FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Flora Lewis

Money
And
Defense

PARIS

Now that President Reagan has delivered the pre-game pep talk for his second Administration, the serious play begins. It has been widely admitted that there is no feasible way to reduce the skyrocketing deficit except by an onerous tax rise that would take the lift out of the economy, or by a sizable cut in defense spending.

Neither one, says the President, Congress must find something else. Along comes Edward Luttwak, a hard-line, gung-ho defense specialist, and he has an idea. It isn't really a new idea, any more than tax reform is a new idea, but it's valid and the time has come.

Echoing Gen. David C. Jones, retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Luttwak calls for far-reaching reform of the military structure. It is necessary, he says in his new book, "The Pentagon and the Art of War," not only to save money but to repair grave hidden flaws in America's military establishment that undermine security.

Mr. Luttwak does not want to scrimp on defense. In fact, he argues that "fraud, waste and mismanagement," so often cited as the villains that shrink the defense yield on those many billions of dollars, are not only unavoidable but desirable in certain circumstances. The Pentagon isn't a business and its test of effectiveness cannot be the same as commercial efficiency.

But neither is its budget a measure of its success in providing military strength, as status in the Fortune 500 measures commercial success. Like many analysts before him, Mr. Luttwak shows convincingly that the country isn't getting its defense money's worth. Piling on more dollars won't improve things. It would only aggravate and perpetuate the failures of organization that make for poor operation.

He gives many examples, not only obvious and glaring disasters like the marines in Lebanon and the aborted attempt to rescue hostages in Iran. Even the invasion of Grenada, presented to the public as a triumph of American arms, was dreadfully and needlessly botched.

The fault is not due to lack of intelligent, dedicated and brave commanders, Mr. Luttwak says. It is the command system itself that defeats the best men and rewards bad buying habits and overelaborate, underfunctional design. General Jones has been saying the same thing for a long time, but with more tact for his comrades-in-arms than the blunt Mr. Luttwak.

Both insist that the command system must be fundamentally overhauled and integrated into a single, professional general staff. Only then

Modernize
the Pentagon,
not just
its costly
hardware

would it be possible to develop a coherent national strategy, which does not now exist, and spend the money wisely on the right weapons to do the job.

As the Pentagon runs now, based on reforms imposed in the immediate aftermath of World War II and addressed to defense conditions of two generations ago, practically everything is decided on the basis of inter-service rivalry. Decisions are not made in terms of the best plan, but of competition among Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines or, when they can agree, of doling out "fair" shares.

The argument against an integrated general staff is the old fear that it would put too much power in uniformed hands, and circumvent civilian control. The example usually cited is the traditional, prewar German general staff. But military arrogance is not the problem in modern American government.

On the contrary, where there are brash, belligerent, imprudent urges in the U.S. defense establishment now, they almost always come from civilians. The men in uniform tend to calculate the risks with caution.

Former Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger testified to a Senate committee last week that it simply wasn't realistic to expect either America's global commitments to be reduced or its forces to be increased enough to meet them without worry. "We shall have to bear continuously a degree of risk that is unwelcome," he said glumly but honestly.

That is all the more reason why it is time to stop the corrosive game of budget-bucking and to modernize the Pentagon, instead of just its fabulously costly hardware. It is possible that in another generation or two, new adjustments would be required in the nation's military command. Needs change; no prescription stays best forever.

But it is highly probable that a reform of the whole staff system now, which would eliminate silly purchases like $7,000 coffee pots and $100 widgets, would cut scores of billions of unproductive spending. And it should certainly improve the quality of defense. The country can't afford to put it off, for security as well as for savings. ☐

a

Part II -- Main Edition -- 7 February 1979

SAN DIEGO UNION - 28 JANUARY 1979 (7 FEB.)

No Other Choice

The time has come for the Carter administration and the Congress to admit publicly that the all-volunteer military is a failing experiment. This ac knowledgment would be the nec essary first step in a national debate on alternatives to the all-volunteer force.

Clearly, a return to conscription in any form is unlikely to be met with thunderous acclaim. But until the American people comprehend fully the inability of the all-volunteer military to meet the nation's minimal security requirements, hard choices will not even be considered.

As always, the nation's security depends first of all on candor and leadership from the White House and Capitol Hill.

Those in Washington who would dodge this difficult issue will no doubt continue to point to the Pentagon's pro forma assertions that the all-volunteer force is a qualified success. In fact, most of the country's military leaders recognize that the all-volunteer concept has failed. Even so, law and tradition compel military support for political policy as determined by the nation's civilian leadership. So the generals and admirals do what they can to make the policy work and then put the best possible face on the results.

For the Army in particular, the results are bad and getting worse. Nearly one-third of its recruits cannot read at a fifth-grade level. Sixty percent of its male volunteers are of below average intelligence — double the percentage of four years ago.

Consequently, the Army is rewriting its training manuals in an effort to reduce the required

reading comprehension from the 11th grade level to an eighth grade average. This at a time when seven out of 10 Army jobs require technical training to master ever more sophisticated weapons and equipment.

The hoped-for dollar savings that might have been realized from reduced personnel turnover never materialized, partly because a staggering 40 percent of Army recruits are discharged as unsuitable before completion of their first tour of duty.

Despite sharply increased pay scales intended to attract bright, highly motivated young men and women, the Army is getting society's dropouts. Disciplinary problems, including drug abuse, are on the rise. And with personnel costs now consuming 58 cents of every dollar spent for defense, the nation is paying more for an Army less qualified every year.

Worse yet is the predicament of the Army Reserve and the National Guard, forces upon which the relatively small active Army must rely in time of war. Here the effects of the all-volunteer policy have been disastrous.

In each of the six years since repeal of the draft, aggregate readiness ratings for the Reserve and National Guard have declined. Without a draft to encourage Reserve and National Guard enlistments, the strength of these units has steadily ebbed. They are now 180,000 men and women short of their authorized strength.

The Inactive Ready Reserve, a pool of trained replacements for wartime casualties, has shrunk from one million reservists in 1970 to barely 100,000 today.

With 54 percent of the Army's total strength built around its reserve forces, these personnel shortages are critical.

Nor have the reserves been immune to the dramatic drop in education and intelligence levels for Army enlistees. In 1971, 52 percent of all reservists had some college experience. Today, the figure is 5.5 percent.

Ironically, higher pay scales and the elimination of some of the traditional drudgery so detested by previous generations of GIs have not led to an improvement in service life. Indeed, deteriorating health care, curtailed veterans' benefits, the decline of the American dollar, substandard housing, and other serious social problems today's recruits bring with them into the service have added to the normal burdens of military life. Re-enlistment rates have suffered accordingly.

The cost of eradicating these service ills, while offering the pay and benefits necessary to attract high-caliber recruits, would be prohibitive. Even now, the personnel costs of the all-volunteer force are such that training and equipment, including that for some front-line troops in Europe, are inadequate.

A return to conscription in some form may be the only answer. Whether that conscription should be limited or universal and whether it should include options for civilian service as suggested by Rep. Claire Burgener in an article published opposite this page, we do not yet know. What we do know is that the all-volunteer force is increasingly inadequate to the task of defending this nation.

SOVIET MISSILE

... CONTINUED

may come unglued.

It is the issue of the Soviet Backfire bomber.

We have contended it is a strategic weapon. The Soviets have argued that it is not. And so over the objections of our Joint Chiefs of Staff the administration made one more concession. It agreed that the Backfire was not strategic if the Soviets froze the production rate and deployed the bomber to bases not within

range of the United States.

Both limitations could be canceled—or violated—by the Soviets any time the inclination arose, of course. But that was the agreement.

Now it is learned that the Soviets have been testing the marriage of long-range cruise missiles to the Backfire. In this manner the Backfire becomes undisputably a strategic weapon. It is estimated that such missiles launched from the Backfire could have a range of 1,500 miles—which is within the definition of strategic weapons.

The question is whether we shall conveniently ignore this new development and pretent it hasn't happened, or we tell the Soviets that we must reopen the issue of the status of the Backfire bomber.

What the Carter administration is going to do is by no means clear. But it should be elementary that failure to reopen the Backfire question could only further weaken the chances for Senate ratification of SALT—if and when it becomes an agreement submitted for ratification.

2-E

Washington Letter

CSM
2/17/79

# The Reagan-Kissinger connection

By Godfrey Sperling Jr.

Washington

Could it be that Ronald Reagan in his apparent move to become a Republican "centrist" would go so far as to consider Henry Kissinger as his secretary of state should Reagan reach the Presidency?

This question becomes germane when one weighs in this factor: Mr. Reagan is in communication these days with Dr. Kissinger as he rethinks his foreign policy positions in light of his intentions to broaden his base of support.

One key Reagan associate who divulged the Reagan-Kissinger "connection" to this reporter sees a Reagan appointment of Kissinger to this top Cabinet post as "highly unlikely." He points out the differences between Kissinger and Reagan - "the Panama Canal issue for example" - and recalls how Reagan in the 1976 campaign promised that, as president, he would produce a secretary of state other than Kissinger.

But another key Reagan supporter says that such an appointment is "within the realm of possibility" as Reagan reaches out to capture the support of "Ford-Rockefeller Republicans."

