TROUBLE IN INTENSIVE CARE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 11, 2012
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: August 1, 1989
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
'IiI.I.IGI'sNt;13
)IJARTERLY
A journal devoted to the review of books and events in the intelligence field.
I Volume 4, No. 3
TROUBLE IN INTENSIVE CARE
In an amazing bit of puffery the
Washington-based Jamestown Founda-
tion attached a long self-laudatory
description of its activities to something
called Form 990, a form filed by all in-
stitutions in the U.S. which have con-
vinced the tax people that they are
exempt from paying taxes. This attach-
ment to its 1984 return stated in part "It
has been said of the Foundation that
whereas the International Rescue Com-
mittee is the general hospital for im-
migrants, the Jamestown Foundation is
an intensive care unit...." Unfdrtunate-
ly, a good many people with knowledge
of Jamestown and its activities over the
five years of its existence do not agree
with this analogy. Perhaps even more
unfortunately, the U.S. editor has come
to the conclusion that to a major extent
these gainsayers may have reached the
correct conclusion.
IQ has written of Jamestown before,
and both the editors ofIQ are acquainted
with the institution and its two top
people: founder and president William
Geimer, a Chicago attorney who came
to the attention of the late William
Casey of the CIA, and vice president
Barbara Abbott, who appears to effec-
tively run the day-to-day operations of
the foundation while Geimer works the
fund raising, political, and cocktail cir-
cuits. In Washington, these circuits
tend to merge at various times of day and
at various expensive commercial estab-
lishments. The beneficiaries of this con-
fluence are lobbyists, wealthy widows,
and those in the Executive and Congres-
by Michael Speers
sional portions of the U.S. constitution-
al troika
The ultimate beneficiaries are those
seeking tax free funding and/or power.
What appears to have happened to
Jamestown is that its appetite for both
money and power has exceeded its
digestive capacities and thus is causing
the most alarming symptoms. James-
town, rather than offering "intensive
care" facilities, appears to be in urgent
need of such attention itself.
Jamestown is a creation of its founder
and president, William Geimer, a
Chicago attorney working in
Washington. Geiin r had made a name
for himself as an ardent and successful
Republican Party fundraiser and thus
had come to the attention of, among
others, the late DCI William Casey.
"It has been said of the Founda-
tion that whereas the Internation-
al Rescue Committee Is the general
hospital for immigrants, the
Jamestown Foundation Is an inten-
sive care unit..."
"
Even before its birth, Jamestown,
through the efforts of its father-to-be,
was doing good works. In 1978, The
Under Secretary of the UN, Arkady
Shevchenko defected. After many
months of debriefing, Shevchenko
began to experience the usual defector's
post partum trauma. In this case, that
meant a very expensive liaison with a
Washington call girl and a descent into
alcohol dependency. He also became
August 1989
embroiled in a series of legal difficul-
ties surrounding his attempt to get his
book published. Shevchenko, according
to sources, was handed by the CIA a
"short list" of attorneys who might help
him. On the top of this listwas Geimer's
name. Geimer, on a straight fee basis,
helped Shevchenko. His book was
published and became a best seller, he
overcame his problem with alcohol, and
he met and married an American
woman. Today, he is still happily mar-
ried and is a much sought after figure on
the lucrative speaker's circuit. He owes
his second life to Bill Geimer. This did
not go unnoticed.
Casey had correctly foreseen the need
for an institution not connected with the
government to take over and assist
defectors once they had finished with
their debriefing by the intelligence com-
munity. Casey went to some very
wealthy and patriotic friends. Chief
among them was the Gidwitz family of
Chicago whose business interests in-
cluded the Helene Curtis cosmetic em-
pire. The most crucial meeting
reportedly took place at Wrigley Field
in Chicago during a Chicago Cubs
professional baseball game. The prin-
cipals present were Geimer, Shev-
chernloo, and the Gidwitz family. The
Gidwitz contribution was in excess of
$ 100,000, and on December 2,1983, the
Jamestown Foundation was born. It
started operations in 1984.
The general public apparently has
some sort of an idea that defectors
[Continued on next page]
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
Intelligence Quarterly
[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1]
defect, get debriefed by the CIA, and
then live happily ever after. This has
rarely been the case and the fault is cer-
tainly not with the intelligence debrief-
ing process.
