Category: News

  • Boxing Preview: Brook vs Spence

    Boxing Preview: Brook vs Spence

    This Saturday 27th of May sees Kell Brook defend his IBF Welterweight title against the undefeated prospect Errol spence Jr. The hotly anticipated bout, which will take place in Bramall Lane, Sheffield, England is expected to attract one of the biggest crowds for a fight this year.

    Following the results of the weigh-in, it is clear that these fighters mean business. With a mere few hours to go until the fight takes place, it will be interesting to see who comes out Victorious, will the belt change hands or will the special one retain his title?

  • RESEARCH DOCUMENT : Chiquita Papers Are Key Evidence in International Criminal Court Filing

    RESEARCH DOCUMENT : Chiquita Papers Are Key Evidence in International Criminal Court Filing

    image001 19

    Notes of Chiquita Senior Counsel Robert Thomas describe complicated accounting scheme used to conceal payments to the paramilitary AUC.

    Chiquita Papers Are Key Evidence in International Criminal Court Filing

    Groups Ask ICC to Investigate Banana Company Execs for Facilitating Crimes Against Humanity

    National Security Archive Submits 48,000 Pages to Prosecutors at The Hague on Chiquita’s Illegal Payments

    Posted May 18, 2017
    National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 593
    Edited by Michael Evans
    Research assistance by Emily Taylor and Julian Moreno
    This is the fourth and final article in a series published by the National Security Archive in collaboration with mevansTwitter: @colombiadocs

    Washington, D.C., May 18, 2017 – The National Security Archive’s Chiquita Papers collection represents key evidence behind a “communication” calling on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate officials from Chiquita Brands International for facilitating crimes against humanity committed by armed groups the company paid in Colombia.

    The petition to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor was brought by the International Human Rights Clinic of Harvard Law School, the International Federation for Human Rights, and the Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo, a Colombian human rights organization, and was made public today at a press conference in Bogotá, Colombia.

    The Archive provided more than 48,000 pages of internal Chiquita records to the ICC as part of the communication, including financial records, legal memoranda, handwritten notes, and the secret, sworn testimony of company officials that help to identify individuals at Chiquita who steered millions of dollars in “sensitive payments” to Colombian insurgent groups, government security forces, and right-wing paramilitary militias.

    The ICC action comes at an important moment, just as Colombia begins to implement a historic peace agreement ending more than 50 years of conflict with rebels from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). In February, the Colombian prosecutor general ruled that the “voluntary financing” of paramilitary and insurgent groups by corporations like Chiquita should be investigated as crimes against humanity by a special tribunal established by the accord.

    The communication asks the ICC “to monitor local Colombian proceedings to ensure they meet ICC standards, particularly with regards to private sector support for the paramilitaries and business’ accountability,” according to today’s press release.

    Ten years ago, Chiquita admitted to paying $1.7 million to the United Self-defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a right-wing paramilitary group responsible for a wave of human rights abuses, including massacres of civilians and targeted killings of politicians, unionists and banana workers. But the guilty plea arranged with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for funding a foreign terrorist organization only applied to the corporate entity; not a single Chiquita official has ever been held accountable for funding the terrorist group. Civil litigation against some Chiquita officials is pending in U.S. court, but there is little hope that Colombia would be able to gain jurisdiction over non-Colombians involved in financing the AUC.

    The Chiquita Papers are key to identifying 14 “Chiquita Suspects” named in a sealed section of the ICC submission “who were involved in overseeing, authorizing, and/or making repeated payments to blocs of the AUC.” In a declaration submitted along with the communication, National Security Archive senior analyst Michael Evans explained how the Chiquita Papers facilitate the identification of company officials behind the payments, including those whose names were omitted from the Factual Proffer agreed to by DOJ and Chiquita as part of the 2007 guilty plea.

    A similar process of cross-referencing reveals names of key Chiquita actors that were scrubbed from a 2009 report to shareholders by a committee appointed by Chiquita’s Board of Directors. The declaration also identifies seven Chiquita executives who gave sworn testimony about the company’s payments to Colombian armed groups in a separate investigation conducted in 1999-2000 by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

    Other records from the Chiquita Papers underlie and strengthen the main allegations in the communication, including:

    • that the “Chiquita Suspects” knew the AUC had committed, and was planning, crimes against humanity;
    • that they intentionally paid the AUC;
    • and that they tried to conceal the payments, suggesting knowledge that the payments were illegal or improper.

    The communication highlights a 1994 report from Chiquita’s Colombia-based security staff that demonstrates knowledge of paramilitary crimes long before the payments at issue were made. Markings on the fax cover page suggest that this information was shared with individuals at Chiquita headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio.

    “There exist paramilitary groups that keep the guerrilla groups in check; it’s the case that, a few weeks ago, a faction of the oldest group suffered 30 losses in an encounter with these groups. We’ve heard from a witness about how they tied up the guerrillas they’d killed and how they’d pull them until they were able to place them in the Jeeps they had ready for the getaway, in addition to some farmers that affirm that, in parts of their property, some corpses were burned and later buried.”

    image002 9

    Additional documents published last week as part of a joint investigation between the National Security Archive and VerdadAbierta.com provide further evidence that the security personnel for Banadex, Chiquita’s wholly-owned Colombian subsidiary, had intimate, sometimes firsthand, knowledge of guerrilla and paramilitary atrocities in Colombia. A report from 1995 described the arrival of paramilitaries “ready to do away with everything that smells communist.” A faction paid by Chiquita was said to have “initiated joint patrols” with the newly-arrived paramilitaries.

    image003 15

    Another document featured in the ICC filing is a memorandum prepared by Chiquita Senior Counsel Robert Thomas in September 2000 showing both knowledge of paramilitary crimes and, according to the communication, “clear evidence of knowledge at the highest levels of the company and among the Chiquita Suspects of Chiquita’s payments going to the AUC.”

