Tom Griffin, 13 June 2008

The Euston Manifesto is a declaration published by a group of British intellectuals in 2006, chiefly notable for its staunch support of American foreign policy. There is little original about this development, except its choice of targets. It represents an application of cold war propaganda techniques to the new circumstances of the war on terror.

 “there was a meeting in a pub in London”

According to its authors, the manifesto takes its name from a pub in Euston where some 20 people met after the June 2005 election. Finding themselves  “increasingly out of tune with the dominant anti-war discourse”, the group held several further meetings and ultimately drew up the manifesto which was published in the New Statesman in 2006.[1]

 Cohen made it clear from the start that he wanted the meeting to be about the top table. He told us that any audience participation should be limited to questions to the platform, “not 10-minute contributions” outlining the political platform of some obscure sect.[3]

Made in the USA

From the beginning, there were those who saw a deeper story behind the manifesto’s emergence on the British scene:

take another look at that Manifesto website and this time notice the background art in the masthead. Those cursives and serifs come not from Richard Overton's An Arrow Against all Tyrants, or John Lilburne, Gerard Winstanley or even a transatlantic radical like Tom Paine, but, as every American schoolboy knows, from our Declaration of Independence. The final deception is that despite its debut on the pages of your own New Statesman, and its supposed humble origins "at a pub near Euston Station" this project, whose politics and personalities have been shaped far more by the crew at Dissent magazine (and which shares Dissent founder Irving Howe's fixation on the mote in the eyes of the left rather than the beam blinding American foreign policy) than anything native to these shores, really ought to be stamped Made in the USA.[4]

For a British initiative, the manifesto made a remarkably swift impact across the Atlantic. Writing in the Weekly Standard, leading neoconservative activist, William Kristol welcomed ‘an impressive document’ that ‘articulates 15 principles reminiscent of the much-missed liberal anti-totalitarianism of the early Cold War period.’[5]

The CIA and the Non-Communist Left

Kristol was well-placed to make this illuminating comment. In the 1950s his father, Irving Kristol, was at the centre of ‘liberal anti-totalitarianism’ as an editor of Encounter, the London-based magazine of the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF).[6] It is now well established that the CCF was a creation of the CIA, part of a strategy to sponsor the non-communist left as a counter to Soviet influence. Key figures were ex-communists like the philosopher Sidney Hook, who were prepared to denounce the use of front organisations by the Communist Party, while nevertheless using similar tactics for their new employers.

The Congress attained significant influence on the European left, not least in Britain, so controversy was inevitable when its CIA funding was exposed in 1967. Strangely, much of the detail was revealed in an article by Tom Braden, the former head of the CIA’s International Organizations Division. This has led to suggestions that the Agency deliberately blew the operation to terminate its relationship with its allies on the left.[7]

In the face of the growing anti-Vietnam movement these ‘cold war liberals’ were becoming increasingly isolated. In the early 1970s, they coalesced around Democrat Senator Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson, the first stage of a rightward shift that would see many of them moving, under the label ‘neoconservatives’, towards the Republican Party.

Social Democrats USA

For Sidney Hook and others, the vehicle for this shift was the Social Democrats USA, a political party founded in 1972.[8] Despite strong ties to organised labour and initially to the Democratic Party, the Social Democrats provided a number of appointees to the Reagan administration, many of whom were particularly identified with Reagan’s Central American policy.  They included the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Elliot Abrams, a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal.[9] The ultimate symbol of the party’s political journey came in 1985 when Reagan awarded Sidney Hook the Presidential medal of freedom.[10]

The Social Democrats did not enjoy the same favour in the George H.W. Bush administration, but retained a key powerbase in the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Founded under Reagan in 1982, the NED funded favoured political and cultural activities abroad, doing openly what the CIA had done covertly through the CCF.[11] Carl Gershman, a former chairman of the Social Democrats, has been the NED President since 1984.[12]

New recruits

The Social Democrats returned to prominence with the advent of the neoconservative ascendancy in the George W. Bush administration.  In May 2003, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, the party held a Washington conference entitled Everything Changed: What Now for Labor, Liberalism and the Global Left?[13]

The event was chiefly noted at the time for a spat between the liberal writer Paul Berman and the prominent neoconservative Joshua Muravchik, sparked by Muravchik’s comment that “I want to welcome Paul Berman on board. It seems that in every big conflict we reap some important new recruits. In the wars of Central America, we reaped the Radoshes and the Leikens. There were some more after Bosnia. Now the war against terrorism has brought us Hitchens and Berman -- very nice indeed.”[14]

Among those present at the conference was one of those previous recruits, Robert Leiken, a prominent supporter of the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s.[15] He chaired a panel on ‘Europe, the Left and Anti-Americanism’, which considered the wave of opposition that the Iraq War had aroused across the Atlantic.