The angst suffered by defectors--or
most of them-is nowhere better
described than by former intelligence
professional and author John Barron in
his book MIG PILOT, which was
published in 1980 by The Reader's
Digest Press. The subject is Viktor
Belenko who flew his then top secret
Mig 25 fighter from the USSR to Japan
and asked for asylum in the U.S.
Belenko left behind a wife who was
leaving him and a young son whom he
knew he would never see again.
Belenko is now established as a consult-
ant and a highly respected citizen of the
U.S. He underwent an extensive intel-
ligence debriefing and was guided by a
CIA officer and that officer's wife.
Some quotations from Barron's book
are worth noting in this connection:
"The KGB habitually warns (poten-
tial defectors) 'The Americans will
squeeze you like a lemon, and once they
have squeezed you dry, they will throw
you into the garbage like a peel.'"
Barron goes on to note that "unless the
transition from dependence to inde-
pendence is accomplished adroitly,
the... (defector) may feel that he is being
thrown away." After reading Barron's
book, I believe he has captured the
whole agonizing process by which a
defector, and most particularly a Soviet
defects, achieves the final emotional
bridge by which he can walk from his
past to a state where he can live and
function in the West. The boot men-
tioned is still available and is highly
recommended. Less recommended are
those works purportedly written by well
known defectors. These tend to be over-
edited and often contrived to sell well.
Shevchenko's book Breaking With
Moscow is in that category. It would be
interesting and valuable if Belenko
wrote an autobiography.
What the media does not choose to
recognize is that neither the CIA nor the
FBI were established to serve as social
service agencies. No matter how well
they prepare their defector charges,
there will be that inevitable time when
they have to learn to walk on their own
in the West. It is to assist with that "tod-
dler stage" that Jamestown was created.
It is a good idea. Jamestown has indeed
helped many people. The question is
how well is Jamestown doing this job
and has it changed over its five year
lifespan?
Redefection of Yurchenko
The whole subject of intelligence
community handling was, of course,
raised in headlines when Vitaly Yur-
chenko redefected in 1986 to the accom-
paniment of the kind of media attention
usually accorded the resurrection of
Elvis Presley or the news that a volcano
in the West has blown its top. There is a
book on the Yurchenko incident due out
next year, and that good gentleman is
still available for interviews in Moscow.
The fallout from Yurchenko was as ex-
pected: the U.S. Senate Permanent Sub-
committee on Investigations held
hearings in October of 1987. Everyone
remotely concerned rushed to testify-
Bill Geimer of Jamestown was not ab-
sent. The result of these hearings was as
expected: everyone agreed we should
do a better job, the CIA pledged to im-
prove its defector handling, and almost
everyone else testifying on behalf of the
various charitable foundations con-
cerned made a pious pitch on behalf of
their own fiefdoms and subtly sought
some public funding for their good
works. Nothing else happened except
that the CIA did in fact move to
materially improve its team charged
with debriefing and babysitting defec-
tors. This has happened while the real
question of strengthening the bridge be-
tween the intelligence community and
life thereafter for the defector was not
addressed in any useful mariner.
Jamestown was chartered as a tax free,
charitable foundation. In its five years of
existence, the foundation has received
A- x 1989
in excess of $2,100,000 in contributions
and grants. Its list of sponsors is a
"Who's Who" of American industry and
power elite. Among those acknow-
ledged are Eastman Kodak, FMC Cor-
poration, Lockeed Missile Systems and
among the individuals are names such
as Donald Rumsfeld, President Ford's
former Secretary of Defense. It is not
fair to judgea foundation on its fast year
or two of existence. There is too much
groundwork to accomplish and usually
too little funding. I have chosen to look
at the years 1986, 1987, and 1988; my
information is based on audited finan-
cial reports by Peat Marwick.
During the last three years, Jamestown
took in $1,670,000 in contributions and
spent 65% of those funds on three
categories of expenses: staff salaries,
travel and entertainmenCand fundrais-
ing. Over that same period, 5% was
shown as being spent on "resettlement."
Less than 2% was spent on research-
some $28,000. The balance of the funds
went to rent, utilities, printing, etc.
