Huge Boycotts Planned US RADICALS, using their anti-Vietnam War tactics and supported by certain top members of the Carter Administration, are busy on a national campaign aimed at stepping up anti-South African business and sports boycotts. I was told from Washington last night: “The vendetta against South Africa is picking up speed quickly. ‘The radical groups are organising their opposition to South Africa in exactly the same way in which they organised the civil rights struggle and whipped up the anti-Vietnam war psychosis. ‘The same campaign tactics have been taken out of the cellar, dusted off and launched on a nation-wide scale. ‘The great danger is that some of these militants, men like Vice-President Walter Mondale and Andy Young, are now backed by the White-House. “The basic plan will is: “First, all universities in the US have been systematically canvassed with a plea to sell shares in any company operating in South Africa: “Second, all the city councils with Black majority or a near-Black majority have been approached to adopt resolutions urging officials not to buy products from any company trading with South Africa. Such resolutions have already been passed by a number of leading city councils. “An extension of this operation is to demand that State legislatures pass similar resolutions. The labour Committee of the New York State Legislature has already approved such a draft Bill. This is now before the Legislature’s Wages and Means Committee. “in addition, annual meetings of the larger corporation dealing with South Africa are being systematically attended by radical groups and the shareholders forced to vote on the South African issues. ‘This is only the beginning of a campaign aimed at involving students nationwide. in sport, a vast organisation is being developed along the lines of the very successful British organisation, headed by Peter Hain and Dennis Brutus.” US institute used a anti-SA spearhead BECAUSE Pretoria trusted the US, no continuous, concentrated effort has ever been made to monitor overt and covert American activities against South Africa. Today, however, I can disclose details of how one of America’s richest and most powerful establishment organisations - handling huge US Government and State Department funds -has been used as one of their main spearheads by liberals and radicals In their efforts to overthrow what they describe as South Africa’s White minority regime. This is the New York-based Africa-American Institute (AAI), an organisation which today faithfully reflects the anti-South African stance taken by the liberal-international wings of the State Department, the CIA and the White House hierarchy. In one of its more open moves, the AAI last December organised a five-day indaba at Maseru, attended by 116 delegates, including some of South Africa’ s most dedicated enemies. Ostensibly the meeting was called to discuss Southern African problems. But the main part of the meeting, held behind closed doors, was to discuss the most effective methods of breaking down apartheid, how to overthrow the “White minority regime”, and whether this should be achieved through peaceful or violent means. Delegates included the violently anti-South African Mr Charles Diggs; Senator Dick Clarke; Nigeria’s virulently anti-South African Brigadier Joseph Garba: David Sebelo, the New York-based Director of Foreign Relations for the banned Pan-Africanist Congress; representatives of the banned ANC; and members of the Black People’s Convention. Much less well known to South Africans is that since 1962 AAI has spent an estimated RZO-million on Black educational programmes, vast amounts of this having been set aside for refugees and members of “recognised” liberation movements. Many of them have come back to take part in organized militancy. In this particular range of programmes, it has long been claimed that there is a strong connection between the AAI and the CIA’s “dirty tricks” department. AAI is known to be closely connected with Negro radicals in the US, with ANC and PAC expatriates, with many banned South Africans and with White South African exiles in New York. AAI administers, on behalf of the State Department, the Southern African Student Programme (SASP) a shadowy undertaking launched in 1962 with the aid of the CIA to capture “the coming revolution” in Southern Africa by training exiles for posts “in the post revolutionary governments.” It handles large numbers of South African Blacks visiting the US as State Department guests, being entrusted with the crucial business of planning their itineraries, arranging cocktail parties and dinners, choosing the people they should meet. Significantly, perhaps, White South African guests are usually handled by other organisations. Although AAI is seldom mentioned in the South African Press, it has never made any secret of its commitment to radical change in this country. The first warning of its activities should have come after AAI, together with Syracuse University, sponsored a two-day “workshop” at Lubin House, New York City, in April, 1967. A total of 58 people took part in the “workshop”, including representatives from the United Nations, various European and independent African governments, agencies of the US Government, African liberation movements, and, ac-cording to the invitation list, Mr Edwin Khabelo of the ANC; Mr Testus Muundjna of Swanu (SWA National Union); Mr Sam Nujoma, Swapo; Mr John Simons, of the World University Service; Mr Harvey Hall, of the Ford Foundation. A report issued after the “workshop” gives a good idea of the attitude of the AAI in performing its educational functions: “It is of vital importance to provide education and training for refugees from Southern Africa . . .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 . . . to prepare students to participate effectively in the struggle for freedom. “Scholarships for training should be awarded where possible to students affiliated with a liberation movement. “Refugee students at US institutions should be helped to maintain contact with their liberation movements to preserve their sense of commitment to their cause. ‘Whatever steps are taken to solve short-term problems, there is only one ultimate solution to the over-all problem. This is the overthrow of minority regimes in Southern Africa and the liberation of the Southern tier of the continent.” No South African newspaper at the time appears to have obtained this report, although it was a public document. No questions were asked about the State Department’s generous support of such a committed organisation. Next insight into Ml’s activities comes with its quarterly report for the period October 1 to December 3 1, 1967. Again dealing with Black students under its patronage, AAI says: “Anticipating repatriation of these students to Africa, AAI staff are helping them to obtain travel documents and to find employment in Africa, either in their home countries - where feasible - or in independent Africa.” In 1971 Mr William R Cotter, serving president of the AAI, testified before the Sub-Committee on Africa of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. This testimony was read into the Congressional Record on June 1, 1971. Mr Cotter is reported there as saying: “Before discussing what US business should do with respect to its invest-ments in South Africa, I must first outline what I believe should be the governing criteria for evaluating all US involvement - public as well as private - with South Africa. “For me, the litmus test is simple. When reviewing a US activity we should ask: Can it lead to changes in South Africa which will result, as immediately as possible, in ending apartheid and minority rule in that country? “I personally am in complete accord with those who call for the strongest measures by the US to accelerate the process of change within South Africa. Nor would I automatically rule out violence as an instrument for obtaining the rights of the non-White majority”. Mr Cotter in his testimony proposed that US business undertakings in South Africa take a whole series of steps to force change from within. “Moreover, and perhaps even more important than terminating the ap-pearance of approval’ which US business presence gives to the South African system, immediate withdrawal would help guarantee . . . that when revolution comes to South Africa we will not be drawn into the conflict on the wrong side because of our economic ties to the present regime. We would then be free to support revolutionary change in a direct and effective manner”. Lawyers who have examined this passage agree that Mr Cotter bluntly informed America’s legislative assembly that in his opinion a revolution in South Africa would be legitimate and that support for terrorist movements was laudable. Yet, again there is no record that any questions anywhere were asked about the State Department’s support and use of his organisation, or that Press com-ment was made on Mr Cotter’s outspoken support of revolution. In 1971 the AAI published its first annual report. Here it dealt at length with the Southern African Student Programme: “Although no one could predict how soon the wave of independence might reach into the south, it was felt that training should be provided for Southern ’ African refugee students who might eventually play a role in governing their home countries . . .” According to the same report, AAI had to that date already spent R 12 513 000 on the SASP programme. This comprised R4,8-million on scholarships for students from Southern Africa, R83 000 for the building of the Kurasini international Education Centre in Dar-es-Salaam; R630 000 for the building of the Nkumbi lnterrnational College in Zambia, and R7-million for the SASP programme generally. Both Nkumbi and Kurasini are largely occupied by South African Black exile students. Over and above these .activities, AAI also finances the publication, “Africa Report,” quite often positive in its attitudes towards South Africa but over the long period generally negative. AAI is also known to act as strategy adviser to a number of Black homeland leaders. 23 500 hardcore activists are named SPEARHEADED by about 500 hardcore activist lead em, there are today about 1 12 prime organisations in the US working against South Africa. All are dedicated to one concept: that South Africa must be broken, economically and politically, the latter to be achieved through the first. That is the whole purpose behind the “Group Action” campaign now being launched across the US by the well-funded American Friends Service Committee, a prime benefactor over the, years of both the Ford and the Rockefeller Foundations. This campaign is backed by 74 anti-south African groups in the US, many of them with well-placed connections among underground and revolutionary circles in South Africa. Today The Citizen names and examines more of the key groups backing “Group Action.” They include: The NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES. Founded in 1950, the NCC and its affiliated church groups represent the largest, wealthiest, most powerful and most active sector of America’s anti-South African movements. Currently, the NCC spends an estimated $5-million a year on its various anti-South African activities. It can well afford it. Primarily supported by donations from member churches and from foundations and corporations, the NCC handles about $16-million a year. Although the NCC has a long record of association with revolutionary bodies in Africa and elsewhere, its funding is firmly founded in capitalist sources, many with CIA links. These include the Stern Family Fund (CIA conduit); the Russell Sage Foundation (CIA conduit); the Rockefeller Foundation (CIA conduit, foremost exponent of the “New World Order” concept); and the Ford Foundation (CIA conduit, and headed by Mr McCeorge Bundy, who 8s National Security Adviser to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, effectively supervised the CIA operation. He is also a leading member of the Council on Foreign Relations (New World Order” group). The NCC has 30 affiliated church groups, including the United Methodist Church, United Presbyterian Church, United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). In recent years there have been increasing complaints that the NCC uses its large funding and wide influence to manipulate millions of unsuspecting churchgoers. Says one analyst: “Not only do their funds go directly to African terrorist movements and the US-based anti-South African organisations, but in their position as church leaders - as seekers of morality they are able to exert enormous influence in corporate and political circles. “An irony is that the NCC and the top leadership of most of the anti-South African churches do not represent the philosophies or political views of the individual churchgoers, the average US citizen who believes his Sunday collection plate contribution will be ‘helping the poor’ or ‘feeding the hungry’.” The NCC, which exerts powerful influence on the Carter Administration, is the most active organisation working against US corporate and banking links with South Africa. It also supports the Joint Strategy and Action Committee which publishes “Grapevine”, a monthly news letter detailing the latest anti-South African activities and “action suggestions”. These advocate “teach-ins” against South Africa. “Teach-ins” proved one of the most successful stratagems in creating an anti-Vietnam War psychosis In the US. The NCC, in turn is the main funding body for: INTERFAITH CENTER ON CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY. Dedicated to ending all US trade with South Africa, ICCR is the most active US organisation in bringing proxy fights to corporate annual meetings. ICCR sponsored half of all proxy fights involving South Africa in 1976. Armed with the proxy votes of NCC church member group pension fund and Investment holdings, it has proved very effective in forcing large corporations and banks to toe the line. Executive Director of ICCR is one Timothy Smith. Smith recently spent two months touring Australia, advising the Australian Council of Churches on their anti-South African campaign and speaking to union, student and church groups, urging them to work agsinst investment and trade in South Africa. He has per-formed similar missions In Holland and Japan. One of ICCR’s most important benefactors is the DJB Foundation, one of the wealthiest American foundations but again with a long record of support for extreme leftist organisations. Significantly, ICCR’s address is given as 475 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10027. This was the address formerly given by the University Christian Movement of the US, the body primarily responsible for introducing the Black Power movement to South Africa. . INTERNATIONAL DEFENCE AND AID FOR SOUTH AFRICA. Somewhat similar in character to Amnesty International, IDAF (US) is dedicated to publicis-ing the “plight of political prlsonere”, In South Africa, and to “aiding, defending and rehabilitating the victims of unjust legislation, oppressive and arbitrary procedures.” IDAF (US) funds are used to support its home office in the Phillips Brooks House at Harvard University and support the British operation of Defence and Aid. Because of its devotion to such an appealing issue (to liberals) as “Black political prisoners”, IDAF (US) has succeeded in enlisting an unusual number of US celebrities and politicians as “sponsors”. These include Gloria Steinem, Senator George McGovern, Senator Edward Brooke, House of Representative members Shirley Chisholm, Ronald Dellum, Barbara Jordan, Paul McCloskey and Charles Diggs. IDAF (US) has CIA links. One of the leading lights in this organisation is Dr Leslie Rubin, a former South African Senator widely stated to have had CIA as-sociations while in South Africa. Dr Rubin is the father of Neville Rubin, a former NUSAS president and one of the NUSAS members listed as having associations with the African Resistance Movement. NUSAS in his time was a CIA recipient. Among the many publications on IDAF’s literature list is one by Barbara Rogers, who has written for Africa Today and Southern Africa, both CIA-funded. 25 WASHINGTON OFFICE ON AFRICA. Founded in 1972 by the American Com-mittee on Africa (ACOA), WOA aims directly at propagandising members of the US Senate and the House of Representatives. WOA is supported directly by the ACOA and by six Protestant churches - the United Methodist Church,, United Prebysterian Church, United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, and Christian Church (Disciplines of Christ). The World Council of Churches has made several large grants to WOA. SOUTHERN AFRICA COMMITTEE (SAC). When founded in 1985, SAC’s pur-pose was described as “a collective of individuals working to inform people about the nature of oppression in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia and the Por-tuguese territories in Africa.‘* Today SAC targets most of its activities on South Africa. Its prime function is the production and distribution of the passionately anti-South African monthly magazine “Southern Africa,” the No 1 magazine of the African “liberation” movements. “Southern Africa” is highly regarded in the “liberation” movements. One former PAIGC leader wrote: “It . . . played a significant part in building international awareness of (our) fight for independence. SAC also supports Africa News Service, a North Carolina-based African “liberation” data news collecting agency producing a twice weekly news digest and twice-weekly cassette service with taped reports on Africa. ANS, which receives substantial grants from the World Council of Churches, is an important source of news material on the “liberation” movements, particular-ly insidious because this is presented in the guise of impartial, factual material favouring neither one side nor the other. Much of NSA’s current effort is to depict the “liberation forces” as far stronger and more effective than they really are. MADISON AREA COMMITTEE ON SOUTHERN AFRICA (MACSA). Very ac-tive in developing “action” programmes and boycott activities against South Africa. Produces a twice-monthly 300minute radio programme which presents nothing but anti-South African material. Regularly bombards Congressmen, Senators and others with demands for anti-South African activity. The fact that an organisation is not well funded does not mean that it can be any the less effective. This is proved by the SOUTH AFRICAN BOYCOTT COMMITTEE, founded and operated by Richard Righter, a minister. Although small and poor, SABC succeeded in forcing International Telephone and Telegraph to reduce its South African commitment. None of these organisations is directly controlled by the US Government or any official agency -but the fact remains that a climate has been created in the US where such organisations can flourish and proliferate. 26 Black Power ‘imported’ . THE greatest tragedy facing South Africa today is Black Power which has been behind some of South Africa’s worst disturbances. Millions of words have been said and written about Black Power. But who asks how this radical philosophy came here, who was responsible for establishing it, who still con-tributes the funds that keep the flame alive? Most Whites and certainly every Black; including the leaders of the constantly proliferating Black Consciousness movements, firmly believe Black Power to be a home-grown, grass roots manifestation, the natural desire of this nation’s Black people to develop a pride in their own language, history, culture, ability and awareness of their own racial identity. These are positive ideals for any group of people. Few would quarrel with them. They are essential to the whole separate development concept. But investigation shows: -Black Power is by no means a natural-born South African phenomena: - it was deliberately imported from the US. - It was cynically introduced as a means of inflaming racialistic passions and creating a Black-White polarisation, “to achieve social change in the present factual situation.” In other words, to bring about confrontation or “Black Blitzkrieg.” - Black Power movements over the years have received hefty funding from various organisations. Most prominent are the American-based Lawyers’ Committee and the international University Exchange Fund. Precisely how much money these two groups channel into South Africa in support of Black movements is unknown. The IUEF last year had a declared budget of about R3-million. About 50 percent is believed to have come into the Republic for various Black purposes. There are circumstances surrounding both these organisations and persons involved with their activities suggesting that they are conduits for CIA and other US Government funds. Experts familiar with the situation claim that those Black student militants willing to risk their lives and safety for the sake of what they believe to be an indigenous Black Power movement are unsuspecting puppets in an international Big Power game aimed at disrupting South Africa. South African Black Power, as expressed, for example, in the constitution of SAS0 (SA Students’ Organisation), is based entirely on the theories and concepts of Stokely Carmichael and Professor Charles V Hamilton, in their book, “Back Power.” According to the Schliebusch Commission, “Black Power” operates on the 27 thesis that the Black man can only achieve full freedom, A Newsweek review on “Black Power commented through revolution." ‘The rumble in the revolutionary refrain is