NEW AMERICA, MARCH/APRIL 1985, PAGE-16

# LaRouche and the National Security Council

## Testimony of a Former High-Level Reagan Aide

While the media focussed on the Sharon and Westmoreland libel trials in recent months, a colorful case in the Eastern District of Virginia received only marginal news coverage. There, a leader of America's neo-fascist fringe, Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, was suing NBC and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith for libel.

LaRouche lost the suit (which had been triggered by an NBC "First Camera" segment on LaRouche last year), and the jury awarded $3 million in damages to NBC on a counterclaim. But in the course of the trial, witnesses for both sides gave a fascinating picture of LaRouche's success in ingratiating himself with people in power or close to power in Washington. In his own testimony, the 62-year-old chairman of the National Caucus of Labor Committees used the witness stand as a bully pulpit to lash out at various distinguished Americans in rhetoric so wild that it caused NBC attorney Thomas Kavaler in his summation to brand LaRouche an "animal."

One of the first witnesses called by LaRouche—in an apparent attempt to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the jury—was Richard C. Morris, counselor to then Interior Secretary William Clark and previously special assistant to Clark when Clark was the President's National Security Adviser.

Below is the full testimony of Morris—supplemented by excerpts from LaRouche's own testimony which show the true nature of the LaRouchian "intelligence" input that Morris and others appear to value so highly.

RICHARD C. MORRIS, a witness, called for examination, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DENNIS (attorney for LaRouche):

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Morris. Will you kindly state your full name for the record.

A. Richard C. Morris.

Q. Mr. Morris, are you in the employ of the United States Government at this time?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Would you describe what your job is, please?

A. I am counselor to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

Q. Is that Judge Clark?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Could you tell us the circumstances of that meeting?

A. Persons who I believed to be agents of Mr. LaRouche contacted me to advise me that they thought they had information of national security concern that they wished to disclose, would I meet with Mr. LaRouche.

Q. Did you meet with Mr. LaRouche?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Can you tell us what was discussed at that meeting, generally?

A. Mr. LaRouche spoke to me—I am going to have difficulty being specific. I can't tell you specifically what was discussed at this meeting. I had perhaps four meetings with Mr. LaRouche during the time that I was at the National Security

Council. I will be unable to tell you specifically what we discussed at any one meeting.

But generally, we discussed matters of national security concern. He had an intelligence operation that gathered information that he thought was important to the national security, which he disclosed.

He had concerns about the international economic situation and he expressed those concerns. He had concerns about strategic defense matters all of the same nature.

Q. In each of those four meetings, during that period of some time, did you tell the national—withdrawn.

Did you or the government receive information from Mr. LaRouche and his

## Meet Chairman LaRouche

EXAMINATION BY NBC ATTORNEY THOMAS KAVALER:

### ON THE KIRKLAND PLOT

Q. Can you tell us who Lane Kirkland is, Mr. LaRouche?

A. Lane Kirkland is several things, not one.

Q. Is he the head of the AFL-CIO?

A. Among other things.

Q. Thank you, Mr. LaRouche. Anything else about Lane Kirkland?

A. Well, Lane Kirkland backs him [Mondale]. Lane Kirkland is running most of the vote fraud machine, vote-rigging machine, behind Mondale. So, therefore, Kirkland, who is well aware of this, was a collaborator of Kissinger, who was also a Soviet agent of influence, is consciously deploying the resources of the AFL-CIO to put into the presidency a person who he knows to be a Soviet agent of influence.

Q. Mondale?

A. Yes.

### ON THE N.B.C. CONSPIRACY

Q. You think N.B.C. works for Moscow?

A. Is N.B.C. an agent of Soviet influence on the question of Strategic Defense Initiative? Yes.

Q. What about on the question of Lyndon LaRouche?

A. Well, that's the same thing.

### ON JIMMY CARTER

A. There was a security stripping operation [against the 1980 LaRouche Presidential campaign] that went all the way up to the White House, security stripping.

Q. President Carter was involved in

named Paul Moore who is the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese in New York City.

A. To the best of my information, he hearsay, Mr. Paul Moore is the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese in New York City.

Q. Have you also said—have you said rather, that he is in effect the resident agent of British intelligence in New York City for the royal, for the British royal family?

A. That's right.

Q. You believe that?

A. I know that to be true.

### ON DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN

Q. Is Senator Moynihan a nazis?

A. Philosophically, yes.

### ON WALTER P.

*I had perhaps four*

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR.

A. Richard C. Morris.

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Is that Judge Clark?

A. Yes, it is.

> 'I had perhaps four meetings with Mr. LaRouche during the time that I was at the National Security Council... we discussed matters of national security concern.'

Q. Prior to that, did you have government employment?

A. Yes. I was executive assistant to Judge Clark when he was Assistant to the President for the National Security Council.

Q. What year was that?

A. Mostly during 1982 and 1983.

Q. During that period did there come a time when you met the plaintiff in this action, Mr. Lyndon H. LaRouche?

A. Yes. Sometime in 1982.

# Meet Chairman LaRouche

EXAMINATION BY NBC ATTORNEY

THOMAS KAVALER:

## ON THE KIRKLAND PLOT

A. ... Lane Kirkland is several things, not one.

A. Among other things.

Q. Mondale?

A. Yes.

## ON THE N.B.C. CONSPIRACY

## ON JIMMY CARTER

A. ... There was a security stripping operation [against the 1980 LaRouche Presidential campaign] that went all the way up to the White House, security stripping.

Q. President Carter was involved in that?

A. I don't know what President Carter was involved in. President Carter impresses me as a mean, slightly degenerate man whose wealth probably consisted, or spiritually at least, in two junked cars in his front yard. That's the kind of redneck degenerate a man who goes to an Allman Brothers rock concert, which is a drug nest, before going to teach his Sunday school sermons at a Southern Baptist school, that is Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter is your all-around basic, ignorant, boorish scoundrel. Jimmy Carter was not power. Jimmy Carter was a creation. Jimmy Carter was somebody who Mr. Nice, David Rockefeller, put up there in the White House and he liked the job, with that dumb wife of his and his daughter who was his national security advisor...

## ON THE EPISCOPALIANS

Q. My question is, is there a gentleman

A. To the best of my information, it hearsay, Mr. Paul Moore is the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese in New York City.

Q. Have you also said—have you said rather, that he is in effect the resident age of British intelligence in New York City for the royal, for the British royal family?

A. That's right.

Q. You believe that?

A. I know that to be true.

## ON DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHA

Q. Is Senator Moynihan a nazi?

A. Philosophically, yes.

## ON WALTER MONDALE'S STATE OF MIND

Q. Are you saying Mr. Mondale knowingly supporting the Soviet line?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you saying Mr. Mondale knowing his information comes from the K.G.B.

A. I would reasonably assume that. That would be a 'reasonable assumption.

## ON HENRY KISSINGER

Q. Do you think it's an honest attack on a fair comment to say that Henry Kissinger is not a Jew but a faggot?

A. That, in the context, that is a fair comment.

Q. You said that about Henry Kissinger didn't you?

A. That's right.

Q. Do you think Henry Kissinger is faggot?

A. Yes, I believe he has the personal of a faggot, yes.

# The National Security Council
## High-Level Reagan Aide

A. Yes, I did.

He had concerns about the international economic situation and he expressed those. He had concerns about strategic defenses, which he expressed. Perhaps some other matters all of the same nature.

Q. In each of those four meetings, during that period of some time, did you or the national—withdrawn.

Did you or the government receive information from Mr. LaRouche and his as-

sociates concerning the areas you just discussed?

A. Yes, we did. Constantly we received information in written form that came in to the National Security Council.

Q. Mr. Morris, have you—withdrawn.

How long altogether have you been with the United States Government?

A. I came to the United States Government on my present tour in March of 1981. I have been continually with the government since that time.

Q. You served as the executive assistant to Judge William Clark who was a member of the National Security Council?

A. Yes, he is a member of the National Security Council.

Q. Is he still?

A. No, he is not.

Q. During the period [that] you served with Judge Clark, did you ever hear from the government or any other source that in 1977 Mr. LaRouche allegedly plotted the assassination of President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paul Warnke, David Rockefeller, and Joseph Luns, the Secretary General of NATO?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Would there have been a need to know on the part of Judge Clark or yourself, or any other member of the National Security Council, of such a plot, particularly since the council as you described was receiving information from Mr. LaRouche.

A. The fact that Mr. LaRouche cleared security and was admitted to the executive—to the Executive Office Building by Secret Service personnel, they would have been the ones that would have been aware of such a threat and would have exercised their discretion in excluding or permitting Mr. LaRouche to enter that building.

Q. Do you know of any single case in your experience where an individual allegedly threatened to assassinate the President of the United States who has been cleared for access into the Executive Office Building?

A. I personally do not know of such a case.

Q. When was the last time you talked with Mr. LaRouche?

A. Perhaps four months ago, four or five months ago.

Q. Is the information that he and his informers give to you or to the government considered reliable?

A. I can't answer that without expanding your question a little bit. If you want to ask me what I did with the information—

Q. Would you tell us please, what you did?

Meet Chairman LaRouche

ON THE KIRKLAND PLOT

A. Among other things.

Q. Mondale?

A. Yes.

ON THE N.B.C. CONSPIRACY

ON JIMMY CARTER

named Paul Moore who is the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese in New York City?

A. To the best of my information, it is hearsay, Mr. Paul Moore is the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese in New York City.

Q. Have you also said—have you said, rather, that he is in effect the resident agent of British intelligence in New York City for the royal, for the British royal family?

A. That's right.

Q. You believe that?

A. I know that to be true.

ON DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN

A. Philosophically, yes.

# Meet Chairman LaRouche

## EXAMINATION BY NBC ATTORNEY THOMAS KAVALER:

### ON THE KIRKLAND PLOT

A. Among other things.

Q. Mondale?

A. Yes.

### ON THE N.B.C. CONSPIRACY

### ON JIMMY CARTER

### ON THE EPISCOPALIANS

A. That's right.

Q. You believe that?

A. I know that to be true.

A. Philosophically, yes.

### ON WALTER MONDALE'S STATE OF MIND

Q. Are you saying Mr. Mondale is knowingly supporting the Soviet line?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you saying Mr. Mondale knows his information comes from the K.G.B.?

