Home  

JCICS International Adoption Update (JCICS Director meets with Dr. Tabacaru)

JCICS International Adoption Update
Romania

Nov. 1, 1997
We have word from the U.S. State Department that the Romania Adoption Committee will meet soon to approve the State Department's agreement that Romania will receive a letter from the U.S. Consulate when an I-600 is approved, and that the letter will specifically note who (the name of the agency) is responsible for ensuring that Romania receives post-placement reports.
The State Department may play a role in working with Romania and with agencies to make sure that post-placement reports are received in a timely, thorough fashion.

Aug. 4, 1997
JCICS Director meets with Dr. Tabacaru
Dr. Christian Tabacaru of the Romanian Adoption Center (RAC) visited Washington, DC, recently, and I was able to meet with him at the Romanian Embassy on June 27, 1997. I provided him with information about the commitment of Joint Council to the children of Romania, and appreciate the prompt response of JCICS member agencies to my request for material about current programs.
This visit was hosted by Dr. Ron Federici, and was planned with the Parent Network for the Post-Institutionalized Child. Dr. Dana Johnson also participated substantially in the visit. Certainly one of the main purposes was to share information on ways to improve services to institutionalized children in Romania. I very much appreciated the opportunity to listen and to be heard on behalf of Joint Council.
Romaniaís Policies for Children
Dr. Tabacaru discussed at some length his plans for improving services to children in need of permanent families. His approach is consistent with Joint Councilís philosophy: all children have a right to a permanent, nurturing family. If children cannot remain with their birth families, then in-country adoption should be a first priority. Intercountry adoption provides a viable alternative to provide a family for a child.
Dr. Tabacaru has impressive plans, and hopes the new law on services to children will go to the Parliament in September. He is interested in keeping the time a child is institutionalized to a minimum, and in moving children quickly to permanency plans. He discussed plans to move children from institutions to foster families, noting that subsidies will be available to the families and that ongoing efforts must be made to identify foster families.
Please be aware that this information is my best understanding, but certainly could be subject to change. Romanian birth parents will be able to sign a relinquishment immediately after the birth of a child, and would then have 30 days to revoke consent. After that 30 day period, a Romanian family would have 2 months at the most to adopt the child, and then the child could be referred for intercountry adoption. Thus, infants could be placed with American families at a very young age.
In terms of abandoned children who are placed either in institutions or in foster care, the abandonment procedures could begin after 6 months during which there has been no contact from birth parents.
My understanding of the process is as follows, though this may also be subject to change: the County Commission will tell the Romanian Adoption Center about an adoptable child. The RAC then tells all the County Commissions, who will try to find an appropriate family. If after 60 days there has been no request for the child, the RAC will give the job of identifying a family to a private agency. The County Commissions and agencies will be expected to keep the RAC informed about their efforts to find a suitable family. There may be time limits on how long an agency has: perhaps a few weeks for a healthy infant, a longer time for a severely handicapped child.
Intercountry Policies
Dr. Tabacaru met with officials from the State Department during his visit here, to discuss his concerns about the status of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, among other issues. Both the State Department and Dr. Tabacaru want adoptions to continue smoothly and effectively, but I think everyone is aware that there may be some delays while the new procedures come into place.
We expect implementing legislation for ratification of the Hague Convention to be sent to Capitol Hill this summer. In the interim time before ratification, the State Department has expressed willingness for the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest to send a letter to the Romanian Adoption Center when an I-600 has been approved, notifying the RAC of the approval of adoptive parents. This arrangement appears to be satisfactory to the Romanian officials as well, and the State Department is in the process of formalizing this process.
American agencies will have to present their state licenses, perhaps in a notarized or other official form, and Romania has indicated that it will look closely at licenses as part of an increased effort to hold agencies to a high standard. Of particular concern are two areas of practice: parent preparation, and post-placement reports.
Many agencies are of course ethical and thorough in their parent preparation programs. We need to make sure that all agencies prepare parents for the reality of parenting a post-institutionalized and/or special needs child, that all available medical and social history is presented to the parents, and that parents have time to digest information and make appropriate, informed decisions. Joint Council is committed to strengthening the services provided by agencies to parents, so that adoption practices are truly child-centered, and that placements are successful. I will be back in touch with you soon about our concrete plans, and would welcome your ideas..
Romania is certainly committed to improving parent preparation, as it is very concerned about both media reports and information provided by parents and parent groups. Joint Council can and will provide effective leadership and support in this area.
In addition, Romania wants improvements in the provision of post-placement reports. The Romanian Adoption Center will be looking very closely for timely, thorough reports for at least the two years following placement. There was discussion about the format of the reports, and the possible establishment of a standard format for parents to use. Further, it seems clear that agencies that do not provide post-placement reports will jeopardize their adoption efforts in Romania.
U.S. agencies must work in a partnership with a Romanian non-profit organization, and that Romanian agency will have responsibility for local activities. The exact details about these arrangements were not discussed, but I hope to have more detailed information soon.
Medical Perspectives
Also attending the State Department and Embassy meetings were Dr. Ron Federici and Dr. Dana Johnson. Their insights on the medical and developmental research on the children was of great interest to the Romanian officials, who also visited several area hospitals.
This research is of course also of great interest to Joint Council, and Dr. Johnson (as you know) was very well-received when he presented his research at the Joint Council conference in April. We want not only to stay on top of the research, but also to ensure that it is available to families and to agencies. Joint Council supports efforts to learn more about the needs of the children, and is actively involved in putting together a Resource List to be provided to families by agencies. This Resource List, developed in conjunction with medical and other experts in intercountry adoption, will be useful for post-placement services. Please contact me for further information.
Representatives from the Parent Network for the Post-Institutionalized Child were also involved with Dr. Tabacaruís visit, and shared their valuable perspectives on medical issues and efforts to improve services to children within institutions, as well as on agency preparation and follow-up. I had the opportunity to talk with Lois Hannon and Lily Romine of the PNPIC about their concerns, and appreciate their willingness to share ideas about how to better meet the needs of families and children.
Conclusion
The Romanian Adoption Center has ambitious, positive plans to help the children, and we applaud and support their efforts. Dr. Tabacaruís visit presented us with an opportunity to stress the commitment of Joint Council agencies to responsible, child-centered practice, to humanitarian services, and to improvement of services.
I ask for your assistance in keeping communication clear and accurate, and in working together with Romania and with adoptive parents to ensure that we are all doing what is best for the children.
Please contact me with any questions or comments.
Maureen Evans 
Joint Council