ever present . . . “It Strikes me as another futile grasping at instant advancement, suggesting that come-the-revolution some kind of magical transformation will have taken place among the black mass making them perfectly capable of maintaining a complex society and economy. There is. . . some room for doubt about this,” ‘While one can sympathise strongly with appeals to Black people en bloc to wake up and find their voice and strength as a manifesto Black Power has the ring of other familiar manifestos - such as Mein Kampf, Mao’s Thoughts or those written by Marx and Engels - which shook the world, to be sure, but always at the cost of millions of lives.” In certain specific ways, it appears that “Black Power” was written with one eye on South Africa, according to some expert opinions. Again quoting from the book as laid out in the Schlebush Commission report: “We see our struggle as closely related to liberation struggles around the world. We must, for example, ask ourselves: when Black people in South Africa begin to storm Johannesburg, what will be the role of this nation - and of Black people here?*’ Black Power was introduced to South Africa through the University Christian Movement, a group formed here in September or October, 1968. UCM’s main funding came from the US National Council of Churches, frequently accused at that time of being a CIA conduit,.and other international organisations including the World Student Christian Fund, the junior division of the World Council of Churches. Main activist in the launching programme here was an American clergyman, the Rev W H (“Hank”) Crane. UCM was also active in promoting Black Consciousness. Black Theology as the theologial counterpart to Black Power. Black Theology is built on violence and Seeks to portray Christ as a revolutionary who was not averse to the use of violence against those in authority in the State. It was at a UCM conference in Stutterheim in the Cape in July, 1968, that the first ‘Black Caucus” was formed, the precursor to the Biack student organisation, SASO. Over the next few years the theme of Black Power ran like a thread through all UCM conferences. As seen in the historical perspective, the whole UCM programme was part of a carefully worked out plan to familiarise the Black man in the Republic with the idea of Black Power which, till then, had for all intents and purposes been unknown in this country -and had, indeed, only recently been introduced in the USA. The concept of Black Power, as explained in UCM’s own documents by its own leaders, demanded a polarisation between Blacks and Whites in order to bring about a confrontation. The nature of this confrontation was never spelt out In 80 many words, but the insistent demand that there be no White people in “Black organisations” such as SAS0 and similar groups was based on the claim that the absence of Whites “would increase the militancy of Blacks.” To quote the Schlebush Commission: “The confrontation was therefore clearly one in which ‘militant’ group of Blacks was to be arrayed against Whites in whom, through White consciousness,’ a sense of guilt had been established, . . ” The establishment of this “sense of White guilt” was one of the main objectives of “sensitivity,” or group dynamic, programmes at Wilgespruit and elsewhere. It was also heavily inculcated into the Whites by a long and consistent run of negative reporting on matters relating to South African racial affairs. 28 UCM was finally dissolved in South Africa on July 16, 1972, for two reasons: 1. it was being investigated by a Government Commission of Inquiry. 2. 2. It had fulfilled its purpose, having given birth to Saso. Even today the life and times of UCM give rise to some strange questions. Almost to the end it was uncritically accepted by many churches and a large part of the English Press in South Africa as a genuine campus-based movement, though foreigners were responsible for introducing it into the country and at no time did UCM gain any noticeable bona fide student support. UCM contributions from bona fide South African student were meagre indeed. UCM’s 1970 budget shows that student contributions in the previous financial year totaled R200 out of a total (expected) R24 000. Most of the funding came from a variety of US and European church groups. A lawyer says this indicates a serious breakdown in South African investigative reporting at that time. The most superficial examination would have shown UCM to be a “plant” organisation. It is perhaps interesting to note that after UCM had done its job in transposing America Black Power into South Africa, the Ford Foundation, an Establishment organisation with powerful US Government links, established a tenure professorship at the highly reputable Columbia University. Encumbent of this chair is Professor Hamilton, co-author of “Black Power.” Equally interesting and perhaps equally coincidental, Stokely Carmichael was (according to WS news reports) later expelled from the US Black Power movement on suspicion of being a CIA agent. Carmichael is married to talented South African singing star Miriam Makeba, which would account for his interest in this region. Many Saso leaders are known to be unhappy about American interference in South African Black affairs and are suspicious about the source of large funds provided for Black movements <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
