America’s prolonged assault on gold 1 , FEW would deny that the US Government has for years worked hard to destabilize the South African economy. The efforts include the current “disinvestment” policy, an international credit and financial squeeze, pressure on US companies with South African sub-sidies, blocking of loans by international organisations and, most dangerous of ail, America’s prolonged “holy war” against gold. As recently as last September the American Press was crammed with long learned treatises on the price collapse of the “barbarous metal”, due to the US-dominated IMF gold auctions. Many were the prediction8 of disaster for the South African economy, culminating in hints of imminent revolution as a result. Simultaneously, a report by the Chiries Rivers ASSOCiates, commissioned by the US Department of Commerce, gave fuel to the US Liberal Estabiisment belief that Marxist and militant governments in Southern Africa would not seriously affect American access to natural resources. Now we come to two fundamental facts about South Africa: - 0 It is the world’s premier producer of gold, providing two-thirds of the wand’s supply of newly mined gold. ??It is the target of a furious world-wide attack for it8 policy of separate development. What is the link between these two facts? Today I am privileged to quote from “The War on Gold,” by British-born Professsor Antony Sutton, a former Research Fellow at the Hoover institute for War, Revolution and Peace, and author of a number of major works on the inter-national monetary system. ‘The War on Gold,” (Valiant Publishers, Sandton) deals extensively with the US assault on South Africa. in it, Professor Sutton makes a number of disclosures likely to shock South Africans and American8 alike. He contends: ‘The attack on South Africa has little to do with it8 racial Or domestic policies; these are propaganda counterparts to the war on gold. A moment’s thought wiil suggest that a Kissinger who is unmoved by Soviet persecution of Jews and political dissidents is unlikely to be moved by the lack of voting rights for Black South Africans. “Basic to anti-South African hostility is the fact that South Africa is a geological freak, 8 vast storehouse of mineral wealth, an inviting target for every imperialistic cabal in the world, the Soviet Union and the US included.” US demands for a war on gold, he says, began surfacing as far back as 1966. In that same year, “the tax-exempt Carnegie Endowment for international Peace, 62 ostensibly studying ways to end Black persecution in South Africa, published a study (Ameiio C Leiss, Apartheid & UN Collective Measures) detailing how a UN attack could be made on South Africa. The report quoted military calculations including the number of troops required for the attack (93 000), the air power required (3 000 flying hours) and the estimated casualties (18 900 to 37 800). “We can set aside the obviously gross underestimates by the presumably amateur generals at Carnegie. More pertinently, how does a tax-exempt ‘peace foundation get tangled up in promoting wars on the world’s largest producer of gold? ‘This Carnegie Report. . .was signed by Joseph E Johnson, President of the Foundation. Johnson is less well known for another position he holds: Honorary Secretary-General ofor the US at the Bilderberger meetings. “Prince Bernard (of Lockheed payoff fame) is chairman of the Biiderberger group. “The Bilderborgers, otherwise known as The Navigators, are described as global thinkers, supposedly dedicated to strengthening Western ideals. in practice, the group is in the forefront of planning a One-World New Order. Such a New Order would of course be under US (that is, Wail Street) dominance. in other words, it would be the same dollar imperialism that is at the root of the war on gold. “The Carnegie Endowment is an integral part of the US Establisment. In many ways it is closer to the centre of policy-making than the Washington bureaucrats. I\ has a vested interest in promoting dollar imperialism. “As part of the Carnegie programme to ‘alter the future’ on behalf of dollar imperialism, the Leiss Report recommended a boycott on gold as a prelude to military action. “This 1965 report noted that export of gold and gold by-products accounted for 77 percent of South Africa’s gross national product. ‘Gold is the most impor-tant single earner of foreign exchange,’ the report stressed. The ‘study’ also in-traduced some shaky reasoning contending that gold mining would decline before 1970 and predicted that ‘by 1981’ only four of the existing mines on the Witswatersrand may still be in production.” The Leiss Report concluded, says Professor Sutton, that “it would be next to impossible to prevent gold from moving into trade channels even if complete economic measures were applied.” it observed that “a successfui boycott on gold would, if followed, either require some extremely intensive policing operations or some method of shutting off the market or a part of it.” “in other word8 merely calling for a boycott would not be sufficient. Force would be required to make it stick. Getting such a programme implemented would create problems for the US. So the report raised the question: ‘Which would be more damaged by a successful boycott on South African gold -South Africa or the system of international liquidity?’ “The report then offered the obvious conclusion: the only way by which the benefits of South African gold could be denied to South Africa, without destroy-ing international trade, was to destroy the price of gold, while at the same time maintaining US gold reserves to preserve US liquidity and making these reserves available for strategic purposes. “In practice, the Carnegie Endowment proposal has on the policy adopted by the US. Psychological warfare has been mounted against gold and against South Africa, the largest producer of gold. While promoting a war on gold, however, the US has been careful to maintain its 3wt1 gold reserves. “In 1975 the Russo-Cuban takeover of Angola provided a spine-chilling concerting its final phase. confirmation that the ‘Carnegie Plan’ for military action against South Africa was “Publicly, the US position on the takeover of Angola was an uncomfortable ‘hands off.’ But in fact the US was working at the time against South Africa, and the Marxist conquest of Angola fitted into that plan. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger personally reassured leaders of Latin America’s Marxist governments that the US would remain on the sidelines of the conflict in Angola, although some public announcement would be made criticising the Russo-Cuban takeover. “Such statements would be made to appease the American public, however, not upset the plans for Angola. “In Peru, Kissinger assured President Morales Bermuder, Castro’s close friend, that the US had no real intention of supporting South Africa’s action against the Cubans. Later, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee questioned Kissinger about a presidential request for aid to the Unita-FNLA- China-South African alliance fighting the Russian-Cuban-MPLA side, Kissinger replied: ‘The request was only a diplomatic gesture.’ “The London Economist quoted intelligence sources to the effect that the US played a double game in Angola: the CIA promised South Africa military support against the Marxist MPIA - then reneged on its promise. In brief, the report suggests, the US led South Africa into a trap. “This may sound incredible to many readers, but note that this interpretation and the facts are both consistent with three basic realities: the war on gold, the propaganda war against South Africa, the economic assault on South Africa. “In the light of the above, it can be argued that the attack on South African racial policies is nothing more than a cover for a politico-military attack on South Africa, for which the war on gold is an essential preliminary, and in which gold and mineral wealth are the ultimate objectives.” I have shown this report to a number of South African bankers with strong US connections. Most agree that the US liberal-international wing, both in political and financial circles, does not accept the South African argument that this country is important to the West because of its key strategic position and its control of a wide range of essential strategic minerals. “Board members of the largest US banks argue quite cynically that they could negotiate far more easily with a weak and possibly corrupt. Black government in Pretoria than they can with a strong White one; that they could buy more cheap-ly from such a Black government or simply take what they need, as Russia is do-ing in the African countries under its influence,” said one banker. The bankers, however, also point out - as does Professor Sutton - that; 0 South Africa is a very much tougher nut to crack than many in the US liberal-international wing may suppose. Says Professor Sutton: “The armchair generals in New York under-estimated the resiliency of the South African economy. The 1975 devaluation, a tough 1976 Budget and a gold currency swap stabilised the economy.” ??Whether the US Establishment likes it or not, gold has again proved to be “the asset of last resort” for prudent investors. 04 Swiss bankers, indeed, believe the upward pressure on gold is now so strong that it will significantly protect South African gold sales against US State Department interference. 65 66 New World Order’ group dictates US policy , DO MAINSTREAM Americans have any idea of the true motives behind their Government’s politico-economic assault on South Africa? Do mainstream Americans, indeed, have any real idea of who and what con-stitute their own Government? How may Americans, let alone South Africans, know anything at all about the Trilateral Commission, the liberal-international “New World Order” group now dictating all US fiscal and foreign policies? What is the Trilateral Commission, the liberal-international “New World Order” group now dictating ail US fiscal and foreign policies? The story begins in 1921 when a private organisation called the Council on Foreign Relations was established in New York. Composed of individuals with a special interest in foreign affairs, the CFR