not "sufficiently
verifiable.'
This campaign is aimed at weakening the
peace movement in the United States and abroad.
"Republicans have the opportunity to coopt this
nuclear freeze issue by making 'verifiable' the
key word in any arms proposal and being very
tough about that," one Republican Party
strategist noted.' He had an eye on opinion polls
which show that the overwhelming majority of
the people in the U.S. support a nuclear weapons
freeze - but the same polls indicate that most
people want a freeze only with "sufficient
verification." Newsweek found, for instance, that
68 percent of the population supports a freeze;
only 25 percent oppose it.2 However, two-thirds
of those questioned put "verification" higher than
achievement of a freeze on their list of concerns.
The Nuclear Test Ban Treaties
One treaty the Reagan administration claims the
Soviet Union has violated is the Threshold Test
Ban Treaty, signed in 1974, which prohibits
Konrad Ege is a freelance journalist and Co-Editor
of Counterspy. Arjun Makhijani is a consultant on
energy and economic development.
underground tests of atom bombs larger than 150
kilotons. (The Limited Test Ban Treaty forbidding
nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer
space and under water went into effect in 1963.)
The United States has not ratified the Threshold
"rest Ban Treaty, but both the U.S. and the Soviet
Union observe it.
President Reagan charged in May 1982 that
there is "reason to believe that there have been
numerous violations" of the Threshold Test Ban
Treaty, but a definite statement pointing the
finger at the Soviets is said to be difficult to
make because of "verification problems." And
until "verification measures...can be strength-
ened," Reagan has been saying, he will not resume
the U.S.-British-Soviet talks on a comprehensive
test ban.3 (These talks were suspended by Jimmy
Carter in 1980.)
The administration's claims of "numerous
violations" are contradicted by most scientists
dealing with verification questions. Lynn Sykes,
one of the foremost geologists in the United
States and an Air Force consultant, and Jack
Evernden of the U.S. Geological Survey, say: "We
have found not a single instance in which the
size of a Soviet test has exceeded the threshold."4
Sykes also notes that while complaining about
verification problems, Reagan has cut funds for
verification research.5
There are other indications of insincerity
in the administration's purported concern about
verification: In 1982, the U.S. cast the only vote
against a United Nations resolution calling for
an international seismic monitoring agency to
verify compliance with a comprehensive test ban
treaty.6 Reagan likewise refuses to ratify the
Threshold Test Ban Treaty, thus preventing
certain cooperative measures from going into
Countetepy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 49
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
effect. Manfred Eimer, head of the Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency's verification section -
known as -a "zealot" with a "passion to
expose... Soviet 'cheating"' - has conceded that
these cooperative measures which Reagan is
holding up would improve verification.?
Reagan is not submitting the Threshold Test
Ban Treaty to the Senate for a ratification vote;
neither will he resume negotiations for a
comprehensive test ban, because he plans to
continue testing nuclear weapons for the U.S.
military buildup. Such tests are particularly
necessary for the Reagan-Weinberger "star wars"
program. One recent test, for instance, was
carried out under the Nevada desert on September
21, 1983. In this operation, codenamed "Tomme-
Midnight Zephyr," space assets such as satellite
components were placed in a vacuum tube some
450 meters below the earth's surface in which a
20 kiloton nuclear bomb was exploded to test its
effect on the equipment.8
nuclear weapons program."11 This policy also
violates the Threshold Test Ban Treaty whose
Article 1 mandates that the signatories "shall
continue their negotiations with a view toward
achieving a solution to the problem of the
cessation of all underground nuclear weapons
tests."12
The SALT II Treaty
The second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty
(SALT II) which limits strategic weapons, was
signed by President Carter and Secretary General
Brezhnev on June 18, 1979. Carter submitted
the treaty to the Senate for a ratification vote
on`June 22, 1979, but ran into vigorous opposition
from Senators claiming the treaty was
insufficiently verifiable and would allow the
Soviet Union to gain superiority. SALT opponents
argued that the treaty would give the Soviet
Union such an advantage in land-based missiles
that it could launch a first strike against U.S.
land-based missiles (though the U.S. would have
Said Under Secretary of
the Air Force Edward
Aldridge: "We don't have
to stretch our imagination
very far to see that the nation
that controls space may
control the world."
some 5,000 other strategic warheads in
submarines left over for use in the unlikely event
of a completely successful strike). This supposed
danger was dubbed the "window of vulnerability,"
a term that became President Reagan's standard
explanation of his opposition to SALT II, and an
often-repeated rationale for his nuclear buildup.
Today, with Reagan's buildup well
underway, the "window of vulnerability" has all
but disappeared from the Reagan rhetoric.
Indeed, the presidentially-appointed Scowcroft
Commission charged with examining,, the U.S.
strategic nuclear weapons program implicitly
conceded that such a "window" did not exist. It
never had. The claim that SALT II gives the
Eugene Rostow, then-head of Reagan's
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, testified
that the "stone wall" blocking ratification of the
Threshold Test Ban Treaty was "the feeling in
many parts of the government that [because of]
the need- for new weapons...we are going to need
testing and perhaps even testing above the -150
kiloton limit for a long time to come."9
Similarly, some of the designers of the space war
weapons claim that "it will take more
underground nuclear testing than now permitted
by treaty to find out if these new ideas can be
turned into workable [space] weapons."10
In September 1983, Reagan himself finally
voiced the real reason that his administration has
not negotiated a comprehensive test ban. The
United States is "not pursuing negotiations with
the Soviet Union on a comprehensive test ban
(CTB) because it needs continued testing to solve
'important problems' associated with the U.S.
50 -- Countenapy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84
Soviet Union superiority is likewise contradicted
by the CIA's 1979 National Intelligence Estimate
1138-79. Under extended SALT limitations,
estimates the CIA, the Soviet Union will have
no more than 6,000 strategic warheads by 1989;
without limitations, the number could be as high
as 14,000.13 '
Once Reagan took office in January 1981,
he appointed the very people who had stridently
opposed SALT II in 1978 and 1979 to top positions
in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
and other agencies concerned with disarmament
matters. These officials include:
? Richard Perle, then a key aide to the
anti-SALT senator Henry Jackson, who was
"renowned for leaking material on arms control
issues, in particular to conservative columnists
Rowland Evans and Robert Novak,"14 is today
Under Secretary of Defense, and an influential
figure in the government's arms control policy-
making process. Evans and Novak are still
prominent among those journalists charging the
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Soviets with treaty violations; their access to
secret documents seems to continue.
any case "fatally flawed" and, in White House
contradictory to his position that SALT II is in
counsellor Ed Meese's words, not binding.
Still, even among those statements about
SALT II made by administration officials
themselves lie a number of contradictions.
Reagan at one point even promised to "refrain
from actions which undercut SALT as long as the
Soviets show equal restraint." As has become
rather common in this administration, an
anonymous "high administration official" quickly,
corrected the President: "I don't believe he would
hesitate if it became necessary to take actions
inconsistent with one or both SALT treaties."16
Under Secretary of Defense Perle explained that
there was only a "miniscule" difference between
Reagan's promise to "informally" observe the
treaty and having no treaty at all."17
The actions of the administration with
regard to SALT II have been less contradictory.
The administration is moving ahead with arms
programs as if there were no SALT II Treaty. It
is disregarding the treaty, for instance, by moving
ahead with development and production of two
new types of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
U.S. allegations that the Soviet Union is
violating SALT II concentrate on two claims.