### ON HENRY KISSINGER

Q. Do you think it's an honest attack and fair comment to say that Henry A. Kissinger is not a Jew but a faggot?

Q. You said that about Henry Kissinger, didn't you?

A. That's right.

Q. Do you think Henry Kissinger is a faggot?

A. Yes, I believe he has the personality of a faggot, yes.

A. No, he is not.

A. No, I did not.

A. The information I received, both orally and in written form, was generally distributed to persons within the National Security Council who had responsibility for those areas in which the communication concerned, there were persons who were, if you want to call them experts, on matters of our relations with the Soviet Union, for instance, that the communication concerned the relationship with the Soviet Union, why then it was referred to that person. That person would then make some determination of its usefulness and I suppose of its reliability. I did not make those determinations, I was not an expert in any field.

Q. In your meeting with Mr. LaRouche from time to time, did Mr. LaRouche arrange introductions for you with dignitaries from foreign countries?

A. On a couple of occasions, he or others who acted for him brought persons

(Continued on Page 15)

# Is Lyndon LaRouche using your name?

MAR 27 1985

## How the LaRouchians masquerade as journalists to gain information

by PATRICIA LYNCH

Last fall, presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., suffered a double defeat at the hands of a federal jury in Alexandria, Virginia. His $150 million libel suit against NBC — which had aired two reports that charged, among other things, that LaRouche was the leader of a violence-prone, anti-Semitic cult that smeared its opponents and sued its critics — was rejected. Perhaps more significant, the jury ordered LaRouche to pay $3 million to NBC on the network's counterclaim that LaRouche and his followers had played "dirty tricks" on the network and had interfered with its newsgathering activities by, for example, impersonating NBC reporters and producers. While this was by no means the first time that the LaRouchians, as his followers are commonly called, had been detected posing as reporters and members of TV camera crews, it was the first time that a jury had weighed the evidence regarding such activities and imposed punitive damages on LaRouche. (LaRouche has appealed the libel verdict in LaRouche v. NBC, and has moved to set aside the counterclaim.)

As I testified at the trial, my first encounter with LaRouchian dirty tricks occurred on January 30, 1984. As the producer of a report on LaRouche for NBC's now-defunct *First Camera* program, I was filming LaRouche's residence in Leesburg, Virginia. While correspondent Mark Nykanen was doing a "stand up," my associate producer, Kathleen Paterno, and I saw one of LaRouche's security guards reach through the window of our crew car, remove our work schedule from the dashboard, read it, return it, then stroll away. Later that afternoon, back in Washington, Paterno was telephoned by a man representing himself as an aide of New York Senator Daniel P. Moynihan,

whom we were scheduled to interview at 5:00 P.M. The caller said that the senator was having "second thoughts" about doing the interview because he and his family had been subjected to harassment by LaRouchians in the past. Half an hour later the "aide" called back, raising questions about how thorough our report would be. Had we talked to the FBI, the CIA, the IRS? Paterno and I assured him that we had. After this call, Paterno looked worried. The man we had just spoken to, she said, sounded very different from the one with whom she had set up the appointment. I called Senator Moynihan's office and, to my surprise, learned that the interview had been cancelled by someone purporting to be from NBC.

The interview was rescheduled for 5:30 P.M. When I and my associates arrived at Moynihan's office, the senator

showed me a press release that had just arrived from LaRouche's political organization, the National Democratic Policy Committee. It stated: "Fat [sic] Lynch to interview Moynihan today" — information that could only have been obtained from the work schedule reused by the security guard. (The videotape of this interview was admitted into evidence at the Virginia trial and portions of it were played for the jury.)

After the interview I called an NBC lawyer in New York. NBC Nightly News was airing a report that evening on LaRouche and the lawyers were facing problems of their own. They had received a hand-delivered letter from LaRouche's lawyer in Boston threatening legal action if the network aired its segment that night and went ahead with its plan to air the longer report I was preparing, which was scheduled to be

Leader LaRouche and guarded estate:
LaRouche, shown here speaking in a 1982
NBC interview, lives in Leesburg,
Virginia. Guards are reportedly armed;
security on the estate is strict.

James A. Parcell, The Washington Post

Patricia Lynch is a producer at NBC News.

COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW

shown on March 4. The letter contained
a good deal of information that reflected
knowledge of what Paterno and I had
told "Senator Moynihan's aide" earlier
that afternoon. (This letter was also in-
troduced as evidence at the trial.)

This use of a bogus phone call to elicit
information that the LaRouchians could
use for ends of their own reminded me
of what Sara Fritz had told me earlier
that week in a taped interview. Fritz,
who was then White House correspond-
ent for US News & World Report and
who now covers Congress for the Los
Angeles Times, had told me how in 1981
a LaRouchian woman had impersonated
her to obtain important interviews,
which then appeared under that woman's
by-line in various LaRouche publica-
tions. US News & World Report sued
and won an injunction against the of-
fending publications. I suggested to our
lawyers that, should LaRouche follow
through on his threat to sue NBC, the
network should countersue — which is
what happened.

(Asked for comment about the prac-
tices described in this article, LaRouche
replied through an aide that he would
speak only about the US News & World
Report case. What he said was: "I don't
know anything about it and I never
looked into it, but I do know that the
liberal press uses undercover press prac-
tices that are abhorrent and beneath de-
scription.")

From January 30 on, several people
who had served as sources for my *First
Camera* report began to receive strange
phone calls. One was Lynn Cutler, vice-
chair of the Democratic National Com-
mittee. Her caller identified himself as
"Scott Lewis," my researcher.
"Lewis" told her that I was concerned
that NBC was "slanting" my story by
suppressing information about the Rea-
gan administration's links to LaRouche.
Cutler believes that the imposter was
trying to get her to file a complaint
against the network for biased news re-
porting so as "to create problems for the
Republicans and the Democrats."

A few days later, Cutler received an-
other phone call, which she found
vaguely menacing since the caller
seemed to have inside information about
her daily schedule. "We know you are
going to be interviewed by Pat Lynch,"
the caller said, and then hung up.

(LaRouche and his followers have tar-
geted prominent Democrats for harass-
ment and vilification for several years,
although LaRouche himself is at least
nominally a Democrat. Portions of vi-
dotapes showing LaRouchian harass-
ment of Mondale, which I had obtained
for my broadcast, were played for the
federal jury.)

Another source of mine contacted by
the LaRouchians was Ken Paff, national
organizer for Teamsters for a Demo-
cratic Union, a reform group that has
often been smeared by LaRouche pub-
lications. Once again the caller claimed
to work for me. He said he needed to
know more about the tactics LaRouche
organizations used to discredit the TDU.
Paff says that he provided the caller with
some information but was suspicious. In
this case, apparently, the LaRouchians
were simply fishing for information
about the scope of my report.

A third source was Ken Lawrence, a
Mississippi-based authority on extremist
groups of the far right. Lawrence con-
fesses, ruefully, to having been com-
pletely "taken in" by a caller who
claimed to be "Rick Winslow, who
works for NBC and the program *First
Camera*." "Winslow" wanted infor-
mation about LaRouche's ties to various
right-wing groups in the South, as well
as information about anti-Klan activists.
Eager to be of help, Lawrence gave
"Winslow" the names of several
sources, some of them very sensitive, as
well as a good deal of background in-
formation.

Still another of my sources was Lenny
Zeskind, a Missouri-based expert on the
far right. Zeskind, who says he has been
pestered by LaRouchians for years, was
suspicious almost from the start when,
in February of last year, he received a
call from a man who claimed to be my
boss. This fictitious executive producer
confided to Zeskind that I had become
"a worry" as a result of the libel threat,
adding that my work was often marred
by inaccuracies. Zeskind played along
with the man, who went on to call my
journalistic ethics into question by ask-
ing Zeskind — a source, not a contracted
researcher — whether he had been paid
yet for his services. (NBC guidelines
prohibit paying sources for information.)
"Prepare a bill," the caller urged after
learning that Zeskind had not been paid.

(A few days later Zeskind informed me
of this curious conversation.)

The thoroughness with which the
LaRouchians pursued their tactics was
impressive. Gerry Gable, for example,
is chairman of the London-based com-
pany that publishes *Searchlight*, an in-
vestigative monthly that focuses on the
activities of extreme right-wing groups;
Shimon Samuels is the director of the
Anti-Defamation League's European
office in Paris. Gable says that, starting
in March 1984, he received a number of
calls from "Pat Lynch of NBC," asking
for the names of contacts who could help
her do a follow-up piece on LaRouche
and his anti-Semitism. One name Gable
provided was that of Shimon Samuels,
who subsequently received calls from
"Pat Lynch." (It was when this caller
asked Gable for contacts in the U.S. that
his suspicion was aroused. As he said in
a sworn affidavit: "I thought this was
rather strange as she is an American cor-
respondent for an American television
network who . . . presumably had more
than adequate sources of her own in
America.")

Many other journalists have
found themselves the vic-
tims of LaRouchian trick-
ery, the purpose of which in most
instances is to make people reveal in-
formation they would not normally di-
vulge or to gain access to people who
might not speak to a LaRouchian. Ac-
cording to several defectors from La-
Rouche organizations, much of the
gossip and information that is either pub-
lished or sold to foreign intelligence
agencies or passed on to high-level U.S.
bureaucrats and intelligence officials for
political reasons is gained by interviews
in which the caller poses as a journalist.
The results are sometimes striking. Dr.
Norman Bailey, who until December
1983 was a special assistant to the pres-
ident and the National Security Coun-
cil's senior director of international
economic affairs, has called the La-
Rouche operation "one of the best pri-
vate intelligence services in the world."
(Asked on my *First Camera* program if
LaRouche had any influence on Presi-
dent Reagan or on his policymakers,
Bailey replied: "Well, I think that some
people other than myself used him be-
fore and continue to use his organization

CONTINUED ON PAGE 45

MARCH/APRIL 1985

43

## Far left, far right — far out

Over the years, Lyndon LaRouche, who is sixty-two, would appear to have moved from the political left to the political right. Conservative publisher John Rees is one observer who thinks LaRouche has merely disguised his political beliefs to gain adherents and power. In a videotaped interview that was shown at the trial, Rees called LaRouche "a roast-beef Nazi: brown on the outside, red on the inside."

LaRouche certainly started out on the left. In 1948, he joined the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party and adopted the name of Lyn Marcus, said by some to be a play on the names of Lenin and Marx. In the mid-1960s, he formed a group of his own, the New York Labor Committee, which became a faction of Students for a Democratic Society and played a part in the 1968 student uprising at Columbia University. Splitting off from the SDS, the group took a new

Presidential candidate LaRouche: He has run three times, on three different tickets.

