The New World Order Forum
In modern society, coercion, monopolized by the democratic state, is rarely needed in any continuous way. But those who hold power have often come to exercise it in hidden ways: they have moved and they are moving from authority to manipulation.
C. Wright Mills
The New World Order Forum
The New World Order Forum (NWOF) was run by ex-TUC official Peter Ashby, and took place at St. George’s House, inside Windsor Castle in 2002 and 2003 organised jointly by the New Atlantic Initiative and involving the IEDSS’ Iain Elliot (who was an early co-ordinator of the British American Project). There is little available information on the NWOF, which had something of a semi-private, fly-by-night nature; similarly, little attention was accorded to it in the mainstream media. At who’s behest it organises its events is something of a mystery. Our focus here is on its mediating role in the problems surrounding the legal justification of the invasion of Iraq and the US relationship with the UN. Although it offers no real information on it, one of the few mentions of the Forum in the mainstream press, was a letter Peter Ashby wrote to the (2003) Guardian on the subject of the French veto, which was also a key area for the Forum’s deliberations. It indirectly portrayed the NWOF as a behind-the-scenes private gathering of éminence grise:
I fear that the announcement by President Jacques Chirac that France will veto a second resolution on Iraq “whatever the circumstances” means that the process of reinventing the UN is going to have to be much more fundamental than many have yet realised. Serious reform of the UN will be a long and painful process, and we will need to set down some transparent and fundamental obligations on all member states. Otherwise cooperative internationalism will come to rely more on informal, shifting alliances, with all of the dangers that they pose for our world order.
A (2008) Mirror article discussing Peter Mandelson made mentioned that in the 1990s, he spent weekends at a holiday cottage with a companion (meaning partner) called Peter Ashby. Other reports confirm that it is the same Ashby that works at St. George’s House and state that Ashby and Mandelson split in 1989 but remained in contact, with Mandelson the godfather of Ashby’s son:
Like Mandelson, who is two years younger, Ashby has moved considerably to the Right since his student days, and some are convinced that he has influenced Mandelson in his political thinking, rather than the other way round, and indeed that he still does. As long ago as 1992 he was publicly advocating ‘a new deal for long-term unemployed people based on the principle of reciprocal obligations.’ He urged that ‘in return for enhanced benefit, everyone unemployed for 18 months should be required to undertake temporary work.’ There were remarkable echoes of this in Labour’s ‘Welfare to Work’ proposals in its election manifesto, which Mandelson helped write.
The two are also mentioned in the Mandelson biography by Donald Macintyre. As we will see Mandelson attended the events.
The statement on the NWOF website explained the reasons behind the 2003 meetings:
Following last month’s breakdown in diplomacy at the UN, we have agreed with the New Atlantic Initiative, based at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, that we will convene a joint Windsor Forum with them in June, on the theme of “The UN and global security: do we need to ‘re-invent’ the UN, and if so, how?”
Because of this European rebellion the purpose of the UN as a ratifier of US foreign policy was problematised. The papers surrounding the meeting were moderated by Jeane Kirkpatrick, who has had a long association with the IEDSS, and were based on an AEI meeting with Radek Sikorski. Other input came from Michael Glennon, a Professor of International Law, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and at this point a US Department of State consultant with a Top Secret Security clearance. Glennon’s (2003) ‘Why the Security Council Failed,’ for Foreign Affairs on why “American hyperpower” supplants the UN Security Council’s attempt to subject the use of force to the rule of law was one of the key texts offered to brief the participants. For The Weekly Standard, Glennon wrote the similar (2002) ‘Preempting Terrorism: The case for anticipatory self-defense,’ that explained how carrying out Bush Doctrine of: “preemptive use of force against terrorists as well as the states that harbor them,” would be unlawful in the eyes of the UN, but: “Today, it is not. Indeed, it is no longer binding law.”
The NWOF’s web site also stated that it: “specialised in running high-level ideas-building sessions for carefully selected groups of international opinion-leaders on key aspects of global policy.” How the participants are selected, like the irrelevance of international law, is not explained, but when the Forum changed into the ‘2waytrust’ it offered 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.
Ashby’s new organisation also reflected on his new outlook on life, which may well draw on his first hand experience of the NWOF:
…after 20 years of facilitating events on a wide range of public policies, Pete came to the view that screwed up relationships do more damage to our world than screwed up policies.
By use of a web archive and other fragmentary sources we can establish that the NWOF collaborated with the NAI in 2003. The NWOF site also provides information on who attended their NAI-backed June 23-24 Forum led by Stephen Rademaker, Deputy Legal Adviser to the US National Security Council. These included John O’Sullivan, John Bolton, Ged Davis (Shell), David Frum, Dr. Nile Gardiner (Heritage Foundation), Charles Grant (CER), Peter Mandelson (then operating through his think tank the Policy Network), Charles Moore, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones (then also with the CER), John Sawers (then appointed as the UK Prime Minister’s envoy to Iraq and a Political Director in the Foreign Office), Richard Perle, Radek Sikorski, Simon Webb (Policy Director at the UK Ministry of Defence) and several others including Phyllis Kaminsky (described as an international marketing and strategic planning consultant to major US companies in the aerospace and defence sectors) mentioned earlier.