First, the Soviets are said to be flight-testing
two new intercontinental missiles (ICBMs), the
SSX24 and the PL5, says Sen. MMcClure,18 while
only one new type is permitted. Second, McClure
says, they are encrypting the telemetry
(electronic data transmitted by a missile in flight)
of their ICBM tests to prevent U.S. intelligence
from learning about the new missiles.
McClure is correct that the testing of only
one new type of ICBM is allowed. However, he
fails to consider the "Common Understandings"
and "Agreed Statements" which define the term
"second new missile" such that the Soviet testing
does not violate SALT II.* Nor is the fact that
? Edward Rowny was on Carter's SALT
negotiating team to the very end, only to suddenly
resign, claiming he was convinced SALT would
give the Soviet Union superiority. Rowny
skillfully used his inside knowledge to testify
against SALT ratification. Today Rowny is
Reagan's negotiator in the so-called START talks
(Strategic Arms Reduction).
? Paul Nitze, who today is Reagan's
negotiator in the Intermediate Nuclear Force
reduction talks in Geneva, played a key role in
the anti-SALT campaign as an official of the
Committee on the Present Danger. This well-
financed group coordinated the anti-SALT effort
and gave Reagan regular briefings during his
electoral campaign.
? Eugene Rostow was Reagan's Director
of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
for two years. Rostow is a founder of the
Committee on the Present Danger.
? David Sullivan was fired from the CIA
in 1978 for leaking top secret documents to
Richard Perle1J in an effort to sabotage SALT.
Reagan appointed him to the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency in 1981, but was forced to
dismiss him, as other government officials refused
to work with a man who had leaked secret
documents. Today Sullivan is an aide to Idaho
Senator James McClure, who apparently has
unlimited access to secret government documents
which he uses to "prove" his litany of charges
that the Soviets are violating virtually all existing
treaties. McClure seems to be the admin-
istration's point man for the treaty violation
propaganda.
The SALT Violations Charges
McClure's all-out accusations against the Soviet
Union are useful for the administration, because
Reagan hesitates personally to accuse the Soviet
Union on SALT II. Such a stance would be
*The Soviet government has announced that it is testing
the SSX24 as the new type intercontinental ballistic
missile (ICBM) allowed under SALT II. A second ICB_Ni
being tested, the so-called PL5 does not, however, as
McClure claims, violate SALT. Article 4 of the treaty
mandates that from the beginning of a test program,
every missile tested must have the same number of
stages and the same propellant (liquid or solid) as the
first missile tested. It is only during later launches
that more stringent criteria apply. Specifically, only
during the last 12 launches of the first 25 tests, or
during the last 12 launches before the ICBM is deployed
(whichever comes first) must the length, launch weight,
throw weight and diameter of the missile not vary by
more than 10 percent; after that by not more than five
percent. The PL5 has been tested about five times, a
fact McClure does not dispute, and it does have the
same number of stages and the same kind of propellant
as the SSX24. Therefore, no matter what the other
characteristics of the PL5 are, it cannot begin to violate
the SALT II Treaty until it has been tested several
more times.
Counte-tepy -- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 51
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
the Soviet Union has encrypted portions of the
telemetry of their missile tests as much an "open-
and-shut" case as McClure would have people
believe. Article 15 of SALT II does not forbid
encryption as such; rather it disallows encrypting
telemetric data whenever this "impedes
verification of compliance with the provisions of
the Treaty."19 Soviet officials could arguably
say that the parts of the telemetry they are
encrypting have no bearing on verifying SALT U.
If this explanation is unacceptable to the U.S.
government, it should take the matter to the
Standing Consultative Commission.
This commission of U.S. and Soviet officials
meets twice a year and is charged with clearing
up questions of treaty noncompliance or
ambiguities. According to the former U.S.
representative to the Standing Consultative
Commission, Robert Buchheim, it has been able
to resolve all ambiguities in the past. Until
recently, Reagan has refused to use the SCC to
discuss SALT II matters since he does not consider
the treaty to be in force. By not using the
commission and instead feeding accusations
against the Soviet Union to the rightwing media,
the administration has entirely bypassed the most
effective instrument for monitoring treaty
compliance.
that are ostensibly for other purposes but could
be used to support an anti-ballistic missile
system.
The Reagan administration has claimed for
several months that the Soviet Union is
constructing a radar in Siberia which violates the
ABM Treaty. The administration apparently has
finally taken its complaint to the Standing
Consultative Commission.
President Reagan himself, while charging
Soviet violations, has formally and publicly
committed himself to a full-scale program of
developi a space-based anti-ballistic missile
system.27 According to Gerard Smith, one of
the U.S. negotiators of the first Strategic Arms
Limitation Treaty (SALT I), this Reagan policy
"is equivalent to termination of the ABM
Treaty "21
The administration even seems to have a
schedule for violating the ABM Treaty. The
Program Manager of the Pentagon's Ballistic
Missile Defense Program, in a Senate hearing,
refused to answer questions about U.S.
compliance with the ABM Treaty: "I would rather
not discuss that...until the closed session. That
gets into schedules...."22
A similar schedule exists for placing U.S.
weapons into space, a step that could violate the
Outer Space Treaty as well as the ABM Treaty.
The Pentagon will likely make a decision about
"
Under Secretary of Defense
Perle explained that there
was only a "miniscule" dif-
ference between Reagan's
promise to "informally'
observe the (SALT) treaty and
having no treaty at all.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
This treaty, signed and ratified in 1972, prohibits
the deployment of more than one, fixed land-
based, anti-ballistic missile system. It also
prohibits development and deployment of Anti-
Ballistic Missile (ABM) systems and components
which are sea-based, air-based, space-based or
mobile land-based, and the deployment of ABM-
related radars. In many cases, radars can be
used for several purposes, and both the United
States and the Soviet Union are installing radars
52 -- Countenepy -- Vec.83 - Feb.84
an
on-orbit demonstration" of a space-based
laser system for destroying satellites in 1987.23
An anti-satellite weapon fired from an F-15
fighter plane is being tested in 1983/84, and the
Air Force plans to flight-test the Talon Gold
laser system on a Space Shuttle mission in early
1984. Eventually, the Air Force wants to take
over all Space Shuttle operations. Air Force
General Robert Marsh in May 1982 informed the
House Armed Services Committee about the
administration's intentions: "We should move into
war-fighting capabilities - that is ground-to-
space war-fighting capabilities, space-to-space,
space-to ground."
Pushing for Superiority
Reagan adamantly refuses to negotiate treaty
limitations on space weapons. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency director Kenneth Adelman
believes the U.S. "should not rush" into
negotiations such as talks to ban anti-satellite
(ASAT) weapons "unless we are ready with
verification proposals that will enhance national
security."24 Citing verification problems, the
U.S. was also the only country to vote against a
United Nations draft resolution calling for the
prevention of an arms race in space,25 and
Reagan has dismissed Soviet offers to negotiate
an agreement that would prohibit "the placement
in space of weapons of any kind."26 As in other
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
arms control questions, the administration is using
"verification" to block negotiations - it demands
verification provisions before a treaty is
negotiated.
The administration is opposed to an
agreement limiting space weapons for a very
simple reason: the U.S. is intent on gaining
military superiority in space. Said Under
Secretary of the Air Force Edward Aldridge: "We
don't have to stretch our imagination very far
to see that the nation that controls space may
control the world."27 The Pentagon's "Air Force
2000" directive of June 1983 emphasizes the
importance of superiority in space weapons for
"terminating" a "conflict as soon as possible on
terms favorable to the U.S."28
Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger's
1985-89 Defense Guidance directs that the United
States "must insure" that arms control
agreements "do not foreclose opportunities to
develop military space capabilities." Richard
Cooper, the director of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency confirms that the U.S.
is "clearly ahead of the Soviets in overall space
technology."
