Method Behind the Madness 6/ t"!" t hash..! heenbeen sad,"sad " writes Soviet "I believe in truth and the power of in 1947 and attributed tto 'X.'" It is a ideas to convey the truth," says Go suggestion he made again the following I defector Anatoliy Golitsyn in year in his lengthy analysis memoran M the foreword to his new book, litsyn, and he expresses the hope that his I "wtTto bookwillhelp the people of theWestto dum of March 1989. The PerestroikaDeception, "to observe To those familiar with Foreign Af the jubilation of American and West see the dangers before them "and to re fairs, it is not surprising that the defec European conservatives who have been cover from their blindness." If it is within the power of a book to do that, tor's innocent request went unrequited. cheering 'perestroika' without realizing As the flagship journal of the wodd- that it is intended to bring about their then there is certainly none better than govemment-promoting Council on For own political and physical demise. Lib his for that daunting task. eign Relations (CFR), it has been the eral support for 'perestroika' is under No one better apprehends or more clearly explains the dialectic, the plan leading promoter of perestroika, glas- standable, but conservative support nost, and convergence in the West for cameas a surprise to me." ning framework, and the operational methods of the Communist deception decades. Time magazine hascalled For For one who studied and worked strategy than Golitsyn. We emphasize eign Affairs "the most influential peri within the inner sanctum of Soviet in odical in print." Unformnately, Aat is telligence and who risked his life to Communist because there apparently is a vital dimension of the deception strat- an apt description. As the mouthpiece of warn the West about the Kremlin's pro 0gy which has eluded his otherwise ex the powerful CFR, it not only speaks to gram of strategic deception, it must be and for America's "ruling establish sad indeed, and maddening, to witness cellent grasp ofthis entire subject. An example of this gap in under ment," but, to an incredibly shameful the rush to destruction. "I was ap standing we are referring to can be degree, frames the issues and dictates palled," he says, "that 'perestroika' was the bounds of acceptabledebateon eco embraced and supported by the United found inGolitsyn's secret memorandum to the CIA of January 4, 1988, which nomic and foreign policy matters in this States without any serious debate onthe comprises one of the chapters in The supposedly free republic. subject." Perestroika Deception. ^ After brilliantly exposing The Game Plan In his groundbreaking 1984 book. the treachery and disin- formation involved in Gor- New Lies for Old, Golitsyn laid out, in bachev's visit to the United meticulous detail and with devastating clarity, the diabolical nature ofthe com States, Golitsyn suggested ing perestroika offensive —which he had eight actions the CIA learned about in his capacity as an elite should take to counteract KGB officer 25 years earlier! The strat the perestroika offensive. J|H egy called for ongoing deception opera Number eight reads: "In- tions of fantastic scope which would so vite the National Security gull and disarm the West that itwould Council to consider hav- ^ eventually "converge" with the "re ing this assessment pub- K formed" Communist regimes in a world lished in Foreign Affairs ^ government. through its editor, Mr. "In 1984 I thought that, in the event; William Hyland, under of Westernresistanceto Soviet strategy,, the anonymous cover of ^ ^ the scenario of convergence betweenI 'a KGB defector' along ^ K the two systems might take the next halff the same lines as the ar- g Bil century to unroll," he says in his new/ tide by Ambassador Ken- H B| work. "Now, however, because thej nan which was published West has committed itself to u the support of 'perestroika' and because of the impact of the misguided and euphoric support for it in the Western • ||:i| media, convergence might take less than a decade. The sword of Damocles is hang- ingovertheWestern democ- CFR's Harold Pratt House: Headquarters of an racies, yet they are oblivious BWll "invisible government" In the United States. the NEW AMERICAN / SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 lions more, the CFR policy makers de U.S. forces in itsglobal "peacekeeping" Five ofthe sixmembers ofthe Reagan operations. Administration's National Security vised one excuse after anothertojustify the suicidal and unconscionable trans Council to which Golitsyn referred were "Rediscovering" Karl Marx fers of credit, technology, and other as (or had been) CFR members —George sistance which allowed these bankrupt But an even more telling and alarm Bush, Alexander Haig, Caspar Weinber- regimes tocontinue their tyrannical op ing message is to be found in an article aer, David Jones, and William Casey — pression. And Foreign Ajfairs has been by historian John Lewis Gaddis (CFR), us was