On the NAI’s involvement with Peter Mandelson, and ‘New Labour,’ Michael Keaney (2002) offered one of the few pieces of analysis that:
…this sort of “engagement” sits ill with those like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle (a “scholar” of the AEI) who have an innate sense of their divine right to do as they please, wherever they please. They are more articulate versions of Jesse Helms. Bush himself, while sympathetic, will not devote significant resources to punk Thatcherism for as long as that credo remains hopelessly adrift politically. As it will. The American Enterprise Institute’s New Atlantic Initiative will serve as the vehicle whereby punk Thatcherism might be nourished and, if it is, then more high profile links with the formal state apparatus will follow. But don’t hold your breath.
Before we go on to examine the NWOF in a little more detail, it should be noted that the CER, set up by David Milliband and Nick Butler, were also playing host to similar groups in seminars led by John Bolton and William Kristol: at the same time the CER was engaged in launching (at the AEI and several European embassies) ‘Transatlantic rift — how to bring the two sides together,’ written by Charles Grant who attended the NWOF meeting. In relation to this it should also be noted that the New Labour think tanks (the Foreign Policy Centre and Demos, whose advisory board overlapped to a considerable extent) were also publishing work with a pro-war agenda, particularly the work of the neo-Conservative John Lloyd.
As a result of factors such as the French veto of the war in Iraq at the UN, we can say that one aim of the NWOF was to put forward the idea of an alternative to the UN Security Council largely because it had proved somewhat recalcitrant in the face of US pressure to invade Iraq without any realistic pretext. This downplaying of the UN’s authority involved statements that:
(1) “The UN is fatally flawed by its commitment in the Charter to treating all member states as “sovereign equals.”
(2) “…There should be an explicit link between states respecting the sovereignty of their own citizens and the sovereignty of states themselves […] Such states would face the threat of pre-emptive interventions on the part of the new body, for harbouring terrorists that might want to use weapons of mass destruction against others or for violating their own people’s basic rights. Other states (among which we would assumedly include established democracies) would not be at any such risk because their sovereignty would be assured.”
(3) “A new body […] would provide a long-term framework for “coalitions of the willing” to come together as and when particular threats to global peace and security arise, and take whatever actions the new body might deem necessary to deal with them.”
Arguably this is basically a re-working of the UN’s mandate to accommodate the US drives into the Middle-East, particularly Iraq. The June (2003) NWOF meeting, which we will examine below, was held a few days after the invasion of Iraq and the conferences drew in elements related to the post-invasion government to be installed. Previously, the June (2002) forum, again organised with the NAI, had explored such bellicose contrivances as ‘hot pre-emption.’ This included London-based, Sheikh Mohammed Mohammed Ali, a co-founder of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), and promoted by the Middle East Forum. Ali was also part of a group of US favoured (and pro-Isreal) Iraqis. Previously, Judy Aita (1999) of the US Department of State, had outlined that (emphasis added): “[I]yad Allawi (Iraqi National Accord), Riyad Al-Yawer (independent), Sharif Ali Bin Al Hussein (Constitutional Monarchy Movement), Dr. Ahmed Chalabi (Independent), Sheikh Mohammed Mohammed Ali (Independent Islamic), Dr. Latif Rashid (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) and Hoshyar Zibari (Kurdistan Democratic Party),” were the preferred US candidates for a post-war Iraq. Ali also presented a paper along with Keith Best and the former MI6 agent Sir Peter Smithers titled: ‘When is intervention justifiable?’ Other participants in the June Windsor Forum (2002) included, Yousif Al-Khoei a Director of the New York-based Al-Khoei Foundation, which has ties to the CIA and had started a project to secure support for an interim government in Iraq based on the 1925 Iraqi constitution in 1958. This was run past UK and US diplomats.
We can also note that according to Seymour Hersh (2005) Labour’s Baroness McDonagh was directly involved in election rigging in Iraq concerning Iyad Allawi, who Hersh added, had worked both for Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat and for Western intelligence agencies. According to Hersh, at first the NED was used, but backed off, then the activities were kept, in part, “off the books” and were conducted by retired CIA officers and other non-government personnel, then:
Several weeks before the election, Margaret McDonagh, a political operative close to Tony Blair, showed up at Allawi’s side in Baghdad, and immediately got involved in a last-minute barrage of campaigning, advertising, and spending. (McDonagh did not respond to a request for comment.) These efforts, and Allawi’s own attempt to present himself as a forceful Prime Minister, apparently helped to raise his standing.
In an interview Hersh adds that McDonagh turned up with a lot of money, and:
…it’s my understanding that McDonagh and others were, when Blair first began as the build up to the Iraqi war began, they were involved in doing some of the early white papers inside the British government, making the case for Saddam having WMD. Later that activity was taken over by 10 Downing Street, the professionals, but she and others on the outside were doing early drafts of that stuff, very close to Blair. And she was just there at his side in his office, seen by people in his office, not publicly known, but there’s no question that she was playing a major role as a political adviser to Allawi in the end.
When Sheikh Mohammed Mohammed Ali (a Shiite Muslim cleric who left Iraq in 1980, and who openly called for US intervention) came to London, to take part in the NWOF, he did so as part of a larger body called the Iraqi Military Alliance, a grouping of ‘military exiles.’ A (2002) BBC report, noted that the group consisted of some 200 and that Ali:
… predicted that if there was a military operation against Saddam Hussein the regime would not last “more than a week or two” […] An alliance between military and civilian groups was evident in the obviously close relationship between Ahmed Chalabi, a former banker who heads the INC, and General Tawfiq Al-Yassiri, who chatted smilingly. Mr Al-Yassiri helped lead the Shiite rebellion in 1991 and later escaped.
