The Forgotten Paradox : How Britain and America Stuck Knives In Australia’s Back


Across the political and media elite in Australia, a silence has descended on the memory of the great, reforming prime minister Gough Whitlam, who has died. His achievements are recognized, if grudgingly, his mistakes noted in false sorrow. But a critical reason for his extraordinary political demise will, they hope, be buried with him.

Australia briefly became an independent state during the Whitlam years, 1972-75. An American commentator wrote that no country had “reversed its posture in international affairs so totally without going through a domestic revolution”. Whitlam ended his nation’s colonial servility. He abolished Royal patronage, moved Australia towards theNon-Aligned Movement, supported “zones of peace” and opposed nuclear weapons testing. Although not regarded as on the left of the Labor Party, Whitlam was a maverick social democrat of principle, pride, and propriety. He believed that a foreign power should not control his country’s resources and dictate its economic and foreign policies. He proposed to “buy back the farm”. In drafting the first Aboriginal lands rights legislation, his government raised the ghost of the greatest land grab in human history after South Africa, Britain’s colonization of Australia, and the question of who owned the island continents vast natural wealth.

Latin Americans will recognize the audacity and danger of this “breaking free” in a country whose establishment was welded to great, external power. Australians had served every British imperial adventure since the Boxer rebellion was crushed in China. In the 1960s, Australia pleaded to join the US in its invasion of Vietnam, then provided “black teams” to be run by the CIA. US diplomatic cables published last year by WikiLeaks disclose the names of leading figures in both main parties, including a future prime minister and foreign minister, as Washington’s informants during the Whitlam year

ARCHIVE PHOTO: Former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam (AFP Photo / Anoek De Groot)

Former Australian  Prime Minister Gough Whitlam- lucky indeed to have lived after the Anglo/American coup

Whitlam knew the risk he was taking. The day after his election, he ordered that his staff should not be “vetted or harassed”by the Australian security organization, ASIO – then, as now, tied to Anglo-American intelligence. When his ministers publicly condemned the US bombing of Vietnam as “corrupt and barbaric”, a CIA station officer in Saigon said: “We were told the Australians might as well be regarded as North Vietnamese collaborators.” Whitlam demanded to know if and why the CIA was running a spy base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs, a giant vacuum cleaner which, as Edward Snowden revealed recently, allows the US to spy on everyone. “Try to screw us or bounce us,” the prime minister warned the US ambassador, “[and Pine Gap] will become a matter of contention”. Victor Marchetti, the CIA officer who had helped set up Pine Gap, later told me, “This threat to close Pine Gap caused apoplexy in the White House. … a kind of Chile [coup] was set in motion.” Pine Gap’s top-secret messages were decoded by a CIA contractor, TRW. One of the decoders was Christopher Boyce, a young man troubled by the “deception and betrayal of an ally”. Boyce revealed that the CIA had infiltrated the Australian political and trade union elite and referred to the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, as “our man Kerr”.

Kerr was not only the Queen’s man, he had long-standing ties to Anglo-American intelligence. He was an enthusiastic member of the Australian Association for Cultural Freedom, described by Jonathan Kwitny of the Wall Street Journal in his book, ‘The Crimes of Patriots’, as, “an elite, invitation-only group… exposed in Congress as being founded, funded and generally run by the CIA”. The CIA “paid for Kerr’s travel, built his prestige… Kerr continued to go to the CIA for money”. When Whitlam was re-elected for a second term, in 1974, the White House sent Marshall Green to Canberra as ambassador. Green was an imperious, sinister figure who worked in the shadows of America’s “deep state”. Known as the“coupmaster”, he had played a central role in the 1965 coup against President Sukarno in Indonesia – which cost up to a million lives. One of his first speeches in Australia was to the Australian Institute of Directors – described by an alarmed member of the audience as “an incitement to the country’s business leaders to rise against the government”.

Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser after the hatchet had been buried.

Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser after the hatchet had been buried. 

The Americans and British worked together. In 1975, Whitlam discovered that Britain’s MI6 was operating against his government.“The Brits were actually decoding secret messages coming into my foreign affairs office,” he said later. One of his ministers, Clyde Cameron, told me, “We knew MI6 was bugging Cabinet meetings for the Americans.” In the 1980s, senior CIA officers revealed that the “Whitlam problem” had been discussed“with urgency” by the CIA’s director, William Colby, and the head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield. A deputy director of the CIA said: “Kerr did what he was told to do.” On 10 November 1975, Whitlam was shown a top secret telex message sourced to Theodore Shackley, the notorious head of the CIA’s East Asia Division, who had helped run the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile two years earlier. Shackley’s message was read to Whitlam. It said that the prime minister of Australia was a security risk in his own country. The day before, Kerr had visited the headquarters of the Defense Signals Directorate, Australia’s NSA where he was briefed on the “security crisis”. On 11 November – the day Whitlam was to inform Parliament about the secret CIA presence in Australia – he was summoned by Kerr. Invoking archaic vice-regal “reserve powers”, Kerr sacked the democratically elected prime minister. The“Whitlam problem” was solved, and Australian politics never recovered, nor the nation its true independence.

John Kerr decided to remove Gough Whitlam in the week before the Dismissal and was in secret discussion about this with Malcolm Fraser. This is the most explosive revelation of a new book that throws in doubt the 40-year-old claim that the Governor-General acted alone.  Monash University political scientist Jenny Hocking said new research showed Kerr acted with the foreknowledge and implied consent of the Queen, and with the knowledge of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia Sir Garfield Barwick, High Court justice Sir Anthony Mason and the Leader of the Opposition to oust a democratically elected government. She said the West Australian Liberal senator Reg Withers had left a  posthumous record of communications between Kerr and Fraser in a previously unpublished interview conducted two decades after the dismissal and embargoed until after his death.

Image result for queen elizabeth 1975

Queen Elizabeth- gave her consent for Whitlam to be removed.

“Withers reveals that not only had Kerr decided to act against Whitlam in the week before 11 November 1975, but that both he and Fraser knew this,” Professor Hocking said. “Withers confirms that the Governor-General and the Leader of the Opposition were in secret telephone contact, using their secure private numbers.  “Withers recounts that he was in Fraser’s office in early November when Kerr contacted Fraser, using the private number for the Leader of the Opposition’s parliamentary office. “‘Nobody knew what his private number was except Tamie’,” Withers said.  “Fraser told the caller that he could be contacted on that number at any time … Fraser then asked the caller for their number, repeating as he wrote it down, ‘I can also ring you on his number?…. As Fraser hung up he said to Withers. ‘You never heard this conversation’.”

Professor Hocking said the secret communication was the most serious possible breach of the central constitutional and political relationship in a parliamentary democracy that the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, not the Opposition Leader. Whitlam died a year ago last Wednesday, Fraser last March, and Professor Hocking’s book, The Dismissal Dossier: Everything You Were Never Meant To Know About November 1975 comes out on the eve of the 40th anniversary of what many people still believe to be the biggest political crisis in Australian history. In another revelation from a long-embargoed interview, Fraser challenges our fundamental understanding of the dismissal of the Whitlam government in relation to the question of Supply. “It now appears that the very basis of Whitlam’s dismissal, and Fraser’s appointment, as Prime Minister – the need to secure Supply – was a constitutional and political charade,“< /em> Professor Hocking said.

In this previously unpublished interview, Fraser makes the extraordinary claim that the provision of Supply was not, in fact, a condition of his appointment as Prime Minister at all.” Fraser makes this devastating admission in his interview conducted in 1987 with former Labor Minister Clyde Cameron for the National Library of Australia that has only recently been made available. “Asked specifically whether the provision of Supply was a condition of his appointment as Prime Minister, Fraser replied without any hesitation, ‘No, it wasn’t’. “In a further dramatic historical unraveling Fraser then revealed that, even had he not secured Supply through the Senate on the afternoon of 11 November 1975, Kerr would not have dismissed him as Prime Minister and that he would have gone to the 1975 election as Prime Minister, withoutSupply. A shocked Clyde Cameron drew out the implications of this startling exchange in his immediate response to Fraser: ‘You would have gone to an election without Supply, and you would have been in breach of one of the conditions that Kerr had laid down.‘ Fraser did not disagree with this, suggesting that the Coalition might even have won a few more seats had he done so.

Prince Charles in 1975. A new book adds overturns the view that Kerr acted alone in sacking the elected Labor government of Gough Whitlam.

Prince Charles- knew about the conspiracy.

Despite Kerr’s insistence that securing Supply was at the heart of the dismissal, Fraser maintained that his own failure to secure Supply would not have led to his dismissal and that Kerr would not have dismissed him for a denial of Supply as he had dismissed Whitlam: ‘I don’t think  the Governor-General would have had much other course … I think it would have been a little difficult sacking a second (laughing) Prime Minister and re-appointing the first one sacked’.” Professor Hocking said that Kerr’s private papers clearly show that the Palace knew that Kerr was considering the dismissal months before it happened. The Palace did not counsel Kerr against the dismissal scenario, did not advise him to warn Whitlam of the possibility of dismissal and, most significantly, did not themselves alert Whitlam to the fact that the matter had been raised by the Governor-General. She said the Queen’s private secretary Martin Charteris had also written to Kerr establishing a “secret arrangement” between the Palace and Yarralumla to delay acting on the advice of the Prime Minister to recall the Governor-General, should Whitlam have decided to remove Kerr. Sir John Kerr had regular contact with the palace in the lead-up to sacking and suggested prince Charles as future governor general.

He first canvassed the possibility with Prince Charles as early as August of that year – two months before the constitutional crisis began, according to a new book. Kerr was worried that Whitlam was going to replace him as governor-general – an act which would require Whitlam to advise the Queen. When Kerr raised his plans with Prince Charles, the next in line to the throne confirmed his knowledge of Kerr’s plans to dismiss an elected prime minister.

But surely Sir John, the Queen should not have to accept advice that you should be recalled at the very time should this happen when you were considering having to dismiss the government,” Charles reportedly told Kerr.“This extraordinary vice-regal  maneuvering presents Whitlam as a political ingenue, utterly unaware that among those he considered nothing more than post-colonial monarchal relics, his future was being determined with all the calculated anti-democratic sentiment of monarchs through the ages,” she said. In her 2012 book, Gough Whitlam: His Time, Professor Hocking revealed the critical document in Kerr’s private papers describing the pivotal role that High Court Justice Sir Anthony Mason had played in advising Kerr over several months prior to the dismissal, although he remained a shadowy presence in the political crisis for four decades. In response, Sir Anthony has said he told Kerr he should warn Whitlam before terminating his commission and the first he knew that Whitlam had not been warned was when he read the news reports on November 11.

Image result for hendrik verwoerd


JUST like America and Britain conspired to get rid of South African prime minister Hendrik Verwoerd- so did they again conspire to get rid of Whitlam. Whitlam was lucky indeed– Verwoerd had to pay the ultimate sacrifice for the globalist powers to steal his country.


Enjoyed this post? Share it!