IN THIS ISSUE:
Perspective: The Gathering Storm (Part 1)
America's leaders are talking peace while leading us closer to war. This is the first of two issues surveying the "storm clouds" of conflict and crisis to come.
Collapsing Arms Control and Retaliation by "Andropov"
The beginning of deployment of U.S. missiles in Europe has led, as warned, to termination of the INF talks on medium-range missiles by Russia. The Reagan Administration is now readying allegations of Soviet "cheating" to kill the other nuclear arms talks--the START negotiations. Meanwhile on Nov. 24 Soviet retaliation for the new U. S. missiles was announced in the name of the late Yuri Andropov. It includes weapons "in ocean areas and seas" aimed at the U.S. This refers to the underwater-launch missiles in our waters reported 6 weeks ago by NewsALERT.
U.S.-Israel "Strategic Cooperation" to Partition Lebanon
In the Washington visits this week by Shamir and Gemayel, Israel got everything, Lebanon nothing. The collapse of Lebanese peace talks, renewed civil war, and deepening involvement of U. S. forces are now in prospect. Syria, too, is being targeted for a direct confrontation soon.
Copyright © 1983, Audio Books, Inc.
Background references are indicated in parentheses ( ), abbreviated as follows:
Ali Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER® Cassette Tape #
AB# AUDIO BOOK® Cassette Tape #
ST# SPECIAL TAPE #
These tapes produced by Audio Books, Inc., may be ordered from NewsALERT.
Perspective: The Gathering Storm (Part 1)
When any government lies constantly to its people, it leads to two results. First, the people gradually lose their ability to comprehend the meaning of events. Then the leaders themselves are progressively blinded by their own hypocrisy. They begin to believe their own lies and lose the ability to see reality as it is. Both of these conditions are on the increase today in the United States of America.
There is a parallel between this degenerating situation that we face today and that which our Lord Jesus Christ encountered, Day in, day out, He went about teaching thousands and performing miracles. Yet when members of the religious Establishment accosted Him one day, they acted as if He had said and done nothing remarkable. Instead they arrogantly demanded that He give them some sign from heaven.
As always, our Lord's answer went straight to the heart of the matter: "When it is sunset you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky; how is it that you cannot interpret the signs of the times?"
America's leaders today are whipping up storm clouds of all kinds, while doing everything they can to keep us, the people, from correctly interpreting their meaning. The Bolshevized Reagan Administration is obsessed with manipulating, limiting and controlling what we know (NewsALERT #7). And they are being aided and abetted by many spiritual mis-leaders who are giving a stamp of approval to acts that are Satanic deceptions.
What can we do about it? Plenty--if we will. There is another parallel between our situation and that to which our Lord Jesus Christ spoke. When He spoke to His followers, He warned them not to be taken in by the "leaven" of their leaders' hypocrisy. He told them that they, as well as their leaders, should be able to read the meaning of the times just as they read the sky for weather. He challenged them: "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" This NewsALERT is devoted to a look at some of the storm clouds now gathering. The storm will come, unless we see and "judge what is right."
Collapsing Arms Control and Retaliation by "Andropov"
Last week America celebrated Thanksgiving. It's a time to be thankful and enjoy our country's unparalleled blessings of abundance, prosperity and peace. But while we were preoccupied thus, major developments were taking place which are leading in the direction of shattering it all.
On Nov. 22, two days before Thanksgiving, the West German Bundestag voted to accept the imminent deployment of Pershing II mobile missiles on German soil. It was a fateful decision, and one which the Kremlin had tried hard to forestall by means of appeals both to West German leaders and to West German public opinion. Of the 572 American nuclear missiles that are to be deployed in Europe over the next several years, it is the 108 Pershing II's which bother the Kremlin most. Unlike the slow, low-flying cruise missiles (464 to be deployed), the Per-shings are ballistic rockets. They can reach Russian soil in a matter of minutes, reducing warning time to nearly nothing. That makes them ideal for vise in the first wave of a nuclear first strike, in spite of Russia's highly advanced anti-ballistic missile system which uses airborne beam weapons (AL#54).
While cruise missiles are to be scattered among at least 4 NATO countries, all 108 of the critical Pershing IPs are to be sited in West Germany. The Bundestag vote of Nov. 22 therefore assured that deployment of these, the most objectionable missiles in Russia's view, will go full speed ahead.
The first of the Pershing II's arrived at Ramstein Air Force Base near Mannheim, West Germany, the very next day. It was Nov. 23--Thanksgiving Eve in America.