Wide World

name — the National Caucus of Labor Committees — and preached the demise of capitalism. The name stuck; LaRouche's tactics changed.

In 1973, still claiming to be a leftist, LaRouche launched a campaign "to finish off the Communist Party." It was called Operation Mop-Up and it was violent. Squads of, NCLC members beat up Communist Party activists, many of whom required hospital treatment. By the mid-1970s LaRouche's move to the right was well under way. In 1976, when conservative Republicans were voicing their contempt for Nelson Rockefeller, LaRouche discovered that he had "allies in the capitalist classes." It was in this period that he and his followers reportedly established ties with such right-wing groups as the Ku Klux Klan and Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby. Some LaRouchians underwent paramilitary training. Anti-Semitic rhetoric began to appear in LaRouche's publications.

Nineteen seventy-six was the year LaRouche made his first bid for the presidency. He ran on the U.S. Labor Party ticket. Four years later he ran as a Democrat. In 1984, after losing out in the primaries as a Democrat, he ran as an independent — and became much more visible than in the past. Candidate LaRouche obtained a total of more than $1 million in Federal Election Commission matching funds for the 1980 and 1984 campaigns. (His 1984 vote total was 78,773). Defectors from LaRouche organizations and experts who monitor the organizations' activities estimate that LaRouche and the NCLC may have spent as much as $20 million during the campaign year of 1984. The candidate kicked off his TV campaign in January 1984 with a $210,000 Saturday-night political commercial; the party subsequently purchased several half-hours of prime-time television.

LaRouche presently has about 450 hard-core followers in this country and some 600 abroad. In the past four years, his political beliefs have won him many more, if less fanatically committed, followers. This new constituency, sources say, includes farmers, union members,

businessmen, clergy, legislators and government officials, and some law enforcement officers and intelligence buffs. While the National Democratic Policy Committee works to promote LaRouche's political ideas — these include a return to the gold standard, low interest rates, and rapid development of nuclear power and "Star Wars" technology — such groups as the Fusion Energy Foundation help to recruit new members attracted by its pro-nuclear stance and, in some cases, ignorant of other aspects of LaRouche's operation. Among the various groups here and abroad that draw new members are: the International Caucus of Labor Committees; the Schiller Institute, ostensibly set up to promote German-American unity; the Lafayette Foundation for the Arts and Sciences; and the Club of Life, an international political organization that started up as an anti-environmentalist and anti-population-control group.

Where does all the money come from? At trial, LaRouche claimed to know nothing about his organizations' financial activities. Some of the money comes from donations, some from the sale of intelligence reports to foreign countries. And some of the money comes from the sale of publications. Among them are *Executive Intelligence Review*, a weekly that costs $399 a year; *Investigative Leads*, a newsletter sent to police chiefs and members of law enforcement agencies; *New Solidarity*, the LaRouche newspaper, which comes out twice a week; and *The Campaigner*, a monthly theoretical journal. The Fusion Energy Foundation also publishes a glossy monthly, *Fusion*.

The NCLC also operates a book publishing company (the New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House), a commercial typesetting firm (World Composition Services), and a printing company (PMR). Another printing plant is being built, in Leesburg, Virginia.

Last fall, during the libel trial of *Lyndon LaRouche v. NBC*, LaRouche was asked about his financial empire. He replied, in part, "I have not made a purchase of anything greater than a five-dollar haircut in the last ten years," adding that he hadn't filed an income tax return for twelve years.

P.L.

44

COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW

as a source of information, yes.")

Among the journalists who report
having had unpleasant experiences with
the LaRouchians are:

☐ Free-lance journalist Dan E. Moldea. Moldea is the author of *The Hoffa Wars*, a critical look at the Teamsters Union, with which the LaRouche organization reportedly has close ties. In 1981, Moldea recalls, he was called by a "journalist" whom he was led to believe worked for *Time* magazine. On the basis of this belief, he provided the caller with quite specific information about "organized crime ties to members of the Reagan administration." Later, Moldea says, "that interview appeared word for word in a LaRouche publication."

☐ John Rees, an ultraconservative who publishes *Information Digest* (where the charge was first made that the nuclear-freeze movement was orchestrated by the KGB). Rees says that he provided the names of several law-enforcement contacts, as well as background information about terrorism, to callers he later concluded must have been LaRouchians. "They would call and say they represented the International Press Service at the National Press Building," Rees recalls. "It sounded so authentic. Anyone would be fooled." (Rees is one of scores of Americans who, according to the LaRouchians, have links to the KGB.)

☐ Arnaud deBorchgrave, a former senior editor and chief correspondent at *Newsweek*; the co-author of *The Spike*, among other books; and a partner, with Rees, in the publication of a confidential intelligence newsletter called *Early Warning*. For several years, deBorchgrave says, he has been the victim of bogus phone calls which he attributes to the LaRouchians. (LaRouche publications routinely call him "a KGB agent of influence.") Recently, deBorchgrave says, he received a call from a woman who claimed she worked for the Rand Corporation. "She was seeking information on the Bulgarian-KGB connection in the attempted assassination of the pope," he recalls. When he invited her to come to Washington and show her credentials, adding that he believed she was a LaRouchian, she hung up. Later, he says, several people representing themselves as Arnaud deBorchgrave used the name as an entrée "all over the

world." And, for years, he adds, someone has been running up large bills in his name in France — a piece of intelligence passed on to deBorchgrave by the French police.

☐ Ed Kayatt, publisher of a New York weekly called *Our Town*. "In 1979," Kayatt says, "I gave out background information on a hard-hitting series we did about LaRouche to a man who said he was counsel for *The New York Times*." When Kayatt tried to reach the lawyer at the *Times* he learned that, while the *Times* did employ a lawyer whose name was that used by the caller, the lawyer had not telephoned Kayatt. "I have no doubt it was a LaRouchie who tricked me," says Kayatt, who had been twice sued, unsuccessfully, by LaRouche and his followers for $85 million.

☐ Jerome Watson, White House correspondent for the Chicago *Sun-Times*. Watson succeeded in tracking down the caller who impersonated him. He says that Hal Levy, then press secretary for Senator Adlai Stevenson III, received a phone call from "Jerome Watson" around 1979. "Levy knew my voice so he called me right away," Watson recalls. "I called the number the imposter gave Levy and asked for myself. A man picked up and said, 'Hi, I'm Jerome Watson.' 'No, you're not,' I told him,

and he hung up." Watson traced the number to a LaRouche organization.

Sometimes the Larouchians' tactics can damage a journalist's career. Freelance journalist Charles Fager is a case in point. He became a target of the LaRouchians, he says, while he was preparing an article about LaRouche for Boston's *The Real Paper* in the early 1970s. Fager believes that a combination of physical and legal threats caused the paper to spike his article. Then, around 1980, by which time he was working for Congressman Paul McCloskey of California, he began receiving what turned out to be bogus phone calls. One caller identified himself as a researcher for a think tank that was seeking information about LaRouche; another identified himself as a reporter for Allied Features "with offices in the National Press Building." Fager says that soon after he had given these callers information both about LaRouche and about himself, a "dossier" labeling him a "KGB mole" started circulating around Capitol Hill. "It was embarrassing," says Fager. "I found myself on the defensive." An FBI investigation carried out at Fager and McCloskey's request cleared Fager, but, says Fager, who no longer works for government, the smear hurt because it made him "controversial."

Arnaud deBorchgrave, author

Mark Arax, formerly with the Baltimore
Sun, now with the Los Angeles Times

'Several
Journalists
report
having had
unpleasant
experiences
with the
LaRouchians'

John Rees, publisher
of Information Digest

Jerome Watson, Chicago Sun-Times

CUP-HENRY LITE

MARCH/APRIL 1985

45

Sometimes the tactics show a sophisticated sense of newsroom realities, seeking to discredit a reporter in the eyes of his editor and his sources as well. Consider the case of Mark Arax, which, like that of Charles Fager, was put before the federal jury. In 1982, Arax was doing the reporting for a series of articles critical of Lyndon LaRouche's campaign financing for the Baltimore Evening Sun. Arax, who is now with the Los Angeles Times, recalls: "My managing editor began to get telegrams and phone calls from my sources claiming that I had treated them poorly." Managing editor John M. Lemmon, who did not believe that a trusted reporter could have acted in the way described by the callers, discussed the problem with Arax. Subsequently, both reporter and editor started calling Arax's sources and discovered that, in some cases, people whose voices did not resemble Arax's had been calling his sources and speaking in an abusive manner while, in other cases, bogus sources had called Lemmon to complain of precisely such abusive behavior. "Fortunately," says Arax, "I had an editor who trusted me."

Occasionally, LaRouchian "actors" meet their victims face to face. In February 1984, Terry Dalton, state editor of the *Centre Daily Times* in State College, Pennsylvania, was visited by a LaRouche camera crew. Members of the crew implied that they worked for NBC and came into the Dalton house with cameras rolling. "I was subjected to a series of accusations and increasingly hostile questions from the man holding the microphone," Dalton recalls. (Dalton had written two stories about a local woman who had been persuaded to run for Congress as a LaRouche candidate but had withdrawn from the race.) Dalton says that the reporter, who identified himself as Stanley Ezrol, accused him of making "abusive" phone calls to the candidate, then interrogated him about why he had written "negative" stories about Lyndon LaRouche. Dalton says that the question he found most "chilling" came at the end of Ezrol's interview: "Have you ever feared for your personal safety?" Before the LaRouchians left, Dalton persuaded Ezrol to produce a business card. It bore the name of a LaRouche publication: *Executive Intelligence Review*.

One month after Dalton's encounter with the LaRouchian camera crew, Arch Puddington of the League for Industrial Democracy was ambushed by a three-person crew that arrived uninvited at his office in New York City. A woman asked why he was "undermining" LaRouche's presidential campaign. Members of the crew raised questions about his having written for *National Review*, a publication the LaRouchians attest. "They asked me whether I had participated in pot parties on [publisher] William Buckley's yacht," Puddington recalls. "Then they spent a lot of time impugning the reputation of free-lance writer Dennis King, saying he had 'low moral character' and was a member of the illegal drug lobby."