Majid al-Khoei had also been involved in these uprisings. The report also noted the public diplomacy elements of the venture:
One sceptical observer was Neil Partrick from the Economist Intelligence Unit. He said that he had spotted diplomats from the United States and Britain there briefly and described the meeting as “publicity for the US and UK” as they begin to gather support for military action.
It is possible that the appearances at the NWOF by these individuals were part of public diplomacy drive by members of the US and UK governments, as part of the lead up to the war, with the later meeting with the NAI and the neo-Conservatives aiming at reinforcing a consensus along lines approved by the organisers. Of the meeting John O’Sullivan is quoted as saying:
I was fascinated by the way in which the original anarchy of conflicting views gradually coalesced along a relatively narrow spectrum of practical solutions.
This is possibly an exaggeration, but if we try to trace the origins of the organisation to establish its purpose, intentions and potential, we find that previous consultation at St. George’s House, with sponsorship of the event by BP. This was said by the organisation to have given rise to the setting up of the NWOF and arranged before the invasion of Iraq. It gave Ashby’s account that frames the discussion through the optic of James Burnham’s view of elites and Harold Lasswell’s of symbols:
…towards the end of the discussion, after some concerns had been expressed about rather loose talk about symbols, and someone had reaffirmed the importance of international law, he exploded with the words, “Look! We kill each other not because of the lack of a rule of law, but because our symbols clash with yours.” In recalling this moment, it is important to stress that this person wasn’t in any way against the rule of law. […] One of the most chilling warnings in our discussions came when one person said that there is much evidence of a “drawing together of the managerial elites” in many different countries, with, at the same time, “a growing gap between those elites and the vast multitudes.” This concern was taken up by a number of other members of the group, and one or two increased our sense of gloom when they argued that within these “non-elites” there is now much evidence of a “permanently disenfranchised minority,” who will provide the main reservoir of support for terrorists in years to come.”
The methodology of the NWOF meetings is described in some detail and are presented as being about “building ideas” through “buzz groups,” meaning the group splits up and goes into small huddles. With the (2003) June 23-24 Forum (organised jointly by the NAI) on analysis the underlying agenda seems possibly biased and certainly leading. Stage one asks: “is it possible to achieve the changes that you want, within the framework of the UN Charter?” This focuses on one main question: “do you personally believe that it is possible to “re-invent” the UN Security Council, within the framework of the UN Charter, to enable it to offer the sort of global leadership that is now required to protect global peace and security?” 
Stage two states it wants to get specific and asks:
Drawing on the outcomes of the opening session, we want to concentrate on the most difficult issues that need to be engaged with to enable the UN to “get its legs of responsibility back” — to use President Bush’s words in the Azores on March 16.
This was also extended to ask: “Should Permanent Members of the Security Council have the right to veto majority decisions?” This was not couched in terms of the many vetoes made on substantive issues, particularly by the US, in the past, but on the US response. Other questions suggest that States: “such as Syria should be excluded,” and ask: “Is it enough to expect “coalitions of the willing” to implement Security Council resolutions?” Then the buzz groups come into play:
As ideas are developed, we will break into small buzz groups for 10 to 15 minutes to help individuals sharpen up their thinking, and when we return from groups “ideas people” will share their personal proposal with the whole of the group.
From there informal discussions over dinner are encouraged.
I will offer the description of the roles of most of the individuals involved in the (2002) ‘Should there be a new World Order —and if so, what form should it take?’ consultation group that were provided by the NWOF in parenthesis, exploring a wider description in the footnotes. Ashby’s report of it highlighted 20 main propositions, most of which moved to hasten military intervention these included: “giving small numbers of people working as part of global teams the capacity to launch high-tech attacks and do damage very fast.”
These included: Gen. Sir Hugh Beach (formerly Director, Council for Arms Control and Deputy Commander-in-Chief, UK Land Forces and the Warden of St. George’s House); Keith Best (World Federalist Movement and the Institute for Global Policy); Nick Butler (then Group Vice-President of BP but also involved in BAP and the CER); Amos Davidowitz (a Combat Officer in the Israeli IDF and an Executive Director of the Washington-based Institute of World Affairs); Troy Davis (the President of the World Citizen Foundation and World Democracy Campaign); Jonathan Day (the Director of the Private Office of the Secretary-General of NATO); David Devlin-Foltz (Head of the Aspen Institute’s Global Interdependence Initiative); Revd. Mark Edington (Centre for the Study of World Religions); Sir Timothy Garden (the former Director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and a visiting Professor at the Centre for Defence Studies, King’s College, London); Karl von Habsburg (Director-General of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation based in the Hague); Malcolm Harper (the UK Director of the United Nations Association); Heiner Klebes (Honorary Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Centre for Democracy in Washington); Bronwen Manby (Human Rights Watch); Jan Oberg (Director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research); Dr. Syed Aziz Pasha (Gen. Sec. of the Union of Muslim Organisations); Stephen Pattison (Head of the UN Department of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office London); The Revd. Donald Reeves (Director Soul of Europe Project ); Afif Safieh (the Palestinian General Delegate to the UK); James Sherr (a Consultant to NATO and the Conflict Studies Research Centre, Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst who worked with the IEDSS and was part of BAP); Dr. Wayne Smith (Senior Fellow of the Centre for International Policy in Washington); David Waller (Executive Director of the Agency for Co-operation and Research in Development); Patsy Knight (an Associate Fellow of St. George’s House) and Peter Ashby.