That day a meeting was scheduled in Geneva between U.S. and Soviet negotiators in the Intermediate- range Nuclear Forces (INF) talks. The Russians carried out a long-standing threat: they attended only long enough to declare the talks to be at an end. They had kept talking after initial deployment of cruise missiles in Britain on Nov. 14, but they said that the Pershing II's were the last straw.
In walking out of the INF talks, the Russians did precisely what they had repeatedly warned they would do. We reported on this in our complimentary "Interim News Alert #4" last June, prior to inauguration of the regular News A LERT series. The new American nuclear missiles in Europe will be right on the doorstep of Russia. Russia therefore views them in exactly the same way as the U„ S. viewed the deployment of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. Just as the U.S. refused to accept even a single Russian missile in Cuba, the Russians refuse to accept even a single U.S. missile in Europe without retaliating. It is a new "Cuban missile crisis, " but in reverse.
The storm clouds warning of this brewing crisis have been visible and unmistakable to all willing to see them.
And yet, the Bolshevized Reagan Administration has succeeded in leading a lot of people astray by means of constant lying. Almost to the last minute, the official line was that Only By Deploying the Missiles Can We Make the Russians Negotiate Seriously. How many times have we heard our actor "President" recite that line? He always sounded as if he meant it--but then, the ability to read a script convincingly is the entire stock in trade of any actor.
It was a lie from the start, and whether our actor President knew that or not, his scriptwriters certainly did.
Now the same President Reagan who said for so long that missile deployment would make the Russians negotiate has a new line. He said on the day of the Soviet walkout from the talks that he was sure they would be back. And just today, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger topped that. He is in Europe for a week of hand-holding for West Europeans, who are very jittery over Russia's walkout. He said in a speech: "I really believe right now that the prospects for successful negotiation are better than they have ever been before. "
Don't hold your breath. As ABC-TV's Pentagon correspondent John McWethy reported tonight, some European officials privately say Weinberger's optimism "bears little resemblance to reality. " They couldn't be more right. Not only are our leaders lying to us, but they are also beginning to lie to themselves. The distinction is becoming fuzzier and fuzzier. As they hide reality from us, they are losing touch with it them-selves--and the danger to America and the world is rising fast.
In the days preceding final collapse of the INF talks, the Russians made one last informal attempt to achieve a breakthrough. Soviet chief negotiator Yuli Kvitsinsky proposed informally to U. S. chief negotiator Paul Nitze that the United States suggest a trade: to call off deployment of the American missiles with their 572 nuclear warheads, if Russia would eliminate 572 of its already deployed missile warheads. He gave assurances that if the U.S. would make the offer, the USSR would accept it.
What the Russians were offering was a chance for President Reagan to pull off a spectacular negotiating coup, both in reality and in appearance. The 572-for-572 trade would have reduced Russia's European theatre force to about 120 triple-warhead SS20's.
The resulting Soviet nuclear firepower aimed at Western Europe would have been less than that which prevailed prior to the initiation of SS20 deployment in 1976. That deployment has always been given as the excuse for introducing the new U.S. missiles, so Reagan could have said--and truthfully--that the 572-for-572 deal had made Europe safer than it was before the SS20's were ever deployed. If pressed hard enough, the Russians were even prepared to shift from 120 SS20's to a mix of SS20's and some older missiles.
In any case, the final tally of nuclear warheads in Europe would have been reduced by 1144 by the deal. U.S. taxpayers would have been saved billions of dollars; meanwhile all the actual work to implement the agreement would have fallen upon the Russians. They would have had to dismantle hundreds of missiles while we did nothing.
This private offer was a final test of Reagan's intentions. If Reagan had accepted it, he could have made enormous political hay with it. He could have told the world--and especially American voters — that his toughness in threatening to deploy the missiles had brought about this, the first real decrease in nuclear weapons ever achieved by arms control talks. And by cancelling production and deployment of hundreds of no-longer-needed cruise and Pershing II missiles, Reagan could have cut billions from his historically unprecedented budget deficits.
It was the kind of opportunity that makes any normal politician, with normal political goals, lick his chops; a chance to play world statesman, to grab the spotlight as a peacemaker, to silence all his critics on the eve of an election year, and to earn a spot in the history books. Nor was that all. If Reagan had seized the opportunity he was offered, it would have transformed Soviet-American relations for the better in a most dramatic way. The Russians are always tough bargainers, and they genuinely respect others who bargain with equal tenacity. Their last-minute offer was a lot more generous than they originally would have considered, so if Reagan had accepted it they would have respected him for it. And on that foundation of new-found respect a whole new relationship could have been built between Russia and America.