Dennis King, who has written extensively about LaRouche and his followers, has been harassed by them for six years and has been sued three times. King recalls two face-to-face encounters with LaRouchians. "A man who introduced himself as David Feingold from the AFL-CIO struck up a conversation with me on a shuttle flight down to Washington," says King, who edits *New America*, a bimonthly published by the Social Democrats, USA. After telling King that he was concerned about the LaRouche "menace," the man tried to draw him out. King later called AFL-CIO headquarters and learned that no such man worked for the organization. He was subsequently able to identify the man as a LaRouche follower named Herbert Quinde from photographs supplied by *The Hartford Courant*.

Quinde also tried to fool NBC correspondent Brian Ross and producer Bob Windrem. Using the alias Herb Kurtz — who described himself as a reporter for

the Newark, New Jersey, *Star-Ledger* — Quinde tried to find out if Ross and Windrem planned to investigate the LaRouche organization. Windrem later identified "Kurtz" as a LaRouchian — again from a newspaper photograph.

Another LaRouchian, who called himself Jean Claude Adam and sometimes identified himself as a French defense ministry official, succeeded in duping reporters from coast to coast for several years because he looked and sounded so convincing. Dennis King, who arranged to have a photographer snap Adam's picture, was able to identify him as Laurent Murawiec, a follower of LaRouche since the early 1970s. In an *Our Town* article published four years ago, King stated that at least two foreign policy experts of some distinction, accepting "Adam's" bona fides, had granted him interviews.

"These guys are great imposters," says John Greenfield, a Boise, Idaho, labor lawyer and former state chairman of the Democratic Party who was also duped by a LaRouchian. "They ought to be in show business." Greenfield's brush with the LaRouchians occurred in June 1984. One day, he recalls, he got a call from a man who identified himself as "an L.A. *Times* reporter." The caller asked him to describe his views on the party's arms control plank. The next day, says Greenfield, a LaRouchian was handing out leaflets at Boise State University that contained all the information he had given the "reporter."

Rick Shaughnessy, a reporter for the *Times-News* in Twin Falls, Idaho, tracked down the person who had distributed the leaflets. The man said his name was Don Pilson. Pilson admitted to having written the text of the leaflet but denied having impersonated a *Los Angeles Times* reporter. Asked why the LaRouchians used deception to obtain information, Pilson told Shaughnessy: "They probably would say 'Get lost' if we identified ourselves."

One former LaRouchian whom I interviewed last winter (and whose information was admitted into evidence) took a more sinister view of the practice. "We use our phones as weapons: to harass, to intimidate, to probe, to interrogate. You'd be amazed the kinds of things you learn by pretending to be someone important."

CJR-Harvey Wang

Critic — and target — Dennis King

46

COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW

9/27/85

HAK: RE: Kingsbury-Smith
and Nancy Reagan for Nobel
Prize

With respect to attached package,
you indicate you'll handle orally
with Kingsbury-Smith by phone.

You may already be aware of this but
just in case you are not, I heard
in the media that names of candidates
for the 1985 Prize are leaking out
(or are they well known?) and the
list is said to include President
Reagan as well as Elie Wiesel and
others (according to NPR radio).

Just wanted to factor this in - whether
it is true or not, before you call
Kingsbury-Smith.

OK - put him on phone list

tember 19, 1985

tor Joe Kingsbury-
Nancy Reagan for
tment to a global
er Teresa got the
deadline is February
ith apologies for

e you or not; how
your ongoing effort
in December 1984)
. It also raises the
point over time,
seen, that President
Mrs. Reagan's

rosemary

own attitude would have to be known as well; Smith - not
Mrs. Reagan - mentioned the idea in the introduction to
his interview but he does not appear to have asked her
in the Q/As.

Attached is a middle-ground reply for your consideration.

Approve (sign) letter

Redo as edited for sig

✓ Put Kingsbury-Smith on my phone list; I will
handle orally

No reply now; let this hang

HENRY A. KISSINGER

October 11, 1985

Dear Mr. Kingsbury-Smith:

Nancy and I appreciate your invitation to dinner October 23rd for Ambassador Han and his wife. Regrettably, I have a long-standing commitment in Texas which makes it impossible for us to be in Washington that evening.

Thank you for thinking of us.

Mr. Joseph Kingsbury-Smith
The Hearst Newspapers
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006

SUITE 1021 • 1800 K STREET, N. W. • WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 • (202) 872-0300

THE HEARST NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS

1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
TELEPHONE (202) 298-6920

NATIONAL EDITOR
SENIOR WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE

VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR
THE HEARST CORPORATION

October 1, 1985

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

OCT 03 1985

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Eileen and I are having a small, informal
dinner for the Chinese Ambassador and his wife on Wednesday,
October 23rd. If Mrs. Kissinger and you happen to be free, we
would be delighted to have you join us.

With warmest good wishes,

JKS/ad

3130 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20016

October 30, 1985

President Ronald Reagan
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Godspeed on your momentous trip to Geneva next month. I wish you well in your meeting with the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, on several important issues (arms control and the resolution of Soviet-backed conflicts in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Angola and Ethiopia, among other issues). Again, Godspeed to you and Mr. Gorbachev, as well.

The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) is located in Zurich, Switzerland (Hitziweg 11, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland), being approximately 100 miles from Geneva. FIFA is the world governing body of football (soccer in the United States, Canada and England) with about 150 member nations in all the continents grouped into 6 confederations. FIFA overseas football in the World Cup and in the Olympics, the two events being emblematic of world supremacy in their respective areas.

The greater majority of your time will be taken up with the important issues outlined above. A brief respite more than likely could be a State Dinner hosted by you. As a magnificent gesture of international goodwill, and circumstances permitting it, I would respectfully urge that you, Mr. President, invite Mr. João Havelange, the President of FIFA or Mr. Joseph Blatter, the Secretary General of FIFA, to such dinner and offer the services of the United States of America in hosting benefit soccer games at the Rose Bowl (Pasadena) near Los Angeles, California and the Stanford University Stadium (Berkeley) near San Francisco, California for the good of those unfortunate people ravaged by the recent tragic earthquake in Mexico City. (All revenue, with no expenses, would go to Mexico to be distributed to these people.)

In addition to these benefit games, Mr. President, you could further offer to have some of the 52 games of the World Cup, scheduled to be played in 10 Mexican cities next June (1986), played at the above-mentioned U.S.A. sites. These 2 sites had excellent soccer crowds at the Olympics in 1984, drawing more than 1,250,000 in 20 games with about 825,000 in 11 games at the Rose Bowl and 425,000 in 9 games at the Stanford Stadium. The United States is a large country next door to Mexico and the United States is a country which has shown love all over the world. A wonderful opportunity exists to demonstrate once again the magnanimous feeling of the United States to Mexico, and the world as well.

Respectfully Submitted,

October 30, 1985

Dear Mr. President:

Respectfully Submitted,

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

To Whom It May Concern:

In support of soccer and its value as an outstanding physical fitness activity, the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports has adopted the following statement which represents our official position:

Soccer: A Priority Sport

Soccer is the world's most popular participant and spectator sport. It is the sport out of which American "football" and English "rugby" were developed. During the past 50 years soccer has played only a minor role in the American sports scene. However, since the mid-60's there has been a growing awareness that soccer may be one of the best all-around activities for the development of physical fitness, sportsmanship, teamwork, and all the other intrinsic values of sports competition.

Because soccer involves continuous running in a sprint-jog-sprint continuum, it provides a perfect environment for the development of cardiovascular endurance. Of special interest to the economy-minded sports scene today is that soccer requires very little equipment and, generally, is one of the least expensive athletic activities we can offer. While physical size is a major factor in many sports, soccer is far less dominated by any particular body size or build. For this reason, soccer becomes a very popular activity among large masses of people. Soccer is truly an international game and thus has the potential of bringing people of all nations closer together through meeting and engaging in friendly competition.

These facts, combined with the relatively low incidence of serious injury to participants, make soccer worthy of major support by all people interested in the promotion of physical fitness and sports among the American people.

att. #2

FACT SHEET

(Geared To Interest In Soccer)

JOSEPH ANTHONY KINSLOW

Member, District of Columbia Bar
Colonel, AUS (Ret.)

Born August 9, 1921, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7th son and 12th child of the late Mr. & Mrs. William Paul Kinslow (mother's maiden name - Rose Cecilia Dougherty). One son, Thomas, died in infancy, with the remaining 6 sons, William, Leo, John, Aloysius, Dennis and Joseph, serving honorably in the U.S. Army during World War II, both in the continental United States and Overseas, myself in the China-Burma-India (C.B.I.) Theater under the fabled Uncle Joe Stilwell. The 5 sisters, Rose, Catherine, Mildred, Mary and Helen supported the home front and their sons served honorably in Korea and Vietnam. My father volunteered in World War I but was turned down because of having 9 children at the time.

Schools attended: Civilian - Roman Catholic High School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, graduated June 7, 1940; St. Joseph's College (now University), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, B.S. in Business Administration (Major in Accounting) conferred on June 15, 1947; and Georgetown University Law School, Washington, D.C., L.L.B. (now J.D.) conferred on June 11, 1951; Military: Officers' Candidate School (O.C.S.), Camp (now Fort) Lee, Virginia, commissioned 2nd Lt. on June 30, 1944; Command and General Staff College (C&GS), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, August, 1969; Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF), National Defense University, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C., May 1971; Judge Advocate General's School, Charlottesville, Virginia, July, 1973, July, 1974, and January 1975.

I remember seeing soccer in the 1930's, having the privilege of watching our best, Bert Patenaude and John (Hun) Ryan, who represented the United States in the World Cup of 1930 where we finished 3rd out of 13 nations at Montevideo, Uruguay (the giant, Brazil, was there, as well as other outstanding soccer powers), and in the World Cup of 1934 in Italy.

The United States of America scored the greatest upset of all time in all of soccer when it, or rather we, defeated mighty England, 1-0, at Belo Horizonte, Brazil, on June 29, 1950. (I wished that I had seen this magnificent game.)

I have followed soccer all my life, learning the game from the following sets of brothers: Malloy's (Irish), Frank and Jim; Flanagan's (Scotch), Bert and Scotty; Cagno's (Italian), Bill and Joe; Haviland's (Irish), Bill and Bob; numerous Hungarians, Germans, and other nationalities throughout the years in Philadelphia, Washington and the U.S. Army; and last, but not least, and, in fact, first, Aloysius Patrick Gonzaga Kinslow, my brother. We both played for Germantown Bays' Club in Philadelphia, he on the senior team, and I on the junior, in the 1930's and '40's. A knowledgeable Scot, one Tom Frazer, at that club, is reputed to have said to Al that he had the best left foot that he (Tom Frazer) ever saw. The left foot in soccer is extremely important since the ball is not always on your right side and for the average position (center) is 50% on your left side, and even more, the further right one is playing.

