DON BELL REPORTS

A WEEKLY COMMENTARY

Year Twenty-Nine ... Number Twenty-Six ... July 2, 1982

Table of Contents

MORE SIGNS OF THE TIMES?

In our last newsletter (DBR #25) we listed a number of signs of the times that may indicate a possible change in the weather, politically and morally if not economically. We mentioned the death of ERA, the atrocious Hinckley decision, the awful Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the current and expanding invasion of the United States which is causing official concern, and the growing demand that the Federal Reserve System be curbed or killed. But the most sensational sign of the times occurred while we were printing last week's Report, therefore couldn't be included. It is not the most important, simply the most sensational sign of the times. We refer, of course, to the sudden resignation of Alexander Haig as Secretary of State. The actual resignation is not an important event, because he is to be replaced by a "team player," Geroge Shultz, multinational executive and long standing member of the Eastern Establishment's Council on Foreign Relations. His appointment to replace Haig already is being described as a matter of "jumping out of the frying pan into the fire." However, the circumstances surrounding Haig's resignation are of extreme importance in that, for a little while at least, Ronald Reagan is back on the track that brought him to the White House a year and a half ago. He and his administration, Haig excepted, are abiding by foreign policy promises that place the interests of the United States first -- for a little while at least.

Among the many, there were three important foreign policy disputes which found Haig at odds with other members of the American Security Council. There was Haig's attitude toward the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which our administration condemned, though with moderation, and which Haig applauded. This is best shown in an item by UPI, datelined London, June 9th. We quote: "Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig, Jr., apparently had an identity problem speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 'We not only lost an aircraft and a helicopter yesterday,' he told reporters Monday, according to the official transcript. 'There's a claim a second aircraft has been shot down, a second helicopter and a number of army vehicles.' By 'we,' Haig apparently was referring to Israel." (unquote). The Reagan administration was pointing out that certain weapons supplied by the United States to be used for defensive purposes only, were being used offensively and illegally in the invasion of Lebanon. But at the same time Haig was applauding their use and bemoaning some of their losses. Haig, at the wrong time, was out front speaking as if Israel really were the fifty-first State in our Union, Haig was incensed because the Security Council wouldn't back him up.

The second important policy dispute involved the two Chinas. From the very beginning of his term, President Reagan had promised that we would continue to sell -- not supply at our expense -- needed arms for the defense of the National Republic of China on Taiwan. Haig opposed the policy. In a June 26th dispatch, "Rep. John Rousselot (R-CA) speculated Haig resigned because of a combination of clashes over policy with members of the Reagan administration ... He noted that a memorandum from Haig opposing U.S. arms sales to Taiwan was circulated at a meeting he attended with National Security Adviser William P. Clark. The memo put Haig at odds with, among others, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who supports the sale. Rouseelot said Haig also expressed disagreement with Reagan during the President's recent visits with European heads of state."

But the policy disagreement that really caused Haig to submit his resignation had to do with that proposed Siberian gas pipeline. There's a lot of natural gas in the field around Urengoy, and the Soviet bosses would like to sell it to the industrial nations of Western Europe, who are short on energy. This would require the building of a pipeline some 3,500 miles long, and would cost an estimated $10 billion to complete. But if the gas could be delivered, the USSR would make a profit of about $8 billion a year for at least 25 years. That would, as Lenin might say, cause the capitalists to buy a lot of rope with which to be hanged. In addition to the money, which the USSR would use for the building of a bigger war machine, the sale of gas to the Nations of Western Europe would make them subservient to as well as dependent upon the Soviet Union for the needed supply of energy to keep their factories running. But the USSR would be in complete control and, as President Reagan commented, all the valves that control the gas flow would be on the other side of the wall. Now, most of the materials and equipment needed for the building of this pipeline would have to be supplied by American firms, such as General Electric, Caterpillar Tractor and about 60 other firms. Most all of them are connected in some way with that Rockefeller-Eaton-Hammer coalition of Eastern Establishment Multinationals and Megabanks that have traded with and kept the USSR alive and reasonably well for the past fifty-odd years. So, when President Reagan extended and expanded that ban on selling oil and gas equipment to the Soviets, or to any European middle-men who might like to purchase and re-sell, he defied, not only the Soviet Union, but the Eastern Establishment multinationals and megabanks, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, most of the leaders of the Nations of Western Europe -- and Alexander Haig as well as his Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce. At a National Security Council meeting in which Haig did not attend (he was talking to the Soviet ambassador at the time), President Reagan made his decision, slapped the table and said, "If the Soviets want to build that pipeline, they're going to do it without the United States." Human Events of July 3 commented: "The President's toughening posture can be traced to several factors, including .. the rising tide of criticism from conservatives .. the gradual 'settling in' of Bill Clark at the National Security Council .. the Pentagon's Fred Ikie and Tal Lindstrom also played essential roles [as did Caspar Weinberger]. No one likes to talk about waging 'economic warfare' against the Soviet Union, a phrase that perceptibly scares the Europeans [and angers the Trilateral Commissioners and the CFRers - Ed.]. But this Administration -- thanks to the President -- has finally decided to wield trade as an important weapon in the battle for the West's survival.

