The Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies
“Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State”
James Jesus Angleton
The little known Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies (IEDSS) was set up in London in 1979 ostensibly to study political change in Europe and to assess its impact on strategic and defence issues. It was also particularly concerned with those developments which affected the Western Alliance. It was founded by Peter Blaker MP (now Lord Blaker), Ray Whitney MP and Stephen Haseler, although some sources say it was founded by Gerald Frost. The IEDSS’s antecedents in Brian Crozier’s Institute for the Study of Conflict have also been noted, and inform Tom Easton’s assertion that the IEDSS had a marked anti-left tendency:
“Haseler was not only a member of the SDP, but a founding member of the Social Democratic Alliance which preceded it. An academic who, as a London councillor, had become a vociferous critic of changes within the Labour Party in the Seventies, Haseler had spent some time at the third big Washington think-tank, the Heritage Foundation. With its money he had helped set up in London the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies, a forceful and well-resourced foe of both the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Labour Party in the Eighties.” (1)
An Inter-Nation report cited below stated that the Heritage Foundation money came later, but the Foundation’s influence in funding a network of right-wing think tanks in the UK is also touched on below and in the individual profiles of the IEDSS’ members and directors. IEDSS was the subject of a profile in City Limits (14 August 1986). Commenting on this Robin Ramsay made some observations on the others who became involved:
“Formed in 1979, apparently as part of the response to the British peace movement… [Edwin] Feulner is Heritage Foundation, Haseler is rumoured to be straight CIA these days, and [Richard V.] Allen was NSC advisor to Reagan until he got caught (or set up) taking a bribe. IEDSS appears to be run by Gerald Frost whose perambulations around the British Right go back to the early 1970s when he was in the Thatcher/Joseph Centre for Policy Studies. Groups like the Institute for the Study of Terrorism and IEDSS are current examples of the endless, self-reproducing groups on the Right: the same small group of people, many of them probably intelligence agents of one kind or another, play musical chairs.” (2)
The Guardian published Richard Norton Taylor’s (1987) Think tank ‘funding UK organizations‘, which briefly set out the results of the Inter-Nation report discussed below. The Heritage Foundation had channelled $1m to West Europe since the early 1980s, most of it to British organizations, including the IEDSS, the Coalition for Peace through Security, and the International Freedom Fund Establishment. The report linked the fact that Sir Peter Blaker “was active in the government’s campaign against the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament when he was a minister in 1983” and that Ray Whitney was formerly head of the secret propaganda and anti-communist organisation the Information Research Department. It then notes that The Coalition for Peace Through Security had also been active against CND and that other money was going to Brian Crozier, former head of the Institute for the Study of Conflict, but failed to notice his many covert (and ambiguous) connections. Gerald Frost, executive director, is mentioned along with the IEDSS review, Survey. A few months earlier, the Times (1987) Tories set up team to promote defence, noted that the Conservative Party had openly drawn up an “unpredented [sic] team of defence experts to attack opposition policies and promote its own in the run-up to the general election.” This comprised of Peter Blaker; Ray Whitney; Sir Antony Buck, chairman of its defence committee; Barney Hayhoe; Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith and Cranley Onslow, chairman of the backbench 1922 committee —all former ministers.
Central Office, the party’s headquarters, has combed the backbenches for more than 30 former ministers, committee chairmen and others with long experience in defence and foreign affairs to unite under the the Conservative Campaign for Defence and Multilateral Disarmament (CDMD), established in 1981.
What we do not seem to have is an extensive history and examination of the IEDSS which contextualises it (particularly in terms of US public diplomacy in Europe) and follows its activities, and those of its members, into today’s networks of influence. The aim here is to examine the composition and nature of the IEDSS’ and its influence and influences, including the Heritage Foundation’s funding and the orientation of the IEDSS in the context of European public diplomacy and its relation to the left in the UK particularly in relation to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the conflation of the left in general with the threat from then then Soviet Union. Empirically, given the limited amount of information available on the organisation, it is necessary to trace its development from its foundation in the early 1980s into the 1990s through an examination of its Advisory Council, Board of Management and Staff and the organisations they represent. How these groups influenced the IEDSS’ orientation and its projects and publications can also be described in relation to other Atlanticist networks, principally those connected to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (with its own relation to the CIA and US Embassy staff) and the drives behind President Reagan’s ‘Project Democracy’ with a view to establishing how the elaboration of public diplomacy — and the social forms these take — formed networks which have persisted, latterly with manifestations such as The British American Project for a Successor Generation.
IEDSS, is also in line with the activities of its forerunner committees and organisations, particularly Brian Crozier’s Institute for the Study of Conflict, which itself has connections to the Information Research Department and the Congress for Cultural Freedom and lesser-known organisations. Other members of IEDSS have involvements with the US right-wing Philadelphia Society and the Mont Pelerin Society which acted as informal influence networks which would direct and guide political action groups into what, borrowing a term from the Institute for Economic Affairs’ Ralph Harris, we could term the ‘Phantom Academy,’ which aimed to drive the political, social and economic agenda of both the US and UK towards the right through the use of think tanks and expert group.
The Nation and The Heritage Foundation
This early skepticism of the IEDSS’s stated aims was confirmed by a 1987 investigation by the Nation that stated that:
“Since 1982 the Heritage Foundation, the most influential conservative think tank in the United States, has channeled as much as $1 million to right-wing organizations in Britain and other Western European countries, with the aim of influencing domestic political affairs.” (3)
The article states that the British groups financed by Heritage were closely linked to senior figures in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party. In the case of the IEDSS the Heritage Foundation provided start-up capital and the overwhelming bulk of continued financial support, it argues that the result is “a virtual Heritage satellite”. It reports that Jeffrey Gayner, Heritage’s counsel for international relations, their “ambassador to the world,” says Heritage has led the effort to shape a “common international agenda” for the right, developing “a cooperative relationship” with more than “200 foreign groups and individuals, including political parties, think tanks, academics and media. Programs include information exchanges and visits, Heritage’s periodic appointment of non-Americans to specific assignments and fellowships.” This can be regarded as an active component of US public diplomacy, propaganda and covert political influence which developed in response to the priorities of the Reagan administration in the 1980s and it can be examined in terms of the implications of this in relation to interference in UK politics in terms of both subvention and subversion.