 
JCICS Home 
 
For more information contact
Joint Council on International Children's Services
Maureen Evans, Executive Director
7 Cheverly Circle
Cheverly, MD 20785-3040
1-301-322-1906
1-301-322-3425 Fax
 
© Copyright 1997 Lynn Rathbun and JCICS

BEACH COUPLE'S OVERSEAS ADOPTION DERAILED WIFE OF GEORGIA'S PRESIDENT WANTS TO STOP BABY EXODUS

ATE: Thursday, July 17, 1997               TAG: 9707170450SECTION: FRONT                   PAGE: A1   EDITION: FINAL SOURCE: BY ELIZABETH SIMPSON, STAFF WRITER DATELINE: VIRGINIA BEACH                    LENGTH:  179 lines

BEACH COUPLE'S OVERSEAS ADOPTION DERAILED WIFE OF GEORGIA'S PRESIDENT WANTS TO STOP BABY EXODUS.

Mark and Tammie Soccio had already chosen a name for the baby they had hoped to adopt: Lucas Alexander.

They had his clothes picked out. They set up a nursery for him. They passed around his photograph - mailed from an orphanage in the country of Georgia - to so many people the edges of the picture frayed.

In the Soccios' minds, the brown-eyed, 7-month-old boy in the little red sleeper was theirs.

U.S. Presses Georgia to Send Orphans

U.S. Presses Georgia to Send Orphans
BY TYLER MARSHALL
JULY 18, 1997 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON —  It’s a given in high-level diplomacy that carefully planned state visits sometimes get hijacked by the unexpected, but it has been awhile since one got derailed by a group of orphans.
On Thursday, that fate clouded a stop in Washington by Eduard A. Shevardnadze, the president of Georgia, a former Soviet republic that straddles important new trade corridors linking oil-rich Central Asia with European factories.

While Shevardnadze arrived here to lure trade, investment and economic assistance to his struggling nation, the interest of some Americans in the visit was focused elsewhere: the fate of about 15 Georgian orphans, most of them infants, who are trapped in a struggle between U.S. families hoping to adopt them and Shevardnadze’s wife, Nanuli.

She is determined to prevent their departure, even though they would remain orphans in their homeland. Nanuli Shevardnadze has placed herself at the forefront of an intense nationalist debate that reflects the concern of some in Georgia that the country has been losing too many of its children. Nevertheless, those familiar with the issue believe some Georgian authorities were prepared to release the children already promised to foreign parents until the Georgian first lady intervened.

“She’s been very vocal and public in her opposition,” said Linda Perilstein, executive director of Cradle of Hope, an adoption agency in Silver Spring, Md., that specializes in foreign adoptions and has dealt with 11 of the Georgian cases. “She believes Georgian kids should stay in Georgia.”

Georgia’s first couple had been on the ground only a few hours Wednesday evening when they were hit by the issue. It was the focus of a two-hour meeting between Nanuli Shevardnadze and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), the mother of two adopted children.

EU Commissioner Gradin to visit Romania Seminar on control of European Union funds

ip/97/617

Brussels, 8 July 1997

EU Commissioner Gradin to visit Romania Seminar on control of European Union funds

Mrs Anita Gradin, Commissioner for financial control as well as for justice and home affairs, will take part in the European Commission's seminar in Bucharest, Romania on July 9-11 on the management and control of European Union Funds. Commissioner Gradin will also have talks with the Romanian government, specifically on justice and home affairs issues. She will have briefings by police and customs officials and study border controls. The seminar in Romania is the fifth in a series of seminars to be held in the beneficiary countries of the PHARE programme. Its main objective is to give participants an opportunity to examine, together with representatives from various European institutions, all issues relating to the management and control of the PHARE projects in Romania. More particularly, the aim is to give participants a better grasp of the administrative and procedural changes needed to realise the objectives of the PHARE Programme and to assist the Romanian administration in defining a framework of guidelines and discipline necessary to strengthen the internal and external controls of European Union funds.

