Archive for the ‘ANTICOMMUNISM’ Category


May 3, 2019

On May 1, 2019, National Interest published an article that questioned the importance of the Middle East to broader strategic interests of the United States. The author concludes that this region is small but politically explosive. Still U.S. global interests demands a shift to the Indo-Pacific region. Excerpts below:

People with long memories may believe that the United States is dependent on Middle East oil, but in reality, the oil crises of the 1970s were an aberration. Throughout most of its history, the United States has been an oil exporter…And over the last two decades, the United States has developed more effective ways to combat terrorism than with large-scale military operations.

…America’s political leadership should be looking to shift resources to those areas of the world where they are most needed to promote the country’s interests. Top of the list for a beef-up is the Indo-Pacific region.

The Pacific Ocean has been strategically important for American commerce since the early nineteenth century. It has been a virtual American lake since the Spanish-American War of 1898.

But the Pacific is a big lake, and costly to patrol. Moreover, there are many security hot spots along its shores. Russia’s Pacific fleet is busy modernizing its ballistic missile submarines. North Korea’s unpredictable Kim Jong-un is armed to the teeth and playing a never-ending game of nuclear brinksmanship. Indonesia and the Philippines need help fighting low-level Islamist insurgencies. And then there’s China.

As a global challenger to American national interests, no other country comes close to China. China repeatedly protests, harasses and threatens U.S. Navy ships operating off its coasts. It has built and militarized several artificial islands in the South China Sea in violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which it is a signatory. And it has begun to systematically challenge the legitimacy of the rule of law in international and commercial relations more broadly.

The Pacific is the heart of America’s new economy. The then-Senator (and later Secretary of State) John Seward foresaw in 1852 that “the Pacific Ocean, its shores, its islands, and the vast regions beyond, will become the chief theatre of events in the World’s great Hereafter.” More than a century and a half later, the Pacific has been fully integrated into American economic networks…

An American pivot in Asia, from Western Asia…to eastern Asia… makes economic and political sense. The ties that bind the United States to democracies like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan…will ultimately prove strong..More importantly, the American national interest is much more closely bound up with the Indo-Pacific region than with the Middle East. As technology advances…America’s footprint in Asia should shift east, from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific region.

Comment: The basic argument in the May 1 article is sound. The West and its American hegemon is facing the perhaps strongest challenge ever. More military strength is indeed needed in the Pacific but the Middle East still demands attention. The Iranian theocratic empire is threatening Israel and the stability of the region.

In the Far East Western allies need to provide more resources for the protection of the sea-lanes from the Sea of Japan to the South China Sea. Under Xi Jinping the hawks have the upper hand. The policy since the 1990s has been not to alert the West from its complacency in the regard to China’s rise. To achieve victory China has indeed been patient. It has concentrated not on military strength but on the economy. Behind the benign surface has been an iron will to depose the United States as global hegemon. Without the United States in the lead the West’s influence in the world would quickly disappear. The Chinese leaders have had the use of a highly developed metrics for measuring power status using algorithms. Meanwhile in the West the use of National Power Assessment has been neglected.

China managed 19 years ago to achieve trade normalization. From the beginning the intention was not to accept the provisions of the World Trade Organization. When normalization was approved by the U.S. Congress in 2000 the minority of 197 in the House that voted no was correct in judging China and so were the 17 senators voting no.

The All-Under-Heaven System provides the classical Chinese view of global domination. The establishment of Tianxia is described as a Chinese-led empire that values order over freedom, ethics over law, and elite governance over democracy and human rights. What really is the Chinese intention when taking over in 2049 can be studied in the records of the Tiananmen Square massacre of freedom fighters in 1989.


May 1, 2019

Fox News on April 30 and May 1, 2019, extensively reported on ”Operation Freedom” in Venezuela, the designation for the intensified fight for freedom proclaimed by rightful president Juan Guaido. Excerpts below:

The head of Venezuela’s feared secret police has turned his back on disputed President Nicolas Maduro in an open letter [on April 30].

Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera, the head of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN), is the highest-ranking member of the country’s security forces to break with Maduro since Guaidó called for [Operation Freedom].

