Archive for the ‘ANTICOMMUNISM’ Category

ANTICOMMUNIST ARCHITECTURE IN SOUTH KOREA

January 3, 2019

During the 1960s and 1970s anticommunism was reflected in architecture and urban planning in the South Korean capital of Seoul. The Federation of Artistic and Cultural Organizations of Korea (FACOK) was founded with the Korean Institute of Architects as a member of FACOK.

The Freedom Center is one example of the buildings constructed in the 1960s. Other examples are statues of national war heroes (Yi Sun Sin), and the War Memorial. There were plans to fortify Seoul and coastal development plans for the Han River and south of the river.

Yi Sun Sin (1545 – 1598) was a naval commander during the Japanese invasions of Joseon (Korea) that lasted from 1592 to 1598. The invasion is also known as the Seven Year War, or the Imjin War. The official name of Yi’s title was “naval commander of the three provinces” as he was in charge of navies of Chungcheong, Jeolla, and Gyeongsang provinces. He is known for his exceptional leadership and naval strategies which resulted in victories in all his twenty three battles. Although he was arrested and relegated for a while, he was soon restored to lead Joseon’s navy till the last battle.

The War Memorial of Korea, located in Yongsan-gu, Seoul, exhibits and preserve materials related to the Korean War and serves as a national moral educational venue. It was established to commemorate the noble sacrifice of patriotic martyrs by the War Memorial Service Korea Society on June 10, 1994. The museum houses approximately 33,000 artifacts with about 10,000 on display at an indoor and outside exhibition halls.

There are six separate indoor halls, including Expeditionary Forces Room, Patriotic Memorial Room, War History Room, 6•25 Korean War Room, Development Hall and Large Machinery Room. The outdoor exhibition hall showcases large-sized weapons. Visitors of all ages from children to adults can also participate in 20 various educational programs and diverse cultural events such as military music and honor guard events, drawing contest, cultural event and more. The character of War Memorial of Korea is ‘Mudori’ featuring a helmet symbolizing the protection of the nation and a bay leaf meaning peace.

The total area of the War Memorial is 116,793m² with the exhibition halls 20,360m² .

In the Memorial Hall there is an exhibition hall dedicated to the memory of patriots involved in past war efforts. The place presents sculptures, reliefs, and wall paintings under the theme of overcoming hardship, and working towards the unity, prosperity and eternity of the nation.

There is also a war history from prehistoric era to the Japanese colonial period. Military remains, relics, and documents are on display as well. Among them are war & victory records, ammunition, the Turtle Ship (and other military vessels from the Joseon Dynasty), fortress models, and more.

The background of the Korean War is presented with the progression of the war and how a truce was eventually established. Exhibits also display ammunition used by hostile and friendly forces, information and artifacts from people displaced by the war, and information on major battles.

The role of the expeditionary forces was important. Information in this exhibit describes the Vietnam War and the implication of Korean troops dispatched in Vietnam. Other information explains the activities Korean troops were mainly engaged in during the Vietnam War, and the tactics of the Viet Cong.

The ROK Armed Forces part presents the progression of the Korean Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps from the time of their inception till today.

The South Korean defense industry is presented with replicas of state-of-the-art weapons that are produced by domestic companies. Items include fighters, submarines, destroyers, and communication apparatuses.

Around 110 pieces of large military equipments/symbols are on display. They include Korean War sculptures, the Statue of Brethren, the Statue of King Gwanggaeto, AH-2, T-34 of the North, US B-52 and others.

Advertisements

NAMSAN FREEDOM CENTER, SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA

January 2, 2019

Korean architect Kim Swoo-geun (1931 – 1986), born in Chongjin, North Hamgyong (today’s North Korea), settled in Seoul in 1943.

He spent most of his youth in the Bukchon area, marked by a concentration of narrow alleys. Many say that this period impacted his design philosophies in later years, marked by mysteriously yet organically twisted spaces.

Kim enrolled in the Architecture College of Seoul National University in 1950, but due to the 1950-53 Korean War, he dropped out and moved to Japan. There, he studied architecture at the Architecture College of Tokyo University of the Arts.

He came back to Korea in 1960, and since then, designed about 200 important structures across the country. They include Seoul Olympic Stadium (in Jamsil, southern Seoul), Freedom Center (in Namsan, central Seoul), Kyungdong Presbyterian Church (in Jangchung-dong, central Seoul), the South Korean ambassador’s residence in Washington, D.C., and Chuncheon Children’s Hall (Chuncheon, Gangwon), just to name a few.

Namsan Freedom Center Seunggonggwan Hall was opened as a part of South Korean anticommunist state policy during the era of on October 15th, 1966. On the mark stone, ex-President Park Jeong-heui’s own handwriting is carved. The Seunggonggwan Hall is located in Korea Freedom Federation in Namsan Mountain.

It was financed by the South Korean government and Korea ASEA Anti-communism Federation. Opened in September 1962, the groundbreaking ceremony of Freedom Center had about 1,000 attendants both citizens and leading government officials .

Within the Freedom Center, there was an International Freedom Hall, a main hall, International Conference Room, Freedom Plaza, memorial hall, a library, PR center, and an anticommunism education institute. Anticommunist education, anti-communist theory, tactics and strategy, and anticommunist information was central government policy.

The Seunggonggwan Hall exhibited various weapons and war photos. Victory-Over-Communism was taught in the Seunggong School.

The South Korean government supported the Korea Anti-communism Federation to promote the policy of anticommunism, and this federation extended the propaganda activities and education and enlightenment activities to stimulate the awareness of anti-communism and establishment of the theory of anti-communism, and through the reinforcement of anti-communism internationally, it tried to gain the support in international society.

The building is now used for other purposes but there is an ”Anti-Communist Exhibition Hall” in the building.

Center address: Jangchungdong 2-ga, Jung-gu, Seoul

POLITICAL MEMOIRS OF AUTHOR BERTIL HAGGMAN VOL 3

December 12, 2018

EUROPEAN SUPPORT
FOR THE US FREEDOM ACADEMY CONCEPT
DURING THE COLD WAR

Bertil Haggman

Vol. 3

Contents

Introduction
Communist Political Warfare Training
The Orlando Committee and Alan G. Grant Jr.
The Freedom Academy
The Freedom Studies Center
A 1976 Seminar of the Freedom Studies Center

Foreword

This is Volume 3 of Bertil Haggman’s political memoirs. The first volume was published by Kindle Direct Publishing in 2015 and is available from Kindle as an e-book. The second volume will be published in September 2018 on Bertil Haggman’s blog varldsinbordeskriget.wordpress.com Academies like the Freedom Academy are important as a tool of freedom and democracy. This author has in the Swedish magazine Contra called for an American Freedom Academy to be established in the ongoing global war on terror.

Glimakra June 2018

Bertil Haggman

Introduction

The American Freedom Academy concept is worth remembering in a time when the West is again challenged.. It was during the Cold War for decades much debated in the United States. It is a fascinating story on how an Orlando, Florida, grass roots group managed to attract interest, both in Congress and media, for a political warfare academy, a ‘civilian West Point’ to counteract hundreds of political warfare schools in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

Here the term political warfare refers to warfare other than military action used to enforce the will of a state upon its foe. Political war may be combined with violence, economic pressure, subversion, and diplomacy but the chief aspect is propaganda (if waged by a totalitarian state), information (when used by a democracy) and psychological warfare (Paul A. Smith Jr., On Political War, Washington D.C., 1989, pp. 3 and 227).

My interest in this subject stems from the fact that in 1966, when a privately financed freedom academy was inaugurated. I was the chairman of the Free Asia Committee in Scandinavia, an initial cooperating agency of the center. In my private archive I have letters exchanged on the subject and material related to the importance that the West establishes a sort of West Point for defense against communist psycho-political warfare.

The basic agenda in the field would be to educate citizens on the dangers of communist ideology not only in the United States but in all non-communist countries.

Communist Political Warfare Training

Communist political warfare was during the Cold War part of the revolutionary global civil war of communism from 1917 to 1991. It had its roots in the French revolution. V.I. Lenin argued that if a revolution was to be successful it had to be led by professional revolutionaries.

