Monkey Blood, RH Negative Blood Types, Presidents And Royalty

Sunday, December 6, 2015 2:02

(Before It’s News)

Vatic Note: Remember, just recently Prince Charles admitted on international TV, that he was a descendant of Val the Impaler, or better known as Count Dracula.  So,  the British royal line are khazars who migrated into Germany, and married into the British Royal family.  Most of our Presidents are related to the khazars through their descending from the British line.

I found it interesting that most are related to the Queen, and the Sherffs’ are the worst of the lot.  They are better known as “The Bush’s”.  The Winsor name  used to be Gothe Saxe Coberg, which was German.  They changed it in 1919 to Winsor, so they would sound more British.  This is a very good and educational read.

Monkey Blood, RH Negative Blood Types, Presidents And Royalty
By Admin, Dublins Mick, August 18, 2012



Updated: Sept 30th, 2014
Before reading this however you should still be aware, the battle is within!
Updated 2-22-2014-The link below concerns the fairly recently discovered Haplogroup X

This is an update and very important dealing with copper deficiency of the blood. Healthy cells cannot be formed when one is copper deficient. Researcher Boutillier  of the Unveiling, maintains that all blood was once AB and has been reduced to O which has a shorter lifespan due to copper depletion.

This is done through vaccine, GMO and other factors. The theory is copper depleted blood can allow pathogens in vaccine to eventually go live. There is a reason the royals drink from silver, it is 15% copper.
We have all seen various discussions concerning RH negative blood types. It seems to be the dominant blood group of European royalty who feel they have the right to rule through DNA and a relationship they claim through the Merovingian blood line.

The shroud of Turin is supposed to verify this showing Jesus as RH negative but many insist it is a fake. There is no denying we have many former presidents with this blood type as well as fairly well publicized people. We read glowing reports that such people are sensitive and caring but I am not seeing this outside of possibly John Kennedy.
Possibly you have seen articles concerning the ability of royals to shape shift. It does seem a bit bizarre to me, but not something I could prove either way. We do know the human embryo does have a tail at about 3 months. It is called in Sanskrit the caudo draconis, in latin the dragon’s tail. Now the interesting part is we are told many RH negatives are born with the tail intact to varying degrees! They go through life with a small tail. I have never run into this but it is interesting.
I have left various links here concerning this topic, some of the propositions I don’t agree with.  Nevertheless it adds to the discussion.
The CAUDA EQUINA is the bundle of spinal nerve roots arising from the end of the spinal cord and filling the lower part of the spinal canal(from approximately the thoraco-lumbar junction down). Embryology : Caudally the tail region projects over the cloacal membrane.
The Basque are known as a maritime group and are the largest known RH negative group.  They do not seem to enjoy any special favors when it comes to the European movers and shakers. In fact at times they seem persecuted as do Palestinians, American indians,  Japanese Ainu, the white tribe which was pushed to almost extinction in Japan and have large percentages of RH negative blood.

They also have one of the highest percentages of rare AB blood type. Why would this be the case? RH negatives do seem to experience a high rate of disappearance. Is there a DNA or blood type needed for something we know little about?
Monkey Blood
Here is another theory.
“The Reptilians are tracking those with Rh-Negative Factor Blood. Going back into time…. the Rh-Neg Hybrids came from the DRACO Caverns in the Carpathian Mountains. They were mostly RED Haired, with Green Eyes and Black haired, with Brown Eyes. They tried to infiltrate themselves into the Blond/Brown Haired, with Blue Eyes, Civilization.

They wanted to Mate with those who were not Rh-Negatives. Most Rh-Negs have a Lower Body temperature and Blood pressure than Rh-Positives. Many Rh-Negs are born with a CAUDA(tail) or an Extra Vertebra (Tail Bone). Rh-Negs are Hybrids. They are Part Reptilian/part human. If two Rh-Negs try to have a baby it will usually die or be born a “BLUE Baby”, because it is Not processing oxygen properly. Thus “Blue-Bloods”, if they survive. 5% of the Earth’s population are currently Rh-Negatives. But, they are 15% of the population of the England and the USA.”

“Dr. Luigi Cavalli-Sforza from Stanford University wrote an article entitled “Genes, Peoples and Languages” (Scientific American, Nov.’91). He pointed out the high Rh-negative concentrations among the people of Morocco, the Basque country of Euskadi, Ireland, Scotland and the Norwegian islands.”
The only people among these still to speak their original neolithic language were the Basques…”

Those who originated in Samaria (VN:  Better known as “IRAQ”) have a high percentage of RH negative blood, as do some American Indian groups. We have to wonder about the American Indian trait of  becoming blood brothers. Were they mixing antigens or what was going on? Were some of the native American hostilities based on blood type? The totem poles were carefully designed records of genealogy. We know that native Americans referred to some as “evil spirits”? The Greeks considered the blood of the Gods to be poisonous to mortals. The Chinese and Africans have almost no RH negative blood types.
Sumerian tablets, Vedas, the Atrahasis explicitly say the Nefilim were different from the subjects they created on earth. They were surprised when the initial humans had foreskins as they did not. We might assume this lead to the practice of circumcision as the earthlings wished to be as the Gods. There is a quote in Genesis where the Lord of the Universe says something to other Nefilim along the lines of, the earthlings wish to be like us. What is up with the story of Michael slaying the “reptilian” dragon?

Former U.S Presidents
Former President Eisenhower Type O-Neg
Former President John F. Kennedy Type AB-Neg
Former President Richard Nixon Type O-Neg
Former President Bill Clinton AB-Neg
Former President George W. Bush Sr. Type A-Neg

Pharaoh Ramses II Type B-Neg
Shroud Of Turin was AB-Neg is this correct?
Prince Charles Type O-Neg and his late Grandmother
Queen Elizabeth Type O-Neg
Prince William is also negative

Interesting Authors
Zacharia Sitchin Type Neg
Brad Steiger O-Neg
Erik Von Daniken Type O-Neg
Robert Anton Wilson Type Neg
Mick Jagger Type AB-Neg (Of running with the devil fame)
Fox Mulder “X-files” Type O-Neg
Marilyn Monroe was Type AB-Neg
Dan Aykroyd Type O-Neg
High Profile Murders
O.J. Simpson is Type A-Neg “who killed”
Ron Goldman Type O-Neg
Laci Peterson Type O-Neg  (remember she was kidnapped and killed)

“The researches of R. Frank, a scholar at the University of Iowa, suggest that the Basques were far-advanced in navigational skills and other aspects of technology long before the rise of the Roman Empire. The Basques, she believes, are the last remnants of the megalith builders, who left behind dolmens, standing stones, and other rock structures all across Europe and perhaps even in eastern North America.”

“Two facts set the Basque peoples apart from the other Europeans who have dominated the continent the past 3,000 years: (1) The Basque language is distinctly different; and (2) The Basques have the highest recorded level of Rh-negative blood (roughly twice that of most Europeans), as well as substantially lower levels of Type B blood and a higher incidence of Type O blood.”
Southern France and Northern Spain is where you can find most of the RH-negative factor in the Basque people. Another group is the Eastern/Oriental Jews.

In general, about 40 – 45% of Europeans have the RH-negative group. Only about 3% of African descendents and about 1% of Asian or Native Americans have the RH-negative group although in some groups it appears to be relatively high.

Due to the larger European numbers, it is a safe bet that was where it was introduced into the human genetic code. Could this also be where the Caucasian was introduced? Is the introduction of the Caucasian related to the RH-blood factor? The caucasian is generally associated with Cromagnon man.  Is it a factor in bio specific weapon production?
It has been proven that the majority of mankind (85%) has a blood factor seen in the rhesus monkey. It is called rhesus positive blood. Usually shortened to Rh positive. This factor  is not related to the AB, A, B, O blood types. RH negative factor has to be a mutation or points out descendants from a different family tree. Negative blood types cannot be cloned. You can breed a horse and a donkey but the mule will be sterile.

Here’s a sciencey perspective on Rh- blood.  “(The interesting bit is that no solid scientific explanation exists as to how or why Rh- blood came about. It is presumed to be the result of a random mutation.) What we know is somehow a mother will build up antibodies to reject an alien factor and this does not happen anywhere else in nature.

This is the mother’s body rejecting her own offspring. It suggest cross breeding between different species. This does not lend credence to all of us being from the Noah family tree and suggests a control system whether through ignorance or by design.”
“Only 5 percent of the entire world were said to be Rh negative, when I first started researching it. Now, it is stated that the Rh negative factor is 15 percent of the world’s blood types. I think this may have come about due to more research that has been done in third world countries, and in areas of the world where scientists had no communications with data.

The theories of the origins on the phenomena of the Rh negative blood types have been vast, strange and controversial. Some of these theories of which mostly, I truly don’t believe, but it is fodder for some bizarre coincidences, and hopefully enlightening into this mystery.”

“The Rh negative blood type is said to be of unknown origin. There is no one scientist that can give a single reason for its existence other than a mutation that occurred tens of thousands of years ago. I gathered a lot of pseudo, and actual details over the years of which are amusing, and contradictory to what I really think was the cause of this negative blood type factor.”  (VN: it can’t be a mutation….. we did a blog on that theory.  You should go read it.
There are of  course theories of genes brought to earth by the Annunaki.  One was the Enki. The Enuma Elish indicates they came from heaven to earth in flying machines. It seems on further review this is where tales in the bible were first plagarized.

The royal families of Europe claim to be descendants of the Gods and blue bloods as a result of their RH negative blood type. What if they are wrong and RH negative is not even the key factor in blood types? I don’t take it as a given they even know what they are talking about.
Peter whom Jesus had given the keys to heaven was quoted as saying that “we will be judging angels.”  Bear in mind however there is no evidence Peter or Jesus were RH negative.
The rarest of blood groups is AB. Individuals with the blood group AB contain both antigen A and antigen B. Thus, they can receive blood from individuals of all blood groups. Nevertheless, people with AB blood group can donate blood only to people who have the AB blood group.

One researcher believes all groups were at one time AB and copper deficiency causes deterioration down to type O and reduces life span. So we really don’t know do we? It could be that AB is the original blood group. I tend to believe that might be the case, but what of the RH negative factor? I hardly think it is a mutation.

Some say O is the strongest blood and others like Boutillier disagree and say AB is the original blood type. AB positive is almost as rare as AB negative. So there is much disagreement. Most all say never take a blood transfusion as there are over 5000 varying blood factors.
Rh-negative women and men have several “Unusual Traits” that Rh-positives don’t. Some call them “Reptilian Traits”. I tend to think they may well be neanderthal traits. This may indeed trace back to the fall of Atlantis when some escaped to Egypt and other places. They may have come into direct contact with a separate species with different blood groupings. This group may just have been the one that stretched from the western caucasus to Spain and could account for the various forms of rejection we see in various blood groups.

An EXTRA-Vertebra (a “Tail Bone”)….some are born with a tail(called a “Cauda”).
Lower than normal Body Temperature
Lower than normal Blood Pressure
Higher mental analytical abilities.
Higher Negative-ion shielding (from positive “charged” virus/bacteria)around the body.
High Sensitivity to EM and ELF Fields.
“Most do not know that as RHO-Neg individuals, they are tracked throughout their whole lives by world-wide governmental agencies interested in understanding the genesis of this group, and for other more complex societal purposes. (follow this line of thought in the new material to be posted as a continuation of Journey to the Absolute Elsewhere)
“Here are a few tidbits about this blood thing. In ALL blood groups there exists a common microbe that in essence is THE LIFE FORCE ITSELF. During experiments that our team conducted we heated the blood to 700 degrees F and also put it in Liquid Nitrogen. This microbe which is visible only with a highly modified dark field microscope that was custom built for us was STILL ALIVE.

We have also tested this on ´mummy dust´. This microbe is STILL alive after 5000 years plus when the mummy dust is placed in a ph perfect solution the same as the “live blood”, it returns back to ´life´.”
And then we have the satanic vampire cult blood drinkers who seem to be convinced the “life is in the blood.”
Rare AB blood types are highest in the Japan’s Ainu white tribe, gypsies, Mongols, Thai, Kalmuks and Peking Chinese.
Updated 1-21-2014

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

The Interview: Henry Kissinger

As we celebrate our 30th anniversary, TNI Editor Jacob Heilbrunn sits down with the former Secretary of State.


He is also a Convicted  Wanted Felon for Mass Murder and Genocide,He’s a  Convicted and Wanted Felon for Crimes against Humanity and Convicted and wanted Felon for WAR CRIMES in Indochina, Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus and East Timor.


The Trial of Henry Kissinger.jpg

Henry Kissinger

August 19, 2015 

The National Interest’s editor, Jacob Heilbrunn, spoke with Henry Kissinger in early July in New York.

Jacob Heilbrunn: Why is realism today an embattled approach to foreign affairs, or perhaps not as significant as it was when you had figures such as Hans Morgenthau, George F. Kennan, Dean Acheson, then yourself in the 1970s—what has changed?

Henry Kissinger: I don’t think that I have changed my view on this subject very much since the seventies. I have always had an expansive view of national interest, and much of the debate about realism as against idealism is artificial. The way the debate is conventionally presented pits a group that believes in power as the determining element of international politics against idealists who believe that the values of society are decisive. Kennan, Acheson or any of the people you mentioned did not have such a simplistic view. The view of the various realists is that, in an analysis of foreign policy, you have to start with an assessment of the elements that are relevant to the situation. And obviously, values are included as an important element. The real debate is over relative priority and balance.

Heilbrunn: One of the things that struck me in the new biography of you by Niall Ferguson is his quotation from your personal diary from 1964. You suggested rather prophetically that “the Goldwater victory is a new phenomenon in American politics—the triumph of the ideological party in the European sense. No one can predict how it will end because there is no precedent for it.”

Kissinger: At the convention, it seemed to be true to somebody like me, who was most familiar with the politics of the Eastern Establishment. Later in life, I got to know Goldwater and respected him as a man of great moral conviction and integrity.

Heilbrunn: Right, but I was more interested in your interpretation of the ideological force that emerged in ’64.

Kissinger: It was a new ideological force in the Republican Party. Until then, the Eastern Establishment view based on historic models of European history was the dominant view of foreign policy. This new foreign-policy view was more missionary; it emphasized that America had a mission to bring about democracy—if necessary, by the use of force. And it had a kind of intolerance toward opposition. It then became characteristic of both the extreme Right and the extreme Left, and they changed sides occasionally.Kissinger arrives in Dublin










Heilbrunn: And they both vehemently attacked the Nixon administration.

Kissinger: Yes.

Heilbrunn: I remember that in your memoirs, you indicate that you were perhaps most astonished to be attacked from the right—

Kissinger: Totally unprepared.

Heilbrunn: —for allegedly appeasing the Soviet Union.

Kissinger: Well, and some, like Norman Podhoretz—who’s a good friend today—attacked me from both the left and the right sequentially.

Heilbrunn: I’d forgotten that he’d managed that feat. In the end, though, détente played a critical role in bringing down the Soviet Union, didn’t it?

Kissinger: That is my view. We viewed détente as a strategy for conducting the conflict with the Soviet Union.

Heilbrunn: I’m amazed that this doesn’t get more attention—in Europe, this is the common view, that détente was essential toward softening up Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and getting over the memory of World War II, whereas in the United States we have a triumphalist view.

Kissinger: Well, you have the view that Reagan started the process with his Evil Empire speech, which, in my opinion, occurred at the point when the Soviet Union was already well on the way to defeat. We were engaged in a long-term struggle, generating many competing analyses. I was on the hard-line side of the analysis. But I stressed also the diplomatic and psychological dimensions. We needed to wage the Cold War from a posture in which we would not be isolated, and in which we would have the best possible basis for conducting unavoidable conflicts. Finally, we had a special obligation to find a way to avoid nuclear conflict, since that risked civilization. We sought a position to be ready to use force when necessary but always in the context of making it clearly demonstrable as a last resort. The neoconservatives took a more absolutist view. Reagan used the span of time that was available to him with considerable tactical skill, although I’m not sure that all of it was preconceived. But its effect was extremely impressive. I think the détente period was an indispensable prelude.

Heilbrunn: The other monumental accomplishment was obviously the opening to China. Do you feel today that—

Kissinger: —Reducing the Soviet role in the Middle East. That was not minor.

Heilbrunn: That’s correct, and saving Israel in the ’73 war with the arms supply.

Kissinger: The two were related.

Heilbrunn: Is China the new Wilhelmine Germany today? Richard Nixon, shortly before he died, told William Safire that it was necessary to create the opening to China, but we may have created a Frankenstein.

Kissinger: A country that has had three thousand years of dominating its region can be said to have an inherent reality. The alternative would have been to keep China permanently subdued in collusion with the Soviet Union, and therefore making the Soviet Union—already an advanced nuclear country—the dominant country of Eurasia with American connivance. But China inherently presents a fundamental challenge to American strategy.

Heilbrunn: And do you think they’re pushing for a more Sinocentric world, or can they be integrated into some sort of Westphalian framework, as you outlined in your most recent book, World Order?

Kissinger: That’s the challenge. That’s the open question. It’s our task. We’re not good at it, because we don’t understand their history and culture. I think that their basic thinking is Sinocentric. But it may produce consequences that are global in impact. Therefore, the challenge of China is a much subtler problem than that of the Soviet Union. The Soviet problem was largely strategic. This is a cultural issue: Can two civilizations that do not, at least as yet, think alike come to a coexistence formula that produces world order?

Heilbrunn: How greatly do you rate the chances of a real Sino-Russian rapprochement?

Kissinger: It’s not in either of their natures, I think—

Heilbrunn: Because the Russians clearly would like to create a much closer relationship.

Kissinger: But partly because we’ve given them no choice.

Heilbrunn: How do you think the United States can extricate itself from the Ukraine impasse—the United States and Europe, obviously?

Kissinger: The issue is not to extricate the United States from the Ukrainian impasse but to solve it in a way conducive to international order. A number of things need to be recognized. One, the relationship between Ukraine and Russia will always have a special character in the Russian mind. It can never be limited to a relationship of two traditional sovereign states, not from the Russian point of view, maybe not even from Ukraine’s. So, what happens in Ukraine cannot be put into a simple formula of applying principles that worked in Western Europe, not that close to Stalingrad and Moscow. In that context, one has to analyze how the Ukraine crisis occurred. It is not conceivable that Putin spends sixty billion euros on turning a summer resort into a winter Olympic village in order to start a military crisis the week after a concluding ceremony that depicted Russia as a part of Western civilization.

So then, one has to ask: How did that happen? I saw Putin at the end of November 2013. He raised a lot of issues; Ukraine he listed at the end as an economic problem that Russia would handle via tariffs and oil prices. The first mistake was the inadvertent conduct of the European Union. They did not understand the implications of some of their own conditions. Ukrainian domestic politics made it look impossible for Yanukovych to accept the EU terms and be reelected or for Russia to view them as purely economic. So the Ukrainian president rejected the EU terms. The Europeans panicked, and Putin became overconfident. He perceived the deadlock as a great opportunity to implement immediately what had heretofore been his long-range goal. He offered fifteen billion dollars to draw Ukraine into his Eurasian Union. In all of this, America was passive. There was no significant political discussion with Russia or the EU of what was in the making. Each side acted sort of rationally based on its misconception of the other, while Ukraine slid into the Maidan uprising right in the middle of what Putin had spent ten years building as a recognition of Russia’s status. No doubt in Moscow this looked as if the West was exploiting what had been conceived as a Russian festival to move Ukraine out of the Russian orbit. Then Putin started acting like a Russian czar—like Nicholas I over a century ago. I am not excusing the tactics, only setting them in context.

Heilbrunn: Another country that’s obviously taken a lead role in Europe is Germany—on Ukraine, on Greece—

Kissinger: They don’t really seek that role. The paradox is that seventy years after having defeated German claims to dominating Europe, the victors are now pleading, largely for economic reasons, with Germany to lead Europe. Germany can and should play an important role in the construction of European and international order. But it is not the ideal principal negotiating partner about the security of Europe on a border that is two hundred miles from Stalingrad. The United States has put forward no concept of its own except that Russia will one day join the world community by some automatic act of conversion. Germany’s role is significant, but an American contribution to Ukrainian diplomacy is essential to put the issue into a global context.

Heilbrunn: Is that absence a mistake, then?

Kissinger: If we treat Russia seriously as a great power, we need at an early stage to determine whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities. We should explore the possibilities of a status of nonmilitary grouping on the territory between Russia and the existing frontiers of NATO.

The West hesitates to take on the economic recovery of Greece; it’s surely not going to take on Ukraine as a unilateral project. So one should at least examine the possibility of some cooperation between the West and Russia in a militarily nonaligned Ukraine. The Ukraine crisis is turning into a tragedy because it is confusing the long-range interests of global order with the immediate need of restoring Ukrainian identity. I favor an independent Ukraine in its existing borders. I have advocated it from the start of the post-Soviet period. When you read now that Muslim units are fighting on behalf of Ukraine, then the sense of proportion has been lost.

Heilbrunn: That’s a disaster, obviously.

Kissinger: To me, yes. It means that breaking Russia has become an objective; the long-range purpose should be to integrate it.

Heilbrunn: But we have witnessed a return, at least in Washington, DC, of neoconservatives and liberal hawks who are determined to break the back of the Russian government.

Kissinger: Until they face the consequences. The trouble with America’s wars since the end of the Second World War has been the failure to relate strategy to what is possible domestically. The five wars we’ve fought since the end of World War II were all started with great enthusiasm. But the hawks did not prevail at the end. At the end, they were in a minority. We should not engage in international conflicts if, at the beginning, we cannot describe an end, and if we’re not willing to sustain the effort needed to achieve that end.

Heilbrunn: But we seem to recapitulate this over and over again.

Kissinger: Because we refuse to learn from experience. Because it’s essentially done by an ahistorical people. In schools now, they don’t teach history anymore as a sequence of events. They deal with it in terms of themes without context.

Heilbrunn: So they’ve stripped it of all context.

Kissinger: Of what used to be context—they put it in an entirely new context.

Heilbrunn: The kind of book you wrote—your first book, for example—would never pass muster in political science today because it’s not filled with abstract theories. It actually tells a narrative lesson.

Kissinger: That’s why I get attacked from the left and the right—because I don’t fit either of their categories.

Heilbrunn: Speaking of history, what is your assessment of Germany’s role in Europe right now? Are we back to a new German problem, where southern Europe views them as an occupying power, and in Germany itself there are hints of nationalism—I wouldn’t say that it’s an efflorescence.

Kissinger: Well, there are hints. Some groups in Germany, in the group below fifty, sometimes act as if the country that once sought to shape Europe by force now claims the right to reshape it by absolute moral judgment. It’s unfair to tempt Germany into such a role. It’s easy domestic politics for the countries of southern Europe to blame the Germans rather than themselves. What is the German sin in Greece? The Germans are saying that what is put forward as a bailout perpetuates irresponsibility. They are seeking to define a responsible process of recovery. Considering that their history has made inflation such a nightmare to Germans, I have sympathy for their position. Germany has never in its national history starting in 1871 had to run an international system. From 1871 to 1890, Bismarck conducted a spectacular tour de force that was not sustainable. You can’t have a great policy if it requires a genius in every generation. But from 1890 to the end of the Second World War—nearly a century—Germany was embattled in its perception of the world around it. Britain and France have much more experience in multilateral diplomacy. So I have sympathy for the German dilemma. They can help, they may be decisive in helping, but they need a bigger, more global framework, which we need to contribute.

Heilbrunn: The Atlanticist generation in Germany and the approach it embodied have largely disappeared.

Kissinger: That’s a pity.

Heilbrunn: The younger CDU [Christian Democratic Union] politicians that I’ve met are not that interested in the United States, which is a dramatic shift, since the whole Adenauer policy was based on Westbindung.

Kissinger: It’s partly their fault and partly our fault.

Heilbrunn: I saw Robert McFarlane recently, who worked for you, and in the Reagan administration. He said to me, “The last strategic thinker as an American president was Richard Nixon.” Is that true?

Kissinger: I think that’s right. He had substantial strategic vision. At the end of the first volume of my memoirs, White House Years, I wrote that the question is: What would have happened if the establishment that Nixon both admired and feared had shown him some love? Would he have retreated further into the wilderness of his resentments, or would such an act have liberated him? I leave it open.

Heilbrunn: Do you trace many of the problems in American foreign policy back to Vietnam, to that shattering of foreign-policy consensus?

Kissinger: I think Vietnam was the pretext. It made the protest legitimate. Because after all, you had student demonstrations in the Netherlands, which had no Vietnam, and in France.

Heilbrunn: Nixon was clearly somebody who had a tremendous amount of foreign-policy experience before he became president in 1969.

Kissinger: And he was thoughtful, and his psychological attitude made him unwilling to deal with too many people, so he had to think and read—he couldn’t push a button and get a Google answer—and travel. He was not threatened personally when he traveled abroad, so he was at ease in many conversations with foreign leaders. For all of these reasons, he thought deeply about foreign affairs.

Heilbrunn: He must have learned a lot from Eisenhower, too, I assume.

Kissinger: Well, like everything with Nixon, it was always a good combination of resentment and admiration, so nothing was ever unambiguous.

Heilbrunn: Do you think that Barack Obama is a realist—he’s reluctant to get involved in Ukraine, for example—or do you think that’s overdone?

Kissinger: Well, on the prudential level he’s a realist. But his vision is more ideological than strategic.

Heilbrunn: Thank you for the interview.

The Ivy League's favorite war criminal: Why the atrocities of Henry Kissinger should be mandatory reading

The Case Against Henry Kissinger

Part One

The making of a war criminal

by Christopher Hitchens
Harpers magazine, March 2001

It will become clear, and may as well be stated at the outset, that this is written by a political opponent of Henry Kissinger. Nonetheless, I have found myself continually amazed at how much hostile and discreditable material I have felt compelled to omit. I am concerned only with those Kissingerian offenses that might or should form the basis of a legal prosecution: for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture.
Thus, I might have mentioned Kissinger’s recruitment and betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds, who were falsely encouraged by him to take up arms against Saddam Hussein in 1972-75, and who were then abandoned to extermination on their hillsides when Saddam Hussein made a diplomatic deal with the Shah of Iran, and who were deliberately lied to as well as abandoned. The conclusions of the report by Congressman Otis Pike still make shocking reading and reveal on Kissinger’s part a callous indifference to human life and human rights. But they fall into the category of depraved realpolitik and do not seem to have violated any known law.
In the same way, Kissinger’s orchestration of political and military and diplomatic cover for apartheid in South Africa presents us with a morally repulsive record and includes the appalling consequences of the destabilization of Angola. Again, though, one is looking at a sordid period of Cold War and imperial history, and an exercise of irresponsible power, rather than an episode of organized crime. Additionally, one must take into account the institutional nature of this policy, which might in outline have been followed under any administration, national security adviser, or secretary of state.
Similar reservations can be held about Kissinger’s chairmanship of the Presidential Commission on Central America in the early 1980s, which was staffed by Oliver North and which whitewashed death-squad activity on the isthmus. Or about the political protection provided by Kissinger, while in office, for the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran and its machinery of torture and repression. The list, it is sobering to say, could be protracted very much further. But it will not do to blame the whole exorbitant cruelty and cynicism of decades on one man. (Occasionally one gets an intriguing glimpse, as when Kissinger urges President Ford not to receive the inconvenient Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, all the while posing as Communism’s most daring and principled foe.)
No, I have confined myself to the identifiable crimes that can and should be placed on a proper bill of indictment, whether the actions taken were in line with general "policy" or not. These include, in this installment, the deliberate mass killing of civilian populations in Indochina and the personal suborning and planning of murder of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation-Chile-with which the United States was not at war. In a second installment we will see that this criminal habit of mind extends to Bangladesh, Cyprus, East Timor, and even to Washington, D.C.
Some of these allegations can be constructed only prima facie, since Mr. Kissinger-in what may also amount to a deliberate and premeditated obstruction of justice-has caused large tranches of evidence to be withheld or possibly destroyed. We now, however, enter upon the age when the defense of "sovereign immunity" for state crimes has been held to be void. As I demonstrate below, Kissinger has understood this decisive change even if many of his critics have not. The House of Lords’ ruling in London, on the international relevance of General Augusto Pinochet’s crimes, added to the splendid activism of the Spanish magistracy and the verdicts of the International Tribunal at The Hague, has destroyed the shield that immunized crimes committed under the justification of raison d’etat. There is now no reason why a warrant for the trial of Kissinger may not be issued in any one of a number of jurisdictions and no reason why he may not be compelled to answer it. Indeed, as I write, there are a number of jurisdictions where the law is at long last beginning to catch up with the evidence. And we have before us in any case the Nuremberg precedent, by which the United States solemnly undertook to be bound.
A failure to proceed will constitute a double or triple offense to justice. First, it will violate the essential and now uncontested principle that not even the most powerful are above the law. Second, it will suggest that prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity are reserved for losers, or for minor despots in relatively negligible countries. This in turn will lead to the paltry politicization of what could have been a noble process and to the justifiable suspicion of double standards.
Many if not most of Kissinger’s partners in politics, from Greece to Chile to Argentina to Indonesia, are now in jail or awaiting trial. His own lonely impunity is rank; it smells to heaven. If it is allowed to persist then we shall shamefully vindicate the ancient philosopher Anacrusis, who maintained that laws were like cobwebs-strong enough to detain only the weak and too weak to hold the strong. In the name of innumerable victims known and unknown, it is time for justice to take a hand.
In December 2, 1998, Michael Korda was being interviewed on camera in his office at Simon & Schuster. As one of the reigning magnates of New York publishing, he had edited and "produced" the work of authors as various as Tennessee Williams, Richard Nixon, Joan Crawford, and Joe Bonanno. On this particular day, he was talking about the life and thoughts of Cher, whose portrait adorned the wall behind him. And then the telephone rang and there was a message to call "Dr." Henry Kissinger as soon as possible. A polymath like Korda knows-what with the exigencies of publishing in these vertiginous days-how to switch in an instant between Cher and high statecraft. The camera kept running, and recorded the following scene for a tape that I possess:
Asking his secretary to get the number (7597919-the digits of Kissinger Associates), Korda quips dryly, to general laughter in the office, that it "should be 1-800-CAMBODIA . . .1-800-BOMB-CAMBODIA." After a pause of nicely calibrated duration (no senior editor likes to be put on hold while he’s receiving company, especially media company) it’s "Henry-Hi, how are you? . . . You’re getting all the publicity you could want in the New York Times but not the kind you want… I also think it’s very, very dubious for the administration to simply say yes, they’ll release these papers . . . no . . . no, absolutely . . . no . . . no . . . well, hmmm, yeah. We did it until quite recently, frankly, and he did prevail . . . Well, I don’t think there’s any question about that, as uncomfortable as it may be . . . Henry, this is totally outrageous . . . yeah . . . also the jurisdiction. This is a Spanish judge appealing to an English court about a Chilean head of state. So it’s, it . . . Also, Spain has no rational jurisdiction over events in Chile anyway, so that makes absolutely no sense . . . Well, that’s probably true . .. If you would. I think that would be by far and away the best. .. Right, yeah, no, I think it’s exactly what you should do, and I don’t think it should be long, and I think it should end with your father’s letter. I think it’s a very important document . . . Yes, but I think the letter is wonderful, and central to the entire book. Can you let me read the Lebanon chapter over the weekend?" At this point the conversation ends, with some jocular observations by Korda about his upcoming colonoscopy: "a totally repulsive procedure."
By means of the same tiny internal camera, or its forensic equivalent, one could deduce not a little about the world of Henry Kissinger from this microcosmic exchange. The first and most important is this: Sitting in his office at Kissinger Associates, with its tentacles of business and consultancy stretching from Belgrade to Beijing, and cushioned by innumerable other directorships and boards, he still shudders when he hears of the arrest of a dictator. Syncopated the conversation with Korda may be, but it’s clear that the keyword is "jurisdiction." What had the New York Times been reporting that fine morning? On December 2, 1998, its front page carried the following report from Tim Weiner, the paper’s national-security correspondent in Washington. Under the headline "U.S. Will Release Files on Crimes Under Pinochet," he wrote:
Treading into a political and diplomatic confrontation it tried to avoid, the United States decided today to declassify some secret documents on the killings and torture committed during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile….
The decision to release such documents is the first sign that the United States will cooperate in the case against General Pinochet. Clinton Administration officials said they believed the benefits of openness in human rights cases outweighed the risks to national security in this case. But the decision could open "a can of worms," in the words of a former Central Intelligence Agency official stationed in Chile, exposing the depth of the knowledge that the United States had about crimes charged against the Pinochet Government….
While some European government officials have supported bringing the former dictator to court, United States officials have stayed largely silent, reflecting skepticism about the Spanish court’s power doubts about international tribunals aimed at former foreign rulers, and worries over the implications for American leaders who might someday also be accused in foreign countries.
President Richard M. Nixon and Henry A. Kissinger, who served as his national security advisor and Secretary of State, supported a right-wing coup in Chile in the early 1970s, previously declassified documents show.
But many of the actions of the United States during the 1973 coup, and much of what American leaders and intelligence services did in liaison with the Pinochet Government after it seized power, remain under the seal of national security. The secret files on the Pinochet regime are held by the C.l.A., the Defense Intelligence Agency the State Department, the Pentagon, the National Security Council, the National Archives, the Presidential libraries of Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter, and other Government agencies. According to Justice Department records, these files contain a history of human rights abuses and international terrorism:
* In 1975 State Department diplomats in Chile protested the Pinochet regime’s record of killing and torture, filing dissents to American foreign policy with their superiors in Washington.
* The C.l.A. has files on assassinations by the regime and the Chilean secret police. The intelligence agency also has records on Chile’s attempts to establish an international right-wing covert-action squad.
* The Ford Library contains many of Mr. Kissinger’s secret files on Chile, which have never been made public. Through a secretary, Mr. Kissinger declined a request for an interview today.
One must credit Kissinger with grasping what so many other people did not: that if the Pinochet precedent became established, then he himself was in some danger. The United States believes that it alone pursues and indicts war criminals and "international terrorists"; nothing in its political or journalistic culture yet allows for the thought that it might be harboring and sheltering such a senior one. Yet the thought had very obliquely surfaced in Weiner’s story, and Kissinger was a worried man when he called his editor that day to discuss the concluding volume of his memoirs (eventually published under the unbearably dull and self-regarding title Years of Renewal), which was still in progress.
"Harboring and sheltering," though, are understatements for the lavishness of Henry Kissinger’s circumstances. His advice is sought, at $30,000 an appearance, by audiences of businessmen and academics and policymakers. His turgid newspaper column is syndicated by the Los Angeles Times and appears as far afield as the Washington Post. His first volume of memoirs was in part written, and also edited, by Harold Evans, who with Tina Brown is among the many hosts and hostesses who solicit Kissinger’s company, or perhaps one should say society, for their New York soirees. At different times, he has been a consultant to ABC News and CBS; his most successful diplomacy, indeed, has probably been conducted with the media (and his single greatest achievement has been to get almost everybody to call him "Doctor"). Fawned on by Ted Koppel, sought out by corporations and despots with "image" problems or "failures of communication," and given respectful attention by presidential candidates and those whose task it is to "mold" their global vision, this man wants for little in the pathetic universe that the "self-esteem" industry exists to serve. Of whom else would Norman Podhoretz write, in a bended-knee encomium to the second volume of Kissinger’s memoirs, Years of Upheaval:
What we have here is writing of the very highest order. It is writing that is equally at ease in portraiture and abstract analysis; that can shape a narrative as skillfully as it can paint a scene; that can achieve marvels of compression while moving at an expansive and leisurely pace. It is writing that can shift without strain or falsity of tone from the gravitas befitting a book about great historical events to the humor and irony dictated by an unfailing sense of human proportion.
A critic who can suck like that, as was once dryly said by one of my moral tutors, need never dine alone. Nor need his subject. Except that, every now and then, the recipient (and donor) of so much sycophancy feels a tremor of anxiety. He leaves the well-furnished table and scurries to the bathroom. Is it perhaps another disclosure on a newly released Nixon tape ? Some stray news from Indonesia portending the fall or imprisonment of another patron (and perhaps the escape of an awkward document or two)? The arrest or indictment of a torturer or assassin, the expiry of the statute of secrecy for some obscure cabinet papers in a faraway country? Any one of these can instantly spoil his day. As we see from the Korda tape, Kissinger cannot open the morning paper with the assurance of tranquility. Because he knows what others can only suspect, or guess at. And he is a prisoner of the knowledge, as, to some extent, are we.
Notice the likable way in which Michael Korda demonstrates his broad-mindedness with the Cambodia jest. Everybody "knows," after all, that Kissinger inflicted terror and misery and mass death on that country, and great injury to the United States Constitution at the same time. (Everybody also "knows" that other vulnerable nations can lay claim to the same melancholy and hateful distinction as Cambodia, with incremental or "collateral" damage to American democracy keeping pace.) Yet the pudgy man standing in black tie at the Vogue party is not, surely, the man who ordered and sanctioned the destruction of civilian populations, the assassination of inconvenient politicians, the kidnapping and disappearance of soldiers and journalists and clerics who got in his way. Oh, but he is. He’s exactly the same man. And that may be among the most nauseating reflections of all. Kissinger is not invited and feted because of his exquisite manners or his mordant wit (his manners are in any case rather gross, and his wit consists of a quiver of borrowed and second-hand darts). No, he is sought after because his presence supplies a frisson, the authentic touch of raw and unapologetic power. There’s a slight guilty nervousness on the edge of Korda’s gag about the indescribable sufferings of Indochina. And I’ve noticed, time and again, standing at the back of the audience during Kissinger speeches, that laughter of the nervous, uneasy kind is the sort of laughter he likes to provoke. In exacting this tribute, he flaunts not the "aphrodisiac" of power (another of his plagiarized bons mots) but its pornography.
There exists, within the political class of Washington, D.C., an open secret that is too momentous and too awful to tell.
Although it is well known to academic historians, senior reporters, former Cabinet members, and ex-diplomats, it has never been summarized all at one time in any one place. The reason for this is, on first viewing, paradoxical. The open secret is in the possession of both major political parties, and it directly implicates the past statecraft of at least three former presidencies. Thus, its full disclosure would be in the interest of no particular faction. Its truth is therefore the guarantee of its obscurity; it lies like Poe’s "purloined letter" across the very aisle that signifies bipartisanship.
Here is the secret in plain words. In the fall of 1968, Richard Nixon and some of his emissaries and underlings set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. The means they chose were simple: they privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers that an incoming Republican regime would offer them a better deal than would a Democratic one. In this way, they undercut both the talks themselves and the electoral strategy of Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The tactic "worked," in that the South Vietnamese junta withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election, thereby destroying the peace initiative on which the Democrats had based their campaign. In another way, it did not "work," because four years later the Nixon Administration tried to conclude the war on the same terms that had been on offer in Paris. The reason for the dead silence that still surrounds the question is that in those intervening years some 20,000 Americans and an uncalculated number of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians lost their lives. Lost them, that is to say, even more pointlessly than had those slain up to that point. The impact of those four years on Indochinese society, and on American democracy, is beyond computation. The chief beneficiary of the covert action, and of the subsequent slaughter, was Henry Kissinger.
I can already hear the guardians of consensus, scraping their blunted quills to dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory." I happily accept the challenge. Let us take, first, the Diaries of that renowned conspirator (and theorist of conspiracy) H. R. Haldeman, published in May 1994.1 choose to start with them for two reasons. First, because on the logical inference of "evidence against interest" it is improbable that Mr. Haldeman would supply evidence of his knowledge of a crime, unless he was (posthumously) telling the truth. Second, because it is possible to trace back each of his entries to its origin in other documented sources.
In January 1973, the Nixon-Kissinger Administration-for which Haldeman took the minutes-was heavily engaged on two fronts. In Paris again, Henry Kissinger was striving to negotiate "peace with honor" in Vietnam. In Washington, D.C., the web of evidence against the Watergate burglars and buggers was beginning to tighten. On January 8,1973, Haldeman records:
John Dean called to report on the Watergate trials, says that if we can prove in any way by hard evidence that our [campaign] plane was bugged in ’68, he thinks that we could use that as a basis to say we’re going to force Congress to go back and investigate ’68 as well as ‘7I, and thus turn them off.
Three days later, on January 11, 1973, Haldeman hears from Nixon ("the P," as the Diaries call him):
On the Watergate question, he wanted me to talk to [Attorney General John] Mitchell and have him find out from [Deke] De Loach [of the FBI] if the guy who did the bugging on us in 1968 is still at the FBI, and then [FBI acting director Patrick] Gray should nail him with a lie detector and get it settled, which would give us the evidence we need. He also thinks I ought to move with George Christian [President Johnson’s former press secretary, then working with Democrats for Nixon], get LBJ to use his influence to turn off the Hill investigation with Califano, Hubert, and so on. Later in the day, he decided that wasn’t such a good idea, and told me not to do it, which I fortunately hadn’t done.
On the same day, Haldeman reports Henry Kissinger calling excitedly from Paris, saying "he’ll do the signing in Paris rather than Hanoi, which is the key thing." He speaks also of getting South Vietnam’s President Thieu to "go along." On the following day:
The P also got back on the Watergate thing today, making the point that I should talk to Connally about the Johnson bugging process to get his judgment as to how to handle it. He wonders if we shouldn’t just have Andreas go in and scare Hubert. The problem in going at LBJ is how he’d react, and we need to find out from [Deke] De Loach who did it, and then run a lie detector on him. I talked to Mitchell on the phone on this subject and he said De Loach had told him he was up to date on the thing because he had a call from Texas. A Star re’ porter was making an inquiry in the last week or so, and LBJ got very hot and called Deke and said to him that if the Nixon people are going to play with this, that he would release [deleted material-national security], saying that our side was asking that certain things be done. By our side, I assume he means the Nixon campaign organization. De Loach took this as a direct threat from Johnson…. As he recalls it, bugging was requested on the planes, but was turned down, and all they did was check the phone calls, and put a tap on the Dragon Lady [Mrs. Anna Chennault].
This bureaucratic prose may be hard to read, but it needs no cipher to decode itself. Under intense pressure about the bugging of the Watergate building, Nixon instructed his chief of staff, Haldeman, and his FBI contact, Deke DeLoach, to unmask the bugging to which his own campaign had been subjected in 1968. He also sounded out former president Johnson, through former senior Democrats like Texas governor John Connally, to gauge what his reaction to the disclosure might be. The aim was to show that "everybody does it." (By another bipartisan paradox, in Washington the slogan "they all do it" is used as a slogan for the defense rather than, as one might hope, for the prosecution.)
However, a problem presents itself at once: how to reveal the 1968 bugging without at the same time revealing what that bugging had been about. Hence the second thoughts ("wasn’t such a good idea . . ."). In his excellent introduction to The Haldeman Diaries, Nixon’s biographer Professor Stephen Ambrose characterizes the 1973 approach to Lyndon Johnson as "prospective blackmail," designed to exert backstairs pressure to close down a congressional inquiry. But he also suggests that Johnson, himself no pushover, had some blackmail ammunition of his own. As Professor Ambrose phrases it, the Diaries had been vetted by the National Security Council, and the bracketed deletion cited above is "the only place in the book where an example is given of a deletion by the NSC during the Carter Administration." "Eight days later Nixon was inaugurated for his second term," Ambrose relays. "Ten days later Johnson died of a heart attack. What Johnson had on Nixon I suppose we’ll never know."
The professor’s conclusion here is arguably too tentative. There is a well-understood principle known as "Mutual Assured Destruction," whereby both sides possess more than enough material with which to annihilate the other. The answer to the question of what the Johnson Administration "had" on Nixon is a relatively easy one. It was given in a book entitled Counsel to the President, published in 1991. Its author was Clark Clifford, the quintessential blue-chip Washington insider, who was assisted in the writing by Richard Holbrooke, the former assistant secretary of state and current ambassador to the United Nations. In 1968, Clark Clifford was secretary of defense and Richard Holbrooke was a member of the American negotiating team at the Vietnam peace talks in Paris.
From his seat in the Pentagon, Clifford had been able to read the intelligence transcripts that picked up and recorded what he terms a "secret personal channel" between President Thieu in Saigon and the Nixon campaign. The chief interlocutor at the American end was John Mitchell, then Nixon’s campaign manager and subsequently attorney general (and subsequently Prisoner Number 24171-157 in the Maxwell Air Force Base prison camp). He was actively assisted by Madame Anna Chennault, known to all as the "Dragon Lady." A fierce veteran of the Taiwan lobby, and all-purpose right-wing intriguer, she was a social and political force in the Washington of her day and would rate her own biography.
Clifford describes a private meeting at which he, President Johnson, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and National Security Adviser Walt Rostow were present. Hawkish to a man, they kept Vice President Humphrey out of the loop. But, hawkish as they were, they were appalled at the evidence of Nixon’s treachery. They nonetheless decided not to go public with what they knew. Clifford says that this was because the disclosure would have ruined the Paris talks altogether. He could have added that it would have created a crisis of confidence in American institutions. There are some things that the voters can’t be trusted to know. And even though the bugging had been legal, it might not have looked like fair play. (The Logan Act flatly prohibits any American from conducting private diplomacy with a foreign power.) In the event, Thieu pulled out of the negotiations anyway, ruining them just three days before the election. Clifford is in no doubt of the advice on which he did so:
The activities of the Nixon team went far beyond the bounds of justifiable political combat. It constituted direct interference in the activities of the executive branch and the responsibilities of the Chief Executive, the only people with authority to negotiate on behalf of the nation. The activities of the Nixon campaign constituted a gross, even potentially illegal, interference in the security affairs of the nation by private individuals.
Perhaps aware of the slight feebleness of his lawyerly prose, and perhaps a little ashamed of keeping the secret for his memoirs rather than sharing it with the electorate, Clifford adds in a footnote:
It should be remembered that the public was considerably more innocent in such matters in the days before the Watergate hearings and the 1975 Senate investigation of the CIA.
Perhaps the public was indeed more innocent, if only because of the insider reticence of whiteshoe lawyers like Clifford, who thought there were some things too profane to be made known. He claims now that he was in favor either of confronting Nixon privately with the information and forcing him to desist, or else of making it public. Perhaps this was indeed his view.
A more wised-up age of investigative reporting has brought us several updates on this appalling episode. And so has the very guarded memoir of Richard Nixon himself. More than one "back channel" was required for the Republican destabilization of the Paris peace talks. There had to be secret communications between Nixon and the South Vietnamese, as we have seen. But there also had to be an informant inside the incumbent administration’s camp, a source of hints and tips and early warnings of official intentions. That informant was Henry Kissinger. In his own account, RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, the disgraced elder statesman tells us that, in mid-September 1968, he received private word of a planned bombing halt. In other words, the Johnson Administration would, for the sake of the negotiations, consider suspending its aerial bombardment of North Vietnam. This most useful advance intelligence, Nixon tells us, came "through a highly unusual channel." It was more unusual even than he acknowledged. Kissinger had until then been a devoted partisan of Nelson Rockefeller, the matchlessly wealthy prince of liberal Republicanism. His contempt for the person and the policies of
Richard Nixon was undisguised. Indeed, President F Johnson’s Paris negotiators, led by Averell Harriman, considered Kissinger to be almost one of themselves. He had made himself helpful, as Rockefeller’s chief foreign-policy adviser, by supplying French intermediaries with their own contacts in Hanoi. "Henry was the only person outside of the government we were authorized to discuss the negotiations with," Richard Holbrooke told Walter Isaacson. "We trusted him. It is not stretching the truth to say that the Nixon campaign had a secret source within the U.S. negotiating team."
So the likelihood of a bombing halt, wrote Nixon, "came as no real surprise to me." He added: "I told Haldeman that Mitchell should continue as liaison with Kissinger and that we should honor his desire to keep his role completely confidential." It is impossible that Nixon was unaware of his campaign manager’s parallel role in colluding with a foreign power. Thus began what was effectively a domestic covert operation, directed simultaneously at thwarting the talks and embarrassing the Hubert Humphrey campaign.
Later in the month, on September 76 to be precise, and as recorded by Nixon in his memoirs, "Kissinger called again. He said that he had just returned from Paris, where he had picked up word that something big was afoot regarding Vietnam. He advised that if I had anything to say about Vietnam during the following week, I should avoid any new ideas or proposals." On the same day, Nixon declined a challenge from Humphrey for a direct debate. On October 12, Kissinger once again made contact, suggesting that a bombing halt might be announced as soon as October 23. And so it might have been. Except that for some reason, every time the North Vietnamese side came closer to agreement, the South Vietnamese increased their own demands. We now know why and how that was, and how the two halves of the strategy were knit together. As far back as July, Nixon had met quietly in New York with the South Vietnamese ambassador, Bui Diem. The contact had been arranged by Anna Chennault. Bugging of the South Vietnamese offices in Washington, and surveillance of the "Dragon Lady," showed how the ratchet operated. An intercepted cable from Diem to President Thieu on the fateful day of October 23 had him saying: "Many Republican friends have contacted me and encouraged us to stand firm. They were alarmed by press reports to the effect that you had already softened your position." The wiretapping instructions went to one Cartha DeLoach, known as "Deke" to his associates, who was J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI liaison officer to the White House. We met him, you may recall, in H. R. Haldeman’s Diaries.
In 1999 the author Anthony Summers was finally able to gain access to the closed FBI file of intercepts of the Nixon campaign, which he published in his 2000 book, The Arrogance of Poquer: The Secret World of Richard Nixon. He was also able to interview Anna Chennault. These two breakthroughs furnished him with what is vulgarly termed a "smoking gun" on the 1968 conspiracy. By the end of October 1968, John Mitchell had become so nervous about official surveillance that he ceased taking calls from Chennault. And President Johnson, in a conference call to the three candidates, Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace (allegedly to brief them on the bombing halt), had strongly implied that he knew about the covert efforts to stymie his Vietnam diplomacy. This call created near-panic in Nixon’s inner circle and caused Mitchell to telephone Chennault at the Sheraton Park Hotel. He then asked her to call him back on a more secure line. "Anna," he told her, "I’m speaking on behalf of Mr. Nixon. It’s very important that our Vietnamese friends understand our Republican position, and I hope you made that clear to them…. Do you think they really have decided not to go to Paris?"