Earlier…,National Security Adviser John Bolton said the Trump administration was waiting for three key officials — Maduro’s defense minister, the chief judge of the supreme court and the commander of Maduro’s presidential guard — to act on what he said were private pledges to remove the beleaguered Venezuelan leader.

Guaidó has said…he would release a list of top commanders supporting the uprising.

“The armed forces have taken the right decision,” said Guaidó. “With the support of the Venezuelan people and the backing of our constitution they are on the right side of history.”

The U.S. has learned Venezuela’s disputed president, Nicolas Maduro, was “ready” to leave the country amid protest violence and calls for his ouster — until Russia convinced him to stay, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News on [April 30].

“He was ready to go,” Pompeo said… “He was diverted by the Russians.”

He did not give any further specifics on when this apparently took place. Pompeo also noted he wanted Maduro, whom he called a “thug,” to get back on that plane.

The U.S. and about 50 other nations have taken the position that Maduro’s re-election last year was marred by fraud and that he is not the legitimate president of Venezuela, a once prosperous nation that has the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

The U.S. government said about 20,000 Cuban troops and agents have been working in Venezuela to prop up Maduro’s government,..

Pompeo said the Cubans and Russians have been in direct opposition of Venezuela’s duly elected leader, Juan Guaido.

He noted that the 14 countries supporting Maduro were on the wrong side of history, and that rule of law and democracy must be restored.

“It’s time for Maduro to leave … and rebuild this once great economy,” Pompeo [said].

[President] Juan Guaidó urged Venezuelans to take to the streets for new mass protests on May 1.

In a video statement posted on social media [on April 30], Guaidó also urged the military to join with those clamoring for change in Venezuela.

Guaidó said he called for the uprising to restore Venezuela’s constitutional order, broken when Maduro was sworn in earlier this year for a second term following elections boycotted by the opposition and considered illegitimate by dozens of countries.

Protesters erected barricades of debris at several downtown intersections about 10 blocks from the presidential palace, but police in riot gear moved in quickly to clear the roads. Most shops and businesses were closed and the streets of the capital unusually quiet, as people huddled at home to await the outcome of the day’s drama.

In one dramatic incident during a chaotic day of violent street battles for a crowd that quickly swelled to a few thousand, several armored vehicles plowed into a group of anti-government demonstrators trying to storm the capital’s air base, hitting at least two protesters.

As Venezuela plunged into a dramatic televised scene of chaos and violence…President Trump warned he would impose a “full and complete embargo” and sanctions on Cuba if its troops do not cease operations in the ravaged South American nation.

The Trump administration also has worked to roll back Obama-era easing of Cold War sanctions on Cuba.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters Tuesday that Maduro had been on his way out of the country bound for Cuba, but that Russia told him to remain. Bolton, meanwhile, warned Russia against interfering.

The U.S. government said about 20,000 Cuban troops and agents have been working in Venezuela to prop up Maduro’s government, a figure disputed by Cuba.

That support had seemed to crack Tuesday with the launch of what the opposition was calling “Operation Freedom,” which began with the early-morning release of a short video of Guaido and Lopez alongside a few dozen national guardsmen urging people to “take to the streets.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL., denounced the actions by Venezuelan security forces, saying that “military and security leaders must realize they are and will be held responsible for this,” he said on Twitter.

“What we are seeing today in Venezuela is the will of the people to peacefully change the course of their country from one of despair to one of freedom and democracy,” Pompeo tweeted in an early reaction. “The U.S. stands with them.”

The president of the European Union’s Parliament, Antonio Tajani, came out as the strongest European voice in support of the opposition. In a tweet in Spanish, Tajani called the events “a historic moment for the return to democracy and freedom in Venezuela,” and described the release of activist Leopoldo López from house arrest as “great news.”

“Let’s go Venezuela free!” wrote Tajani, a prominent conservative leader.

All but four EU members endorsed the initial, Europe-wide call in February to back opposition leader Juan Guaidó when he appointed himself interim president.

The four who did not join the other EU members were Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Slovakia.

Comment: Matthew Continetti, editor in chief of the Washington Free Beacon, said on [April 30] that Russia was the “key player” in the Venezuelan crisis and that it showed no interest in following the 19th-century U.S. doctrine discouraging interference in Western nations’ affairs.

