President and Founder of the World Security Network Foundation (WSN) Hubertus Hoffmann likes to think of himself as not just a rich entrepreneur, but a ‘geostrategist.’ He has a plan for running the world which he outlines in The Globalization of Foreign Policy which draws on the artistic elements of Otto von Bismarck, the first German Chancellor occasionally celebrated for his brilliant sausage remark, often reproduced as:
“There are two things you don’t want to see being made—sausage and legislation.”
Possibly after reading this the reader may add ‘geo-strategy’ to the list. Hoffmann’s mission, while containing covert elements, seems more related to a slightly later phase in German history and entails a plan to “master 6.5 billion people long-term over decades” —this, he tells us, is a task beyond the president of the USA, but he will not tell us why—although does hint that the secret is known to a few Washington insiders. To add to its curious nature this mastery of the world is also said to be beyond the powers of the large wealthy foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, who are, according to Hoffmann, “preoccupied with themselves.” He is in the firing line himself in that respect, but his BIG idea is to take the example of:
…an international network of intelligent, highly motivated young people with decentralized leadership, willing to sacrifice their own lives, a simple mission, attachment to a global belief, and a clear picture of the enemy.
The enemy of the moment happens to be al-Qaida, just in case you thought this sounded like a recruitment drive for them. The reason for this confusion is that Hoffmann draws from ‘the gifted talent scout Fritz Kraemer’ his rabid anti-Communist mentor who we will examine below. So Hoffmann’s plan argues we need “a new global elite of maybe only 500,000 young talents”. This “new elite in the Western world needs spiritual orientation” and:
Good examples of such organizations are the Young Presidents Organization YPO with 10,000 young entrepreneurs worldwide combining all cultures of this world, or bilateral organizations such as the American Council on Germany or the International Crisis Group.
We will also have a look at YPO and these organisations below; but Hoffmann is not just giving us examples of the type of organisation he would like—being well-off, he has put his ideas into practice and he sure knows how to build up a website:
For example the World Security Network Foundation—an independent, nonprofit organization which I founded some years ago in New York—is building a new elite global network for foreign and security policy with the purpose of “Networking a Safer World.” […] A network of 30 young editors with 17 nationalities report from New York, Washington D.C., Tokyo, Paris, Vienna, London, Rome, Moscow, Ankara, Singapore, Beirut, New Delhi, Peshawar, Germany, China, and Eastern Europe led by WSN Global-Editor-in-Chief BrigGen (Ret.) Dieter Farwick, former Director of Germany’s “Federal Armed Forces Intelligence Office” and close aid to former German Defense Minister and later NATO Secretary General Manfred Woerner.
So a kind of internet chat room with some old German spook at it head is the answer, but of course we will need an advisory board and Hoffmann has already sent out the emails and assembled:
…ten generals and admirals (Luigi Caligaris, Klaus Naumann, Peter Regli, Klaus Reinhardt, Ed Rowny, Bill Odom, Götz Gliemeroth, Lord Peter Inge, Sebastian Roberts, Chuck Saffell), journalists (Herbert Kremp, Jens Krüger, Thomas Lipscomb, Henning von Steuben) , professors and scholars (Mensur Akgün; Ron Asmus; Rod Beckstrom, J.D. Bindenagel, Robert Dujaric; Peter Forster, Ortwin Gebauer, Amin Hashwani, Christian Hacke, Robert Hunter, Michael Inacker, Joachim Krause, Ludger Kühnhardt, Holger Mey, Mark Minevich, Mike Munson, John Nomikos, Ivo Paparela, Andreas Pruefert, Arben Qirezi, Sergey Rogov) and politicians (Samy Gemayel, Geza Jeszenszky; Tunne Kelam, Joe Schmitz, Peter Kurt Würzbach) advises WSN.
And we will examine some of the network below — hopefully before they take over the world — the chief weapon here (no not surprise) is the newsletter:
170,000 members of the international information elite including 65,000 business executives and lawyers; more than 54,000 professors, assistants, and alumni of elite universities such as Harvard, Yale, MIT, and INSEAD; 32,000 journalists; 16,000 foreign and defense experts; and more than 3,000 members and staff of parliaments, receive a weekly electronic newsletter with new analyses of foreign and security policy—the largest of its kind worldwide.
And Hoffmann has 115 ‘media partners’ (also examined below). Oddly enough the manifesto comes courtesy of the International Analyst Network part of the ‘Intelligence Summit’ gang which is the subject of another page on this site, who are up to much the same thing as Hoffmann — which is what precisely?
Hoffmann and the USA
Hoffmann’s biography at the WSN states he has worked as adviser in the European Parliament to Hans-Gert Poettering, now the President of the European Parliament who is involved in EU enlargement towards the countries of central Europe (and slightly obsessed with religion); and in the German Bundestag with the Secretary of Defense, Peter Kurt Wuerzbach MP and with the U.S. Senate (Sam Nunn and Gary Hart) in ‘defense affairs for many years’. So an American agent then, probably fronting for Lockheed Martin and so on would be the initial surmise.