During 1990-96, funds for 726 million ECU under the EU's PHARE Programme were allocated to Romania. The aim of the funding is to support both economic restructuring and democratic reform. The PHARE Programme was started in 1989 and has since been extended to 12 Central and Eastern European countries. Romania was included in 1990.

Hands Off Our Babies, a Georgian Tells America

In a girlish lilac-colored diary stamped ''Secrets,'' Isabel Brodersen, 40, writes daily entries to Leah, the 10-month-old Georgian orphan she came here to adopt.

''I studied your physique. I had an awful feeling of alarm,'' she wrote on May 27, the first time she saw the baby, who, among other things, suffers from brain damage caused by a lack of oxygen at birth. ''Oh, my darling Leah,'' she added. ''You are such a mess.''

Ms. Brodersen, a neonatal and pediatric physician's assistant, has been waiting in Tbilisi for more than a month, trying to persuade the Georgian authorities to release Leah and let her take the baby home to Berlin, Conn.

But Ms. Brodersen and her husband, Nicholas Chirico, 49, along with 14 other American couples, have found their adoption papers stuck in a deeply politicized bureaucratic struggle that pits them against Nanuli Shevardnadze, whose husband, Eduard, is President of Georgia.

Though the numbers are small, the impasse the couples face reveals a great deal about the way people in lands once controlled by the Soviet Union increasingly react to the idea of Americans' saving their children by making them Americans.

Ik eis mijn vader desnoods met een DNA-test

Ik eis mijn vader desnoods met een DNA-test

dossier vaderschapsonderzoek

Let op dit is een historische tekst; de juridische situatie is gewijzigd!!!

Staatssecretaris Schmitz (Justitie) wil het afstammingsrecht wijzigen. Een kind kan bij de rechter 'vaststelling van het vaderschap' afdwingen en de 'bastaard' verdwijnt. Tot zijn zesde dacht George Rab dat hij zijn vader kende. Tot deze hem op zijn kruideniersfiets naar zijn biologische moeder bracht. Rabs 'vader' en 'moeder' bleken pleegouders, nu eiste zijn werkelijke moeder hem op. Aan de buitenwereld introduceerde zij hem als zomaar een tehuiskind, dat zij soms uit goedertierenheid in haar gezin op nam. Maar binnenshuis noemden zijn grootouders hem 'de bastaard' en werd hij mishandeld. In de vakanties moest hij komen 'om klusjes op te knappen'. De rest van het jaar bracht Rab tot zijn negentiende in tehuizen door. Wie zijn echte vader was kreeg hij niet te horen. Rab, een pseudoniem, is nu 51 of 52 jaar oud. Als er verkiezingen zijn stuurt hij zijn oproepkaart al tijd terug onder vermelding van 'gegevens onjuist'. Volgens zijn geboorteakte is hij op 12juni 1945 in tehuis 'Kindervreugd' te Velp ge boren. Maar zolang Rab niet door zijn biologische vader is erkend, weigert hij dat aan te nemen. 'Al besluit je zelf het verleden te laten rusten, je moet op allerlei formulieren invullen waar en wanneer je geboren bent. De maatschappij beslist dat je weet wie je ouders zijn, maar geeft je tegelijkertijd het recht niet je ouders te kennen.' In het Internationale verdrag in zake de Rechten van het Kind is vastgesteld dat ieder kind het recht heeft te weten van wie hij afstamt. Maar het Nederlandse recht kent tot nu toe slechts beperkte mogelijkheden om juridisch vaderschap tegen de wil van de man vast te stellen.

Onlangs besprak de Kamer een voorstel tot herziening van het afstammingsrecht van staatssecretaris Schmitz (justitie). Die kan daarin verandering brengen. Met wetswijziging zouden 'bastaarden', althans op papier, verdwijnen de termen wettig, onwettig en natuurlijk kind vervallen. Daar voor in de plaats komt 'het al dan niet in familierechtelijke betrek ng staan tot de ouder'. Volgens het wetsvoorstel krijgen kinderen, voortaan ook als de vader al is overleden, de mogelijkheid tot 'gerechtelijke vaststelling van het vaderschap'. Een vader hoeft zijn kind niet meer noodzakelijk te erkennen: een kind kan van de rechter de erkenning krijgen dat een bepaalde man zijn vader is, Zo krijgt eerder de status van een vader, dan die van het kind de nadruk. In de praktijk kan het wetsvoorstel bijvoorbeeld tot gevolg hebben dat de onlangs buitenechtelijk geboren zoon van prins Carlos later alsnog vaststelling van het vaderschap afdwingt. Ook zou deze Carlos Hugo Roderik Sybren Klynstra volgens Schmitz' wets voorstel dezelfde erfrechtelijke aanspraken kunnen maken als de eventuele legitieme telgen van prins Carlos. Indien nodig zou de rechter zijn vader bovendien kunnen verplichten bij te dragen in zijn onderhoud. Maar de achternaam van zijn vader zou Carlos jr. niet noodzakelijk krijgen; volgens het wetsvoorstel behoudt een kind de naam van zijn moeder. Vaderschap kan volgens de voorgestelde wetswijziging worden vastgesteld bij mannen die hebben ingestemd met een daad die verwekking tot gevolg heeft'. Dat geldt dus ook voor onvruchtbare mannen die toestemden in kunstmatige bevruchting of geslachtsgemeenschap van de moeder met een andere man. Zij, kunnen zich, mochten ze spijt krijgen, later niet meer als vader terug trekken. Voor alle andere vaders geldt dat tot gerechtelijke vaststelling van hun vaderschap kan worden beslist als ze de verwekker zijn van het kind. Om dat laatste vast te stellen kan een rechter een DNA onderzoek bevelen -- ook dat is nieuw in het wetsvoorstel.