    In one section of the memo, Thomas writes that the AUC, here referred to as “Autodefensas,” was a “widely-known, illegal, vigilante organization.” Later, his memo describes how payments to an ostensibly-legal Convivir militia were “forwarded . . . to Autodefensas in Magdalena.”

    image004 13

    * * *

    image005 4

    Another version of the Thomas memo with different redactions clearly indicates knowledge that paramilitaries had created a front company, Inversiones Manglar, S.A., to “collect payments” from the Banadex security manager, Juan Manuel Alvarado.

    image006 4

    The communication stresses that Thomas’s memo “was written based on research done by one of the Chiquita Suspects in Colombia, was discussed directly with at least one other Chiquita Suspect, and then was presented at the Audit Committee meeting in September 2000 in Chiquita’s Cincinnati headquarters.”

    Another document highlighted in the communication shows that Chiquita officials learned about paramilitary atrocities through contemporaneous news reports, pointing to a June 2000 fax from the company’s European Sourcing Department in Costa Rica enclosing an article stating that the AUC was responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths in that year alone. “THE ATTACHED SAYS IT ALL!” according to the fax cover sheet.

    While the communication focuses on payments made between 2002 and 2004, the period of time covered by ICC jurisdiction, the report also looks at key turning points in the company’s approach to the “sensitive payments,” zooming in on 1997 as a period when the company transitioned away from paying guerrilla groups and instead began to fund the paramilitary AUC.

    The handwritten notes of Wilfred “Bud” White, Vice President of Internal Audit at Chiquita, underscore the stark choice facing the company at that time: “Cost of Doing Business in Colombia – maybe the question is not why are we doing this[,] but rather[,] we are in Colombia[,] and do we want to ship bananas from Colombia.” White emphasized the “Need to keep this very confidential,” adding, “People can get killed.”

    image010 4

    White later told the SEC that Chiquita “gave money to the Convivir”—which later funneled the funds to the AUC—“with the idea that Convivir . . . tried to search out where the guerrillas were” and would then “inform the military so that the military could then go after the guerrillas.”

    The Chiquita Papers also provide evidence of the company’s efforts to conceal the payments through what the ICC filing calls an “elaborate payment and accounting scheme.”

    A draft memorandum from January 1994 included in the communication, and included in a previous posting, describes the system used to funnel cash to “various guerrilla groups in both Divisions” and identifies some of the security staff and intermediaries who handled and approved the payments.

    image011 3

    Annotations made on a security payments schedule show that the company used color codes for the names of guerrilla groups like the FARC, the National Liberation Army (ELN), and the People’s Liberation Army (EPL), evidence that the groups bringing the ICC action say shows “a history of intentional and planned payments to armed groups.”

    The complexity of the payment schemes developed by Chiquita to manage payments to paramilitary groups is clear in a handwritten memo from March 6, 2000, apparently written by Chiquita senior counsel Robert Thomas, author of the September 2000 “Thomas memo” described above. The earlier memo describes again how false companies were created by paramilitary groups to collect payments from Chiquita and other companies and to disguise “the real purpose of providing security.”

    image016 1

    Perhaps most important for the period of ICC jurisdiction, covering payments made from 2002-2004, is a telephone contact memorandum (telcon) apparently written by John Ordman, head of the European Sourcing Division and the subject of an earlier posting by the National Security Archive.

    His March 28, 2002, memo is “evidence of the direct involvement of some Chiquita Suspects” in setting up an accounting system to enable the company to continue to make payments to the AUC, covering both the period after the group was put on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and the years covered by ICC jurisdiction.

    image017 1

    An alternate version of this same document hides some of the names included above, but reveals one additional name (“Tsacalis”) and other key details, such as the fact that the payments were to be made from a General Manager’s Expense fund (“Gastos de Gerente”).

    image018 1

    In 2013, Chiquita brought a rarely-seen “reverse” Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the SEC in an effort to block the agency from releasing transcripts of these depositions (and thousands of additional documents) to the National Security Archive, a non-governmental research group based in Washington, D.C. Two years later, a federal appeals court panel rejected Chiquita’s claim, clearing the way for the release of more than 9,000 pages of the company’s most sensitive internal records.

    “We request that the ICC expands its current inquiry in Colombia to specifically include Chiquita’s executives and officials,” said Dimitris Christopoulos, President of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), in a statement released today. “The weight of the evidence should lead the Office of the Prosecutor to act if Colombian authorities are not able to.”

    READ THE DOCUMENTS

    Document 01

    1993-03-11

    To: A. Bakoczy
    From: J. Alvarado, Banadex and Compa��a Frutera de Sevilla, Department of Industrial Protection
    Cuenta de Seguridad Ciudadana Movimiento General [Citizen Security Account General Movement], includes cover sheet

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 02

    1994-01-05

    “Reportable Payments in Colombia and Manager’s Expense Payments” [Draft; includes original annotations]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Document 03

    1994-12-05

    [Security Report and Fax Cover Sheet]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 04

    1995-04-24

    [Confidential Security Report]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 05

    1997-05-07

    [Notes of Wilfred “Bud” White]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 06

    1999-02-08

    [SEC Testimony of Wilfred “Bud” White], excerpt, pp. 141-144.

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Document 07

    2000-03-06

    [Handwritten memo from Robert Thomas]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 08

    2000-06-19

    [“ATTACHED SAYS IT ALL!” Fax]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 09

    2000-09-00

    Colombia Security – Version 1

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Document 10

    2000-09-00

    Colombia Security -Version 2

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 11

    2002-03-28

    [Telephone contact memorandum] – Version 1

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Document 12

    2002-03-28

    [Telephone contact memorandum] – Version 2

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

  • CIA FILES : The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and Truth-Serum Torture

    CIA FILES : The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and Truth-Serum Torture

    image001 18

    By Jon Rappoport

    March 18, 2013

    www.nomorefakenews.com

    In 2002, author Martin Lee wrote an article for Common Dreams: “Truth Serum and Torture.”

    It could have been written yesterday, because now a Colorado judge has stated that, if James Holmes pleads not guilty by reason of insanity to the Aurora murders, state psychiatrists can subject him to drugs that will “help him remember his state of mind” at the time of the shootings. The drugging will reveal whether he really was insane that night last summer at the Aurora theater.