The President has characterized his ABM
and anti-satellite weapons plans as "defensive."
In reality, they are key ingredients of a first
strike strategy and, as the Weinberger Defense
Guidance says, of a strategy to "prevail" in a
"prolonged nuclear war." An ABM system, no
matter how advanced, is highly unlikely to be
capable of stopping an all-out Soviet attack of
thousands of missiles. What it might be able to
do is to stop a small number of missiles - for
instance, the number which the Soviet Union
might have left over after a U.S. strike. (The
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
reportedly has produced a study titled "Outcome
of a Hypothetical U.S. First Strike, 1993.'t29
With its rapid production of first strike
weapons - missiles powerful and accurate enough
to destroy command centers and missile silos
(such as cruise missiles, Pershing IIs, the MX and
Trident Ils) - the U.S. is well underway to
achieving a theoretical capability to destroy the
1,400 Soviet ICBM silos and some 700 command
centers. Considering that U.S. war planners
prepare to use two warheads for each hard target,
the Pentagon needs 4,200 warheads.30 The
current buildup will produce some 5,000 such
warheads by the end of the decade - enough for
a first strike. That there can be no room for
arms control, either in the ongoing talks or in
other fields, is patently obvious. Reagan officials
are convinced that they have the capability to
"outbuild" the Soviet Union, i.e. the Soviets are
not able to keep pace with the U.S. buildup and
need arms control more than the United States
does.
This confidence is also the principal reason
that the administration regards negotiations
themselves as a concession to the Soviet Union
rather than an activity necessary for mutual
survival and security. Emphasis on "verification"
and charges that the Soviet Union is violating
existing treaties have only been used to sabotage
treaties and negotiations by playing on the fears
of people in the United States. Most likely, the
Pentagon itself would not be willing to accept
verification provisions such as the ones Reagan
wants to force on the Soviet Union. For instance,
the Pentagon would not agree to mandatory "on-
site" inspections to monitor compliance with the
Test Ban Treaty.31 According to one Senate
nuclear weapons specialist, the U.S. Joint Chiefs
of Staff turned "pasty white at the idea" of Red
Army observers at the U.S. test site in Nevada.32
Footnotes:
1) Newsweek, 4/26/82.
2) Ibid.
3) New York Times (NYT), 7/21/82.
4) John Wilke, "Seismic Verification," Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists 3/83, p. 5.
5) Ibid.
6) NYT, 7/26/82.
7) National Journal, 8/6/83.
8) New York News, 9/22/83; NYT, 9/22/83.
9) Washington Post (WP), 7/26/82.
10) WP, 4/16/83.
11) WP 9/8/83.
12) d t. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Arms
Control and Disarmament Agreements, Washington, D.C.,
1982, p.167.
13) [NP, 1/31/80.
14) Newsday (Long Island), 2/1/83.
15) NYT, 11/13/78; 1/4/81.
16) William Jackson, "Reagan's Unsavory SALT," Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists, 8-9/82.
17) NYT, 5/3/83.
18) See Malcolm Wallop, "Soviet Violations of Arms Control
Agreements: So What?," Strategic Review, Summer 1983.
19) Cf., supra, #12, p.266.
20) See NYT, 10/19/83.
21) WP, 4/3/83.
22) Chris Payne, "The ABM Treaty: Looking for Loopholes,"
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 8-9/83.
23) Department of Defense Appropriations for 1984, Hearings
before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. House of Representatives, part 8, p.445; USA Today,
7/19/83.
24) NYT, 5/24/83; Boston Globe, 5/19/83.
25) United Nations Press Release, 3P/PS/2376, 11/26/82.
26) Soviet Embassy Press Release, 4/28/82.
27) Edward Aldridge, "Defense in the Fourth Medium,"
Retired Officer, 6/83.
28) UPI dispatch, 1/6/83.
29) WP, 5/19/83.
30) See Jeffrey Richelson, "PD-59, NSDD-13 and the Reagan
Strategic Modernization Program," Journal of Strategic
Studies 6/83.
31) NYT, 4/5/83.
32) WP, 7/26/82.
Ccun-ten.spy'-- Dec.83 - Feb.84 -- 53
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Documents
U.S. Investment in
South Africa
Advocates o6 U.S. d-cveetitute 6nom South
A 6tiea ate o 6ten -toad that they make a
mountain out o6 a moQeh-t!Q. U.S. invest-
ment, thei,t opponents change, is insigni6i-
cant companed to the ove'atZ size o6 the
South A6niean economy and 6oneign invest-
ment in that countnu. The 6oUtowing Juey
1983 nepo"t tom the U.S. Consulate Genenat
in JohanneAbung, South A6nica shows that
U.S. investment is much Pangen than o66i-
ciaQ U.S. government statistics indicate.
This has, as the Consulate points out, 6a,%-
teaching consequences bon the U.S. divest-
ment movement.
SUBJ: US INVESTMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA: THE
HIDDEN PIECES USDOC 5577
1. SUMMARY: ACCORDING TO INFORMATION WE
HAVE RECENTLY OBTAINED, US FINANCIAL IN-
VOLVEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA IS MUCH GREATER
THAN WE PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED. THE TOTAL IS
PROBABLY IN EXCESS OF $14.6 BILLION. THIS
INCLUDES DIRECT INVESTMENT, BANK LENDING
AND PORTFOLIO INVESTMENT PARTICULARLY IN
GOLD MINING SHARES. THE MAGNITUDE.OF THIS
INVOLVEMENT PLACES THE CURRENT DISINVEST-
MENT DEBATE RAGING IN THE US IN NEW PER-
SPECTIVE. END SUMMARY.
2. OVER )THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS SEVERAL IN-
TERESTING4PIECES OF INFORMATION CONCERNING
US INVESTMENT HAVE COME TO OUR ATTENTION
WHICH PROVIDE A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE OF
TOTAL US FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT IN SOUTH AF-
RICA THAN HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY AVAILABLE TO
US. GENERALLY WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
US INVESTMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA AS $2.6 BIL-
LION. THIS FIGURE IS RECORDED BY THE US
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEIS BUREAU OF ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS AS US DIRECT INVESTMENT IN SOUTH
AFRICA AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1981. WE NOW UN-
DERSTAND PER REFTEL THAT THE FIGURE OF $2.6
BILLION REPRESENTS ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS
MADE DIRECTLY BY US FIRMS IN SOUTH AFRICAN
SUBSIDIARIES. HOWEVERI MANY US AFFILIATES
IN SOUTH AFRICA REPORT TO AND RECEIVE THEIR
FUNDING FROM SUBSIDIARIES OF US FIRMS BASED
54 -- Counten4py -- Dee.83 - Feb.84
IN EUROPE, PARTICULARLY THE UK. THESE LAT-
TER TRANSACTIONS STILL REPRESENT US INVEST-
MENT SINCE FUNDS ARE MADE AVAILABLE EITHER
DIRECTLY TO THE EUROPEAN FIRM BY THE US
PARENT FOR AN INVESTMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA OR
INDIRECTLY THROUGH THE RETENTION?OF EARN-
INGS BY THE SUBSIDIARY IN A DEFERRAL OF
DIVIDENDS BY THE US AFFILIATE. WE ARE
WILLING TO BELIEVE THAT THE REAL STATISTIC
FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT INVESTMENT BY US
FIRMS IN SOUTH AFRICA COULD BE DOUBLE THAT
RECORDED BY THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALY-
SIS, BUT ARE NOT CURRENTLY ABLE TO PROVIDE
A REALISTIC ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL.