was initially conceived as a “think tank” to identify world soft spots that could affect American political, economic and strategic interests before they developed. Over the years the CFR, backed by financial giants such as the Rockefellers, has ballooned into the most important private organisation in the world America’s “invisible Government.” Its current membership - 1 702 - reads like a Who’s Who in the fields of high finance, academics, politics, commerce and major foundations. Included are executives of multinational corporations such as IBM, Bendix, ITT, of the major mass media such as Time, Fortune, Business Week, the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS and many more - in short, the most politically powerful and financially viable people in the US. In 1973, on the initiative of Mr David Rockefeller, chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank and at that time also CFR chairman, and Warsaw-born, Harvard-educated Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Columbia University specialist on international relations, the CFR set up the Trilateral Commission. The Rockefellers, with assets and business interests in more than 125 nations, naturally take a more than usual interest in international affairs. The Trilateral Commission’s declared aim is to bring private citizens of Western Europe, Japan and North America together “to foster closer co-operation between these three regions on common problems.” The organisation has 80 members from each region hence the name Trilateral. TC, like its CFR parent, is financed by the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, plus the Lilly Endowment and the Kettering Foundation. All these are noted liberal-internationalists with the declared aim of bringing about a world government or superstate. In 1973, the TC founders, anxious to have a liberal Southerner in their ranks, invited Mr Jimmy Carter, then Governor of Georgia, to join them. Many have wondered how an obscure Georgia peanut farmer came out of nowhere to win the most powerful position in the world. It was Professor Brzezinski and the TC that did it for him. Brzezinski coached Mr Carter for three years in foreign affairs -“it was like a private tutorial,” said Mr Carter recently. Mr Carter won his election by promising his people “I will never lie to you” and that he would bring forth “a new generation of leaders.” Maybe those leaders were new to the American voter but certainly not to the TC or the CFR. TC members now holding key posts in the US Administration are: 0 Mr Carter and Vice President Waiter Mondale. ??Professor Brzezinski, White House National Security Adviser and director of the staff of the National Security Council, regarded by many as the most power-ful appointed post in Washington, with co-ordinating powers over the Pentagon, Treasury, State Department and CIA. 0 Mr Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State. 0 Mr Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of the Treasure. 0 Mr Andrew Young, US Ambassador to the UN. ’ ??Dr Harold Brown, Secretary for Defence. 0 Mrs Lucy Wilson Benson, Assistant Secretary of State for Security. 0 Mr Warren Christopher, Deputy Secretary for State. 0’ Mr Richard N Cooper, Under-Secretary of State, Economic Affairs. 0 Mr Richard Holbrooke, Assistant Secretary of State, Far East. ??Mr C Fred Bergsten, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. Altogether, 16 top White House posts are held by men and women associated with TC. in particular, active or former TC members now head every key agency involved in mapping US strategy for dealing with the rest of the world. The CFR is equally prominent. Mr Blumenthal, Professor Brzezinski and Mr Cyrus Vance are all listed as directors of the CFR. CFR members in the White House include: 0 Dr Harold Brown, Messrs Bergsten, Christopher, Cooper and Holbrooke. 0 Mr Joseph A Califano, Jr, Secretan/, of Health and Education Welfare. 0 Ms Patricia Harris, Secretary, Housing and Urban Development. 0 Mr Alfred Atherton, Assistant Secretary of State, Middle East. 0 Mr Leslie Gelb, former Washington correspondent of the New York Times, now heading the Politico-Military Affairs Division of the State Department. @ Mr Philip C Habib, Under-Secretary of State, Political Affairs. 0 Mr Anthony Lake, Director, Policy Planning Staff, State Department. 