    Well, when it comes to so-called truth drugs like sodium pentothal, sodium amatyl, scopolamine, mescaline, LSD, and hypnotic benzodiazepines, where are the pros with real experience?

    At run-of-the-mill psychiatric wards? No. Those hacks in the Colorado state hospital system have rarely if ever tried out the drugs for the purpose of getting at the truth.

    But the CIA has up-to-date interrogators around, and thousands of pages of MKULTRA (mind control) literature, that constitute the best experience in this dark art.

    Therefore, it’s highly probable the CIA or their independent contractors will be sitting in on James Holmes’ drug-induced sessions, supervising them, giving advice. It’s the Ghostbusters motto: “Who ya gonna call?”

    Martin Lee points out that, even before the CIA was created, its forerunner, the OSS, tried out a cannabis extract as a truth serum. This was back in the 1940s. Lee goes on to trace US intelligence-agency and military “leadership” in truth-drug testing.

    In 1947, the US Navy Project Chatter, borrowing from Nazi studies, moved on to experiments with mescaline as a truth drug.

    Shortly after its inception, in the late 1940s, the CIA used drugging with sedatives, plus hypnosis, to extract secrets from agents. This method, and barbiturates alternated with amphetamines, were soon rolled up into the infamous and overarching MKULTRA mind-control program, with its hundreds of sub-projects. MKULTRA was all about developing chemical means of eliciting truth from prisoners, along with creating unconscious assassins.

    In the 1950s, the CIA employed LSD in Operation Artichoke. People don’t know or forget that, while LSD failed to qualify as a reliable truth serum, its use in very high doses produced extreme terror in people being interrogated. It was this effect, as straight-out torture, the CIA capitalized on. The idea was simple. Demand the truth and threaten with extreme-dose LSD as the alternative.

    We shouldn’t discount the possibility that James Holmes, once he enters an insanity plea, and is sent away to a secure hospital for psychiatric eval, will be given drugs that produce the kind of mad panic that will convince him to say, in court, exactly what his handlers want him to say.

    Back in 2002, Martin Lee wrote that William Webster, former head of the CIA and FBI, was recommending the use of truth drugs on terrorism suspects under US detention. This statement spurred a significant amount of media coverage at the time.

    But in the ensuing years, very few people have bothered to ask the key question: Why should we assume that waterboarding and isolation tanks and sleep deprivation are the only torture methods the CIA/military are employing on these prisoners? What about the drugs?

    In particular—because no drug has ever been found to reliably elicit the truth—what about the use of drugs to produce panic and wild terror, as a way to force people to tell what they know, or confess to what they’re told to.

    It’s obvious, given the history, that US interrogators have, in fact, been using these drugs on detained terrorism suspects.

    Lee ends his prescient article with a chilling quote from former CIA chief of counterterrorism, Vince Cannistraro, that reflects directly the James Holmes situation in 2013:

    “Once you’ve used [truth drugs] for national security cases, then it becomes a standard. Sodium pentathol is not that effective, and so you have to use something stronger, It’s a short skip and a hop to LSD, or something worse.”

    These drugs are certainly being used in national security cases. Therefore, as Cannistraro predicts, they are now entering the mainstream as the standard. The astonishing statement from the court judge in the James Holmes case, ordering his truth-drug interrogation, couldn’t be a clearer signal:

    full-speed ahead in chemically inducing a suspect to give up his right not to incriminate himself;

    forget the fact that such truth-drug interrogations are notoriously unreliable;

    forget the damage suspects can incur from the effects of the drugs;

    and most of all, forget the fact that, although truth drugs don’t work reliably, they can be used to create such terror that the suspect will do or say anything to escape more dosing.

    Many people have observed that James Holmes already looks like a man who has been heavily drugged, while in custody.

    Whatever Holmes knows about what happened last summer at the Aurora theater; whatever he doesn’t know; whatever role he played or didn’t play; whether he was in the theater doing the shooting or was the patsy set up by professionals to take the fall for the murders…

    All of this can be twisted, on strong enough drugs, to cause him to say anything his handlers want him to say in court.

    The psychiatrists who are working on Holmes will need advice on methods. They’ll go to, or be approached by, the people who have the track record, the history, the experience: the CIA.

    And once that move is made, it will be very much like saying the Holmes case has national-security implications.

    In so far as the Aurora murders have been used to try to snuff out the 2nd Amendment, the case is definitely the gun-grabbers’ version of national security. They want no mistakes in Holmes’ performance.

    They want him to enter a plea of non-guilty by reason of insanity. Then they want him, after his stay in a mental hospital for “testing and observation,” to come back to court, and state that is now aware he killed and wounded many people. Then the State will dispose of him one way or another and he will never again see the light of day.

    image002 8

    One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

    Naïve people place false barriers between the practice of psychiatry, institutional confinement, coerced admissions of guilt, torture, brain-twisting drugs, and the CIA’s MKULTRA. They swim together in the same stream far more often than Americans want to admit, or want to know about.

    This horrendous stream flows through the James Holmes case.

    Other than using drugs to force him to follow orders, what possible value can this “narcoanalytic review” have in a court of law? Think about it. If Holmes enters an insanity plea, thus triggering the ensuing truth-drug interrogation, he’ll already be stating he is crazy. So the drugs will be administered to a crazy man, on the premise that can he recall correctly, or reveal correctly, his state of mind at the time he committed murders.

    Is there any defense lawyer in the country who couldn’t cast doubt on the reliability of such evidence?

    No, the Holmes case is now being used to put straight-out drug-torture of defendants, in order to gain confessions, into the mainstream of American legal practice.

    There is one more long-shot factor here. It’s nearly unthinkable, but it should be mentioned. Many people have found evidence that the Aurora murders were staged. Without recounting the details, suppose there is one more piece of stagework left: the truth drugs used on Holmes are shown to have created brain damage.

    If Holmes’ lawyers claim that the prosecution irreparably destroyed their client, they can move for a mistrial.

    Can you imagine the uproar, chaos, and destabilization that would result from a declaration of a mistrial, a no-verdict in the case, and Holmes walking out of prison? Or his remand to a psychiatric facility as a permanently damaged person—but without a guilty verdict?

