Monday 23rd of December 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

interfering in everyone's business to control the world....

whitlam knew the score...

U.S. dominance and Australia’s secret coup
John Pilger 
21 March 2014, 12:30pm 

Washington’s part in the overthrow of the Ukrainian Government would surprise few, writes John Pilger, however its secret role in toppling the Australian Government in 1975 is still not widely known.

 

WASHINGTON'S ROLE in the fascist putsch against the elected government in Ukraine will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore the historical record. Since 1945, dozens of governments, many of them democracies, have met a similar fate, usually with bloodshed.

Nicaragua is one of the poorest countries on earth, with fewer people than Wales, yet under the reformist Sandinistas in the 1980s it was regarded in Washington as a "strategic threat". The logic was simple; if the weakest slipped the leash, setting an example, who else would try their luck?

The great game of dominance offers no immunity for even the most loyal U.S. "ally".

This is demonstrated by perhaps the least known of Washington's coups — in Australia. The story of this forgotten coup is a salutary lesson for those governments that believe a "Ukraine" or a "Chile" could never happen to them.

Australia's deference to the United States makes Britain, by comparison, seem a renegade.

During the American invasion of Vietnam ‒ which Australia had pleaded to join ‒ an official in Canberra voiced a rare complaint to Washington that the British knew more about American objectives in that war than its antipodean comrade-in-arms.

The response was swift:

"We have to keep the Brits informed to keep them happy. You are with us come what may."

This dictum was rudely set aside in 1972 with the election of the reformist Labor government of Gough Whitlam.

Although not regarded as of the left, Whitlam ‒ now in his 98th year ‒ was a maverick social democrat of principle, pride, propriety and extraordinary political imagination. He believed that a foreign power should not control his country's resources and dictate its economic and foreign policies. He proposed to "buy back the farm" and speak as a voice independent of London and Washington.

On the day after his election, Whitlam ordered that his staff should not be "vetted or harassed" by the Australian security organisation, ASIO — then, as now, beholden to Anglo-American intelligence.

When his ministers publicly condemned the Nixon/Kissinger administration as "corrupt and barbaric", Frank Snepp, a CIA officer stationed in Saigon at the time, said later:

"We were told the Australians might as well be regarded as North Vietnamese collaborators."

Whitlam demanded to know if and why the CIA was running a spy base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs — ostensibly a joint Australian/U.S. "facility".

Pine Gap is a giant vacuum cleaner which, as the whistleblower Edward Snowden recently revealed, allows the U.S. to spy on everyone.

In the 1970s, most Australians had no idea that this secretive foreign enclave placed their country on the front line of a potential nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

Whitlam clearly knew the personal risk he was taking, as the minutes of a meeting with the U.S. ambassador demonstrate. "Try to screw us or bounce us," he warned, "[and Pine Gap] will become a matter of contention".

Victor Marchetti, the CIA officer who had helped set up Pine Gap, later told me:

"This threat to close Pine Gap caused apoplexy in the White House. Consequences were inevitable... a kind of Chile was set in motion."

The CIA had just helped General Augusto Pinochet to crush the democratic government of another reformer, Salvador Allende, in Chile.

In 1974, the White House sent Marshall Green to Canberra as ambassador.

Green was an imperious, very senior and sinister figure in the State Department who worked in the shadows of America's "deep state". Known as the "coupmaster", he had played a central role in the 1965 coup against President Sukarno in Indonesia, which cost up to a million lives.

One of Green’s first speeches in Australia was to the Australian Institute of Company Directors, which was described by an alarmed member of the audience as

"… an incitement to the country's business leaders to rise against the government.”

Pine Gap's top-secret messages were de-coded in California by a CIA contractor, TRW.

One of the de-coders was a young Christopher Boyce, an idealist who, troubled by the "deception and betrayal of an ally", became a whistleblower. Boyce revealed that the CIA had infiltrated the Australian political and trade union elite and referred to the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, as "our man Kerr".

 

In his black top hat and medal-laden morning suit, Kerr was the embodiment of imperium. He was the Queen of England's Australian viceroy in a country that still recognised her as head of state. His duties were ceremonial; yet Whitlam ‒ who appointed him ‒ was unaware of or chose to ignore Kerr's long-standing ties to Anglo-American intelligence.

The Governor-General was an enthusiastic member of the Australian Association for Cultural Freedom, described by Jonathan Kwitny of the Wall Street Journal in his book, The Crimes of Patriots, as:

‘… an elite, invitation-only group ... exposed in Congress as being founded, funded and generally run by the CIA ….