There were hundreds of Communist political warfare training schools in the Soviet Union and in other countries as well as on other continents. Best known is the central International Lenin School (ILS) established in 1926. Subjects were guerrilla warfare, revolutionary techniques, armed uprising, agitation and propaganda, political warfare etc.

The most common name in the West for the most important political warfare school in the Soviet Union is the International Lenin School but it has also been described as university, academy, institute and college (Lenin Institute of Political Warfare and Lenin University). Underneath is a quote from the testimony of Professor Stefan Possony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) :

“When Michael V. Frunze became Commissar of War in 1924 he started preparing for the establishment of a system of advanced training academies for foreign communists to make them professional revolutionaries. In 1925 the Hungarian Bela Kun, chief of Comintern’s Agit-Prop Department announced plans for a new Comintern school and the Lenin School was established in May, 1926. By 1959 the school had processed 120,000 pupils. The first graduating class was in 1928. ”….students came from many countries and were given an unusually intensive three year course designed to train them in all of the arts of a total power struggle. Guerrilla warfare, armed uprising, agitation and propaganda, legal and illegal methods, as well as advanced indoctrination in Marxism-Leninim, were all in the curriculum.” (United States Congress. Hearings on the Freedom Academy Bill 1964, p. 1194).

Teachers included Soviet leaders Stalin, Manuilsky, Bukharin, Molotov, Kuusinen, and Trotsky, before he had to escape from the Soviet Union (see below).

The school had two courses: the full course ran for three years while there was also a short course of one year.

One of the most extensive FBI reports on ILS in a synopsis of facts stated:

“Informants report Lenin School (LS) founded 1926 in Moscow, Russia to train Communist leaders from other countries both politically and practically. Other schools, such as Far Eastern University, also in progress in Russia simultaneously with LS. Branch of LS believed to have operated in Sweden. American students for LS were selected by CP, USA. A quota for each country assigned by Communist International. Those who were considered to be leadership material were selected. Travel to the school was paid by the CP and student received a subsistence for themselves and for their families while at school. Some informants state they were instructed to protect their identity while traveling. Students at LS transferred CP membership from country of origin to CP of Russia. At school, students were interviewed and indoctrinated concerning security. Most students assumed aliases at school. LS term was from 1 to 3 years. Classes held in various languages simultaneously. Instructors at LS were chiefly from Russia. Courses covered marxist philosophy and economics, history of CP movement, history of trade union work. Students received instructions in military training, firearms and illegal work. Some FBI informants report receiving instructions in espionage and sabotage. After completion of course at school, students toured Russia. Some were assigned in departments of CP of Russia. Others returned to country of origin to assume leadership role. Some students utilized as couriers during and after school year” (FBI Report, August 2, 1954, New York. Title: The Lenin School. 71 p.).

After the Soviet collapse it has been confirmed that the Soviets regarded ILS as very secret:

“Much of what went on at the ILS was secret. In 1930, William Weinstone, the CPUSA’s representative to the Comintern, rebuked the CPUSA’s Secretariat for publishing an article about the school. Weinstone told his comrades that the article ‘has aroused the School Administration and the students because there must be absolutely no publicity given in regard to the school or any of its activities…nothing like this must be repeated.” He also reminded the party not to send material to the students using an ILS address”
(H.Klehr, J.E. Haynes, F.I. Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism, New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 202).

Some of the more prominent pupils of the Lenin School were:

Chou En-lai, China
Harry Pollit, Great Britain
Sanzo Nosaka, Japan
Ernst Thaelmann, Germany
Maurice Thorez, France
Gus Hall, USA
L.L. Sharkey, Australia
Joseph Z. Kornfeder, Chzechoslovak-American communist defector
Sam Darcy, USA
Leonard Patterson, USA

Extensive material in files of the FBI is available on American trainees, but much information is blacked out.

Joseph Z. Kornfeder when testifying for the HCUA in 1959, presented as exhibit the curriculum of the Lenin School, which he had attended (“Curriculum”, Lenin University, Moscow, U.S.S.R., (as of 1944).

Below are the names of other Comintern training centers:

University of the Toilers of the East, Moscow (replaced the Tashkent School) was established on May 18, 1921. See also under section 8 below.

Trainees: Ho Chi-minh, Vietnam
Nalini Gupta, India
Raden Darsono, Indonesia

The Central European School in Moscow mainly had students from Balkan and Baltic countries.

The Sun Yat-sen University (Far Eastern University), Moscow trained Chinese communists. General Krivitsky wrote on this “university”:

“When the Comintern began to turn its attention to China, it created a university of the east, the so called Sun Yat-sen University, with Karl Radek at the head. Moscow was then in a frenzy of optimism over the prospects of a Soviet revolution in China. Sons of generals and high Chinese officials were invited to attend this special training school. Among them was the son of Chiang Kai-shek (Krivitsky, In Stalin’s Secret Service, NewYork: Enigma Books, 2000, p. 51).

The communist political warfare training system later went in the direction of greater diversification. For example, the Frunze Military Academy, for a while was the highest institution of military learning. It was established in 1918. This school was the equivalent of the Command and Staff School in the United States, something like the Ecole de Guerre in Paris.

In 1936 a new institution was created, the Voroshilov Higher Military Academy, which was the equivalent, on a somewhat higher level, of the National War College. It embraces all three military services, but, unlike the National War College, which is teaching essentially on the level of colonels, a great deal of the teaching at the Voroshilov Academy is at the flag rank level. In addition, it has extension courses, a research institute on doctrine, and also offers refresher courses for earlier graduates… (United States Congress. HCUA Hearings 1959, p. 81).

Among the trainees: Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslavia

The Tashkent School, Tashkent, Central Asia was established by Lenin in 1919 to train Asian communists. A special complex,”India House”, was to train Indian communists.

Trainees: Shankat Usman, India
Fazl Qurban, Pakistan
Manabenda Nath Roy, India

The New Lenin Institute (Institute of Social Sciences, Institute for Social Studies, International School of Marxism-Leninism), Moscow, was set up in 1967 and taught a systematic course in revolutionary techniques:

“…training [was] part of a systematic course in revolutionary techniques which has been on offer to carefully select Communists since 1967 but the existence of which was revealed only in 1973.The courses [were] run by the Lenin Institute,…Each course lasted about six months.” 300 to 600 were enrolled at any given time. The largest group was from Latin America. The training consisted of courses in armed and unarmed combat and guerrilla war, illegal operations, social psychology, open and clandestine journalism, subversive use of posters, radio, television, public speaking, and Marxist-Leninist ideology” (Brian Crozier, “Aid to terrorism”, Annual of Power and Conflict 1973-74 – A Survey of Political Violence and International Influence, London: Institute for the Study of Conflict, 1974).

The Orlando Committee and Alan G. Grant Jr.

The Freedom Academy concept was a typical private initiative started in Orlando in the fall of 1950 by citizens speaking in local high schools on communism and the Soviet threat. The initiator and prime mover of the group was Alan J. Grant Jr., who had fought in a parachute regiment during the Second World War, graduated from Harvard Law School and written a thesis at Harvard on guerrilla and revolutionary war. The Orlando Committee was formed in 1953, and in 1954 the Freedom Academy concept (first called Free-World Academy) was presented in a report later sent to the White House (Man of the Week: Freedom Academy’s Alan Grant, Orlando Sentinel, Florida Magazine, September 18, 1960, pp. 4-5).

In a testimony before the US Congress Senate on June 17, 1959, Grant explained his work on the concept from the beginning of the 1950s as a representative of the Orlando Committee (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing Before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and other Security Laws of the Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-Sixth Congress, First Session, on S. 1689 to Create the Freedom Commission for the Development of the Science of Counteraction to the World Communist Conspiracy, June 17, 1959, pp. 10 – 23).

Grant said that “some of the members of the Orlando committee have been working with the basic proposal before you since 1951. This legislation presents a new idea, a new procedural concept in the cold war” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

He also more in detail told the story of the origins of the Freedom Commission Act:

“The origins of the Freedom Commission Act go back to the late
summer of 1950. American forces in Korea had been pressed into the Pusan perimeter and we faced a serious military situation. But more important, it had by then become plain that the Soviets had thrown an across-the-board challenge at the West which would test our national character and every part of our free society as it had never been tested before. The stakes were national survival and the challenge would continue indefinitely conceivably for the remainder of this century, or longer.