    Jon Rappoport

    The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

  • The Turkey I no longer know By Fethullah Gulen    (Washington Post; 05/15/2017)

    The Turkey I no longer know By Fethullah Gulen (Washington Post; 05/15/2017)

    The Turkey I no longer know By Fethullah Gulen

    fg

    May 15 at 7:41 PM

    pg2

    Fethullah Gulen is an Islamic scholar, preacher and social advocate.

    SAYLORSBURG, Pa.

    Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. (Adem Altan/Agence France-Presse via Getty Images)

    By Fethullah Gulen

     

    May 15 at 7:41 PM

    Fethullah Gulen is an Islamic scholar, preacher and social advocate.

    SAYLORSBURG, Pa.

    As the presidents of the United States and Turkey meet at the White House on Tuesday, the leader of the country I have called home for almost two decades comes face to face with the leader of my homeland. The two countries have a lot at stake, including the fight against the Islamic State, the future of Syria and the refugee crisis.

    But the Turkey that I once knew as a hope-inspiring country on its way to consolidating its democracy and a moderate form of secularism has become the dominion of a president who is doing everything he can to amass power and subjugate dissent.

    The West must help Turkey return to a democratic path. Tuesday’s meeting, and the NATO summit next week, should be used as an opportunity to advance this effort.

    Since July 15, following a deplorable coup attempt, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has systematically persecuted innocent people — arresting, detaining, firing and otherwise ruining the lives of more than 300,000 Turkish citizens, be they Kurds, Alevis, secularists, leftists, journalists, academics or participants of Hizmet, the peaceful humanitarian movement with which I am associated.

    As the coup attempt unfolded, I fiercely denounced it and denied any involvement. Furthermore, I said that anyone who participated in the putsch betrayed my ideals. Nevertheless, and without evidence, Erdogan immediately accused me of orchestrating it from 5,000 miles away.

    The next day, the government produced lists of thousands of individuals whom they tied to Hizmet — for opening a bank account, teaching at a school or reporting for a newspaper — and treated such an affiliation as a crime and began destroying their lives. The lists included people who had been dead for months and people who had been serving at NATO’s European headquarters at the time. International watchdogs have reported numerous abductions, in addition to torture and deaths in detention. The government pursued innocent people outside Turkey, pressuring Malaysia, for instance, to deport three Hizmet sympathizers last week, including a school principal who has lived there for more than a decade, to face certain imprisonment and likely torture.

    In April, the president won a narrow referendum victory — amid allegations of serious fraud — to form an “executive presidency” without checks and balances, enabling him to control all three branches of the government. To be sure, through purges and corruption, much of this power was already in his hands. I fear for the Turkish people as they enter this new stage of authoritarianism.

    It didn’t start this way. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) came into power in 2002 by promising democratic reforms in pursuit of European Union membership. But as time went on, Erdogan became increasingly intolerant of dissent. He facilitated the transfer of many media outlets to his cronies through government regulatory agencies. In June of 2013, he crushed the Gezi Park protesters. In December of that year, when his cabinet members were implicated in a massive graft probe, he responded by subjugating the judiciary and the media. The “temporary” state of emergency declared after last July 15 is still in effect. According to Amnesty International, one-third of all imprisoned journalists in the world are in Turkish prisons.

    Erdogan’s persecution of his people is not simply a domestic matter. The ongoing pursuit of civil society, journalists, academics and Kurds in Turkey is threatening the long-term stability of the country. The Turkish population already is strongly polarized on the AKP regime. A Turkey under a dictatorial regime, providing haven to violent radicals and pushing its Kurdish citizens into desperation, would be a nightmare for Middle East security.

    The people of Turkey need the support of their European allies and the United States to restore their democracy. Turkey initiated true multiparty elections in 1950 to join NATO. As a requirement of its membership, NATO can and should demand that Turkey honor its commitment to the alliance’s democratic norms.

    Two measures are critical to reversing the democratic regression in Turkey.

    First, a new civilian constitution should be drafted through a democratic process involving the input of all segments of society and that is on par with international legal and humanitarian norms, and drawing lessons from the success of long-term democracies in the West.

    Second, a school curriculum that emphasizes democratic and pluralistic values and encourages critical thinking must be developed. Every student must learn the importance of balancing state powers with individual rights, the separation of powers, judicial independence and press freedom, and the dangers of extreme nationalism, politicization of religion and veneration of the state or any leader.

    Before either of those things can happen, however, the Turkish government must stop the repression of its people and redress the rights of individuals who have been wronged by Erdogan without due process.

    I probably will not live to see Turkey become an exemplary democracy, but I pray that the downward authoritarian drift can be stopped before it is too late.

  • RESEARCH DOCUMENT : Chiquita Papers Document over $800,000 in Payments to Colombian Guerrillas

    RESEARCH DOCUMENT : Chiquita Papers Document over $800,000 in Payments to Colombian Guerrillas

    image001 11

    Fax cover sheet enclosing a confidential security report from Juan Manuel Alvarado, Chiquita’s security chief in Colombia.

    Chiquita Papers Document over $800,000 in Payments to Colombian Guerrillas

    Internal Security Reports Detail Negotiations with Subversive Groups

    Company Sought Quid Pro Quos with Insurgents; Funded Group That Went on “Joint Patrols” with Paramilitaries

    Posted May 11, 2017
    National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 592
    This is the third in a series of articles published jointly by the National Security Archive and mevansTwitter: @colombiadocs

    The FARC, the ELN, and to a lesser extent, the EPL, along with their dissident offshootsand political allies all profited from Chiquita’s security payments. Newly declassified documents on this little-known episode in the violent history of Colombia’s banana-growing zone shine a spotlight on the sometimes- blurry line between paying extortion, making contributions, and the deliberately financing of violent actors. The Special Jurisdiction for Peace, a tribunal established as part of peace accord with the FARC, will have the final word.

    Ten years have passed since Chiquita Brands was sentenced in the United States for financing an international terrorist group. In 2007, the company confessed to paying the paramilitary United Self-defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) and also admitted that between 1989 and 1997 it funded the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), the country’s two largest rebel groups.