‘[The CIA] paid for Kerr's travel, built his prestige [while]... Kerr continued to go to the CIA for money.’

In 1975, Whitlam discovered that Britain's MI6 had long been operating against his Government.

He said later:

“The Brits were actually de-coding secret messages coming into my foreign affairs office."

One of his ministers, Clyde Cameron, told me:

“We knew MI6 was bugging Cabinet meetings for the Americans."

In interviews in the 1980s with the American investigative journalist Joseph Trento, executive officers of the CIA disclosed that the "Whitlam problem" had been discussed "with urgency" by the CIA's director, William Colby, and the head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield, and that "arrangements" were made.

A deputy director of the CIA told Trento:

"Kerr did what he was told to do."

In 1975, Whitlam learned of a secret list of CIA personnel in Australia held by the Permanent Head of the Australian Defence Department, Sir Arthur Tange — a deeply conservative mandarin with unprecedented territorial power in Canberra.

Whitlam demanded to see the list. On it was the name, Richard Stallings who, under cover, had set up Pine Gap as a provocative CIA installation. Whitlam now had the proof he was looking for.

On 10 November, 1975, Whitlam was shown a top secret telex message sent by ASIO in Washington. This was later sourced to Theodore Shackley, head of the CIA's East Asia Division and one of the most notorious figures spawned by the Agency. Shackley had been head of the CIA's Miami-based operation to assassinate Fidel Castro and Station Chief in Laos and Vietnam. He had recently worked on the "Allende problem".

Shackley's message was read to Whitlam. Incredibly, it said that the prime minister of Australia was a security risk in his own country.

The day before, Kerr had visited the headquarters of the Defence Signals Directorate, Australia's NSA, whose ties to Washington were ‒ and reman ‒ binding. He was briefed on the "security crisis". He had then asked for a secure line and spent 20 minutes in hushed conversation.

On 11 November ‒ the day Whitlam was to inform Parliament about the secret CIA presence in Australia ‒ he was summoned by Kerr. Invoking archaic vice-regal "reserve powers", Kerr sacked the democratically elected prime minister.

The problem was solved.


Read more by John Pilger and find out about his new documentary Utopia on his website johnpilger.com. Follow John Pilger on Twitter @johnpilger

 

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/us-dominance-and-australias-secret-coup,6300

 

lesson from history 101...

A weak politician always tries to prove to his circle and to himself that he is not what others think of him; he has to prove his strength which, in reality, turns out to be obstinacy rather than strength. After making a statement, he would not change his position at all, or else he would appear weak, and at the same time avoid negotiations in person because he fears them.

Instead, he sends emissaries with rigid, uncompromising instructions, draws red lines, resorts to threats and sanctions, and demands capitulations from his partner, i.e. useless and counter-productive negotiations. No self-respecting country would agree to capitulation.

As a result, the weak politician tends to quickly draw the situation into a conflict rather than a solution. And all this is to prove his power - to himself and others - and because of that he is ready to sacrifice countless lives.

He is ready to impose sanctions, which will lead to the suffering of millions of people, which will hurt not only the partner-opponent, but also his own country. That is why, the sanctions will not only hit the enemy, but also deprive the US from millions of potential customers. And all this to prove one thing - that he is not weak.

Lesson from history

I repeat, I don't know whether Obama is weak as a politician, but it is precisely this sort of "uncompromising" situation that is being set up around Crimea. The US president made effort to put together a coalition which does not recognise the will of the people. And all this against the principle which was declared by his own predecessors.

Let's remember Woodrow Wilson, who declared the right of every nation to self-determination and statehood. Or President Clinton, who was not reluctant to use military force to try and convince Slobodan Milosevic of the right of Kosovo's Albanians to establish a state.

Now everything is happening in the opposite direction. Crimeans are threatened by sanctions and by the direct enforcement of Kiev's power onto them. And for expressing support for Crimea, Russia is also threatened with sanctions. Will such policies work? I doubt it. It would rather have the opposite effect: It will stimulate the struggle for independence inside Crimea and it will encourage Russia to assume an even firmer position of support for this movement. Let's remember how in the 19th century, Russia held firmly its support for the liberation movement of the Bulgarians from Turkish rule.

read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/03/crimea-whose-land-this-part-2-20143207314516116.html

weak as a russian spiderman..

US President Barack Obama has said Russia is acting "not out of strength, but out of weakness" in Ukraine.

He also warned of the possibility of further sanctions against Russia if it encroached further into Ukraine.