Foreign AJfairs editor William past president ofthe Society for Histo Hyland, aformer aide to Henry Kissin the leading organ that has "sold these treacheries to Congress and the Ameri rians of American Foreign Relations, in ger (CFR), another leading perestroika the same issue of Foreign Ajfairs. En apostle. So was George F. Kennan, au can public. A recent case in point was an article titled "The Tragedy of Cold War His thor ofthe celebrated "X" article which tory," the Gaddis essay commences launched Truman's phony "contain by Paul D. Wolfowitz (CFR), former ambassador and Defense Undersec with a paean to Marxist historian Will ment" policy. As were some 200 addi iam Appleman Williams and asks rhe tional key members of the Reagan retary, and now dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International torically, "what was the Cold War all Administration, including virtually all about?" His answer is interesting and ofhis top State Department officials. Studies at Johns Hopkins University, in significant, in that it reflects Invisible Government dom: "Given what we know of Indeed, CFR members have the Soviet Union's internal fra so dominated every Adminis- gility ... given persuasive evi tration — whether Democrat IthedenceregnantthatEstablishmentan internationalwis orRepublican —from FDR up communist monolith never re tothe present that the CFR has ally existed; given all of these often justly been called our things, what exactly was the "invisible government." The HjHH threat to American interests CFR has played a central role anyway?" in some of the most disastrous Hgg Reading Gaddis one is not decisions and policies that sure. Notingthat Stalinwas not have aided totalitarian Com- |^B||| "a normal, everyday, run-of- munism and threatened the the-mill statesmanlike head of Free World's security. A short government" and that his list of someof the most signifi- crimes were "horrifying" — an cantofthose policies and deci- < amazing discovery that "liber- sions would include: I als" worldwide have recently • President Roosevelt's dip- I stumbled upon —Gaddis criti- loinatic recognition of the So- I cizes those who failed to see viet Union in 1933. I the evil in Stalin, Mao and the • Launching of the U.S. Ex- I "brutal romantics" who were port-Import Bank in 1934 to 5t" their "clones": "Kim II Sung, help facilitate trade with the GGorbachev: Still a "convincedCommunist: Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel USSR. the January/February 1994 Foreign A/- Castro, Mengistu Haile-Miriam, Babrak • U.S. Lend-Lease aid to save the " Karmal, and many others." USSR from the Nazis and make her a fairs entitled "Clinton's First Year." "President CHntonwas right, of course, "History for a long time was on their world power. it side, and then it ceased to be " says • "Losing" China to the Communists to backPresident Yeltsin strongly in last fall's crisis," wrote Wolfowitz. "Theree Gaddis. "We need to understand why." b)' our support for Mao and our under e And where shall weturnfor this under- mining of Chiang Kai-shek. was no alternative to Yeltsinat the time : that offered any hope for the success of)f standing? Why, to Marx, of course. • President Eisenhower's bridge ;s Mind you, Gaddis isnot suggesting that building" aid to the Soviets in the; democracy inRussia. TheUnited States has a huge stake in that success and inn we study Marx to better understand the 1950s. ,y pernicious doctrines that drive the totali- • PresidentJohnson's "peacefulcoex- the continuation of Russia's generally moderate foreign policy." Moreover,r, tarian ideologies and policies ofour col- istence" in the '60s. i said Wolfowitz, "The end of the ColdId lectivist foes. Not at all. Rather, this • President Nixon's "detente and rh CFR luminary suggests we "follow an- Jimmy Carter's "human rights in the5 War has made cooperative action through the United Nations newly feasible in other piece of advice from William 19-Os. of Appleman Williams, which is that we • The Reagan-Bush concepts off many cases by eliminating the threat of rediscover Karl Marx." Gaddis explains: "linkage" and "engagement" in thee a Soviet veto...." The message is clear: Keep the aid 1980s. It was Marx, more than anyone Decade after decade, as Communist}t spigot flowing to our comrades in Mos- it cow and step up the program to "em- else, who alerted us to the fact that regimes were racking up a body count there are long-term "substructural of over 100 million and enslaving bil-l- power" the UN and further entangle the NEW AMERICAN / SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 "consensus-building process" to address forces in history, and that they It's useless to deny the enormous and shape modes of economic produc unique contribution of Marx, Engels the "major themes of today's complex and Leninto the history of socialthought and interdependent world." tion, forms of political organization, Stripped ofitsAesopian dialectic, the and even social consciousness...