0 Mr Richard Moose, new Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. Two directors of the Rockefeller Foundation and three directors of IBM are in the Carter Cabinet. There has never been anything like this in US politics before. Not even Roosevelt’s famous “Brains Trust”, assembled to solve the problems of the Great Depression, had such a stranglehold on the central government. No one challenges the quality of the Trilateralists chosen for these important posts. All of them are outstanding figures in their own fields. Nevertheless, as US analysts are increasingly pointing out, by and large they represent a particular section of the Eastern Liberal Establishment rather than the main force of the Democratic Party itself. Not surprisingly, many in the US -and not in the Republican Party alone see this concentration of power as very undesirable and menacing. In a recent assessment of the Carter Administration, prepared for the British- 67 based Foreign Affairs Research Institute, the analyst A H Standton Candlin says: “It has often been remarked that the US presidents, particularly since the time of Woodrow Wilson, have held, as it were, a sort of dual mandate. “On the one hand they have been elected by’the constitutional machinery and procedures designed to achieve that purpose; on the other they have also been selected and endorsed by powerful financial interests whose aims they have been obliged to view with the utmost respect and sometimes, if not always, execute.” Be that as it may, it is precisely because the Trilaterists now so effectively rule America that their ideas are important. Because so little has been published on the TC, it is very difficult to get a clearcut definition of the commission’s aims. However, those in policy-making positions have repeatedly stated that TC’s goal is a New World Order. In “The Future of Federalism,” Noble Nils says:“No nation today can fulfil the needs and aspirations of its own people from within its own borders or from its own resources alone - and so the nation state, standing alone, threatens in many ways to seem as anachronistic as the Greek city states finally became in ancient times. . .” Professor Brzezinski has publicly stated there is a “new global mood. . .” and adds: “International banks and multi-national corporations are acting and plan-ning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation- state.” In one TC pamphlet it is stated that in present circumstances it is necessary to abolish “the narrow dictates of national interests” and create a new “world order.” To do this, it will be necessary to “renovate” the world economic system presently based on Bretton Woods. This would demand a new IMF, a new General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a new General Agreement on Investment and a new role for the World Bank. To do this, a new currency called “Bancor” would be established. Like the Special Drawing Rights of the IMF, this currency would replace gold and the dollar as the world monetary unit. The “New World Order,” it is emphasised, would finally encompass the Western world, the communist world and the Third World. It is this proposed universal link that is increasingly alarming many in the West - and particularly South Africa, currently the main target of the internationalists. Professor Antony Sutton, in his book “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,” says recent history cannot be properly understood unless it is realised. “There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists to their mutual benefit.” South Africans have until now almost entirely defined their enemy as inter-national communism. Perhaps they will understand their danger far better if they appreciate that their so-called “Western” traditions and standards are of little real value to the One Worlders. Questions in parliament CAPE TOWN.- Two prominent MPs have asked questions in Parliament about The Citizen’s exclusive series of articles reflecting the secret US war against South Africa. One of them has challenged the United States Government to deny the facts if they are untrue. Mr Louis Nel National Party MP for Pretoria Central, referring to Aida Parker’s Monday article, said the facts disclosed regarding America’s alleged indirect intervention in South Africa’s internal affairs were serious. They were so serious that he hoped the US would deny the allegation. Mr John Wiley, South African Party MP for Simonstown, called the report a seemingly well-researched article which the House must take in a very serious light. It bore out what he himself had said in Parliament during the last few years. What was most disturbing was that it disclosed that a part of the American Where the money comes from THE most remarkable aspect of the US thrust against South Africa, often with heavy British back-up, is that it remained so successfully camouflaged for so long. Two factors made such screening possible: 1, Those directing the operation wield such vast international wealth and power that very few people were prepared to buck the system. 2. Ironically the real wreckers have been saved from exposure by those most bitterly opposed to them; the hardcore Far Right, here and in the West generally. The whole emphasis has been on the communist danger, with the Far Right going well beyond the bounds of reason and blaming everyone, from Reds to liberals, for the country’s afflictions, with Zionist plots thrown in to add to the confusion. It is the Western wreckers, however, who have done more to destabilise this country than all the communist efforts combined. If South Africans generally had been a little more alert, they would have caught the warning signals long ago. First reputable historian to blow the gaff was the late Professor Carroll Quigley, formerly of Georgetown University in Washington and himself a member of the liberal Establishment. In his massive, well-documented 1 3000 page treatise, “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time,” published by MacMillans of New York in 1966, Prof Quiqley said; “There does exist and has existed for a generation an international anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Communists act. In fact, this network has no aversion to co-operating with the communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. “I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for 20 years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aim and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments”. Quigley described the network’s aims as “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” The network, he said, worked through a number of “front organisations,” the two most important being America’s Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA). Predictably, Quigley was cutting far too close to the bone. HIS book received the silent treatment from the entire Establishment Press overseas. Indeed, research has uncovered only one published review, a short non-committal com- 70 ment in Current History an academic journal to which Quigley was a contributing editor. Although few here know of the Quigley work - a pity, because it comes up with some startling South African disclosures - a number of South African analysts have used it as a major reference work for a long time, regularly monitoring the activities of front organisations named by him. I can disclose that their findings have periodically been submitted to Government officials, but because of the overall desire of South Africans to believe the US to be an anti-communist ally and friend, there has been a marked reluctance to take serious note of such warnings. Adding to the general scepticism has been the Far Right’s obsession with “communists” in the CFR. This long-term research exposes the real manipulators of the anti-South African push as: No 1, the Ford Foundation. This is the giant among the American foundation giants, with total fixed assets of around R2 OOO-million and an annual income bigger than many African states. Significantly, Henry Ford II resigned as a trustee of the foundation last February because, according to a statement issued by the Ford Motor Company, he felt the foundation was no longer encouraging the goals for which it was founded - the pursuit of capitalism. Presently, the Ford Foundation is controlled by a board of six trustees, a sort of “cabinet” which effectively decides how upwards of RlOO-million a year is spent. Of the six, four are CFR men- McGeorge Bundy, the president; William H Donaldson, Charles E Wyzanaki and J Irwin Miller. Five other CFR men are prominent in the foundation’s affairs: David E Beel (executive vice-president), Roger G Kennedy, a vice-president, and Andrew F Brimmer, Hedley Donovan and Robert McNamara, all general trustees. This is how the Ford Foundation allocates funds for South Africa: 1. It has provided millions to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under the Law, this money being used for the legal defence of terrorists and others ac-cused of trying to undermine the South African Government. 2. It allocated hundreds of thousands of dollars to be spent on behalf of Charles V Hamilton, co-author of Black Power, blueprint for the South African Black Power movement. We can now expect more from Prof Hamilton The latest FF report discloses that around R230 000 has been allocated to a civil rights movement, MARC (Metropolitan Allied Research Centre, of which Hamilton is president), to “promote the collaboration of civil rights activists and university scholars in research and information activities. . .” 3. It has handed over thousands of dollars to the University of California Press, which uses this money to commission and pay academics and activists to write works (all hostile) on South Africa. 4. It has given millions of dollars (R5550 000 last year) to the International Association for Cultural Freedom in Paris. Formerly known as the Congress for Cultural Freedom, this group has for many years subsidised some of the most virulently anti-South African publications, notably Africa South and Africa South in Exile. 5. It passes along many thousands of dollars to the Royal Institute (HIIA), another front organisation which frequently supports anti-South African activity. 6. It finances a British outfit known as the Minority Rights Group (R55 000 in 1975, R70 000 in 1977). MRG specialises in “investigation and publicising violation of human rights of minorities.”The Indians in South Africa have so far been “investigated and publicised.” 