Report on Human Rights and the Process of NATO Enlargement

The Commission held a series of three public hearings on “Human Rights and the Process of NATO Enlargement” in anticipation of the summit of Heads of State and Governments of Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to be held in Madrid, Spain, on July 8 and 9, 1997.

The emergence of new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe and the demise of the Warsaw Pact created a security vacuum in the territory between the current eastern frontier of NATO and the Russian border. The first attempt to address the new security realities in the region occurred at the end of 1991 with the establishment of NATO’s North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) as a forum for the evolution of a new relationship based on constructive dialogue and cooperation. In early 1994, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) was launched with the aim of providing a practical program to transform the relationship between NATO and states participating in PfP, moving beyond dialogue and cooperation to forge a genuine security partnership. (All 27 states of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) are OSCE participating States.) Simultaneously, NATO began to consider the possibility of enlarging the Alliance. The result was the 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement which addressed practical steps and requirements candidates for membership would have to satisfy. In December 1996, NATO foreign ministers called for a NATO summit at which one or more countries that wanted to join NATO would be invited to begin accession negotiations.

The U.S. Congress was instrumental in stimulating the debate through several legislative initiatives. The NATO Participation Act of 1994 (PL 103-447) provided a reasonable framework for addressing concerns about NATO enlargement, consistent with U.S. interests in ensuring stability in Europe. The law lists a variety of criteria, such as respect for democratic principles and human rights enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, against which to evaluate the suitability of prospective candidates for NATO membership. The Act stipulates that participants in the PfP should be invited to become full NATO members if they… “remain committed to protecting the rights of all their citizens….” Under section 203, a program of assistance was established to provide designated emerging democracies with the tools necessary to facilitate their transition to full NATO membership.

The NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996 (PL 104-208) included an unqualified statement that the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights are integral aspects of genuine security. The law also makes clear that the human rights records of emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe interested in joining NATO should be evaluated in light of the obligations and commitments of these countries under the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Helsinki Final Act.

Senate Intelligence Committee

ADVISE AND CONSENT

MARCH 11, 1997

TRANSCRIPT

After weeks of delay the Senate Intelligence Committee took up the nomination of Anthony Lake as director of Central Intelligence.

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight the Lake hearings. After weeks of delay the Senate Intelligence Committee took up the nomination of Anthony Lake as director of Central Intelligence. Charles Krause has our story.

Family furious as judge says war baby must stay

Family furious as judge says war baby must stay

Jojo Moyes

Tuesday, 18 February 1997SHARE PRINTEMAILTEXT SIZE NORMALLARGEEXTRA LARGE

A four-year-old Bosnian girl who was rescued from under her dead mother's body when she was nine weeks old is to be allowed to stay with the couple who have looked after her since she was smuggled out of Bosnia, rather than with her surviving family, a High Court judge has ruled.

Sir Stephen Brown, President of the Family Division of the High Court, said it was in Edita Keranovic's best interests that she should stay in Britain with the couple, Alan and Deborah Fowler, for the foreseeable future.

