Gordon C. Wong,
P.O. Box 1368,
Vancouver, V6C 2T2,
B.C., Canada,
December, 1986.

President Ronald Reagan,
c/o Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

President Reagan:

After a lot of serious thought since the beginning of the controversy surrounding the sale of arms to Iran and the releases of Mr. Daniloff and Mr. Jacobsen, i decided i should make a statement to you to advise you how i view "the present situation."

There is so much information now emerging about these things that i'm not going to contend that i can keep track of all of it.
However, i do note that the reactions overall have once more shifted our "concerns" away from the continuing plights of the remaining hostages. On numerous occasions (as we both realize and was permitted according to the 1978 agreement re my "International Diplomatic Work...on a direct basis"), we have disagreed on policy objectives and points.
It may interest you, then, to have me say here that i believe you when you maintain that the arms were not "traded" for the hostages release.
Surely we both realize that Mr. Jacobsen and Mr. Daniloff were likely released in response to my August, 1986 submissions to Clovis Maksoud of 'The Arab League' and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev, summarizing work continuing since 1978 as they realized.
Yet still i've heard nothing from you or Prime Minister Mulroney directly.

Some may well dispute my reasoning for this, President Reagan--which is why i am preparing this statement to you to explain my position beforehand--but i've decided to make detailed document copy submissions to the U.S. Senate and Congressional bodies investigating the ramifications of the arms sale. They will be sent in advance of the January 6, 1987 date their hearings are to begin.
This decision is based upon four fundamental reasons.
One, i've also decided to make a submission to Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie, whose special assistant Terry Waite has returned to the Holy Lands to continue his work towards the safe release of the remaining hostages. I'd have had to contact the Archbishop anyway because of my communications with the Anglican Archbishop of Capetown, Desmond Tutu, and, well, there is a certain "linkage," isn't there, as both "situations" are products of that 1978 work which the public is still being denied adequate awareness and understanding of. These groups should understand that "linkage."
Two, if Terry Waite (and i and those who continue to have "concerns" on behalf of those hostages) is to succeed, we'll have to go quite a bit further than just saying there was no direct linkage between the arms sale and that hostage release. We require "action."
I've been delaying my next submission to U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez De Cuellar, which would provide him with a copy of the letter i received from "Desmond Johannesburg" (and i trust that Senator Kennedy gave you a copy of it), in order to give Ottawa and Washington more time to decide and do what they intend to in response to our/"(my) present situation." Such a submission would have to include a further statement to Mr. Maksoud or the safety of those hostages would be imperiled. And it certainly serves this purpose to again here repeat there was no direct linkage between the arms sales to Iran and the negotiations to secure the hostages release. And this is itself a good reason to make those submissions to the investigatory bodies, President Reagan, and i would point out that surely this is the "best" time to rely upon the "bipartisan" understanding and "concerns" included in the "International Diplomatic Work...on a direct basis" according to the 1978 agreement. Cheap political grandstanding during a controversy which could drag on into the campaigning for the 1988 U.S. Presidential race would endanger those innocent lives.
Three, relating to this is the first attachment (annotated as you see).

I have long disputed the validity of sleazy "political energy" (as Pierre E. Trudeau termed it). Well, speaking as a dove to a hawk, President Reagan, may we ask who in this "present situation" is representing security and respect for our armed forces the "best"?


And four, i note certain remarks you made in the recent interview you gave to Time magazine.
I have a subscription to Time, but Canada Post is once again playing games with my mail delivery, i'm not getting my editions, and i rely here for the quotes on a December 1, 1986 Vancouver Sun article, 'Reagan calls North a hero, compares critics to sharks', which reports:

"...The President was quoted by Time magazine as saying he has 'a bitter bile in my throat these days' because of the controversy set off by disclosure of the sales.
Although the outcome was disappointing, Reagan said: 'I don't see anything I would have done differently.'
He referred to critics as 'sharks, circling like they are now with blood in the water' and specifically lambasted the news media.
'What is driving me up the wall is that this wasn't a failure until the press got a tip from that rag in Beirut and began to play it up.
'I told them that publicity could destroy this, that it could get people killed.
They then went right on,' the magazine quoted Reagan saying."

One could conclude, President Reagan, that you disagree with Socrates and Plato (as cited in my April 16, 1983 statement to former Canadian prime minister Pierre E. Trudeau and former Canadian external affairs minister Allan J. MacEachen) and their views on the relationship between ethics and politics and what wins in that struggle between good and bad, truth and "disinformation," in the long run.
However, as surely you'll understand in "(my) present situation," it does not seem likely these investigatory bodies won't want to examine that 1978 agreement on my work, and one vital term of it is that i pledged to provide the truth in the work. President Reagan, one could conclude you're also wrong because the press "policy of silence" in response to the 1984 assault against me, if evaluated in "principles" applying to the continuing hostage crisis and the dangers to life, has not improved the "situation(s)." Key elements of my approach to the apartheid crisis depend upon items published in the press (not least of all because Ottawa and Washington still have provided me with no direct instructions). Therefore, i am in no position to follow such a contention as you suggest above. The "best" i can do is prepare this statement to you, include copies of it in the future submissions to the investigatory bodies and press, and let our democratic values" in "action" determine why those hostages were released--and thus, which is "stronger," truth or falsehood.

As you also realize, the basis for my communications with Desmond Tutu is the 1978 work.
It is undoubtedly the potential pending disclosure of "facts" about it, relating to the groundwork i prepared at that time which led to "constructive engagement," which is impelling the Botha regime to now be looking for acceptable and sufficiently substantive further steps to effect the "reform" of its systematic racism.
If you'd simply stated publicly those "facts," President Reagan, perhaps you could have helped to speed up this process enough to satisfy the critics of your policy and the advocates of sanctions without adequate "safety nets" for the vulnerable and innocent oppressed peoples.

