How the CIA 'Stabilised' Greece for NATO
By permission of B.R.P.F.
Summary: This article was published with the following subtitle: Andreas Papandreou is son of the last democratically elected President of Greece and is a leader of the resistance forces abroad to the country's present military dictatorship.
I have to confess I find it not very readable - Rae West
Inserted on Wednesday, October 31, 2012. Forty years later; this is a comment from someone in Golden Dawn---
A provocative initiative by George Soros
We have said and wrote many time that the "international" principals have long ago prepared a plan to replace the Greeks with a multiracial, shapeless mass, unable to resist their plans of the financial and cultural conquest of Greece.
Part of their plan is obviously the combination of uncontrollable illegal immigration, the corruption of the Police Forces and the unprecedented economical attack against Greece and many more, like the "Turkeyfication" of the "Greek" television.
The Greek have suddenly lost what they were working their whole lives to earn, losing their homes by the thousands, all while experiencing the nightmare of nonexistent safety and imported criminality that plagues most neighborhoods. And while the Greeks try to adapt to this new, grim reality, the famous "chosen", George Soros, announces the creation of funds that will be used to build houses in Greece, for immigrants to stay in.
This announcement, that makes every Greek cringe from anger thinking that once more everyone cares about the illegal immigrants and not for the Greeks in need, was immediately congratulated by the famous man of "Greek" politics, the MP that always takes the day out, the former PM, George Papandreou, commenting that this is an "idea with vision".
It truly is a "vision", the vision of globalization that machinates the death of the Greek Nation. Our duty is to eradicate it.
The shape of our world today and its pattern of change can best be understood in the context of the following four dimensions:
(a) The struggle of two super-powers for world supremacy, and the resulting division of the world into two cold-war blocs.
(b) The struggle of the post-colonial "third world" for emancipation and national sovereignty.
(c) The expansionist economic and technological dynamic of the United States, and the parallel rise to power of the National Security Managers the modern technocrat strategist and the Pentagon, C.I.A. and the State Department bureaucrats.
(d) The centralized, bureaucratic socialism of the Soviet Union.
So far as it concerns the super-powers, the deadly chess game is being played in the context of peaceful coexistence, according to relatively well-observed rules. They include: mutual respect of each other's supremacy within its well-defined sphere of influence; prevention of the rise of a third super-power; elimination of neutralism, and finally, mutual restraint in regions where they challenge one another for a definition of a new equilibrium.
There is evidence that soon this coexistence rule kit may include some explicit rules limiting the competition between them in developing their respective arsenals. The stability of this evolving system of rules is threatened both by centrifugal tendencies within the blocs, and by "extremist" tendencies within the establishments of the super-powers, when tensions between them become high.
A "reflective" tendency is clearly discernible in the behaviour of each super-power within each bloc or sphere of influence. When events take place in one bloc which loosen the control of the super-power over its allies, similar "relaxation" phenomena tend to take place on the other side of the iron curtain. In contrast, repressive measures taken by one of the super-powers are countered by the other super-power almost immediately. This "reflective" character of events in the two blocs is best exemplified by developments in Europe since 1947.
(1) The U.S. stepped into Great Britain's role in Greece by openly intervening to "safeguard" Greek democracy while all coalition regimes in Eastern Europe were converted into militant communist regimes with very close ties to Moscow (Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland in 1947, and Czechoslovakia in 1948).
(2) The emergence of the NATO pact was countered by the emergence of the Warsaw pact between the Soviet Union and Poland, Rumania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and East Germany.
(3) The police state of Greece was loosened through the election of the Centre Union Party under the leadership of George Papandreou, and most of the repressive measures and laws executed during and after the Civil War were relaxed. Greece was on its way to becoming a democratic, progressive, and sovereign country within NATO. But the U.S. National Security Managers considered the developments dangerous for NATO, fearing an opening to the left and war in Cyprus. On July 15, 1965, the King, in close association with the U.S. services in Greece, dismissed the government of George Papandreou, despite its overwhelming popular support. A succession of puppet governments appointed by the King failed to get popular acceptance of the change. The date of elections was set, with all indications pointing to triumph of the Centre Union. The generals, the big Junta, as it has been called were debating the date of the execution of Prometheus, the code name for the NATO-elaborated military plan to seize power in Greece and "save" Greece for NATO, when, in the interim, the colonels, associated with the C.I.A., beat the generals and the King to the punch on April 21, 1967, through the forceful seizure of power and established a military dictatorship.
(4) A similar process of democratization and assertion of national sovereignty was under way in Czechoslovakia The Warsaw pact powers, fearful that the structure of control within the Warsaw pact bloc would be endangered, occupied Czechoslovakia. Despite the superficial differences, the events in Czechoslovakia are in broad perspective a replica of and a response to the events in Greece.
The moral of the story is really quite obvious. The progressive forces that have been released during the post-war period constitute a threat, real or imagined, to the interests of the super-powers, which in a spirit of conservation and extension of their power have trampled upon them. But the restrictive and oppressive actions of the super-powers within their own spheres of influence does tend to enhance cold-war tensions and to create the climate for the ascension of the hawks, and thus bring nearer the possibility of a hot war. Also a heightening of cold-war tensions tends to justify, to encourage, to promote restrictive measures within the blocs. The process is reinforcing, cumulative and demonstrates clearly that peace, progress, and democratic freedoms are an indivisible commodity. The dialectic of bipolarity does seem to undermine all three at the same time.
For it should be clear that while the actions in Greece and in Czechoslovakia started out as bloc-internal interventions they may well end up by creating a new focal area of super-power confrontation namely the Balkans. Yugoslavia shifted closer to NATO following the Czechoslovak incident, and it is quite likely that the Soviet Union, in response, may well not limit its counter measures to the stationing of troops in Rumania. The resumption of full military aid by the U.S. to the Greek junta, the possible transfer of the Polaris submarines and the nuclear bomber bases from Franco's Spain to Papadopoulos's Greece, and the establishment in Greece of a massive C.I.A. operation centre suggest that a new theatre of confrontation is in the making.
The Soviet Union's military take-over of Czechoslovakia provided the U.S. with the right climate and a forceful argument in strengthening NATO and reversing the process of decay which had become all too obvious within the Atlantic Alliance. France is already on its way to returning to the fold, and neutralist tendencies in Europe, on both sides of the iron curtain, have given way to bloc-oriented behavior.
In Latin America, the Alliance for Progress has been turned into a device for the extension and solidification of U.S. control in close collaboration with the reactionary establishments of the continent and the large U.S. firms that dominate the economies of the Latin American Republics. Democratic or semi-democratic governments have been toppled by well-organized military-intelligence coups, as in Guatemala, and the U.S. Marines have finished the job when it became necessary, as in Santo Domingo. Latin America is indeed the outstanding example of the new alliance among the military, the intelligence services and the large economic interests of the U.S., an alliance which constitutes the social base of a new type of imperialism. This neo-imperialism, in action, combines overall super-power and bloc-strategic considerations with thoroughgoing economic infiltration and control. The military dictatorship as a form of intervention, often but not always in response to revolution, is the vanguard for the sell-out of national economic interests, while the U.S. business firm is often the cover for C.I.A. operations. The victim in the case of Latin America is social and economic progress and democratic institutions.
Soviet bureaucratic socialism within its sphere of influence, the world of Soviet satellites, is not much different. It is repressive, authoritarian. and destructive both of popular and of national sovereignty. Historically, it is different from the U.S. pattern in that it lacks the techno-economic expansionism of the Military-Industrial complex the capitalist dynamic which, while it is propelling the world to new technological frontiers, is altering de profundis the structure of power, creating a new technocratic-managerial elite which is beyond the reach of the traditional levers of political control exercised by the citizenry over the political authority, and the political authority over the bureaucracies.
But the U.S. pattern of the world supremacy differs in another important respect from that of the Soviet Union's. The Atlantic Alliance includes a powerful collection of advanced nations which are not dominated by the U.S. in the same sense as are the Latin American Republics. The pattern here is one of rapidly growing economic domination which goes hand-in-hand with political infiltration and control. In the Soviet bloc, Russia's allies all fall in the category of satellites, dominated in a direct military and political fashion.
This is the reason for the European concern over developments in Greece. For in the case of Greece, the U.S. employed methods which thus far it has not employed on the European continent. Greece, since the military take-over, has become a U.S. satellite in the same sense that Bulgaria is a Russian satellite. It is not surprising that the NATO allies are deeply apprehensive. A new and threatening pattern of U.S. supremacy in Europe is emerging.
While there is time and it is running out rapidly the democratic progressive political forces on the European continent should join hands to face squarely the new storm that is rising over Europe. They should be ready to fight for freedom, progress and peace wherever they may be threatened. And they must, in the interest of fundamental values, work for a free, united and peaceful Europe a Europe in which each nation is respected as an equal partner in the pursuit of human dignity and prosperity, and in which each citizen is respected by the state as an inviolable individual.
IV Focusing on the European scene, we may consider in some detail the meaning of the events in Greece and Czechoslovakia. As standards of living have been rising, as the memory of the last world war has been growing dimmer, and as the two super-powers were on the way of developing rules for coexistence, national, bloc-centrifugal tendencies took form and shape. Among with these came efforts on the part of the peoples of Europe to democratize their internal political processes. In a very real sense both developments were part and parcel of the same fundamental process of the emancipation of the citizen, internally from oppressive controls by the state and externally from dictation by the super-powers. Along with them, a more demanding concept of democratic government started developing with emphasis on increased citizen participation, and decentralization of administrative processes, even in the context of planned economies.
With respect to the role of nations in their defense alliances NATO in the case of Greece, a new concept began to take shape. Our position in Greece, the position of the Center Union party, offered a new definition of this role for the first time since Greece joined NATO. This definition was based on the following principles: First, Greece refused to accept the role of a satellite vis-à-vis the United States, asserting its right to be a morally equal ally. Second, Greece asserted its right to pursue international accords with other nations, independently of the bloc to which they belonged, in the interest of cultural exchange, economic intercourse and the promotion of peace. Third, Greece refused to accept solutions of international problems, such as Cyprus, which, while possibly furthering the short-term objectives of the NATO alliance, would compromise its national interests. Fourth, Greece refused to be dragged into international adventures not explicitly required by the terms of the alliance. Fifth, Greece rejected interference in its own affairs by NATO embassies, military missions and intelligence agencies. One could well argue, and we did, that such a policy, even if generalized to all members of the NATO alliance, would not lead to its dismantling but rather to a redefinition of the alliance a redefinition that was sorely needed, if the alleged aims of the alliance, national sovereignty and democratic freedoms, were meant to be more than just well-chosen words for the preamble of the treaty. It is the case, of course, that this new definition of the national role within the alliance would lead to a weakening of the authority, the control, or the dominance of the U.S. over its members.
National Security Managers in Washington and the well-entrenched bureaucracies of the State Department, the Pentagon, and the C.I.A. were unwilling to accept this role for Greece within the alliance. They had already had a bad time with France. And they became quite irritated over the attempt of the Center Union party to change the rules of the game, so to Say. While Cyprus provided the main source of continuing conflict between Athens and Washington, such actions on our part as the cancellation of the Voice of America broadcast over the Greek Radio, the investigation into C.I.A. direct financing of the Greek Central Intelligence Agency (KYP), and the acceptance by the Prime Minister of an invitation to visit Moscow led to clashes which convinced the U.S. services in Greece that they should support King Constantinos' efforts to overthrow our government. And later, when the elections of May 28, 1967, were approaching, when it had become evident that we would win a smashing popular victory, they decided to support the colonels' coup of April 21, 1967.
To be sure, the colonels' coup was supported particularly by the C.I.A. The other U.S. agencies were closer to the generals and their planned coup. The main reason for the decisive role of the C.I.A. in the April coup has to be found in its earlier decision to establish in Greece a powerful network for its activities, something it was afraid it could not achieve if the Papandreou government were returned to power. The Pentagon acquiesced, especially in view of the presence of the Russian Fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Embassy followed orders for in the case of Greece, the C.I.A. and the Pentagon have the final say.
The concern of the U.S. services over our actions was not limited to the assertion of our national sovereignty our insistent claim and slogan that Greece belongs to the Greeks. It extended also to our efforts to democratize the country, to terminate the police state along with the various extraordinary measures and laws that had been enacted during the Civil War, to permit the free exchange of ideas and, of course, to limit the role of the King to his constitutional prerogatives. Thus they were equally upset by our slogans that the King reigns and the people rule, and that the Army belongs to the nation. Our attempt to democratize the political processes of the country meant that democratic citizens would no longer be persecuted by the police. This was interpreted as a dangerous opening to the Left. Our attempt to reduce the King to his constitutional size meant a significant loss of control by the U.S. services over the Greek political processes. For the King had always been in Greece the focus and the medium of foreign control. And, finally, our attempt to discipline the armed forces. to subject them to the authority of the duly elected civilian government and to eliminate the threat of a takeover by them meant to the U.S. military mission a direct and immediate loss of control over an army which they preferred to think of as belonging to them rather than to Greece.
U.S. irritation with the Center Union government was finally also due to our unwillingness to accept investment by large U.S. firms in Greece on colonial terms. The by now famous Esso-Pappas contract was the focus of this disagreement. Our renegotiations of the terms of this agreement went to naught, of course; Esso-Pappas succeeded in restoring many of its special privileges in Greece during the Royal puppet governments that followed us in power and has flourished during the rule by the military junta. Pappas' role in the overthrow of the Papandreou government by the King is well known by now. He approached many Center Union deputies in order to "persuade" them to vote for the puppet governments. And recently he has admitted in an interview given to a Greek newspaper' that he was proud to have been associated with the C.I.A. He earned a special acclaim on the part of the junta-controlled press, when he managed to get Spiro Agnew nominated as Nixon's vice-presidential candidate.
I wish to emphasize this:
THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY IN GREECE IS CLEARLY DUE TO THE UNWILLINGNESS OF THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION ESPECIALLY OF THE C.I.A. TO COUNTENANCE DEMOCRATIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS IN GREECE, AS WELL AS THE ASSERTION BY GREECE OF ITS NATIONAL INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE. IT IS ALSO DUE, OF COURSE, TO THE UNWILLINGNESS OF THE REACTIONARY GREEK ESTABLISHMENT TO SEE ITS SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND POWER POSITION THREATENED FROM ANY SOURCE.
A similar argument could undoubtedly be made for the case of Czechoslovakia in the Eastern bloc. The Warsaw pact troops did not hesitate to ruthlessly overrun the country, to threaten it with total and absolute occupation, unless the popularly supported leadership did go back on its commitments to bring a measure of democracy and national independence to Czechoslovakia. One has the terrible feeling that the U.S. government almost welcomed this exhibition of ruthlessness. For it brought some degree of ex post facto justification to its suppression of Greek freedoms and gave it a much sought-for argument for pressing its NATO allies to return to the fold. Since the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the U.S. proceeded to resume fully arms shipments to Greece under the NATO agreement and prepared a transfer of the polaris submarine and nuclear bases from Spain to Greece.
What is much more depressing, of course, is the complicity of the members of the alliances in the presence of the suppression of one of their own by a super-power. In the case of Czechoslovakia, it is sufficient to observe that the Russian troops were assisted by Warsaw Pact troops almost across the board. In the case of the Western alliance, the complicity takes a much more subtle, but no less real form.
Of course, it is still argued in proper circles that continuing friendly relations with the mafia in Athens is an essential prerequisite for influencing it toward the road of democracy. The argument is thoroughly nonsensical. For they all know that the regime in Athens would not survive for a day were it not supported by the U.S. It has no popular base being thoroughly undemocratic, reactionary, and vulgar. It cannot even count on the support of the Greek army, since only three officers in every twenty identify with the junta.
Recent events in Greece and Europe should convince the European nations that the Greek people are determined to fight against a tyrannical regime whose oppressiveness and brutality have not been equalled even by the Nazi occupation forces. Witnesses that had been brought under police guard by the junta to testify before the Human Rights Commission at Strasburg bolted and, putting themselves under the protection of Norway, have told the world stories of tortures which should shock even the most apathetic Europeans. Tortures in Greece today are not limited to standard mistreatment, beatings, whippings and mock execution. They include electro-shock through the genitals, performed in the modern headquarters established by NATO for the "breaking-down" of Soviet bloc spies. At least 50,000 Greeks have been arrested, humiliated and then released. At least 10,000 are today languishing in jails, police detention quarters and island concentration camps.
The Panaglioulis trial mobilized international sentiment on a spectacular scale and the massive, moving demonstration by half a million Athenians during the funeral of their respected democratic leader, George Papandreou, gave the world palpable proof of where the Greek people stand.
The struggle for a free, democratic Greece will continue until victory comes. And deep in our hearts we know that it will and that Greece will move forward to take its place in Europe as a free, democratic, sovereign nation.
Click here to return to selection of Russell Foundation articles
Click here for index to whole of Rae West's website
HTML Rae West First uploaded 98-01-26 Revn 98-06-27