    But unlike payments to the AUC, Chiquita’s financial ties to guerrilla groups were not a concern of U.S. courts. The FARC and the ELN had not yet been declared foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. when those payments were made; and while both groups were so designated in October 1997, the court found no evidence that the company had paid either of them beyond that date.

    In Colombia, the Justice and Peace tribunals have documented how money that banana companies gave to private security cooperatives known as Convivir ended up in the coffers of the right-wing AUC. But until now there has been little evidence of how cash from the fruit multinational made its way into the hands of leftist Colombian guerrilla groups.

    These kinds of records are all the more important now, following a December 2016 ruling by the Colombian Attorney General that the voluntary financing of paramilitary groups by banana companies is a crime against humanity, and that payments to guerrillas from the FARC, the People’s Liberation Army (EPL), the ELN and the Socialist Renovation Current (CRS) are to be treated in the same manner. The ruling means that the crimes are still actionable in Colombian courts despite the passage of time and that the Colombian justice system must fully investigate the violations to punish those responsible.

    As these processes get underway, a new batch of declassified documents obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Security Archive provides a detailed accounting of the payments that Chiquita Brands and three other banana companies made to Colombian insurgent groups between 1989 and 1997. The records for the first time reveal the minimum amounts of money Chiquita paid to the various Colombian guerrilla groups, and provide a unique, first-hand account of the harrowing and complicated security situation in Urabá from the practical and calculated perspective of one of the world’s biggest fruit companies.

    How much money went to the Guerrillas?

    Based on the documentation provided to U.S. authorities by Chiquita and subsequently obtained through FOIA requests, it is possible to document payments from Chiquita to Colombian guerrilla groups of an estimated $856,815 in a little more than five years, from October 1991 through 1996. These totals do not include any money transferred to guerrillas before October 1991 or after 1996. Payments are said to have begun in the late-1980s and continued through part of 1997.

    image038

    Source documents for above information: 19920904; 19930311; 19950516; 19950616; and 19950000.

    The U.S. dollar amounts shown above reflect a range of possible exchange rates for those years, which are not specified in the underlying documentation. The upper end of this range brings us closer to the estimated grand total of $856,815 for all guerrilla payments, most of which was found expressed in true dollar amounts in the auditing records.

    That figure covers all payments from 1992-1996 and draws on information found in two key records laying out payment totals for different periods of time.

    • One is an internal auditing worksheet reporting an exact total of $618,578 paid from 1993-1996.
    • For 1992, the clearest evidence comes from an internal security report with payments totaling some 129,979,000 Colombian Pesos for that year (estimated to be around $260,000 at an approximate 1992 exchange rate of 500:1).
    • We have also taken care to subtract $21,763 from that total, the amount paid to Convivir groups in 1996. These are the first known payments to the controversial self-defense organizations that collected money from Chiquita on behalf of anti-guerrilla paramilitary groups. Information about these early Convivir payments is drawn from an annotated general ledger found among the Chiquita Papers.

    There are some additional caveats. The collection does not include detailed information about payments made in 1993. As a result, while we know the total amount of all guerrilla-related payments made that year, we do not have information about the specific amounts paid to each group. Rather than estimate those amounts, we have simply left them out of the per group totals. These caveats mean that the totals shown above, and the numbers for at least some, if not all, of the groups are likely too low, in some cases by significant amounts. The auditing worksheet from 1997 records more than $134,000 in guerrilla payments (listed here under “Security-Other”) for 1993—money that is not accounted for in the per group totals above.

    image004 6

    Banadex, Chiquita’s main subsidiary in Colombia, played a fundamental role in this scenario. At the beginning of the 1990s the banana sector was a vital part of the Colombian national economy. The coffee crisis of the previous decade and the expansion of the international market turned bananas into the country’s primary agricultural export.

    At the time, this vital region was home to two primary guerrilla organizations, each with strong ties to banana industry trade unions: the FARC and the EPL. When the latter demobilized in 1991, two groups emerged: a dissident EPL faction under Francisco Caraballo that refused to lay down its weapons and a new political movement that went by the same initials, Esperanza, Paz y Libertad (Hope, Peace and Liberty). In the face of attacks by the FARC and the Caraballo group against the “Esperanzados,” who were viewed as traitors by the remaining guerrilla factions, some of the demobilized decided to rearm themselves and create the Comandos Populares (Popular Commands), a group that later merged with paramilitary AUC.

    Although the ELN did not maintain a strong presence in the zone, the country’s second-largest rebel group also showed up in the accounts of the banana companies, along with a group of dissidents from the CRS whose members signed a peace accord with the government on April 9, 1994. The end of the 1980s also saw the sporadic emergence of the first paramilitary groups in the region.

    Between 1989 and 1997, when the guerrilla payments were made, there were 54 massacres in the banana zone municipalities of Apartadó, Carepa and Turbo, according to information from the Observatory of Conflict and Memory of the National Center of Historical Memory in Colombia. The guerrillas assassinated 181 individuals in 21 of these massacres. Fifteen of these were the work of the FARC.

    Chiquita’s internal documents show the company funded all of these armed groups, dissidents and political movements, but in amounts that varied depending on the terms negotiated with each organization. In accounting records the company used color code names to record the destination of the payments without mentioning the names of the recipient guerrilla groups. In underlying documentation, company officials often used fictitious, misleading or euphemistic descriptions for the payments to subversive organizations, such as “chopped wood,” “gasoline,” or “boys in the hills.”

    To conceal the payments, Chiquita invented an accounting system that we described in the second article in this series.

    The guerrilla payments were consigned to the so-called “Citizen Security Account” and were made primarily through Banadex and the Compañía Frutera de Sevilla, Chiquita’s two main Colombian subsidiaries, but some payments also were made by way of the multinational’s Colombian partners, like Banazuñiga y Banacosta. There are also outlays registered under the name “Henríquez,” a possible reference to the Henríquez Gallo family, which was heavily invested in the banana plantations in Urabá. In 2014, two members of the Henríquez clan, Jaime and his brother Guillermo, were identified as paramilitary financiers by former AUC chiefs Raúl Hasbún and Freddy Rendón Herrera.

    In January 2000, as part of secret testimony before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Robert F. Kistinger, a top Chiquita executive in Cincinnati, insisted that the company was being extorted by guerrillas. Nevertheless, drafts of confidential internal memoranda show that company officials did not want to characterize the payments as extortion, instead suggesting the term “citizen security payments,” as seen in the following record.

    image009 3

    Neither did the company denounce the extortion attempts or inform the Colombian government that it was being threatened by guerrillas. VerdadAbieta.com has learned that the Attorney General’s office recorded only one complaint made by Chiquita to Colombian authorities, and only in reference to paramilitary groups.

    image010 3

    According to Mario Agudelo, a former EPL guerrilla who went on to lead the Esperanza political movement and who knows well the history of Urabá, “in the case of the ‘paras’ and the FARC there was permanent financing.” This was distinct, in his view, from the sporadic payments that were made to other armed groups in the zone. “To what extent was this the result of armed pressure? I’m in no position to say in which case yes and in which case no, but what is tangible is that they provided support and this was the result of a long-term agreement.”

    The basic situation was well-understood by actors in the zone at that time. Carlos Alfonso Velásquez, a former Colombian Army colonel assigned to the 17th Brigade in Urabá in the mid-1990s, remembers hearing similar things from his commanding officer, Gen. Víctor Álvarez: “I was told one day, ‘those bananeros, those ranchers, they come here to ask for support, that the guerrillas are threatening them, that they are being extorted by them, but I know that they give them money under the table.”

    Negotiating with the ELN

    One of the earliest available reports on the guerrilla payments was prepared by Colombia security chief Juan Manuel Alvarado and faxed to his boss, the longtime head of corporate security in Cincinnati, Alejandro “Al” Bakoczy, on March 11, 1993. Alvarado’s report covers payments made through so-called “Citizen Security Accounts” from December 1991 through December 1992. Alvarado said his team was more comfortable making deals with the ELN and the FARC, since these larger, more established groups had a “widely-respected hierarchical structure that is adhered to before any decisions are made.”

    image011 2

    In the first years of the 1990s it was the ELN that received the lion’s share of Chiquita’s guerrilla payments, in part because “from the beginning it had complete knowledge of the conformationof Banadex” and could thereby justify charging higher fees than other groups. The ELN also maintained a strong presence in the banana-producing zone of Magdalena, where another Chiquita subsidiary known as Samarex was located.

    image012 2

    The total amounts to be paid to the groups were set forth each year along with a schedule laying out when each payment was due. The sums were not imposed by the guerrillas so much as they were the result of a negotiating process. As John Ordman, a regional manager who served as a bridge between Chiquita’s Colombia operations and top executives in the U.S., explained in his testimony to the SEC, “you don’t just pay what you’re told or you’ll end up paying a filthy fortune. I mean, you’ve got to negotiate, you’ve got to say I can’t pay, I’m not going to pay, you’ve got to kind of be dragged to the wedding kicking and shouting or it really gets out of hand. But you have to kind of know when to eventually show up or it also gets out of hand.”

    For example, in 1993 the company negotiated the ELN’s initial request for 20 million Colombian Pesos down to 12 million. But this was still too much for the person who approved the payments, who wrote in the margins of one record, “To me 12 [million] is too much for these guys. . . What kind of deal is that?”

    image013 2

    The payments allowed the company to continue its operations. And even while none of the records associated with the ELN openly suggest that the money was offered in exchange for any service, the document below shows that in some instances Banadex officials were interested in establishing a quid pro quo with the group. “As with R [a reference to the FARC, known by the color code Rojo or Red] they shouldn’t block anything we do with sindicato [labor union].”

    image014 2

    At the beginning of the 1990s, an intense political debate within the ELN resulted in the creation of the dissident CRS faction that laid down its weapons in April 1994. For the company, the creation of this organization from the body of the ELN was a significant concern since they believed that the splinter group also knew the true extent of Chiquita’s holdings in Colombia.

    “Brown [Café, a reference to the CRS], as a relatively new dissident group, is eager for money and uses any mean necessary to get it,” according to the “Citizen Security Accounts” report prepared by Alvarado for Bakoczy. In one incident, the CRS kidnapped an individual connected to Chiquita as a way of signaling it was an independent organization to be dealt with separately and not under the previously-negotiated accord with the ELN.

    Nevertheless, the communiqués from the security staff show that CRS was never seen as a serious threat and received only a small fraction of well over one million dollars in payments to Colombian guerrilla groups.

    Accords with the FARC

    According to the Chiquita accounting records, between 1991 and 1992 the FARC did not have much contact with the company and in particular did not make demands for money. A report from the security staff said that frequent confrontations with the Colombian Army kept the guerrillas too busy to arrange meetings during those years.

    Chiquita, nevertheless, did not doubt the extent of the FARC’s power and influence in Urabá. “It is so influential that through a single order it has the ability to paralyze operations in the production areas, generating problems for commercial and social order,” according to a report from Compañía Frutera de Sevilla dated September 4, 1992. The staff of the Chiquita subsidiary in Santa Marta said the FARC resorted to extreme violence in cases where people did not comply with their demands.

    The FARC shared the company’s concern about the proliferation of new subversive groups in search of money—a situation that had led to a “destabilization of the zone,” according to the company’s reports, and confrontations among the competing factions.

    image015 2

    This survey of the general security situation in and around company facilities in the port city of Turbo also refers to an agreement between the Institute for Social Insurance (Instituto de Seguros Sociales), the Banazuñiga group and the labor unions. One of the union representatives, who the company said was clearly “allied with the FARC,” had refused to sign the accord and convinced others to do the same. For Chiquita, it thus became a priority to gain a better understanding of the “real situation” with the FARC.

    image016

    By 1993 the balance had shifted, and soon the FARC became the leading recipient of Chiquita’s cash payments to guerrilla groups. In a request for disbursement on May 11, it is evident that the FARC had identified three of the farm groups that worked with Chiquita Brands and knew the names of staff members. But although the FARC was now demanding more money from the company, the company still did not consider the payments to be significant. In the document below, security staff characterize the new arrangement with the FARC as “advantageous.”

    image017

    The records show that there were not any serious setbacks in the company’s relationship with the FARC, and that even the intermediaries said that it was “easy” to negotiate with the oldest rebel group. When a problem arose, such as a stolen vehicle in Magdalena, they would simply set up a meeting and resolve the problem. As was the case with the ELN, records from May 1993 show Banadex management seeking “an understanding” with the FARC (“R”) that they not “block anything we do with the sindicato.”

    image018

    In 1995, with the arrival in the zone of the increasingly powerful United Self-defense Forces of Córdoba and Urabá (ACCU), under the command of Carlos and Vicente Castaño, company officials seemed concerned about a deterioration in relations with the FARC. “Despite the fact that we fulfilour obligations in terms of salary, taxes, trade, etc., the name C.I BDX has been mentioned in a supposed relationship with paramilitary groups,” according to a security report from September 18, 1995.

    image019

    Over many weeks, and through various channels, VerdadAbierta.com tried to communicate with members of the FARC Secretariat, including Rodrigo Londoño Echeverri, alias “Timoleón Jímenez,” top leader of the insurgent organization, and Luciano Marín Arango, also known as “Iván Márquez,” chief negotiator in peace talks with the national government. It was Márquez who led the group’s operations in Urabá during the era when Chiquita was making payments to the FARC. But despite a number of attempts to get their valuable perspectives on the matter, there was no reply, raising doubts about the group’s willingness to come clean and tell the truth before the tribunals of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace and Colombian society.

    The Fractured EPL and the Arrival of Paramilitaries

    On March 1, 1991, in camps around the country, a little more than 2,000 guerrillas from the EPL abandoned the armed struggle and embarked on the construction of the Esperanza, Paz y Libertad (Hope, Peace and Liberty) political movement. Around 150 guerrillas did not demobilize and reorganized under the leadership of Francisco Caraballo, who began to launch attacks against his former comrades with assistance from the FARC.

    In their pragmatic reports, Chiquita’s security staff in Colombia registered deep concern about the proliferation of new armed groups and the infighting among them, and decided that it would be necessary to come to separate agreements with each group. In the “Citizen Security” report dated September 1992, for example, the company said the Caraballo group was committing crimes to collect money. Among other things, they hijacked and raided the company’s trucks along access roads from Medellin to the coast, so Banadex chose to use the name of third parties to transport their merchandise.

    image020

    “I acknowledge that we imposed a series of fees, and the precise deployment that we had in Urabá allowed us to broaden the base theprovided the tributes, and we collected what was necessary for our subsistence and the development of the organization,” Francisco Caraballo told VerdadAbierta.com. “These tribute payments, in the majority of cases, were a kind of agreement. It is a very special situation, some collaborated, and I should say it clearly, so as not to create problems, so they collaborated, you could say, voluntarily.” Caraballo added that, “as revolutionaries, we were not trying to become a wealthy organization, but something much less.”

    Former EPL insurgent Jaime Fajardo Landaeta, one of the leaders who pushed for peace accords with the national government, said that following the demobilization the majority of the resources that the ex-guerrillas received came from the government: “We had a very complicated problem: the people left who were left in control of the organization’s resources at the time of the demobilization were from the secretariat, which was in the hands of Francisco Caraballo and two others, ‘Danilo’ and ‘Eduardo’, who did not negotiate the demobilization.”

    The group also got support from the Asociación de Bananeros de Colombia (Augura) to launch its political movement, payments that were permitted under Colombian law. In the case of Chiquita Brands, according to its own reports, during the first half of 1992 members of the Esperanza group tried to collect funds from as many Banadex farms as possible, after which the company agreed to channel payments through Augura.

    From the moment of the demobilization, dissidents under Caraballo working with the FARC launched an extermination campaign against members of Esperanza, Paz y Libertad, who they viewed as traitors. As a result, a group from Esperanza decided to rearm to defend themselves, creating the Comandos Populares (mentioned above).

    “The dissidents of the EPL formed the group because they did not think that the peace process had provided them with any space, so they left and they took up arms; the others, the Comandos, they believed the leaders of Esperanza, Paz y Libertad were not helping with security issues, that the leadership had their own vehicles and their own security schemes, so they were not interested in the security of the others,” explained Mario Agudelo.

    Chiquita viewed the Comandos as “the armed wing” of the Esperanza political movement and increasingly came to see the militia as something more akin to a right-wing paramilitary group. As early as 1992 the Colombia security team said the group was widely considered to be “on the side of the government” and that the Army “on occasions allowed them to move freely around the zone.”

    image022

    The security staff said the Comandos Populares relied on the same tactics they used “when they were part of the guerrilla group,” including “threats, intimidation, blackmail, etc.,” adding that banana growers had filed complaints against them through Augura. In the case of Chiquita, the group had only asked for little things like “drugs, boots and ammunition.”

    From June 1992 through May 1995, Chiquita transferred at least 36,000,000 Colombian Pesos to Esperanza and the Comandos Populares, primarily through Augura. By that point, Colombia’s security team reported the existence of a “nexus” between the Comandos and a group of paramilitaries that had recently arrived in the region and who were “ready to do away with everything that smells communist.” The Comandos were said to have “initiated joint patrols” with the newly-arrived paramilitaries, according to the report from Chiquita’s subsidiary in Colombia.

    image023

    Whatever concerns the company may have had about the tactics employed by Esperanza and its allies in the Comandos Populares, by 1996 the general impression held by senior Chiquita officials in Cincinnati was that the groups had been helpful. In a September 1996 meeting with internal auditors, Al Bakoczy, the corporate security chief in Cincinnati, said that Esperanza (here as “EPL”) had “helped us out a lot with the labor issue.”

    image024

    Why did the guerrilla payments stop?

    The arrival of paramilitaries to the zone in 1995 was a watershed moment for Chiquita. Two years later, the guerrilla payments had ceased completely, and the company had begun to redirect the money toward paramilitaries and their allies in the Convivir self-defense groups. The key moment, by most accounts, was a meeting between Carlos Castaño, leader of the ACCU paramilitary group; Charles Keiser, general manager of Banadex; and Reinaldo Escobar de la Hoz, a lawyer for Chiquita’s Colombian subsidiary.

