By Vladimir Popov (Former Soviet State Security Lieutenant Colonel)
July 8, 2020 Anno Domini
Translated from the Russian
Excerpt

At the height of World War II, on September 14, 1943, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) was formed in the Soviet Union. The name of the new organ was suggested by Joseph Stalin himself. The tasks of this structure included the relationship between the state and the church.

It was a crucial year of the Great Patriotic War, which was preceded by a period of defeats for the Red Army. In the territories occupied by the Germans, the German occupation authorities contributed to the revival of religious activity persecuted under Soviet rule. And Stalin believed that the church as an institution could be revived and used by the Soviet government both in the USSR and abroad.

Notable and significant was the appointment of a security officer to the post of chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. Here is his eloquent biography:

Georgy Grigorievich Karpov (June 7, 1898, Kronstadt – December 18, 1967, Moscow) – Soviet statesman, major general of the NKGB (1945). From September 1943 to February 1960 – Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

In the organs of the Cheka since 1922. In 1922-1928 he served in the Special Department, and in 1928-1936 – in the counterintelligence department and the secret-political department of the plenipotentiary representation (PP) of the OGPU in the Leningrad Military District – UGB UNKVD in the Leningrad Region. Deputy Head of the UNKVD in the Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1936).

In 1936-1937 – deputy head, since July 1937 – head of the secret-political department (then – the 4th department) of the UGB UNKVD in the Leningrad region, authorized by the 2nd department of the GUGB NKVD of the USSR. Head of the Pskov regional department of the NKVD of the Leningrad region (1938-1939). Head of the department of the 2nd department of the GUGB NKVD of the USSR (1939-1941). Deputy Head of the 3rd Department of the 3rd Directorate of the NKGB of the USSR (February 1941 – June 1941).

He met the Great Patriotic War as a State Security Major. Head of the 4th department of the 3rd manager of the NKVD of the USSR (July 1941 – May 1943). From February 1943 – Colonel of State Security. Head of the 5th Department of the 2nd Directorate of the NKGB-MGB of the USSR (May 1943 – May 1946). Head of the “O” department of the USSR Ministry of State Security (May 1946 – August 1947). Since August 1947 in the reserve of the Ministry of State Security of the USSR. In March 1955 he was dismissed from the KGB at the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

In January 1960, by the Party Control Commission under the Central Committee of the CPSU, he was expelled from the ranks of the CPSU for violations of socialist legality; in March 1960, he was reinstated in the CPSU with a severe reprimand.

It was established that “Comrade Karpov, working in 1937-1938 in the Leningrad administration and the Pskov district department of the NKVD, grossly violated socialist legality, carried out mass arrests of innocent citizens, used perverted methods of investigation, and also falsified the interrogation protocols of the arrested”.

In particular, according to the recollections of Alexander Tammi, arrested in 1937 in Leningrad, “Karpov first thrashed [him] with a stool, and then strangled him with a leather belt, slowly twisting it … Karpov participated in the interrogations of the theoretical physicist Matvey Bronstein, who was shot in February 1938 on fabricated charges “. For these illegal actions, a large group of investigators from the Pskov district department of the NKVD was convicted back in 1941, and Karpov “at that time was recalled to Moscow to the central office of the NKVD.”

The final wording was as follows: “Comrade Karpov deserves to be expelled from the CPSU for the violations of socialist legality committed in 1937-1938, but taking into account the prescription of his misconduct and positive work in subsequent years, the Party Control Committee confined itself to Karpov with a severe reprimand to the registration card “.

Retired since 1960. Buried in Moscow at the Novodevichy cemetery.

In the mid-1960s, through the merger of two bodies subordinate to the Council of Ministers of the USSR – the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Council for Affairs of Religious Cults (formed on May 19, 1944), the Council for Religious Affairs was created under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. The Council made decisions on the registration or deregistration of religious associations, on the opening and closing of prayer buildings and houses, liaised between the government of the USSR and religious organizations in the USSR and abroad, since the Soviet state formally declared its non-interference in the affairs of the church and other religious organizations.

All clergymen in the USSR, in order to carry out their activities, had to have registration of the Council, which controlled the governing bodies of all religious organizations, including the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. Deputy Chairman of the Council Valentin Fursov, reporting to the Central Committee of the CPSU for the period 1974 – early 1975, wrote that “The Synod is under the control of the Council. The question of the selection and placement of its … members was and remains entirely in the hands of the Council … explanatory work with members of the synod, establish confidential contacts with them.”