In the late summer of 1950, a small group of Orlando citizens organized themselves into a committee called the Know Your Enemy Speakers. This committee believed that as an absolute minimum our high school seniors should be given a broad survey course on world communism (in addition to courses in American history and civic courses to show the advantages of an open society) so they could understand something of the frightful challenge — political, scientific, economic, and military — facing their Nation, and as a result would better understand the unique obligations of American citizenship.

To avoid controversy, our committee was quietly organized on a
broad bipartisan basis to include management and labor, the major religions, and both political parties.

During the 5 months from the formation of the committee to the
beginning of the lecture series, we were careful to explain the program to the many organized groups in the Orlando area, and the Sunday before the kickoff the local newspaper ran a full page story explaining how the subject matter would be handled. Thanks to this careful public relations no opposition developed even though we where “bringing communism into the classrooms” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

The program ran 3 years.

The Freedom Academy

The report resulted in a more than a decade long struggle inside and outside of the American Congress. A bill was introduced both in the Senate (sponsored by Senators Karl Mundt and Paul Douglas) and the House.

In his continued testimony in 1959 Grant informed about the continued research of the Orlando Committee on the state of information in the United States concerning the Soviet challenge:

“While the school program was in progress, we made inquiries to learn what other communities were doing to inform our youth of the Soviet challenge. It appeared that very little was being done. No one had had the foresight to teach the teachers to give such courses and the school administrators, the PTA’s, and the general public felt no urgency in the matter. Furthermore, little was being done to reach the undergraduates in our colleges and universities.

…we asked how this educational failure [could] be corrected” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

The conclusion was that the Soviets had a better organized total political warfighting apparatus than the United States:

“All our reading and study pointed to the central fact that the Soviets were winning the cold war, because they had systematically prepared themselves over many decades to wage total political war, while the West had not. To the Soviets, political warfare or psychopolitical warfare is an all encompassing concept which gives direction and orientation to everything they do. They consider it the most important of the sciences. In the West it has been a neglected stepchild.

Soviet concentration on political warfare has given them three important operational advantages and a tremendous lead time. While these three advantages may appear obvious, nevertheless they are matters, the implications of which the West has not faced up to in terms of counteractivity. I would like to list these three advantages briefly, because they will help pinpoint the specific problems which the Freedom Commission Act will help solve.

First, the Soviets have developed their conspiratorial version of
political warfare or psycho-political warfare into a true operational science. To wage this new dimension of warfare, they have designed and fieldtested a broad spectrum of political weapons and political weapons systems. They have thought out the many open and covert organizational forms and operational techniques by which a highly trained, though small, power elite can acquire maximum power and influence in any given society or situation. Finally, the Soviets have meshed their psychopolitical warfare into their overall long-range strategy of protracted conflict, in which we are never given a sufficient provocation to use massive retaliation, but where, nevertheless, our overall position gradually weakens in relation to the Soviets. There is not time to make any detailed comments on Soviet operational methods and I don’t believe that is necessary before this committee. However, because so little has been written about Soviet conflict techniques, that is, communism as a method, I would like to respectfully refer this committee to three books which the Orlando Committee believes do this much needed job. They are Protracted Conflict, just published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania; The Organizational Weapon, a 1952 Rand Corp. study, and A Century of Conflict, by Dr. Stefan Possony, of Georgetown University.

Second, the Soviets have trained the most skilled, dedicated, and cohesive political warfare cadres and leadership groups the world has known. They simply fight harder and with more know-how than their opponents. From the beginning Communist leaders have realized that political warfare is a sophisticated science which makes heavy demands on its practitioners. Perhaps no other area of human activity requires a greater personal commitment. This is not something which can be entrusted to amateurs or dilettantes. It requires intensively trained, fully committed professionals” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

At one point in the testimony Grant presented several examples of media attention concerning Soviet and satellite states’ training centers for political warfare:

“I would like to list a few examples which have come to the attention of the Orlando Committee.

Daniel James, a leading authority on communism in Latin America, in a 1954 Washington Post article, described a training center in Prague devoted exclusively to the training of Latin American Communists and European

Communists who would be working in Latin America. According to James, the enrollment was 750, and political warfare was the primary subject. Presumably many thousands of Latin Americans have now received advanced training at this center and have been redeployed throughout the fabric of our southern neighbours. Recently there have been published reports of another training center in Prague for African Communists with facilities for 3,000 students.

Professor Alexander, of Rutgers University, in his book, Communism in Latin America, mentions briefly a whole system of training schools by the Chilean party to increase the sophistication and know-how of its members.

Herbert Philbrick, in I Led Three Lives, has described the secret district training school, run by the party in the Boston area to train party cadres.

Joseph Z. Kornfeder and William C. Nowell, alumni of the famed, but little understood Lenin Institute, have told us about the training in political warfare the present leaders of the various Communist parties received in Moscow in the twenties and thirties.

In the September 1955, issue of Facts Forum, Montgomery Green has written a revealing article on the system of political warfare colleges operated in Russia. The article begins with these words :

Perhaps the most closely guarded secret of world communism, cut off from view by the Iron Curtain and shrouded in unbelievable security precautions, is the system of colleges for professional revolutionaries that annually turn out thousands of skilled agitators to bedevil the free world. Although this educational program has been in action for 30 years, and has graduated political saboteurs estimated to number a minimum of 100,000, its very existence is unknown to most people in the West.

The reason for the supersecrecy with which these schools have been surrounded is that they constitute the most successful cold war weapon yet developed by world communism.

Third, they have a superior organization which is skilfully deployed throughout the fabric of each nation to obtain maximum power and influence for the numbers involved. This organization, manned by trained political activists, permits the Communists to take full advantage of the infinite variety of organizational possibilities inherent in a total political war, whether setting up a front to organize and manipulate a previously unorganized sector of a given society, infiltrating an existing institution, or recruiting student leaders for a guided tour of the “New China.” It is significant that an advanced textbook on Bolshevik strategy and tactics is called The Organizational Weapon — Selznick, McGraw-Hill, 1952” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

Grant also described the communists as “masters of conflict”:

“Finally tremendous resources within Russia and China have been mobilized to support Communist political warfare efforts. This is seen in their extensive language training program which emphasizes the numerous languages and dialects of Asia and Africa, and in the training of engineers and technicians beyond internal needs.

The Communists have been aptly described as the masters of “conflict management.” With their superior operational science, with their skilled cadres and leadership groups, with their sophisticated organizational forms, the Soviets are able to achieve their short- and long-term objectives through an amazing variety of means. Their overall attack is so diverse only a trained individual can begin to identify its many forms.

In summary, Soviet cold war gains have been made possible by the systematic development of the science of political warfare and conflict management, by the intensive long-term training of leadership groups in this science, and by the creation of the diverse organizational structure which can fully utilize the new science and the superbly trained cadres and leadership groups.

These Communist strengths highlight the basic United States and free world weaknesses which underlie many of our cold war defeats and are severely handicapping our long range efforts” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

After this presentation on Soviet strengths in the field Grant turned to the weaknesses in the Free World’s response:

“I would like to list these weaknesses briefly as the Orlando committee sees them, because I believe this will help your committee understand our thinking; and will lead to a fuller understanding of the Freedom Commission Act.

First, there has been no overall, intensive, systematic effort to develop counteraction to the Soviets into an operational science which will meet fully the Soviet’s total political warfare and protracted conflict strategy and techniques. When I say “counteraction” I mean both the so-called positive and negative aspects and also counteraction in the private as well as the governmental sector. Also, and this is important, I mean an operational science which fits within democratic morality and concepts — not a conspiratorial science to fight a conspiratorial science.