Security Risk for CIA: Anthony Lake's Dubious past

Security Risk for CIA: Anthony Lake's Dubious past WRITTEN BY WILLIAM F. JASPER MONDAY, 20 JANUARY 1997 00:00 It may have been that the Good Lord was telling America something recently when He called hence the soul of Alger Hiss. It may be that that call to judgment on November 15th of one of our country's most notorious traitors was providentially timed as a reminder of the terrible cost of betrayal and a grim portent concerning high national security appointments soon to follow. Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, and the leadership of both parties in Congress, repeatedly ignored the hard evidence indicating that Alger Hiss was a dangerous traitor. Their failure to expose and prosecute him earlier in his sordid career resulted in untold harm to America's security and immeasurable tragedy for billions of people worldwide. Just two of his signal "accomplishments" — the Yalta agreement and the UN founding conference — condemned over a billion souls to communist tyranny and established the nascent world government structure that now threatens to destroy all national sovereignty. Unfortunately, Hiss was not alone; he had many comrades in high office who were never exposed or prosecuted. And he had numerous prominent patrons who praised, protected, and promoted him even after his treason was overwhelmingly apparent to all but the willfully blind. That willful blindness was recently displayed by Anthony Lake, Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser and the President's designee to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Speaking on the November 24th edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Lake denied that the evidence of Alger Hiss' treason was "conclusive." In the same program, Lake minimized current Russian espionage efforts against the United States, stating that "they apparently are spying on us to a degree that we don't like." In brief, the would- be head of America's intelligence community sought to rehabilitate a traitor and displayed a remarkably high threshold of tolerance for the KGB's activities within this country. Unfit Appointment As we shall see, President Clinton's nomination of Anthony Lake on December 3rd, so soon on the heels of Hiss' departure, is an outrage matched only by the lack of outrage expressed by members of Congress, public policy "experts," and the "mainstream" media. Considering Lake's activities, allegiances, and associations over the past three decades, it is incredible that he would be considered for any federal government appointment, let alone for a position as incredibly sensitive and vital to our national security as director of the CIA. It is for certain that if background security checks worthy of the name were still being conducted, Tony Lake would not be able to obtain a clearance necessary for even a washroom attendant position at the CIA's Langley, Virginia headquarters. Inasmuch as his appointment as Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser did not require Senate approval, Anthony Lake was spared the bruising confirmation hearings that deep-sixed his fellow New Left comrade, Morton Halperin, in Halperin's 1993 quest to claim an Assistant Secretary of Defense post. Halperin's radical, subversive record * proved too odious for what was then an even more liberal Senate than we have today. Which means there's hope for stopping Lake's potentially disastrous appointment. It was with some small sense of relief that we observed the December 11th testimony of retiring CIA Director John Deutch before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) aggressively grilled Deutch for his apparent defense of Anthony Lake's role in deceiving Congress, the CIA, the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the American people concerning the Clinton regime's secret policy of tacit approval for illegal Iranian arms shipments to Bosnia. Deutch backpedaled under the assault and tried to put a wholesome face on the Administration's dangerous subterfuge. Although he is stepping down as chairman of the committee, Senator Specter pledged that he would hold Lake accountable for that deception when the confirmation vote comes up in the 105th Congress. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), who is replacing Specter as chairman, has indicated that he also will be scrutinizing Lake's activities and duplicity in the "Iran- Bosnia" affair. Deceptive Dealing Syndicated columnist William Safire summarized the affair, and Lake's part in it: "Returning on Air Force One from Richard Nixon's funeral, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott told National Security Adviser Tony Lake that Croatia had asked for approval to smuggle Iranian arms into Bosnia — thereby breaking the embargo foolishly agreed to by the United States and its allies. "This was a deniable double-cross, kept secret from the oversight committees of Congress: Give the Croats a green light, and never mind the influence Iran would gain in Europe. "Lake circumvented the Defense Department and CIA by going into the president's cabin and getting Clinton's personal approval to instruct our ambassador to pretend he had 'no instructions.' This put the president in the position of telling the public that we could not break the embargo for fear of endangering the lives of our British and French allies — while encouraging a third party to endanger their lives" — not to mention encouraging that same Iranian third party to endanger the lives of American servicemen in Bosnia. Understandably, this has a few senators upset. Others have voiced their concern over a possible mini- Whitewater scandal involving Lake's failure to follow instructions to divest himself and his wife of an energy stock portfolio which could leave him vulnerable to conflict-of-interest charges. Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) expressed misgivings over Lake's ability to "show independence from the White House" as head of the CIA after having served in the Administration's policy formulating sphere, while others worried that he did not have the experience necessary to manage a large organization like CIA. That's all well and good; the Bosnian arms gambit, the Lakes' personal financial dealings, and the nominee's "independence" and management talents are all areas deserving of senatorial attention. But it is a lot like preferring jaywalking and littering charges against a gang of vicious bank robbers because the notorious banditti failed to use the crosswalk and dropped some of their ill-gotten loot while running to their getaway car. Yet what critical attention has been directed at the Lake nomination has been almost entirely focused on concerns of the jaywalking variety. The Washington Post reported on December 15th that Mr. Lake is now contrite for his misdeeds and "has told key senators that it was a mistake not to have told Congress about the presidential decision to wink diplomatically in 1994 when Croatia allowed Iranian arms to be shipped through its territory to Bosnia." According to the Post, "Lake's concession, which he made in phone calls over the last 10 days, is designed to make the hearings go more easily." In that much, at least, the Post may be telling the truth. Scarface Tony will be more than happy to cop a plea to jaywalking and littering, promise never to transgress again, and throw himself to the tender mercies of the Senate. And if the loyal opposition doesn't start soon to kick up a huge fuss about the real issues, the culprit likely will get away with it. That would be the real crime. Tony Lake's "rap sheet" is a mile long. Like so many others of his ilk, he had a "rough" upbringing on the "mean streets" of foreign policy: Harvard, Cambridge, Princeton. Poor, deprived lad! Lake also matriculated through the usual proving grounds for Establishment radicals: the State Department, Defense Department, Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Endowment, Institute for Policy Studies, Center for International Policy, Fund For Peace, etc., etc. Crucial Questions Any serious, credible confirmation hearings will have to rise above the farcical focus on jaywalking and littering and demand answers to the real questions at the heart of this nomination, such as: • What was Anthony Lake's role in the infamous Pentagon Papers heist which so seriously damaged America's security? • What was, and is, the extent of Lake's involvement with militant Marxist activists of the subversive nexus at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Fund For Peace (FFP)? • What was, and is, the full story on Lake's activities with the radical one-worlders and Establishment Marxists at Alger Hiss' old haunt, the Carnegie Endowment? • What is Lake's relationship with IPS extremist Morton Halperin, and why did they cochair a radical conference panel for the anti-American, pro-Soviet Center for National Security Studies (CNSS)? • What was Lake's connection to Orlando Letelier, the notorious Chilean agent of the Soviet KGB and Cuban DGI in Washington? • Why would Lake, who has spent his entire career associating with those who are attacking and undermining America's security, want to head our nation's premier intelligence agency, and why would any U.S. senator who takes his oath of office seriously even contemplate for a moment confirming such a nominee to head the CIA? And these are just starter questions; many more are begging to be asked. A brief survey of some of Lake's career "highlights" should provide ample stimulus for many hours of intensive Senate interrogation. Although it would be worthwhile to examine Anthony Lake's college student days and early Foreign Service career, for our purposes it will suffice to begin with an inquiry into his role in the illegal and sensational release of the Pentagon Papers, one of the most far- reaching security breaches in our nation's history. That one act had a dramatic global impact, contributing mightily to America's first military defeat, the resignation of a U.S. President, the radicalization of legions of students, and the demoralization of America's Armed Services. It was also an incredible intelligence coup and propaganda windfall for the Soviets and all of America's enemies. Destructive "Leak" Commissioned by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara (CFR) in 1967 to assemble official records on U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers study team had access to many top-secret documents. Lake, together with Morton Halperin and Leslie Gelb, was one of the Vietnam Task Force leaders on the project, which was under the supervision of Paul Warnke, an Assistant Secretary of Defense. All members of that quartet were, or would become, (and remain today) members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), otherwise known as the "Park Avenue State Department." Gelb and Lake signed off on the release of the Pentagon Papers to Daniel Ellsberg (CFR), who, in turn, leaked them to comrades at the subversive Institute for Policy Studies and, eventually, to the New York Times and the Washington Post. All of these players — Lake, Halperin, Gelb, Warnke, and Ellsberg — soon became activists in the IPS network. After quitting Nixon's national security staff in protest over the U.S. invasion of Cambodia, Lake went to work on the 1972 presidential campaign of Maine's liberal-left Democratic Senator Edmund Muskie. When Muskie dropped out, Lake migrated even further leftward, joining the national campaign committee staff of Senator George McGovern's run for the White House. Thus it was that he first met fellow McGovernites Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton, who had taken time off from Yale Law School to run the McGovern campaign in Texas. But, alas, American voters nixed McGovern's Oval Office hopes — and Tony Lake's chance to be Secretary of State. What more natural place to go from the staff of the peacenik presidential campaign than the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace? Problem is, most Americans would have a tough time reconciling to the Carnegie folks' idea of "peace." When investigators for the Reece Committee were looking into the Endowment's subversive funding trends back in 1954, they were shocked to find in the minutes of the foundation's trustee meetings the most blatant of warmongering intentions. It was clear that the Carnegie trustees viewed war as the most effective means "to alter the life of an entire people," and they asked, "How do we involve the United States in a war?" That was in 1911, a few short years before World War I. Toward the end of that war, the trustees dispatched a telegram to President Wilson, cautioning him to see that the war did not end too quickly. After the war, the Endowment used its huge resources to fund a stable of "scholars" who would debunk critics of the Wilson war agenda, his diplomatic deception, and the League of Nations. War was going to be an essential instrument for teaching the peoples of the world the need for world government, a "new world order." By 1917 the Endowment could proudly report that it had begun "wide distribution of books, pamphlets and periodicals" that were proving effective as a "means of developing the international mind." This program would grow into an International Mind Alcove of books in