There is a small item which appears
every year on these reports and this
category (otherwise unexplained) is
simply entitled "Late Payment Penal-
ties." These aggregate some $6,800 over
the period. In addition, there is another
item mentioned, a line item of ap-
proximately $23,000+ under "Notes
Payable." A footnote to the 1986 audit
report identifies this item as an "un-
secured promissory note to a friend of
the Foundation, bearing interest at 12%
compounded annually." This, too, is an
interesting item. I am in possession of
copies of three successive promissory
notes, all executed by Jamestown, and
all to the same person. The first note is
dated September 27. 1984 and is in the
face amount of $25,000. The second
note, presumably the one referred to in
the 1986 audit, is dated May 30, 1985,
is also in the amount of $25,000, and
carries an annual rate of 12%. The note
is shown as having a maturity of 150
days and further indicates that "said in-
terest is payable monthly." This does not
[Continued on next page]
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
lists111gsnes Qw urly Anym 1989
[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 21
exactly jibe with the auditor's report.
There is yet a third now from Jamestown
to the same party and this one is dated
July 26, 1988 in the face-amount of
$31,007 with a maturity date of July
1990. The increase from $25,000 to
$31,007 presumably represents unpaid
interest on the previous note. The
auditor's report is for the year ending
December 31, 1988 and is dated
February 1989, and thus should have
accurately reflected this note. Further,
Peat Marwick describes this latest note
as "An unsecured promissory note to a
friend of the Foundation, bearing inter-
est at 12% compounded annually, due
in monthly payments of $1,460. In fact
such payments did commence in August
of 1988 but ceased in May of 1989.
The beneficiary of this promissory
note is a sad and rather distraught Rus-
sian woman in her fifties, an emigre and
not a defector, and a widow of a U.S.
citizen who was killed several years ago
in an accident. She does not wish her
name to be divulged because she still
has relatives in Russia. She lives in
Washington in an expensive area and
she lives quite well despite her failed in-
vestment in Jamestown. She has been
described as a person who had always
been shielded by her late husband from
the realities of living in the West, and
has been distraught since his sudden
death. She wanted her money back and
perhaps did not fully understand what
she had signed. Jamestown officers
failed to set her mind at ease. She kept
showing up at the Foundation offices,
embarrassing people and demanding
her money. She sought the assistance of,
among others, a former charter member
of the Jamestown Board, but to no avail.
Subsequently, it was learned that she
even went to the Soviet Embassy to seek
help in getting her money. When the
money started to come in she was happy,
but now that payments have allegedly
upped. I am unaware of her state of
mind. If I were in her place, I would be
hiring an attorney.
I mention this incident because (1) I
have the supporting documentation, and
(2) it seems so totally needless. Why
would Jamestown borrow money from
someone like this? Why would it not
seek equivalent funds elsewhere if it be-
came difficult to pay off the original
note? Why is the note(s) of a different
value than that reported by the auditors?
Most curious of all, why would a foun-
dation with the likes of Donald
Rumsfeld, Senator Sam Nunn, Lt..
General James Williams (USA ReL),
and Zbigniew Brzezinski on its board
not take steps to defuse this unhappy
situation and get on with its work?
What's going on? Is the Foundation in
financial trouble? It is.
Current Financial Woes
Jamestown held its annual awards
banquet on May 2, 1989. Among those
shown as sponsors or honored guests
were Senators Malcolm Wallop and
Sam Nunn, various members of the
board, assorted defectors, and the high-
ly esteemed retiring Director of the
Arms Control Agency, Max Kampel-
man, who was being honored that night.
The keynote speaker was former Con-
gressman Richard Cheney. Cheney is
now Secretary of Defense and has
resigned from the Jamestown board.
The banquet was held at the Mayflower
Hotel in Washington. The invitation re-
quired one to pay $375 per person for
the reception (where you. could mingle
with defectors) and dinner. In 1988 a
similar dinner netted some $40,000.
This year it reportedly lost several
thousand dollars and the Foundation is
now in utremis. What happened? Why
is such an excellently conceived institu-
tion floundering? What happens next
and, in the meanwhile, what happens to
Jamestown's "clients"?
Another straw in the wind is a truly in-
credible letter received by a well known
investigative journalist who had been on
Jamestown's mailing list for some time.