During the past few years a great deal has been written about Russia, China, and communism, but strangely almost nothing has been written which attempts to develop an operational science for the West which will fully meet the total Soviet challenge. This is of course, a tremendous challenge which, in its details, is beyond the capacity of any one man” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

Grant correctly held up Stefan Possony’s 1952 book as a pioneering work in the West on the ongoing war between the Free World and communism:

“As far back as 1952, Dr. Stefan Possony, professor of political science at Georgetown and adviser to the Defense Department on Soviet Affairs, wrote in his pioneering book, A Century of Conflict, and I quote :

Only fools refuse to learn from their enemies. There is no reason why we should not pick up some of the Communist tricks and use them, if and when they fit into the framework of our own requirements and morality. If only for defensive purposes, we must understand Soviet procedures. The Western World must urgently develop a new synthesis of the operational art.

You can go to most good libraries and pick up any one of dozens
of books containing a scholarly description of some aspect of communism. In the final chapters the author often feels a need to suggest free world countermeasures. But, at this point, the scholarly, analytical mind seems to run into a mental roadblock. We are seldom given anything more helpful than broad generalities. While the author may set forth commendable goals, he does not describe any realistic means by which we can achieve these goals. It does no good to say repeatedly that the free world must develop its own operational art, unless we describe the organizational means which will make this possible. For 15 years our political science community has turned its back on the greatest challenge to political thought in our age. This is a fantastic situation” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

Grant then turned to the fact that there were no broadgaged and systematic efforts in the West to train government personnel and private citizens in the complex science of counteraction:

“Second, there has been no broadgaged, systematic effort to train private citizens and cold war agency personnel in the tremendously complex and difficult science of counteraction. There are no free world counterparts to the elaborate system of political warfare training schools the Soviets have been running for 40 years — other than the limited facilities of the CIA which is in the covert area. We have specialists on various aspects of communism. We have almost no experts or trained leaders in the area of counteraction. Nor is any program underway to develop such experts and leaders. After all you can’t train people in a science which has yet to be developed. Moreover, not only have we failed to train in counteraction, but very few of our cold war agency personnel are well grounded in communism, particularly Soviet conflict techniques. Even fewer are well versed in the interrelated military — economic-political aspects of the problem” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

Grant went on to refer to a “memorandum prepared by Dr. Edward P. Lilly of the Operations Coordinating Board which summarizes all cold war educational activities of the Federal Government with the exception of the CIA and the FBI. This shows that present training is conducted along conventional lines and almost nothing is being done to give systematic training to cold war agency personnel in counteractivity. The same gap exists in the private sector. This will be developed by Dr. Gerhard Niemeyer, professor of political science at Notre Dame and current lecturer at the National War College [in a later testimony] (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

In the view of Grant this training failure resulted in well meaning amateurs competing with fully committed professionals. The lack of organizational focus was needed:

“Third, we have not created the organizational focus, particularly in the private sector, through which we can counter the total Soviet threat.

Because we have not done these three things, our Government has had to rely on the conventional means of diplomacy, military and economic aid, and intelligence. But these conventional means, regardless of the skill with which they are employed, fail to engage the Communists on much of the battleground. We simply lack the operational know-how, the trained manpower, and the organizational forms necessary to cope with many forms of the Soviet’s psychopolitical warfare” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

Even the State Department had admitted that there was a lack in the field of political warfare training in the United States:

“In hearings this spring before the House Appropriations Sub-
committee, the State Department asked for funds to set up small staffs which could work full time to counter Soviet political and economic warfare. During the hearings Douglas Dillon made this startling and revealing statement :

We feel that it is necessary to have some staff or some group responsible for giving full time to these matters, planning action, following it up, and working out what we should do to counter the Soviet threat.

I have felt the need for this for some time and last year, when the business advisory group looked into the problem they felt the need for it. It was found that there was no place in the Government, in the State Department or anywhere else, concerned solely with this problem and what to do about it. It has been handled, to the extent it has been handled, in the different regional bureaus where they frankly emphasize only what is happening in their own respective areas. They do not exchange views on various parts of the world. They do not know the total Communist drive that may be behind particular actions and I do not think that their results have been anywhere near as effective as they should be.

We have talked over this problem a little bit with some of the countries that are interested and one of the conclusions we came to was that we were not well enough organized ourselves to know intelligently exactly what we wanted to do about a number of these problems. About 6 or 7 months ago I came to the conclusion we do need a full-time staff to work on this subject.

But suppose these staffs are set up. Suppose they do fully understand what the Soviets are doing on a world scale. They will still lack the trained manpower and the organizational forms to meet this new dimension of warfare. They will be a general staff without any army. The Orlando committee predicts many breakdowns from sheer frustration” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

The use of psychopolitical weapons in the Soviet penetration of Asia, Africa and Latin America was well known, Grant continued:

“The pattern of Soviet penetration in Asia, Africa and Latin America is by now becoming known. The groundwork for this penetration was laid by decades of intensive cadre training and the careful testing and perfecting of a broad range of psychopolitical weapons. The tragic situations in Cuba and Iraq are not the result of any sudden Kremlin brainstorm. Their history goes back to the Lenin Institute in the twenties and thirties and the schools in Prague and Argentina in the fifties. Hundreds of intensively trained cadres, toughened by years of political warfare and underground work were poised to step in and develop any revolutionary situation. Conventional diplomacy and economic aid cannot cope with this. Our virtual helplessness in the face of those developing crises is a direct result of our failure over the past decade to develop counteraction and to get down to the hard, practical work of training leadership groups.

The Soviet challenge requires planning in terms of decades by systematically trained persons who understand the full spectrum of counteraction, both what can be done by government and what can be done by private citizens and organizations. The Cubas, the Iraqs, the Keralas of a decade from now may be lost because we are not training and deploying the people today who could be changing the whole climate of opinion and creating the anti-Communist strength in these target nations which would prevent the situation from ever developing to crisis proportions.

All of these matters deeply concerned our small group in Orlando. To us, the indispensable keys to our long-range victory against this new dimension of warfare were the rapid development of our own operational know-how, the training of leadership groups, and the creation of new organizational forms. But we searched in vain for any sign that a determined effort was being made along these lines either by the Government or by private institutions. It seemed ridiculous that a small group in

Orlando should have to take the lead in such an obvious matter” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

The Orlando committee in 1953 discontinued its school program to focus on the development of the Freedom Academy concept:

“In 1953, we discontinued the school program in order to spend all af our time developing this concept. A new committee was organized, called the Orlando committee, and, by the spring of 1954, this committee had produced a 50-odd page report recommending the establishment of a privately financed academy, which we first called the Lincoln-Petkov Academy and later the Free-World Academy. Petkov, of course, being the Hungarian patriot executed by Communists in 1947.

We sent this report to Robert Cutler, who then headed the planning board of the National Security Council, with the idea that if the administration agreed with us, it could quietly recruit a board of distinguished private citizens in whom the country would have faith and who could raise the large sums needed.

Cutler circulated our proposal through the various cold war agencies and, in July 1954, the Operations Coordinating Board set up a conference which I attended for the Orlando committee. There were wide differences of opinion among the participants as to details of the proposal and as to the urgency of establishing an academy. This resulted in a noncommittal, least common denominator report going back to Cutler, instead of the strong action report we were seeking.

Frustrated in Washington, the Orlando committee revised the proposal and, in November 1954, mailed it to approximately 160 persons and organizations. This mailing list included a cross section of political thinking and a number of the most experienced anti-Communists in the country. The response was heavy and generally favorable. We were particularly pleased to note that liberal, moderate, and conservative anti-Communists all seemed to be in basic agreement on the urgent need for the academy.

On the basis of this favorable response, the Orlando committee held three all-day conferences in New York City in the winter of 1955. These conferences were attended by a well-balanced group of distinguished liberal, moderate and conservative anti-Communists. Again, there was broad agreement on the pressing need for the academy and much work was done to activate the Orlando proposals.

At the end of the first conference, John K. Jessup, chief editorial writer for Life magazine, told me he was surprised that so representative a group of anti-Communist thinkers, some of whom had been fighting each other for years, could be brought together in one room. He was astounded when they were able to work together all day with hardly a scratch of the pen passing between them. This strengthened the long-held belief of the Orlando committee that persons of widely divergent backgrounds and political viewpoints can agree on a wide range of action in this area once they have done their homework and so have a common framework of reference and an understanding of the critical problems to be solved.

Despite general agreement among the conference experts, our attempt to establish the academy at that time failed because we were unable to produce adequate financing.