Few of these organisations would be known to the public or indeed many specialists, but what did their convergence mean? As we said, essentially this (2002) meeting was to explore the concept of what form a ‘new world order’ should take, with a questionnaire put out in advance of the Forum, and with papers by Gen. Sir Hugh Beach and Col. Patrick Lang, a retired senior officer of US Military Intelligence and US Army Special Forces distributed beforehand. With a Labour government in power the shift represented by this group was towards including more centrist think tanks with ties to the Democratic Party, but we can still identify strong Atlanticist ties, particularly the NED network and NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe, and the possibility that the Forum was used for ulterior purposes, described below.
The organisations represented in our analysis can also be traced back to a small group of institutions set up after the war, mostly with covert US influence, and they are similar to those unearthed in the later sections of our review of the literature the IEDSS’ produced.
The Windsor Leadership Trust itself, which runs St. George’s House has a board of trustees that indicate that is an elite policy forum. At this point its trustees included Sir David Omand (the UK Security and Intelligence Coordinator, and Director of GCHQ 1996-1997); Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt (Chief of the General Staff); Field Marshal the Lord Inge (the former Chief of Defence Staff); James Smith (then Chairman of Shell UK); Rt Hon Lord Smith of Finsbury (a member of the British American Project for the Successor Generation) and Sir Claude Hankes KCVO (an advisor to Iraq). The Trust’s web page for Hankes (Claude Dunbar Hankes-Drielsma) states that his current positions include: Advisor to Iraq, Chairman of Shaw & Bradley Ltd.; with former positions including: Director of Robert Fleming, Chairman of the Management Committee of Price Waterhouse and Partners, Interim Chairman, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. Other sources mention details that he was appointed to the Trade Bank of Iraq established in November 2003 to finance international trade (imports of essential goods and services) and participate in the reconstruction process. The Bank is capitalized at $100m and has an agreement with a consortium led by JP Morgan. The Bank was set up in the wake of the Oil for Food scandal (on which Hankes testified to the US Congress). A Nation report noted that (and we have seen has connections to Iraqi Military Alliance) Chalabi’s grand nephew, Hussein Al-Uzri was made head of the Trade Bank of Iraq (created by US viceroy Paul Bremer with a ‘stroke of his pen’). The Bank has a monopoly on issuing letters of credit for the government and vast amounts of Iraq’s oil revenue must pass through it, with a 2,300% increase in assets from 2004 to 2008. The Times (2009) observed that Hankes lobbies for investment in Iraq with Peter Mandelson and Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister. As we can see from the quotation on Inge below, it has been said that Hankes was Chalabi’s prime adviser for five years, via the consultancy, Global Strategy Ltd. Intelligence Online (2008) noted that the former UK ambassador to Iraq, David Richmond, joined the lobbying and PR firm Bell Pottinger sans Frontiere (BPSF) as a consultant. Richmond had served as director general for defence and intelligence at the Foreign Office. BPSF had interests in Iraq and its manager, Graham Barr, set up Global Strategy Ltd., as a joint venture devoted to Iraq, in conjunction with Inge and Hankes, then UK adviser of Ahmed Chalabi. Intelligence Online (2005) noted that in 2003 Hankes negotiated an agreement between the provisional Iraqi government and KPMG to have the accountancy run an audit on documents seized at the Iraqi oil ministry after the fall of Baghdad, particularly by Chalabi’s INC, leading to the cancellation of the ‘Oil for Food’ set up by the US authorities. Inge’s involvement here is possibly connected to lobbying work. Noting that the NWOF meetings were sponsored by BP, we can also note Intelligence Online (2005) stated (emphasis added):
Now that Ahmed Chalabi is back in good odor in Washington […] his lobbyists in the United Kingdom are paving the way for his return to London. Chalabi’s prime adviser over the past five years, Claude Hankes Drielsma, has set up a consultancy, Global Strategy Ltd. in London. His two partners in the firm are Graham Barr, who was in charge of governmental relations at BP for 27 years, and Peter Anthony Inge, former chief of the defense staff in the United Kingdom. Incorporated in May of this year, Global Strategy is still dormant but it nonetheless seals an alliance between three men with experience in the Middle East and particularly in Iraq.
Barr, who left BP in 2002, serves as chairman of BPSF, and BPSF has worked in Iraq since 2003. The firm was the main PR adviser to the interim Iraqi government and managed the campaign to prepare for elections in January of that year. To my mind Windsor was also used as part of this.