FACT SHEET (continued)

While in the Army, Al played for the Fort Benning select soccer team, one of its games being against the Italian Prisoner of War Team in 1943. I played for our Company D of the 25th Battalion soccer team in Camp Lee (I still call it Camp Lee), Virginia.

Soccer is my sports life. However, I well remember the great Philadelphia Athletics of the late 1920's and early 1930's, the last team in the majors (both American and National leagues) to slug it out with the Yankees, not for just a year or two but some 5-6 years. I also recall the Frankford Yellow Jackets of the early 1930's, forerunners of the Philadelphia Eagles in the National Football League. Further, I remember the South Philadelphia Hebrew Association (SPHA's) basketball team whose first non-Jewish player was George Seneskey, the #1 college basketball player of 1942-43 from St. Joseph's in Philadelphia. I have a great liking for all sports, but soccer is tops for me.

I have held numerous administrative positions in soccer over the years, the most important being President of the local State Association, Chairman of the Arbitration Committee and Advisor at large to soccer organizations. I could very well be called the Soccer Historian in this area.

att. #3 (cont.)

OFFICE OF
HENRY A. KISSINGER

July 19, 1985

Dear Col. Kinslow:

Dr. Kissinger has not had an opportunity to respond personally to your thoughtful letter of June 14th owing to a very hectic travel schedule over the past several weeks. As he is presently out of town, he has asked me to write to you on his behalf.

Dr. Kissinger very much appreciated your kind invitation to the Army Soccer Classic June 29th. He had to leave that day on a week-long trip to the Far East so would not have been able to join you--but it was very thoughtful of you to think of him. I am certain it was a most exciting game.

On Dr. Kissinger's behalf, thank you for writing and best wishes.

Col. Joseph Anthony Kinslow
3130 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016

3130 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016

June 14, 1985

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Georgetown University
Center for Strategic and
International Studies
1800 K Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Dear Doctor Kissinger:

It is with great pleasure and a distinct honor to personally invite you
and Mrs. Kissinger to the Annual Army Soccer Classic, Saturday, June 29, 1985, at
West Point, New York.

America's premier high school soccer game, the Army Soccer Classic, is sponsored by the United States Army in cooperation with the National Soccer Coaches Association of America (NSCAA). The game is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. at the U.S. Military Academy's Clinton Field and will feature teams representing the East and the West, eighteen graduating high school senior all-stars on each team. I understand that the incoming freshman class, the Plebes, will be due that weekend.

Dr. Kissinger, a few words concerning recent tragic events in soccer.
We in the soccer community are stunned and numb beyond description. We need
support and someone to build up our sagging morale and lift our spirits. I will
neither attempt to cover soccer in other countries nor make any comparisons for
little would be gained from that. From my personal experience going back over 50
years in the United States I have witnessed very little violence in American
soccer. Rugged hard play at times, Yes (Si); violence, No (No). My experience
covers professional, college, amateur, high school and youth soccer at all age
levels (from 6 to 66 and beyond), both male and female. (I must confess that the
distaff side, at times, has displayed signs of more intensity than the male
species.)

Attached is a fact sheet (plus opinion analysis--you've heard of it and
them) on the undersigned, Joseph Anthony Kinslow. (It is geared to my interest
in soccer-Attachment #1.)

Sir, the young men in soccer (also, later, the young women I hope) will
be highly honored to have you and your wife view them in action and above that,
will have their spirits lifted up immensely. There is an added pleasure to boot.
They will have the highest ranking U.S. Government diplomat ever to play soccer
watching them perform with the utmost enthusiasm and impartiality. If it be at
all possible, please come! Also, the young Plebes will be highly honored by your
presence.

Page 2

Last, but not least, congratulations on the wonderful way in which you are carrying out the heavy responsibilities and discharging the duties of the various projects assigned to you or undertaken on your own on behalf of the United States Government and democracy. God be with you in all your endeavors, especially in your world-wide peace mission in support of President Reagan. We are the peace-keepers and the Soviet bullies, the troublemakers, going back, at least to the night of July 16-17, 1918, when the Soviet bully, in the person of one Jankel Mikhailovich Jurovsky and his cohort, murdered the Czar, his wife and family and attendants at the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg, Siberia.*

Very respectfully yours,

Attachment:

1. Fact Sheet - J.A. Kinslow

*Walsh, Edmund A., S.J., Ph.D., founder of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, The Fall of the Russian Empire - The Story of the Last of the Romanovs and the Coming of the Bolsheviks - Little, Brown, and Company, 1928.

P.S. Another invitation - same weekend of June 29-30, 1985. The National Soccer Hall of Fame in Oneonta, New York, about 100 miles west of West Point, is holding a youth soccer tournament. A great soccer weekend.

P.P.S. You had your Irish up on Nightline on April 29 past. I would not have faulted you had you blown your stack but then you're a Diplomat. Let's get together, sometime, to discuss foreign relations, and, of course, soccer.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations

815 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 637-5000

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

LANE KIRKLAND PRESIDENT THOMAS R. DONAHUE SECRETARY-TREASURER

John H. Lyons
S. Frank Raftery
Albert Shanker
Edward T. Hanley
J. C. Turner
Kenneth T. Blaylock
William H. Wynn
Wayne E. Glenn
Joyce D. Miller
Frank Drozak
Richard I. Kilroy

Thomas W. Gleason
Martin J. Ward
Glenn E. Watts
Angelo Fosco
Lloyd McBride
Alvin E. Heaps
John J. O'Donnell
Robert F. Goss
John J. Sweeney
James E. Hatfield
Vincent R. Sombrotto

Frederick O'Neal
Murray H. Finley
Sol C. Chaikin
Charles H. Pillard
David J. Fitzmaurice
Wm. W. Winpisinger
John DeConcini
William Konyha
Douglas A. Fraser
Barbara Hutchinson
Gerald W. McEntee

COMMUNIQUE

Washington, D. C.

May 15, 1985

To all Members of the U. S. Senate:

We urge your support for S. 960 to amend the Foreign Assistance Act. We strongly support the recommendations of the National Bi-Partisan Commission on Central America as an important step in establishing peace, based on social progress, economic development and political democracy in all of the countries of Central America. We are particularly anxious to see the amendment adopted concerning the Central American Development Organization as this will permit the direct participation of the labor and business communities in at least a portion of the economic development process. We reiterate our support for the human rights conditionality expressed by the Bi-Partisan Commission with respect to freedom of the press, freedom of association and political democracy as conditions precedent before the Central American nations benefit from S. 960.

Lane Kirkland
President, AFL-CIO

MAY 21 1985

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

LANE KIRKLAND PRESIDENT

THOMAS R. DONAHUE

SECRETARY-TREASURER

COMMUNIQUE

Washington, D. C.

May 15, 1985

To all Members of the U. S. House of Representatives:

We urge your support for HR. 1555 to amend the Foreign Assistance Act. We strongly support the recommendations of the National Bi-Partisan Commission on Central America as an important step in establishing peace, based on social progress, economic development and political democracy in all of the countries of Central America. We are particularly anxious to see the amendment adopted concerning the Central American Development Organization as this will permit the direct participation of the labor and business communities in at least a portion of the economic development process. We reiterate our support for the human rights conditionality expressed by the Bi-Partisan Commission with respect to freedom of the press, freedom of association and political democracy as conditions precedent before the Central American nations benefit from HR. 1555.

AMERICAN INSTITUTE
FOR FREE LABOR
DEVELOPMENT

/ BRIEFS

1015 TWENTIETH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. CABLE: FREELAB, WASHINGTON

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact John J. Heberle, AIFLD Chief of Information

(202) 659-6300

May 16, 1985

MAY DAY MELEE IN MANAGUA

Sandinista Repression Continues

Heavily armed Nicaraguan Sandinista police, assisted by government-supported mobs, broke up a May Day march of 1,500 democratic trade unionists in Managua on May Day. The march was organized by Nicaragua's two largest free trade unions, the United Confederation of Unions (CUS) and the Nicaraguan Workers Confederation (CNT), to commemorate the 1979 murder of Luis Medrano, a trade union leader who was assassinated on a street corner by former dictator Anastasio Somoza's National Guard while distributing invitations to a special mass commemorating the death one year earlier of newspaper editor Pedro Joaquin Chamorro.

The AFL-CIO recently received a detailed report of the confrontation from sources inside Nicaragua, along with photographs of the event and a letter of protest from Alvin Guthrie, leader of the CUS, to Daniel Ortega, president of Nicaragua.

According to the report from Nicaragua, the events on May 1st began in the church called "El Calvario" near Managua's central market, where members of the two independent unions attended a mass at 11:00 A.M. given by newly designated Cardinal Obando y Bravo. After the mass, union members attempted to march to the spot where the CUS leader Medrano was killed.

When the marchers turned the corner they encountered a group of approximately 40 Sandinista police armed with sub-machine guns. The police began to shove the marchers back toward the church. About that time a government truck pulled up behind the police and a large group of young Sandinista sympathizers (who

-2-

constitute the government-supported turbas divinas, or "divine mobs") jumped out and began threatening the union members. The Sandinista supporters shouted pro Sandinista slogans while union members answered with such slogans as "Communism No, Democracy Yes." The union members were eventually pushed back to the front of the church where they remained for about an hour. During the confrontation fruit, sticks, stones and other objects were thrown.

CUS leaders claimed that the sizeable union rally would have been even larger if the Sandinistas had permitted normal organizing efforts to proceed unhindered. Ten buses had been rented to bring union members from Chinandega to the event, but the Nicaraguan government prevented bus drivers from transporting people. CUS leader Guthrie stated that on the previous evening, mobs had thrown firecracker bombs into the homes of several CUS leaders in the northern part of the country, warning them to stay away from the May Day parade.

In a letter to President Daniel Ortega, leaders of the CUS protested the "shameful and aggressive actions" of the Sandinista police. The letter states: "Even after almost six years of the victory over the dictatorship, the CUS continues to be subject to a discriminatory treatment on the part of the authorities from the Ministry of Labor and the judicial system through a systematic rejection of recognition to the labor unions recently organized by the CUS and through the annulment of the present legal status to other existing unions, the unjustified imprisonment of some of our leaders, the raiding and occupation of our general union headquarters by the Sandinista police, and a great number of other actions against the CUS and its leaders."