3. THE SECOND PIECE OF INFORMATION ON US
FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA WHICH
HAS COME TO HAND IS THE "COUNTRY EXPOSURE
LENDING SURVEY" OF JUNE 1982 ISSUED BY THE
FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION
COUNCIL. ACCORDING TO THIS SURVEY, AS OF
JUNE 1982 SOUTH AFRICAN RESIDENTS OWED THE
167 LARGEST US BANKS $3,655 MILLION DOL-
LARS. US BANKS ALSO HAD CONTINGENT CLAIMS
ON SOUTH AFRICAN RESIDENTS FOR AN ADDITION-
AL $579.7 MILLION. THE STRUCTURE OF THESE
BORROWINGS IS INDICATIVE OF THE APPROACH OF
US BANKING INSTITUTIONS TO SOUTH AFRICA.
OVER 59 PERCENT OF THE LOANS WERE TO BANKS
WHILE ONLY 17 PERCENT WERE TO PUBLIC SECTOR
BORROWERS AND 24 PERCENT TO NON BANK PRI-
VATE SECTOR ENTITIES. THE TERM OF THE DEBT
IS VERY LIMITED. ALMOST 86 PERCENT OF THE
LOANS HAD A MATURITY DATE OF UNDER ONE
YEAR. ONLY 2 PERCENT OF THE LOANS HAD A MA-
TURITY EXCEEDING FIVE YEARS, AND THE RE-
MAINING 12 PERCENT HAD A TERM'BETWEEN ONE
AND FIVE YEARS. THE STRUCTURE AND TERM OF
THE LENDING INDICATES FAIRLY CLEARLY THAT
MOST OF THE FUNDS REPRESENT BRIDGING FI-
NANCING TO ASSIST SOUTH AFRICA WITH BALANCE
OF PAYMENTS PROBLEMS AND TO HELP LOCAL
BANKS WITH THE LIQUIDITY PROBLEMS EXPERI-
ENCED DURING 1982. WHILE WE DO NOT HAVE
COMPARABLE DATA FOR OTHER TIME PERIODS, WE
WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED TO FIND THAT THIS
SURVEY CAUGHT US LENDING AT A PEAK. WE EX-
PECT THAT IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER 6
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
MONTHS TO A YEAR LATER, FOLLOWING THE RE-
TURN OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN CURRENT ACCOUNT
BALANCE TO SURPLUS (several words illegi-
ble] LIQUIDITY. IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT 65
PERCENT OF THE LOANS TO SOUTH AFRICA WERE
MADE BY THE 9 LARGEST US BANKS, AND AN AD-
DITIONAL 18 PERCENT BY THE NEXT 15 LARGEST
BANKS. THIS DEMONSTRATES A NARROW BORROW-
ING BASE FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN ECONOMY IN
THE US.
4. A THIRD SOURCE OF INFORMATION RECENTLY
RECEIVED IS A REPORT BY THE RESEARCH DEPART-
MENT OF DAVID BORKUM HARE, A RESPECTED BRO-
iKERAGE HOUSE ON THE JOHANNESBURG STOCK EX-
iCHANGE, CONCERNING FOREIGN HOLDINGS IN
ISOUTH AFRICAN MINING COMPANIES AS OF DECEM-
BER 1982. THIS REPORT INDICATES THAT FOR-
EIGN SHAREHOLDERS OWNED SHARES VALUED AT
SLIGHTLY MORE THAN $14.1 BILLION ON THE JO-
HANNESBURG STOCK EXCHANGE IN GOLD MINES,
MINING HOUSES, PLATINUM MINES, DE BEERS AND
PALAMIN. THE REPORT ESTIMATES THAT THE US
!SHARE OF THIS HOLDING WAS 57 PERCENT, OR
$8.1 BILLION. THE FOREIGN SHAREHOLDING RE-
PRESENTS ALSMOST [sic] 38 PERCENT OF THE
TOTAL CAPITALIZATION OF THE PUBLICLY QUOTED
MINING SECTOR STOCKS, EXCLUDING COAL. THE
PERCENT OF THE CAPITALIZATION OF THE MINING
HOUSES (ALTHOUGH STEADILY INCREASING SINCE
1980). US INVESTORS ALSO OWN 25.3 PERCENT
OF THE PLATINUM MINES AND 11.0 PERCENT OF
1 DE BEERS.
15. THE DATES OF THE ABOVE DATA VARY FROM
I DECEMBER 1981 TO DECEMBER 1982, AND IT
I WOULD THEREFORE BE IMPRECISE TO DO A SIMPLE
I ADDITION TO PROVIDE A PICTURE OF THE TOTAL
FINANCIAL COMMITMENT OF US INTERESTS IN
SOUTH AFRICA. HOWEVER, USING THOSE ROUGH
FIGURES WE FIND A TOTAL US FINANCIAL INTER-
EST OF $14.2 BILLION IN.THE SOUTH AFRICAN
1ECONOMY. IF ALL OF THE DATA WERE AS OF DE-
CEMBER 1982, WE BELIEVE THE TOTAL WOULD BE
SLIGHTLY HIGHER. THS MOST RECENT SURVEY OF
SOUTH AFRICA'S FOREIGN LIABILITIES INDICATE
THAT ON DECEMBER 31, 1982, THE COUNTRY'S
TOTAL FOREIGN LIABILITIES WERE ONLY $33.9
BILLION. THIS SURVEY INCLUDES SHARE CAPI-
TAL AT BOOK VALUE, WHEREAS THE DAVID BORKUM
HARE REPORT USED SHARE HOLDINGS AT MARKET
PRICES WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERABLY ABOVE
BOOK VALUE. THIS ADMITTEDLY EXTREME IMPER-
FECT COMPARISON, LEADS US TO THE CONCLUIION
[sic] THAT US INVESTMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA IS
SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER THAN THE $2.6 BILLION
US OWNERSHIP WAS OVER 25 PERCENT. THE SUR- I WE HAVE ALWAYS BANDIED ABOUT AND PROBABLY
VEY ARRIVED AT THESE ESTIMATES BY EXAMINING MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN THE 20 PERCENT
THE SHARE REGISTERS OF THE MAJOR MINING OF TOTAL FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA
COMPANIES IN SOUTH AFRICA. IT ATTRIBUTES THAT WE GENERALLY QUOTE. IT MAY ALSO BE
SHARES HELD BY NOMINEES FOR AMERICAN DEPOS- MORE THAN 1 PERCENT OF TOTAL US INVESTMENT
ITARY RECEIPTS AND ASA LIMITED AS US HOLD- ABROAD. ALL OF THIS SUGGESTS THAT THE PO-
INGS, AND THOSE TRADED ON THE LONDON STOCK TENTIAL FOR US DISINVESTMENT COULD BE MORE
EXCHANGE OR HELD BY SEVERAL EUROPEAN NOMI- IMPORTANT TO THE SOUTH AFRICAN ECONOMY THAN
NEES AS EUROPEAN HOLDINGS. THE PERCENTAGE WE HAD PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED. HOWEVER, DISIN-
OF FOREIGN HOLDINGS IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN VESTMENT PROPONENTS WHO TARGET US COMPANIES
COMPANIES HAS BEEN RELATIVELY STABLE OVER DOING BUSINESS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND BANKS
THE LAST FIVE YEARS VARYING BETWEEN A LOW LENDING TO SOUTH AFRICA ARE AIMING ONLY AT
OF 37.7 PERCENT AND A HIGH OF 42 PERCENT. THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG, SINCE PORTFOLIO IN-
US OWNERSHIP HAS HOWEVER BEEN DIMINISHING VESTMENT IS APPARENTLY LARGER THAN DIRECT
SLOWLY SINCE 1979, FROM A PEAK OF [illegi- INVESTMENT AND BANK LENDING COMBINED.
ble] TO THE CURRENT 25.5 PERCENT. MOST US DARIS
INVESTMENT IS DIRECTLY IN GOLD MINING COM-
PANIES. US INVESTMENT REPRESENTS ONLY 7.7
-rrrr
COXSEDGE CONT. from pg . 4 8
U.S. Bases: There to Stay?
What is Prime Minister Hawke
going to do about the U.S. bases?
Our Defence Minister recently
played down the importance of
U.S. bases in Australia and I
believe that would probably
accurately reflect the govern-
ment view. B-52s, possibly
nuclear armed (we're not even
allowed to know) continue to fly
over our soil and nuclear-armed
U.S. ships continue to call at
Australian ports, despite growing
opposition both inside and outside
the Labor Party. More people
are waking up to the fact that
America will only "come to the
aid" of a country if it suits
progressive world where people
can live in harmony and have
children without fear. That
means we have to kick out all
foreign bases, that we have to
stop the mining of our uranium
because it is the raw material
used in nuclear weapons, and that
we must run our own economy.
In short, we have to control
our own destiny to allow us to
bring about necessary change,
because I want my children to
live in a country without secret
political police, without power-
mad rulers and without the threat
of nuclear extinction.
rrrrr-r=r=r-r-r-r-rrrr.
America. So there we are, a
floating nightmare in the Pacific,
getting nothing and increasingly
jeopardizing our sovereignty.
Today, God knows, we are
at the crossroads. I don't think
anybody, even a fool could deny
that. Unless we make profound
changes in the world very soon,
we will simply not survive into
the 1990s. It's not a matter of
"if," but rather "when," there will
De a nuclear disaster.
I can talk in global terms,
but I can't influence anything
globall y. However, I may have
some influence in my own
country. Therefore, my concerns
have to be to make Australia fit
into what I hope will be a more
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Letters to the Editor
Counterspy welcomes letters to
the editor. They should be no
more than 250 words long. Coun-
terspy reserves the right to edit
'letters. Please write: Letters
to the Editor, Counterspy maga-
zine, P.O. Box 647, Ben Franklin
Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.
rations worldwide. In contrast,
Ege's articles make the question
about the nature of economic and
social development of Third
World governments and implicitly
of Soviet foreign1policy the fo-
ci of discussion. These are
large and worthy subjects. Un-
fortunately, Ege's treatment of
them is misleading in respect to
the basic and difficult ques-
tions in each of these areas.
For example, on development
questions Ege cites an anecdote,
based on third hand quotation,
in which a male peasant alleged-
ly remarks that he would rather
give medical treatment to his
cow than to his wife because if
the cow dies "I cannot afford to
buy a new one. If my wife dies,
I can get a new one."
Understanding the oppression
of women is a difficult matter,
particularly when women are sub-
jected to many kinds of exploi-
tation and oppression at once,
as is typical in the Third World
World. Many of these do not in-
volve the family and are direct-
ly the work of larger social
forces. In others, larger
forces express themselves
through the family, often rein-
forcing traditional male domina-
tion. Thus (leaving aside the
possibility of misquotation) the
peasant's statement starkly ex-
presses the control that men
have over the lives of women.
But by omitting the context of
the statement, Ege' s- anecdote
misses the essential in this
case and is not helpful to our
understanding.
The peasant's statement is
presented as if he really had a
choice and, hence, that the op-
pression of women in Afghanistan
consists primarily in the exer-
cise of such choices by their
husbands. The context of ex-
treme poverty in which the sur-
vival of an entire family de-
pends on the survival of a
single animal is entirely ig-
nored. We get no sense of the
anguish of the family. What
would you or I or Ege or anyone
else, including the wife, do in
such circumstances?
By ignoring the cruel dilem-
mas which people in poverty
face, Ege ignores the fundamen-
tal responsibility of the struc-
tures that generate poverty in
the world today - the capital-
ist powers and their multina-
tional corporations in collabo-
ration with local rulers. Once
these basic forces which deter-
mine the existence of men and
women in the Third World are ig-
nored, the very possibility of
understanding tie oppression of
women as women is undermined. In
my experience (mainly in India)
the oppression of poor rural wo-
men is mainly perpetrated by lo-
cal rulers - moneylenders, land-
lords, etc. Rapists of poor wo-
men, for instance, care largely
from this class. The violence
against middle and upper class
women comes mainly fran men of
their own economic class. Even
this is often in the context of
U.S.-European cultural domina-
tion. For instance, some brides
are murdered by their husbands
and in-laws in urban North India
because the brides did not bring
a motorcycle or TV set as part
of their dowry.
As another example, Ege cites
the fact that some areas in Af-
ghanistan have never been ruled
"by any central government be-
cause tribal leaders there re-
sisted" as a bad thing together
with illiteracy and feudalism.
Yet he asserts that until 1978
Afghanistan had been ruled by
kings and other dictators. One
would have thought that under
such circumstances resistance to
central authority would not be
seen in a negative light!
Indeed, the articles betray a
considerable confusion as to the
nature of government in general,
and in particular about the
"small party" that took power in
April 1978. The People's Demo-
cratic Party was apparently can-
mitted to "land reform," "wo-
men's rights" and "literacy."
But it did not seem to have many
members who understood what
these things meant. We are told
that it resorted to force to
carry out these "reforms" during
the first one and a half years -
force against the people them-
selves.
I hail the extensive and compre-
hensive article on Afghanistan
in your September-November num-
ber. ?I points left me less
than fully satisfied: the fail-
ure to include your former as-
sertions that Amin was a . CIA
agent (on this I expected more
information than before). The
second: additional information
on the participants in the as-
sault on the presidential palace
during which Amin was captured.
In a previous issue Counterspy
wrote it was something that
might never be known, but some-
body there must know.
Dr. Sol Segal
Palo Alto, CA
KONRAD EGE RESPONDS: Counterspy
never stated that Amin was a CIA
agent; we reported that Afghan
government officials claim he
was. In spite of repeated
questions in numerous interviews
while in Kabul, no one provided
any corroborating evidence of
,this assertion. Unfortunately,
I was also unable to learn more
about the December 1979 assault
on the presidential palace. I am
sure "somebody" does know, but
that "somebody" isn't talking.
Until the series of articles en-
titled "Eyewitness Afghanistan"
by Konrad Ege in the last issue
of Counterspy (vol.8, no.1), the
magazine has focussed primarily
on the nature of U.S. foreign
policy. This perspective, al-
ways carefully documented, has
shown that the anti-Sovietism
of U.S. policy is, like CIA co-
vert actions, nuclear war
threats, etc., principally for
the prarotion of the profits and
control of multinational corpo-
56 -- Coun.tenbpy -- Dec.83 -
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
one cannot liberate people by
hitting them over their heads,
raping them and looting their
homes. Instead of enquiring in-
to the social and economic base
of the party and government that
could go on considering such ac-
tivities as "reforms" for so
long, the violence is simplisti-
cally explained away by attrib-
uting it to a bad, adventurist
faction (the Khalq faction) of
the party that came to be domi-
nated by the villian of the
piece, Hafizullah Amin.
This brings us to some of the
most serious lapses and contra-
dictions in the articles which
have to do with the presence of
Soviet troops in Afghanistan ab-
out which Ege asserts the fol-
lowing: "By 'the end of Amin's
rule, much of the country was in
open rebellion against him. 'The
people rose up,' is the way
even some party members tell the
story.... In early December
1979, Amin called on Soviet
troops to help; several thou-
sand arrived in mid-December.
But Amin's days were over. He
was overthrown by... his own
party... and Babrak Karmal and
the Parcham faction took control
of the government." This fac-
tion decided to carry on the
"revolution." For this, it "had
no choice but to call for addi-
tional Soviet troops... [since]
it needed [their) protection."
These are, in my opinion,
quite contradictory assertions.
Ege wants us to believe that the
Soviet troops went in to protect
Amin's "dictatorship" against the
people and also to help along a
people's revolution consisting
of land reforms, women's rights,
etc. Moreover, it would appear
that a hundred thousand Soviet
troops were simply available for
the asking, and that the deci-
sion to send them to Afghanistan
had primarily to do with the in-
ternal Afghani situation.
It had been a desire closest
to the heart of the leaders of
the Bolshevik revolution to be
of every assistance to the
people of the world struggling
to liberate themselves from co-
lonialisn and capitalism. It was
a desire that could not possibly
be brought to fruition in any
systematic way because the Sovi-
et Union was subject to the most
intense devastation from every
capitalist power at one time or
another during 1917-1945. Since
1945 the U.S. government has
confronted the Soviet Union with
the constant threat of complete
annihilation with nuclear weap-
ons. The situation of the Soviet
people and government might be
compared to that of a house con-
tinually under siege by maraud-
ers. Under these circumstances,
every major Soviet foreign poli-
cy decision and many danestic
ones as well must be made with
sheer physical survival in mind.
The necessities of survival
have created fundamentally con-
flicting pressures on Soviet
foreign policy. On the one hand
there has been the necessity of
avoiding war and keeping.mili-
tary tensions low with one or
more capitalist powers - e.g.
the Rapallo pact of 1922, the
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939,
the "peaceful co-existence" of
the 1950s and the "detente" of
the 1970s. On the other hand,
the necessity of allying with
anti-imperialist forces as a
long term solution to the prob-
lem of survival has also become
evident.
Nothing significant about So-
viet foreign policy can be un-
derstood without taking this ba-
sic tension into account. It is
a part of every judgement or
misjudgement. For instance, dur-
ing 1945-56 when the U.S. brand-
ished about its nuclear monoploy
the Soviet government was ex-
tremely cautious. It even ad-
vised the Communist Party of
China to allow Chiang-Kai Shek
to head a coalition government
during 1946-48 when the Party
and liberation Army were strong
and growing. The historian
William Appleman Williams has
noted that Soviet "restraint" in
foreign policy "was a central -
and very probably crucial --
factor in preventing nuclear war
between 1945 and 1955." The ten-
sions and misjudgements created
by the tremendous U.S. military
pressure were also a factor in
creating tensions between the
socialist countries -- which was
and remains a basic goal of U.S.
foreign policy. (See for in-
stance Henry Kissinger's book
Nuclear Weapons and U.S. Foreign
Policy done for Rockefeller's
Council on Foreign Relations in
1956-57.)
The Soviet decision to sup-
port the Afghani government with
a large number of troops came in
late 1979. Earlier that year
the rulers of the U.S. had de-
cided to replace "detente" with
a renewed quest for nuclear su-
periority. The prime reason for
the reassessment was the over-
throw of the Shah of Iran -
Coun.tenapy -- Dec. 83 - Feb. 84 -- 57
which James Schlesinger, former
head of the CIA, assessed at the
time as being the most severe
blow to capitalist interests
since the Bolshevik revolution.
By late 1979, NATO had decided
to deploy first strike Pershing
II and cruise missiles, the U.S.
government had practically aban-
doned the SALT II nuclear arms
control treaty and a de facto
U.S.-China military alliance was
partially in place. It was in
these desparate circumstances
that the Soviet government de-
cided to back with troops what
appeared to be an anti-imperial-
ist government despite the vio-
lence of that government to its
people.
That backing cannot, however,
change the nature of events in
Afghanistan prior to late Decem-
ber 1979. The People's Demo-
cratic Party was not only a
"small party" - many revolu-
tionary parties are small. It
had no base in the countryside
where 90 percent of the Afghani
people live and not much to
speak of among urban industrial
workers, since there isn't very
much industry in Afghanistan. The
events of April 197P can only be
described as a coup d'etat fol-
lowed by intense factionalism
and violence in the name of "re-
form" and "revolution."
It is possible that the Par-
cham faction of the People's De-
mocratic Party now in power will
bring about national reconcilia-
tion and some real reforms.
Coups can have progressive pos-
sibilities though there is no-
thing inherent in them or in the
Afghani situation that assures
it, so far as I can tell. Ege
has recounted some progress since
early 1980. But the credibility
of his claims of progress by the
Karmal government is not en-
hanced by his analysis.
The U.S. government is pour-
ing $3 billion into Zia ul-Haq's
dictatorship in Pakistan largely
to ensure that the war in Af-
ghanistan goes on. Ege's trip
to Afghanistan was a courageous
attempt to get a prespective
different firm the one in the
capitalist press. Sadly, his
report does not help us to fur-
ther our mutual goals of nation-
al reconciliation and peace in'
Afghanistan and the quickest
possible withdrawal of Soviet
troops from there.
Arjun Makhijani
Silver Spring, MD
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
KONRAD EGE RESPONDS: I cannot
help but see a situation in which
a cow is given preferential
treatment over a woman as a
gross example of women's oppres-
sion. My article places this
incident in the context of great
poverty. ? As the article states,
women have been doubly oppressed
- by poverty and feudal rule in
many areas, and because they are
women. Contrary to Makhijani, I
do not believe that multination-
al corporations have contrib-
uted in a significant way to op-
pression of women and to poverty
in Afghanistan; there are only
a handful in the entire country.
My article does not say that
one can "liberate people by hit-
ting them over their heads." The
Hafizullah Amin regime was over-
thrown because it "hit people
over their heads" under the re-
text of instituting reforms.
I don't believe that one can
explain the Soviet government's
decision to send troops into Af-
ghanistan simply as a conse-
quence of the breakdown of
"detente" between the U.S. and
the Soviet Union, and Ronald
Reagan's push for nuclear su-
periority. This does not do jus-
tice to the complexities of a
situation in which the options
of the parties involved were
very limited. The Soviet gov-
ernment had the choice of as-
sisting by sending troops to
back up the People's Democratic
Party government which, as
Makhijani concedes, might
"bring about national reconcil-
iation and some real reforms."
Or the Soviet Union could have
withdrawn its support, allowing
ultra-reactionary "rebel" forces
- backed by the CIA -- to come
to power. Those who criticize
the Soviet troop presence in Af-
ghanistan must face up to this
alternative.
into Russian airspace. But did
the U.S. apologize for the U2
spy plane in 1960 that was shot
down by the USSR, which the U.S.
government loudly and vehemently
claimed was a weather plane un-
til the surviving pilot told the
truth? Yuri Andropov should
have been prompt in offering re-
grets. Yet, it took 32 years for
America to admit to shielding a
major Nazi war criminal. The
mass media would have the world
believe that the United States is
the good peace-loving nation
while Russia is the bad Communist
nation. On the other hand, the
U.S. has a history of committing
atrocities all over the world:
overthrowing governments; CIA
coups; invading Latin America 12
times in the last century; fer-
vently trying to overthrow the
Nicaraguan government; destabi-
lizing African countries; sup-.
porting dictatorships in El Sal-
vador, the Philippines, and so
on. Nor will history forget
child labor, native Indians and
the African diaspora, slavery,
Hiroshima, Vietnam, systematic
racism against Blacks, destruc-
tion of the environment, and
the ever-increasing number of
starving, homeless citizens in
this, the richest country in
the world.
Few news items have received
as much coverage as KAL 007.
Certainly, the great tragedy of
the Israeli invasion of Lebanon
in 1982, or the heinous treat-
ment and murder of the Arabs and
the confiscation of their lands
did not. Not even the holocaust
at Shatila and Sabra in June of
1982, or the almost daily atroc-
ities of South Africa against
the Black Africans. The double
standard is crystal clear.
When Israel's fighter planes
shot down a Libyan commercial
airliner on February 21, 1973,
there was no hue and cry, or
hostile reaction against Israel,
although there were 113 civil-
ians aboard. 102 persons, in-
cluding 27 women and children in
addition to 8 crewmen were killed
almost instantly. The French pi-
lot had lost his way in a sand-
storm and accidentally flown over
occupied Egyptian territory in
the Sinai, 12 miles from the
Suez Canal. By the time the
plane was intercepted by Isra-
eli fighter planes, it had turn ed
around and started flying towards
Cairo, nine minutes away from the
area. However, it was wantonly
shot down anyway. Condemnation,
hysteria were lacking here by
both the officials and the mass
media. A classic example is seen
in the New York Times, Feb. 22,
1973: "Israelis Down a Libyan
Airliner in Sinai, Killing at
Least 74" -- saying that it ig-
nored warnings to land. "Jet
Crash Lands." What a contrast
to 007.
Again the mass media did not
hurl condemnation against Israel
when, on June 8, 1967, it at-
tacked its closest ally's un-
armed ship, the U.S.S. Liberty
killing 34 and wounding 75 U.S.
personnel. There were no in-
dignant officials or media; there
were no honored and publicized
burials. Israel said simply, "it
was a mistake." Of course, the
Liberty in international wa-
ters, clearly marked with U.S.
Navy letters and a 5 foot by 8
foot U.S. flag.
Despite the fact that these
events are unrelated, they serve
to show the double standard in
the media.
What then was the cause of
all this anti-C.armunist malevo-
lence? It served its purpose
well. Immediately after the So-
viets shot down the plane, 2,000
more Marines were sent to Leba-
non -- many more have gone
since; and people were distracted
from their plight here at home -
- unemployment, pay cuts, hunger
and a bad economy. It gave our
government an excuse to continue
to build up militarily in North
East Asia, near the Soviet
coast; gave Congress an ex-
cellent opportunity to escalate
the military budget to its high-
est level in history: $187.5
billion by a vote of 266 to 152.
The mass media can perform a
public service by presenting the
news fairly and objectively to
the American people. What would
be important is the search for
the facts surrounding the South
Korean airliner.
For the entire month of Septem-
ber and into October, the media
drum beat on the downing of the
South Korean 007 has gone on re-
lentlessly. No one can discount
the tragic loss of 269 innocent
lives. It is very sad for their
families. However, entirely too
much focus has been placed on
this disaster, as if this is the
only tragedy in the world today.
Reagan and other officials
demanded an immediate apology
from the Soviets for the down-
ing, despite all unanswered
questions about the 007 airliner
being 300 miles off course, deep
58 -- Countenapy -- Dec.83 -
Dora Henderson
Silver Spring, MD
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
r t.
Therrien unserer letzten AusBalwa:
Sudafrikas Krieg gegen den ANC ? Lesotho-Uberfall and ANC-Anschlag
aof Koeberg a Das Zerstorungswerk der Israelis in Libation 0
Nikaragua Von der stdlen zur offenen Intervention ? 1st Kubas
Wirischaft bankroll? ? US-Slrategie Dauerhelagerung des
Persischen Golfs ? Turkel Die neue Verfassung der Junta
? Indochina: Die Allianz China-USA a Nobelpreistrager
Gabriel Garcia Marquez* Sonderheft 3/82 zu El Salvador
Sonlerhefte 1983:
A
il 1983) ?
l
P
htik d
CDU/CSU
D
W
pr
er
nlte-
e
t-
o
(
Chemische US-Kriegsfuhrung in Vietnam and
die Folgen (Mai 1983) - = a~A
The
Incredible
Shrinking
American
I Dream
Special Offer
A complete volume of Counterspy
(four issues) for $5.00. (You
save $4.60.)
Choose from vol. 5, 6 or 7. (See
back cover for details).
Offer good until March 1, 1984
with a copy of this ad.
A hilarious cartoon history
of the good old U.S.A.
By Estelle Carol, Rhoda Grossman
and Bob Simpson
". . presented in a well-researched
narrative and with a good strong
dose of Mad magazine humor and
graphic style." -in These Times
.combines humorous cartoons
with witty 'with it' commentary
in contemporary slang with a class
conscious interpretation."
-Work and People
$6.95
Ask for it at your local
bookstore or order from:
Alyson Publications
PO Box 2783 Dept. B-1
Boston Massachusetts 02208
$7.50 postpaid
(reduced rates on multiple copies)
50C each for 1-4
5-25 copies; 30C
20C each for 100
The most Influential Third World
French-language magazine, circulating
In more than 70 countries
For fourteen years, AFRIQUE-ASIE has been In the
forefront among publications fighting for the political,
economic and cultural liberation of the countries of
Africa, the Middle-East, Asia and Latin America from
colonial, neocolonial and imperialist pressure and
domination. It has acquired a prestige recognized
by the major world publications and has a great
influence on the shaping of public opinion and policies
in the most sensitive areas of the world.
In 1975, after the liberation of Mozambique, President
SAMORA MACHEL said. " In our long struggle for
freedom, AFRIQUE-ASIE has been the light which
illuminated the long, dark tunnel which our lighters
had to cross..."
IF YOU WANT TO BE KEPT INFORMED ABOUT WHAT
IS REALLY HAPPENING IN THE THIRD WORLD.
IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL MEAN-
ING OF EVENTS OF THE THIRD WORLD.
IF YOU WANT TO GET FIRST HAND NEWS BEFORE
IT IS PUBLISHED ANYWHERE ELSE ask for a speci-
men of our magazine, or better, subscribe to our next
twenty-tour issues. Please fill and mail the following
order with your payment.
^ I enclose $ 2.50 for a specimen by airmail
^ I enclose $ 60 for a year's subscription by airmail
Name
Street
City
NOW AVAILABLE: Reprint from Counterspy
U.S. NUCLEAR THREATS:
A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY
Send your check or money order
to AFRIQUE-ASIE, 13, rue d'Uzbs,
75002 PARIS (France)
copies; 40C each for
each for 26-99 copies;
or more copies. Add
$1.00 postage for first 20 copies, and
SOC for each additional 100 copies. For
sample, send SASE (37( postage) to
Counters , P.O. Box 647, Ben Franklin
Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
 Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9
Please enter my subscription to Counterspy for one
year (five issues). Individuals: $10 - U.S.; $13
- Canada and Mexico; $20 - Central America and
Caribbean; $25 - all other countries (airmail).
Institutions and Libraries: $20 - U.S., Canada and
Mexico; $25 - all other countries. U.S. government
agencies: $75.
My address (please PRINT)
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
Please send the following back issues: (*Available
in xeroxed form only.)
Add $.60 for the first copy, and $.15 for each ad-
ditional copy for postage and handling. Add $1.75
for the first overseas airmail copy, and $1.10 for
each additional copy.
O vol.1 no.1 (FBI and paramilitary Right, Intelli-
gence Operations against progressive U.S. Orga-
nizations)* 24 pp., $2.50.
O vol.1 no.2 (CIA Phoenix Program)* 28pp., $3.00.
0 vol.1 no.3 (Covert Operations in Cambodia,
Gainesville Eight)* 28pp., $3.00.
O vol.1 no.4 (COINTELPRO, U.S.-Africa Policy, Sym-
bionese Liberation Army)* 32pp., $3.50.
0 vol.2 no.1 (Undercover Agents, Counterinsurgency
at Wounded Knee, AFL-CIA)* 52 pages, $5.50.
0 vol.2 no.2 (CIA and Wa en's Movement, CIA infra-
structure abroad, AIFLD)* 58pp., $6.00.
0 vol.2 no.3 (Data Banks, CIA Coup in Chile, CIA
and Labor in Africa)* 66pp., $6.50.
O vol.2 no.4 (SWAT, CIA Drug Trade, Spying on the
U.S. Left) 64pp., $2.00.
O vol.3 no.1 (Larry McDonald, COINTELPRO, CIA in
Portugal, South Africa) 66pp., $2.00.
0 vol.3 no.2 (DINA, Argentine and Uruguayan secret
Police, CIA in Jamaica, Thailand, Namibia, U.S.
War Crimes in Indochina) 74pp., $2.00.
0 vol.3 no.3 (CIA in the Middle East, Colonic Dig-
nidad, Mercenaries in Nicaragua) 64pp., $2.00.
O vol.3 no.4 (CIA in Iran and West Germany; the
Lebanese Right, '64 coup in Brazil) 48pn., $2.00.
O vol.4 no.1 (U.S. Role in Afghanistan, CIA food
Study, CIA and the Indonesian Coup, U.S. Intel-
ligence in Norway) 48pp., $2.00.
O vol.4 no.2 (CIA in Afghanistan, CIA and Labor in
Turkey, CIA domestic Operations, U.S.-Australian
Role in East Timor) 48pp., $2.00.
O vol.4 no.3 (Counterinsurgency in Thailand, U.S.
Bases in Turkey, MOSSAD, South Korea, Ghana, Co-
lombia; CIA in Sweden, Argentina) 48pp., $2.00.
O vol.4 no.4 (CIA Coup in Iran) 6pp., $.50.
0 vol.5 no.1 (USIA, CBS-CIA, Iraq-Iran War, AIFLD
in El Salvador, Guatemala, CIA and Afghan Heroin,
chemical Warfare in Afghanistan, New Hebrides,
Nugan Hand Bank, Colonia Dignidad) 56pp., $2.00.
O vol.5 no.2 (George Bush, AFL-CIO and Poland, U.S.
Bases in Oman and Bahrain, AIFLD in Colombia, CIA
in Africa, Liberia, U.S.-Australian Intelligence
Ties, World Bank and the Philippines, Soldier of
Fortune, Gen. Haig and the RCMP) 60pp., $2.00.
O vol.5 no.3 (El Salvador White Paper Fraud, U.S.
Bases in Saudi Arabia, Washington Post, World
Bank and Indonesia, ASIO-CIA, MOSSAD, Interven-
tion in Afghanistan, Turkey, new CIA and FBI Ex-
ecutive Order, Psy-War) 60pp., $2.00.
O vol.5 no.4 (U.S. Intervention in Honduras, NATO
Bases in Africa, first MNC Intelligence Conven-
tion, secret 1981 South Africa Documents, AAFLI
in South Korea, RCMP in British Columbia, El Sal-
vador White Paper Update, Radio Free Europe, FBI
in Puerto Rico, Afghanistan-Pakistan Update,
Council on Foreign Relations) 60pp., $2.00.
0 vol.6 no.1 (CIA in Libya, Mauritania, Mauritius;
AIFLD in El Salvador, biological Warfare against
Cuba; Savimbi, U.S. Marshall Plan for the Carib-
bean, World Bank and China, Philippines; RCAF,
U.S. Destabilization of Canada, British Intel-
ligence) 60pp., $2.00.
O vol.6 no.2 (Conference of American Armies, U.S.
Operations against Nicaragua, South African In-
telligence, Libyan Witch Hunt, Turkish Fascism
as NATO Democracy, Kurdistan, Yellow Rain, India
and the IMF, Greece, VOA) 60pp., $2.00.
0 vol.6 no.3 (Reprint of secret CIA Document on
MOSSAD, U.S. Green Berets in El Salvador, Counter-
revolution in Nicaragua, resuming the Vietnam War,
Seychelles, Noam Chomsky Interview on Intelligence
Identities Protection Act, British Intelligence
and Iran) 60pp., $2.00.
0 vol.6 no.4 (Documentary History of U.S. Nuclear
War Threats, Princeton University CBW and Nuclear
Weapons Research, CIA economic Subversion in Afri-
ca,'secret British Document on IRA, World Bank and
Tribal Peoples, Honduras) 60pp., $2.00.
0 vol.7 no.1 (Special Supplement on World Bank and
IMF, U.S. Army Manuals for Nuclear War, Mauritius,
Space Warfare, Chad, strategic Hamlets in the
Philippines, Malvinas Disinformation, Human Experi-
ments for Nuclear War Data) 60pp., $2.00.
0 vol.7 no.2 (Haiti and IMF, secret U.S. Embassy Re-
port on Marcos, CIA Lies about El Salvador, CIA and
West German Christian Democrats, Reagan's Pro-
tracted Nuclear war strategy, AirLand Battle, CIA
Documents on East Timor, U.S. War Plans against the
USSR, U.S. Clusterbomb Sale to Morocco, CIA and the
Courts, CIA in Australia) 60pp., $2.00.
O vol.7 no.3 (Foreign Intelligence Operations in
the U.S., IMF and Vietnam, Eddie Carthan, Green
Berets, Soviet "Slave Labor" Charges Examined,
Soviet "Active Measures"?, U.S. Military, Aid to
Guatemala, secret Documents on NATO nuclear War
Plans, special Supplement on northern Ireland)
60pp., $2.00.
O vol.7 no.4 (Special Supplement on Disinformation
in the Reagan Administration, Moonies in Honduras,
IMF in Chile, Project Democracy, Klaus Barbie, El
Salvador Interviews, Western Sahara) 60pp., $2.00.
O vol.8 no.1 (Secret IMF Documents on South Africa,
DIA Report on Nicaragua, Atomic Veterans, Naval
Buildup in the Pacific, Yellow Rain, British In-
telligence, U.S. Strategy for War in Europe, Eye-
witnessrReport on Afghanistan) 60pp., $2.00.
0 Complete set of Counterspy back issues ($69.00;
add $4.00 for postage in the U.S.; $5.00 for Cana-
da and Mexico; $32.00 for airmail Europe, North
Africa, South America; $41.00 for all other coun-
tries; $8.50 for overseas surface postage.
Please send me the following Counterspy Special Pa-
pers (add $.30 for postage for each copy)
O CIA Penetration of U.S. Police Departments ($2.00)
0 CIA Goes to Work ($2.50)
O CIA and Academia ($1.40)
0 CIA and Labor in Nicaragua ($1.50)
O July 1981 Speech by CIA Director Casey ($1.60)
0 U.S. Media and Afghanistan ($3.30)
0 I want to support Counterspy by promoting it in my
area, clipping newspapers, etc. Contact Counter-
for details.
Counterspy magazine
P.O. Box 647, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044 - U.S.A.
Approved For Release 2010/06/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100130004-9