From late 1955 until last September [1960], very little was done to push the Orlando proposals. We felt we would have to wait until there was a change in the climate of opinion. By last September we began to detect a shift in the attitude of an increasing number of our fellow citizens. The stoning of Nixon [in South America] and our severe setback in Iraq was having its effect. Sam Lubell, the pollster, noted a vague and as yet inarticulate fear that the situation was getting beyond our ability to control and that the United States was gradually being pushed into a corner.

For the first time, the members of the Orlando committee felt there was a reasonable chance to create the academy through public legislation. On October 2, we met with our Congressman, A. S. Herlong, Jr. [of Florida], and briefed him on our ideas. He agreed to introduce legislation in this session” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

Grant regretted that it would not be possible in his testimony to outline the complete concept of the Freedom Commission and the Freedom Academy and referred to Congressman Herlongs floor speech when introduced the bill in the House in February:

“I wish there was time to outline our complete concept of what the Freedom Commission and the Freedom Academy can be and to pass on our many ideas and suggestions. If I were to do so, however, there would be no time left for other witnesses. Attached to this statement is the floor speech made by Congressman Herlong at the time of the introduction of the companion bill in the House on February 2. This speech outlines the substance of the bill and makes suggestions regarding the Commission, the joint watchdog committee, the academy curriculum, the academy faculty, and the student body. It also suggests some of the many benefits which can be expected” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

A brief comment was allowed, however:

“I would like to comment on the bill very briefly.

The heart of the Freedom Commission Act is section 6, which sets forth the principal functions of the academy.

Subsection 1 empowers the academy to develop systematic knowledge about the Communist conspiracy. …there is a need to bring together all of this material in a single center where it can be systematized and put to use. Too much valuable work is now gathering dust on library shelves. Also there are still important aspects of the Communist problem which have not been adequately researched or described, particularly material which presents and interrelates the full spectrum of Communist operational strategy and techniques.

Subsection 2 authorizes the Academy to explore and develop the full range of counteraction in both the civilian and governmental sectors, and to achieve a new synthesis of the operational art for the free world. This of course, is the vital area, where very little has been done. We would anticipate the Academy, for example, making a survey of all types of private organizations at the community, State, and National level to determine how they can participate in the Cold War in an effective, sustained, and systematic manner. We would expect the Academy to look several decades into the future and to develop programs now which will bear fruit in the sixties and seventies, as well as programs which can meet immediate pressing needs. The Academy would not be engaged in a general search for knowledge for knowledge’s sake. It would be seeking the practical, concrete means to meet the total Soviet challenge — the operational techniques and the organizational forms, which can activate and utilize every possible source of strength.

Developing counteraction into a science will be largely an academic accomplishment, unless we take the next step and get down to the practical work of training private citizens and Government personnel in this new science. We must get the material off the library shelves and pump it into our great civic organizations and Government agencies. This is provided for in subsections 3 and 4. There is little point in working out an inspired program for private organizations, unless there is a realistic training program which will provide them with the trained leadership which can give intelligent, bipartisan guidance. Since the Communist organizational weapon is working within a multitude of political, religious, economic, and ethnic groups, counteraction must be carried out by leaders of these same groups. This calls for a broadly representative student body and a training program tailored to a variety of conditions and circumstances” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

It was important to underline that the creation of a Freedom Academy would in no way be engaged in investigating the communist conspiracy. In the words of Alan Grant:

“The joint committee proposed in this bill would not be engaged in investigating the Communist conspiracy within the United States, nor would it be concerned with drafting or amending security laws. That would be the business of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and the House Un-American Activities Committee. The last thing we want to do is interfere with those committees in any way or to pre-empt their jurisdiction. If the language of section 15 needs any amending to make this absolutely clear, then it should be so amended.

What the joint committee would do is to make continuing studies of the work of the Commission and the Academy to see that the intent of Congress is carried out and that an intensive, practical effort is made to develop counteraction and to train relevant personnel. The most important reason for the joint committee is to increase public confidence in the Commission and the Academy. We are aware of the reluctance of the House and Senate leadership to establish further joint committees. We believe an exception is indicated here” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

It would be fatal, as the Justice Department had argued to have the functions of the academy handled by existing departments and agencies:

“Second, the Justice Department, in a letter to the House committee which has the companion bill, suggests that all the functions of the Commission and Academy can be handled by existing departments and agencies and with less confusion and overlapping. This would be fatal.

It is already very late. We must develop counteraction on a crash
program basis. To do this we must assemble at the Academy persons with a wide diversity of knowledge and talents, who

have been relieved of other responsibilities and can work full time on this problem. This is not something which can be scattered among the different departments and agencies, to be worked on piecemeal by different technicians and desk-level people whenever the day-to-day problems ease up” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

The State Department had admitted that it was a serious error to compartmentalizing its planning and direction of counter-activities to Soviet political warfare:

“In counteraction, every part affects and influences every other part. The State Department has admitted, in the already mentioned hearings before Congressman Rooney’s subcommittee, that it has made a serious error in compartmentalizing its planning and direction of counter-activities to Soviet political and economic warfare. A far greater error will be committed, if we try to divide up the development function into neat little watertight packages to be farmed out to different agencies. This area cries out for an operational science which can closely intermesh the whole range of private and governmental counteraction. This can best be done by a single organization able to consider all aspects of this infinitely complex and sophisticated problem.

Furthermore, no one, to our knowledge, has drafted or is intending to draft legislation to give these other departments and agencies the necessary authority and funds. The fact that these agencies have not sought such authority indicates they are not “hot” to undertake this challenging added burden. Rather, they appear to be fully engrossed with the day-to-day problems, and their whole setup is unsuited for either the development or training functions.

The Orlando committee has worked long and hard on the present proposal at a considerable sacrifice to business and professional careers. Certainly, the present legislation is not perfect but we are getting a little tired of nit pickers who have no counterproposals. This is war. There is no time to wait for the perfect bill. Let’s get on to the job. The bill can be amended at later sessions” (Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy Hearing, June 17, 1959, pp. 10-23).

In 1960 the bill was passed by the Senate but it bogged down in the House. New bills were introduced in 1961 and 1964. Opinion polls showed that the American people supported the Freedom Academy bill 4 to 1.

Finally the last bill was defeated in congress in 1964, which ended the attempts to create this political warfare training academy.

The Freedom Studies Center

As the efforts to create a Freedom Academy were resisted in Congress and by the Department of State a privately funded academy was inaugurated. The initiative was taken by the American Security Council and the Institute of American Strategy, both in Chicago and founded in the 1950s. It resulted in the foundation of the Freedom Studies Center established in Boston, Culpeper County, Virginia, with John M. Fisher as Director. Among the initial international cooperating agencies of the center was the Free Asia Committee in Scandinavia of which the author of this political memoir was chairman (Freedom Studies Center booklet, no publication year) For a detailed history of the Freedom Studies Center, American Security Council and the American Security Council Foundation see John M. Fisher, “History Milestones: American Security Council and American Security Council Foundation” (2005) on the foundation’s webpage.

The dedication was held in Boston, Virginia, on September 25, 1966. It took place after the first seminar for Congressional Aides on September 21-24. Some of the lectures were related to psycho-political warfare and the American response, which was one of the speakers, Arthur Meyerhoff defined as “America’s unused weapons in the Cold War. (September 22, 1966: Course Orientation by John M. Fisher and Dr. James D. Atkinson; Perspectives on the Cold War by Edgar Ansel Mowrer, Pulitzer Prize Winning Foreign Correspondent; The Response of American Constitutionalism to the Communist Challenge by Professor William Yandell Elliott, Harvard University; Free World Alliance Systems: Successes and Failures by Professor Eleanor Dulles, Georgetown University; September 23, Psychopolitical-Warfare: Continuity or Change of the Soviet Pattern? By Dr. Victor A. Fediay, the Library of Congress; Chinese Communist Conflict Management, Walter Judd, M.D., former Member of Congress; America’s Unused Weapons in the Cold War by Arthur Meyerhoff, President of Arthur Meyerhoff Associates Inc.; Dinner Discussion, Soviet Disinformation Operations by Allen Dulles; September 24, Soviet Trade: Peaceful Competition or Weapon of Political Warfare?, Joseph Gwyer of the Library of Congress; Competition or Cold War at Sea?, James J. Martin, Vice-President, National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO; Soviet Propaganda with Special Reference to Peace and Disarmament Themes, Professor Frederick C. Barghoorn, Yale University; Technological Competition: A Net Evaluation by Colonel Raymond Sleeper, USAF; Patterns of Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency by Brigadier General Edwin Black, Director, Western Hemisphere Region, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense;

A telegram was sent from President Lyndon B. Johnson stating:

“The will to resist aggression is strengthened by our understanding of the alternative to turning back a foe who would deny man’s freedom. That understanding grows through education. It is a responsibility which public and private institutions must share. I commend your commitment to this great and urgent work of defending freedom and promote peace. You have my every wish for success” (Press release by the Freedom Studies Center on September 25, 1966).