“I think Russia is the key player here,” Continetti on “Special Report.” “If you look at the Russian actions — from military flights to Venezuela, to inserting… these kind of non-uniformed paramilitary officers, to sending formal military advisers and assistance to Maduro,” he said.

Varldsinbordeskriget believes it may be time to reintroduce the Monroe Doctrine that in the 19th century was introduced by the United States to prevent interference in the Western hemisphere by European powers.

The American call for a full and complete embargo on Cuba seems appropriate. Cuba is very active in Venezuela and is organizing the so called collectivos, motor cycle gangs that roam the streets of Caracas to intimidate the Venezuela freedom fighters.

European nations should follow the lead of the Italian president of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani in supporting freedom in Venezuela. Since his election in 2017 Tajani is an important conservative voice in European politics.


April 28, 2019 on April 25, 2019 reported on an event in New York with six prominent business leaders and economic security practioners briefing the business sector on the ominous strategic consequences of Communist China’s penetration of American and other Western capital markets. Excerpts below:

”The speakers’ focus was on the enormous contribution American enterprises and capital markets are making to the Chinese Communist Party’s growing ability to threaten U.S. security and other interests – and the need to end that reckless practice.

The program was moderated by Frank Gaffney, the CPDC’s Vice Chairman, who described the inspiration for the current incarnation of the storied Committee on the Present Danger brand – namely, the CPD that in the 1970’s informed and helped craft Ronald Reagan’s strategy for defeating the USSR.”

The ”discussion prominently featured Roger Robinson, a man who played an important role as the President’s Senior NSC Director for International Economic Affairs in executing the Reagan strategy that ultimately destroyed the “Evil Empire.” Mr. Robinson, who is chairman of the Prague Security Studies Institute in the Czech Republic.”

Other speakers at the even were author Gordon Chang who warned against a future American trade deal with Beijing that could help perpetuate the Chinese Communist Party’s hold on power.

Hayman Capital Management co-founder and Chief Investment Officer Kyle Bass shared the findings of an important analysis: “The Quiet Panic in Hong Kong”. It offers insights into China’s serious financial weakness.

David Goldman, President of Macrostrategy LLC, warned of the cumulative, portentous effect of China’s theft of advanced U.S. technologies, its immense investment in cutting-edge research and development and the China’s success in educating large numbers of under- and post-graduate students in American institutions of higher learning.

Dan David is the co-founder of Geoinvesting and lead protagonist in a feature-length film entitled “The China Hustle”, exposing endemic fraud in China’s financial and other business dealings with the West. David highlighted a chilling fact revealed by his extensive research: Such criminal behavior is enabled and abetted by American firms and banks.

Steve Bannon, a former Strategic Advisor to President Trump, closed the briefing with a powerful warning concerning the Communist party’s rule in China. He noted how the talented, hardworking and productive Chinese people was prevented from realizing their potential because they are enslaved by the Communist Party of China under its dictator/president-for-life, Xi Jinping. Worse yet, America was underwriting their servitude.


April 26, 2019

Redan under Mao hävdade det kinesiska kommunistpartiet att Kinas världshistoriska bidrag var att överträffa USA och bli ledande världsmakt. Det var därför president Nixon 1969 inbjöds att besöka Kina.

Till skillnad från politikerna i Väst har Kinas politiker grundliga kunskaper om historiska händelser och skeenden. Siktet är nu inställt på världsherravälde år 2049. ”Den nationella återfödelsen” skall vara fullbordad hundra år efter det att kommunisterna tog makten på fastlandet. År 2019 har Kina 30 år på sig att uppnå målet. Det skall ske genom industrispionage, vilseledning och fortsatt tekniköverföring från utlandet.

Planen ”Made in China 2025” publicerades 2015 och väckte stor uppmärksamhet i USA. Redan 2020 skall Kina satsa 2,5 procent av BNP på forskning och utveckling. Man tänker fortsätta att kräva tekniköverföringar av utländska bolag som vill investera i Kina.