War Criminal Kissinger

The reproduced FBI original document shows what happened next. On November 2,1968, the agent reported:
Nixon’s running mate, Spiro Agnew, had been campaigning in Albuquerque, New Mexico, that day, and subsequent intelligence analysis revealed that he and another member of his staff (the one principally concerned with Vietnam) had indeed been in touch with the Chennault camp.
The beauty of having Kissinger leaking from one side and Anna Chennault and John Mitchell conducting a private foreign policy on the other was this: It enabled Nixon to avoid being drawn into the argument over a bombing halt. And it further enabled him to suggest that it was the Democrats who were playing politics with the issue. On October 25, in New York, he used his tried-and-tested tactic of circulating an innuendo while purporting to disown it. Of LBJ’s Paris diplomacy he said, "I am also told that this spurt of activity is a cynical, last-minute attempt by President Johnson to salvage the candidacy of Mr. Humphrey. This I do not believe."
Kissinger himself showed a similar ability to play both ends against the middle. In the late summer of 1968, on Martha’s Vineyard, he had offered Nelson Rockefeller’s files on Nixon to Professor Samuel Huntington, a close adviser to Hubert Humphrey. But when Huntington’s colleague and friend Zbigniew Brzezinski tried to get him to make good on the offer, Kissinger became shy. "I’ve hated Nixon for years," he told Brzezinski, but the time wasn’t quite ripe for the handover. Indeed, it was a very close-run election, turning in the end on the difference of a few hundred thousand votes, and many hardened observers believe that the final difference was made when Johnson ordered a bombing halt on October 31 and the South Vietnamese made him look like a fool by boycotting the peace talks two days later. Had things gone the other way, of course, Kissinger was a near-certainty for a senior job in a Humphrey administration.
With slight differences of emphasis, the larger pieces of this story appear in Haldeman’s work as cited and in Clifford’s memoir. They are also partially rehearsed in President Johnson’s autobiography, The Vantage Point, and in a long reflection on Indochina by William Bundy (one of the architects of the war) entitled rather tritely The Tangled Web. Senior members of the press corps, among them Jules Witcover in his history of 1968, Seymour Hersh in his study of Kissinger, and Walter Isaacson, editor of Time magazine, in his admiring but critical biography, have produced almost congruent accounts of the same abysmal episode. The only mention of it that is completely and utterly false, by any literary or historical standard, appears in the memoirs of Henry Kissinger himself. He writes just this:
"Several Nixon emissaries-some self appointed- telephoned me for counsel. l took the position that I would answer specific questions on foreign policy, but that I would not offer general advice or volunteer suggestions. This was the same response I made to inquiries from the Humphrey staff."
This contradicts even the self-serving memoir of the man who, having won the 1968 election by these underhanded means, made as his very first appointment Henry Kissinger as national security adviser. One might not want to arbitrate a mendacity competition between the two men, but when he made this choice Richard Nixon had only once, briefly and awkwardly, met Henry Kissinger in person. He clearly formed his estimate of the man’s abilities from more persuasive experience than that. "One factor that had most convinced me of Kissinger’s credibility," wrote Nixon later in his own delicious prose, "was the length to which he went to protect his secrecy."
That ghastly secret is now out. In the January 1969 issue of the Establishment house organ Foreign Affairs, published a few days after his appointment as Nixon’s right -hand man, there appeared Henry Kissinger’s own evaluation of the Vietnam negotiations. On every point of substance, he agreed with the line taken in Paris by the Johnson-Humphrey negotiators. One has to pause for an instant to comprehend the enormity of this. Kissinger had helped elect a man who had surreptitiously promised the South Vietnamese junta a better deal than they would get from the Democrats. The Saigon authorities then acted, as Bundy ruefully confirms, as if they did indeed have a deal. This meant, in the words of a later Nixon slogan, "Four More Years." But four more years of an unwinnable and undeclared and murderous war, which was to spread before it burned out, and was to end on the same terms and conditions as had been on the table in the fall of 1968.
This was what it took to promote Henry Kissinger. To promote him from a mediocre and opportunistic academic to an international potentate. The signature qualities were there from the inaugural moment: the sycophancy and the duplicity; the power worship and the absence of scruple; the empty trading of old non-friends for new non-friends. And the distinctive effects were also present: the uncounted and expendable corpses; the official and unofficial Iying about the cost; the heavy and pompous pseudo-indignation when unwelcome questions were asked. Kissinger’s global career started as it meant to go on. It debauched the American republic and American democracy, and it levied a hideous toll of casualties on weaker and more vulnerable societies.
Even while compelled to concentrate on brute realities, one must never lose sight of that element of the surreal that surrounds Henry Kissinger. Paying a visit to Vietnam in the middle 1960s, when many technocratic opportunists were still convinced that the war was worth fighting and could be won, the young Henry reserved judgment on the first point but developed considerable private doubts on the second. He had gone so far as to involve himself with an initiative that extended to direct personal contact with Hanoi. He became friendly with two Frenchmen who had a direct line to the Communist leadership in North Vietnam’s capital. Raymond Aubrac, a French civil servant who was a friend of Ho Chi Minh, and Herbert Marcovich, a French microbiologist, began a series of trips to North Vietnam. On their return, they briefed Kissinger in Paris. He in his turn parlayed their information into high-level conversations in Washington, relaying the actual or potential negotiating positions of Pham Van Dong and other Communist statesmen to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. (In the result, the relentless bombing of the North made any "bridge-building" impracticable. In particular, the now forgotten American destruction of the Paul Doumer Bridge outraged the Vietnamese side.)
This weightless mid-position, which ultimately helped enable his double act in 1968, allowed Kissinger to ventriloquize Governor Rockefeller and to propose, by indirect means, a future détente with America’s chief rivals. In his first major address as a candidate for the Republican nomination in 1968, Rockefeller spoke ringingly of how "in a subtle triangle with Communist China and the Soviet Union, we can ultimately improve our relations with each-as we test the will for peace of both."
This foreshadowing of a later Kissinger strategy might appear at first reading to illustrate prescience. But Governor Rockefeller had no more reason than Vice President Humphrey to suppose that his ambitious staffer would defect to the Nixon camp, risking and postponing this same détente in order later to take credit for a debased simulacrum of it.
Morally speaking, Kissinger treated the concept of superpower rapprochement in the same way as he treated the concept of a negotiated settlement in Vietnam: as something contingent on his own needs. There was a time to feign support of it and a time to denounce it as weak-minded and treacherous. And there was a time to take credit for it. Some of those who "followed orders" in Indochina may lay a claim to that notoriously weak defense. Some who even issued the orders may now tell us that they were acting sincerely at the time. But Kissinger cannot avail himself of this alibi. He always knew what he was doing, and he embarked upon a second round of protracted warfare having knowingly helped to destroy an alternative that he always understood was possible. This increases the gravity of the charge against him. It also prepares us for his improvised and retrospective defense against that charge: that his immense depredations eventually led to "peace." When he announced that "peace is at hand" in October 1972, he made a boastful and false claim that could have been made in 1968. And when he claimed credit for subsequent superpower contacts, he was announcing the result of a secret and corrupt diplomacy that had originally been proposed as an open and democratic one. In the meantime, he had illegally eavesdropped and shadowed American citizens and public servants whose misgivings about the war, and about unconstitutional authority, were mild compared with those of Messieurs Aubrac and Marcovich. In establishing what lawyers call the men’s area, we can say that in Kissinger’s case he was fully aware of, and is entirely accountable for, his own actions.
Upon taking office at Richard Nixon’s | side in the winter of 1969, it was | Kissinger’s task to be plus royalist que le roi in two respects. He had to confect a rationale of "credibility" for punitive action in an already devastated Vietnamese theater, and he had to second his principal’s wish that he form part of a "wall" between the Nixon White House and the Department of State. The term "two track" was later to become commonplace. Kissinger’s position on both tracks, of promiscuous violence abroad and flagrant illegality at home, was decided from the start. He does not seem to have lacked relish for either commitment; one hopes faintly that this was not the first twinge of the "aphrodisiac."
President Johnson’s "bombing halt" had not lasted long by any standard, even if one remembers that its original conciliatory purpose had been sordidly undercut. Averell Harriman, who had been LBJ’s chief negotiator in Paris, later testified to Congress that the North Vietnamese had withdrawn 90 percent of their forces from the northern two provinces of South Vietnam, in October and November 1968, in accordance with the agreement of which the "halt" might have formed a part. In the new context, however, this withdrawal could be interpreted as a sign of weakness, or even as a "light at the end of the tunnel."
The historical record of the Indochina war is voluminous, and the resulting controversy no less so. This does not, however, prevent the following of a consistent thread. Once the war had been unnaturally and undemocratically prolonged, more exorbitant methods were required to fight it and more fantastic excuses had to be fabricated to justify it. Let us take four connected cases in which the civilian population was deliberately exposed to indiscriminate lethal force, in which the customary laws of war and neutrality were violated, and in which conscious lies had to be told in order to conceal these facts and others.
The first such case is an example of what Vietnam might have been spared had not the 1968 Paris peace talks been sabotaged. In December 1968, during the "transition" period between the Johnson and Nixon administrations, the United States military command turned to what General Creighton Abrams termed "total war" against the "infrastructure" of the Vietcong/National Liberation Front insurgency. The chief exhibit in this campaign was a six-month clearance of the province of Kien Hoa. The code name for the sweep was Operation "Speedy Express."
It might, in some realm of theory, be remotely conceivable that such tactics could be justified under the international laws and charters governing the sovereign rights of self-defense. But no nation capable of deploying the overwhelming and annihilating force described below would be likely to find itself on the defensive. And it would be least of all likely to find itself on the defensive on its own soil. So the Nixon-Kissinger Administration was not, except in one unusual sense, fighting for survival. The unusual sense in which its survival was at stake is set out, yet again, in the stark posthumous testimony of H. R. Haldeman. From his roost at Nixon’s side he describes a Kissingerian moment on December 15, 1970:
"K[Kissinger] came in and the discussion covered some of the general thinking about Vietnam and the F’s big peace plan for next year, which K later told me he does not favor. He thinks that any pullout next year would be a serious mistake because the adverse reaction to it could set in well before the t72 elections. He favors, instead, a continued winding down and then a pullout right at the fall of ,72 so that if any bad results follow they will be too late to affect the election."
One could hardly wish for it to be more plainly put than that. (And put, furthermore, by one of Nixon’s chief partisans with no wish to discredit the re-election.) But in point of fact, Kissinger himself admits to almost as much in his own first volume of memoirs, The White House Years. The context is a meeting with General de Gaulle, in which the old warrior demanded to know by what right the Nixon Administration subjected Indochina to devastating bombardment. In his own account, Kissinger replies that "a sudden withdrawal might give us a credibility problem." (When asked "where?" Kissinger hazily proposed the Middle East.) It is important to bear in mind that the future flatterer of Brezhnev and Mao was in no real position to claim that he made war in Indochina to thwart either. He certainly did not dare try such a callow excuse on Charles de Gaulle. And indeed, the proponent of secret deals with China was in no very strong position to claim that he was combating Stalinism in general. No, it all came down to "credibility" and to the saving of face. It is known that 20,763 American, 109,230 South Vietnamese, and 496,260 North Vietnamese servicemen lost their lives in Indochina between the day that Nixon and Kissinger took office and the day in 1973 that they withdrew American forces and accepted the logic of 1968. Must the families of these victims confront the fact that the chief "faces" at risk were those of Nixon and Kissinger?
Thus the colloquially titled "Christmas bombing" of North Vietnam, continued after that election had been won, must be counted as a war crime by any standard. The bombing was not conducted for anything that could be described as "military reasons" but for twofold political ones. The first of these was domestic: a show of strength to extremists in Congress and a means of putting the Democratic Party on the defensive. The second was to persuade South Vietnamese leaders such as President Thieu-whose intransigence had been encouraged by Kissinger in the first place-that their objections to American withdrawal were too nervous. This, again, was the mortgage on the initial secret payment of 1968.
When the unpreventable collapse occurred in Cambodia and Vietnam, in April and May 1975, the cost was infinitely higher than it would have been seven years previously. These locust years ended as they had begun-with a display of bravado and deceit. On May 12, 1975, in the immediate aftermath of the Khmer Rouge seizure of power, Cambodian gunboats detained an American merchant vessel named the Mayague. The ship was stopped in international waters claimed by Cambodia and then taken to the Cambodian island of Koh Tang. In spite of reports that the crew had been released, Kissinger pressed for an immediate face-saving and "credibility"-enhancing strike. He persuaded President Gerald Ford, the untried and undistinguished successor to his deposed former boss, to send in the Marines and the Air Force. Out of a Marine force of 110, 18 were killed and 50 were wounded. Twenty-three Air Force men died in a crash. The United States used a 15,000-ton bomb on the island, the most powerful non-nuclear device that it possessed. Nobody has the figures for Cambodian deaths. The casualties were pointless, because the ship’s company of the Mayaguez were nowhere on Koh Tang, having been released some hours earlier. A subsequent congressional inquiry found that Kissinger could have known of this by listening to Cambodian broadcasting or by paying attention to a third-party government that had been negotiating a deal for the restitution of the crew and the ship. It was not as if any Cambodians doubted, by that month of 1975, the willingness of the U.S. government to employ deadly force.
In Washington, D.C., there is a famous and hallowed memorial to the American dead of the Vietnam War. Known as the "Vietnam Veterans Memorial," it bears a name that is slightly misleading. l was present for the extremely affecting moment of its dedication in 1982 and noticed that the list of nearly 60,000 names is incised in the wall not by alphabet but by date. The first few names appear in 1959 and the last few in 1975. The more historically minded visitors can sometimes be heard to say that they didn’t know the United States was engaged in Vietnam as early or as late as that. Nor was the public supposed to know. The first names are of the covert operatives, sent in by Colonel Edward Lansdale without congressional approval to support French colonialism. The last names are of those thrown away in the Mayaguez fiasco. It took Henry Kissinger to ensure that a war of atrocity, which he had helped to prolong, should end as furtively and ignominiously as it had begun.


Some statements are too blunt for everyday, consensual discourse. In national "debate," it is the smoother pebbles that are customarily gathered from the stream and used as projectiles. They leave less of a scar, even when they hit. Occasionally, however, a single hard-edged remark will inflict a deep and jagged wound, a gash so ugly that it must be cauterized at once. In January 1971 there was a considered statement from General Telford Taylor, who had been chief U.S. prosecuting counsel at the Nuremberg trials. Reviewing the legal and moral basis of those hearings, and also the Tokyo trials of Japanese war criminals and the Manila trial of Emperor Hirohito’s chief militarist, General Yamashita Tomoyuki, Taylor said that if the standard of Nuremberg and Manila were applied evenly, and applied to the American statesmen and bureaucrats who designed the war in Vietnam, then "there would be a very strong possibility that they would come to the same end [Yamashita] did." It is not every day that a senior American soldier and jurist delivers the opinion that a large portion of his country’s political class should probably be hooded and blindfolded and dropped through a trapdoor on the end of a rope.
In his book Nuremberg and Vietnam, General Taylor also anticipated one of the possible objections to this legal and moral conclusion. It might be argued for the defense, he said, that those arraigned did not really know what they were doing; in other words, that they had achieved the foulest results but from the highest and most innocent motives. The notion of Indochina as some Heart of Darkness "quagmire" of ignorant armies has been sedulously propagated, then and since, in order to make such a euphemism appear plausible. Taylor had no patience with such a view. American military and intelligence and economic and political teams had been in Vietnam, he wrote, for much too long to attribute anything they did "to lack of information." It might have been possible for soldiers and diplomats to pose as innocents until the middle of the 1960s, but after that time, and especially after the My Lai massacre of March 16, 1968, when serving veterans reported major atrocities to their superior officers, nobody could reasonably claim to have been uninformed, and of those who could, the least believable would be those who-far from the confusion of battle-read and discussed and approved the panoptic reports of the war that were delivered to Washington.
General Taylor’s book was being written while many of the most reprehensible events of the Indochina war were still taking place, or still to come. He was unaware of the intensity and extent of, for example, the bombing of Laos and Cambodia. Enough was known about the conduct of the war, however, and about the existing matrix of legal and criminal responsibility, for him to arrive at some indisputable conclusions. The first of these concerned the particular obligation F of the United States to be aware of, and to respect, the Nuremberg principles:
"Military courts and commissions have customarily B rendered their judgments stark and unsupported by opinions giving the reasons for their decisions. The Nuremberg and Tokyo judgments, in contrast, were all based on extensive opinions detailing the evidence and analyzing the factual and legal issues, in the fashion of appellate tribunals generally. Needless to say they were not of uniform quality, and often reflected the logical shortcomings of compromise, the marks of which commonly mar the opinions of multi-member tribunals. But the process was professional in a way seldom achieved in military courts, and the records and judgments in these trials provided a much needed foundation for a corpus of judge-made international penal law. The results of the trials commended themselves to the newly formed United Nations, and on Dec. 11, 1946, the General Assembly adopted a resolution affirming "the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal."
However history may ultimately assess the wisdom or unwisdom of the war crimes trials, one thing is in disputable: At their conclusion, the United States Government stood legally, politically and morally committed to the principles enunciated in the charters and judgments of the tribunals. The President of the United States, on the recommendations of the Departments of State, War and Justice, approved the war crimes programs. Thirty or more American judges, drawn from the appellate benches of the states from Massachusetts to Oregon, and Minnesota to Georgia, conducted the later Nuremberg trials and wrote the opinions. General Douglas MacArthur, under authority of the Far Eastern Commission, established the Tokyo tribunal and confirmed the sentences it imposed, and it was under his authority as the highest American military officer in the Far East that the Yamashita and other such proceedings were held. The United States delegation to the United Nations presented the resolution by which the General Assembly endorsed the Nuremberg principles.
"Thus the integrity of the nation is staked on those principles, and today the question is how they apply to our conduct of the war in Vietnam, and whether the United States Government is prepared to face the consequences of their application."
Facing and cogitating these consequences himself, General Taylor took issue with another United States officer, Colonel William Corson, who had written that
"[r]regardless of the outcome of . . . the My Lai courts-martial and other legal actions, the point remains that American judgment as to the effective prosecution of the war was faulty from beginning to end and that the atrocities, alleged or otherwise, are a result of a failure of judgment, not criminal behavior."
To this Taylor responded:
"Colonel Corson overlooks, I fear, that negligent homicide is generally a crime of bad judgment rather than evil intent. Perhaps he is right in the strictly causal sense that if there had been no failure of judgment, the occasion for criminal conduct would not have arisen. The Germans in occupied Europe made gross errors of judgment which no doubt created the conditions in which the slaughter of the in habitants of Klissura [a Greek village annihilated during the Occupation] occurred, but that did not make the killings any the less criminal."
Referring this question to the chain of command in the field, General Taylor noted further that the senior officer corps had been
"more or less constantly in Vietnam, and splendidIy equipped with helicopters and other aircraft, which gave them a degree of mobility unprecedented in earlier wars, and consequently endowed them with every opportunity to keep the course of the fighting and its consequences under close and constant observation. Communications were generally rapid and efficient, so that the flow of information and orders was unimpeded.
These circumstances are in sharp contrast to those that confronted General Yamashita in 1944 and 1945, with his troops reeling back in disarray before the oncoming American military powerhouse. For failure to control his forces so as to prevent the atrocities they committed, Brig. Gens. Eghert F. Bullene and Morris Handwerk and Maj. Gens. James A. Lester, Leo Donovan and Russel B. Reynolds found him guilty of violating the laws of war and sentenced him to death by hanging."
Nor did General Taylor omit the crucial link between the military command and its political supervision, again a much closer and more immediate relationship in the American-Vietnamese instance than in the Japanese-Filipino one, as the regular contact between, say, General Creighton Abrams and Henry Kissinger makes clear:
"How much the President and his close advisers in the White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom knew about the volume and cause of civilian casualties in Vietnam, and the physical devastation of the countryside, is speculative. Something was known, for the late John McNaughton (then Assistant Secretary of Defense) returned from the White House one day in 1967 with the message that "We seem to be proceeding on the assumption that the way to eradicate the Vietcong is to destroy all the village structures, defoliate all the jungles, and then cover the entire surface of South Vietnam with asphalt."
This was noticed (by Townsend Hoopes, a political antagonist of General Taylor’s) before that metaphor had been extended into two new countries, Laos and Cambodia, without a declaration of war, a notification to Congress, or a warning to civilians to evacuate. But Taylor anticipated the Kissinger case in many ways when he recalled the trial of the Japanese statesman Koki Hirota,
"who served briefly as Prime Minister and for several years as Foreign Minister between 1933 and May, 1938, after which he held no office whatever. The so-called "rape of Nanking" by Japanese forces occurred during the winter of 1937-38, when Hirota was Foreign Minister. Upon receiving early reports of the atrocities, he demanded and received assurances from the War Ministry that they would be stopped. But they continued, and the Tokyo tribunal found Hirota guilty because he was "derelict in his duty in not insisting before the Cabinet that immediate action be taken to put an end to the atrocities," and "was content to rely on assurances which he knew were not being implemented." On this basis, coupled with his conviction on the aggressive war charge, Hirota was sentenced to be hanged."
Melvin Laird, as secretary of defense during the first Nixon Administration, was queasy enough about the early bombings of Cambodia, and dubious enough about the legality or prudence of the intervention, to send a memo to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asking, "Are steps being taken, on a continuing basis, to minimize the risk of striking Cambodian people and structures? If so, what are the steps? Are we reasonably sure such steps are effective?" No evidence has surfaced that Henry Kissinger, as national security adviser or secretary of state, ever sought even such modest assurances. Indeed, there is much evidence of his deceiving Congress as to the true extent to which such assurances as were offered were deliberately false. Others involved-such as Robert McNamara; McGeorge Bundy, national security adviser to both Kennedy and Johnson; and William Colby-have since offered varieties of apology or contrition or at least explanation. Henry Kissinger, never. General Taylor described the practice of air strikes against hamlets suspected of "harboring" Vietnamese guerrillas as "flagrant violations of the Geneva Convention on Civilian Protection, which prohibits ‘collective penalties,’ and reprisals against protected persons,’ and equally in violation of the Rules of Land Warfare." He was writing before this atrocious precedent had been extended to reprisal raids that treated two whole countries-Laos and Cambodia-as if they were disposable hamlets.
For Henry Kissinger, no great believer in the boastful claims of the war makers in the first place, a special degree of responsibility attaches. Not only did he have good reason to know that field commanders were exaggerating successes and claiming all dead bodies as enemy soldiers- a commonplace piece of knowledge after the spring of 1968-but he also knew that the issue of the war had been settled politically and diplomatically, for all intents and purposes, before he became national security adviser. Thus he had to know that every additional casualty, on either side, was not just a death but an avoidable death. With this knowledge, and with a strong sense of the domestic and personal political profit, he urged the expansion of the war into two neutral countries-violating international law-while persisting in a breathtakingly high level of attrition in Vietnam itself.
From a huge menu of possible examples, I have chosen cases that involve Kissinger ~ directly and in which I have myself been _ , able to interview surviving witnesses. The first, as foreshadowed above, is Operation "Speedy Express":
My friend and colleague Kevin Buckley, then a much admired correspondent and Saigon bureau chief for Newsweek, became interested in the "pacification" campaign that bore this breezy code name. Designed in the closing days of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration, it was put into full effect in the first six months of 1969, when Henry Kissinger had assumed much authority over the conduct of the war. The objective was the American disciplining, on behalf of the Thieu government, of the turbulent Mekong Delta province of Kien Hoa.
On January 22, 1968, Robert McNamara had told the Senate that "no regular North Vietnamese units" were deployed in the Delta, and no military intelligence documents have surfaced to undermine his claim, so that the cleansing of the area cannot be understood as part of the general argument about resisting Hanoi’s unsleeping will to conquest. The announced purpose of the Ninth Division’s sweep, indeed, was to redeem many thousands of villagers from political control by the National Liberation Front (NLF), or "Vietcong" (VC). As Buckley found, and as his magazine, Newsweek, partially disclosed at the rather late date of June 19, 1972,
"All the evidence I gathered pointed to a clear conclusion a staggering number of noncombatant civilians perhaps as many as 5,000 according to one official-were killed by U.S. firepower to "pacify" Kien Hoa. The death toll there made the My Lai massacre look trifling by comparison….
The Ninth Division put all it had into the operation. Eight thousand infantrymen scoured the heavily populated countryside, but contact with the elusive enemy was rare. Thus, in its pursuit of pacification, the division relied heavily on its 50 artillery pieces, 50 helicopters (many armed with rockets and mini guns) and the deadly support lent by the Air Force. There were 3,381 tactical air strikes by fighter bombers during "Speedy Express." …
"Death is our business and business is good," was the slogan painted on one helicopter unit’s quarters during the operation. And so it was. Cumulative statistics for "Speedy Express" show that 10,899 "enemy" were killed. In the month of March alone, "over 3,000 enemy troops were killed . . . which is the largest monthly total for any American division in the Vietnam War," said the division’s official magazine. When asked to account for the enormous body counts, a division senior officer explained that helicopter gun crews often caught unarmed "enemy" in open fields….
There is overwhelming evidence that virtually all the Viet Cong were well armed. Simple civilians were, of course, not armed. And the enormous discrepancy between the body count [11,000] and the number of captured weapons [748] is hard to explain-except by the conclusion that many victims were unarmed innocent civilians….
The people who still live in pacified Kien Hoa all have vivid recollections of the devastation that American firepower brought to their lives in early 1969. Virtually every person to whom I spoke had suffered in some way. "There were 5,000 people in our village before 1969, but there were none in 1970," one village elder told me. "The Americans destroyed every house with artillery, air strikes, or by burning them down with cigarette lighters. About 100 people were killed by bombing, others were wounded and others became refugees. Many were children killed by concussion from the bombs which their small bodies could not withstand, even if they were hiding underground."
Other officials, including the village police chief, corroborated the man’s testimony. I could not, of course, reach every village. But in each of the many places where I went, the testimony was the same 100 killed here, 700 killed there."
Other notes by Buckley and his friend and collaborator Alex Shimkin (a worker for International Voluntary Services who was later killed in the war) discovered the same evidence in hospital statistics. In March 1969, the hospital at Ben Tre reported 343 patients injured by "friendly" fire and 25 by "the enemy," an astonishing statistic for a government facility to record in a guerrilla war in which suspected membership in the Vietcong could mean death. And Buckley’s own citation for his magazine-of "perhaps as many as 5,000" deaths among civilians in this one sweep- is an almost deliberate understatement of what he was told by a United States official, who actually said that "at least 5,000" of the dead "were what we refer to as non-combatants"-a not too exacting distinction, as we have already seen, and as was by then well understood.
Well understood, that is to say, not just by those who opposed the war but by those who were conducting it. As one American official put it to Buckley,
"The actions of the Ninth Division in inflicting civilian casualties were worse [than My Lai]. The sum total of what the 9th did was overwhelming. In sum, the horror was worse than My Lai. But with the 9th, the civilian casualties came in dribbles and were pieced out over a long time. And most of them were inflicted from the air and at night. Also, they were sanctioned by the command’s insistence on high body-counts…. The result was an inevitable outcome of the unit’s command policy."
The earlier sweep that had mopped up My Lai-during Operation "Wheeler Wallawa"- had also at the time counted all corpses as those of enemy soldiers, including the civilian population of the village, who were casually included in the mind-bending overall total of 10,000.
Confronted with this evidence, Buckley and Shimkin abandoned a lazy and customary usage and replaced it, in a cable to Newsweek head quarters in New York, with a more telling and scrupulous one. The problem was not "indiscriminate use of firepower" but "charges of quite discriminating use-as a matter of policy in populated areas." Even the former allegation is a gross violation of the Geneva Convention; the second charge leads straight to the dock in Nuremberg or The Hague.
Since General Creighton Abrams publicly praised the Ninth Division for its work, and drew attention wherever and whenever he could to the tremendous success of Operation "Speedy Express," we can be sure that the political leadership in Washington was not unaware. Indeed, the degree of micromanagement revealed in Kissinger’s memoirs quite forbids the idea that anything of importance took place without his knowledge or permission.
Of nothing is this more true than his own individual involvement in the bombing and invasion of neutral Cambodia and Laos. Obsessed with the idea that Vietnamese intransigence could be traced to allies or resources external to Vietnam itself, or could be overcome by tactics of mass destruction, Kissinger at one point contemplated using thermonuclear weapons to obliterate the pass through which ran the railway link from North Vietnam to China, and at another stage considered bombing the dikes that prevented North Vietnam’s irrigation system from flooding the country. Neither of these measures (reported respectively in Tad Szulc’s history of Nixon-era diplomacy, The Illusion of Peace, and by Kissinger’s former aide Roger Morris) was taken, which removes some potential war crime from our bill of indictment but which also give an indication of the regnant mentality. There remained Cambodia and Laos, which supposedly concealed or protected North Vietnamese supply lines.
As in the cases postulated by General ‘ Telford Taylor, there is the crime of aggressive war and then there is the question of war crimes. In the postwar period, or the period governed by the U.N. Charter and its related and incorporated conventions, the United States under Democratic and Republican administrations had denied even its closest allies the right to invade countries that allegedly gave shelter to their antagonists. Most famously, President Eisenhower exerted economic and diplomatic pressure at a high level to bring an end to the invasion of Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel in October 1956. (The British thought Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser should not control "their" Suez Canal, the French believed Nasser to be the inspiration and source of their troubles in Algeria, and the Israelis claimed that he played the same role in fomenting their difficulties with the Palestinians. The United States maintained that even if these propaganda fantasies were true, they would not retrospectively legalize an invasion of Egypt. ) During the Algerian war of independence, the United States had also repudiated France’s claimed right to attack a town in neighboring Tunisia that succored Algerian guerrillas, and in 1964, at the United Nations, Ambassador Adlai Stevenson had condemned the United Kingdom for attacking a town in Yemen that allegedly provided a rear guard for rebels operating in its then colony of Aden.
All this law and precedent was to be thrown to the winds when Nixon and Kissinger decided to aggrandize the notion of "hot pursuit" across the borders of Laos and Cambodia. As William Shawcross reported in his 1979 book, Sideshow, even before the actual territorial invasion of Cambodia, for example, and very soon after the accession of Nixon and Kissinger to power, a program of heavy bombardment of the country was prepared and executed in secret. One might with some revulsion call it a "menu" of bombardment since the code names for the raids were "Breakfast," "Lunch," "Snack," "Dinner," and "Dessert." The raids were flown by B-52 bombers, which, it is important to note, fly at an altitude too high to be observed from the ground and carry immense tonnages of high explosive; they give no warning of approach and are incapable of accuracy or discrimination. Between March 1969 and May 1970, 3,630 such raids were flown across the Cambodian frontier. The bombing campaign began as it was to go on-with full knowledge of its effect on civilians and flagrant deceit by Mr. Kissinger in this precise respect.
To wit, a memorandum prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staffand sent to the Defense Department and the White House stated plainly that "some Cambodian casualties would be sustained in the operation" and that "the surprise effect of attack could tend to increase casualties." The target district for "Breakfast" (Base Area 353) was inhabited, explained the memo, by about 1,640 Cambodian civilians; "Lunch" (Base Area 609), by 198 of them; "Snack" (Base Area 351), by 383; "Dinner" (Base Area 352), by 770, and "Dessert" (Base Area 350), by about 120 Cambodian peasants. These oddly exact figures are enough in themselves to demonstrate that Kissinger must have been Iying when he later told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that areas of Cambodia selected for bombing were "unpopulated."
As a result of the expanded and intensified bombing campaigns, it has been officially estimated that as many as 350,000 civilians in Laos and 600,000 in Cambodia lost their lives. (These are not the highest estimates. ) Figures for refugees are several multiples of that. In addition, the widespread use of toxic chemical defoliants created a massive health crisis that naturally fell most heavily on children, nursing mothers, the aged, and the already infirm. That crisis persists to this day.
Although this appalling war, and its appalling consequences, can and should be taken as a moral and political crisis for American institutions, for at least five United States presidents, and for American society, there is little difficulty in identifying individual responsibility during this, its most atrocious and indiscriminate stage. Richard Nixon, as commander in chief, bears ultimate responsibility and only narrowly escaped a congressional move to include his crimes and deceptions in Indochina in the articles of impeachment, the promulgation of which eventually compelled his resignation. But his deputy and closest adviser, Henry Kissinger, was sometimes forced, and sometimes forced himself, into a position of virtual co-presidency where Indochina was concerned.
For example, in the preparations for the invasion of Cambodia in 1970, Kissinger was caught between the views of his staff-several of whom resigned in protest when the invasion began and his need to please his president. His president listened more to his two criminal associates-John Mitchell and Bebe Rebozo-than he did to his secretaries of state and defense, William Rogers and Melvin Laird, both of whom were highly skeptical about widening the war. On one especially charming occasion, Nixon telephoned Kissinger, while drunk, to discuss the invasion plans. He then put Bebe Rebozo on the line. "The President wants you to know if this doesn’t work, Henry, it’s your ass." "Ain’t that right, Bebe?" slurred the commander in chief. (The conversation was monitored and transcribed by one of Kissinger’s soon-to-resign staffers, William Watts.) It could be said that in this instance the national security adviser was under considerable pressure; nevertheless, he took the side of the pro-invasion faction and, according to the memoirs of General William Westmoreland, actually lobbied for that invasion to go ahead.
A somewhat harder picture is presented by former chief of staff H. R. Haldeman in his Diaries. On December 22, 1970, he records:
"Henry came up with the need to meet with the P to’ day with Al Haig and then tomorrow with Laird and Moorer because he has to use the P to force Laird and the military to go ahead with the P’s plans, which they won’t carry out without direct orders."
In his White House Years, Kissinger claims that he usurped the customary chain of command whereby commanders in the field receive, or believe that they receive, their orders from the president and then the secretary of defense. He boasts that he, together with Haldeman, Alexander Haig, and Colonel Ray Sitton, evolved "both a military and a diplomatic schedule" for the secret bombing of Cambodia. On board Air Force One, which was on the tarmac at Brussels airport on February 24,1969, he writes, "we worked out the guidelines for bombing of the enemy’s sanctuaries." A few weeks later, Haldeman’s Diaries for March 17 record:
"Historic day. K[issinger]’s "Operation Breakfast" finally came off at 2:00 PM our time.
K[issinger] really excited, as was P[resident]."
The next day’s entry:
"K[issinger]’s "Operation Breakfast" a great success.
He came beaming in with report, very productive."
It only got better. On April 22, 1970, Haldeman reports that Nixon, following Kissinger into a National Security Council meeting on Cambodia, "tumed back to me with a big smile and said, ‘K[issinger]’s really having fun today, he’s playing Bismarck."’
The above is an insult to the Iron Chancellor. When Kissinger was finally exposed in Congress and the press for conducting unauthorized bombings, he weakly pleaded that the raids were not all that secret, really, because Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia had known of them. He had to be reminded that a foreign princeling cannot give permission to an American bureaucrat to violate the United States Constitution. Nor, for that matter, can he give permission to an American bureaucrat to slaughter large numbers of his "own" civilians. It’s difficult to imagine Bismarck cowering behind such a contemptible excuse. (Prince Sihanouk, it is worth remembering, later became an abject puppet of the Khmer Rouge.)
Colonel Sitton, the reigning expert on B-52 tactics at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, began to notice that by late 1969 his own office was being regularly overruled in the matter of selecting targets. "Not only was Henry carefully screening the raids," said Sitton, "he was reading the raw intelligence" and fiddling with the mission patterns and bombing runs. In other departments of Washington insiderdom, it was also noticed that Kissinger was becoming a Stakhanovite committeeman. Aside from the crucial 40 Committee, which planned and oversaw all foreign covert actions, he chaired the Washington Special Action Group (WSAG), which dealt with breaking crises; the Verification Panel, concerned with arms control; the Vietnam Special Studies Group, which oversaw the day-to-day conduct of the war; and the Defense Program Review Committee, which supervised the budget of the Defense Department.
It is therefore impossible for him to claim that he was unaware of the consequences of the bombings of Cambodia and Laos; he knew more about them, and in more intimate detail, than any other individual. Nor was he imprisoned in a culture of obedience that gave him no alternative, or no rival arguments. Several senior members of his own staff, most notably Anthony Lake and Roger Morris, resigned over the invasion of Cambodia, and more than two hundred State Department employees signed a protest addressed to Secretary of State William Rogers. Indeed, both Rogers and Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird were opposed to the secret bombing policy, as Kissinger himself records with some disgust in his memoirs. Congress also was opposed to an extension of the bombing (once it had agreed to become informed of it), but even after the Nixon-Kissinger Administration had undertaken on Capitol Hill not to intensify the raids, there was a 21 percent increase of the bombing of Cambodia in the months of July and August 1973. The Air Force maps of the targeted areas show them to be, or to have been, densely populated.
Colonel Sitton does recall, it must be admitted, that Kissinger requested the bombing avoid civilian casualties. His explicit motive in making this request was to avoid or forestall complaints from the government of Prince Sihanouk. But this does no more in itself than demonstrate that Kissinger was aware of the possibility of civilian deaths. If he knew enough to know of their likelihood, and was director of the policy that inflicted them, and neither enforced any actual precautions nor reprimanded any violators, then the case against him is legally and morally complete.
As early as the fall of 1970, an independent ‘ investigator named Fred Branfman, who spoke Lao and knew the country as a civilian volunteer, had gone to Bangkok and interviewed Jerome Brown, a former targeting officer for the United States Embassy in the Laotian capital of Vientiane. The man had retired from the Air Force because of his disillusionment at the futility of the bombing and his consternation at the damage done to civilians and society. The speed and height of the planes, he said, meant that targets were virtually indistinguishable from the air. Pilots often chose villages as targets, because they could be more readily identified than alleged Pathet Lao guerrillas hiding in the jungle. Branfman, whom I interviewed in San Francisco in the summer of 2000, went on to provide this and other information to Henry Kamm and Sydney Schanberg of the New York Times, to Ted Koppel of ABC, and to many others. Under pressure from the United States Embassy, the Laotian authorities had Branfman deported back to the United States, which was probably, from their point of view, a mistake. He was able to make a dramatic appearance on Capitol Hill on April 22, 1971, at a hearing held by Senator Edward Kennedy’s subcommittee on refugees. His antagonist was the State Department’s envoy, William Sullivan, a former ambassador to Laos. Branfman accused him in front of the cameras of helping to conceal evidence that Laotian society was being mutilated by ferocious aerial bombardment.
Partly as a consequence, Congressman Pete McCloskey of California paid a visit to Laos and acquired a copy of an internal U.S. Embassy study of the bombing. He also prevailed on the U.S. Air Force to furnish him with aerial photographs of the dramatic damage. Ambassador Sullivan was so disturbed by these pictures, some of them taken in areas known to him, that his first reaction was to establish to his own satisfaction that the raids had occurred after he left his post in Vientiane. (He was later to learn that, for his pains, his own telephone was being tapped at Henry Kissinger’s instigation, one of the many such violations of American law that were to eventuate in the Watergate tapping-and-burglary scandal, a scandal that Kissinger was furthermore to plead-in an astounding outburst of vanity, deceit, and self-deceit-as his own alibi for collusion in the 1974 Cyprus crisis.)
Having done what he could to bring the Laotian nightmare to the attention of those whose constitutional job it was to supervise such questions, Branfman went back to Thailand and from there to Phnom Penh, capital of Cambodia. Having gained access to a pilot’s radio, he tape-recorded the conversations between pilots on bombing missions over the Cambodian interior. On no occasion did they run any checks designed to reassure themselves and others that they were not bombing civilian targets. It had been definitely asserted, by named U.S. government spokesmen, that such checks were run. Branfman handed the tapes to Sydney Schanberg, whose New York Times report on them was printed just before the Senate met to prohibit further blitzing of Cambodia (the very resolution that was flouted by Kissinger the following month).
From there Branfman went back to Thailand and traveled north to Nakhorn Phanom, the new headquarters of the U.S. Seventh Air Force. Here, a war room code-named Blue Chip served as the command and control center of the bombing campaign. Branfman was able to pose as a new recruit just up from Saigon and ultimately gained access to the war room itself. Consoles and maps and screens plotted the progress of the bombardment. In conversation with the "bombing officer" on duty, he asked if pilots ever made contact before dropping their enormous loads of ordnance. Oh, yes, he was assured, they did. Were they worried about hitting the innocent? Oh, no-merely concerned about the whereabouts of CIA "ground teams" infiltrated into the area. Branfman’s report on this, which was carried by Jack Anderson’s syndicated column, was uncontroverted by any official denial.
The reason that the American command in Southeast Asia finally ceased employing the crude and horrific tally of ~ "body count" was that, as in the relatively small but specific case of Operation "Speedy Express" cited above, the figures began to look ominous when they were counted up. Sometimes, totals of "enemy" dead would turn out, when computed, to be suspiciously larger than the number of claimed "enemy" in the field. Yet the war would somehow drag on, with new quantitative goals being set and enforced. Thus, according to the Pentagon, the following are the casualty figures between the first Lyndon Johnson bombing halt in March 1968 and February 26, 1972:
Americans: 31,205
South Vietnamese regulars: 86,101
"Enemy": 475,609
The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Refugees estimated that in the same four-year period, rather more than 3 million civilians were killed, injured, or rendered homeless.
In the same four-year period, the United States dropped almost 4,500,000 tons of high explosive on Indochina. (The Pentagon’s estimated total for the amount dropped in the entire Second World War is 2,044,000.) This total does not include massive sprayings of chemical defoliants and pesticides.
It is unclear how we count the murder or abduction of 35,708 Vietnamese civilians by the ClA’s counter-guerrilla "Phoenix program" during the first two and a half years of the Nixon-Kissinger Administration. There may be some "overlap." There is also some overlap with the actions of previous administrations in all cases. But the truly exorbitant death tolls all occurred on Henry Kissinger’s watch; were known and understood by him; were concealed from Congress, the press, and the public by him; and were, when questioned, the subject of political and bureaucratic vendettas ordered by him. They were also partly the outcome of a secretive and illegal process in Washington, unknown even to most Cabinet members, of which Henry Kissinger stood to be, and became, a prime beneficiary.
On that closing point one may once again cite H. R. Haldeman, who had no further reason to lie and who had, by the time of his writing, paid for his crimes by serving a sentence in prison. Haldeman describes the moment in Florida when Kissinger was enraged by a New York Times story telling some part of the truth about Indochina:
"Henry telephoned J. Edgar Hoover in Washington from Key Biscayne on the May morning the Times story appeared.
According to Hoover’s memo of the call, Henry said the story used "secret information which was extraordinarily damaging." Henry went on to tell Hoover that he "wondered whether I could make a major effort to find out where that came from . . . and to put whatever resources I need to find out who did this. l told him I would take care of this right away."
Henry was no fool, of course. He telephoned Hoover a few hours later to remind him that the investigation be handled discreetly “so no stories will get out." Hoover must have smiled, but said all right. And by five o’clock he was back on the telephone to Henry with the report that the Times re. porter ‘may have gotten some of his information from the Southeast Asian desk of the Department of Defense’s Public Affairs Office." More specifically, Hoover suggested the source could be a man named Mort Halperin (a Kissinger staffer) and an. other man who worked in the Systems Analysis Agency…. According to Hoover’s memo, Kissinger "hoped I would follow it up as far as we can take it and they will destroy whoever did this if we can find him, no matter where he is."
"The last line of that memo gives an accurate reflection of Henry’s rage, as I remember it.
Nevertheless, Nixon was one hundred percent behind the wiretaps. And I was, too.
And so the program started, inspired by Henry’s rage but ordered by Nixon, who soon broadened it even further to include newsmen. Eventually, seventeen people were wiretapped by the FBI including seven on Kissinger’s NSC staff and three on the White House staff."
And thus, the birth of the "plumbers" and of the assault on American law and democracy that they inaugurated. Commenting on the lamentable end of this process, Haldeman wrote that he still believed that ex-president Nixon (who was then still alive) should agree to the release of the remaining tapes. But:
"This time my view is apparently not shared by the man who was one reason for the original decision to start the taping process. Henry Kissinger is determined to stop the tapes from reaching the public….
Nixon made the point that Kissinger was really the one who had the most to lose from the tapes becoming public. Henry apparently felt that the tapes would expose a lot of things he had said that would be very disadvantageous to him publicly.
Nixon said that in making the deal for custody of his Presidential papers, which was originally announced after his pardon but then was shot down by Congress, that it was Henry who called him and insisted on Nixon’s right to destroy the tapes. That was, of course, the thing that destroyed the deal."
A society that has been "plumbed" has the right to demand that its plumbers be compelled to make some restitution by way of full disclosure. The litigation to put the Nixon tapes in the public trust is only partially complete; no truthful account of the Vietnam years will be available until Kissinger’s part in what we already know has been made fully transparent.
Until that time, Kissinger’s role in the violation of American law at the close of the Vietnam War makes the perfect counterpart to the 1968 covert action that helped him to power in the first place. The two parentheses enclose a series of premeditated war crimes that still have power to stun the imagination.
In a famous expression of his contempt for democracy, Kissinger once observed that he saw no reason why a certain country should be allowed to "go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people." The country concerned was Chile, which at the time of this remark had a justified reputation as the most highly evolved pluralistic democracy in the Southern Hemisphere of the Americas. The pluralism translated, in the years of the Cold War, into an electorate that voted about one-third conservative, one-third socialist and Communist, and one-third Christian Democratic and centrist. This had made it relatively easy to keep the Marxist element from having its turn in government, and ever since 1962 the CIA had-as it had in Italy and other comparable nations- largely contented itself with funding the reliable elements. In September 1970, however, the left’s candidate actually gained a slight plurality of 36.2 percent in the presidential elections. Divisions on the right, and the adherence of some smaller radical and Christian parties to the left, made it a moral certainty that the Chilean Congress would, after the traditional sixty-day interregnum, confirm Dr. Salvador Allende as the next president. But the very name of Allende was anathema to the extreme right in Chile, to certain powerful corporations (notably ITT, PepsiCola’ and the Chase Manhattan Bank) that did business in Chile and the United States, and to the CIA.
This loathing quickly communicated itself to President Nixon. He was personally beholden to Donald Kendall, the president of Pepsi-Cola, who had given him his first international account when, as a failed politician, he had joined a Wall Street law firm. A series of Washington meetings, within eleven days of Allende’s electoral victory, essentially settled the fate of Chilean democracy. After discussions with Kendall, with David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan, and with CIA director Richard Helms, Kissinger went with Helms to the Oval Office. Helms’s notes of the meeting show that Nixon wasted little breath in making his wishes known. Allende was not to assume office. "Not concerned risks involved. No involvement of embassy. $10,000,000 available, more if necessary. Full-time job-best men we have…. Make the economy scream. 48 hours for plan of action."
Declassified documents show that Kissinger- who had previously neither known nor cared about Chile, describing it offhandedly as "a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica"-took seriously this chance to impress his boss. A group was set up in Langley, Virginia, with the express purpose of running a "two track" policy for Chile, one the ostensible diplomatic one and the other- unknown to the State Department or the U.S. ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry-a strategy of destabilization, kidnapping, and assassination designed to provoke a military coup.
There were long- and short-term obstacles to the incubation of such an intervention, especially in the brief interval available before Allende took his oath of office. The long-term obstacle was the tradition of military abstention from politics in Chile, a tradition that marked off the country from its neighbors. Such a military culture was not to be degraded overnight. The short-term obstacle lay in the person of one man: General Rene Schneider. As chief of the Chilean Army, he was adamantly opposed to any military meddling in the electoral process. Accordingly, it was decided at a meeting on September 18, 1970, that General Schneider had to go.
The plan, well documented by Seymour Hersh and others, was to have him kidnapped by extremist officers, in such a way as to make it appear that leftist and pro-Allende elements were behind the plot. The resulting confusion, it was hoped, would panic the Chilean Congress into denying Allende the presidency. A sum of $50,000 was offered around the Chilean capital, Santiago, for any officer or officers enterprising enough to take on this task. Richard Helms and his director of covert 77 operations, Thomas Karamessines, told Kissinger that they were not optimistic. Military circles were hesitant and divided, or else loyal to General Schneider and the Chilean constitution. As Helms put it in a later account of the conversation: "We tried to make clear to Kissinger how small the possibility of success was." Kissinger firmly told Helms and Karamessines to press on in any case.
Here one must pause for a recapitulation. An unelected official in the United States is meeting with others, without the knowledge or authorization of Congress, to plan the kidnapping of a constitutionally minded senior officer in a democratic country with which the United States is not at war and with which it maintains cordial diplomatic relations. The minutes of the meetings may have an official look to them (though they were hidden from the light of day for long enough), but what we are reviewing is a "hit," a piece of state-supported terrorism.
Ambassador Edward Korry has testified ~ that he told his embassy staff to have ,L~ nothing to do with a group styling itself Patria y Libertad, a quasi-fascist group intent on defying the election results. He sent two cables to Washington warning his superiors to have nothing to do with them either. He was unaware that his own military attaches had been told to contact the group and to keep the fact from him. And when the outgoing president of Chile, the Christian Democrat Eduardo Frei, announced that he was opposed to any American intervention and would vote to confirm the legally elected Allende, it was precisely to this gang that Kissinger turned. On September 15, 1970, Kissinger was told of an extremist right-wing officer named General Roberto Viaux, who had ties to Patria y Libertad and who was willing to accept the secret American commission to remove General Schneider from the chessboard. The term "kidnap" was still being employed at this point and is often employed still. Kissinger’s "track two" group, however, authorized the supply of machine guns as well as tear-gas grenades to Visux’s associates and never seem to have asked what they would do with the general once they had kidnapped him.
Let the documents tell the story. A CIA cable to Kissinger’s "track two" group from Santiago dated October 18, 1970, reads (with the names still blacked out for "security" purposes and cover identities written in by hand, in my square brackets, by the ever-thoughtful redaction service) as follows:
The reply, which is headed IMMEDIATE SANTIAGO (EYES ONLY [deleted]), is dated October 18 and reads as follows:
A companion message, also addressed to "SANTIAGO 562," went like this:
The full beauty of this cable traffic cannot be appreciated without a reading of an earlier message, dated October 16. (It must be borne in mind that the Chilean Congress was to meet to confirm Allende as president on the twenty-fourth of that month)
Finally, it is essential to read the White House "MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION, dated October 15, 1970, to which the above cable directly refers and of which it is a more honest summary. Present for the "HIGH USG LEVEL" meeting were, as noted in the heading, "Dr. Kissinger, Mr. Karamessines, Gen. Haig." The first paragraph of their deliberations has been entirely blacked out, with not so much as a scribble in the margin from the redaction service. (Given what has since been admitted, this sixteen-line deletion must be well worth reading.) Picking up at paragraph two, we find:
2. Then Mr. Karamessines provided a rundown on Viaux, the Canales meeting with Tirado, the latter's new position (after Porta was relieved of command "for health reasons") and, in some detail, the general situation in Chile from the coup possibility viewpoint.
3. A certain amount of information was available to us concerning Viaux's alleged support throughout the Chilean military. We had assessed Viaux's claims carefully, basing our analysis on good intelligence from a number of sources. Our conclusion was clear: Viaux did not have more than one chance in twenty-perhaps less-to launch a successful coup.
4. The unfortunate repercussions, in Chile and internationally, of an unsuccessful coup were discussed. Dr. Kissinger ticked off his list of these negative possibilities. His items were remarkably similar to the ones Mr. Karamessines had prepared.
5. It was decided by those present that the Agency must get a message to Viaux warning him against any precipitate action. In essence our message was to state: "We have reviewed your plans, and based on your information and ours, we come to the conclusion that your plans for a coup at this time cannot succeed. Failing, they may reduce your capabilities for the future. Preserve your assets. We will stay in touch. The time will come when you with all your other friends can do something. You will continue to have our support."
6. After the decision to de-fuse the Viaux coup plot, at least temporarily, Dr. Kissinger instructed Mr. Karamessines to preserve Agency assets in Chile, working clandestinely and securely to maintain the capability for Agency operations against Allende in the future. [Italics added.]
7. Dr. Kissinger discussed his desire that the word of our encouragement to the Chilean military in recent weeks be kept as secret as possible. Mr. Karamessines stated emphatically that we had been doing everything possible in this connection, including the use of false flag officers, car meetings and every conceivable precaution. But we and others had done a great deal of talking recently with a number of persons. For example, Ambassador Korry's wide-ranging discussions with numerous people urging a coup "cannot be put back into the bottle." [Three lines of deletion follow ] (Dr. Kissinger requested that copy of the message be sent to him on 16 October.)
8. The meeting concluded on Dr. Kissinger's note that the Agency should continue keeping the pressure on every Allende weak spot in sight-now, after the 24th of October, after 5 November, and in' to the future until such time as new marching orders are given. Mr. Karamessines stated that the Agency would comply.
So "track two" contained two tracks of its own. "Track two/one" was the group of ultras led by General Roberto Viaux and his sidekick, Captain Arturo Marshal. These men had tried to bring off a coup in 1969 against the Christian Democrats; they had been cashiered and were disliked even by conservatives in the officer corps. "Track two/two" was a more ostensibly "respectable" faction headed by General Camilo Valenzuela, the chief of the garrison in the capital city, whose name occurs in the cables above and whose identity is concealed by some of the deletions. Several of the CIA operatives in Chile felt that Viaux was too much of a madman to be trusted. And Ambassador Korry's repeated admonitions also had their effect. As shown in the October 15 memo cited above, Kissinger and Karamessines developed last-minute second thoughts about Viaux, who as late as October 13 had been given $20,000 in cash from the CIA station and promised a life-insurance policy of $250,000. This offer was authorized directly from the White House. With only days to go, however, before Allende was inaugurated, and with Nixon repeating that "it was absolutely essential that the election of Mr. Allende to the presidency be thwarted," the pressure on the Valenzuela group became intense. As a direct consequence, especially after the warm words of encouragement he had received, General Roberto Viaux felt himself under some obligation to deliver and to disprove those who had doubted him.
On the evening of October 19, 1970, the Valenzuela group, aided by some of Viaux's gang, and equipped with the tear-gas grenades delivered by the CIA, attempted to grab General Schneider as he left an official dinner. The attempt failed because Schneider left in a private car and not the expected official one. The failure produced an extremely significant cable from CIA headquarters in Washington to the local station, asking for urgent action because "HEADQUARTERS MUST RESPOND DURING MORNING 20 OCTOBER TO QUERIES FROM HIGH LEVELS." Payments of $50,000 each to Valenzuela and his chief associate were then authorized on condition that they make another attempt. On the evening of October 20 they did. But again there was only failure to report. On October 22 the "sterile" machine guns mentioned above were handed to Valenzuela's group for yet another try. Later that same day General Roberto Viaux's gang finally murdered General Rene Schneider.
According to the later verdict of the j' Chilean military courts, this atrocity partook of elements of both tracks of "track two." In other words, Valenzuela was not himself on the scene, but the assassination squad, led by Viaux, contained men who had participated in the preceding two attempts. Viaux was convicted on charges of kidnapping and of conspiring to cause a coup. Valenzuela was convicted of the charge of conspiracy to cause a coup. So any subsequent attempt to distinguish the two plots from each other, except in point of degree, is an attempt to confect a distinction without a difference.
It scarcely matters whether Schneider was slain because of a kidnapping scheme that went awry (he was said by the assassins to have had the temerity to resist) or whether his assassination was the objective in the first place. The Chilean military police report, as it happens, describes a straightforward murder. Under the law of every law-bound country (including the United States), a crime committed in the pursuit of a kidnapping is thereby aggravated, not mitigated. You may not say, with a corpse at your feet, "I was only trying to kidnap him." At least, you may not say so if you hope to plead extenuating circumstances.
Yet a version of "extenuating circumstances" has become the paper-thin cover story with which Kissinger has since protected himself from the charge of being an accomplice, before and after the fact, in kidnapping and murder. And this sorry euphemism has even found a refuge in the written record. The Senate intelligence committee, in its investigation of the matter, concluded that since the machine guns supplied to Valenzuela had not been actually employed in the killing, and since General Viaux had been officially discouraged by the CIA a few days before the murder, there was therefore "no evidence of a plan to kill Schneider or that United States officials specifically anticipated that Schneider would be shot during the abduction."
Walter Isaacson, in his biography of Kissinger, takes at face value a memo from Kissinger to Nixon after his meeting on October 15 with Karamessines, in which he reports to the president about the Viaux plot, saying that he had "turned it off." He also takes at face value the claim that Viaux's successful hit was essentially unauthorized. These excuses and apologies are as logically feeble as they are morally contemptible. Henry Kissinger bears direct responsibility for the Schneider murder, as the following points demonstrate:
1) Bruce MacMaster, one of the "False Flag" agents mentioned in the cable traffic above, a career CIA man carrying a forged Colombian passport and claiming to represent American business interests in Chile, has told of his efforts to get "hush money" to jailed members of the Viaux group, after the assassination and before they could implicate the agency.
2) Colonel Paul M. Wimert, a military attaché in Santiago and chief CIA liaison with the Valenzuela faction, has testified that after the Schneider killing he hastily retrieved the two payments of $50,000 that had been paid to Valenzuela and his partner, and also the three "sterile" machine guns. He then drove rapidly to the Chilean seaside town of Vina del Mar and hurled the guns into the ocean. His accomplice in this action, CIA station chief Henry Hecksher, had assured Washington only days before that either Viaux or Valenzuela would be able to eliminate Schneider and thereby trigger a coup.
3) Look again at the White House/Kissinger memo of October 15 and at the doggedly literal way it is retransmitted to Chile. In no sense of the term does it "turn off" Viaux. If anything, it incites him-a well-known and boastful fanatic- to redouble his efforts. "Preserve your assets. We will stay in touch. The time will come when you with all your other friends can do something. You will continue to have our support." This is not exactly the language of standing him down. The remainder of the cable speaks plainly of the intention to "DISCOURAGE HIM FROM ACTING ALONE, to "CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE HIM TO AMPLIFY HIS PLANNING, and to "ENCOURAGE HIM TO JOIN FORCES WITH OTHER COUP PLANNERS SO THAT THEY MAY ACT IN CONCERT EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER 24 OCTOBER." (Italics added.) The last three stipulations are an entirely accurate, not to say prescient, description of what Viaux actually did.
4) Consult again the cable received by Henry Hecksher on October 20, referring to anxious queries "from high levels" about the first of the failed attacks on Schneider. Thomas Karamessines, when questioned by the Senate intelligence committee about the same phrase in a similar cable sent to another CIA agent in Santiago, testified of his certainty that the term "high levels" referred directly to Kissinger. In all previous communications from Washington, as a glance above will show, that had indeed been the case. This on its own is enough to demolish Kissinger's claim to have "turned off" "track two" (and its interior tracks) on October 15.
5) Ambassador Edward Korry later made the obvious point that Kissinger was attempting to build a paper alibi in the event of a failure by the Viaux group: "His interest was not in Chile but in who was going to be blamed for what. He wanted me to be the one who took the heat. Henry didn't want to be associated with a failure, and he was setting up a record to blame the State Department. He brought me in to the President because he wanted me to say what I had to say about Viaux; he wanted me to be the soft man."
The concept of "deniability" was not as well understood in Washington in 1970 as it has since become. But it is clear that Henry Kissinger wanted two things simultaneously: He wanted the removal of General Schneider, by any means and employing any proxy. (No instruction from Washington to leave Schneider unharmed was ever given; deadly weapons were sent by diplomatic pouch, and men of violence were carefully selected to receive them.) And he wanted to be out of the picture in case such an attempt might fail, or be uncovered. These are the normal motives of anyone who solicits or suborns murder. Kissinger, however, needed the crime very slightly more than he needed, or was able to design, the deniability. Without waiting for his many hidden papers to be released or subpoenaed, we can say with safety that he is prima facie guilty of direct collusion in the murder of a constitutional officer in a democratic and peaceful country.
Christopher Hitchens, formerly Washington editor of Harper's Magazine, is the author of books on the Cyprus crisis Kurdistan, Palestine, and the Anglo-American relationship. He is a regular columnist for Vanity Fair and The Nation.