The term “confidential contacts” is a professional one in the activities of the special services and it is not accidental that it appears in this report. Until the disappearance of the state called the Soviet Union from the world map and the abolition of the power of the CPSU in the country, the positions of deputy chairmen of these religious organizations were occupied by officers of the current reserve of the KGB of the USSR, who were employees of the 4th department of the 5th department of the KGB of the USSR.

Their subordination in the department of cover was only nominal. As the former chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs (1985-1990) Konstantin Kharchev recalled, “I had a deputy to whom the churchmen carried cognac in boxes and who sometimes“ dragged them by the hair. ”They depended on him whether or not he would allow the trip for border, whether he wants to be assigned to a good hospital.”

After the fall of Soviet power, the existence of a large number of agents recruited by the state security from among the leaders-hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church became public knowledge. Today it is no longer a secret that the former patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Alexy II, for decades was in the Soviet security apparatus under the operational pseudonym Drozdov, as well as the current patriarch Kirill, who worked for state security under the pseudonym Mikhailov. Here is an excerpt from an open letter from Priest Gleb Yakunin to Patriarch Alexy II (A.M. Ridiger):

“One of the results of the irrepressible claims of the Moscow Patriarchate for church property located in independent Estonia was, in addition to the split with Ecumenical Orthodoxy, the publication in the media of some archival materials about the activities of one of the ROC functionaries and at the same time a KGB agent named Drozdov, who started , as it has now become known, his career as an informant in the Estonian SSR.

In 1991-1992, while working with the archives of the allied KGB as part of the parliamentary commission to investigate the causes and circumstances of the Emergency Committee, among the reports of the 4th department of the 5th State Security Directorate, data on the activities of agent Drozdov, who was already one of the leaders of the patriarchy, was found. ..

Earlier, according to the results of the activities of the Commission of the Supreme Soviet, archival information was already published that agent Drozdov was awarded a diploma of the KGB of the USSR in February – March 1988 …

Comparison of the biographical data of A.M. Ridiger with the official biography of Agent Drozdov gives strong reasons to believe that they are talking about the same person. It is difficult to doubt the consubstantiality of agent Drozdov and Patriarch Alexy II … “

Former major general of the KGB, former head of the K (external counterintelligence) department of the KGB of the USSR, and then the first deputy head of the USSR KGB for Leningrad and the Leningrad region, Oleg Danilovich Kalugin, in an interview with Dmitry Gordon, also talked about the state of the former the head of the Russian Orthodox Church Alexy II, who died in 2008, and the current Patriarch Kirill “(the program” Visiting Dmitry Gordon “, October 1, 2013).

In 2012, in an interview with the Ukrainian magazine Weekly.ua, Patriarch Filaret, in the world Mikhail Antonovich Denisenko, said that “all bishops, without exception, were connected with the KGB. All without exception. In Soviet times, no one could become a bishop, if not gave the consent of the KGB. Therefore, to assert that I was not connected with the KGB would be untrue – I was connected, like everyone else.”

Pavel Protsenko graduated from the Gorky Literary Institute a year later than Vigilyansky. Unlike his classmate, Protsenko did not “make friends” with foreign journalists, “metropolitan people” and Proffers. But he was a dissident and was interested in the history of the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church.

And how much more dramatic was his fate in comparison with the fate of Vigilyansky: for his interest in the ROC in 1986, Protsenko was arrested by the KGB. A number of famous Soviet writers came out in his defense. However, on November 18-19, 1986, Protsenko was sentenced by the court to three years in general regime camps for “slandering the Soviet state and social system.” In 1987, after perestroika began in the country, Protsenko was released and fully rehabilitated. In an interview with Radio Liberty, Protsenko said:

“A commission was created to investigate the anti-constitutional activities of the State Emergency Committee. It was headed by Lev Ponomarev, and Gleb Yakunin, People’s Deputy of the Supreme Council of Russia, took an active part in it. In particular, they started looking for documents that speak of the anti-constitutional activities of the KGB in the church sphere. They worked out everything. two months.

During this time, they found a small number of documents, which listed the nicknames that the KGB gave to the hierarchs of the church. Moreover, as a rule, these nicknames were not tied to surnames, since they were given by operational workers …

But thanks to some analytical work, it was possible to decipher some of the nicknames. Two months later, the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, Khasbulatov, was visited by the then Patriarch Alexy II. Yevgeny Primakov, at that time the head of the foreign intelligence service, also met with him. After the meeting of these three people, the activities of the commission were urgently terminated. After that, a number of publications appeared with the decoding of the names of agents.