Den amerikanske Kinaexperten Michael Pillsbury publicerade 2015 boken ”The Hundred-year Marathon”. Den fick stor uppmärksamhet och har kraftigt påverkat amerikansk Kinapolitik. I boken varnar Pillsbury för Kinas planer på att bli världshegemon. Samma år utkom Xi Jinpings bok ”The Governance of China” i vilken öppet redogjordes för den ”kinesiska drömmen”.

USA har nu ett ansvar för att för att på alla områden förhindra att Kina genomför sina planer. Det är betydelsefullt att Japan tar ett större ansvar i den kommande globala striden med Kina.

Pillsbury nämner i sin bok en rad böcker utgivna i Kina av framträdande militära hökar. I ”The China Dream” (2015) förordar översten Liu Mingfu en fortsatt utdragen kamp för att nå slutmålet. Den skall bedrivas inom ekonomi, handel, valuta, resurser och geopolitik. Zhao Tingjan använder sig i essän ”The All-Under-Heaven System” av den klassiska kinesiska synen på hur man skapar ett världsimperium under kinesisk ledning.

Generaler i den kinesiska folkarmén har stått bakom utgivningen av bokserien ”Strategic Lessons from China’s Ancient Past”. En viktig grundtanke under de stridande staternas period (475 – 221 f. Kr) var att en stat med växande makt inte skulle låta motståndaren få veta något om planerna för att ta över förrän det var för sent.

Medvetenheten inom det kinesiska ledarskapet om USA:s militära överlägsenhet är stark. Kina lär inte kunna uppnå den överlägsenhet om 4 till 1 som historiskt har ansetts som nödvändig för ett maktövertagande av en kejsare.

Den klassiska kinesiska tekniken ”lönnmördarens klubba” (plötsliga överraskningsangrepp) har därför haft stort inflytande över de vapensystem som Kina utvecklar: raketvapen mot fartyg (amerikanska hangarfartyg), elektromagnetiska pulsvapen (för att slå ut nationella elsystem), teknologi för att störa radarsystem och cybervapen.

Den kinesiska inriktningen har också under en längre tid varit att satsa på områden inom det militära där USA kan vara sårbart: högteknologiska system, satellitteknologi och långt utdragna underhållslinjer för krigföring (Stilla Havet).

Den tidigare republikanske politikern och presidentkandidaten Newt Gingrich ger i oktober 2019 ut boken ”Trump vs. China: America’s Greatest Challenge”. Han har stort opionionsinflytande och hans syn på Kinapolitiken kommer att starkt påverka president Trumps administration under perioden 2020 – 2024.

Gingrich anser att det är möjligt för USA att svara på Kinas utmaning. Det kräver då stora förändringar och svåra val för både regering och den privata sektorn. Boken syftar till att skapa kunskaper om den kinesiska utmaningen och samstämmighet och politiskt stöd för vad som måste göras.

Kinas strävan efter världshegemoni är farligare än Sovjetunionens under det kalla kriget. Moskva försökte då matcha USA:s militära styrka med en svag ekonomi. Det ledde till sammanbrott för Sovjetväldet. Den kinesiska utmaningen är främst ekonomisk och Kina vill uppnå världsherravälde helst utan krig. Man vill i Peking se samma scenario som när USA fredligt blev världshegemon efter Storbritannien.

Under årtionden har den härskande klassen i Väst ansett att ett fredligt Kina var på väg att bli en stormakt som andra i den gällande världsordningen. Kinapolitiken har byggt på myten om att kontakter leder till demokratisering. Kina ser sig nu under Xi stå nära sitt mål: världshegemoni. Regimen har dock hela tiden vägrat att spela enligt reglerna. USA börjar nu inse behovet av en förändrad och förnyad politik gentemot Kina och handelsförhandlingarna är bara början. Det närmaste årtiondet blir avgörande.