The extensive pattern of interlocking relationships that is evident among the various organisations within the IEDSS complex, means that it is necessary to discuss some of the more socio-metric individuals in detail so that the reader may better appreciate the full extent of the broad program of which the IEDSS was a component part. These are presented in the following more biographical sections. Although these are specific to the individuals, to more thoroughly appreciate the IEDSS we must again move towards an understanding of the broader movement within which it operated. For example, one cannot fully understand the IEDSS and its aims without at first gaining at least a basic understanding of the nature and extent of the operations of the Heritage Foundation and how its apparatus grew and spread to the UK. It is apparent from the available information, by no means all of which has been summarised in the preceding sections of this study, that the IEDSS was a UK part of a well-organised, well-financed apparatus designed to influence and if necessary change, defence policies of the UK, together with other policy areas also targeted by the network of ‘Thatcherite’ think tanks. IEDSS propaganda, written by semi-professionals in various aspects of military and weapons policy, which also makes up part of one of the sections, was produced and pitched to the appropriate policy-making audiences in government, and achieved some degree of acceptance or influence among certain leaders concerned with the shaping and implementation of the UK’s national defence and defence-related policies. Though perhaps not as well known as other organisations that comprised what we could call the ‘nuclear lobby,’ or the ‘phantom academy,’ the IEDSS was one of the more skilled. It is particularly with the creation of the many other groups, the nexus within which it operated with organisations such as RFE/RL, Encounter and Brian Crozier’s ventures, and its ambitious media-oriented program to exploit the dangers of unilateralism, and the projects against UNESCO or the attacks on E. P. Thompson, that indicate that it can be regarded as a force of significant import — particularly as high-level discussions over SALT and other defence controversies such as SDI, or the end of the Cold War occupied national public policy and defence concerns.
We might trace Heritage’s interest here to William T. Poole’s (1979) Heritage Foundation Report, that engaged in an institutional analysis to examine the interlocking directorates of the Center for Defense Information (CDI), led by retired Rear Admiral Gene R. LaRocque, and the Fund for Peace aided by General Motors heir Stewart R. Mott: “a major financial backer of an assortment of leftist projects and groups.” Poole argued that the Center for National Security Studies was: “one of the nation’s principal anti-intelligence community operations,” and identified its ‘In the Public Interest’ project as one designed to: “counteract the onslaught of right-wing broadcasting,” with information made available through the efforts of a large group of “peace” movement activists, members of Congress, and others. Of the Fund itself, the former president of which was identified with activities of the World Peace Council: “a Soviet-controlled international Communist front organization.”
It is possible the Heritage Foundation was interested in funding the IEDSS in response to this perception and in some way mirrored the ‘conspiracy.’ This predated Jeffrey G. Barlow’s (1982) ‘Moscow And The Peace Offensive,’ which cited Poole’s work and set out Heritage’s perceptions. Poole also produced the (1977) ‘The Environmental Complex,’ reworked in the (1982) ‘The Environmental Complex,’ focussing on ‘anti-corporate rhetoric;’ and the (1982) ‘The New Left In Government,’ that outlined the New Left’s: “ transformation of movement activists from outsiders into insiders within the policy-making process on a scale perhaps unprecedented in our history.”
 Mills, C. Wright (1951) ‘White Collar: The American Middle Classes,’ p. 110, Oxford University Press.
 Guardian (2003) ‘Letters,’ March 26.
 Mirror (2008) October 17.
 Levy, Geoffrey (1999) Daily Mail, April 24.
dyncat.cfm?catid=125, and: http://web.archive.org/web/20030831180530/www.aei.org/events/filter.,
dyncat.cfm?catid=125 Glennon, Michael (2003) ‘Why the Security Council Failed,’ Foreign Affairs, May. Other texts provided included Nile Gardiner’s (2003) Heritage Foundation study on ‘Limiting the Role of the United Nations in Post-War Iraq,’ an AEI presentation by Jeane Kirkpatrick, Mark Falcoff (AEI), Allan Gerson (AEI and the New America Foundation) and Phyllis Kaminsky (USAID and a Board member of the International Republican Institute which is part of the NED) who argued: “Reform of the UN is impossible. The UN and its agencies are fatally flawed. The principle of sovereign equality, inherent to the UN’s charter, prevents any structural reform. Western solidarity has ceased to exist. […] The United States should start considering the creation of an alternative world organization open exclusively to democracies.” See: http://web.archive.org/web/20030922134100/
 Sikorski can be seen at the centre of an (2005) AEI sponsored event ‘Solidarity Twenty-Five Years On,’ that gathered together members of: Freedom House, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the International Republican Institute, the Lech Walesa Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the NED, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, see: http://www.aei.org/event/1116.
dyncat.cfm?catid=111. Kaminsky worked with Richard V. Allen in preparing for Thatcher’s first visit to the US as PM for an official meeting with Reagan, see: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document
 CER (2003) ‘Annual Report,’ http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/annual_report_2003.pdf. See also my detailed outline of the organisation: https://pinkindustry.wordpress.com/the-centre-for-european-reform/ According to the CER’s (2007) ‘Annual Report’ it was founded at the annual UK-German Koenigswinter conference in 1996 by David Milliband and Nick Butler, the latter then a senior figure in BP and a key figure in setting up the British American Project, which is overseen by Paul Wolfowitz and the CER’s Lord George Robertson. The CER also dominate the European Council on Foreign Relations.
.com/2007/12/03/john-lloyd/. At this point Demos, the FPC, the Policy Network, Civitas and other think tanks and lobbyists were based in the same set of offices as part of an interlinked group called the ‘Mezzanine,’ see: https://pinkindustry.wordpress.com/demos-think-tanks/.
dyncat.cfm?catid=39. See also: Schanzer, Jonathan (2001) ‘Iraqi Opposition Leaders: The Evil of Saddam: A briefing by Sharif Ali al-Hussein, Ahmed Chalabi and Sheikh Mohammed Mohammed Ali,’ Middle East Forum, February 12, http://www.meforum.org/article/8. The Middle East Forum’s director is noted US neo-Conservative Daniel Pipes; it is largely a propaganda operation whose purpose is stifle public debate about US Middle-East policy and criticism of Israel.
org/news/iraq/1999/11/991101-iraq-usia.htm. Smithers was also Sec. Gen of the Council of Europe.
 See: Independent (2003) ‘Abdul Majid al-Khoei: Shia cleric who preached tolerance,’ April 12, this also added that Majid al-Khoei, the founder of the Al-Khoei Foundation, and Yousif Al-Khoei’s father, participated in an US-backed Iraqi opposition groups conference in London in 2002, drawing up plans for a post-Saddam era. Hammer, Joshua (2003) ‘Murder at the Mosque,’ Newsweek, May 19, adds that Majid al-Khoei was approached by the CIA in London in late 2002 and given US protection and funding. He was eventually murdered. Royce, Knut (2003) Newsday, May 2, states that: “Majid Al-Khoei had been given $13 Million by the CIA in a covert operation to cultivate pro-American elements among the Shia.” Tony Blair met Al-Khoei for talks before his departure, he arrived in Iraq in April 3 (2003) see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/2937155.stm.
 Hersh, Seymour M. (2005) ‘Get Out the Vote: Did Washington try to manipulate Iraq’s election?,’ The New Yorker, July 18.
 Hersh, Seymour M. (2005) ‘Bush Authorized Covert Plan to Manipulate Iraqi Elections,’ Democracynow.org, July 19, http://www.democracynow.org/2005/7/19/seymour_hersh_bush_
 Reynolds, Paul (2002) ‘Ex-officers call for Saddam’s removal,’ BBC, July 12.
 See Ashby, Peter (2002) ‘Report of a House Consultation,’ March 4-5, http://web.archive.org/
 NWOF (2003) ‘The UN and global security: do we need to “re-invent” the UN, and if so, how? March 26, see: http://web.archive.org/web/20030429054745/www.touchslough.com/webpro/newworld
 NWOF (2003) ‘The UN and global security: do we need to “re-invent” the UN, and if so, how? March 26.
 NWOF (2003) ‘The UN and global security: do we need to “re-invent” the UN, and if so, how? March 26.
cfm?catid=39, for other comparable member’s list.
 This had been used against CND by members of the IEDSS as we have noted.
 Best was also Chief Executive of the UK Immigration Advisory Service. The World Federalist Movement’s (WFM) importance here is that it had an influence on moves towards the establishment of an International Criminal Court to try terrorists. WFM was formed alongside the Union of European Federalists dating back to the American Committee on a United Europe led by William Donovan. Funded by the EU, the Soros Foundation and the Ford Foundation, both of Best’s organisations tend to promote UN interests. The WFM was set up by the CIA’s Cord Mayer, to influence the control of nuclear weapons, Mayer eventually became disenchanted by communist efforts to take it over. Meyer’s CIA role was to distribute funds through a range of front organizations including the existing Ford and Rockefeller foundations and the Fairfield Foundation, entirely a CIA creation, this included providing money to Encounter. Meyer also supervised RFE/RL and was caught up in Watergate, see: Meyer, Cord (1980) ‘Facing Reality From World Federalism to the CIA,’ New York: Harper & Row; and Guardian (2001) ‘Obituary: Cord Meyer: CIA chief behind clandestine funding of Encounter and the Watergate break-in,’ March 17. Meyer was also involved with Crozier and FWF and funding of the European Movement. At the time of FWF’s exposure, Meyer was CIA Chief of Station in London and Crozier’s main linkman to the CIA throughout the crucial period of the mid-1970s, see: Teacher op cit.
 See: http://www.iegd.org/spanish800/adjuntos/cvpdf/amosing.pdf. Advised by Henry Kissinger, the Institute of World Affairs is funded by the small group of foundations we have already encountered and the US Department of State, the US Institute of Peace, the UN, the USIA, the USAID, the US Joint Forces Command, NATO, the Soros Foundation, and the Texaco Corporation, among others. It works on a contractual basis for these organisations, see: http://www.iwa.org/pages/capability.html. The Institute includes Geraldine S. Kunstadter of the Atlantic Council, Judith Kipper of the American Iranian Council; this was part of US Public Diplomacy backed by multi-national corporate interests including the oil companies and defence contractors, much like the associated Middle East Institute. Its directors include Clare M. Lopez, Secretary Vice President of the Intelligence Summit, on this see my analysis at: https://pinkindustry.wordpress.com/crackpot-realist-manque-part-one/ this was also organised by Michael Ledeen and advocated extending the war indefinitely, it also relayed government propaganda to the media with the imprimatur of its retired military officers.
 Davis styles himself as a ‘a social entrepreneur’ and is the member of numerous short-lived organisations such as the WorldAssembly.net™ funded by the Raynault Foundation which was involved in the re-structuring of the Soviet Union. Davis’ work can also be placed within the US public diplomacy apparatus and ‘democracy building’ under the NED along with the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), who’s director, Charles Manett was vice chairman of the NED. The IFES’ (1993) International Foundation for Electoral Systems Magazine, p. 3, Vol. 3, No. 4, notes that the IEDSS’ Richard V. Allen, Richard Lugar and Donald Rumsfeld, fund it along with the Raynault Foundation and also the involvement of the Westminster Forum for Democracy (the UK version of the NED) together with USAID. This is the same pattern with the other organisations Davis was involved with around this time, such as the (2000) World Forum on Democracy, in Warsaw, Poland, sponsored by the NED’s Freedom House and the Stefan Batory Foundation which we have already encountered in our analysis of the funding of the IEDSS in the 1980s, see: http://www.fordemocracy.net/about-us.html. George Monboit seems taken in by Davis and oblivious of his role, even with when he outline’s Davis’ “ingenious means plans” for the subversion of Iraq (emphasis added): “The United Nations, he proposes, should help the opposition groups based abroad and in Iraq’s no-fly zones to establish a democratically-elected government in exile. This government is then given the world’s Iraqi embassies and the nation’s frozen assets. It gradually takes control of the no-fly zones and the oil-for-food programme. Saddam Hussein would find himself both isolated diplomatically and confronted by a legitimate alternative government. It is not hard to see how his authority over his own people would be undermined, permitting him to be toppled more easily. This plan also ensures that democracy is less likely to be frustrated by the installation of a puppet regime.” See: Monbiot, George (2002) ‘See you in Court,’ Guardian, November 26.
 A graduate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, which has connections with the CIA, Edington is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Roundtable on Religion and Foreign Policy. Edington’s academic background is in comparative religion, international relations, trade, and security policy. He worked for ten years as an analyst at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis focusing on post-Cold War patterns of conflict, intelligence requirements, and security policy planning, with an emphasis on terrorism and religious violence, see: http://decisionlab.harvard.edu/people/mark-edington. Amidst the ‘cover’ of religion, Edington had previously been part of the government funded terrorism-studies industry. This was a system with the funds filtered into think tanks from agencies whose own operations were usually sub rosa, thus the resulting work was usually not publicly available. Edington advocated: “direct action against terrorists and the states that underwrite their violence.” Yet he also states that: “Unquestionably the most significant terrorism-related damage that was done to the United States in the 1980s was self-inflicted—entering into an arrangement with Iran that, however indirectly, resulted in trading arms for hostages;” basically he is advocating what became the CIA’s move towards open pre-emptive attacks called ‘Disruption,’ amounting to a pre-emptive, offensive form of counterterrorism, see: Edington, Mark (1992) ‘Taking the Offensive,’ The Atlantic Monthly, June, Vol. 269, No. 6.
 A former assistant chief of the UK defence staff, Garden was a member of the Foreign Policy Centre and the CER, and in part is representative of the shift towards the social democrats and ‘New Labour.’ By 2004 he was the Wells professor at Indiana University. A member of a vast array defence and security think tank he was also a key military media pundit. At the time he argued that the UN Security Council was: “the authority to allow war to happen,” but: “the United States can in the end do what it wants because it is the most powerful nation in the world.” See: BBC (2003) ‘Six Forum: Blair’s Iraq gamble,’ March 13, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2843035.stm. The Institute of Communications Studies, at the University of Leeds, have an extensive on-line archive of propaganda on the ‘war on terror.’
 Von Habsburg was also President of the Austria-based Paneuropean Movement (PM) founded by Richard Graf Coudenhove Kalergi, that drifted into the US anti-communist orbit after World War II, merging with the European Movement established by Winston Churchill’s son-in-law, Duncan Sandys, at the behest of the CIA. Under von Habsburg, the PM opened an international office behind the Iron Curtain and established contacts with civil rights organizations in Poland with ‘Solidarnosc’ and ‘Charter 77’ and church institutions in Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and in the Baltic states. The pan-European: “underground work received a boost through the strong support of the Polish Pope, John Paul II and Bishop of Augsburg Josef Stimpfle, who were connected throughout their lives to the Pan-Europa movement.” See: http://www.paneuropa.org/. The League of Nations was founded because of the disaster the aristocratic families led Europe into, so there is some irony here. The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO) represent several post-Cold War nations including the Georgians and Chechens. The Bush government seemed to have ostracized UNPO, see: Madsen, Wayne (2002) ‘Bush’s Bizarro World,’ CounterPunch, August 29. I have my reservations on this. UNPO’s (2010) ‘The Democratic Movement in Iran: Pitfalls and Potential’ press release was removed by its PR company probably because it detailed the involvement of the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, part of a apparatus that involved Michael Ledeen, Walid Phares, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle and others. It overlaps with various other covert operations and attempts by the US to establish insurgency groups in Iran, such as Lopez’s the Intelligence Summit op cit. See: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ng14yB_iu00J:www.pr-inside.com/the-democratic-movement-in-iran-pitfalls-r1952958.htm+andrew+swan+unpo&cd=3&hl=
 Heiner Klebes was part of the Council of Europe’s (1988) moves towards Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua orchestrated by the Center for Democracy controlled by Allen Weinstein, see: PR Newswire (1988) ‘News Advisory,’ December 12. Weinstein was the Senior Advisor on Democratic Institutions at the IFES previously mentioned (see the section on Frank Shakespeare). He worked with the CIA-connected CSIS, and was President of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions that projects US soft power. From 1982-1984 he directed the research study that led to creation of the NED and was Acting President of the NED at its inception. Weinstein was the prime mover over the years in the formation of two institutions: the Center for Democracy, which he ran from 1985 to 2003, when it was folded into the IFES, and the NED. Klebes, as we have noted also works for the Center for Democracy, see: Shenkman, Rick (2005) ‘Allen Weinstein: The overlooked controversy in his career,’ History News Network, August 2, http://hnn.us/articles/
10099.html. Rightweb has a profile on the Center that includes F. Clifton White who: “worked with CIA director William Casey on the Reagan Administration’s pro-contra propaganda network. According to a November 1986 memo from National Security Council staffer Walter Raymond to National Security Adviser John Poindexter, White was to be in charge of the formation of a group modeled after the bipartisan cold war champion, Committee on the Present Danger, but focusing on Central America. The group was to promote President Reagan’s Central American policies.” Charles T. Manatt of the IFES is also a member and had a close (but largely unexplored) association with the IEDSS’ Richard V. Allen and Edwin Feulner as board members of the Credit International Bank. See: http://www.rightweb.irconline.org/articles/display/Center_for_Democracy, and Herman, Edward & O’Sullivan Gerry (1989) ‘The Terrorism Industry,’ p. 274, Pantheon. The Center was also used to arrange the first visit of KGB agents to the US, and then in Sofia, of which the KGB stated: “I regard as one of the main results of the visit the fact that we were able to inform our American colleagues about the civilized methods used by the Russian external intelligence in its work […] We don’t resort to misinformation and blackmail. We don’t finance subversive organizations abroad and don’t encourage terrorism.” See: Iloshilin, Andre (1993) ‘Russian Intelligence Officials Visit USA,’ TASS, January 19. Weinstein also headed the ‘private investigation’ into the 1981 assassination attempt against Pope John Paul in Rome, that advanced the ‘Bulgarian connection’ conspiracy theory, see: Guardian (1992) ‘International spies come in from the cold for get-together in Sofia,’ April 10.