AIFLD has provided extensive documentation of these actions in prior reports, such as "Nicaragua: A Revolution Betrayed" (April 1, 1984), and "Sandinista Repression of Nicaraguan Trade Unions" (January, 1985). AIFLD will continue to provide information regarding the struggles of democratic trade unions in Nicaragua as new situations arise. Attached is the full text of the letter from the CUS union to Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, along with photographs of the recent May Day confrontation.

CONFEDERACION DE UNIFICACION SINDICAL
CUS - CTCA - ORIT - CIOSL

Managua, J.R., May 2, 1985

Mr. President of the Republic
Commander Daniel Ortega
Casa Presidencial
Managua

Mr. President:

The confederation of Labor Unity (CUS) hereby respectfully wishes to address this letter to you to bring to your attention and to protest most forcefully for the shameful and aggressive actions provoked by the Sandinista Police of Managua under the direction of one of its officers whose name is Jose Vallecillo, of the Fourth Police Station in "Ciudad Jardin" on May 1, the International Labor Day, at which time through the use of force, insults and aggression, a peaceful demonstration which we were about to start in order to go to the place where our well remembered Secretary General, Luis Medrano Flores, was assassinated, because we had not requested permission to hold it.

We felt Mr. President, that after the victory of the Nicaraguan people over the Somoza dictatorship, the working class would have a right to engage in public demonstrations and to celebrate its International Labor Day or any other event without any obstacles or intervention on the part of the government or its forces. However, in reality things have been different inasmuch as even after almost six years of the victory over the Dictatorship, the CUS continues to be subject to a discriminatory treatment on the part of the authorities from the Ministry of Labor and the judicial system through a systematic rejection of recognition to the labor unions recently organized by the CUS and through the annulment of the pertinent legal status to other existing unions, the unjustified imprisonment of some of our leaders, the raiding and occupation of our Central Union Headquarters by the Sandinista Police, and a great number of other actions against the CUS and its leaders, which although it is true have not been committed directly by the government, they have been perpetrated by other allied organizations.

The above mentioned authorities also prevented the free mobilization of the worker of Chinandega, El Viejo and Nandaime, who were coming to Managua to participate in the May 1st activities. In Nindiri two days prior to the activities scheduled for May 1st, members of the CDS, under the leadership of an individual whose name is Manuel Salazar, who during the Somoza times worked as a photographer for the "Novedades" newspaper, owned by the Dictatorship, engaged in making threats to enforce "Popular Justice" against any person who would travel to Managua to participate in the activities prepared by the CUS.

We feel, Mr. President, by this time these actions and repressive actions should have been outgrown inasmuch as they constitute violations of the Human and Trade Union Rights which would be proper for an anti-democratic government but not for a revolutionary government composed by workers and campesinos, that should guarantee, due to its own nature, full freedom to all workers, especially when those workers have demonstrated their patriotism, their civic responsibility and their respect for the law.

ADDRESS BY
AMBASSADOR JEANE J. KIRKPATRICK
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MAY 30, 1985

I PROPOSE TO SPEAK TODAY ABOUT THE EMERGENCE OF GUERRILLA MOVEMENTS AGAINST GOVERNMENTS THAT CALL THEMSELVES MARXIST/LENINIST, PROCLAIM SOCIALIST SOLIDARITY AND HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE "SOVIET WORLD SYSTEM."

I PROPOSE TO DISCUSS U.S. POLICY TOWARD THESE MOVEMENTS WHICH EXIST TODAY IN CAMBODIA, AFGHANISTAN, MOZAMBIQUE, ANGOLA, ETHIOPIA AND, OF COURSE, NICARAGUA.

WHAT OUR ATTITUDE AND POLICY SHOULD BE TOWARD SUCH MOVEMENTS IS ONE OF THE VERY HOTTEST QUESTIONS BEFORE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TODAY.

IT HAS ALREADY PROVED A FASCINATING KIND OF POLITICAL LITMUS TEST, ONE THAT SEPARATES REPUBLICANS FROM DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS FROM CONSERVATIVES, AND ROUSES VERY STRONG POLITICAL PASSIONS. IN APPROACHING THIS SUBJECT, IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE INSURGENCIES HAVE ARISEN WERE SUCKED INTO THE SOVIET ORBIT AFTER JANUARY 1975 AND THE FALL OF SAIGON. THEY ARE RECENT ACQUISITIONS. THEY WERE RAPIDLY INCORPORATED IN A PERIOD IN WHICH THE SOVIET UNION HAS RELIED HEAVILY ON A MILITARY BLOC PRESENCE TO TIE NEW ACQUISITIONS INTO THE SYSTEM. EACH OF THESE COUNTRIES IS A STRATEGICALLY VALUABLE ASSET WHICH THE SOVIETS HAVE DISPLAYED DETERMINATION TO PRESERVE. IN EACH COUNTRY, POLITICAL CONTROL WAS SECURED AND IS MAINTAINED WITH DIRECT SOVIET OR SOVIET BLOC MILITARY INTERVENTION. EACH OFFERS THE SOVIETS BASING RIGHTS. EACH GOVERNMENT IS PROTECTED BY ITS OWN PRATORIAN GUARD FROM CHANGING ITS MIND OR ORIENTATION.

ONLY IN AFGHANISTAN, HAVE THE SOVIETS RELIED ON MASSIVE DIRECT MILITARY INTERVENTION. BUT SOVIET MILITARY RESOURCES HAVE PLAYED A ROLE EVERYWHERE EVEN THOUGH CLIENT STATES PROVIDE MOST OF THE MANPOWER. VIETNAMESE ARMIES INVADED AND OCCUPIED CAMBODIA, CUBAN TROOPS ARE PRESENT IN LARGE NUMBERS IN ANGOLA, ETHIOPIA, MOZAMBIQUE AND NICARAGUA. THE ROLE OF FOREIGN TROOPS, SO CALLED "INTERNATIONALISTS," IN SUSTAINING NEW COMMUNIST GOVERNMENTS IN POWER MAY BE READILY OBSERVED IN ETHIOPIA, WITH ITS 20,000 OR SO CUBAN TROOPS; IN ANGOLA WITH ITS APPROXIMATELY 40,000 CUBAN TROOPS; IN MOZAMBIQUE WITH ITS 6-7,000 CUBAN TROOPS AND ADVISERS, 1,500 EAST GERMAN, 2,000 RUSSIAN AND 8,000 AFRICANS FROM SYMPATHETIC AFRICAN SOCIALIST STATES.

IN MOZAMBIQUE, CUBANS AND EAST GERMANS COMPRISE THE PERSONAL BODY GUARDS OF THE RULER, SAMORA MACHEL. LIBYANS PILOT HIS

- 2 -

PLANE, A NORTH VIETNAMESE HEADS THE MOZAMBIQUE AIR FORCE. NORTH KOREANS HAVE OCCUPIED KEY ROLES SINCE 1982. MOZAMBIQUE NOT ONLY ABSORBS RESOURCES, IT PROVIDES RESOURCES AS WELL. OVER 10,000 YOUNG MOZAMBIQUANS WERE SENT AS LABORERS TO EAST GERMANY.

IN ANGOLA, UNITA AND THE ANGOLAN GOVERNMENT PUT THE MEMBERS OF CUBAN TROOPS AT 45,000. THEIR UPKEEP STRAINS AN ALREADY DISORGANIZED ECONOMY AND ABSORBS MOST OF ITS OIL RESERVES. SOVIET AND CZECH PILOTS FLY HELICOPTERS. NORTH KOREAN REINFORCEMENTS BEGAN DISEMBARKING LAST YEAR.

IN NICARAGUA, CUBAN MILITARY ADVISERS BEGAN ARRIVING THE SAME DAY AS THE SANDANISTA TAKEOVER - JULY 19, 1979. BEST ESTIMATES SUGGEST THERE HAVE BEEN ABOUT 10,000 CUBANS PRESENT FOR MOST OF THE TIME FOR THE LAST FIVE AND 1/2 YEARS. THEY ARE SUPPLEMENTED BY "INTERNATIONALISTS" FROM ALL OVER THE SOVIET BLOC INCLUDING THE SOVIET UNION ITSELF.

IN EACH OF THESE COUNTRIES, MILITARY BASES ARE PROVIDED AND THE COUNTRY'S FOREIGN POLICY IS STRICTLY SUBORDINATED TO SOVIET OBJECTIVES. MOZAMBIQUE LAST YEAR SIGNED A JOINT COMMUNIQUE WITH MONGOLIA "FIRMLY SUPPORTING" THE SOVIET OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN. FIVE MEMBERS OF NICARAGUA'S JUNTA SWORE THEIR SUPPORT OF SOVIET POLICY WORLD WIDE, INCLUDING THE OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THEIR TENURE.

IN EACH OF THESE COUNTRIES A PATTERN HAS DEVELOPED THAT INCLUDES THOUSANDS OF SOVIET BLOC ADVISERS WHO SURROUND AND PROP UP THE GOVERNMENT, OCCUPY KEY ROLES IN ITS DECISION STRUCTURES AND PREVENT ANY SECOND THOUGHTS SUCH AS THOSE OF SADAT OR SECOUE TOURE. THESE INTERNATIONALISTS SYMBOLIZE THE NON-NATIONALIST CHARACTER OF THE GOVERNMENTS THEY SUPPORT. THEIR PRESENCE GIVES AN AUTHENTIC "NATIONALIST" FLAVOR TO THE INSURGENTS. THE EXTENT OF THE COUNTRY'S INTEGRATION INTO THE SOVIET EMPIRE HAS REVIVED THE DEMAND FOR NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE, COMPARABLE TO THE EARLIER COLONIAL PERIOD.

IN EACH, THE REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT HAS SOUGHT TO TRANSFORM TRADITIONAL WAYS OF LIFE INCLUDING LAND HOLDING, RESIDENCE, RELIGION AND EDUCATION TO FIT SOCIALIST GOALS AND BLUEPRINTS. THIS FURTHER ENHANCES THE SENSE THAT ALIENS' RULE IS SEEKING TO WIPE OUT INDIGENOUS CULTURES.

IN EACH, ECONOMIC DISORGANIZATION, STAGNATION, AND SCARCITY HAVE FOLLOWED ON THE HEELS OF INSTALLATION OF A COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT, SO HAS MILITARY MOBILIZATION OF THE COUNTRY.

IN EACH, THE POPULATION OF POLITICAL PRISONERS HAS GREATLY INCREASED AS HAS THE FLOW OF REFUGEES FLEEING THE NEW ORDER.

IN EACH, THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF HAS COME TO POWER BY FORCE, AND MAINTAINS ITSELF IN POWER BY FORCE. ITS ONLY CLAIM TO LEGITIMACY IS THE POSSESSION OF THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE STATE. THESE GOVERNMENTS ARE ONE PARTY DICTATORSHIPS EVEN IF, AS

- 3 -

IN THE CASE OF NICARAGUA, SOME OPPOSITION IS PERMITTED TO EXIST. EACH IS A CLOSED SYSTEM WHICH DENIES ITS CITIZENS FREE PRESS, SPEECH, ASSEMBLY AND FREE ELECTIONS. THERE ARE NO CHANNELS THROUGH WHICH THE POLICIES OR COMPOSITION OF THE GOVERNMENTS CHANGE BY PEACEABLE MEANS.

IT IS AGAINST THESE GOVERNMENTS THAT INSURGENCIES HAVE DEVELOPED. THESE ARE REPRESSIVE DICTATORSHIPS OF RECENT VINTAGE, PROPPED UP BY ALIENS, SUBORDINATED TO THE NEEDS AND DISCIPLINES OF THE SOVIET BLOC AND PART OF A MILITARY MACHINE WHICH IS AIMED, ULTIMATELY, THEY TELL US, AT US.

IS IT MORALLY AND LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE FOR THE UNITED STATES TO SUPPORT ARMED INDIGENOUS MOVEMENTS AGAINST THESE GOVERNMENTS? OR, DOES SUCH SUPPORT CONSTITUTE UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL INTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF OTHER NATIONS?

IS IT EVER JUSTIFIED TO SUPPORT AN ARMED ATTACK ON A SITTING GOVERNMENT? IF SO, WHEN? IS IT PRUDENT TO DO SO? DO SUCH MOVEMENTS HAVE ANY CHANCE OF SUCCESS? DOES SUPPORTING THEM RISK GETTING US INTO WAR?

THESE MORE GENERAL QUESTIONS LIE JUST BENEATH THE SURFACE AS THE CONGRESS CONSIDERS WHETHER TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE -- MILITARY OR HUMANITARIAN --- TO THE CONTRAS, THE AFGHAN FREEDOM FIGHTERS, THE CAMBODIAN KPNLF. THEY WERE THE QUESTIONS JUST BENEATH THE SURFACE WHEN, IN 1975, THE CONGRESS PASSED THE CLARK AMENDMENT PROHIBITING U.S. GOVERNMENT FROM OFFERING ASSISTANCE TO JONAS SAVIMBI AND ANGOLA'S RESISTANCE MOVEMENT.

THE ISSUES INVOLVED HERE TOUCH DIRECTLY ON THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF POLITICS, MORALS AND THE NATIONAL INTEREST. MANY OF THE VALUES INVOKED ARE MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE IN THIS CONTEXT.

THE POST VIETNAM FEAR OF INVOLVEMENT IN ANY WAY, IN ANY MILITARY CONFLICT OF ANY KIND, ANYWHERE, COLLIDES WITH THE AMERICAN COMMITMENT TO UNIVERSAL VALUES OF FREEDOM AND SELF-DETERMINATION, AND THESE IN TURN COLLIDE WITH THE COMMITMENT TO THE UN CHARTER'S PLEDGE OF NON-INTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF OTHERS. THE RIGHT TO REVOLUTION PROCLAIMED IN OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE COLLIDES WITH RESPECT FOR THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS. OUR INTEREST IN STAVING OFF A SERIOUS THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY COLLIDES WITH FEAR PUTTING A FOOT ON THE SLIPPERY SLOPE TO WAR.

THE RESULTS OF THESE QUESTIONS AND CONFLICTS ARE GETTING CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER. THE QUESTIONS EVER MORE PRESSING. THE CONGRESS HAS BEFORE IT PROPOSALS TO AID THE CONTRAS, AND PROPOSALS TO PROHIBIT AID EVEN BY PRIVATE CITIZENS.

CERTAIN THINGS SEEM TO BE CLEAR.

- 4 -

AMERICANS HAVE TRADITIONALLY AFFIRMED THE EXISTENCE OF UNIVERSAL, BASIC POLITICAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS; INSISTED THAT THE PROTECTION OF THESE RIGHTS IS THE VERY PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT AND ASSERTED THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST THEIR GOVERNMENTS IF IT VIOLATES THEIR BASIC RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROSPERITY.

THIS DOCTRINE IS THE BASIC AMERICAN POSITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, LEGITIMACY AND ARMED REVOLT. IT IS MOST CLEARLY STATED IN OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. "WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ... THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED."

IT COULD NOT BE CLEARER. BASIC AMERICAN DOCTRINE AFFIRMS THAT LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT DEPENDS ON THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED AND RESPECT FOR BASIC INALIENABLE RIGHTS. THIS IS THE CLAIM OF LEGITIMACY ON WHICH U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTS. A GOVERNMENT IS NOT LEGITIMATE MERELY BECAUSE IT EXISTS, NOR BECAUSE IT IS HEADED BY INDIVIDUALS, MERELY LEADERS. NAZI GERMANY WAS A DE FACTO GOVERNMENT HEADED BY GERMANS, THAT DID NOT MAKE IT LEGITIMATE.

BUT, IT MAY BE SAID THIS DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMACY APPLIES ONLY TO RIGHTS OF CITIZENS TO TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT, NOT TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO SUPPLY ARMS. OTHERS, IT IS ARGUED, ARE BOUND BY THE PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 2.4 OF THE UN CHARTER.

ARTICLE 2.4 ENJOINS ALL MEMBER STATES TO "REFRAIN IN THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS FROM THE THREAT OR USE OF FORCE AGAINST THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OR POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE OF ANY STATE."

BUT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS PROHIBITION OF FORCE WAS NEVER INTENDED TO STAND ON ITS OWN, BUT TO BE SEEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE CHARTER, AS COMPLEMENTARY TO ARTICLE 51 (WHICH AFFIRMS THE INHERENT RIGHT TO INDIVIDUALS OR COLLECTIVE SELF-DEFENSE) AND TO ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER CONCERNING GUARANTEES OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

MOREOVER, THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS CLEARLY STATES THAT MEMBER STATES WILL BE DEMOCRATIC, PEACE LOVING AND COMMITTED TO THE MAINTENANCE OF WORLD PEACE. IT'S WHOLE PURPOSE IS TO PROMOTE JUST SUCH STATES AND BEHAVIOR. IT IS NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT REPRESSIVE EXPANSIONIST DICTATORSHIPS OR EMPIRES.

GEORGE KENNAN ONCE NOTED THAT THE AMERICAN INTERPRETATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, "IGNORES THE DEVICES OF THE PUPPET STATE AND THE SET OF TECHNIQUES BY WHICH STATES CAN BE CONVERTED INTO PUPPETS WITH NO FORMAL VIOLATION OF, OR CHALLENGE TO, THE OUTWARD ATTRIBUTES OF THEIR SOVEREIGNTY AND THEIR INDEPENDENCE." SO DOES THE UN CHARTER.

- 5 -

THE FACT THAT THE CHARTER IGNORES INTIMIDATION, SUBVERSION SHORT OF WAR AND COERCIVE CONTROL OF ONE STATE BY ANOTHER DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE ALL REQUIRED TO IGNORE THEM OR TO PRETEND THAT A STATE THAT HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF ITS SOVEREIGNTY IS A SOVEREIGN STATE. (I HAD IN THE PAST YEAR THE INTERESTING EXPERIENCE OF SERVING WITH THE UKRAINE IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL.)

NEITHER ARE WE REQUIRED TO PRETEND THAT THE THOUSANDS OF "INTERNATIONALIST" TROOPS AND ADVISERS THAT PROP UP AND CONTROL CLIENT GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT INTERFERING IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE NATIONS TO WHICH THEY ARE ASSIGNED.

IN FACT, THE PRESENCE AND ROLES OF THOSE "INTERNATIONALISTS" INTERNATIONALIZES AN INTERNAL STRUGGLE FOR POWER. FURTHERMORE, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT IF CLIENT RULERS HAVE THE "RIGHT" TO ASK FOR EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE TO MAINTAIN THEIR RULE, CITIZENS DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR EXTERNAL AID IN RECLAIMING THEM.

THE NOTION OF A RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF EXISTING STATES WAS CENTRAL TO THE DOCTRINE OF LIMITED SOVEREIGNTY, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE BREZHNEV DOCTRINE, WHICH WAS PROPOUNDED IN 1969 IN RELATION TO THE SOVIET INVASION OF CZECHOSOLVAKIA. IN THE ARTICLE IN PRAVDA ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1968, WHERE THIS DOCTRINE WAS SET FORTH, THE SOVIET UNION CLAIMED NOT ONLY THE RIGHT TO INVADE ANY SOVIET BLOC COUNTRY THAT THREATENED TO DEVIATE FROM THE PATH OF SOCIALISTIC REGULARITY, BUT ALSO CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF NON-SOVIET BLOC STATES ON BEHALF OF "PROGRESSIVE" FORCES, THAT IS FORCES CONTRIBUTING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MARXIST REGIMES. THE SAME ARTICLE EXPLAINED HOW THE SOVIET UNION RECONCILES THE DOCTRINE OF LIMITED SOVEREIGNTY FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD WITH THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY FOR ITSELF.

BUT AM I HERE CLAIMING THAT VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY THE SOVIETS JUSTIFY COMPARABLE U.S. VIOLATIONS?

IF WE ASSIST AN INSURGENCY (THUS INTERFERING IN THE COUNTRY'S INTERNAL AFFAIRS) ARE WE BEING "AS WRONG AS" THE SOVIET BLOC?

THIS QUESTION RECURS IN SOME FORM IN MOST DISCUSSIONS OF THESE AND RELATED QUESTIONS.

WAS THE U.S., IN USING MILITARY FORCE IN LIBERATING GRENADA, BEING "AS BAD AS" GRENADA'S VIOLENT RULERS?

WERE THE U.S. AND THE OECS IN LIBERATING GRENADA BEING "AS BAD AS" THE SOVIETS IN INVADING AFGHANISTAN?