7. According to evidence given before the Schlebush Commission by Paul 71 Pretorius, a former NUSAS president, Ford has also funded a host of other groups, including SAS0 and the Christian Institute, through the International University Exchange Fund in Switzerland. Next comes the Johnson Foundation of Racine notable for its famous “Wingspread” conferences where anti-South African zealots such as Dr Gwendoline Carter have blue-printed action US businessmen can take against this country. Again, according to evidence before the Schlebush Commission it was this foundation that paid around R5 000 to take Neville Curtis and a friend to the US to meet radical groups, including Black Power leaders. Curtis was one of the first in this country to popularise Black Power. Johson’s president, Leslie Paffrath, is a CFR man. Both the mighty Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund are entirely controlled by the CFR. Both groups are generous supporters of anti-South African activist bodies. The Field Foundation, which lists a certain Andrew Young as one of its trustees, is a contributor to the Lawyers’ Committee and gave R5 000 to South African self-exiled lawyer, Joel Carlson, who is actively working against this country. Field’s president is a CFR man. Six officers and trustees of the Carnegie Corporation are CFR men. Carnegie has given more than R300 000 to the rabidly anti-South African African-America Institute (AAI) in the past few years. Six officers of the AAI are CFR men. South Africa’s biggest enemy in the US, and the one which financed the Leiss plan to blockade and invade South Africa, is the Carnegie Endowment for Inter-national Peace. Seventeen of its officers and trustees, including the president, are CFR. The Lawyers’ Committee is controlled by a group of lawyers, including 23 CFR members. Another CFR-controlled foundation playing an alarming anti-South African role in the US is the UN Association of the. United States of America. In December, 1971, one’ Cyrus R Vance, chairman of this group’s Policy Studies, presented a 930page report compiled on Southern Africa. This report bore down heavily in favour of disengagement from South Africa by US companies. Of the 14-member panel connected with the report, nine were CFR members. One of the five non-CFR members of this panel was Prof Charles V Hamilton, co-author of Black Power. CFR members have played a large role in getting Hamliton’s Black Power theories established in South Africa. The Ford Foundation financially backed a seminar in Cape Town in 1971 to which virtually unknown Black Power leaders were invited. This was the first occasion when their dangerously racist views gained real Press coverage. Later essays by these men, studiously in the Hamliton tradition, were published in a book, “Student Perspectives on Southern Africa,” for which a foreword was written by prominent CFR-member, Seymour Martin Lipset. He described the works of these Blacks as “most significant and praiseworthy,” thus allowing his internationally respected name to give respectability to a dangerous ideology. That then is the story of the highly successful efforts of the liberal-international wing of the CFR and the American Establishment at destabilising South Africa. There is not the slightest doubt that this is being done without the knowledge and without the wish of the great majority of American people. 72 Nevertheless, a certain section is bent on destroying White South Africa -and South Africans must understand this. Roosevelt once said: “In politics nothing happens, by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned tha; way.” South Africans must now recognise the face of their true enemy, since their country’s future may depend on their doing SO. 73 US chiddeny grants directive revealed TODAY I can produce clear-cut proof that the US Administration deliberately uses private organisations, foundations and institutes as a “cover” for providing educational grants, some of which are used to benefit existing or potential members of so-called “liberation” groups. Such proof is contained in a confidential 1 200-word telex message sent out from the US Embassy in Cape Town in February, 1976, and made available to me by a trusted source in an adjoining territory for use in this series. The telex, which was transmitted to the Secretary of State, Washington, to the American Embassies in Dar-es-Salaam, Gaborone, Lusaka, Maseru, Mbabane and Pretoria, and to the American consulates in Durban and Johannesburg, deals with one of the most sensitive issues between South Africa and Washington today: “Development Training for Southern Africans.” The documents provides the clearest possible evidence of the inter-relationship between private foundations (many of them known CIA conduits) and the US Government itself -the old secret service story of “the revolving door”. A senior lawyer to whom I submitted the document for examination said: ‘While this directive may give the impression of maintaining some sort of impar-tiality or neutrality in respect of these programmes, there are tell-tale references which indicate that the organisators are no friends of South Africa; that they are in fact leaning over backwards to disguise their intentions from the South African Government.” Here, unaltered, are points taken from the documents. Where the word “SAG” is used read South African Government. “Any training aid program in South Africa must keep the program from ap-pearing either to support SAG apartheid policy or to foster revolution . . . “Direct aid label should be avoided by operating