First of all, I would like to say about such a prominent figure of the then Orthodoxy as Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev (Denisenko) – as a number of researchers have established, his nickname was Agent Antonov. But besides him, there were a number of clergymen: for example, the Abbot was Metropolitan Pitirim, the head of the then publishing department. And for example, agent Restorer – this was the famous Metropolitan Chrysostom, now Vilnius. ”

Radio Liberty. Security officers on the march. Power and the Church. May 29, 2015

From the examples given, it is clear how it was possible to make a career in the Russian Orthodox Church in Soviet times. In today’s Russia, even more so. It is indicative that, under the former Patriarch Alexy II and his successor, Patriarch Kirill, in the position of an adviser (including on economic issues) of the already mentioned Deputy Chairman of the USSR KGB, Major General Valery Fedorovich Lebedev, curator of the 5th line of the USSR KGB. In some documents, Lebedev even began to be referred to as a professor of theology.

In addition, he headed the Orthodox Television Foundation and was the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Moscow Patriarchate’s cable television and radio company Free People’s Television (SNT). Appointments to positions important for the Russian Orthodox Church were held only with his approval. So Vigilyansky could not be the head of the patriarch’s press service if he was not involved in cooperation with the Russian state security.

The dominance of state security agents in the ROC was observed at all levels of the church hierarchy. This conclusion, in particular, was reached by the commission of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation, which was investigating the State Emergency Committee. The document published by the Commission stated the following about the role of the ROC:

“The commission draws the attention of the leadership of the ROC to the anti-constitutional use by the Central Committee of the CPSU and the KGB of the USSR of a number of church bodies for their own purposes by recruiting and sending agents of the KGB into them. So, through the department of external church relations, agents designated nicknames Svyatoslav, Alamant, Mikhailov, Topaz, Nesterovich, Kuznetsov, Ognev, Esaulenko and others.

The nature of the orders they carry out testifies to the inseparability of this department from the state, to its transformation into a hidden center of the KGB agents among believers. Through agents, international religious organizations were kept under control, in which the ROC also participated: the World Council of Churches, the Christian Peace Conference, the Conference of European Churches … The Chairman of the KGB of the USSR Andropov reported to the Central Committee of the CPSU that the KGB was controlling the relations of the ROC with the Vatican.

Such a deep infiltration of intelligence agents into religious associations poses a serious danger to society and the state … As the coup d’etat of August 19-21, 1991 showed, the possibility of using religion for anti-constitutional purposes was real. The visit of Metropolitan Pitirim (Nechaev) to the outlawed state criminal Pugo on August 21, 1991, is of deep concern.

In diplomatic language, this is de facto recognition. The breeding ground for such a visit was the fact that the publishing department of the Moscow Patriarchate was controlled by agents of the KGB. In the reports of the 5th Directorate of the KGB of the USSR, through the publishing department, agents Abbot (from the hierarchs) and Grigoriev are constantly mentioned, who often traveled abroad and, obviously, held (occupy) high posts in this institution.

The undoubted fault in the current situation lies with the CPSU and the state bodies accountable to it. But there is no doubt that the religious associations themselves do not know the whole truth about their employees. Lustration of church agents could be a harsh, even cruel act in relation to a church that has already suffered a lot. The commission believes that it would be better if the believers themselves find a way to cleanse themselves of the introduced anti-constitutional elements.

But, unfortunately, the church leadership has not yet expressed an official attitude to the problem of its depoliticization. Deacon Andrei Kuraev, an assistant to Patriarch Alexy II, declared publications about the commission’s materials a persecution of the church and even a “triumph” of the KGB itself (Moskovskie Novosti, No. 10, 1992). However, Archbishop Chrysostomos of Vilnius essentially denied Deacon Kuraev and spoke about his 18-year collaboration with the KGB. (“Rossiyskaya Gazeta” No. 52/388 for 1992).

In the absence of an official point of view of the leadership of the church, the commission recommends that the canonical and civil statutes prohibit secret cooperation of senior church officials with state bodies, as well as study the previous activities of their governing bodies and international departments in light of the compliance of these activities with the constitutional principle of separation of church from state.

For its part, in order to eliminate the danger of using the church for anti-constitutional purposes, the commission proposed amendments to the current legislation prohibiting the involvement of clergymen in operational-search activities. However, the practical implementation of this provision can only be achieved with a ban on both sides – both from the state and from the church itself. The Commission expresses the hope that the ROC will be able to overcome the difficult legacy of the past. 1992 year. Chairman of the Commission, People’s Deputy P. Ponomarev.”