Speaking in The Hague, Mr Obama said he was encouraged by the willingness of EU countries to consider sanctions that could possibly hurt them as well.

The US has already imposed sanctions on Russian individuals after Moscow annexed Crimea earlier this month.

Mr Obama, who is attending a meeting of G7 countries, said the annexation was not a "done deal" as the international community had not recognised it but admitted that "the facts on the ground are that the Russian military controls Crimea".

He expressed concern about the large numbers of Russian troops massed on the border but did say Russia had the right to deploy troops on its own territory.

"It is up to Russia to act responsibly and show itself once again to be willing to abide by international norms and... if it fails to do so, there will be some costs," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26738347

please, obama, ease off...

 

BRUSSELS — President Obama offered a sustained and forceful rejoinder against Russia on Wednesday, denouncing the “brute force” he said it has used to intimidate neighbors like Ukraine and vowing that the United States “will never waver” in standing up for its NATO allies against aggression by Moscow.

In a speech meant as a capstone to his trip to Europe in the midst of an East-West confrontation with Russia, Mr. Obama addressed Moscow’s justifications for its intervention in Ukraine point by point, dismissing them as “absurd” or unmerited. He even defended the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a senator, as a stark contrast to the way Russia has seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/world/europe/obama-europe.html?hp&_r=0

------------------------

All this "windmilling" like Don Quixote, after the USA has interfered with more countries than numbers in an alphabet soup is EMBARRASSING... Come on, ease off... Learn to live. Ukraine is now run by nazi thugs who with your help overthrew a legitimate government — and whether you love these thugs or not is irrelevant. The fact is at least half of Ukraine's population (even minus Crimea's) is Russian. The fact is the Ukrainian government was elected according to the rules of democracy, but got booted out by thugs to which you have lent your support.

Yes, I know, Putin is a thugs like the rest of you. So don't go on your high moral ground. Say it like it is. You want Ukraine for yourself (I mean as part of the Yankee Doodle Empire). There is no good guys nor bad guys.

The Crimean peninsula voted to join Russia. This is DEMOCRACY rather than your MONEYCRACY, which pays thugs and keep puppets in power until it's not convenient or not sustainable anymore... 

The fact is Putin restored some gloss on the Russian amphora. Gorbachev with the red patch on his face nearly sold Russia down the gurgler with a dare. The west was about to ECONOMICALLY "invade" Russia once the borders had cracked. Russia would have become a third world supplier of goods without getting most of the benefits... That was the plan. Putin saw through this con-artistry. He has managed to hold on to the goods without Russia being shafted...

Annoying for the USA, but quite clever... 

 

Sir Gus

your international relations expert

why did the USA support this dictator?...

dictator

Source: Gus Library of old stuff (Pix — 14 June 1962). Note the picture of Rafael has been "retouched" for better reproduction in the magazine... See the war of retouching...

"kill kill kill..." Rupert's motto

 

News Corporation chief Rupert Murdoch directed his editors to "kill Whitlam" some 10 months before the downfall of Gough Whitlam's Labor government, according to a newly released United States diplomatic report.    

The US National Archives has  just declassified a secret diplomatic telegram dated January 20, 1975 that sheds new light on Murdoch's involvement in the tumultuous events of Australia's 1975 constitutional crisis.

Ron Tandberg

Illustration: Ron Tandberg

Entitled "Australian publisher privately turns on Prime Minister," the telegram from US Consul-General in Melbourne, Robert Brand, reported to the State Department that "Rupert Murdoch has issued [a] confidential instruction to editors of newspapers he controls to 'Kill Whitlam' ". 

Advertisement

Describing Mr Murdoch as "the l'enfant terrible of Australian journalism," Mr Brand noted that Mr Murdoch had been "the principal publisher supporting the Whitlam election effort in 1972 Labor victory".


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/murdoch-editors-told-to-kill-whitlam-in-1975-20140627-zson7.html#ixzz35sksszDQ

Though we don't know, one could have a good guess there has been similar messages about kill Keating, kill Rudd and kill Julia as well. The behaviour of the murder-och press has been shockingly apparent in this country. As the headline on the Saturday Paper says in relation to Peter Grieste in Egypt, "Journalism is Not a Crime", one could wonder about News Corporation. Its criminal behaviour in "killing" a fair democracy, in "killing" proper information about global warming and basically killing a few million people from the global warming effect.
Same about his support for an illegal war on Iraq for which the Iraqi people are reaping hell from Sunni extremists... Predictable. 
Shame on Mr Murder-och... 
See toon at top...