through grants or contracts with US organisations which can carry out private training programs. “If handled through reputable private organisations not specifically deemed unfriendly by SAG Passport problems should be manageable. “If program envisioned . . . is to include candidates chosen from within either South Africa or Namibia, it is obviously important that that program should not be seen by Blacks here or in other African states as aid to SAG or as direct sup-port for SAG “separate development” concepts. “Equally important, however, program should not be seen by SAG as designed to foster revolutionary change or establish base for insurrection. ‘Within guidelines suggested by these limits, Embassy believes successful 74 program can be developed. “Program should not be identified as “aid” or given any of the usual aid lables. “It should not repeat not be administrered by an aid field officer here or in some other country. “Program involving participants from inside SA or Namibia should not be related to SASP (“Africa-American Institute’s SA Student Programme” even if parts of overall funding goes towards separate supplementation of SASP for persons who have left SA or Namibia. Whatever its reputation in Black Africa, SASP is regarded in SAG as program of support of liberation movements. “In circumstances, seems quite likely that SAG would refuse passports or otherwise block selections for any program administered by AAI or by any other organisation deemed by SAG to be openly committed to Black majority rule in Southern Africa. “Best means of avoiding direct obstruction may be to diversify program by utilizing more than one or two organisations, including educational institutions, and giving it appearance of program designed to support co-operations in various forms of “exchange” activities. “While program objectives should give primary emphasis to professional /occupational advancement of Black South Africans in certain priority fields opportunities should not be too narrowly limited to such fields or to particular development concepts. “If direct USG role is needed in program design or participant selection, it might be best for this to appear as only a logical extension of existing CU -funded activities such as our small student program, operated through the Institute of International Education, the International Visitor program, and various multi-national and multi-regional programs, several of which are operated through grants to private funding assistance this would be all the better. “Use of private organisations would require close monitoring and guidance to insure that they not fall in trap of allowing SAG or private SA organisations to guide, their activities or selections solely into support for strictly segregated in-’ stitutions of ‘separate development.’ “If adequate care is taken in selecting US contact institutions. . . it should be possible to operate on moderate scale without having to enter into consultations or special arrangements with SAG and without encountering more than usual problems in getting passports and travel permission for participants. “Passports for Non-White participants would continue to take long lead time and would frequently prove difficult or impossible to arrange for prospective participants who might have taken part in any kind of political protest movements or active anti-apartheid activity. Passports would probably not prove more difficult to get than for participants in present exchange activities, however. “In considering training needs which program can meet by projects in US or Third countries, seems important to identify types of training that can be put to immediate use by pat-ticipantv in job opportunities that already exist or can be created. “In South Africa, Embassy would give first priority to labour field. Small business enterprise and management would contribute another useful priority area. “For Namibia, we believe some candiates in obvious priority field of public ad-ministration may be found. Beyond these top priority fields there is still considerable need for upgrading professional skills and experience of Black teachers and social workers who, while already in fields that are relatively more open to Blacks, can play significant role in community organisation and social-political awareness.” ‘70 explore programme opportunities of type envisioned believe Aid should 76 consult such US organisations as overseas liaison committee of American Council on Education, American Management Association, international Management Development institute and various professional associations or large universities which, with aid funding, might be interested in offering training opportunities directly to Black South Africans or Namibians.” Experts with whom I discussed the reference:“Upgrading professional skills and experience of Black teachers . . . can play significant role in community organisations and social-political awareness” said this was an American sphere of operations that could bear some investigation, particularly in Bophuthatswana. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