But the Bolshevized Reagan Administration is not interested in any of the normal calculations of politics, let alone statesmanship. The U. S. killed the proposal by arranging for it to be made public in ways that made it appear to be part of a Kremlin scheme to divide the NATO alliance. It first became public knowledge on Nov. 18 and quickly fell apart. The last chance for a successful outcome to the INF nuclear missile talks had been destroyed.
Russia's walkout from the INF talks on Nov. 23 was followed swiftly by a thunderous blast from Moscow. On Thanksgiving Day, Nov. 24, the top news story was a declaration from the Kremlin describing Russia's determination to retaliate --as had been warned previously—for deployment of U.S. missiles in Europe.
It was attributed to the late President Yuri Andropov, whose death (NewsALERT #8) is still being kept secret.
The "Andropov" statement promised several steps, including the deployment of short-range nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe. The most important step for Americans was the promise to deploy new nuclear weapons directed at the United States itself. The "Andropov" statement said that these new systems will be deployed "in ocean areas and seas. "
In every report we have seen about this key statement in the American news media, it is always explained away in the same breath as meaning missiles aboard Soviet submarines. It is said that maybe the Russians will put some new cruise missiles aboard, or maybe they will move their subs on patrol a little closer to our shores than before. Then it is dismissed as a ho-hum idea, since after all the Russians have had submarines out there for years with missiles aimed at us.
We may find that Pentagon explanation soothing and reassuring, but it is dead wrong. The reference to systems "in ocean areas and seas" means specifically the underwater-launch missiles (UWM's) which are already being planted along the shores of the United States (NewsALERT #6). These are being planted at a furious pace by Russia's small sonar-evading minisubs which plagued Sweden in October 1982 and Norway last May. The minisubs are so invulnerable to detection by our undersea sonar nets that they are planting most of the UWM's within our own territorial waters.
The threat posed by UWM's resting underwater along our coastlines is qualitatively different from that posed by missiles aboard Soviet submarines. If the Russians wanted to threaten us by means of submarine-borne missiles at short range, they would have to first deploy the submarines. Deployment of Russia's missile submarines can be detected by the U.S., so there would be no chance of a surprise attack from short range that way without warning. But once the UWM's are resting in our waters, they can be fired anytime, on a moment's notice. They would give no warning at all.
As reported in NewsALERT #6, the actual deployment of Soviet UWM's in our waters began on Sept. 28, which was before final collapse of the INF missile talks. The Russians were prepared to come back and remove them should there be some final breakthrough. But they did not expect that to happen, and as it turned out they were right. By starting early, they got nearly a two-month head start in their own deployment of UWM's before the first Pershing II's arrived in Germany this month.
Up to now at least 177 Soviet underwater-launch missiles have been planted along America's coastlines. Of these the first 73 (reported in NewsALERT #6) have conventional hydrogen bomb warheads designed for heat and blast, apparently for potential use against military installations. The other 104 are equipped with neutron warheads, which are designed to bathe a target area in deadly radiation without significant blast or fallout effects. These are aimed primarily at population centers for retaliation in the event of an American nuclear first strike against Russia.
The total deployment of Soviet UWM's in our waters so far is believed to include a number of additional missiles beyond the confirmed numbers cited above. This is already a far larger deployment of underwater missiles than took place in the initial Underwater Missile Crisis during the summer of 1976. That crisis led to Dr. Beter's unprecedented Pentagon conference with the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the late Gen. George S. Brown (AL#16).
But the Kremlin has signaled that there is far more to come. The Nov. 24 "Andropov" statement said that the systems to be deployed "in ocean areas and seas" against the United States will be "adequate to the threat which is being created for us by the American missiles that are being deployed in Europe. " In the parlance of the New Kremlin, an "adequate" response to any threat means to more than equal it. Since the U. S. has begun the deployment of 572 missiles in Europe, a Soviet deployment of at least 600 UWM's in our own territorial waters can apparently be expected. Working at the present pace, the Soviet Navy should complete the job by the end of March, 1984.