February 14, 2019

During a February 12, 2019, hearing of the House Committee of Foreign Affairs U.S. special representative for Venezuela, Elliot Abrams, was attacked by Rep. Omar, who has been under fire for anti-Semitic remarks. Taking this background into account it was not surprising that Democrat Omar behaved the way she did

In his testimony Abrams in the opening statement explained that the situation in Venezuela would only become worse if the illegitimate Maduro regime was allowed to remain:

Venezuela has become the most violent country in the world. In large part this is due to poverty and desperation, directly caused by the former Maduro regime’s disastrous mismanagement of the economy and policy of social divisiveness. It is also due to Maduro’s neighborhood gangs— or “colectivos”—who prey on the poor through extortion, kidnapping, and murder, Abrams said.

Hyperinflation, thanks to Maduro’s economic policies, mismanagement, and regime corruption, has spiraled out of control. Within the last month it grew by 220 percent. In total, by the end of 2019, it could reach 10 million percent.

One of the most significant consequences of Maduro’s disastrous economy is food insecurity. Only 30 percent of the protein required in the regular diet of the Venezuelan population is available. Scarcity and high prices have reached critical levels for food processors and grocery markets.

The U.S. Government is doing everything within its power to support that effort. We do this because the restoration of peace, democracy, and prosperity would reunite Venezuela with the democratic community of the hemisphere. It would also refute the false promise of authoritarianism championed by a small number of dysfunctional states, most notably Cuba which has provided direct support for Maduro’s repressive tactics including the recent deployment of its most feared units, the Black Wasps.

Maduro and his cronies are conspiring to prevent…life-saving U.S. assistance from reaching the Venezuelan people….we have effectively levied individual and sectoral sanctions on the former Maduro regime. And they are making a difference.

We have exponentially increased the cost of doing business for the regime in the gold sector, the financial sector, and now the oil sector—the combination of which has created enormous pressure on Maduro and his band of thieves.

We have frozen the bank accounts of the regime’s most notorious gang leaders and revoked their visas and those of their immediately family members who benefited from their corruption and complicity. They and their families are no longer welcome in the United States.…We believe the current political and economic environment is unsustainable and that he will not be able to weather it much longer….. We recognize global diplomacy is required to ensure a peaceful and inclusive transition. This is not an effort by the United States alone but an effort by what is now near 50 democracies in this hemisphere and around the world.

We are witnessing a historic shift in our hemisphere toward democratic solidarity…Over the next weeks and months, the international community will take full advantage of the momentum built over the last few weeks.

We will continue our pressure against Maduro and his inner circle by a variety of means. But we will also provide off-ramps to those who will do what is right for the Venezuelan people.

We will support Venezuela’s interim president, the new government, and its aspirations to create a new Venezuela – full of hope, promise, and potential – and we will work together toward a democratic transition.

We will continue pressing our humanitarian assistance delivery with the help of our regional partners and the international community.

And we will expose and speak out against Maduro and his enablers’ cruelty and violence, recognizing the Venezuelan voices that have witnessed it firsthand.

In conclusion, Abrams said that Nicolas Maduro and his cronies are reeling from the force of Venezuela’s own people, who are determined to live in freedom and dignity. We are hopeful and confident the Venezuelan people will succeed in their quest for liberty. And when they do achieve this monumental goal, it will show despots and dictators not only in our hemisphere, but in the rest of the world, that the democratic will of the people will always outlive and outshine those who try to suppress it.

Comment: It was on January 23 Maduro was removed from power by the democratically elected National Assembly. It choose as president Juan Guaido. The Venezuelan people will continue the fight for freedom from corruption and socialist tyranny supported by a large number of democratic countries around the world including the United States.Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have taken to the streets in support of President Guaido. The new president has offered amnesty to officers and soldiers who defect to his side and U.S. The only support for the Maduro regime comes from state capitalist China, Communist Cuba, theocratic Iran, and authocratic Russia. On can only hope that the Venezuelan military objects to the intervention by foreign security forces and declare loyalty to the new democratic president. Victory for the Venezuelan people would be a victory for human freedom everywhere.


January 31, 2019

Washington Free Beacon’s China expert Bill Gertz on January 29, 2019 reported on US intelligence leaders warning Congress that China is a significant challenge to American security. The communist leaders of the leading opponent to the West is preparing for ideological war against the present democratic world order. Excerpts below:

“While we were sleeping in the last decade and a half, China had a remarkable rise in capabilities that are stunning,” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Major Chinese advances were the result of large-scale theft of American technology and other intellectual property, and inserting Chinese agents in U.S. laboratories to steal know-how for China. The theft ranged from automobile manufacturing to sophisticated software to military-related research and development information, Coats said.