The letter he received noted that he
hadn't contributed anything recently
and that unless Jamestown received a
check for at lean one hundred dollars,
be would no longer receive mailings.
Confbdng Goals
In a letter dated November 11, 1983,
that amounted to a proposal to the Gid-
witz family, William Geiser described
the Foundation as follows: "...The initial
activity of the Program will be research.
What can we learn about those who have
already emigrated to the West from the
East? What have been the disincentives
to their making a public contribution?
How can these disincentives be over-
come?..."
Now read what Geimer attached to the
Foundation's income tax return at the
end of 1984: "The primary, activity of
the Jamestown Foundation is assisting
recent immigrants to the United States
to adjust to life in the United States."
Now read one of Geime is typically
insulting letters to the only person on his
staff who actually was trying to estab-
lish a research capability at the Founda-
tion: "Research never has been, and
never will be, a high priority at James-
town. We are primarily an action or-
ganization whose main concern is
solving the problems of our clients..."
(this letter is dated February 13,1987).
Further in this same letter, Geime r
continues to insult a young man whom
he has already fired: "...having more or
less been forced to hire you, we hoped
for the best... Most of your energy was
expended on activity which was, at best,
irrelevant to our mission... I tried to ex-
plain to you that your"Defining
defector' (research) project was mean-
ingless sophistry-."
What Jamestown Says of Itself
Now read what Jamestown says of it-
self and its programs as currently
described in literature intended for
potential "friends," those who might
possibly contribute either their names or
their money or both:
[Continued on next page)
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
Intelligence Quarterly Auiurt 1989
[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 31
Publications: Jamestown currently
has 27 book projects underway.
Jamestown helps plan these writings,
provides editorial and translation ser-
vices, functions as a literary agent,
and circulates and promotes its
clients' works.
Communications: The vehicle to
achieve (this goal) is the Jamestown
Speakers' Bureau, which places
defectors before business and
academic audiences.
Public Policy: Jamestown officers
have been actively involved in advis-
ing Congress (and others) on...com-
prehensive guidelines for improving
goverftment handling of defectors.
At this point, I suspect the reader will
share with me a sense of confusion. Just
what IS Jamestown up to and how does
it believe it will reach its goals? The
various citations quoted above appear to
veer all over the lot. From resettlement
to research, to what appears to be an at-
tempt to create a U.S. version of the
Moscow Arbatov Institute of American
and Canadian Studies. The creation of
such an institute, staffed in part with
Jamestown's clients, would indeed be a
worthwhile project, but not one likely to
be achieved without government sup-
port and at least partial funding. Geimer,
in his testimony in front of the Senate
Subcommittee on Investigations in Oc-
tober 1987, did broach such a pos-
sibility.
There is no doubt that such a founda-
tion would be of great value to this
country-in the same manner that the
Arbatov Institute is of value to the
Soviet Union. The question is whether
Jamestown under its present manage-
ment would be the appropriate vehicle.
What is not generally known is the ex-
tent to which Bill Geirner has progres-
sively alienated some of his more
important clients and key members or
former members of his board. This story
is a rather shocking and sad commen-
tary.
Item: One of the early members of the
Advisory . Board was Vladimir Sak-
harov, the well known and highly
regarded KGB defector. Sakharov has
broken completely with Jamestown and
is no longer a member of the board. In
1986, Jamestown obtained a speaking
assignment in front ofa group of conser-
vative Republicans. Sakharov spoke, or
rather served on a panel, but came away
with a bad taste for the manner in which
the event was stage-managed. In fact, he
wrote a stinging article on the meeting
that appeared in the December 2, 1986
edition of the Chicago Tribune. Sak-
harov was and is dependent on the
speaker's circuit for his livelihood. He
never received the promised
honorarium and expenses of $1,000.
Before that article appeared he received
a letter from Geimer dated November S,
1986:
"I'm tempted to believe that some
idiot sent me a letter to which he signed
your name. But, sadly, I conclude that
the incredibly petty and childish mes-
sage really did come from your
typewriter... We will of course honor
your wishes and disassociate you from
Jamestown. We will also cease our ef-
forts to find a job for you. We will tell
Mark Wyatt (who also disassociated
himself from Jamestown-Ed.] that he
can continue to associate with you or
with Jamestown, but not both. We will
also inform our friends [read big bucks
backers-Ed.] who have been interested
in your future that, as far as you're con-
cerned, getting a thousand dollars is
more important than other values.'
The result was that Sakhatov flied a
lawsuit against Jamestown on October
22, 1987 for one thousand dollars. The
suit was listed as 1167888 at the South
Orange County Municipal Court in
Laguna Nguel, California I do not
know whether this suit was settled or is
still outstanding. Had I been Sakharov,
I might have been willing to forget the
whole thing until I received Geimer's
letter. Then I would have declared war.
What a pointless and gratuitously nasty
letter to an important and widely
publicized KGB defector! Why not pay
the thousand dollars and collect in turn
from the Republican group that had con-
tracted for Sakharov's services?
Item: The very considerable talent of
Geimer for alienating people has been
illustrated from quotations noted above.
However. Geimer reached his apogee in
an exchange with a well regarded BBC
TV producer and reporter, Torn Man-
gold. Mangold had requested
Jamestown's permission to do a
documentary on the resettlement
problems of defectors in the U.S. The
film was run in 1986 on BBC's program
Panorama It was never run in the U.S.
The film quite accurately portrayed the
problems of defector resettlement and,
by implication, the then-failure of the
CIA in regard to such problems. It was
most laudatory of Jamestown and
Geimer. One sequence showed Geimer
with a Soviet defector. They were visit-
ing the offices of a major New York
publishing house and talking with a
senior editor there about the possible
publication of the defector's book.
Among those who appeared in the film
were Geimer, LL General James Wil-
liams, and Mark Wyatt. While not
necessarily complimentary of the CIA,
it certainly was of Jamestown. Geimer
received copies of the video tape from
Mangold and was quite pleased. Things
changed drastically a few days later
when Geimer again showed his mastery
of the art of enemy-making in a letter to
Mangold: '...We had hoped that our
cooperation with the BBC would result
in a program which would show
prospective defects that they would be
adequately cared for... Instead our
cooperation [with the BBC] helped
produce a film that tells a prospective
defector that he might be better off stay-
ing where be is. It's a document which
readily lends itself to conversion to a
KGB training film. I'm thankful it's not
on MY conscience.
[Continued on out page]
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
ltuuslligerce Quarterly Antos 1989
[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 4]
"I'd like to believe that overriding su-
periors at the BBC are responsible for
the shape which the program took... I'd
hate to think that you two [Mangold and
his producer] deceived me. And I'd hate
to think the loss of future defectors was
on YOUR conscience."
Mangold replied in a gentlemanly and
placatory manner.
Geimer's next letter to Mangold was
dated April 29, 1986: "I have gone over
the film again and find that my earlier
listing of errors and distortions was a bit
off the mark. In addition to the 29 mis-
takes which I sent you previously, I have
found 29 mare... Now let me say a word
or two about Jamestown. The film says
that we created the foundation to help
resettle defectors. This is NOT why we
created the foundation... Contrary to
your assertion [in a previous letter-Ed.].
I do not persist in suggesting that the
CIA has perfected their resettlement
program... It's too soon to say. What I
do know, and I told you on the film, is
that the leadership of the Agency are
trying to make the program work bet-
ter... Do you know why we expected
[sic] such a film (one in which James-
town cooperated-Ed.)? Because we
trusted BBC to tell the truth... But evi-
dently you never understood what
Jamestown is, or you disagree with what
we are trying to accomplish. Or maybe
you merely find it strange that some
people care less about looking good on
television than they do about larger is-
sues..."
Why the Sudden Change?
If one disagrees with the media one
should certainly register a complaint.
But to disagree with a TV documentary
with which one has cooperated and
which has already been aired to a nation-
al audience is a rather self-defeating ex-
ercise and is unlikely to change history.
Why did Geimer change his mind about
this film so suddenly? Who was he
trying to impress by writing such petty
letters? And should a person so given to
such excesses of anger and vindictive-
ness be the future chairman of the
American version of the Arbatov In-
stitute?
The "defections" from Jamestown it-
self are legion. Both seniarretirees from
the CIA on the board have left, as has
Vladimir Sakharov. Another high rank-
ing client of the foundation who has also
disassociated himself from Jamestown
is Ambassador Zdzilaw Rurarz, the
former emissary from Poland to Japan
who left Tokyo in 1981 with his wife
and daughter and came to the United
States.
I invited Ambassador Rurarz to speak
at one of the New England AFIO meet-
ings we had in Vermont in 1986. He
was accompanied to the meeting by LL
General Williams, who was asked to
make a brief pitch to this group about
Jamestown. I had known of Geimer and
Jamestown some years before. In my
naivete, I offered to acquaint the mem-
bers of the New England Chapter of
AFIO with Jamestown's activities. I
asked Jamestown to provide me with
written material that might interest
potential donors among our group.
When no such material arrived and the
meeting was two weeks away, I called
again and reached Jamestown's execu-
tive vice president, Barbara Abbott.
"Why haven't we received any
brochures?" I asked.
Ms. Abbott responded by asking how
many of our chapter members might be
listed in Dunn and Bradstreet.
I replied that (1) I did not know, and
(2) It was neither my business nor hers.
I then appealed to Mark Wyatt [at that
time a member of the Board of Advisors
of Jamestown], and he saw to it that
something arrived in time for the meet-
ing. I dutifully mentioned Jamestown,
but I must admit my heart wasn't in it. I
had thought that an association of
former intelligence officers, most of
them on government pensions, might
appreciate hearing about Jamestown
and might contribute ten to twenty dd-
lars apiece to the cause. No one did. I
guess they simply sensed my lack of en-
thusiasm or were not listed in D&B.
Since I began working an this article
in April, there have been a number of
new developments, most of which tend
to reinforce the evidence that James-
town is indeed in trouble and in effect
has turned to the U.S. Congress for help
and sympathy while criticizing the CIA.
Geimer provided the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence with a report
the contents of which were promptly
leaked to the press. Geimer has now
declared open war on the CIA. In a let-
terto"OurFriends"dated July 24,1989,
Geimer begins, "Our long-smoldering
struggle with the CIA has flared into
public view. For six years we've muted
our disagreement with the way the
Agency treats defectors, and have
pushed for improvement quietly behind
the scenes." Indeed, the day after the
date of that letter, Geimer and senior
CIA officials testified in cldied hearings
in front of the House and Senate intel-
ligence committees. It is difficult to un-
derstand how Jamestown can continue
to function when it has entered into a
public adversarial role with the CIA.
However, when your institution is
financially troubled, it is probably only
natural to seek the financial safety of
Congressional assistance.
Previous to the above, Mr. David
Wise, a clever and facile investigative
journalist who long since found he could
make a handsome living by criticizing
the CIA, wrote an article which ap-
peared in the July 9 edition of The New
York Times.
The article dealt with the complaints
of one Viktor Gundarev, a colonel in the
KGB who defected from Athens in
1986. Gundarev, otherwise known as
the "crying KGB colonel," claimed that
the CIA had stolen ten thousand dollars
from him and bugged his telephone. He
threatened to go back home and repor-
tedly had begun the process of seeking
a meeting with Soviet diplomats to ex-
plore that possibility. Other than the
fact that Gundarev had won himself a
reputation as a "difficult" pensioner
who refused to take a job during his
[Continued on next page]
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5
.,?i?+ir?i w+ sc,wrwny Asr>tust 1989
[CONTINUED FROM PAGE S)
three year vacation, what is notable in
the Wise article is a "plug" for James-
town. One might wonder how Oundarev
knew exactly to whom to go for a sym-
pathetic hearing and how to reach him.
The whole episode reminds me that this
is contract time in the National Football
League with all sorts of prima donnas
declaring that they wanted to be traded
unless they were paid twice what they
earned the previous year. The Yur-
chenko affair has thus broken new
ground. It won't be long before some
clever lawyer sets up shop to represent
defectors of Gundarev's ilk as an agent
in negotiations with the CIA.
In the final analysis the real question
is how should the handling of defectors
to the U.S. be improved? The CIA has
indeed made improvements and repor-
tedly assigns high level people, includ-
ing psychologists and psychiatrists, to
manage the defector program . The fact
remains however that the CIA and, in
fact, the U.S. Government cannot use-
fully go beyond the initial step of reset-
tlement-the kind of hand holding
which, in some cases, Jamestown often
did do effectively.