It must be noted, however, that President Reagan did hedge a bit in his decision. He said what he did was in retaliation for what the USSR was doing to Poland, and that if and when Poland is treated honorably and decently, his sales ban on oil and gas equipment might be lifted. Nevertheless, the fact that the Administration acted in favor of the United States instead of the Trilats, is a sign of the times that is bound to give hope.

However, let us be warned. Reagan hedged in yet another way in order not to antagonize the Trilat-CFR combine: when CFR member Haig resigned, he was replaced by CFR member Shultz. And in regard to trade with the Soviets, Haig and Shultz seem to be in agreement, and opposed to the principles expressed by Reagan and his administration. A situation similar to the pipeline case arose under the Carter administration in 1978, and the Carter administration also was divided on whether to cancel permission to sell some advanced oil-drilling technology to the Soviets. At that time Shultz, then an executive of what is known as the world's largest private multinational corporation, wrote an article for Business Week whihc appeared in its issue of May 28, 1979. We quote from that article written by George P. Shultz:

Now, this is exactly the stand that Haig was taking in regard to the gas pipeline controversy. So, Haig and Shultz -- and GE and Caterpillar -- and the Trilateral Commissioners and Councilors on Foreign Relations -- are all agreed, and against the stand taken by Reagan and his advisers. So, they tell us that Shultz "is a team man." But which team?

Nevertheless and despite the awful power of the Eastern Establishment and its owned/or/controlled Communications Media, there are signs and portents which indicate that changes have been in the works ever since Keynesianism and Welfarism began to fail, and are about to be made. Whether such changes will be for the good of America and its people are still questionable. But, take the case of the writings of Theodore H. White as an example. He's the author of that series of books about The Making of the President. We first met Teddy in Chungking, China during World War II. Then he was sure that Communism was the inevitable way of the future, world-wide. We had been shot down over Amoy, made our way with other survivors to Chungking where we were awaiting medical clearance to return to America and reassignment to General MacArthur's command. To pass the time a riverboat party was arranged, in the midst of which Teddy stood on the riverbank, addressed a crowd of curious but not understanding Chinese, delivering the most emotional, pro-Communist speech we had ever heard. We met him later in Washington, D.C. where he tried to get us to use our regularly scheduled radio commentaries as a diatribe against Chiang Kai-shek who was then seeking arms to resist the forces of Mao Tse-tung (he didn't get them). Anyway in 1945 Teddy White sang the Red Song. Today his tune is entirely different. Apparently he has seen the light. But whatever his personal commitments may be, his analysis of the situation as it appeared in the July 5th U.S. News is objective, makes good sense. He writes:

We prefer the way Congressman Larry McDonald says much the same thing, perhaps because our confidence in him has never been shaken. Or perhaps because he's not a lawyer or a millionaire who could buy a seat in the House. He's just a doctor who felt the body politic could stand some treatments, like the Texas compatriot Dr. Ron Paul. He's a member of the Armed Services Committee and probably the top expert in Congress on the subject of international terrorism. He's also something of a historian and author of We Hold These Truths, a "reverent review of the U.S. Constitution." He puts our case in a historical perspective, says the United States is in a third transitional stage. First was the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution and a Republic. Then came the change from a Constitutional Republic to a Welfare State, which he says began fifty years ago. Now, changes are in the offing, another transition is about to occur because people are seeking a formula to rebuild the country. "The patient is in a raging fever, and has been in a coma for a long time. The good news is that the body is developing a defense mechanism. The question is: Will we hold together?"

Alan Stang, writing an article for the July-August 1982 issue of American Opinion, asked Dr. McDonald what problems stand in the way of recovery? We quote a part of his answer: "The Budgetary impact will be bad .. To finance LBJ's Great Society, money was drained off from military research and development. Year after year, we postponed it and said we would get to it in the early 1980s. Now we're here, but everybody is talking about how we must compromise. Now, entitlements are so big that even robbing from defense does not produce enough to pay for them. There is also the fact that the mass media, 'the most powerful branch of the federal government,' don't want a turnaround. They have a vested interest in collectivism. And the same people have been at the top of both parties for forty years." The Congressman said it is essential to get reinforcements on the Americanist side in Congress ... The trouble is that people who otherwise would be good candidates cannot afford to run. As a result, we usually get three types: (1) the Teddy Kennedy rich boy, who has never held an honest job; (2) the political prostitute who sells himself to the labor boss or other special interest; (3) the surgeon. The fact that I've been in Congress won't help my practice. It won't help the businessman or the preacher. It's therefore difficult to get good people ... On the other hand, people are very angry. This is not just another year: This is the point of division between the life or death of Western Civilization. The days we are living through will decide .. My message to any Conservatives who are lagging is: if you ever put out for the cause, do it now. Don't say, 'If it gets bad, I'll do something.' The time is now -- or dig a hole and crawl in."

Extra copies of this Newsletter: 1 copy: 25 cents, 10 copies: $1.50, 20 copies: $3.00, 30 copies: $4.50, 40 copies: $6.00, 50 copies: $7.50, 100 copies: $10.00. More than 100 copies: 10 cents each. Please include extra if 1st class postage is desired. Subscription rates: $24 per year. Foreign airmail: $30 per year. DON BELL REPORTS Weekly, emphasizing the Christian American point of view. Address all orders: DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. BOX 2223, PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33480

Back to Top