Globally, China under President Xi Jinping is spreading its system in the developing world through an economic program called the Belt and Road Initiative.

“Rule of law, international norms, and fairness in trade and international engagements is not the Chinese model.”

“Chinese leaders will increasingly seek to assert China’s model of authoritarian capitalism as an alternative.”

…China will try to launch a program to reform the global governance system that Coats forecast will produce increased Chinese activism internationally and promote “a Chinese worldview that links China’s domestic vision to its international vision.”

The Chinese are seeking to block international criticism of the communist system, and also to erode norms, such as the idea that the international community has a legitimate role in scrutinizing human rights abuses. China also is seeking to narrow the definition of human rights based on economic standards as part of the effort.

[In 2011 under Obama it sounded differently]

”…my greatest concern, though, does not lie with a nation-state posing a threat to us as much as it is in the area of terrorism,” said then chief Clapper who through public statements revealed himself to be a…political partisan [of the left] after leaving office after the administration of President Barack Obama.

Coats said U.S. intelligence officials have been alerting American businesses to the Chinese dangers.

FBI Director Christopher Wray…testified:

“The Chinese counterintelligence threat is more deep, more diverse, more vexing, more challenging, more comprehensive, and more concerning than any counterintelligence threat I can think of,”….

Wray said the American people are beginning to wake up to Beijing’s control over supposedly private Chinese businesses.

“The lines between the Chinese government and Chinese Communist Party are blurred if not totally erased,” Wray said. “The lines between the Chinese government and state-owned enterprises, the same.”

Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley said Chinese products, such as semiconductors or microchips, pose a threat to the military supply chain used to build weapons systems. DIA is working to make sure weapons are not built with Chinese products purchased by U.S. suppliers that could pose a security risk of sabotage or remote hacking.

On Huawei, Ashley said the company is not as independent as other international companies, and cannot decide for itself whether to become a private firm or state-controlled company.

“That decision does not lie with Huawei,” he said. “It lies with the [Chinese Communist Party]; it lies with Xi Jinping in the way that they are starting to centralize greater the management of those businesses.”

The DIA director described the Chinese system as “authoritarian capitalism” with the government and Party controlling Chinese companies and requiring they provide business and other information to Beijing.

Other threats highlighted by the intelligence leaders during the annual threat briefing include:

The danger from weapons of mass destruction will grow in 2019, especially the use of chemical arms.

China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are increasingly using cyber attacks to “threaten both minds and machines” to steal information and target infrastructure.

North Korea remains a threat and is unlikely to give up its nuclear arms, despite talks on denuclearization.

Iran will threaten U.S. interests in 2019 based on Tehran’s regional ambitions and improved military capabilities.

China and Russia are training and equipping military space forces and fielding new antisatellite (ASAT) weapons to target American satellites while pushing for global agreements banning space weapons.

Chinese cyber attacks are a major threat and could be used for temporary disruption of critical infrastructure, such as disrupting a natural gas pipeline for days to weeks.

Russia remains a capable U.S. adversary and is developing new strategic and conventional weapons.

Iran currently has not renewed development of nuclear weapons but Iranian officials have publicly threatened to reverse some of the constraints of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action limiting its nuclear programs.

Iran continues to develop long-range missiles.

China will continue building up its military maritime presence in the South China and will continue to pressure Taiwan into accepting Beijing’s claims on the island.

Coats: Xi removed one of the few checks on his power in March 2018 by eliminating presidential term limits. The Party also increased control over the economy and society by tightening legal and media controls, marginalizing independent voices, and intensifying repression of Muslims, Christians and other religious minorities.

Perhaps “millions” of ethnic Uighurs are being held in detention camps as part of the repression.

China also is increasing the use of technology for repression through facial recognition, biometrics, and vehicle GPS tracking to “bolster its apparatus of domestic monitoring and control,” Coats stated.

One significant disclosure by Coats is China’s global ambitions. By contrast, U.S. intelligence analysts for many years in the past insisted China had no hegemonic objectives beyond Asia.