The conclusion i draw, President Reagan, is that the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize winner, by talking to me twice on April 2, 1986, agreeing to accept document copies he knew beforehand were not explicitly supportive of the position he favours, and by sending me a preliminary letter from himself and not some underling--deserved that award and did more to point the way to true "peace, security, and justice" by example in so doing than anything i've seen from Ottawa or Washington directly or by reading press reports in the years since you took office.

Of course, there is the other reason why i've had to delay the next and obviously crucially important submission to Mr. Maksoud (as well as the long delayed one to Menachem Begin)...beyond the "fact" that i can't afford the costs in "(my) present situation."

Despite my numerous requests for almost two years, Prime Minister Mulroney hasn't provided me with a copy of the November, 1984 statement to Mr. Maksoud which i prepared.

Aren't we now seeing how dangerous it is to do (your) work without having all the necessary information and "cooperation" possible?


I made a submission last month to Ms. Shirley Carr, President of 'The Canadian Labour Congress', re the American-Canadian trade and tariffs war and how it relates to the documentation provided by me for that group about the possibility of negotiations for free(r) trade between our two countries (and as an example to the world) in and since 1978.
A promised follow-up to her and one to Mr. Jack Munro, President of 'The International Woodworkers of America' (Canadian chapter), which i promised at first would be delivered around the end of November, 1986, have been delayed because of my "concerns" for the hostages (and security forces).
I'll simply see that Ms. Carr gets a copy of this to explain the delay, and will see that the matter is dealt with before the time limits expire in the spring on the final course of "action" to be taken.
As you would realize, President Reagan, we both share commitments to the job security and potential betterment of our respective countries' workers affected by the world trade "situation." I also agree with you, though, on the potential danger which could result from giving up too much to protectionist sentiments.
I said as much fundamentally in my first statement to Ms. Carr...which i am unable to give you a copy of because i can't afford to presently.

It remains obvious to me why American interests would be looking unfavourably upon Canadian commitments to the relationship between our countries. Innocent people on both sides of the border should not suffer because of this, President Reagan (not least of all because of the limits it would impose by example on our future dealings with other countries).
As the oppressed peoples in South Africa and throughout the developing world continue to look to us for examples and leadership and Bayard Rustin accurately notes the importance of free trade unions in such development of human rights and workers rights and social potential, i recently made detailed submissions to the three Canadian federal political parties, two British Columbia provincial party leaders, and press, in response to which i received the items which i am now requesting that Prime Minister Mulroney give you copies of (as well as copies of those statements).
The one to Mr. Turner is likely the most immediately relevant. And as i made a point of reiterating the role i played (and Senator Dole played) in developing what came to be known as "Reaganomics" during that 1978 "International Diplomatic Work...on a direct basis" because i anticipated long ago what we now see unfolding, again, President Reagan, it should be clear that i didn't disagree with you in past on those points because of a contrary political partisanship to your own or because i favoured an idea of taking on the most powerful man on earth in a David and Goliath "situation." That "situation" has been created by how my work has been dealt with. I always reminded you that i'm simply an adviser who pledged to provide the truth in his work according to the original governing agreement of 1978.

Finally, if you're wondering why i'm again using the two authorities in my communications, it should be noted that unless i recall the terms of the bases of understanding re those authorities documented in 1978 (a point which Desmond Tutu and the hostages would be "concerned" by) incorrectly, they were to be regarded as continuing until such times as the work was finished and the "problems" were known to the public and resolved. In view of what it appears i will now have to send out soon, i believe i should resume referring to them.
It is probably this decision more than press doing their jobs which will affect the safety of the remaining hostages, President Reagan: You must decide whether you consider the one applying to representation of American "concerns" to be still in effect.
I'll be sending the next statement to Mr. Maksoud early in the year that Shimon Peres and Hosni Mubarak stated would be devoted to expanding efforts to improve and broaden the peace process for the Holy Lands.
If you decide to continue this outrageous "policy of silence" still further, President Reagan, when 'Islamic Jihad' has stated that "a religious settlement" could lead to the safe release of the remaining hostages, well, the other attachment indicates what you may cause can be corrected.

Regrettably, sir, further economic "problems" here have led to the telephone in the house i'm living in being disconnected.
You'll have to write.
Given the scandal over Mr. North allegedly exceeding his authority, of course it would be inappropriate for me to trust in any written reply from an underling. The scope of this scandal, in fact, suggests the response must come from you and not even such as Mr. Schultz, Mr. Weinburger, or certainly not the new National Security Adviser (or an equivalent to Ms. Gregory).


"All of us" look forward to your response, President Reagan.

The December 4, 1986 Rolling Stone finally reports Rolling Stone's views on "Star Wars", President Reagan, so i can send them my submission about the work since 1978 on behalf of the popular entertainers (and Patti).

I had this drafted for three pages in length originally, but as you see the final form is slightly longer.
You have my sympathies for being unable to follow your guidelines.

Presumably you will inform your predecessors as U.S. President of these developments in "(my) present situation."

Copies of all documents deemed relevant by the investigatory bodies will of course be available to them for evaluation if they request them and will pay for the duplication costs...from me if Ottawa or Washington won't provide them.
I don't have a copy of that November, 1984 statement to Clovis Maksoud, though, so as you see i am sending this to you via Prime Minister Mulroney so he can mull over what he intends to do.

I remain, as always,

Gordon C. Wong