Galactic Diplomacy and Negative Governmental Responses  

Jonathan Andrews*

As the exopolitical movement is gaining momentum it may be opportune to pay attention to the occupational hazards that come with the territory. People engaging in exopolitics, and especially individuals conducting citizen diplomacy with extraterrestrials may have to be wary of possible government responses to such initiatives. The question then also arises what protective mechanisms citizen diplomats might use against negative governmental responses.

In general, citizen diplomacy could be described as the whole of unofficial contacts between people of different nations, as differentiated from the official contacts between governmental representatives.[1] But more specifically, citizen diplomacy is often used for a specific kind of informal diplomacy, in which non-officials (academic scholars, retired civil and military officials, public figures, and social activists) engage in dialogue, with the aim of conflict resolution, or confidence building.[2] In this sense, it is often referred to as “Track II diplomacy.” Track II diplomacy has proven useful in situations in which official, diplomatic communications between countries or between a government and an insurgent group have broken down. Under these circumstances unofficial channels can often operate more effectively, and pave the way for subsequent official "first track" or "track one" diplomacy.[3]

As the number of contactees steadily grows over the years, so do the initiatives by private citizens to try and establish contact with extraterrestrials. These attempts could be seen as first steps in the field of citizen diplomacy with extraterrestrials, in that they try to establish lines of communication, and possibly contribute to confidence building. But how will governments react to such private initiatives? Should non-official galactic diplomats tread with caution?

The issue whether individuals conducting citizen diplomacy with extraterrestrials need to be wary of negative government responses, is not an academic one. On the contrary, as Michael Salla pointed out at the ECETI Conference in 2006, there is, indeed, “extensive evidence that individuals having contact or communications with extraterrestrials have been repressed. (…) The repression of individuals and organizations involved with extraterrestrial contact is exemplified in numerous cases of intimidation, harassment, physical assault or worse.” [4]

Before moving on to the different types of negative governmental responses one might encounter, it may be useful to address the question why the government would react negatively to anything relating to the extraterrestrial presence. Such reasons are outlined in a number of documents, like, e.g., the so-called Eisenhower Briefing Document (hereafter EBD),[5] the findings of the Robertson Panel in 1953,[6] the Brookings Report of 1961,[7] and, if authentic, the First Annual MJ-12 Report.[8] The main reasons all involve National Security.

Interestingly, what is considered a threat to National Security in most of these documents is not the UFOs and their occupants themselves, but the possible reaction of the public to them. Indeed, while there was concern that “the motives and ultimate intentions of these visitors remain unknown” (EBD), the overall impression was that the UFOs and their occupants had not displayed any hostility, or undertaken any hostile acts.[9] Instead, the abovementioned documents focus on:

• Mass hysteria and the “need to avoid a public panic” (EBD),[10] which were perceived as “a threat to the orderly functioning of the protective organs of the body politic.”[11]
• The possible disintegration of society. The Brookings Report, on p. 215, warns that “Anthropological files contain many examples of societies sure of their place in the universe, which have disintegrated when they had to associate with previously unfamiliar societies espousing different ideas and different life ways; others that survived such an experience usually did so by paying the price of changes in values and attitudes and behaviors.”[12] Before that, the First Annual MJ-12 Report had already warned for the same thing.[13]
• The possibility that foreign nations might try to abuse information about an extra­terrestrial threat for purposes of psychological warfare. This was one of the main concerns of the Robertson Panel, which therefore explicitly recommended in its conclusion 4 “That the national security agencies take immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired.”[14]

Another reason involving National Security has to do with the recovered technology and the international implications thereof. We need to keep in mind that all of this was set in motion at the beginning of the cold war. The extraterrestrial technology was seen as a chance for the US to secure its dominance. Indeed, the First Annual MJ-12 Report deems that the advantages of reconstructing the extraterrestrial technology would be ‘incalculable.’[15] To secure this US dominance, it was important that other countries, and more specifically the Soviet Union, should have no access to these extraterrestrial technologies. For the US to ensure its dominance, information about the extraterrestrial technology had to be kept secret.

The First Annual MJ-12 Report therefore attributes the Majestic operation, which dealt with the extraterrestrial presence, a security qualification that exceeds that of the H-bomb development.[16] More importantly, the document explicitly states:

It goes on to suggest:

If genuine, this document explicitly confirms a Government policy to discredit any civilian investigation into the extraterrestrial question, based upon reasons of National Security.

Now that we know why, we can focus our attention on what types of negative reactions might one expect. What follows is a random selection of documented cases.

