EUROPEAN REPLY
ON TIES IS VAGUE

9/20/73

Common Market Response
to Kissinger Stresses
a 'Basis of Equality'

Special to The New York Times

BRUSSELS, Sept. 19 — Responding to an American call for a "new American charter," the European Economic Community proposed to the United States today that they join in a pledge to "intensify cooperation on the basis of equality."

Couched in vague terms and omitting defense problems, the Common Market's proposal was meant to form the basis for a document on which President Nixon and European leaders could agree during the trip the President has planned to Europe this fall.

It was the first official response by the nine-member community to the call in April by Henry A. Kissinger, Mr. Nixon's adviser on national security, for a new American relationship with Europe to overcome the economic, military and diplomatic strains that had developed in the Atlantic alliance.

Delivered by Dane

The European community's draft, a 1,100-word proposal for a joint declaration on relations between the Common Market and the United States, was delivered to the State Department in Washington today by Ambassador Eyvind Bartels of Denmark, acting for all nine members.

The draft proposed that "a
Continued on Page 6, Column 1

‘Less Geared to Crisis’

# Atlantic Charter Plan
Shown to U.S. Allies

United Press International

The United States has submitted to its European allies and friends “rough and tentative ideas” for a new Atlantic charter, the State Department said yesterday.

The aim is to revise the relationship among Western powers in light of changed circumstances.

A department spokesman, Charles W. Bray, refused to answer directly when questioned about a report from Denmark that Washington had submitted a draft charter to the European allies to be considered at a September meeting of the European Common Market Countries.

Bray recalled that the United States had discussed the idea of a new Atlantic charter with a number of European countries since the idea was first raised by President Nixon's foreign affairs adviser Henry A. Kissinger.

Bray said that it was “not clear how this process is going to turn out,” in obvious reference to the fact that some of the European allies have not been enthusiastic over some aspects of the American plan.

Kissinger said the present Atlantic partnership, centered on the NATO alliance, was based on the need 25 years ago for “economic reconstruction and security against the danger of attack.”

In an April 23 speech, Kissinger said the need now was to make the Atlantic relationship one which was “less geared to crisis and more conscious of opportunities, drawing

its inspiration from its goals rather than its fears.”

The new charter idea in essence boiled down to a more equal sharing of economic and military burdens and greater concerns with problems such as energy, international trade and finance and other issues which have come to plague the world in the past few years.

President Nixon has promised no unilateral withdrawal of American forces in Europe but Defense an State Department officials have made it clear to the Europeans that they must contribute more heavily to the financial expenses involved in keeping 300,000 troops so far from home.

The Atlantic charter concept also involves giving Japan some role in the arrangement since, as Kissinger put it, Japan has emerged as a major power center and any solutions for Europe will not really work unless they have the agreement of the Japanese.

Bray said, however, that the discussions with the Japanese have not been nearly as extensive nor proceeded as far as those with the Europeans.

He said that the situation with respect to Japan was about where President Nixon and Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka left it when they reported in a joint communique that Washington would be in frequent consultation with Tokyo on the European subject.

II. 18 May 73

HUNGARY

F 1

BREZHNEV FRG TRIP HIGHLIGHTS POLICY OF CONSULTING ALLIES

Budapest MAGYAR HIRLAP in Hungarian 15 May 73 p 4 A

[Imre Tatar article: "Prior to the Brezhnev Visit; Bonn and Moscow"]

[Excerpt] What can be expected from the coming Brezhnev-Brandt meeting? The further development of trade development promises great possibilities; the door is open to scientific and cultural exchanges as well. The West German press also notes the fact that certain points of the agreement on West Berlin "are not uniformly interpreted" by the two governments, and allegedly Bonn wishes to discuss this matter as well. The further development of relations between the two countries in several areas will be part of the agenda. However, it seems probable that general European questions, including the European Conference of Security and Cooperation, for instance, will be important topics at the meeting. Even in the past, Leonid Brezhnev's meetings with Willy Brandt have affected European politics in general.

Of course, decisions that transcend the scope of relations between the two countries are not and cannot be made at such meetings. The general effect of such meetings is an indirect one. Both sides consult their allies and both of them inform their allies of the results of the negotiations. Willy Brandt visited Washington in the beginning of May and in all probability discussed in detail the imminent Soviet-West German summit meeting with President Nixon.

Systematic consultations are part of the working methods of the Warsaw Pact countries and their leaders. Leonid Brezhnev recently visited the Polish People's Republic and the GDR and conferred with leading politicians of these two countries. Theirs are the first two capitals visited by the CPSU general secretary following the April Central Committee meeting initiating the acceleration of Soviet diplomacy. These talks constituted the latest manifestations of coordinated and homogeneous socialist foreign policy. And Brezhnev's next destination is the FRG, the country with which significant agreements have been concluded by the two above-mentioned states.

Leonid Brezhnev's visit in Bonn beginning on 18 May will be one of the outstanding events of the year. It will be a continuation of the diplomatic offensive, the European peace offensive, which is pursued with such success by the Soviet Union, an offensive which is eliciting an ever stronger echo in the other camp.

MAGYARORSZAG ASSESSES KISSINGER CALL FOR ATLANTIC CHARTER

Budapest MAGYARORSZAG in Hungarian 13 May 73 p 3 X

[Article by Tibor Petho, vice president of National Association of Hungarian Journalists, vice president of the National Peace Council, member of the People's Patriotic Front: "Two Charters--Atlantic and Peace Policy, Clarification With Western Europe"]

[Text] "To make favorable changes achieved in the international situation irreversible"--among other things this is the expression used in the resolution of the latest plenum of the Soviet Central Committee in defining the most important foreign policy tasks before the Soviet party and state. [paragraph continues]

II. 18 May 73

E 10

EAST GERMANY

BRIEFS

CSSR EMBASSY RECEPTION--Berlin--The CSSR ambassador to the GDR, Richard Dvorak, gave a cocktail party in Berlin Wednesday to mark the 28th anniversary of the liberation of Czechoslovakia from fascism. Present at his invitation were Council of Ministers member Alfred Neumann, SED Politburo candidate and Central Committee Secretary Werner Jarowinsky, People's Chamber President Gerald Goetting, Deputy Premier Dr Gerhard Weiss and other members of the SED Central Committee, State Council and Council of Ministers, including Foreign Minister Otto Winzer. The atmosphere at the reception was very cordial. [Text] [East Berlin ADN International Service in German 1231 GMT 9 May 73 L]

BRITISH STUDY DELEGATION--A study group of the Britain-GDR Friendship Society visited Seifersbach near Hainichen on Saturday to acquaint itself with the advantages of socialist agriculture and the development of industrial production methods. It devoted particular interest to a hogbreeding plant which is cooperatively utilized by several LPG's. [East Berlin NEUES DEUTSCHLAND in German 29 Apr 73 p 2 A]

ALGERIAN VOCATIONAL TRAINING DELEGATION--A delegation of the Algerian Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs headed by (Abdel Kader Atek), director for vocational training, visited the GDR 29 April to 6 May as the guest of the State Secretariat for Vocational Training. It studied the education and vocational training of apprentices and the training of skilled workers. [East Berlin NEUES DEUTSCHLAND in German 8 May 73 p 2 A]

AUCCTU OFFICIAL--Berlin--FDGB Chairman Herbert Warnke received Nicolai Poltsov, member of the AUCCTU and chairman of the Belorussian Trade Union Council, who led the Soviet trade union delegation at the GDR May Day celebrations, in Berlin on 9 May. Questions of mutual interest were discussed in a cordial and friendly atmosphere. [Text] [East Berlin ADN International Service in German 1209 GMT 9 May 73 L]

JAPANESE CHEMICAL WORKERS--Berlin--A delegation of Japanese chemical workers trade unions arrived in the GDR on Monday at the invitation of the GDR Chemical, Glass and Ceramics Union. One of its members is Hiroshi Yamada, member of the Central Executive of the Japanese Chemical Workers Union. During their 10-day stay the delegation will visit chemical enterprises and facilities and study the working and living conditions of GDR chemical workers. [Text] [East Berlin ADN International Service in German 1552 GMT 14 May 73 L]

JAPAN-GDR FRIENDSHIP SOCIETY--Tokyo--A Japan-GDR Friendship Society has been formed in Tokyo. The inaugural meeting was attended by representatives of all Japanese mass organizations favoring friendly relations between their country and the GDR. A resolution defines the society's aim as "strengthening the movement for developing friendly relations between the two countries, in connection with the expected establishment of diplomatic relations between the GDR and Japan." [Text] [East Berlin ADN International Service in German 1106 GMT 7 May 73 L]

BORDER CROSSING POINT REPAIRS--According to a report by the Ministry for Transport, extensive road construction work is necessary on the stretch between the Oberwiesenthal border crossing point and the entry into the village of Oberwiesenthal to improve road traffic safety on Highway 95 in the Karl-Marx-Stadt region. Therefore, this section of road will be closed during the period 6 May 1973 to 6 October 1974. Road traffic will be routed via the F 101 and F 271 roads, and passenger cars will have to use the Schoenberg, Zinnwald and Schmilka border crossing stations as of 6 May. [East Berlin NEUES DEUTSCHLAND in German 4 May 73 p 2 A]

II. 18 May 73

F 2

HUNGARY

If we examine the achievements to date of the peace program of the 24th congress, we
can say that, in a short time measured in terms of history, changes have taken place
in the international situation of a sort which even the most optimistic commentators
would not have dared count on in the earlier period. The April resolution accepted
by the Central Committee and Brezhnev's talk at the 1 May celebrations brought a
reassuring and encouraging message to the whole world. It projected a future which
eliminated the threat of war, and promises establishment of a strong system of peace
and security, the possibility for a full and creative life. For this reason, the
peace program now in the stage of realization could be called the charter for peaceful
coexistence.

We selected this comparison deliberately, because recently in Washington Henry Kissinger, Nixon's chief adviser on national security, broadcast to the world the slogan for establishment of a "new Atlantic charter." The ideas of the chief adviser were received with polite, noncommittal commentaries in the capitals of West Europe. In all events, they felt it necessary to point out that the suggestion was in no way comparable to the famous Atlantic charter of Roosevelt and Churchill which was signed on 14 August 1941 during the most critical stage of World War II and whose purpose was to give hope to people struggling against fascism by projecting the possibility of US intervention on the side of the countries fighting against Hitler's Reich. Neither did West Europe accept James Reston's evaluation who compared Kissinger's new "Atlantic charter" to the speech made by General Marshall at Harvard when he launched the Marshall Plan. The English GUARDIAN in reporting the chief adviser's statement, did not hesitate to quote Pascal's famous saying: If Cleopatra had had a shorter nose, the course of history would have changed, because Anthony would have remained in Rome and not gone to Egypt. The GUARDIAN added that the success of Kissinger's appeal would depend to no small extent upon how involved Nixon is in the Watergate scandal, in other words, how clean the president can stay.