    Irving Bernal Giraldo, who was a member of Augura and one of the founders of the Convivir Papagayo, which secretly directed money to paramilitary groups, remembered this episode in a June 30, 2015 hearing before the Colombian prosecutor’s office: “You all are giving money to the guerrillas and I am not going to allow that,” Castaño told them. Bernal, who had just been released from a kidnapping, denied the paramilitary chief’s accusation and floated the possibility that Augura could finance Private Security Cooperatives such as the Convivir.

    “Then we both calmed down a bit, and he looked at Mr. Keiser and said to him, ‘But you are giving money to the guerrillas,’ to which Keiser nodded.” Bernal said Castaño and Keiser talked in private after which the paramilitary chief said, “Now the matter is clear.”

    The story behind this meeting is, for the most part, hidden history. In 2007, Chiquita Brands admitted that it paid $1.7 million to paramilitary groups and paid a $25 million fine to the U.S. government. In Colombia, the company has not indemnified a single victim, and the judicial process has been stuck, immobile, for ten years.

    Will the alleged financiers of the conflict in Urabá remain unpunished in the face of all of this new evidence? Wait until next week and the fourth and final installment of the series of articles by VerdadAbierta.com and the National Security Archive.

    READ THE DOCUMENTS

    Document 01

    1992-09-04

    Compañía Frutera de Sevilla, Department of Industrial Protection
    Informe general sobre seguridad en la Division Turbo
    [General Report on Security in the Turbo Division]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 02

    1993-03-11

    To: A. Bakoczy
    From: J. Alvarado, Banadex and Compañía Frutera de Sevilla, Department of Industrial Protection
    Cuenta de Seguridad Ciudadana Movimiento General [Citizen Security Account General Movement], includes cover sheet

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 03

    1993-04-05

    Negociación con Respecto a Azul [Negotiation with Respect to Blue]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 04

    1993-05-11

    To: [Redacted]
    From: Protección Industrial [Industrial Protection]
    Programa de Reducción de Celadores [Reduction in Security Guards Program]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 05

    1993-05-11

    To: [Redacted]
    From: Protección Industrial [Industrial Protection]
    Solicitud Desembolso [Disbursement Request]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 06

    1995-04-24

    Confidencial [Confidential Security Report]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 07

    1995-00-00

    C.F.S. (SAMAREX) Santa Marta
    Gastos Seguridad Causados 1.995
    [Security Expenses Realized in 1996]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Document 08

    1995-05-16

    Division Turbo
    Security Account

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 09

    1995-06-16

    Banadex, Department of Industrial Protection
    Informe General

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 10

    1995-09-18

    Banadex / Samarex
    Informe de Seguridad [Security Report]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 11

    1996-09-13

    Bakoczy Explanation of How Extortion Payments Work

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 12

    1997-00-00 ca.

    General Manager’s Expenses, Colombia, 1993-1996

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 13

    1997-02-28

    CBI Internal Audit Department
    1996 General Manager’s Expenses

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

  • RESEARCH DOCUMENT /// Hungary 1956 : Reviving the Debate over US (In)action during the Revolution

    RESEARCH DOCUMENT /// Hungary 1956 : Reviving the Debate over US (In)action during the Revolution

    image001 5

    The toppled head of Joseph Stalin sits on Rákóczi út in Budapest on October 23, 1956. (Photo: Róbert Hofbauer, Fortepan, from Wikimedia Commons)

    Hungary 1956 : Reviving the Debate over US (In)action during the Revolution

    Eisenhower’s Caution Broadly Justified, Declassified Defense Department Study Finds

    But Swifter, More Imaginative Response Might Have Brought Different Results

    U.S. Officials Weighed but Rejected Many Options Including Tactical Nukes

    Posted May 10, 2017
    National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 591
    Edited by Dr. Ronald D. Landa
    Introduced by Malcolm Byrne
    For more information: nsarchiv, 202.994.7000

    Washington D.C., May 10, 2017 – The United States’ cautious response to the unexpectedly powerful popular uprising in Hungary in 1956 grew out of the Eisenhower administration’s policy of “keeping the pot boiling” in Eastern Europe without having it “boil over” into a possible nuclear conflict, according to an unpublished Defense Department historical study posted for the first time by the National Security Archive at The George Washington University.

    Eisenhower and his top aides, including Secretary of State John Foster Dulles – often seen as one of the most aggressive Cold Warriors – opted for the long view of encouraging a gradual erosion of Soviet domination of the socialist camp.

    The study, by Dr. Ronald D. Landa, is a follow-on to another recently posted here entitled, “Almost Successful Recipe: The United States and East European Unrest prior to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.” Readers are encouraged to examine both documents together since they contain complementary information.

    Defending Eisenhower’s reticence to take stiffer action, including covertly assisting the Hungarian rebels or threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons on supply routes into Hungary, the study notes his concerns about inadvertently touching off a nuclear war with the USSR. At the same time, the author points out that Eisenhower “let the matter slide” by early in the crisis rejecting a recommendation that he convene a special meeting of the National Security Council to consider possible responses, which “undercut the urgency for action.”

    This study differs markedly from a number of Hungarian, American, and other historical accounts that take a harsher view of U.S. policy, accusing it of cynicism, hypocrisy, and plain obliviousness about the nature of the crisis. For one thing, it suggests that the U.N. decision to send an emergency force to the Middle East during the Suez crisis, more than the administration’s rhetoric about loosening Moscow’s ties with the East European satellites or hopes of liberation fostered by Radio Free Europe, was chiefly responsible for any expectations of Western military assistance that Hungarians had.

    Today’s posting is the third and final in a series Landa completed for the Historical Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense during 2011 and early 2012. The National Security Archive thanks him for donating these materials.

    READ THE DOCUMENT

    Document 1

    2012-02-00

    The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: A Fresh Look at the U.S. Response (Draft, February 2012)

    Draft study by Dr. Ronald D. Landa, prepared for the Historical Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.