The big question about Mr. Reagan and his political strategy that is symbolized by a possible appointment of Kissinger thus emerges: How far will Reagan go toward the middle or even to the left of his party in order to finally reach a goal that he has wanted for years?

One Reagan aide puts it this way: "When Reagan announces the formation of his presidential-exploratory committee, probably in March, you are going to be very surprised at the list of supporters that will be members of that group." He continues:

"You are going to find that a number of very prominent Republicans who have been associated with Gerald Ford will be on that list. Some will come from Congress; some from other highly important positions; some will have been associated with the Ford campaign and administration."

But the present Reagan-Kissinger liaison is a fascinating one to contemplate. Could it be that Mr. Reagan will follow Dr. Kissinger's decision on whether or not to support a new nuclear arms pact with the Soviets - SALT II?

Actually, in views surfacing recently in the Economist of London, Dr. Kissinger expresses a caution toward Senate ratification of such a pact and in words that are similar to the way Mr. Reagan explains his position.

"I think," Kissinger is quoted as saying, "that at a minimum the ratification process should be used to put the Soviets on notice that the Congress of the United States cannot accept the constant challenges to the international order. How that might be achieved I want to reserve for the ratification debate."

At another point he says: "This SALT agreement at best slightly limits existing weapons

programs, and it contains within it many dangers..."

This kind of Kissinger rhetoric is such as to find a ready listener in Mr. Reagan.

But what if, as many observers including the President anticipate, Dr. Kissinger concludes that SALT II is a logical extension of SALT I and the Vladivostok agreement, both of which he helped shape? And thus what if, perhaps with some reservations and even reluctantly, he finally supports ratification?

Could it be that a "new" Ronald Reagan would then emerge - one who would decide to step gingerly in the direction of "détente," throwing his support behind SALT?

Mr. Reagan's present position on SALT is this, as explained by an associate: "He's saying, 'I will not oppose it out of hand. I'll look it over first and weigh it carefully and then say how I stand on it.'"

Now most observers of the "old" Ronald Reagan are absolutely, positively, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt certain that Reagan will oppose SALT II just as he did the Panama Canal treaties and normalization of relations witheking.

"But many people are overlooking something," says this aide. "Reagan favored normalization. He simply didn't think it should be done in this way - by our turning our back on Taiwan."

All this is not to suggest that we are per-

suaded that Ronald Reagan would go so far as to support a SALT II. But we do suggest that Mr. Reagan is, indeed, attempting to transform his political image and that he will, in many ways, be sounding more moderate on domestic questions and more internationalist on foreign policy issues as he pursues the presidency in coming months.

Mr. Sperling is chief of the Monitor's

Washington bureau.

## Mirror of opinion

### Syria's new friend

Syria and Iraq, those squabbling neighbors in the Middle East, appear to have been driven into each other's arms by the Camp David agreement and the resulting drift on the part of other Middle Eastern countries toward moderation. They have announced plans for a merger which would presumably create a new militant state linked to the PLO, modeled after Libya, and stretching from Lebanon to Iran.

We hate to interrupt the marriage ceremony, but we must point out that Syria was married to Egypt back in 1958. And while Syria walked out after three years, the United Arab Republic has never to our knowledge been formally dissolved. — The Chicago Tribune

In considering in trying to meet their enlistment quotas. All four services are struggling with high desertion and dropout rates. The Army in particular is attracting a declining number of recruits fitted for today's sophisticated military tasks. Some lawmakers are warning that a more broadly representative military is required both for equity and defense effectiveness.

There is some irony in the criticism that the volunteer military is not more representative of American society. It was the inequities of the Vietnam selective service system — which saw the military disproportionately filled by the poor and minorities, while many more af-

It is highly unlikely that the Congress or the nation is prepared to accept a return to the draft, particularly in peace time. The high cost of re instituting a system of universal military training, under current economic conditions, would be reason enough to reject it. A universal draft also would call into service far more recruits than any of the services need or could easily handle.

The suggestion of Representative McCloskey of California has the same economic and manpower drawbacks. He proposes that "national service" (giving young people the option to work in urban ghettos, hospitals, and such) be offered as an alternative to either two years in

the military (with college aid available afterward) or six years of having one's name in a lottery with the risk of being drafted. The idea of giving young people the opportunity to experience the rewards of serving one's country and to recognize this as an enhancement and an obligation of citizenship would be appealing — were the projected costs not so prohibitive and the draft not used as a kind of threat.

A more prudent approach, it seems to us, would be to revive the system of national registration and give the president stand-by authority to activate the draft in the event a full national mobilization becomes necessary. This would speed up the process of pulling men and

women into service in an emergency. In an all-out war, it is generally agreed, the volunteer forces would only hold an enemy at bay while a larger force is drafted from the population a whole.

The Defense Department's plans to encourage more women to join the ranks and to provide additional educational opportunities to enforce more middle-income youth ought to help offset the problems posed by the dwindling number of 18-year-olds projected for years ahead. The overriding goal has to be to maintain an effective defense force — but one that is equitable in drawing men and women from all segments of the population.

## Israel and Egypt: new talks need fresh ideas

Although it is 'welcome news that Israel-Egypt peace talks are to resume, there should be no false optimism this time about the difficulties that still lie ahead. Not only do the differences between the two sides seem no closer to being bridged than in December when the deadlocked negotiations broke down, but now the upheaval in Iran has added a new and uncertain factor in the Mideast equation.

With Iran so much in the limelight, both Egypt and Israel have succumbed to the temptation to use Iran's plight to bolster their own importance to the United States in the Mideast. Egypt's argument is that the United States now needs stronger Arab ties to protect its oil supplies, with military aid to Egypt the best hope of protecting American interests in

the oil-rich Gulf area. The Israeli position has been "that Israel, not the Arabs, is likely to be the best guardian of US interests in the Mideast.

But, in a sense, this is peripheral to the main issue of an Egypt-Israel settlement. There the main sticking point remains "linkage" — or connecting the peace treaty itself to progress toward Palestinian autonomy on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. That is what Egypt is demanding; that is what Israel is refusing. And the first thing both parties will want to establish is whether or not there has been any change in positions on linkage since the talks broke down.

Israel is talking tough about the resumption. "If Egypt is ready to make a deal, the talks

will succeed," a senior official said. "But if the object is merely to impress American public opinion, there is little hope." Foreign Minister Dayan is being sent back to the talks with limited authority from the Israeli Cabinet, which means his mandate to jump in with new ideas (a Dayan specialty) has been deliberately narrowed.

Under these circumstances, it is interesting to note that Britain's Lord Caradon, the man who drafted United Nations Resolution 242, the document meant to serve as the basis for ending the 1967 Mideast conflict, thinks that key resolution should be revised and updated to take account of the present situation. Moreover, Lord Caradon urges that the European community be given a major role in the peace

negotiations, not just the United States.

This latter suggestion, in particular, sounds worthwhile. Europe's concern about the Mideast, economically and militarily, is just as genuine and deep as the US's. European initiatives for peace would not only increase the pressure on Egypt and Israel to reach agreement, but would provide extra bargaining power for the US in the negotiations. Europe's participation, moreover, would be a positive factor — by contrast with the doubt over Iran's future.

Returning to Camp David (or whatever locale) is not of itself a panacea. Fresh ideas and a willingness to make concessions in pursuit of an agreement are the best hope for a solution. That is the context in which Israel and Egypt should resume their talks.

Kissinger Advises U.S.
To Heed Lesson of Iran

2/10

NYT

LONDON, Feb. 9 (AP) — Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger says that the United States should learn the lesson of Iran and change its policies toward Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states to account for political and social changes there.

"All of us paid insufficient attention in Iran to the proposition that political construction should go side-by-side with economic construction," Mr. Kissinger said in an interview in The Economist, a British weekly.

warned his audience of the economic hardships ahead for the country because of the crippling strikes that swept Iran over the last few months. He said that "as soon as the transitionary government starts, everyone — workers, civil service employees and bazaar merrchants — should immediately end their strike and return to their jobs."

But he added that this can only be done when Dr. Bakhtiar, whom he referred to as "my still dear Shahpur," steps down from his post, restoring his reputation as an Iranian patriot.