It should be noted that the church authorities did not at all seek to “overcome the difficult legacy of the past”, an example of which is evidence of the deep infiltration of agents of the Soviet-Russian special services into the environment of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church: Alexy II is a KGB agent Drozdov.

The current patriarch (Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad) Kirill Gundyaev is a KGB agent Mikhailov. Metropolitan Methodius of Voronezh – KGB agent Pavel. Metropolitan of Kiev Filaret (Denisenko) KGB agent Antonov. Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk is a KGB agent Ostrovsky. Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) is an agent of the KGB Svyatoslav. Metropolitan of Volokolamsk and Yuryevsk Pitirim – KGB agent Abbot. Metropolitan Yuvenaly (Poyarkov) – KGB agent Adamant. Archbishop Kliment of Kaluga is an agent of the KGB Topaz.

From the words of the famous Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeev, it is known that since studying at Moscow State University, he has been a parishioner of the Church of the Holy Martyr Tatiana at this higher educational institution. The temple was returned to the church on January 22, 1995. Maxim Evgenievich Kozlov was appointed rector of the temple by the decree of Patriarch Alexy II.

Kozlov graduated from the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University, where he specialized in the Department of Classical Philology (Ancient Greek and Latin). During his student years, Maxim Kozlov worked as a freelancer in the publishing department of the Moscow Patriarchate.

At this time, the future father Tikhon (Shevkunov) and Vladimir Vigilyansky, who later became a priest, also worked there. For many years the head of the publishing department of the Moscow Patriarchate was Metropolitan Pitirim of Volokolamsk and Yuryev (in the world Konstantin Nechaev), who was an agent of the 4th department of the 5th department of the KGB of the USSR. Speaking about him, Father Tikhon emphasized: “ I respect Father Pitirim and will not throw a stone at him. ”

The highly experienced KGB agent of the USSR, the Abbot, who was Metropolitan Pitirim, naturally selected the employees of the department he headed in accordance with the recommendations of the curators from the state security. The friendship of Tikhon’s father with intelligence general Leonov is also an example of his stay in the intelligence apparatus of the Russian special services, since former officers, and even more so generals of the special services, do not make friends with random people, preferring to deal with proven and reliable agents.

When Fr. Tikhon was the governor of the Sretensky monastery in Moscow, Vladimir Vigilyansky served in this church as a deacon. In 2012, Father Vladimir (Vigilyansky) replaced Archpriest Maxim Kozlov in the place of the rector of the Church of the Holy Martyr Tatiana at Moscow State University. And Archpriest Kozlov in the same 2012 was appointed rector of the Church of St. Seraphim of Sarov on Krasnopresnenskaya embankment in the prestigious “Moscow City”. Thus, the FSB of Russia received an additional agent enclave to the number available in this large business center.

By Lechaim.ru
Date Unknown
Translated from the Russian

The former President of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev met with the Chief Rabbi of Russia Berl Lazar at the International Public Fund for Socio-Economic and Political Research “Gorbachev Fund”.

Rabbi Berl Lazar highly appreciated the contribution of Mikhail Gorbachev to the creation of conditions for a free and full life of Russian Jewry. The rabbi stated:

“You opened the Iron Curtain, and Jews got the opportunity to travel to Israel, to America – wherever they want. True, the situation is changing now: Jews began to return to Russia.”

According to Lazar, Russia today is not only an open, but also a free country. And therefore the Jews, besides the fact that they received the right of free entry and exit, according to the rabbi, can now “live a full, full-fledged Jewish life in Russia.”

In turn, Mikhail Gorbachev noted that from a civilian standpoint, he has always been a supporter of “open exit”. But about this problem, the ex-president spoke quite definitely as follows:

“And at the same time, I have always believed and still believe that the departure of the intellectual elite is a loss for the state.”

During the discussion of the situation in the Middle East, Gorbachev gave a positive assessment of the outlined ways of resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. He also said that he plans to visit Israel in the near future.

Lazar proposed to join efforts to strengthen Russia’s image in the world. During the conversation, concrete paths leading to this goal were outlined. The former Soviet leader and chief rabbi of Russia also discussed the main ways of co-operation between the Gorbachev Foundation and the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia.

And first of all, such cooperation will touch upon the issues of strengthening the ties of emigrants with the Russian Federation. They also discussed mutual steps to implement a number of joint charitable programs.

By Natalie Grant

Moscow State Manager

A major Moscow-directed hoax of the 1950s was the “Peace Movement”. The Moscow regime, expert in political deception, following attentively Western opinion, which it then uses as a foundation to spread disinformation. Concern by some people in the free world over any particular development which might threaten their well being—fo example, nuclear weapons—is seized upon by Moscow disinformation strategists. By means of selected, slanted, and deceptive data, concerns are gradually transformed into fear. Scared and under considerable stress, the victims of this Moscow game can thus be influenced into accepting policies and taking steps harmful to their own interests—like “disarmament”.