IS THE U.S., IN AIDING THE CONTRAS, BEING "AS BAD AS" THE NICARAGUANS, OR CUBANS, OR SOVIETS, IN DESTABILIZING EL SALVADOR'S GOVERNMENT?

- 6 -

[10]

LENIN SAID TO THE KOMSOMOL THAT "COMMUNIST MORALITY IS BASED ON THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION AND COMPLETION OF COMMUNISM."

IN AIDING THOSE WHO RESIST COMMUNISM ARE WE ADOPTING THE SAME CONCEPTS OF MORALITY IN REVERSE?

THE ANSWER IS, ASSUREDLY NOT.

TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE IS TO DENY THE RELEVANCE OF CONTEXT AND CONSEQUENCES TO MORAL AND LEGAL JUDGEMENT: IT IS LIKE ASKING US TO LOOK ONLY AT THE KNIFE THAT CUTS INTO AN ABDOMEN WITHOUT TAKING ACCOUNT OF WHETHER THE MAN WIELDING IT IS A SURGEON OR JACK-THE-RIPPER, OR WHETHER THE PATIENT IS LIKELY TO BE CURED BY THE KNIFE OR DESTROYED.

SUGGESTIONS THAT FORCE IS FORCE IS FORCE IS FORCE DENY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FORCE THAT LIBERATES AND THAT WHICH SUBJUGATES OR THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. IT DENIES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOVIET FORCE THAT DEVASTATES AFGHAN TOWNS AND COUNTRYSIDE AND DRIVES ITS PEOPLE INTO EXILE AND OECS/U.S. FORCE THAT RESTORES DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS. THE SUGGESTION THAT FORCE IS FORCE IS FORCE DENIES THAT THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERATION AND CONQUEST AND TREATS THEM AS IF IT WERE MERELY A MATTER OF WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED.

AGAIN, LEGITIMACY IS CRUCIAL.

THE SOVIET INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN IS AN ILLEGITIMATE USE OF FORCE BECAUSE IT AIMS AT THE DESTRUCTION OF AN INDEPENDENT STATE, DEPRIVING ITS PEOPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION, DENIES POLITICAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS, WRECKS GREAT VIOLENCE ON LAND AND PEOPLE AND SEEKS SUBJUGATION. THE AMERICAN AND OECS LANDING IS, FINALLY LEGITIMATE BECAUSE IT RESTORES JUST THESE RIGHTS --- INDEPENDENCE, SELF-DETERMINATION, POLITICAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE OF GRENADA. THE LEGAL CONTEXT AND POLITICAL AND HUMAN CONSEQUENCES OF THE TWO ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT.

SOME AGREE THAT IT IS INCONSISTENT FOR THE U.S. TO SUPPORT AN INSURGENCY AGAINST A GOVERNMENT IN NICARAGUA AND A GOVERNMENT AGAINST AN INSURGENCY IN EL SALVADOR.

THE ANSWER IS THAT IN BOTH CASES WE ARE SUPPORTING LEGITIMATE DEMOCRACY AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD BASE THEIR POWERS ON FORCE.

LEGITIMACY CANNOT BE MADE TO DEPEND ON AN INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS, OR THAT THE CONSENT OF THOSE WHO SEEK TO RULE BY FORCE.

A GOVERNMENT WHICH TAKES POWER BY FORCE, AND RETAINS POWER BY FORCE HAS NO LEGITIMATE GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD WRECK POWER FROM IT BY FORCE.

- 7 -

AND A GOVERNMENT WHOSE POWER DEPENDS ON EXTERNAL SUPPORT HAS NO LEGITIMATE GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINING THAT EXTERNALLY SUPPORTED FORCE IS USED AGAINST IT.

OBVIOUSLY IT IS LEGITIMATE FOR THE U.S. TO SUPPORT AN INSURGENCY AGAINST A DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT THAT DEPENDS ON EXTERNAL SUPPORT.

LEGITIMACY IS NOT THE ONLY CONCERN OF FOREIGN POLICY. THERE IS ALSO THE MATTER OF PRUDENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS. IS IT PRUDENT FOR THE U.S. TO SUPPORT INSURGENCIES? UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES? CAN THEY WIN? WILL IT GET US INTO WAR? I BELIEVE IT IS PRUDENT IF THE RELATION TO OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IS CLEAR, IF THE COSTS ARE NOT TOO BURDENSOME, IF IT DOES NOT ENTAIL TOO GREAT A RISK OF EMBROILING US IN A MAJOR CONFLICT AND IF THE LONG RANGE COSTS OF NOT DOING SO ARE GREATER THAN OF DOING SO. IN THIS CASE, IT IS CLEARLY PRUDENT TO SUPPORT INSURGENCIES SEEKING TO REESTABLISH THEIR INDEPENDENCE OF THEIR NATION AND TO DETACH IT FROM THE SOVIET EMPIRE. THE MORE STRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT THE NATIONS, THE MORE IMPORTANT IT IS TO DO SO.

ALL THE COUNTRIES, IN WHICH INSURGENCIES NOW RAGE, FALL IN THAT CATEGORY, NICARAGUA MOST CLEARLY OF ALL.

THE U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST IS IN ALL, AND MOST DIRECTLY IN NICARAGUA. PROXIMITY GIVES THEM SPECIAL IMPORTANCE. MOREOVER, OUR EXPERIENCE WITH CUBA ... INCLUDING THE KENNEDY/KHRUSHCHEV AGREEMENT, THE CIENFUEGOES AGREEMENT, THE COMBAT BRIGADE AGREEMENT MAKE THAT CLEAR. MOREOVER, THE CONTINUING CUBAN MILITARY BUILDUP AND INCREASED SOVIET MILITARY PRESENCE SUGGESTS THE COSTS OF NOT SUPPORTING NICARAGUAN INSURGENCIES AND PERMITTING THE CONSOLIDATION OF COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT WILL BE VERY HIGH ... IN DOLLARS AND IN SECURITY.

THE DEMOCRATIC CHARACTER OF THE RESISTANCE FORCES MAKES THE MORAL GROUNDS OF ASSISTANCE PARTICULARLY CLEAR AND COMPELLING.

IS SUPPORTING AN INSURGENCY TANTAMOUNT TO PUTTING OUR FOOT ON THE SLIPPERY SLOPE TO ANOTHER VIETNAM?

THIS IS THE LEAST PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT OF ALL.

BECAUSE GOING TO WAR REQUIRES SENDING TROOPS INTO COMBAT WAR --- NO ONE PROPOSES DOING THAT. THE UNITED STATES BECAME INVOLVED IN COMBAT IN VIETNAM BECAUSE WE SENT TROOPS, NOT BECAUSE WE HELPED THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE HELP THEMSELVES.

THE SOVIET UNION PROMOTES INSURGENCIES ALL OVER THE WORLD, SUPPLIES ARMS, TRAINING AND TRANSPORT AND DOES NOT GET INTO WAR. NO ONE EVEN SUGGESTS THAT THEY ARE BEHAVING RECKLESSLY IN DESTABILIZING GOVERNMENTS AND SUPPORTING INSURGENCIES. NEITHER WOULD WE BE BEHAVING RECKLESSLY IN SUPPORTING GROUPS WHO SOUGHT TO HELP THEIR COUNTRIES ESCAPE THE IMPERIAL GRIP.

- 8 -

FINALLY, CAN THESE NATIONALIST INSURGENCIES WIN? THE ANSWER
TO THAT QUESTION MUST BE, "MAYBE, THAT DEPENDS."

AT LEAST IT IS NOT CLEAR THEY CAN'T. EVERY GUERRILLA WAR
THAT SUCCEEDS AGAINST AN ENTRENCHED GOVERNMENT WINS AGAINST
OVERWHELMING ODDS --- BY ERODING THE WILL OF THE STRONGER. SMALL
ARMIES DO DEFEAT LARGER ARMIES.

GUERRILLA WAR, AT LEAST AS MUCH AS INTERNATIONAL WAR, IS A
FORM OF POLITICS. "POLITICS WITH BLOODSHED," SAID MAO, WHO WAS
THIS CENTURY'S GREATEST MASTERS OF GUERRILLA WAR, "IT IS A
CONTEST OF WILL AND WITS AS MUCH AS ARMS. IT IS PEOPLE NOT
THINGS THAT ARE DECISIVE IN A WAR," MAO COUNSELLED.

GUERRILLA WARS ARE LONG, DIFFICULT AND OFTEN SUCCESSFUL.
THEIR VERY EXISTENCE DENIES A GOVERNMENT THE PRETENSE THAT IT IS
ACCEPTABLE IN THE EYES OF THE PEOPLE OVER WHOM IT RULES. BUT
GUERRILLA WARS REQUIRE ARMS. THEY CANNOT PREVAIL WITH ONLY
HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE.

CAN THE CONTRAS WIN IN NICARAGUA? OF COURSE. THE
SANDANISTAS HAVE NOT FULLY CONSOLIDATED POWER. THE NUMBER OF
CONTRAS FAR EXCEEDS THE MEMBERS OF FSLN IN JULY, 1979. BOTH
MAKE IT LIKELY THE CONTRAS CAN END THE MARXIST/LENINIST MONOPOLY
OF POWER. IN NICARAGUA - TODAY - THERE ARE THREE TIMES AS MANY
CONTRAS AS THERE WERE FSLN IN 1979. THEY'RE SUPPORTED BY THE
PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRYSIDE. THEY'RE WELL TRAINED. BUT THEY CAN'T
WIN WITHOUT ARMS. PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT THEM TO WIN AND PEOPLE
WHO DON'T CARE, OPPOSE SENDING ARMS. SOME PEOPLE REALLY WANT
THEM TO LOSE. THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROHIBIT EVEN PRIVATE AID. WE
SHOULD CARE. THE CONTRAS ARE COMMITTED TO DEMOCRACY. THEIR
FREEDOM AND SECURITY ARE AT STAKE. WE SHOULD HELP.

I BELIEVE THE POLICY OF DENYING HELP TO INSURGENCIES SEEKING
INDEPENDENCE OF THEIR COUNTRY FROM THE SOVIET EMPIRE IS NEITHER
NECESSARY NOR PRUDENT. TO THE CONTRARY, MORALITY AND NATIONAL
SECURITY RECOMMEND THE OPPOSITE COURSE.

###