“We assess that China’s leaders will try to extend the country’s global economic, political, and military reach while using China’s military capabilities and overseas infrastructure and energy investments under the Belt and Road Initiative to diminish U.S. influence,” Coats said.

Militarily, China is planning additional military bases and access agreements beyond its lone overseas military base on the Horn of Africa at Djibouti. The Chinese are exploring bases, support facilities, or access agreements in Africa, Europe, Oceania, Southeast Asia, and South Asia.

China also is using its commercial development and military ties to expand its military reach globally.

“Successful implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative could facilitate PLA access to dozens of additional ports and airports and significantly expand China’s penetration of the economies and political systems of participating countries,” Coats stated.

Comment: In addition to these warnings in the US Congress foreign policy experts Graham Allison and Dimitri. K. Simes in a Wall Street Journal article in January 2019 explained according to National Interest journal that an entente between Moscow and Beijing is growing. Excerpts below:

…the piece in the Wall Street Journal …[is] titled “A Sino-Russian Entente Threatens America” explains that American foreign policy is inadvertently prompting the two great powers to collaborate more closely. “This grand alignment of the aggrieved has been moving from the realm of the hypothetical toward what could soon be a geostrategic fact. Beijing and Moscow are drawing closer together to meet what each sees as the `American threat.’” In conclusion, Allison and Simes state, “a sound U.S. global strategy would combine greater realism in recognizing the threat of a Beijing-Moscow alliance, and greater imagination in creating a coalition of nations to meet it.”

It is important here to point out that it is the United States that is at last reacting to the growing threats. China has since the collapse of the Soviet Union taken over the role as leading communist empire. The regime in Beijing also before 1991 had global aspirations. These were of a different kind as the plan was to encircle the cities (the West) from the Third World. China was then supporting communist inspired uprisings of what was called ”the Asian, African and Latin American peoples”.

Numbers, so the Maoist rulers, were to decide in the long run, the countryside would encircle the West. This was the Communist Chinese version of ”Demography is Destiny”. The strategy failed and China is now instead using its economic and military power to challenge the West using ”authoritarian capitalism” as a weapon.


January 30, 2019

Washington Free Beacon on January 28, 2019, lauded the indictments of Chinese company Huawei and cited comments by Senator Tom Cotton, Republican from Arkansas. Excerpts below:

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) praised the Justice Department’s formal charges against Chinese telecom giant Huawei and its chief financial officer on Monday, saying they gave the U.S. more information about the company’s “campaign of theft and economic sabotage against America.”

Huawei and its CFO, Meng Wanzhou, were charged with crimes that included stealing trade secrets, obstruction of justice, and bank fraud by evading sanctions against Iran…

Cotton has played a leading role in the U.S. Senate in calling attention to Huawei’s skirting of sanctions and role in Chinese spying. U.S. intelligence agencies have linked Huawei to Chinese military and intelligence services, and the Washington Free Beacon reported the telecom giant has been targeted as part of a wider effort by the Trump administration to press China in trade negotiations and over its technology theft.

Cotton: ”Huawei has played a key role in spreading China’s spying capabilities around the world.”

Cotton said Congress should act by passing his bill, the Telecommunications Denial Order Enforcement Act.

Meng was arrested on Dec. 1 in Canada at the request of American prosecutors.

Comment: ”How China’s Economic Aggression Threatens the Technologies and Intellectual Property of the United States and the World” is a report by White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy of June 2018.
In the report is pointed out:

”Physical theft through economic espionage by company insiders or others who have trusted access to trade secrets and confidential business information provides China with a significant means to acquire U.S. technologies and intellectual property. In describing China’s use of economic espionage as part of a broader strategy to acquire U.S. technology companies, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission observes:

China appears to be conducting a campaign of commercial espionage against U.S. companies involving…human infiltration to systematically penetrate the information systems of U.S. companies to steal their intellectual property, devalue them, and acquire them at dramatically reduced prices. The indictment is an opportunity for US to find out more about the deceitful practices of the large Chinese telecom company.