Fascism, state terror and power abuse

Kissinger arrives in DublinWill Henry Kissinger be Brought to Trial?

World's number one state terrorist at large? Is he above the law? A defining case for the West's judicial credibility

Swiss credibility demands arrest of Kissinger at 2011 Bilderberg in St Moritz
Kissinger News
Social Network Diagram of Kissinger's Powerful Friends
You can get a copy of the 80 minute BBC4 documentary: The Trials of Henry Kissinger
See the book by Christopher Hitchens - 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger' £15/$22 published by Verso. Hitchens' chilling account of this global 'luminary''s involvement in Indochina, Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus, East Timor and Washington DC terrorist attacks presents what seems like a watertight case for Kissingers's prosecution.

The Kissinger Poll

Should Henry Kissinger stand trial for war crimes?

Current Results

Kissinger News: WANTED: World's Most Notorious War Criminal on the LooseLatest BBC news on Kissinger --- Latest other news on Kissinger
07Jun11 - The Right Change's blog - Inform yourself on the Bilderberg Group
02Dec06 - Catholic Register - Kissinger to Serve As Papal Adviser
18Dec04 - Pacifica News - Teflon Tyrants: After Pinochet, Prosecute Kissinger
05Jun04 - New York Times - Kissinger accused of blocking scholar
09Jan04 - Henry Kissinger was on Europe1 radio station this morning
06Dec03 - Guardian - Kissinger approved Argentinian 'dirty war'
04Dec03 - The Times - Hollinger supported Kissinger magazine
13Dec01 - Asheville Global Report -  Henry Kissinger and Gerald Ford Lied to the American Public about East Timor
02May03 - Minessota Star Tribune - Kissinger heaps praise on Bush
02May03 - Guardian - Ex-Kissinger partner to rule Iraq
30Apr03 - PR - Longtime Kissinger Deputy Joining Cohen Group
10Mar03 - Reuters - Kissinger joined Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst on European acquisitions
13Dec02 - Reuters - Kissinger resigns as head of Sept 11 commission
12Dec02 - WorkingForChange - The return of Cover-up Kissinger
12Dec02 - Guardian - Kissinger Promises No Conflict With Panel
30Nov02 - New York Times - The Kissinger Commission (Kissinger to head up S11 investigation!)
01Oct02 - Guardian - Britain accused of sacrificing new court
24Sep02 - Pakistan Daily Times - NYT twisted the hawk Kissinger into a fake dove
30Aug02 - Miami Herald - Argentina's 'dirty war' hounding Kissinger
22Jul02 - Der Speigel (translation) - Chile: Complaint against Kissinger
12Jun02 - Guardian - Kissinger may face extradition to Chile
31May02 -Reuters - Kissinger to advise Hicks Muse on Europe
23May02 - Workers' World - She defied Henry Kissinger
28Apr02 - Daily Telegraph - The doctor versus the judges
26Apr02 - Associated Press - Vietnam says Kissinger should bear responsibility for Vietnam War
25Apr02 - BBC - Kissinger's co-speakers at the Royal Albert Hall
25Apr02 - Independent - Henry Kissinger's speech to the Institute of Directors at the Albert Hall, London
18Apr02 - Guardian - Met asked to question Kissinger
18Apr02 -Pravda - Henry Kissinger, If You Want To Kill, Do It Fast
April 24 2002 protest rally as Kissinger dares to come to London
26Feb02 - Kissinger cancels Brazil visit to avoid protests
28Feb02 - Students protest as Kissinger visits Dublin college (2 articles and letters page)
21Feb02 - Kissinger Wiretaps to be released
16Feb02 - The Spectator - Kissinger addressed SAS at Stirling Lines HQ in January
03Nov01 -  ABC - Humanitarians Pursue Kissinger for South American Murders
11Sep01 - BBC - Kissinger accused over Chile plot
These two stories appeared on 11th September 2001 - coincidence?
11Sep01 - Washington Post - Family of Slain Chilean Sues Kissinger
09Sep01 - CBS - Family To Sue Kissinger For Death
05Jul01 - AP Newswire - Chile Judge May Question Kissinger
31May01 - Daily Telegraph - Kissinger Shuns Summons
29May01 - BBC - US bars Kissinger in Pinochet probe
The Book of Evidence against Kissinger by Christopher Hitchens
Research on Kissinger carried out by Trident Ploughshares 2000

07Jun11 - The Right Change's blog - Inform yourself on the Bilderberg Group

Inform yourself on the Bilderberg Group
by TheRightChange

A prominent member of Switzerland’s largest political party has called upon federal authorities to arrest Henry Kissinger as a war criminal if he attends the 2011 Bilderberg conference of global power brokers which is set to begin on Thursday at the Hotel Suvretta House in St. Moritz.

Swiss People’s Party representative Dominique Baettig wrote a letter to the General Prosecutor of the Swiss Federation in which he asked, “In the name of Cantonal Sovereignty and independence, but especially of the Justice’s independence from executive power – may it be Federal or Cantonal – I ask you to check abroad for Arrest Warrants delivered by various Courts, Judges and also for all valid criminal complaints against the persons who were, amongst others, cited as mere examples in my (enclosed) letters to Mrs. Simonetta Sommaruga, Federal Counselor and Mrs. Barbara Janom Steiner, Cantonal Counselor and of course, to arrest them before diligent extraditions.”

Baettig is no fringe figure, he’s the equivalent of a US Congressman, representing the Canton of Jura on the National Council of Switzerland. His party, the Swiss People’s Party, is the largest party in the Federal Assembly, with 58 members of the National Council and 6 of the Council of States.

Baettig’s letter also calls for the apprehension of George W. Bush and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but neither are likely to be attending the conference. However, Kissinger is a regular Bilderberg attendee and is almost certain to be present in St. Moritz.

Kissinger, National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State for President Nixon and President Ford, has been accused of being complicit in a number of war crimes in Indochina, Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus and East Timor. Numerous activists have attempted to arrest him over the years under the Geneva Conventions Act.

In The Trial of Henry Kissinger, author Christopher Hitchens documents how Kissinger personally approved bombing campaigns that resulted in thousands of civilian casualties as well as signing off on the use of the deadly chemical Agent Orange. United States General Telford Taylor, the former chief prosecuting officer at the Nuremberg trials, stated that Kissinger committed war crimes by giving the nod to bomb Vietnamese villages during the war.

Although Bilderberg’s primary confab will take place in St. Moritz, other associated meetings will also occur in Zurich and Geneva. Unlike the small group of independent journalists who will travel to the location to do the job that the castrated establishment media refuses to undertake, Bilderberg elitists can rely on private jets and helicopters to transport them between the different locations.

In recent years, Bilderberg luminaries have decried the increasing number of demonstrators and independent journalists who descend on the scene of each annual meeting, which is the primary reason why members will be hopping around to different locations within the small country of Switzerland to escape the glare of reporters and the unwanted attention of protesters.

Claims by apologists that Bilderberg is merely a talking shop that has no influence on setting policy have been vehemently debunked in recent years. Bilderberg chairman Étienne Davignon last year bragged about how the Euro single currency was a brainchild of the Bilderberg Group.

“A meeting in June in Europe of the Bilderberg Group- an informal club of leading politicians, businessmen and thinkers chaired by Mr. Davignon- could also ‘improve understanding’ on future action, in the same way it helped create the Euro in the 1990s, he said,” reported the EU Observer in March 2009.

The foundations for the EU and ultimately the Euro single currency were laid by the secretive Bilderberg Group in the mid-1950’s. Bilderberg’s own leaked documents prove that the agenda to create a European common market and a single currency was formulated by Bilderberg in 1955.

As we first reported in 2003, a BBC investigative team were allowed to access Bilderberg files which confirmed that the EU and the Euro were the brainchild of Bilderberg.

During an interview with a Belgian radio station last year, former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes admitted that those who attend the conference are mandated to implement decisions that are formulated during the confab within their respective spheres of influence.

02Dec06 - Catholic Register - Kissinger to Serve As Papal Adviser?

Pope Benedict XVI has invited Henry Kissinger, former adviser to Richard Nixon, to be a political consultant and he accepted.


November 26-December 2, 2006 Issue

VATICAN CITY - Over the course of his long and controversial career, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has had many titles. Now he reportedly has one more - adviser to the Pope.

According to the Italian newspaper La Stampa, Pope Benedict XVI has invited the 83-year-old former adviser to Richard Nixon to be a political consultant, and Kissinger has accepted.

Quoting an "authoritative" diplomatic source at the Holy See, the paper reported Nov. 4 that the Nobel laureate was asked at a recent private audience with the Holy Father to form part of a papal "advisory board" on foreign and political affairs.

As the Register went to press, Kissinger's office was unable to confirm or deny the report. La Stampa stood by its story, although the Italian press is less rigorous in its authentication of stories as is the United States Press.

If true, there is speculation on which issues Kissinger would advise the Holy Father. Relations with Islam, Palestine and Israel, and Iraq - Kissinger has been critical of the conduct of the war but opposes a quick withdrawal - are likely to be high up on the agenda.

It has also been speculated that, in view of the Muslim hostility to Benedict's recent Regensburg speech, Kissinger might provide advice on dealing with an increasingly fractious Islamic world.

Furthermore, like the Pope, Kissinger has analyzed the challenges of globalization and might provide advice in this area as well.

"The idea [of his appointment] sounds like a good one," said veteran Vatican journalist Sandro Magister. "But so would it also be to consult other experts on geopolitics with different orientations."

As possible expert advisers with different perspectives, Magister listed Catholic philosopher and former diplomat Michael Novak; Bernard Lewis, professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University; and foreign policy experts such as Charles Kupchan and G. John Ikenberry.

Expert Advice

The recruitment of Kissinger would not be unprecedented. Experts from a variety of disciplines, including the realm of economics, politics and philosophy, are regularly invited to advise popes and Vatican officials on current affairs.

Pope John Paul II was close friends with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Polish-born national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, partly because both had a common Polish heritage (though this caused the Soviets to suspect the Vatican of "fixing" the election of Karol Wojtyla, which occurred during the Carter presidency).

Similarly to John Paul and Brzezinski, Benedict and Kissinger are close in age and were both born in Bavaria (a Jew, Kissinger and his family fled Nazi Germany before World War II).

In recent years, other figures invited to share their expertise with the Holy See have included Paul Wolfowitz, a former President Bush adviser and now president of the World Bank; Michel Camdessus, the former director of the International Monetary Fund; American economist Jeffrey Sachs and Hans Tietmeyer, former governor of Germany's central bank.

The pontifical academies also regularly call on academic luminaries as consultants, such as Nobel laureates Gary Becker, the successor to Milton Friedman at the Chicago School of Economics, and Italian medical researcher Rita Levi-Montalcini.

In comments to the Register, Novak said that "many, maybe most" of these experts are not Catholic, but that the Pope "can call in certain experts he wants to talk to, or hear a paper from, with discussion in a small group."

Novak said this is true of both Benedict XVI and John Paul II, whom he described as having "very curious and searching minds."

Any appointment of Kissinger is likely to cause some unease, however. One Iranian radio station is already reporting the news as a "papal-Jewish conspiracy," while others object to the Pope consulting with someone who has been widely identified with the realpolitik school of political analysis, an approach that places practical considerations before morality.

'Different Voices'

Yet like Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI is winning recognition for his intellectual ability and his capacity to discuss international issues with a diverse spectrum of world figures, ranging from the Dalai Lama to the late atheist polemicist Oriana Fallaci and to Mustapha Cherif, an Algerian Muslim philosopher whom he met this month.

"Such an appointment would really show Benedict XVI to be contrary to his media image, as someone who's willing to listen to other voices not in accordance with his views," said one Holy See diplomat about the reported enlistment of Kissinger as a papal adviser. "It's always helpful to hear different voices offering different views."

Edward Pentin

writes from Rome.

Kissinger - photographed attending a masonic ceremony 16th December 2004Teflon Tyrants: After Pinochet, Prosecute Kissinger

Commentary, Roger Burbach and Paul Cantor,

Pacific News Service, Dec 14, 2004

Editor's Note: The arrest by Chile of former military strongman Augusto Pinochet is a human rights victory. But complicent in the rise of Pinochet and his crimes, the writers say, is former Nixon advisor Henry Kissinger and other U.S. officials.

The Chilean government has arrested Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who led a brutal military coup in 1973 and ruled the country with an iron hand until 1990. The United States should now follow suit by prosecuting Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon's former national security advisor, for breaking U.S. and international law by helping foment the coup that brought Pinochet to power.

Before Pinochet, Chile had a well-deserved reputation as one of the most vibrant democracies in the world. It had a democratically elected president and a Congress just as we do. It had a wide range of political parties from the far right to the far left, all of which participated in the political process. It had numerous newspapers, magazines and radio stations that together represented the views of people across the political spectrum. All of its citizens, including illiterates, had a right to vote.

Pinochet, with Kissinger's help, changed all that.

The military junta Pinochet led dissolved Congress, outlawed political parties and the largest labor union in the country, censored the press, banned the movie "Fiddler on the Roof" as Marxist propaganda, publicly burned books ("on a scale seldom seen since the heyday of Hitler," according to the New York Times), expelled students and professors from universities, designated military officers as university rectors and arrested, tortured and killed thousands who opposed the regime.

Among those who died in the coup and its aftermath were: Salvador Allende, Chile's democratically elected president; Victor Jara, its most famous folk singer; Carlos Prats, the commander in chief of the Chilean armed forces until the coup plotters forced him out of office; Jose Toha, a former vice president; Alberto Bachelet, an air force general who opposed the coup; and two North American friends of ours, Charles Horman and Frank Terrugi.

The Pinochet regime was condemned for torturing political prisoners and for other human rights abuses by the United Nations, the Organization of American States, Amnesty International and many other respected international organizations. Among those tortured was a 24-year-old young man who, according to the Wall Street Journal, "was stripped naked and given electrical shocks...They started with wires attached to his hands and feet and finally to his testicles." Newsweek magazine wrote on March 31, 1975, "Each day Chileans are picked up for interrogation by the secret police. Some are held for weeks without charge, many are tortured, a few disappear altogether."

Chile, in sum, became a nightmare society. Even when Pinochet finally gave up power in 1990 to an elected government, he continued to dominate the country's politics as commander in chief of the military.

Only recently has the country demonstrated a determination to face its past head-on and bring those responsible for murder and torture under the Pinochet regime to justice, including the ex-dictator himself. Indeed, up until only a short time ago, Pinochet in Chile used to be like Kissinger in the United States. He was the Teflon man. No charges against him could be made to stick.

Three events provided Chileans with the resolve to take on the former tyrant. The first was his arrest in England in 1998 on a warrant issued by a Spanish judge charging him with human rights abuses. The second was the publication by the news media of documents indicating that he enriched himself at the expense of his own people in a variety of illicit ways. The third was a report by a government-sponsored commission detailing the torture of 45,000 people that took place under his regime.

So now, the 89-year-old ex-dictator -- his former friends deserting him in droves, his cultivated image of the tough but honorable savior of his country in tatters -- is under house arrest in his own country. He's trying to avoid prosecution by claiming he is too old and too feeble-minded to face a trial. What about Kissinger?

Innumerable reports in this country, beginning with a 1975 U.S. Senate document titled, "Covert Action in Chile," have made it clear that Kissinger was responsible for directing the CIA and other intelligence agencies to destabilize the Allende government. Kissinger's motivation was to prevent what he considered a communist government from gaining a foothold in Latin America. "I don't see why we need to stand idly by and let a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people," he said after Salvador Allende was elected president.

Now, Pinochet's arrest reminds us that Henry Kissinger and others in our country who are responsible for undermining democracy and condoning human rights abuses need to be held accountable for their crimes. Until that happens, the rest of the world has a right to be incredulous when our leaders proclaim they want to spread democracy and human rights abroad.

Paul Cantor is a professor of economics at Norwalk Community College in Connecticut. He lived in Chile from 1970 to 1973. Roger Burbach also resided in Chile and is the author of "The Pinochet Affair: State Terrorism and Global Justice" (Zed Books, 2003).

Kissinger Accused of Blocking Scholar

June 5, 2004


The chief Latin American expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, the nation's pre-eminent foreign policy club, has quit as a protest, accusing the council of stifling debate on American intervention in Chile during the 1970's as a result of pressure from former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger.

Kenneth Maxwell, a senior fellow for inter-American affairs at the council, announced his resignation in May 13 letters to James F. Hoge Jr., the editor of Foreign Affairs magazine, where Mr. Maxwell had reviewed a book on American involvement in Chile, and to Richard Haass, president of the council's board.

"There is a question of principle at stake here," Mr. Maxwell wrote to Mr. Hoge. "It was made abundantly clear to me, as you know, that there was intense pressure on you, on Foreign Affairs and on my employer, the Council on Foreign Relations, from Henry Kissinger and others, to close off this debate about accountability and Mr. Kissinger's role in Chile in the 1970's."

Mr. Kissinger is traveling, said an assistant, Jesse Incao, and could not be reached for comment.

Officials at the Council on Foreign Relations strenuously denied that Mr. Kissinger, whose friends include some of the council's biggest donors, had exerted any pressure, directly or indirectly, to silence Mr. Maxwell on this issue.

The roots of the current dispute date back to last winter, after Mr. Hoge invited Mr. Maxwell to write an extended review of "The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability" by Peter Kornbluh (New Press), a book that re-examines the American role in helping to unseat Salvador Allende, the socialist president who died during the military coup that brought the brutal regime of Gen. Augusto Pinochet to power. The book is based on 25,000 United States government documents that were declassified in recent years.

Mr. Maxwell's essay largely summarized the unresolved questions surrounding American actions in Chile, mentioning three issues in particular: the 1970 assassination of a Chilean general, René Schneider; the September 1973 coup against Allende; and the assassination of Orlando Letelier, Allende's former foreign minister, in September 1976.

The review, though critical of Mr. Kornbluh's book in some respects, said that it confirmed "the deep involvement of the U.S. intelligence services in Chile prior to and after the coup."

The review outraged William Rogers, the former assistant secretary of state for Latin American Affairs under Mr. Kissinger and a vice president of his consulting firm, Kissinger Associates, who wrote a lengthy response in the following issue of Foreign Affairs.

"There is, in short, no smoking gun," Mr. Rogers wrote. "Yet the myth persists. It is lovingly nurtured by the Latin American left and refreshed from time to time by contributions to the literature and Mr. Maxwell's review of that book."

Mr. Maxwell fired back, "William Rogers overreaches." He added, "To claim that the United States was not actively involved in promoting Allende's downfall in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary verges on incredulity."

After the exchange, Mr. Hoge said, Mr. Rogers approached him once again, saying that Mr. Maxwell's response to his letter had raised new charges that he felt entitled to address. Specifically, Mr. Rogers felt he and Mr. Kissinger were being accused of complicity in the Letelier assassination, Mr. Hoge recalled.

Mr. Maxwell said that he was not accusing the men of complicity but rather of failing to stop the campaign to assassinate opposition figures abroad. He cited an August 1976 order from Mr. Kissinger to ambassadors in South America, to warn governments there that the United States would not countenance political assassinations on its territory. At least in Chile, that order appears not to have been delivered, nor was it insisted upon. The next month, Letelier's car was blown up by Chilean secret service agents on a Washington street.

Mr. Hoge said he had told Mr. Rogers that if he stuck to the historical issue, the journal would not run any response from Mr. Maxwell this time.

"He promised me that I would have the last word and that Maxwell was shut off," Mr. Rogers said in an interview this week.

Mr. Maxwell agreed he had said he wouldn't need to respond as long as there were no personal attacks, but he changed his mind after seeing the actual letter.

Mr. Hoge still said no.

Mr. Hoge said he was not reacting to any private pressure from board members or elsewhere, but felt that the time had come to put an end to a debate that was going nowhere.

"I thought both of them had had a good go at their feelings of the Pinochet book," Mr. Hoge said.

Whether or not there were any hidden strings pulled to give Mr. Rogers the final word, as Mr. Maxwell claims, the dispute underscores an intense competition under way to shape the way that history is told, particularly regarding the United States involvement in Chile, as more and more documents touching on Mr. Kissinger's legacy are released.

"The key is the suppression of debate on foreign policy by a major figure in a major foreign policy magazine," said Mr. Maxwell, who is now headed for Harvard University as a senior fellow at the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies.

Nor was Mr. Kornbluh pleased. He, too, had tried to submit a letter, but was also turned down.

"I thought that Foreign Affairs was being grossly unfair to me as the author of the book that was the foundation for the entire debate, and to Ken Maxwell, who was obviously their own analyst and their own reviewer," Mr. Kornbluh said.

The incident has sparked dismay in some quarters. A letter to Foreign Affairs from Latin American experts who are members of the council severely criticized the way the prestigious journal handled the dispute, particularly in denying Mr. Maxwell the right to reply. The decision, it said, "denied readers an opportunity to weigh competing views, contrary to the journal's policies and traditions."

This time, Mr. Hoge said, the dissent would appear in the letters column of Foreign Affairs' next issue.

Henry Kissinger was on Europe1 radio station this morning

You can listen his 11 minute interview by famous Jean-Pierre Elkabach french journalist:

HK was at the french Senate yesterday and he is on his way to China and will be back in the US next monday.

Quotes (not exact wording):

"Before it was a national threat, it's more an individual threat now"

"It's like in 1648, we need a new system"

Kissinger approved Argentinian 'dirty war',3604,1101061,00.html

Declassified US files expose 1970s backing for junta

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles

Saturday December 6, 2003

The Guardian

Henry Kissinger gave his approval to the "dirty war" in Argentina in the 1970s in which up to 30,000 people were killed, according to newly declassified US state department documents.

Mr Kissinger, who was America's secretary of state, is shown to have urged the Argentinian military regime to act before the US Congress resumed session, and told it that Washington would not cause it "unnecessary difficulties".

The revelations are likely to further damage Mr Kissinger's reputation. He has already been implicated in war crimes committed during his term in office, notably in connection with the 1973 Chilean coup.

The material, obtained by the Washington-based National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act, consists of two memorandums of conversations that took place in October 1976 with the visiting Argentinian foreign minister, Admiral César Augusto Guzzetti. At the time the US Congress, concerned about allegations of widespread human rights abuses, was poised to approve sanctions against the military regime.

According to a verbatim transcript of a meeting on October 7 1976, Mr Kissinger reassured the foreign minister that he had US backing in whatever he did.

"Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed," Mr Kissinger is reported as saying. "I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems, but not the context.

"The quicker you succeed the better ... The human rights problem is a growing one ... We want a stable situation. We won't cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help."

One day earlier, October 6 1976, Adml Guzzetti was told by a senior state department official, Charles Robinson, that "it is possible to understand the requirement to be tough". Mr Robinson is also reported as saying that "the problem is that the United States is an idealistic and moral country and its citizens have great difficulty in comprehending the kinds of problems faced by Argentina today".

"There is a tendency to apply our moral standards abroad and Argentina must understand the reaction of Congress with regard to loans and military assistance. The American people, right or wrong, have the perception that today there exists in Argentina a pattern of gross violations of human rights."

The US ambassador to Argentina, Robert Hill, had been putting pressure on the regime to stop human rights abuses. But after Adml Guzzetti returned from Washington, Mr Hill wrote from Buenos Aires to complain that the Argentinian foreign minister had not heard the same message from Mr Kissinger.

Adml Guzzetti had told the ambassador that Mr Kissinger had merely urged Argentina to "be careful", and had said that if the terrorist problem could be resolved by December or January, "serious problems could be avoided in the US". Mr Hill wrote at the time: "Guzzetti went to US fully expecting to hear strong, firm, direct warnings on his government's human rights practices. He has returned in a state of jubilation, convinced that there is no real problem with the USG [government] over that issue."

The then US assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Harry Shlaudeman, who attended both the Kissinger and the Robinson meetings with Adml Guzzetti, replied to Mr Hill: "As in other circumstances you have undoubtedly encountered in your diplomatic career, Guzzetti heard only what he wanted to hear. He was told in detail how strongly opinion in this country has reacted against reports of abuses by the security forces in Argentina and the nature of the threat this poses to Argentine interests."

However, as the newly released documents make clear, Adml Guzzetti was correct to believe that the regime had, in effect, been given carte blanche by the US government to continue its activities.

In a previously released cable, Mr Hill reported how his human rights concerns were dismissed by the Argentinian president, Jorge Videla: "[The] president said he had been gratified when Guzzetti reported to him that secretary of state Kissinger understood their problem and had said he hoped they could get terrorism under control as quickly as possible.

"Videla said he had the impression senior officers of the USG [government] understood situation his government faces, but junior bureaucrats do not. I assured him this was not the case. We all hope Argentina can get terrorism under control quickly - but to do so in such a way as to do minimum damage to its image and to its relations with other governments. If security forces continue to kill people to tune of brass band, I concluded, this will not be possible."

The revelations, which were also announced at a conference in Argentina yesterday, confirm suspicions at the time that the regime would not have continued to carry out atrocities unless it had the tacit approval of the US, on which it was dependent for financial and military aid.

The junta, which ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983, fell after the military's defeat in the Falklands war. During its period in power an estimated 30,000 people may have been arrested, tortured and killed. Many bodies have never been found.

An investigation into those crimes has begun in Argentina.

Mr Kissinger has been asked by the Chilean authorities to give evidence in connection with human rights abuses during the 1973 Chilean coup and the support he gave to the former dictator, General Augusto Pinochet. He is likely to be asked to do the same in Argentina.

He reportedly does not travel abroad without consulting his lawyers about the possibility of his arrest.,3604,1101061,00.html

Hollinger supported Kissinger magazine,,5-918761,00.html

By Abigail Rayner in New York

December 04, 2003

DETAILS of the intimate relationships between independent board members and Hollinger International continued to emerge yesterday as it transpired that the publisher of The Daily Telegraph supported a magazine connected to Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle.

Hollinger has been handing more than $200,000 (£116,000) a year for an unknown period to the National Interest, a foreign affairs magazine. Mr Perle, Dr Kissinger and Lord Black of Crossharbour offer editorial advice and the latter two sit on the editorial board.

The magazine is produced through a partnership with Hollinger and the Nixon Centre, but the newspaper publisher has never disclosed its full relationship to the publication.

Nixon Centre is a research institution of which Dr Kissinger is honorary chairman and Lord Black a board member.

Hollinger says it is reviewing all business investments to ensure that they are appropriate. It has stopped supplying about $375,000 a year to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based research institute of which Lord Black is a member.

Lord Black stepped down as chief executive of Hollinger International last month after it emerged that he and other executives, and the parent company Hollinger Inc, had received $32.5 million in non-compete payments not been approved by the board.,,5-918761,00.html

Henry Kissinger and Gerald Ford Lied to the American Public about East Timor

Asheville Global Report 12/13/2001

Title: Documents Show US Sanctioned Invasion of East Timor Author: Jim Lobe, (IPS)

Faculty evaluator: Student researcher: Connie Lytle,

Corporate media coverage: San Diego Union, A-29, 12/12/01

The release of previously classified documents makes it clear that former President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in a face-to-face meeting in Jakarta, gave then President Suharto a green light for the 1975 invasion of East Timor.

According to documents released by the National Security Archive (NSA), in December of 2001(the 26th anniversary of Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor) Suharto told Ford during their talks on December 6, 1975 that, "We want your understanding if it was deemed necessary to take rapid or drastic action [in East Timor]." In a previously secret memorandum, Ford replied, "We will understand and not press you on the issue. We understand the problem and the intentions you have." Kissinger similarly agreed, with reservations about the use of U.S. made arms in the invasion. Kissinger went on to say regarding the use of U.S. arms, " It depends on how we construe it, whether it is self-defense or is a foreign operation," suggesting the invasion might be framed in a way acceptable to U.S. law. Kissinger added, "It is important that whatever you do succeed quickly…the U.S. administration would be able to influence the reaction in America if whatever happens after we return [to the U.S.]. If you have made plans, we will do our best to keep everyone quiet until the President returns home."

For years Henry Kissinger has denied that any discussion of East Timor took place in Jakarta. The newly released dialogue between the three adds significantly to what is known about the role the US played in condoning the Indonesian invasion. The dialogue was part of a batch of documents on U.S. policy effecting East Timor obtained through the National Security Archive. Indonesia invaded East Timor the day after Ford and Kissinger left. As many as 230,000 East Timorese died as a result of Indonesia's invasion and the 23-year occupation of the country. As much as one third of the population died as a result of starvation, disease, caused by counter-insurgency operations carried out by the Indonesian army from 1976 to 1999. According to Amnesty International, East Timor represents one of the worst cases of genocides in the 20th century.

Under international pressure Indonesia allowed a plebiscite in 1999, in which East Timorese overwhelmingly voted for independence. After the vote Jakarta-backed militias rampaged the territory, burning and looting the country. The UN Security Council authorized an Australian-led international force to restore order. East Timor is now an independent country.

Kissinger shuns summons

By Patrick Bishop in Paris - 31/05/2001 - Daily Telegraph

HENRY KISSINGER, the former US Secretary of State, left Paris yesterday after declining to answer the questions of a French magistrate seeking information about political killings in Chile.

The American embassy told Judge Roger Le Loire that he should ask the State Department for details of American knowledge of the murder and disappearance of political opponents - including five French nationals - under the Pinochet regime after the 1973 coup.

Mr Kissinger was visiting Paris when police delivered a summons to the Ritz, where he was staying, asking him to present himself at the Palais de Justice.

The embassy later sent a letter to M Le Loire saying other obligations had prevented the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize winner from replying to the request and that he should direct his questions to Washington through official channels.

A State Department spokesman said it would pass on to the French authorities what information it had about the disappearance of French citizens during the post-coup era.

Maitre William Bourdon, representing families of the missing French nationals, said Mr Kissinger - Secretary of State from 1973-77 - had a duty to tell what he knew. M Le Loire is pursuing a campaign to discover the fate of the five French people who went missing in the years after Gen Pinochet came to power.

One, Jean-Yves Claudet-Fernandez, disappeared during an operation codenamed "Condor" in which Chile and other South American regimes co-operated to eradicate political opponents. M Le Loire says the Americans knew about the plan.


BBC Four Documentary - The Trials of Henry Kissinger
Panel discussion on Kissinger
Photograph lawsuit - Kissinger picking his nose and eating the bogey?
Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup in Chile September 11th 1973
Kissinger Watch - Brought to you by the International Campaign Against Impunity - Inspired by the success of the Pinochet Watch bulletin 'Kissinger Watch' will be published as an email bulletin distributed several times per annum. To subscribe to KissingerWatch (free of charge), send an email to:
His own lonely impunity is rank; it smells to heaven. If it is allowed to persist then we shall shamefully vindicate the ancient philosopher Anacharsis, who maintained that laws were like cobwebs; strong enough to detain only the weak, and too weak to hold the strong. In the name of innumerable victims known and unknown, it is time for justice to take a hand.
Henry Kissinger - WANTED POSTER
Kissinger Associates, Inc.
350 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(212) 759-7919
The use of poison gas during an illegal U.S. black operation in Laos.  CNN story censored.  Kissinger's continuing influence over what the US government does, and what is reported about what the government does, can clearly be seen in a relatively recent media event: Kissinger's significant behind-the-scene role in effecting CNN's retraction of the "Tailwind" story.

Before Donald Rumsfeld, who visited Afganistan on Sunday December 16th 2001, the last senior US figure to visit Afghanistan was Henry Kissinger in 1974,4273,4321105,00.html

East Timor Action Network: 10 Years for Self-Determination & Justice

Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize winner

"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

Human Rights Abuses - Remember Chile

The Ruttenberg lecture 2001 by Henry Kissinger - 31st October 2001 "Foreign Policy in the Age of Terrorism"

Kissinger heaps praise on Bush

Eric Black and Kavita Kumar, Star Tribune

Published May 2, 2003

In an event interrupted by protesters, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told a Minneapolis audience Thursday night that President Bush's leadership and the war in Iraq have the potential to be significant turning points for the better in world history.

Before a sold-out crowd of 1,700 at the Minneapolis Convention Center, Kissinger predicted that in the near future, Syria would moderate its anti-American conduct and its support for terrorism, that Iraq would become a democracy and that a breakthrough might occur in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Kissinger, 79, whose family fled Nazi Germany when he was a teenager, said that "anybody who has experienced a totalitarian state can never forget what America has meant to the world." He noted that the U.S. system is a product of unique historical experiences, difficult to duplicate or to transplant into Muslim societies where secular democracy has seldom thrived.

He was optimistic nonetheless about a U.S.-fostered transition to democracy in Iraq because, Kissinger said, "anyone who has seen the president in action knows he will fulfill the goals he has set for himself."

After he was introduced by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Kissinger gave a talk full of praise for Bush, which was delivered just as Bush was preparing to declare the end to major combat in Iraq from aboard an aircraft carrier in the Pacific. Bush's military actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan were "essential in light of the challenges we faced" after the Sept. 11 attacks, Kissinger said.

"I am convinced history will record that President Bush saved not only America's security but the world's prospects for progress by the courage with which he faced those challenges," he said.

Kissinger spoke at the annual dinner of the Center of the American Experiment, a conservative Minneapolis think tank, which has brought in big names for its annual banquet before, including Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, Colin Powell and former President George Bush.

Kissinger, 79, was national security adviser (1969-75) and secretary of state (1973-77) under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. He now chairs an international consulting firm based in New York.

Last year, President Bush nominated Kissinger to be chairman of a commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks. Kissinger accepted, then later declined on the grounds of possible conflicts with his consulting work.

Kissinger's speech was interrupted three times by protesters in the audience who tried to read a statement accusing him of war crimes during his years in power. Police quickly escorted them out. No arrests were made. Kissinger joked briefly about the protesters after each interruption, then resumed his remarks.

Before the banquet, about 75 protesters greeted arriving guests with chants of "Henry Kissinger, you can't hide. We charge you with genocide."

Dave Bicking, 52, a Minneapolis auto mechanic, along with his 17-year-old daughter was one of seven protesters ejected from the dinner. He said he has followed Kissinger's career since college and he "pretty much despised the guy from the beginning."

He considers Kissinger a war criminal based on his role as an architect of U.S. policy in Vietnam, Chile, East Timor and other matters. Kissinger's policies and actions share the responsibility for more than 1 million deaths, Bicking said.

"So when I heard that Kissinger was coming to town, I thought: 'This guy can't just be honored as a hero and go about his business like that.' If justice was done, he should be tried, convicted and behind bars. But if that can't happen, at least he shouldn't be able to have a fancy fundraising dinner in peace."

In the full text of the statement, the protesters noted that Kissinger is wanted for questioning in connection with international human rights cases by courts in several countries. Few in the audience could hear the protesters, who tried to direct some of their remarks to the attendees, including Pawlenty, accusing them of supporting Kissinger's alleged crimes.

Sister Jane McDonald from Minneapolis followed some attendees to the door saying, "He's a war criminal. You should know the truth about Kissinger."

A few people accepted the fliers she tried to give them, but most ignored her.

Sarah Janecek, a Republican analyst who attended the event, said she was a little surprised by the protesters and some of the signs such as one that read "Killionaires for Kissinger," but shrugged them off. "The guy has served our country, he's retired, so what's the point?" she said.

Tickets ranged from $150 for a single seat to $10,000 for a table of 10 seats. That price included opportunities for guests to attend a pre-dinner reception with Kissinger and to be photographed with him. The center declined to divulge how much Kissinger was paid for his hourlong talk.

Eric Black is at

Kavita Kumar is at

Ex-Kissinger partner to rule Iraq

Ex-Reagan aide to head civilian administration,3604,947843,00.html

Julian Borger in Washington Friday May 2, 2003 The Guardian

Paul Bremer, a former US diplomat and terrorism expert, will be Iraq's civilian administrator, it was reported yesterday.

The appointment is seen in Washington as a victory for the secretary of state, Colin Powell, in his battle with the Pentagon for control of Iraq's future.

Mr Bremer, who was Ronald Reagan's adviser on counter- terrorism and now runs a crisis consultancy, will oversee the Pentagon's man in Baghdad, the retired general Jay Garner, who is expected to leave Iraq in the next few months.

A spokesman at Mr Bremer's Marsh Crisis Consulting office would not comment on yesterday's press reports. The White House is expected to announce his appointment before the end of the week.

Gen Garner, a personal friend of the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, is controversial because of his links to the arms industry and his public statements in support of Ariel Sharon's government in Israel.

He made it clear that he saw his role as head of the office of reconstruction and humanitarian aid (ORHA) as transitory. But it was unclear until yesterday whether the new US administrator in Iraq would be chosen by the Pentagon or the state department.

However, the role of civilian administrator may prove to be a poisoned chalice as Iraqis grow restive under foreign occupation. The killing of at least 15 demonstrators by US troops during protests in Falluja this week illustrate how quickly the occupation can turn bloody.

Gen Garner's British deputy at ORHA, Major-General Tim Cross, said that getting the Iraqi ministries back on their feet was progressing faster than they had hoped for, and that ORHA could be handing over to an Iraqi interim administration soon.

"I hope we will be out of here by June," he said.

Six of the opposition parties involved in talks on the future of Iraq in London have been discussing a strategy since Wednesday. They will meet other groups and representatives in a national council at the end of the month to choose an interim administration.

ORHA's view is that the feared humanitarian crisis has not occurred, the damage to infrastructure is minimal, and the Iraqis have been quick to begin organising themselves to revive their ministries.

Mr Bremer will then focus on the political transition. He is reputed to be a consummate diplomat, having served 23 years in the state department. He then worked in Henry Kissinger's global consulting practice before setting up his own business in 2001.,3604,947843,00.html

Longtime Kissinger Deputy Joining Cohen Group

Wednesday April 30, 1:23 pm ET

WASHINGTON, April 30 /PRNewswire/ -- With thirty-two years of significant experience in foreign policy in both the public and private sectors, Christine Vick has joined The Cohen Group as Vice President.

Since 1996, Ms. Vick has been a partner at Andreae, Vick & Associates, LLC, an international consulting firm based in Washington, D.C. The firm provided its clients with advice and assistance in regard to policy issues and political dynamics in markets around the world. Ms. Vick's client work included extensive dealings in China and Turkey geared to problem solving and developing commercial opportunities.

Ms. Vick began her foreign policy career at the State Department in 1971, and began her work with then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1973. Four years later, she accompanied Dr. Kissinger to the private sector, and continued on for a 15-year association with him as Vice President of Kissinger Associates. During this period, Ms. Vick worked extensively with multinational clients in various sectors and senior officials in the U.S. government.

From 1991 until 1996, Ms. Vick served as Senior Policy Advisor at the international law firm of Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy as well as the Managing Director of Powell Goldstein International Consulting.

In addition to her full-time position as Vice President of The Cohen Group, Ms. Vick serves on the board of directors of the American Turkish Council and is Chairman of the Eisenhower Institute. She is a member of the advisory boards of the Center for International Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, her alma mater, and ChinaOnline, LLC.

Also joining The Cohen Group from the former Andreae, Vick & Associates are Cameron Turley, who previously served at the State Department's Foreign Service Institute and speaks Mandarin Chinese, and Taite Bergin, who formerly worked at the International Trade Administration at the Commerce Department and speaks Spanish and Japanese. Mr. Turley will be an Associate with the Group, and Ms. Bergin will be an Executive Assistant.

Ms. Vick's arrival follows last month's addition of retired four-star General Joseph W. Ralston, the former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who just completed a distinguished 37-year Air Force career by serving as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces. General Ralston has joined The Cohen Group as Vice Chairman.

About The Cohen Group:

The Cohen Group opened its doors in January 2001 with the objective of helping multinational clients identify and pursue opportunities around the world. A strategic alliance with Piper Rudnick, the national law firm specializing in business, real estate and technology, helps The Cohen Group maintain the unique ability to provide clients with truly comprehensive tools for understanding and shaping their business, political, legal, regulatory, and media environments. Since its start in early 2001, The Cohen Group has developed a team of skilled professionals of diverse backgrounds who serve a wide array of clients in the US, Europe, Asia, and Latin America. For more information, see

Blackstone names O'Neill as adviser

10Mar03 - Reuters - Kissinger joined Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst on European acquisitions

March 10, 2003 1:03:00 PM ET

NEW YORK, March 10 (Reuters) - Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who resigned under pressure from the Bush Administration last December, was named special advisor to Blackstone Group, the privately held New York investment bank, the firm said.

O'Neill, treasury secretary for two years and former chief executive of aluminum producer Alcoa Inc (AA), will advise Blackstone on operational and related issues to its portfolio companies, Blackstone said. O'Neill will also join Blackstone's advisory board.

Blackstone didn't say which of its portfolio companies that O'Neill may advise it on. Blackstone has invested in more than 60 companies and has significant investments in American Axle, Allied Waste, Graham Packaging and many others.

The O'Neill appointment is the latest in a string of former government officials to join private buyout firms, which raise investor capital to buy, build and sell companies.

Carlyle Group, a rival buyout firm based in Washington, is perhaps best known for a roster of advisers that includes former President George Bush; Frank Carlucci, the former defense secretary; John Major, the former U.K. prime minister, and others.

However, other buyout firms have also tapped well-known names to help open doors for new business opportunities or give advice on the management of their companies. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger last year joined Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst on European acquisitions, while Clayton Dubilier & Rice signed up former General Electric chief executive Jack Welsh.

Blackstone said O'Neill was tapped mainly for his management abilities. Prior to his 12 years at the helm of Alcoa, O'Neill was with International Paper Co. (IP), where he became president in 1985.

"His track record as an extremely successful CEO will be of immense value to our firm," said Stephen Schwarzman, Blackstone chief executive, in a statement.

In the first major shake-up of the Bush Administration economic team, O'Neill resigned in early December along with Bush chief economic advisor Larry Lindsey amid criticism that the president's policies were failing to reverse the economy's deterioration.

O'Neill sustained criticism for his blunt views which regularly sent currency markets roiling, and generated controversy by touring Africa last year with Bono, lead singer of Irish rock band U2 and critic of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

Blackstone is one of the largest private equity funds, with about $24 billion under management in alternative assets including hedge, buyout and real estate investments. It also advises companies on mergers, acquisitions and restructurings. REUTERS

Kissinger resigns as head of Sept 11 commission

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Under fire for potential conflicts of interest, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has abruptly resigned as chairman of an independent commission investigating the government's failure to prevent the September 11 attacks.

"This is a moment of disappointment for me, of course. ... My hope is that, by the decision to step aside now, the joint commission can proceed without further controversy," Kissinger said on Friday in a letter to President George W. Bush, who tapped him for the high-profile job.

The announcement, which followed the resignation of former Democratic Sen. George Mitchell as vice chairman of the commission, threw the September 11 investigation into disarray.

Kissinger's selection had sparked considerable controversy, both because of his policy-making role during the Vietnam War and the bombing of Cambodia, and because he is now a high-priced private international consultant. A new documentary called "The Trials of Henry Kissinger" alleged Kissinger was an international war criminal.

The 10-member commission was charged with investigating possible intelligence, aviation security, immigration or other policy lapses related to the September 11 attacks that killed more than 3,000 people.

The Bush administration initially opposed the commission, arguing a congressional investigation was better equipped to preserve national security secrets. Victims' families led a public campaign and pressured Bush to back down.

He appointed Kissinger, one of the most controversial American statesmen of the last half-century, to serve as chairman on November 27.

In his letter of resignation, Kissinger, 79, said he was confident he could have resolved potential conflicts of interest with his consulting firm, Kissinger Associates, but was concerned that "the controversy would quickly move to the consulting firm I have built and own."

"I have, therefore, concluded that I cannot accept the responsibility you proposed," said Kissinger, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and secretary of state under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

Kissinger has stated publicly there are no conflicts between the commission's work and clients at his New York-based consulting service.

But congressional Democrats had demanded that he fully disclose his business clients, and relatives of the victims asked for information about his business interests to see if he had any potential conflicts.

"In the end, he (Kissinger) would've been willing and was going to make his client list public. But he reached the conclusion that even after he had done that, people still would've said 'it's not enough; you must stop making a living; you must sever your ties to all your clients; you can no longer have Kissinger Associates,'" a senior White House official said.


Bush promised to "work quickly" to name a new chairman to the commission "whose mission will be to uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September 11."

"It is with regret that I accept Dr. Kissinger's decision to step down as chairman of the National Commission to investigate the events of September 11, 2001 and the years that led up to that event," Bush said in a statement.

"As I stated at the time of his appointment, Dr. Kissinger is one of our nation's most accomplished and respected public servants. I thank him for his willingness to consider serving his country once again."

Kissinger called White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card on Friday afternoon and told him he had made his mind up to step down. "This came as a surprise," a White House official said.

Earlier this week Mitchell, the former Senate Democratic leader, announced he would not serve on the panel, citing time pressures. Democrats have recommended former House International Relations Committee chairman Lee Hamilton to take Mitchell's place.

When he signed legislation creating the commission, Bush urged its members to expedite their work, due to be completed within the next 18 months, and directed them to "follow all the facts wherever they lead."

But a senior administration officials conceded: "The resignations of Senator Mitchell and Secretary Kissinger means the commission is not getting off to as quick a start as the president would've hoped."

Democrats have named five representatives to the September 11 commission, including Hamilton as vice chairman. Republicans still must name three more members.

In a statement issued late on Friday, Hamilton said Democratic members of the commission "support complete disclosure and we will each comply fully with the requirements."

The return of Cover-up Kissinger

"The only time I ever interviewed Kissinger, he told me three lies in the first sentence he spoke, each word. Dropping. From. His. Mouth. Like. A. Stone. He lies with more authority than anyone I have ever known."
Plus, Bush hawks and Christian right go batty over Islam
[If this author really believes that the pope, the knights templar etc. who were behind the crusades were Christians she needs her head examined - they were bloodthirsty, looting murderers, not Christians]

Good grief. I turn my back for 10 minutes, and they bring back the old War Criminal.

Two generations of Americans have come to adulthood since Henry Kissinger last held political power, so I need to explain that War Criminal is not an affectionate sobriquet: The man is, in fact, a war criminal -- wanted for questioning in Chile, Argentina and France (concerning French citizens who disappeared in Chile). He cannot travel to Britain, Brazil and many other countries because they cannot guarantee his immunity from legal proceedings.

In addition to his role in the Chilean coup that brought the regime of Gen. Pinochet to power, Kissinger is wanted for questioning about the international terrorist network called Operation Condor, which conducted killings, kidnappings and bombings in several countries, including this one: the 1976 bombing in Washington, D.C., that killed a noted Chilean dissident and his companion.

Kissinger's most notorious crime was the secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War. William Shawcross argued persuasively in his book "Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia" that the Cambodian bombing unleashed the Khmer Rouge on that country -- which, if true, certainly ups Kissinger's body count.

He is also a notorious liar. He has lied repeatedly to Congress, the press and the public; he is a toady to power and a lackey of the Establishment, and for many years now the hireling of despotic regimes around the world. Old Cover-Up Kissinger, the man who double-crossed the Iraqi Kurds... just the man to lead an independent inquiry into 9-11.

The cynicism of this insult to the families of those who died on 9-11 is just flabbergasting. We knew the Bush administration opposed the whole idea of an independent inquiry, but this adds supreme insult to injury.

The cover-up has already started: Kissinger insists he need not reveal the identities of his client regimes. He said law firms are not required to reveal the names of their clients. That's a two-lie answer, no record for Henry the K. He doesn't run a law firm, he runs an international consulting business. And in the second place, law firms are indeed obliged to publicly register their lobbying clients. The only time I ever interviewed Kissinger, he told me three lies in the first sentence he spoke, each word. Dropping. From. His. Mouth. Like. A. Stone. He lies with more authority than anyone I have ever known.

For those of you who are interested in learning more about our most famous living war criminal, I recommend Seymour Hersh's book "The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House," which was widely attacked but no factual error was ever found in it. Also, Christopher Hitchens' "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" is a definitive argument for the war criminal charge.

If you want to get something good out of this cynical ploy, you can at least haul out your old Tom Lehrer records and tool down memory lane. Lehrer, the great social satirist, stopped writing the day they gave Henry Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize.

Meanwhile, our neo-con hawks have moved from the bellicose to the bizarre. Ken Adelman, a member of Bush's Defense Policy Board, has joined several other hawks in direct attacks on Islam. Calling Islam a peaceful religion "is an increasingly hard argument to make," announced Adelman. "The more you examine the religion, the more militaristic it seems. After all, its founder, Mohammed, was a warrior, not a peace advocate like Jesus."

Another member of the Pentagon advisory board, Eliot Cohen, says, "Nobody would like to think that a major world religion has a deeply aggressive and dangerous strain in it -- a strain often excused or misrepresented in the name of good feelings. But uttering uncomfortable and unpleasant truths is one of the things that defines leadership."

The Christian right has gone completely batty on the subject: Rev. Jerry Falwell called Mohammed "a terrorist," Rev. Franklin Graham said Islam is "evil" and so forth.

Let's see, where does that leave Christianity, the religion of peace and love, founded by the Prince of Peace?

Among the more notable Christian crimes were the unbearably bloody Crusades, the Thirty Years War, the Inquisition, innumerable pogroms, regular slaughter of Protestants, counter-slaughter by Protestants, genocide against Native Americans (featuring biological warfare), slavery, the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, Northern Ireland... and the list goes on and on and on.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Especially when they are making bellicose statements and beating the war drums relentlessly for what may be an unnecessary war.

Kissinger Promises No Conflict With Panel,1282,-2240793,00.html

Thursday December 12, 2002 11:50 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Henry Kissinger on Thursday promised relatives of Sept. 11 victims that his business interests would not conflict with his new role as chairman of a panel investigating the attacks, leaders of two relatives' groups said.

The assurances came as the White House and congressional Democrats clashed on whether the former secretary of state must disclose his business clients to serve on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. Kissinger was appointed by President Bush.

It was not clear how much information Kissinger was willing to disclose or whether it would satisfy lawmakers.

Stephen Push, a leader of Families of Sept. 11, said Kissinger outlined procedures he was considering for the commission's 10 members to disclose potential conflicts of interest. Push declined to provide details, but said it would not require Kissinger to release a list of his consulting firm's clients.

Kristen Breitweiser of September 11th Advocates described the procedures outlined by Kissinger as ``a suggestion. If he is able to do the suggestion, I would be satisfied.''

Push said relatives still want Kissinger to abide by any legal requirements for disclosure. ``We're not suggesting this as an alternative to following the law,'' he said.

Push and Breitweiser were among 11 relatives who met with Kissinger in his New York office. Kissinger did not return messages seeking comment.

The commission will investigate events surrounding the attacks, examining issues including aviation security, immigration and U.S. diplomacy. It will build on a congressional inquiry into intelligence failures that was completed this week.

Some politicians and commentators have called on Kissinger to sever ties with his firm because of possible conflicts. The panel's original vice chairman, George Mitchell, resigned from the commission Wednesday, partly because of similar pressures to quit his law firm.

Senate Democrats claim all commission members, including Kissinger, are required to submit financial disclosures that would reveal potential conflicts. That view was supported by a report issued last week by Congress' research arm, the Congressional Research Service.

But the White House claims Kissinger, as Bush's sole appointee, is not required to submit a report. It says federal law does not require presidential appointees to submit disclosures if they are not drawing salaries, as is the case with Kissinger.

A second Congressional Research Service report, though, said all members of the commission - including a presidential appointee - would be bound by Senate ethics requirements. That report was released Thursday by the office of Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.

The dispute is the latest involving a commission that will begin its work early next month. Family members and congressional Democrats have questioned whether the Bush administration wants an honest evaluation of the attacks, with the report coming out less than six months before the 2004 presidential election.

Negotiations setting up the commission were bogged down by disputes over the commission's makeup and rules, with lawmakers and the White House accusing the other of trying to manipulate it for political purposes.

Relatives have criticized Senate Republican leader Trent Lott, R- Miss., for choosing former Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., as one of his two appointees to the commission. They consider Gorton too close to the aviation industry.

Lott has promised to consult with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a close ally of the families, in choosing his second appointee. The families and McCain have been pushing for former Sen. Warren Rudman, R-N.H., who led an advisory group that warned of U.S. vulnerability to terrorist attacks before Sept. 11.

Push said Lott is refusing to appoint Rudman. A Lott spokesman did not respond to messages.

But Push said the relatives were encouraged by the meeting with Kissinger.

``I think we started to develop a good working relationship,'' he said.,1282,-2240793,00.html

The Kissinger commission

Saturday, November 30, 2002 - The New York Times

In naming Henry Kissinger to direct a comprehensive examination of the U.S. government's failure to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush has selected a consummate Washington insider. Kissinger obviously has a keen intellect and vast experience in national security matters. Unfortunately, his affinity for power and the commercial interests he has cultivated since leaving government may make him less than the staunchly independent figure that is needed for this critical post. Indeed, it is tempting to wonder if the choice of Kissinger is not a clever maneuver by the White House to contain an investigation it long opposed.

It seems improbable to expect Kissinger to report unflinchingly on the conduct of the government, including that of Bush. He would have to challenge the established order and risk sundering old friendships and business relationships.

, in theory, should provide the definitive account of how a raft of government agencies - including the White House, Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation - left the United States so vulnerable to terrorist attack. That final reckoning is overdue and so far absent from the narrower inquiries done by Congress and individual agencies. It is essential to ensuring that past mistakes are not repeated.