REMEMBER THE NEEDIESTI

1

op Fashion Center
site design services

• Fort Lauderdale • Houston
• D.C. • Westport • Winnetka

Bean™

ing Specialties

## Spring Catalog

strated. Features quality apparel and
for men and women; fishing, hiking,
and canoeing gear, leather and canvas
finishings for home or camp. All items
ed to be 100% satisfactory.

ears L. L. Bean has provided high grade
aise at reasonable prices. We per-
est our products to insure that they
a true value, are practical, functional
in quality. L. L. Bean clothing is
nough to withstand outdoor use yet
casual wear. Our footwear is carefully
earing. Many items are of our own

CATALOG

Zip

e St., Freeport, ME 04033

OTHER LO
YONKERS

Phone (91
CLIFTON,
Phone (20
CINCINNA

THE WASHINGTON POST

Friday, February 9, 1979

A 19

ing Key Employes From Iran

By William Claiborne

Washington Post Foreign Service

CAN, Feb. 8 — Bell Helicopter
tional, which literally keeps
ian army flying has begun
ing even its "essential" em-
 Iran and soon will be re-
a token operation here.

result, much of the armed
leet of nearly 1,000 combat hel-
will eventually be all but
d for a lack of maintenance
training, according to U.S.

e, military sources said, the
ness of Iran's airborne infan-
tertain to suffer as increased
s of aircraft sit in hangers
maintenance.

ill be a cumulative problem.
apabilities are bound to suf-
d a U.S. source close to the
military.

which in October had 14,000
s in Iran, had handled nearly
tenance and pilot training for
lian armed services. Similarly,
smaller scale, Grumman Ae-
Corp. has serviced the F14
it sold to Iran.

acts with both firms are to be
ated following the Iranian
ent's decision to slash de-
als with the United States by
10 billion and drastically re-
the number of defense con-
nel in Iran. Bell, with about
loyes left here, plans to
orce of only about 500 techni-
d pilot trainers, at Iran's re-

pters require even more
ance manpower than the most
ated jet fighters. Newer jet
are component assembled,
en a particular system mal-
s a technician can simply re-
 defective component and re-
Helicopter maintenance, how-
quires long hours of manual
industry officials said.

while, the exodus of foreigners
continues with the United
leading the pace at an esti-

# Kissinger Says Weak CIA
Led to Shah's Departure

LONDON, Feb. 8 — Former
secretary of state Henry A. Kiss-
inger has attributed the shah's
loss of power in Iran in part to
the "emasculation" of the Central
Intelligence Agency.

Had the agency been spared
press and congressional inquiry
and new restrictions, the shah's op-
ponents might not have dared to
revolt, he said.

"Destroying the mystique of the
CIA is in itself a psychological
handicap," said Kissinger in an
interview with The Economist.

Twenty-five years ago, the CIA
helped overthrow a government
in Tehran that had ousted the
shah and thereby aided his return
to power.

Kissinger contended that the
oil states along the Persian Gulf

may now doubt U.S. support and
seek reassurance in Moscow or
Baghdad.

Reiterating a point made in an
earlier interview, Kissinger argued
that the Carter administration
contributed to the Iranian "revo-
lution" by calling for the shah to
act on human rights at a time
when he was "under duress."

"A sophisticated human rights
policy" is useful in deflating op-
position before a crisis, he said,
but "in dealing with revolutionary
situations, it can be inflamma-
tory."

Kissinger did not mention the
Carter administration by name,
speaking only of "American" poli-
cies, but his remarks are clear
enough to provide fellow Republi-
cans and other administration foes
with the intellectual framework
to ask, "Who lost Iran?"

mated 400 evacuees daily. The U.S.
Air Force's military airlift command
has been flying out expatriates in four
C141 transport planes.

U.S. officials said about 7,000 Amer-
icans remain in Iran, most of them de-
fense contract personnel, out of about
45,000 here before Iran's political tur-
moil began slightly more than a year
ago.

Sporadic operations at Tehran's
Mehrabad International Airport have
slowed the evacuations. International
airlines have canceled some flights be-
cause of inadequate air traffic con-
trols.

For six weeks, air traffic controllers
have been on strike in support of the
Islamic-inspired revolution, while de-
manding that all U.S. airlines be ban-
ned from the airport.

As a result, Mehrabad Airport's
ground guidance equipment has shut
down and Iranian Air Force techni-
cians manning the control tower sim-
ply give clearance to land visually.
Witnesses have described several near
misses during landings in cloudy
weather and commercial pilots have
described landing at Tehran as "ter-
rifying."

WASHINGTON STORES WILL OPEN
TODAY AT 10 AM

> A couple welded by devotion and power

They said it would never last. Now, after four years together, Barbra Streisand, 36, and producer Jon Peters, 33, are one of Hollywood's durable duos. The snickers are long past, replaced by an awe of the power they wield in West Coast show business. Ex-hairstylist Peters is refreshingly candid. "I didn't fall in love with Barbra independent of her star trip," he says. "I was fascinated by her and by Hollywood." Visitors to their Malibu ranch and beach house comment —sometimes with surprise—that they seem devoted and supportive. The day Barbara Walters filmed her celebrated interview of the couple, she recalls, "Barbra's dog had run away and she was brokenhearted. He was very sweet and understanding." On weekends they romp with his son, Christopher, 10, and hers, Jason, 12. For kicks they dine at Orsini's in Malibu or fly to France —as they did after wrapping their latest film, *The Main Event*, recently. Jon doesn't bring Barbra flowers anymore —he built her a bathroom with his own two hands. ☐

## ✓ Nancy made Henry play the waiting game

Henry Kissinger proposed to Nancy Maginnes one week after they met in 1964. "She turned me down," he recalls. "Everybody saw me with actresses. They thought I was a real

heel when I had this great girl waiting for me. I regret to say that I was doing the waiting." Now, says friend Susan Brinkley, David's wife, "Their marriage is really a great love affair." Henry sends Nancy frivolous gifts —flowers and candy—and she responds with sensible ones—sweaters and cuff links. He worries about her chain-smoking, she monitors his weight. Says Nancy, 44, "He's up early in the morning talking and bouncing around. I can sleep through anything." He says, "I usually get out of the room as fast as I can." Though they entertain often, they also dine alone at New York's La Côte Basque. Both are passionate about theater, ballet, foreign

affairs (he jokingly calls her a "wild-eyed reactionary") and their yellow Labrador, Tyler. He says of Nancy, "She has much better judgment than I about people." She says Henry has "taught me not to make brash statements without thinking them through." Last week they flew off to Acapulco, where he'll finish his book. "There's deep respect there," says pal Marion Javits, "a little bit of tease, and a little bit of flirt." Says Henry, 55: "We're very close—I don't know if that's romantic or not." ☐

ROBIN PLATZER/IMAGES

> Mickey Rooney: If at 7th you don't succeed...

"I'm really sick of Mickey Rooney getting married," grumbled Mickey Rooney three years ago, denying reports that he and singer-composer Jan Chamberlin were about to tie the knot. Then last July never-say-die romantic Rooney, 58, did it the eighth time after five years of courtship. Jan, 40, says she was "scared" because of an earlier failed marriage. "I don't know why I finally said yes," she puzzles. On their wedding day "Mickey and all his friends took off for the church without leaving me a car." Jan got to the church on time in her son's VW but forgot the marriage license. "He thought I'd chickened out," she says, "and I thought he had." Things are calmer now. He calls her "Bunky," she calls him "Micker," and they enjoy taking bubble baths together when he's around, which isn't often. Now on location in New Orleans, Mickey expects to be home by—natch —Valentine's Day. ☐

CONTINUED

ROBIN PLATZER/IMAGES

UP FRONT

## ARBITRARY BUT ENDEARING, HERE ARE NOMINATIONS FOR THE TOP 10 ROMANCES OF THE DAY

Since last Valentine's Day, romance has beaten down Patty Hearst's prison walls, turned Liz Taylor into a Senate wife, made "an item" of Marshal Tito and generally provided more global surprises than mere reason could plot.

When PEOPLE decided to select the world's greatest romances, hundreds of couples sprang to mind. Trimming the list was sweet agony. Here are 10 happy and very different love stories, plus one with a fateful twist.

HELAINE WESSER

### <A marriage and a career out of bodies beautiful

Frank Zane (successor to Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Olympia) courted Christine Harris (Miss Universe Bikini) while popping multivitamins, wearing iron boots "to build up my legs" and cables "to build up my chest." She accepted his muscle-building life-style 11 years ago and they have parlayed it into a six-figure income, a house in Palm Springs and a condo on the beach at Santa Monica. Christine, 30, says, "Every morning he still makes a big protein breakfast for me." Then they meditate. Frank, 36, is a Buddhist, and he calls her "a Zen Baptist." They work out at separate gyms and return at lunch to jog a mile or two together. In the afternoons they tend a thriving mail-order business in how-to manuals. Neither wants kids. "We aren't going to have children just to see what they'd look like," Christine says. "That would be stupid." ☐

### ^An ardent Warren pursues the shy Diane

For two of the hottest properties in films, Warren Beatty, 41, and Diane Keaton, 33, are a neurotically private couple who have spent most of the last 10 months winging between his Beverly Hills mansion and her two-bedroom flat in Manhattan, trailing clouds of rumors in their wake. Among them: that the two would marry over the holidays. It didn't happen. "She's actually as smart as he is, which I think must be driving him bananas," says a friend. For the moment, Keaton is faithful to her New York schedule—an analyst, gym, singing and acting lessons. They walk hand in hand through Central Park, share platters of linguine at Balato's and seldom show up anyplace fashionable. "I've never seen him happier," says Beatty's flack. Says Diane's Grandmother Hall: "I'd like her to have a husband like Warren Beatty." Hush, Grammy. ☐

MARK SENNET/CAMERA'S

CONTINUED

27

THE WASHINGTON POST

Friday, February 9, 1979

A 19

ing Key Employes From Iran

By William Claiborne

TAN, Feb. 8 — Bell Helicopter
tional, which literally keeps
nian army flying has begun
ing even its "essential" em-
from Iran and soon will be re-
po a token operation here.

result, much of the armed
leet of nearly 1,000 combat hel-
will eventually be all but
ed for a lack of maintenance
ot training, according to U.S.

ne, military sources said, the
ness of Iran's airborne infan-
tertain to suffer as increased
s of aircraft sit in hangers
maintenance.

ll be a cumulative problem.
abilities are bound to suf-
d a U.S. source close to the
military.

which in October had 14,000
es in Iran, had handled nearly
tenance and pilot training for
lian armed services. Similarly,
smaller scale, Grumman Ae-
Corp. has serviced the F14
it sold to Iran.

acts with both firms are to be
lated following the Iranian
ent's decision to slash de-
als with the United States by
10 billion and drastically re-
the number of defense con-
nel in Iran. Bell, with about
ployes left here, plans to
force of only about 500 techni-
d pilot trainers, at Iran's re-

opters require even more
ance manpower than the most
rated jet fighters. Newer jet
are component assembled,
en a particular system mal-
s a technician can simply re-
 defective component and re-
Helicopter maintenance, how-
quires long hours of manual
industry officials said.

Kissinger Cites Revolt Risk
In Stressing Human Rights

NEW YORK, Feb. 4 (UPI) — Former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger said in an interview made public today that making human rights a vocal objective of U.S. foreign policy risks encouraging revolutions in friendly countries, and cited Iran as an example.

The interview was contained in the Trilateral Commission's private publication, Trialogue, which also published an essay on human rights by Soviet dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov that had been confiscated by the Soviet secret police in a search of Sakharov's flat in late November.

In the essay, which made its way to the West, the Nobel Peace Prize winner differs somewhat with Kissinger on U.S. advocacy of human rights, saying, "The Carter policy responds to the demands of our times and it is very important that it receive even broader support."

In the Trialogue interview in November, Kissinger reiterated his criticism of Carter's human rights policy. He insisted on quiet diplomacy to further the human rights struggle in what was an implied criticism of the Carter administration.

Speaking in the context of East-West trade, he said: "I would not have recommended that rights be made so vocal an objective of foreign policy. I think we achieve more by making it a nonvocal objective than those who speak so much about it."

Of loud support for human rights, he said:

"It has some merit for the United States to stand for its principles; the

United States should do so — and indeed, we tried to do this also in the administrations with which I was associated.

"However, I think that making this a vocal objective of our foreign policy involves great dangers: you run the risk of either showing your impotence or producing revolutions in friendly countries or both."

"...Current developments in Iran are one of the results of such a vocal policy."

FEBRUARY 1, 1985

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Norman Podhoretz
Makes It
To 25-Year Mark

This week at the Rainbow Grill, with its memorable 65th-floor view of Manhattan, the publication committee of Commentary magazine gave a concert and dinner to celebrate Norman Podhoretz's 25th year as editor of the influential publication. The date also happens to be the 20th anniversary of the year Mr. Podhoretz began writing his book "Making It," which shocked New York intellectuals by saying that they, like other people, often run after money and success. I am a Podhoretz devotee and did not go to the anniversary party with any disposition to pan the show. Still, it was striking to see the mostly pleasing changes time had brought to him and his friends.

Two hundred fifty came to dinner, including Secretary of State George Shultz, New York Mayor Edward Koch and Henry Kissinger. The intellectual talent ran wall to wall: Robert Bork, Gerson Cohen, Sidney Hook, Hilton Kramer, Walter Laqueur, Bernard Lewis, Robert Nisbet and the evening's toastmaster, Irving Kristol.

The political range of the people in attendance was broad and novel—from long-time social democrats Sidney Hook and Bayard Rustin to equally longtime conservative activists Edwin Feulner and Frank

Capital Chronicle

by Suzanne Garment

Shakespeare. Yet from the minute you walked through the door and hit the noise of voracious conversation, you could tell that this was a family celebration.

Friends used to seeing one another day after unkempt day offered mutual congratulations on how good they looked when cleaned up a little. This one appeared better than ever; that one had suddenly aged. A child unborn at last conversation was now three years old; a little girl once eight was a teen-ager, sitter to newer neoconservative babies.

They sounded as if under explicit instruction to act like their quintessential selves. My friend Dorothy Rabinowitz, a columnist herself, reported on this scene she had just witnessed: Time Editor in Chief Henry Grunwald, fresh from the mixed verdict in the Sharon libel case, was approached by an Israeli guest who introduced himself by saying, "My condolences on your victory."

Mr. Kissinger, remembering Mr. Podhoretz's criticisms of detente, began his toast, "Had Custer survived Little Big Horn and subsequently been invited to a reunion of the Indians, he would no doubt have felt as I do tonight."

Art critic Hilton Kramer eruditely cited author William Dean Howells: "'Making enemies is easy. It is keeping them that is difficult.' Norman has triumphantly overcome this obstacle as he has so many others."

And George Shultz, after asserting that Commentary's ideas had helped renew the country after Vietnam, sighed about Mr. Podhoretz's recent article on the Geneva arms talks: "Without his trenchant criticism, I was in danger of thinking them successful."

A good part of the talk was more serious. Mr. Podhoretz has led large changes in the ideas entertained by our intellectuals. He showed, said Mr. Kramer, that culture rather than the Marxists' economics lies at the basis of our politics. He came to insist, as Mr. Hook said, that this century is the testing time for whether liberalism will be overwhelmed by totalitarians.

He predicted 10 years ago, Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan remembered in his toast, a major realignment in American politics. Israel's United Nations Ambassador Benjamin Netanyahu observed that Mr. Podhoretz drew the connection between support of Israel and the general defense of the West and influenced not only Americans but a generation of young Israelis.

The cost of this activity has been, for Mr. Podhoretz and like-minded writers, a professional life of incessant warfare—of attacks made and answered and relationships broken or betrayed. Even now that politics seem to be going their way and George Shultz comes to dinner, the assaults continue.

Yet when you viewed this dinner you saw that though many might be gone, many remained. Their connections with one another had survived their enemies' barbs and the trials of long friendship. Just as cheering, the crowd was full of the magazine's young political friends and emerging writers.

Norman Podhoretz is not one to have missed the twists of political fate shown by the occasion. He told how when he learned Mr. Shultz would be present, he asked Henry Kissinger about the protocol of dealing with a secretary of state. Mr. Kissinger answered: "How should I know? I am not secretary of state." "But you were secretary of state." "Ah, yes. But when I was secretary of state, I would never have come to a dinner in your honor."

On this evening, though, Mr. Podhoretz was more interested in less transitory political truths. Earlier in life "I was educated to believe," he said, "that 'one's own' is the last thing one should be defending. But I learned that to stand up for one's own—in my case the Jewish and the American traditions—is the greater and indeed the indispensable part of virtue."

Having gone through this transition, he had subsequently "stayed the course" in opposing the threat to these traditions from Soviet totalitarianism, and "I hope I will experience no more fundamental changes. For one thing, I am tired. For another, as they used to say in World War II, I have 'enlisted for the duration,' and I am afraid this duration is going to last a very long time. I hope you will continue to be there."

He sounded, finally, like a man who has made it.

first time.

# Gorbachev's Plans Impress Former

By MARK A. UHLIG

Former American officials who met last week with Mikhail S. Gorbachev said yesterday that they believed that his efforts to change Soviet society would have far-reaching effects.

But they stressed that the changes might prompt a serious backlash within the Soviet leadership.

Within the Soviet bureaucracy, former Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance said, the changes "are going to raise considerable opposition, really major opposition, because they will change people's lives in a way that will jeopardize their jobs and make a great difference to them as individuals."

In their Moscow talks, the Americans said, Mr. Gorbachev and other Kremlin officials also said they were eager to move ahead with new arms control negotiations, and would consider new ways to end the impasse reached at the Reykjavik summit meeting in October.

## Serious Interest Is Seen

"The Soviets are seriously interested in reaching an arms control agreement," said former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, another member of the group, in an appearance yesterday on the NBC News program "Meet the Press."

In particular, he said, Soviet officials stated their willingness to negotiate separately on the three major control issues: intermediate weapons, offensive strategic weapons and missile defenses — although they insist that a final agreement cover all three subjects.

The former American official part of an 11-member delegation, who is being considered by the Council on Foreign Relations, a private foreign policy study group, which returned to the States over the weekend, met for hours Wednesday with Mr. Gorbachev.

They were also granted me

# Soviet Dissidents Debate Whether the Shift Is R

Continued From Page Al

agreed Sergei Grigoryants, a literary critic who was freed by Government decree on Thursday from a 10-year sentence for working on an underground human rights journal. "His opposition is our problem."

Other disaffected Soviet citizens, while applauding specific signs of change, are wary of applauding the Soviet leader himself, much less enlisting in his wide-ranging campaign for economic and social change.

"It is hard for us to imagine anyone rising so high in this system without himself being corrupt and cynical," said one Soviet Jew who has been waiting nine years for an exit visa.

Since Dr. Sakharov's own release in December from internal exile, about 50 other imprisoned dissidents are reported to have been set free, most of them by the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet on Monday.