Director J. Edgar Hoover of the Federal Bureau of Investigation also commended the establishment of the Freedom Studies Center:

“Americans need today to know about the [communist] enemy: who he is, how he operates, what he intends to do with their country. The Freedom Studies Center, by pointing out the evils of the enemy and encouraging our citizens to know more about the national heritage, will render a great service to our country. Only by an informed citizenry, conscious of its responsibilities in this giant ideological battle, can we hope to keep alive the flame of freedom” (Press release by the Freedom Studies Center on September 25, 1966).

For the use by the center the Institute for American Strategy acquired the publication right to the book Red Interpreter: The Lexicon of Communist Semantic Warfare (ed. By Erik J. Vesely). It had been published in a first edition in 1955 and further editions were prepared by Dr. Vesely.

In 1969 the center reported that it was prepared to operate as a small private freedom academy that year if sufficient financial support was available. During that year one seminar per month was planned. It would feature a special guest lecturer and for the first one it was to be General William C. Westmoreland, then Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.

In September of 1969 the first class of thirty private freedom academy students toward acquiring a Master’s Degree in International Politics would start. The work, which had been a long-range objective, also started on a Cold War Situation Room where conflicts could be seen in perspective. At that time the financial requirements of the center were estimated at 11 million US dollars.

Situated close to Washington the center continued to offer training seminars during the 1970s. The goal was to open the academy to all segments of society in the Free World on Communist strategy and tactics and the development of programs for defending and extending the sphere of freedom in the world. A detailed curriculum was prepared by Dr. Erik J. Vesely and Professor Stefan Possony. In 1968 there were one to two meetings or seminars a month. From September 1968 the capacity was increased by nearly 50 % when an accommodation area was opened to house 35 seminar participants.

1973 the library of the American Security Council was donated to the center. A newly constructed library building was named “Sol Feinstone Library for the Survival of Freedom”. Mr. Feinstone was a well known historian, philantropist, and collector of American primary source material from the Revolutionary War and the early years of the United States. He had helped fund a number of libraries all over the country.

Alan J. Grant Jr. was on the Planning and Development Committee and the campus was planned to house a ‘civilian West Point’ (comparable to the Naval Academy in Annapolis and the military academy at West Point) but the full plan was never implemented.

A 1976 Seminar of the Freedom Studies Center

An important national security seminar was held in 1976 with Lt. General Vernon A. Walters as guest lecturer. USAF Major General George Keegan also lectured while John M. Fisher spoke about “What Can Be Done”. Among the participants were Ambassador Eldridge Durbrow, who was a director at the center and General Lyman L. Lemnitzer.

The American Freedom Academy concept during the Cold War is well worth remembering in a time when the West is again challenged. It was during decades much debated in the United States. This fascinating story began when an Orlando, Florida, grass roots group managed to attract interest, both in Congress and media, for a political warfare academy, a ‘civilian West Point’ to counteract hundreds of political warfare schools in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.
The author’s interest in this subject stems from the fact that in 1966, when a privately financed freedom academy was inaugurated, he was the chairman of the Free Asia Committee in Scandinavia, an initial cooperating agency of the Center. In my private archive I have letters exchanged on the subject and material related to the importance that the West establishing a sort of West Point for defense against communist psycho-political warfare.
The basic theory in the field would be to educate citizens on the dangers of communist ideology not only in the United States but in all non-communist countries.
In Volume 3 of his political memoirs Bertil Haggman basically tells the story of the Freedom Academy in the United States.

Bertil Haggman is a retired Swedish attorney and author. He has published 15 books and over 150 journal and magazine articles in various languages.

CHINA SPY RECRUITER ARRESTED IN THE UNITED STATES

October 2, 2018

Washington Times on September 25, 2018, reported that a Chinese national had been arrested accused of plotting to recruit Chinese engineers and scientists employed by U.S. companies as spies. Excerpts below:

Ji Chaogquz, 27, was arrested in Chicago and charged with acting as an illegal agent of the People’s Republic of China.

[He was tasked with providing a Chinese intelligence officer with biographical information on eight individuals for possible recruitment.

“All eight individuals either currently worked in or were recently retired from a career in the science and technology industry, including several individuals specializing in aerospace fields…. at least seven of the eight individuals worked for, or had recently retired from, cleared U.S. defense contractors,” the complaint said.

Mr. Ji arrived in the United States in 2013 on an F1 Visa for the purpose of studying electrical engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago.

In 2016, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves under a program that authorizes the military to recruit legal aliens whose skills are considered vital to the national interest, the Justice Department said.

Comment: This is just the latest case of Chinese intelligence operations in America. In July of 2107 the Washington Free Beacon reported that the Chinese spy networks included 25,000 intelligence officers. There were more than 15,000 recruited agents. This according to a Chinese dissident with close ties to Beijing’s military and intelligence establishment.

Guo Wengui is a billionaire businessman who has broken with the regime. He is a Chinese real estate investor who fled China in 2015. He currently resides in New York City. Guo has been the target of attempts to silence him. Two officials have tried also to convince officials in the USA to forcibly have him repatriated back to China.

The two officials, Sun Lijun, vice minister of the Public Security Ministry, and an aide, Liu Yanpang, also tried to convince Trump administration officials to forcibly repatriate Guo back to China amid claims of corruption.Guo said to the Washington paper that Chinese intelligence operations in the United States sharply increased after the 2012 Communist Party Congress that brought current leader Xi Jinping to power.

Defensive intelligence was mainly focused on learning about the United States. The operations then shifted in 2012 to “offensive” spying, he said.

“By offensive [operations], I mean to be ready to destroy the U.S. in ways they can,” Guo said.

China’s budget for intelligence gathering before 2012 was around $600 million annually.

Around 2012, a decision was made by Chinese leaders to dispatch another 5,000 spies to the United States

The budget now is between $3 billion to $4 billion annually. American counterintelligence agencies face several problems, mainly a lack of knowledge about Chinese intelligence agencies.

China’s intelligence targets included several strategic areas of the United States.The first is to obtain military weapons-related technology.

Second, Chinese intelligence is engaged in “buying” senior U.S. officials personally, and a third objective is buying family members of American political or business elites with a view to getting intelligence and to make big business deals in China’s favor.

A fourth priority is penetrating the American internet system and critical infrastructure by implanting malicious software.

The Chinese spy system, so Guo, has penetrated into the bloodstream of American defense establishment with their viruses and everything else.

China also is working to subvert the United States by working together with rogue regimes, such as those in North Korea and Iran.

In the 2017 article Guo also warned of the dangers of a world dominated by the current anti-democratic Chinese system. If we do not have the United States exercising some kind of control, the dissident said, over the world system, the world will turn into a place where men eat men.

DET INTERNATIONELLA MORDBOLAGET

July 25, 2018

En rad ryska oppositionella medborgare i utlandet har drabbats av mord och mordförsök med giftet novitjok. Fram till början av 1960-talet ingick mord och avrättningar av motståndare till den sovjetiska regimen i Moskva i en världsomspännande strategi.

