Campaign to bar SA fmm all sport by 1980 SOUTH AFRICA will have to move - and move fast - if it is not to face “total and complete” exclusion from world sport before the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games. That Is the target date laid down for a US and global sports boycott against South Africa now being swung into action by two formidable new US self-styled “task forces.” They are “Group Action”, comprising 74 militant and well-funded US anti-South African organisations, and ACCESS, the recently-formed American Co-ordinating Committee for equality in Sport. This is the first fully-co-ordinated American campaign against South African sporting links. Previous protests were mostly individual group efforts. South Africans should not regard the new threat as exaggerated. Not only do the campaigners include some of the most powerful action groups in the US, but there is good reason to believe that their movement has been sympathetically received by the White House. More particularly, one of the principal campaign advisers is academic-turned-activist Dennis Brutus, a Coloured poet, former Cape Town teacher and founder of SANROC (South African Non-racial Olympic Committee). Brutus, one of the most skilled of international operators and lobbyists and a far more effective campaigner than Peter Hain, has in recent years succeeded in getting South African kicked out of: The Olympics, FIFA, the world soccer body, world athletics and international cricket and rugby. Although he was banned in South Africa in 1962 under the Suppression of Communism Act, there is no real reason to believe Brutus is a Communist. The evidence points to his being a CIA man. His first work was published by the Mbari Writers and Artists’ Club, an ob-scure organisation maintained by CIA funds through the Farfield Foundation. Two of his closest associates in South Africa were Randolph Vigne and Neville Rubin, both recipients of CIA funds through the Farfield Foundation. Many of his American associations show CIA connections. Although as yet almost completely unknown to most South African sportsmen, ACCESS fields some imposing sponsors. Honorary chairman is Mr Leslie 0 Harriman, Nigerian Ambassador to the UN and chairman of the UN Special Committee Against Apartheid. Support organisations include: the American Friends Sewice Committee, recipient of CIA funds through various ‘US foundations, including Ford and Rockefeller; the American Committee on Africa, 20 000 members, another CIA conduit; the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Americans for Democratic Action; ARENA, the Institute for Sport and Social Analysis; Clergy and Laity Concerned; Gray Panthers; Methodist Fedoration for Social Action; Operation PUSH (People United to Save Humanity); Women’s Division of Global Ministries; South African Students Movement; Sports for the People; Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom; and Coalition of Concerned Black Americans. ACCESS co-ordinator is Professor Richard E Lapchick, Department of Political Science, Virginia Wesleyan College, Norfolk, Virginia. Lapchick recently gained his Ph D on a thesis analysing the structure of South African sport. Outlining his campaign programme, Lapchick says: “ACCESS will use its network to attempt to block any and all competition with South Africa. While a major effort will be undertaken in tennis, attacks will be made in all sports. “Tactics will include educational programmes, propaganda presentations to the spon-soring sports federations, letter-writing campaigns, TV, radio and newspaper in-terviews and, in 8ome cases, non-violent, direct action campaigns.” Lapchick says that plans are well ahead to link in the US anti-South African epotts boycott with similar efforts in Britain, Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland, Sri Lanka and in African States through the OAU. “The days of apartheid sports teams competing internationally are numbered,” he claims. ’ South African participation in US sport is being rapidly whipped up into a highly emotive political issue by US Negro spokesmen. Dr Jewel1 Handy Gresham, executive director of theCoalition of Concerned Black Americans, described as ‘*a volunteer group of Black academics, lawyers, churchmen and community groups concerned with critical issues affecting Black citizens,” says in an official Press release: “American tennis. interests are on a collision course with the Black community and wider supporting public if efforts continue to be pressed by the US Tennis Association and its parent organisation, the international Lawn Tennis Federation, to force the acceptance of all-White South African players in international competition on American soil.” Dr Gresham, a woman professor of English, discloses that CCBA has already begun negotiation with the US State Department. “Mr Edmundson of the State Department ha8 made the point . . . that the President has the power, by proclamation, to suspend admission of any aliens Into this country in the public interest. “While we do not want to see access denied people from any country to visit and participate in our national life, we can hardly accept a situation in which the same privileges are not reciprocal for us; at the same time that the lifestyle of the offending country is openly based in the ruthless exploitations and absolute con-trol of millions of Black men, women and children. ‘The Black population of the City of New York, augmented by that of the near-by cities and surrounding suburban areas, probably forms the largest concentra-tion of urban Black people in the world. “The ghettoes of our large cities -together with the exclusiveness of suburbia - have not yet been transformed sufficiently for our President to risk reminding us of our common lot with the struggling oppressed of South Africa. “Obviously we need to be inspired by the demonstrable evidence that our nation will not in the final quarter of the 20th century play collaborator in any form with Pretoria 31 US to beam ‘Black rule’propaganda MR JOHN REINHARDT, Director of the US Information Agency, ha8 just announced in Washington that The Voice of America is to have tour powerful new transmitters built “somewhere in Africa.” Today I can disclose that these transmitters are to be built in Liberia at a cost of R&million and that they will be beamed into Europe, East Africa and across a Southern Africa. I can also disclose that these transmitters will be officially used “as part of the new US initiative for Black rule on the continent of Africa”. Effectively, their target will be South Africa. Object of the operation is to mobilise Western and African opinion against South Africa and so justify, morally and politically, any drastic action the Carter Administration proposes taking’ in its effort to subvert and destabilise the present established rule in this country. It is the latest shot in Washington’s war of words against South Africa: a no-holds-barred attack which veteran US journalists have described to me as “pos-sibly the most intensive propaganda campaign ever waged against any country, either in peace or in war, at any time in history.” In America itself, notably in New York and Washington, the campaign in large sections of the Press, radio and TV has reached a level of almost hysterical hatred, to the point where an objective analysis of the South African situation haa become almost impossible. A very important part of this campaign consists of the public speeches and statements made key members of the White House hierarchy. This particular-ly applies to President Carter himself, his UN Ambassador, Mr Andy Young, Secretary of State, Mr Cyrus Vance, and head of the National Security Council, Dr Brezinski. Scarcely a week goes by without one or other prominent member of the Carter Administration attacking South Africa in an official statement. Mr Vance, addressing NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People) said recently that in Southern Africa “the hues of race, of justice and of self-determination are building up to a crisis.” Violence within South Africa grew all the time. Taken together, these emotional, often inflammatory speeches, are creating a crisis atmosphere. One effect Is to discourage investment in South Africa. Another is to en-courage opposition to the country. That is why the various trade, disinvestment, “boycott sport” and other anti-South African campaigns in the universities, 32 church groups, Black communities and other sectional interests 8re proving so very successful. I It is becoming increasingly clear that the Carter Administration and especially I the Africa Bureeu of the State Department will - probably fairly soon declare open support of the terrorist movements operating against Rhodesia, South West Africa and South Africa. Indeed, the influential US News & World Report in its edition of July 13, 1977, reports quite bluntly that the US will back these “liberation” movements in White-ruled Southern Africa. Many influential Americans are beginning to question President Carter’s whole Africa policy. At a private meeting on Capitol Hill in mid-June the former US Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger, told a group of American Congressmen that if the Ad-ministration’s, present Africa policy is not altered, it will lead to a Communist Africa and/or 8 continent-wide race war and the explosion of racial tensions that could well spill over into Britain and the US. Dr Kissinger said that the policy of the Nixon and Ford Administrations had been to try to steer a course thet would bring moderate Blacks into leadership positions in Rhodesia and South West Africa and protect the White minorities, “while the Carter Administration is seeking to encourage the most radical of the terrorists and has no concern whatsoever for the White minorities.” Dr Kissinger’s words provide the clearest possible warning to South Africans of what they are now up against. 4 Now comes the million dollar question: How should this country react, especially in the face of the current deadly propaganda onslaught? South Africans whose job it is to “pattern” the US propaganda campaign say that it is obvious that (1) much of the media attack is based on information leaked by the State Department and the CIA; (2) much of this information comes directly from South Africa; (3) there appears to be a “golden thread” running through both Press and electronic media reports, providing a continuous theme. More and more people are looking at the US government information sewices operating in South Africa: agencies which, according to Mr Reinhardt, will soon be expanded with the appointment of a full-time Voice of America correspondent in Johannesburg. After recent disclosures in this series about the operations of the US Information Service branch office in Soweto, heavily stocked with reference works on the American civil rights movement, many concerned readers urged that the USIS be suspended, because: 1, It was indulging in activities outside the confines of normal diplomatic relations. 