It is the largest release since hundreds of thousands were freed after the death of Stalin in 1953, and additional releases are expected, though how many and when is not known.

The roster of those freed is a virtual catalogue of Soviet dissent. In addition to human rights crusaders and underground journalists, it includes a Hebrew teacher and members of unofficial Christian sects, the would-be organizers of an independent labor union, a handful of Ukrainian nationalists, an unorthodox Marxist or two and several members of a group that wanted to create a nuclear-free zone in the Baltic republics.

## 800 Known Cases Cited

Western human rights groups said there were about 800 known cases of prisoners confined for their political or religious beliefs, and hundreds or thousands more estimated but not known by name.

On the testimony of those just released, the dissidents left behind endure miserable conditions — cold,

inadequate diets, physical abuse and excruciating periods of isolation.

The laws most commonly used to put dissenters in labor camps — primarily the statutes governing "anti-Soviet propaganda" and "slandering the Soviet state" — remain on the books, though there has been high-level speculation that they will be tempered or even repealed.

On emigration, change has been slower. The promised reunion of divided spouses, an area touted by Soviet officials as a focal point of humanitarian change, has produced sporadic reunions, but some couples remain separated by a bureaucratic chasm.

Soviet officials said that in January, 500 Jews were told they could leave the country, compared with fewer than 1,000 in all of the previous year.

## No Big Rise in Figures Yet

But the actual emigration figures recorded by Western officials have not reflected such a large increase so far, and Jews still denied exit visas are deeply skeptical that the restrictive policies of recent years will be significantly relaxed.

In recent months the authorities have seemed more inclined to tolerate small, unofficial demonstrations and dissident news conferences. Dr. Sakharov has been invited to appear at an official forum next week, and he has accepted. But dissidents said this tolerance could be quickly revoked.

Some dissidents contend the changes are aimed at luring Westerners to take part in a major human rights conference in Moscow, an event promoted by Soviet officials but disdained by American officials and so far not scheduled.

Others suggest that the emanations of good will will evaporate once Soviet negotiators have persuaded americans to sign an arms control treaty.

Naum Meiman, whose cancer-striken wife was recently allowed to leave for medical care in the United States after years of trying, said the changes so far were more an effort to defuse dissent than encourage it.

Mikhail S. Gorbachev

"It's a more sophisticated dealing with dissidents," Mr. Meiman said today. "They're interested in image in the West."

But Dr. Sakharov, and the hopeful of Western diplomats, is a prisoner releases as part of an effort to convince the Soviet people that they can contribute their energies to economic and political system, fearing they will be sent to the gulags.

"I don't know what Gorbachev personally," Dr. Sakharov said, "but there are a number of people who understand that we are going to democratization, all of his goals and economic sphere, in the international sphere, in the international community cannot succeed."

Now
Featuring
a new class!

WALL ST.**
88 FULTON ST.
(off Gold St.)

227-7450

GRAMERCY
321 EAST 22nd ST.
(off 2nd Ave.)

673-3730

# Plans Impress Former U.S. Officials

## Serious Interest Is Seen

In particular, he said, Soviet officials stated their willingness to negotiate separately on the three major arms-control issues: intermediate-range weapons, offensive strategic weapons and missile defenses — although they insist that a final agreement must cover all three subjects.

The former American officials were part of an 11-member delegation sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, a private foreign policy study organization based in New York. The group, which returned to the United States over the weekend, met for three hours Wednesday with Mr. Gorbachev.

They were also granted meetings

with an unusual range of high Kremlin officials, including President Andrei A. Gromyko and the economist Abel G. Aganbegyan. They also met with Dr. Andrei D. Sakharov, the physicist and dissident, and several other dissidents.

## Other Members of Group

Among the other members of delegation were Harold Brown, former Secretary of Defense; Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former chief delegate to the United Nations; Peter G. Peterson, former Secretary of Commerce and chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations; Gen. David C. Jones, retired, of the Air Force, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Senator Charles McC. Mathias, a Maryland Republican.

In the discussions, which came only two weeks after Mr. Gorbachev endorsed a sweeping set of changes in the nomination and election of Communist Party officials, several American participants said they were struck by the emphasis that Soviet experts placed on the need for urgent change.

"They believe their country is in very serious trouble," said Peter Tarnoff, a former State Department official and president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "They are attempting to transform the domestic economy and society, because they believe that the society is simply not going to be able to hold together if past practices are continued."

Soviet experts, Mr. Tarnoff said, also gave new details on the direction the reforms are likely to take, stressing the need for controlled "democratization" of decision making by involving lower-level officials in economic planning.

These concepts were further elaborated yesterday in a new draft law on economic changes published in Moscow by the Communist Party newspaper Pravda.

## Shift Toward Incentives

The proposed law, while reaffirming the state plan as the country's principal economic mechanism, would give managers new discretion in reinvesting excess "profits" earned by their factories or firms, and would increase the importance of productivity in determining worker salaries.

Another key area cited by Kremlin economists, said William G. Hyland, a group member who is the editor of Foreign Affairs quarterly, was an effort to allow local producers greater flexibility in setting prices.

The extent of the planned changes, several members of the American group said, makes it likely that they will be strongly resisted by the Soviet bureaucracy. Some argued this might limit Mr. Gorbachev's discretion in foreign affairs by forcing him to stronger alliances with the military and the K.G.B., the Soviet secret police.

Kremlin officials said the plan already encountered opposition, Tarnoff said, but they argued it "not high-level ideological resistance but inertia within the bureaucracy."

# Shultz Sees

Continued From Page

Week." Reporters had been vance that Mr. Shultz would appear on the program to Administration's position on "Wars" program, officially the Strategic Defense Initiative.

On the early deployment, Shultz said, "It is not possible any such decision this year." Mr. Shultz added that berger had made the same taped interview for the British casting Corporation.

But there were imports in tone and emphasis. Mr. Shultz's remarks and Weinberger, indicating that sions persist within the Administration on arms-control issues despite efforts to present a common the public.

For example, Mr. Weinberger acknowledging in the interview decision on deploying "Starland" not imminent, did not actually a decision would not come two years, according to spokesman.

The two officials also differ on another key point. Mr. Weinberger said today that the United States have to determine that the deployment of a partial defense would be a stabilizing factor in arms balance before it de- ahead with such a deployment.

## Reagan 'Wants to Deploy'

But Mr. Weinberger suggested there was little doubt that a deploy would be made.

"I want to deploy it — I the President wants to deploy soon as we can," Mr. Wein

# Debate Whether the Shift Is Real

On emigration, change has been power. The promised reunion of provided spouses, an area touted by Soviet officials as a focal point of humanitarian change, has produced sporadic reunions, but some couples remain separated by a bureaucratic system.

Soviet officials said that in January, 100 Jews were told they could leave the country, compared with fewer than 1000 in all of the previous year.

## No Big Rise in Figures Yet

Naum Meiman, whose cancer-riken wife was recently allowed to leave for medical care in the United States after years of trying, said the changes so far were more an effort to refuse dissent than encourage it.

Associated Press

Mikhail S. Gorbachev

"It's a more sophisticated way of dealing with dissidents," Mr. Meiman said today. "They're interested in their image in the West."

But Dr. Sakharov, and the more hopeful of Western diplomats, see the prisoner releases as part of an effort to convince the Soviet people that they can contribute their energies to the economic and political system without fearing they will be sent to the gulag.

"I don't know what Gorbachev wants personally," Dr. Sakharov said today, "but there are a number of people at the top who understand that without democratization, all of his goals in the economic sphere, in the industrial sphere, 'in the international sphere, cannot succeed.'"

# Gorbachev Said to Support Talks
## Despite His Doubts About Reagan

By PHILIP TAUBMAN

Special to The New York Times

(front page)

2-7-87

MOSCOW, Feb. 6 — Mikhail S. Gorbachev told a group of former American officials this week that he wanted to press ahead with arms control talks but was uncertain whether President Reagan retained sufficient political strength to negotiate, one of the Americans said today.

The American, a senior member of the delegation, said Mr. Gorbachev and other Kremlin leaders appeared anxious to get the group's evaluation of the Iran-contra arms case and how seriously it has wounded Mr. Reagan.

"It was clear to us that a debate is going in the leadership about whether to deal with Mr. Reagan over the next two years," the former official said. "For the moment, they seem to have

decided to go ahead and not to treat him as a lame duck."

The American asked not to be identified, saying that he and the other members of the group had agreed not to discuss their visit publicly until they returned to the United States Saturday.

The visiting Americans included Henry A. Kissinger and Cyrus R. Vance, both former Secretaries of State; Harold Brown, a former Secretary of Defense; Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former chief delegate to the United Nations; Gen. David C. Jones of the Air Force, retired, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Senator Charles McC. Mathias Jr., a Maryland Republican.

The trip was organized by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

### Hint at Flexibility

The American said Mr. Gorbachev and other Soviet officials hinted at some flexibility in Moscow's opposition to the testing in space of the components of the American space-oriented missile defense system that is popularly known as "Star Wars."

Limits on "Star Wars" have been the major stumbling point in the arms talks since Mr. Reagan proposed the creation of the missile shield in 1983.