The Soviets took advantage of anti-war sentiments that had developed in the West. They were interested, of course, in promoting peace for their own protection to make Soviet policies more receptive to the public. The main purpose of the “Peace Movement”, stage managed from Moscow since its inception, however, was to spread communist influence throughout the world.

The urge of the Soviet leadership to expand in the West was confirmed by D. Volkogonov, a prominent Soviet official, archivist, and historian. In a speech at The National Archives in Washington, D.C., shortly before his death, Volkogonov admitted that the objective of the men in power in the Soviet Union had always been to gain greater influence in the world at large. Expansion of influence is, therefore, one of the principal purposes of every major Moscow disinformation hoax. Moscow’s methods have not changed.

The environment has replaced peace, as an astute journalist recently remarked. Although “peace” still remains a prominent item on the list of deceitful operations of Soviet leaders, protection of the environment has become the principal took for attack against the West and all it stands for. Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to introduce malaise by lower their standard of living and implanting communist “values”.

The modus operandi in organizing the attack against the West via the environment is similar in many respects to methods employed by the organization of the “Peace Movement”. True facts are exaggerated to the extreme with the intention of terrifying rank-and-file citizens, while doubtful evidence is presented as scientifically proven fact.

The set up of the environmental operation, however, is more complex. Instead of one world council representing the entire “Peace Movement”, the environmental extremists (also known as professional environmentalists) fall into two groups. One, a non-governmental organization, is the so-called Earth Council, chaired by Maurice F. Strong, a top-level official of the United Nations. The other group, also an NGO, is linked with Moscow through the Green Cross International, or GCI. Mikhail S. Gorbachev is its chairman and founder.

An early definition of Green Cross International depicts GCI as an American non-governmental organization, a private foundation created in April 1993. It was formed through a merger with another environmental group, known as World Cross International, which existed in Switzerland. The Swiss group had been formed for months prior to the merger. This raises the question as to whether the creation of WCI and its merger with GCI were moves to facilitate the establishment of GCI headquarters in Geneva.

The early description of Green Cross International as American was false. Even while GCI now has a chapter in the United States, GCI is not and was never an American movement.

Global Forum

Green Cross International traces its origin to a group that started out under the somewhat clumsy appelation of “Global Forum for Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders of Human Survival”, which it abbreviated to Global Forum, using the full name only in official documents. It was formed upon the initiative of Aiko Matsumura, a Japanese activist and now executive co-ordinator of the organization.

Global Forum’s purpose was to establish a dialogue with C. Nobel, founder of Earth Aid Society. It is difficult to determine whether the idea of a dialogue came to Mr. Matsumura from Moscow, which favours dialogues as a tool for infiltration. Mr. Nobel recruited the Rev. James Park Morton, Dean of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York, who arranged to have the first meeting of the group in June 1985 in the Cathedral. Among other things, they discussed a solution to “critical issues”, such as degradation of the environment and the depletion of the Earth’s resources. There were only about a dozen participants. They included, however, prominent figures Angier Biddle Duke, the former chief of protocol in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and Congressman James H. Scheuer of New York.

The meeting at the Cathedral was soon followed by a conference in Tarrytown, New York. The Tarrytown meeting had a more numerous audience. In Tarrytown, the question was raised and the motion was approved of holding an international conference in Oxford, England.

Sometime later, Congressman Scheuer visited Moscow. He took along invitations to the conference and handed a few to the office of the President of the Supreme Soviet for transmissions to parliamentarians. Several Soviet officials accepted the invitation and attended the conference. The Soviet delegation was led by Yevgeniy Velikhov, Vice Chairman of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

The Oxford Conference was well attended, mostly by leaders of non-Christian faiths and indigenous personalities. In addition, there were representatives from Britain (including the Archbishop of Canterbury) and the Netherlands. Among the delegates were Chief Oren R. Lyons and Mother Teresa. There were elections to the Council of Global Forum. Nominated to the Council were a number of religious leaders form non-Christian faiths, as well as Yevgeniy Velikhov.

During the proceedings, the GF leadership announced that their next international conference would take place in Moscow, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Under the circumstances, one wonders whether the Global Forum received assistance from some powerful ally. The international conference in Oxford was a clever move on the part of a practically unknown and questionable group. With the Oxford Conference of 1987, the Global Forum entered the international arena.

The Big Even—The Moscow Conference

The Moscow conference met in January 1990. Cosponsored by the Supreme Soviet of the (then) USSR, the conference had the active support of the Academy of Sciences. All Soviet religious communities were called upon to ensure co-operation of various religious communities. The speakers included the Secretary General of the United Nations and the President of the USSR. Senator Al Gore was also among the speakers. He had by then become a member of the Global Forum Council and had even contributed an article to Shared Vision, the official publication of the Gobal Forum. (1)

The key event was the speech by Mikhail S. Gorbachev, President of the Soviet Union. As it was summarized in Shared Vision, (2) Gorbachev’s speech presented Soviet suggestions on how to respond to an “ecological imperative”. The Soviet recommendations comprised the demand for a nuclear test ban, the establishment of an international environmental monitoring system, the signing of a covenant to protect unique ecological zones, the support of United Nations environmental programs and of the international conference on the environment and development, which was scheduled to meet in June 1992 in Brazil. Gorbachev noted that environmental tragedy could be averted only through international effort.

You should remember that at the time of his speech, Gorbachev was still the President of the Soviet Union and he was expressing the “views” and “suggestions” of the Communist Party Soviet Union, of which he was the leader.

These “suggestions” did not fall on deaf ears. Before long, the activities of Global Forum began to reflect the communist “recommendations”. Indeed, had there been any doubts as to the political stand by certain leaders of Global Forum or Moscow’s attitude toward this barely known group, they were dispelled by events at the Moscow Conference. Intention Soviet interest in the proceedings was obvious.

By 1990, certain leaders of the Global Forum had transformed their group into a communist front and were ready to act upon Soviet “suggestions”. The services they began rendering to international communism were important. In its appeal, Global Forum played on hostility toward certain aspects of Western civilization. Global Forum recruited non-communist environmentalists and placed them under the direct, controlling influence of communists. Naive indigenous peoples, non-Christian religious figures, and a few government officials were the main target. Senator Al Gore may serve as an example. (3)

The First Earth Summit

Meanwhile, the United Nations was embarking on its own program to protect the environment. Leading among the environmentalists at the U.N. was Maurice F. Strong, a multimillionaire with top-level business contacts. In 1972, Maurice Strong acted as Secretary General at the Stockholm Conference (4), which was convented to put the environment on the world agenda.

In 1987, the U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development called for the establishment of a code which would prescribe principal norms for behaviour of states and individuals in matters relating to the Earth. And in June 1992, the U.N. held an international conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which discussed to a large extent matters connected with “protection” of the environment. Maurice Strong was one of the organizers. In environmental circles, this conference was known as The Earth Summit.

All was not smooth sailing at the first Earth Summit. Heads of state refused to accept some proposals, and arguments were often bitter. Insults were exchanged, and President Bush, who attended the meeting, got his share of comment. Timothy Wirth, a former senator from Colorado, accused him of engaging in “adolescent politics” and looking “silly” for not signing a treaty on biodiversity. (5) Global Forum, for some reason, held a simultaneous conference of environmental parliamentarians in another section of the city. The presence of two similar meetings in Rio de Janeiro led to confusion. Resolutions passed by Global Forum were attributed at times by observers to the United Nations Earth Summit.

The conference of parliamentarians served Global Forum as an opportunity to put into effect Soviet President Gorbachev’s “suggestion” to establish an international monitoring institution to protect the environment. This was accomplished by having the parliamentarians pass unanimously a resolution creating an organization, named International Green Cross, later changed to Green Cross International. According to a GCI press release, Mikhail Gorbachev’s Moscow speech was at the root of Green Cross International’s foundation. He was, therefore, invited to accept the position of founder and chairman of GCI. The formal launching of GCI could not take place at Rio and had to be postponed to a future international conference. That took place in 1993 in Kyoto, Japan. Gorbachev attended the Kyoto conference and accepted the nomination.

Although environmentalist circles were disappointed by the results of the 1992 Earth Summit, it actually proved to be a step forward in their campaign for global “protection” for the environment. The U.N. conference, thus, adopted a program for the coming century. The course of action based off “sustainable development” was set down in a document known as Agenda 21, which was further amplified by meetings in Copenhagen, Cairo, and Beijing.

Agenda 21 is viewed by environmental extremists as a blueprint in “sustainable development”. It was circulated among world leaders who are expected by environmental extremists to implement its provisions. The document is divided into forty chapters, some of which contain, on their face, what appear to be reasonable demands, until those demands are juxtaposed with other chapters (i.e., the chapter on “social justice”) that reflect adherence to blatantly communist doctrines.