A first possible reaction is censorship, where information about extraterrestrials and their activities is simply ignored. James Gilliland, e.g., by now has over 60 hours of footage documenting interactions with extraterrestrials, yet the media refuse to pay any attention to this.[19] Or take, e.g., the Disclosure Press Conference, organised by Dr. Steven Greer, in which dozens of credible witnesses declared they had been involved in Government projects that dealt with extraterrestrials. Jonathan Kolber rightfully wonders why this event was largely ignored by the mass media, and came to the conclusion that this is part of a deliberate strategy.[20]

Apart from censorship, ridicule also is a very common response. Jonathon Kolber’s suspicion that this part of a well-planned strategy, is shared by others:

A typical example of this, e.g., is the recent coverage by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post of 17 September 2007, of the X-Conference, and a news conference held in 16 September 2007 at the National Press Club, by the Paradigm Research Group.[22] Milbank presented issues out of context so that they appeared ridiculous and the X-Conference Press Conference as farcical (as depicted in graphic).

Citizens engaging in citizen diplomacy with extraterrestrials can also expect to be subjected to monitoring by the government. “Finally, due to the suggestions of the [Robertson] committee, groups studying UFOs were monitored by government agents and spies in order to keep them from influencing mass thinking. As late as 1976 a CIA memo was discovered telling how the agency was still having to report on the activities of UFO groups.”[23] UFO researcher Nick Redfern wrote a book on the history of government surveillance of UFO witnesses and investigators.[24] Such monitoring can allegedly even take the form of being monitored by remote viewers.[25]

Apart from monitoring by the government, US citizens engaging in citizen diplomacy with extraterrestrials could also face legal actions. Relevant in this context are the Logan Act, and the so-called Extraterrestrial Exposure Act, which could provide the government with some precedents to base a case upon. 

The purpose of the Logan Act is to prevent private citizens from intervening / interfering in international diplomacy, by making it a felony.

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (…) [26]

The Logan Act does not mention extraterrestrial relations. It says that private citizens who interact with foreign governments outside of the official channels, could be fined or sent to jail. Yet, it is reasonable to assume that if the ratio legis is to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments, then a fortiori the US Government will not want its citizens to interfere in relations with extraterrestrial civilizations.

Another legal precedent could be provided by the so-called ‘Extraterrestrial Exposure Act,’ which officially is now in remission. This act made contact between U.S. citizens and extra-terrestrials or their vehicles strictly illegal. “According to a law already on the books: (Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, adopted on July 16, 1969, before the Apollo moon shots), anyone guilty of such contact automatically becomes a wanted criminal to be jailed for one year and fined $5,000. The NASA administrator is empowered to determine with or without a hearing that a person or object has been "extraterrestrially exposed" and impose an indeterminate quarantine under armed guard, which could not be broken even by court order.

There is no limit placed on the number of individuals who could thus be arbitrarily quarantined.

The definition of "extraterrestrial exposure" is left entirely up to NASA administrator, who is thus endowed with total dictatorial power to be exercised at his slightest caprice, which is completely contrary to the Constitution.”  [27]

Often people experience financial sabotage and/or obstruction. Wendelle Stevens, a retired Lt Col. from the U.S. Air Force who first witnessed UFO data while stationed in Alaska in 1947, e.g., mentions how he was contacted by a whistleblower who wanted to come and see him. “He said he would get packed and get a bus out that afternoon. I got a call about two hours later, and he said that he had gone to the bank in order to withdraw money for his trip and his ATM card didn't work. He tried his Visa and Mastercard, and they didn't work. All of his sources of money were cut off.”[28] This, indeed, seems to be ‘standard procedure’: “Anybody who was a potential troublemaker or whistleblower soon would discover how the CIA used its relationship with other government agencies (such as the IRS)... and find his or her credit rating slashed, employee record blacklisted, bank account frozen, incoming mail opened, and careers ruined.” [29]

Another common phenomenon is computer sabotage. Web sites like, e.g., the one of Project Camelot,[30] which is dedicated to whistleblower testimony, often is inaccessible due to so-called ‘dedicated denial of service’ attacks. On a public Bulletin Board that is partly dedicated to UFO, contactee and abductee research, several members explain how they have experienced computer and hard disk crashes, hacking and hacking attempts.[31]

Many people describe various types of harassment and intimidation. Dr Karla Turner [an English professor who become a specialist in extraterrestrial abduction research] in Taken, gave the following examples of intimidation, experienced by abductees whom she knew:

·         “When Amy left to drive home, she was followed by a state patrol car who stayed inches from her bumper or right beside her car for many miles.”

·         “military helicopter harassment,”

·         “phone disturbances,

·         and other events that seem much more human than alien in origin.”[32]

Some researchers investigating the Serpo story – concerning an alleged exchange program between the U.S. government and extraterrestrials from the planet Serpo - experienced break-ins. [33]

Notorious, too, are the visits by so-called “men in black” who often, though not always, pose as government agents. Several people testified how they were subjected to stalking and to a “reign of terror” by these men in black.[34]

Occasionally, people experience unlawful detainment. Mack Brazel, e.g., who discovered the debris and reported it to the authorities in the famous Roswell case, was unlawfully detained at an Air Force Base for three days. [35]

Closely related to this, are the cases where people are abducted. Karla Turner, e.g, describes a number of cases of abductees, who after their alien abduction experiences, were subsequently abducted by military personnel. She quotes the Leah Haley case as ‘beyond question.’[36]  This phenomenon was researched extensively by Dr. HelmutLammer who wrote a book and several articles on it.[37] He coined the term ‘MILABs’ (for military abductions or military abductees) for it. Other authors on the abuduction phenomenon, like, e.g., Katharina Wilson, too, describe cases of ‘MILABs’.[38]

During these abductions and unlawful detainments, people allegedly are sometimes subjected to memory alterations and indoctrination.[39] This not only happens to civilians: people who worked for the government and held positions that involved interactions with extraterrestrials or extraterrestrial material often suffer the same fate.[40] One of the more notorious (and disputed) cases in this respect allegedly is the Dan Burisch case, involving an alleged microbiologist who worked in a number of “deep black” extraterrestrial related projects, as reported by Bill Hamilton.[41]

Similarly, sometimes, the intimidation and harassment involve other methods of psychological warfare. A famous case, e.g., is the Paul Bennewitz case that involved an electronics expert who deciphered secret communications at an alleged extraterrestrial base.[42] Many authors agree that Bennewitz was deliberately ‘mentally destroyed.’ Numerous abductees report that they are subjected to different types of Mind Control techniques, and allegedly, they are not alone in this: in an interview, therapist Stephanie Relfe mentions how this happened to her and her husband, and how they even were subjected to different types of psychic attacks.[43]

Often, people are exposed to threats of physical violence.[44] But the worst cases involve the elimination of the subject. Indeed, if all else fails, the Powers that Be do not hesitate to resort to murder, as Prof. Schellhorn points out:

In the interview with Wendelle Stevens, mentioned above, he confirms that he was contacted by a whistleblower who claimed to have been such a hit man.[46] That such practices exist is confirmed by several other authors: “The CIA rarely dirties its own hands with something as messy and jeopardizing as assassination. Often, mercenaries and contract agents are maintained for such actions. When the CIA does get personally involved, it tries to make the death of the victim appear to be as much of an 'accident' as possible…” [47] Vivienne Legg also refers to cases of ‘lethal intimidation.’[48]

The Project Camelot web site has several ‘in tribute’ pages to people who suffered suspicious deaths.[49] In his article, Prof. Schellhorn mentions virtually the same list of people who died in mysterious circumstances. The list includes: Dr. John Badwey, Paul Bennewitz, Dr. Eugene Blass, Ron Bonds, Mae Brussell, Danny Casolaro, Dr. J. Clayton, William Cooper, Dr. Cooperson, Ruth Drown, Frank Edwards, Don Elkins, James V. Forrestal, Dr. Max Gerson, Harry Hoxsey, Morris K. Jessup, Dr. Milbank Johnson, Ron Johnson, Todd Kauppila, Jim Keith, Dr. David Kelly, John F. Kennedy, Dorothy Kilgallen, Dr. William Koch, George Lakhovsky, Ann Livingston, Brian Lynch, Dr. Eugene Mallove, Dr. James McDonald, Stanley Meyer, Dr. Wilhelm Reich, Royal Rife, Ron Rummel, Phil Schneider, Leonid Strachunsky, Jose Trias, Karla Turner, Gary Webb, as well as 25 Marconi scientists, who all died in mysterious circumstances between 1982-88. [50]

The examples cited above reveal who all has been exposed to negative governmental responses, and essentially the conclusion is that anybody involved in any way with the extraterrestrial presence can become a target, whether they are UFO researchers, abductees, contactees, scientists or people working for the government

The cases quoted above also reveal that these negative governmental responses have been going on for a very long time. Prof. G. Cope Schellhorn refers to an article from 1971 by Otto Binder who researched 137 cases of suspicious deaths since 1961.

The selected cases Binder offered were loaded with a plethora of alleged heart attacks, suspicious cancers and what appears to be outright examples of murder. [51]

Cases of intimidation stared well before that: Alan Bender already had a visit from “Men in Black” in 1954.[52] And even before that, in the Roswell case in 1947, Mack Brazel was unlawfully detained for several days.[53]

Confronted with these negative governmental responses, what protective mechanisms can people engaging in citizen diplomacy with extraterrestrials come up with? Possible protective mechanisms can play at three different levels. A first level of mechanisms could consist of measures that are directed specifically at certain types of responses, while a second level could consist of more general protection mechanisms against negative responses. Both of these, however, are not likely to offer long-term success, as they address the symptoms (the negative responses), rather than the cause (i.e., why the government reacts negatively). A third level of mechanisms therefore should look for solutions that address the cause of the negative responses. Addressing both cause and effect is likely to offer better chances of long-term success. Let us now have a closer look at these three levels.

A first type of mechanisms consists of specific countermeasures to specific responses. Censorship, e.g., is proving harder and harder as new communication technologies emerge. The Internet offers people a chance to disseminate information far more easily than before. Information can be published on a web site and / or a newsletter, posted on Bulletin Boards and in News Groups, or can be mailed in large volumes. Multiple recipients can again distribute to multiple recipients.

It is also fairly easy to take preventive countermeasures against different forms of computer sabotage, as there are technical solutions available. Installing a firewall, e.g., can usually prevent hacking and other cyber attacks. Denial of service attacks can be prevented by combining a firewall and load distribution software. One of the members of the Open Minds Forum [a forum dedicated to discussion of Ufology, Disclosure, Exopolitics and Paranormal studies] e.g., reported how efforts to break into his computer failed because he had the appropriate software installed.[54] Some measures can also be taken to reduce the chances of financial sabotage, like reducing the number of debit orders, and remaining in control of transactions.

But these countermeasures are directed at only some negative responses. It is clear that direct countermeasures to specific responses are harder in other cases. How does one, e.g., prevent monitoring? There also seems to be little that anyone can do to avoid abductions (without having to resort to major expenses, like, e.g., hiring a team of body guards). Many abductees who experienced a MILAB report that they were drugged against their will and often un­knowingly before the abduction.[55]

A second type of protective mechanisms to counter negative responses is therefore more general in nature. Publicity, e.g., works well for many whistleblowers. By drawing attention to themselves they prevent negative responses because the government does not want to draw even more attention to them, and negative responses would seem to add credibility to their claims. Publicity has proven successful in a majority of cases of whistleblowers, like, e.g. Bob Lazar.[56] It is not, however, a fail proof mechanism, as some whistleblowers have disappeared. The case of John Maynard, a famous whistleblower from the Disclosure Project, comes to mind.[57] Maynard mysteriously dissappeared after disclosing classified information related to extraterrestrials that he came across while serving at the Defense Intelligence Agency. This followed his release from a federal penitentiary after being charged in 2003 for violating his secrecy oath.[58]

Closely related to publicity, is networking as a countermeasure, since any negative responses are more likely to be exposed if one is part of a network.

Another mechanism could be to use the safeguard of ‘plausible deniability’ when spreading information, as this reduces the ‘threat level’ of the information being spread. Last but not least, legal insurance is probably a good idea, as often cases will be taken to court.

A third type of mechanisms goes directly for the root cause of the negative responses, and addresses the “why” of these negative governmental responses. What we are confronted with is an apparent conflict of interests, and therefore conflict resolution techniques can be applied. In the current circumstances it is important to try and find a win-win outcome between contactees and national security agencies over the dissemination of extraterrestrial related information. This can be achieved by focussing on common interests (rather than on opposing positions), as such common interests are a key to win-win solutions.[59] This will require a balanced and responsible approach that avoids sparking any negative reactions. In this context, it is important to develop conflict resolution skills, and to open lines of communication.

A first step in that direction for citizen diplomats it to send a clear signal that they are not the enemy, and that they are not a threat, and that, on the contrary, they are looking for a common solution that is acceptable to all. For several problem areas where a threat to National Security is perceived, solutions can be found. The public can, e.g., be educated to not react with mass hysteria by a gradual release of information. It looks like such an acclimatization programme is in place, and citizen diplomats can play an active role in assisting the promotion of it. Another important aspect may be to discuss the possibility of an amnesty for those who have been involved in the negative governmental responses. More and more voices are publicly asking for such an amnesty,[60] and even for a ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ Commission.[61] Similarly, solutions can be investigated for other areas. All of those, however, are beyond the scope of the present paper.

Conclusion: Negative government responses are a reality that aspiring citizen diplomats have to take into account. These responses can range from simple intimidation and censorship all the way to elimination of the subject whose activities are seen as a threat. The examples shown above indicate that such negative responses have been going on for decades and that nobody is a priori exempt from such responses.

The countermeasures to these negative responses that are most likely to offer long-term chances of success are the ones that address the root cause of the negative responses, i.e. the ones that address the very reasons for the negative responses. By applying conflict resolution techniques a long-term win-win solution can be established that focuses on the common interest of all parties involved. We can hope that by doing so, citizen diplomacy with ETs will follow a similar trajectory as citizen diplomacy in international affairs where the latter was initially resisted, then reluctantly accommodated, and now officially embraced by the diplomatic community.

*     *

*

*Editors Note: Jonathan Andrews is a pseduonym for the author who prefers to remain anonymous. The author is known to the Chief Editor of the Exopolitics Journal who agreed to publishing this article using the pseudonym due to legitimate concern over possible retaliation against the author.