While reiterating Moscow's official negotiating position that research be limited to ground laboratories, Mr. Gorbachev and other Soviet officials said they would not oppose further discussion about what sort of testing

Continued on Page 4, Column 1

GORBACHEV IS SAID
TO SUPPORT TALKS

Continued From Page 1

would be permissible, according to the
American.

The Administration appeared to be
moving this week toward an interpre-
tation of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile
Treaty that would allow extensive test-
ing of some space-based systems and
accelerate their deployment.

Lack of Consistency Asserted

The American said the Soviet lead-
ers viewed these moves as the latest
developments in a struggle over arms
control policy among different factions
in the Administration.

"We repeatedly heard complaints about the lack of a consistent American position," the former Government official said. "Gorbachev told us they were at sea trying to figure out what Washington wants."

The American said the visitors, with-
out exception, were impressed by Mr.
Gorbachev's intellect and leadership
style and had concluded that he was
genuinely interested in modifying the
Soviet system.

The group met with Mr. Gorbachev
in the Kremlin for three hours on
Wednesday. The visitors also saw Alek-
sandr N. Yakovlev, a nonvoting mem-
ber of the Politburo and the Kremlin's
chief of propaganda; Anatoly F. Do-
brynin, a Central Committee secretary
who is the Communist Party's senior
foreign policy adviser, and a number of
other senior officials.

Impressions of Gorbachev

"We were all very impressed by Gor-
bachev as an individual, by his intelli-
gence, vitality and obvious leadership
qualities," the American said. "Many
of us have dealt with a number of world
leaders and I think we all found him ex-
ceptional."

The group will return home con-
vinced that the United States should

Tass via Reuters

Former Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance, left, with Andrei A. Gromyko, the Soviet President, at the Kremlin. Man at center was unidentified.

give Mr. Gorbachev an opportunity to
carry on the changes he has started,
the former official said.

"There's a new wind blowing," the American said. "We don't know where it's going to direct the Soviet Union, but we ought to look at this as an opportunity to find a way to make the relationship more stable."

The visitor said Mr. Gorbachev
made it clear that he felt that the Soviet
Union was unnecessarily rigid.

But Mr. Gorbachev left no doubt, ac-
cording to the visitor, that he was "a
very dedicated Communist who be-
lieves that the system, while imperfect,
is viable."

Other members of the delegation in-
cluded Peter Peterson, the chairman of
the Council on Foreign Relations;
Peter Tarnoff, president; John Swing,
executive vice president; William G.
Hyland, editor of Foreign Affairs, the
council's quarterly publication, and Mi-

chael Mandelbaum, a fellow at the
council.

Praise From Kirkpatrick

GENEVA, Feb. 6 (AP) — Dr. Kirk-
patrick, arriving here today from Mos-
cow, praised "new thinking" by Soviet
officials but said it did not extend to Af-
ghanistan or arms control.

"The leaders of the Soviet Union, in-
cluding Mikhail Gorbachev, attach a
great deal of importance at this stage
to what they are calling in English 'the
new thinking,'" she said. "The spe-
cifics of change are less clear at this
point than what is apparently a will to
new approaches."

Asked her impression of Mr. Gorba-
chev, she said she found him impres-
sive, intelligent and charming. But "I
think he misunderstands, in a stereo-
typical way, the role of American pri-
vate industry in foreign policy" and
"the importance to us of human,
rights," she added.

THE NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1987

E

23

Gorbachev as Peter the Great

By Kurt M. Campbell

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.

What is Mikhail S. Gorbachev up to, and why is he inviting all those interesting people to Moscow? Much like Czar Peter the Great, Mr. Gorbachev is summoning Western intellectuals to his Kremlin court. Peter brought scores of European artisans, sages and shipbuilders to Russia in the late 1600's as part of a quest to "civilize" his backward land. Mr. Gorbachev, too, has invited an eclectic collection of artists, writers, scientists and futurists to hear their views across a wide range of subjects, from strategic defense to spiritual malaise.

Yet while the ruling Romanovs were genuinely attracted to Western ideas and customs, as a group Soviet leaders before General Secretary Gorbachev have been deeply xeno-phobic and suspicious of foreign influences. Mr. Gorbachev has chosen to break with this clandestine tradition, leaving himself considerable time in recent months for discussions with a diverse group of visitors, including Alvin Toffler, James Baldwin, Gary Hart and Peter Ustinov.

To top it off, the Soviet Union has invited several hundred prominent Americans from academia, business, politics and entertainment to attend a high-visibility conference in Moscow from Feb. 14 through 16. The Council on Foreign Relations has sent a group of former statesmen, including Henry A. Kissinger and Cyrus R. Vance, to engage Mr. Gorbachev on issues of arms control. However, the guest list also includes unlikely participants such as the rock singer John Denver. (During Mr. Denver's last visit to the

Soviet Union, an overzealous Russian interpreter translated his song "Rocky Mountain High" as "Drunk in the Mountains.")

Since there is virtually no precedent in the Communist world for this sort of cultivation of the Western intelligentsia, what accounts for Mr. Gorbachev's opening toward Western elites?

Before the bloom went off the flower of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro entertained poets and revolutionary pirates from throughout Latin America (he met the writer Gabriel García Márquez during this period and reportedly struck up a friendship by swapping fish recipes). However, as Cuba slipped further into the Soviet orbit, Mr. Castro lost his tolerance for debate with foreign bourgeois elites. Perhaps the only modern equivalent of Mr. Gorbachev's meeting with highbrow intermediators was President John F. Kennedy's desire to surround himself with intellectuals, both socially and in Government.

There are several possible motives at work. First, Mr. Gorbachev may well have given up on the idea of conducting diplomacy through official channels because of an "anti-Soviet clique" in the United States Govern-

> The motives deserve praise, but make no mistake: propaganda is one of them.

Kurt M. Campbell is a fellow at the Center for Science and International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

> Like the Czar, he has summoned Western intellectuals to 'court' at the Kremlin.

ment, fastening instead on the idea of establishing alternative lines of communication to the White House through respected and renowned intermediaries. Mr. Gorbachev's current strategy of fostering high-level, unofficial contacts with Westerners complements the longstanding Soviet campaign to reach American grassroots organizations.

There is obviously, too, an element of old-fashioned public relations in all this, arising perhaps from the hope that a steady stream of visitors will give legitimacy to a historically insecure Soviet leadership. Indeed, the willingness to grant important foreign visitors an audience with Mr. Gorbachev appears to have at least reinforced Western impressions of Mr. Gorbachev as a forceful and dynamic leader. Mr. Toffler remarked after his meeting with the Soviet leader: "Gorbachev was witty, amiable, quick, at home with intellectual thrust and parry. Behind his charm stood an impressive, vital figure, accustomed to command." Like Mr. Kennedy's ruminations with intellectuals over cups of clam chowder at Cape Cod, Mr. Gorbachev's musings with Western elites (replete with the bowls of beetroot borscht) have won him admiring and sympathetic reviews.

Furthermore, in his zeal to revitalize Soviet society, Mr. Gorbachev has looked to the West for new ideas and inspiration. He has demonstrated a certain impatience and dissatisfaction with the advice he has received from underlings. Indeed, many bureaucrats laboring within the Stalinist state machinery have failed to meet Mr. Gorbachev's urgent demands for "new thinking." It is hoped that Mr. Gorbachev's brainstorming with the West's best minds will help to percolate creative new ideas from the top of the bureaucracy downward. For instance, senior Soviet planners recently met with the American designers of a popular motivation seminar. The Russians are apparently intent on applying these same techniques to boost worker productivity in their inefficient factories.

Yet while some of Mr. Gorbachev's motives are commendable and worthy of encouragement, there is an unmistakable undercurrent of propaganda to this courtship of foreign intellectuals. The Soviet Union has no doubt designed the upcoming conference involving several hundred American visitors to highlight the wonders of "glasnost" — openness — hoping in part to make some inroads into American public opinion. In this regard, we in the West should strive to keep Mr. Gorbachev's initiatives in perspective. The pilgrimage of intellectuals to the Kremlin is a new wrinkle, but it is a far cry from a whole, sale opening up of Soviet society.

The exodus by these foreign "shi-shkl" — Russian slang for "big shots" — to Moscow has yet to touch the lives of everyday Soviet citizens: Indeed, contact with foreign elites is still reserved for very senior Soviet officials.

Peter the Great's contact with foreign intellectuals helped inspire his program of social, economic and military reforms. It's much too early, to tell whether Mr. Gorbachev's fledgling contacts with elite foreigners will have an enduring impact on Soviet society at large.

JOSEPH C. HARSCH

Sizing up Moscow

THE Reagan administration took office six years ago with an underlying assumption that the Soviet Union is implacably and unchangeably hostile to the United States.

That assumption has shaped both the foreign and domestic policies of the administration.

It is the philosophical foundation for the enormous arms buildup.

It is the excuse for cutting back on welfare programs, on the theory that guns against the Soviets are more important than butter for the poor at home.

It is a major cause of the budget deficit, which is by
now a dangerous burden on the American economy.

Ronald Reagan has two years of his presidency left. Is he going to continue during those two years to operate on the basis of that same assumption about the implacable hostility of the Soviet Union?

Or is he going to assume that the coming of Mikhail
Gorbachev has made a fundamental difference in
Moscow in priorities and purposes?

That question lies behind an extraordinary deputa-
tion to Moscow which spent three hours with Mr.
Gorbachev there last Wednesday.

The American group was headed by Henry Kissinger, who ran American foreign policy for Presidents Nixon and Ford, and by Cyrus Vance, who did the same for most of the Carter presidency. It included Jeane Kirkpatrick, who is the most prominent member of the neoconservative faction of ex-Democrats-turned-Republican who are fiercely loyal to the "implacable hostility" doctrine. It included Gen. David Jones, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, widely respected in military quarters; Harold Brown, who was secretary of defense in the Carter term; and Peter Peterson, secretary of commerce in the Nixon Cabinet.

There were Republicans, Democrats, one
neoconservative, and one top general. The trip was
organized by the Council on Foreign Relations, a
nonpartisan organization. It was a weighty deputa-
tion. If its members could reach collective agreement,
they could influence thinking in Washington at a
critical time.

They came back over the weekend at a moment the
White House was under pressure from Defense Secre-
tary Caspar Weinberger to commit the US to an early,
partial deployment of "star wars." That would mean
giving up any serious effort to reach an arms control
agreement with the Soviets, in other words to opt for
two more years of confrontation rather than a search
for possible accommodation.

Members of the deputation took to the airwaves
over the weekend. There will be more appearances.
There is no agreed conclusion. What they think, how-
ever, will show up in coming weeks in the budget
debate in Congress, where the outcome will be de-
cided. Congress will vote for confrontation by voting
funds for early star-wars deployment, or vote for
reaching for accommodation by refusing the funds.

So far we know the following about the visit and its
aftermath:

Mr. Gorbachev told the Americans that Soviet-US relations are at a "crossroads." Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Vance have both since said they agree that it is a crossroads. Vance favors going ahead down the road of consultation and seeking an arms control agreement. Kissinger doubts that the arms control agreement which he thinks was sketched out at Reykjavik would be to American advantage. Ms. Kirkpatrick found Gorbachev to be impressive, intelligent, and charming; she praised him for "new thinking," but said it did not include Afghanistan or arms control.

At this writing we have yet to hear from Harold
Brown or General Jones. The net weight of the trip
will not be evident until the debate over the star-wars
budget is finished. For the moment it is simply inter-
esting that about as influential a collection of Ameri-
can foreign policy thinkers as you could easily find
have gone to Moscow to see for themselves whether
they think it is time for a new look at the new Soviet
Union and Mikhail Gorbachev.

World

SOVIET UNION

# The Call To Reform

*Gorbachev condemns past Communist Party mistakes and offers bold plans for change*

What in Lenin's name was going on in Moscow? Soviet oratory can be numbingly dull and dull, but the interminable speeches at least provided time for a good snooze. Mikhail Gorbachev had hardly got going in his address to the Central Committee last week, however, when the 307 members must have realized that this was a speech they could not afford to sleep through. Though Gorbachev went on for some three hours, there was hardly a dull moment. The General Secretary of the Communist Party had a bracing message for his colleagues in the Kremlin: the Soviet socialist system is a mess and must be fixed. As if that were not bad enough, Gorbachev went on, "it is the leading bodies of the party and the state that bear the responsibility for all this."

Gorbachev was just getting wound up. In cool and firm tones, with uncommon

candor, he rattled off a long catalog of abuses of the system. He charged that:

* "Disregard for the law, report padding, bribe taking, sycophancy and the encouragement of toadyism have had a deleterious effect on the moral atmosphere of the society."

* Soviet policymaking has grown rife with "conservative sentiments, inertia, a tendency to brush aside everything that does not fit into conventional patterns, and an unwillingness to come to grips with outstanding socioeconomic problems."

* "Day-to-day practical activity [in the party and government] has been replaced with rule by decree, a show of efficiency and mountains of paperwork."

* "The growth of alcohol and drug abuse and a rise in crime have become indicators of the decline of social morality."

* "There were no firm obstacles placed in

The General Secretary at a Kremlin meeting

the path of dishonest, pushy, greedy people intent on personal gain from their party membership."

To remedy the situation, Gorbachev called on the party to approve a series of reforms that could bring about significant changes in the Soviet system. He proposed that local, republic-level and perhaps even national Communist Party officials be chosen from slates of more than one candidate and by secret ballot. He also suggested the election of factory managers by their workers. At the same time, Gorbachev made it clear that any such changes would not be permitted to interfere with strict Communist Party control, which he said will remain "unshakable." Said he: "The point at issue assuredly is not any breakup of our political system."

During his 22 months in power, Gorbachev has presented his own country and the world with a totally different view of Soviet leadership. After a string of aged and feeble General Secretaries, he has emerged as a dynamic figure who challenges both his own people and his adversaries. He has introduced a new policy of glasnost, or openness, that is changing, at least superficially, dozens of areas of Soviet life. His ultimate goal, which he spelled

The ruling Politburo is increasingly dominated by fresh faces, although a few holdovers remain

*A policy of openness and restructuring is transforming many areas of society.*

79

TIME FEBRUARY 9, 1987

World

the decrees that have been issued, they are very pale things. It is not radical reform if you look at what has happened in China or Hungary." Those two countries have adopted capitalist incentives and given farmers, workers and managers much greater freedom to run their economic lives outside the dictates of central planning.

Even if Gorbachev's reforms were more far reaching, he would face tremendous opposition from a society and a system that, despite their revolutionary rhetoric, are not accustomed to change. He clearly hopes that the cold-water approach of *glasnost*, combined with its twin, *perestroika* (restructuring of the economy), will inspire Soviet society to mend some of its less redeeming ways. But to some, the endless emphasis on problems and the seamy side of Soviet life sounds like alarming admissions of failure. "I don't like hearing about so many bad things," says a 38-year-old Moscow secretary. "We never had this when I was young."

Most ominously for Gorbachev, a growing resistance to the *glasnost* ethos exists within the Soviet Union's vast bureaucracy. Gorbachev conceded that this opposition was strong when he told a private meeting of Soviet writers last June. "Between the people who want these changes, who dream of these changes, and the leadership, there is an administrative layer: the apparatus of the ministries, the party apparatus, which does not want alterations and does not want to be deprived of certain rights connected with privileges."

It was precisely this group that ultimately defeated past attempts at reform, most recently those of Nikita Khrushchev

and former Premier Alexei Kosygin. Today many top bureaucratic posts are still held by people who were appointed in the Brezhnev era. Often they simply do not want change and are in a position to block Gorbachev's reforms. In a speech last July in Vladivostok, the Soviet leader said acidly, "Those who attempt to suppress the fresh voice, the just voice, according to old standards and attitudes, need to get out of the way."

Many Kremlinologists question whether Gorbachev will be able to win over the bureaucracy. Says Jonathan Sanders, assistant director of the Harriman Institute for Russian Studies at Columbia University: "Glasnost is a lever to break up the static formations of the entrenched interests and corrupt groups that have been so powerful. But the implementation of these policies is hindered because [Gorbachev] has not had time to develop the support among mid- and lower-level officials. It's a huge machine, and it's very hard to get a handle on it." Jeremy Azrael of the Rand Corp., a West Coast think tank, says that regional party bosses have become "federal barons" and that Gorbachev has to gain control over them before he can be master of the national party.

Beyond all the talk of *glasnost*, Gorbachev's ambitious objective is to get average Soviet citizens to support reform. He said last week that "democratization" means drawing "into the reorganization its decisive force—the people." Yet those people are reluctant to join a revolution that may someday be reversed by another leader. The state, for example, has been

encouraging moonlighting service operations to register as part of a program to bring the underground economy into the open. But a Moscow teacher who offers tutoring lessons in her free time admits that she is not about to step forward. Says she: "What if the party line changes and goes against private enterprise? If you register, they'll have a list of 'capitalists' to arrest."

This week the largest group of U.S. foreign policy experts to visit the Soviet Union in some time will be able to form their own judgments on the changes wrought so far during the Gorbachev era. A delegation of 350 members of the Council on Foreign Relations, including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance and ex-U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, is scheduled to be in Moscow for discussions with Soviet officials and academics, and Gorbachev is expected to meet with the group.

While Gorbachev is often pictured as a man in a hurry, he gave party members plenty of time to ponder the thoughts contained in last week's speech. The Soviet leader suggested the convening of an extraordinary national party "conference" sometime in 1988. Its purpose would be to discuss organizational changes like election reforms and to review progress in the current Five-Year Plan. The conference would, in effect, be an extraordinary session of the quinquennial Soviet Party Congress, the most recent of which occurred last year. Such special meetings have been held before, but they are by no means regular events. The last one was called by Stalin in 1941.
—By William R. Doerner

Reported by James O. Jackson/Moscow and Strabe Talbott/Washington

A rolling mill at the Novolipetsk iron and steel plant

ROD FARB

A saleswoman displays her vegetables in Moscow

ROD FARB

# Shultz Accepts Broad
View of ABM Treaty

## *But Hill, Allies to Be Consulted on SDI Tests*

2-9-87 (front page)

By Dusko Doder
and R. Jeffrey Smith

Washington Post Staff Writers

Secretary of State George P. Shultz indicated yesterday that he now accepts the need to follow a more permissive interpretation of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile (ABM) treaty to test key elements of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

But Shultz, speaking on ABC's "This Week With David Brinkley," added that the administration would not formally make such a decision before consulting with Congress and U.S. allies.

SDI research has yielded considerable progress, he said, even under the "restrictive" or narrow interpretation of the ABM treaty that successive U.S. administrations embraced from 1972 until 1985, when

the Reagan White House first questioned it.

"But it is clear enough now, given the progress that has been made, that you'd be able to pursue the program much more effectively—and perhaps only—if a different pattern of testing is permitted," Shultz said, in a statement that aides said was worked out in a Friday meeting with Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger. The phrase "a different pattern of testing" appeared to mean a pattern of tests not permitted under the previous, restrictive interpretation of the ABM treaty.

That pact barred the superpowers from deploying mobile antibal listic missile systems on land, sea or in space. The administration has claimed that ambiguities in the negotiating record leave room for testing and development of such

See SHULTZ, A17, Col. 1

Shultz Accepts Broad Pact View

SHULTZ, From A1

systems if they are based on exotic technologies not known in 1972, when the treaty was negotiated.

Last Tuesday, Weinberger urged President Reagan to abandon a decision made in 1985 on political grounds to follow the traditional or "narrow" interpretation of the treaty, despite a previous decision that a "broad" interpretation of the treaty was legally correct.

Senior U.S. officials reported that Reagan was sympathetic to the recommendation during the meeting, and Shultz did not directly challenge it. Since then, however, each of the major U.S. allies has registered concern about the idea and protests have been made on Capitol Hill, most forcefully by Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senior U.S. officials said this led to a discussion between Shultz and Reagan Friday about the need for formal consultations, and to Shultz's public commitment to have them yesterday.

In the interview, Shultz repeated earlier statements that this administration is unlikely, in its last two years in office, to decide to deploy a partial missile defense. Saying that he was speaking for both Reagan and Weinberger, Shultz said "it is not possible to make any such decision this year or next year."

Quoting from a British Broadcasting Corp. interview with Weinberger that was recorded Friday and aired yesterday, Shultz said Weinberger had declined to say "when that [decision] may be possible."

Shultz indicated he agreed with Weinberger that continued adherence to the "narrow" treaty interpretation would unduly hamper the SDI research program.

"You are much surer of your ground if you can test something directly, and then no doubt there are things that you could not test adequately under the narrow definition [and] which are very desirable to test," Shultz said, echoing the argument Weinberger made at the White House Tuesday.

State Department officials said earlier this week the agency had made no formal study of Weinberger's claim because the Pentagon never offered any detailed supporting evidence. "As of last summer, the SDI office was assuring everyone that it could meet the requirements of the program under the 'narrow' interpretation," one official said this weekend. "We have seen no contrary evidence since then."

But several other officials said Shultz nonetheless seemed to have struck an informal bargain with Weinberger in which speculation about "near-term" missile defense deployments is played down, and formal consultations are begun with

opponents of the permissive treaty interpretation.

At the same time, both Shultz and Weinberger will publicly defend the permissive interpretation and its usefulness in clearing the way for highly realistic tests of SDI technology, the officials said.

Some arms control proponents say a decision to adopt the broad interpretation of the treaty could end any hope of an early agreement with the Soviets to reduce nuclear arms. Nunn wrote Reagan Friday that adopting the new interpretation could mean "the end of arms control under your administration."

On the Brinkley program yesterday Nunn introduced a new wrinkle to the discussion over what the ABM treaty may permit in the way of testing. He said a "strong case" can be made that the technology the Reagan administration now thinks will be ready first for development and deployment to block incoming missiles—so-called kinetic kill vehicles—cannot be tested under any interpretation of the treaty because it was known in 1972, and thus fully banned by the pact.

On NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday, two former secretaries of state who visited Moscow last week said that Soviet-American relations "are at a crossroads" because of new Soviet policies and the long-standing dispute over SDI.

Cyrus R. Vance, who was secretary of state in the Carter administration, asserted that the administration should negotiate with the Soviets as to what sort of "research and testing should be possible under the ABM treaty."

Henry A. Kissinger, who held the post in the Nixon and Ford administrations, said a reinterpretation of the ABM treaty "should not be done on an ad-hoc basis" but that the administration should first define political and strategic consequences.

Kissinger and Vance appeared jointly on the program. Both said they left Moscow with the impression that the Russians were prepared to deal with Reagan on arms control and said they found "striking changes" in Moscow under the new leader, Mikhail Gorbachev.

"Gorbachev is a totally new Soviet leader in my experience," Kissinger said. He was particularly impressed by Gorbachev's "recognition of the domestic problems of the Soviet Union that I found unprecedented." The Soviet leader, he added, was doing things that were "unusual, even revolutionary."

Vance described Gorbachev as a "vigorous, intelligent, strong leader who has laid out quite clearly where his country should go." But, he added, "it will be very hard to implement the program they have set out for themselves."

Staff writer Don Oberdorfer contributed to this report.

# Gorbachev
## Talks With
### U.S. Group

SOVIET, From A25

another point reached in approaching the problems of disarmament."

Gorbachev also emphasized a familiar theme—that Soviet foreign policy is not threatening to U.S. interests.

"There is no alternative to coexistence," Gorbachev told the American group. "This is not the question of whether we like each other or not. This is something outside politics."

"America will be such as is liked by the Americans," he continued. "But the Soviet Union, too, will not build its society by following recipes from the outside."

The ongoing Soviet economic and political reforms do not "run counter to the interests of other nations," Gorbachev said.

The group of Americans, members of the private Council on Foreign Relations, arrived in Moscow Sunday at the invitation of the Soviet Institute for the Study of the U.S.A. and Canada.

Among the other Americans were former secretary of state Cyprus Vance, former commerce secretary Peter Peterson, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff David Jones, former defense secretary Harold Brown and former U.N. ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.

The group is to depart Saturday.

# U.S. Bases Plan
## Rejected by Spain

SPAIN, From A25

the United States had made a proposal at all, but he added: "It is far from Spain's position."

Specifics of the proposal were not revealed but they are understood to consist of a timetable for the withdrawal of the 4,500 U.S. military personnel and 79 F16 jet fighters from the Torrejon air base, which is 13 miles east of Madrid.

At a briefing, a Spanish official said the U.S. offer did not include "indispensable components" of the Spanish position.

The impasse is said to center-on U.S. fears that a rapid withdrawal from Torrejon would endanger western security. Bartholomew said in his statement that the proposal responded to "the interests and the security" of both parties.

A major stumbling block is Spain's loose link with NATO. Under the terms of a national referendum last year, the government is committed to remain outside the alliance's military command and to negotiate a reduction of U.S. troop levels.

Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez is anxious to have the United States out of Torrejon, which is a focal point

# Woolwort
## VALUES, OUR TRADITION

### HAIR CARE

### SPECIAL

$2 each

Save 99¢-1.19 reg. 2.5

* Blue Dutchess Supreme Gel Sheen Spray. Creamy Curl Vator or Instant Moisturizer.

* Long Aid Curl Activator regular or extra dry. 10.5-oz. 20-oz. bottle or 20-oz. regular or extra dry. 10.5-oz. 20-oz. bottle or 20-oz. regular or extra dry.

* Blue Dutchess Supreme Gel Activator, 16-oz. bottle or 20-oz. regular or extra dry. 10.5-oz. 20-oz. bottle or 20-oz. regular or extra dry.

* Sta Sof Fro Oil Sheen, regular or x-dry. 8-oz. plus 2-oz. bottle or x-dry. 8-oz. plus 2-oz. bottle.

* Sta Sof Fro Gel Activator 6-6-oz. free plus 2-oz. free x-dry. 6-6-oz. free plus 2-oz. free x-dry. 6-6-oz. free plus 2-oz. free x-dry. 6-6-oz. free plus 2-oz. free x-dry.

* Dark & Lovely Hair Color 4-1-oz. 4-1-oz. 4-1-oz. 4-1-oz.

* Care Free Curl Snap Back 4-1-oz. 4-1-oz.

$3 Each

Save 69%-2.99

reg. 3.69-5.99

* Sta Sof Fro Curl Activator & Curl Moisturizer 8-oz. plus 8-oz. Bonus Pack

* World of Curls Activator, regular or x-dry. 10.2-oz.

* World of Curls Comb Out, regular 16-oz. x-dry. 10.2-oz.

* Lekair Super Gro Hair Care Kit

* Perm Repair Value Pkg.

* Blue Dutchess Supreme Gel Activator, 32-oz. reg. or x-dry or 26-oz. Bergamot.

* Ultra Sheen Conditioner & Hair Dress.

$1 each

* Blue Dutchess Lustre

* Arthur Petroleum Jelly

* Blue Dutchess Bergamot

* Lady Chatham Cocoa

$4 each

Save 99¢-1.99

* Dark and Lovely

* Dark and Lovely

* 4-lbs. Petroleum