This linking of the Atlantic charter and the Watergate affair is by no means far-
fetchet; in fact it is quite knowing. In the current state of American internal
politics when the Democratic opposition is again united and when influential persons
in the President's own party are on the verge of leaving him, when the entire White
House staff with the exception of Kissinger's office has collapsed (let us note that
Kissinger's opponents, primarily Haldeman, the White House chief of staff, resigned),
Nixon has an overriding need for foreign policy successes. Thus it can be considered
no accident that he has sent Kissinger to Moscow at this time. Of course the primary
purpose of the trip is to make preparations for Brezhnev's visit to America, because
a similar exchange of ideas preceded the Soviet-American summit meeting of last year.
Nevertheless, it is thought-provoking that the chief adviser, forgetting the Atlantic
charter and Willy Brandt, who is greatly interested in the matter, left for Moscow as
early as 4 May.

The peculiar thing about this is that the "Atlantic charter" on the one hand and the
improvement of Soviet-American relations on the other seem like a foreign policy
heavily interlarded with contradiction. If we interpret Kissinger correctly, the
"Atlantic charter" calls for strengthening of the Western alliance, reviving it for
economic, political, and military purposes. This is the same as maintaining the
division of Europe and clear-cut continuation of the NATO-based policy. Conditions
and requirements for improving Soviet-American relations are quite different. At
present two consultations are in progress--in Helinski and Vienna--the purpose of
which insofar as the socialist countries are concerned is to work out a new "European
charter" which would set forth the principles for new kinds of relations between the
European countries (as well as the U.S., and Canada), would develop the framework for
extensive cooperation, would arrive at an agreement about reduction of troops and
arms, and would replace the present spirit of confrontation with an atmosphere of
confidence between the countries of the continent and those across the Atlantic.

II. 18 May 73

F 3

HUNGARY

Thus, the question is: Can one proclaim the "new Atlantic charter" and discuss the "all-European charter" at the same time? Even if we do not consider the two mutually exclusive from the outset, they cannot be classified as things which can be brought to a common denominator. This is felt in Western Europe and is the reason for the cautious reserve. The proposal put abroad by America, besides being vague, is too transparent to prevent the suspicious British, French, or West Germans from seeing in it the predominantly American interests.

This is not merely a matter of the Nixon government's need for interest-diverting foreign policy success in the wake of the Watergate scandal; it has to do with the fact that, due to the government's great loss of face, the Mansfield proposal for the at least partial withdrawal of troops stationed in Europe has gained ground in the legislature.

The second point of the new "Atlantic charter" is economic-financial. If the West European allies have to assume a greater military burden, even more is required of them in the economic field. In international monetary politics, American capital exerts renewed pressure on Western Europe and Japan from time to time. This is why, violating geography, they wish to include Japan in the new "Atlantic community." If Kissinger is trying to revive the atmosphere of the heroic days of 1941, he is, as the INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE also finds, fundamentally misleading public opinion. Looking at the matter from Washington's side, the main problem is how to revive the "spirit of defense" (meaning willingness for greater military expenditures) in the atmosphere of thaw in Western Europe. If the President of the U.S. wants his foreign policy vaulting pole to help him over domestic policy hurdles, it would be better to dazzle the European allies with the results promised than to urge them to still greater sacrifice than in the past. However, if he wishes to show results in the improvement of Soviet-U.S. relations, then he must exert pressure on his allies in the interest of progress at the Vienna talks on European troop reduction.

The planned new "Atlantic charter" would allow one to presume that the Western allies are to develop parallel stands at Helsinki and the Austrian capital. However, the matter is not that simple. Since the U.S. desires progress in the talks on troop reduction, it must inevitably come closer to the views of the socialist countries, chiefly in the matter that strategically, Italy cannot be excluded from European troop reduction. A compromise at Vienna can be achieved only through results at Helsinki--even if the nine raise various obstacles in the path of convening the European security conference. Thus, the weak points of the "Atlantic charter" already show in Helsinki and Vienna. At both conferences, the American viewpoint differs--to a not inconsiderable extent--from that of the West European allies; at the same time, it shows certain points of contact with the joint platform of the socialist countries.

In approving Brezhnev's report, the Soviet Central Committee emphasized that a change is taking place in the cold war toward a relaxation of tensions. The Central Committee starts from the premise that conditions for establishment of a long lasting system of security and cooperation have come into being in Europe. "This system would be the living and attractive example of peaceful coexistence." In his speech of 1 May, Brezhnev said, "We are hastening to overcome Europe's bloody past, not to forget it, but to keep it from ever recurring." Of Soviet-American relations: "Hereafter we will continue to promote favorable development of Soviet-American relations on the basis of mutual respect and mutual benefits."

II. 18 May 73

F 4

HUNGARY

In other words, the Soviet Union's policy sees the tasks to be solved in Europe and the development of Soviet-American relations uniformly. It is important to stress this, because it shows clearly that the Soviet Union is not making a bargain with the U.S. over the head of Europe nor is it allying itself with Europe against the U.S. Brezhnev's approaching visits to Bonn and then Washington are a clear example of this effort. The true charter of peaceful coexistence can have no other basis.

## CSSR NEGOTIATIONS UNDERLINE TOTAL IDENTITY OF VIEWS

Budapest MTI in English 1724 GMT 17 May 73 L

[Text] Frantisek Krajcir, first deputy foreign minister of Czechoslovakia spent a few days in Budapest on the invitation of Hungarian First Deputy Foreign Minister Frigyes Puja.

In Budapest Frigyes Puja and Frantisek Krajcir reviewed the position of Hungarian-Czechoslovak relations. They are improving satisfactorily in every field of life, and in the spirit of the negotiations conducted by the two countries' premiers last February. The two deputy foreign ministers had a wide-ranging exchange of views about [words indistinct] questions of the international situation, with special emphasis on the preparations for the European Security and Co-operation conference, as well on the Vienna consultations on troop cuts. It was established with satisfaction that there was total identity of views on all the questions discussed.

The Czechoslovak first deputy foreign minister was received in Budapest by Foreign Minister Janos Peter and head of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the [words indistinct] Central Committee Andras Gyenes.

Frigyes Puja and Frantisek Krajcir signed a new Hungarian-Czechoslovak consular agreement on behalf of the governments of the two states.

## BIRO SPEAKS AT OPENING OF BUDAPEST INTERNATIONAL FAIR

Budapest MTI in English 1020 GMT 18 May 73 L

[Text] This year's Budapest international fair had its festive opening Friday morning in the presence of Prime-Minister Jeno Fock, Deputy Prime-Minister Lajos Feher and Dr. Matyas Timar, and Rezso Myers, secretary of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party and a member of the Political Committee.

In his opening address Dr. Jozsef Biro, the Hungarian minister of foreign trade, welcomed the distinguished Hungarian political and economical personalities at the festive opening, the foreign guests who have come to see the fair and the representatives of the diplomatic corps.

In his speech the minister called attention to the fact that at this year's fair 1,750 firms and companies from 32 foreign countries, and 1,200 Hungarian companies were showing foremost products. He observed that this large-scale participation indicated: "Interest was growing in Hungary as a commercial partner." He went on to say: "This is clear evidence of the fact that the planned and dynamic development of our national economy is creating ever more favourable conditions for expanding international economic cooperation.

A20

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 1973

The Washington Post

AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER

Dr. Kissinger and Europe

Dr. Henry Kissinger's speech in New York celebrated the common purpose that binds the Atlantic nations but he refrained, wisely, from trying to define it. The tradition of Atlantic unity has suffered severe erosion while we have all grown unprecedentedly rich and secure. Dr. Kissinger acknowledged the European complaints that President Nixon has been neglecting old friends in his diplomacy with our old adversaries. The purpose of the speech was to declare that the relations with those adversaries are now well in hand, and the White House is prepared to return its primary attention to Western Europe.

The administration delivered this message in much more substantial terms two weeks ago when it finally sent to Congress a difficult and politically hazardous proposal for expanding our foreign trade. It repeated that message with the announcement of President Nixon's forthcoming trip to Europe. Dr. Kissinger's speech now offers, in rather general outline, the American view of an agenda for the long talks ahead. As an agenda, it has to be said, the speech is not entirely satisfactory.

Above all, we and the Europeans are going to be talking about trade and money. The military defense, on which everything else was built in the 1940's and 1950's, is now decidedly secondary. As Dr. Kissinger notes, it will require great political skill to keep it from melting away altogether in this warm new season of detente. The immediate danger of serious trouble among the Atlantic powers is now primarily economic. It is characteristic of trade disputes that they usually cannot be satisfactorily settled on grounds of trade rules alone. They customarily descend into petty haggling and bickering that grows steadily more trivial. "It is the responsibility of national leaders to insure that economic negotiations serve larger political purposes. They must recognize that economic rivalry, if carried on without restraint, will in the end damage other relationships," Dr. Kissinger wisely and rightly said.

But the Atlantic relationship is utterly changed from the days of World War II and its aftermath. Dr. Kissinger's attempt to evoke those heroic days is fundamentally misleading. During the war and the postwar years, the obligations and necessities confronting the United States and its European friends were clear and urgent. The only question was whether we were prepared to rise to them. Today the obligations and necessities before us are much more ambiguous and obscure.

Dr. Kissinger declares that it is the President's purpose to "lay the basis for a new era of creativity in the West." That means, presumably, preventing our rising

wealth from dividing us, and keeping our commercial competition from leading us into strife. So far, so good. But this speech is not likely entirely to meet other nations' doubts.

Europeans know that they are dealing with an American President who habitually prefers to move in sudden pounces. The President's stress on his unpredictability is useful in dealing with North Vietnam, one may argue, or the Soviet Union. But it is destructive in dealing with friends and allies, particularly in economic matters involving private customers and investors as well as governments. Europeans will also notice that the speech contains, amidst the rhetoric, the familiar litany of American complaints: that the Common Market offers the "prospect of a closed trading system" tying in the whole Mediterranean to our disadvantage, and that it discriminates against our farm products. If the "new era of creativity" comes down to another American assault on the Common Market's expensive but very sensitive farm policy, then the Europeans are not going to have any.

One particularly obvious defect in Dr. Kissinger's outline is the oddly left-handed treatment offered to Japan. "We ask our friends in Europe, Canada, and ultimately Japan to join us in this venture." Why "ultimately Japan"? To a suspicious eye, it might look as though we were proposing to work out an understanding among the old rich countries regarding the terms of dealing with the new rich. If the substance of the year is economic negotiation, rather than regional military affairs, why not include Japan from the beginning?

This great burst of interest in Europe comes, unfortunately, at an exceedingly bad time for Mr. Nixon and his administration. They are engulfed in the most spectacular series of American political scandals of this century, all of them involving some of the President's closest associates. By offering a high-minded call for cooperation at this particularly squalid moment in our national life, the White House is launching an endeavor of great merit amidst the most unpromising circumstances.

The President and Dr. Kissinger ought not be greatly astonished if the atmosphere in Washington affects Europeans' interpretations of the reasons for this new departure, or leads them to dismiss it as a diversionary tactic. Here we see another example of the damage that the scandals are inflicting upon this country as it goes to meet its responsibilities abroad. The damage will continue until the President, by his own remedial actions, can assure the world that his capacity to govern has not been undermined.

...Western Europe, p. 2 Asia, p. 14 Communist Countries, p. 15

# KISSINGER SPEECH PROPOSING "NEW ATLANTIC CHARTER"

## Summary

West European media gave extensive and prominent coverage to Henry Kissinger's Monday speech outlining President Nixon's proposal for "a new Atlantic charter" embracing Japan and Canada along with Western Europe and the U.S.

Japanese media reported the address prominently but had not commented today.

Observers in most countries where comment appeared welcomed the speech as a reaffirmation of U.S. commitment to Europe and as an expression of American hopes for "the Year of Europe."

However, many saw Europe's "disunity" as a talking partner and U.S. domestic considerations as obstacles to realization of the Administration's proposed goals.

These were among representative views:

- "The Times" of London said Mr. Kissinger had "provided new impetus" for the Atlantic Alliance but cautioned that "the next steps will depend on the response of the European Community and on how far President Nixon can assert his shaky authority in Congress."

- "Duesseldorf's Handelsblatt" welcomed "the first basic declaration on the Year of Europe" but lamented that "the long-awaited position paper was... submerged in the... dramatically expanding Watergate debacle."

- "De Telegraaf" of Amsterdam judged that the address "displays vision" and added that while ambitious plans can get "bogged down in endless discussion... the possibility that 1973 will be an historic year for international relations cannot be excluded."

French media generally viewed the U.S. proposals skeptically. Paris Le Monde commented that a "European contribution to the East-West dialogue is welcome, but this precious condescension confirms that Washington intends to keep that dialogue under control." A writer in Figaro asked, "Is Washington thinking of diluting Europe in the vast alliance proposed?"

Radio Moscow reported the speech briefly in its domestic service last night, saying Mr. Kissinger had called on the Western Alliance "to increase its military expenditure within the NATO framework."

No. 48

1

4/25/73

London: "Provides New Impetus"

British media yesterday gave wide coverage to the Kissinger speech. Editorial comment appearing today was generally favorable, but reflected some concern that the Administration's ability to put a "new Atlantic charter" policy into effect might be limited by difficulties with Congress and other matters affecting the Presidency.

The independent *Times* of London declared today in an editorial: "If Dr. Kissinger's speech... achieves its purpose, it will mark a very important turning point in the Atlantic Alliance." The paper asserted that "the basic common interests remain" and added, "This is most obvious in defense, and it was valuable to have the American commitment to Europe reaffirmed in such uncompromising terms...."

"Europeans have rightly resented attempts to link the military commitment with trade policies or with support for Vietnam. Tactics of this sort betray a short-term tactical view which can only damage relations."

"At the same time there has to be a level on which the relationship is seen as a whole. How to relate these different levels is the most difficult and the most important task facing the Alliance."

"Dr. Kissinger has provided new impetus. The next steps will depend on the response of the European Community and on how far President Nixon can assert his shaky authority in Congress."

The paper's diplomatic correspondent, A. M. Rendel, commented that "there was no mistaking yesterday the genuine and warm welcome given in Whitehall" to Mr. Kissinger's address. However, he added, the British Government does not "underestimate the difficulties of achieving a political will by the partners in so wide a framework in order to give the Alliance an overriding sense of direction."

*Times* correspondent Patrick Brogan in New York reported yesterday that "in President Nixon's view, it is not only time for America to evolve a new, coherent policy towards Europe, but time also for Europe to clarify and unify its policy towards America."

No. 48

2

4/25/73

"Constructive, But Is It New?"

The independent London *Financial Times* today judged that President Nixon's proposal as expounded by Mr. Kissinger was "clearly intended as a constructive initiative and should be treated as such." However, it added, "for the time being, it is unclear whether the new charter does, or could, represent a new U.S. policy and we probably will not know much before President Nixon's visit to Europe in the autumn."

"Success Depends on Watergate Outcome, Congress Support"

The liberal *Guardian* of Manchester and London contended that "the success of Dr. Kissinger's welcome call for a new Atlantic charter will depend to some extent on how clean Mr. Nixon has kept his nose in the Watergate affair...." Furthermore, the paper went on, "to carry Congress along on a policy which involves maintaining U.S. troops in Europe and liberalizing trade, Mr. Nixon is going to need all the support that he can muster."

The paper judged that "what Mr. Kissinger had to say made good sense...."

"For a speech which has been long heralded, it provided only a vague outline of what the U.S. wants to achieve. But the Marshall Plan too began with a vague outline.

"The most important message for Europe was the declaration that political, economic and military issues cannot or should not be separated...."

The paper concluded that the answer to Mr. Kissinger's "main question, does Europe want to join America and Japan in seeking common objectives, is a clear and resounding 'yes.'"

"Europe's Understandable Fears"

The conservative *Daily Telegraph* considered it obvious that "hard bargaining between the members of the European Community and America lies ahead," for European governments "are understandably afraid that an immediate wholly enthusiastic response to Mr. Nixon's vague proposals might weaken their position and cause strains in the Community."

No. 48

3

4/25/73

Urging "an utterly frank assessment of the Atlantic relationship," the paper said that the earlier assumption that "decisive American...participation in Europe's defense can be based on imperfect plans for military cooperation together with competition...in trade, currency matters and foreign policy" was "a contradiction which, in view of Russia's now terrifying military superiority, cannot go on."

## "Europe Must Not Be Rushed"

The paper also carried the view of its diplomatic correspondent that "relief in London that the Administration is beginning to unfold its European policy...is accompanied by a feeling that Europe must not be rushed into a slipshod reorganization of an alliance that is still serving its basic purpose." He added:

"The assurance that American troops will remain in Europe, provided the Allies make a fair defense effort, will be welcomed. But the Allies will want to know what Dr. Kissinger meant by the need for 'an agreed and intelligible structure of Western defense'....

"There are lingering suspicions in European capitals...that the size of the American defense effort will depend on the outcome of trade negotiations."

## Diplomacy and the Watergate

The conservative nationalistic London *Daily Express* carried the report of a correspondent in Washington that "the plea by President Nixon for a 'new Atlantic charter' is seen here as an enforced recognition that America now needs Europe more than Europe needs America."

The correspondent added, "A central question being asked by Western diplomats today is whether President Nixon, with the image of his Administration badly soiled by the Watergate grime, can inspire another peacetime alliance under his new Atlantic charter."

The speech was widely reported by BBC radio and television and by commercial TV.

No. 48

4

4/25/73

In conjunction with its coverage of the speech, which included filmed excerpts, commercial television carried the comment of foreign affairs and defense specialist Lord Chalfont that "the Americans are fed up with carrying all the burden of European defense, while Europe is concerned with preparing a bloody trade war with the U.S."

## West German Play of Kissinger, Rogers Speeches

West German papers front-paged the Kissinger speech under headlines stressing his emphasis on finding a new basis for partnership with Europe.

Secretary Rogers' address at the Overseas Press Club was widely reported, with emphasis on his statement that the U. S. is opposed to unilateral troop withdrawal from Europe and his assertion that Europe remains the core of U. S. policy.

### "Commonality of Views"

Right-center Frankfurter Allgemeine today agreed with Mr. Kissinger that new motivation should stimulate U. S. -European cooperation. It declared that the NATO partners had not faced the fact that NATO is "not merely a defense organization, but an ideological community" and predicted that "the new Atlantic charter should make this clearer."

"Europe's echo will certainly be friendly, France's perhaps somewhat more dampened than that of others which have no difficulty in accepting, or even welcoming, America's leadership role. Now that the Americans want a more or less united Europe as their partner, Europe must not divide itself. More important than jealousies and petty misgivings is Western commonality of views regarding the world of tomorrow."

### "Brandt Will Be First to Discuss New Cooperation"

In its lead story today, the paper noted Bonn's positive reaction to the Kissinger speech and said foreign office sources had pointed out that Mr. Brandt will be the first European executive "to discuss the new concept of Atlantic cooperation" with Mr. Nixon.

No. 48

5

4/25/73

The paper said the sources added that Mr. Kissinger's outline "does not necessarily require reform of the Alliance structure" and that no new institutions would have to be created to include Japan because Japan is already a member of the Group of Ten, the Committee of Twenty and of the OECD.

## "A Position Paper Submerged in Scandal"

Leading business-oriented *Handelsblatt* of Duesseldorf greeted the speech as "the first basic declaration on the Year of Europe and the future role of the U.S. in a changing Atlantic community." It concluded:

> "The long-awaited position paper was, however, submerged in the domestic maelstrom of the dramatically expanding Watergate debacle.

> "This exploding scandal has almost paralyzed the politically too powerful White House staff. The timing of Kissinger's declaration is seen by observers familiar with the situation as an attempt to prevent the escalating domestic crisis--the most serious one in Nixon's incumbency--from spreading to the field of foreign relations and to retain the initiative toward Europe."

## "Answers Brandt's Call for Dialogue"

Right-center *Die Welt* of Hamburg reported today in its lead story that Chancellor Brandt and Foreign Minister Scheel hoped to learn details of Mr. Kissinger's plan on their visit next week because until the Kissinger speech "there had been no clear reaction from Washington to statements by Brandt and Scheel calling for an organized U. S. -European dialogue. All this is changed now."

## "Remarks Directed at Bonn?"

The paper's Washington correspondent, Heinz Barth, wrote today that the Kissinger address "sends a fresh breeze through the Western chancelleries... It underlines the basic significance the White House attaches to the Chancellor's visit."

He suggested that some of Mr. Kissinger's statements about mutual trust and actions in self-interest instead of common interest were meant for the FRG, and concluded:

No. 48

6

4/25/73

"Is it not possible that the Nixon Administration has misgivings about certain consequences of detente policy? They have now been voiced for the first time with a gratifying realism."

Yesterday Barth called the address "a point of departure for a new phase of American policy in Europe." He said that references to burden sharing in a common defense policy "concealed" an American effort to pursue its security policies with a minimum of cost and effort and demonstrated that the recent "wave of anti-Americanism in the FRG and other European countries cannot have failed to make an impression on the Nixon Administration."

## "As Significant as Peking, Moscow Visits?"

Independent *Sueddeutsche Zeitung*, Munich, ran its Washington correspondent's assessment that Mr. Kissinger, "on the eve of the Brandt-Nixon meeting... painted a clearer picture of the 'Year of Europe.'" The call for cooperation and a "new creativity," he said, indicated that the Nixon visit to Europe" can take on the same historical significance as did the transformation of U.S. relations with Peking and Moscow in 1972."

## "New Phase for Alliance"

Pro-Social Democratic *Neue Rhein Zeitung* of Cologne in an editorial today said the "most concrete" element in Mr. Kissinger's address was his assertion of the "necessity" of maintaining American troop strength in Europe. It said "the new U.S. relationship with the USSR, contact with China and the inclusion of Japan in America's plans for a new Atlantic charter point to a strategic restructuring of U.S. engagement.

"In this connection, the U.S. is relying on a Europe which plays its role more independently and flexibly than before.... The Atlantic Alliance is emerging into a new phase. The flexibility of its members might increase its powers of resistance."

## TV Coverage

Both West German television networks last night carried film clips of the speech. They reported the FRG statement welcoming Kissinger's views on U.S. European cooperation and on U.S. continued willingness to contribute to security based on conventional weapons.

No. 48

7

4/25/73

## West Berlin: "Challenge to Visiting Leaders"

Independent Tagesspiegel said today that Mr. Kissinger's proposal for U.S. - European cooperation was "no American prescription," but that the U.S. view of the "Alliance's outlines for the 1980s seems to have been set." This would be a challenge, the paper said, to the ideas of European statesmen who would be visiting Washington in the coming months.

The speech's most remarkable feature, the paper declared, was the inclusion of Japan in the new grouping, seeing this as a "reflection of Washington's global interest in relations with a regionalized Europe."

## "Atmosphere Not Ideal for Brandt Visit"

The paper's Washington correspondent, Hans B. Meyer, judged that "the atmosphere is not ideal for Brandt's visit, for Nixon is at a bad political low point as a result of the Watergate affair, which has become a major political scandal." The President's plans for his Europe trip, he said, "indicate not only Mr. Nixon's well-known persistence, but also the relative optimism with which he regards the Alliance and has hopes for finding political remedies in Europe."

Der Abend of West Berlin said yesterday that "the image of the incumbent in the White House has suffered a hard blow" with the Watergate affair when the U.S. was seeking a readjustment of defense burden-sharing.

## Paris Coverage

French media gave top position to the Kissinger proposals yesterday and today. Mixed reaction referred to Europe's "disunity" in negotiating a "new Atlantic charter" with the U.S., and to U.S. problems including relations with Congress and the Watergate affair.

## TV: "U.S. Keeps the Initiative"

A U.S. correspondent of French television's second network reported the Kissinger speech as "the kickoff for Nixon's policy of making 1973 the Year of Europe." He commented: "Once again America is retaining the initiative on operations in Europe."

No. 48

8

4/25/73

The network also carried the observation of commentator Raymond Aron that "Nixon's ambition is to create a satisfactory basis for the future," and the remark of a correspondent in Bonn that "the next war will be an atomic war, or there will not be any next war; in the circumstances we do not see why Europeans should increase their conventional forces."

First network TV reported that "reactions are favorable in London and fairly favorable in Bonn. The impressive thing is the firmness with which the Americans once again take the initiative." An analyst said the key themes were that military, economic and monetary problems are of a piece and that the U.S. will not withdraw its troops from Europe.

At this point, film clips were shown of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces and equipment. A narrator observed that "much of NATO's equipment has become obsolete" and that "the morale of U.S. troops in Europe is being undermined by drug consumption."

## "Gracious Condescension"

Independent-left *Le Monde* of Paris asserted in its lead story that "the revival of the Atlantic Alliance, which Kissinger proposes, consists chiefly of asking Europeans to assume a heavier share of the Alliance's burdens."

The paper said this was not the first attempt to revitalize the Alliance, "but this is the first time that such an authoritative voice--with all the weight lent it by American power--speaks in such an overbearing manner.

"Speaking explicitly in President Nixon's name, Mr. Kissinger was not just making an observation or expressing a pious wish: It is before Mr. Nixon's trip to Europe 'toward the end of the year' that the allies must 'revitalize the ideals and common objectives of the Alliance.' ... And Mr. Kissinger dotted all the i's.... A European contribution to the East-West dialogue is welcome, but this precious condescension confirms that Washington intends to keep that dialogue under control."

## "Pompidou Questions for Nixon"

Moderately conservative *Figaro* of Paris today carried the view of commentator Roger Massip that "the American plan speaks of the world-wide responsibilities

No. 48

9

4/25/73

of the U. S. and of the regional role that would devolve on Europe. In Mr. Kissinger's text, Europe does not appear to be an autonomous decision-making center." He then asked:

"Does President Nixon's thinking intentionally ignore the individual characteristics which the European Community has acquired, and which it is determined to assert in giving itself institutional means that would permit the creation of a real political union? Is Washington thinking of diluting Europe in the vast alliance proposed?

"These are grave questions which Mr. Georges Pompidou will not fail to ask President Nixon."

Yesterday Massip said "the ambitious program" outlined by Mr. Kissinger was very much like that stated by John F. Kennedy in Philadelphia on July 4, 1962, the only difference being the inclusion of Japan among the states which would underwrite the new Atlantic charter. He continued:

"It is clear that the major international problems of the day worry Nixon since he detects resistance to American pressure everywhere. This resistance is to be reduced, and the best way to do so in his view is to seek a comprehensive agreement which naturally would imply a whole series of mutual concessions. The U.S. is not hostile to European unity, but the European community should give up any idea of protectionism in relations with the outside world. Nixon does not envision military disengagement from Europe, but Europeans must assume their share of the defense burden."

Massip concluded, "President Nixon's proposal in any case is a timely reminder to Europeans that they will not be able to open a fruitful dialogue with the U. S. unless they make up their minds at last to speak with one voice.... Time is running short for us if we want to face these realities with trump cards in our hands."

Intellectual-left *Combat* of Paris yesterday ended an editorial with the question, "How will the Europeans defend their interests if they go disunited to the negotiations with the Americans?"

No. 48

10

4/25/73

The paper reported that Mr. Kissinger "extolled the principle of consultation among the Western governments. This is the point in his speech that will get the most favorable reaction in Europe and Japan. But it is also the least precise point...not a major element of the new Atlantic charter he roughly outlined....

"Mr. Kissinger's speech is intended to show that Europe actually remains one of the prime concerns of the American Government, but this interest is somewhat that of the cat for the mouse. Europeans fear this stifling solicitude, demonstrated somewhat belatedly and at the very moment when Mr. Nixon sees his personal position undermined by the Watergate affair and by his economic worries at home....

"Nothing proves that this will be a reconciliation among friends of 30 years, but rather a demonstration of American preponderance in the world. Gentleness was needed to coax the former Chinese enemy; won't threats beneeded to convince the European ally?..."

## "Timing Perhaps Not Accidental"

Financial _Les Echos_ of Paris, referring today to the Watergate affair as "a national scandal," remarked that "it is perhaps not accidental that" Mr. Nixon "chose this very moment to make known his vast project to revitalize the Atlantic Alliance. In so doing, he is reminding us that above and beyond mundane contingencies, his real domain is that of big politics, in which he won unquestioned success in Peking and Moscow, pending what he himself has called 'the year of Europe.'"

## Rome Radio: Comparison With Marshall Speech

Newspapers and state-run television and radio yesterday summarized Mr. Kissinger's points. Today was a national holiday.

A radio correspondent in New York reported "great interest in U.S. political circles for Kissinger's speech in which in President Nixon's name he has proposed a new Atlantic charter to overcome the economic, military and diplomatic difficulties which have recently appeared in U.S. -European relations. Some commentators are comparing this speech with the Marshall speech."

No. 48

11

4/25/73

He observed: "Twenty-six years ago, as they are now, U.S. -European relations were at a critical point; 26 years ago the U.S. was offering aid to a Europe ravaged by war; now it proposes alliance and cooperation to a powerful and restored Europe.

"Kissinger spoke with great candor of the problems coming into being, with Europe and Japan becoming stronger and more independent of the U.S., and like Marshall he did not suggest an American recipe to solve these problems, but rather a common discussion of common problems..."

Independent-liberal *La Stampa* of Turin commented yesterday:

"It remains to be seen what margins of independence are left to European countries and what real possibilities they will have to contribute to a common Atlantic policy."

Vienna: "Hard to Make a New Pact"

Vienna's independent Kurier commented today under the heading "Atlantic Marital Crisis" that Washington "contributed to the estrangement when, in an effort to solve the Vietnam problem, it went alone to arrange things with Peking and Moscow. It added:

"No one in Europe doubts the continuing necessity of America's military presence, but the U.S. negotiations with the Soviet Union changed the image of the USSR as an enemy. Europe became an independent partner in negotiations with the East.

"In view of such changes, another Atlantic Pact will be much more difficult to conclude than the first. However, the consequences of a divorce would be unpredictable."

Socialist *Neue Zeit* of Graz contended that Mr. Kissinger "is using the issue of America's military presence in Europe as an instrument to pressure the Europeans in economic affairs. This method is objectionable and apt to poison relations."

No. 48

12

4/25/73

On the other hand, the paper acknowledged, "it is only right that Europe pay adequately for the U.S. contribution to the common defense.... The Europeans are no longer have-nots needing protection by their rich cousin."

### Amsterdam: "Can Be a Historic Year"

Independent conservative *De Telegraaf* of Amsterdam observed today that the address "displays vision, but behind the vision is concealed tough economic reality....

"It would not be the first time an ambitious and wide-ranging plan became bogged down in endless discussion, but the possibility that 1973 will be an historic year for international relations cannot be excluded."

### "No Need for New Charter"

Rotterdam's independent liberal *NRC Handelsblad* yesterday saw no need for a "new Atlantic charter." It argued:

"If existing organizations like NATO and GATT operate in a business-like and flexible way and attend to the collective interests of their members, it seems to us that the need for economic calm and a credible U.S. military representation in Europe can well be met. This is so obvious that the emphasis which Washington is now placing on the desirability of a new Atlantic treaty inspires distrust rather than confidence."

### Oslo: "We Have Entered a New World"

Conservative *Morgenbladet* of Oslo considered the address principally concerned with EEC countries. It commented, "one might say that Kissinger has announced the end of NATO as we have known it until now. We have entered a new world where Europe must be an independent actor. For little Norway, this is a most dangerous world, for we must face the fact that we stand more alone than before."

### Stockholm: "Speech Will Outline Watergate"

Conservative *Svenska Dagbladet* of Stockholm said today: "Kissinger's statements will naturally live on long after the Watergate scandal is forgotten. President Nixon earlier proclaimed 1973 as 'the year of Europe' and now, for the first time, the world is being given a clearer concept of the direction of his thoughts..."

No. 48

13

4/25/73

## Tokyo: News Play Only

Japanese television and newspapers gave prominent coverage yesterday to news reports of the address.

There were no editorials on the speech in this morning's Tokyo papers.

Media stressed Mr. Kissinger had called for Japan's participation in the Atlantic Alliance.

Publicly financed NHK-TV asserted that this proposal had been made to eliminate future economic friction. It said the proposal was also designed to strengthen ties between Western Europe and the U.S. in conjunction with President Nixon's visit to Europe in the autumn.

## "Object Not to 'Orphan' Japan"

Moderate Tokyo Shimbun observed yesterday that although Mr. Kissinger did not concretely explain the new international relationship which would include Japan, he did emphasize the need to establish a new equilibrium in the international monetary and trade fields. This indicates, the paper said, that the object of the Atlantic partnership is to link U.S.-European and U.S.-Japanese relations in their international economic aspects so that Japan would not be left behind as an "orphan."

Moderate Mainichi said Mr. Kissinger was voicing a "new concept" of building a larger community between the U.S. and Europe including Japan and Canada.

Independent-liberal Asahi said he stressed that Japan should be involved in working out a new Atlantic charter relationship between the U.S. and Europe which would be based on reduction of economic frictions and continued U.S. military presence in Europe.

## Seoul: "Shift to Neglect of Asia?"

Middle-of-the-road Joongang Ilbo of Seoul said today that "since the cease-fire is in force in Vietnam and there is a growing detente between the U.S. and China as well as the U.S. and Russia, it is quite normal for the U.S. to shift the stress of its foreign policy to the European area." The paper hoped this did not "mean a shift to an attitude of neglect for Asian affairs."

No. 48

14

4/25/73

Daehan Ilbo said similarly, "We hope the new Atlantic charter does not mark a shift for the U. S. to a Europe-first policy."

## "World-wide Implications"

Independent conservative Donga Ilbo of Seoul declared today:

"We view this idea as another major attempt by President Nixon to realign his Government's foreign relations. The first attempt was the now famous declaration of the Nixon Doctrine in 1969. As was the case with the original Atlantic Charter, the charter's implications will not be confined to countries in the region but will be world-wide in nature...."

## Hong Kong Communist Paper

Peking-oriented Ta Kung Pao of Hong Kong declared today:

"It is the plan of the U. S. now to unite all its strength with that of Western Europe and Japan with a view to a struggle against the USSR in 'the year of Europe.' And this is a new trend to be watched closely."

## Hanoi: "Kissinger Falsely Accused DRV"

Radio Hanoi said yesterday of Mr. Kissinger's speech, "According to AFP... he falsely accused North Vietnam of systematically and brazenly violating all the main provisions of the peace agreement on Vietnam. This argument was aimed at turning white into black."

## Moscow: "Called for More Military Expenditure"

Radio Moscow's domestic service reported last night that Mr. Kissinger had spoken on "U. S. policy in Europe." It said he had called the U. S.-Europe alliance "the cornerstone" of U. S. post-war foreign policy, and that he had also declared that new circumstances required a new approach because the transormation of Europe into a strong competitor of the U. S. had caused "certain friction." Therefore, the report said, the U. S. was proposing a new Atlantic charter.

No. 48

15

4/25/73

It stated further Mr. Kissinger had "stressed" that the U.S. would not withdraw its troops unilaterally from Europe and called on the allies to take a fair share of the joint efforts--"in other words, to increase its military expenditure within the NATO framework."

Sofia: "A Well-Known Kissinger Idea"

The Bulgarian BTA wire service carried an analyst's assertion that the Kissinger speech "is the first volley of U.S. diplomatic heavy artillery aimed at West Europe.... The Atlantic concept of the future relations in the Western Alliance is a well-known idea of Professor Kissinger's.... With it the U.S. hopes to neutralize West European nationalism.... The Atlantic concept which Kissinger has extended also toward Japan is actually an attempt to build up a political and economic structure in the interests of the U.S."

No. 48

16

4/25/73

...U.S.-EUROPEAN RELATIONS, p. 1

...WATERGATE DEVELOPMENTS, p. 12

KISSINGER SPEECH: ONE WEEK LATER

Summary

West European media over the weekend and today gave considerable editorial space to further discussion of Henry Kissinger's "new Atlantic charter" speech of last Monday, treating it as a major statement of U.S. intentions in the "Year of Europe."

Most commentators found it exalted in tone and concept but shy of specific proposals. These were among such views:

--The London Sunday *Observer* heard in the speech "a ring of statesmanship" but regretted that it made "little reference... to the two main problems" of today's developed societies--"how to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons" and "how to ensure both the conservation and the fair distribution of the world's finite resources, of which oil is only the...most publicized example."

--West German television carried a Washington correspondent's view that it "offers an impressive and brilliant context" for the Nixon-Brandt talks but "conceals some domestic...weaknesses and omissions."

Some observers thought the speech marked a watershed in that Europeans could no longer postpone important decisions bearing on European unity and on relations with the U.S.

Thus the conservative *Berlingske Tidende* of Copenhagen declared that "the moment has been hastened for European recognition of the need for joint action if there is to be any hope of a favorable outcome to the coming dialogue with the U.S."

The *Spandauer Volksblatt* of West Berlin termed the address important as "an urgent invitation to the leaders of the major European states to think over" problems of U.S.-European relations.

A Moscow radio panel show included the view of a participant that Mr. Kissinger's call for a "new Atlantic charter" was "proof" of a cold war "failure."

No. 50

1

4/30/73

London: "Kissinger Right on Danger of Rivalry"

Major British papers discussed the Kissinger speech in the context of U. S. - West European relations, finding it generally admirable in tone but lacking in specifics.

The independent London Sunday *Observer* gave most of its editorial space to the address. It commented:

"The outstanding intellectual skill of Dr. Kissinger has managed to give the President's call for a 'new Atlantic charter' a ring of statesmanship where some might otherwise only have seen a fair example of American business rhetoric...."

The paper said the value of the alliance between North America and Western Europe was "not seriously in question on either side of the Atlantic, but only some of the military dispositions required to make it effective...."

"The real anxiety, rightly expressed by Dr. Kissinger, is that economic rivalry between the U. S. and the enlarged European Community should not be allowed to erode the political confidence and sympathy which, as much as self-interest, binds the Atlantic Alliance together. At the same time, Mr. Nixon may think it necessary to convince his European allies that his successful approaches to Moscow and Peking have not been made at their expense."

The paper remarked that, except for his proposal on the energy crisis, Mr. Kissinger made "little reference... to the two main problems which should now be preoccupying the developed industrial societies, whether non-Communist or Communist."

"One is how to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by the creation of safer security systems in dangerous, unstable areas, such as the Middle East. The other is how to ensure both the conservation and the fair distribution of the world's finite material resources, of which oil is only the most dramatic and most publicized example."

No. 50

2

4/30/73

"When set beside these daunting essentials for survival, such questions as Europe's political 'identity' or America's tariffs or the precise number of U. S. troops in Europe (but not the creation of a new international monetary system--which is an urgent major need) must appear marginal and obsolescent. They are the current small change of international politics in a world which is spending its capital at profligate speed."

## "Nixon Right on Perils Ahead"

Deputy editor Peregrine Worsthorne wrote in the conservative Sunday Telegraph that Western Europe today was "being courted on all sides, by the Soviet Union, by China, not only by the U. S."

Worsthorne considered "America's economic demands" on the European Community "a much more immediate challenge" than any military threat from Eastern Europe, "since, if conceded, they would--or so the Europeans believe--destroy the cornerstone of the Community."

"In other words, if the U. S. insists on economic concessions from Europe at the present time, it would be dangerously easy for the economic winds from across the Atlantic to come to seem much more inclement to European interests than any military winds at present blowing from across the steppes."

On the other hand, he continued, "there is comparable danger of the Americans' coming to see Brussels as being more of a threat to the U. S. at the present time than either Moscow or Peking. Nor would this impression be wholly misleading." He reasoned, therefore, that President Nixon was "quite right to see perils ahead," but judged a call "for a new Atlantic summit leading to a new Atlantic charter... much more dubious." He concluded:

"The Atlantic Alliance cannot be reborn. Nor can it be allowed to die. But what the good Doctor Kissinger should have ordered is not drastic surgery or a new diet of uplifting words, or an emergency Japanese blood transfusion, but rather a mild sedative or tranquilizer, so that the patient is not tempted into premature exertions, of either body or mind, for which it is entirely unprepared. If that is avoided, there is no reason why the Alliance should not live for many years to come."

No. 50

3

4/30/73

# "Mapped Out Areas of Conflict"

An editorial-page article in the independent London *Sunday Times* judged the Kissinger speech "less a call for a new chapter in Atlantic relationship than a warning that the problems that lie ahead--trade relations, defense, diplomacy vis-a-vis the Communist world--are all linked." In other words, it added, "Europe cannot at one and the same time continue to enjoy the security afforded by American defense power and become the commercial and perhaps political competitor of the U.S. Something has to give."

It suggested that Kissinger's speech "smacks rather too much of the conceptualist, 'grand design' approach to international affairs" but concluded:

> "Nevertheless, the Kissinger speech, with all its implications, should be taken very seriously by Western governments. Without resorting to the crude threats and arm-twisting tactics of less experienced American officials, Henry Kissinger has accurately mapped out the main areas of potential difficulty or conflict in Atlantic relationships. And his general sentiment that national or regional self-interest is, like patriotism, not enough is a lesson that needs to be learnt on both sides of the Atlantic."

## Douglas-Home's "Cool Examination" of Speech

On Saturday, British papers reported the views of Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home on the Kissinger speech. They said he "Accepts New American Proposals" (*Times*), "Supports Kissinger Plan" (*Financial Times*), and "Warns Nixon Against Rush on Charter" (*Daily Telegraph*).

The *Daily Telegraph* carried an editorial asserting that "Sir Alec's cool examination of the problems involved will do much to inject a note of realism into the debate which will follow Dr. Kissinger's rather heady address....

> "The more direct cooperation there is between Moscow and Washington... the greater is the need for Europe to put its own political and defense house in order...

> "Nothing can come about in Europe without a strong lead from someone, as Ernest Bevin showed in his response to the Marshall Plan."

No. 50

4

4/30/73

Paris: "Brandt Will Have Questions on 'Charter'"

French media discussed the Kissinger proposal in reference to Chancellor Willy Brandt's visit to Washington and the Eurofarm meeting in Brussels.

A Bonn correspondent of moderately conservative *Figaro* of Paris reported today that "in the view of Brandt and his advisers, Kissinger's remarks" on the "new Atlantic charter" concept "have given rise to more questions than the answers they have supplied." He continued:

"The only perfectly clear point, which is important, is that American troops will remain stationed in Europe. This firm commitment is of vital importance for Europe's security.

"But apart from this the Kissinger speech is far from rousing enthusiasm. It is judged imprecise and ambiguous....

"Kissinger underscored the necessity for the Europeans to contribute more to their own defense. Does this mean that NATO in its present form has had its day?...

"It would be in the interest of the American leaders, Brandt will say, to understand that European union, though not yet achieved, is nonetheless the reality of the future. Better take it into account now.

"Furthermore, this Europe intends to establish relations on an equal footing with the U.S. In short, Brandt rejects any idea of American hegemony in future relations between Europe and the U.S."

"U.S. Would Impose 'Charter' on Divided Europe"

Intellectual-left *Combat* of Paris observed today that "Europe emerges bruised from the agricultural negotiations in Luxembourg, which brought out the depth of the divergencies of interest dividing the Nine and their total lack of solidarity.

"This crisis is all the more serious at the time when Brandt's visit offers Nixon the first occasion to try to impose his 'new Atlantic charter' on the West."

No. 50

5

4/30/73

West German TV: "Kissinger Provided Context for Brandt"

The Washington correspondent of West Germany's second television network, Hans Herbert Westermann, reported this weekend that Mr. Kissinger's proposal of a "new Atlantic charter... offers an impressive and brilliant context" for the Nixon-Brandt talks, although, he declared, the speech "conceals some domestic--especially economic--weaknesses and omissions."

On the other hand, the moderator on a weekend TV panel show observed that the Brandt visit "comes at a very unfavorable time while Washington is preoccupied with the Watergate affair."

In newscasts and panel shows over the weekend, both networks stressed the importance of Chancellor Brandt's discussions with President Nixon in relation to Soviet party chief Brezhnev's visit to Bonn in May.

"A Foreign Policy Opportunity for the U.S."

Washington correspondent Jan Reifenberg asserted today in right-center Frankfurter Allgemeine that the Nixon-Brandt discussions, "overshadowed by the most serious internal crisis in modern American history,... offer Nixon an opportunity to turn away from the Watergate abyss, to demonstrate continuing significance and effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy under his leadership and to discuss with Brandt the Kissinger plan for a new Atlantic charter."

Reifenberg wrote that Mr. Nixon hoped at the end of his European trip to "sign a document comparable in its significance to the statement of the basic principles of U.S.-USSR relations signed during the Nixon visit to Moscow."

"In the foreground of his discussions with Brandt will be the nature of U.S.-European cooperation among partners who are no longer united by the common fear of Soviet attack."

"Washington quarters of the highest influence have pointed out that implementation of the Kissinger plan and continuation of what they call the 'latent trade war' between the U.S. and EEC are mutually exclusive policies. The time is ripe for examining problems resulting from the continuing U.S. balance of payments deficit and from the American desire to increase agricultural exports to the

No. 50

6

4/30/73

EEC. In Washington's view, an initiative on the highest political level is required to settle these problems because Washington sees a causal relationship between economic, monetary and security policies..."

"Ambiguous But Offers Opportunities"

Herbert von Borch, Washington correspondent of independent *Sueddeutsche Zeitung*, of Munich, today called Mr. Kissinger "a master of ambivalence" on the ground that his speech was "a disassociation from the rude methods of John Connally while adhering to Connally's position." He asserted that Mr. Kissinger's address indicated "a somewhat ambiguous American attitude" on defense, concluding:

"The Nixon-Kissinger idea of a new Atlantic charter amounts to a negotiating position designed to bring pressure on the Europeans in matters of defense policy in order to obtain concessions in trade, monetary and defense policies. However, the charter idea also offers the opportunity to check the creeping erosion in Atlantic relations resulting from 'superpower' diplomacy and economic rivalry."

Political analyst Dieter Cycon, writing in right-center *Die Welt* of Hamburg, remarked today that if conflicting U.S. and European economic interests were only bilateral U.S. -FRG issues, "there would be room for maneuver."

"There is no direct conflict in U.S. -FRG relations and we would have to consider that the U.S. is still our most reliable protector. Common sense would require that we make adequate concessions on economic problems in return for American military protection. But unfortunately, many American demands collide with the wishes of our EEC partners, especially France.... The Chancellor can support many of the American wishes only at the risk of jeopardizing EEC..."

"Attempt to Pressure Allies"

Rudolf Augstein, publisher of the weekly news magazine *Der Spiegel*, said in an article today that if one stripped the "great Kissinger speech of its felicitous

No. 50

7

4/30/73

appeal, it amounts to an attempt to bring massive pressure to bear on America's
allies to make concessions in trade and other fields.

"At issue is money, and that is the only respect in which the Kissinger charter resembles the Marshall Plan.... Today, America expects the Europeans--who have merely 'regional interests'--to make their money available to the U.S. to enable it to pursue its 'global interests.'

"It is hard for Europeans to understand why they should make intensified defense efforts in view of the 'dramatic transformation' of U.S. -USSR relations..."

### West Berlin: "Invitation Makes Speech Important"

Pro-Social Democratic Spandauer Volksblatt of West Berlin declared yesterday that Mr. Kissinger's speech "contains neither a profound analysis of U.S. -European relations, nor concrete proposals for reshaping them."

"But it is an urgent invitation to the leaders of the major European states to think over these problems, and that alone makes the Kissinger speech important...."

"The critical tone was audible... The Americans are not satisfied with their European allies who, in their view, demand too much without rendering equal service in return. The cool remark that 'some of our friends in Europe have seemed to be unwilling to accord America the same trust they receive from America' must be understood as a sharp jab at the FRG. Chancellor Brandt surely will not wait until the end of the year to discuss these problems with President Nixon...."

"It does not appear very likely that a new Atlantic charter will be drafted by the end of the year, but the air over the Atlantic has become clearer. Nixon has made through Kissinger suggestions that the Europeans should carefully reflect upon in their own interest."

No. 50

8

4/30/73

Independent *Tagesspiegel* declared that redistribution of the burden of collective defense was the most important U. S. -European issue in the period of transition from the cold war to a period of detente, but it termed the "new Atlantic charter" formulation "pretentious." The paper judged there would be "no formulation of common goals" until Mr. Nixon's trip to Europe later this year.

On Saturday the paper reproved as inept the remarks made in Stockholm by Social Democratic Party leader Herbert Wehner that the Kissinger proposals were "unrealistic" and "monstrous."

### Rome: "Context Is the Search for Peace"

Leading independent *Il Messaggero* of Rome yesterday attributed to Foreign Office sources a story that Premier Andreotti had discussed the "Kissinger plan" during his visit to Washington, a week before it was made public.

The paper said Mr. Kissinger's statement about changing relations between Europe and the U. S. "under the new political, strategic and economic realities of the 70's" was received by the Foreign Office with "lively interest" and was the object of "careful study." It said "the FRG-USSR treaty, the planned CSCE and the fundamental improvement of relations between the U. S. and the USSR were relevant examples of the new realities." Furthermore, "they are solidly confirmed by the imminent visits of Secretary General Brezhnev to Bonn and Washington.

> "It is therefore in a climate of heightened detente and a search for conditions to assure a long period of peace that one must place the message.... Of special interest are the assurances of a lasting American contribution to the Western defense force as an instrument of peace and as proof of the favor with which the U. S. regards the development of European unity."

### Vienna TV: "Discord Threatens Western System"

Commentator Hugo Portisch said on Austrian television Saturday evening that it was U.S. practice, whenever the U. S. and Europe found themselves "exposed to special dangers, to propose to the Europeans concepts of large-scale cooperation." Portisch said discord in the Atlantic Alliance "threatens the entire Western system," and predicted that President Nixon in his European visit, "will try in direct negotiations with European leaders to remove the causes of the discord."

No. 50

9

4/30/73

He concluded:

"But the East is on the move too. The Soviets will be making overtures to the West... Their offers will naturally be a disturbing factor as well. The Soviets are not interested in a new Atlantic community.

"Whether all the obstacles--national and selfish--can be overcome will depend on the great round of negotiations this year."

## Copenhagen: "Clear American Message"

Conservative _Berlingske Tidende_ of Copenhagen carried the view of its Paris correspondent that "the moment of truth for European security has come, and even though it was long foreseen, Europe met it rather unprepared."

"Will she prefer to avoid the choice... keeping the old NATO mask?..."

"Or will the clear American message act as a stimulant which will make Europeans think of their own responsibilities, their own security? Under any conceivable circumstances to come, the moment has been hastened for European recognition of the need for joint action if there is to be any hope of a favorable outcome to the coming dialogue with the U.S."

Independent _Kristeligt Dagblad_ of Copenhagen called the speech "nothing less than a decisive turn in the U.S. attitude toward West European nations, a departure from the last ten years of American policy."

The paper said the "expanded Common Market... has become the strongest factor in world trade, and this fact may be the main incentive behind the U.S. initiative."

It concluded:

"The Danish Foreign Minister's reaction--that Denmark will not undertake more obligations--is typical. He fails to understand the idea behind the American move, which is that the world has become too small for narrow divisions among nations."

No. 50

10

4/30/73

Helsinki: "Will Prolong Division of Europe"

Independent Helsingin Sanomat of Helsinki asserted today that "President Nixon's plan... will not create a 'new Europe.'

"On the contrary, it will prolong the division of Europe in two parts. West European countries will be bound to the U. S. and Japan, which will cause the socialist bloc to become increasingly introverted. The small and the neutral countries run the danger of falling between two chairs. And the developing countries will be excluded from the elite society of the industrial countries."

"Looming Shortage of Raw Materials?"

Center Party Suomenmaa of Helsinki said today, "To an increasing degree, industrialized nations are dependent on the developing countries for their supplies of raw materials. Nixon's global arrangements would provide a guarantee against the unpleasant possibility that the looming shortage of raw materials could be used to extort advantages at the expense of the U.S."

Moscow: Kissinger Admitted Cold War "Failure"

A participant on Radio Moscow domestic service's weekly " Observers' Roundtable" said Mr. Kissinger's call for a "new Atlantic charter" was "proof" that the cold war policy toward the USSR was a "failure." He continued:

"Kissinger did not refer to NATO. He did not say that the aggressive alliance was founded on the basis of the old Atlantic Charter. NATO's foundation was the cold war, and if today it is recognized that it now is necessary to write a new document to consolidate the military bloc, this only serves to re-emphasize that the old foundation of this aggressive bloc in effect dissolved under the pressure of our foreign policy, the foreign policy of the socialist countries."

Peking: No Comment

Monitoring indicates that Peking media have not commented on Mr. Kissinger's speech.

No. 50

11

4/30/73

WATERGATE DEVELOPMENTS

Media in many countries over the weekend and today gave prominent space to the Watergate case.

In comment preceding the announcement of White House and Justice Department staff changes, a number of observers examined possible implications of the affair for U. S. foreign policy.

Several saw in the prosecution of the case an example of America as an open society.

The respected London Sunday *Observer* said editorially on the latter point:

"If Watergate has shaken confidence in Mr. Nixon on the home front, the way this scandal is now being relentlessly exposed should also strengthen America's claim to be the most open society; political skulduggery has happened in many countries, but in few could it have been exposed as publicly as now in the U.S."

The paper's Washington correspondent, William Millinship, wrote that there is "growing concern" that an Administration weakened by domestic scandal "could, in turn, impair President Nixon's ability to conduct American foreign policy during a period of important and complex negotiations on many fronts."

The left-oriented London *Daily Mirror* asserted today that "the investigation and purge must be ruthless" because "more is at stake than Mr. Nixon's credibility...

"He must try to re-establish American belief in the honesty and decency of democratic government... If the President of the U.S. does not command respect and authority, the American political system is doomed."

No. 50

12

4/30/73

A correspondent for West German television's second network reported on Saturday, "The magnitude of the scandal is still unclear...

"Washington fears that this Government might lose ground not only in its domestic but also in its foreign policy."

French media, especially state-run radio, played a Louis Harris poll showing a decline in confidence in President Nixon. Paris-based commercial Europe One radio said today, "The Prussians do not intend to leave the White House without dragging President Nixon down with them."

U.S. correspondent Joseph Gawronski reported on State-run Italian radio Saturday night that "the White House is getting more and more involved...at the same time the scandal is spreading." He said, "The threat comes not so much from the spies as from those who are still free and have shattered a basically honest political tradition..."

Independent *Helsingin Sanomat* of Helsinki carried a full-page story by New York-based journalist Sakari Maattanen in which he called Watergate "a disgrace which does not even please Nixon's enemies." He predicted the President would "clear himself of the present scandal because he is one of the cleverest professionals in politics. Nixon knows the American people. Watergate is waiting for its Checkers speech."

The Washington correspondent of leading *Donga Ilbo* of Seoul said on Friday, "This incident seems to me, a Korean reporter, a thing in which the American people can take pride... since it has demonstrated that in the U.S. even a scandal that involves a President is not overlooked."

Thai-language *Siam* of Bangkok asserted on Friday that the Watergate case demonstrated U.S. stability based on the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers.

The English-language *Bangkok World* asserted:

"It now behooves the President to restore some confidence in his Administration, and more than a few firings and artfully worded statements are needed. In his new appointments he must go beyond his circle of acquaintances and select men of genuine distinction and demonstrated experience in whom the American public can have confidence."

No. 50

13

4/30/73

The _New Nigerian_ of Lagos said today:

> "Whatever the outcome, the Americans can take consolation in a system which allows a lively public opinion, a virile press and a fearless judiciary to rake up scandals which the Chief Executive would... wish to bury."

Influential _Jornal do Brasil_ of Rio de Janeiro declared on Friday:

> "The Watergate case is once again testing the stability of the democratic institutions in the U.S. The investigative process to determine responsibilities... is indispensable to the country's good image abroad.

> "The White House, exposed in a dishonorable way by the affair, is the most eager to purge itself in the eyes of the public..."

## Communist Countries

Communist media generally have played the Watergate affair in low key, letting Western news agencies and newspapers carry the story.

Moscow TASS on Saturday, for example, reported the Ruckelshaus appointment as acting head of the FBI "after the resignation of Patrick Gray from this post." It quoted the _Washington Post_ account without comment.

Warsaw radio domestic service today briefly noted that the "Watergate affair is still topic number one in the American press, which has been disclosing further indiscretions."

Radio Hanoi on Saturday carried a lengthy piece quoting from half a dozen western news sources to detail the history of the Watergate case. Its lead said:

> "According to Western news agencies, Nixon has become furious as his role in the Watergate case is being tracked down; White House activities are virtually paralyzed. Many top advisers and aides are involved in this political espionage case, and they are casting the blame on one another in order to clear themselves."

No. 50

14

4/30/73

The clandestine Viet Cong radio, in a much shorter version, also quoted "U.S. sources" that "a wave of panic has spread throughout Washington as more new charges and criticism emerge every hour and minute against former or present close subordinates of Nixon. Everyone wonders what action Nixon will take."

A Peking-datelined Reuters story said on Saturday that while public media in China had not commented on the Watergate case, reports on the probe were being carried in *Reference News*, a digest of foreign news circulated among party cadres but not issued to foreign diplomats or journalists.

No. 50

15

4/30/73

Europe Cool to U.S. Design for New Ties

By ALVIN SHUSTER
Special to The New York Times

LONDON, May 21—A month after Henry A. Kissinger offered the Nixon Administration's ideas for developing new trans-Atlantic relations, European officials are reacting with a mixture of public politeness, private irritation and concern, and some open and serious reservations.

The President's adviser on national security has succeeded in opening his desired "dialogue" with Europe, but one proposal—his suggestion for a "new Atlantic charter"—is en-countering such stiff resistance that European officials expect it to go down as the first casualty.

The French, suspicious as usual of Washington's intentions, saw the charter idea as a device to insure America's domination of Europe, and offi-

cials in Bonn, London and other capitals have shied away from it in skepticism.

"We think the phrase itself has virtually passed from the vocabulary in European capitals," said a high-ranking official here. "It looked too much like a gimmick and nobody really seemed to want to embrace it. We are not ready for a document of that kind. The problem now is how Europe will eventually respond to the speech."

The official strategy across Europe is to suggest publicly the need for a "positive" response to Mr. Kissinger's call for new definitions of the relationships between the United States, Europe, and eventually, Japan. But private comments reflect harsher attitudes.

In coming weeks, given the present schedule of summit and lower-level meetings, the for-

mal European response will begin to take shape. The topic figures, for example, in the talks starting today in Paris between Prime Minister Heath and President Pompidou. And Mr. Pompidou will meet Mr. Nixon in Iceland at the end of this month.

An experienced Common Market diplomat indicated the difficulties in any proposal as sweeping as a "new Atlantic charter." "Many of us feel that Kissinger served a purpose in spelling out the issues of potential trouble," he said, "but it's unrealistic to think we are ready to get together at this stage, organize ourselves, and sit down and sign a document of that kind. Nobody wants to rush into what appears to be a cozy relationship with the United States when the issues will

Continued on Page 3, Column 1

NYT 5/22/73

Continued From Page 1, Col. 3

take so long in resolving—
whether it's trade, money or
defense. It'll be tough going
and we don't want to do any-
thing that might tie our hands
in advance."

All this was not to suggest
that Mr. Nixon would receive
a chilly welcome when he
comes here for meetings with
European leaders this autumn.
However, it does complicate
Washington's search for a com-
mon declaration that would
serve as a political framework
for the complex trans-Atlantic
negotiations ahead.

When Mr. Kissinger passed
through London on his return
from Moscow 10 days ago, he
is understood to have made it
clear that he was not irrevo-
cably wedded to such phrasing
as a "new Atlantic charter."

He reportedly advised British
officials, however, that the
White House did want some-
thing when Mr. Nixon visited—
perhaps a statement of general
principles that European leaders
and the President could all sign.

Viewed as Condescending

No matter what such a docu-
ment is called, officials are an-
proaching it with wariness. For
one thing, European officials
viewed as condescending the
Kissinger remarks that while
the United States had "global
interests and responsibilities,"
the European allies had "re-
gional interests." Mr. Kissinger
has since said that he did not

mean to confine Europe to that
limited role and that his phrase
was "descriptive and not pre-
scriptive.

For another, there is reluc-
tance in European capitals to
agree to a document suggest-
ing, in line with White House
views, the Europe would pay
more for its own defense and
would also make concessions
on trade and monetary issues
as a price for continued Ameri-
can troops and nuclear weap-
ons.

Fear Giveaway to U.S.

The European officials fear
that Washington would want
all that at least suggested in
a statement of "general prin-
ciples," and they are not pre-
pared to agree.

Until there is more informa-
tion from Washington, there
is even uncertainty over
whether a meeting between the
European leaders and Mr.
Nixon is in the cards.

The French are making un-
official noises against the idea,
which was discussed recently
in Washington between Mr.
Nixon and Chancellor Willy
Brandt of West Germany. The
British, more reluctant to ap-
pear critical of Washington, are
merely saying that the summit
question is very much in doubt.

"There would have to be
some kind of a summit even for
a relatively innocuous state-
ment," one official said. "What-
ever does emerge won't be
anything resembling a charter.
Many of us feel we would
rather see a more significant

document come only against a
background of achievement of
those hot issues—trade, money,
security. And we won't be far
enough along on those when
the President comes."

Nixon Message Didn't Help

The European apprehensions
on these issues were not eased
by Mr. Nixon's message on
foreign policy this month, in
which he talked of the need for
greater European defense con-
tributions and of how the
United States "devotes a much
higher share of its economic
product to defense than do the
Europeans."

It did not stir much wide-
spread interest in Europe,
where news from Washington
is being dominated by Water-
gate. But one European of-
ficial said that the tone was
"even tougher than Kissinger's"
in suggesting that Europe ought
to be nice to American exports
because of all the money that
Washington spent to protect its
allies.

One crucial element in the
rush away from the "charter"
idea is Europe's admission that
the community lacks political
cohesion. The Europeans are
thus reluctant to deal in global
terms with Washington on
wide-ranging and complex
problems.

The month-old speech has
opened President Nixon's de-
sired "comprehensive dialogue,
but neither Europe nor Ameri-
ca is yet hearing what it wants
to hear.

fished for generations,
Britain and West Germany
charged Iceland with violation
of international law.

As in the previous fishing
dispute between Britain and
Iceland, when the Government
here extended the fishing limits
from four miles to 12 in 1958,
there have been repeated in-
cidents, with Icelandic coast
guard craft trying to chase Brit-
ish trawlers away.

British trawlers were escort-
ed yesterday for the first time
in the current dispute by three
British frigates. The Icelandic
Coast Guard said today there
were 15 British trawlers fish-
ing inside the 50-mile line.

The decision to recall the
Ambassador from London "to
explain the situation to the
Icelandic Government" was an-
nounced after a Cabinet meet-
ing. Premier Olafur Johannes-
son said his coalition Cabinet
had also discussed whether Ice-
land should charge Britain with
aggression before the United
Nations Security Council.

But he said no decisions had
been made because ministers
wanted to confer first with
their parties. The Govern-
ment is a left-wing coalition of
the Premier's agrarian Progres-
sive party with the Communist-
led People's Alliance and the
Liberal Left.

The Premier told newsmen
that his country had had been
slow to react to Britain's de-
cision to send frigates into the
area but that it took a very
serious view of the matter.

Mr. Johannesson himself
made the first countermove. yes-

WASHINGTON STAR & DAILY NEWS - 27 APRIL 1973

# A New Atlantic Charter

The call for a new Atlantic charter, voiced the other day in New York by Presidential Adviser Henry Kissinger, apparently amounts to something more than the usual inspirational rhetoric reserved by all recent administrations for discussing our relations with Europe. It is reported that President Nixon has in mind an actual document, laying down a set of agreed principles governing alliance relationships, which presumably will be signed by members of the alliance when he visits Western Europe.

It is a tall order and one which will not be easily filled. Reaction in Europe, while generally approving of the administration initiative, has been reserved. The project has already been discussed in general terms with Britain's Prime Minister Edward Heath and Premier Giulio Andreotti on earlier visits to Washington. It will provide the subject for lively discussion during the forthcoming visits of West German Chancellor Willy Brandt and French President Georges Pompidou, at which time the ideas of the European leaders will be earnestly solicited.

Kissinger, with his usual lucidity, has already drawn attention to the major problems in his speech last Monday to the Associated Press. They have been caused in large part by the success of the alliance itself, the diminishing sense of unity in the face of a common danger, the developing economic unification of Western Europe, growing rivalries over trade and monetary problems, and a general relaxation of East-West tensions leading to a reassertion of national interests.

Kissinger undoubtedly is quite right in emphasizing the dangers of divisive

tendencies in an era when economic problems are taking a decisive precedence over the military concerns of an earlier time. It is, as he says, "the responsibility of national leaders to insure that economic negotiations serve larger political purposes" and that "economic rivalry, if carried on without restraint, will in the end damage other relationships."

Just what these larger political purposes are, however, remains undefined and the comparison between the new Atlantic charter and the old one is difficult. In 1947, George C. Marshall issued a call for a concerted answer to a problem that was concrete, urgent and unambiguous. The answer he proposed, furthermore, depended essentially on the unilateral contribution of billions of dollars of American money. Today the problems that confront the alliance are infinitely more complex. And the essential objective of what Henry Kissinger describes as "a fresh act of creation" is considerably more obscure.

Perhaps deliberately so. Any agreed set of principles governing alliance relationships that was wholly conceived in Washington might, with some justice, be suspected of a certain American bias by our less than wholly trustful European allies. A substantial European input will undoubtedly be necessary to any widespread acceptance. At the same time, the call for European ideas may also reflect a certain lack of charity and conviction about the larger political purposes to be served by the new charter at a time when there is a growing disinclination to subordinate national or regional interests to the common good.

END

made these promises which it
flew many of the refugees to
Phnom Penh from the war
areas.

There are for example 300
families. about 3,000 persons,
existing now in "Camb-
bodiana" a skeleton building
on the banks of the Bassac
River which was once one of
erstwhile ruler Prince
Sihanouk's pet projects. His
plan for a hotel and tourist
complex became a dead let-
ter with outbreak of Cambo-
dian war three years ago.

Every available space
about 6-feet square on the
bare cement floor is taken by
bedmats and household be-
longings of each family. The
people tend to group with
families from the same vil-
lage or province.

ONE GROUP IS from Kom-
pong Reu, a village between
the Cambodian town of Svay
Rieng and the South Vietnam
border. They are recent refu-
gees who fled from their vil-
lage about three months ago
for the usual combination of
reasons that drives the South-
east Asian peasant from his
home — the Communist con-
scription of young men and
village assets, then the fight-
ing once the Communists are
found in the area and finally
the bombing, with B52 strikes
giving the final frightening
push.

Kompong Reu headmen
said the Viet Cong supply offi-
cers had requisitioned 17 in
every 20 tons of rice, taken
bicycles and destroyed radio
transistors.

"Everything in the village
belonged to the Viet Cong,"
the leaders said.

but government officials said
the government was trans-
porting them to Phnom Penh
where they would be fed and
clothed and that each family
would receive a house and
land in Battambang Province
in the Cambodian northwest
which has been scarcely
touched by war.

THAT WAS three months
ago.

The house and land has not
materialized nor is it showing
any sign of doing so. People
said they'd given up hope of
ever getting new land, al-
though one man expressed a
20 percent hope it would
come.

The food, in fact, has been
rice only, no vegetables or
salt.

The free rice distribution
has been of the lowest quality
and insufficient in quantity.
The allowance each small
family receives is 20 kilograms
(forty-four pounds) of rice per
month and larger families get
30 kilograms or 66 pounds
monthly.

TO VERIFY REPORTS,
this writer visited an older
refugee camp on the city's
outskirts where people had
been located from eight
months to a year. These
people were from another
border province, Kompong
Cham.

Their plight made the Cam-
bodiana peoples' look like a
paradise.

This camp is referred to as
the UNICEF hutment camp
because UNICEF provided
the huts. These are made of

See CAMBODIA, Pg 2

Volunteers, the Pentagon
Thursday announced a
$1,000 boost in a special
bonus paid to men enlist-
ing in Army and Marine
Corps ground combat jobs.

The move raising the
bonus to $2.500 clashes
with optimistic statements
by senior Defense Depart-
ment officials on progress
toward an all-volunteer
armed force.

Figures show the Army,
the biggest problem area,
has fallen short of its re-
cruiting objectives for
combat soldiers in every
month since the Pentagon
started experimenting
with a $1,500 combat arms
enlistment bonus last
July.

The Marines have come
closer to their goals, but
also have been short most
months.

Secretary of Defense El-
liot L. Richardson said the
bonus for a four-year en-
listment in the infantry,
armor and field artillery
will rise to $2,500 for May
and June, until present
bonus authority expires.

Hard to Recruit

In addition, Richardson
said, the Army will test
the $2,500 enlistment
bonus payments for 12
hard-to-recruit technical
skills such as maintenance
specialists in missiles,
electronics and armament
with combat elements.

The Pentagon has asked
Congress to extend and ex-

PREPARED BY THE AIR FORCE (SAFA) AS EXECUTIVE AGENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO
DOD PERSONNEL MATTERS WITHIN THEIR OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

JAMES KILLINGBECK, CHIEF, CURRENT NEWS BRANCH, OX 78765

FOR RESEARCH, CLIPPING SERVICE AND DISTRIBUTION CALL HARRY ZUBKOFF, CHIEF, EXECUTIVE OFFICE

Kissinger's Europe...

With his call for "a fresh act of creation" equal to the effort that built the Marshall Plan and the Atlantic Alliance after World War II, Henry A. Kissinger has tried to project the outline of President Nixon's "Year of Europe," if the "new Atlantic Charter" envisioned by Mr. Kissinger in his address to the Associated Press luncheon in New York is still a hazy concept, its general form may be beginning to take shape.

On the whole, Mr. Kissinger gave this country's European partners the kind of message most of them have been anxious to have from the Nixon Administration. He restated the common goals and interests underpinning the Atlantic-Europe connection, reaffirmed the enduring character of the United States commitment to the Atlantic Alliance, and reiterated Washington's dedication to the cause of Western European integration and unity "as a component of a larger Atlantic partnership."

Mr. Kissinger still reflects the highly dubious Washington gospel derogating the European Community for its merely "regional" character, as contrasted, in his view, with the wider, global interests and responsibilities of the United States. Yet on the current issues of most importance to Europe, Mr. Kissinger reassured the members of the Alliance that the President remains "adamantly opposed" to unilateral American troop withdrawals from Europe while hoping for eventual agreement with the Soviet bloc for mutual and balanced force cuts; and that in the forthcoming trade negotiations, it will be the overriding American goal to help build "an open and balanced trading order with both Europe and Japan."

If Mr. Kissinger reminded Europe that the United States expected "a spirit of reciprocity" on trade from the European Community and "a fair share" from each ally for the common defense, his tone and language echoed the positive accents of President Nixon's trade message to Congress earlier this month, rather than the truculent, chauvinistic Administration pronouncements at the time of the emergency economic measures of 1971.

"We see these negotiations not as a test of strength, but as a test of joint statesmanship," Mr. Kissinger emphasized. John B. Connally, with his faith that a winner and a loser must emerge from any negotiation, could hardly have said such a thing with conviction. Has the Administration genuinely—and permanently—changed its whole approach to this country's allies and trading partners in an effort, in Mr. Kissinger's words, "to build a new structure of international relations for the decades ahead"?

On past performance, it is too early to draw such a conclusion. Despite its general thrust toward a freer system, Mr. Nixon's trade bill is pockmarked with protectionist devices should the President choose to use them. In the same vein, Mr. Kissinger's text includes, along with its spirit of uplift, all the Administration's stock complaints about Europe—the dubious as well as the justified.

Nevertheless, the speech said much that needed saying. If the Administration is prepared to follow through in the spirit of the Kissinger message, the "revitalized Atlantic partnership" for which Mr. Kissinger called is clearly feasible. But if the Administration is as eager to get this message to the world as Mr. Kissinger's text indicated, it would have been more convincing if the speech had been delivered by the President himself.

Dr. Kissinger and Europe