The new inquiry will be undone if the 10-member panel is hesitant to call government organizations and officials to account. There can be no place for the kind of political calculation and court flattery that Kissinger practiced so assiduously during his tenure as President Richard Nixon's national security adviser and secretary of state. Nor is there any tolerance for the kind of cynicism that Kissinger applied to the prosecution of the Vietnam War.

The commission will be made up of five Republicans and five Democrats. Choosing its remaining members and staff director wisely will also be vital to its success. They must be fiercely independent and unafraid to challenge some of Washington's most powerful institutions. We were mildly encouraged to hear Kissinger say that he would "accept no restrictions" on the commission's work. To deliver on that promise, Kissinger must start by severing all ties to Kissinger Associates, the lucrative consulting business he has built up during the past two decades. As a consultant, Kissinger offered not just his own foreign policy expertise, but his famously easy access to the powerful and well connected.

Not long after Bush announced the appointment of Kissinger on Wednesday, Democratic congressional leaders picked one of their brethren, former Senator George Mitchell, to serve as vice chairman. Like Kissinger, Mitchell has great experience and an understanding of how the world works - and is not known for rocking established institutions.

The commission offers both men a chance for the kind of career-crowning legacy that many public personages dream of. But that would require rising above Washington's usual hedging and horse-trading. If they succeed, they could help the United States recover from the grievous wounds of Sept. 11 and make sure the country is never so vulnerable again.

Britain accused of sacrificing new court

"Diplomats said they could not yet answer the so-called "Kissinger question": what would happen in an ICC prosecution of a former US government official - the defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for example...."

Ian Black in Brussels Tuesday October 1, 2002 The Guardian,3604,802129,00.html

The EU came under furious criticism last night after seeking to end a row with the US by agreeing terms for giving American citizens immunity from prosecution by the new International Criminal Court.

Under heavy pressure from Washington, London persuaded its partners to accept a compromise allowing member states to sign individual immunity agreements with the US, a retreat from its previous united opposition to US immunity.

Britain, Italy and Spain are now expected to go ahead and make separate agreements with the US.

Peter Hain, the foreign office minister, insisted that strict extradition principles would be respected.

But Britain, whose diplomacy was crucial to the new approach, was attacked by Amnesty International for "betraying" its commitment to the new court."US pressure has paid off," said Dick Oosting, director of its EU office.

"The EU has allowed the US to shift the terms of the debate from legal principle to political opportunism."

Foreign ministers meeting in Brussels approved a plan which lets member governments agree not to extradite American soldiers or officials to the ICC if Washington guarantees that US war crimes suspect will be tried at home.

Germany said it was unhappy with the deal but signed it anyway. Sweden and other countries were reluctant but acknowledged that a united EU position was better than none.

The court, due to start work in next year, will try individuals for genocide, war crimes and human rights abuses.

The US, which fears its personnel overseas could face politically motivated charges, opposes the court and has lobbied other countries to sign immunity agreements.

Yesterday's deal was the subject of bitter haggling which underlined European concern about US unilateralism and the EU's difficulty in agreeing a common position.

Per Stig Moeller, the foreign minister of Denmark, which holds the EU presidency, insisted that no concessions had been made. "If individual states stay within these red lines... the court will not be undermined."

Britain was singled out for criticism by Human Rights Watch. "The British role was both ill-considered and damagingly effective," its spokesman Richard Dicker said.

"The British operate as if one more concession will appease those in the Bush administration who are sworn to destroy this court. It represents a betrayal by the Blair government of its earlier support for the ICC."

Amnesty said: "The political impact of this decision will be to bolster the US administration's efforts in its relentless campaign to undermine the effectiveness of the ICC."

Under the terms agreed the US will have to drop its demand for a blanket exemption and limit immunity to individuals sent abroad by the government.

Diplomats said they could not yet answer the so-called "Kissinger question": what would happen in an ICC prosecution of a former US government official - the defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for example - accused of atrocities in a future war against Iraq, especially one not fought under UN authority.

The conditions agreed by the 15 can apply either to new bilateral agreements or existing agreements on extradition and judicial cooperation.

Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, insisted that Berlin would not make an agreement with the US, and sought to accentuate the importance of the court.

"This is very important because the Milosevics and Pinochets of tomorrow will be brought to justice," he said.

Britain had warned the rest of the EU that their failure to reach agreement could endanger UN peacekeeping operations, because the US might veto them in the security council.

Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, told colleagues that though agreeing immunity arrangements was "not an ideal step to take", the highly sensitive issue had to be resolved.

So far 139 states have signed the ICC's founding treaty and 80 have ratified it. But the Bush administration withdrew its signature in April.

Brussels was furious when Romania, a candidate for EU membership, keen to win US support for its Nato membership, agreed never to take US citizens to the court.,3604,802129,00.html

Kissinger... Dove or Hawk?NYT twisted the hawk Kissinger into a fake dove

By Barbara Amiel - Tue Sept 24 - 2002

What is going on at the New York Times? In a front-page news story on August 16, the Times managed to change Henry Kissinger into a dove on the issue of military action against Saddam Hussein instead of the hawk he actually is.

The two reporters who wrote the story took an op-ed piece written by Kissinger for the Washington Post four days earlier - in which he argued that the reasons for war against Iraq were strong enough to justify “an imperative for pre-emptive action” - and twisted this into a caution against such action. Not easy.

To justify running this story on page one for two consecutive days, the reporters linked it to an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on August 15, written by Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser to George Bush Senior. Scowcroft is a legitimate member of the Republican anti-war faction.

Using his piece as a news-hook, the reporters cobbled together a story headlined “Top Republicans break with Bush on Iraq strategy”. There was nothing newsworthy in the article except for the presence of Henry Kissinger as a break-away Republican.

The new-look Henry K was so blatant a piece of deception that, on August 19, the Wall Street Journal parted with its tradition of keeping quiet about its competitor’s editorial policies and published a leader with a damning indictment of the “tendentious” claims of the New York Times, suggesting that the paper keep “its opinions on its editorial page”.

More than 100 years ago, the New York Times, under owner Adolph Ochs, adopted the slogan: “All the news that’s fit to print”. Ochs and his descendants built up so formidable a franchise that by this century it looked like the paper might actually be able to fulfil that promise physically. But critics are now asking if the New York Times only prints news it considers ideologically fit.

Newspapers often have agendas - issues and values - they want to promote. Readers can decide if the agenda is legitimate - so long as they know what it is. Having an agenda is not wrong, but pretending you don’t when you do is. Even worse is to falsify facts, report selectively, or take quotes out of context to serve your agenda.

For most of its 106 years under the stewardship of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, the Times had an agenda that was pretty obvious. It was a pro-Republican newspaper until the election of Franklin D Roosevelt. Though the paper criticised Roosevelt between elections, from that point on they switched to the Democratic Party and became a newspaper that pretty much reflected the liberal values that have long dominated New York City political elites.

By 1972, the paper had reached a position where it could endorse George McGovern in the presidential election. McGovern’s platform had such highlights as the distribution of America’s wealth to the population by giving $1,000 handouts to every citizen.

The paper became a staunch opponent of the war in Vietnam and of President Nixon. It supported what is generally conceded as the most inept American presidency in the past 80 years, that of Jimmy Carter. In a word, the New York Times cantered at full tilt to the Left.

This was reflected in its op-ed pages, columnists and staff choices. In recent years, two men, Abe Rosenthal and John Vinocur, were both ideally qualified to be editor of the Times but were considered ideologically unsuitable. The newspaper became increasingly politically correct even under the benign and commercially brilliant stewardship of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, grandson of Adolph Ochs.

In 1996, Arthur (known as “Punch” Sulzberger) resigned and his son, Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, took over. Staff held their breath. Would Pinch be as hands-off as Punch? The answer was pretty much yes, though Pinch was more modern or “sensitive” to gender and race issues than his old-fashioned liberal dad.

But Pinch had a very particular idea of where he wanted the New York Times to go: out went Abe Rosenthal and in came a new team headed by executive editor Howell Raines, a vehement Left-wing columnist from decades back.

Partisanship is not necessarily wrong for a newspaper. The tradition of parti pris papers is strong in Europe and well known in Britain. Raines kept the ideologically unpredictable columnist William Safire and the op-ed pages reflect a sprinkling of differing views.

What has been happening at the Times is far more ominous than just veering to the support of one party or one ideology. The tradition of the New York Times was to be the paper of record for its liberal readers. And in this voyage, the Times has mirrored the sad story of American liberalism, which is largely the story of liberalism derailed.

There is a type of liberalism, pioneered in America, which tries to be fairer than fair. But trying to be better than fair is like trying to bend over backwards to be straighter than vertical or defining “objective” as being neutral between good and evil. That path leads straight to moral equivalence.

In the 1980s, this pseudo “objectivity” and “fairness” expressed itself in an impartiality between totalitarian systems and the free world. Currently, it expresses itself in the notion that Palestinian actions against civilians have the same moral legitimacy as those of Israelis against the intifada.

Impartiality may be a virtue but, as columnist George Jonas wrote in the Ottawa Citizen, “to be impartial between tyranny and democracy the better to protect human rights is like being impartial between wood and copper the better to conduct electricity. In plain words, it’s nonsense.”

Super-liberalism has led the Times into a lot of nonsense. The Israeli government is routinely described in its news stories as following “hardline” policies while no such negative description is given to governments such as those of Saudi Arabia or the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, the Saudis are routinely described as “moderates” in news stories or “pro-West” allies of America - even as they fund al-Qa’eda and their official newspapers spout virulent hatred of the West.

This double standard has long been evident in the pages of the New York Times, but it finally burst through to even the most undiscerning reader when, after a demonstration by several hundred thousand Jews in New York supporting Israel, the Times chose to illustrate its account with a front-page photograph of pro-Palestinian Arabs holding up a banner. The outcry following this (and the cancellation of some subscriptions) resulted in an apology - sort of - from the Times.

In domestic policy, the same standards apply. The New York Sun (in which my husband is a passive investor) has a website at which notes daily the double standards of the New York Times.

I highly recommend the site, though I sometimes disagree with its reasoning. (For example: I found it unappetising to make innuendoes about pecuniary motives for Brent Scowcroft’s stand against military action in the Middle East. His arguments do not convince me, but they are respectable arguments from an accomplished former general and public official.)

It was the smartertimes site that pointed out the distortion of the then senator John Ashcroft’s remarks on abortion. Ashcroft was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the American people and a majority of Congress “want to eliminate this gruesome procedure from our nation’s hospitals and clinics”.

In fact, he was not speaking about abortion in general as the Times said, but partial-life abortions. Once again, the New York Times had to correct the “error”.

But though the paper occasionally gets caught out - when its distortions are truly egregious - similar instances occur daily on its news pages, which are increasingly dedicated to the implementation of a New Left agenda domestically and internationally.

Important stories from the Middle East are buried or played down. Dubious domestic sources are given legitimacy, such as the Reverend Al Sharpton, a demagogue whose criticisms of racial policies are printed without mention of his involvement in and support to this day of the false charges of rape brought by a black woman against fictional white aggressors.

Super-liberalism has sub-liberal consequences. Because super-liberalism has no reality behind it, the truth has to be distorted. The news has to be re-written or spun to suit the agenda if it involves topics the paper considers of vital ideological importance, such as the unseating of President George W Bush, the prevention of war against Iraq, the creation of a Palestinian state without regard to the security of Israel.

Ultimately, in such a wonderland, the super-liberals have to rise to the defence of suicide bombers. Day has to become night. Henry Kissinger must be made into an anti-Bush dove.

And that is what is wrong with the New York Times. It pretends that it has no agenda but distorts news stories to fulfil it. I don’t think Adolph Ochs would recognise this New York Times as the legitimate standard bearer of “All the news that’s fit to print”.

But George Orwell would see what has been going on. Perhaps the slogan should be re-written: “All the Newspeak fit to print”.

This article was published in London Daily Telegraph and Daily Times is reproducing it to give its readers a glimpse of the opposing viewpoint.

Argentina's 'dirty war' hounding Kissinger

Documents revive debate on U.S. role

BY TIM JOHNSON - Posted on Fri, Aug. 30, 2002 - Miami Herald

WASHINGTON - For all his renown as one of the world's leading voices on international affairs, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's twilight years are not passing so easily. At age 79, his legacy is the subject of scrutiny, protests, international legal disputes and even a federal lawsuit.

Now, there are even more questions, thanks to the release by the State Department earlier this month of 4,667 official U.S. documents relating to the ''dirty war'' in Argentina from 1976 until 1983 in which military death squads killed thousands of suspected leftists.

The new batch of declassified cables has revived debate that surged last year with publication of The Trial of Henry Kissinger, a polemical book by British writer Christopher Hitchens, who suggested that the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize laureate should be tried for war crimes.

The newly released documents reveal that Argentine military officers believed they had the green light from Washington -- and perhaps Kissinger -- to carry out the brutal campaign.

The hounding of Henry Kissinger is the result not only of declassified U.S. documents but also global trends empowering judges to reach across frontiers, a desire by aggrieved relatives to seek justice, and perhaps a dose of publicity-seeking by his many ideological opponents. And it has forced Kissinger to watch his step abroad out of concern that a judge might order his arrest:

• In mid-March, Kissinger canceled a trip to Brazil amid reports a judge might detain him.

• In April, protesters taunted him outside London's Royal Albert Hall.

• A month later, police arrived at his Paris hotel to serve him with questions from a French judge. Chile's Supreme Court, meanwhile, also wants answers from Kissinger about a 1973 coup.

''His movements are somewhat restricted because of the legal actions being taken against him,'' said Riordan Roett, director of Western Hemisphere studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.


Kissinger's office in New York City referred calls to William Rogers, his lawyer, who rejected any suggestion that Kissinger gave a green light to human rights abuses in the Southern Cone countries. Rogers said ''a cabal of Hitchens-minded people'' is attacking Kissinger to ``create some notoriety for themselves.''

''It's show business. This stuff is utterly tendentious. There has never been a credible objective analysis that he has committed an international crime,'' Rogers said.

Rogers, who served as assistant secretary of state for Latin America under Kissinger, dismissed suggestions from Kissinger critics that he supported efforts to crush armed leftists in the Southern Cone region as part of the great battle against the Soviet Union. In both Chile and Argentina, Soviet- or Cuban-backed guerrillas carried out rebel campaigns.

``I don't think this [region] was terribly important in the Cold War context. As Henry once said, `Chile is a dagger pointed straight at the heart of Antarctica, Rogers said.

The newly released documents contain a handful of accounts of how Argentine military officers interpreted Kissinger's views of their campaign to crush leftist subversives.

Argentina's military, which held power from 1976 until 1983, snatched between 9,000 and 30,000 people off the streets, leaving them ''missing'' and inflicting scars that still affect the nation.

One document from Oct. 19, 1976, noted that Argentina's foreign minister returned from Washington ''in a state of jubilation,'' convinced after meeting Kissinger, who was then secretary of state in the Ford administration, that U.S. officials simply wanted the Argentine terror campaign over quickly. The impression left the Argentine official ''euphoric,'' the cable said.

Kissinger left his post in early 1977, when President Carter came to office and declared that U.S. relations with foreign partners would depend on their human rights record.

Even out of office, Kissinger had an impact in Argentina, the diplomatic cables show. As the Carter administration sharpened its attack on Argentina's military junta for its atrocities, Kissinger traveled to Buenos Aires as ''the guest'' of the dictator, Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla, to view the 1978 World Cup soccer tournament, the U.S. ambassador wrote in a June 1978 cable.

According to the cable by Raul Castro, a former governor of Arizona who was then the U.S. ambassador, Kissinger held an ''off the cuff talk'' at one point with prominent foreign affairs experts.


''He explained his opinion [that] GOA [government of Argentina] had done an outstanding job in wiping out terrorist forces. But also cautioned that methods used in fighting terrorism must not be perpetuated,'' the cable said.

''My only concern,'' Ambassador Castro concluded, 'is that Kissinger's repeated high praise for Argentina's action in wiping out terrorism and his stress on the importance of Argentina may have gone to some considerable extent to his hosts' heads.

``Despite his disclaimers that the methods used in fighting terrorism must not be perpetuated, there is some danger that Argentines may use Kissinger's laudatory statements as justification for hardening their human rights stance.''

The latest round of declassification has renewed bitter feelings among some retired senior State Department officials with long-held beliefs that Kissinger signaled to the Argentine military that he did not disapprove of their repression, as long as it was done speedily.

''I think he was complicit,'' said Patricia Derian, who was an assistant secretary of state for human rights under President Carter. ``He was in a position to influence them greatly -- both in and out of office. Mistreatment of citizens by a government was given the nod.''

Rogers, the Kissinger attorney, called the suggestion of complicity ''appalling'' and inaccurate. ``What was done down there was done by the Argentines. We weren't controlling it.''

In his speech in London on April 24, Kissinger referred obliquely to the notion that he might be obligated to respond some day in a court of law for his foreign policy record.

''No one can say that he served in an administration that did not make mistakes,'' Kissinger said. ``The issue is whether 30 years after the event, courts are the appropriate means by which determination is made.''

Kissinger is also facing a passel of legal troubles related to the 1970-1973 rule in Chile of Salvador Allende, the first socialist president elected there in a popular vote, and U.S. support for an army coup against him that installed a military dictatorship that ruled until 1990.


Last Sept. 10, two surviving sons of a Chilean military commander slain in 1970 filed a federal lawsuit in Washington seeking $3 million from Kissinger and then CIA Director Richard Helms for allegedly supporting the military squad that carried out the assassination.

The commander, Gen. Rene Schneider, was no friend of Allende but adamantly opposed a U.S.-supported military revolt to block his ascension to power. Schneider was shot on his way to work on Oct. 22, 1970, two days before Congress was to confirm Allende in the presidency.

An attorney for Schneider's sons, René and Raúl, said the suit is based on declassified U.S. documents released over the past two years that identify Kissinger as coordinator of a ''Track II'' plan in 1970 that gave $35,000 to the squad after it carried off the Schneider slaying.

''Our case shows, document by document, that he was involved in great detail in supporting the people who killed Gen. Schneider, and then paid them off,'' attorney Michael Tigar said.

In a separate case, the Chilean Supreme Court has sent a series of questions to the U.S. State Department, in what is called letters rogatory, seeking responses from Kissinger about the death of Charles Horman, an American killed in the days following the 1973 coup that toppled Allende. The U.S.-supported coup brought Gen. Augusto Pinochet to power.

The State Department said it responded to the Chileans last week but declined to disclose the content of the response.

In still a third matter, a criminal judge in Chile said he might investigate Kissinger in relation to Operation Condor, in which military dictatorships in the Southern Cone exchanged information to help each other kidnap and kill hundreds of political opponents.

If declassified documents have caused problems for Kissinger, it may not be over. When Kissinger left office in early 1977, he took with him tens of thousands of pages of transcripts of telephone conversations.

In February, Kissinger was pressured to turn those over to the National Archives and Records Administration, and they are under review.

They may be released to the public sometime in 2003.

Chile: Complaint against Kissinger

Der Spiegel, 22.7.2002
Thanks to Kissinger Watch bulletin for this

Rene Schneider (60), Programme director of the Chilean public television station TVN is the son of the Chilean army general who was killed in 1970 with the support of the CIA. Last September he filed a civil suit against Kissinger for the murder of his father.

Spiegel: The new International Criminal Court has just been set up in The Hague; could Kissinger be tried there?

Schneider: I believe Kissinger and the US Government have to explain a lot of things that happened in the late sixties and in the seventies in countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Chile – before this court or any other court. Kissinger's position, of course, is different: He thinks he acted for the good of the US to defend the security and the values of his country. This was understood as permission to act in foreign countries as deemed necessary.

Spiegel: The assassination of your father was planned to induce the military to stage a coup d’Etat against the detested Allende?

Schneider: It is not acceptable that my father “was to be removed” in the interest of the USA, as Kissinger said more or less literally according to a tape. My father, like many other soldiers from Latin America, attended training courses in the US and was not anti-American. He merely defended the Constitution of his country.

Spiegel: What do you want to achieve with your lawsuit, 32 years after the murder?

Schneider: First, I want to make clear that it is a civil suit and not criminal proceedings. Our aim is to open a trial. It would also be of great importance for a judge to rule that Kissinger bears individual responsibility for his acts. This important step was taken by the courts with respect to Pinochet, who could not hide behind his official position. The court proceedings were only abandoned due to health reasons.

Spiegel: Why has the process against Kissinger stalled?

Schneider: Kissinger’s defence lawyers claim that the State -and not the individual- was responsible for the actions. Since these were political decisions, Congress has to decide on this, not the courts. The defence has presented this position – now we are waiting for the judges' statement.

Kissinger may face extradition to Chile,4273,4431760,00.html

Judge investigating US role in 1973 coup considers forcing former secretary of state to give evidence

Jonathan Franklin in Santiago and Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles

Guardian Wednesday June 12, 2002

Henry Kissinger may face extradition proceedings in connection with the role of the United States in the 1973 military coup in Chile.

The former US secretary of state is wanted for questioning as a witness in the investigation into the events surrounding the overthrow of the socialist president, Salvador Allende, by General Augusto Pinochet.

It focuses on CIA involvement in the coup, whether US officials passed lists of leftwing Americans in Chile to the military and whether the US embassy failed to assist Americans deemed sympathetic to the deposed government.

Chile's Judge Juan Guzman is so frustrated by the lack of cooperation by Mr Kissinger that he is now considering an extradition request to force him to come to Chile and testify in connection with the death of the American film-maker and journalist Charles Horman, who was killed by the military days after the coup.

Horman's story was told in the 1982 Costa-Gavras film, Missing, starring Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek.

Judge Guzman is investigating whether US officials passed the names of suspected leftwing Americans to Chilean military authorities. Declassified documents have now revealed that such a list existed. Sergio Corvalan, a Chilean lawyer, said that he could not divulge the "dozens" of names on the list.

At the time of his death, Horman was investigating the murder of Rene Schneider, the chief of staff in the Chilean army whose support for Allende and the constitution was seen as an obstacle to the coup.

The CIA had been involved with groups plotting Schneider's murder, providing them with weapons and advice, according to a CIA internal inquiry in 2000. It found that the agency had withdrawn its support for the plotters before the murder but had paid them $35,000 afterwards "to maintain the goodwill of the group".

At the time of his murder, Schneider had five young children, who filed suit in a Washington DC court last year against Mr Kissinger and other top officials in the Nixon administration. They are seeking $3m (£2.15m) in damages.

Horman's wife, Joyce, suspects that he was targeted because he unwittingly stumbled upon a gathering of US military personnel in Chile in the days before the coup.

The American journalist Marc Cooper and the British journalist Christopher Hitchens have been in Santiago during the past month to give evidence in the investigation of America's role.

Cooper, who was Allende's translator at the time of the coup and now writes for the Nation and LA Weekly, knew Horman and gave sworn testimony last month.

Cooper said: "Guzman says that if the US doesn't act soon on his request to gather testimony from Kissinger and other US officials, he'll have no choice but to file for their extradition to Chile."

Cooper, who wrote the book Pinochet and Me about his time in Chile, said that the Nixon government had been more interested in supporting General Pinochet than in investigating the deaths of its citizens at the hands of the Chilean military.

This is not the first attempt to interview Mr Kissinger about the turbulent period in Latin America.

During a visit to London in April, judges in Spain and France unsuccessfully tried to question him about America's role in Operation Condor, which has been described as a coordinated hit squad organised from Chile and including six South American nations aimed at dealing with leftwing opposition groups.

Several declassified documents which have emerged over the past two years have shown an increasingly visible American hand in Operation Condor.

Hitchens gave evidence on the Operation Condor case which he researched for his book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, published last year.

In Santiago, Hitchens said: "Today Henry Kissinger is a frightened man. He is very afraid of the exposure that awaits him."

Mr Kissinger's lawyer William Rodgers, said that such questions should properly be directed to the US state department and not to Mr Kissinger.,4273,4431760,00.html

Kissinger to advise Hicks Muse on Europe

31May02 - 3:46 PM - By Dane Hamilton

NEW YORK, May 31 (Reuters) - Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was named European adviser to Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, the latest Washington power broker to join a major U.S. private equity firm, the firm said.

Kissinger, considered the most influential foreign policy adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, is joining the European strategy board of Hicks Muse, a $10 billion fund based in Dallas, Hicks Muse announced.

It is the latest assignment for the 79-year-old statesman and 1973 Nobel Peace Prize winner. New York-based Kissinger Associates gives geopolitical advice to financial firms including J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., American International Group Inc., American Express Co., Forstmann Little & Co. and others.

Private equity or buyout firms, which take large stakes in companies with the aim of selling them at a profit later, often hire Washington insiders to open doors for potential business transactions. The hard negotiations are done by the firms' financial engineers.

"Few people would not return Henry's phone call," said John Muse, founder and partner in Hicks Muse, told Reuters. "Kissinger is very well known and connected in the European landscape on history and economic development. He will help us get better access and better information on people."

In recent years, large U.S. buyout firms like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Carlyle Group and Blackstone Group have targeted Europe as a new growth market to offset a slump in the U.S. deal making market. Such firms have targeted corporate divestitures as a key growth opportunity where Europe is considered farther behind than the U.S. market.

Kissinger joins other top government officials at buyout firms, notably Washington-based Carlyle Group, a $13 billion fund whose roster of advisers includes former President George Bush, ex-Secretary of State James Baker and former British Prime Minister John Major.

Hicks Muse also said Richard Fisher, former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative under President Clinton, will join the firm's Latin American strategy board. At the same time, Kissinger McLarty Associates, an affiliated firm founded by Kissinger and Mack McLarty, former White House chief of staff, announced that Fisher had joined the firm as managing partner.

Hicks Muse, said Muse, has significant assets in various Latam countries, but is particularly concerned with Argentina, which recently faced a major debt crisis and currency tumult that could affect media assets held jointly with Liberty Media.

"No one in the country is better qualified to help us understand the macro environment in Latin America better than Richard," said Muse. "For now, we have definitely pulled in our horns and become more cautious in the region. We have a lot of capital there we are husbanding carefully."

Muse said Kissinger would be paid a fee for being on the firm's European board and would also likely get consulting fees for additional work. Brian Mulroney, the former Canadian prime minister, is also adviser to Hicks Muse.

23May02 - Workers' World - She defied Henry Kissinger

Nguyen Thi Binh, vice president of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, met with a group of U.S. activists in New York on May 9. Many remembered her as the incomparable Madame Binh who had headed the delegation of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam at the Paris peace talks in the 1970s. She had faced down former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who threatened the Vietnamese with nuclear bombs several times during the negotiations. Her skill and grace under pressure gave inspiration to women everywhere to take their place in the leadership of progressive causes.

Madame Binh thanked the movement here for its work to stop the war. She also explained that Vietnam today, although reunited and at peace, continues to suffer serious health problems from the heavy use of toxic chemicals--like Agent Orange--that the U.S. dropped all over the countryside. Its economy is still one of the poorest in Asia, and has never received the reparations promised for the terrible damage done by the U.S. war.

Reprinted from the May 23, 2002, issue of Workers World newspaper

The doctor versus the judges

This article appeared in the Daily Telegraph, owned by Conrad Black, fellow Bilderberger with Kissinger.  If D'Ancona is to be believed this is the ONLY media interview given by Kissinger on his visit to Europe. Ensuring he is portrayed in a good light.  
Note the expression "there is absolutely no respectable evidence of his own or the US Government's involvement in these cases." In fact there is plenty of evidence - and the evidence is mounting Mr Kissinger - you cannot expect sycophantic journalists to lie for you for ever.[TG]

Matthew d'Ancona

Daily Telegraph - 28Apr02

HENRY KISSINGER'S visit to London last week was overshadowed by the campaign of European judges to settle 30-year-old scores. In his only interview of the trip, he tells Matthew d'Ancona why he is undeterred.

'If you're here to see Kissinger, you are scum," chants the mob outside the Royal Albert Hall. Well, I guess that's me, then. [among others such as 'Kissinger, Terrorist; Police Protect the Criminals; and Hey, Hey, Henry K, How Many Kids Did you Kill Today? TG]

On the road, dozens of demonstrators are blocking the traffic in a sit-down protest. Their comrades brandish placards with slogans such as "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer", which seem to hold the good doctor responsible for just about every misfortune to befall humanity since the Flood.

Henry Kissinger gets into his waiting car outside the Royal Albert HallInside the hall, 2,800 businessmen are awaiting Henry Kissinger's speech to the Institute of Directors' annual convention. But first I am whisked off to meet him in a tiny, brightly-lit changing room which is being used as an improvised audience chamber for the morning.

As I enter, Lord Young of Graffham, Margaret Thatcher's Trade and Industry Secretary, is leaving. Deep in the bowels of the Albert Hall, the baying crowd can no longer be heard. But Dr Kissinger's numerous Special Branch officers are taking no chances: officially, I am told, he is not here yet.

In fact, he is most definitely here. Reclining on a sofa, immaculate in dark suit and maroon polka dot tie, the former American Secretary of State takes the melee around him in his stride, issuing instructions to his entourage in the unmistakable, slow baritone.

His visit has been overshadowed by requests from French and Spanish judicial investigators to question him in connection with "Operation Condor", an alleged campaign of terror in Latin America during the 1970s when he was in office. Has it spoiled his trip to Britain to be hounded in this way?

"Look," he says, examining the back of his hand, "this is, as it happens, the first country I came to after I left Germany in 1938.

"It was only for a few weeks, but, nevertheless, it was my first experience of freedom. It's a country in which I served in the 84th infantry division in 1944. It is a country with which I have a long association and I have many friends here."

True: but that hasn't stopped Baltasar Garzon - the magistrate who attempted to extradite General Pinochet in 1998 - and others from trying to intercept the 78-year-old Dr Kissinger on his trip to London.

The campaign, he says, is an abuse of the principles it claims to uphold: "What they are attempting to do is to use universal human rights to settle scores from 30 years ago. They're not making any charges involving universal violations. They're getting into specific issues of the management of American foreign policy with respect to one very geographically confined situation."

He is annoyed by "major misrepresentation" in the press of the last attempt to apprehend him, in Paris last year. On that occasion, Judge Roger Le Loire issued a summons to Dr Kissinger to appear as a witness in the Pinochet case.

The matter was handed over to the US Government and he did not, as was widely reported, "flee" the French capital: "I maintained my regular schedule and I left on the flight two days later exactly as planned."

The real question is whether Dr Kissinger, chased around Europe by campaigning lawyers, expects ultimately to face cross-examination. "The issue last time was alleged complicity in the disappearance of a Frenchman in Argentina [Jean-Yves Claudet-Fernandez, a member of the Chilean Left, who disappeared in Buenos Aires in 1975].

"I'd never heard of the Frenchman - as you would expect. I'd never heard of the case. But my position is that if the US Government thinks it is appropriate for me to answer the questions of foreign judges about the conduct of American policy I will cooperate to the fullest extent."

This seems an unlikely outcome, given that there is absolutely no respectable evidence of his own or the US Government's involvement in these cases. Even so he believes that the new vogue for pursuing unsettled scores from the Cold War using human rights legislation may be storing up serious trouble for the future.

"People should ask whether it is actually feasible to conduct international policy if high officials, 30 years after the event, are hounded on tactical matters, on individual matters about which common sense tells you they couldn't possibly have any knowledge. The pursuit of high officials of foreign governments - especially friendly governments - should be reserved for truly major human rights violations."

Nonetheless, it is clear that being hounded by continental lawyers has not diminished his sense of humour (later, he says the reason that he speaks so slowly is that he is translating himself into English). He chuckles when I quote a passage from his most recent book Does America Need A Foreign Policy? (2001) on future diplomacy in the Middle East in which he predicted that "the American contribution will depend on its ability to insist on a strategic and political concept for the enterprise".

He knows what I am going to ask: do President Bush and his recent envoy in the Middle East, Colin Powell, have such a "concept"? The man whose shuttle diplomacy secured the Arab-Israeli ceasefire in 1973 smiles wryly, and chooses his words with care.

"I do not think they have yet settled on what the precise concept is, but I hope they will before Colin Powell launches himself into the region again. On this particular trip, his mission was to calm the situation. And that he did."

He admits that he was "concerned at the beginning" that America might be seen to be weakening its position on Palestinian terrorism, but applauds Powell for "eliminating the incipient fatalism" on both sides of the conflict.

On the day we meet, the papers are full of stories about the Bethlehem siege and the aftermath of the Jenin confrontation, with calls for international diplomatic intervention becoming ever more clamorous.

Dr Kissinger's warning is that the objectives of any subsequent interference must be utterly realistic: "When one enters a negotiation, one ought to be able to describe the outcome towards which one is aiming," he says.

"I believe that simple coexistence between the Israelis and Arabs would be a tremendous achievement. It should not simply be a ratification of the status quo. It should give the Palestinians satisfaction of some of their demands". But questions such as the fate of Palestinian refugees and the final borders of a Palestinian state must, he says, be deferred for now.

As for Yasser Arafat, Dr Kissinger believes that only pressure from Arab states can dislodge him. "It's not possible for Israel to say who should be the Palestinian negotiator.

We should say to the Arab states: given your interests, and given your constructive approach, you have to settle who should perform that role. And if you decide on Arafat, you have to take into account what will happen if he is untrustworthy."

Dr Kissinger is full of praise for the Prime Minister's conduct since September 11, although he says that if he lived in Britain he would probably vote Conservative.

In answer to one of my questions, he admits that Tony Blair's evangelical foreign policy - which he calls "Gladstonian" - contrasts sharply with his own "Disraelian" preference for realpolitik and geopolitical realism. "I question the idea of universal crusades," he says, "because I think, looking at it as an American, they will eventually go beyond our capacity."

Realistic to the last: unlike the mob outside, and, one suspects, the judges who think they can outfox this formidable survivor.

Vietnam says Kissinger should bear responsibility for Vietnam War

Fri Apr 26,10:05 AM ET - Associated Press

HANOI, Vietnam - Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should "bear responsibility" for the human suffering caused by the Vietnam War, Vietnam's government said Friday.

During a speech by Kissinger in London on Wednesday, dozens of protesters outside the meeting hall accused him of war crimes for his role in U.S. actions in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia during the war.

Kissinger ignored the protesters, but acknowledged in his speech that mistakes had "quite possibly" been made by administrations in which he served.

Asked to comment on the accusations, Vietnamese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Phan Thuy Thanh noted that Kissinger had served as U.S. President Richard Nixon's national security adviser and secretary of state during the war.

"We hold that as a key official with an important role in the U.S. administration during the time the United States waged a war of aggression against Vietnam, Mr. Kissinger should bear responsibility for the losses and suffering caused by the war to the Vietnamese people," she said in a brief statement. She did not elaborate.

The war, which spilled over into neighboring Cambodia and Laos, ended with a communist victory in 1975 over the U.S.-backed government of South Vietnam. An estimated 3 million Vietnamese and more than 58,000 Americans perished in the conflict.

Thousands of other Vietnamese continue to be affected by poisonous defoliants used by U.S. forces during the war, and by accidental explosions of buried bombs and shells left over from the fighting.

Kissinger's co-speakers at the Royal Albert Hall

1000: Opening: George Cox, Director General, IOD

1022: Mary Robinson, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

1047AM: Richard Greenhalgh, chairman, Unilever UK

1102: Malcolm Brinded, Shell UK

1145: Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State

1230: LUNCH

1422: Sharon Reed and William Sargent, Framestore

1455: William S. Farish, US Ambassador to the UK

1543:: Clare Furse, chief executive, London Stock Exchange

1558: Andrew Pinder, UK government e-envoy

1630: Stephen Covey, business author

1700: Close

Henry Kissinger: America's new challenge

From a speech by the former US National Security Adviser to the Institute of Directors at the Albert Hall, London

25 April 2002

There are problems in the European-American relationship. A new generation is coming into power in Europe and the Soviet threat is gone. On the US side there has been a shift in the geographic locus of power. My generation had experience of Europe, we took vacations there, we knew Europeans. The new generation of US leaders is from the south. It's an explanation of a US policy often termed "unilateral".

At the end of World War Two the generation of leaders had experience in international affairs even though their countries had been greatly weakened by the war. Leaders are now more preoccupied with their own politics at home. For all of these reasons, dialogue has been more difficult. Europe has been absorbed by its own integration. American has, by definition, been sidelined by the events. This is the context in which events are evolving.

For America the most immediate problem has been the terrorist attacks. In Europe every country has suffered direct attacks from abroad. America never had and never imagined it would.

In American history every problem has proved to be solvable. There is a natural proclivity to eliminate the source of danger. This sometimes clashes with the European attitude in which problems sometimes have to be managed rather than solved and in which there are no final solutions.

The great achievement of Britain in the 19th century was that it was able to translate its power into consensus. The challenge for America is to do the same.

Met asked to question Kissinger

Giles Tremlett in Madrid,4273,4396298,00.html

Guardian - Thursday April 18, 2002

The Spanish judge who was responsible for the arrest of General Augusto Pinochet in Britain in October 1998 is attempting to have Henry Kissinger interviewed by British police when he arrives in London next week.

Judge Baltasar Garzon has told the British authorities via Interpol that he wants the former US secretary of state questioned as a witness in his investigations into the torture, genocide and acts of terrorism allegedly committed by the Chilean dictator and other military strongmen in Latin America.

If the request was accepted, Mr Kissinger - Richard Nixon's assistant for national security from 1969-1973 and secretary of state between 1973-1977 - would have his first ever personal encounter with international human rights law at the hands of Metropolitan police officers, who would present him with a list of questions from Judge Garzon.

Mr Kissinger has managed to avoid similar requests from courts in France and Chile in the past year.

William D Rogers, a member of Kissinger Associates in Washington, said yesterday he believed Mr Kissinger still planned to travel to London and was prepared to "provide whatever evidence his memory can generate". But, he added, Judge Garzon ought to direct his questions to the US state department.

The document sent by Judge Garzon to Interpol on Monday said he needed to know if Mr Kissinger would be in London "in order to request that he declare before the competent authorities in relation to the case in which Augusto Pinochet has been indicted by this court".

Any questions are likely to concentrate on Operation Condor, a secret agreement under which half a dozen Latin American military regimes allegedly agreed to eradicate leftwing opponents. Spanish prosecutors claimed that documents released recently by the CIA showed that the US knew about Operation Condor and trained many of the military officers from the death squads.

Mr Kissinger is not a suspect in the case and would simply be required to answer questions as a witness.  

The request to question Mr Kissinger was sparked by lawyers representing victims of Gen Pinochet's regime who spotted an article in The Guardian last month which said that Mr Kissinger was due to be a speaker at the Royal Albert Hall on April 24, as part of a convention organised by the Institute of Directors.  

A Met spokeswoman said she was unable to say whether Judge Garzon's request had been received or acted on.  

However, an Institute of Directors spokesman said they were still expecting Mr Kissinger to speak at the conference next week.  

Prosecuting lawyers were confident yesterday that, due to treaties signed by Britain and Spain on judicial cooperation and terrorism, Mr Kissinger would not be able to avoid questioning in Britain.  

"Mr Kissinger has two options: either he can travel and expose himself to questioning or he can not travel," Carlos Slepoy, a Madrid-based prosecution lawyer, said.  

"If he does not go, it would be a demonstration that he wants to avoid a justice system which, at the moment, is only asking him what he knows.",4273,4396298,00.html

Henry Kissinger - If You Want To Kill, Do It Fast [Kissinger quote]

Vasily Bubnov
Translated by Maria Gousseva

On April 17, it became known that Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon intended to interrogate ex-US State Secretary Henry Kissinger about the case of Operation Condor. The judge is known with its insistence. That was because of this inquiry several years ago, that the former Chilean dictator was detained in Great Britain. Thanks to Garzon, Russian media magnate Vladimir Gusinsky spent several months in prison. And now Garzon encroached upon Henry Kissinger.

And what's the matter? What is it, the Operation Condor?

It was planned in 1975, in Santiago, at the meeting of police leaders of South America, for fighting against enemies of dictators - Augusto Pinochet (Chile), Hugo Banzer (Bolivia), Alfredo Stroessner (Paraguay), Figeredo (Brasilia) - and governments Isabel Peron (Argentina) and Juan Maria Bardaberri (Uruguay). A system was created for exchange of information, physical annihilation of suspect elements and for coordination of "death squadrons" activities in Argentina, Bolivia, Brasilia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Ecuador, and Chile. "Death squadrons" acted in spite of national borders. This could be seen from archives found in Paraguay in 1992. So, in 1975 in Rome, Chilean Vice President Bernardo Leighton (who was Vice President in Christian democrat Eduardo Frei's government and convinced opponent of Salvador Aliende, as well as of Pinochet) and his wife were wounded.

In 1976, in Washington, foreign minister of Aliende's government, Orlando Letelier (to the point, Henry Kissinger's friend) was killed in a car explosion. Among the greatest victims of Operation Condor, there was general Carlos Prats, Uruguayan politicians Selmar Michelini and Hector Gutierrez Ruiz. Main supporters of such actions were Chileans, while their main executor was DINA - secret political police with colonel Manuel Contreraz, whose direct curator was Augusto Pinochet.

So, and why Henry Kissinger? It is not a secret that Americans did their best to avert Salvador Aliende' coming to power. This could be seen from minutes of Committee 40 sittings, headed by Henry Kissinger. The committee worked out and coordianted activities aimed initially at averting Aliende's coming to power, and afterwards - at weakening and destabilizing his government. It was not without Kissinger's assistance, that FBI helped Pinochet to identify and to detain in Paraguay Chilean oppositionist George Isaak Fuentez Alarchon.

Interrogations and tortures of Alarchon were leaded by Contreras, paid by CIA. These data could be found in CIA memorandum from August 1978 and which was declassified several years ago, as well as other documents of the Department of State and of FBI.

Apropos, Baltasar Garzon was not the first who tries to interrogate Henry Kissinger. May 28, 2001, a similar attempt was made by French judge Roge Le Loir. Though, former Secretary of State, who was in Paris at that time, did not come according to subpoena and hastily left French capital. At that he was supported by US embassy in Paris and by State Department of the US which discreetly informed French side that for receiving information diplomatic channels should be used. While Le Loir addressed to Washington in 1999 through diplomatic channels, but he received no answer.

One more judge, Argentine Rodolfo Canocoba Chorral investigating cases of human rights' violation, kidnapping and murders of dissidents by Latin-American special services in 2001 took a decision about imprisonment pending trial of Jorge Rafael Videla (1976-1981 Argentine dictator) and about arrest if his property in sum of 1 million dollars because of accusing him of implication in a criminal organization carrying out Condor Operation. In the framework of the case, kidnapping of at least 80 people is being investigated. The judge addressed to the Interpol to arrest ex-Paraguayan dictator Alfredo Stroessner, Manuel Contreras and three officers and a policemen from Uruguay, who committed over 20 kidnappings in Buenos Aires. The judge confirmed that he could call ex-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and ex-Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Rodolfo Chorral hoped in particular that through putting Henry Kissinger to the investigation, it will manage to get new information about Operation Condor.

While Chilean judge Juan Gusman Tapia who carried on the case of Pinochet addressed to US authorities asking for permission about receiving information from Kissinger about the fate of US journalist Charles Horman, killed by Pinochet's agents in 1973. Apropos, Horman became pre-image of main character of well-known Costa-Gavras film "Missing" which was awarded in 1982 with US Academy of Cinema's prize. According to one of the authors of a book about Videl, Kissinger once said to Argentine foreign minister of dictatorship time: "If you want to kill, do it fast." Therefore, now US administration defends a person, who is wanted to testify in two continents.

Baltasar Garzon hardly will be more lucky than his colleagues from other countries. However, the Spanish judge is known with his insistence and his principles. So, the "great Henry" should better not appear in Spain in the nearest future, not to get to prison.

One more time it should be noticed that US authorities fully mastered the principle of double standards. For the sake of justice (as it is understood in Washington) the White House is ready to send soldiers even to Antarctica. While at the same time, it did not want to help to other countries' justice. For, Kissinger is being called only to testify. Could it be, that official Washington is afraid of Kissinger's evidence to damage US prestige as the main bastion of democracy? Probably, it is really so. Therefore, ex-Secretary of State hardly will appear before Spanish trial.

April 24 2002 - protest rally at Royal Albert Hall as Kissinger dares to come to London

Stop Kissinger and the Corporate Criminals

Download the April 24th Kissinger London demo. Flyer FRONT and BACK
Henry Kissinger, the world's greatest living war criminal, is coming to speak to top business people in London.
Come to the Protest - People Not Profit, Peace Not War!
8.30am, Wednesday 24 April
Royal Albert Hall
South Kensington tube
The talk is being organised by the terminally misguided Institute of Directors who are contactable at (0207) 766 8919

Henry Kissinger was Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State, his second in command.

He was a driving force behind the US war on Vietnam which killed 1 million Vietnamese people.

Kissinger was directly responsible for ordering the carpet-bombing of Cambodia in 1969.

He gave full backing and military assistance to the Pinochet coup in Chile, later sanctioning the murder of Orlando Letelier in Washington in 1976.

Kissinger backed the Pakistani government in opposing Bangladeshi indpendence. Once again he supplied arms and intelligence.

He gave the go-ahead for the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Over 200,000 people were killed as a result.

He was also responsible for souring relations between Turkey, Greece and Cyprus, a division which still produces murder and maiming.

Kissinger’s legacy of American brutality around the world survives. He remains a hero to the warmongers in Washington and Downing Street.

Kissinger is arriving in London to talk to the top 2,000 businessmen in Britain. He has his snout in the corporate trough too. Kissinger Associates’ clients have included Union Carbide, Coca-Cola, American Express, ITT Lockheed, Arco and HSBC.

About the 2002 Institute of Directors Annual Convention

From the IOD website

The Annual Convention is the Institute's flagship event attracting over 2500 directors annually and is an essential date in your diary - informative, interactive, and inspiring and not to be missed.

The IoD Annual Convention is Europe's largest gathering of business leaders and the most prestigious event in the UK corporate calendar.

Attended every year by some 2,500 senior business decision-makers and their guests, the Convention is addressed by business and political leaders of unrivalled stature. It is your opportunity to learn from these inspirational individuals and understand how the most crucial issues in today's world will effect your business.

Globalisation - the real nature and impact

There is no doubt globalisation has a major impact on UK business - small or large. How will you make sure you avoid the potential hazards of a global economy and best capitalise on the immense opportunities available?

Put the date in your diary, reserve your seat - and join Britain's business elite to hear an outstanding line-up of speakers address this year's most pressing theme - globalisation.

Key Benefits
  • explore business opinion on the most crucial, and controversial issue of the moment
  • gain valuable insight from some of today's key global players
  • enjoy the rare opportunity to learn from, and by inspired by Dr Henry Kissinger - one of the world's most respected individuals
  • understand the relationship between globalisation and corporate social responsibility
  • network with over 2000 fellow business leaders
  • hear Dr Stephen Covey - one of Time magazine's top 25 most influential Americans and author of world-famous The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
  • understand, whether we like it or not, the business world in which every company, small or large, now operates.
This marketingspeak drivel is from the IOD website

Kissinger cancels Brazil visit to avoid protests

Story Filed: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 12:42 PM EST

Sao Paulo, Feb 26, 2002 (EFE via COMTEX) -- Former U.S. Secretary of State and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Henry Kissinger cancelled a planned March visit to Sao Paulo to avoid protests by human rights groups, the Brazilian press said Tuesday.

These groups allege that Kissinger supported "Operation Condor" - a collaborative effort by the military regimes of Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Paraguay to track down their political enemies in the 1970s - during his time in office.

Kissinger had intended to visit Sao Paulo March 12-13 to participate in the 65th anniversary of the Israelite Congregation of Sao Paulo, one of the largest Jewish organizations in Brazil. He was also to be awarded the Cruzeiro do Sul (Southern Cross) Order of Merit by President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

Kissinger informed event organizers of his decision, citing "unforeseen" circumstances, several newspapers reported Tuesday.

Jewish community leaders, however, told the press that fear of protests from human rights groups was the real motive for Kissinger's cancellation.

"It is unofficially known that Kissinger, after being informed of objections by certain groups (to the award), decided to avoid a politically embarrassing situation," Rabbi Henry Sobel of the Sao Paulo Israelite Congregation said.

Several human rights groups have collected signatures in the last few weeks petitioning Cardoso not to bestow Brazil's highest honor on Kissinger.

"We strongly urge (the government) not to bestow this honor, in the name of democracy, human rights, and human dignity," said a message from one group posted on the Internet.

Kissinger arrives in DublinStudents protest as Kissinger visits college

The Irish Examiner - Thursday 28 Feb 2002

by Sean O'Riordan and Brian O'Mahony

ANGRY students protested at former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's visit to University College Cork yesterday.

Dr Kissinger was shielded by gardaí and college security staff as he made his way into the university's Boole library.

More than 400 students took part in the protest, chanting "The Hague not the Boole" and "No grand prize for genocide", claiming Dr Kissinger should be indicted for war crimes. They then held a minute's silence for what they called the victims of Dr Kissinger's foreign policy.

Two women from the Cork Atlantis Foundation approached gardaí manning the barriers and demanded they arrest Mr Kissinger.

English and sociology student Tracey Ryan, from Tipperary, said: "I'm outraged that he was invited here, especially as there was no consultation with the students."

Dave Edmond, 55, said: "I came to join the students. If we didn't protest we'd be genuflecting to American power."

Once inside Dr Kissinger said: "I have not responded to accusations like this in the past."

He dismissed the claims against him as "distortions and misrepresentations of the facts". He added: "Things have been taken out of context. They are fundamentally beneath contempt."

During the questions and answers session after the conference Dr Kissinger rejected out of hand suggestions that the US "illegally bombed Cambodia" during the Vietnam war.

He said that when President Richard Nixon took office 500 Americans were dying every week in Vietnam.

After "repeated warnings" to the North Vietnamese to quit the Cambodia region bordering Vietnam, the US had bombed the area.

The zone that was attacked had been cleared of Cambodians and the country did not object to the campaign. That was a matter of record, Dr Kissinger said.

Groups including the Cork Peace Alliance, Earthwatch and the Socialist Party joined in yesterday's protest.

Dozens of students sat in front of Dr Kissinger's car. Gardaí warned them they could be arrested for obstruction but the students refused to budge.

They braced themselves for trouble but the gardaí suddenly dispersed, leaving the protesters perplexed.

It later emerged that Dr Kissinger had been taken out a back door.

Kissinger arrives in DublinVisiting Kissinger enraged by link to Milosevic

Olivia Kelleher - Irish Independent - Thursday 28th February 2002

FORMER US Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger, denied being a war criminal yesterday, claiming it was an insult to human intelligence for protestors in Cork to compare him with Slobodan Milosevic.

Protestors at University College Cork chanted and waved banners bearing the slogan 'The Milosevic of Manhattan' prior to the arrival of the 56th US Secretary of State, who was in office during the controversial Nixon administration.

"These people are throwing around allegedly criminal charges without a shred of real evidence. I don't know who they represent but I wish their knowledge equalled their passion."

The elderly statesman, who was visiting the university to deliver a speech at an MBA Association of Ireland business conference, said he has never replied to derogatory remarks in the media.

"I consider them (the accusations) fundamentally beneath contempt. They are based on distortions and misrepresentations."

The focus of Kissinger's' address was on US foreign policy particularly in aftermath of September 11.

Dr Kissinger said the international scene is experiencing an extraordinary period of change for which there is no historical precedent. One of the biggest challenges facing the US administration, he said, was to bring countries together to prevent the spread of biological and chemical weapons.

Dr Kissinger's visit was condemned by human rights organisations who claim he flouted international law in his dealings with Bangladesh, Chile and East Timor.

The Irish Times
Letters Page
Saturday 2nd March 2002


Sir, - Please allow me to summarise future European foreign policy, as advocated by Dr. Henry Kissinger, speaking in University College Cork:

1. Russia is a threat (or will be, once again, in a few years time).

2. Japan is a threat.

3. China is a threat.

4. The United States is not a threat to anyone.

5. Europe should ally itself with the United States in opposing the threat of 1 to 3 above (and all others).

Our future is secure. - Yours, etc.,

MacCurtains Villas,
College Road,

Sir, - I would like to commend the students and workers who gave Henry Kissinger an appropriate welcome TO UCC last Wednesday. Their principled stand throws into relief the moral bankruptcy of the assorted worthies who fêted this grotesque fraud.

Kissinger's crimes against humanity are a matter of public record. For those seeking the "real evidence" demanded by Kissinger in Cork, I would recommend Christopher Hitchens's damning book The Trial of Henry Kissinger  (Verso, 2001). - Is mise,

Friars Walk,

Kissinger And Nixon: Elder Bush 'Too Weak' For China

Kissinger Wiretaps to be Released

By Claire Soares - 12Feb02

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former President George Bush was dismissed as "too weak" for a secret breakthrough mission to China in the 1970s by then-President Richard Nixon and his foreign policy adviser Henry Kissinger, according to a White House telephone transcript obtained by Reuters on Monday.

When Nixon proposed Bush as a cloaked emissary for a trip that would eventually pave the way for the reopening of U.S.-Chinese relations, Kissinger responded, "Absolutely not, he is too soft and not sophisticated enough."

The gravelly voiced national security adviser, who ended up undertaking the diplomatic journey himself, added: "Bush would be too weak."

"I thought so, too, but I was trying to think of somebody with a title," Nixon replied. At the time of the call -- April 27, 1971 -- Bush was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

The transcript is one of more than 20,000 pages documenting Kissinger's telephone diplomacy, which are to be made available to the public after being kept under lock and key for three decades.

On Monday the National Archives took delivery of copies of Kissinger's telephone transcripts made between 1969 and 1974.

A National Archives spokeswoman said the documents would be kept at College Park, Maryland. Researchers will sift through and then officially release them to the public, in a process that could take up to a year.

"These are the Kissinger wire-taps," said Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, who lobbied for public access to the papers.

"U.S. foreign policy has never been so centralized in two people as it was in the Kissinger-Nixon era. And these transcripts put you in the room when Kissinger's talking to his boss and every world leader," Blanton added.


Until recently, Kissinger, 78, fiercely guarded access to his transcripts, saying they were personal and 90 percent of the information was in documents already in the public domain.

His papers were kept in the Library of Congress, with Kissinger designated as the gatekeeper. Five years after his death the papers were due to pass into public hands.

Monday's bequest was his second in a year. After pressure from Blanton's organization, Kissinger last August gave the State Department 10,000 pages of documents. He was secretary of State between 1973 and 1977, under first Nixon and then Gerald Ford.