Since 1999 Nunn (Chevron Corporation, Coca-Cola, Dell and General Electric Company) served as Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Hoffmann was a Research Fellow at CSIS, Georgetown University from 1983-84. Aside from this connection there seems not much more information provided on exactly what Hoffmann did here.
Nunn’s wife , Colleen, worked as a spy for the Central Intelligence Agency with which CSIS is closely linked. Nunn is also a member of the Atlantic Partnership which ‘drip feeds’ Atlanticist propaganda into the media to serve the busness interests of its members who include Michael Howard and Lord Powell of Bayswater. Nunn was (a dissenting) part of the committee which decided to expand NATO in 1998 — George Kennan, the American diplomat and historian once said that: ”expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.” Heavily involved in the cold war himself, Nunn was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the US Congress (1987-89) and offered “early support for the Strategic Defense Initiative (known popularly as “Star Wars”) and aid to anti-Communist “Contra” forces in Nicaragua,” according to the Encyclopedia of World Biography. These are interesting connections, as we shall explore below: both were connected to ‘Project Democracy’ and UN Public Diplomacy, a great deal of which in the 1980s, according to Nicholas J. Cull, was run by the CSIS through David M. Abshire in relation to the deployment of ground launched cruise missiles in Europe, which Hoffmann seems to also have had some connection with.
Project Democracy and US Public Diplomacy (which in the 1980s was also steered by Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation) saw the formation of a small inter-agency group under the chairmanship of Peter H. Dailey, Reagan’s advertising manager in the 1980 election and his ambassador to Ireland, which included British financier Sir James Goldsmith, and two media moguls, Rupert Murdoch and Joachim Maitre (of Axel Springer) and USIA’s Charles Z. Wick. A passage in page 155 of the book edited by Abshire Triumphs and Tragedies of the Modern Presidency states that this ‘strategy of persuasion’ was organised by the International Information Committee “a quiet group in the Whitehouse, led by USIA [which] worked on the orchestration of a total information counter campaign.”
According to Edward Herman and Gerry O’Sullivan’s ‘The Terrorism Industry,’ in 1984 (when Hoffmann states he was there) the CSIS played a part in several CIA operations including the destabilization of the Allende regime in Chile, promoting the ‘Red Threat’ in Italy, encouraging the work of Michael Ledeen and pushing the ‘KGB-tried-to-kill-the-Pope’ conspiracy and the idea that the Soviets controlled the western media. They also add that the CSIS had a revolving door policy with the CIA and Mossad and we should also note that several players in the Iran/Contra affair were based there at the time, including Ledeen, Robert C. McFarlane and Brent Scowcroft. Hoffman taps into these networks through his membership of The Henry Jackson Society, whose signatories show a strong Atlanticist (and intelligence-connected) grouping.
Hoffmann’s biography at WSN states he also worked as a journalist in the White House Press Corps, and then as Editor in ZDF, the largest TV station in Europe, from 1988-90 with the “heute-journal” (today-journal) (1988-90), and then as a general representative of the range of private radio run by the large Georg von Holtzbrinck publishing group and as Managing Director of New Media with the Burda publishing group (1993 -95) which has connections to the Axel Springer publishing company. And Germany has seen something of a resurgence of public diplomacy of late.
Hoffmann holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and is also a lawyer and a reserve officer in the German Army. Co-founder of the General Capital Group which invested € 3.3 bn in companies like Volkswagen, BASF, Thyssen Krupp or Lanxess. Its board also have connections to Morgan Stanley, IBM, GEC ALSTHOM, Perot Systems Corporation USA, Textron USA, Siemens, Axel Springer and Allianz AG.
The Autumn edition of the Washington Quarterly 1984, published ‘European Anxieties about Ballistic Missile Defense’ by David S. Yost, in which Hoffmann is cited as advising on, although from Europe or the US is not clear (indeed the “Europeans” is used as a shorthand for what appear to be dominant trends in 1980s opinion in Britain, France, and West Germany in the text), and this was written at the same time Hoffmann studied at Center for Strategic and International Studies and the onset of Abshire’s ‘Project Democracy.’ Its opening paragraph contextualises the need for public diplomacy:
Western Europe’s initial reaction to President Reagan’s speech of March 23, 1983 was captured in a headline in Munich’s Suddeutsche Zeitung: “Ronald Reagan’s Horror Vision.” Critical editorials immediately appeared in Le Monde, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the London Times and the Guardian, while prominent commentators set forth an array of misgivings and fears. The French Foreign Minister, Claude Cheysson, and the Defense Minister, Charles Hernu, were among the first high-level European officials to criticize the U.S. proposals regarding ballistic missile defense (BMD), but recent statements by the West German Defense Minister, Manfred Worner, have particularly caught U.S. attention. Worner is reportedly concerned that “this would not lead to stability, but just the opposite,” and that a “Fortress America” mentality could leave Western Europe in a more vulnerable position, even if BMD systems adapted to European requirements were deployed. The negative response was predictable, given the history of West European views regarding BMD, but perhaps particularly harsh because of certain features of the president’s speech and the circumstances. First, with apparently the sole exception of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain, no allied leaders were informed in advance of the speech’s BMD theme, and Mrs. Thatcher rather pointedly noted, “On consultations, none.” The U.S. failure to consult about a matter fundamental to the future of the alliance’s deterrent strategy still evokes irritation, well over a year later.
This also notes the the ‘Europeans’ found the “insinuation that the existing NATO strategy is immoral to be an untimely and unconstructive stimulus to anti-nuclear protest movements and of no assistance in their efforts to defend NATO strategy and to justify the impending necessity to deploy U.S. nuclear missiles in Europe.” And that they were busy with “managing the initial deployments of the Pershing II and cruise missiles, and are reluctant to see another strategic debate initiated.” The introduction of the concept of “Star Wars” systems (in development today) is commented on in a curious fashion:
…to this day Europeans (and Americans) generally remain baffled as to why the president chose to make a dramatic surprise statement about the initiation of further research regarding long-term options that hinge, to a large degree, on new and as yet unproven technologies that unfriendly critics have called “Star Wars” systems.
The great communicator seems to have fallen down on the job, and the arrogance and basic political process are so badly managed and prepared here, that the deployment strategy begins to look like a covert operation that leaked, but good old fashioned incompetence is first in the queue given the total omission of any reference to the Soviet threat.
But the story of the Europe and missile deployment is complex: Strobe Talbott’s (1984) Deadly Gambits, is an insider account, described by the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs as “the “unofficial” history of the Reagan Administration’s dealings with arms control-the INF and START negotiations,” adding that this should be seen in the context of “many of the participants to look “right” in retrospect.” Lawrence Freedman writing in the The New York Times November 6, 1988, also concedes that a series of developed works (all with chess analogies as titles) including ”Endgame” and before that “The Master of the Game,” itself a sequel to ”Deadly Gambits” are standard texts:
”Deadly Gambits” conveyed a keen sense of what came to be described euphemistically during the Iran-contra affair as the President’s ”managerial style.” The policy-making process had become a bureaucratic battle for the opportunity to play on the President’s prejudices. With nobody at the Cabinet level proficient in the admittedly arcane details of arms control, the struggle was largely conducted by middle-ranking officials in the State Department and the Pentagon – between those who thought the Administration should try seriously to make a deal with the Soviet Union, even if that meant a degree of compromise, and those who engaged in arms control largely to legitimize a program of strategic rearmament and for whom about the worst thing one could say about an American proposal was that it was negotiable.
To add to the Regan’s disaster the Soviets gained the upper hand in an exchange of pieces:
The cast of characters for the arms control drama in President Reagan’s second term was similar to that in the first. Of the two Richards – Richard Burt of the State Department and Richard Perle of the Pentagon – who took starring roles in ”Deadly Gambits,” Mr. Burt moved to the periphery as Ambassador to Bonn, while Mr. Perle sustained his artful obstructionism until the retirement of his patron (Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger), together with the progress made possible by Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s new and much more imaginative Soviet leadership, limited Mr. Perle’s influence and he left the Government. The President continued to work his way through a stream of national security advisers, which means that ”The Master of the Game” provides an interesting case study of the extent to which the attributes of the national security adviser can make a decisive difference in making nuclear policy.
Paul Nitze is the figure that seems to move in any direction in the history of the cold war/nuclear war power elite: “Nitze was in at the start of the nuclear age and has influenced its course ever since, in and out of the Government,” the ”master of the game” of the title.
…he remained out of the Government and gained his revenge through his successful efforts to sink the 1979 SALT II treaty as a leading light of the Committee on the Present Danger. This gave him the political credentials for a job with Ronald Reagan.
The WSN biography offers some details which we can view in relation to Abshire’s public diplomacy mission (and its supporting intelligence networks) of 1983, stating that:
Hoffmann has from 1979 to 1983 supported NATO’s Two Track Decision to deploy medium range nuclear weapons in Europe combined with mutual arms reductions on the Russian side which put him on the target list of RAF, the German terrorist organization. In 1978 he founded a popular German appeal (Dattelner Appell) to dismantle the new Russian SS-20 missiles and to combine it with the non-deployment of NATO Pershing II and Cruise Missiles, which was signed by more than 100 members of the German Bundestag, U.S. Senators like Edward Kennedy and others, which was on December 12, 1979 successfully integrated into NATO’s Two Track Decision and later into the INF Treaty. In 1980 he initiated a CDU/CSU resolution and Federal Law of the Bundestag for an Annual Report on Arms Control and Disarmament, which since than [sic] is published by the German Goverment.
Oddly though the WSN’s biography of Peter Kurt Würzbach says that:
he initiated the international appeal to dismantle the new Russian SS-20 nuclear missles and to combine it this the non-deployment of Pershing II and Cruise Missiles, signed by more than 100 members of the Bundestag, U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy and others, which was on December 12, 1979 integrated into NATO’s Two Track Decision.
There are some indications in Bernhard Fleckenstein’s study that Würzbach was part of a public diplomacy effort concerning the relationship between the German population and the stationed allied troops in 1986 — along with the then The German Federal, President, Richard von Weizsäcker (now with the US controlled and funded International Commission on the Balkans). West Germany’s governing and opposition parties both rejected a proposal for a Central European nuclear-free zone made by an independent committee of Eastern and Western political leaders. Wurzbach, then defense spokesman for the opposition Christian Democratic group in Parliament, said in 1982 that because of Warsaw Pact superiority in conventional arms, a reduction in nuclear weapons in Central Europe meant that ”a military conflict becomes thinkable again, since the risk becomes conceivably small for a potential invader.”
Abshire and his colleagues from CSIS (Stanton Burnett (then Minister Counsellor for Information in the US Embassy in Rome) and Mike Moody aka Moodie) were also trying to develop the concept of ‘Competitive Strategies.’ As outlined in the Washington Quarterly, and discussed elsewhere, this concept was ‘a method of strategic thinking’ which aims to direct Soviet resources towards defensive military forces, and to channel US-Soviet competition into areas favourable to the West.
But it is important to note that NATO was openly persuing a ‘twin track’ policy seeking an arms reduction agreement while deploying its own missiles in Europe. Hoffmann’s biography also states that he was Chairman of the Christian-Democratic (CDU) Committee for Foreign, Defense, European and Inner German Affairs and active in promoting the German re-unification and a strong NATO, adding that:
In 1984 Dr. Hoffmann organized the exchange program for young reserve officers from the U.S.A. and Germany with the support of than Parl. State Secretary of Defense Peter Kurt Wuerzbach. He was a German member of the Executive Committee of the NATO Reserve Officers Association CIOR. He supported the Mudjahedin from 1985-1990 against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, visiting them in the mountains in 1985 and writing the Afghanistan report for the European Parliament. In 2002 at Friedrichruh Palace near Hamburg, Fürst Ferdinand von Bismark bestowed upon Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann the “Bismark Medal in Silver with Golden Oak Leaves” for his “patriotic faithfulness and proven Prussian national consciousness”.
Exchange programs have been a key component of public diplomacy initiatives. The CIOR is derived from the full name in French “Confédération Interalliée des Officiers de Réserve,” and according to the NATO Handbook the CIOR was founded in 1948:
The members of these Associations are active as civilians in business, industrial, academic, political and other fields of professional life, in addition to their role as Reserve Officers. They are therefore in a position to contribute to a better understanding of security and defence issues in the population as a whole, as well as bringing civilian expertise and experience to the tasks and challenges facing reserve forces in NATO.
The CIOR’s principal objectives include the strengthening of the deterrent and defense capabilities of NATO and its signatory countries.
In 2004 he published a book about his mentor for 25 years ” Fritz Kraemer On Excellence. Missionary, Mentor and Pentagon Strategist ” (With Contributions from Alexander M. Haig Jr., Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Kraemer Bryant; Sven Kraemer, Wilhelm-Karl von Preussen, Edward L. Rowny and Donald Rumsfeld).
Fritz Kraemer was Henry Kissinger’s mentor, interesting him in political philosophy and history and he had according to most of the obituaries:
a 27-year-long career as a Pentagon adviser on geopolitics and strategy; he counselled a succession of US army chiefs of staff and defence secretaries, and served on the White House national security staff under 10 presidents. As recently as last year, he was photographed, still with his trademark, silver-topped stick, jokingly saying “No provocative weakness, please!” to Donald Rumsfeld.
A phrase popular with Hoffmann, this obituary also states that Kraemer’s:
proteges included General Alexander Haig, General Creighton Abrams, Lieutenant General Vernon Walters, the polyglot intelligence expert, and Major General Edward Lansdale, reputedly the model for Graham Greene’s Quiet American.
Edward Lansdale was a key theoretician of the murder and mayhem called ‘counterinsurgency’ and Vernon Walters had a habit of turning up where similarly lethal coups took place. Kraemer is also stated to have been outraged by his former protégé Kissinger’s policy of Détente towards the then Soviet Union. Following in his right-wing footsteps, as mentioned above Hoffman is also an international patron of the The Henry Jackson Society along with Bruce P. Jackson, Carl Gershman, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Clifford May, Richard Perle, R. James Woolsey and so on.
Kraemer’s son Sven is now a Pentagon official and part of the National Security Advisory Council and a Policy Advisor to Douglas Jay Feith,having previously been Director of Arms Control, National Security Council Staff, 1981-1987 advocating the need for a ‘Team B’ in the mid-90s and also a member of the Committee on the Present Danger which has its own affiliations to the arms industry. Fritz Kraemer was the adviser (Plans Officer) to the Army Chief of Staff, although somewhat murky, his early army experience was in the Counterintelligence Corps, at the (now NATO) School at Oberammergau linked to the British Wilton Park “reeducation” project where the British recruited agents who were put into position in postwar Germany (Ralf Dahrendorf or Helmut Schmidt, the former German Chancellor for example). There is a connection here to ‘Operation Paperclip’ and the Reinhard Gehlen network (exploiting German technology and anti-Soviet intelligence) and the origins of the Federal Republic of Germany’s secret service under the government of Konrad Adenauer. Gehlen’s biography (p. 165) states he initiated this contact in 1950 and that (p. 31) the Counterintelligence Corps “knew nothing of the over-all plans that were being laid at the Pentagon in connection with myself.” A key work on this is Christopher Simpson’s: ‘BLOWBACK’, subtitled “The First Full Account of America’s Recruitment of Nazis, and its disastrous Effect on our domestic foreign policy.”
A (1975) Washington Post profile is one of the few (much recycled) sources on Kraemer, this states that in 1948 he went to work with the National Resources Board — a predecessor to the National Security Council, where:
Kraemer has exhorted the officers of the U.S. government, and the military officers who serve it, to standards which are increasingly rare in, and, indeed, are often mocked in, contemporary society. The standards, simply put, are intensely moral: a code of honor, duty and patriotism quite similar to that which Prussian officers lived by. Moreover, Kraemer is a strong Christian in the metaphysical sense that he believes there is a moral order in the universe and that benevolent and satanic forces are at work.
This also states that Kraemer worked in the Counter Intelligence Corps School at Oberammergau, where Nazi agents were given espionage training, and that there, he and Kissinger “worked at first on the de-Nazification program, and then on the chore of identifying and analyzing Soviet and Communist influence in Western Europe, especially in labor unions.” Other sources have Kissinger “in charge of administering a small German town” but at Oberammergau simply “teaching modern German history to officers ranking as high as lieutenant colonel.” Both of which are possible in the confusion of 1945, but the same source states that by 1954 Kissinger:
was serving as a consultant to a number of Government agencies, teaching at Harvard and running a group called the Harvard International Seminar, which sponsored student exchange programs. It was partially subsidized by CIA funds secretly channeled through foundations. Kissinger now says that he was unaware of the subsidy until the story of CIA funding came out two years ago.
From there he became a consultant to the director of the NSC’s Psychological Strategy Board.
The CIC and Henry K.
The Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) are a relatively unknown branch of the US secret intelligence services that pre-date the CIA, and tend not to feature in a great deal of (otherwise commendable) studies of the history of covert intelligence: John Ranelagh’s The Agency or Richard Harris Smith’s OSS for example, although mention can be found in John Loftus’ The Belarus Secret in relation to operations in post-war Europe connected to “rat-lines” : a method of helping ‘defectors’ relocate with false identities provided by the CIC, and in Stephen Dorril’s MI6 (under US CIC in the index). The history of the organisation is fairly well-known though and provided in Counter Intelligence Corps History and Mission in World War II . According to this and other sources it had its roots in the Corps of Intelligence Police founded by Ralph Van Deman in 1917 with assistance from MI6’s Claude Dansey (who ran his own parallel organisation of agents). In the inter-war years, in 1921, it developed into a secret police force within the army to root out or observe subversives “those individuals who might be suspected of operating against the Military establishment,” as the history puts it, and in addition to this it was also directed “to report on radical activities in political and industrial fields” even although its numbers had dwindled to very few agents. According to the history CIC would have been a great place for a spy:
During the years 1942-1943, agents of the Counter-Intelligence Corps made thousands of loyalty investigations on military personnel and civilians assigned to duties requiring access to classified material.
This extended to interviewing cryptographers, signal corps personnel, Military Intelligence personnel (civilian and military) and Counter Intelligence personnel —”Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Of course the reply to that is that “they will guard themselves against themselves”. Dorril’s MI6 (p. 105) quotes from a British Commando (a veteran of the St. Naqzaire raid), Anthony Terry who had first-hand knowledge of the CIC as being somewhat disparaging “haphazard,” insecure, “forever posturing” and mostly “raw recruits who had little aptitude for the job.” Not having the time or experience to build its own networks the CIC (and the CIA’s Office of Special Operations) seems to have become dependent on the Gehlen network—much to the chagrin of Kim Philby. Page 23 of the CIC history states that it had liaison with most of the US’ intelligence organisations: the Psychological Warfare Board, Office of Navel Intelligence, the Allied Military Government, Prisoner of War Interrogation Teams and the OSS (and others), the CIC also participated in bringing back (to the OSS camp in the UK) the pick of captured Germans of “real counterintelligence interest” to learn how the Germans did things.
According to Seymour Hersh, Henry Kissinger stayed on in Germany after the war and was assigned to the 970th CIC Detachment, whose functions included support for the recruitment of ex-Nazi intelligence officers for anti-Soviet operations inside the Soviet bloc. From there he became a Captain in the Military Intelligence Reserve 1946-1949 and then part of the Operations Research Office which developed his life-long interest in clandestine operations against foreign governments — later becoming a Trustee of the Center Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
There is no information offered in the Washington Post profile of how Kraemer attained such an exalted position as the Éminence grise at the Pentagon for forty years —a Telegraph obituary states “for much of the Cold War he wielded an influence out of all proportion to the formal position that he held” and that:
Kraemer’s role was to teach the American politico-military elite how to think geo-strategically and historically. Most senior officers believed that the way of winning wars was through superior firepower, underpinned by prodigious levels of industrial production. By contrast, Kraemer sought to remind them of the unquantifiable, even irrational, factors that governed the outcomes of conflict – such as culture, ideology and psychology.
The management theorist and consultant to some of the largest corporations in the US, Peter Ferdinand Drucker, and provides some information on Kraemer’s rise in his autobiography Adventures of a Bystander (p. 148) that he helped Kraemer obtain a US visa and arranged for him to teach Government at the American University in Washington in 1939. This states that Kraemer became “either a colonel or a brigadier general on Patton’s staff and assistant commander of the division that seized the Remagen bridge and first crossed the Rhine.” There is no mention of his time in Counter Intelligence, but it does state that he resigned his commission and became the political adviser on Europe for the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army with the title of ‘senior political analyst’ adding vaguely “or something like that.” His office in the Pentagon was small (as many obituaries note) and Drucker adds the detail that it was
in the suite occupied by the Chief of Staff, with a private connecting door to the Chief’s own room. In the two hours I spent there in the Kennedy years, the Chief of Staff put his head into Kraemer’s cubicle at least six to eight times to say: Dr. Kraemer, if you could spare me a moment?” and Fritz was finally called away to a hush-hush meeting with the Joint Chiefs.
Kraemer is said (by Hoffmann) to have first met him in 1979 and seems to have mentored him in some way which resembles recruitment.
Atlanticist ties abound. Hoffmann’s Foundations biography also tells us he was a member of YPO (Rhine Chapter) this would appear to be part of Jim Warner’s customized “Whole Life Audit” retreats: the ‘Young Presidents’ Organization forums’ [sic], who recommend Some odd speakers.
Founded by Ray Hickok in 1950 it is a millionaire’s club whereby an elite is put in touch with the global elite it has ties to the The Aspen Institute.
Hoffmann is also a member of the International institute for Strategic Studies in London, and says he was a Konrad Adenauer Foundation scholar and a Young Atlantic Leader (1992) with Atlantik-Brücke.
In 1959, the American Council on Germany (ACG), in collaboration with the Atlantik-Brücke, initiated the American-German Biennial Conferences, where high-level German and American opinion shapers and policymakers from academia, business, government, media, and the military meet to discuss the major bilateral and international issues of the day and how to make money out of them. Among the ACG founders were General Lucius Clay, Christopher Emmet, Ellen Z. McCloy, and Eric M. Warburg. John J. McCloy, the first civilian U.S. High Commissioner in Germany following the war, was the founding Chairman and continued to serve until 1987.
The ACG website also states that the conferences were conceived and initiated by John Diebold, “a venture capitalist who also served as Vice Chairman of the American Council on Germany”, in collaboration with Christopher Emmet, who became its full-time Director. Diebold also started the The Diebold Institute for Public Policy Studies, Inc., which was the advance guard for neo-liberalism:
In undertaking its early work on privatization, the Institute proceeded, as always, on the assumption that a small think tank such as the Diebold Institute, must focus on reaching leadership groups rather than a general audience. The Ford Foundation, with the direct and personal intervention and encouragement of its President McGeorge Bundy, provided substantial initial outside financing of the Institute’s work on privatization during the early seventies.[…] Somewhat later the British Institute of Directors also requested presentation of a paper at their annual Albert Hall meeting which occurred on the eve of Mrs. Thatcher’s election to the premiership. The reaction of this audience was overwhelmingly positive. Years later, in a speech, Lord King credited Diebold with having introduced the term “privatization” to Great Britain.
Its commission taps into something of an Atlanticist elite. John Diebold is said to have offered Henry F. Sherwood the directorship of the Diebold Research Program-Europe, and while there Sherwood became an undercover agent for the CIA (according to Zack Carden’s (2005) The Secret Files of Henry F. Sherwood: …a comprehensive biography of a pioneer computer genius, and CIA spy). Diebold (an innovator in the field of computing) was also a member of the International institute for Strategic Studies and the Hudson Institute.
Revelations about Helmut Kohl’s dirty money overwhelmed those of “a vast Cold War slush fund set up to tilt the political balance in the West’s favour in target countries at crucial moments in history.” The ‘secret network’ came to (not very much) light because its methods and key personalities were identical to those being investigated in Germany’s biggest scandal since the war. It was Adenauer who established the channels according to Imre Karacs’ (2000) ”Operation Octopus: The slush fund for capitalism”, The Independent, Feb 12 .
This somewhat overlooked article on the affair also told us that the system was revamped in 1974 after the US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, warned that newly democratic Spain and Portugal were facing the Communist peril. Germany’s democratic forces were asked to help.
The four parties in the Bundestag of the day agreed to set up “Operation Octopus”. Their leaders, Willy Brandt, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Franz Josef Strauss and Helmut Kohl, were sworn to secrecy. The CIA also sent money via Central America, using the conduits that came to light during the Iran-Contra affair others funded Poland’s Solidarity trade union.
According to the Karacs report Walther Kiep managed the Octopus cash:
Now he heads the think tank Atlantik-Brucke (Atlantic Bridge) set up in 1952 to foster German-American friendship. Its membership list reads like a Who’s Who in the arms business and contemporary funding scandals.[…] A former German defence minister, Volker Ruhe, and Nato general- secretary, Manfred Worner, who was forced to resign amid allegations of kickbacks from arms manufacturers, both attended a famously expensive 1994 dinner in Bonn hosted by Atlantik-Brucke.
Worner was caught up in several scandals, but Dieter Farwick, Global Editor-in-Chief World Security Network Foundation, states he was “a close aid [sic] to former German Defense Minister Manfred Woerner.”
Kiep is Chairman of the German Advisory Committee for the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Trilateral Commission.
World Security Network Foundation: “Master plans?”
The (New York-based) World Security Network Foundation has been described as “the largest global elite network for foreign and security policy with the purpose of “Networking a Safer World.” The same source states that:
WSN has two goals: Networking of the young elite via the Internet and promoting international discussion of fresh solutions and proposals. Young authors can publish their own analyses worldwide, and a network of 59 mostly young editors with 27 nationalities report from all over the world. The International Advisory Board consists of 53 well-known experts from 15 countries, including 14 generals and admirals. More than 303,000 members of the international information elite receive the weekly electronic newsletter; 158 media partners (including CNN, UPI and Newsweek) and 85 institutes (including RAND and IISS,) cooperate with WSN and make use of the analyses.
The numbers change depending on which part of the site you examine— 10 generals or 14 and so on. The website tells us what WSN is not:
# not American, Asian or European: we are the largest global-elite action network for foreign and defense affairs—focussing on the young, new elite of the world
# not left or right, not U.S. Republican or U.S. Democrat or an adherent to any other party-line: it is an independent, international and pluralistic non-profit organization.
# not a peace movement or an organization of warmongers: it promotes a realistic and credible balance of Realpolitik and Idealpolitik, of power and diplomacy, of necessary military actions and reconciliation—a Double Strategy of solid and realistic peacemaking
# not academic: it is solution-oriented, looking for concrete proposals for all conflicts
# not bureaucratic: we are creative and action-oriented, like businessmen
# not fanatical: we are engaged global citizens with the vision of networking a safer and better world for our children
Clearly many of those ‘involved’ are very right-wing indeed. What is a balance between “Realpolitik and Idealpolitik” — covertly murdering someone and presenting a cover story would perhaps fit in with its parameters. But questions arise as to why all these denials are in evidence: who said you were warmongers? Could the reverse be true for some of these descriptions? We are provided with the organisations ‘goals’:
* Networking the young global elite in foreign and defense affairs
* Providing fresh analysis, ideas, and visions for the world’s most pressing problems
* Promoting designs for a safer world in politics, media and academia
This is coupled with the disclaimer that:
We do not want to leave the important area of foreign and defense affairs to a few extremists, the mediocre majority of politicians and bureaucrats, and primarily backwards-looking analysts without an action orientation. WSN promotes timely actions to implement double peace strategies: power on one side, diplomacy and reconciliation on the other. The World Security Network’s broad action approach considers all three levels required to resolve a conflict: visions, structures, and actions. These must include innovative master plans, sufficient funding, and rapid implementation.
The accent on the young (not to mention blonde) is also something of a fixation, but there is a somewhat ramshackle feel to the website such as with this profile of Dieter Farwick, Global Editor-in-Chief and former Director of Germany’s “Federal Armed Forces Intelligence Office”:
During this career he experienced the “Cold war” with the construction of the “Berlin wall”, the Cuban crisis, the Warsaw Pact invasion in then Tschechoslowakia and many more critical events […] He was student of the renowned Royal College of Defence Studies, London. As Director of Federal Armed Forces Intelligence Office he got insight into the world of Secret Services. During his military career he became author of five books and of numerous publications about security policy and military strategy. In addition, he had several entrances in electronic media. He is member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London.
Perhaps something is simply lost in translation—the ‘executives’ are mostly youngish career-hungry (and certainly fanatical in the case of Ryan Mauro the “Editor U.S.A.” who was involved in The Intelligence Summit).
Taken together, and at their word, the majority of the ‘executives’ have (at times slight with others strong) connections to the following organisations: the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Royal College of Defence Studies, the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Hanns Seidel Foundation, Kissinger McLarty Associates, The Company Agency, The Institute of World Politics, Human Rights Watch, NATO, DFI International Security Consultants, Center for International Security and Cooperation, the Düsseldorf Institute for Foreign and Security Policy, the German Marshall Fund of the US, the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, the U.S. State Department, the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, the United States Army, Cicero Foundation, Atlantic Council, International Center for Human Development, the International Republican Institute, the Center of International Politics and Transatlantic Relations, Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research, UN Office of the Humanitarian Coordination for Iraq, Research Institute for European and American Studies, the Institute for International Policy, the German Israeli Association of Political Scientists.
The cast here includes the “fetching German biscuit heiress” Bettina Bahlsen
Who has an ‘in’ to the UK polo circuit and high society should anyone in intelligence want to de-brief her.
WSN boasts of 53 Advisory Board members from 15 nations containing 14 former generals, since 2003 and it is somewhat spook-laden.http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/corp/dsp_iab3.cfm
Tales of Hoffmann — vanity Psy-Ops?
The website of World Security Network Foundation conveys the impression that it is Hoffman’s plaything: it is replete with images of him standing next to political ‘celebrities’ such as Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz in what comes across as vanity press or vanity psy-ops. The section on ‘media partners’ presents the logos of just about every media outlet one could find on a trawl of the net. Of the few of these which actually link include a CNBC interview with Hoffmann on Georgia and NATO expansion, that is little more than an advert for WSN, A link to a Financial Times story is a puff for Walter Laqueur’s latest ramblings “in a recent interview with the World Security Network,” or with one on Bosnia actually just link back to the WSN page. Some such as the ‘Arkansas Democrat-Gazette’ go simply to the outlet’s webpage making no mention of either Hoffmannm, WSN; other such as Форум (Forum) have links to Heritage-Foundation funded think tanks and George Friedman’s ‘intelligence consulting firm’ Stratfor, which in some ways WSN tries to replicate, and NATO’s Public Diplomacy Division. Other ‘media partners’ here seem little more than glorified bumper stickers, such as gasticker.com; some are oddities such as http://www.america-russia.net involving such figures as ‘political technologist’ (presumably so-called because they switch political orientation as often as a micro=processor) Gleb Pavlovsky; or ‘online intelligence report’Insight run by Herbert I. London, president of the Hudson Institute, John O’Sullivan the founder and co-chairman of the New Atlantic Initiative,
Only 65 years after its worst diplomatic mistake that cost more than 50 million people their lives – the appeasement of Adolf Hitler at the Munich Conference – Europe is about to make the same mistake again, now in response to the terrorist threat of our time.
This also adds:
In a 42-page document obtained by the Research Institute of the Norwegian Ministry of Defense in December 2003, Al Qaida wrote that Spain is the weakest ally of the US in Iraq. The document noted that terror in Spain would lead to withdrawal of her troops and that an attack would be most effective before election day. After only two to three attacks, “Spain would give up its engagement in Iraq,” Al Qaida wrote. Congratulations Osama bin Laden! You got what you wanted from the new Spanish Prime Minister! Perfect targets and perfect timing too! It is worth bombing innocent people in Europe, it moves their weak democratic leaders to give-in and appease Al Qaida!
It then does Bin laden’s job for him by quoting from the (seemingly entirely trustworthy source) that “the paper analyzed that “more countries will follow.”” This leads him to the conclusion that:
Therefore, Mr. Zapatero is personally responsible when other allies of the US in Iraq get under attack. By “provocative weakness,” he is provoking those attacks like Chamberlain did with Adolf Hitler in Munich in 1938.
Also described as “another “Munich of Our Time” act” was:
The EU statement on Monday calling the killing of Sheikh Yassian “extra-judicial” and criticizing Israel for the elimination of the spiritual leader and founder of the terrorist group Hamas…
The article is accompanied by a photograph of Hoffman with Donald Rumsfeld and Inspector General Joe Schmitz in the Pentagon. Not everyone is as chirpy about Rumsfeld: Roger Morris, former staff member on the National Security council, learned how the system works while on the inside.
Rather a lot of his writings are (not entirely unfunny in a macabre sense) exercises in retrospective thinking: for instance one states “Could 9/11 have been avoided? The answer is a clear and sound: YES! How?” the answer is given as:
…in 1998, the appropriate and necessary U.S. action should have been to wipe out bin Laden’s infrastructure by permanent and massive covert and military actions starting in 1998 to 2001.
He also asks “Who is to blame for this?” and answers “CIA Director George Tenet is one of them.” What do you mean ‘one of them?” What you’ve let the others get away? Sounds like provocative weakness…
The WSN site includes WSN-TV where you can watch its experts and the great man himself.
Other highlights include “Inside Jordan: Hubertus Hoffmann meets the Islamic Rose and a Prince of Wisdom and Tolerance.”