Free Beacon in 2018 published a report by China expert Bill Gertz on how China is seeking global hegemony. Gertz desribed the testimony in Congress on how China’s large-scale military buildup, regional coercion, and economic aggression are part of plan for global domination.

The nuclear and conventional weapons buildup, militarization of islets in the South China Sea and global infrastructure investments aimed at controlling nations are signs Beijing has emerged as America’s most significant national security challenge, a panel of specialists told a hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

“This supremacy is the heart of the ‘China Dream.’ China’s arsenal in this campaign for supremacy includes economic, informational, political, and military warfare.”

“The battle to hold off China starts in the Taiwan Strait”

“Previous attempts to appease China failed to improve our bilateral relations,” he said. “In fact, China has only become emboldened and may now be the preeminent threat to American security, our economy, and our values.”

U.S. policies toward China since economic engagement began in the 1980s were guided by early claims China posed no threat. Successive administrations advocated strengthening China through trade and investment in the hope the communist system would eventually reform.

President Trump, however, directed a major shift in U.S. policy toward China by recognizing Beijing as “revisionist” power that threatens U.S. security and economic interests.

Trump has pressured China on its trade and technology theft and recently announced plans to impose tariffs on Chinese goods.

Curbs on Chinese investment in national security-related purchases also are planned.

Dan Blumenthal, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute, testified that many China hands were wrong about China’s rise in the past.

Blumenthal called for directly confronting the Chinese Communist Party and its weaknesses.

“They constantly come at us with political warfare, information campaigns, propaganda. We let them off the hook,” he said, adding that the Chinese public should be given more robust information about what the ruling party is doing.

China’s ruling party is not simply seeking to preserve its hold on power but is “a Leninist party overseeing a continental empire that’s going to sea,” Blumenthal said.

China is expanding into the Pacific and also advancing in and around the Indian Ocean, using its commercial Belt and Road investment program as a “cash-for-access deal” in many locations.

“From a technological standpoint, the PRC has quickly achieved parity with U.S. Navy standards and capacities for warship and submarine production,” [one expert said].

“If some currently unintended event does not provoke a military confrontation before then, we have until 2020—the deadline that [Chinese supreme leader] Xi Jinping has given the [People’s Liberation Army] to be ready to invade Taiwan.

From that point on, we can expect China to strike.”

China has begun tightening a noose around Taiwan, recently holding large-scale attack exercises in the Taiwan Strait and flying bombers and strike aircraft around the island.

Chinese air forces also currently are threatening Japan’s Senkaku islands and are militarizing disputed islands in the South China Sea with missiles and aircraft.

Beijing also announced plans to develop new nuclear-capable long-range bombers—another indicator of global power projection plans.

In addition to its growing military power, China is using political warfare capabilities under a doctrine described as “uniting with friends and disintegrating enemies,”

“In any conflict within the Indo-Pacific region or globally, the PRC’s fight for public opinion will be the PRC’s second battlefield, on which it will wage a wide range of political warfare operations.”

The information warfare will employ strategic psychological operations to promote the narratives of events, actions, and policies with the goal of controlling the Chinese public and influencing policies of both friends and foes.

[Another expert] said the Chinese military also is developing space warfare capabilities, including plans to use the moon as a base.

“China’s space control ambitions extend to achieving eventual control of the earth-moon system.”

On non-military power, China plans to use its financial power in a program called Belt and Road Initiative…It will produce a “debt trap” for developing states that can be coerced into cooperating China’s strategic aims.

The United States needs a comprehensive long-term strategy aimed at countering the Chinese threat. “Such a strategy must include a military, economic, and ally focus, and a diplomatic, political, and informational focus.”

It is clear from these hearings that the United States need a fundamental shift in dealing with China and recognize Beijing as the main threat to U.S. security. Strategic communications need to be strengthened to counter Chinese information warfare. Closer ties to Taiwan is another must.

It is time after the failures of the Obama administration that the United States returns to its role as a maritime power that cooperates with allies.

An improvement in the field of forward defense against China has started during the Trump administration. China is now the leading challenger to the West. Two other Eurasian empires are also challenging the United States and all of the West: Russia and Iran.


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.


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


December 12, 2018


Bertil Haggman

Vol. 3


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


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 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


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.