En lång serie mord och mordförsök mot ukrainska frihetskämpar inleddes 1938. Då var måltavlan Yehven Konovalets, ledare för den ukrainska motståndsorganisationen OUN, som befann sig i exil i nederländska Rotterdam. Mordplanen beordrades av diktatorn Josef Stalin själ. Den sovjetiska hemliga polisen visste att Konovalets var svag för choklad. En bomb placerades i en chokladkartong och överlämnades till den ukrainske motståndsledaren av Pavel Sudoplatov. Konovalets sprängdes till döds och Sudoplatov gjorde karriär i Stalins underrättelsetjänst.

År 1946 kom turen till Oleksandr Shumsky, som var undervisningsminister i den kortvariga självständiga ukrainska regeringen 1917 – 1920. Shumsky hade återvänt till Sovjet från exil. Denna gång användes gift. Shumsky hölls fast av sovjetiska agenter i den tågkupé där han satt och giftet injicerades. Inga spår av giftet påträffades vid obduktionen och dödsorsaken angavs vara slaganfall.

Redan året därefter var måltavlan den ukrainska katolska kyrkans ärkebiskop Teodor Romzha. En vagn han färdades i påkördes av en lastbil. Han överlevde och fördes till sjukhus. En sjuksköterska hanterade giftinjektionen med ett gift som överlämnats av den sovjetiska hemliga polisen.

I mars 1950 hade sovjetiska agenter lyckat spåra upp överbefälhavaren i den ukrainska motståndsarmén UPA, Roman Shukevych. Byn Bilohorshcha, där han befann sig, omringades av sovjetiska säkerhetsstyrkor och Shukevych sköts ner under den eldstrid som följde på inbrytningen i det hus han vistades i.

Det har hävdats att Sovjetunionens Högsta Domstol år 1949 dömde den ukrainske frihetsledaren Stepan Bandera till döden. Då inleddes planeringen av giftmordet på Bandera. Mordet utfördes år 1959 av KGB-agenten Bohdan Stashinsky vid den ukrainska självständighetsrörelsens kontor på Zeppelinstrasse. Mördaren hade en cylinderformad giftpistol inlindad i en tidning. Giftet var denna gång blåsyra som sprejades i ansiktet på Bandera. Inga spår efter giftet påträffades.

År 1957 hade en annan ukrainsk frihetskämpe, Lev Rebet, mördats i bayerska München.

Stashinsky hoppade senare av i Berlin, greps och ställdes inför rätta i dåvarande Västtyskland. Han dömdes till det förvånansvärt korta fängelsestraffet åtta år och släpptes redan efter att ha avtjänat två tredjedelar av den tiden. En av orsakerna till det korta straffet för dubbelmordet var att den tyska domstolen höll ledarna i Kreml huvudansvariga för dådet. Stashinsky ansågs enbart vara en medhjälpare.

Det finns ingen stat i Europa som fått betala ett så högt pris för sin frihet som Ukraina. Miljoner människor dog i svältkatastrofer under 1930- och 1940-talen. Gulag-lägren i Sibirien var fyllda av ukrainska motståndskämpar.

Harvardprofessorn Serhii Plokhy publicerade 2016 boken ”The Man With the Poison Gun”, som numera finns i pocketupplaga. Här finns en ingående skildring av morden på Bandera och Rebet. Ett giftmord på den ukrainske exilpolitikern Jaroslav Stetsko planerades också men utfördes aldrig. Giftet dioxin kom till användning år 2004 mot den ukrainske presidentkandidaten Viktor Yushchenko. Denne överlevde dock och valdes till Ukrainas president.

EXPLORING THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA PART 2

July 12, 2018

CHIANG KAI-SHEK KUOMINTANG MEMORIALS 1927 – 1949

1927

On March 21 the Communists declared general strike and insurrection in Shanghai.

Chiang Kai-shek arrived in Shanghai on March 26. He did not act then but understood that he could not let the Communists take over Shanghai. He met with industrialists and businessmen and seperately with Green Gang leaders. Chiang offered to take charge of an anticommunist counterattack. Unrealiable troops were sent out of the city.

On April 2 a resolution went through to ”clean” the Kuomintang of unwanted members.

On April 18 Chiang proclaimed a rival Kuomintang government with seat in Nanking. He started consolidating his control over the lower Yangtse region.

There are a number of memorials in Shanghai and Nanking that remind of Chiang and Kuomintang.

1931

Chiang retired in the interest of Kuomintang unity.

1932

The National Government was moved on January 30 from Nanking to Loyang because of the Japanese invasion.

1934

Chiang on February 19 initiated a ”New Life Movement” in Nanking.

1938

An Emergency National Congress of the Kuomintang in Wuchang on April 1 elected Chiang as its tsung tsai (director general).

1940

On September 6 Chungking was proclaimed co-capital of China. There are memorials in Chungking that remind of Chiang and Kuomintang.

1943

On October 10 Chiang was sworn in as chairman of the National Government.

1945

On August 14 Japan surrendered.

1946

On May 5 the National Government was moved back to Nanking.

1949

On January 21 Chiang announced his retirement from the presidency. He left for Hangchow. Vice President Li Tsung-jen was empowered to exercise temporarily presidential powers. Government forces on April 23 evacuated Nanking.

On May 27 Shanghai was evacuated. The office of director general of Kuomintang was established in Taipei. The National Government, having established its seat in Canton, on October 12 moved it to Chungking. On October 13 government troops evacuated Canton. Chungking fell on November 30. On December 7 the National Government moved its seat to Taipei. On December 10 Chiang flew from Chengtu to Taipei.

EXPLORING THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA PART 1

July 11, 2018

CHIANG KAI-SHEK KUOMINTANG MEMORIALS ON TAIWAN 1950 TO 1975

During the period from 1950 into the 1980s the National Government in Taipei constructed a number of monuments and buildings related to Chinese history since the founding of the Republic of China. Below is listed a number of those along with some buildings of historical interest for visitors to the island republic.

Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (Guoli Zhongzheng Jiniantang) and the adjoining National Concert Hall and National Theater. The Memorial Hall has a Chiang museum….

Grand Hotel (Yanshan Da Fandian) in Taipei. For more on the relation between the Chiang family and the hotel see Laura Tyson Li, ”Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China’s Eternal First Lady” (2006).

Shilin Guandi was Chiang’s former residence in the Taipei suburb of Shilin built in 1959.

Chiang’s mausoleum in Taoyuan County is the Cihu Mausoleum. It is a temporary resting place. Chiang before he died in 1975 expressed a wish to be buried in his birthplace once China was recovered. In 1961 Chiang established the Project National Glory (PNG) for the recovery of China. Dazi Back Cihu is a former military base and was the command center of the PNG.

The Cihu Memorial Sculpture Park (Liang Jiang Wenyuan Yuanqu ming) was founded in 1997. Here was in 2000 started a collection of Chiang sculptures. There are a large number of bronze and stone statues of Chiang and other Kuomintang leaders. They have been donated from institutions from around the republic.

Chiang had between 27 and 30 guest houses around Taiwan.

CHIANG CHING-KUO KUOMINTANG MEMORIALS IN TAIWAN 1978 TO 1988

Chiang Ching-kuo’s former home in Taipei is the Quihai House (Qihai Yusuo). The residence is located on Beian Road and was home for Chiang’s son for over 20 years. The first floor of the house was mostly used for receiving guests and family gatherings, while the second floor included office space and bedrooms for the former president and his family. The residence was listed as a municipal monument in 2006.

CHINA WORKING TO UNDERMINE TAIWAN

July 10, 2018

National Interest on July 9, 2018 warned that Taiwan faces an authoritarian threat from China. Professor June Teufel Dreyer called for greater vigilance in the West. Excerpts below:

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about the rise of authoritarian governments. These administrations have been voted into office by their own citizens, sometimes in free and fair elections. Less talked about, however, is a democracy that is endangered by external pressure: Taiwan.

Since the victory of a presidential candidate it didn’t favor—the American and British educated Tsai Ing-wen—Beijing has been relentless in its pressures on this country of 23 million to join the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

…Chinese pressure forced the World Health Organization to bar Taiwan from its deliberations. A specialized agency of the United Nations, the WHO plays a major role in efforts to curb the spread of infectious diseases from one country to another. In this era of ubiquitous air travel and major population movements, excluding any country for whatever reasons could have severe consequences not only for that country but for the world at large. Likewise, and with similar potential for disaster, China has made sure that Taiwan cannot join international aviation agreements or Interpol.

Four countries—Gambia, Sao Tome and Principe, Panama and Burkina Faso—have broken diplomatic relations with Taiwan, lured by promises of lucrative business deals with China, and also reportedly by bribes to leaders. Beijing has hinted that more will follow. Negotiations with the Vatican, Taiwan’s last remaining European ally, are ongoing. Several countries have been told to remove Taiwan’s trade offices from their capital cities and even to change their names. The name changes are part of a larger effort to “disappear” Taiwan: under pressure from China, the huge Marriott hotel chain changed the name on its website from Taipei, Taiwan, to Taipei, China. Forty foreign airlines were ordered to do the same if they wished to continue flying to Chinese destinations.

The soft-spoken Tsai, Asia’s first female president, has several times indicated her desire for negotiations with China, but has been spurned, with her overture rejected as“an incomplete test paper.” The price of talks, Beijing made clear, is Tsai’s acknowledgement that Taiwan is part of China—in essence, requiring her to giving away her negotiating position as a precondition for negotiation.

Meanwhile, China has increased its attempts to subvert Taiwan from within. Through the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department (UFWD), which is responsible for operations that influence the politics of foreign countries to support party policies, Taiwan’s Communist Party and its New Party, which espouse unification with China, are lavishly funded even though they get very few votes. Both are perfectly legal under Taiwan law, although not all of their activities are.

At the tertiary level, students from Taiwan are offered scholarships at China’s most prestigious universities. Already, according to China’s official press agency, two Taiwanese studying at China’s highest rated institution, Beijing University, have applied to join the CCP, one of them vowing his fervent desire “to become a participant in the mainland’s joint rejuvenation.” The large number of PhDs from Taiwan universities who have not been able to find employment there have been offered jobs in China. In January, Taiwan-born Hsieh Kuo-chun was selected to the top advisory board of the CPPCC, the non-party institutional face of the united front.

Since the bulk of Taiwan’s trade is with China, special attention has been devoted to business people. Those who endorse policies favorable to China receive appointments to PRC organizations and favorable treatment for their investments; those who do not find opportunities cut off.

The United States, bound by congressional legislation to make sure that any resolution of Taiwan-China differences is peaceful and consonant with the wishes of the people involved, has expressed both concern and reassurance. In May, in a belated but nevertheless welcome acknowledgement of China’s actions, a State Department spokesperson accused China of unilaterally altering the status quo across the Taiwan Strait, thereby “undermining the framework that has enabled peace, stability, and development for decades.” A few months earlier, Congress passed, and President Donald Trump signed, the long-delayed Taiwan Travel Act, which facilitates the exchange of high level officials between Washington and Taipei. An agreement has also been reachedto share information that would allow representatives of Taiwan’s research institutions and its Ministry of Defense’s Armaments Bureau to visit their counterparts in the United States for collaborative projects.

…National Security Adviser John Bolton has said it may be time to rethink the basis of America’s China policy. In the Senate, bipartisan legislation seeks an investigation into Chinese political influence in the United States, which includes efforts to change its policy toward Taiwan. Similar investigations have been taking place in Australia and New Zealand.

June Teufel Dreyer is professor of political science at the University of Miami and a past commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Commission.

Comment: The time is now to rethink US China policy. Taiwan is an important link in the chain of countries that for a long time have aided the United States in checking Chinese strategic actions aiming at greater influence in the Pacific area. In this effort Japan and South Korea should be willing to support US counter efforts in support of Taiwan. It is indeed time to rethink the basis of US China policy.

POLITICAL WARFARE TAIWANESE STYLE

July 7, 2018

President Chiang Kai-shek once said that the Chinese Communists would be defeated 70 percent by politics and 30 percent by the military. One of the moving spirits in implementing the Fu Hsing Kang idea (political warfare) was President Chiang Ching-kuo, who was director of the Defense Ministry’s Political Warfare Department when the college was founded. Both women and men were enrolled at this unique school.

The College of Political Warfare had an enrollment of about 1,800, including 160 women. Graduates went to the Armed Forces as first lieutenants and served as morale officers and in similar capacities. They also had military training. The school had eight departments: political science, law, journalism, foreign languages, fine arts, music, cinema and drama, and physical education. Equipment was excellent. Applicants had to be high school graduates with the final selection by competitive examination.

The college (now Political Warfare Bureau (PWB) is situated at the base of Tatun Mountain on the Tamsui River in the Taipei area. Each student is required to pursue one solo activity and both radio and television, for example, are taught through actual pratice.

PWB was established at the Whampoa Military Academy as early as in 1924. After retreating to Taiwan , the Kuomintang government reformed the political warfare system in April 1950, and changed the original title, Political Work Bureau of the Ministry of National Defense, to Political Department of the Ministry of National Defense. In May 1951, it was renamed as the General Political Bureau. Later in August 1963, it was finally named the General Political Warfare Department, with several modifications to its organizational structure afterwards. On January 15th, 2000, the National Defense Act and the Organization Act of the Ministry of National Defense (the so called “Dual National Defense Acts”) were passed after the third reading at the Legislative Yuan. On January 29th of the same year, the Dual National Defense Acts were enacted by the President, establishing the legal basis for relevant political warfare system. After the Organizational Act of the Political Warfare Bureau of the Ministry of National Defense went through the legislative process, it was enacted and implemented in conjunction with the Dual National Defense Acts on March 1st, 2002.

The Bureau has been a first level agency under the Ministry of National Defense, commanded by the Minister of National Defense. As the highest commanding organization over political warfare of the national armed forces, it is responsible for the planning and supervision of the political warfare operations in the military. Externally, the focus of the political warfare operation will be on “propaganda and promotion”, “psychological warfare”, and “civilian services”. Internally, the Bureau will make “psychological counseling”, “psychological warfare training”, “military news handling” and “cultivation of soldiers’ spirits and combat abilities” the priority, in hope of achieving the goal of “Winning the Final Victory with Self Reinforcement”.

In the years after 1974, an increasing number of Central American officers went to Taiwan for political warfare training. Taiwanese political warfare manuals became commonplace on the bookshelves of this military personnel and Taiwan began holding military training courses in situ on ideology, counterinsurgency, political warfare and information extraction techniques.

For Further reading see “Political warfare : the missing link in the defence of the West” (1986) by Swedish author Bertil Häggman. The title is registered in the catalogue of the Library of Congress, Washington DC. The booklet was published by the Ukrainian Central Information Service in London, UK, and the Ukrainian Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.

FRIHETSKAMP MOT SOVJETOCKUPATION I ÖSTTYSKLAND

June 19, 2018

Den hette Kampfgruppe gegen Unmenschlichkeit (KgU) eller Kampgruppen mot omänsklighet och hade grundats av den unge tyske juristen Rainer Hildebrandt på 1950-talet. Medlemmarna tog sig på hemliga vägar över till Östtyskland. Regimen i Östberlin hade stora svårigheter att spåra dem.

Huvudvikten låg dock på psykologisk krigföring med användande av flygblad. Miljoner av dessa smugglades in i den av Sovjet ockuperade zonen av Tyskland. Flygbladen spreds med hjälp av tiotusentals ballonger som varje dag, främst på sommaren, sändes i väg i mindre paket.

Vidare publicerades den antikommunistiska satiriska tidskriften Tarantel (Giftspindeln) och Kleiner Telegraph (Lilla telegrafen). Folkpolisen i Sovjetzonen hade stora svårigheter att stoppa den antikommunistiska informationskampanjen.

När KgU:s verksamhet upphörde inledde det tyska försvarets Avdelning för psykologiskt försvar en egen kampanj. Mellan 1961 och 1965 skickades mer än 100 miljoner flygblad österut med ballonger främst från området kring städerna Münster och Ulm. Utbildningen av ballongenheterna skedde i slottet Alfter och chef för utbildningen var överste dr Karl Christian Trentsch.

Den nya avspänningspolitiken under socialdemokraten Willy Brandt medförde att den psykologiska krigföringskampanjen upphörde under 1965, något som uppskattades av den tyska vänstern, både kommunister och socialdemokrater inom vänsterfalangen.