libraries, including many books by notorious communists, socialists, and internationalists. Hiss' Playground Following his treachery in the State Department and at the founding of the UN in San Francisco, Soviet spy Alger Hiss (CFR) was hired to serve as president of the Carnegie Endowment. The man who hired him was John Foster Dulles, chairman of the Endowment, a founder of the CFR, and an inveterate internationalist who epitomized what Admiral Chester Ward called the CFR's "lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States." "Ever since its creation in 1910," wrote William H. McIlhany in his authoritative study The Tax-Exempt Foundations, "the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, second of five philanthropic legacies left by the Scottish entrepreneur, has remained the most outspoken and one of the most influential tax-exempt foundations promoting world government." In 1965, this "peace" endowment drew up an incredible document entitled, Apartheid and United Nations Collective Measures, An Analysis. It was a complete military plan for an actual UN-led war of aggression against South Africa. When Tony Lake joined the Carnegie staff as boss of the Endowment's Project on Rhodesia, he helped put together a slightly softer version of that plan for the UN campaign against Rhodesia. He did not propose an actual UN military invasion force, but the toppling of the Rhodesian government through economic and diplomatic sanctions — which is exactly what happened. "Many believe that the future of the United Nations itself is very closely tied to the future of the sanctions program against southern Africa," Lake argued. Indeed, he claimed that Rhodesia's human rights abuses were so atrocious that it was in America's interest to boycott Rhodesian chrome and buy that strategic mineral so essential to our survival from that paragon of human rights virtue, the Soviet Union — which was only too willing to sell us inferior ore at a higher price. The Senate will surely want to closely scrutinize Lake's involvement with the Center for International Policy (CIP) in Washington, DC. As an official consultant for the CIP during the 1970s, Lake was an associate of Orlando Letelier, who served on the CIP's board of directors. Letelier and Lake were also connected through their mutual involvement in the Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist think tank with numerous ties to communist intelligence agencies. When Letelier was killed by a car bomb, incriminating documents found in his briefcase pointed to many highly placed people. One of those was Richard Feinberg. Feinberg resigned from the Treasury Department to avoid investigation into his own involvement with the Letelier network. Also among the briefcase contents was a letter from radical activist Elizabeth Farnsworth cautioning Letelier against mentioning Feinberg's name because that might jeopardize his reputation and career at Treasury and his usefulness to the cause. Yet Anthony Lake, who at that time was serving as director of President Carter's State Department Policy Planning Staff, hired Feinberg on at State. Ms. Farnsworth also wrote admiringly to Letelier of the good work that "Bill Goodfellow" was accomplishing for the revolution. She was referring, of course, to William Goodfellow, the CIP director, who is a very bad fellow. How bad? Bad enough to stubbornly defend the murderous Khmer Rouge communists in Cambodia long after most leftists had decided the genocidal slaughter was just too obvious to deny anymore. Still another sterling staff member with Lake at CIP was Susan Weber, a former editor of Soviet Life, the official propaganda organ published at the Soviet embassy for American consumption. In that communist endeavor, Ms. Weber was forced to register as an agent of a "foreign power." At CIP, she could carry out essentially the same task without the inconvenience of registering. Another CIP consultant was Edwin Martin, who was identified to intelligence authorities in 1947 as a member of a Soviet spy ring. When you start tugging on the CIP thread, you end up at the Fund For Peace (FFP), long one of the most openly pro-communist outfits in the country. The CIP was founded by, and is funded by, the FFP. A longtime trustee of the Fund was Louise R. Berman. And who is she? A longtime Red and hard-core Stalinist, Berman was the subject of extensive congressional investigation into communist activities during the 1940s and 50s. She was a contact and a courier for Stalin's NKVD (precursor to the KGB) and GRU (military intelligence) agents in the U.S. and worked with J. Peters, the Kremlin's top Comintern representative on the central committee of the Communist Party, USA. Berman is only one of many notorious communists and subversives involved with the CIP/FFP network in which Lake operated for many years. Then there is the matter of Anthony Lake's relationship with the Center for National Security Studies (CNSS), one of many groups which have spun off from the Institute for Policy Studies. On September 13, 1974, Lake and Morton Halperin cochaired a panel on "Covert Operations and Decision Making" at the CNSS' first conference on national security. This confab brought together a full rogues' gallery of the most militant leftists who had been attacking the FBI, CIA, local police, and all internal security measures for years. Halperin went on to lead the CNSS' sustained assault on federal, state, and local police and intelligence organizations tasked with legitimate internal security responsibilities. It is thanks to the success of these subversive efforts that America is now so vulnerable to terrorist attacks and is facing repressive police-state measures to deal with these threats. Lake's longtime IPS/CNSS comrade Morton Halperin was also thickly involved for many years with infamous CIA traitor Philip Agee. It was Halperin who flew to London to testify in Agee's behalf when he was being deported as a security risk. And it was Halperin who wrote an apologia in the Washington Post defending the actions of Agee and his rabidly pro-communist publication, CounterSpy, after they had contributed to the assassination of Richard Welch by revealing the Athens CIA bureau chief's identity and home address. Working with Agee at his Soviet- and Cuban-backed Organizing Committee for a Fifth Estate were other prominent confreres of Lake's IPS/CNSS fellowship, including Robert Borosage, Nicole Szulc, and Victor Marchetti. Marchetti, another "defector" from the CIA to the Marxist IPS agenda, was also a cochair of an anti-intelligence panel at the same September 1974 CNSS "Covert Operations" conference mentioned above that featured Lake and