2. It was involving itself in South Africa’s domestic and political situation. Most analysts consider such action against the USIS as inadvisable, leading as it almost certainly would to similar curbs on South African information efforts inside the US. It is however, suggested that the South African Government seriously con-sider imposing on American information officials operating in this country the same curbs applied by America itself to outside information officers there under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. This Act was initially passed in the US to curtail the activities of the Deutsche Bond, 8 pro-German fifth column of German-Americans operating in the US in the early 40s before America entered World War II. The Act was then invoked against Cuba after the missile crisis of 1963, against Rhodtisia after UDI in 1965, and progressively against South Africa since 1974. In terms of this Act: 33 1. All information officers, not directly attached to an embassy or consulate general, must register with the Department of Justice as foreign agents. 2. Are required to file with the Department on a six-monthly basis full details of all information activities, this for each and every officer. 3. This includes the filing of every publication, brochure, pamphlet and Press release or any other statement issued. 4. Must file text and all details of all lectures and talks in clubs, schools, universities or to the general public, together with time, venue and other relevant details. 5. All lobbyists and advertising agencies operating for foreign governments must equally be registered as foreign agents. Over and above these checks, the Department of Justice has the right to ex-amine all offices and all files of these information services - even, if required, the homes of information staff. So rigorously enforced are these regulations that the Rhodesian information Offices in Washington were recently occupied for a fortnight by Justice officials examining every piece of correspondence on file. It is known, too, that the SA In-formation Office in San Francisco has recently been subjected to intensive scrutiny. In the US it is also a public misdemeanor for any foreign government to invite any US Senator or Congressman to travel as its guest. Some do come to South Africa as guests of organisations such as the South African Foundation or the Foreign Affairs Association, but it is a mere trickle - and these host associations are under a constant barrage of US slur and innuendo. The recent uproar over a guest of the South African Foundation is likely to make American politicians more reluctant than ever to visit this country on span-sored visits. Against this, American information officials in this country operate without any legal inhibitions whatsoever. They travel where they like, meet whom they like, address whom they like, show whatever films they like, regularly visit the universities, especially the Black universities, and have strong associations with the labour movements, especially the Black labour movement. A top Pretoria source said: “Possibly this is the time for the SA Government to consider imposing similar restrictions on USIS officers here. We are up against people with no apparent wish to obey normal diplomatic procedures. If we are going to fight, lets fight in the same ring, with the same weapons. “If the USIS had to specify its activities, then perhaps we could keep tabs on the Black militants they wine and dine: the journalists, politicians and labour leaders who enjoy so many sponsored trips to the US; more particularly, the type of propaganda it disseminates so generously in South Africa.” 34 US works through private bodies DETAILED research into how the US Government, through the CIA and other agencies, works hand in glove with certain specific Establishment Organisations was done by three American investigative journalists, Dan Scheckter, Michael Ansara and David Kolodney, in 1969. They traced the career of one notable CIA agent, an American Negro named James T (“Ted”) Harris, Their research proved the remarkable “revolving door” or interchangeability that exists in certain key US public and private services. “In 1946, Harris, brilliant and articulate, became president of the US National Student Association, newly formed and then entirely reliant on CIA funds. “In the early 50’s he moved to Geneva, where he served as assistant secretary-general for the CIA-supported World University Service. “Returning to the US he took a master’s degree at Princeton on a CIA Whitney scholarship. “He next turned up in Egypt, working this time on a Ford Foundation Research Scholarship. “Back once more in the US, he ran the CIA-funded Foreign Student Leadership Programme set up to ‘assist student leaders in the Third World.’ “His next post was with the American ,Society for African Culture, generally regarded as the most prestigious and articulate of all Black groups in the US. What few members realised was that it was formed through CIA activity, as a means of keeping an eye on the resurgent African independence movements. “In 1961 Harris returned to the Ford foundation, serving for two years in Kinshasa. Back in New York once more he helped the Ford Foundation shape its overseas development programme for Africa and the Middle East. “In 1964 Harris switched once again, leaving Ford to direct education and training for the Corning Glass Works, another prominent US Establishment organisation. “In 1966 he moved on to the Africa-American Institute, where he directed field programmes, traveling frequently to Africa.” 35 Two-pronged attack in atomic energy SOUTH AFRICA has recently taken some hard knocks in the international atomic field. I By blatantly illegal action, and in direct defiance of the agency’s own statute, the Republic has been voted off the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Board -this by action of the 19 African delegates, but without any earnest blocking action by the Western Powers. Now, in quick follow-up, the Carter Administration is threatening to discontinue nuclear co-operation if South Africa fails to change its internal policies. Precisely what lies behind this sudden activity on the nuclear front? Is it genuinely part of the Carter Administration’s so-called search for “racial justice” or “racial revenge”? Or are the undisclosed intentions far more sinister and far more menacing? Is it, in fact, a two-pronged exercise aimed at (a) gaining control of South Africa’s critical nuclear energy resources and uranium enriching process, and (b) a major move forward in the liberal-international dream of a “New World Order”? These are valid questions. Any “New World Order” could only succeed and survive if it alone held the ultimate weapon: N-power. The current US-sponsored drive for this “New World Order” is today the biggest news story in the world. Yet is has never hit the front page of any major newspaper, and for a good reason. The mere concept of global government, something far outstripping the limping inadequacies of the United Nations, is so far out, so revolutionary, as to be almost incredible to the so-called “non-elite”. Mention it and people dismiss it as “science fiction”. Unfortunately (particularly for South Africa), science fiction has shown a peculiar habit of becoming scientific reality. A “New World Order” has been a major preoccupation of America’s all-powerful Council on Foreign Relations (“The Invisible Government”) for the past 54 years. It is a concept calling for a total transformation in the geometry of world politics, the abolition of the centuries-old concept of the sovereign nation State, a total new world order in politics, economics and military power. It is a concept very seriously backed by Mr David Rockefeller, a banker industrialist controlling a family fortune of R25 OCC-million, chairman of the CFR, virtual dictator to the Carter Administration and by any standards the most powerful man in the West today. 36 Any concept backed by Mr Rockefeller and the CFR desires, at the very least, Serious consideration. We now come to one of the CFR’s key “think tank” specialists, Mr Cord Meyer, Jr, a man deserving far more attention that the public media has so far accorded him. Meyer, born to a senior US State Department official on November 10, 1920, graduated from Yale in 1943, then went on to Harvard on a Lowell Fellowship. It was here he attended a symposium on World Government and became an immediate convert. In February, 1947, all US organisations interested in the establishment of a New World Order met in North Carolina. Cord Meyer, Jr, was named its first president and delivered hundreds of lectures throughout the US promoting his cause. It was as president of the United World Federalists that he wrote a book called “Peace or Anarchy”, in which he outlined a plan for militarily disarming the US and merging it in a “Federated World Government” under the control of the UN. To the argument that any conceivable world government would depend for its success on the suppression of dissent in any part of the world it governed, he replied (in Peace and Anarchy): ‘. . .once having joined the One-World Federal Government, no nation could secede or revolt. . . because with the Atom Bomb In its possession the Federal government (of the world) would blow that nation off the face of the earth.” * Do not dismiss Cord Meyer, Jr, as some far-left radical extremist. Harold Stassen in 1947 described him as “one of the most brilliant young brains in America today.” A short time later Allen Dulles appointed him to the administrative staff of the Central Intelligence Agency. For 16 years he served with the CIA in the US, for many years in charge of the allocation of clandestine funds to groups in and out of America. Today he is the head of the CIA’s operation in London. Meyer was, of course, not the first to believe that a “One World” concept was only feasible if the proposed global government held complete control of atomic power. As early as 1946, the Baruch Plan (based on the so-called Acheson-Lilienthal Report) envisaged an international body of legal control over all atomic activities on earth. It. called for “managerial control of ownership of 811 atomic energy potentially dangerous to world security,” along with “power to control, inspect and license all other atomic activities.” The Baruch Plan never got off the ground because it coincided with o world-wide upsurge in nationalism; Soviet antagonism to supra-national schemes in a US dominated world; and the weakness of the UN. Its promoters accordingly abandoned the attempt to impose their plan openly. Accepting that they could not go to the US electorate directly with such far-reaching, imaginative ideas, they adopted, instead, a step-by-step process. After the Russians had thrown the first Sputnik into the skies, the CFR elitists changed tactics a little. They calculated that the Soviets could and would build strategic nuclear power sufficient to destroy the US so completely that Washington could not deter them by threats of retaliation. Arguing that world atomic annihilation had to be stopped at all costs, and recognising that they were powerless to disarm the Soviet Union, they dedicated their influence to the US. The only way to avoid nuclear incineration, as they saw it, was to reduce US strategic power so far below the Soviets that the only rational alternative would be surrender. The CFR elitsts considered their objective - saving the lives of 37 2 1 0-million Americans from nuclear holocaust - so vital as to justify any means. The American people at large have been kept in a highly selective blackout over this plan, particularly as it entails total trust in the Politburo of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. But the CFR elitists felt the risks at issue so great that any alternative was better than nuclear genocide. By 1975 this process had led to the adoption of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and the establishment of the international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Behind the scenes a group of countries, the “coalition of the willing,” including Britain, the US, India and the Soviet Union, had agreed to the new CFR-plan. As described by CFR-member Lincoln P Bloomfield in the July, 1975, edition of Foreign Affairs, this plan seeks to achieve the following results in a step-by- step process: 1. Ensure the international control of the reprocessing of plutonium from reactors. 2. Ensure the international control over ail peaceful nuclear explosions. 3. Ensure the international control of ail nuclear fuels, notably those based on plutonium and highly enriched uranium. 4. Ensure international control over ail uranium enrichment processes, especially the South African “nozzle process.” Bloomfield did not spell out how international control of A-power was to be achieved. He did hint, however, that nations approaching atomic weapon capability would be approached, invited to join the “club”, and offered shared use in international atomic power developments - providing they handed con-troi of their plants to the international body. To date, South Africa has not been willing to sign this blank nuclear cheque. Neither has France or China. This possibility was foreseen by Bloomfieid. As long as a number of powerful nations could be found to support the scheme, he said, a standard could be created “to which the unwise would be encouraged to repair.” The threats now being made against South Africa seemingly represent this “encouragement” to fail in line. The question now is: will this country allow itself to be bullied into impotency and cede, under blackmail, the very obvious nuclear advantages it now holds? Equally, will Middle America, the famous “non-elite”, allow the Carter Ad-ministration to continue moving toward8 internationalism? After all, when Bloomfield writes that “in proceeding to increase the power of the international community, a step-by-step process is essential, with a final stage that does not put the entire plan in jeopardy,” he is not threatening to destroy the sovereignty simply of a small nation like South Africa, but also that of his own country. That America’s military capability has been dangerously reduced is common cause. In 1960, America was impregnable, holding full firststrike capability, the most powerful military nation in history. Today it has lost its firststrike capability. The Russians are overtaking the Americans in naval, air and N-power strike strenghth. The whole global balance of power has changed. By accident? Or design? of treason. Of the elite 38 TODAY The Citizen disclosed details of the main funding organisation behind nearly all treason, terrorist and so-called political trials heard in South Africa since 1967. This money is not, as many suppose, derived from Communist sources, although certain of the accused have, in fact, been avowed Marxists. It comes primariy from the comparatively little known American Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, through its Africa Legal Assistance Project. The Lawyers’ Committee was set up under one of the John F Kennedy trusts and its aims are defined as “for the defence of persons charged with crimes under undemocratic legal systems”.The objects of the committee’s Africa Legal assistance Projects are defined as “providing legal assistance to the opponents of racial repression in South Africa where racism takes on astonishing dimensions.” The Lawyer’s Committee is perfectly open about the source of its American funding. its income, it says in various annual and other reports, is derived from foundations, lawyers, church organisations, US Government agencies and individuals interest in international human rights. Among the many donor institutions listed are the Ford Foundation, the Field Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the BJB Foundation and the New World Foundation. A study of these foundations discloses that a number of them fall into that group usually listed as among those heading America’s “Invisible Government” - powerful families, banks, lawyers and others who, even more than the politicians, influence American decision-making. No fewer than 23 of the Lawyers’ Committee officeholders and trustees are members of the incredibly influential Council on Foreign Relations. Of its South African operation, the Lawyers’ Committee says this is largely financed by the Field and Ford Foundations, by “lawyers and law firms”, and individuals. It is in the second category - “lawyers and law firms” - that the hidden hand of the CIA begin8 to emerge. American investigative reporters disclosed in February 1967 that Mr Eli Whitney Debevoise, who still serves on the Board of Trustees of the Lawyers’ Committee, and his partner, Mr Francis T P Piimpton, both of the law firm Debevoise, Plimpton, Lyons & Gates, had for years been engaged in funnelling CIA fund8 into selected targets. 39 Precisely how much money the Lawyers’ Committee has funnelled into South Africa since it first began working here, initially through lawyer Joel Carslon in 1967, is unknown. Certainly it is millions. In the period 1967-74 the Ford Foundation contributed about R1,5-million, with a further Rl 00 000 in 1975 and the same amount for this year. What is strange is the desperate effort made by the Lawyers’ Committee to conceal its funding of South African political cases, both from the defendants and the trial lawyers. In the recent BCP-SAS0 trial, the committee contributed R 100 000 towards the defence costs. This money, I have established, was paid through a London firm of solicitors called Bennet. I have repeatedly asked Bennet’s if they would disclose the name of the sponsors. Each time the request has been brusquely refused. The money is transmitted to a Natal lawyer. He too, has steadfastly refused to disclose to his clients the name of their sponsor. Another London legal company handling funds for South African political trials is Carruthers & Co. Since 1967, it is hard to find a political trial in which the Lawyers’ Committee has not been involved In some way. It Is also equally hard to establish how some of these cases could by deflnation come under “denial of human rights”. Here is a short list of some of the defence cases in which Lawyers’ Committee funds have been used. 1967: Trial of 37 Namibians, charged under the Terrorist Act. Some of these men had been trained in terrorist warfare outside South Africa, some inside South West Africa Itself. 1969: Action against Security Police in connection with the death in deten-tion of Mr James Lenkoe. 1969-70: Trial of Mrs Wlnnle Mandela and 21 others under the Terrorism Act. 1974: Action by Mr Robert Sobukwe, leader of the Pan African Congress, against the Minister of Justice. 197 1: Trial of the Rev G Affrench-Beytach under the Terrorism Act. 197 1: Trial of 13 members of the Unity Movement under the Terrorism Act. 1972: Trial of 13 workers in Windhoek In connection with 8 strike by Owambo workers. 1972: Trial of nine Owambo men on various charges, including murder, after the labour contract strike. 1972: Trial of students In connection with a demonstration. The Lawyers’ Committee was also Involved in the action by the Rev Colin Winter, Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Damaraland, and two others against their expulsion from South West Africa. The committee has also funded actions against South Africa or South African institutions in the US itself. In 1972, on behalf of the American Committee of Africa; One Hundred Black Men, Inc, the African Heritage Studies and others, it sought to enjoin the New York Times from publishing advertisements for positions in South Africa because these positions, under South African law, were unavailable to Blsck Americans. It also, on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, the American Commit-tee on Africa and others, sought an injunction to prevent the American Civil Aeronautics Board granting African Airways facilities for a new route permit between South Africa and the US. In 1975 the Lawyers’ Committee lodged an action in the US courts on behalf of the United Mineworkers of America, In an attempt to prohibit the importation of South African coal in the US. The Lawyer’ Committee also frequently sends observers to trials in SCU;? Africa, plus expert witnesses to testify on behalf of the defence. The vast American defence funding means that the trials can cover extensive periods and earn extensive publicity. One recent political trial is believed to have cost a record R500 000, almost all of it carried by American institutions, notably the Lawyer’ Committee and the Africa-American Institute, another CIA conduit. Lawyers also point out that if people know there are large sums available for their defence, this makes them more willing to participate In events which could lead them into trouble. It is interesting that while the South African Government offers pro doo defence in even the worst terrorist trials, this today is inv8ri8bly refused by the accused, The irony is that instead of the South African taxpayer paying these defence costs, it Is the Americans who do so. Buthelezi was warned not to accompany Eglin THE CITIZEN has again been challenged to prove that any liberal American or US Govermnent-funded agency has involved Itself in South African affairs. Today, therefore, we reproduce a series of confidential letters in which no less a person than Mr Colin Eglin, former Progressive Party leader and now leader of the PFP, emerged as the principal victim. Some details of this correspondence - between Mr Eglin and Mr William R Cotter, president of the CIA-created, New York-based African-American Institute were leaked to the Press in ‘New York in 1973. The letters themselves, however, have never been printed. This correspondence is now in the hands of The Citizen. South Africans and Americans might find the details interesting. The first, dated July 30, 1973, is from Mr Eglin to Mr Cotter: “. . . I am writing to you about a project I am planning, both to seek your advice and also in the hope that you might feel that you are in a position to assist. ‘You will recall that two years ago, accompanied most of the way by Helen Sussman, I visited a number of States In Africa and had Interviews with the heads of governments in Botswana, Senegal, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi. (In Kenya with vice-president Arap Moi). “I feel it Is time I ventured north again, calling at a couple of the States I visited before, but also visiting a few others “I have also decided that in order to dramatise the multi-racial nature of the South African set-up, and the fact that there are people belonging to the various communities within South Africa who are prepared to cooperate with each other to endeavour to undertake this tour accompanied by a prominent Coloured and African South African. “I have approached Chief Gatsha Butheleri and Mr David Curry, leader of the Labour Party, and both have agreed to come with me on this venture -providing it can be arranged. ‘The proposal, then, is for the three of us to visit approximately eight African countries during October and November. “in the course of discussions I have had with Gatsha, he has mentioned that he has been invited to a conference in Addis Ababa in November, a conference in which I gather the African-American institute is directly involved. “Clearly from the point of view of our tour it would be most convenient if we could link up with such a conference. “I am not sure of the nature of the conference or the composition of the delegation, but I would like to enquire whether it would be possible, or from your 42 43 point of view desirable, for Curry and myself to attend at least as observers. “Even if this is not possible, in view of the fact that I have no contacts in Addis Ababa, I wonder whether you are in a position through your contacts to secure an entry for us to Ethiopia? “The East/Central African countries we would like to visit, as we now see it, are Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia - or Malawi, should one of these not materialise; and Senegal and Zaire in West/Central Africa. I “In addition, two of the following put in order of preference: Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Sierre Leone, Liberia. I “I am invoking the assistance of Mr Harry Oppenheimer, who was very good in assjsting me last time, and am also in touch with Mr Maurice Templesman in New York. “I think that through my own contacts and those of Mr Oppenheimer we should have no difficulty in arranging Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Senegal and Zaire. “If you would be able to assist me in any of the other States I would be most grateful. I think you know Mr Maurice Templesman. “If I am correct I would deem it a great favour if you could liaise with him in this connection “I realise that this letter may be thought to be presumptuous. Nevertheless, I am writing to you because my assessment is that you would believe that a tour of this nature could be of value beyond the mere boundaries of South Africa. “Also, I think you would appreciate the difficulties in communicating with Africa north of the Zambesi ex-Cape Town.” The second letter, from Mr Cotter to Mr Eglin, is dated August 8, 1973. “Dear Mr Eglin. Thank you for your letter of July 30. I am afraid that it simply will not be possible for you to be invited to the Addis Ababa conference. “The list of invites is drawn up by a group of distinguished Africans and Americans who sense as the directing committee for the conference, and those lists have already been completed. “Observers are not permitted in the sessions, which are designed to enable the relatively small group of Africans and Americans to exchange ideas freely about problems common to the United States and the African continent. “Moreover, the Ethiopian Government has agreed to arrange visas for all those invited to the conference, but we are not in a position to obtain visas for non-conference participants. “I wish we could be of more help in this matter, but I hope you understand the reasons which make this impossible. Sincerely, William R Cotter.” The “reasons” for Mr Egliri’s unacceptability were spelled out much more ex-plicitly in a letter, also dated 8, 1973, from Mr Cotter to Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, Chief Minister of KwaZulu. This read: “Dear Gatsha. We were delighted to receive your formal accep- tance of the invitation to attend the Dialogue and I’m happy to see that the new dates did not create a problem for you. ‘We had changed them from the original November dates at the request of the Ethiopian Government to fit in better with the Emperor’s own schedule. “I have received a letter from Colin Eglin, dated July 30, a copy of which I enclose. I also enclose a copy of my answer to Colin, which I am sending today. “I am, frankly, worried about your intention to travel with Eglin and David Curry in connection with your trip to Addis for the Dialogue. “As you know, we want to make arrangements with the Governments of Zam-bia, Kenya and Tanzania for you to visit those countries on your way to and/or returning from the Addis meeting. “However, that was on the understanding that you would be travelling alone 43 I’m afraid that if you travel in the company of a White South African - even such an obvious liberal as Colin Eglin -this will make it much more difficult for arrangements to be made. “There might be the appearance that Egiin was ‘sponsoring’ your visit to other African countries as part of his desire to re-establish ‘dialogue’ between South Africa and Black Africa. “The policy of dialogue, as you well know, is still opposed by nearly every African country and that suspicion could only compromise you and your ability to make the kind of contacts and have the conversations which you want. “Consequently I would urge you not to travel (at least in connection with the Dialogue visit), with Eglin and Curry but rather make that trip alone (ie, with only your own staff accompanying you) to make it clear to all concerned that you are your own man and not some faint echo of a liberal White-South African plan for domestic integration and continental dialogue. “Please let me know as soon as possible what your decision is. lf you will be travelling a’lone, then we will proceed to make the contacts as promised with Tanzania, Zambia and Kenya. “If, however, you feel you are committed to travel with Eglin and Curry then, I’m afraid, we would rather not make such arrangements at this time. ‘Warmest regards to you and Irene, cordially, William R Cotter.” There are a number of striking points about this correspondence: 1. Lawyers to whom I have shown Mr Cotter’s letter to Chief Gatsha agree that it presents a clear warning to the KwaZulu leader: that if he insisted on travelling with a well-known White South African liberal, then AAI would withdraw its sponsorship for the Ethiopian trip. 2. The letter to Chief Gatsha was addressed to him “c/o Consul-General Edward Holmes, US Embassy, Durban”. Mr Holmes was accused by the South African Press late in 1973 of being a CIA agent, a charge he described as “ludicrous” - a denial which could be expected In the circumstances. Because of the disclosures on AAI attitudes given in these letters, The Citizen sent copies to the Prime Minister, Mr John Vorster. Coples also went to Mr Eglin, asking if he would care to comment. In his reply Mr Eglin said the comments made at the time of the earlier disclosures “still stand.” In these earlier comments Mr Eglin said: ‘What Is ironic is that while a trlo of Black, White and Brown leaders were willing to venture to the north together, and that while certain leaders in Africa were prepared to talk with them, White liberals in the US should appear to find this joint venture undesirable. How Mr Vorster must be chuckling. ** I reiterate that I believe it unfortunate that people in the US should have prevented the three of us from going to other states in Africa in a combined at-tempt to demonstrate that there were White, Black and Brown South Africans who were prepared to co-operate and who wished to resolve some of the ten-sions between South Africa and the rest of Africa.” What Mr Eglin did not understand, of course, was that he was dealing with a very special type of American liberal. Mr Cotter, dedicatedly anti-South African, spelt out his attitude to South Africa in no uncertain terms In a statement before the US House of Representatives on June 1, 1972. Inter alla, this read: “I am in complete accord with those who call for the strongest measures by the US to accelerate the process of change In South Africa. Nor would I automaticaliy rule Out Violence as an instrument of obtalnlng the rights of the non-White majority.” That both Mr Cotter (a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, America’ s so-called “Invisible Government”) and the AAI have very powerful US Government connections is beyond dispute. CFR-member, Mr Waidemar A Nielson, first President of MI, certainly had no illusions about the source of Institute funds. In a public statement in February, 1967, he said the CIA subsidised the Institute from its founding in 1953 until 1961 and he was conscious of the “inherent imprudence and impropriety” of the arrangements. But once it began, said Nielson, the Institute became “like a drunk taking the first drink. . . it is easy to over-indulge.”At the time the Institute’s ties with the agency were severed, it was getting half its budget from the CIA. Although the CIA no longer plays such an overt role in its affairs, the AAI remains heavily reliant on US Government money, channelled through the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State, the Agency for International Development (AID), plus the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers 45 <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
