Sometimes seemingly innocuous research can take a darker turn.
While researching the oil trade between the United States and the Soviet Union, I was struck by several odd policy choices made by the Nixon administration. Particularly jolting was the discovery that the presumably hawkish Nixon dismissed the notion that disrupting the Soviet Union's energy trade was a serious policy priority with important implications for American foreign relations. As Bruce Jentleson puts it in his tendentiously left-leaning book Pipeline Politics:
It is interesting to note, especially in light of later events, that in assessing these prospects for American-Soviet energy trade and cooperative ventures, the CIA and the Nixon administration in general dismissed the notion that American security interests might be threatened.
Without delving into the weeds on the nuances of the history of the Soviet oil trade, it should be noted generally that the USSR was notorious for dumping its vast oil and gas resources onto the world markets, using trade as a weapon to kneecap American companies, and more broadly, as part of a strategy of creating energy dependents, and specifically, pulling Europe into its sphere of influence. In hindsight, the Soviets laid the foundation for today's Russia to politically and economically blackmail former satellites using "pipeline politics." [It should also be noted that in the 1970s the CIA was routinely inaccurate in its assessment of Soviet threats, especially after the departure of counterintelligence wizard James "Jesus" Angleton in 1975. President Reagan was prescient enough to reverse the trend of accommodating the expansion of the Soviets' oil and gas trade by unpopularly blocking the sale of equipment and technological assistance needed for the USSR to expand its pipeline network in Western Europe. Socialist-leaning Europe was not so cognizant of the threat of future energy dependence on Russia and undermined Reagan's trade sanctions.]
The revelation that Nixon and Kissinger contorted to get out of the way of Soviet energy objectives threw into a less benign light such foreign policy positions as trading grain to the Soviet Union during the famine of 1971-1972, which freed up economic resources for the USSR to continue developing its military arsenal and nuclear weapons stockpiles; the improvement of American relations with communist China in accordance with the presumably "brilliant" strategy of detente; the unilateral disbanding of biological weapons in the United States under the guidance of Henry Kissinger; a series of arms limitations treaties, which eased pressure on the Soviet Union in the Cold War arms race; the disastrous abandoning of the gold standard, which removed limitations on the printing of the dollar, and the closing of the gold window, which led to the routing of America's gold reserves, and Kissinger's endorsement of the decision to cut-and-run in Vietnam (see "peace with honor"), leading from Nixon's threat to resume bombings against North Vietnam to the ultimately disastrous Paris Peace Accords (which earned Kissinger a share of the Nobel Peace Prize), and we get a strange picture discordant with the popular narrative that Nixon and Kissinger were "hawks" intent on opposing the influence of communism in the world.
My suspicion of these policy choices revolves around the enigmatic figure of Henry Kissinger, well-known to be a member (not on the official list, but Rashid Khalidi is!) of the internationalist Council on Foreign Relations and the associated Tri-lateral Commission (also unlisted as a member there). These "mental itches" (as I call them) were scratched by a piece written by J.R. Nyquist, who discussed Kissinger's intelligence associations and even an accusation by well-known spy outer Colonel General Goleniewski, who had been in communist Poland's intelligence services, that Kissinger was working for the Soviets. I cannot attest to the veracity of such a wild accusation, especially one made by an odd figure like Goleniewski (who also claimed to be the direct descendant of the last czar of Russia), but I am struck by Kissinger's defensive remark to the charge:
I don't know who Colonel Goleniewski is, but I think he should be given the Pulitzer Prize for fiction.
Such a snide off-hand remark is problematic for Kissinger, who also worked in intelligence, and who had read numerous briefings, and is likely to have been aware of a man who was outing Soviet moles left and right in Europe. If Goleniewski's charges were the only spaghetti to stick to Kissinger's wall, so to speak, then one would say that our subject had escaped hot water. But there are other curious reasons to suspect Kissinger had ulterior motives with his often duplicitous policy positions, his favoritism for shady leftist characters (see Nyquist article above) and even an NSA intercept that supposedly shows that Kissinger revealed American operative in Russia "TRIGON" to Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin (this is presumably unverifiable). At the very least, I am perplexed about this "architect of detente," and his role in pushing America towards what the KGB called "universal convergence" with the communist superstates of Russia and China. To quote prominent counterintelligence analyst Leonard McCoy, ""Am I crazy to think this about Kissinger?"
But it appears that things are even worse than I first thought. Along comes an article, published today, admittedly by the hit-and-miss World Net Daily, entitled, "Kissinger: Obama primed to create 'New World Order'." In the balanced and moderately toned article, Kissinger praises Obama for his choice of advisers and just last year, Kissinger spoke openly of the opportunity he saw for creating a 'new world order' - out of international crisis.
Kissinger's sudden re-emergence onto the public scene is oddly timed considering Obama's own bizarre form of "detente" with the socialist and terrorist-sponsoring world.
When Obama's counter-productive domestic policies, prostrate foreign policy stance, and internationalist bent is taken together with the recent pronouncement of Russian president Dmitri Medvedev endorsing a "new world order," I'm sorry, but I'm starting to get spooked. As Medvedev, the hand-groomed successor of KGB officer Vladimir Putin, put it:
What had seemed untouchable has collapsed. The bubbles [ultimately created by the Federal Reserve and fiat currency - ed.] that created the illusion of flourishing economies have burst. For Russia this situation is a challenge and an opportunity. We are living in a unique time. And we should use it to build a modern, flourishing and strong Russia … which will be a co-founder of the new world economic order and a full participant in the collective political leadership of the post-crisis world.”
Kissinger couldn't have put it any better himself.