Halperin. It was this aspect of Halperin's vita which provided the main evidence to scotch his confirmation to the Defense post. Shouldn't these same troubling connections be a major bone of contention in considering the suitability of an aspirant to the highest intelligence post in the land? Lake's vexing associations become all the more troubling when considering some of his activities as President Clinton's National Security Adviser. Take, for instance, Lake's secretive trip, along with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Shalikashvili (CFR) and others, to Cuba last year. What was the purpose of that trip and what precisely transpired? A videotape of meetings between these U.S. officials and top Castro officials was obtained by Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL). According to the congressman, distraught Cuban refugees meeting with Lake and Shalikashvili at Guantánamo "are shown being informed that they are to be returned to Castro's Security Forces." Cuban General Perez Perez is shown being honored by the U.S. team and "a detailed U.S. military map of the Guantánamo Base is given to Perez Perez." Clinton's new commander of Guantánamo tenderly greets Castro's henchman Perez Perez as "my General." And retiring base commander Admiral Haskins states that a plaque given to him by Perez Perez shall be placed in "a place of honor." Diaz-Balart charges that this video footage "reflects the private coziness of the Clinton Administration with the Castro regime." But considering Lake's numerous connections to Orlando Letelier, Philip Agee, and other Cuban agents-of- influence, the Guantánamo meeting may reflect something far more serious and sinister than "coziness." According to Time magazine, on the day after he won re-election, Bill Clinton made a point of phoning Lake to thank him for his help in the campaign. Described in the Time article by a Clinton aide as "the 'heart and soul' of Clinton's foreign policy team," Lake is credited with orchestrating the strategy and writing the speeches that neutralized voters' concerns about Governor Clinton's lack of experience in the international arena. Under Lake's tutelage, Mr. Clinton emphasized centrist-sounding policy themes intended to allay fears of a Jimmy Carter replay. This is more than a little ironic considering that maestro Lake was the director of policy planning in Carter's State Department. In Clinton's first term we can see clearly the policies of Jimmy Carter, carried out by most of the same revolutionary hacks from the Carter Administration. But this time — with the hand of Anthony Lake clearly visible — they have dressed their revolution in more moderate garb. But don't expect to see anything overly critical of Mr. Lake emanating from Establishment media or political circles. They all have their sheet music from the same source and are chirping the same tune. Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland (CFR) coos that Lake "sparkles in intelligence and affability." According to Catherine Kelleher (CFR), a defense and foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution, Lake is "a creative and imaginative thinker." Another Brookings scholar, Helmut Sonnenfeldt (CFR), a Kissinger protégé, is also quoted singing praises of the Clinton designee. Repeating Dark History That a man who has worked so assiduously to undermine our intelligence agencies and national security could even be seriously considered to head our premiere foreign intelligence and counterintelligence organization is mind-boggling. Have we learned nothing from the terrible, world- shattering consequences which resulted in decades past from our leaders' failures to heed the evidence concerning Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins, Victor Perlo, Harry Dexter White, Harold Ware, Armand Hammer, and other proven Soviet agents? Or the more recent cases of Aldrich Ames, Jonathan Pollard, and Harold Nicholson? Equally devastating have been the numerous cases of treason and treachery that have been made possible by those in high office who were "merely" dupes, sympathizers, fellow travelers, ambitious climbers, and fuzzy thinkers. Wherever Anthony Lake may fall on this spectrum of possibilities, he is unfit to lead the CIA. But it is not likely that the U.S. Senate will thoroughly investigate and air his record, and then reject his nomination, unless the American public demands that Congress do its duty. For those readers who wish to contact their senators regarding the Lake nomination, the address is: Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 * * * Anthony Lake's Biography in Brief Born: April 2, 1939, New York City. Education: Bachelor's degree from Harvard College, 1961; studied international economics for two years at Trinity College, Cambridge University in England; Doctoral degree from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, 1974. Government Service: 1962-70, Foreign Service Officer in the U.S. State Department; Early career included assignments as U.S. Vice Consul in Saigon (1963), U.S. Vice Consul in Hue (1964-65), and Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs on Henry Kissinger's staff (1969-70); 1970, quit government to protest the U.S. bombing of Cambodia; 1976, international affairs adviser during Carter transition; 1977-81, Director of Policy Planning Staff for the Carter State Department; 1993-present, National Security Advisor to President Clinton. Non-Governmental Career: Advisor to the 1972 McGovern presidential campaign; Staff member of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he ran the pro-communist, pro-Soviet Project on Rhodesia and helped launch the world-government-promoting journal, Foreign Policy; Cochair of a 1974 anti-intelligence panel for the Center for National Security Studies, a project of the Marxist and KGB-linked Institute for Policy Studies (IPS); Consultant for the ultra left-wing Center for International Policy (also called the Institute for International Policy), a project of the pro-communist Fund For Peace (FFP); Director of the pacifist, pro- communist International Voluntary Services; Professor of international relations at Amherst College and Mount Holyoke College; Member, Council on Foreign Relations. Writings: The "Tar Baby" Option: American Policy Toward Southern Rhodesia (1976); Legacy of Vietnam: The War, American Society, and the Future of U.S. Foreign Policy (contributing editor, 1976); Our Own Worst Enemy: The Unmaking of American Foreign Policy (coauthor, 1984); Third World Radical Regimes: U.S. Policy Under Carter and Reagan (1985); Somoza Falling: A Case Study of Washington at Work (1990); After the Wars (editor, 1990).

.