Training for ‘liberation’: US institute’s key role THERE has recently been a tremendous furore in the US Congress over the fact that South Africa spends R 1,5-million a year on its information services in the US and that a few sugar officials accepted sponsored invitations to visit South Africa. Here again is an outstanding example of the Carter Administration’s “selective morality.” Such indignation over South Africa’s expenditure of R1,5-million on perfectly open, above-board information services in the US (population, 2 17-million) looks a bit out of perspective when you examine what the American Goverment is spending on destabilising activities through various covert operations in South Africa (population, 24-million). What is more, while the US Government through its Foreign Agents Registration Act knows precisely how every cent of South African money is spent on in-formation and lobby services in the US, in South Africa no American is called to account. Not even the South African Government has the faintest idea how much US money is spent in this country. So trusting have the South Africans been that the Government does not even know the official budget allocation of the US Information Services in this country. To gain some picture of the huge sums of money involved in the US operation against South Africa, The Citizen will today again examine one of the key “destabilising” agencies: the African-American Institute, an organisation still virtually unknown to most South Africans. The aims of the AAI, operating almost entirely on US Government or tax-exempt foundation grants, in regard to South Africa, are quite simple. To accelerate by all possible means a transition to Black Government. - To ensure through training and educational programmes the availability of trained persons to take over that proposed Government. - To ensure by these means that such a Government would be favourably disposed to the US. The AAI has achieved phenomenal success in its onslaught on White South Africa. In Africa itself, it today probably has firmer links than the Russians with nearly all the major Southern African “liberation movements.” It has arranged for the technical training and education of hundreds of those now operating inside these movements. Internally and externally, it has masterminded many of the most successful propaganda campaigns waged against this country. 46 It has taken hundreds of South African Black, Indian and Coloured leaders, . many of them militants, to the US, and there ensured that these visitors are saturated with political influence which they, in turn, can spread further on their return. AAI supplies these people with propaganda material for use against the South African Government. Contacts are made on these travels which are maintained and developed so that the work initiated in the US can be continued later by post and further visits. Side by side with this, AAI has played a vital role in promoting the extremely damaging “disinvestment” campaign now under way against South Africa, and in educating churches, universities, trade unions and political, pressure groups on how to wage economic warfare against the Republic. A report entitled “Refugee- Students from Southern Africa - Report of Workshop on the Training and IJtllisatlon of Refugee Students from Southern Africa, sponsored by the African-American Institute and Syracuse University at Lubin House, New York City, 18-19 April, 1967,” illustrates the spirit and at-titude of the AAI towards Southern Africa. (AA1 in its literature never refers directly to South Africa. It always refers to Southern Africa or to “minority-ruled countries in Southern Africa”). Detailing what he calls “conclusions from the conference,” Mr E Jefferson Murphy, AAl’s Executive Vice-President, wrote: - “It is of vital importance to provide education and training for refugees from ,Southern Africa for humanitarian reasons, because they are symbols of the struggle against racism and for the majority rule in their countries, and because they will be needed in the fight for freedom and in the subsequent process of nation building. ??‘The objectives of such training should be, first, to prepare students to participate effectively in’ the struggle for freedom and, second, to prepare them to contribute to their people In exile, to their country of asylum and ultimately to their home country when independence comes. - “Scholarships for training should be awarded where possible to students affiliated with a liberation movement, and the training programme and efforts to assure trained students utilisation on return should be planned and carried out as much as possible in co-operation with liberation movements. - “Whatever steps are taken to solve short-term problems, there is only one ultimate solution to the overall problem: that is the overthrow of minority regimes in Southern Africa and the liberation of the Southern tier of the continent. “Participants were reminded by AAI Vice-President Frank Ferrari that although temporary solutions may be found for many of the problems posed by Southern Africa refugees, there is only one ultimate, long-term solution to the problem. “This is to end minority regimes in Southern Africa.’ ” According to the attendance list, the 68 people present included Edwin Khabelo, African National Congress; Testus U Muundjna, South West African Natlonal Union; Sam Nujoma, SWAPO; John Simons, World University Service (a CIA conduit); Hanrey Hall, the Ford Foundation. It might also be interesting to note that the Mr Frank Ferrari mentioned has gone on record as saying: “The guerrilla of yesterday is the Minister of tomorrow.” AAI Is involved in 88 African programmes, operating 24 separate program-mes of its own. Of these, 11 are made possible by contract with the US Govern-ment or grants from private donors. The remaining core programmes are underwritten either in whole or in part btr grants from major foundations, corporations or key individuals. Many African Governments provide AAI with free office space. CIA- backed Ronald Segal top propagandist DOES America’s Central Intelligence Agency control or influence the African National Congress, South Africa’s best-known “liberation movement”? Experts in close and constant touch with the situation find the mere sugges-tion so extraordinary as to be shocking. On the one hand, the ANC is today almost slavishly Moscow-orientated, \iuith almost all its executives members of the exiled South African Communist Party. On the other hand the CIA is the main intelligence agency of the world’s largest democracy. Yet secret documents obtained by The Citizen through ANC dissidents prove to the hilt that someone very close to the CIA has played - and probably still plays - a remarkably effective role in directing the activities of the ANC. All evidence indicates that man is Cape Town-born Roland Segal. A socialist but no communist, Segal has for years been a member of the inner circle of the ANC and one of its key strategists. Over the past 21 years he has proved to be the most skilled, the most important and the most dangerous propagandist against South Africa. In that period, as publisher, journalist, boycott and resistance organiser, he has had access to huge sums of money for his anti-South African activities. Yet no one ever appears to have inquired into the source of these lavish funds. Today I can disclose that his main sponsor was a little-known organisation called the Congress of Cultural Freedom, named as far back as 1967 as a CIA conduit. Born in Cape Town on July 2, 1932, Segal was educated at the University of Cape Town (BA, Arts) and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He visited the US for the first time in 1957 to study for a doctoral degree on a Philip Francis du Pont bursary. After a mere five months he returned to South Africa to direct specific campaigns. He did not return with empty hands. In his possession was a list of names of prominent Americans and Britons who had agreed to act as sponsors for an international quarterly magazine he was to publish. This magazine was Africa South, the first issue of which was dated October-December, 1956. Africa South soon became South Africa’s best-known vehicle for the inter-national dissemination of radical anti-Government propaganda. Communists and liberals alike found that their articles were readily accepted for publication by Segal. 60 In June 1960 the journal was banned in South Africa. It immediately reap-peared in London, still published by the same company, but now known as Africa South in Exile. It appeared under the latter name until October 1961. At the same time most thinking South Africans were primarily concerned about the communist propaganda published by The Guardian, which when banned reappeared immediately as New Age and Clarion. In hard fact these papers were pretty ineffective. Poorly printed, poorly produced, always operating on hopelessly inadequate funds, their impact internally was minimal, externally none at all. Segal’s publications, providing the base for a broad intellectual front against South Africa, were infinitely more harmful. Africa South went all over the world, into the houses of the power elite, always respectable because it and its successor carried the aura of responsible liberalism. He also organised boycotts against the products of companies controlled by Afrikaners and when a state of emergency was declared after the Sharpeville tragedy, he acted as the Scarlet Pimpernel of the “liberation” movements. On March 20, 1960 he drove Oliver Tambo, ANC acting president, over the border into 29. What was then Bechuanaland, returning to Johannesburg on March The next day, nine days after the Sharpeville shootings, Segal - who had been warned that the police were searching for him - drove back across the border into Botswana. From there, travelling on documents provided by the Indian Government, he accompanied Tambo to England. There, as a member of the “Congress Group”,the secret ceil operating inside the ANC, he became a sponsor of Defence and Aid, Christian Action and the Anti-Apartheid Movement. He was also listed ,as convener of the 1964 International Sanctions Conference in London, a massive jamboree attended by delegates from all over the world. It was to have a powerful influence on the British Labour Party and other sym- pathetic Governments in various boycott efforts against South Africa. Segal later became editorial adviser to Penguin Books. Penguin soon created a special series for him, the Penguin Africa Library. One of the first authors he commissioned to write for him was Ruth First, a listed South African Communist and wife of top Communist Joe Slovo. All his authors support Pan-Africanism’. Nearly all the works published by Penguin in this series are virulently anti-South African; to a degree where questions about this particular aspect of Penguin Books have been asked in the British Press. Today Segal still travels widely, lecturing against South Africa and’ playing a large part in trying to stimulate economic boycotts against this country. No one, least of all Segal, has ever explained the origin of the funds needed to back his long-term anti-South African crusade. His reluctance to disclose his source is understandable. His financial fairy god-mother all along has been the CIA. First disclosure of this came in an interview between Rajar Neogy, then editor of the Ugandan journal Transition, and Tony Hall of the Sunday’ .Nation in Nairobi. Neogy was talking about his own experiences with the CIA. Hall’s report was published in the Nation on June 11 1967 and in the August-September issue ‘of Transition. 51 The CCF, Neogy was informed, WBS already supporting journals such as Africa South, Black Orpheus and New African. Presuming the CCF to be a clearing agent for the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, Neogy said he had had no reservations about accepting its money. This w8s understandable. A CCF letterhead used in August 1965 read: ‘The Congress for Cultural Freedom is an independent world-wide association of scholars, writers, scientists and artists. Its purpose is to cultivate a spirit of free inquiry, devotion to truth . . .and to defend intellectual liberties against infringe-ment from whatever source.” “imagine my surprise,”said Neogy, “when it was suddenly disclosed that the CCF was reaily a clearing house for the CIA.” This happened early in 1967 when CCF director, Michael Josseison sdmitted under Press pressure that the CCF was supported to the tune of about R l-million a year, the bulk of which came from the CIA. Josseison was replaced shortly afterwards and from then until 1972 the main support of the CCF was the Ford Foundation. in another document made available to me, 8 list is given of members of the ANC’s “Congress Group” invited to a meeting chaired by Joe Slovo at Oliver Tambo’s house in London on March, 197 1. The names, all ‘well known in South Africa, are: Rosalynde Ainsiee, Ruth First, Ronaid Segal, Velia Piiiary, Thami Mhlambison, Tennyson Makiwane, Reginald September, Rica Hodgson, Sonia Bunting, Abdui Minty, Benjamin Turok, Robert Resha and M P Naicker. This is the secret group which constitutes the ANC’s “think tank” and dictates strategy. In another secret report, submitted from ANC headquarters In Morogoro, Tanzania, in December 1970, the role of the Congress Group is defined as “one of planning, directing and co-ordinating solidarity work in the UK, and also in Western Europe and the US, for which the ANC London office is also responsible‘. The Moiogoro report also says that because of the confidential nature of the Congress Group’s strategy operations, the existence of the group “must be known only to those working on it, and to the leadership of the ANC”. That Segai has played 8 star role in ANC policymaking is beyond dispute. While the secret ANC reports credit the Congress Group with organising the international Sanctions Conference, Segai in one of his own books claims he did it almost single-handed. . He is as vague about the source of the funds which made this giant con- ference possible as he has always been about the funds which made Africa South and Africa South in Exile possible. No outsider knows exactly where the Congress Group obtains its funds. Most have automaticaiiy accepted that being Moscow-orientated, the ANC was also primarily Moscow-supported. These new disclosures about the long-term CIA support of Mr Segel now throw that very much open to doubt. 62 The american CIA way of giving THE CIA being in the subterfuge business, it bankroll8 a great variety of organisations. it is a particularly old trick of the CIA, in its subliminal attacks on a target na-tion, to subsidise student movements, educational programmes and other activities which could help influence impressionable young minds. Today, then, we have another look at “The American Way of Giving,” this time through two key CIA-backed funding operations: the World University Service (WUS) and the international University Exchange Fund (IUEF). Until the Schlebusch Commission began lifting the secrecy curtain (revealing some extremely interesting scenery), these two funds were the biggest foreign source of money for NUSAS. ’ Though Schlebusch turned off the taps for Nusas, both funds are still operating, overtly and covertly, both In South Africa and South West Africa -and in some highly sensitive areas. According to its documentation, WUS was established after the First World War to assist student victims by provldlng food, clothing, books and scholarships to enable them to resume their studies. After the Second World War it helped student POW’S to continue their studies and contributed towards the restoration of universities in Europe and Asia. Initially the then WUS was an educational welfare organisation. Thet’s the way most South Africans associated with it still view this seemingly innocuous organisation. They are making a dangerous mistake. First hint that dramatic new things were planned for WUS came in the early 60s when 8 well-known Black CIA.agent, James T (‘Ted”) Harris, joined the Geneva headquarters 8s Assistant Secretary-General. By 1976 WUS was under the spotlight in the US where The New YorkTimes claimed thet it had “set up a network of conspiracy within seemingly free Institutions.” In that same year, an official investigation was opened in Spain into alleged one that WUS was associated with CIA efforts to destabilise the France regime. in May, 197 1, a British newspaper quoted the Secretary General ot WUS, a’ Mr S Chidambaranathan, as saying that WUS “has come out openly in support of guerrilla movements.” The Republic, it appeared, would be a particular target. ‘World University Service opposes any government or body co-operating with South Africa and is outspokenly against the sale of arms there.” 53 Lending support to terrorist movements. It was reported that a WUS official was negotiating with the OAU on what would be the best way tq help the “liberation movements.” Best known of these were the ANC, PAC. Frelimo, ZAPU and ZANU. WUS established a South African office in 1963. Within a year or two a NUSAS official had been appointed to the local executive. Shortly aftewards the local WUS office was closed down - but the Geneva headquarters continued as a major source of funding for NUSAS and other bodies. By 1967 NUSAS knew all about the CIA connection - and by 1971 was getting its instructions, in no uncertain terms. Michel Goualt, co-secretary of WUS in Geneva, wrote - laying it on the line. NUSAS would have to cooperate much more closely with the radical Black student organisation, SASO, he said, or run the risk of losing certain donations. ‘You are certainly aware of the sympathy going towards SAS0 in the circle of organisations such as WUS,” he wrote. The letter, the text of which is in The Citizen’s possession but is too long to be used in full, indicated that NUSAS should understand it was of strategic importance to build up SAS0 for the day “when time comes down to action” and for the “useful results” which SASO’s approach could be expected to yield. Goualt’s letter made it abundantly clear that WUS was using both NUSAS and SAS0 in accordance with a long-term political strategy. The letter also makes strikingly clear how much influence a major, consistent foreign donor can build up over the recipient body over a period of time. Further evidence of WUS links with terrorist movements was given in two paragraphs in the publication ‘WUS Action, 1971-l 972.” These read: ‘WUS is in contact and cooperation with Southern African liberation move- ments with regard to its education program. ‘The Azanian (i.e. South African) programs are carried out in co-operation with the National Union of South African Students (NUSAS) and with the co-operation of the South African Students Organisation (SASO)“. Even less well-known to most South Africans is the International University Exchange Fund. Born out of the old international Student Conference (KC), IUEF, founded in 1960, had a political character from the start. IUEF’s aims were clearly spelt out in its official mouthpiece, The Student, In the January/February issue of 1967: ‘The goal upon which the IUEF work is focused is. . . the liberation of those African nations still suffering under the rule of colonialism or apartheid. “Therefore the IUEF stays in close contact with all the major liberation move- ments and receives scholarship nominations from them.” Movement8 listed include ANC, PAC, SWAPO, SWANU, ZANU, ZAPU and Frelimo. The article added: “Graduates who have received IUEF scholarships in the past can now be found working for the liberation of their own people in many of the organisations mentioned.” As with WUS, in 1967 it became known that the CIA played an important role in ISC. As a result of this expose, ISC was allowed to die, but IUEF was kept go-ing as an independent organisation. The IUEF developed amazingly fast from a small fund with a limited number of scholarships to one of the most important organisations in its field. By 197 1 its total budget amounted to more than R 1,4-million, with additional sponsors coming in ail the time. Both organisations were generous contributors to NUSAS - to the point where, judging by a letter written in 1969 by Clive Nettleton, the acting presi- 64 dent, and quoted on Page 167 of the Schlebusch Report, NUSAS offlciala were confused about which body was contributing to which project. The Schlebusch report also stated that the IUEF had become the most lmpor-tant source of funds for NUSAS. IUEF’s aims and objects in Southern Africa were spelt out in the clearest pos-sible terms by IUEF director, Lars-Gunnar Eriksen, at an “international Conference of Experts For the Support of Victims of Colonialism and Apartheid in Southern Africa,” held in Oslo from April 9 to 14, 1973. Under the heading, “The Motives Behind Assistance,” he said: “It would seem that the time has come when organisations must recognise that the prime lnten-tion is to provide within the unavoidable limitations, assistance towards the ul-timate and total liberation of the countries in Southern Africa and to plan programmes and priorities in that context.” Under the heading “Programmes Behind Enemy Lines,” he said: “it is today by and large recognised that liberation and revolution must come from within the country. “As a consequence it is not desirable that the politically agile and aware leave the country more than is necessary. That should lead us to provide an increased and more effective assistance behind the lines of the enemy. “Perhaps even more important are the activities undertaken by many different groups with a view to creating a greater political awareness among the people, to spread information on civil and labour rights, to provide leadership training, community development programmes, training in nutrition, literacy, etc. “More details obviously cannot be given publicly. Assistance towards programmes behind the enemy lines, carried out in a quiet way through reliable channels, should be given increased importance by those concerned. . .** Are WUS and IUEF still “operating behind the enemy lines”? NUSAS may be out of action, but the funds still come through and are handled by various trust8 and organisations. IUEF is still operating a prison education programme, notably among the political prisoners on Robben Island. 66 with a dangerouspolitical purpose since The Citizen first published details of the US Information Satvlce reading room In Soweto, questions have been asked about the faculty In Parliament. Replying, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr “Pik” Botha, said he knew nothing about it. Today further details are given of this reading room which, one US Embassy official explains, Is part of the American “cultural programme”. It is a “culture” which most experts agree could prove extremely dangerous to South Africa. The CIA, they point out, are old hands at the game of exploiting “culture” for political purposes. The reading room was opened in the Donaldson Hail, Orlando East, late In November, 1975. It is described as an extension of the main USIS operation In Shakespeare House, Commissioner Street, Johannesburg. Jointly concerned with the centre is the African Music and Drama Association (AM DA). No Americans or South African Whites serve full-time QD the USIS-AMDA facility, which is run by two South African Blacks. When established, the reading room was provided with 800 books, most of the dealing with the American civil rights struggle and the strategies used by the civil rights leaders, In addition, there were about 100 musical recordings, tapes and films again, concentrating heavily on the American civil rights experience. The facility remains open till 10 pm, so saving Soweto residents the Inconvenience of travelling to the main USIS library. I have succeeded in tracing three Blacks who have attended poetry readings at the USIS-AMDA centre. One attended such a function on April 20 this year. There were, he says, about 80 Blacks present. “Mainly,” he says, “it was political poetry readings, the theme of the whole thing being Black liberation. A lot of people took part.” A second Black told me: “Mostly these poetry readings deal with the liberation of the Black man and about the White man oppressing the Black man.” A third Black, a professional man, said he was startled at the uncompromising hard line adopted by some of the performers. “I wonder whether the White people In the USIS office in town really know what Is going on there?” This man made the interesting observation that comparatively few from Soweto are exposed to Communist teachings - but they all know about the American civil rights struggle and the French Revolution. I asked anthropologist Dr Willie Breytenbach of the Africa Institute if he could explain the rationale behind this USIS “cultural” activity in Soweto. He s8id: “The pettern was clearly laid down during his visit here by Mr Andy Young. “it is part of the Carter Administration’s campaign to relate the experience of South African Biecks to the American civil rights movement. “I maintain there is no relevance whatsoever, culturally or ethnically, in the two experiences. . “The American Negro is virtually detribalized and Westernised, the South African Black is not. Equally, White interests were not really at stake in the US Southern States where Whites were still numericeliy stronger. in South Africa it is just the opposite. “Black poetry, Black art, Black literature are all being used in the attempt to transmit the thoughts, modes and beheviour of the American civil rights struggle, so that South African Blacks can accept or take over some aspects of this Negro experience and in 230 doing be made more. and more aware of their Black Negritude.” Old CIA WstChers sre not too surprised at the Soweto “cultural”development. “it is a classic story of history repeating itself,” one former intelligence officer told me. A facility with a remarkable resemblance to the Soweto operation opened in London in January, 1962. This facility, known as the Transcription Centre, was advertised as a “non-profit making organisation supported by 8 direct grant from the Farfield Foundation.” it was intended as “a cultural centre with a reading room and an informal atmosphere.” Prominently involved in the whole exercise was an American, Mr Melvin John Lasky, a director of Transcription Feature Services, Ltd. Lasky was also a director of Encounter, Ltd., which financed such avant-garde magazines as the British socialist publication, Encounter, Oddly enough, Encounter WBS also financed by the CIA vi8 the Congress of Cultural Freedom, which in turn financed Roland Segal’s Africa South and Africa South in Exile. An article in the June, 1966 issue of another CIA-financed journal, Frontier, provided some interesting information on the link between the CIA-supported Transcription Centre and African cuiturei organisations. Written by the Hon Robert Loder, the article disclosed that London’8 African Music and Dram8 Trust in association with the Transcription Centre, was presenting a series of African plays at the Hampstead Theatre. Two of them were authored by Woie Soynika, joint editor of another CIA conduit journal, Black Orpheus. A report in The World of December 1, 1975 describing the opening night of the USIS reading room in Soweto, disclosed the poet Sipho Sepemla read a few of his own compositions and 8 section of 8 work from another unnamed Black poet. Sepemla may not be a household name, but he has established a reputation for himself in cultural and literary fields. When he read his poems at the USIS reading room the second number of 8 literary megezine edited by him had just appeared. The publication of this magazine, New Classic, according to an editorial in the first issue published earlier in 1975, was made possible by “remnants of 8 grant from the Farfield Foundation.” To those in close touch with the situation, things began to tie up. The original Classic was published entirely on funds supplied by the CIA- supported Farfield foundation. Classic had long since disappeared- but apparently the Farfieid Foundation 67 had left a few dollars lying around, conveniently at the disposal of the New Clasic In the second issue of New Classic there was a small notice saying a few copies of the original Classic were still available at an address in Dube at R2 for four copies, or R4 for eight copies. Looking through New Classic the reader is immediately struck by the fact that many contributor8 have, almost certainly unwittingly, often been in touch with CIA-funded institutions in the past. One such contributor appeared both in the original Classic and in New Classic, and in New Africa casually mentioned that he received and used a “Farfield Foundation Fellowship to study literary trends in Africa.” The CIA’s iinks with Black “cultural” organisations are clearly long and devious. Many Parliamentarians are extremely interested indeed in the USIS operation in Soweto and the impact that operation has had on local Black thinking. i 68 How the anti SA WCC gets funds from US IN 1970 the terrorist war in Southern Africa was declining. Both in Angola and Mozambique the Portuguese were more or less on top of the situation. In Rhodesia terrorism had scarcely begun, South Africa had not been touched. As things stood at that time, all indication8 were that by 1974-76 terrorism would be a thing of the past. Then, late in 1970, the whole thing began blowing up again - to the point where, in a brief seven years: Lisbon had surrendered its SOO-year-old African Empire. Around 600 000 White and mestizo Portuguese had fled Africa, many to lives of the utmost poverty and deprivation in metropolitan Portugal or South America. The departure of the Portuguese made way for two ruthless, hopelessly inept Marxist Government8 in Angola and Mozambique. In both areas, as is now publicly admitted, the economies have been shot to pieces, with millions living in infinitely worse condition8 than ever they knew under the former “colonialists.” Rhodesia was to come under a vicious terrorist onslaught which on both sides he8 now accounted for more than 3 000 lives, most of them Black. South Africa became an embattled nation, forced into the position of spending nearly R2 OOO-million a year on accelerated defence commitments. By any standards, this must be regarded as one of the most successful “destabilising” efforts in history. President Roosevelt went on record as saying that “in politics nothing hap-pens by accident. If it happens, you can be sure that somebody meant it to hep-pen that way.” So how did all this happen? Who meant it to happen? And what precisely was the object behind all this mass misery, horror and disruption? Till very recently, the Communists gained most of the blame - or credit, whichever side your are on. That the Marxist8 have had a hand - and a big hand, at that - in it, none can deny. But two other detonator8 were at work. And in the end they were probably far more effective. These were: 1. The World Council of Churches. 2. General De Spinola and his now famous book, “Portugal and the Future”. in this, the last article in this series, we look at the WCC and the former Por- tuguese President - and the American connection with both. Before 1970 the bulk of support accorded to southern African liberation 69 movements came from Russia, Peking and other Eaatam bloc nations, with aome financial support from Holland and the Scandinavian countries. In 1970 the WCC made its shock announcement that it intended granting generous financial support to the Southern African liberation movements. This gave the terrorist movements a respectability they had never previously enjoyed. This “certificate of respectability” to those who sought to attain their political ends by violent means undoubtedly had the most far-reaching impact on the stance adopted by official and unofficial bodies throughout the western world. The Swedish Government increased its annual contribution from about R260 000 before the first WCC grant in 1970 to R7-million thereafter. In 1970 the Lutheran World Federation decided to endorse the WCC per-ticipetlon in terrorism and in 197 1 allocated R65 000 to Frelimo. In the same year the British Council of Churches endorsed terrorism in this area. So did the United Presbyterian Church of America, the National Council of Churches of America, the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, the All Africa Conference of Churches and the Christian Peace Conference. The double standards applied by many radical churchmen both in and outside the WCC was illustrated by two statements made at a Press Conference by Mr D W Bleakiey, an Irish representative to the Anglican Consultative Council, in Limuru, Kenya, in 1971: Statement No 1. “Christians must be united on the issue in search of satisfactory ground8 to assist freedom fighters in Southern Africa.” Statement No 2: (after being asked whether the WCC’s gift to terror groups would be followed by a similar donation to the Irish Republicann Army): “I think. that would be the ultimate indiscretion/ Although it is extremely difficult to arrive at any precise figure, it is estimated thet Western church groups have now given in excess of R125-million to the African terrorist movements. Analysts are adamant that without WCC support many Marxist organisations would by now have flagged and died. Most South Africans have till now assumed that because the WCC has mounted such a concentrated barrage on pro-Christian, pro-capitalist Rhodesia and South Africa, the key influence inside that organisation must be Communist. And it is, of course, correct that the KGB does exert some pressure there, primerlily through its agent, Boris Nikodim, a WCC President, second in com-mand of the Russian Orthodox Church, identified as a KGB agent - and the man who accused the American Army in Korea of burying women and children alive. But it would be totally wrong to describe the WCC as a Communist front organisation. That is far from the case. The WCC was formed in Amsterdam in 1948 out of the old Federal Council of Churches in a bid to heal the age-old schisms inside Christianity. The word “oikoumene” on its badge and in the cable address of its Geneva headquarters bears testimony to the original ecumenical intent of its founders. More importantly, the seed money for expanding the Federal Council into a World Council of Churches came directly from John D Rockefeller, Jr, who donated the first necessary millions in 1946. Key funding groups for the WCC are: The Stern Family Fund, described by an American investigative group as “functioning principally as a funding conduit, channelling both its own money and laundered CIA funds.” Ford Foundation, largest foundation in the world, a CIA conduit and financial sponsor of both “Left-wing” and “Right-wing” terrorist groups in the US and 60 various parts of the world. It was the first big financial sponsor to Frelimo. Rockefeller Foundation, a key funder to a number of the major anti-South African, pro-terrorist organisations and links.“liberation” groups. It has strong CIA Rockefeller Family Fund. Read above. Russel Sage Foundation. Another of the giants. It is strongly anti-South African, with strong CIA links. Apart from these, dozens of smaller US foundations are also generous con-tributors to the WCC. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that ths bulk of WCC funds coma from (a) American sources, (b) Western nations generally. The Russians are too poor to make big financial handouts. in Africa, they are generous with second-hand weaponry, not hard cash. The American branch of the WCC is known as the National Council of Churches in Christ. This is the parent organisation of the Interreligious Founda-tion for Community Organisations (IFCO), which has for many years mado an-nual cash grants to the most militant of the US domestic anti-South African organisations. It plays a lead role in planning and sponsoring all efforts to isolate South African economically, politically, with sporting and cultural ties, and in every other way. Both the WCC and the NCC have recently stated that they intend intensifying ,their anti-South African efforts. Equally interesting is General Spinola, whose book acted as the catalyst that triggered off the collapse of the Caeteno Government and proved the direct cause of the total destruction of Portugese power and influence in Africa. Although a very efficient and highly respected soldier, Spinola knew nothing whatsoever about politics. Experts who have analysed “Portugal and the Future” are all agreed that there is such sharp differentiation in the literary styles used in various parts of the book that it is impossible that it was the work of one man. Many think five or even seven men worked on it. Almost all agree that the real authors reside in the CIA. And- by coincidence or not -Spinola recently addressed a major meeting of the Rockefeller-dominated Council on Foreign Relations, America’s “Invisible Government” and a group containing many powerful figures dedicated to the ideal of a “New World Order.” So there you have it. The Communists trying to destabilise South Africa on the one side, a certain section of the American Establishment working towards the same goal on the other side. But both doing the same job. 61 <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