 Oberg, Jan (2005) ‘The International Crisis Group: Who Pays the Piper?’ The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, Press Information No. 219, April 15, is a denouncement of the International Crisis Group (ICG), which stated inter alia: “virtually all the top names are: “have-beens” […] The Washington office of the Crisis Group consists of only Americans who—no exception—have a background in the US government—Peace Corps, State Department, the National Security Council, USAID.”
 Pattison also held the position of FCO Director, International Security and was caught up in the Iraq Enquiry concerning his involvement in the cover-up of the ‘Williams dossier,’ produced by the propaganda organisation the Coalition Information Centre (http://iraqdossier.com/who/williams.pdf) see: Information Tribunal (2008) Information Tribunal Appeal Number: EA/2007/0047, http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Documents/decisions/fco_decision_website.pdf.
 Easton, Tom (1997) ‘The British American Project for the Successor Generation,’ Lobster, No. 33. With Christopher Coker, Sherr wrote the (1994) ‘Arms for oblivion: British defence policy in the 1990s,’ for the IEDSS.
 On Patrick Lang see: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/files/completecv-43.pdf, this, his CV, states that He was in charge of: “world wide US military collection of information necessary to American strategic and tactical activities. Included world-wide command of all military, naval and air force attaches serving with US diplomatic missions as well as many other collection activities. These collection activities included all the espionage assets of the Department of Defense.”
 Omand developed a new dual role within the Cabinet Office and the JIC. Norton-Taylor, Richard (2010) ‘The British security services are under scrutiny,’ Guardian, June 19, noted that: “Katharine Gun, a former GCHQ translator, blew the whistle by revealing an NSA request to GCHQ to bug the offices of neutrals and allies in the UN Security Council before the decision to invade Iraq.” Omand’s role at this time is outlined in his testimony to the Iraq Inquiry: http://www.iraqinquiry.
org.uk/media/43116/100120pm-omand.pdf. The (1976) Time Out disclosures, and subsequent work of Duncan Campbell, that led to the ‘ABC trial’ and a failed prosecution, revealed the purpose of GCHQ as a large electronic surveillance centre linked to the US National Security Agency. It was subsequently officially acknowledged in 1982 when spying equipment was found in the house of Geoffrey Prime, a former linguist at GCHQ, who was first arrested on paedophilia charges. GCHQ grew out of the war time Bletchley Park and Margaret Thatcher’s ban on trade unions is still in place. Its work forms the basis of the ‘special relationship’ secretly agreed in 1946 with the UK/USA signals intelligence pact.
 Inge was a member of the Butler Inquiry team that decided that the intelligence used to identify Iraq’s possession of ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ was ‘flawed.’ He also had an involvement with the private intelligence company Hakluyt, the mercenary company Aegis Defense Services and was president of the Atlanticist organisations the Pilgrims Society of Great Britain and the Atlantic Partnership. See: http://spinprofiles.org/index.php?title=Windsor_Leadership_Trust.
 See: Business Wire (2007) July 4.
 Roston, Aram (2010) ‘Banking on Chalabi,’ The Nation, April 15.
 Hosking, Patrick (2009) ‘UK plc ‘risks missing out’ on riches from Iraq,’ Times, April 30.
 Richmond, David (2008) ‘Business Intelligence And Lobbying/Decision Makers,’ Intelligence Online,’ January 17.
 Intelligence Online (2005) ‘A British Trio with Iraq Connections’, December 9.
 Intelligence Online (2005) ‘A British Trio with Iraq Connections’, December 9.
 Poole, William T. (1979) ‘The Anti-Defense Lobby: Part I Center For Defense Information,’ Heritage Foundation Reports, Institution Analysis No. 10, April.
 Poole, William T. (1982) ‘The Environmental Complex,’ Heritage Foundation Reports, Institution Analysis, No. 19, June.
 Poole, William T. (1982) ‘The New Left In Government: Part II: The Vista Program As “Institution-Building”,’ Heritage Foundation Reports, Institution Analysis, No. 17, February.