The Earth Council

The Earth Council, an international non-governmental organization, also arose as a direct result of the Earth Summit. The probable creator of the Earth Council is its chairman Maurice F. Strong. It states its mission to be the support and “empowerment” of “people” in building a more “secure”, “equitable”, and “sustainable” future. The Council, therefore, aims at strengthening the participation of “equal rights” groups, particularly women, indigenous peoples, and “youth”, in its work. (6) The special focus on the Earth Council is to ensure the “operationalization” of indigenous people, women, and “youth”.

Canadian born, in his sixties, Mr. Strong is a self-made man and has innumerable contacts in highly placed and wealth business circles where he seems to enjoy a good reputation. He admits to holding a “socialist ideology” and has been described by a former UN Deputy Ambassador as a “very dangerous ideologue, way over the Left”. (7) Mr. Strong’s immediate assistance is the Executive Director of the Earth Council, Maximo T. Kalaw. He is said to be an “activist” from the Philippines. Mr Kalaw, who also heads the Earth Council Institute and is the Chairman of the Green Forum of the Philippines, holds some rather bizarre views. For instance, according to Mr. Kalaw, economic society, although the main engine for economic development, does not hold “public interest” as its primary concern and, therefore, its members should not be allowed to be part of public governance. Moscow is represented on the board of the Earth Council by Yevgeniy Velikhov, vice chairman of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Since its establishment, the Earth Council has been in close collaboration with Green Cross International. In April, 1994, Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev met at the Hague and launched an “initiative” for an earth charter. They proposed the signing of the charter, which would, according to its promoters, provide a “new mode of life” based upon radical “principles for the whole of humanity”. Both Strong and Gorbachev viewed The Earth Charter as a priority. In this respect, they seemed to be following the precepts of the UN World Commission on Environment and Development (UNCED). Indeed, in 1987 UNCED had called for the formation of a charter which would prescribe “norms” for states and individuals to maintain life on earth.

In order to produce an “ethical and moral” set of “imperatives”, environmental extremists supported the idea of an earth charter plan to precede its acceptance by a worldwide consultation involving all sectors of society. To reach consensus in a world inhabited by people of totally opposite views is an impossible undertaking. Therefore, “consensus” will be achieved by limiting consultation to individuals and NGOs already favouring the Earth Charter.

Green Cross International

The political line adopted by Green Cross International is that of Mikhail Gorbachev, founder and chairman of GCI, who, appropriately, is its mouthpiece. Of course, as a communist, Gorbachev and the Green Cross will want to install communist “values”. In its pronouncements, Green Cross usually calls for action by leaves untold the action it plans to take. Generalities permeate the statements of GCI—and Gorbachev as well—relating to doctrine and activities. In discussing the aims of his enterprise, Gorbachev calls for a “new civilization”, asserting that neither democracy nor prayers to God can solve the alleged “world crisis”. What is a “new civilization”? He does not explain. Because civilization is usually understood to be cultural and technological development, the qualifying “new” requires interpretation that is (conveniently) not supplied. Gorbachev constantly demands a “change of values” but never specified the values he wants changed, or what should replace them.

In its analysis of the Earth Charter, GCI also follows Gorbachev’s lead. GCI laments that despite repeated efforts, the “international community” has not yet been able to agree on an effective international treaty that would guarantee the “rights of the earth. (8) With the creation of international law, a “slow and tedious process”, GCI suggests greater focusing on “soft law”. (9) Soft law refers to non-binding documents drawn up by special interest groups, that as GCI or The Earth Council, that establish “norms”, hoping they will take on the force of “law” through customary practice. Majority rule and dissent are thereby circumvented. (10) Green Cross International hopes, however, to persuade the government of each country to ratify the Earth Charter in time for its proclamation on 01 January 2000.

The administrative director of Green Cross International is Andreas Eggenberg. He advocates integration of all sectors of society at every level in order to achieve “constructive” overall prevention of and response to disasters. In his opinion, this approach will stabilize the ecological and political “situation” of humanity. (11)

The top figure in Green Cross International remains Mikhail Gorbachev, admitted community by training and conviction. The vice president of GCI is Daniel Goeudevert, a Frenchman, self-made businessman, who occupied prominent positions in the automotive world. He is a member of the Club of Rome and an advisor to the Director General of UNESCO. He also presides over the Economic Council of the Gorbachev Foundation.

The United States chapter of Green Cross International was officially opened by Mikhail Gorbachev during his visit in October 1994. Named “Global Green USA”, it maintains offices in several cities, including New York and Cleveland, Ohio. It also has an office in Washington, D.C., where it is represented by one Paul Walker. The president of the American chapter is one Diane Meyer Simons, whose slogan is “one world, one people”. She apparently intends to use this motto to rally public and political leaders for action and support of Global Green USA. Global Green USA is directed by Hugh Locke, who in his first year of activity concentrated on a campaign against “toxic military waste”. Locke also seems interested in the production of documentary films devoted to leaders of the environmental movement. As are most of his colleagues, Locke is vague in his comments. It is, therefore, difficult to understand what he means when he too calls for the creation of a “new civilization”.

Expansion

Green Cross and Crescent International is now in its fourth year. (Sometimes “Crescent” is addted to the GCI name.) At first glance, it does not seem to have performed any spectacular feat. Its name has never been mentioned during volcanic eruptions, nor does GCI seem to have intervened in saving the victims of extensive floods, nor has it received publicity at the time of oil spills. GCI has been silent on the Three Gorges Dam Project in China, scheduled for completion in 2009, although the project is expected to have a profound ecological, environmental, cultural, archaeological, and historical impact. Yet, rescuing the victims of disasters and protecting ecological zones are in the GCI program. In fact, skeptics argue that so far, GCI has been long on rhetoric and short on action. (12)

Green Cross International, however, has not been idle. It has actively collaborated with UN environmental extremists at numerous meetings and conferences and has taken a leading role in launching the Earth Charter. Gorbachev and his staff have further been seeking and finding support in government circles, particularly in Holland, and have been engaged in expanding GCI into a truly international organization. Barely one year after its establishment, Green Cross and Crescent International had already formed five national chapters. The GCI operates two centres. One is in the Hague, where GCI maintains its programs on “values” education, as well as matters related to the media and communications. The other centre is in Geneva, Switzerland, where GCI handles emergency operations. In addition, the group has chapters in a  number of countries, including Estonia, France, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands (where government circles have donated at least $75,000 to GCI), Sweden, Switzerland, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.

The Second Earth Summit

In March 1997, five years after the Earth Summit, a conference on environment met in Rio de Janeiro with an attendance of some 500 people. It has been named Rio+5. The participants met in order to review the progress in “sustainable development” made since the Earth Summit and apparently to prepare for the Second Earth Summit.

Rio+5 issued a set of recommendations dealing with the necessity to focus attention on The Earth Charter and to reach a consensus on “values”. The meeting parties stressed the need to strengthen the participation of “equal rights” groups, i.e., women, indigenous peoples, and youth in councils for sustainable development. The emphasis placed by environmental extremists upon “sustainability” raises questions.

Supporters of “sustainability” often disregard the fact that nature is their most dangerous opponent. With one sweep, nature can destroy the most carefully laid plans. The volcano at Montserrat, which transformed a flourishing community into a desert of ash, may serve as an example. The U.N. Second Earth Summit opened its doors in June 1997. Dignitaries from over 160 countries flocked to the meeting in New York City. President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore also attended. The summit reportedly began with “recriminations between Europe and the United States and by Third World countries condemning developed countries for broken promises.” (13) The main points in the discussion concerned aid to developing countries by the West—or rather, by the United States. Another point dealt with the signing of a pact reducing “greenhouse gases” and their emission; a pact specifically designed to cripple what’s left of American industry. This was presented to the conference in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. Environmental extremists proclaimed their disappointment with the results of The Second Earth Summit. They failed to note, however, as did herbalist Charles K. Hanley (14) that the environmental movement made progress by “slow bits” over the last four decades.

Conclusion

Information available at the present time seems to show that the environmental extremists maintain contact with and are supported by Moscow. The “movement” has all the traits of a Soviet disinformation operation. Facts are exaggerated into a “nightmarish” picture of floods, scorched earth, disease, and death. The target, the industrialized West—scared and confused by Moscow’s sympathizers in “science”, academe, and the slavishly obedient Establishment media—is influenced to accept measures and regulations harmful to the Western world.

These are not the only consequences of the action of the environmental extremist movement. It is promoting conflict, domestically and internationally. We can only marvel at the skill with which the two top leaders have proven able to introduce dissent and conflict into usually pacific circles.

These two leaders, Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, are men of considerable experience. They understand economics and politics. They are, therefore, fully aware of what they are doing. Strong has the power of the United Nations at his disposal. Gorbachev, and able public relations men, gained considerable influence in the period following his retirement from president of the USSR. They are consciously harming the United States.

Who profits from the activities of these two men?

NOTES: