American
Shakespeare
Theatre

STRATFORD, CONNECTICUT 06497 • (203) 378-7321

January 30, 1975

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

The American Shakespeare Theatre's production of Tennessee Williams' *Cat on a Hot Tin Roof* will open at the Kennedy Center Opera House on Wednesday evening, February 12, at seven o'clock. I am pleased to extend a cordial invitation for you to join us for the opening night performance.

The American Shakespeare Theatre enters its 21st season as a major arts institution based in Connecticut with a statewide and a national constituency. Under the artistic direction of Michael Kahn, the American Shakespeare Theatre has become one of the foremost classical repertory theatres in the country. Since the Theatre opened, well over two million playgoers have enjoyed nearly two thousand performances of Shakespearean works as well as other plays from the classical repertoire.

I hope you will be able to attend the opening night performance and share with us an extraordinarily fine evening of theatre. Would you be so kind as to notify Miss Shirley Wilbur at (203) 378-7321 whether you plan to attend.

The American Shakespeare Festival Theatre and Academy of Connecticut was chartered as a non-profit educational institution by Special Act No. 227 of the General Assembly.

ALL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE

THE SUNDAY TIMES
OF LONDON

814 NATL. PRESS BLDG. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004

Cable Address: THOMSONNEWS, WASHINGTON Telephone: 628-4310

HENRY BRANDON
ASSOCIATE EDITOR AND
WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

29 August 1973.

Dear Henry,

Here are two reviews that have reached me so far.
Frank Giles had the preposterous idea of having Ronald
Dworkin review my book for the ST ( you have probably seen it
in the copy I sent you ) knowing that he was a McGovern
delegate to the Democratic Convention in Miami !

At any rate, it was very helpful to have your
new appointment coincide with the publication of my book
in London.

Good luck!

New Statesman 24 August 1973

241

they destroy 90,000 acres. They're madmen! What do they know about food, the politicians? They eat out in restaurants. If they went into a shop with a fiver, do they know how much it would buy? We've got a dictatorship, haven't we? Heath's a dictator. He plays the organ in the choir and waves his baton but he should practise what he preaches. Little Hitler!

The waste of fuel encouraged by projects like Maplin, has stampeded governments into a reckless search for more petroleum which in turn means producing less food. This tendency can be seen in the north of Scotland where agricultural land is now being sold off in quantities to the 'oil-related' servicing and construction companies. A farmer, Douglas Scott, who has the misfortune to live near a construction site at Nigg, on the Cromarty Firth, told me this year: 'We're being pushed out. You can't take animals on the road these days for fear of their getting killed by the traffic. We've had offers to buy our land and this time, if they make an offer again, I'll get on my horse and go.' His friend and neighbour Hunter Gordon sold his farm early this year to the Cromarty Firth Development Corporation. 'I suppose I'm well off now,' he told me later, 'but I still want to be a farmer. When those two young men arrived from the Cromarty Firth Development Corporation, I told them straight out: "I wish I'd never seen or heard of you".' The oil-related industry seems certain to swallow up most of the Buchan coast, which has the best agricultural land in Scotland.

The Highlands in-shore fishing is even more menaced by oil-related industry. Indeed the history of these fishermen illustrates the baleful effect of capitalism upon this beautiful part of the world. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the Highland glens were cleared by their owners to make way for sheep and game. The evicted crofters either went overseas or settled upon the coast, where they had to turn to fishing for a living. Although many were drowned at first, the crofters became skilful fishermen, first of herringers and then of white fish. In the last few years parts of the Highlands, and the Shetlands in particular, have enjoyed a remarkable boom based on the sale of haddock to the United States, whose in-shore waters have long been poisoned by industrial waste. The world price of quality white fish soared once more this year when it was learned in Japan that their local waters were also poisoned. The mercury content of Japanese fish is now so high that adult men are recommended to eat no more than one fish a week, while children and pregnant women are recommended to eat no fish at all.

Fish from the still unpoisoned Scottish waters are therefore a treasured export. However, since most of the fishing towns are also suitable sites for oil-related industry, the fishermen are being squeezed out of business. The oil boats are crowding the fishing boats out of the harbours. Fish-processing factories have been sold to the oil servicing companies. Fish-processing workers have taken the bribe of lucrative, although short-lived, jobs in oil. And, thanks to industry, our waters may soon be as poisonous as those round Japan and the United States.

Christopher Hitchens

# Monday, Bloody Monday

It wasn't all that difficult to get past the press ban at the Monday Club general meeting on Monday night, though I saw the *Worker's Press* man look very askance at me as I presented my fake credentials and passed through the door. If he sees this I want him to know that I haven't gone over to the other side, and if I'd been thinking of doing so, it would have taken about 10 seconds of the meeting to make me recant.

Taking an unobtrusive seat, I fell into conversation with a textile manager from the Midlands, who seemed to believe that Enoch Powell was actually a Club member, and when I said 'Fraid he's not', rallied a little by telling me how surprised he'd been at the niceness of Colin Jordan. 'Such a *well-spoken* chap. And he's been to prison just for believing in Great Britain.' I could feel my disguise wearing thin. But the whole tone of the occasion was raised as Jonathan Guinness made his patrician entrance to a storm of boos and a few claps. Curling his lip, he opened the meeting, surrendered the chair and after promising to take note of what was said, bid the astonished company a very good night. By this time it was standing room only in the hall, and tension mounting as the faithful began to contemplate disloyalty. Just behind me I could hear the murmurings of Mr Brian Rathbone, who fought Smethwick last time and seemed to think that his predecessor, Peter Griffiths, had a stout chance of winning the new Portsmouth North seat at the next election. He was flattered that I recognised him, but fortunately the meeting was under way before he could ask where we'd met.

The motion calling on Guinness to resign was then proposed by Mr James Harkness, a lawyer with an easily ingratitating manner who soon got the meeting on his side. It was only when he'd finished his speech, which contained the memorable phrase 'At Selsgton and Singapore Mr Heath was a great Prime Minister', that the motion was read to the floor, which I thought an interesting variation on the usual procedure. A seconder (also a lawyer), was waiting in the wings and he managed a fair pastiche of his leading counsel. It was then, as they say, open to the floor. Harold Soref rose in Guinness's defence, and as the only MP at the meeting should have carried more weight than he actually did. 'When Lord Salisbury was our patron,' he cried, 'everyone deferred.' But there was precious little deference in the audience, who hooted unashamedly when he said 'revolution' instead of 'resolution'. As he sat down, one of my neighbours said: 'Jewish, of course. Sees a jackboot under every bush.'

From then on it was all straight up and down the wicket medium-pace Oxford Union dispatch-box stuff. Lawyer after lawyer rose to speak, in a ratio of about three to one against Guinness. Everyone managed to include the phrase 'our country and our nation'. And everyone got a

clap for it. The names of Enoch Powell and his chief hoplite Mrs Carthew received foot-stamping applause whenever they were mentioned. Favourite themes were the 'Left-dominated press' and the 'lack of firmness in the party leadership'. But there was a pleasing sense of ridicule as well. At least four speakers got very heated about the fact that it was now considered a joke to be in the Monday Club.

And for some reason one or two of them felt impelled to deny that they had any Marxist affiliation. I made inquiries and found that this stemmed from a wild accusation from Guinness about Trotskyite infiltration of the Club. Never can a joke by a Tory have been taken in such deadly earnest. One Brigadier Chapman had seemingly come all the way from Devon to make his rather superfluous rebuttal of this charge. The only man who might have fitted the description was the eccentric ex-Trotskyist John Fairhead, and he upset the pattern by speaking in defence of Guinness and pouring scorn on the 'wshorringers of the Member for Wolverhampton South-West'. Not all the defenders of Guinness were as fluent. One chose to answer the charge that Guinness had referred to the Monday Club as 'my club' by saying: 'Well, honestly, what man doesn't say "I'm going to my club for lunch".' Groans, some of them in a provincial accent, greeted this effort, which was from another lawyer called Morgan.

The meeting ended in bathos, with a long wrangle over whether to have a count or whether to divide on opposite sides of the hall. I resisted the temptation to vote and dived out to the pub, wondering what the shade of A. K. Chesterton would have made of it. This former disciple of Mosley, founder of the League of Empire Loyalists and moving spirit of the early National Front, died last week with few to mourn him. Probably his finest hour came at the 1958 Tory conference, when a posse of Empire Loyalist hecklers were roughly handled by stewards for daring to interrupt Macmillan. A court case followed and some sympathetic publicity was attracted. But from then on, a quiet and efficient 'black' was put on all those in the Tory Party with Empire Loyalist connections.

The Monday Club has not been so choosy about the company it keeps, and will probably never again be taken seriously as a result. The Tory Party too has been remarkably unfastidious about some of its parliamentary candidates and there will be more trouble in the future over that (keep an eye on Brent for further developments). And in the wings waits the National Front, which can afford now not to court the Monday Club as it has a thriving little side-show of its own.

All these weird elements have come a long way since 1958, but like some of their forebears they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.

242

New Statesman 24 August 1973

Simon Head

# The Super-Journalist

Amid the huge Washington press corps there is a tiny élite of what might be called 'super-journalists'. They have better access to important officials than anyone else, and because they are rich (their salaries are, by British standards, enormous) they can entertain the Henry Kissingers of the world in the style to which they have become accustomed. Over and above their power and wealth they enjoy the confidence of the powerful not so much because they always slavishly follow the current Administration line, but because they are thought to be eminently 'responsible': there is always a certain moderation in the way they criticise government policy, even on Vietnam, and they can be relied upon not to divulge information which might jeopardise 'national security'. James Reston is the doyen of the super-journalists, and one would also have to include the Alsop brothers, Joseph Kraft and Rowland Evans.

There is of course nothing particularly virtuous about being a super-journalist. Indeed the best and most admirable journalists writing in America today are those who, after living through the Vietnam nightmare, have decided that the only possible way to write sanely about the US government is to keep a certain distance from it and to avoid those cosy relationships with top officials which are absolutely de rigueur for the super-journalist. I. F. Stone has practised this method for years, as now do Tom Wicker and Anthony Lewis of the *New York Times*, and James Wechsler, the distinguished columnist of the *New York Post*. But in terms of purely worldly power and status, the super-journalists are at the top of the ladder.

Usually the British correspondent in Washington does not rise to the great heights of super-journalism. He does not stay in Washington long enough and, sad but true, he does not have the money. Yet there is one British correspondent who, much to the chagrin of some of his peers, has become a sort of honorary super-journalist. Henry Brandon has now been in Washington for nearly 25 years, which gives him a very long head start over everybody else; his weekly article in the *Sunday Times*, usually about foreign affairs, gets as near to being a column in the American style as is possible in English journalism; and he is above all impeccably 'responsible': the President and his advisers may make errors of judgment and they may be misinformed, but they are never foolish, corrupt, devious or plain evil.

Indeed this unshakable respectability gives Henry Brandon an advantage over even the super-journalists themselves; a columnist for the *Washington Post* or the *New York Times* is expected to be trenchant and opinionated; during a crisis like the Cambodian invasion he is expected to curse the President for his folly, or to praise him

for his courage and wisdom. This makes it difficult for the American super-journalist to be 'in' with everybody; liberals like Kraft and Reston will be welcomed by the Kennedys, kept at arm's length by Nixon and LBJ; vice versa for hawks like William S. White. But Henry Brandon, who chooses never to take sides in so crude and blatant a way, can be 'in' with practically everybody: 'in' with the Kennedys, John and Bobby both; on reasonable terms with LBJ (nobody who had been part of the Kennedy circle could be completely free of suspicion in LBJ's eyes) and most important, very much 'in' with Henry Kissinger during the past four years.

Indeed during the first Nixon presidency Henry Brandon achieved some sort of apotheosis. The LBJ years were bleak for a journalist whose speciality was to write about foreign policy from the inside. Vietnam was the foreign policy story which overshadowed every other and as long as the 'dope' was recounted by Walt Rostow, Dean Rusk, or LBJ himself there was a good chance that it, would later turn out to be pure fantasy and invention. But as Henry Kissinger became established in the White House, and as the 'new diplomacy' with China and the Soviet Union superseded Vietnam as the number one foreign policy story, Brandonism flourished as never before. For one thing the inside story of the Nixon-Kissinger diplomacy was a subject ideally suited to the Brandon treatment; it was for once an inside story which was quite genuinely interesting, one which Brandon could recount in great detail without worrying too much about boring his readers to death.

It was, untypically, an American foreign policy initiative which was on the whole a good thing, and in contrast to the Vietnam story, the insider could wallow in the glory of being 'inside', free of the unpleasant thought that he might be joining a bandwagon which could crash at any moment. Brandon has also benefited from being as close to Henry Kissinger as any Washington correspondent, American or foreign, has managed to get. Possibly this was because both were immigrants, Brandon from Prague, Kissinger from Southern Germany, and both seemed to share the same basic convictions about foreign policy. Brandon was also wise enough to go and talk to Kissinger while he was still a relatively obscure academic at Harvard, and this Kissinger has not forgotten.

One of the fruits of this special relationship is Henry Brandon's latest book, *The Retreat of American Power*. Predictably it suffers from certain fruits endemic to Brandonism. The passion always to demonstrate 'in-ness' sometimes get completely out of control and one must wade through passages about life in the Nixon White

*Bodley Head £3.75*

House which sink to an almost unbelievable level of banality. There is, for instance, a large chunk describing the now notorious afternoon spent with Nixon and Kissinger in the rose garden at San Clemente, which, for some inexplicable reason, the *Sunday Times* saw fit to include in its serialised excerpts from the book. Some of the prose is pure *Woman's Own*: 'We rushed through the rest of the meal and then went over to a little parking lot of electric golf carts, which seem to be the favoured means of transportation within the compound. Henry cautiously sat at the wheel and drove across toward a wide gate in a white stone wall and to the doors of the villa' - and so on. There is much more in the same vein. It is also probably inevitable that in trying to estimate the overall significance of the Nixon-Kissinger diplomacy Brandon takes on Kissinger's own version virtually in toto, and one gets very little sense of Brandon as an analyst with an independent viewpoint of his own.

But if the book is treated simply as straight narrative history, which is really what it is, then it does have real value. The fact that much of the information comes straight from Henry Kissinger himself is reason enough to take it seriously. But beyond that Brandon's descriptions of specific crises, particularly his account of the deliberations which led to the Cambodian invasion, and his account of the tortuous negotiations which preceded the SALT agreement go well beyond anything else which has so far been published, and reveal Brandon's talents as a reporter at their best.

For an example of Brandon at his most tricky, consider his reaction to Watergate. How was this perennial insider to deal with a crisis which made 'insider journalism' as dangerous and risky as it had been in the days of Rostow and the Tet Offensive, since after all no self-respecting reporter could risk being regarded as a pliant conduit for the lies and deceptions of Ron Ziegler. The simple solution was to jump off the sinking ship as discreetly as possible, and to execute a shift of journalistic 'line' with as much deftness and subtlety as a Gromyko or a Mikoyan introducing some new policy on the German question. A pure example of this singular method is afforded by comparing two articles Brandon wrote in the *Sunday Times*, the first on 1 April 1973, the second on 29 April. Both deal extensively with the same topic – the performance of the Haldeman-Ehrlichman regime – but the message of each is very different. The first is a typical example of the kind of bland, deferential 'insider' journalism with which Sunday Times readers must have become all too familiar over the years. The reassuring glimpses of what the great are really like, to which only the insider is privileged: 'Ehrlichman is more at ease with people than Haldeman, he exudes a cool charm, he smiles easily and he knows how to listen sympathetically'. The authoritative put-down of gross rumours peddled by the plebeian press: 'The occasional rumours of a rift between the two are without foundation.' And most important of all, the assurance that all is well with the system: 'The Germans (i.e. Haldeman and

New Statesman 24 August 1973

243

Ehrlichman) are a tightly knit group. Their emphasis is not on brilliance but on management, not on creativity but on stability, not on what appeals to the few but what pleases the majority. And who can blame them for a certain cockiness? After all they know what most appeals to Middle America.

What a surprise then that within a month Brandon should be mouting the sweeping criticisms of the Haldeman-Ehrlichman regime which the Left had been urging for years, that suddenly he should wish to banish these worthy burgomasters to the innermost ring of hell: '[Nixon] surrounded himself with tough-minded managers and huckster-type public relations men ... they believed in the arrogance of power rather than in its fallability ... to enable them to deploy their power at will Haldeman and Ehrlichman surrounded themselves with young men, equally cynical and unscrupulous and also without political experience ... They had little respect for the political system, for the game of politics or for politicians, they treated members of Congress and the cabinet accordingly' - and so on.

How come that these obvious truths, long self-evident to all but the most blind Nixon loyalists, had been so conspicuously absent in the article of 1 April? The answer is

painfully simple. On 1 April the Haldeman-Ehrlichman regime was still intact, a functioning 'establishment' with which the inside could still identify. True, there was the danger of McCord's impending disclosures, but it was as yet by no means clear exactly how far up the hierarchy these would penetrate. But by 29 April the system had completely disintegrated: McCord and Magruder had talked, Gray had resigned, the two Watergate factions (Mitchell and Dean versus Haldeman and Ehrlichman) were clawing each other to death, and Haldeman and Ehrlichman themselves were to resign the next day.

So what perfect symmetry between such an ebb and flow in the fortunes of the powerful and the twists and turns to be detected in the Brandon line! On 1 April Haldeman and Ehrlichman could still punish, boycott, and expel the insider who offended them, and therefore there were things which were better left unsaid. But by 29 April they were down and out and anything went. The accumulated resentments of four years could be shouted from the rooftops without fear of reprisal. No matter that the Wechslers, the Lewises and the Wickers had for years condemned the weaknesses of the regime, even when it was unfashionable to do so. They after all are not super-journalists.

where they were joined by an interpreter who rattled off a translation of the charge, the police evidence, and the magistrate's demand to know whether the plea was 'guilty'. Invariably it was - although I have strong doubts whether many of these numb and terror-stricken women were by this time 'fit to plead' in the sense of making a considered decision free from fear.

Mr Harmsworth's determination to hurt wealthy shoplifters runs contrary to the basic sentencing principle that punishment should fit the crime, and not the particular criminal's pocketbook. The Advisory Council on the Penal System recently took the view that penalties for similar offences should be tailored so as to make equal impact on offenders, so that 'the well-to-do should pay more than the less affluent'. But any support for such a sentencing policy must presuppose that its victims are given ample opportunity to prove their innocence or at least to plead any extenuating circumstances, and that full information is available to the court before it resorts to the drastic step of imprisonment. In fact, the average length of a shoplifting case last Friday was three minutes, in which time the main information about the defendant came from the police, who do not give this sort of evidence on oath and make only the most cursory inquiries.

Generally the defendant's 'wealth' is deduced from the amount of money found in her possession at the time of arrest. This is unfair to tourists, who naturally take all their money with them rather than leave it in their hotel room. A bikini-snatcher caught with £200 in her purse may appear wealthy: if the money is all she possesses to pay her hotel bill and return ticket, that appearance is deceptive. Yet the sentencing practice depends heavily on first impressions.

The current sentencing spree has been underwritten by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, which came into force last April. It revoked a 1967 reform which prevented magistrates from jailing first offenders. This retrograde step was largely forgotten in the euphoria over such 'progressive' penal alternatives as community service and the power to defer sentences which were introduced at the same time. But the new power to imprisonment can tempt magistrates away from these enlightened paths. The only check on magisterial power is the obligation to offer the defendant a lawyer before passing a prison sentence. Yet even this slim safeguard is being evaded and abused.

Last Saturday Magistrate McElligott remanded two 17-year-old French girls in Holloway for three weeks 'for probation reports', and ordered that a Lebanese mother of three remain in prison for five days merely to obtain legal advice before sentence. McElligott is thus using legislation designed to keep people out of prison to put them inside even before their sentence, on the thin pretext of probation reports (which can be obtained in a day) and legal advice (which can be given in an hour).

It is time to implement a 'duty solicitor' scheme of the kind which operates in Scottish courts and which has been effectively tested in Cardiff and Bristol. This ensures that any defendant liable to a jail sentence confers with an independent solicitor before his first appearance in court.

Geoff Robertson

## Rough Justice for Shoplifters

Perhaps it was the heat wave, or possibly a recent afternoon when no fewer than three Arabian shoplifters sheltered behind their veils of diplomatic immunity, which brought to an end what the Evening Standard ingratiatingly called Mr St John Harmsworth's 'infinite patience'. The result, so far as I could judge from a visit to Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court last Friday, was a brutal xenophobic farce. Enact it in another country, with a cast of British tourist scapegoats, and it would be decried here as an international outrage. But allow it in a British court, and no one will recognise that the sisters of Timothy Davey are alive, not very well, and living for 30 days in Holloway prison.

Consider the Marlborough Street scene on Friday morning. The prisoners' waiting room adjoining Court 2 was crowded with terrified and weeping 'visitors to Britain', aged 17 and upwards, many of whom had been detained overnight in police cells, and who now had no legal advisor, embassy official or interpreter to calm or advise them. Many turned to British prisoners for assistance, asking in broken English how they should plead and what would happen to them. One vocal inmate, on remand for a burglary he boasted would earn him three years, gave the only 'independent advice' most of these women received before their plea. The police, of course, reassured everyone that their best interests lay in pleading guilty. My informant swears to overhearing

police advise a Persian mother and her 18-year-old daughter, accused of stealing £11 worth of clothes from an Oxford Street store, that if they pleaded guilty they would merely be fined and allowed to leave. They were jailed, for 30 and 14 days respectively.

In the courtroom itself, foreigners accused of shoplifting were propelled into the dock

244

New Statesman 24 August 1973

solicitors, who are generally chosen on a rota system from private practitioners in the area, ascertain the facts of the case, advise on the plan, apply for bail and legal aid, and could specially assist foreigners by negotiating with police and court officials for early trials, and terms on which passes could be retained. The system was urgently advocated by 'Justice' in its last

annual report on the grounds that it would
'make an important contribution to the
problem of unjustified remands in custody,
which remains as acute as ever and could
prevent many unjustified pleas of guilty'.
The best solution, of course, would be a
legislative return to the pre-April situation
when magistrates were prohibited from jail-
ing first offenders.

Mary Hughes

Latin Lovers, Italian-style

If it is true that the worst enemy is a re-
jected lover, then the new strategy of the
Italian Communist Party must be giving
Leonid Brezhnev a few sleepless nights.
Russian friendship with the Americans
grows stronger day by day and the fruits
of the relationship are already visible. But
the problem remains how to explain to the
'brother parties' of the West, and above all
to the Italian Communist Party members,
that this is not the moment to rock their
boat.

To the great misfortune of the Soviet
leaders, the two major communist parties
of Western Europe, both Italian and French,
have found that this is the moment to make
the bid for power which they and Moscow
have long waited for and planned. In the
French elections last March it looked for
a moment as though the socialist-communist
front of Mitterrand and Marchais was at
last in a position to defeat the Gaullists.
From Moscow came only an embarrassing
silence. To add insult to injury, shortly
before the elections Brezhnev received the
'enemy' Pompidou, and, as if to underline
the fact that Moscow regarded the happen-
ings in France as material for future use
rather than immediate application, the
party's theoretician Suslov was sent to Paris
as an observer.

There are of course no imminent elec-
tions in Italy, and while the Italian Com-
unist Party is being more cautious than its
French comrades, the PCI is also edging
closer along the corridors of power. The
Italians have an advantage over their col-
leagues across the border. Unlike the French,
the Italians do not have to resort to open
confrontation. It is enough that they should
know how to make the most of the com-
plicated and fragile equilibrium that exists
between the parties in Italy.

The Soviets have been counselling mod-
eration and patience in the fear that a
change in the balance of power in Italy
could jeopardise almost everything it is cur-
rently working for. A Western communist
party in power, whether in France or in
Italy, would upset the status quo in an
alarming way. It is not therefore surpris-
ing that relations between the Soviet and
Italian communist parties have recently been
deteriorating fast. The secretary of the
Italian party, Enrico Berlinguer, has re-
turned from a visit to Moscow convinced
that the PCI would have to go it alone.
Since then, official delegations of Italian

communists have been circling the world. East European countries were the obvious first stopping point, but the Mediterranean area, the Arab states, Latin America and west European capitals like London, have been on their visiting list. Marchais and Mitterrand have both been in Italy, and at the end of the visits there were various communications which talked of an 'axis' between the French and the Italian Left on European policies.

In fact the PCI now has its own foreign
policy, and given the frequency of govern-
ment crises and ministerial changeovers, the
communist line has sometimes been taken
as the official Italian one by countries (such
as the Arab states) well-disposed towards
their point of view. None of this pleases
Moscow: and this time the admonishments
of Brezhnev are clearly falling on deaf
ears. Berlinguer knows that he holds all
the cards in the international propaganda
game. Intellectual, of rich and noble family,
a theoretician who has emerged from the
ranks of the party bureaucracy, Berlinguer
has patiently prepared his climb towards
the heights of national power. After the
long, prestigious and difficult reign of
Togliatti, and the boring philo-sovietism of
Longo, Berlinguer has laid new plans for
the party over the last four years - wait-
ing for the moment which has now arrived.

It is enough to look back at Italian poli-
tics over the past 10 years to understand
why the PCI has chosen this moment for
decisive action. Two failures gave the party
its chance. First, the failure of the classic
Centre-Left formula (Christian Democrats,
Socialists, Social Democrats and Republi-
cans) then, in the last year, the failure of
the only existing democratic alternative,
namely the Centre-Right (Christian Demo-
crats, Social Democrats, Republicans and
Liberals).

The 'classic' Centre-Left did not interest
the Communists, since the Socialists had
been forced to break all their ties with
the PCI in order to preserve a permanent
position in the government. The Commun-
ists were left out in the cold, in spite of their
bloc of eight million votes. The Centre-
Right option, on the contrary, played into
Belinguer's hands. Left out of the govern-
ment, the Socialists were forced to turn
back to the Communists for support on the
Left. This, they hoped, would eventually
bring about the fall of the Centre-Right and
so return them to power. Their hopes were

fulfilled — the Centre-Right fell. A 'new'
Centre-Left has been born under the leader-
ship of the Christian Democrat, Rumor.

So what is new about this Centre-Left
government? The parties are the same as
under the old formula. But this time, due
to their last year in common opposition,
the Socialists can not lock the door on
the Communists. Moreover, the prime minis-
ter, Rumor, and the secretary of the Chris-
tian Democrats, Fanfani, have their own
motives for wanting help from Berlinguer.
They need a long truce with the unions —
to a great extent controlled by the Com-
munists — in order to have time to put the
economy to rights.

But it is not just the failure of the Centre-
Right that gave Berlinguer his chance. For
several months he has been pursuing a
policy designed to allay any fears people
both inside and outside Italy may have
that the Communist Party is a threat to the
established order. Berlinguer has concentra-
ted his efforts on the two sensitive areas —
foreign policy and the Vatican — which his
opponents have always claimed disqualify
the Communists from holding political power.

The PCI's foreign policy has been toned
down radically in the past few months. Now
the party maintains that Italy must be as
much a friend of the USA as of the USSR;
it has ceased its campaign against NATO
in Europe, the party is no longer officially
opposed to the Common Market, and main-
tains instead that within it Europe must
develop a more independent and active role
of its own.

The PCI's Vatican policy has been even
more startling. Berlinguer went to Hanoi as
the papal envoy for peace; the Communists
have recently surprised everyone by com-
ning against the referendum which is de-
signed to cancel the divorce law (initially
the Vatican wanted the referendum, but as
most observers now think that the pro-
divorce forces would win, so leaving the law
as it now stands, the Vatican, and the
Christian Democrats, have changed their
tune and have decided that it would be
much safer to get the law amended in
parliament). And finally the PCI helps the
Vatican in its increasingly amicable relations
with East Europe.

In the last few weeks the tacit accord
between the PCI and the government has
stretched to surprising lengths. The Com-
munists did not vote against the recent econ-
omic measures in parliament. Instead they
abstained, but dropped heavy hints that
the government had their support. And the
unions, sensible to pressure from the Left,
have agreed, at least for the time being,
to accept the new Centre-Left's programme.

So the Communists find themselves play-
ing along with the majority, while officially
they remain in opposition. How long will
this last? Many think that a pact between
the Christian Democrats and the Commun-
ists would spell the end of the minor parties.
Will the Christian Democrats desert their
natural allies to embrace their traditional
enemies? And are the Socialists ready to
renounce the political privilege of being the
left wing of the government? The one thing
that is certain is that the PCI are ready to
join the government ranks — even if there
is still no chance of their becoming part of
the official majority.

# CIRCUS SAINTS & SINNERS CLUB

P.T. BARNUM TENT

Founder
Harold R. Robinson

Address: 910 17th Street, N.W., Suite 422, Washington, D.C. 20006 - Phone: 783-3384

STRAUSS-BUSH LUNCHEON, March 7th: **Tickets Still Available**

Seldom if ever, and probably never again, will politicians of such stature meet face-to-face and tell such truths and half-truths about each other, and each other's party.

Without the sacred robes of Congressional immunity, and stripped of all but the bare essentials, party leaders will appear in naked candidness-- a purge never before detailed this side of purgatory.

Within a few hours, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties will be roasted, singed, and undoubtedly burnt to an embarrassing red, by the sharpest wits of the opposing parties, plus Washington's own Mark Russell.

Republican Senator John Tower will point without pride to his fellow Texan and Democratic Chairman Bob Strauss in language seldom heard (nor understood) outside the borders of the Lone Star State.

Democratic Congressman Morris Udall will view from on high, and undoubtedly with alarm, the plans and pitfalls of Republican Chairman George Bush.

The likes of this confrontation probably will not be presented again this century. It will not be recorded, reported, nor exported beyond the imagination of those fortunate to be there.

Reserve your tickets NOW by phoning Frank Noonan at 948-3554, or if you have ordered and not received your tickets, call Frank at the same number. Laugh your heart out on Thursday, March 7 at the Shoreham-Americana. Our bouyant President Barnee Breeskin is looking forward to meeting you and your guests. His remarks will be revised and distended accordingly!

John P. Cosgrove
Vice President - Communications

PAST "FALL GUYS" OF THE P. T. BARNUM TENT

| # | Honoree | Date |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Secretary of the Navy Dan A. Kimball | May 26, 1952 |
| 2. | Secretary of the Army Frank Pace, Jr. | November 17, 1952 |
| 3. | Senator Joseph McCarthy | February 16, 1953 |
| 4. | Vice President Richard M. Nixon | June 4, 1953 |
| 5. | Three D. C. Commissioners: Samuel Spencer, Renah F. Camalier, Brig. General Louis W. Prentiss | October 9, 1953 |
| 6. | Attorney General Herbert Brownell | December 15, 1953 |
| 7. | Senator Wayne Morse | February 5, 1954 |
| 8. | Postmaster General Arthur E. Summerfield | April 21, 1954 |
| 9. | Secretary of the Treasury George M. Humphrey | October 18, 1954 |
| 10. | Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson | December 13, 1954 |
| 11. | Chairman, Democratic National Committee Paul Butler Chairman, Republican National Committee Leonard Hall | March 7, 1955 |
| 12. | Madame Perle Mesta | June 3, 1955 |
| 13. | Governor Christian Herter of Massachusetts Guest of Honor Rocky Marciano, World Heavyweight Champion | November 28, 1955 |
| 14. | Honorable Sherman Adams (presidential assistant) | January 23, 1956 |
| 15. | Honorable Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House | April 20, 1956 |
| 16. | George Burns & Gracie Allen (For D.C. National Convention at Shoreham Hotel) | June 2, 1956 |
| 17. | O. Roy Chalk, President of D.C. Transit | October 29, 1956 |
| 18. | General Alfred M. Gruenther | January 30, 1957 |
| 19. | Secretary of the Army Wilbur M. Brucker | March 25, 1957 |
| 20. | The Joint Chiefs of Staff: Gen. Nathan E. Twining, Adm. Arthur W. Radford, Gen. Randolph M. Pate, Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor | June 12, 1957 |
| 21. | Secretary of the Interior Fred A. Seaton | November 15, 1957 |
| 22. | Secretary of Defense Neil H. McEbroy | February 13, 1958 |
| 23. | James C. Hagerty (Press Secretary to the President) | June 12, 1958 |
| 24. | Gwen Cafritz | October 13, 1958 |
| 25. | Charles A. Halleck, House Republican Leader | February 5, 1959 |
| 26. | Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson | April 21, 1959 |
| 27. | Senator Hubert H. Humphrey | June 18, 1959 |
| 28. | Major General Wilton B. Persons (Presidential Ass't) | November 19, 1959 |
| 29. | Secretary of the Navy William B. Franke | January 19, 1960 |
| 30. | Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge (U.S. Representative to the United Nations) | April 7, 1960 |
| 31. | Secretary of Commerce Frederick E. Mueller | June 15, 1960 |
| 32. | Arlene Francis | November 3, 1960 |
| 33. | John M. Bailey, Chairman, Democratic National Committee | February 23, 1961 |
| 34. | Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman | April 12, 1961 |
| 35. | Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall | June 28, 1961 |
| 36. | Secretary of the Air Force Eugene M. Zucker | November 14, 1961 |
| 37. | Ruth Montgomery, Syndicated Columnist | January 19, 1962 |
| 38. | Secretary of Commerce Luther H. Hodges | April 18, 1962 |
| 39. | Senator John L. McClellan | June 22, 1962 |
| 40. | Secretary of State Dean Rusk | November 1, 1962 |

| # | Honorees | Date |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 41. | Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon | January 21, 1963 |
| 42. | Senator Barry Goldwater | April 1, 1963 |
| 43. | Secretary of HEW Anthony J. Celebrezze | June 21, 1963 |
| 44. | Polly Bergen | November 18, 1963 |
| 45. | Senator John J. Williams (Delaware) | February 19, 1964 |
| 46. | Postmaster General John A. Gronouski | April 30, 1964 |
| 47. | Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen (Illinois) | June 11, 1964 |
| 48. | Carol Channing | November 16, 1964 |
| 49. | Senator Russell B. Long (Louisiana) | March 19, 1965 |
| 50. | Victor Borge (and Mrs. Borge)<br>(National Convention in D.C.) | June 12, 1965 |
| 51. | James E. Webb, Administrator NASA | October 29, 1965 |
| 52. | Secretary of the Treasury Henry H. Fowler | February 4, 1966 |
| 53. | Senator Vance Hartke (Indiana) | May 4, 1966 |
| 54. | Debbie Reynolds | December 2, 1966 |
| 55. | Postmaster General Lawrence F. O'Brien | January 30, 1967 |
| 56. | Congressman Gerald R. Ford (Michigan) | May 3, 1967 |
| 57. | Senator George Murphy (California) | October 12, 1967 |
| 58. | Betty Furness (Special Ass't to the President for<br>Consumer Affairs) | January 29, 1968 |
| 59. | Carl Albert (Majority Leader, House of Representatives) | June 20, 1968 |
| 60. | Martha Raye | September 17, 1968 |
| 61. | Senator Edmund S. Muskie (Maine) | March 3, 1969 |
| 62. | Vice President Spiro T. Agnew | June 12, 1969 |
| 63. | Shirley MacLaine | October 9, 1969 |
| 64. | Rogers Morton | March 16, 1970 |
| 65. | Secretary of the Interior Walter J. Hickel | July 13, 1970 |
| 66. | Martha Mitchell | December 16, 1970 |
| 67. | Secretary of Agriculture Clifford Hardin | May 26, 1971 |
| 68. | Congressman Wilbur Mills (Arkansas) | November 23, 1971 |
| 69. | Herbert G. Klein, Assistant to the President for<br>Communications | February 28, 1972 |
| 70. | Senator Margaret Chase Smith (Maine) | May 2, 1972 |
| 71. | Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger | September 20, 1972 |
| 72. | L. Patrick Gray, Director of the F.B.I. | January 8, 1973 |
| 73. | Congressman Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, Majority Leader | March 8, 1973 |
| 74. | Helen Delich Bentley, Chairman of the Federal<br>Maritime Commission | June 7, 1973 |
| 75. | Secretary of HEW Caspar Weinberger | September 13, 1973 |
| 76. | Columnist Jack Anderson | December 6, 1973 |
| 77. | George Bush, Chairman of the Republican Nat'l Comm<br>Robert Strauss, Chairman of the Democratic Nat'l Comm | March 7, 1974 |
| 78. | Congressman John Rhodes, Minority Leader | June 6, 1974 |
| 79. | Columnist Art Buchwald | September 24, 1974 |

EMBASSY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Oslo, Norway

February 9, 1976

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Just a quick note to say that your San Francisco speech struck me as outstanding--one of your very best. We are giving it the widest distribution here in the hopes that it will stimulate the Norwegians to think more carefully about U.S.-Soviet relations and their impact on Norway.

On the basis of totally inadequate evidence, I sense a
very real unease among many Norwegians about our relations
with Russia. The unease is evident at both ends of the pol-
itical spectrum. For example:

Two weeks ago I spoke to the combined staff colleges of
the Norwegian Army, Navy and Air Force. The thrust of vir-
tually all the questions I got from these young officers was:
detente is a one-way street; you are unwilling or unable to
use your obvious leverage with the Soviets (e.g., grains
sales) to stop them in Angola; though your President some-
times talks tough, Congress does not back him up (they cited
Angola and Turkey); the U.S. is retreating globally and be-
coming less interested in the world. All familiar themes in
Washington, but unsettling when they come from the mouths of
young allied officers. Several of them noted that "Norway is
already behind the Soviet lines anyway" (referring to the
Soviet fleet in Murmansk) and made it clear that they wonder
whom they could rely on to help them when the chips are down.
(It took a stiff upper lip and considerable poetic license to
answer the questions without dishonoring my profession.)

...

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State
Department of State (S)
Washington, D.C., 20520

2

On the other end of the spectrum, a leftist journalist told me that Norwegians were too suspicious of Soviet intentions. "After all, they withdrew peaceably from Norway in 1945." The U.S. won't help us anyway. His answer: be more accommodating to the Soviets and lower Norway's NATO profile. He perceives a shift in power which confirms his preconceptions. One has to wonder how long the military can debate the question of U.S. will before arriving at the leftist's answer. That may be years off and it may never happen, but it deserves thought.

Just when I thought the lengthening shadows were about to engulf America, our Consul informed me that an American student has been arrested in Western Norway for growing a fifteen foot marijuana tree. That's what I call a green thumb.

Enough of my unschooled ramblings. Francie and I were distressed to hear about Nancy's hospitalization. Our thoughts are very much with her and we wish her a quick and comfortable recovery.

Your many admirers and supporters in my family all send you their best. We are all pulling for you in these increasingly difficult times.

Oslo, Norway

October 4, 1976

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Congratulations on your African trip. Even though we here can be aware of only the smallest part of the difficulties you must have faced, it certainly was a tremendous achievement even to get both sides to agree to talk about talking. Given the complexities of the issues, you must have occasionally looked wistfully back on the days when you only had to worry about Arabs and Israelis.

It must be discouraging to have your success coincide with the silly season. I can see from the press that people are still coming at you from all sides, criticizing you despite (or perhaps because of) your successes. I recently came across a wonderful letter Harry Truman wrote as a Senator to a constituent who was critical of his vote on some issue or other. It is a good statement of the importance of doing what is right which I thought you might enjoy: "It doesn't make any difference to me whether you like the way I vote or not because I vote for what I think is right, regardless of what anyone else thinks...as far as I'm concerned I am doing what I think is right and I don't care what anyone else thinks about it and I don't care whether they like it or not...I can take care of myself while I am doing it."

Francie joins me in sending you our congratulations and very best wishes,

The Honorable
Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State
Department of State (S)
Washington,D.C., 20520

QUAKER RIDGE ROAD, CROTON-ON-HUDSON, N.Y. 10520 • TELEX 137343 • 914 RO 2-0700

October 26, 1973

Dr. John Sanness
Institute of International Affairs
Post Office Box 8159-Oslo-Dep.
Oslo 1, Norway

Dear John:

Newspaper accounts here mentioned your name as
the source of the idea of awarding Henry Kissinger and
Le Duc Tho the Nobel Peace Prize. (The spelling was
somewhat garbled but it was pretty clear that you were
intended.)

There has been a lot of criticism of this choice
-- indeed, it seems not yet to have abated. I thought
it might therefore be useful to let you know that some of
us here, including me, think it was a splendid idea*, and
are grateful to you for having it.

My best regards to Johan, Arne, and my other
friends there. When are you coming to visit us?

DGB/asc

61, QUAI D'ORSAY, PARIS 7ème, FRANCE • 1-11-46 AKASAKA, MINATO-KU, TOKYO, JAPAN

HUDSON INSTITUTE

QUAKER RIDGE ROAD, CROTON-ON-HUDSON, N. Y. 10520 CABLE ADDRESS HUDSON 914 RO 2-0700

May 1, 1975

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Henry:

As you may well know, I have been highly critical of some aspects
of our national security policies, especially in regard to the SALT (which I
shall continue to criticize). But it seems to me that the Administration
handling of Southeast Asian matters since 1972 has been exemplary.

I wrote you in August 1973 that "The settlement achieved in Viet-
Nam was, in the circumstances, a resounding success." It was clear to
me then, as I am sure it was to you, that that settlement contained the
seeds of potential disaster. While we all may have hoped that it would
go better, no one who claims competence in these matters should claim
surprise at the final outcome.

You rightly said, in your recent interview with Pierre Salinger, that
"...very often popular policies become much less popular when people
recognize the consequences of what they have done." In all the current
turmoil, I thought it might be useful for you to know that at least some of
your sometime fellow professionals understood the potential consequences
at the time of the doing, and that a settlement judged a resounding success
in the circumstances of 1973 must still be judged so today.

Of course, a serious indictment could be brought against the Ameri-
can body politic, including not a few members of our foreign-policy estab-
lishment, for the collective misfeasance embodied in our policies toward
Southeast Asia. But there are some people, including not least yourself,
who most certainly should not be charged in that indictment.

With best personal regards.

DGB:mlm

SECSTATE WSH
TLXA 068 WAE 169 (1528) (1-010757C357)PD 12/23/73 1527

ICS IPMBHLB BVHL
02050 NL BEVERLYHILLS CA 100 12-23 1210P PST

PMS THE HON HENRY KISSINGER DLR
THE STATE DEPT W
WASHDC

MAY THE HOLIDAYS BE BOTH JOYOUS AND REWARDING FOR YOU AND
YOUR FAMILY DEAR HENRY DEVOTEDLY
ROSLAIMD AND FREDDIE

413P EST.

SECSTATE WSH

SEC2STATE W2N

A13B B2T.

ROZCLAIMD AND FREDDIE

MAY THE HOLIDAYS BE FORTH JOYOUS AND REWARDING FOR YOU AND
WASHDC

THE STATE DEPT N

RMS THE HON HENRY KISSINGER DTR

OS0200 WT BEVERLYHILLS CA 100 1S-S2 1S10B B2T

ICB 1PMHFB EAVT

ITXA068

MAY I98 (1258) (1-010)2WC32T)BD 1S\$/2\12 1254

SEC2STATE W2N

G

BRISSON PRODUCTIONS, INC.

745 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022
TELEPHONE (212) 752-2220

April 7, 1976

The Honorable Dr. Henry Kissinger
Secretary of State
The State Department
Washington, D. C.

Dear Henry:

On April 27, I will have the Premiere at The Harkness Theatre, adjacent to Lincoln Center, of my new musical comedy SO LONG, 174TH STREET, starring Robert Morse, whom you will remember from HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING and SUGAR. I hope that you and Nancy will be able to attend. Do let me know how many seats we should set aside for you. There will be a small supper party after the show.

I am delighted to say that Rosalind is coming East for the Prèmière and subsequently going to Washington for The National Endowment for the Arts meetings on May 12 through 16.

It is certainly great that our ladies Nancy and Rosalind have overcome their medical problems and are both now feeling well. It's been too long since we have seen each other, but I hope that in the future it will be soon and often.

FB/df

BRISSON PRODUCTIONS, INC.

Suite 915
615 So. Flower St.
Los Angeles, Calif.
90017

August 18, 1976

Dear Henry:

I was delighted to know that you were able to spend a
little time recently with the Guinnesses at Piencourt. I've
always hoped you'd get a chance to visit them there, as it is
really a rare piece of old Normandy. As a matter of fact, I
just missed seeing you there as they had asked me, but I had
to return to Los Angeles unexpectedly as Rosalind has, unfor-
tunately, just had to undergo a complete hip replacement at
UCLA Medical Center.

The operation was a surgical risk because of her past
medical history, but she has come through fine except for
some complications which we are now hopeful will clear up in
the next few weeks.

We both feel sad at not seeing you and Nancy but hope
to make up for it when the pressure (if that's the right word)
lets up and Rosalind is back on her feet.

Affectionate good wishes to you both from us both.

FB/df