"Once the State Department took the official position that these were government records then Kissinger could hardly say no when, at our request, the National Archives came calling for the White House transcripts," Blanton said.

German-born Kissinger shaped policies behind major world events of the 1970s, including the growing contact between Israel and the Arab world and U.S.-Soviet arms control talks.

Secrecy was a Kissinger hallmark. After rejecting Bush for the Chinese mission, he went on to negotiate himself on behalf of Nixon to open the Communist country to the West without even telling the then-U.N. ambassador.

Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for his role in talks to end the Vietnam War.

But in the 1971 declassified transcript he boasted: "Mr. President, I have not said this before but I think if we get this thing working, we will end Vietnam this year."

Kissinger, who set up a consulting firm, continues to be an independent diplomatic mover-and-shaker, recently urging nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan to sort out their differences at the negotiating table.

Kissinger addressed SAS at Stirling Lines HQ in January

Is this how bin Laden escaped?
Bruce Anderson says that American fear of casualties almost certainly stopped the SAS from killing Osama bin Laden

Early last month, a distinguished American went to see a British regiment. After more than 30 years at the centre of events, Henry Kissinger has an excuse for being blasé about such excursions. Yet there was none of that on this occasion. The helicopter was fog-bound and it is a long journey to Hereford by road, but Dr Kissinger’s hosts at the SAS’s Stirling Lines HQ were delighted by his obvious enthusiasm. In turn, he was ‘tremendously impressed’ by their ‘high motivation and professionalism’.

The visit was not confined to pleasantries at senior level. The Doctor had a lively meeting with 70 SAS men of all ranks. The regiment is much the least hierarchical outfit in the British army; the respect due to rank has to be earned, and constantly re-earned. As the men are used to speaking their minds to their own officers, they naturally extend the same courtesy to everyone else. Nor are they big on ‘Sirs’. Dr Kissinger was addressed as ‘Boss’ or ‘Boss Kissinger’, which amused him. Indeed, his unstuffiness and evident enthusiasm for vigorous debate impressed a group of men who pride themselves on being hard to impress. ‘Good bloke, that,’ said a sergeant afterwards: probably the most complimentary remark he had ever made about someone of his own sex.

Boss Kissinger rapidly realised that he would have to defend his country. He was talking to men with a grievance, who believed that American generals had let bin Laden escape. Some of Dr Kissinger’s audience had just come back from Afghanistan. They had taken part in the attack on the cave complex at Tora Bora, where two squadrons of the SAS went into action: a significant proportion of its total strength. Fully manned, a squadron has 64 men; not since the second world war have so many SAS men fought in the same engagement.

It is to be hoped that someone will eventually write an account of the battle of Tora Bora, for it was a feat of arms; an epic of skill and courage, even by the standards of the SAS.

And not only British skill and courage. The SAS was fighting alongside Delta Force, the US army’s special forces, and though the Brits did not think that the Yanks were quite their equal, our men were impressed by their men. Delta Force is not the same as the SAS. Much larger, its nearest British equivalent would be the SAS, merged with 3 (commando) brigade and 16 (air assault) brigade. As a result of Afghanistan, there are now pressures in the Pentagon to create an inner-core special force on British lines. Donald Rumsfeld’s enthusiasm for the SAS goes beyond tributes at press conferences; he wants one of his own.

But the SAS was happy enough with Delta Force. It was the American high command which let their own men down, and everyone else. The SAS and Delta Force won a victory for the West. The American generals then ensured that the full fruits of victory could not be harvested.

By the end of the battle, the SAS was certain that it knew where bin Laden was: in a mountain valley, where he could have been trapped. The men of the SAS would have been happy to move in for the kill, dividing themselves into beaters and guns. Going round the side, the guns would have positioned themselves at the head of the valley to cut off bin Laden’s retreat. The beaters would then have swept up the glen. If such a drive had taken place, the SAS is convinced that bin Laden would not have escaped. It would have been happy to fight alongside Delta Force and would have been glad of the assistance of American ground-attack aircraft. But it would also have been confident that it could finish the job on its own.

It did not get the chance. The SAS was under overall US command, and the American generals faltered. Understandably enough, they wanted Delta Force to be in at the death; they would have preferred it if bin Laden had fallen to an American bullet. So would Delta Force; every bit as much as the SAS, its men were raring to go. It was their commanders who held them back.

Being in at such a death involves the risk of death. It seems unlikely that bin Laden could have been bagged without casualties. The men on the ground did not quail at that prospect; the generals on the radio did. They wanted Delta Force to kill bin Laden; they were not prepared to allow their men to be killed in the process. They would not even allow USAF ground-attack aircraft to operate below 12,000 feet. As far as the SAS could tell, their hope was that the ragged-trousered militants of the Northern Alliance would do most of the dangerous stuff — and take most of the casualties — while Delta Force came in for the coup de grâce. Nor were the American generals willing to allow the SAS to win the glory which they were denying to American troops.

So strategy was sabotaged by schizoid irresolution. There followed hours of fiffing and faffing, while gold coins were helicoptered in, to encourage the Northern Alliance. The USA is the greatest military power in the history of the planet, spending well over $300 billion a year on defence, yet everything was paralysed because it would not allow its fighting men to fight. While the generals agonised about bodybags, bin Laden was escaping.

Henry Kissinger tried to put all this in context. He told the SAS that in his first five weeks as National Security Adviser, the US lost at least 400 lives every week in Vietnam, and that was only a small percentage of the total casualties. The scars of those losses in a lost war take a long time to heal.

Naturally, Henry Kissinger was only prepared to explain the American generals’ mindset, not to criticise it. There are reports that Secretary Rumsfeld is less restrained, and that he has made his dissatisfaction clear. But if Dr Kissinger is right, Mr Rumsfeld will have to do more than that. The SAS formed the firm impression that in Dr Kissinger’s view, Iraq will be the next big target; that it is no longer a question of whether, but when.

If so, it is time for the Americans to discard fantasies about toppling Saddam by airpower plus local surrogates: Northern Kurds, Southern Shia, et al. If the US wants to get Saddam, it will have to go in and get him, with a full-scale invasion. But are the generals who hung back at Tora Bora the right men to invade Iraq?

When Charles Guthrie was Chief of our General Staff, he had a simple principle when choosing generals. His reading of military history had taught him that the generals who rise to the top during long periods of peace are rarely fitted to fight a war. So he was determined to promote men whose temperament was not that of a peacetime soldier, and to ensure that all the key commands in the British army were held by warriors.

It is now time for Donald Rumsfeld to retire a number of his Vietnamised, risk-averse generals, and to replace them with warriors. After all, he will shortly have a war to fight.

Humanitarians Pursue Kissinger for South American Murders

Posted: 3/11/01 18:30:47  Australian Broadcasting Corporation

A Nobel Peace Prize winner has joined court action seeking to try former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger for torture, disappearances and murders in South America during his time in office.

Guatamalan indigenous leader Rigaberta Menchu has joined individuals and human rights groups in the suit against Dr Kissinger and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Courts in Chile are being asked to rule that the two men were responsible for Operation Condor, a secret agreement between various South American governments to eliminate opposition in the 1970s.

Ms Menchu, who won the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize, has joined the prosecution after meeting with the head of Chile's appeals court.

She says declassified CIA documents will prove that Dr Kissinger and General Pinochet co-authored Operation Condor as part of a wider plan to prevent any leftist governments being elected in South America.

Kissinger accused over Chile plot

Mr Kissinger has denied his involvement

Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, 02:53 GMT 03:53 UK

A lawsuit has been filed against the former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger over his alleged role in the death of the former Chilean army commander, General Rene Schneider, in 1970. The suit was filed in Washington by members of the general's family. They accuse Mr Kissinger of being involved in what they say was a US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plot to kill him.General Schneider died after resisting a kidnapping attempt which, the family says, was part of a wider plot to prevent the Chilean Marxist leader, Salvador Allende, from becoming president.Mr Kissinger has repeatedly denied any involvement in General Schneider's death. The court action follows several requests by judges in Chile and Argentina judges to question Mr Kissinger over human rights abuses committed during the military regimes of the 1970s.The BBC correspondent in Washington says the lawsuit stems from an investigation by a US television network, which claims that CIA communications contradict Mr Kissinger's version of events. Conspiracy

General Schneider's family say the botched kidnapping attempt took place as part of a covert White House campaign to prevent Socialist Salvador Allende from becoming president.

General Pinochet ousted President Allende

Both Mr Kissinger and his boss, the then-president Richard Nixon, were heavily involved in backing anti-Allende factions in Chile, the indictment alleges. The general was a key player in Chile at the time as he had provided crucial backing to Mr Allende after his narrow presidential election victory on 4 September 1970. In an apparent attempt to remove Mr Allende's military support, coup plotters attempted to kidnap General Schneider, but shot him when he reached for his gun in self-defence. He died two days after the attempt on 24 October 1970 in Santiago's Military Hospital. 'No connection'

Mr Kissinger, President Nixon's national security adviser at the time, and later secretary of state for both Mr Nixon and his successor, Gerald Ford, has always denied his involvement.

Mr Kissinger served under the late former president Nixon

In 1975, a US Senate investigation established that America had indeed backed a coup which eventually brought down Mr Allende three years later, and set up the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet.However, Mr Kissinger testified before the Senate hearing that he cut off all support for the coup plotters the week before General Schneider was murdered.A high-ranking State Department official referred to previously declassified documents about the situation in Chile during the 1960s and '70s, saying "the documents speak for themselves".

Family of Slain Chilean Sues Kissinger, Helms

Military Leader Was Killed in Kidnap Attempt Linked to Nixon Administration

By Bill Miller - Washington Post Staff Writer - Tuesday, September 11, 2001; (same day as the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre)

The family of Chilean military commander Rene Schneider, who was killed 31 years ago during a botched kidnapping, filed a federal lawsuit in Washington yesterday accusing Henry A. Kissinger, Richard M. Helms and other officials in the Nixon administration of orchestrating a series of covert activities that led to his assassination.

The lawsuit, which attorneys said is based heavily upon recently declassified CIA documents, seeks more than $3 million in damages from Kissinger, Helms and the U.S. government for "summary execution," assault and other civil rights violations. It alleges that Schneider was targeted because he stood in the way of a military coup designed to keep leftist Salvador Allende from taking power as Chile's president. At the time, Kissinger was Nixon's national security adviser, and Helms headed the CIA.

The suit revisits one of Chile's most notorious crimes and marks the first time that high-level U.S. officials have been sued in connection with the shooting. Schneider was the left-leaning head of the Chilean Armed Forces, and his murder was long considered to have been carried out by right-wing extremists within the military. The suit focuses on U.S. government ties to the assailants that were described in the declassified papers.

"The United States did not want Allende to assume the presidency, and my father was the only political obstacle for a military coup," said Schneider's eldest son, also named Rene Schneider, who resides in Chile. He and his brother, Raul, an artist living in Paris, are the named plaintiffs. "Obviously, he had to be taken out of the way."

The family chose to sue after carefully reviewing the materials that became public in the past two years, Schneider said. The documents, he said, "made me realize that my father's death is perhaps the one crime perpetrated outside the U.S. that most clearly links back to the U.S. government, the CIA, and Kissinger in particular.

"I don't want revenge," he said. "I want the truth to be established."

Kissinger did not return a telephone message left at his New York office. Helms denied wrongdoing but would not discuss details, saying that he hadn't seen the suit and that "it's a long and complicated case."

In his 1979 autobiography, Kissinger denied involvement in Schneider's death. He wrote that the group that tried to kidnap Schneider "proceeded on its own in defiance of CIA instructions and without our knowledge."

The role of the United States in Schneider's death has been studied for years. A Senate committee in 1975 found evidence that U.S. officials hoped to instigate a coup to stop Allende and provided arms and encouragement to those plotting the general's kidnapping. But the committee said its evidence showed the CIA had withdrawn support of the kidnapping before it was carried out and never envisioned that he would be killed.

Thousands of additional documents were declassified in recent years and provided a more comprehensive account of what happened. In addition, the CIA provided a report to Congress last year that detailed the agency's activities in Chile in the early 1970s.

According to the Schneider family, the materials showed that the CIA continued to encourage a coup in the days leading to the kidnapping. The CIA also provided $35,000 to some of those jailed for Schneider's death, the suit said.

"Every single factual assertion in this complaint is based on a document that has been furnished by the U.S. government," said Michael E. Tigar, the family's attorney.

The chain of events began Sept. 15, 1970, when Nixon met with Kissinger and Helms and ordered that action be taken to prevent Allende from assuming office after an election in which he had won the most votes. According to the lawsuit, Nixon said he was not concerned about risks and authorized $10 million to be spent on a military coup.

But military officials in Chile made clear that Chile's commander in chief, Schneider, would not go along with a coup, the suit said. The lawsuit said Kissinger and the CIA supported a secret plan to kidnap Schneider so that the military could take over before Allende's election could be approved by Chile's Congress.

On the morning of Oct. 22, 1972, after two aborted kidnapping attempts, Schneider was ambushed en route to work. The general's car was surrounded by about six cars, and struck from behind by one of them. The kidnappers smashed the back-seat windows on both sides. As Schneider was getting out his gun to defend himself, the assailants shot him. He died three days later at a military hospital, one day after Allende's victory was ratified.

Allende remained in power until a 1973 military coup that was indirectly supported by the CIA; he killed himself while under siege. Gen. Augusto Pinochet then began a 17-year reign in which thousands of people were killed or tortured. Pinochet was arrested in London in 1998 and indicted in Chile last year. But an appellate court recently suspended the legal proceedings because of concerns about his mental fitness for trial.

Military courts in Chile found that Schneider's death was caused by two military groups, one led by Roberto Viaux and the other by Camilo Valenzuela. Viaux and Valenzuela, both generals, were convicted of charges of conspiring to cause a coup, and Viaux also was convicted of kidnapping. The CIA aided both groups, the lawsuit said.

In a section of his autobiography entitled "The Coup That Never Was," Kissinger recounted the September 1970 meeting with Nixon and the plans to move forward with a secret coup agenda. He said there was less to the plan "than met the eye" because Nixon had a history of backing off plans as their implications became clearer.

Kissinger wrote that he ended the plan Oct. 15 and that Viaux's group acted on its own. He also wrote that no one, not even Viaux, ever intended to assassinate Schneider.

Peter Kornbluh, a Chile expert at the nonprofit National Security Archive, who lobbied for full declassification of Chile documents, said the lawsuit could force Kissinger, Helms and others to provide more information about what took place.

"This crime was Chile's equivalent of the Kennedy assassination at the time," Kornbluh said. "It was an unparalleled, unprecedented act of political terrorism."

Kissinger has faced other recent scrutiny. In May, he declined to appear before a French judge who wanted to question him about allegations of human rights violations in Latin America during the 1970s. He referred the request to the State Department.

Staff writer Anthony Faiola, staff researcher Robert Thomason and special correspondent Pascale Bonnefoy contributed to this report. Bonnefoy reported from Santiago, Chile.

Family To Sue Kissinger For Death

1970 Kidnapping Of General Led To Death - Was Henry Kissinger To Blame?

September 9, 2001,1597,309983-412,00.shtml

60 Minutes has learned that the family of a murdered Chilean general plans to file a lawsuit seeking damages against Henry Kissinger for his alleged role in the death of Gen. Rene Schneider, the commander of the Chilean Army who was killed by kidnappers in 1970. Citing recently declassified government documents, the civil suit is expected to claim that the CIA supported a kidnapping plot which led to the death of the Chilean general. The CIA’s support for the kidnapping was part of a larger effort by the Agency to instigate a coup in Chile – an objective ordered by President Nixon and overseen by Kissinger. Bob Simon reports.

Rene Schneider Jr., son of the late general, tells Simon, “I always wanted to put all this behind me, but we have a duty to humanity to speak about this. It would be irresponsible to remain silent.” Accounts of the former U.S. ambassador to Chile and the embassy’s former military attaché - both of whom appear in the report - and the documents tell the Cold War story of the Nixon administration’s desire to thwart leftist politician Salvadore Allende’s successful election to Chile’s presidency. The Nixon White House sought a military coup in Chile before Allende’s inauguration, but Schneider, a constitutional defender, stood in the way. Schneider was shot by the would-be kidnappers when he reached for his revolver.

Kissinger declined to speak to 60 Minutes, but when questioned about Chile in the past, he has responded that he personally cut off support for the coup conspirators during a meeting with the CIA on Oct. 15, 1970, a few days before Schneider’s murder. CIA officials, however, differed with Kissinger on this point in subsequent investigations. The Senate committee that investigated the matter could not determine who was telling the truth.,1597,309983-412,00.shtml

Chile Judge May Question Kissinger

SANTIAGO, July 5 (AP)- Thursday July 5 4:30 PM ET

The judge who indicted Gen. Augusto Pinochet wants to question former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger about the assassination of an American filmmaker in Chile during the former dictator's rule, a court official said Thursday.

Judge Juan Guzman has prepared more than 50 questions to be posed to Kissinger about the killing of Charles Horman shortly after the 1973 coup led by Pinochet, Supreme Court clerk Carlos Meneses said. Guzman also prepared questions for Nathaniel Davis, the U.S. ambassador to Chile at the time.

No details about the questions were immediately available, but they are believed to center on any knowledge the U.S. officials may have had about the case. The Supreme Court must approve the questions before they are sent to Kissinger and Davis through the Foreign Ministry and the State Department. Approval is considered certain.

Kissinger was former President Richard Nixon's assistant for national security affairs from 1969 to 1973 and was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.

Guzman, who indicted Pinochet on human rights charges, is also handling a criminal lawsuit filed in Chile against the former ruler by Horman's widow, Joyce. Horman was arrested Sept. 17, 1973, six days after the bloody coup in which Pinochet toppled Marxist President Salvador Allende.

He was taken to the main Santiago soccer stadium, which was used as a detention camp, where he was killed. According to an official report, hundreds were tortured and  executed at the site. Horman's case was the subject of the film "Missing," starring Sissy  Spacek and Jack Lemmon.

Joyce Horman's legal action against Pinochet is sponsored  in Chile by local lawyers Sergio Corvalan and Fabiola Letelier - sister of Orlando Letelier, a Chilean socialist killed by a car bombing in Washington, D.C., in 1976. That crime was subsequently traced to Pinochet's security services.

Joyce Horman came to Chile last December to file suit against Pinochet. At the time, she said she decided to act because documents declassified by the Clinton administration had shed new light on her husband's case. "I hope to get more truth and more justice, and I expect the United States government will support this effort," she said.

The 85-year-old Pinochet,  meanwhile, remained at the Santiago Military Hospital recovering from dental surgery. "My father has deteriorated, his condition has worsened," Pinochet's younger son, Marco Antonio, said as he left the hospital after visiting his father.  Pinochet's daughter, Lucia, angrily rejected suggestions by opponents that the hospitalization may be an attempt to escape legal problems, saying: "We do not lie about my father's health."

Pinochet been hospitalized repeatedly in recent months - times that coincided with rulings in his legal fight against trial on human rights charges.

Rulings are expected as early as next week on appeals he has filed over his indictment on charges of covering up 18 kidnappings and 57 homicides in the case known as the "Caravan of Death," a military operation that executed political prisoners shortly after the coup.

Kissinger shuns summons

By Patrick Bishop in Paris - 31/05/2001 - Daily Telegraph

HENRY KISSINGER, the former US Secretary of State, left Paris yesterday after declining to answer the questions of a French magistrate seeking information about political killings in Chile.

The American embassy told Judge Roger Le Loire that he should ask the State Department for details of American knowledge of the murder and disappearance of political opponents - including five French nationals - under the Pinochet regime after the 1973 coup.

Mr Kissinger was visiting Paris when police delivered a summons to the Ritz, where he was staying, asking him to present himself at the Palais de Justice.

The embassy later sent a letter to M Le Loire saying other obligations had prevented the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize winner from replying to the request and that he should direct his questions to Washington through official channels.

A State Department spokesman said it would pass on to the French authorities what information it had about the disappearance of French citizens during the post-coup era.

Maitre William Bourdon, representing families of the missing French nationals, said Mr Kissinger - Secretary of State from 1973-77 - had a duty to tell what he knew. M Le Loire is pursuing a campaign to discover the fate of the five French people who went missing in the years after Gen Pinochet came to power.

One, Jean-Yves Claudet-Fernandez, disappeared during an operation codenamed "Condor" in which Chile and other South American regimes co-operated to eradicate political opponents. M Le Loire says the Americans knew about the plan.

US bars Kissinger in Pinochet probe

BBC - Tuesday, 29 May, 2001, 13:36 GMT 14:36 UK

A US embassy has reportedly told a French judge probing the 1970s disappearance of French citizens in Chile that it does not want him to question former secretary of state Henry Kissinger.

French Judge Roger Le Loire is looking into allegations that five French citizens who disappeared in Chile during General Augusto Pinochet's military regime were kidnapped and tortured. French justice officials on Monday delivered a summons to a Paris hotel where Mr Kissinger was staying on a private visit. But the US embassy in Paris told a French court that Mr Kissinger had other obligations and was unable to appear, judicial sources said on condition of anonymity.

The former US secretary of state under Presidents Richard M Nixon and Gerald Ford, was under no legal obligation to answer the summons. A spokesman for the US embassy said officials wished the court had not gone directly to Mr Kissinger with the request.

Secret services

"We understand that the court is examining a period when Dr Kissinger was an official of the US Government," spokesman Richard Lankford said. "We therefore believe the court should present its request through government channels to the Department of State."

Lawyer William Bourdon, who represents families of French citizens who disappeared during the 1973-1990 Pinochet regime, had requested the summons. Mr Kissinger's testimony is wanted in connection with alleged exchanges between US and Chilean secret services that took place after the 1973 coup that brought General Pinochet to power.

A Chilean judge has indicted General Pinochet on homicide and kidnapping charges, holding him responsible for the atrocities committed by the Caravan of Death, a military group that executed 75 political prisoners shortly after the coup in which the general ousted President Salvador Allende.

General Pinochet is currently under house arrest and awaiting trial in Chile.

The Trial of Henry Kissinger by Christopher Hitchens (Verso, £15)

Saturday June 16, 2001 - The Guardian,6550,507485,00.html

The United States believes that it alone pursues and indicts war criminals; nothing in its political or journalistic culture allows for the fact that it might be harbouring or sheltering such a senior one. Yet one man has now grasped what so many others have not: if Augusto Pinochet is not immune then no one is. And that man is now extremely twitchy.

It is hard to imagine that the pudgy man in the black tie who picks up $25,000 for an after-dinner speech, is the same man who ordered or sanctioned the destruction of civilian populations, the assassination of inconvenient politicians and the kidnapping and disappearance of soldiers, journalists and clerics who got in his way. But it is.

In writing this book I have been amazed by the wealth of hostile and discreditable material, such as the betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds and the support for South African destabilisation of Angola, that I have been compelled to omit.

Morally repulsive as these may be, I have limited myself to those Kissingerian offences, as revealed in declassified documents, for which there is a prima facie case for prosecution on counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity and offences against international law.

Kissinger symbolises the pornography of power. In 1968, he was negotiating a Vietnam peace treaty in Paris for President Johnson. He did a deal with the Republicans to sabotage the peace negotiations to help secure Richard Nixon's election to president. In return, the world's self-styled "greatest peacemaker" would be promoted under the new administration. Kissinger's venality extended the war by four years and cost the lives of millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians - not to mention many thousands of US servicemen.

Indictments should also include deliberate mass killings of civilian populations in Indochina, collusion in mass murder and assassination in Bangladesh, the personal planning of the murder of General Schneider in Chile, involvement in a plan to murder Archbishop Makarios in Cyprus and the incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor.

In the name of innumerable victims, it is time for justice to take a hand. So, Harold Evans and Tina Brown, the next time Kissinger attends one of your elegant soirees, rather than fawning to him, why don't you arrest him?

And if you really are pressed: The digested read, digested ...

A compelling polemic that makes Hitler seem like a straightforward kinda guy, and will leave Augusto Pinochet and Slobodan Milosevic hoping they get to do their time in solitary,6550,507485,00.html

Research on Kissinger carried out by Trident Ploughshares 2000

Quotable Quotes

"In the United States, as you know, we are sympathetic with what you are trying to do here." - To Augusto Pinochet, June 8, 1976

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." - About Chile prior to the CIA overthrow of the popularly elected government of Salvadore Allende

"Covert action should not be confused with missionary work." - To Congress in explaining why the US betrayed the Iraqi Kurds in 1975.

Crimes Around the World

East Timor

Kissinger and Ford visited Jakarta in early December, 1975. Less than 48 hours after they left, Indonesia invaded East Timor, beginning a genocidal campaign that would claim the lives of over 200,000 East Timorese. Philip Liechty, the CIA desk officer in Jakarta, said, "They came and gave Suharto the green light. Š We were ordered to give the Indonesian military everything they wanted. I saw all the hard intelligence; the place was a free-fire zone. Women and children were herded into school buildings that were set alight - and all because we didn't want some little country being neutral or leftist at the United Nations."


The CIA sponsored the 1973 coup against the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende, funding reactionary military elements and helping them to draw up lists of over 20,000 people to be assassinated after the coup. Kissinger was an integral part of this, arguing for the coup as above. He was also in charge when Chilean secret police murdered Orlando Letelier and Ronnie Moffit in Washington in 1976.


In 1969, Kissinger and Nixon authorized the "secret" bombing of Cambodia, a neutral country, followed by the overthrow of its legitimate government in 1973. "U.S. B-52s pounded Cambodia for 160 consecutive days [in 1973], dropping more than 240,000 short tons of bombs on rice fields, water buffalo, villages Š and on such troop positions as the guerrillas might maintain." All of this against a peasant society with no air defense whatsoever. Estimates are that over 500,000 people were killed, and the country's agricultural base destroyed, leading to widespread starvation.


Not only did Kissinger and Nixon continue the war for several years, after saying they wouldn't, they escalated it in many ways. They mined North Vietnam's harbors and reinstated the bombing of North Vietnam, ordering the massive bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong, some of the most severe aerial assaults in history. Their policies resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and the destruction of the country.

Kissinger is also responsible for crimes in too many other countries to name, including Palestine, where his support for Israel enabled them to continue their occupation of the West Bank and other areas, and Bangladesh, where Nixon's "tilt" toward Pakistan caused the murder of millions.

'U.S. backed invasion of E.Timor'

East Timor and the USA Source: The Hindu ( By Amit Baruah

SINGAPORE, DEC. 7 (2001). Twenty-six years to the day, the Indonesian dictator, General Suharto, ordered his troops to invade East Timor with the full backing of the United States Government, declassified documents posted on the website of the National Security Archive of the George Washington University show. Operation Komodo was launched on December 7, 1975, a day after Gen. Suharto held talks with the then U.S. President, Mr. Gerald Ford, and the powerful Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger, in Indonesia.

A declassified ``secret'' cable dated December 6, 1975, shows a confident Gen. Suharto pushing Mr. Ford and Dr. Kissinger on the East Timor issue, something which the two leaders have been quiet about. Gen. Suharto: ``....It is now important to determine what we can do to establish peace and order for the present and the future in the interest of the security of the area and for Indonesia. These are some of the considerations that we are now contemplating. We want your understanding if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action.``

Mr. Ford: ``We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem you have and the intentions you have.''

Dr. Kissinger: ``It depends on how we construe it; whether it is in self-defence or it is a foreign operation. It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly. We would be able to influence the reaction in America if whatever happens after we return....we understand your problem and the need to move quickly but I am only saying that it would be better if it were done after we returned....whatever you do, however, we will try to handle in the best way possible.''

Mr. Ford: ``We recognise that you have a time factor. We have merely expressed our view from our particular point of view.'' To a question from Dr. Kissinger whether a long guerrilla war was anticipated in the then Portuguese colonial possession, Gen. Suharto responded: ``There will probably be a small guerrilla war....the UDT (Timorese Democratic Union) represents former Government officials and Fretilin (Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor) represents former soldiers. They are infected the same is the Portuguese Army with communism.'' With those words, Gen. Suharto ended the conversation on East Timor and turned to the issue of ``trade relations'' between Indonesia and the United States. And, then, there was no stopping Gen. Suharto. He sent in his troops, who according to one account, killed between 60,000 to 100,000 East Timorese in the period 1975-76 alone.

Both Mr. Ford and Dr. Kissinger seemed to be smarting from the debacle of Vietnam and the fall of Saigon in April 1975. In an earlier meeting with Gen. Suharto at Camp David on July 5, 1975, Mr. Ford said: ``Let me say that we are as firmly committed and interested in Southeast Asia. The events in Indochina have in no way diminished our interest or commitment in the area.''

The issue of East Timor and possible Indonesian action was raised by the General at the Camp David meeting. He told Mr. Ford, as per the contents of another declassified document, ``....The third point I want to raise is Portuguese decolonisation....with respect to Timor, we support carrying out decolonisation through the process of self-determination.''

``In ascertaining the views of the Timor people, there are three possibilities: independence, staying with Portugal, or to join Indonesia. With such a small territory and no resources, an independent country would hardly be viable. With Portugal it would be a big burden with Portugal being so far away. If they want to integrate into Indonesia as an independent nation, that is not possible because Indonesia is a unitary State. So the only way is to integrate into Indonesia,'' the document, as seen on the website, said.

So, Gen. Suharto had prepared his ground well before acting as he did. He had softened the Americans up before making his move. There is little doubt that the Indonesian dictator, who ruled his country for 32 long years, comes across as a canny politician, who had no doubts about his course of action.

US Endorsed Indonesia's East Timor Invasion: Secret Documents

Thursday, December 6, 2001 by Agence France Presse

The United States offered full and direct approval to Indonesia's 1975 invasion of East Timor, a move by then-president Suharto which consigned the territory to 25 years of oppression, official documents released Thursday show.

The documents prove conclusively for the first time that the United States gave a 'green light' to the invasion, the opening salvo in an occupation that cost the lives of up to 200,000 East Timorese.

General Suharto briefed US president Gerald Ford and his secretary of state Henry Kissinger on his plans for the former Portuguese colony hours before the invasion, according to documents collected by George Washington University's National Security Archive.

When Ford and Kissinger called in Jakarta on their way back from a summit in Beijing on December 6, 1975, Suharto claimed that in the interests of Asia and regional stability, he had to bring stability to East Timor, to which Portugal was trying to grant autonomy.

"We want your understanding if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action," Suharto told his visitors, according to a long classified State Department cable.

Ford replied: "We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem you have and the intentions you have."

Kissinger, who has denied the subject of Timor came up during the talks, appeared to be concerned about the domestic political implications of an Indonesian invasion.

"It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly, we would be able to influence the reaction in America if whatever happens, happens after we return.

"The president will be back on Monday at 2:00 pm Jakarta time. We understand your problem and the need to move quickly but I am only saying that it would be better, if it were done after we returned."

The invasion took place on December 7, the day after the Ford-Suharto meeting.

Kissinger has consistently rejected criticism of the Ford Administration's conduct on East Timor.

During a launch in 1995 for his book "Diplomacy," Kissinger said at a New York hotel it was perhaps "regrettable" that for US officials, the implications of Indonesia's Timor policy were lost in a blizzard of geopolitical issues following the Vietnam War.

"Timor was never discussed with us when we were in Indonesia," Kissinger said, according to a transcript of the meeting distributed by the East Timor Action network -- which advocated independence for East Timor.

"At the airport as we were leaving, the Indonesians told us that they were going to occupy the Portuguese colony of Timor. To us that did not seem like a very significant event."

The documents also show that Kissinger was concerned at the use of US weapons by Indonesia during the East Timor invasion.

By law, the arms could only be used in self defense, but it appears that Kissinger was concerned mostly on the interpretation of the legislation -- not the use of the weapons.

"It depends on how we construe it, whether it is in self-defense or is a foreign operation," he is quoted as saying.

The eastern part of the island of Timor, situated north of the Australian coast, was invaded by Jakarta in 1975 and annexed the following year.

After a 25-year independence campaign and guerrilla war, the territory voted overwhelmingly for independence in August 1999 in a referendum which triggered a wave of murderous violence by pro-Jakarta militias.

Restoring Chile's Past by Marc Cooper

Sunday, June 3, 2001 - Los Angeles Times

When the names of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger popped up intertwined in the news last week, it was a magical moment for human rights activists worldwide. For Kissinger, no doubt, it was something very different: a source of great displeasure, certainly, and perhaps a harbinger of worse things to come.

Last Monday, an appeals court in Santiago ordered Pinochet to submit to the humiliation faced by any common criminal: to have his fingerprints and mug shots, front and profile, taken by the national police. The former general's defense lawyers are still fighting bitterly to spare him this humiliation.

But the battle was lost even before their defeat last week. For those of us who survived Pinochet's 1973 military coup and his ensuing 17 bloody years of dictatorship, and especially for the relatives of those who didn't, the fight has never been about the narrow issue of hauling the 85-year-old former general before a police camera or a magistrate's bench. Much more important has been to correct the historical record and to forever bestow upon Pinochet and his collaborators their soiled legacy: primary responsibility for the murder, or "disappearance," of more than 3,100 civilians, and the systematic torture and jailing of ten of thousands of others. The human rights battle in Chile transcended individual trials and focused on rescuing and restoring a collective, historic memory that was nearly expunged by the powerful and the arrogant.

Which brings us to Kissinger. At roughly the same hour that this latest decision in the Pinochet case came down, agents of the French police arrived at the Ritz Hotel in Paris, where Kissinger was participating in a seminar, and served him with a summons requesting that he testify as a witness in the investigation of five French citizens who disappeared under Pinochet's rule.

The summons, which carried no legal obligation for Kissinger to appear, was issued at the request of William Bourdon, a lawyer representing the French victims. Bourdon insists it is "essential" that the former secretary of state testify, given the manifold exchanges between the U.S. and Chilean intelligence services at the time Kissinger was overseeing the U.S. foreign policy apparatus.

Kissinger, who first served as President Richard M. Nixon's national security advisor and then as secretary of State from 1973 to 1977 under both Nixon and Gerald R. Ford, was neck deep in U.S. intrigues that led to Pinochet's ascension. Kissinger was point man in the covert plotting by the U.S. to destabilize and overthrow the elected Chilean government of Socialist Salvador Allende, for whom I served as translator in the early 1970s. One of those plots resulted in the kidnap and murder of Chilean Army Chief of Staff Rene Schneider. Recently declassified U.S. documents suggest that Kissinger and the Nixon administration actively supported Pinochet's 1973 coup against Allende, in which the Chilean president perished, and more than a century of Chilean democratic rule was ended.

Those same documents further reveal that Kissinger's State Department had knowledge of "Operation Condor," a scheme concocted by Pinochet and other South American dictators to coordinate the assassination of opposition leaders. The most dramatic of those killings took place just blocks from Kissinger's Foggy Bottom offices in September 1976, when Pinochet's secret police set off a car bomb in downtown Washington D.C., killing Chilean dissident Orlando Letelier and his American associate Ronni Moffit.

While Kissinger obviously has much he could tell about these dark chapters, he ignored the French summons and flew on to Italy. The U.S. Embassy in Paris told the French court that issued the subpoena that it did not want Kissinger questioned, and that he had other pressing "obligations." It was not surprising. As the Chileans like to say, in this world there are Big Dogs and Little Dogs. And Kissinger is about as big as they get.

But he should neither be cocky nor confident, for his circumstances are starting to become tantalizingly similar to the discredited dictator he once coddled. When Chilean courts originally refused to prosecute Pinochet, his victims turned to international venues for justice. In 1998 Pinochet, while on a private visit to London, was finally arrested by British police acting on a warrant issued by crusading Spanish Judge Baltazar Garzon. Garzon has been investigating the deaths of Spanish citizens in Operation Condor.

In Kissinger's case, it is Parisian Judge Roger Le Loire who has been investigating the disappearance of his countrymen into the macabre abyss of Condor, and he has already issued his own warrant for Pinochet's arrest. Two years ago, Judge Le Loire reportedly sent a request to the Clinton administration asking permission to question Kissinger, but his request was ignored. So when Kissinger showed up on his own private visit to Paris last week, the judge allowed attorney Bourdon to send police to his hotel with the written request to testify.

In Argentina, yet another magistrate, Federal Judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, told reporters a few days ago that as part of his own probe into Operation Condor, he will most likely subpoena Kissinger as either a "defendant or suspect."

The Argentine judge, nevertheless, went on to muse that getting Kissinger to actually show up would be "very problematic." After all, Kissinger's place in history still rests primarily on his reported mastery at shuttle diplomacy, on his reputation for brilliance as a geo-political strategist, on his lucrative corporate and media consultancies, and on his winning of the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize.

But then again, as recently as 1998, Pinochet was also a snarling and fearsome Big Dog, considered absolutely untouchable by human law. In the face of overwhelming prima facie evidence of massive crimes, only a single courageous Chilean judge dared to entertain even the most basic charges against him. When the general retired from his armed forces command in 1998, the U.S. press celebrated him (with only casual mention of his human rights record) as the prescient architect of a pro-American, free-market economic model. The post-Soviet Russians held him up as an example of inspired anticommunist governance. His own country lauded him as a "liberator," rewarding him with the title of senator-for-life.

And yet, a scant three years later, reduced to something more like a whimpering puppy, stripped of his parliamentary immunity, wanted by a long list of European courts and under formal indictment in Chile, Pinochet pathetically scampers to avoid putting inked fingers to paper.

One way or another, the registry of Augusto Pinochet's fingerprints and mug shots will take place. And the images of the fallen hero that will flash around the globe will be sure to haunt the midnight nightmares of Henry Kissinger. As they well should.

Marc Cooper is a contributing editor to the Nation and author of "Pinochet and Me: A Chilean Anti-Memoir."

U.S. Victims of Chile's Coup: The Uncensored File By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

New York Times - February 13, 2000

Twenty-six years ago, as the forces of Gen. Augusto Pinochet overthrew the Socialist government of Salvador Allende, two American supporters of President Allende were killed in Chile under circumstances that stirred suspicions of C.I.A. involvement.

American officials categorically denied any role in the young men's deaths, which were dramatized in the 1982 movie "Missing."

Compelled by the Freedom of Information Act, the government in 1980 released the results of classified internal investigations, heavily censored in black ink, that appeared to clear the American and Chilean governments of any responsibility.

But now, those thick black lines have been stripped away. Spurred by the arrest of General Pinochet in 1998, President Clinton has ordered the declassification of "all documents that shed light on human rights abuses, terrorism and other acts of political violence during and prior to the Pinochet era in Chile."

Some of those documents make clear for the first time that the State Department concluded from almost the beginning that the Pinochet government had killed the men, Charles Horman, 31, and Frank Teruggi, 24. The investigators speculated, moreover, that the Chileans would not have done so without a green light from American intelligence.

"U.S. intelligence may have played an unfortunate part in Horman's death," said one newly declassified memo. "At best, it was limited to providing or confirming information that helped motivate his murder by the government of Chile. At worst, U.S. intelligence was aware the government of Chile saw Horman in a rather serious light and U.S. officials did nothing to discourage the logical outcome of government of Chile paranoia."

With most of the blacked-out portions now restored, the documents declassified by the State Department illustrate how exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act -- a law that was meant to reduce secrecy -- can be misused.

Two principal exceptions that the department used allow the government to withhold information on the grounds of national security and executive privilege. "They're not protecting national security information at all," said Peter Kornbluh of the nonprofit National Security Archives, which promotes the declassification of government documents. "Preventing embarrassment is not an exemption clause."

Even after extensive Senate intelligence committee hearings in the 1970's, the American role in the overthrow of Mr. Allende remains a matter of dispute and conjecture. Mr. Kornbluh said that other government agencies responsible for carrying out United States policy in Chile, including the C.I.A. and the Pentagon, have so far failed to release key records on the era.

Regarding Mr. Horman's death, Mark Mansfield, a spokesman for the C.I.A., recently released a 22-year-old letter denying any role by the agency and said it would show the public files on the case this spring.

The State Department refused to address questions about the two deaths, saying few of the people involved in the case still work for the government. The former officials, most of them retired and scattered around the country, largely disavow any responsibility for what happened.

Mr. Horman's widow, Joyce, is hoping that enough has changed to finally learn what really happened to her husband. She is asking for Washington's help in her quest for an honest explanation of his murder from the new Socialist government in Chile.

"I want to know who gave the order," said Mrs. Horman, who has never remarried. "Nobody's held accountable."

Her husband and Mr. Teruggi were friends who belonged to a group of young left-of-center Americans attracted by Mr. Allende's socialist experiment in the early 1970's. In Santiago, they worked for a newsletter that reprinted articles and clippings from American newspapers critical of United States policy.

When General Pinochet seized power on Sept. 11, 1973, Mr. Horman was at Viña del Mar, a coastal resort, with Terry Simon, a family friend from New York who was vacationing in Chile.

Ms. Simon said she and Mr. Horman saw American warships offshore and spoke to American naval officers stationed in nearby Valparaiso, who appeared elated at the coup's success. The two interpreted what they saw as proof of American connivance in the military takeover.

Eager to return to Santiago, they rode back with Capt. Ray E. Davis, chief of the United States Military Group at the American Embassy, who had been making his weekly visit to the naval station.

Two days later, as General Pinochet's forces moved to arrest thousands of people around the country, men in military uniforms abducted Mr. Horman, ransacking his apartment. His wife, Joyce, was out at the time. She never saw him again. Ms. Simon searched with Joyce for Mr. Horman and eventually flew home to New York.

Around the same time, security forces arrested Mr. Teruggi and his roommate, David Hathaway, at their apartment. They were held at the national stadium with thousands of other political prisoners. Mr. Teruggi never returned from his second interrogation.

Mr. Hathaway was released alone and later flew home to the United States.

A friend identified Mr. Teruggi's body in the government morgue. His throat had been slashed, and he had been shot twice in the head.

The search for Mr. Horman was more tortuous. His father, Edmund, flew in from New York to help. He and Mr. Horman's wife followed whatever leads they could, keeping in close touch with the embassy, which supplied escorts and pressed Mrs. Horman for a list of her husband's friends. Doubting the diplomats' motives, she says, she never supplied it.

Captain Davis, now 74 and retired, said in a recent interview that he had nothing to do with the deaths and he appeared offended by the resurgence of questions about the killings.

He talked of his close ties to the Chilean military during his time there and said he had welcomed General Pinochet at his home, but was in no position to demand that Chilean Army commanders answer for the killings, and had not been ordered to do so. "We weren't down there to cause trouble," he said. "We sold them weapons."

He called Mr. Teruggi and Mr. Horman "part of the problem" in Chile. "They were down there handing out pamphlets against the government," he said.

The two men, actually, had been supporting the Allende government, not the one Captain Davis hoped to see in power. He corrected himself: "against the people who were trying to do something about it."

The Hormans have long contended that despite the embassy's avowal that it was doing all it could to find Charles, its officials would merely confirm information the family had obtained for itself. Taken together, the newly released documents support their suspicions.

It was not until 1976 that the State Department took a critical look at the killings. The move was prompted by a disaffected Chilean intelligence officer, Rafael González, who told reporters that he had witnessed Mr. Horman being held prisoner by Chile's chief of intelligence.

Mr. González quoted the intelligence chief as saying Mr. Horman "had to disappear" because he "knew too much," and said a man he presumed was American was in the room.

Mr. González also described a "cozy relationship" between American and Chilean intelligence services to destabilize the Allende government, and said that American operatives had even given their Chilean counterparts lists of suspected leftists to be rounded up in the first days of a military takeover.

(In its hearings, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that the C.I.A. had in fact compiled arrest lists but said it had no evidence that they were passed to the Chileans. Those lists are among the documents the C.I.A. has not released.)

Facing pressure from Congress, the State Department ordered two internal reviews in 1976. The first, completed in August, was carried out by Rudy V. Fimbres, regional director for Bolivia and Chile in the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs. The second was conducted by Frederick Smith, a State Department lawyer, in November and December.

The investigators were permitted to examine only documents either publicly released or already available in the State Department. Their reviews appeared to confirm doubts and inconsistencies that American newspapers had already reported but that State Department officials had repeatedly discredited.

The documents showed that an embassy official had received a tip that Mr. Horman had already been killed before his father arrived in Chile. That tip was not followed up.

Instead, embassy officials told Edmund Horman that leftists may have kidnapped his son, contradicting their own cables home, which quoted neighbors who said they had witnessed Chilean security forces taking Mr. Horman away.

The internal reviews also questioned the time of Mr. Horman's death, saying there was no reason to accept the Chilean government's assertion that he died just before the American Embassy learned of his disappearance.

The Pinochet government had ignored numerous requests from the United States for an autopsy report on Mr. Horman, the documents show.

One review asked why Captain Davis, who had driven Mr. Horman and Ms. Simon to Santiago, had taken their registration card from the hotel where they were staying.

Captain Davis at first denied that he had taken the card, but changed his mind when read a passage from a letter he wrote to one of the investigators, now among the declassified documents, mentioning the registration card.

"I don't see why it's important," he said.

The Horman family believes the card was given to the Chilean military, and tipped them off to the new address of the Hormans, who had moved just a few days before.

"Based on what we have," the first inquiry concluded, "we are persuaded that the government of Chile sought Horman and felt threatened enough to order his immediate execution. The government of Chile might have believed this American could be killed without negative fall-out from the U.S. government."

The memo said that there was "circumstantial evidence" that the C.I.A. "may have played an unfortunate part in Horman's death," as well as Mr. Teruggi's. It also said the State Department had the "responsibility" to refute baseless allegations and "to proceed against U.S. officials if this is warranted."

The second investigation, completed a month before Gerald Ford's presidency ended, drew a similar conclusion. It blamed the Chilean government for both deaths and said it was "difficult to believe" that the Pinochet government would have carried out the killings without some signal, perhaps even an inadvertent one, that the deaths would not cause "substantial adverse consequences" in Washington.

The memo -- to Harry W. Shlaudeman, the assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs -- recommended interviewing Mr. González, the disaffected Chilean intelligence officer, again and going back to the C.I.A. for a full accounting.

"If an explanation exists," a memo in the investigation said, "it does not appear in the files and must be sought elsewhere."

But both inquiries appear to have ended there. Mr. Shlaudeman himself recommended interrogating Mr. González further, even submitting a detailed list of questions for the purpose that the C.I.A. was allowed to review. But he dismissed the call for investigating the actions of the C.I.A.

Interviewed recently, Mr. Shlaudeman said that he remembered little about the issue. "A lot of things have happened since then," he said.

Until jarred loose by General Pinochet's arrest in London in October 1998, these reports remained largely hidden from the public.

In 1978, State Department officials debated how much of the documents to show the Horman family, which was then suing the United States government for "wrongful death," a case that was dismissed "without prejudice," meaning that it could be reopened.

One official, Frank McNeil, then deputy assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, urged the department to err on the side of greater disclosure.

"Classification should not be used to prevent embarrassment of government agencies or officials, which would be the principal reason for withholding when one gets down to the bone," he said.

Nonetheless, the documents released to the Hormans omitted large swaths of material on the grounds of national security and executive privilege.

Experts note that executive privilege protects the president's deliberations with his advisers, in this instance Henry A. Kissinger, who served Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford as secretary of state.

Dr. Kissinger said he had never seen the documents or the recommendations and had been out of the country much of the time. "It's very easy, 30 years after the event, to be so heroic and to create the impression that one had nothing else to do except follow one particular case," he said.

"If it were brought to my attention I would have done something."

Mr. Fimbres himself, who is now retired, said recently that he was not surprised at the State Department's apparent failure to pursue the investigation further.

"Something like this easily goes into the black hole," he explained. "And everybody watches it go down."

The Shocking Truth: The U.S. Medical System Is Woefully Unprepared for Ebola
We Need to Stop Pretending We’re Prepared … and Actually Get Prepared

The Shocking Truth: The U.S. Medical System Is Woefully Unprepared for Ebola

by Washington’s Blog | October 4, 2014

Government spokesmen and mainstream talking heads keep saying that Ebola is no threat to the U.S., because our medical system is thoroughly prepared.

However, Reuters notes that American nurses say they are not prepared for Ebola:

Nurses, the frontline care providers in U.S. hospitals, say they are untrained and unprepared to handle patients arriving in their hospital emergency departments infected with Ebola.


A survey by National Nurses United of some 400 nurses in more than 200 hospitals in 25 states found that more than half (60 percent) said their hospital is not prepared to handle patients with Ebola, and more than 80 percent said their hospital has not communicated to them any policy regarding potential admission of patients infected by Ebola.

Another 30 percent said their hospital has insufficient supplies of eye protection and fluid-resistant gowns.

CBS News reports:

U.S. hospitals and health care workers …  say the staff at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas were unprepared to handle the patient — and that this is likely the case athospitals throughout the country.

Bonnie Castillo, director of the Registered Nurses Response Network, part of the nurses union National Nurses United, said a majority of union members surveyed say their employers haven’t offered appropriate training to deal with an Ebola outbreak.


85 percent said they were not provided any type of formal education to prepare for Ebola patients.

Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. – former Lt. Governor of New York – writes at Fox News:

Most hospitals in the U.S. lack the rigor and discipline to control Ebola. That’s why common infectious diseases such as MRSA and C. diff are racing through these hospitals, killing an estimated 75,000 patients every year. Ebola is even deadlier. Yet the CDC has done little to equip hospitals, other than send around memos.


  • As Dr. Sanjay Guptanotes, there have been severe lapses in safety at the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. hospitals in treating infectious diseases

“CDC continues to work with reduced financial resources, which similarly affects state, local, and insular public health departments. … These losses make it difficult for state and local health departments to continue to expand their preparedness capabilities, instead forcing them to focus on maintaining their current capabilities.”

  • The CDC report alsonotesthat state and local public health departments on the front lines of any health emergency have shed 45,700 jobs since the 2008 financial crisis (at the same time, hospital staffs are beingreducednationwide.)
  • In 2010, the Obama administrationscrappedCDC’s quarantine regulations aimed at Ebola
  • The Department of Homeland Security inspector general issued a scathing report in September warning the department waswoefully unpreparedfor a pandemic

In addition:

  • Two national experts on the spread of infectious disease say thatEbola can spread through aerosols– so healthcare workers should wear protective respirators – but government officials refuse to evenconsiderthe possibility. In any event, the virus ismutating(and seethis), so an overly cavalier attitude is not productive

It’s time to stop pretending we’re prepared. It’s long past time we actually became prepared.

Stepdaughter Who Had Direct Contact with Ebola Patient: ‘No One Told Me Nothing’
"No one gave me any direction”

Stepdaughter Who Had Direct Contact with Ebola Patient: 'No One Told Me Nothing'

by Breitbart | October 4, 2014

Youngor Jallah, the stepdaughter of American Ebola patient Thomas Duncan, an individual she had direct contact with shortly before he was diagnosed with Ebola, said that no one has given her any instructions, and that she found out that her stepfather was diagnosed with Ebola on the news in an interview on Friday’s “AC360” on CNN.

“No one is giving me no instructions and gave me instructions, and no one is telling me nothing” she stated. And “no one [told] me I’m under quarantine.”

Jallah added “When the Health Department came, they said they are going to be coming here for 21 days. But we asked them ‘can we go outside to get our babies diapers?’ They told us ‘no. You guys should stay in here until we can ask our boss if you guys can go out or come out of the house.’ So maybe today, we are waiting for them, when they come today they [are] going to give us the answer.”

She also reported that she learned of her stepfather’s diagnosis by watching the news on TV and that after she learned of the diagnosis “no one gave me any direction” on how to prevent herself from being further exposed to the disease.

Sarasota patient with Ebola-like symptoms moved from isolation

10 News Staff, WTSP 11:21 a.m. EDT October 4, 2014


(Photo: Sarasota Memorial Hospital)

Sarasota, Florida — The patient admitted Friday at Sarasota Memorial Hospital with symptoms similar to Ebola is feeling better and has been moved out of isolation.

According to Kim Savage, media relations at Sarasota Memorial, the patient remains in stable condition and the hospital is using universal precautions to manage his care.

According to Savage, the patient was not tested for Ebola because his symptoms and travel history did not meet the CDC risk criteria for testing. That determination was confirmed by the Florida Department of Health, which authorizes and coordinates testing for the CDC.

Original Story

Sarasota Memorial Hospital went on high alert Friday when a patient who recently arrived from West Africa came to the emergency department with symptoms similar to Ebola.

The patient has been admitted for treatment and observation, according to the hospital.

Doctors who evaluated the patient – both emergency medicine and infectious disease specialists – say he does not meet the CDC criteria for Ebola testing and that it is "highly unlikely" he has the virus. The patient’s travel itinerary did not include any high-risk Ebola countries.

As a precaution, Sarasota Memorial activated infection control protocols, including placing the patient in isolation and reporting the case to Florida Department of Health officials.

Supervisors at the health department confirmed the patient did not meet the risk criteria for Ebola testing.


MSNBC: Ebola’s Worse Because of the Second Amendment
Surgeon General will have zero impact on Ebola

MSNBC: Ebola's Worse Because of the Second Amendment

by Kurt Nimmo | | October 4, 2014As Rahm Emanuel advised, Democrats should never let a good crisis go to waste.

That’s what they’re doing over at MSNBC. Exploiting the Ebola crisis to trash Republicans who are opposed to Obama’s choice for surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy.

Back in March we wrote about Murthy, who “is a rabid anti-Second Amendment ideologue who believes firearms ownership is a public health issue. Murthy is the president and co-founder of Doctors for America, an organization that melds healthcare and support for gun control legislation.”

Murthy’s organization, Doctors for America, believes the Second Amendment is a health issue.

“For few other issues would we tolerate this state of affairs. If tens of thousands of Americans died every year of an infectious disease and there was no policy response, there would be a public outcry. If research clearly demonstrated that there were simple solutions to prevent all these deaths and still nothing changed, public health experts would be furious. It is time for us to recognize that we must take action to save thousands of lives and demand change from our politicians.”

Naturally, this brought a strong response from advocates of the Constitution and the Second Amendment, including Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Murthy’s nomination was opposed by the NRA and held up by Republicans.

On Friday, Krystal Ball and Anne Thompson, writing for MSNBC, said the United States needs a Surgeon General to deal with the Ebola crisis:

If only there was someone around who could educate the American public about the actual level of risk. Someone who was trusted as a public health expert and whose job it was to help us understand what we really need to worry about and what precautions we should take.

Actually, that is one of the primary responsibilities of the United States surgeon general. There’s just one problem: Thanks to Senate dysfunction and NRA opposition, we don’t have a surgeon general right now. In fact, we haven’t had a surgeon general for more than a year now — even though the president nominated the eminently qualified Dr. Vivek Murthy back in November 2013.

The Surgeon General is the operational head of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, a “uniformed service” of the government. The Surgeon General spends most of his or her time handing out public health awards and decorations and proselytizing the public on what the government considers health issues. Probably the most famous and well-known of these is the warning printed on the side of a pack of cigarettes and on alcoholic beverage bottles.

This bureaucrat attached to the Pentagon will have zero impact on Ebola. MSNBC is either unaware of this or is merely exploiting Ebola to criticize Republicans in the Senate for refusing to confirm the nomination of Murthy, who is an anti-Second Amendment ideologue.

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Instead of addressing the real issue – the government is encouraging Ebola patients to enter the United States under a politically correct “right of return” and thus seriously endangering public health – MSNBC is turning a deadly disease into a political football.


The Dallas Ebola Case: An Immigration-Related Process Conspiracy?

By Prof Jason Kissner

Global Research, October 03, 2014


To begin, consider that people like Dr. Sanjay Gupta keep saying that the Dallas Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan had “told the nurse” who attended to him upon his first arrival at the Texas Presbyterian Hospital Emergency Room that he had “traveled “to” Africa.”

That’s certainly a very odd thing for a Liberian national, having just arrived from Monrovia, Liberia to the United States for the very first time in his life, to have supposedly said, is it not?  Of course, it fits the CDC Checklist used prior to, and including, Duncan’s case, so that must have been exactly what Duncan said, right Sanjay?

Duncan’s status as a Monrovian Liberian national has not exactly been blasted across the MSM news; in fact, the MSM news for the most part has been adhering studiously to the asinine “traveled to Africa” view even though it is grossly misleading.

So why adhere to the view?  The chief contention of this article is that we might be observing the unfolding of a “process conspiracy” pertaining to Ebola and the highly contentious immigration issue.  The phrase “process conspiracy” is operationalized here as a conspiracy rooted in a policy or policies consciously designed to shape practice in ways such that the output exacerbates the very problems the policy/policies was (were), on the surface, designed to contend with.

The specific object of the Globalist Ebola process conspiracy is here theorized to involve diminishing the linkage, in public consciousness, of Ebola with nationality status.  Globalists have huge immigration plans for the U.S., and they do not want Ebola (or any other infectious disease, for that matter) getting in the way of those plans.  That is why their Ebola policy protocols—as absurd as they are (discussed shortly)— read the way they do,  that is why we have been exposed to a cloud of lies emanating from Dallas and dispersed through the MSM, and that is why Duncan was discharged with antibiotics soon after his first visit to the Emergency Room of Texas Presbyterian.

Because the theory is a process conspiracy theory and therefore rooted in subverted policy, it has application not just to Duncan, but to future Duncans as well.  The argument proceeds as follows.  First, a brief observation concerning risk is offered which, even though obvious, is necessary because without it the argument will make little sense.  Second, the CDC’s Ebola Screening and Isolation polices are examined, and, on the basis of the risk observation, shown to be not only wholly inadequate to the task they were allegedly crafted to meet, but quite likely to make the Ebola contagion problem even worse.  Third, evidence is provided in support of the idea that the Ebola process conspiracy theory offers a simple, and very plausible explanation, of certain important assertions of fact, and inconsistencies, emanating from Dallas that are otherwise rather difficult to explain.  Throughout, the connection to the issue of nationality status will be obvious.

On the risk issue, people who are Liberian nationals and residents of the hot zone Monrovia clearly present much greater risk than randomly drawn “travelers to” Liberia, simply because  the exposure time is likely to be much greater for the former set of people.

Now we turn to consideration of the CDC’s policy guidance on screening and isolation of Ebola patients—and keep in mind that, astonishingly, these (click here and here) are purportedly new policy statements issued in the wake of the Duncan Dallas case, and yet they still do not meet the very problem Duncan-type cases present.

The screening/isolation problem presented by Duncan type cases is this:  under CDC policy guidelines, what are hospitals supposed to do when they encounter potential Ebola cases that are asymptomatic, but which involve persons who have not merely “traveled to” certain countries in Africa, but in fact are also nationals of one of those countries who have lived, perhaps even in outbreak areas, at a minimum since the outbreak began?

Amazingly, as the above-linked policy recommendations show, national origin and indeed even residence in hot zones is in no way independently factored into risk assessments for purposes of screening and isolation! But let’s pay especial attention to the second document just linked, which is the “Ebola Virus Disease” “algorithm” document, which is actually nothing more than a truly insidious flowchart of gruesome death.  First, look at the subheading, which states “Algorithm for Evaluation of the Returned Traveler.”  Can you believe it?  Where is the “Algorithm” for evaluation of newly arrived hot zone nationals?   Second, don’t be misled by the language in the “No Known Exposure” box.  That language does state “Residence in or travel to affected areas** without HIGH- or LOW-risk exposure”, but the critical fact is that Duncan-type cases are asymptomatic, and, as the “Algorithm” chart shows, with those types of cases there are no arrows leading anywhere else.  And, in any event, the degree of exposure row only applies with respect to those people who have already been isolated.  Indeed, the most that can happen with Duncan-type cases under the Algorithm document is, incredibly, a mere referral to “the Health Department.”

The first CDC document linked above functions similarly; but at least specifies a few more symptoms.  In the final analysis, though, it too talks only about travelers “to” hot zone countries, and so says nothing at all about how to contend with asymptomatic Duncan-type hot zone nationals.

So what is going on?  Let’s have a look at some Ebola charades at Texas Presbyterian Hospital, Dallas.  Check out these weird accounts via CNN:

“Hospital officials have acknowledged that the patient’s travel history wasn’t “fully communicated” to doctors, but also said in a statement Wednesday that based on his symptoms, there was no reason to admit him when he first came to the emergency room last Thursday night.

“At that time, the patient presented with low-grade fever and abdominal pain. His condition did not warrant admission. He also was not exhibiting symptoms specific to Ebola,” Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas said.

The patient, identified by his half-brother as Thomas Eric Duncan, told hospital staff that he was from Liberia, a friend who knows him well said.

A nurse asked the patient about his recent travels while he was in the emergency room, and the patient said he had been in Africa, said Dr. Mark Lester, executive vice president of Texas Health Resources. But that information was not “fully communicated” to the medical team, Lester said.

What on earth can it mean to say that the patient’s travel history was not “fully communicated” to doctors?  How hard is it to communicate “the patient is from Liberia”?  Here is where we need to notice that, according to a friend, Duncan told hospital staff that he (Duncan) was from Liberia—not merely that he had “traveled” there.  And how hard is it, really, to communicate these things to others?  Add to this that, in all likelihood, Duncan’s friend probably did tell CDC that Duncan was from Liberia (because the friend wanted to get Duncan help early).

But given that the hospital officials now say that “[h]is condition did not warrant admission at the time”, what difference would it have made if Duncan’s “travel history” had been fully communicated to doctors?  It’s not like CDC guidelines would have had the hospital behave in any way other than the way it did—and the hospital itself asserts that in any event Duncan was asymptomatic on his first visit.

To see what is at stake here, reflect on what would have happened if the hospital had flouted CDC policy guidelines and, of its own initiative, isolated Duncan on the basis of Liberian and Monrovian origin.  People would certainly have asked why Duncan was being isolated, and what could the hospital have said?  Under CDC standards, the hospital would have had to have said that Duncan was symptomatic (and can you imagine the chaos and panic that would have caused)—but he wasn’t, according to the hospital.  The alternative would have been to say that even though he was not symptomatic, he was being isolated anyway because his status as a Liberian and Monrovian citizen amounted to a grave risk factor.

So the hospital was in a bind, you see, because the U.S. Government doesn’t want people to even think about Liberian and Monrovian citizenship as an Ebola risk factor because that could conceivably completely destroy the One Party State’s immigration reform goals—especially given psychological associations with mystery viruses and other illnesses believed to have arrived from south of the border.  These things are probably why we got a bunch of weasel-wording from the hospital, and that is probably why Duncan was sent home with antibiotics after his first visit.  The hospital chose to follow the CDC, and so Duncan, now characterized, per the CDC, as a mere “traveler to” an affected country, was loosed on Dallas and therefore the entire world.

That, ladies and gentleman, is ObamaCare, and that is what “comprehensive immigration reform” means to the Global Elite.

Dr. Jason Kissner is Associate Professor of Criminology at California State University. Dr. Kissner’s research on gangs and self-control has appeared in academic journals. His current empirical research interests include active shootings. You can reach him at crimprof2010[at]

WhiteHouse.Gov Petition Demands: “Ban All Incoming and Outgoing Flights to Ebola-Stricken Countries”
The strategy, if there ever was one, has obviously failed now that an infection has been identified on U.S. soil

WhiteHouse.Gov Petition Demands: “Ban All Incoming and Outgoing Flights to Ebola-Stricken Countries”

by Mac Slavo | | October 4, 2014

As Americans across the country struggle to understand what is being done to stem the possibility of an Ebola outbreak in the United States, many have come to the conclusion that the first and most effective method of prevention is to keep it out of America to begin with.

That strategy, if there ever was one, has obviously failed now that an infection has been identified on U.S. soil.

This prompted one concerned citizen to launch a petition at the We The People web site calling for a complete ban on air travel to and from Ebola stricken countries.

Have the FAA ban all incoming and outgoing flights to ebola-stricken countries until the ebola outbreak is contained

The Ebola virus has reached unprecedented epidemic proportions in West Africa, and has been joined by another unrelated concurrent outbreak in the Congo. Experts had stated it was ‘highly unlikely’ that ebola would show up on American soil.

But now it has, in the City of Dallas, Texas, brought here by an individual who entered our country from the West African nation of Liberia, where ebola is rampant.

The citizens of the US are scared. We do not want any more ebola-infected individuals bringing the epidemic to our shores. The longer we allow people to enter our country from ebola-stricken areas, the higher the chance another person infected with ebola will arrive here, putting ALL of our citizens at risk.

Please tell the FAA to ban ALL incoming flights from any/all ebola-stricken regions.

Created: Oct 01, 2014 (Petition Link at

The publicly posted petition highlights growing concerns that the President, the Centers for Disease Control and medical personnel around the country have failed to develop a clear and concise strategy to prevent the virus from reaching America and isolating it should it be detected in patients on U.S. soil.

Though the CDC maintains that screening procedures for Ebola are in place at the nation’s major travel hubs, it’s clear that the only screenings being conducted are the intrusive TSA security checks that most Americans have been subjected to for several years. Insofar as screenings for those originating their travels in West Africa and arriving in the United States, nothing of the sort is happening.

Ebola Patient Zero Thomas Duncan reportedly boarded a plane in Liberia and lied on his exit questionnaire when he was asked if he had been in contact with any infected people. Duncan traveled on at least three separate airplanes and spent time on layovers during his 23-plus hour journey.

It has been noted that Duncan may have realized he had been in close proximity to the virus and chose to board an airplane so that he could seek better medical care at  a U.S. hospital.

In the process, Duncan may have infected scores of others who were in his immediate area at airports, on flights, and when he arrived in the United States.

Current news reports out of Liberia indicate that hundreds of other residents are heading to the airport in the hopes that they can catch a flight out of the country, prompting fears in America that it is only a matter of time before more Ebola infections are identified.

President Obama has thus far maintained that the outbreak does not require travel restrictions.

The petition was created on October 1st and has over 2,000 signatures as of this writing. Over 100,000 signatures will be needed by October 31st before the President and administration policymakers are required to post an official public response.

You can read the publicly posted petition and digitally sign it here.

AAA ebola petition


CDC Continues Policy Of Incompetence
The partner of the Ebola infected man says the CDC has not given her any guidance at all

by | October 4, 2014

Paul Joseph Watson covers the latest Ebola news and plays a clip where the partner of the Ebola infected man says the CDC has not given her any guidance at all.


Ebola in Africa

Inside the Ebola quarantine in Liberia

Monday, August 25, 2014

A man lies under a car after being put there in detention by the Liberian army on the second day of the government’s Ebola quarantine on their neighbourhood of West Point on August 21, 2014 in Monrovia, Liberia. An army officer said that he was showing symptoms of Ebola and was caught trying to escape from West Point. (John Moore/Getty Images)


The quarantine in the slum of West Point is driving street prices sky high, making an already bad situation worse. But the government says its necessary in its attempts to get ahead of the Ebola outbreak. Today we get an insiders look at West Point, and talk about the ethical implications of sealing 75,000 people in a cramped area that’s rife with the deadly Ebola virus.


A West Point resident looks on from closed gates on the second day of the government’s Ebola quarantine in Monrovia, Liberia. The government delivered bags of rice, beans & cooking oil to residents. (John Moore/Getty Images)

"The government love their people and they want to see their people doing well and to stay healthy and to make sure that this disease is serious."

Meata Flowers, West Point Commissioner

Last week, Liberian authorities implemented a nation-wide curfew and put the entire West Point district under quarantine. That’s roughly 75,000 people, sealed into a densely-packed slum. No one gets in. No one gets out.

Ebola outbreak: Why Liberia’s quarantine in West Point slum will fail — CBC News

Since the outbreak was identified in March, Ebola has taken more than 1,400 lives in the West African countries of Nigeria, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. But Liberia has been hardest hit, with at least 1,000 cases and 624 deaths recorded so far.

The few images that are emerging from quarantined West Point are especially harrowing. They show a frightened, confused population trapped with little access to food and water. This forced containment suggests that Liberia is becoming increasingly desperate in its effort to limit the spread of Ebola — a disease that, while difficult to get, is fatal up to ninety per cent of the time, according to the World Health Organization.

John Moore is a staff photographer with Getty Images who’s had rare access to the community of West Point since the quarantine has been put in effect. The pictures he’s taken there show the raw emotion of the situation. John Moore joined us earlier, on the line in Monrovia.

Putting entire neighborhoods under quarantine may seem like a drastic measure, but as the Ebola outbreak continues to devastate Liberia and the region, finding a solution to the spread is paramount. A key part of that solution is reaching out to those communities most affected, urban and rural.

Aphaluck Bhatiasevi is with the World Health Organization. She works with communities to determine the best way to fight against Ebola, and how people can best help each other with information and resources. We reached her in Montrovia, Liberia.

Health professionals around the world are watching the Ebola outbreak in Liberia, and how local authorities deal with it. Dr. Kamran Khan is a scientist and physician who specializes in infectious diseases. He has been a policy advisor for the Canadian government, the World Health Organization and the US Centres for Disease Control.

Have thoughts you want to share on this discussion?

Tweet us @thecurrentcbc. Or e-mail us through our website. Find us on Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

This segment was produced by The Current’s Naheed Mustafa and Howard Goldenthal.


Ebola Outbreak: Why this time is different

Monday, August 18, 2014


Workers prepare the new Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Ebola treatment centre near Monrovia, Liberia. The Ebola epidemic has killed more than 1,000 people in four African countries, and Liberia now has had more deaths than any other country. (John Moore/Getty Images)


Experts say the Ebola outbreak is potentially more dangerous then ever before because it’s in countries that have never seen this. Now the outbreak is seriously depleting health care resources. We’re heading to the front lines in Liberia today.


Hanah Siafa lies with her daughter Josephine, 10, while hoping to enter the new Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Ebola treatment center in Monrovia, Liberia. The facility initially has 120 beds, making it the largest such facility for Ebola treatment and isolation in history,

and MSF plans to expand it to a 350-bed capacity. (John Moore/Getty Images)

"The disease is not contained and it is out of control in West Africa. The international response to the disease has been a failure."

Ken Isaacs, the Vice President of the Christian aid group Samaritan’s Purse testifying at a US congressional hearing earlier this month

    The much-dreaded and deadly Ebola virus is back with a vengeance. Over the weekend the World Health Organization reported over 150 new cases of the virus in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone.

    Here’s a little background about the health crisis threatening Africa today:

  • The Ebola virus first appeared in 1976 in simultaneous outbreaks — in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan.

  • It’s not known for certain but fruit bats are the most likely host of the virus.

  • Researchers believe that the first case of Ebola in the current outbreak was that of a 2-year-old boy in Guinea who died early last December.

  • Over the next few days his mother, sister and grandmother all died as well.

  • The infection was carried by two mourners at the grandmother’s funeral to another village, where a health worker picked it up.

  • People who come into close contact with a patient — like family, friends and health care workers are most likely to be infected.

  • Ebola is transmitted through direct contact of broken skin or mucus membranes with bodily fluids.

  • It takes Ebola between 2 and 21 days to develop.

  • Symptoms are typically a rapid onset of fever, intense weakness, muscle pain and sore throat.

  • It can progress to vomiting and diarrhea, organ failure and in some cases both internal and external bleeding.

  • Ebola is fatal in up to 90% of cases.

"It is like a war time. General fear. All over. And they need help. They need leadership, co-ordination … they will not be able to over come this by themselves."

Dr. Joanne Liu, head of Medicines Sans Frontier

    On Friday, Joanne Liu, the head of Medicines Sans Frontier said the key to bringing the outbreak under control is to limit and reduce its spread in Liberia. That country had its first outbreak of Ebola in April and in June it resurfaced. What little healthcare resources Liberia has are being seriously depleted fighting the outbreak.

    The U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that this Ebola outbreak is on track to infect more people than every other Ebola outbreak combined. A grim forecast.

    To understand how and why this outbreak is different, we spoke to three people.

  • Tarnue Karbbar is program unit manager for Plan International in North and Western Liberia. He’s been working in Lofa in northern Liberia since January and now he’s helping co-ordinate the government and international response to the Ebola outbreak.

  • Nyka Alexander is the WHO’s Outbreak Coordination Center’s spokesperson. In July, the World Health Organization set up the Sub-regional Outbreak Coordination Centre in Conakry, Guinea. It functions as a hub for coordinating technical support and mobilizing resources needed by field staff in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

  • Tara Smith is an Epidemiologist at Kent State University.

    Have thoughts you want to share?

    Tweet us @thecurrentcbc. Or e-mail us through our website. Find us on Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

    This segment was produced by The Current’s Gord Westmacott, Naheed Mustafa and Sujata Berry.


    Why is West Africa’s Ebola outbreak so hard to contain?

    Friday, August 1, 2014

    The head of the WHO has planned to meet with leaders of several West African nations in Guinea to launch a $100-million campaign to help fight the Ebola outbreak. (Reuters/Tommy Trenchard)


    As the Ebola virus continues to spread, it’s becoming clear that a lack of knowledge about the disease and cultural factors are hindering treatment and containment.

    Tomorrow, the head of the WHO meets with leaders of several West African nations in Guinea to launch a $100-million campaign to help fight the Ebola outbreak. The WHO says that the scale of the outbreak and its continued growth make it necessary to take the fight to a new level.

    Dr. Kent Brantly was flown back to the U.S. for treatment after contracting the virus while helping patients in Liberia.

    If even the doctors who take elaborate precautions still manage to catch the lethal disease, it’s no wonder many Ebola patients and their families fear hospitals. Health workers say it’s often hard to convince patients infected with Ebola to seek treatment, and many are suspicious of health workers who show up during an outbreak.

    And the oubreak spreads across West Africa, many wonder if it can remain there. We asked Dr. Jay Keystone, a Senior Staff Physician at Toronto General Hospital’s Tropical Disease Unit, if Canadians should worry.

"Certainly if you look at the news media, and the pictures, I would be afraid, but my answer is no…in terms of spread to the community, and in Canada, it’s highly highly unlikely."

Dr. Jay Keystone

To find out more, we were joined by three guests:

– Jean-Pierre Taschereau is the Head Emergency Operations for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. He returns to West Africa next week.

– Reine Lebel is a psychologist who worked with Ebola patients and their families in Dikidou, Guinea.

Melissa Leach is Director of the Institute of Development Studies and the Leader of the Dynamic Drivers of Disease in Africa Consortium.

Have thoughts you want to share?

Tweet us @thecurrentcbc. Or e-mail us through our website. Find us on Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

This segment was produced by The Current’s Sujata Berry, Catherine Kalbfleisch and intern Wanyee Li.


Are drugs the best way to curb the Ebola outbreak?

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

As health care officials remind us, there is no proven cure for Ebola. But the WHO has ruled that experimental treatments should be made available to those who are suffering.(Reuters/Thomas Peter)


The World Health Organization has ruled that experimental drugs should be made available to countries dealing with the outbreak. We look at the science and ethics of using an unproven Ebola treatment, and if focusing on drugs is the best way to curb the outbreak.

"Countries affected to date simply do not have the capacity to manage an outbreak of this size and complexity on their own. Our collective health security depends on support for containment operations in these countries.

Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organization

More than 1000 people have now died during this outbreak, and that number is growing.

This morning, a Spanish priest with the Ebola virus has died. He had received an experimental drug called Zmapp — the same drug used to treat two American relief workers who contracted Ebola in recent days. They are now in the United States recovering.

As health care officials remind us, there is no proven cure for Ebola. But some say that if the West has therapies that might work, it should move to mass produce the experimental treatment and get it to those who are suffering. Others caution that rushing ahead with unproven treatments is a serious mistake.

To discuss the ethics and effectiveness of using drugs to curb the outbreak, we were joined by two guests:

Dr. Michael Osterholm is the Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.

Ubaka Ogbogu is the Katz Research Fellow in Health Law at the University of Alberta.

What do you think?

Tweet us @thecurrentcbc. Or e-mail us through our website. Find us on Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

This segment was produced by The Current’s Idella Sturino, Naheed Mustafa and intern Wanyee Li.

Inside the Ebola quarantine in Liberia

Monday, August 25, 2014

A man lies under a car after being put there in detention by the Liberian army on the second day of the government’s Ebola quarantine on their neighbourhood of West Point on August 21, 2014 in Monrovia, Liberia. An army officer said that he was showing symptoms of Ebola and was caught trying to escape from West Point. (John Moore/Getty Images)


The quarantine in the slum of West Point is driving street prices sky high, making an already bad situation worse. But the government says its necessary in its attempts to get ahead of the Ebola outbreak. Today we get an insiders look at West Point, and talk about the ethical implications of sealing 75,000 people in a cramped area that’s rife with the deadly Ebola virus.


A West Point resident looks on from closed gates on the second day of the government’s Ebola quarantine in Monrovia, Liberia. The government delivered bags of rice, beans & cooking oil to residents. (John Moore/Getty Images)

"The government love their people and they want to see their people doing well and to stay healthy and to make sure that this disease is serious."

Meata Flowers, West Point Commissioner

Last week, Liberian authorities implemented a nation-wide curfew and put the entire West Point district under quarantine. That’s roughly 75,000 people, sealed into a densely-packed slum. No one gets in. No one gets out.

Ebola outbreak: Why Liberia’s quarantine in West Point slum will fail — CBC News

Since the outbreak was identified in March, Ebola has taken more than 1,400 lives in the West African countries of Nigeria, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. But Liberia has been hardest hit, with at least 1,000 cases and 624 deaths recorded so far.

The few images that are emerging from quarantined West Point are especially harrowing. They show a frightened, confused population trapped with little access to food and water. This forced containment suggests that Liberia is becoming increasingly desperate in its effort to limit the spread of Ebola — a disease that, while difficult to get, is fatal up to ninety per cent of the time, according to the World Health Organization.

John Moore is a staff photographer with Getty Images who’s had rare access to the community of West Point since the quarantine has been put in effect. The pictures he’s taken there show the raw emotion of the situation. John Moore joined us earlier, on the line in Monrovia.

Putting entire neighborhoods under quarantine may seem like a drastic measure, but as the Ebola outbreak continues to devastate Liberia and the region, finding a solution to the spread is paramount. A key part of that solution is reaching out to those communities most affected, urban and rural.

Aphaluck Bhatiasevi is with the World Health Organization. She works with communities to determine the best way to fight against Ebola, and how people can best help each other with information and resources. We reached her in Montrovia, Liberia.

Health professionals around the world are watching the Ebola outbreak in Liberia, and how local authorities deal with it. Dr. Kamran Khan is a scientist and physician who specializes in infectious diseases. He has been a policy advisor for the Canadian government, the World Health Organization and the US Centres for Disease Control.

Have thoughts you want to share on this discussion?

Tweet us @thecurrentcbc. Or e-mail us through our website. Find us on Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

This segment was produced by The Current’s Naheed Mustafa and Howard Goldenthal.


Ebola Outbreak: Why this time is different

Monday, August 18, 2014


Workers prepare the new Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Ebola treatment centre near Monrovia, Liberia. The Ebola epidemic has killed more than 1,000 people in four African countries, and Liberia now has had more deaths than any other country. (John Moore/Getty Images)


Experts say the Ebola outbreak is potentially more dangerous then ever before because it’s in countries that have never seen this. Now the outbreak is seriously depleting health care resources. We’re heading to the front lines in Liberia today.


Hanah Siafa lies with her daughter Josephine, 10, while hoping to enter the new Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Ebola treatment center in Monrovia, Liberia. The facility initially has 120 beds, making it the largest such facility for Ebola treatment and isolation in history,

and MSF plans to expand it to a 350-bed capacity. (John Moore/Getty Images)

"The disease is not contained and it is out of control in West Africa. The international response to the disease has been a failure."

Ken Isaacs, the Vice President of the Christian aid group Samaritan’s Purse testifying at a US congressional hearing earlier this month

    The much-dreaded and deadly Ebola virus is back with a vengeance. Over the weekend the World Health Organization reported over 150 new cases of the virus in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone.

    Here’s a little background about the health crisis threatening Africa today:

  • The Ebola virus first appeared in 1976 in simultaneous outbreaks — in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan.

  • It’s not known for certain but fruit bats are the most likely host of the virus.

  • Researchers believe that the first case of Ebola in the current outbreak was that of a 2-year-old boy in Guinea who died early last December.

  • Over the next few days his mother, sister and grandmother all died as well.

  • The infection was carried by two mourners at the grandmother’s funeral to another village, where a health worker picked it up.

  • People who come into close contact with a patient — like family, friends and health care workers are most likely to be infected.

  • Ebola is transmitted through direct contact of broken skin or mucus membranes with bodily fluids.

  • It takes Ebola between 2 and 21 days to develop.

  • Symptoms are typically a rapid onset of fever, intense weakness, muscle pain and sore throat.

  • It can progress to vomiting and diarrhea, organ failure and in some cases both internal and external bleeding.

  • Ebola is fatal in up to 90% of cases.

"It is like a war time. General fear. All over. And they need help. They need leadership, co-ordination … they will not be able to over come this by themselves."

Dr. Joanne Liu, head of Medicines Sans Frontier

    On Friday, Joanne Liu, the head of Medicines Sans Frontier said the key to bringing the outbreak under control is to limit and reduce its spread in Liberia. That country had its first outbreak of Ebola in April and in June it resurfaced. What little healthcare resources Liberia has are being seriously depleted fighting the outbreak.

    The U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that this Ebola outbreak is on track to infect more people than every other Ebola outbreak combined. A grim forecast.

    To understand how and why this outbreak is different, we spoke to three people.

  • Tarnue Karbbar is program unit manager for Plan International in North and Western Liberia. He’s been working in Lofa in northern Liberia since January and now he’s helping co-ordinate the government and international response to the Ebola outbreak.

  • Nyka Alexander is the WHO’s Outbreak Coordination Center’s spokesperson. In July, the World Health Organization set up the Sub-regional Outbreak Coordination Centre in Conakry, Guinea. It functions as a hub for coordinating technical support and mobilizing resources needed by field staff in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

  • Tara Smith is an Epidemiologist at Kent State University.

    Have thoughts you want to share?

    Tweet us @thecurrentcbc. Or e-mail us through our website. Find us on Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

    This segment was produced by The Current’s Gord Westmacott, Naheed Mustafa and Sujata Berry.


    Why is West Africa’s Ebola outbreak so hard to contain?

    Friday, August 1, 2014

    The head of the WHO has planned to meet with leaders of several West African nations in Guinea to launch a $100-million campaign to help fight the Ebola outbreak. (Reuters/Tommy Trenchard)


    As the Ebola virus continues to spread, it’s becoming clear that a lack of knowledge about the disease and cultural factors are hindering treatment and containment.

    Tomorrow, the head of the WHO meets with leaders of several West African nations in Guinea to launch a $100-million campaign to help fight the Ebola outbreak. The WHO says that the scale of the outbreak and its continued growth make it necessary to take the fight to a new level.

    Dr. Kent Brantly was flown back to the U.S. for treatment after contracting the virus while helping patients in Liberia.

    If even the doctors who take elaborate precautions still manage to catch the lethal disease, it’s no wonder many Ebola patients and their families fear hospitals. Health workers say it’s often hard to convince patients infected with Ebola to seek treatment, and many are suspicious of health workers who show up during an outbreak.

    And the oubreak spreads across West Africa, many wonder if it can remain there. We asked Dr. Jay Keystone, a Senior Staff Physician at Toronto General Hospital’s Tropical Disease Unit, if Canadians should worry.

"Certainly if you look at the news media, and the pictures, I would be afraid, but my answer is no…in terms of spread to the community, and in Canada, it’s highly highly unlikely."

Dr. Jay Keystone

To find out more, we were joined by three guests:

– Jean-Pierre Taschereau is the Head Emergency Operations for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. He returns to West Africa next week.

– Reine Lebel is a psychologist who worked with Ebola patients and their families in Dikidou, Guinea.

Melissa Leach is Director of the Institute of Development Studies and the Leader of the Dynamic Drivers of Disease in Africa Consortium.

Have thoughts you want to share?

Tweet us @thecurrentcbc. Or e-mail us through our website. Find us on Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

This segment was produced by The Current’s Sujata Berry, Catherine Kalbfleisch and intern Wanyee Li.


Are drugs the best way to curb the Ebola outbreak?

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

As health care officials remind us, there is no proven cure for Ebola. But the WHO has ruled that experimental treatments should be made available to those who are suffering.(Reuters/Thomas Peter)


The World Health Organization has ruled that experimental drugs should be made available to countries dealing with the outbreak. We look at the science and ethics of using an unproven Ebola treatment, and if focusing on drugs is the best way to curb the outbreak.

"Countries affected to date simply do not have the capacity to manage an outbreak of this size and complexity on their own. Our collective health security depends on support for containment operations in these countries.

Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organization

More than 1000 people have now died during this outbreak, and that number is growing.

This morning, a Spanish priest with the Ebola virus has died. He had received an experimental drug called Zmapp — the same drug used to treat two American relief workers who contracted Ebola in recent days. They are now in the United States recovering.

As health care officials remind us, there is no proven cure for Ebola. But some say that if the West has therapies that might work, it should move to mass produce the experimental treatment and get it to those who are suffering. Others caution that rushing ahead with unproven treatments is a serious mistake.

To discuss the ethics and effectiveness of using drugs to curb the outbreak, we were joined by two guests:

Dr. Michael Osterholm is the Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.

Ubaka Ogbogu is the Katz Research Fellow in Health Law at the University of Alberta.

What do you think?

Tweet us @thecurrentcbc. Or e-mail us through our website. Find us on Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

This segment was produced by The Current’s Idella Sturino, Naheed Mustafa and intern Wanyee Li.

Computer Models Tell Us That This Ebola Pandemic Could Soon Kill Millions
We could potentially be on the verge of the greatest health crisis that any of us have ever seen

Computer Models Tell Us That This Ebola Pandemic Could Soon Kill Millions

Image Credits: Sebástian Freire / Flickr (Medical workers)

by Michael Snyder | Economic Collapse | September 16, 2014

We could potentially be on the verge of the greatest health crisis that any of us have ever seen.  The number of Ebola cases in Africa has approximately doubled over the past three weeks, and scientific computer models tell us that this Ebola pandemic could ultimately end up killing millions of us – especially if it starts spreading on other continents.  At first, many assumed that this Ebola outbreak would be just like all the others – that it would flare up for a little while and then it would completely fade away.  But that has not happened this time.  Instead, this epidemic has seemed to pick up momentum with each passing week.  Despite extraordinary precautions,hundreds of health workers have gotten the virus, and the head of the CDC says that the spread of Ebola is “spiraling out of control” and that it is “going to get worse in the very near future.”  For those that have thought that all of this talk about Ebola was just “fearmongering”, it is time for you to wake up.

Right now, the World Health Organization says that we could see the total number of Ebola cases reach 20,000 nine months from now.  But computer models created for the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense are projecting that Ebola could soon be growing at a rate of 20,000 cases per month

The Ebola epidemic affecting West Africa is predicted to last a further 12 to 18 months, according to U.S. scientists.

Epidemiologists have been creating computer models of the Ebola epidemic for the National Institutes of Health and the Defense Department.

The model they have created is a far less optimistic estimate than that of the World Health Organization (WHO), which last month said it hoped to contain the outbreak within nine months and 20,000 total cases.

The New York Times reports that various researchers have said the virus could grow at a rate that could be closer to 20,000 per month.

The WHO is sticking to its estimates, a spokesman said Friday.

Other scientists are even more pessimistic.

For example, a model created jointly by a researcher at the University of Tokyo and a researcher at Arizona State University has produced a “worst-case scenario” of 277,124 Ebola cases by the end of this year

The Eurosurveillance paper, by two researchers from the University of Tokyo and Arizona State University, attempts to derive what the reproductive rate has been in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. (Note for actual epidemiology geeks: The calculation is for the effective reproductive number, pegged to a point in time, hence actually Rt.) They come up with an R of at least 1, and in some cases 2; that is, at certain points, sick persons have caused disease in two others.

You can see how that could quickly get out of hand, and in fact, that is what the researchers predict. Here is their stop-you-in-your-tracks assessment:

In a worst-case hypothetical scenario, should the outbreak continue with recent trends, the case burden could gain an additional 77,181 to 277,124 cases by the end of 2014.

That is a jaw-dropping number.

If we do see an explosion like that, how many millions of cases will we see by the time 2015 is through?

A different model has produced an even more jaw-dropping number.

An “econometric simulation model” created by Francis Smart at Michigan State University is predicting that a whopping 1.2 million people will die from Ebola in the next six months

An econometric simulation model based on the assumption the World Health Organization and others will be unable to control the Ebola outbreak in West Africa predicts 1.2 million people will die from the disease in the next six months.

Six months is the minimum time the WHO projects will be necessary to contain the epidemic.

In his analysis, econometrics research assistantFrancis Smart at Michigan State University took seriously the conclusions of Canadian researchers who proved the strain of Ebola in the current West African epidemic could go airborne.

The Ebola virus could be transmitted between humans through breathing, Smart says.

In developing the model, Smart began with WHO’s Aug. 28 statement that the Ebola epidemic in West Africa could afflict more than 20,000 people before it is brought under control.

That has got to be the worst possible number, right?


The other day a prominent German virologist came forward and declared that “it is too late” to stop Ebola and that five million people will die in Sierra Leone and Liberia alone…

A top German virologist has caused shockwaves by asserting that it’s too late to halt the spread of Ebola in Sierra Leone and Liberia and that five million people will die, noting that efforts should now be focused on stopping the transmission of the virus to other countries.

Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit of the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine in Hamburg told Germany’s Deutsche Welle that hope is all but lost for the inhabitants of Sierra Leone and Liberia and that the virus will only “burn itself out” when it has infected the entire population and killed five million people.

“The right time to get this epidemic under control in these countries has been missed,” said Schmidt-Chanasit. “That time was May and June. “Now it is too late.”

So which of the numbers discussed above are accurate?

Only time will tell.

Meanwhile, the U.S. federal government is feverishly preparing for the worst.

This week we learned that Barack Obama is going to ask Congress for 88 million dollars for the purpose of conducting “a major Ebola offensive” in Africa.

Granted, Obama will ask Congress for money at the drop of a hat these days.  He wants 500 million dollars to arm the allies of ISIS and his reckless spending has been one of the primary factors why the U.S. national debt has risen by more than a trillion dollars over the past 12 months.

But it is still noteworthy.

Even more noteworthy is the fact that the U.S. State Department has just ordered 160,000 Hazmat suits

The U.S. State Department has ordered 160,000 Hazmat suits for Ebola, prompting concerns that the federal government is anticipating the rapid spread of a virus that has already claimed an unprecedented number of lives.

In a press release posted by Market Watch, Lakeland Industries, a manufacturer of industrial protective clothing for first responders, announced that it had signaled its intention “to join the fight against the spread of Ebola” by encouraging other suppliers to meet the huge demand created by the U.S. State Department’s order of 160,000 hazmat suits.

“With the U.S. State Department alone putting out a bid for 160,000 suits, we encourage all protective apparel companies to increase their manufacturing capacity for sealed seam garments so that our industry can do its part in addressing this threat to global health,” states the press release.

The huge bulk order of hazmat suits for Ebola has stoked concerns that the U.S. government expects the virus to continue to ravage countries in west Africa and may also be concerned about an outbreak inside the United States.

You don’t order that many Hazmat suits unless you are anticipating an outbreak of apocalyptic proportions.

And the CDC has just issued a six page Ebola checklist to hospitals to help them spot potential Ebola patients in America…

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warning hospitals and doctors that “now is the time to prepare,” has issued a six-page Ebola “checklist” to help healthcare workers quickly determine if patients are infected.

While the CDC does not believe that there are new cases of Ebola in the United States, the assumption in the checklist is that it is only a matter of time before the virus hits home.

Let us hope and pray that these precautions do not become necessary.

Because if Ebola starts spreading like wildfire in this country, we are going to see pain and suffering beyond anything that most of us have ever imagined.

Just consider what a health worker on the front lines is seeing on a day to day basis…

I wake up each morning – if I have managed to sleep – wondering if this is really happening, or if it is a horror movie. In decades of humanitarian work I have never witnessed such relentless suffering of fellow human beings or felt so completely paralysed and utterly overwhelmed at our inability to provide anything but the most basic, and sometimes less than adequate, care.

I am supervising the suspect tent, which has room for 25 patients who are likely to have Ebola – 80-90% of those we test have the virus. We administer treatment for malaria, start patients on antibiotics, paracetamol, multivitamins, rehydration supplements, food, water and juice while they wait for their results. Sometimes people have arrived too late and die shortly after arriving.

In one afternoon last week I watched five seemingly fit, healthy, young men die. I gave the first a bottle of oral rehydration solution and came back with another for the second. In the half a minute or so in which I had been away the first man died, his bottle of water spilt across the floor. The four others followed in quick succession.

Ebola is truly a terrible, terrible disease.

The moment that cases start popping up in the United States, all of our lives will instantly change.

I hope that you are getting prepared for that.

Flashback: Ebola Goes Airborne, Causes Outbreak in Medical Lab
Ebola mutated into an airborne virus back in 1989

Flashback: Ebola Goes Airborne, Causes Outbreak in Medical Lab

Image Credits: Alex / Flickr

by Kit Daniels | | September 15, 2014

A mutated Ebola virus likely spread through the ventilation system of a Virginia medical lab in 1989 and infected dozens of monkeys in separate research rooms, highlighting the current potential of an airborne Ebola strain killing millions of people.

In late 1989, cynomolgus monkeys from the Philippines delivered to Hazleton Research Products’ Primate Quarantine Unit in Reston, Va., began dying at an alarming rate, prompting HRP to euthanize all the monkeys in that shipment, but during the 10 days after the euthanization, other monkeys in separate rooms connected only by air ducts began dying as well, which was attributed to an Ebola strain that went airborne.

“Due to the spread of infection to animals in all parts of the quarantine facility, it is likely that Ebola Reston may have been spread by airborne transmission,” wrote Lisa A. Beltz in the book Emerging Infectious Diseases. “On several subsequent occasions during 1989, 1990 and 1996, Ebola Reston killed monkeys in colonies in the United States.”

“Some of the people at the colony in Texas and several of the workers at the facility in the Philippines also produced antibodies to the virus but did not become ill.”

The 1989 incident validates concerns that a new, airborne strain of Ebola could infect humans, and if such a mutated strain already exists, it would easily explain why Ebola is currently spreading so rapidly in Africa.

For one thing, because Ebola doesn’t replicate itself perfectly every time it infects a victim, each new infection represents a potential mutation of the disease.

“If certain mutations occurred, it would mean that just breathing would put one at risk of contracting Ebola,” wrote Michael T. Osterholm of the New York Times. “Infections could spread quickly to every part of the globe, as the H1N1 influenza virus did in 2009, after its birth in Mexico.”

And due to the severity of the current outbreak in western Africa, which is the worst in history, Ebola has had more chances to mutate in the past four months than in the past 500 years.

“What is not getting said publicly, despite briefings and discussions in the inner circles of the world’s public health agencies, is that we are in totally uncharted waters and that Mother Nature is the only force in charge of the crisis at this time,” journalist Mac Slavo wrote.

What is known publicly, however, is that the State Department has taken the threat of Ebola so seriously it recently ordered 160,000 Hazmat suits, well over 100 times the number of federal workers currently in western Africa.

But just how large is the risk of Ebola mutating even further? Right now, it has the potential to infect – and kill – five million people in western Africa, according to a top German virologist.

“The right time to get this epidemic under control in these countries has been missed,” Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit of Hamburg’s Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine told Deutsche Welle. “That time was May and June; now it is too late.”

Video: Ebola Patient Escapes Quarantine, Spreads Panic in Liberia
Man with Ebola runs through public market

September 15, 2014

After escaping from quarantine, a man affected with Ebola ran through a public market before being detained by medical officials wearing Hazmat suits.

Zionism created Israel,


Israel recreated Zionism.

Some background:

This article by Martin Peretz provides some more in-depth historical background as well as an evaluation of Zionism:  Zionism – The God that Did Not Fail

This timeline gives details of the history of Zionism and Israel.

This article provides an overall history of Israel and Palestine:

History of Israel, Palestine and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Zen & Understanding the Middle EastHow illogic is used to explain events in the Middle East – and elsewhere. Including Dr. Michael Labossiere’s Fallacy Handbook. Israel News

Introduction – What is Zionism?

Zionism is the Jewish national liberation movement. "Zionism" derives its name from "Zion," (pronounced "Tzyion" in Hebrew) a hill in Jerusalem. The word means "marker" or commemoration. "Shivath Tzion" is one of the traditional terms for the return of Jewish exiles. "Zionism" is not a monolithic ideological movement. It includes, for example, socialist Zionists such as Ber Borochov, religious Zionists such as rabbis Kook and Reines, nationalists such as Zeev Jabotinsky and cultural Zionists exemplified by Asher Ginsberg (Ahad Ha’am). Zionist ideas evolved over time and were influenced by circumstances as well as by social and cultural movements popular in Europe at different times, including socialism, nationalism and colonialism, and assumed different "flavors" depending on the country of origin of the thinkers and prevalent contemporary intellectual currents. Accordingly, no single person, publication, quote or pronouncement should be taken as embodying "official" Zionist ideology.

Zionism is the ideological success story of the twentieth century. It has overcome seemingly insuperable obstacles to realize an impossible dream. Zionism is not a pernicious conspiracy, but it has aroused opposition owing to its success. This brief survey will discuss the history of the Zionist movement, and show how it created modern Israel and was in turn re-shaped by the revolutionary new reality that it had created.

See also – Definitions of Zionism

Please take the Reader Survey

Background – When did Zionism Begin?

Love of Zion in Jewish History
Capsule History of Zionism

In retrospect, it is useful to divide the development of Zionism into several more or less distinct stages, influenced by the course of external events as well as changes that Zionism itself brought about.

Pre-Zionism – The cultural basis of Zionism, the tie of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, existed since the time of the exile, throughout the history of the Galut (Golah, Diaspora). In this period, Zionism was often expressed in Messianic movements. We may, with some truth as well as humor, call this the period of "impractical Zionism."

Proto-Zionism – Early 19th century writings and movements that advocated the restoration of the Jews to the land of Israel, without waiting for the Messiah. This included the rabbinical Zionism of rabbi Yehudah Alkalai and Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh Kalischer as well as the somewhat later practical and secular Zionism of Moses Hess, Leon Pinsker and others.

Foundational Zionism – In this period, Zionism became an organized political movement inspired and initially led by Theodor Herzl and then by Chaim Weizmann. It includes the development of Zionism from the first Zionist congress to the British Mandate, including Political Zionism, Cultural Zionism, Practical Zionism,Religious Zionism  and Territorial Zionism. The latter movements were stimulated as a reaction to Political Zionism. This period also saw the emergence of Labor Zionism or Socialist Zionism. The principle concern of Zionism in this period was obtaining a charter for a Jewish national home. The Zionist movement was led by middle and upper class Jews.

Mandatory Zionism – Under the British mandate, the leadership of the Zionist movement came to be centered in the land of Israel ("Palestine") rather than in Europe, and became identified with the Labor Zionist leadership of the Jewish Yishuv (community in Palestine). In this period Zionism focused on settling the land, on defense against Arabs, and later on rescuing Jews from the Holocaust and the struggle against the British government. David Ben-Gurion led the Zionist movement during most of this period.

Zionism after the birth of Israel -  The Israel War of Independence and the birth of the state of Israel marked a watershed in the ideological and practical development of Zionism. David Ben-Gurion again is identified with the initial period of Israeli independence. Inside Israel, "Zionism" became associated with "official" ideology and political cant, derisively known as "tsiyonut."

Zionism after the Six Day War – The Six day war wrought significant changes in Zionism. It made Zionism more respectable in the United States among American Jews and it kindled a Zionist reawakening in Jews around the world, especially in the Soviet Union. At the same time it encouraged militarism, the birth of the Greater Israel movement and ultimately helped to bring to power revisionist Zionism under Menachem Begin and the Likud party. It also encouraged the dangerously complacent belief that the existence of Israel is an irreversible fact. 

Zionism under the Revisionists – The Yom Kippur War set in motion a train of events that led to disillusionment with Labor Zionist leadership. In 1977, the Likud party came to power. Israel and a portion of the Zionist movement became focused on developing settlements in the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip. Socialist ideals were discarded in favor of a free economy. The historical culture of Israel changed. The education system downgraded the contribution of the Labor Zionist movement and its leaders. The change expressed itself in all aspects of Israeli culture. Formal dress, once anathema to Israeli politicians and Israeli society, became acceptable and desirable. Revisionist and religious Zionist movements, once the fringe of the Zionist movement, insisted that they are the "real" Zionists, and Zionism abroad came to be identified with the settlement movement.

The "Post-Zionist" Reaction and dovish Zionism – Those Israelis who opposed the settlement movement initiated a reaction against the Zionist swing to the right. This reaction expressed itself in the form of Zionist opposition to government policies, and of anti-Zionist opposition, which called itself "post-Zionist." The Zionist opposition seeks to end the occupation and settlement of territories conquered in 1967. The latter group strives to discredit Zionism as a colonialist imperialist movement and wants to end the Jewish State of Israel. As a byproduct of the Oslo peace process and the subsequent violence, the post-Zionist movement achieved considerable prominence for a time. Professor Zeev Sternhell is considered a member of the Zionist opposition, while Ilan Pappe is a "post-Zionist," actually anti-Zionist, advocate of the abolition of the Jewish national home.

Zionist Revival – The Arab Palestinian violence that began in September 2000 was accompanied by increasingly strident anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, including calls for academic boycotts of Israel and calls for dismantling the "apartheid state." This induced a revival of Zionism and Zionist sentiment, especially abroad.


Zionism was a natural product of the culture of the Jewish people in exile. It did not spring full blown from a void with the creation of the Zionist movement in 1897. The central idea of Zionism, disputed by anti-Zionists, is that the Jews are a people, a nation tied to a specific land, and not just just a religion. It is a misconception to think that this idea was born in the 19th century. Since the Romans exiled the Jews from the land that the Jews called Judea and the Romans called Palestine, the Jews had referred to the lands outside the land of Judea or Israel as Gola meaning "exile" rather than "Diaspora (meaning dispersion) and to their condition as "Galut." Both were always terms with negative and bitter connotations. Implicitly then, there was a land from which Jews were exiled and to which they understood that they belonged.

Jews had lived in "Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel, called "Palestine" by the Romans and Greeks) since about 1200  B.C.E. The land of Israel was at a crossroads of the Middle East and the Mediterranean and was therefore conquered many times: by Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Seleucid Greeks and Romans, as well as invading Philistines. Of these, only the Jews made the land into their national home. Jewish national culture, fused with religion, centered around the geography, seasons and history of the land and of the Jews in the land. The Jews created the Old Testament Bible- The Tanach, which described their history and the history of the land, and their connection to it. The Bible formed the backbone of Jewish culture and later was to form the backbone of Western Christian culture, so that the entire world recognized the connection between the Jews and their land. When the Romans conquered Palestine, and Jews were exiled to the Diaspora, the connection to the land was preserved in the Bible, and in prayers that daily called for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and it was expressed in the writings of medieval poets.

In the Diaspora, religion became the medium for preserving Jewish culture and Jewish ties to the ancient land land of the Jews. Jews prayed several times a day for the rebuilding of the temple, celebrated agricultural feasts and called for rain according to the seasons of ancient, sunny Eastern Mediterranean land of Israel  Israel, even in the farthest frozen reaches of Russia. The ritual plants of Sukkoth were imported from the Holy Land at great expense. A Holy-Land centered tradition persisted in Diaspora thought and writing. This tradition may be called "proto-nationalist" because there was no nationalism in the modern sense in those times. It was not only religious or confined to hoping for messianic redemption, but consisted of longing for the land of Israel. It is preserved in the poetry of Yehuda Halevi, a Spanish Jewish physician, poet and philosopher, who himself immigrated to "the Holy Land" and died there in 1141.

Jews had maintained a connection with Palestine, both actual and spiritual. This continued even after the Bar Kochba revolt in 135, when large numbers of Jews were exiled from Roman Palestine. The Jewish community in Palestine revived in subsequent years. Under Muslim rule, it is estimated to have numbered as many as 300,000 prior to the Crusades, about 1000 AD. The Crusaders killed most of the Jewish population of Palestine or forced them into exile, so that only about 1,000 families remained after the reconquest of Palestine by Saladin. The Jewish community in Palestine waxed and waned with the vicissitudes of conquest and economic hardship. A trickle of Jews came because of love of Israel, and were sometimes encouraged by invitations by different Turkish rulers to displaced European Jews to settle in Tiberias and Hebron. At different times there were sizeable Jewish communities in Tiberias, Safed, Hebron and Jerusalem, and numbers of Jews living in Nablus and Gaza. A few original Jews remained in the town of Peki’in, families that had lived there continuously since ancient times.

From time to time, small numbers of Jews came to settle in the land of Israel in answer to rabbinical or Messianic calls, or fleeing persecution in Europe. Beginning about 1700, groups of followers led by rabbis reached Palestine from Europe and the Ottoman empire with various programs. For example, Rabbi Yehuda Hehasid and his followers settled in Jerusalem about 1700, but the rabbi died suddenly, and eventually, an Arab mob, angered over unpaid debts, destroyed the synagogue the group had built and banned all European (Ashkenazy) Jews from Jerusalem. Rabbis Luzatto and Ben-Attar led a relatively large immigration about 1740. Other groups and individuals came from Lithuania and Turkey and different countries in Eastern Europe.

At no time between the Roman exile and the rise of modern Zionism was there a movement to settle the holy land that engaged the main body of European or Eastern Jews, though many were attracted to various false Messiahs such as Shabetai Tzvi, who promised to restore Jews to their land. For most Jews, the connection with the ancient homeland and with Jerusalem remained largely cultural and spiritual. Return to the homeland was a hypothetical event that would occur with the coming of the Messiah at an unknown date in the far future. European Jews lived, for the most part in ghettos. They did not get a general education, and did not, for the most part, engage in practical trades that might prepare them for living in Palestine. Most of the communities founded by these early settlers met with economic disaster, or were disbanded following earthquakes, riots or outbreaks of disease. The Jewish communities of Safed, Tiberias, Jerusalem and Hebron were typically destroyed by natural and man-made disasters and repopulated several times, never supporting more than a few thousand persons each at their height. The Jews of Palestine, numbering about 17,000 by the mid-19th century, lived primarily on charity – Halukka donations, with only a very few engaging in crafts trade or productive work.

Spinoza and Zionism

The religion of the nation of Israel, Judaism, had been so completely identified with its people, that almost nothing remained of an ethnic or national consciousness. Indeed, in Europe of the Middle Ages, "nations" did not really exist, and there were few if any people who would admit to being non-religious. One of the first Jews who may be studied as a "test case" regarding the nature of Judaism was Baruch Spinoza (Baruch d’Espinoza 1632-1677). Spinoza was a refugee from the Spanish  Inquisition who lived in Holland. He began to deliver himself of beliefs that the elders of the congregation felt were incompatible with the Jewish religion. Spinoza did not believe in conventional religion and prayer, and he asserted that god was in everything and everywhere. He was excommunicated from the Jewish congregation. Therefore, he was no longer a member of the Jewish religion. Yet it was clear that everyone considered him to be a Jew in some sense. Therefore, it is clear that even before the 19th century, the Jews, and the world, understood that "Jewish" is something more than a religion. Spinoza cannot be considered a Zionist, but his ethics and his approach to Jewish history and the Jewish religion served as an inspiration for many later secular Zionists. (see Yovel, Yirmiyahu, Spinoza and other Heretics, The Marrano of Reason, Princeton University Press, 1989).

Emancipation and Zionism

The French revolution and the rise of Napoleon hastened the emancipation of European Jewry, who were no longer confined to the ghettos of European cities, and became citizens like everyone else. Eventually, the liberalization reached Eastern Europe and Russia as well. The enlightenment of the 18th century and the emancipation of the 19th were a great shock for Jewish culture and identity. Jews split into several groups during the nineteenth century. Ultraorthodox Jews remained faithful to the culture of the ghetto, which excluded the possibility of intermingling in modern society or gaining a modern education. A second group attempted to assimilate completely into European society, converting to Christianity and losing their Jewish identity. A third group believed that they could integrate as modern citizens, with equal rights and still maintain their Jewish faith, while renouncing any cultural or group allegiance to Judaism. In effect, their Judaism became somewhat like a section of the Protestant religion. They found various euphemisms for their identity, such as Hebrews or Germans of the Mosaic faith. This group founded the Reform Judaism movement. The assimilationist viewpoints took it on faith that once the Jews "became like everyone else" they would be accepted in society as equals, and would become Germans, Italians, Englishmen or Frenchmen. However, it became increasingly evident to many during the nineteenth century that assimilation was not necessarily desirable. Perhaps it was impossible as well, since anti-Jewish feeling did not abate. The newly coined Christians and "Germans of the Mosaic Faith" found themselves the objects of increasing anti-Jewish sentiment, which took on the title of "anti-Semitism" in 19th century Germany.

The ferment and cultural chaos unleashed by the emancipation produced a confusing variety of religious, intellectual and cultural reform movements among the Jews, which also evolved in many directions. The "Haskalah" or Jewish enlightenment was a movement for modernization of Judaism. In part it was assimilationist, but some of the leaders of the Haskalah believed in Hebrew culture and some turned ultimately to nationalism and Zionism, causing a split within the movement.

The first challenge of emancipation to Judaism was that while it seemed that Jews could live as equal citizens in modern society, it became obvious that if they truly integrated into modern secular democracies, Jews would stop being Jews, and therefore the idea of "equal rights for Jews" would be meaningless. 

See also History of anti-Zionism Jewish anti-Zionism Reform Jewish anti-Zionism


Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh Kalischer (Kalisher) Forerunner of modern Zionism

During this period, after the French Revolution and the emancipation of European Jewry, the vague spiritual bonds of the Jewish people to Israel began to express themselves in more concrete, though not always practical ways. About 1808, groups of Lithuanian Jews, followers of the Vilna Gaon (a famous rabbi and opponent of Hassidism) arrived in Palestine and purchased land to begin an agricultural settlement. In 1836, Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh Kalischer. petitioned Anschel Rothschild to buy Palestine or at least the Temple Mount for the Jews. In 1839-1840, Sir Moses Montefiore visited Palestine and negotiated with the Khedive of Egypt to allow Jewish settlement and land purchase in Palestine. However, the negotiations led to nothing, possibly frustrated by the outbreak of an anti-Semitic blood-libel in Damascus. Thereafter, Montefiore continued with less ambitious philanthropic schemes in Palestine and in Argentina. In the 1840s, Rabbi Kalischer in Poland, and rabbi Yehudah Alkalai a Sephardic Jew, wrote articles urging practical steps for hastening redemption by settling in the Holy Land, to be sponsored by the efforts of philanthropists.

Rabbi Judah Alkalai (Alkali) - forerunner of modern Zionism

Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh Kalischer (Kalisher)
Rabbi Judah ben Shlomo Alkalai (Alkali) (1798-1878)

British Zionism

The idea of a Jewish restoration also took the fancy of British intellectuals for religious and practical reasons. British religious support for restoration of the Jews can be traced back to the Puritans and beyond. It was renewed in the theology of the Plymouth Brethren founded by J.N. Darby in the early 19th century. The restoration was championed in the 1840s by Lords Shaftesbury and Palmerston, who in addition to religious motivations thought that a Jewish colony in Palestine would help to stabilize and revive the country, Jewish national stirrings were also voiced by novelists and writers such as Lord Byron, Benjamin Disraeli, George Eliot and Walter Scott. ( for a detailed discussion of British Zionism click here ).

Christian Zionism

US Christian Support for Restoration of the Jews

Puritan support for restoration of the Jews was transferred to the United States with the arrival of the Puritans. Increase Mather and many others were early champions of restoration of the Jews in 17th century United States. This idea became assimilated into the mainstream of U.S. ideas and culture and was supported by Presidents beginning with John Adams. In more recent times, it has also become the project of fundamentalist sects, including those derived from dispensationalist doctrines. (see Christian Zionism for a detailed history)

Zionism of Sephardic Jews

Through an accident of history, European (Ashkenazy) Jews took the lead in organized Zionism for many years. However, Sephardic (Spanish) Jews and Jews in Arab lands maintained a closer practical tie with the holy land and with the Hebrew language than did Ashkenazy Jews and also influenced and participated in the the Zionist movement from its inception. Sarajevo-born Judah ben Solomon Hai Alkalai (1798-1878,) is considered one of the major precursors of modern Zionism. Alkalai believed that return to the land of lsrael was a precondition for the redemption of the Jewish people. Alkalai’s ideas greatly influenced his Ashkenazy contemporary, Rabbi Tsvi Hirsch Kalischer. Alkalai was also a friend of the grandfather of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism. Another Sephardi Jew, David Alkalai, a grand-nephew of Judah Alkalai, founded and led the Zionist movement in Serbia and Yugoslavia., and attended the first Zionist Congress in Basel (1897).

Early Zionism

The modern formulation of Zionism was partly divorced from religious aspirations. The 19th century enlightenment allowed the Jews to leave the ghettos of Europe for the first time. Some converted to Christianity and assimilated to surrounding society. Others, exposed to a general education, dropped their religious beliefs, but understood that both they and others still considered them to be Jews. This suggested a conundrum. If one could be a non-believer and still be a Jew, then "Jew" must be more than just the name of a religion, a problem already raised by the case of Spinoza. German racists solved this conundrum by inventing a racial theory, which lacked any real scientific basis. Socialists cited the aberrant class structure of Jewish society and labeled Jews a "caste.". Zionists solved the conundrum by declaring that Jews are a people, a fact implicit in the Jewish biblical and cultural concept of "am Yisrael." The Jews were a people without a country however, and would remain politically powerless as long as they did not have a national home. They would be guests everywhere and at home nowhere, according to Zionist ideology. This homelessness was the cause of the "Jewish Problem," and it could not fail to be exacerbated by the rise of nationalism and nations in the 19th century. This explained why, paradoxically, anti-Jewish sentiment might become more pronounced in "enlightened" Europe than it had been in previous centuries.

Moses Hess: A Founder of Secular Zionism

Moses Hess, a more or less secular Jew and a socialist, was probably the first to enunciate these ideas in so many words in his book Rome and Jerusalem, published in 1862, calling for a Jewish national movement similar to the Italian risorgimento nationalist movement. These and similar sentiments were adopted by numerous small groups that formed primarily in Eastern Europe, but also in Britain and in the United States.

Religion and Zionism

Jewish religious authorities took a variety of attitudes to the evolving Zionist movement. One group was unalterably opposed to Zionism, both because they understood that Zionism provided a secular alternative to their monopoly on leadership of the Jewish community, and for theological reasons. Rabbi Moses Schreiber, the Hatam Sofer (1762-1839) was the rabbi of Pressburg. He opposed any type of reform. His opposition to Zionism was based on the assertion that nobody had ever thought of it before, so it must be wrong:

Why should we look for new ideas never dreamed of by our ancestors? If the idea of settlement was good and pleasing in the eyes of the Lord, why did our ancestors never devote themselves to it? As men say — whatever is new is forbidden by the Torah. (Slucki, A,J. ed Shivat Tziyon, Warsaw, 1892, V 1, p 70.)

Rabbi Israel Meir Ha-Cohen of Radun, the Hafez Chaim ("desirer of life")  who founded the anti-Zionist  Agudath Yisrael, expressed similar opinion:

It is not in our power to repair the condition of our people, because we are under the sway of our enemies; we must attend to the spiritual situation of our people, which degenerates from day to day, and return them to the Lord. When we have corrected our actions, our material state will also improve, as promised in the Torah. (Poupko, H.L Hakohen, Kitsur Toldot heHafetz Haim, Mikhtevei HeHafetz Haim, Warsaw, 1937, page 68.)

A much smaller group of orthodox leaders took up the cause of settlement in the land of Israel in the late 19th century. They included Rabbi Isaac Jacob Reines, the founder of the Mizrachi movement, Rabbi Naphthali Zeev Berlin, and Rabbi Samuel Mohilever (or Mohilewer) who led the religious faction of Hovevei Tzion. They variously saw their task as one of preserving the unity of the Jewish people, of blending the Haskalah with orthodox Judaism, or of ensuring that religious Jews did not lose control of the settlement enterprise and allow unbelievers to run the Jewish community in the land of Israel, which was, after all, holy to them.   

Proto-Zionism and the "First Aliya"

The first groups of immigrants who came to the land with the idea of turning the land into a national home for the Jews are known as the "first Aliya." "Aliya" literally means "going up" and it is term Jews have used for a long time for coming to the holy land. Beginning in the 1870s, religious and nonreligious Jews established several study groups and societies for purchasing land in Palestine and settling there. In 1870 the Alliance Israelite, an ostensibly non-Zionist organization, founded the Miqve Yisrael agricultural school near Beit Dagan.

In 1882, the BILU (an acronym for "Beyt Ya’akov Lechu Venelcha" – House of Jacob let us go) and Hibbat Tziyon (love of Zion) and Hovevi Tziyon groups were established. They were inspired by the impetus of the wave of anti-Jewish violence that had swept Russia in 1881.

Hibbat Tziyion began as a network of independent underground study groups, eventually forming larger groups called Hovevei Tziyon. They attracted followers of the Haskalah who could no longer believe in assimilation or the possibility of normal life as Jews in the Diaspora. These and similar groups established a number of early Jewish settlements including Yesod Hamaalah, Rosh Pinna, Gedera, Rishon Le Tziyon, Nes Tziyona and Rehovot on land purchased from Arab owners with the aid of Jewish philanthropists, chiefly Lord Rothschild. Joel Solomon led a group of orthodox Jews out of Jerusalem to found Petah Tiqva in 1878.

Zionism - Petah Tivka settlers

Petah Tiqva

The settlements were characteristically vineyards and orange orchards. The settlers were mostly religious Jews, though the religious Jewish establishment frowned on Zionism. In 1882, 150 Yemenite Jews also found their way to Palestine. The first Aliya numbered about 25,000 persons, primarily from Eastern Europe. Many of them returned home defeated by disease, poverty and unemployment.

Revival of Hebrew – Among the first arrivals of the first Aliya was Eliezer ben Yehuda (Perelman). Inspired by European, particularly Bulgarian nationalism, Ben Yehuda was moved to settle in Palestine. He arrived in 1881 and undertook to revive the Hebrew language. With the help of Nissim Bechar, principal of a school operated by the Alliance Israelite Universelle, Ben Yehuda began teaching Hebrew. Later he founded and published the Hatzvi newspaper and set up a linguistic council. Ben Yehuda’s work was the major force in the revival of Hebrew as a modern language.

Leon Pinsker and Hovevei Tziyon – Inspired by the anti-Semitic violence in Russia, Leon Pinsker formulated the modern idea of Zionism in a small pamphlet called Auto-Emancipation, published in 1882. Pinsker believed that anti-Semitism was inevitable as long as Jews were guests in every country and at home nowhere, and wrote that the Jews’ only salvation lay in liberating themselves and settling in their own country. Pinsker favored Argentina or other countries as sites for the Jewish homeland. However, Western Jews who might have favored this idea rebuffed him. In his native Russia, however, his ideas were well received, but they were channeled to settlement in Palestine. In 1884, Pinsker was made head of the Hovevei Tziyon organization, which united many small and scattered groups, primarily in Russia, into a single organization. Pinsker favored "political Zionism," that is, organization of Jews in Europe and petitioning the great powers for land on which to establish a national home. However, his efforts in this direction were rebuffed by the Russian government. Instead, he directed his energies to the gradual purchase of land and settlement of small groups in Palestine.

Early settlers faced innumerable cultural and economic difficulties. In 1800, the ravages of misadministration and war had reduced the population to about 200,000. By the 1880s, the land had recovered somewhat, but it was still poor and disease ridden. The total population was about 450,000. Jerusalem was a small town of 25,000 inhabitants, slightly more than half Jewish. The first settlement of Petah Tiqva in 1878 failed and was later refounded.

Zionism - Early Jewish Settlers

Early Jewish Settlers

The Ottoman government barely tolerated the settlers, especially those who retained their foreign nationality, and the government officially restricted Jewish immigration, while making somewhat frantic attempts to import Muslim settlers from other parts of the Ottoman empire, including Bosnia, Kossovo and Circassia. Settlers who adopted Ottoman nationality were liable for the Turkish draft. Disease, poverty and unemployment caused many to leave.

The Bible and Zionism

The Old Testament Bible inspired not only Christian Zionists, but Jewish Zionism as well. Secular Zionists, especially David Ben Gurion, viewed the Bible as the "deed" of the Jewish people to the land of Israel and a part of both Cultural Zionism and to a lesser extent Religious Zionism was study of the bible and de-emphasis of Jewish Diaspora writings, philosophy and religious thought. Students in the Jewish Yishuv educational system memorized long passages of the Bible, and went on field trips to explore and familiarize themselves with places mentioned in the bible. For both Christians and Jews, biblical archeology became an ideological activity as well as an academic pursuit.

Foundational Zionism

Theodor Herzl and the Foundation of the Zionist Movement

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, Zionism was transformed from a cultural feature of Judaism to a charitable concern to a social movement. The writings of the proto-Zionists gave it an ideology. The contribution of Theodor Herzl was to transform Zionism into a political organization.

The Dreyfus Affair, in which a Jewish officer in the French Army was falsely convicted of treason, developed in France beginning in 1894. It excited a wave of anti-Semitism that made Western European Jews conscious of their national identity, and made many lose their faith in assimilation through the progress and equality offered by modern liberal democracy. In particular, it affected a young Vienna journalist, Theodor Herzl and his friend Max Nordau. Herzl’s pamphlet Der Judenstaat, The Jewish State, was published in 1896. Herzl’s plan for creating a Jewish State, arrived at after contemplating other solutions as well, provided the practical program of Zionism, and led to the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, in August, 1897

Zionism: Theodore Herzl - Founder of the Zionist movement

Theodor Herzl (1860 -1904)

After the first Basle Congress, Herzl wrote in his diary, “Were I to sum up the Basle Congress in a word- which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly- it would be this: ‘At Basle, I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. If not in 5 years, certainly in 50, everyone will know it.’”

In 1902, Herzl published a utopian novel to popularize the Jewish state, Altneuland, (old-new land). Set in Eretz Yisrael (Palestine), Altneuland is  a pluralistic multicultural vision complete with monorails, modern industry and equality for Arabs. The novel concludes, "If you will, it is no legend."

Streams in Zionism

As the Zionist movement developed, several different factions or streams emerged in the early years. The protocols of early Zionist congresses were filled with the squabbles of these groups, and in some cases the squabbles led to splits. However, it should be understood that these groups often worked together, and that the Zionist movement tended to support all efforts that bore fruit. In retrospect, it could be seen that each group had made an essential and valuable contribution.

Political Zionism

Those who believed, like Herzl, that the key to success lay in a political solution, were classed as advocates of Political Zionism.

Herzl thought that diplomatic activity would be the main method for getting the Jewish homeland. He called for the organized transfer of Jewish communities to the new state. Of the location of the state, Herzl said, "We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by public opinion."

Herzl attempted to gain a charter from the Sultan of Turkey for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, then ruled by the Ottoman Empire. To this end he met in 1898 with the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, in Istanbul and Palestine, as well as the Sultan, but these meetings did not bear fruit.

Herzl negotiated with the British regarding the possibility of settling the Jews on the island of Cyprus, the Sinai Peninsula, the El Arish region and Uganda. After the Kishinev pogroms, Herzl visited Russia in July 1903. He tried to persuade the Russian government to help the Zionists transfer Jews from Russia to Palestine. At the Sixth Zionist Congress Herzl proposed settlement in Uganda, on offer from the British, as a temporary "night refuge" (nachtasyl). The idea met with sharp opposition, especially from the same Russian Jews that Herzl had thought to help. Though the congress passed the plan as a gesture of esteem for Herzl, it was not pursued seriously, and the initiative died after the plan was withdrawn. In his quest for a political solution, Herzl met with the king of Italy, who was encouraging, and with the Pope, who expressed opposition.

Territorial Zionism

A small group, the Jewish Territorial Organization ("Territorial Zionism") led by Israel Zangwill, split with the Zionist movement in 1905, and attempted to establish a Jewish homeland wherever possible. The organization was dissolved in 1925.

The insistence of Eastern European Jews on Palestine as the Jewish homeland, coupled with the failure of alternatives, maintained the focus of the Zionist movement on Palestine.

Attempts to find a "night asylum" in places such as Cyprus and Uganda have been distorted and exploited by anti-Zionists as "proof" that Zionism was not particularly focused on Palestine as the territory of the Jewish state. However, they were never intended as a permanent state and never gained much support. They were an expression of the misery of Eastern European Jewry and of the frantic urgency with which some Zionists viewed the situation of the Jews.

Cultural Zionism

Herzl’s political approach was attacked by Achad Haam, father of Cultural Zionism. He pointed out that the Jews were not a political force, had no chance at all of getting a declaration guaranteeing a Jewish national home from any country, and had no massive presence in Palestine that could provide a basis for their claims. Therefore, he felt that both political Zionism and Zionism based on settlement were premature and impractical.  Ahad Haam wrote a penetrating criticism of Herzl and the "Volkerrechtig" national home: Jewish State, Jewish Problem, which seemed to prove that the idea was impossible to implement. As we shall discuss below, he also foresaw objections of the Arab inhabitants of the land to Zionist settlement, and believed that the tiny Jewish community would never be able to hold its own against the Arabs.

Achad Ha’am believed that the new Jewish homeland should at first be primarily a cultural center for Jews of the Diaspora. He explained that revitalization of Jewish culture was needed before large numbers of Jews would come to Palestine. It was never precisely clear whether he intended that the Jewish state should house only a minority of the Jews at all times, or whether he thought that eventually it would become a physical and actual center, as well as a cultural center.

Achad Haam had earlier attacked the settlement movement, claiming that it was premature and would not be able to stand up against Arab resentment, in This is not the way ("The wrong way") written in 1889. But in his eulogy for Pinsker, An Open Letter to my Brethren: Pinsker and his Pamphlet, Auto-Emancipation, Ahad Ha’am made it clear that there was no real contradiction between his approach and that of the settlers, and that he was not opposed to settlement in the land of Israel.  

Cultural Zionism fought a battle on two fronts. One front, as discussed, was opposition to political Zionism. The real battle of cultural Zionism however, was against the traditional Diaspora Jewish education system and religious rabbinical Judaism. Cultural Zionists attacked the traditional and backward "Cheder" education system which taught religious subjects by rote, and did not prepare its students for life in the modern world. Cultural Zionists understood that a revitalized Jewish nation and cultural life could not be viable without a modern education, and that Cheder education was driving many Jews into assimilation. They advocated and instituted reforms in the education system, as well as the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language. The Orthodox Jewish establishment was horrified by these ideas, and by the proposal that would essentially remove Jewish education from their exclusive oversight. This opposition was expressed at Zionist congresses through the religious Zionists, who gradually coalesced into a separate stream. It was their opposition, and not the opposition of a "political Zionist" faction, that prevented adoption of the cultural Zionist program they proposed. Herzl was afraid to back their demands because he believed that adoption of the program would split the Zionist movement, and we has, above all, concerned for unity of the movement. The revival of the Hebrew language, and the spread of Hebrew education in the Diaspora were the two major and lasting contributions of Cultural Zionism.

In modern times, some have taken Achad Ha’am’s ideas out of context, to imply that Israel should remain only a cultural center for a Jews around the world, and also to claim that Ahad Ha’am believed that settlement in Israel was impossible and undesirable due to Arab oppostion. However, that is a gross distortion of Achad Ha’am’s ideas and of cultural Zionism. Alongside his advocacy of cultural Zionism, Achad Haam  was an enthusiastic supporter of Zionism in the conventional sense of ingathering of the exiles. Ahad Ha’am came on Aliya and died in Tel Aviv.

Practical Zionism

The new Zionist movement, despite its preference for high politics,  could not and did not want to ignore the fact of settlement of the land, however tiny it was. The early settlers of the BILU and others of the first Aliya had established "facts on the ground." Those who represented them insisted that settlement of the land, rather than Quixotic political efforts, would turn the Zionist dream into reality. Their approach came to be known as Practical Zionism.

In 1907, a young economist named Arthur Ruppin was sent to Palestine to study the conditions of the Yishuv. Arthur Ruppin’s report and ideas formed the basis for the Zionist action program in the coming years, and shaped the second Aliya as well as the future of Zionist settlement and the character of the state. Ruppin understood that it was impossible to continue with the plantation model introduced by the first Aliya settlement program. He backed a small group of socialist settlers who wanted to found a commune at Sejera. This became Kibbutz Degania in 1909, later followed by Kinnereth, Merchavia and other kibbutzim. The arrangement, originally thought to be temporary, proved to be practical, as well as suited to the socialist ideals of the new settlers. It soon inspired several other kibbutzim (collective farms). The Kibbutz movement was to become the backbone of Labor Zionism in Palestine, and eventually provided political and military leadership. Kibbutzim provided ideal places for hiding arms from the British and recruiting and training troops, as well as for organizing local defense and guarding borders.

Religious Zionism

Religious Zionism is the most natural-seeming stream in Zionism for outsiders, but it is also the stream that actually came to Zionism with the greatest difficulty, it is most misunderstood stream and it changed and evolved since its inception.

Contrary to the beliefs of heavy handed anti-Zionist propagandists, the religious Zionism of Rabbis Mohilever, Reines and Kook was not "Messianic." On the contrary, adoption of Zionism was a break with tradition for religious Jews. It meant that they were taking matters into their own hands and were not waiting for divine redemption. The goal was not to bring the Messiah, but to be satisfied with a less ambitious material improvement in the condition of the Jews. In 1876, Mohilever wrote:

… we see that we have not succeeded through our deeds to bring about speedy redemption. The earlier generations with their righteousness were not granted the boon of bringing the miraculous redemption immediately, so a fortiori we shall not merit it…. We have to expect the redemption "in its season" and it will be by natural means and of a lower degree. (Fishman, Rabbi J.L., ed. Sefer Shmuel, Jerusalem, 1923, p 153) 

Redemption would come about through self-help. This made it possible for religious thinkers to break free of the paralyzing formulations of rabbinical Zionism that had prevented religious participation in Zionism. Mohilever led the religious faction of the Hibbat Tziyon for many years. The key to his approach was unity of the Jewish people. It was difficult for some orthodox Jews to accept that this "material redemption" would come about through the agency of unbelieving Jews.

Rabbi Isaac Jacob Reines carried on the battle of religious Zionism in the Zionist congresses. When the fifth Zionist Congress, in 1902, decided to implement the cultural Zionism program of Ahad Ha’am, it was perceived as a clear threat to religious education. There was no religious alternative to modernization of Jewish cultural life and education. Reines founded the Mizrachi (an acronym for "Mercaz Ruhani" – spiritual center) movement as a faction of the Zionist movement in that year. Mizrachi had in fact existed in Russia before this time, as a faction of the Hovevei Tziyon let by Rabbi Mohilever. The ideas of Mizrachi soon received the support of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, Cook was to become the  first Ashkenazy Chief Rabbi of Mandatory Palestine. Like Mohilever and Reines, Kook believed in the legitimacy of secular Zionism, which was, according to him, performing a sacred mission, and he strove for reconciliation of all parts of the Zionist movement. The National Religious Party (NRP) which is the political part of Mizrachi followed a similar line until 1967 was a dovish liberal, progressive party in the traditions of German Jewish liberalism. 

The Second Aliyah and Socialist Zionism

Herzl’s political Zionism had been a movement designed for, and led by, the middle and upper classes. The Zionist congresses with their frock coated delegates could hardly be taken for workers’ assemblies. This was not entirely an accident. Herzl was convinced he needed the support of rich Jewish financiers to pay the Sultan’s debts and to finance immigration and land purchase in Palestine, and the support of rabbis who would bring the Jewish communities they represented with them. Many of the delegates to the congress were chosen because they were relatively relatively affluent. Russian communities often "sent" delegates who were actually already in Western Europe – students and business people. In Russia, Zionism was represented primarily by the orthodox Zionists of the Mizrachi movement. This made it easy for the anti-Zionist Bund and the communists to portray Zionism as a reactionary religious movement. Chaim Weizmann wrote to Herzl in 1903:

In Western Europe it is generally believed that the large majority of Jewish youth in Russia in in the Zionist camp. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. The larger part of the contemporary younger generation is anti-Zionist, not from a desire to assimilate as in Western Europe, but through revolutionary conviction… (Luz, Ehud, Parallels Meet, N.Y, 1988 p 177)

Weizmann may have exaggerated. The potential for progressive Zionism existed. There were Russian Socialist Zionists. Nahman Syrkin had formulated his ideas for non-Marxist Zionist socialism in 1888. In 1898, Syrkin published the article The Jewish Problem and the Socialist Jewish State, but by this time he was in exile in Austria. There were also Marxist Zionists,  but they were part of the  the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (SDLP) as it was called then, the party that later split into the Bolshevik and Menshevik parties. There was no effective socialist Zionist political organization. The only possible political organization in Czarist Russia that was in any way revolutionary had to be an underground organization, and the leaders of those organizations, like Syrkin, were frequently exiled. 

However, it soon became apparent that the "Political Zionism" approach was, at least in the immediate future, a failure. The Sultan would not give up Palestine, the British had nothing to offer but empty promises and the Kaiser was not really interested. Moreover, the rich financiers would not back Zionism as a mass movement. Herzl died, and at the same time a change took place in Russian society and in Russian Zionism. It became increasingly evident that the Russian communists (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party -SDLP as it was called then )  had no place or patience for the Bund or and of the other nationalist organizations. Plekhanov derided the Bund as "Zionists who get sea-sick." A Jewish member of the SDLP, Ber Borochov, split with the party and founded the Poalei Tziyon party which soon had a substantial membership. Borochov explained the Jewish problem in economic terms and produced a synthesis of Marxist socialism and Zionism that was appealing to secular Jewish socialists who had already felt the sting of anti-Semitism within the nascent communist movement.

According to Borochov. the Diaspora produced aberrant social conditions that made Jews economically inferior and politically helpless. The normal organization of society was a pyramid, according to Borochov, with a large body of workers and smaller groups of intelligentsia, land owners and capitalists. The Diaspora had created an ‘inverted pyramid’ in Jewish society, with almost no Jewish peasant or worker class as Borochov showed in his analysis of Jewish occupations – The Economic Development of the Jewish People. Jews performed peripheral occupations which were not desirable to non-Jews for various reasons, and in which Jews had a competitive advantage. In the successive economic crises of capitalism however, the lower middle class, which included many Jews were "proletarianized" – forced into the working class, and competition for places of employment intensified. Jews would be forced out of their niche.

The Jews were therefore the most vulnerable part of any society during social change, and would be pushed out of the countries of world one after the other as they industrialized (a "stychic process"). Self-liberation of the Jews would come about by proletarianization of the Jews in their homeland, and the nascent Jewish proletariat would join the socialist international. (See The National Question and the Class Struggle, Our Platform and Eretz Yisrael in our program and tactics ) The idea that the Jewish proletariat, rather than the rabbis or the rich Jews of Western Europe would lead the Zionist revolution seemed totally quixotic, since the Jews of Russia were poor and weak, and the Jewish people lacked a true working class as Borochov’s analysis had shown. Nonetheless, it was precisely the Jewish proletariat and Labor Zionism in Palestine which was to form the nucleus of the Zionist movement, providing for  Zionist self defense and a Zionist government and virtual state organization under the British Mandate.

The Russian revolution of 1905 failed, and many young radicals fled the Tsarist police. Some came directly to Palestine, others fled to Poland and then to western Europe. 

Many of these young men and women made their way to Palestine and formed the Second Aliya. The socialists formed several movements in Palestine.  Hapoel Hatzair, ("The young worker") was founded by A.D. Gordon. Marxist followers of Borochov founded Poalei Tziyon ("workers of Zion"), and later Hashomer Hatzair ("the young guard) was also inspired by Ber Borochov.

Labor Zionism - Meeting of Hapoel Hatzair in 1909

Labor Zionism – Detail of photo showing delegates to the fourth meeting of the Hapoel Hatzair, about 1909. more about labor Zionism and socialist Zionism.

A.D. Gordon, inspired by 19th century romanticism, called for a Jewish return to the soil and virtually made a religion of work. These ideas fused into the ideals of "productivization" (returning the Jews, who engaged mostly in professional and mercantile trades, to productive labor) and "conquest of labor" (Kibbush Haavoda ). "Conquest of labor" later took on additional meanings. (See also Labor Zionism and Socialist Zionism

The Second Aliya arrived and established itself under the most prohibitively difficult conditions. Disease, poverty and Turkish persecution reduced its numbers and tried its will. Zionists of foreign nationality, mostly Russian, were viewed by the Turks as enemy aliens and were forced to flee the land during the first world war. A wave of epidemics swept the country, killing and impoverishing many. Those who survived were extremely tough, able, pragmatic individuals, who would go on to become the backbone of the leadership of the Jewish State, including David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir Ze’ev (Valdimir) Jabotinsky and many others. The viable nucleus of a Zionist Yishuv (community) was planted in the land of Israel in this period and had taken root by 1914. A tradition of Zionsit self-defense was inaugurated with the creation of the Hashomer group. The ultraorthodox beggars of the "old yishuv" had now become a minority. Practical Zionism had become a reality, if as yet only a tenuous one. The vanguard of Zionist efforts had shifted from the philanthropic efforts of rich Jews toward the socialist revolutionaries of the Poalei Tziyon and Hapoel Hatzair.  Practical settlement efforts gradually increased the Jewish population of Palestine from about 25,000 in 1882 to approximately 85,000 to 100,000 just prior to World War I, including a new Jewish city, Tel Aviv, and the first kibbutzim. 

Zionism and the conquest of labor

The new immigrants arrived with the ideals of socialist Zionism, but reality was not favorable to implementing those ideas. The Zionist movement attempted to find them work. but the new immigrants, who had no training in agriculture and poor physical stamina, were unable to compete with Arab peasants. Arabs certainly would not hire Jewish workers, who could not work well and could not speak Arabic. Arab labor was also preferred by the plantation and vineyard owners of the First Aliya. Arabs were experienced and hard workers, and were able to work for much lower wages because they were often members of an extended family that made its main income from sharecropping. The plantation owners had also developed a superior colonialist mentality which suited the hiring of "natives," and clashed with the egalitarian ideas and social demands of the newly arrived socialists.

The socialist Zionist movements tried to force plantation owners to grant higher wages, and also began to insist that plantation owners hire only Jewish workers. This aspect of "conquest of labor" was controversial within the socialist-Zionist movements because it engendered lack of solidarity with the Arab working class and was discriminatory. One labor Zionist leader wrote:

"How can Jews, who demand emancipation in Russia, rob rights and act selfishly toward other workers upon coming to Eretz Israel? If it is possible for many a people to hide fairness and justice behind cannon smoke, how and behind what shall we hide fairness and justice? We should absolutely not deceive ourselves with terrible visions. We shall never possess cannons, even if the goyim shall bear arms against one another for ever. Therefore, we cannot but settle in our land fairly and justly, to live and let live. " (Meir Dizengoff (writing as "Dromi") "The Workers Question," Hatzvi, September 21,  1909)

At the same time, Conquest of Labor was a central part of Labor Zionist ideology, as a means of rebuilding the Jewish people, not a discriminatory ideology. A.D. Gordon wrote:

But labour is the only force which binds man to the soil… it is the basic energy for the creation of national culture. This is what we do not have, but we are not aware of missing it. We are a people without a country, without a national living language, without a national culture. We seem to think that if we have no labour it does not matter – let Ivan, John or Mustafa do the work, while we busy ourselves with producing a culture, with creating national values and with enthroning absolute justice in the world. (A.D. Gordon, "Our Tasks Ahead" 1920)

The boycott of Arab labor, only partly successful, was carried out reluctantly as a matter of necessity, and because the establishment of Jews as a class of colonial plantation owners seemed worse than the alternative. In 1934, David Ben-Gurion told Palestinian leader Musa Alami,

“We do not want to create a situation like that which exists in South Africa, where the whites are the owners and rulers, and the blacks are the workers. If we do not do all kinds of work, easy and hard, skilled and unskilled, if we become merely landlords, then this will not be our homeland” (Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War, London: Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 140).

While it was the only way to foster Jewish labor, the "conquest of labor" program was discriminatory. It provoked bitterness among some Arabs, particularly watchmen who lost their jobs to Jews. Realistically, as the Jews were about 15% of the population of Ottoman Palestine, the program could not have had a real effect on the Arab labor market. In the main the "conquest of labor" movement was not successful before World War I. Only a few thousand Jewish workers were involved. Gershon Shafir (Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882–1914, University of California Press, 1996) estimates that about 10,000 such workers passed through Palestine in the second Aliya, many leaving in discouragement. Other sources claim there were about 3,000 workers out of approximately 33,000 who came to Palestine in the second Aliya. Because of the wage differential and because of the expertise of Arab workers, Arab labor continued to find employment in Jewish settlements. Conquest of Labor was to become important in the late 1930s, when the Arab revolt and strikes, as well as swelling Jewish immigration cause a much more significant displacement of Arabs from Jewish industry and agriculture, especially when Arabs simply didn’t show up for work. At the same time, it must be remembered that Arabs almost never hired any Jews, especially not for agricultural or industrial labor, and this discrimination was taken for granted.

Zionism in WW I

The outbreak of World War I in August 1914 isolated Zionists in their respective communities in the Diaspora. The Zionist organization decided to remain officially neutral, though Zionists in each country aided their side in the war. Conditions in Ottoman Palestine, never good, deteriorated. The authorities expelled those Jews who were enemy Russian nationals. Many of the leaders fled to Egypt and to the United States. In the United States, they played an important role in strengthening the beginnings of the Zionist organization. Joseph Trumpeldor, Ze’ev Jabotinsky and others helped to form first the Zion Mule Corps and then the Jewish Legion, which fought on the side of the British at Gallipoli.  The official leadership in Palestine however, cooperated with the Turks, and Jews having Turkish citizenship served in the army or aided the war effort. The Zionist Yishuv was anxious not to provoke further Turkish oppression of the Jews, but a clandestine group, the NILI, organized by Aaron Aaronsohn, communicated with British ships and aided the British assault. Most of the NILI group were arrested and executed, but Aaronsohn escaped to Egypt and gave General Allenby’s forces vital information about water sources in the Negev desert that aided in the capture of Beersheba.  During the war, the Jewish population was greatly depleted by emigration and by successive epidemics of typhus and influenza.

Mandatory Zionism

The British Mandate – The first achievement of Political Zionism

The Zionist movement did not give up efforts to find a political solution. The political Zionism and practical settlement approaches were merged into "Synthetic Zionism" advocated by Chaim Weizmann. Weizmann and others understood that a British victory would spell the end of the Ottoman empire, and present a unique opportunity to implement a Jewish national home in Palestine.

The efforts ultimately bore fruit in the Balfour Declaration, a promise by Britain to support a Jewish national home in Palestine, and in the League of Nations Mandate, which gave international sanction to the Jewish national home. Weizmann became head of the Zionist organization and later was the first President of Israel.

Zionism in America

Zionist sentiment in the United States was primarily kindled among early Christian groups, and motivated initial missionary work in the land of Israel. The same time, the project of Mordecai Manuel Noah to form a Jewish "state" as a temporary on Grand Island in New York, remained for many years the lone symbol of American proto-Zionism. The cause however, was taken up by American Jewish poet Emma Lazarus and others toward the end of the 19th century. Another very important American Zionist was Henrietta Szold, who in 1912 initiated the foundation of the Hadassah organization. Initially a medical relief effort, Hadassah went on to become the largest women’s Jewish organization in the United States, underpinning much of the educational and charitable work of the Zionist organization in the US and around the world, and marrying Zionism to progressive causes and women’s rights in the United States.

During World War I, both chief Justice Brandeis and Justice Frankfurter became supporters of the Zionist cause, using political influence to help garner support for the Balfour declaration and the British mandate for Palestine. Jewish refugees from Palestine who found temporary refuge in the United States also built support for Zionism and recruited for the Jewish Legion. However, American Zionism in the United states remained a low key organization for many years. American Jews were satisfied with their new home. If they supported Zionism, it was only mostly as a movement to build a refuge for unfortunate European Jews. American Jewish interest in Zionism was cooled by the anti-Zionist stance of the large Reform Judaism movement. This opposition began to change as the tragic events in Germany disproved assimilationist ideologies and demonstrated the unity of the Jewish people. It was not until 1937, however, that Reform Judaism officially reversed its historic antipathy to Zionism in the Columbus Platform.  Thereafter, American Jews increasingly came to play a critical role in support for Zionism and the Jewish state, replacing European Jewry that was destroyed in the  Holocaust, and becoming the largest Diaspora community of Jews. American Zionists are responsible for most of the charitable donations to the Palestinian Jewish community and to Israel, for financing the creation of Jewish military capabilities, for organizing the campaign to bring about creation of a Jewish State, and for ongoing political efforts to secure support for Israel in the United States.

The split in Zionism

During the 1920s, a split occurred in the Zionist movement, owing to disagreements over cooperation with the British and Jewish self defense. British policy in London at first favored Zionism in Palestine, but Palestine was still under military rule in 1920. The British military had little use for either Jews or Zionism. In 1920, and again in 1921 Arab riots broke out in Palestine, apparently with the encouragement of the British, and led by Hajj Amin Al Husseini and Aref el Aref.  In 1920, the Arabs had rioted in Jerusalem during the Nebi Musa holiday at Easter time. They screamed "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs ("Filasteen Arduna wa’al yahud kilabuna"). Ze’ev Jabotinsky and other veterans of the Jewish Legion had formed a tiny clandestine defense force armed with pistols, the beginnings of the Haganah. They were arrested following the riots. The riots and the British reaction demonstrated the urgent need for a Jewish self-defense force, since the British would not protect the Jews from the Arabs. The Haganah was established as a clandestine force, and Jewish and Arab gunrunning was a matter of concern for the British administration, who exaggerated its extent. Some veterans of the Jewish Legion insisted that there must be a legal and open defense force and some British officials were sympathetic ( see John Evelyn Shuckburgh, Colonial Office Memo on Jewish Gun-Running in Palestine) but the British administration was opposed. If they granted a Jewish force, they reasoned that they would need to grant an Arab force as well. The Zionists did not press the point.  In 1923, Jabotinsky published the Iron Wall, Though clothed in apocalyptic bombast, the Iron Wall was not a call for a modern national army, but only for legalization of a small force of Jewish police who would carry rifles.

Palestine: Map of British Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan

Meanwhile, the British were having second thoughts about the Jewish national home, which provoked opposition from the Arabs. The British split the large area of Transjordan from the Palestine Mandate (see map at right). This was part of the basis for an eventual split in the Zionist movement. The revisionists refused to accept the loss of Transjordan and eventually left the Zionist movement over that and other issues. In 1923 the British also split off the Golan heights, a small portion of northern Palestine, northeast of the sea of Galilee, and gave it to French mandated Syria. The Zionist movement, led by Weizmann, accepted the loss of these lands and counseled cooperation with the British. Jabotinsky and a few followers resigned from the Zionist movement in protest. 

A nucleus of radicalized crystallized around Jabotinsky. They were bitter over the loss of the greater part of Palestine, and Jewish defenselessness in the face of Arab attacks. Most of them were out of step with the leaders of the Jewish yishuv, who were predominantly socialist. In 1925, Jabotinsky founded the revisionist Zionist movement as an alternative to official Zionism. The main tenet of Revisionism was the claim to both sides of the Jordan river. 

Jewish Immigration under the Mandate

The creation of the Mandate seemingly opened up a huge new opportunity for the Zionist organization, but the promise was only partially fulfilled. Only tiny sums of money could be raised in Europe and the United States to purchase lands and settle immigrants in Palestine. Russian Jews, once the hope of the Zionist movement, were now confined to the USSR following the Russian revolution, and Zionist activity there was soon forbidden. In Britain, attitudes to Zionism hardened owing to opposition of Arabs and of foreign office personnel to the Zionist program. Some Zionists foresaw an urgent need for resettling the Jews of Europe and predicted a looming catastrophe, though none envisioned the Holocaust that was to take place. However, it was impossible to get even small sums to finance Zionist work from European Jewry, who would eventually be forced by the Nazis  to pay many times the 4 million pounds sterling that the Zionists required.

All these factors, plus sporadic Arab violence and initially poor conditions in Palestine, forced the Zionist movement to proceed cautiously and slowly, cooperating with British authorities in setting modest limits to the yearly immigration quotas as well as restrictive financial requirements for immigrants.

Jewish immigration after the British entered Palestine is somewhat arbitrarily divided into three further Aliyoth (plural of Aliya):

The third Aliya – The third aliya consisted mostly of Eastern European and Russian Jews, including some who had left or been expelled by the Turks during the war. This immigration began about 1919 when Palestine was still under British military rule and is considered to have ended about 1923. Perhaps 35,000- 40,000 Jews came to Palestine in this period (see Third Aliya).

The fourth Aliya – After the institution of the mandate, immigration quotas were established, and applicants had to prove that they had some capital with which to begin life in Palestine. The fourth Aliya lasted from 1924 to 1929 or 1932 and consisted in large part of Polish Jews who were motivated to come to Palestine by the anti-Semitic regime and the new immigration quotas imposed in the United States. The fourth Aliya is generally considered to have ended in 1929, after Arab riots in Jerusalem seemed to show that settlement in Palestine was not a safe solution for Jews, or in 1932, after which immigrants began coming from Nazi Germany in large numbers. About 60,000-70,000 Jewish immigrants came to Palestine in this period (see Fourth Aliya).

The fifth Aliya – The fifth Aliya lasted from 1929 or 1933 to 1939, when the British White Paper closed the gates of Palestine to Jewish immigration due to the Arab revolt and international Arab pressure on Great Britain. About 200,000- 250,000 Jews arrived in this period; 174,000 of them came between 1933 and 1936, when severe quotas were first introduced. Many of them were German Jews fleeing Nazism. The Germans allowed the Jews to leave in part because of the "hesder" or "ha’avara" agreement under which the property Jews took with them was treated as "export goods" in return for a ransom paid to the Reich (see Fifth Aliya ).

The Jewish Agency

The Jewish Agency was set up formally in 1929 through the efforts of Chaim Weizmann and others, in accordance with the stipulation of the League of Nations Mandate that an "agency" comprised of representatives of world Jewry assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home. The agency was the official interlocutor for the Jews of Palestine and the Zionist endeavor with the British Mandate and the League of Nations. The Jewish Agency was not a Zionist organization, however, since it was set up by the World Zionist Organization and non-Zionist groups and leaders, including Leon Blum, Felix Warburg and Louis Marshall.

Zionism and the Arabs

When Jews began thinking about return to Israel in the early 19th century, there were about 200,000 Arabs living in all of the land, mostly concentrated in the countryside of the West Bank and Galilee, and mostly lacking in national sentiment. Palestine was, in Western eyes, a country without a nation, as Lord Shaftesbury wrote. Early proto-Zionists did not trouble themselves at all about the existing inhabitants. Many were heavy influenced by utopianism. In the best 19th century tradition, they were creating a Jewish utopia, where an ancient people would be revived. They envisioned a land without strife, where all national and economic problems would be solved by good will, enlightened and progressive policies and technological know-how. Herzl’s Altneuland was in in fact just such a utopia. Jewish population grew, but Arab population grew more rapidly. By 1914, there were over 500,000 Arabs in Palestine.

At the same time, Zionist pronouncements and outlook were often frankly colonialist, especially when addressing leaders of foreign powers. The plantations sponsored by Baron Rothschild were modeled on plantation settlement in Algeria and other colonies. Colonialism was fashionable and "progressive" in Europe,  and early Zionist leaders saw nothing wrong in assimilating this idea to Zionism along with other "modern" ideas such as socialism, utopianism and nationalism.

This changed as socialist Zionists came to dominate the Zionist movement. Later Zionists were heavily influenced by socialism and embarrassed at the colonialist aspects of the Zionist project. They were also aware, of course, that Palestine was already occupied by Arabs. Many however, including the young David Ben–Gurion, who headed the Executive Committee of the Zionist Yishuv (Jewish community) in Palestine and was later the first Prime Minister of Israel, initially thought that the Arabs could only benefit from Jewish immigration and would welcome it. Others, such as Eliezer ben Yehuda, frankly envisioned removal of the Arabs from Palestine.

One of the earliest warnings about the Arab problem came from the cultural Zionist writer Achad Haam (Asher Ginsberg), who wrote in his 1891 essay "Truth from Eretz Israel" that in Palestine "it is hard to find tillable land that is not already tilled", and moreover

From abroad we are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all desert savages, like donkeys, who neither see nor understand what goes on around them. But this is a big mistake… The Arabs, and especially those in the cities, understand our deeds and our desires in Eretz Israel, but they keep quiet and pretend not to understand, since they do not see our present activities as a threat to their future… However, if the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place.

Arab opposition to Zionism grew after 1900. The birth of Arab nationalism and Arab political aspirations in the Ottoman empire coincided with the arrival of a fairly sizeable number of Zionists with the announced program of settling the land and turning it into a Jewish national home. In his book, Reveil de la Nation Arab in 1905, Najib Azouri stated that the Jews wanted to establish a state stretching from Mt. Hermon to the Arabian Desert and the Suez Canal. Azoury wrote:

Two important phenomena of the same nature but opposed, are emerging… They are the awakening of the Arab nation and the latent effort of the Jews to reconstitute on a very large scale the ancient kingdom of Israel. These movements are destined to fight each other continually until one of them wins.

*Mandel, Neville, The Arabs and Palestine, UCLA, 1976

Arabs recognized that the Jews had a  historic claim to the land, and that is precisely what frightened them. The mayor of Jerusalem, Zia al Khalidi, wrote to Tsadok Khan, chief rabbi of France:

Who can contest the rights of the Jews to Palestine? God knows, historically it is indeed your country.

But he asserted that the brutal force of reality prevented resettlement of Palestine by Jews. Khalidi concluded:

In the name of God, leave Palestine in peace. (Nusseibeh, Sari, Once Upon a Country, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2007, p 23)

Arab nationalism was not recognized by the early Zionists because it did not exist. The Arabs, along with the West, recognized that Palestine had belonged to the Jews, and that the Ottoman Empire and the Arabs were colonialist occupiers, asserting their claim based on might rather than justice. This perception would soon change.

Local Arab opposition to Zionism and Zionist settlement was not initially based on national sentiment, but on specific conflicts arising from land purchases and on racism and prejudice and against Jews. Rashid Khalidi (Palestinian Identity, Columbia, 1997) notes that beginning about 1908 Palestinian newspapers offer extensive evidence of anti-Zionist agitation. Actual conflicts flared up because the Zionists purchased large tracts from landowners and subsequently evicted the tenant farmers. The former tenants, though they had received compensation, continued to insist that the land was theirs under time honored traditions, and tried to take it back by force. A notable case was Al-Fula, where Zionists had purchased a large tract of land from the Sursuq family of Beirut. Local officials took the side of the Arab peasants against the Zionists and against the Ottoman government, which upheld the legality of the sale. One hundred and fifty Palestinian notables cabled the Ottoman government to protest land sales to Jews in March 1911. Azmi Bey, Turkish governor of Jerusalem responded:

We are not xenophobes; we welcome all strangers. We are not anti-Semites; we value the economic superiority of the Jews. But no nation, no government, could open its arms to groups… aiming to take Palestine from us.

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 62)

This was an Ottoman Turkish national claim, not an Arab one. However, national claims were soon mixed with economic grievances. It was not clear which was the actual motivation, and which was the issue used as an excuse to advance the issue.

Likewise, the Kibbush Haavoda "conquest of labor" movement displaced some Arab watchmen and led to violence. While the actual number of persons displaced or dispossessed may have been small, and may have been offset by real economic benefits and increased employment provided by Zionist investment, the feeling grew among the Arabs that the Zionists had arrived to dispossess them. A Nazareth group complained that the Zionists were "a cause of great political and economic injury… The Zionists nourish the intention of expropriating our properties. For us these intentions are a question of life and death." (Morris, loc cit.) As the conflict intensified, the Zionists formed a guard association, Hashomer, to guard the settlements in place of Arab guards. The attempts to retake land and disputes with Jewish guards led to increased violence beginning in the second half of 1911.

Many Zionists however, believed at least initially that conflict was not inevitable, and certainly most Zionist thinkers did not contemplate expulsion of the Arabs. Ber Borochov, the founder of socialist Zionism, said in his last speech:

Many point out the obstacles which we encounter in our colonization work. Some say that the Turkish law hinders our work, others contend that Palestine is insignificantly small, and still others charge us with the odious crime of wishing to oppress and expel the Arabs from Palestine…

When the waste lands are prepared for colonization, when modern technique is introduced, and when the other obstacles are removed, there will be sufficient land to accommodate both the Jews and the Arabs. Normal relations between the Jews and Arabs will and must prevail. (Ber Borochov – Eretz Yisrael in our program and tactics – Kiev, September 1917)

The Zionists were well aware of Arab nationalism by the start of World War I, and Chaim Weizmann took care to meet with the Emir Feisal. Weizmann wanted the Zionist and Arab national struggles to be seen as causes with a common interest. Feisal did not go quite so far perhaps, but he was willing to acquiesce in Zionist control of Palestine, provided that the British fulfilled their promises to the Arabs. (see Feisal-Weizmann Agreement   and Feisal-Frankfurter Correspondence )  That support evaporated when France was given a mandate for Syria, and the Arabs believed the British had betrayed their promises.

The Arabs of Palestine were appalled at the prospect of living in a country dominated by a Jewish majority and feared that they would be dispossessed. By 1919, representatives of the Jaffa Muslim-Christian council were saying  Arab opposition to Zionism was not based only on economic and social issues. It was colored by the traditional Muslim vision of the Jews as second class citizens. They announced:

"We will push the Zionists into the sea or they will push us into the desert"

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 91)

Anti-Jewish rioting and violence broke out in 1920 and 1921.  By the 1920s, it was also motivated by a strong admixture of Western anti-Semitism. In March of 1921, Musa Kazim El Husseini, deposed as Mayor of Jerusalem because of his part in riots earlier that year, told Winston Churchill:

The Jews have been amongst the most active advocates of destruction in many lands… It is well known that the disintegration of Russia was wholly or in great part brought about by the Jews, and a large proportion of the defeat of Germany and Austria must also be put at their door.

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 99)

It is not clear how Churchill received this unwitting testimonial to the aid supposedly proffered to his country’s war effort by the Jews, or what Husseini thought to accomplish by it. Aref Dajani had earlier voiced similar sentiments to the King- Crane Commission:

It is impossible for us to make an understanding with them or or even to live with them… Their history and all their past proves that it is impossible to live with them. In all the countries where they are at present they are not wanted… because they always arrive to suck the blood of everybody…

Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 91)

By this time, Zionist leaders could no longer ignore the conflict with the Arabs. David Ben Gurion told members of the Va’ad Yishuv (the temporary governing body of the Jewish community in Palestine) in June 1919:

But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution! There is a gulf; and nothing can bridge it…. I do not know what Arab will agree that Palestine should belong to the Jews…We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs.

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 91)

While Palestinian Arabs now viewed themselves as a small group of helpless victims of powerful British and Jewish "interests," the Zionists saw the opposite side of the coin. The militant Zionist leader, Ze’ev Vladimir Jabotinsky, asked in 1918:

The matter is not … an issue between the Jewish people and the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, but between the Jewish people and the Arab people. The latter, numbering 25 million, has [territory equivalent to] half of Europe, while the Jewish people, numbering ten million and wandering the earth, hasn’t got a stone…Will the Arab people stand opposed? Will it resist? [Will it insist] that…they…shall have it [all] for ever and ever, while he who has nothing shall forever have nothing?

(Caplan, Neil, Palestine Jewry and the Palestine Question, 1917-1925, Frank Cass, 1978)


In his Iron Wall article of 1923, Jabotinsky answered his own question. He argued that agreement with the Arabs was not possible, because they

…look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile.

Jabotinsky was at least initially against expulsion of the Arabs, which he was "prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never [do]". Rather in The Iron Wall, he argued that  the Jewish presence should be imposed by forming a strong defense that would demonstrate to the Arabs that the Jews could not be forced out of Palestine. However, while The Iron Wall expressed a comprehensive philosophy, its practical background and intent were much more limited. Jabotinsky wanted the British authorities to allow the Jews to form a separate defensive force under British supervision, to combat attacks such as the riots that had occurred in 1920 and 1921. The British refused. The Zionist organization resigned themselves to the British decision, but Jabotinsky wanted to continue with the formation of such a force. Though the Haganah defensive underground was founded in 1920 by Jabotinsky, it didn’t become a major project of the Zionist movement until after the riots of 1930.

Meanwhile the Arab and Jewish communities grew progressively apart. Arabs refused to participate in a Palestinian local government which gave equal representation to the Jewish minority. The British, nearly bankrupt after WW I, insisted that the mandate should be self-sufficient. Mandate services were paid for from taxes paid by the Jewish and Arab inhabitants of Palestine. Additional services were funded by philanthropists from abroad and from membership dues in various organizations. Zionist philanthropy and organization far-outstripped what Palestinian Arabs could provide. By 1936, each Jewish worker in Palestine was earning on average four times as much as each Arab, and paying four times as much taxes. The Jews had set up an approximation of a modern industrial economy, while most of the Arabs languished in feudalism, and their leaders did nothing to help them.  Neither Arabs nor Jews wanted integrated schools. Zionist groups funded religious, secular and labor-Zionist educational networks for Jewish children in Hebrew, but few comparable schools were set up for Arabs. The Zionists founded the Histadrut Labor federation to encompass Jewish workers, providing Hebrew education, medical care, worker-owned enterprises and cultural facilities as well as representation of labor rights. No comparable association was created by the more numerous Arabs of Palestine, though the Histadruth made some efforts to organize Arab labor beginning in 1927, and the Palestine Communist party attempted to represent both Jewish and Arab labor.

Zionism, the Arab Revolt and the Conflict With Britain

From the beginning of the British Mandate, Arab opposition to Zionism coalesced into organized resistance, taking the form of riots and later a revolt. The chief architects of this mischief were the Husseini clan led by Hajj Amin Al Husseini, the Grand Mufti. The Mufti and others convinced Palestinian Arabs that the Zionists were going to dispossess them of their lands by force, and spread false rumors that the Jews were going to desecrate the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Riots and pogroms were instigated in 1920, 1921 and 1929 (see Arab Riots and Massacres of 1929 and Hebron Massacre)resulting in deaths and injuries in Jaffa, Hebron, Jerusalem, Motza and elsewhere. The British government increasingly understood that its promises to the Zionists and Mandate obligations were very unpopular in the Arab world. They split off the major part of the Palestine Mandate territory to form Transjordan even as the mandate came into effect, and in 1930 issued the Passfield White Paper that proposed limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine.

Palestinian Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al Husseini (Hussayni) with Nazi Troops

Grand Mufti Hajj Amin Al Husseini featured on the cover of Vienna Illustrated (Wiener Illustrierte) magazine. Husseini is apparently reviewing troops he had recruited.

The Passfield White Paper was quietly withdrawn under pressure from Zionists, from British public opinion and from the League of Nations. However, Palestine did not remain quiet. The Mufti allied himself with Fascist Italy and Germany, and probably was funded by the Italian government beginning about 1936.

These policies turned the once-friendly British into antagonists of the Zionist movement. Labor Zionists and the Zionist Executive were in favor of moderate policies that would try to work around the British opposition to Zionism. A faction led by Ze’ev Jabotinsky believed in confronting the British and the Arabs, and if necessary, using force. In 1925, Jabotinsky split from the main Zionist movement and formed the Revisionist movement.

In 1936, in response to the large Jewish immigration from Europe, open Arab Revolt broke out. Three years of bloody riots instigated by the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin Al Husseini and his allies resulted in hundreds of Jewish casualties and an estimated 4,500 Arabs were killed, the majority by the Mufti’s gangs. The rioting forced the British to take draconian measures. The Mufti fled to Iraq in 1937 and then to Nazi Germany in 1941 after instigating a pro-Axis Coup in Iraq. In 1937, the British proposed tentatively to partition Palestine in the Peel report. This caused additional divisions in the Zionist movement. Some believed in a bi-national Jewish Arab state and objected to the idea, contained in the Peel recommendations, of transferring Arabs "voluntarily" out of the territory to be allotted to the Jewish state. The revisionists and religious Zionists, on the other hand, objected to giving up any part of the territory of Palestine. Subsequently the British issued the White Paper of 1939, severely limiting Jewish immigration. The Revisionists formed the Irgun underground army, which attacked British soldiers and administrators and perpetrated terror attacks against Arabs in retaliation for Arab attacks on Jews.

Zionism during the Holocaust

The murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime in the Holocaust has become inevitably and inextricably bound up to the history of Zionism. The relation of the Holocaust to Zionism has provoked controversy and resentment, particularly among anti-Zionists. Zionists have been accused of indifference to the plight of European Jews. To an an extent it was true at first. Initially, the reports of Nazi persecution did not seem to be any worse than persecution of Jews that had occurred in Europe for hundreds of years – confiscation of businesses, discriminatory legislation and expulsion. The Yishuv was struggling with an Arab revolt and trying to build a Jewish society. The tiny, more or less powerless and poor Israeli Yishuv and the Zionist movement that supported it, could do very little to aid the Jews of Europe in any case. Nonetheless, the Zionist organization and the Yishuv ransomed Jews from Nazi Germany in return for economic concessions. The Zionists managed to save over 200,000 European Jews before World War II. When the British responded to Arab pressure and ended Jewish immigration to Palestine, the Zionists, attempting to rescue Jews from the Nazis, organized illegal immigration through the "Institution for Illegal Immigration" (Hamossad L’aliya Beth).

Illegal immigration (Aliya Bet)  was organized by the Jewish Agency between 1939 and 1942, when a tightened British blockade and stricter controls in occupied Europe made it impractical, and again between 1945 and 1948. Rickety boats full of refugees tried to reach Palestine. Additionally, there were private initiatives, an initiative by the Nazis to deport Jews and an initiative by the US to save European Jews. Many of the ships sank or were caught by the British or the Nazis and turned back, or shipped to Mauritius or other destinations for internment. The Patria (also called "Patra") contained immigrants offloaded from three other ships, for transshipment to the island of Mauritius. To prevent transshipment, the Haganah placed a small explosive charge on the ship on November 25, 1940. They thought the charge would damage the engines. Instead, the ship sank, and over 250 lives were lost.  A few weeks later, the SS Bulgaria docked in Haifa with 350 Jewish refugees and was ordered to return to Bulgaria. The Bulgaria capsized in the Turkish straits, killing 280. The  Struma, a vessel that had left Constanta in Rumania with about 769 refugees, got to Istanbul on December 16, 1941. There, it was forced to undergo repairs of its engine and leaking hull. The Turks would not grant the refugees sanctuary. The British would not approve transshipment to Mauritius or entry to Palestine. On February 24, 1942, the Turks ordered the Struma out of the harbor. It sank with the loss of 428 men, 269 women and 70 children. It had been torpedoed by a Soviet submarine, either because it was mistaken for a Nazi ship, or more likely, because the Soviets had agreed to collaborate with the British in barring Jewish immigration.  Illegal immigration continued until late in the war, apparently without the participation of the Mossad l’aliya Bet.  Despite the many setbacks, tens of thousands of Jews were saved by the illegal immigration.

To circumvent British regulations against creating new settlements, the Zionists initiated the "stockade and tower" ("homa umigdal") program, that allowed overnight creation of a new "settlement," consisting of a wall and watch tower. Under the law, the British could not destroy such an ‘established’ settlement.

The Zionists wanted to fight Fascism and rescue European Jews, but they could not do so except as permitted by the British government. The British recruited soldiers in Palestine. About 26,000 Jews out of a population of perhaps 500,000 and 6,000 Arabs out of a population of over a million, volunteered to fight in the British army. The Zionists pleaded for combat duty in Europe in a special Jewish Brigade. For the most part, however, they were employed in the Middle East. Eventually a Jewish Brigade was formed. The Jewish Agency proposed a scheme to send hundreds of Jewish commandos into occupied Europe to liaison with partisan groups and rescue Jews. Over a year passed before the British finally approved of a limited version of this plan. About 110 Zionist Parachutists were trained of the 250 who volunteered, but less than 40 reached Europe. 

Reports of Nazi atrocities became increasingly frequent and vivid. Despite the desperate need to find a haven for refugees, the doors of Palestine remained shut to Jewish immigration. The Zionist leadership met in the Biltmore Hotel in New York City in 1942 and declared that it supported the establishment of Palestine as a "Jewish Commonwealth." This was not simply a return to the Balfour declaration repudiated by the British White Paper, but rather a restatement of Zionist aims that went beyond the Balfour declaration, and a determination that the British were in principle, an enemy to be fought, rather than an ally. This was a defeat for the left-wing party of the Labor Zionists, Mapam, who wanted a bi-national Zionist state. David Ben-Gurion also portrayed it as a victory for himself over  Chaim Weizmann, who had opposed confrontation. Weizmann supported the Biltmore declaration, but he was too irrevocably identified with the failed moderate line, and he lost support. The Revisionists rejoined the Zionist movement, but were still called "dissidents" and did not merge their underground armies, the Irgun (Etzel ) and the LEHI (also called the "Stern Gang") into the Hagannah defense organization of the mainstream Zionists.

On November 6, 1944, members of the Lehi underground Eliyahu Hakim Eliyahu Bet Zuri assassinated Lord Moyne in Cairo. Moyne, known to be an anti-Zionist, was in charge of carrying out the terms of the 1939 White Paper. Lord Moyne and his wife were personal friends of the Churchills. The assassination turned Winston Churchill against the Zionists. The Jewish Agency and Zionist Executive believed that British and world reaction to the assassination of Lord Moyne could jeopardize cooperation after the war, that had been hinted at by the British, and might endanger the Jewish Yishuv if they came to be perceived as enemies of Britain and the allies. Therefore they embarked on a campaign against the Lehi and Irgun, known in Hebrew as the "Sezon" ("Season"). Members of the underground were to be ostracized. Leaders were caught by the Hagannah, interrogated and sometimes tortured, and about a thousand persons were turned over to the British.

Following World War II, Britain continued to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine. The Zionist factions united and conducted an underground war against the British, as well as applying pressure on the British government through the United States. In June of 1947, the British rammed the Jewish illegal immigrant ship Exodus  (formerly "President Warfield") on the high seas. They towed it to Haifa where it was the subject of extensive publicity, generating public sympathy for the Zionist cause. The passengers were eventually disembarked in Hamburg. The incident set world opinion, and particularly US opinion against the British, and caused the British to intern illegal immigrants thereafter in Cyprus, rather than attempting to return them to Europe.

History of Zionism: The refugee ship Exodus - 1947

The Exodus – 1947

Post-State Zionism

Israel – Zionism creates the Jewish National Home

The British found it necessary to maintain a large military establishment in Palestine to enforce the draconian immigration policy and respond to Jewish underground attacks on British personnel. This policy was increasingly unpopular at home owing to loss of British lives. This forced the British to announce in February 1947 that they were returning their mandate to the UN. A special commission, UNSCOP, was set up to recommend a solution to the UN. The commission recommended partition. The Arabs were opposed to either partition or a binational state. The U.S. and the USSR supported partition of Palestine, and carried a large bloc of votes with them. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states in General Assembly Resolution 181.

Map of Israel-Palestine UN Partition Plan 1947

Map of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, 1947

A war broke out in fact, while the British were still in Palestine.  The Arab League initiated a war against the Jewish community and the Jewish state, with the declared aim of "driving the Jews into the sea." There was little doubt about their intentions. The Grand Mufti Hajj Amin Al Husseini, a Nazi collaborator who escaped the clutches of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, had told the British that in his view the preferred solution for the Jews of Palestine was the one adopted in Europe, in other words, annihilation. Apparently he had planned to build a death camp near Nablus.

Almost as soon as the UN decided on partition of Palestine, Arabs began attacking Jews, beginning with lethal riots in Jerusalem and attacks on Jewish transportation. The British allowed a volunteer army under Fawzi El Kaukji, to enter Palestine in January of 1948. During the fighting, with Jerusalem virtually blockaded, the state of Israel was established on May 15, 1948. Arab countries, chiefly Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, invaded almost immediately. (see Israel war of Independence

Zionism, the Establishment of Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Question

The Arabs of Palestine were not well organized and could not attain their goal of cleansing Palestine of Jews.  Instead, it was they who suffered expulsion. The Jews were also able to hold their own against the invading armies of Arab states. As a result of the war, between 600,000 and 800,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes. Population displacements are deplorable, but they often happen as a result of war. The Czechs expelled the Sudetens Germans after World War II, because like the Arabs of Palestine, the Germans of Czechoslovakia sought to destroy the state in which they lived. It is absurd to claim that the Czechs had planned to expel the Germans since the beginnings of Czech nationalism, but this claim is often made about Zionism.

Israel: Map of Green line armistice borders, 1948

Map of the Israel "Green Line" Borders

Map of Israel showing the 1949 armistice lines.

In a civil war such as occurred in 1948, armed militias use villages and neighborhoods as bases. Civilian casualties were therefore inevitable, and it was very likely that once the war was initiated, one side or the other would suffer massive displacement and tragedy. For the Arabs of Palestine, their Nakba, or catastrophe, vindicated their fears that the Zionists were bent on dispossessing them. (see Palestine Nakba, 1948 )

Both anti-Zionists and right-wing Zionists have claimed that the expulsion of Arabs in 1948 was a more or less deliberate result of Zionist policy and ideology. Anti-Zionists make this claim to discredit Zionism, while right-wing Zionists make this claim in order to justify possible transfer or expulsion of Arabs in the future. This is, in part, a major support for the often repeated "Zionism is Racism" slogan. The evidence does not seem to support those claims. It is true that some Zionists were (and are) in favor of "voluntary transfer," which is not the same thing as forcible expulsion and genocide. A great many quotes of Zionist leaders about "voluntary transfer" are cited in this connection. For the most part, these statements were made in a very specific historical context, at a time when such transfers were common practice. In 1937, the British were considering creation of a tiny Jewish state, and it was the British Peel and Woodhead commissions that proposed transfer as part of this plan, which was discussed with varying reluctance by different Zionist leaders. However, there is no decisive evidence that transfer or expulsion became part of Zionist or Israeli government planning. Several Zionist political parties strongly protested incidents of massacre and expulsion in 1948. Ben Gurion was apparently genuinely surprised by the early flight of Palestinian Arabs in 1948, and in Haifa and a few other places, Zionist leaders tried to convince Palestinian Arabs to stay. The Haganah plan "D," (plan Daleth) is frequently cited by anti-Zionists as the Zionist blueprint for expelling the Arabs of Palestine. However, the plan did not call for mass expulsion, but only for temporary occupation of villages as part of a defensive strategy.

From the first, the Zionist plan was to buy land and not to expel Arabs by force. Arthur Ruppin, the Palestine land agent, described in detail some of the difficulties involved in Palestine purchases. Purchase of land was hampered by lack of money, by the unwillingness of Palestinian landowners to sell land to Jews, and by the arduous conditions obtaining in the Middle East in those days. Additionally, and perhaps more important, there was not much land to buy. Under Turkish law, most of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine leased their land from the government or cultivated village land that was held in common. The Turks had introduced private land ownership in the Tanzimat reform of 1858. However, as few wished to pay taxes, they did not register their lands. Large tracts were bought by notables close to the ruling circles, but much of this land was in the the West Bank. Land was also purchased in the Galilee, and part of this land was purchased by the Jewish Agency. Some land was and is owned either by the Waqf (Muslim religious endowment), The Greek Catholic Church or other religious institutions. The Greek Orthodox church was and remains one of the largest landholders in Palestine, and some of this land was leased by the Zionist leadership, including the land where the Israeli Knesset (parliament) is located. The Greek Orthodox Church however, could not sell its land. The British regularized the registry of land to the extent that land that was not village land or government or Waqf land was considered taxable, regardless of who owned it. The person or persons who worked the land paid taxes and it was theirs to use, but not to sell as long as the land did not lie fallow for three years. The lands of the Negev, which were not arable before the national water carrier was built, were owned by the government and were not for sale. The government owned about 48% of the land in all. The Jewish Agency managed to purchase only about 6% of the land area of Palestine that became Israel by 1948. This was a small percentage of the total area, but it was a large percentage of the land that was privately owned and could be bought.

The UN Partition Resolution and Israeli Legitimacy

Some argue that it was "understandable" that the Palestinians would defy the U.N. partition resolution, because the resolution "took Palestine away from them and threatened to dispossess them of their homes. However, there is no evidence that Jewish leaders planned to dispossess Arabs or threatened to do so. Just before the establishment of the State of Israel, Chaim Weizmann, head of the World Zionist Organization and first President of Israel, wrote in his autobiography, Trial and Error, "… the world will judge the Jewish state by what it will do with the Arabs." (Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1949, p. 566).

That was Zionist policy and intent, but the war forced upon Israel by the Palestinians and the Arab states produced an impossible reality. The right of the Jews to self-determination in Palestine was recognized not only by the United States, South American and Western European countries, but by the USSR as well. There is hardly a more eloquent defense of Zionism then the one given by the Soviet representative, Andrei Gromyko in the United Nations:

The delegation of the USSR maintains that the decision to partition Palestine is in keeping with the high principles and aims of the United Nations. It is in keeping with the principle of the national self-determination of peoples...

The solution of the Palestine problem based on a partition of Palestine into two separate states will be of profound historical significance, because this decision will meet the legitimate demands of the Jewish people… UN Debate on Palestine Partition- November, 26, 1947

Besides, the disposition of Palestine as a Jewish national home had already been recognized as part of the post World War I peace settlement, and in the League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine. Those who claim that this settlement was illegitimate because it was inspired by imperialism and colonialist greed, must remember that the same arrangements created all the Arab states of the Middle East as well as Czechoslovakia, Poland and other countries. The Arab defiance of the UN in 1947 was not very different than the German defiance of the League of Nations when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938. Indeed, the Nazis used parallel arguments: the Versailles treaty was unjust, Czechoslovakia was an "artificial state" and the Sudetens Germans had, according to Hitler a "general right to self-determination."

The Holocaust and anti-Zionism

The Holocaust and the historical view of the Holocaust have been made into a major item of contention by anti-Zionists. The Holocaust was the tragic and dramatic fulfillment of Zionist claims that Jews would never be safe without a sovereign Jewish homeland. This prophecy was not just an abstract ideological principle. In particular, the revisionist Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky repeatedly warned Polish Jews of the coming catastrophe. For example, in August of 1938, he wrote, in an article published in Warsaw:

"…it is already three years that I am calling upon you, Polish Jewry, who are the crown of world Jewry. I continue to warn you incessantly that a catastrophe is coming closer. I became gray and old in these years, my heart bleeds, that you, dear brothers and sisters, do not see the volcano which will soon begin to spit its all consuming lava. I know that you are not seeing this because you are immersed in your daily worries. Today, however, I demand your trust. You were convinced already that my prognoses have already proven to be right. If you think differently then drive me out from your midst.
"However, if you do believe me, then listen to me in this 11th hour: In the name of G-d, Let any one of you save himself as long as there is still time. And time there is very little.

Jabotinsky’s warnings went largely unheeded.

The Holocaust seemed to be a solemn warning that Jews could not ever integrate securely into European society. That question itself became moot after World War II, because there were so few Jews left in Europe, and there was so much revulsion at the crimes of the Nazis, that for a long period anti-Semitism seemed to have disappeared entirely. Nonetheless, the Holocaust remains a major embarrassment for anti-Zionist ideologues, and they in turn, have attempted to counter this impression in different ways. Some have resorted to Holocaust denial, others insist that the Zionists were somehow at fault for the Holocaust, because they didn’t do enough to save European Jewry. Others insist that "the Zionists" have made too much of the Holocaust and have created a "Holocaust industry," and that in fact, the Holocaust was not aimed particularly at Jews, since some gypsies and homosexuals and mental defectives were also killed by Nazis. Of course, nobody could have really foreseen the extermination of European Jews, despite Jabotinsky’s warning, and even if they had, there was little more that the Zionists could have done than what they did. The tiny Yishuv (community) and the struggling Zionist movement managed to save only a few tens or hundreds of thousands of Jews out of all the millions of European Jewry, but the fact is that nobody else saved more. The US Jewish community did little to protest the Nazi policies even after there was hard evidence of the murders in the 1940s, and even if they had, it is unlikely that the US government, fearing anti-Semitic backlash, would have done very much about it.

To an outsider it may seem that the state of Israel would not have come into existence without the Holocaust. Anti-Zionists have used this impression to claim that the state was "given" to the Jews by the world as a "special favor" and that therefore the legitimacy of the existence of Israel depends on the morality of Israeli acts, as judged by them. The same people often give the idea that there were no Jews in Palestine before World War II, and that immediately after the war, Zionists brought hundreds of thousands of Jews, creating the state at the expense of the Palestinians, to atone for European misdeeds. That idea is certainly false, since most of the 1948 Jewish population of Palestine had arrived before the war, and since Zionism, born in 1897, could not have been motivated by the Holocaust that happened nearly half a century later.

While it is certain that the Holocaust helped to mobilize international opinion in favor of a Jewish state, it is by no means certain that it was a critical factor or necessary cause. Sever Plocker and Tom Segev have both argued that without the Holocaust, a Jewish state would have been born in any case, and it would have been much stronger because of the support and presence of European Jews. Certainly, the Zionists envisioned that the Jewish state would be built by European Jews. The Holocaust, and the imprisonment of Soviet Jewry made this impossible and changed the nature of the state, exacerbating the problems it faced. Segev wrote:

… After three decades of Zionism in Palestine, there was still no clear timetable for the Jewish state, but no doubts remained that Jewish independence was on the horizon. The social, political, economic and military foundations of the state to-be were firm, and a profound sense of national unity prevailed. The Zionist dream was about to become a reality.
There is therefore no basis for the frequent assertion that the state was established as a result of the Holocaust…." (Tom Segev in "One Palestine Complete" pp 490-491)

It is probably philosophically unsound to insist on the inevitability of the creation of the state either with or without the Holocaust. However it is certainly unprovable that the state would not have been created without the Holocaust. Israel came about through a series of improbable events. Only a tiny group of people believed in 1897 that it could be possible to establish a Jewish national home anywhere, that any power would grant a charter for such a home, or that Jews would come to live in this country. However the Zionist movement was opportunistic. Zionist leaders leveraged on anti-Semitic notions of mysterious "Jewish power" as well as on Christian sentiment for restoration of Israel to obtain the Balfour declaration during World War I.

Faced with the tragedy of the Holocaust, Zionist leaders used it to lobby for a Jewish state. The Holocaust was a unique event in many ways, but there is little doubt, given the nature of European history, that an anti-Semitic upheaval of some kind would have occurred in Europe, as indeed it occurred in the USSR despite Soviet anti-Fascist propaganda. There is also little doubt that any such anti-Semitic manifestation would have helped to mobilize Jewish and world sentiment in favor of a Jewish state. The relatively small numbers of the Jews in Palestine masked their potential, which was due to organization and economic power. The organization was due to the ability of the Zionist leaders, despite differences, to unite around a common program and to provide essential services that bound the community to them. The economic power was due in part to the organizational ability and social cohesion, which produced the kibbutzim, the Histadrut labor union, school systems, agricultural training schools and an agricultural advisory service among other institutions. In part, the economic power was due to the relatively large investment in Palestine made by the Zionist organization. As a result, each Jew in Palestine produced about times the amount that each Palestinian Arab produced, and Zionist investment accounted in large part for the prosperity of the Palestinian Arabs. (see Zionism and its Impact Wars are decided by economic power.. If conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine was unavoidable, the outcome of such a conflict was predictable in advance. The Jews, being the more organized and economically stronger power, would have won in any case, and certainly would have had a better chance of success with the backing of a large population of European Jews. See also discussion here and here ).

Labor Zionism vs Revisionism – After independence, the Labor Zionist movement became, for many years, the leading political force in Israel. Mapai (Miflegeth Poalei Eretz Yisrael – the party of the workers of the land of Israel) party led by David Ben-Gurion and his successors held power continuously until 1977. The Zionist movement had split when Jabotinsky led the revisionists out of the Zionist organization in the 1930s. The Zionist executive was led by Labor Zionism under David Ben-Gurion. Revisionists and Labor Zionists had separate underground armies. Revisionists and Labor Zionists cooperated against British after World War II. However, the "Sezon" in 1944-45, the massacre perpetrated at Deir Yassin by the Revisionists in April 1948, and the subsequent sinking of the "Altalena" Irgun arms ship by the Israeli government, as well as numerous smaller incidents, helped to deepen the split between mainstream Labor Zionism and Revisionist Zionism. Begin, the leader of the Revisionist Zionists, was distrusted by Ben-Gurion and viewed a dangerous extremist. It was not until the Six day war in 1967 that revisionists were allowed to participate in a government coalition.

Zionism After the Establishment of the State of Israel

The Zionist organization has continued to function after the establishment of the Jewish state. It has helped to bring millions of new immigrants to Israel; it encourages the teaching of Hebrew and Jewish culture abroad; it lobbies for Israel with the US and other governments, and rallies support to Israel in times of crisis. However, in Israel, "Zionism" became somewhat of a pejorative, associated with government propaganda, super-patriotism and regimentation. Zionism, and the Israeli self-image, has reinvented itself many times and will need to continue to reinvent itself to adapt to changing realities.

Israel was a surprise success story that confounded anti-Zionists and skeptics. Defying the experts, Israel beat its enemies handily in the War of Independence, absorbed huge numbers of immigrants in the first years of its existence and created a viable economy. Detractors pointed out that Israel was accumulating a huge national debt. They insisted that the new nation of Jews from all over the world would disintegrate because of differences between Ashkenazic Jews, and Sephardic Jews or because Arabs would outnumber Jews, or Israel would be conquered by Arab nationalists. In fact, in every period of Israel’s existence detractors and experts "proved" that Israel could not exist another ten years, or another twenty years. The dogs barked, but the caravan moved on. The differences between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, so important in the first years of the state, diminished with time. Lacking natural resources, Israel invented an economy driven by technological excellence and scientific research. This required a revision of the agricultural and settlement Zionism of the earlier pioneers and a reorientation of societal values that is not yet complete. Beloved institutions such as the kibbutz, central to the early years of Zionism, were modified or fell by the way-side if they failed to adapt.

The most important change brought about by Zionism was psychological rather than material. It is very difficult for people living today to imagine the self-image of Jews or the image of Jews in the eyes of others, before the existence of the Jewish state. Not all the change has been positive. Anti-Semites who pictured Jews as cowards now picture Jews as evil technological super-soldiers. Where once Jews idealized intellectualism and compromise, over-zealous enthusiasts now imagine that force can solve all problems. However, the cowering ghetto Jew, once a universally recognized icon,  is now just a bad memory of European culture. Zionism did not banish anti-Semitism yet, as early Zionists supposed it would, but Zionism and the establishment of Israel changed the rules of the game.

Zionism and Modern Israel

Despite the initial successes of Israel in overcoming its enemies in the War of Independence, absorbing and integrating over a million refugees, and the military victory of the Sinai Campaign, Diaspora Jews in the affluent West remained largely indifferent to Zionism. If they thought of Israel at all, it was as a charitable cause, a place where unfortunate refugees might be settled. The Jews of Soviet Russia were unable to leave or to voice their support for Israel. Substantial numbers of Jews who had survived the Holocaust did arrive from Romania, Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe. However the bulk of the new immigrants to Israel in the first two decades of statehood were Jews who were forcibly expelled from Arab countries or those who chose to leave Arab states.

The fortunes of Zionism and of Israel rose and fell with Israel’s material success. Until the mid-1960s, owing to this steady stream of immigrants and to investment and construction, the Israeli economy enjoyed a steady expansion. A slow down in immigration, economic downturn and political disaffection within the ruling Labor party brought on a movement of great pessimism. 

In the background, the Arab states had been repeatedly vowing to defeat Israel since the Arab Summit of 1964. Palestinian terrorist groups were established by the Arab countries with the aim of destroying Israel. Egyptian President Nasser and his Syrian rival embarked on a dangerous rhetorical contest, each trying to demonstrate that they were the leaders in the effort to destroy Israel. This was encouraged by the USSR, which hoped to gain by maintaining a constant confrontation and using the issue of Israel to push the United States out of the Middle East. 

In its pessimistic national mood, Israel seemed hardly ready to deal with a military and diplomatic crisis of any kind. in 1966, emigration exceeded immigration. A famous cartoon showed a sign at Lod airport, "The last one to leave should please remember to shut off the electricity."

Zionism after the Six Day War

The Arab political machinations escalated into a crisis in 1967. Increasingly violent border incidents related to the Israel water carrier plan led to Syrian complaints, fed by deliberately false Soviet information, that Israel was massing troops in preparation for an invasion. President Nasser of Egypt, goaded for his inaction,  closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, dismissed the UN Emergency Force that had been put in place in 1956 and moved about six divisions of the Egyptian army into the Sinai desert. After a long waiting period, Israel launched a lightning attack on Egypt on June 5, 1967, beginning the  Six day war, Dealing with each enemy in turn, Israel first conquered the Sinai desert from Egypt, then turned to the West Bank and wrapped up the war with Jordan, and then proceeded to capture the Golan heights from Syria. 

The dramatic victory changed the image of Israel and of Zionism among Israeli Jews, Jews in the Diaspora, friends and allies.   Most Diaspora Jews came to look upon Israel as a source of pride and an asset. The United States, had more or less ignored Israel or treated it as a "poor relative" or "unviable client state," as one US diplomat expressed it. US foreign aid and military sales to Israel had been minimal. The Israeli air force was French, because the US refused to sell Israel aircraft. Israeli armor consisted mostly of third hand remodeled Sherman tanks and tiny French AMX anti-tank vehicles. Though the US had supplied Israel with some Patton tanks, these were being refitted at the time of the war. Requests for temporary replacements were refused. Prior to the war, the US reneged on promises to reopen the straits of Tiran closed by Gamal Nasser, owing to the unpopularity of the Vietnam war and pressure by oil lobbies. However, the US  understood that it could now regain a foothold in the Middle East only by trading land won in the war for influence with Arab countries. It also understood that Israel was an independent military power that had won the war primarily with French military equipment. This was an uncomfortable state of affairs. For the Arabs, the war was a humiliating defeat. It destroyed the Pan-Arab nationalist dreams of Gamal Nasser.

A wave of euphoria and a false sense of invincibility engulfed Israel following the Six day war. The unification of Jerusalem and the conquest of ancient Samaria and Judea (known as the West Bank after the name given it by the Jordanians after World War II) with their Jewish holy places inspired a wave of messianic Zionism. Religious Zionism, which had been a relatively mild and dovish movement, veered to the right and took upon itself the "mission" of settling the newly conquered territories.

Zionism after the Yom Kippur War

The sense of invincibility was shattered by the Yom Kippur War. Though Israel recovered from the surprise attack and objectively had dealt the Arab countries another defeat, the Arabs had proven that Israel was vulnerable after all. Zionism and the Israeli image had to reinvent themselves again. The Labor Zionist movement, that had founded the state, eventually found itself in a minority, replaced in large part by more militant religious Zionists and the Likud party, which inherited the mantle of revisionism, carried on by Menachem Begin after the death of Ze’ev Jabotinsky. This change both reflected a change in the evolving self-image of Israel and the Zionist movement, and it catalyzed a further change. Initially, the changeover from a state that had been ruled by one party for thirty years was beneficial for democracy in the state and for the Zionist movement. However, the Likud itself soon developed all the negative symptoms of an incumbent party that has held power too long, and Israeli society moved away from pioneering values toward materialism. The Likud actively promoted settlement of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza.  For many people in Israel and abroad, "Zionism" came to imply support for the settlement of Jews in these territories, and assumed a very negative connotation for those who oppose the occupation.


Beginning in the 1980s, some Israeli historians and sociologists began to question facts about the official history of Israel and Zionism, as well as the Zionist ideology. They reasoned that Zionism had accomplished its purpose in creating the Jewish state, and that now it was time to move on. They posited that Israel and the Zionists had a large share of the blame for the animosity between Jews and Arabs, and had in fact, ignored the existence of the Arabs in Palestine and then dispossessed the Palestinians by force. This reasoning was supported by new histories, that talked frankly about less savory aspects of Israeli history that had been previously ignored. The new historians made a case that at least part of Zionism had always envisioned expulsion or transfer of the Arabs, and described massacres and expulsions which took place in 1948, often claiming that these were part of a deliberate policy. The historians claimed that these new facts were revealed by declassified archives. Actually, the main facts supposedly "revealed" by the new historians were known to all Israelis who wanted to know them, though perhaps not in detail, and not presented in the particular way that new historians presented them, and not written up in English. These ideas, called by some "Post Zionism," do not form a coherent ideology and their practitioners do not generally see themselves as members of a movement or followers of a distinct philosophy. Some "post-Zionists" like Ilan Pappe are avowedly anti-Zionist, while others, like Benny Morris, use the same facts to arrive at very different conclusions that might support a militant Zionist ideology. Post-Zionism attained a wide popularity for a while, fueled by resentment against the occupation. In an Israeli cultural atmosphere where "Zionism" ("tsiyonut") was ridiculed as hypocritical political hot air, "post-Zionist" and anti-Zionist views and those who preached them enjoyed an easy tolerance. Post-Zionism fell into eclipse after peace negotiations between Palestinians and Israel failed, and violence flared in September of 2000. The flag of "post-Zionism" was raised aloft by anti-Zionists, and revived and extended the different anti-Zionist currents discussed below.


Anti-Zionism has been inspired by several sources. The mainsprings of anti-Zionism were independent of the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine. The first was opposition of orthodox and  reform and assimilationist Jews to Zionism. The second was anti-Semitism. A third source was the insistence of communists that the coming of world communist would do away with the nation state and nationalism. Palestinian and Arab propagandists were quick to take advantage of all three of these potential sources of opposition to the Jewish state. In particular, they make public efforts to mobilize the support of "progressive" (anti-Zionist) Jews and of ultra-orthodox anti-Zionists. The conflicting opinions of these tiny minorities are used to "prove" that Zionism is not a legitimate movement and does not represent the Jewish people.

Under cover of combating the "occupation," anti-Zionists began to wage a militant campaign of delegitimization, boycotts and divestment, aimed at proving that Israel is an illegitimate state and Zionism is an illegitimate ideology. This campaign was apparently orchestrated by pro-Palestinian groups and timed to coincide with the outbreak of the Intifadeh in 2000.  The existence of Israel, which many had thought to be secure after the  Six day war was now understood to be threatened once again. This time the threat is through a propaganda war. Some reactions included "circling the wagons." Right wing Zionist extremists conducted an extremely defensive campaign that tried to equate any opposition to any Israeli policy as "anti-Semitism." Bona-fire anti-Semites capitalized on this to cloak anti-Semitic propaganda and ideology as "justified criticism of Israel." A more sophisticated approach is evolving, that attempts to separate legitimate criticism of Israel and internal debate from anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

Jewish Anti-Zionism

Zionism was popular among Jewish people as a movement they might support with money or at political meetings. However, few, especially in Western countries, thought of coming to Palestine or Israel until the latter decades of the twentieth century, except when in danger of persecution. Palestine was too far, economically backward and dangerous to draw many immigrants. Nonetheless, non-Zionist groups like Alliance Israelite Universelle and many others helped Zionist efforts in Palestine and joined the Jewish Agency for Palestine.

Almost every national movement is of necessary also a social revolutionary movement. Zionism had much more of the characteristics of a social revolutionary movement than other national movements.

In the Diaspora, the Jewish communities had adopted a social life and organization that was suited to their anomalous social situation. A cohesive part of the community that remained orthodox was united under the rule of various rabbis. Other Jews, depending on their countries, tried to free themselves from the physical or social ghetto and assimilate. Rabbis and rich Jews controlled the social and charitable institutions and often represented "the Jews" as a group to the government. Zionism introduced new priorities and social values, and necessarily challenged the establish social order, though this was not necessarily understood by the early Zionists like Herzl, who tried to work through rich Jews and "great men." The Western European delegates to the first Zionist congress were largely looking for a solution for their "unfortunate brethren" in the East. They were willing to accept Uganda or Cyprus as an alternative to Palestine because they were not going there. Surprisingly, to Herzl, the Russian Jews who were the intended recipients of this "benefit" rejected it, and insisted that only the land of Israel could be the destination of Zionists. It is quite alright to contemplate Uganda as a Jewish national home after all, if you don’t intend to live there yourself. The effect of the urgent situation of Russian and Eastern European Jews was to overturn the established social order. The Western European Jews who saw themselves as the "advanced" and natural leaders favored by fortune, were pushed aside by the more dynamic and committed socialist Zionists of Russia. For that reason, Zionism represented an additional threat to the established Jewish social order.

Several organized Jewish groups were actively anti-Zionist . Jews who sought to assimilate in their own countries claimed that they were loyal citizens of a different faith, sometimes styling themselves "of the Mosaic persuasion." They felt that the Zionist movement and the concept of a "Jewish People" would raise questions about their own loyalty, and they resented the fact that Zionists often spoke as though they represented all Jews. This movement was particularly prevalent in Germany, where Jews were staunch supporters of German nationalism. At one point, the reform Jewish movement went so far as to systematically remove all references to the Holy Land and Jerusalem from their liturgy. A large segment of ultraorthodox Jews were displeased by the secular ideas that dominated Zionism, and insisted that the rebuilding of Israel must await the coming of the messiah. In Europe, the agitation of assimilationist and ultraorthodox Jews helped to actively block Zionist rescue efforts in the 1930s, when it began to be apparent that Nazism would soon make Europe very dangerous for Jews.

Most religious Jews and the reform movement, initially anti-Zionist, reconciled themselves with the Jewish state, after the Holocaust seemed to bear out the basic thesis that Jews required a homeland of their own and would not necessarily be safe even in the best circumstances, and after the creation of Israel proved that Zionist aspirations could become a reality. Nonetheless, anti-Zionist ideologies and their representatives persist among religious groups such as the ultraorthodox Neturei Karta and leftist writers such as Noam Chomsky. In recent years they have leveraged on the issues raised by the occupation to try to legitimize their ideas as "criticism of Israel." Jewish anti-Zionists include figures like Rabbi David Weiss and others who support Holocaust Denial and other anti-Semitic claims.

Communist Anti-Zionism

Communists, including Jewish communists and the Jewish Bund were and are opposed to Zionism because Marxism posited the disappearance of the Jews as a historic anomaly, once international atheistic communism triumphed over nationalist particularism, and religion, the opium of the people, died out. In the USSR, as part of his "nationalities" policy, which assimilated or murdered numerous national groups, Stalin tried to handle the Jewish problem by creating an autonomous Jewish republic in the wastelands of Birobidjan. This project was never supported very seriously and was later abandoned. Though the USSR supported the creation of the state of Israel, Stalin was opposed to Zionism inside Russia and the USSR suppressed Zionist activities and at times persecuted Jews as well as Zionists.

"Zionism is Racism"

This ideological opposition to Zionism later dovetailed with the anti-Israel cold-war politics of the Soviet Union and the Arab antagonism to Israel, as well as with anti-Semitism. Retrospectively, communist ideologues pegged Zionism as a racist and colonialist ideology bent on exploiting and dispossessing the native inhabitants of Palestine, and creating an apartheid colonialist fascist Jewish state. Zionist theorists assumed that the Jews are socially inferior and "abnormal" because they did not have a national home. The "abnormal" Diaspora character of Jews would be corrected when the people returned to their own land, realized their right to self-determination and renewed their nation existence. Zionists believe that the Jewish right to the land is based on ancient historical links, not racial superiority. Some Zionists see the Arabs as usurpers, just as the Arabs see the Zionists as usurpers.

Anti-Zionists saw matters differently, and branded Zionism as "racism." The ideological basis for this was perhaps provided by Jean Paul Sartre’s  1960 essay, "Racism and Colonialism as Praxis and Process," in his "Critique of  Dialectical Reason." Analyzing French colonialism in Algeria, Sartre argued that racism grew out of the need of colonialists to rationalize exploitation of natives by French "capitalists." This explanation of racism became popular, regardless of the fact that racism existed since the days of ancient Greece and Rome, and even though it could not explain anti-Semitism and other racist ideologies. When the Palestinian movements adopted the "national liberation movement" ideology of the Algerian FLN, it was natural that these same ideas would be transferred to Israel and Zionism. However, the original Marxist rationale is largely forgotten by many and different explanations are offered by various anti-Zionists to justify the slogan, "Zionism is Racism."  This slogan has prospered, whatever its merits as an explanation of social and historical reality.

In 1975, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, a pro-Soviet and pro-Arab majority in the UN passed General Assembly Resolution 3397, branding Zionism as racism. The resolution was repealed in 1991, but similar sentiments were repeated at a conference of non-government organizations in Durban, South Africa in 2001. 

It is undeniable that early Zionist leaders used the language and rhetoric of colonialism and established organizations with names like "The Jewish Colonial Trust." In part, this reflects the influence of the 19th century European cultural milieu, when colonialism was a perfectly acceptable concept. In part, it reflects efforts of Zionist leaders to sell leaders of the great powers on the idea of supporting a Jewish colonization scheme that would support German or British or French interests in the Middle East. The Socialist-Zionist movement certainly did not see themselves as colonialists and were opposed to colonialism and imperialism, nor did the USSR originally oppose Zionism on the basis that it is a colonialist movement.

Apartheid Israel

The slogan "Apartheid Israel," named after the South African practice of racial segregation, was coined by anti-Zionists as a means of discrediting Zionism and the depriving the Jewish people of the right of self determination. The implication is that the "politically correct" democratic "peace" solution is to do away with Israel as a Jewish homeland. This slogan, once the emblem of extremists and bigots, was rendered respectable when Jimmy Carter used in the title of his book about the Israeli Palestinian peace process. The essential logic behind the phrase is flawed. Israeli Jews and Palestinian people, unlike South Africans, are not a single nationality that was separated by race laws. Palestinian Arabs do not want to become integrated into Israeli society, but rather to erect their own state or to destroy Israel. The facts behind the assertions are also wrong. See Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote – Not an apartheid State.

Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism

The equation of anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism is controversial. Anti-Zionism that is based on the proposition that Jews do not have a right to self-determination, whereas Palestinians and other peoples do have such a right is discriminatory. It is difficult to see how this idea could not be considered racist and hence anti-Semitic. The pro-Palestinian academic, John L. Strawson, has written:

These arguments all lead to an uncomfortable position that whereas all other self-declared nationalisms have validity, the Jews have no such claims… While there are honorable Anti-Zionist positions they are few. On the whole Anti-Zionism is close to, or a mask for, Anti-Semitism.

"Anti-Zionist" writings are redolent of the language of anti-Semitism, and the arguments, with a few changes in wording, can often be easily shown to be a mask for anti-Semitic sentiments. These have become "politically incorrect," but hide themselves easily behind a facade of anti-Zionist terminology. "The Jews have too much power" becomes "The Zionists have too much power" or "the Israel lobby has too much power." The "Internationalen finanzjudentum" (international finance Jewry) of Adolf Hitler is recognizable in the phrase "International Zionism,"  Conspiracy theories formerly  based around the Jews or the mythical "Elders of Zion: are now transferred to "Zionists." The doctrines of "progressive" anti-Zionism are so indistinguishable from racism that a UK "Boycott Israel" activist saw no problem in recommending an article that supposedly explains the truth about Israel, even though the article was posted at the website of racist David Duke. (See  UCU anti-Zionists, Harry’s Place, censorship and anti-Zionism vs Anti-Semitism )

These phrases are taken from different Web sites: 

Zionism: Anti-Zionism and Arab Anti-Semitism

Jewish Persecution – A Primary Tool Of International Zionism (Rense)

What Zionism is — and its pernicious influence upon the USA (Serendipity)

Jew Watch – Jewish World Conspiracies – zionism (JewWatch)

They are certainly anti-Semitic, and there are hundreds more scattered throughout "anti-Zionist" rhetoric.

The imagery of anti-Zionist cartoons and graphics in the Arab world and even in European countries like Great Britain is indistinguishable from Nazi stereotypes used in anti-Semitic cartoons and propaganda themes.

That is not to say, of course, that all criticism of Israeli policies or of the Zionist movement is in itself anti-Semitic. One may be opposed to the occupation, or to a particular injustice in Israel or in any other country, without being a bigot. (see also: Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism; A.B. Yehoshua : ‘Anti-Zionism: Mask for anti-Semitism’ )

Revival of Zionism

The failure of the peace process and Palestinian initiated violence in September of 2000 entrained a world wide anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic revival. Supposedly respectable British journals featured covers that portrayed the Jews taking over Europe, and caricatures of baby-devouring Jews. The libels directed at Jews by anti-Semites were transformed and thinly veiled as "anti-Zionist" accusations: The "Zionists" or "Israel Lobby,"  rather than the Jews, were alleged to control the government and the media.  This in turn caused many Jews and others to rally to the cause of Israel and Zionism, and to re-examine some of the beliefs that underlay the post-Zionist reaction. The so-called al-Aqsa Intifadah was accompanied by  violence, suicide bombings, beheading of Jews and calls to "Kill them wherever you find them." The existence and indestructibility of Israel, formerly taken for granted, were again understood to be directly threatened. A new generation came to understand that anti-Semitism is a reality, and that violent, racist Arab and Muslim  opposition to the existence of the Jewish state and even to the existence of the Jewish people was not a Zionist myth. A new generation of Israeli historians, including Yoav Gelber and Anita Shapira, attempted to achieve some balance between the heroic exaggerations and myths of early Israeli Zionist histories and the latter demonification and distortion of Zionist and Israeli history by new historians. In this period, the "new historian" Benny Morris "explained" that his earlier exposition of supposed Zionist evil-doing was misunderstood by the public, and that Zionist actions in settling the land and during the Israel war of Independence were, in his view, justified.  

The Future: Challenges to Zionism

Political, organized Zionism is scarcely more than a hundred years old. However, the work of Zionism, to oversee the collective well-being of the Jewish people as a nation, began, in a sense, over 3,000 years ago. It can never be done. As long as there is a Jewish people, there can never be a "post-Zionist" period. Some of the challenges and tasks facing Zionism:

To establish the undisputed legitimacy of Israel – Zionism must answer the challenge of anti-Zionism, whether it is motivated by anti-Semitism or other ideological or political factors. The existence of Israel must come to be truly taken for granted, in the same way as the existence of German, France, the United States or Egypt.

To achieve peace with Israel’s Arab neighbors – The Arab-Israeli conflict has warped the development of the Jewish national movement and is a constant threat to Zionist achievements in Israel. Israelis are always conscious, and Zionists living abroad must never forget, that the threat of extinction hangs over Israel as long as the enmity of surrounding Arab states is maintained. As well as being a moral imperative, peace is a practical imperative.  Given that Arab and Muslim states are far larger and more numerous than Israel can ever be, it is obvious that Israel must make peace in order to survive.

To see to the physical defense and survival of the state of Israel – As long as there is no peace, military preparedness is a regrettable and burdensome necessity.

To complete the ingathering of the exiles – Zionism set out to bring the Jewish people to Israel. While the Jewish Diaspora will no doubt continue to exist, there are still, among the numerous Jewish population scattered throughout the world, a large number of people who would live in Israel if they could, but who are prevented from doing so for economic or cultural reasons or family ties unrelated to Zionist ideology. The Zionist movement must strive to remove the accidental impediments that prevent people from living in Israel.

To constantly improve Israeli society – No society is perfect; that certainly includes Israel. Zionism must strive to improve and perfect Israeli society. A healthy democracy and a strong society are also the best guarantees for Israeli survival.

To reunite and revitalize the Jewish people – Zionism must attempt to heal the numerous divisions among the Jewish people by providing a broad framework for Jewish cultural and national identity, and by providing cultural leadership for the Jewish community abroad.

Ami Isseroff

Some related articles – Israel – Birth of a Nation – The struggle for Israel’s independence Palestine Nakba 1948

Brief Bibliography of Zionism

Hertzberg, Arthur, The Zionist Idea, A conceptual Analysis and Reader, NYC, Atheneum, 1959. This classic book of readings is essential for understanding Zionism.

Laqueur, Walter, A History of Zionism, Fine Communications, 1997. This authoritative and readable history explains the beginnings of Zionism, from the French Revolution to the creation of Israel. Unlike Sachar’s even larger book, it does not go into details of modern Israeli history.

Sachar, Howard M. A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, Alfred A. Knopf, 1998. A comprehensive overview of the subject, told from the Zionist point of view. A good reference, but too detailed and compendious for casual reading by most.

Bibliography of Zionism


Confession [kənˈfɛʃən] n 1. the act of confessing 2. something confessed 3. an acknowledgment or declaration, esp of one’s faults, intentions, misdeeds, or crimes…

Monsanto’s Roundup may be linked to fatal kidney disease, new study suggests

February 27, 2014

A farmer tills a rice paddy field on the outskirts of Colombo, Sri Lanka (Reuters / Andrew Caballero-Reynolds)

A farmer tills a rice paddy field on the outskirts of Colombo, Sri Lanka (Reuters / Andrew Caballero-Reynolds)

A heretofore inexplicable fatal, chronic kidney disease that has affected poor farming regions around the globe may be linked to the use of biochemical giant Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide in areas with hard water, a new study has found.

The new study was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

Researchers suggest that Roundup, or glyphosate, becomes highly toxic to the kidney once mixed with “hard” water or metals like arsenic and cadmium that often exist naturally in the soil or are added via fertilizer. Hard water contains metals like calcium, magnesium, strontium, and iron, among others. On its own, glyphosate is toxic, but not detrimental enough to eradicate kidney tissue.

The glyphosate molecule was patented as a herbicide by Monsanto in the early 1970s. The company soon brought glyphosate to market under the name “Roundup,” which is now the most commonly used herbicide in the world.

The hypothesis helps explain a global rash of the mysterious, fatal Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown etiology (CKDu) that has been found in rice paddy regions of northern Sri Lanka, for example, or in El Salvador, where CKDu is the second leading cause of death among males.

Furthermore, the study’s findings explain many observations associated with the disease, including the linkage between the consumption of hard water and CKDu, as 96 percent of patients have been found to have consumed “hard or very hard water for at least five years, from wells that receive their supply from shallow regolith aquifers.”

The CKDu was discovered in rice paddy farms in northern Sri Lanka around 20 years ago. The condition has spread quickly since then and now affects 15 percent of working age people in the region, or a total of 400,000 patients, the study says. At least 20,000 have died from CKDu there.

In 2009, the Sri Lankan Ministry of Health introduced criteria for CKDu. Basically, the Ministry found that CKDu did not share common risk factors as chronic kidney disease, such as diabetes, high blood pressure and glomerular nephritis, or inflammation of the kidney.

Based on geographical and socioeconomical factors associated with CKDu, it was assumed that environmental and occupational variables would offer clues to the disease’s origins – or in this case, it came from chemicals.

The new study noted that even the World Health Organization had found that CKDu is caused by exposure to arsenic, cadmium, and pesticides, in addition to hard water consumption, low water intake, and exposure to high temperatures. Yet why that certain area of Sri Lanka and why the disease didn’t show prior to the mid-1990s was left unanswered.

Researchers point out that political changes in Sri Lanka in the late 1970s led to the introduction of agrochemicals, especially in rice farming. They believe that 12 to 15 years of exposure to “low concentration kidney-damaging compounds” along with their accumulation in the body led to the appearance of CKDu in the mid-90s.

The incriminating agent, or Compound “X,” must have certain characteristics, researchers deduced. The compound, they hypothesized, must be: made of chemicals newly introduced in the last 20 to 30 years; capable of forming stable complexes with hard water; capable of retaining nephrotoxic metals and delivering them to the kidney; capable of multiple routes of exposure, such as ingestion, through skin or respiratory absorption, among other criteria.

These factors pointed to glyphosate, used in abundance in Sri Lanka. In the study, researchers noted that earlier studies had shown that typical glyphosate half-life of around 47 days in soil can increase up to 22 years after forming hard to biodegrade “strong complexes with metal ions.”

Scientists have derived three ways of exposure to glyphosate-metal complexes (GMCs): consumption of contaminated hard water, food, or the complex could be formed directly within circulation with glyphosate coming from dermal/respiratory route and metals from water and foods.

Rice farmers, for example, are at high risk of exposure to GMCs through skin absorption, inhalation, or tainted drinking water. GMCs seem to evade the normal liver’s detoxification process, thus damaging kidneys, the study found.

The study also suggests that glyphosate could be linked to similar epidemics of kidney disease of unknown origin in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and India.

Recent investigations by the Center for Public Integrity found that, in the last five years, CKDu is responsible for more deaths in El Salvador and Nicaragua than diabetes, AIDS, and leukemia combined.


Get Mad at a person

BILL Microsoft –Monsanto GATES

owns 500,000 Monsanto shares a mere 23 Million US Dollars


USDA Steps Back and Gives Monsanto More Power Over GMO Seeds

Anthony Gucciardi
Activist Post
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has decided to deregulate two of Monsanto’s genetically modified seed varieties, giving the company a further grasp on the food supply of the nation. One of the modified corn seed varieties is engineered to resist drought conditions, and the other is an herbicide-resistant soybean that has been genetically engineered to produce more fatty acids. Of course research has found that Monsanto’s GMO crops, despite claims to be resistant to herbicides and pesticides, actually require significantly more harsh chemicals. Apparently these studies do not concern the USDA, an organization that has always been adamant about genetically modifying the entire food supply.
The USDA continues to grant Monsanto further power over itself, despite evidence linking Monsanto’s creations to health conditions and environmental devastation. This is also the same organization that has continually pushed for the approval of genetically modified salmon, which was rejected by Congress due to health concerns. The USDA is so dedicated, in fact, that they decided to help forward the approval of genetically modified salmon by generously funding the cause with nearly $500,000.
The news comes after experiments with the seeds were conducted in five African nations, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Monsanto’s drought-resistant corn seeds were given to African farmers facing drought conditions, replacing traditional and sustainable farming with Monsanto’s GMO crops. Bill Gates himself has purchased 500,000 Monsanto stocks as of August 2010, and has heavy ties with Monsanto and even genetically modified mosquitoes which could be released in Florida early next year.

The USDA has allowed Monsanto to run rampant, modifying staple crops, food items, and even milk. Monsanto’s rBGH is a synthetic hormone created using molecules and DNA sequences that are a result of molecular cloning, which has been linked to breast and gastrointestinal cancer. In the United States, this synthetic hormone is present in 1/3 of all milk. Meanwhile, it is banned in 27 countries around the globe. Marketed under the name Posilac, Monsanto has since sold the brand to a division of Eli Lilly and Company, Elanco Animal Health. Eli Lilly and Company are the makers of suicide-linked Prozac, and were able to cover up the 1980’s research which found antidepressants to breed even more depression and suicidal thoughts.
It seems rather clear that the USDA has zero regard for the research showing the negative effects of GMO crops on the environment and public health. Instead, they allow for Monsanto to steamroll through the approval process and make a fortune modifying the planet. Monsanto has ties within the deepest levels of government, and only through hardcore activism will they be forced to answer to public concern.


Now more on their latest Human Killer Poison Glyphosate


Toxicol Rev. 2004;23(3):159-67.

Glyphosate poisoning.

Bradberry SM1, Proudfoot AT, Vale JA.

Author information

Glyphosate is used extensively as a non-selective herbicide by both professional applicators and consumers and its use is likely to increase further as it is one of the first herbicides against which crops have been genetically modified to increase their tolerance. Commercial glyphosate-based formulations most commonly range from concentrates containing 41% or more glyphosate to 1% glyphosate formulations marketed for domestic use. They generally consist of an aqueous mixture of the isopropylamine (IPA) salt of glyphosate, a surfactant, and various minor components including anti-foaming and colour agents, biocides and inorganic ions to produce pH adjustment. The mechanisms of toxicity of glyphosate formulations are complicated. Not only is glyphosate used as five different salts but commercial formulations of it contain surfactants, which vary in nature and concentration. As a result, human poisoning with this herbicide is not with the active ingredient alone but with complex and variable mixtures. Therefore, It is difficult to separate the toxicity of glyphosate from that of the formulation as a whole or to determine the contribution of surfactants to overall toxicity. Experimental studies suggest that the toxicity of the surfactant, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), is greater than the toxicity of glyphosate alone and commercial formulations alone. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate preparations containing POEA are more toxic than those containing alternative surfactants. Although surfactants probably contribute to the acute toxicity of glyphosate formulations, the weight of evidence is against surfactants potentiating the toxicity of glyphosate. Accidental ingestion of glyphosate formulations is generally associated with only mild, transient, gastrointestinal features. Most reported cases have followed the deliberate ingestion of the concentrated formulation of Roundup (The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.) (41% glyphosate as the IPA salt and 15% POEA). There is a reasonable correlation between the amount ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Advancing age is also associated with a less favourable prognosis. Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias are often present pre-terminally. Dermal exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation and photo-contact dermatitis has been reported occasionally; these effects are probably due to the preservative Proxel (benzisothiazolin-3-one). Severe skin burns are very rare. Inhalation is a minor route of exposure but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, tingling and throat irritation. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis, and superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate. Management is symptomatic and supportive, and skin decontamination with soap and water after removal of contaminated clothing should be undertaken in cases of dermal exposure.

Its Mass Slow KILL MURDER being perpetrated against all of Humanity

by people the likes of


and you thought there planned parenthood abortion clinics were for humanitarian purposes

%d bloggers like this: