KISSINGER ASSOCIATES, INC.

J. STAPLETON ROY
MANAGING DIRECTOR

August 15, 2001

TO: Dr. Kissinger
RE: Matlock Letter

Your letter to Jack Matlock in 1996 is a good one. My recollection
is consistent with it.

I was in Moscow from 1969-72, i.e. during the Nixon first term, and on the Soviet desk in Washington from 1972-74, where Matlock was my boss. There was a fundamental difference between the first and second term, and between before and after you came over to State as Secretary.

During the first term, Amb. Beam was totally in the dark on most of the private dealings with the Soviets, including your secret visit to Moscow in the spring of 1972, which he learned of only on the eve of your departure (he thought he was being called to the Foreign Ministry for a session on Vietnam, and I was the stand-by notetaker; instead he discovered you were in Moscow). During that period, State also had the sense of being cut out of all the inside dealings with the Soviets. (When you have a free moment, I can tell you an amusing incident from Helsinki that relates to this.)

Once you came over as Secretary, State felt fully engaged, both directly and indirectly. When EUR was not directly involved, I was the officer in EUR/SOV who worked informally with Hal Sonenfeldt and his staff in C to provide support for Soviet initiatives. Art Hartman, Walt Stoessel, and Jack Matlock all felt engaged in a way they had not during the first term.

350 PARK AVENUE • NEW YORK, NY • (212) 759-7919

-2-

Through both terms, meticulous records were kept. So even when State was cut out, this was not at the expense of a full record. I later saw the full files on China, so I know this was the case.

I agree with your interpretation of Vance's failed first visit to Moscow. I was on the China desk at the time and was appalled at the inept manner in which the trip was handled; they seemed to be courting rejection.

I see no need for a further letter to Matlock. On the issue of betraying Vietnam, a written debate would serve no useful purpose. On the issue of your conducting an independent foreign policy for which you should be accountable, Matlock forcefully set the record straight. A call from Win Lord might be useful, but in my view is optional.

HENRY A. KISSINGER

January 17, 1996

Dear Jack:

Before I turn to the purpose of this letter, let me congratulate you on your seminal account of your service as Ambassador in Moscow. It is so splendid that I even forgive you for its totally erroneous account of the views ascribed to me with respect to the evolution of Eastern Europe in 1989.

My purpose in writing concerns your review of Dobrynin's memoirs in the *New York Review of Books*. I will not deal with your reflections on the proper use of ambassadors, with which I largely agree and which indeed I followed when I was Secretary of State. I take exception, however, to your allegations regarding secret understandings unknown to our successors. This is carrying turf consciousness much too far.

To begin with, it is important to distinguish the conduct of East-West relations in Nixon's first and second terms. Even in the first term *all* conversations were meticulously recorded in memoranda of conversations, though the essence of SALT negotiations was with the delegations. In the second term, Dobrynin did not function so much as a backchannel. Almost all negotiations were conducted with Gromyko or Brezhnev. Stoessel and later Toon attended most of these. A nearly verbatim transcript of all of them was turned over by me to Vance together with the memcons of conversations with Dobrynin. The blow-up during Vance's first visit to Moscow occurred not because of any secret understandings, but because Carter and Brzezinski

TWENTY-SIXTH FLOOR • 350 PARK AVENUE • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 • (212) 759-7919