A central question for our next panel might be summarized this way: what role did the European left play in encouraging the strident attacks on the United States that have been mounted in Europe and elsewhere over the past year or so?

A second issue might this: In the years following World War II, when Stalin's army was in Eastern Europe and Stalinist parties seemed on the verge of coming to power in Western Europe, American and European intellectuals and sections of the labor movement rallied to found such institutions as the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Encounter magazine. Is such a grouping conceivable today? [16]

Leiken was followed by Andrei Markovits, a Professor at the University of Michigan who has specialised in studying European Anti-Americanism, and then by Jeffrey Herf, a Professor at the University of Maryland who had written a 1991 study on West German opposition to the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles.[17]

The final speaker of the session was a British fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy named Michael Allen who extended Leiken’s analysis:

I want to make three key points. First, the anti-Americanism that we've seen on the European left is itself a symptom of the degree of ideological confusion and the strategic dead end that European social democracy finds itself in. Second, as Bob Leiken suggested, the situation is uncannily analogous to the late 1940s and early 1950s, in that uncomfortably large sectors of the left have a degree of intellectual infatuation with authoritarian and incipiently totalitarian ideologies. Third, organized labor must be a key component of any intellectual and political response to the situation we find ourselves in.[18]

Allen went on to reiterate the call for a new Congress for Cultural Freedom:

It's important that center-left initiatives avoid sectarianism. We need to engage, as the Congress of Cultural Freedom and other initiatives did, with democrats on the right, in the center, on the liberal left. Remember how the Congress for Cultural Freedom brought together Sidney Hook and Raymond Aron and Edward Shils and Isaiah Berlin. We need to make common cause today with those people who may not share all of our philosophies. I think this is particularly the case in countries like France, where there's still a disturbingly strong residue of Marxism and anti-Americanism.

Irving Kristol once said that when intellectuals decide that they need to act, they set up a magazine. Today, of course, whenever anybody wants to have an impact on the real world they start a web site. That could be one important first step.[19]

Democratiya

Two years later, Allen wrote for the inaugural edition of Democratiya, a British online magazine with a very similar analysis to the one outlined at the Washington conference. Ironically, his piece dismissed the idea that ‘an umbilical link exists between the anti-communist Left and contemporary neo-conservatism.’[20]

Later editions of Democratiya included articles by Herf, Markovits and others close to the Social Democrats USA, such as Eugenia Kemble, Rachelle Horowitz and Barry Rubin.[21] There were interviews with Joshua Muravchik and Paul Berman, and even posthumous contributions from leading Social Democrats including Sidney Hook himself.[22]

This was a significant departure for Democratiya’s editor, Alan Johnson, who had written only a few years earlier that Hook ‘began by speaking eloquently of truth and beauty but ended up receiving the Medal of Honor from Ronald Reagan as a reward for dressing up the Contra butchers as freedom fighters.’[23]

Johnson would go on to become one of the authors of the Euston Manifesto along with other Democratiya contributors such as Norman Geras, Nick Cohen, Shalom Lappin and Brian Brivati.[24]

“The reconfiguration of progressive opinion”

The Democratiya link between this group and the Social Democrats USA suggests that Irving Kristol was right to see the manifesto’s antecedents in the cold war.  It also raises the question whether the Manifesto is an attempt to answer the Social Democrats’ call for a new Congress for Cultural Freedom.

One way to address that question is to compare the methodologies of the CCF and the Euston Manifesto Group. In her invaluable study of the CCF, Frances Stonor Saunders, describes its role as follows:

It was to engage in a widespread and cohesive campaign of peer pressure to persuade intellectuals to dissociate themselves from Communist fronts or fellow travelling organizations. It was to encourage the intelligentsia to develop theories and arguments which directed not at a mass audience, but at that small elite of pressure groups and statesmen who in turn determined government policy.[25]

The preamble to the Euston Manifesto displays a very similar preoccupation with policing respectable opinion:

Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.[26]

This does not preclude some room for disagreement:

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. [27]

Such carefully circumscribed debates were explicitly provided for in the ground rules laid down by Tom Braden for the CIA-sponsored non-communist left in the 1950s:

‘Limit the money to amounts private organizations can credibly spend; disguise the extent of American interest; protect the integrity of the organization by not requiring it to support every aspect of official American policy.’[28]

“Backstopping for the European Effort”

One way in which the Congress for Cultural Freedom disguised the extent of American interest was by establishing its own American arm as a kind of double bluff. According to the CIA’s Frank Wisner, the American Committee for Cultural Freedom was ‘inspired if not put together by this Agency, for the purpose of providing cover and backstopping for the European effort.’[29]

“You had to have an American Committee.” The CCF’s Melvin Lasky told Stonor Saunders. “How could you not? It would have been an inexplicable anomaly. You say you’re international so where are the Americans?”[30]

In the light of this history, it is interesting that an American counterpart to the Euston Manifesto appeared in September 2006, only a few months after the original.[31] Jeffrey Herf gave an account of its creation which emphasised its European inspiration:

In late summer, the Euston Manifesto group in London helped to put the American signers of the statement in touch with one another via e-mail. I wrote a draft of an American liberal's response. Following several weeks of discussion with Russell Berman (Stanford), Thomas Cushman (Wellesley), Richard Just (The New Republic), Andrei Markovits (University of Michigan), Robert Lieber (Georgetown), and Fred Siegel (Cooper Union), we agreed on the revised text of "American Liberalism and the Euston Manifesto." We then sought support from prominent intellectuals and scholars. The Euston Manifesto group agreed to post it on its website.[32]

Herf had of course met Andrei Markovits three years earlier, when they had both been panelists at the Social Democrats USA conference along with Robert Leiken and Michael Allen, who also signed the American statement. Many of the other American signatories came from the same milieu. Prominent neoconservatives included Michael Ledeen, a central player in the Iran-Contra affair.[33] At least one, Eliot Cohen, had served in the Bush administration, while others like Will Marshall are associated with the most hawkish section of the Democratic Party.[34] With Daniel Bell and Walter Laquer, the Euston Manifesto United States could even claim two veterans of the original CCF.[35]

All of this suggests that the Euston Manifesto is best seen not so much as a spontaneous movement of British intellectuals, but as an offshoot of a transnational movement whose centre of gravity is in the United States. Its specific role is influencing British opinion on the War on Terror, in the same way that the CCF and Encounter magazine influenced opinion during the Cold War.

State-private networks

There is no direct evidence that the Euston Manifesto is state-sponsored in the way that the CCF was. It is perhaps best understood through concepts such as that of the state-private network, applied to the non-communist left of the 1950s by Hugh Wilford, and of the ‘flex group’ applied by Janine Wedel to the contemporary neoconservative movement.[36]

 In Wedel’s conception, flex groups are characterised by “their ease in playing multiple and overlapping roles and conflating state and private interests. These players keep appearing in different incarnations, ensuring continuity even as their operating environments change.”[37]

Flex players are not necessarily engaged in unethical activity, but they always help each other out in furthering their careers, livelihoods and mutual aims. Even when some players are "in power" within an administration, they are flanked by people outside of formal government. Flex groups have a culture of circumventing authorities and creating alternative ones. They operate through semi-closed networks and penetrate key institutions, revamping them to marginalize other potential players and replacing them with initiatives under their control.[38]

Michael Allen provides a good example how state and private connections overlap amongst the members of such networks. As well as speaking at the Social Democrats USA conference, Allen wrote for Democratiya, and signed the British and American editions of the Euston Manifesto. He is also an official of the National Endowment for Democracy, and edits Democracy Digest, the magazine of its Transatlantic Democracy Network. [39]

The Israeli dimension

While the US is clearly the key hub in this network, there are other dimensions. one of these is support for Israel, reflected in the Manifesto’s hostility to ‘anti-zionism’, which it states “has now developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form alliances with anti-Semitic groups.”[40]

DD Guttenplan described the Manifesto as “an alliance between anti-anti-Zionists and anti-anti-imperialists.”

Some of the signers are well-known - even distinguished - advocates for Israel. Anthony Julius, for example, has never previously shown a penchant for sectarian struggle (or much enthusiasm for the left in general, for that matter). Others come out of Engage, originally formed to oppose the Association of University Teachers' boycott of Israel, now a self-appointed scourge of anti-Semitism on the left.[41]

Although himself an opponent of the boycott, Guttenplan suggested that Engage was part of “an already overweening, powerful pro-Israel lobby whose aggressive policing of acceptable opinion has done more to poison intellectual debate on Israel and Palestine than a dozen boycott motions.”

A number of the signatories of the American manifesto have links with the Washington Israel lobby. One example is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) which has played an important role in the interaction between neoconservatives and major defence contractors since its foundation in 1976.[42] Joshua Muravchik, Michael Ledeen and Peter Rosenblatt sit on JINSA’s advisory board alongside former Bush administration luminaries like Richard Perle and John Bolton.[43]  Others such as New Republic editor Martin Peretz are associated with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a think-tank spun off from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1985.[44]

A key figure is Barry Rubin, who has been a senior fellow at WINEP, a member of the advisory council of the Social Democrats USA, a contributor to Democratiya and a signatory of the American version of the Euston Manifesto. Rubin is also the director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center in Herzliya, Israel, and editor of its Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA).[45] An article from MERIA was famously plagiarized  in the British Government ‘dodgy dossier’ cited at the UN by Colin Powell in the run-up to the Iraq War.[46]

Labour Friends of Iraq

Another dimension of this network is highlighted by the Euston Manifesto’s acknowledged links with the Labour Friends of Iraq (LFOI), and its director, Gary Kent, a member of the Euston Manifesto Group.

Prior to the Iraq War, Kent was immersed for many years in the politics surrounding the Irish Troubles. Dean Godson described him as a 'former Troops Out supporter who changed under the influence of Democratic Left stalwart Seamus Lynch.'[47]

Kent subsequently became involved with New Consensus, which was delicately described by the Irish Times’ Frank Millar as ‘a less-than-nationalist Irish peace group.’[48] In 1996, under its later name of New Dialogue, the group organised a fringe meeting  which enabled David Trimble to become the first unionist leader to attend a Labour Party conference.[49]

Later that year Kent became one of the first people in London to meet Sean O’Callaghan, a former IRA member and MI5 informant who he had been visiting in Maghaberry Prison.[50]  It was ostensibly O’Callaghan who had the idea for a pan-unionist unity conference, which Kent attended a year later at the home of Viscount Cranborne, the most staunchly unionist member of John Major’s cabinet. [51]

When O’Callaghan and Trimble were spotted drinking together in 1998, Kent’s briefing to the press helped to conceal the extent of their relationship, which would see O’Callaghan became an advisor to the UUP leader. O’Callaghan would later describe Kent as "a supposedly left-winger who is more right-wing."[52]

In LFOI, Kent has played a remarkably similar role as a link between Westminster, the Labour Party and Britain’s local allies  in Iraq. A notable example is the Kurdish Regional Government, with which LFOI co-hosted the screening of a documentary on Saddam Hussein’s atrocities.[53] The film was by Gwynne Roberts, who played a key role in exposing the Halabja massacre of 1988, but whose later work includes more questionable material. In 2001 Roberts reported on allegations that Iraq had conducted a nuclear bomb test, claiming that “Iraq is now emerging as a nuclear power, causing the threat to peace to be far more real than ever before.”[54]

Kent himself has visited Iraqi Kurdistan several times, and recently visited Baghdad, where he raised the possibility of Iraq joining the Commonwealth.[55]

Two years on

Alan Johnson highlighted the network of institutional links surrounding the Euston Manifesto in a piece marking its second anniversary in April 2008.[56]

The intellectual and campaigning energies that created the manifesto continue to pulse. Go online and look at normblog, Harry’s Place, Engage, Labour Friends of Iraq, Democratiya, and the work of all the contributing online journals, blogs, signatories, journalists and activists.

Johnson also drew attention to a new anthology, Global Politics After 9/11: The Democratiya Interviews, which he edited at the suggestion of Rachel Kleinfeld, a former World Bank consultant who heads the Washington-based Truman National Security Project. [57]

In one respect, the book’s contents pointed to a significant fracturing of the consensus that had prevailed at the conference of the Social Democrats USA five years before. In an interview with Johnson, Joshua Muravchik criticized Robert Leiken, who had chaired the session on Europe, over his stance on engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood.[58]

In a 2007 Foreign Affairs article Leiken had written:

“U.S. policymaking has been handicapped by Washington's tendency to see the Muslim Brotherhood -- and the Islamist movement as a whole -- as a monolith. Policymakers should instead analyze each national and local group independently and seek out those that are open to engagement. In the anxious and often fruitless search for Muslim moderates, policymakers should recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood presents a notable opportunity.”[59]

This was a significant departure from the Eustonian critique of the anti-war left. The Muslim Brotherhood was central to the case that the left/Muslim alliance against the Iraq War represented an embrace of totalitarianism. Nick Cohen’s What’s Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way exemplified the argument:

Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists demonstrated against the 2003 war, but the only religious group the Stop the War coalition promoted was an outfit called the Muslim Association of Britain. Its speakers and propaganda appeared at antiwar meetings and its officers co-organized the anti-war marches. Most British Muslims new little about it because it was an Arab organization and most British Muslims’ families were from the Indian subcontinent or East Africa. It turned out to be the closest Britain had to a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and was, by Twentieth Century standards, a movement of the extreme right.[60]

Leiken by contrast, had come to praise “the Brotherhood’s collaboration with Scotland Yard in purging jihadists from London’s notorious Finsbury Park Mosque.”[61] By 2008, similar views were appearing in the pages of the New Republic, a publication which had provided several signatories for the US Manifesto. An article called ‘The Unraveling’ credited the Muslim Brotherhood with turning the tide against Al Qaeda.

Most of these clerics and former militants, of course, have not suddenly switched to particularly progressive forms of Islam or fallen in love with the United States (all those we talked to saw the Iraqi insurgency as a defensive jihad), but their anti-Al Qaeda positions are making Americans safer. If this is a war of ideas, it is their ideas, not the West's, that matter. The U.S. government neither has the credibility nor the Islamic knowledge to effectively debate Al Qaeda's leaders, but the clerics and militants who have turned against them do.[62]

Ironically, this could be seen as a subtler application of the Congress for Cultural Freedom template than the one advocated by the Social Democrats USA, and implemented in the Euston Manifesto. Perhaps it was not the anti-war left who went down a strategic dead end in 2003.

Notes

[1] Introducing the Euston Manifesto, Norman Geras, Comment is free, 13 April 2006.

[2] Off the Rails, by Paul Christopher, Weekly Worker, 1 June 2006.

[3]. Ibid.

[4] No sects please, you're British, by DD Guttenplan, Comment is free, 17 April 2006.

[5] A Few Good Liberals, by William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, 1 May 2006.

[6] Who Paid the Piper: the CIA and the Cultural Cold War, by Francis Stonor Saunders, Granta, 2000, pp 175-180.

[7] Stonor Saunders, op. cit., pp 397-404.

[8] Profile: Social Democrats USA, RightWeb, accessed 17 May 208.

[9] Profile: Elliot Abrams, RightWeb, accessed 5 June 2008.

[10] Sidney Hook, Political Philosopher, Is Dead at 86, by Richard Bernstein, New York Times, 14 July 1989.

[11] National Endowment for Democracy – Sourcewatch, accessed 5 June 2008.

[12] Profile: Carl Gershman, RightWeb, accessed 5 June 2008.

 [13] EVERYTHING CHANGED: What Now for Labor, Liberalism and the Global Left?, Social Democrats USA, accessed 18 May 2008.

[14] Debs’s Heirs Reassemble To Seek Renewed Role as Hawks of Left, By Joshua Micah Marshall, Forward, 23. May 2003.

[15] Nicaragua Conversion of a Timely Kind, by Jill Smolowe, Time magazine, 21 April 1986.

[16] EVERYTHING CHANGED: What Now for Labor, Liberalism and the Global Left?, Social Democrats USA, accessed 8 June 2008.

[17] AndyMarkovits.com, accessed 8 June 2008. Jeffrey Herf, Department of History, University of Maryland, accessed 8 June 2008.

[18] EVERYTHING CHANGED: What Now for Labor, Liberalism and the Global Left?, Social Democrats USA, accessed 8 June 2008.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Book Review: The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and the Politics of Global Order, by Michael Allen, Democratiya, Summer 2005.

[21] The Berlin Republic and the Past, by Jeffrey Herf, Democratiya, Spring 2008. Why Europe Dislikes America, by Andrei Markovits, Democratiya, Summer 2007. Cosmopolitanism vs. the ‘Post-Left’, by Andrei Markovits and Gabriel Noah Bram Jr, Democratiya, Spring 2008. Looking for Albert Shanker, by Eugenia Kemble, Democratiya, Winter 2007. Archive, the Life of Tom Kahn, by Rachelle Horowitz, Democratiya, Winter 2007. The Truth about Syria, by Barry Rubin, Democratiya, Autumn 2007. Confessions at a Funeral, by Barry Rubin, Democratiya, Spring 2008.

[22] Interview with Joshua Muravchik/ On Neoconservatism, Democratiya, Winter 2007. The Legacy of Michael Harrington: An Exchange, by David A. Guberman and Joshua Muravchik, Democratiya, Spring 2008. Interview with Paul Berman/Terror and Liberalism, Democratiya, Summer 2006. Archive, the Social Democratic Prospect, by Sidney Hook, Democratiya, Winter 2005.

[23] The Cultural Cold War: Faust Not the Pied Piper, New Politics, vol. 8, no. 3 (new series), whole no. 31, Summer 2001.

[24] The Euston Manifesto, Norman Geras and Nick Cohen, New Statesman, 17 April 2006.

[25] Stonor Saunders, op. cit., pp 98-99.

[26] The Euston Manifesto, accessed 5 June 2008.

[27] ibid.

[28] Stonor Saunders, op. cit., p 98.

[29] Stonor Saunders, op. cit., p 201.

[30] Stonor Saunders, op. cit., p 208.

[31] American Liberalism and the Euston Manifesto, by Jeffrey Herf et. al., eustonmanifesto.org, 12 September 2006.

[32] The New Republic Online: American Liberalism And The Euston Manifesto, Jeffrey Herf, eustonmanifesto.org, 10 October 2006.

[33] Profile: Michael Ledeen, RightWeb, accessed 5 June 2008.

[34] Profile: Elion Cohen, RightWeb, accessed 5 June 2008. Profile: Will Marshall, accessed 5 June 2008.

[35]For Bell, see Stonor Saunders, op. cit., p 391. For Laqueur, see Stonor Saunders, op. cit., pp 214-215.

 [36] On state-private networks, see Hugh Wilford, The CIA, The British Left and the Cold War, Frank Cass, 2003, p148. On flex groups, see Flex Power: A Capital Way to Gain Clout, Inside and Out, by Janine R. Wedel, Washington Post, 12 December 2004.

[37] Four More Years of Richard Perle? by Janine Wedel, Alternet, 4 November 2004.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Michael Allen – Sourcewatch, accessed 5 June 2008.

[40] The Euston Manifesto, accessed 5 June 2008.

[41] No sects please, you're British, by DD Guttenplan, Comment is free, 17 April 2006.

[42] The Men From JINSA and CSP, by Jason Vest, The Nation, August 15, 2002.

[43] JINSA Online – Advisory Board, accessed 10 June 2008.

[44] Washington Institute for Near East Policy – Board of Advisors, accessed 10 June 2008. On WINEP’s link to AIPAC see Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network, by Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, 7 August 2003.

[45] Barry Rubin, MERIA, accessed 5 June 2008. For his links to the Social Democrats USA, see Officers and National Committee Members, accessed 5 June 2008.

[46] Blair Acknowledges Flaws in Iraq Dossier, by Glenn Frankel, Washington Post, 8 February 2003, via MERIA.

[47] Himself Alone, by Dean Godson, Harper Perennial, 2004, p263.

[48] No consensus over wearing of the shamrock, by Frank Millar, The Irish Times, 19 March 1994.

[49] Dean Godson, op. cit., p263.

[50] The Informer, by Sean O'Callaghan, Corgi 1999, p405.

[51] Dean Godson, op. cit., p309. On Cranborne’s unionism, see p122.

[52] Trimble, by Henry McDonald, Bloomsbury, 2000, p289.

[53] Special screening: "The Road To Hell"—Saddam's genocide, by Gary Kent, eustonmanifesto.org, 5 November 2006.

[54] Saddam's bomb, Correspondent, BBC News, 2 March 2001.

[55] A City Break in Baghdad, by Gary Kent, Slugger O’Toole, 19 May 2008.

[56] The Euston moment, by Alan Johnson, Guardian: CiF, 20 April 2008.

[57] Global Politics After 9/11: The Democratiya Interviews, edited by Alan Johnson, The Foreign Policy Centre 2007, p.3.

[58] ibid. P.315.

[59] The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood, by Robert S. Leiken and Stephen  Brooke, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007.

[60] What’s Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way, by Nick Cohen, Harper Collins, 2007, p.305.

[61] To Talk or Not To Talk – That is The Question? By Robert Leiken, The National Interest, 25 April 2007.

[62] The Unravelling: The jihadist revolt against Bin Laden, by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, The New Republic, 11 June 2008.