By any measure, the destruction of the INF missile talks by starting missile deployment in Europe has already produced a net decrease in America's true national security. But the INF talks on medium-range missiles were only one of two sets of nuclear arms control talks underway in Geneva. The other talks were the START negotiations, dealing with intercontinental missiles, bombers and missile submarines. Despite the collapse of the INF talks, Soviet negotiators met as scheduled with their American counterparts in the START talks on Nov. 29. But the Reagan Administration intends to guarantee that START will stop soon.
In NewsALERT #3 we detailed how and why the Korean airliner incident was arranged. It accomplished the purpose for which it was designed: to begin a chain reaction leading to collapse of the INF talks on European missiles. As we also reported then, the Korean airliner incident was planned to be only the first half of a one-two punch designed to finish off arms control talks altogether. The second blow is to be a public blast by the Reagan Administration alleging "cheating" by Russia on the SALT treaties. Never mind that there has not been any SALT treaty since October 1977. Never mind also that the U. Sv is "cheating" as much or more with such things as the secret Minuteman TX mobile ICBM, now deployed on America's railroads (AL#55).
The planned "Russia is cheating" campaign is now being readied, and it is intended to blow the remaining START negotiations right out of the water. After that, the new Bolsheviks who have seized control of much of the U.S. Government think they will have clear sailing in their preparations for war against Russia. The Pentagon can hardly wait: just two days ago, Defense Secretary Weinberger shocked Senate Republican leaders with his plans. With federal deficits already running in the neighborhood of $200 billion, Weinberger announced that he intends to seek another increase of 22 percent--$55 billion—for next year's defense budget.
As of now, an increase like that looks out of the question, and aghast senators told him so. They haven't reckoned with the surprises and crises that lie ahead. Already, a series of major events has greatly increased the prospects for increased military spending: the Korean airliner incident, the attacks on U. S. Marines in Beirut, the Grenada invasion, and even the collapse of the INF missile talks. By setting off some more such crises, the Bolsheviks here may get everything they want.
The timing and nature of the crises to come will be affected strongly by the Kremlin's handling of the "Andropov" problem. Russia's transitional leadership is following through on the decision to keep his death a secret (NewsALERT #8), and is pretending he is still in charge. The Nov. 24 declaration which spelled out retaliation for deployment of U.S. missiles in Europe was issued in Andropov's name. Care was taken to adhere to the late Andropov's style; it was composed by the up-and-coming Politburo member who was closest to Andropov and thinks a lot like him--Mikhail Gorbachev.
Ploys like this have bought some time, but they are wearing thin. It is time for the winter session of the Supreme Soviet, to be preceded by a two-day plenum of the Soviet Central Committee. Andropov would be expected to preside at both, so they have been delayed as long as possible. Yesterday it was finally announced that the Supreme Soviet will meet Dec. 28, following the preliminary meeting of the Central Committee.
It is a dangerous situation for the Russians. They cannot wait any longer to hold the meetings. If they use the ceremonial double for Andropov (NewsALERT #8), he will doubtless fool the public, but probably not U.S. intelligence. Yet if no
"Andropov" at all makes an appearance, that will be equally revealing and damaging. Unless the Russians think of something extremely clever to do, by the end of this month it will be accepted as a certainty here that Andropov is dead. That will be cause for celebration by the new Bolsheviks here: there was no one in the entire Soviet Union whom they feared more than Yuri Andropov. With him out of the way, they will be emboldened considerably.
For that reason, we can expect an upsurge of new crises on multiple fronts to begin soon after the start of the New Year. The multiple-crisis strategy of the Bolsheviks (AL#'63) is once again getting into motion.
U.S.-Israel "Strategic Cooperation" to Partition Lebanon
After a decade of fighting, in late October leaders of the eight warring factions in Lebanon finally sat down together in Geneva. The topic: how to save their country. Thus began the Lebanese National Reconciliation Conference.
NewsA LERT #6 discussed the implications of the conference before it convened. Despite years of almost unbelievable violence and bloodshed, there is a very real chance that the Leba-nese--if left to themselves--would succeed in finding a way to end the fighting. They want to start putting the pieces of their broken country back together. But that is something which the U. S. Bolsheviks and the radical Zionists of Israel are determined to prevent at all costs. For the Zionists, the partition of Lebanon means further territorial expansion. For the Bolsheviks here, it means further twisting of the Russian bear's tail via the " Vietnam"-in- Lebanon plan (NewsALERT #4).
The Lebanese conference opened in Geneva on Oct. 3 1 in an atmosphere of distrust so intense that some of the leaders refused even to sit down until the others were searched for guns. And yet, a scant three days later on Nov. 3, the group agreed to an initial agenda to begin the process of re-establishing peace. To do that, they all agreed on a key compromise.
The most important single issue currently dividing Lebanon's
factions is the May 17 Lebanon-Israel "troop withdrawal agreement, " so-called. It was imposed on the weak Gemayel government jointly by the U.S. and Israel, and is contingent upon a Syrian withdrawal which Syria was not allowed to help negotiate in any way. In other respects, too, the May 17 document tramples roughshod upon the interests of various parties to the Lebanon dispute. The Geneva meeting announced on Nov. 3 that a compromise had been reached concerning the explosive May 17 issue. Instead of rejecting it outright, the injured parties had agreed to let Gemayel try to find some way to modify it so as to give peace a chance. The conference then recessed to allow Gemayel to start negotiating with all concerned--most of all the United States.
The Bolshevik-Zionist junta had foreseen something of the sort, and had set events in motion to head it off. On Oct. 23, before the conference convened, 239 U.S. Marines and other servicemen were killed in a truck bombing in Beirut. Then on Nov. 4, as soon as the conference recessed in a hopeful atmosphere, a similar truck bombing in Tyre killed 28 Israelis and 32 Lebanese prisoners.
These bombings, as well as the additional attack on French troops on Oct. 23, were arranged by the Israeli Mossad by way of its extensive infiltration of terrorist groups in that region (NewsALERT #6, 7). Now all these events have come together in their impact, during the past week here in Washington.
Lebanon's President Amin Gemayel was scheduled to visit here yesterday and today to seek help in his peace effort under the Lebanese Conference mandate of Nov. 3.
But his mission was sabotaged by the arrival here of Israeli Prime Minister Shamir just ahead of him. Citing the terror bombings as proof of an alleged common threat, Shamir and Reagan unveiled an agreement for vastly increased overt strategic cooperation. It calls for the U. S. to shower all kinds of increased aid and new benefits upon Israel. It even resumes the shipment of cluster bombs, which Israel used liberally last year in the process of killing 19,000 Lebanese civilians and maiming 30,000 others. In return, no concessions whatever for peace are demanded of Israel. Reagan and Shamir proclaimed the key May 17 agreement unchangeable. That left Gemayel with nothing to negotiate when he arrived two days later. He went home empty-handed.
In this way the U. S. and Israel have decreed the collapse of the fledgling National Reconciliation Conference of Lebanon. That can only lead to renewed and more vicious fighting among frustrated factions who have been thwarted in their attempt to give peace a chance. Nothing can be clearer than this. Yet our actor President and other Government spokesmen try to make us all ignore common sense, insisting that their demonic machinations this week will lead to peace.
Right now there is growing sentiment in some quarters here to find a way to bring home our Marines from Lebanon. But the forces unleashed this week in Washington are designed to lead, not to a pullout, but to deeper U. S. entanglement.
To set the stage for that, the White House and Pentagon are increasingly blaming Syria for the October truck bombing in Beirut. Meanwhile Syria is being destabilized from within by the Israeli Mossad. Syria's President Assad has been neutralized by an artificially induced heart attack, throwing Syria's government into thinly disguised turmoil. Syria is being taunted, while simultaneously rendered more vulnerable.
Any day now, our sitting-duck Marines or other U.S. forces in the area will fall victim to some new disaster. When that happens, it will provide a pretext for American military reprisals against Syria, with repercussions felt all the way to Moscow. This will lead to a further buildup--not a pullout--of U. S. forces in and near Lebanon.
Too many times over the years we Americans have allowed ourselves to be misled by our leaders. Today it is happening again, and the stakes are higher than ever. Under our form of government, while it survives, we have a responsibility to do what we can to stop this process. To do that, we must begin by seeing things as they really are--not just as we are told they are. We must do as our Lord Jesus Christ said: to look at the signs of the times and judge for ourselves what is right.
Next scheduled issue: Dec. 16, 1983
NewsALERT is published 24 times per year by Audio Books, Inc. Headquarters address: 1629 K St., NW, #5092; Washington, DC 20006. For faster service write to: NewsALERT, P. O. Box 276, Savage, MD 20763. Current subscription rates: $45.00/year in U.S.A. & Canada; $70.00/year other countries. Outside U.S.A. please remit by international money order in U.S. dollars.
 | ||||
| Peter Beter News Alert 9: Perspective: The Gathering Storm & U.S.-Israel "Strategic Cooperation" to Partition Lebanon |
No comments:
Post a Comment