The IEDSS’s relation to these wider efforts to shape and influence opinion — which we will go into in more detail below — are indicated by the involvement of Edwin Feulner Jr., chair of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy and responsible for evaluating programs of the U.S. Information Agency, including Voice of America, Radio Marti (aimed at Cuba), Fulbright scholarships and the National Endowment for Democracy. Feulner had previously attended the London School of Economics and the University of Edinburgh and was familiar with the British scene. As was John O’Sullivan, editor of the Heritage Foundation’s journal, Policy Review (from 1979 to 1983) and a policy adviser to Thatcher. He wrote key sections of the 1987 Conservative Party’s election manifesto, The Next Moves Forward. The Nation article states that Heritage funding of British projects was evident as early as 1979, and became more systematic in 1982, when U.S. and British conservatives were alarmed by the growing influence of the peace movement:
“That May, Heritage disseminated a so-called backgrounder titled “Moscow and the Peace Offensive,” in which it called on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and “its affiliated public support organizations” to spread “information concerning the links . . . between known Communist front groups and the “independent’ peace groups.” The campaign to prevent the deployment of cruise missiles on British soil was accompanied by a steady acceleration of Heritage funding. According to the I.R.S.’s schedules, the foundation’s donations to a range of British institutions rose from $106,000 in 1982 to $254,000 in 1985. Although 1986 figures are not yet available, total Heritage contributions over a five-year period appear to be in the neighborhood of $1 million. During the three years for which records could be obtained, Britain was the target of more than 95 percent of Heritage’s international funding operations.” (4)
The main recipients identified for 1982-1985 are the IEDSS, which received a total of $427,809, more than any other group, U.S. or foreign; the International Freedom Fund Establishment (I.F.F.E.), which took in $140,000 (and was the semi-private fund run by Brian Crozier); the Coalition for Peace through Security (CPS), which accepted a $10,000 grant in 1982 and, according to the BBC’s un-transmitted Secret Society series (5) (which obtained a letter from the CPS thanking Heritage) a further grant of $50,000 in October 1982. Three other British groups were given token amounts: the Social Affairs Unit (which still features John O’Sullivan), the International Symposium of the Open Society and an organization listed simply as Aneks.
As Ramsay noted above, before moving to the IEDSS, Gerald Frost was secretary of the Centre for Policy Studies, which was founded in 1974 by, among others, Margaret Thatcher, who served as its first president. Founded in 1979, the year Thatcher came to power, the IEDSS stated its goals thus:
“To assess the impact of political change in Europe and North America on defense and strategic issues. In particular, to study the domestic political situation in NATO countries and how this affects the NATO posture.” (6)
In an interview in the Nation, Gayner denied that there was any formal connection between Heritage and the IEDSS, although the IEDSS was, in fact, set up with Foundation funds and Heritage’s president Feulner chairs the Institute’s board; Richard V. Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, a Heritage distinguished fellow and head of the foundation’s Asian Studies Center advisory council, is also a board member; Frank Shakespeare, chair of the foundation’s board of trustees and the Reagan Administration’s Ambassador to the Vatican, was a founding member of the IEDSS’s advisory council. (7)
Frost also credits Stephen Haseler with the idea for the Institute. One of the earliest prominent defectors to Britain’s Social Democratic Party, which broke away from the Labour Party in 1981, Haseler was also a Heritage scholar and a member of the editorial board of Policy Review. According to Frost, Sir Peter Blaker, a senior Tory: “saw the implications of an upsurge in peace movement activity, which was a movement of concern to him.” In 1983 Blaker headed DS 19, a secret ministerial group on Nuclear Weapons and Public Opinion, which generated films and literature against Britain’s CND along with Ray Whitney, who served on the Institute’s board from 1979 to 1984 (and was also a junior minister in the Thatcher government and preceded Blaker as chair of the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Committee) in Parliament. Whitney headed the Information Research Department, which conducted covert propaganda activities, including some directed against the British left. The Nation article states that Whitney:
“… appears to have taken a more direct role than Blaker in the smear campaign against the peace movement. In April 1983, as preparations began for a general election, Tory Defense Minister Michael Heseltine released a letter purporting to prove communist domination of the C.N.D. and of the Labour Party. One of Heseltine’s chief sources was Whitney. “Our colleague Ray Whitney,” he commented at the time, “has added a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the political motivations of C.N.D.” IEDSS publications also regularly attacked the CND. Its first monograph, Protest and Perish, an assault on E.P. Thompson’s Protest and Survive, accused Thompson of “furthering the arms race by destabilizing NATO and the bloc system.” (8)
Other propaganda also made possible by grants from the Heritage Foundation included: Great Britain and NATO: A Parting of the Ways? also published in 1982, which argued that Britain could face civil war if a Labour government took office, and warned that NATO could not entrust secrets to a governing party under the sway of a “pro-Soviet faction,” meaning the Labour Party. Other publications attacked the presence of the churches in the peace movement and the teaching of peace studies in British universities. Co-author of the last of those was Caroline Cox, another former director of the Centre for Policy Studies. Links between the CPS and the IEDSS are close. Sir Peter Blaker is involved with both groups, and the two co-operated in the publication and distribution of ‘Protest and Perish’. Gerald Frost and George Urban were involved in running the organisation.
The Coalition for Peace through Security was also created via Heritage funding, with the declared intention of making: “one-sided disarmament a millstone around the neck of any politician advocating such a course of action for Britain.” The networks surrounding The Coalition for Peace through Security are discussed below. The Nation article also states that The International Freedom Fund Establishment, which is not registered in Britain either as a company or a charity sent at least $140,000 to Brian Crozier, the former head of the Institute for the Study of Conflict:
“In 1981 an aide to Scaife reported that the institute had set up solid working relationships with the Heritage Foundation and that its “research into political and psychological warfare, revolutionary activities, insurgency operations and terrorism is consistently used by the Thatcher government.” More recently Crozier has taken up the cause of the Nicaraguan contras. Last December he shared a platform in London with contra leader Arturo Cruz and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Charles M. Lichenstein, who is also a Heritage senior fellow. There are no public records of the ultimate recipients of the money Heritage sent to Crozier.” (9)
The IEDSS operated out of 13/14 Golden Square while 12a was used by Brian Crozier’s Institute for the Study of Conflict. Round the corner from Poland Street London, W1P 3FP which housed (what would now be called a ‘hub’) a group of left-wing organisations.(10)
Apart from the Heritage Foundation funders included the right wing US foundations The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. (27)
The institute was denounced as a propaganda body by the Soviet Moscow Home service in 1987:
It is not only the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence that are engaged in fostering an aggressive image of the Soviet Union in the minds of the British people. Academic bodies have also taken up this unseemly task on the orders of the British Conservative Government. Amongst them is the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies. (28)
No doubt this is just the kind of criticism that the Institute wanted. What is more interesting is that it should be reported as an ‘academic’ body. In fact it was chock full of cold warriors with intelligence connections.
Crozier’s ISC had a funding and working relationship with the Heritage Foundation, the National Strategy Information Center, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (connected to the Fletcher School at Tufts University). Crozier also had an association with Thatcher speech writer Robert Moss, also connected to the Heritage Foundation. Moss was the author of The Collapse of Democracy, which warned of such subversives as Robert Killroy-Silk.
The thread in the labyrinth of think tanks is how they are bought and paid for, notably Richard Mellon Scaife, heir to the Mellon fortune in Gulf Oil. Craig McGrath in the (2001) Far Right Seed Money Bears Fruit, notes
The Scaife penchant for covert action may stem from Richard Mellon Scaife’s own connection in years past to the Central Intelligence Agency. According to an investigative story published in May 1999 in the Washington Post, Scaife, in 1968 became the head of the parent company of Forum World Features, a news service out of London that received large amounts of money and editorial direction from the CIA. The head of the Forum, Brian Crozier, a far right British journalist, said that the CIA introduced him to Scaife. The final frosting may be that according to the Post, Scaife’s father, Alan Scaife, was a major in the World War II-era Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor of the CIA. Alan Scaife was a sidekick as well of Richard Helms, who would later become the director of the CIA in the 1960’s.
Forum World Features also had ties with the Congress for Cultural Freedom, of which Crozier was an early employee.
The Coalition For Peace Through Security (CPTS) was formed in the autumn of 1981, its main activists being Julian Lewis, its ‘Research Director’, a Conservative who spent a brief time in the Labour Party defending the IEDSS’s Reg Prentice in his dispute with the Newham Northeast Constituency; Edward Leigh MP, who was principal correspondence secretary for Mrs Thatcher when she was leader of the opposition; and Francis Holihan, an American roller-skate businessman. The CPTS had close relations with the Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC), (which had a Defence Study Group with a secret and high-powered membership, and a group studying the direction and control of British foreign policy) and with the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Centre for Policy Studies. The CPS’s maint link to government was via the Campaign For Defence and Multilateral Disarmament (CDMD) which was run and funded by Tory Central Office, and helped distribute CPS literature. (11)
According to Steven Dorril (emphasis added):
“In reality both committees are fronts with little or no membership. They are both conveniently ‘private’, which allows the Conservative Government to keep at arms length the ‘dirty tricks’ of the CPS and the smear tactics of MP Winston Churchill in CDMD. CDMD is actually a tightly organised group of the Conservative Party hierarchy. It includes Winston Churchill, who chaired the co-ordinating (anti-CND groups) Committee For Peace With Freedom (CPF); John Selwyn Gummer, Party Chairman, and the man responsible for the anti-unilateralist campaign in the Churches, Peter Blaker, Minister of State for Defence; Ray Whitney, MOD spokesman and formerly of the Cold War propaganda unit IRD (and also of the Institute for European and Strategic Studies (IESS) [sic] and the Council for Arms Control; Michael Heseltine Secretary of State for Defence and Head of the Defence Secretariat 19, and, finally, Cecil Parkinson, ex Party Chairman and member of CPS. Shortly after the March 1982 meeting the CPS obtained the list of Conservative Party agents from Cecil Parkinson and access to the new ICL computer at Central Office, which provided the mail-out facilities that they required. Churchill was appointed by the Prime Minister as co-ordinator of the Government’s campaign against CND (Guardian 14th Feb,1983), the loose grouping CPF meeting at his London flat. The CPS joined the CPF and attended the monthly meetings. Its members specifically discussed anti-CND tactics with Churchill and Blaker. It was Blaker who arranged the informal meetings — sometimes with the Prime Minister, sometimes with civil servants, sometimes with Tory politicians — to prepare and co-ordinate policy against the anti-nuclear movement.” (12)
When the Nation story came to light (it was also published in the New Statesman) Labour MP Bryan Gould, said: ‘We have always known of the links between the US right and the conservative lunatic fringe in groups like the Federation of Conservative Students. But the involvement of ministers of the Crown — Sir Peter Blaker and Ray Whitney— in spending rightwing American money to discredit the British left is astonishing.” (13)
Arguably its propaganda role was discernable and indicated by the line-up of the organisation and what it produced such as William McGurn, whose 1987 IEDSS pamphlet “Terrorist or Freedom Fighter,” asserted it was “inconstestable that groups such as the Provisional IRA and the PLO are terrorist”, but the Mujahedin resistance in Afghanistan and other groups supported by President Reagan, are not”, McGurn argued:
“They cannot easily be categorised as terrorists, because they have generally demonstrated discrimination in their choice of targets and their conduct of operations. […] Even in the case of the Contras, hard evidence is thin and often indistinguishable from the profusion of Sandinista propaganda. By contrast, the duplicity of the Sandinista government; its own attacks on innocent civilians, and the use of its soil as a base for Salvadorean rebels are well documented.” (14)
McGurn is now a part of George W. Bush’s speechwriting team after previously serving as an executive in the Office of the Chairman at News Corporation. He recently wrote:
My children always want to know, “Is this the good guy?” or “Is that man the bad guy?” As they get older and come to look back on the atrocity of September 11, the one thing I would like them always to retain is the understanding that what hit their schoolmates was evil itself, even in the most explicit sense of nothingness: the nothingness that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen put in place of the flesh-and-blood fathers of children they go to school with. (15)
This is McGurn writing in Crisis Magazine, whose advisory board include: Richard V. Allen, William J. Bennett, Daniel L. Casey, Edwin J. Feulner Jr., Alexander M. Haig, Paul Johnson, Peggy Noonan, Vin Weber, Paul Weyrich, James Q. Wilson and represents much the same network as the IEDSS but connecting it to Project Democracy’s public diplomacy.
Into the 90s
As the 80s drew to close the IEDSS seemed reluctant to loosen its rigid cold war stance, it moved to 14-17 Wells Street, W1, in the 1990s but it did not move with the times. Col. Michael Hickey’s ‘study’, carried out for the IEDSS, warned that “at a time of tension, Spetsnaz troops could carry out selective assassinations, attack key strategic targets, and cause havoc.” (16) It also argued that demonstrations and protests by peace movements, coupled with well-organised industrial disruption, would be “an ideal cover for those with far more sinister intentions.” Hickey criticized the Government’s failure to set up a nationwide volunteer defence force — but the plan suffered from comparisons with the anachronistic ‘Dad’s Army’ of the BBC comedy series. (17)
Hickey (former member of the Ministry of Defense’s General Staff) maintained that Soviet commandos posing as tourists or seamen regularly infiltrate Britain on training missions to practice how they would paralyze the nation before a war. He argued that during their visits, they practice their linguistic skills, even acquiring regional inflections. Hickey conceded that hard intelligence on the subject was hard to come by but that much useful work has been done in surveying official Soviet military publications and magazines. Apart from their Cockney or Liverpool accents how would we recognise them? Simple: demonstrations and protests by peace movements, coupled with well-organised industrial disruption, would be “an ideal cover for those with far more sinister intentions.” (18) A classic example of the conflation of all left wing or other dissent with communist subversion.
On a wider level it argued that Gorbachev’s openess to change in calling for a nuclear-free zone and a reduction in naval activity in the Baltic and Norwegian seas was no more than public propaganda statements, unmatched by any lessening of the Soviet threat in the region. (19)
Michael Mates, then chairman of the Commons select committee on defence, argued in a 1989 IEDSS publication that “selected Soviet spy operations in Britain should be exposed by the Government in order to increase popular sympathy for the security services.” (20) Mates quotes a contractor used by MI6 to bug the Soviet trade mission in London, who claimed that KGB agents at the London School of Economics scan students for “pro-Soviet sympathies and weaknesses which might be exploited in later life.” The pamphlet which acknowledged that Britain’s secret services are subject to ‘the most cursory political control’ rejected parliamentary scrutiny of SIS activities, along the lines of US congressional committees, as being vulnerable to leaks that would jeopardise intelligence cooperation with Britain’s allies. Mates suggested reviving the Foreign Office Information Research Department; the IEDSS member and former head of the IRD, Ray Whitney, collaborated on the pamphlet — and there are a number of connections between IRD (and the related Congress on Cultural Freedom) and the IEDSS’s advisory board—most of whom are members of IRD and/or CCF. In a review Mates is quoted as stating that, “for groups like CND, it is easier to infiltrate them rather than to penetrate the Kremlin” a truism that seems sufficient for the purpose of comparing both to elide both.(21)
The IEDSS functioned as a hub for a whole network of activists beyond those formally working there. The connections with previous organisations such as the Institute for the Study of conflict have been mentioned. But it is also clear that a number of other associated terrorism and intelligence connected organisations were linked to IEDSS. Some of those with such connections who wrote for IEDSS included Jillian Becker, Alun Chalfont, Stephen Haseler, Stephan Kux, Caroline Cox, Roger Scruton, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Donald Marsland, Roger Scruton, Geoffrey Lee Williams, George Bailey, Lewis A. Dunn, John Gray, Mark Almond, Philip Towle, Anthony Hartley, Keith B. Payne and David Pryce-Jones.
Christopher Cviic, Noel Malcolm, Keith Miles and Norman Stone were signatories (care of IEDSS) of a Times April 21, 1995, letter on President Gligorov of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s non-invitation to VE-Day celebrations. More insidious allegations emerged when the IEDSS were named in 1995 in connection with a damaging leak that provided selective details of an Anglo-Irish framework document proposing a joint North-South Irish authority to run some aspects of life in Ulster.
“Interestingly, the leak, published by The Times, was written, not by one of the paper’s political reporters or Ulster staff, but by an editorial writer with strong links to the unionist cause. Matthew D’Ancona, who has close ties with unionist politicians, and co-wrote a report by the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies, arguing that the IRA ceasefire “may actually have destablilised Ulster”, denies accusations he set out to torpedo the peace talks. “I emphatically deny it was designed to wreck the peace process,” said Mr D’Ancona, 26, a fellow of All Souls, Oxford.” (22)
An earlier report by the Mail on Sunday argued that the:
“conspirators wore surgical gloves. The document they were handling was so politically explosive they dared not leave a single smudged fingerprint or speck of grease to show it had been touched.” (23)
This states that D’Ancona, then a 26-year-old assistant editor at the Times, was not even allowed to photocopy it and that:
“The paper was believed to be in ink containing a secret masking agent preventing duplication and was imprinted with an identifying code. That code would have shown which of the 25 copies circulating at the highest Government levels had been leaked. Last night it was becoming clear that a caucus of fervent Loyalists under the umbrella of a Unionist study group is closely associated with the leaker. It is made up of PR man David Burnside, D’Ancona himself; Dean Godson, a Daily Telegraph staff reporter; Paul Goodman, Northern Ireland correspondent on the Sunday Telegraph; Noel Malcolm, a historian and Daily Telegraph political columnist; Andrew McHallam, executive director of the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies; Charles Moore, editor of the Sunday Telegraph; Simon Pearce, a Conservative election candidate; company director Justin Shaw and historian Andrew Roberts.” (24)
In 1990 the Sunday Times reported that the IEDSS organised a conference at the London School of Economics entitled What’s Left?, “it had rightwingers like [Roger] Scruton, Sir Keith Joseph and Kenneth Minogue ready to argue with the left. Out of 55 invitations sent, only one leftwinger agreed to appear and the conference was cancelled.” (25) The article promotes the work of Martin Jacques then editor of Marxism Today, as:
“the man at the centre of the attempts at redefiniton. He is dismissed as yuppie left by the old hardliners, but he is undoubtedly saying something with enough clarity to match the argument of the high-quality intellectual backers of the right […] he is engaged in serious analysis of what went wrong. Marxism, he believes, survives as a powerful tool for understanding capitalism and its influence as the single most universal and coherent materialist system is far wider than most realise. But its predictive powers have proved all but useless and the party that claimed Marx as its God has perished. […] For Jacques, therefore, the economic policy of a future Labour government can only be highly conservative and conducted within the confines of the existing international order.”