Where Jamestown went wrong was
when it tried to go beyond the resettle-
ment stage to something else, it saw it-
self as the natural core of what was
envisioned as an Americn Arbatov In-
stitute. Furt her, Jamestown, as reported
in the press, has been arguing with Con-
gress that the government should extend
its largesse and include defectors who
essentially have no intelligence value
but do have significant artistic, educa-
tional or scientific value-doctors,
professors and the like. This makes
sense if there were an American Ar-
batov Institute, but there is not. If these
were, or if it were decided to establish
such an entity, Geimer would be the
wrong person to lead it as he lacks the
academic credentials and the academic
entre. His track record on research is, as
you will recall from the quotations
above, less than outstanding. The Ar-
batov Institute is all about research. Fur-
ther, Geimer has failed to place many of
his well deserving clients in academia
and has criticized the attitude of those
institutions he has approached.
The West truly does need an Arbatov
Institute-particularly given the radi-
cally changing situation in the Soviet
Union. However, the kernel of such an
institution is research, and Jamestown
threw away a very promising research
capability in 1986 and has never tried to
revive it. Geimer does not understand
that you do not place qualified defectors
at Yale or Princeton or Harvard by
breaking down the door to the university
president's office. The approach must
always be through the relevant depart-
ment heads--and one must offer some-
thing in return, which in this case is a
unique research capability backed up by
the very people whom Jamestcwn is
trying to help.
It is doubtful that Geimer's end run
around the CIA will succeed on Capitol
Hill. It is also doubtful that Jamestown
will prosper until some professional
management is brought in and until rela-
tions with the CIA are improved. One
suggestion made by people familiar
with the scene is the recruitment of a
former ambassador [there are quite a
few in Washington]. Such a person with
Eastern Bloc experience and academic
credentials would likely be the saving of
Jamestown-and might also be the per-
son who would know how to approach
academia, the government, and the in-
telligence community.
Meanwhile, the latest news reports tell
of a suggestion that the U.S. defector
resettlement program be handed over to
the U.S. Marshall's Office. Apparently,
this idea has not met with favor. One can
only hope that it will not be revived. The
problem is not with physical safety-
but with utilizing the enormous talent
which is flowing to the West Geimer
recognizes this-but he apparently
can't also recognize that it will take
more than a feel for political power and
fundraising to achieve that goal.
^ ^ ^
Soviet Defectors: The
British Record
by Nigel West
Soviet intelligence defectors to the
UK are a rare breed indeed. The statis-
tics make chilling reading, especially if
you take the view that a sign of a heal-
thy, penetration-free security service is
a steady flow of defectors. The fact is
that between the receipt of Grigori A.
Tokaev in the British Sector of Berlin in
1948 and the defection of Oleg A.
Lyalin at the end of August 1971, only
one Soviet intelligence officer opted to
switch sides. Furthermore, that single
individual, Yuri V. Krotkov, was sub-
sequently believed to have been a KGB
"plant" all along.
Tokaev was a GRU officer, and now
resides in England and r the name
Professor Grigori Tokaty. He is an
aeronautical engineer specializing in
rocket dynamics and made a major con-
tribution to the West's understanding of
Soviet missile technology when it was
still in its relative infancy. Lyalin, by
contrast, has been described as a low-
level KGB thug, attached to the Soviet
trade delegation in London, whose prin-
cipal task appears to have been the
preparation of sabotage contingency
plans in anticipation of a conflict. Al-
legedly his main targets were the Liver-
pool docks and the early warning radar
station at Fylingdales in Yorkshire.
Since Lyalin's defection, which was
motivated not so much by ideological
considerations, but an illicit affair with
his secretary, Britain has enjoyed a
marked improvement in its fortunes.
The four best-known recent defectors
include Vladimir B. Rezun, who
defected from Geneva in 1978; llya G.
Dzirkvelov, who followed two years
later, Vladimir A. Kuzichkin, who was
exfiltrated from Iran in 1982; and Oleg
A. Gordievsky, whose resourceful es-
cape from Moscow in 1985 ended a
spying career which had lasted twelve
years.
[Continued on next page]
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/11: CIA-RDP99-00418R000100050020-5