In some respects the IEDSS’ work is familiar. Stephen Haseler, was the author of a 1986 strongly pro-American study that stated: “attitudes toward the U.S. are on the verge of defining a new political divide in the nation,” which resembles the arguments on ‘anti-Americanism’ advanced in the UK press by former leftists such as John Lloyd or Nick Cohen today.
Videlicet: The “New Authoritarians”
In 1991, the IEDSS strayed outside its normal field to attack the environmental movement in a report called the “New Authoritarians”. Author Andrew McHallam warned of the growing threat of “eco-terrorism” who had a fundamentally “anti-capitalist and anti-societal outlook”. Jonathan Porritt, a leading environmental commentator, dismissed the report as “dizzingly unstructured, ill-informed and facile.” (26)
The Guardian published (November 26, 1991) McHallem’s “The dark side of the Greens: As organic farming comes under attack for its Arcadian simplicity”, stating that “Andrew McHallam finds authoritarian traits in the ecological movement”. The article stated that the Green movement had “many of the characteristics of religion […] such as the worship of the Earth and Sun” and mentions “David Ike’s books”, and that the Greens “grew out of small groups of alienated left-wing radicals. These small groups, some of them violent and anarchic in character…” It also seems based on one conference. The Independent (November 25, 1991) had covered the release of the report with Nicholas Schoon’s “Greens ‘a threat to personal freedom'” which quoted McHallem as stating:
“There was a spectrum between “light green”, mainstream environmental groups and “dark green” or “deep ecology”, organisations. “The core of deep ecology… is a rejection of Christian values in favour of paganism,” he argues. Some extremists are ready to use eco-terrorism.
In a letter: ‘Green ideas and political moves’ in The Guardian (December 5, 1991) by Joseph Nicholas, Gerald Frost’s defence of Andrew McHallam’s pamphlet compounded McHallam’s ‘distortions’:
“The attempted distinction between Green ideas which are ‘demonstrably worthwhile’ and those which are ‘harmful and dangerous’ is the political establishment’s method of separating organisations it deems acceptable from those it does not, so that it can absorb the ideas of the former while marginalising the latter, in the process neutralising both. ‘Acceptable’ organisations are those which are concerned with protecting rare species and endangered habitats, such as WWF and the CPRE; ‘unacceptable’ organisations such as Green peace and the Green Party, are those which strongly challenge existing economic orthodoxy.”
This also noted that Frost regarded this challenge as a ‘security issue’ requiring ‘analysis’ indicating that Green ideas were ‘subversive’ and a threat to the established order, adding:
“Rather than engage directly with these arguments, his Institute prefers to smear them as centralist and authoritarian, stifling debate by enlisting Cold War anti-communist impulses in unquestioned support of the status quo. Mr Frost is unable to resist claiming that Green ideas would be as ‘catastrophic’ for the environment as the Stalinist central planning recently overthrown in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe – a farcical comparison, since of course Stalinists were renowned for their indifference to the environment. But then anyone who can argue that the kind of decentralisation proposed by Schumacher et al is some sort of synonym for centralism and authoritarianism, as Messrs Frost and McHallam do, is living in a different world from the rest of us.”
Frost’s letter (December 3, 1991) when the IEDSS was still at Golden Square, had attacked another letter from a Dr Rudig (November 29) which he states:
…makes a more valuable contribution to debate when he suggests that fears of ‘red entryism’ to the Green Parties have been proved groundless by the findings of a survey carried out by Strathclyde University. One is bound to question whether a leftwinger bent on subverting the Green cause would necessarily complete his questionnaire in a totally honest way. Moreover, he would not necessarily join the Green Party: there are literally hundreds of other Green organisations to join. Alternatively, like the members of the former British Communist Party he can start his own.
Joseph Nicholas had earlier (November 29, 1991) noted that McHallam had cited “hostility to immigration controls and support for unilateral nuclear disarmament” as evidence of left wing credentials (making the assumption that unilateral nuclear disarmament is inherently a left wing policy). This also added criticism of the IEDSS itself, and alluded to the motivation for its interest in Green politics:
This is a Cold War think-tank founded in the mid-eighties to promote the cause of ‘strong defence’ and the need for nuclear deterrence to prevent a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. But the Soviet Union is falling apart, the Warsaw Pact has been dissolved, the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe are enthusiastically embracing the free market and clamouring to join Nato and the European Community – what role is there left for the Institute now that the Cold War is over?
The answer presumably, is to try carrying on as though nothing has happened, and that Communist infiltrators are still plotting to undermine Western society by disguising themselves as something else – such as the Greens. This ‘reds under the beds’ attempt to smear as crypto-communist any views opposed to contemporary capitalist doctrine would be ludicrous were its implication for informed public debate not also so sinister.
If this is the best the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies can do, it suggests that it has no post-Cold War future after all, and should consider closing down before it makes a complete fool of itself.The answer presumably, is to try carrying on as though nothing has happened, and that Communist infiltrators are still plotting to undermine Western society by disguising themselves as something else—such as the Greens. This ‘reds under the beds’ attempt to smear as crypto-communist any views opposed to contemporary capitalist doctrine would be ludicrous were its implication for informed public debate not also so sinister. If this is the best the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies can do, it suggests that it has no post-Cold War future after all, and should consider closing down before it makes a complete fool of itself.
Andrew Dobson and Paul Lucardie’s (1995) The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green Political Theory, traces this framing of the Greens to an article in The Independent August 4 1989, “World View: Beware the Stalins of greenery —Richard Davy on the true inheritors of communism,” which they say:
Contemporary media images of the Greens have raised the spectre of ‘the Stalins of greenery’—the title used by Richard Davy when he wrote ‘it is difficult to see how many of [the Greens’] central propositions can be translated into politics without very authoritarian methods’-and have pointed to the ‘dogmatic’ analyses, ‘authoritarian’ policies and ‘messianic’ messages on ‘the dark side of the Greens’…
Davy had argued that: “Nature and politics abhor a vacuum. What is going to replace communism as a creed?” An attack on Marxism, Davy notes: “Why, I have even joined Friends of the Earth myself.” According to his web page Davy, a former journalist, is a guest scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC, a Senior Adviser on a project on Eastern Europe for the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies, and an Associate Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs and a Senior Member of St Antony’s College Oxford. Davy is also a revisionist on detente, his (1992) European Detente : A Reappraisal (Royal Institute Of International Affairs) argued that:
…detente was ambiguous, conferring only short-term political and economic benefits on Eastern European regimes while, at the same time, weakening their foundations and contributing to their collapse in 1989.
Andrew McHallam was a Conservative Party’s adviser for foreign affairs, and executive director of the IEDSS and has been described as a ‘NATO analyst’ (meaning an analyst of NATO) in the US press (particularly The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 6, 1994). Earlier in January 12 (1994) the Inquirer quoted McHallam as consistently critical of Clinton’s ‘Partnership for Peace’ plan (designed to satisfy Central Europe’s desire for closer links while allaying Russian fears of an aggressive expansion of Western power, but also moving closer to a military intervention in Bosnia) for NATO, arguing that in his eagerness not to antagonize Russian nationalists or undermine President Boris Yeltsin, he was giving short shrift to Central and Eastern Europeans:
“These are people who have gone through Nazi occupations and communist governments, and, by now, they know that the only meaningful promise is one that offers a concrete security guarantee. Anything short of that is bound to be a disappointment. And any disappointment is bound to have repercussions.”
The IEDSS study concluded that: “Russia is in no position to prevent the expansion of NATO. In a few years, it may be. Thus, the time for equivocating is at an end.”
In 1992 McHallem had stood for the Conservatives in Holborn and St. Pancras.
In terms of it managerial structure we know that the IEDSS chairman was Feulner, with Haseler as secretary, and Frost as executive director. Two somewhat anonymous figures Bowen and Durrant made up the numbers of the Board of Management and leave by 1985, with Eden, Martino and Whitney making up a connection to the CCF, IRD and CPS network.
Feulner remained chair into 1985 and onwards (as US Public Diplomacy gained momentum) as did Frost as Secretary, bringing in the ISC’s Luxmoore, Martino stays, Allen (disgraced from his position as White House National Security Advisor in 1982) to reinforce Heritage’s dominance. Blaker joins and Whitney leaves.
As for the Advisory Council, Allen appeared on this in 1982, other consistent members include Conquest, Key, Lasky, Schwartz, Schapiro, Shakespeare, Urban and Towle, all of whom stay till the 1990s with death taking its toll and Towle leaving in the mid-80s with Labedz joining and staying on. 1990 brought in a new influx including Benoist, Coker, Cox, Williams, and Wohlstetter. Figures such as Brown and Prentice (Barzini) represent attempts at a bipartisan front (a feature of US public diplomacy operations).
There seems not much more to the IEDSS than Heritage money connecting with a residual ISC, which had itself gathered the anti-left and propaganda factions hitherto gathered around Crozier and CIA money. Heritage Foundation money on the scale invested in IEDSS represented something of a dripping roast for the subversion hunters in the UK. There is some indication that Blaker (Freedom Association), Whitney (IRD, MI5) and Haseler (Heritage Foundation and possibly CIA) set up the organisation in 1979 to replace the ISC, which had itself aimed to replace the IRD.
Crozier’s ISC had gathered anti-communists from the IRD and CCF networks (and the military and far-right) and while there are several continuities here, the attention and exposure of Crozier’s activities (by the groups nearby in Poland Street) leads to the conclusion that the IEDSS could, minus Crozier, return to the CCF’s mission of presenting a surrogate left, and the indications of this are in the form of the inclusion of members of the SDA faction and right-wing Labour MPs with strong US connections.
Crozier moved onto US-funded activity with the 6I, with his relationships with the US intelligence-connected right cemented through the National Review network and a growing pan-European in the Pinay Circle; as one of the many ex-communist anti-communists, who obfuscate these networks of subsidy and propaganda and the institutions set up to operate and engage in the instauration of the drives that stem from the formation of the IRD and CCF.
This section below links to more detailed outlines of the individuals which are presented as separate profiles with brief biographies presented here.
The IEDSS 1982 Advisory Council
Richard V. Allen : White House National Security Advisor 1981-82 , US National Security Council (NSC), appointed to the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board (DPB) Advisory Committee November 2001, Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; Senior Fellow Hoover Institution 1983-present; Center for Strategic and International Studies Advisory Board; Committee for a Free World, Committee on the Present Danger, Project for the New American Century; Member Heritage Foundation; Council on Foreign Relations; The Nixon Center Advisory Council, International Crisis Group).
Dr. Robert Conquest:
Rt. Hon Lord George Brown
Brian Key MEP: Key was an MEP from 1979-1984 and was a member of the Socialist Group, Committee on Transport and Committee on Budgetary Control. An Associated Press article of January 20, 1982, ‘Common Market In Hot Water’ notes that he was appointed by the Parliament’s budget committee to lead a “crackdown on Common Market cash waste.” A former County Councillor in South Yorkshire. Key’s seat in the European Parliament was contested by the IEDSS’ Douglas Eden (below) for the Social Democrats in 1984, which would seem to be a coincidence which might point to the IEDSS’ interest in having a voice and a monitoring ability in the EU.
Melvin J. Lasky: Ex-editor of Encounter
Frank Shakespeare: an influential, behind-the-scenes conservative who would later become the chairman of Heritage—showed early work emanating from the AEI on de-regulation to former National Security Advisor Richard Allen above, who in turn gave it to Reagan. This conservatism took some strange turns when:
Perhaps the climactic moment of conservative nostalgia for the days when somebody else was to blame occurred last May. The Shavano Institute, a think tank affiliated with Hillsdale College, in Michigan […] held a Washington conference. Kirkpatrick was the featured guest. Frank Shakespeare who was serving as chairman, had helped arrange $45,000 in federal funding—the type of self-serving use of public money that drives conservatives wild when liberal groups are the beneficiaries. The purpose of the conference was to prove that the United States and the Soviet Union are not “morally equivalent.” The idea that they are equivalent carries no weight in the United States except with fringe groups, but does have some respectable backing in Europe. All the heavy artillery of conservatism was there, and the participants were speaking to their own. (29)
Almost lost in the multitude of scandal in the Nixon administration was the appointment of the ideologically-driven Frank Shakespeare to the USIA, which caused the agency’s objectivity to come into question:
In response to the ideological bent of the agency under Nixon, Jimmy Carter moved to curtail the USIA’s propaganda efforts by suppressing activities he deemed “covert, manipulative, or propagandistic,” and renaming the agency as the US International Communications Agency. Carter’s attempt to steer the agency back towards its original mission—as objective information disseminating agency—would be short lived. Politicization of the USIA reemerged during the 1980s under Ronald Reagan.(30)
Under Charles Z. Wick (another Reagan appointee) the USIA budget doubled (its annual budget reached nearly one billion dollars by the end of the decade). The administration threw out the policies on balanced news treatment, and the USIA became a propaganda organ for the Reagan regime. The USIA became closely associated with the Special Planning Group (SPG), created in 1983, an association that made the agency a policy participant and not just a mouthpiece for US policy goals. The SPG was behind the creations of Project Democracy, which Reagan later restructured as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The SPG, along with the State Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy, became part of Reagan’s shadow government during the Iran-Contra Affair.
Dr. George R. Urban: Former director of Radio Free Europe and director of the Centre for Policy Studies.
The 1982 Board of Management
Dr. Edwin J. Feulner jr. (Chairman) president of the Heritage Foundation, Treasurer and trustee of the Mont Pelerin Society, member of the scientific committee of the Center for Applied Economic Research in Rome, trustee of the Lehrman Institute in New York, trustee of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and a director of the American Council on Germany. He was nominated by President Reagan and was confirmed by the Senate as chairman of the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
Dr. Stephen Haseler (Sec)
Congressman David R. Bowen
Peter R. Durrant
Prof. Antonio Martino
Ray Whitney: Information Research Department (IRD)
Gerald Frost (Ex. Dir.)
George Miller (research officer)
The 1985 Advisory Council
The 1985 Board of Management
Richard V. Allen: Chairman of the Credit International Bank, which opened in 1989 and was designed to serve “high net worth individuals”. Also on the board was Edwin Feulner of Heritage and the IEDSS and Charles T. Manatt, former chair of the Democratic National Committee.
Rt. Hon Sir Peter Blaker KCMG MP
Rt. Hon Lord Chalfont
Dr. Iain Elliot
Dr. Edwin J. Feulner Jr.
Dr. Stephen Haseler
Prof. Antonio Martino
Gerald Frost (Executive. Dir.)
Jonathan Luxmoore (Editor): According to biographical information in the (1999) Journal of Ecumenical Studies, January 1, Luxmoore (an Anglican) was been an accredited Eastern European correspondent in Warsaw for the National Catholic Register (Los Angeles) since 1989, and a freelance writer for several other newspapers and news services in the U.S. and Europe. In 1982-88, he was chief editor of the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies and, in 1980-82, librarian and archivist for the Institute for the Study of Conflict.
His wife, Jolanta Babiuch-Luxmoore (Roman Catholic) lectured on business ethics and public administration/management at the Institute of Sociology at the University of Warsaw. In 1995 she founded and directs the Contemporary Management Workshop at the Institute of Social Sciences at the University. She has lectured in Europe, Japan, and Peru and has been a visiting fellow at the University of Leuven (1991) and at Oxford University (1993-94).
The 1988 Staff included Dean Godson, as a Research Fellow.
The 1990 Advisory Council
Prof. Jean-Marie Benoist
Dr. Christopher Coker : BAP steering group 1996, RUSI, Chatham House
Dr. Robert Conquest:
Melvin J. Lasky
Hon. Frank Shakespeare
Dr. Philip Towle
Dr. George R. Urban
Alan Lee Williams
Prof. Albert Wohlstetter
Members in 1996 included Jimmy James, Mark Almond, and a lecturer in modern history at Oriel College, Oxford, Andrew McHallam, Professor Norman Cigar, Michael Dewar, Deputy Director.
Eileen Murphy’s (1996) True Tory Blue Blood, The Richmond Times Dispatch, April 11, states that Jimmy James was a Conservative candidate in Bolsover at the 1992 General Election and a former major in the Royal Artillery—educated at Marlborough public school and Sandhurst and working as a PR consultant (Craigmyle and Co. Ltd) in 1996. James, graduated from Birmingham University where he was chairman of the Guild of Students’ Council and the university’s debating society. He was a Northamptonshire County Councillor for the ward of Billing. This also adds that he completed five tours of duty in Northern Ireland and went on to work at the Army staff training college at Camberley (Command and Staff) before leaving “the force” in 1990. A (2001) BBC profile stated that during his career in the British Army (1973-90) he held: “A number of posts mainly in the outplacement and career development industry 1990-94,” and runs the Jimmy James Funraising Consultancy.
The New Atlantic Initiative
The National Review, writing in 1995, as the end of Margaret Thatcher’s time in office descended into an unpopular John Major government, argued that “As Ed Feulner documents in these pages, there is in London an impressive network of thriving conservative think tanks”, this does not mention the funding ties that Feulner was orchestrating, but it challenges, or certainly spins, the notion that the think tanks are influenced by the US:
This is less the Americanization of British conservatism than the idea that conservatism is bound neither by party nor by geography. The Thatcherites know they have at least as much in common with Newt Gingrich and the conservative Republicans as they do with John Major. And they are dedicated to the restoration of that sturdy relationship Britain enjoyed with the United States during the Reagan – Thatcher years.
Feulner’s essay, in terms of the continuation of the mythos of the Reagan/Thatcher years, is one indication of the desire to continue the think tanks network (the phantom acadamy as it was termed) and it is in this context that we should view the New Atlantic Initiative. The IEDSS’s John O’Sullivan was the founder and co-chairman of the New Atlantic Initiative (NAI), openly dedicated to reinvigorating and expanding these right-wing Atlanticist networks. The NAI was formally launched at the Congress of Prague in May 1996 by President Vaclav Havel and Lady Thatcher. According to the media Transparancy Site the IEDSS received a £25,000 grant from the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. for The New Atlantic Initiative in 1995, so in this sense the NAI can also be seen be seen as a continuation of the type of right-wing Atlanticist project of the IEDSS. According to Media Transparency, after this initial channeling of funding via IEDSS, the NAI recieved money via the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Apart from O’Sullivan, the NAI includes the IEDSS’ Robert Conquest and Antonio Martino — other membes of the International Advisory Board, according to the AEI site include John Bolton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Mikhael Khodorkovsky, William Kristol, Rupert Murdoch, Colin Powell, Lord Robertson, Donald Rumsfeld, Roger Scruton, Lord Weidenfeld; patrons include Henry Kissinger, Helmut Schmidt, George Schultz and Margaret Thatcher.
As might be expected as regards UK links the NAI site with the AEI links to The Atlantic Council of the United Kingdom, the Centre for European Reform, Institute of Economic Affairs and The New World Order Forum, with the latter described as “an independent UK-based think-tank that was set up in March 2002.” More detail on this is provided in the page on John O’Sullivan opposite, but I will add a little detail here.
The New World Order Forum (NWOF) was run by ex-TUC official Peter Ashby, Fellow of St. George’s House, inside Windsor Castle with the NAI according to its site. The web archive of the NWOF site states that their 2003 Forum included O’ Sullivan and John Bolton, Ged Davis (Shell), David Frum, Dr. Nile Gardiner (now with the Thatcher Foundation), Charles Grant (CER), Peter Mandelson (then promoting his think tank Policy Network), Charles Moore, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones (also CER), Richard Perle, Simon Webb (Policy Director at the UK Ministry of Defence). The New World Order Forum states that it “specialised in running high-level ideas-building sessions for carefully selected groups of international opinion-leaders on key aspects of global policy.” The ideas behind the meetings are that the participants engage in building ideas through “buzz groups.”
The Forum changed into the ‘2waytrust’ which offers this self-definition:
All key decision-making bodies, from the UN downwards, should have some sort of informal forum where individuals are able to explore ideas that are accepted as being ahead of the consensus, without participants having to “represent” their governments, or anyone else, and with clear groundrules that permit them to challenge existing assumptions, and change their minds, without losing face.
St. George’s House was used by the New World Order Forum for a series of talks, with the New Atlantic Initiative, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation in promoting issues around the war in Iraq (including meetings with key representatives of the Iraqi National Congress). Inasmuch as the NAI is a project (or continuation) of the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies (via the NWOF) it also draws on British American Project members and organisers and networks (Peter Mandelson, Nick Butler and the Centre for European Reform) and more right-wing Atlanticist networks, in the case of the 2003 forum, really to push the war.
1. Tom Easton Who were they traveling with? —SDP: The Birth, Life and Death of the Social Democratic Party: Ivor Crewe and Anthony King Oxford University Press, 1995, Lobster 31.
2. Robin Ramsay (1987) Groupings on the British Right, Lobster 13.
3. InterNation (1987) The Heritage Foundation goes abroad, The Nation, June 6.
4. InterNation ibid.
5. See: Christopher Hitchens, ‘New Statesman Downed by Law,’ The Nation, February 21.
6 – 9. InterNation ibid.
10. Richard Norton-Taylor (1985) Where detente is a dirty word / The Heritage Foundation in Britain, The Guardian, November 26.
11. Steven Dorril (1984) American Friends: the Anti-CND Groups, Lobster No.3
12. Steven Dorril (1984) American Friends: the Anti-CND Groups, Lobster No.3
13. Richard Norton-Taylor (1987) Think tank ‘funding UK organizations,’ May 29, The Guardian.
14. Peter Murtagh (1987) West charged with hypocrisy on terror, April 21,The Guardian.
15. William McGurn (2001) Aftershock: Something Out of Nothing, Reflections on September 11, 2001.
16. Col Michael Hickey (1987) The Spetsnaz Threat: Can Britain Be Defended?, Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies.
17. Financial Times (1986) Soviet Spetsnaz ‘Threat To UK’, December 29.
18. Financial Times (1986) Soviet Spetsnaz ‘Threat To UK’, December 29.
19. Micheal Evans (1989) Soviet Union considers scrapping ballistic missile, May 1,The Times.
20. Michael Mates & Ray Whitney (1989) The Secret Services: Is There a Case for Greater Openness? Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies.
21. See also Richard Norton-Taylor (1989) The Day in Politics: Exposing spies makes good publicity, says MP, The Guardian, July 25.
22. Peter Ellingsen (1995) A malevolent leak threatens to sink Ulster peace talks; Foreign Report, The Age (Melbourne, Australia) February 6.
23. Adrian Lithgow (1995) How Ulster Leak Plotters Beat Security To Protect Secret Source Of Leak, Mail on Sunday, February 5.
24. Adrian Lithgow (1995) How Ulster Leak Plotters Beat Security To Protect Secret Source Of Leak, Mail on Sunday, February 5.
25. Bryan Appleyard (1990) Socialism’s fiery apostle fans the cooling embers, The Sunday Times, May 13.
26. Andrew Rowell (1996) Green Backlash — Global Subversion of the Environment Movement, Routledge, p. 327 quoting Andrew McHallam (1991) The NewAuthoritarians: Reflections on the Greens, Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies, Occasional Paper 51, pp19,45,58; Jonathan Porritt (1991) “Eco-Terrors and the Illiberal Tendency”, The Guardian, November 29.
27. Media Transparency Recipient Grants: Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies London, W1P 3FP, accessed 18 September 2007.
28. BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, November 18, 1987, Wednesday ‘British Exercises Theatre of the Absurd over Spetsnaz Troops’ Source: Moscow home service 0348 gmt 15 Nov 87 Text of commentary by Viktor Borozdin.
29. Gregg Easterbrook (1986) “Ideas Move Nations”: How conservative think tanks have helped to transform the terms of political debate, The Atlantic Monthly, January, Volume 257, Number 1 (pages 66-80).
30. Wilson P. Dizard Jr. Inventing Public Diplomacy: The Story of the U.S. Information Agency. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
31. MPs and Defence: A Survey of Parliamentary Knowledge and Opinion, By Philip Towle, available on Google Books.