THE FORD FOUNDATION

320 EAST 43rd STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017

McGEORGE BUNDY
PRESIDENT

February 25, 1970

Dear Henry:

This is just a line to thank you warmly for sending me copies of the big
paper on U. S. Foreign Policy for the 1970's. I have had a quick look
and among the many good things the paper contains I find only one point
on which I think a smoke signal may be useful. The paper speaks of
"four specific criteria for strategic sufficiency," but it does not say what
they are. I think that when those who are skeptical about the Administra-
tion's policy get around to it, they are likely to press quite hard for public
discussion of these criteria. I suppose the President would not have men-
tioned the criteria if he did not expect to discuss them publicly, but I
cannot help feeling that there may be some risk of the kind of debate which
proved so unhelpful in the early Eisenhower years and then again after
the Gaither Report. I have an unhappy sense that I may not agree with
the four criteria myself, but my difficulties are not your problem. More-
over since you know what the criteria are, you are obviously in the right
position to figure out how they should be presented. All I am doing here
is to suggest that this argument probably lies somewhere ahead, and that
I hope it can be kept from becoming troublesome.

Honorable Henry Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D. C.

official, jlp, 11/3/71

BUNDY 11/8

Type of Request & Date

(Last name and pending date)

GENERAL

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

Name:

McGeorge (I assume) Bundy

Request:

is coming to see the Chief Justices on November 8 at 3:00 p. m. He thinks he will be with him for about two hours, so would like to see Mr. Kissinger before if possible (the last time they were together, they discussed getting together at next opportunity). If HK is free for lunch that would be good; otherwise earlier in the day or some time after 5:00.

212/661-7730

CSH's Recommendation:

HAK's Answer:

Date and Time:

Party Contacted:

Additional Information:

Resolution:

MCGEORGE BUNDY

320 EAST 43rd STREET
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017

January 10, 1972

Dear Henry:

I listened to the redoubtable John Paul Vann at the Council the other evening, and along with a great many other trenchant observations he told that audience of his expectation that there would be a substantial attack in the central highlands between now and February 21, aimed at the American political audience. A sensitive member of the group asked him whether this expectation was shared by other authorities and if so whether he thought American public opinion was adequately on the alert. His answer was that his expectation was indeed shared and that he was sure knowledgeable reporters were aware of it. Since then I see by Evans and Novak that at least one reporter does indeed have the word. I also see reports of similar expectations attributed to field commanders.

But my purpose in writing is to suggest that this kind of informal alerting of the press is a very different thing from the kind of top-level statement that could help to minimize the impact of any attack. Such an impact could be very great even if it is rapidly contained, as Vann seems sure that it will be. The most poignant passages in Johnson's Memoirs and in Walt Rostow's more detailed manuscript account deal with the fact that from inside the cocoon of highly classified intelligence reports it proved hard to give adequate public warning of what was expected at TET (and of course what happened was much bigger than what was expected). So I write to suggest that as it looks from New York, there is not yet an adequate base of public understanding that the U. S. government expects a significant attack in the central highlands and has confidence in the combined ability of the forces there to deal with it.

KISSINGER, HENRY A. /B*

The White House
Washington

WHD 121 PC069

Q NNB 147 (NY 255NN106147)PD FORDFOUND NYK 0326P EDT 09/11/72

ZCZC 012 PD NEWYORK NY

DR HENRY A KISSINGER
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

BT

HAM ARMSTRONG HAD MAJOR SURGERY OVER THE WEEKEND TO REMOVE SPINAL CORD OBSTRUCTION AND IS STILL IN INTENSIVE CARE. FIRST INDICATIONS ARE HOPEFUL BUT HE WILL CLEARLY NOT BE UP AND AROUND IN TIME FOR OUR DINNER SEPTEMBER 19. SO PARTY IS POSTPONED AND I WILL BE BACK IN TOUCH AS SOON AS WE KNOW HAM'S RATE OF RECOVERY.

MAC BUNDY

NNNN(0330P EDT)

FORM 0805. PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. S. A.

JUNI (C)320P EDL)

MAC BUNDY

I WILL BE BACK IN TOUCH AS SOON AS WE KNOW HAM'S RATE OF RECOVERY.
RECEIVED

IN TIME FOR OUR DINNER SEPT 12 POSTPONED AND
INDICATIONS ARE HOPEFUL BUT HE WILL CLEARLY NOT BE UP AND AROUND
SPINAL CORD OBSTRUCTION 1972 SEP 12 9 UNTIL EMERGIVE CARE. FIRST
HAM ARMSTRONG HAD MAJOR SURGERY OVER THE WEEKEND TO REMOVE

BT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

THE WHITE HOUSE
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT

DR HENRY A KISSIMBER

SCIS 015 50 NEWYORK NY

0 NMB 143 (NY 5221106143)60 FORGELAND NYK

WHO 151 BC089

0356P ED103/11/15

108 BRATTLE STREET
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
02138

January 6th

Dear Henry:--

You may or may not see a Newsweek column I have just written for
publication next week. It speculates (at full length only in the
International Edition, for reasons of space) on the "greater strategy"
you may have had in mind on the India-Pakistan business. I don't believe
I'm necessarily accurate at all, but I do want you to know that my thoughts
do not in any respect come from government sources. Ordinarily, I would
never discuss sources, but at this time of everyone in the know being
very uptight with each other, I think it wise to do so.

For what it's worth, I also explore the leaks, and their effect on the
government process. I hope you catch the culprit(s) and throw them out of
government, as was done a decade ago with an Air Force general and
20 years earlier with one of the most recent liberals active in Washington
politics, by a relative of mine. The show won't run otherwise, in the
long run. For what it's worth, my own hunch is that the motive was not
fondness for India, but belief that the China trip was at the core of your
policy. In other words, look for someone who explores the China opening and
still thinks Peking much more villainous than Moscow. There must be much
more such in the Pentagon than of the pro-Indians.

As you will gather, I still think you have been wrong on the I-P
thing, but am prepared to wait and see on Peking. In itself, that has surely
been right.

Of course no answer expected. Throw this away, indeed.

With warm regards,

Yours ever,

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AN AMERICAN QUARTERLY REVIEW

58 EAST 68TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10021 | (212) 535-3300

GENERAL

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

WILLIAM P. BUNDY
EDITOR

May 29, 1973

JAMES CHACE
MANAGING EDITOR

PERSONAL

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20500

Dear Henry:

I enclose, in the proof form familiar to you, a piece which John Campbell has provided for the July issue. Since it will not be appearing until June 19, I thought that it was worth sending you these proofs, as the article contains a rather specific suggestion for possible discussion between the President and Mr. Brezhnev. This will be found particularly at the top of the sixth galley (DD-65) and is self-explanatory. From my reading, I would reckon that the article could serve as a superb briefing on the nature of the problem particularly in Yugoslavia. Please do treat it in confidence, subject of course to working needs.

I am sure these are particularly trying times for you from every standpoint, and hope that the furor over the bugging of your staff will die down and not become central to the ongoing investigation of what are really quite different and far more serious matters. Unpleasant as the bugging was, I do recall enough of the embattled and suspicious atmosphere in which you had to establish your position to have some sympathy for what was done as perhaps a necessary move to establish trust with your colleagues. At any rate, I hope that your vitally important work can continue at a time when it is more important than ever.

Having said this, I was perturbed by the newspaper report that you were setting up a store of papers on some personal basis, allegedly under the aegis of Peter Rodman. I

RECEIVED
JUN 16 1973
CENTRAL FILES

-2-

hope that this report is not correct and that you are not
contemplating any special arrangement even for the sake of the
important writing that you might do after you leave government.
I have watched this problem in the divergent cases of
Dean Acheson (who took almost nothing), of Mac (ditto), and of
John Foster Dulles, whose view of personal papers seemed to me
far too broad and whose arrangement at Princeton seemed to
partake of favored access. I should think there was every
justification for an arrangement under which you could have
access to material after your leaving, but that anything that
set up your own private and separate cache would make it very
difficult to hold the line we all care about deeply, and to
argue against the behavior of present and future Ellsbergs.
This needs no reply or comment, but I cannot refrain from
expressing strong feelings developed over many years.

In accordance with our last discussion, your name will
not appear on the masthead in the next issue, though I continue
to hope and expect that it will return there when circumstances
permit. As the omission is noted, I suppose there may be
those who will wonder whether it relates to any present
circumstance, and I shall lose no opportunity to make clear
the true reasoning that has led us both to this conclusion.

With warm regards always, and congratulations on your
half-century,

Yours ever,

William P. Bundy

Enclosure

EXECUTIVE

WH-10 KISSINGER, HENRY A.

JUL 20 1971

FO 2/165-2

KISSINGER, HENRY A. / B *

Dear Ellsworth:

I want to express my deep appreciation for the
very warm welcome which you gave me and
members of my staff during my visit to Saigon.

It was particularly kind of you to offer your
hospitality, which was not only very pleasant
but also gave me a good chance to learn your
thoughts on many subjects I have wanted to dis-
cuss with you.

I also appreciated the conversations you arranged
for me with Vietnamese political figures, and was
very pleased that you joined me. I found those
conversations illuminating and helpful, particularly
as we approach the period when the political ele-
ment will become ever more important.

Please also express my appreciation to your staff
and to the Mission Council who gave us such an
excellent briefing.

The Honorable Ellsworth Bunker
United States Ambassador
American Embassy
Saigon

DRH:nm:7/16/71

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

Meeting of the Board of Directors
The Atlantic Council of the United States

Tentative Agenda

✓Harvard Club
27 West 44th Street
New York

MAY 28 1971

June 10, 1971

10:30 a.m.

I. Adoption of Tentative Agenda

II. Approval of minutes of meeting of April 14, 1971.

III. Meaning of the Senate Debate on the Mansfield Resolution. (Our immediate thoughts attached.)

A. Possible follow up

IV. Discussion of Special Committee of Director's Statement on Balance of Payments. (Attached.)

A. What do we do next?

V. Progress - or lack thereof - in undertaking proposed Agriculture Study.

VI. Discussion of Atlantic Council Special Projects:

A. Burgess-Huntley book.

B. Malmgren book on Nontariff Barriers.

C. Book on Environmental Controls.

D. Stanley-Whitt book.

VII. Fund Raising and Treasurer's Reports.

VIII. ATA and London Assembly.

IX. Discussion of the Committee on Atlantic Studies.

X. Report of ACYPL and discussion of their activities.

XI. Other business.

Note: As is customary, we will lunch together and try to finish by 3 p.m.

RECEIVED

JUN 2 1971

CENTRAL FILES

THE MESSAGE OF THE SENATE DEBATE

The Senate has engaged in the first Great Debate
over North America's relations with Europe in 20 years.

As 20 years ago, the result shows a deep commitment
to Europe, an understanding that the Atlantic is the key
area for the stability of the world, and appreciation of
the Atlantic Community.

The results, in our view, are at least as signi-
ficant today as they were 20 years ago. Then a positive
step was required -- the actual movement of four divisions
of troops from America to Europe. But then there was a
visible and tangible threat.

Today the troops are already there. It was instead
a question of bringing half of them home. But the threat
is also not as obvious. It is much more subtle today.
For a nation that is war weary following the frustrations
of Vietnam, and for which there are many competing national
priorities, the depth of editorial and senatorial under-
standing and appreciation of the nature of the North
Atlantic Alliance was most encouraging.

Two related but separate incidents played a major
role in what has just happened in the Senate.

-2-

The first was the run on the dollar in Europe, which, because of increasing concern with the balance of payments, could have resulted in adoption of the Mansfield Amendment and a unilateral reduction of troops.

The second was the fortuitous timing of Mr. Brezhnev's speech, calling for negotiations on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions. The argument that a unilateral reduction would foreclose this possibility was compelling, but there is no doubt that the Senate wants the Administration to respond to Brezhnev's invitation to "taste the wine."

This debate and the resulting vote clears the air for a time and opens the way for:

1. Meaningful discussions, within the institutions of NATO, for a more balanced sharing of the burdens. The Senate Debate and editorial comment throughout the nation clearly indicate that there must be action in this field.

2. Hopefully the early beginning of negotiations with the Warsaw Pact looking toward mutual and balanced force reductions.

3. Much closer coordination of political and economic policies of our nations, utilizing existing

institutions where possible but not ruling out new
institutions if necessary.

What we are saying is that this battle has been
won, and handsomely so, but we must move forward along the
lines suggested; we cannot stand still.

The Senate, in reflecting constituents, demands
some signs of progress.

W. Randolph Burgess, Chairman
Richard J. Wallace, Director
General

THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE U.S.

-2-

Livingston T. Merchant, former Executive Director
of the International Monetary Fund; and

Sidney E. Rolfe, economist, who acted as rapporteur.

The Council, which is directly concerned with the
long term relationship between Europe and America, called
the crisis a "critical development" in Atlantic relations
and proposed "decisive action" to bring the U.S. balance
of payments to or close to equilibrium as a "national
and international responsibility of critical priority"
important equally to the United States and the Free World.

"Moreover, the achievement of acceptable equilibrium
in its balance of payments cannot be achieved by the
United States alone," the statement said, "unless it
should choose the unacceptable course of acting uni-
laterally to withdraw from its role in world affairs and
seal itself from international cooperation by artificial
restrictions on trade and capital movements."

"It should be achieved through multilateral cooperation,
with the United States taking the lead and following through
on a multilateral effort."

The full statement is attached.

###

CHAIRMAN
W. RANDOLPH BURGESS

VICE CHAIRMEN
LIVINGSTON T. MERCHANT
LAURIS NORSTAD
DEAN ACHESON
THEODORE C. ACHILLES
HENRY H. FOWLER
NEIL MCELROY
EUGENE V. ROSTOW
ALEXANDER B. TROWBRIDGE

TREASURER & CHAIRMAN,
FINANCE COMMITTEE
PERCIVAL F. BRUNDAGE

SECRETARY
TOM KILLEFER

DIRECTOR GENERAL
RICHARD J. WALLACE

DIRECTORS

DONALD G. AGGER
FRANK ALTSCHUL
JANANN G. BAKER
EDWARD W. BARRETT
FRANCIS M. BATOR
JUSTIN BLACKWELDER
W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHAL
GENE BRADLEY
WILLIAM P. BUNDY
WILLIAM A. M. BURDEN
HODDING CARTER, III
HARLAN CLEVELAND
EMILIO G. COLLADO
ROBERT L. DENNISON
DOUGLAS DILLON
LEWIS W. DOUGLAS
WALTER DOWLING
WILLIAM H. DRAPER, JR.
CHARLES E. DUCOMMUN
BROOKS EMENY
CHARLES W. ENGELHARD
THOMAS K. FINLETTER
RALPH C. M. FLYNT
WILLIAM C. FOSTER
GEORGE S. FRANKLIN, JR.
CARL J. GILBERT
ALFRED M. GRUENTHER
LIVINGSTON HARTLEY
GABRIEL HAUGE
WM. ROGERS HEROD
CHRISTIAN A. HERTER, JR.
JOHN D. HICKERSON
CLAIRE GIANNINI HOFFMAN
J. ALLAN HOVEY, JR.
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY
HENRY M. JACKSON
JACOB K. JAVITS
FRANZ M. JOSEPH
HENRY A. KISSINGER
RUTH C. LAWSON
JOHN M. LEDDY
LYMAN L. LEMNITZER
MARY P. LORD
JAY LOVESTONE
DAVID W. MACEACHRON
JOHN J. McCLOY
J. S. MCDONNELL
WM. MCCHESNEY MARTIN
LAWRENCE C. MCQUADE
GEORGE MEANY
SAMUEL W. MEEK
HUGH MOORE
WALDEN MOORE
MALCOLM MUIR
ROBERT D. MURPHY
FREDERICK E. NOLTING, JR.
GARRISON NORTON
PATRICK L. O'MALLEY
LITHGOW OSBORNE
HENRY D. OWEN
DANIEL PARKER
H. H. PORTER
OGDEN R. REID
EMMETT J. RICE
SIDNEY E. ROLFE
ROBERT V. ROOSA
ELMO ROPER
H. CHAPMAN ROSE
CORTLANDT V. R. SCHUYLER
GERARD C. SMITH
KENNETH M. SPANG
TIMOTHY W. STANLEY
RALPH I. STRAUS
ELLSWORTH TOMPKINS
JOHN W. TUTHILL
PATRICIA M. WILLIAMS

THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL
OF THE UNITED STATES

1616 H STREET, N.W. • WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006

TELEPHONE 347-9353
CABLE: ATCOUN

HONORARY CHAIRMEN

HERBERT HOOVER
(1962-1964)

HARRY S. TRUMAN

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
(1962-1969)

LYNDON B. JOHNSON

PRESS RELEASE

EMBARGO:
For Release
Wednesday A.M.'s
12 May 1971

Statement on Monetary Situation

The Atlantic Council of the United States, which is directly concerned with the long term relationships between Europe and America, recognizes in the recent crisis in foreign exchange markets a critical development in Atlantic relations.

Over and beyond the immediate and palliative steps which are now being taken, it is most important to re-examine the more basic elements involved in the situation and to seek longer term solutions to prevent such crises in the future.

Associated with THE ATLANTIC INSTITUTE and THE ATLANTIC TREATY ASSOCIATION

1-71

-2-

Fortunately, this crisis has come at a time when the great industrial countries have developed a series of institutions and practices which form a solid base for efforts to deal with developments of this sort. We have now many years of experience with the operations of the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the less formal habits of cooperation among central banks and treasuries. It has been possible to summon these orderly forces to consider and make thoughtful recommendations to the countries concerned.

This crisis comes during a long period of economic prosperity and development in the industrial world which has been furthered by the availability of a continuing growth and stability in the provision of funds not only for the industrial countries themselves, but also an overflow of funds to the less developed countries. In the process of this development, the U.S. dollar has played a major role. For the dollar serves not only as a reserve currency held by central banks throughout the world, along with gold and special drawing rights as a part of their reserves, but also as a "vehicle" of "transaction" currency in which the vast bulk of international trade and capital movements are conducted.

-3-

In fact, one of the principal reasons for the large amount of dollars held outside the United States has been the prominent and continuing place of the dollar as a factor of development toward world prosperity. It has been the very strength and value of the dollar which has led to its outflow from the U.S. to a point where the European countries have found it difficult to absorb as many dollars as have become available. We must seek solutions which make possible a greater stabilization of the useful functions of the dollar and not a diminution of its social and economic value.

Every effort must be made to avoid imposing a system of controls, nationalistic and protectionist in nature, which would act as a deterrent to a flow of funds to the places where they can be fruitfully utilized and which would also impede the flow of world trade.

It is also essential to view this present monetary crisis in relation to the long term development of greater unity and cooperation among the great industrial countries including notably, Western Europe, North America and Japan. We must find solutions which lead to greater cooperation rather than less.

-4-

Decisive action to bring the U.S. balance of payments to or close to equilibrium is a national and international responsibility of critical priority.

It is equally important to all the people of the Free World. Moreover, the achievement of acceptable equilibrium in its balance of payments cannot be achieved by the United States alone, unless it should choose the unacceptable course of acting unilaterally to withdraw from its role in world affairs and seal itself from international competition by artificial restrictions on trade and a halting of two-way flows of capital movements.

In other words, this nation and other countries closely associated with it in security, trade, tourism and capital movements must once again face up to the undertaking of those multilateral efforts which will produce equilibrium in international payments and enable the dollar to continue to perform its unique role in the international monetary system.

-5-

The adaptation of U.S. policy and practices to
provide both a substantial equilibrium in our balance
of payments and some margin for capital export, public
and private, to the less developed countries, is a
joint task of government and private enterprise.

But more than that, it is a responsibility of the
<u>other</u> countries, particularly those making up the OECD,
NATO and our other basic alliances. For it would be
unfortunate for this balance of payments adjustment
process to be a unilateral one. It must go forward
in the context of close international cooperation if
future peace and prosperity are to be assured.

###

[LC]

THE

Alan Burke REPORT

When you take your freedom for granted, you are laying the foundation of your prison.

VOLUME 1 • NUMBER 4

JULY 1972

BOX 189 • BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432

## TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF THE PRESIDENT

Benjamin Franklin should have stuck to kite-flying. If he had been playing with his printing press or flying his kite during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, we probably would have benefitted from the genius of our Presidents without the burden of their party politics. It was Benjamin Franklin who insisted during this Convention that the Office of the President carry with it re-election eligibility. There is absolutely no logic in the idea.

The 22nd Amendment of our Constitution should be amended to restrict a President to one six-year term, rather than the present restriction to no more than two four-year terms. Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate, Mike Mansfield, and one of our most respected Senators, Republican, George Aiken, have endorsed the proposed amendment.

I have several major objections to our present law, which permits a President to succeed himself by running for re-election after four years. This political imposition results in the forced inability of a President to transcend party lines. Anyone who believes that any elective office is not fraught with promises and favoritism is either naive or stupid. The time of the President could be better spent in solving the delicate problems that beset our nation, rather than attending $1,000-a-plate dinners for the "Party" or indulging in other political folderol that does not benefit anything other than the coffers and ego of the "Party."

What President running for re-election can concentrate all of his efforts and judgments upon the office he holds? Assigning a person to that White House office does not automatically give that individual superhuman qualities. A President who knows that he is prohibited from succeeding himself after six years in the White House can concentrate fully upon the demands of the office. He can seek, hire, and use the brain power available to him without concern for offending the "Party." The pressure of the office is great, and if there is anything a President doesn't need, it is the demands and politics of the "Party."

Should a President elected for this one six-year term decide that he and God have equal rights and power, the Congress could effectively brake such runaway tendencies. They, too, would be relieved to a great degree from the "Party" pressure and could truly speak for the people. Just as those who have a recurring disease have learned to live with it, so have we accepted the four-year term of the Presidency with re-election eligibility. We repealed the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) with Article 21. We can and should repeal the 22nd Amendment, which limits the Office of the Presidency to two four-year terms. The 22nd Amendment is no more sacred than any other Constitutional Amendment.

Can you imagine the relief that a single six-year term would bring to that man in office? On the first day in the White House, he could look out the window upon the White House lawn and say to himself, "I have six years to do the best I can. For the first time in my political career, I don't have to give a damn

about the 'Party.' I can concentrate fully upon being an American and a President for all the people."

The two four-year terms to which we have become so accustomed is a dirty trick played upon us by a printer from Philadelphia who should have stuck to printing. If he were here today, I would be forced to tell him to go fly a kite!

## IN DEFENSE OF HANK

Representative William J. Scherle (Republican of Iowa)

House of Representatives

Washington, D. C.

Dear Congressman Scherle:

The people of your state must know a few things about you. I know nothing about you. As a matter of fact, I never heard of you, but then, there are quite a few Congressmen who do not have the personality or public relations staff to get national publicity. Unfortunately, their work does not call for attention. I respectfully ask that you send me some pictures of yourself, one taken at the age of 16, another at the age of 25, and one taken recently. The purpose of the pictures is to indulge in comparisons. I wonder if you bear a happy look today or if you bore one at the age of 16. Another request that I make of you is that you reveal at what age you first indulged in sex. After all, if the Most Reverend Billy Graham can tell the world that he first indulged at the age of 25, it would seem to me that an ordinary Congressman could divulge the same fact. I need this information, Congressman Scherle, in order to properly evaluate your objections to Dr. Henry Kissinger's frolicking, as the Press has put it. I specifically refer to the Persian belly dancer's perching on his lap. Shakespeare said it best: "Methinks thou dost protest too much," or something similar.

Another question I would like to ask, Congressman Scherle: do you hunt? Are you one to take gun in hand and stalk game? It would seem to me, Congressman, that in addition to Shakespeare, I could quote Oscar Wilde, who said, "The unspeakable, killing the uneatable," or words to that effect. You know what they say about hunters. You'll forgive my lack of literary knowledge, but the messages are there. What I am really trying to find out is whether you are a sorehead. Last year, you complained that the Executive Department had spent too much to build and equip the White House exercise room. You called it a "Roman romper room." What are you planning for next year?

Oh, come now, Congressman! What's wrong with Henry Kissinger horsing around? After all, he is a single man. The mores have changed. Perhaps you resent that change. After all, in 1966, when you were elected to Congress, you took with you memories of a livestock farmer, and I would assume all sorts of things happened out on the farm. I wouldn't be too surprised if, in addition to the animals' go at the reproductive process, even farmers did this sort of thing.

continued on page 2

I do not believe Dr. Kissinger was employed by President Nixon because he was a celibate. I think he was hired because Mr. Nixon values his opinions, values his abilities and the work that he does as Presidential Advisor. Now, if President Nixon had wanted a celibate, he might have asked someone like Fulton J. Sheen or some other prelate of the priesthood to help him in the government. Just as the President didn't hire Henry Kissinger to be a celibate, I don't believe the people of your state hired you to walk about like a frustrated, spinster schoolteacher of a hundred years ago, hating the town beauty simply because she is the town beauty, or slapping the wrists of anyone whose codes do not fit hers. I really couldn't care less about your opinion of Henry Kissinger's activities, but I do care about your placing such great importance upon it. It would seem to me that there are many things that need accomplishing in Congress for this entire country that could better use your time, your efforts, and your intelligence.

Fortunately, Congressman, you are not in a position to legislate morality. I think you are taking advantage of your position as a Congressman by using the Press to get this kind of publicity. Why don't you do something we could all be proud of, that could be helpful to this country, and get Press in that fashion? According to the reports I read, you say about Dr. Kissinger, "I'm no prude and I'm no Puritan, but I think a certain amount of dignity ought to correspond to his role. There is a time and place. Business is business and pleasure is pleasure." Well, Congressman, I suggest you stick to your business and let Henry stick to his pleasure. If he is doing his job okay, that is all that counts.

By the way, Congressman, as long as you are going to send me your pictures, what about sending me a copy of how you voted on each bill and whether you were there every time? You know, everybody has a skeleton or two in his closet. Somehow, I have a feeling you haven't escaped. If you don't have a skeleton, I am even more upset. How can anyone so pure have any understanding for the rest of us, including your consti- tuency, who are not as pure?

I hope this letter hasn't upset you, Congressman. If it has, you can go back to the farm and commune with nature, or at least, watch nature while it's communing. Years ago, a farmer tried to sell me some property. It seems there was some acreage he had sub-divided into lots. He looked at me with a twinkle in his eye, and said, "Son, take this old man's advice. Get a lot while you're young." This farmer must have known Henry Kissinger, too.

Cordially,
Alan Burke

## THE ABSOLUTE MONARCH

Obviously, the history teachers of my childhood days didn't know what they were talking about. I recall the definitions they taught me of various forms of government, such as Absolute Monarchy, Republics, Democracies, etc. I was always of the opinion that this country was a Republic with a Democratic form of government. Defense Secretary Melvin Laird is doing all he can to change my mind.

Mr. Laird claims that the Administration could prosecute the war even if Congress votes to cut off all Vietnam spending. Of course, two of his aides, Robert Moot, Defense Department Controller, and J. Fred Buzhard, General Counsel, are in disagreement with Defense Secretary Laird.

The idea of a Secretary of Defense even secretly believing he can by-pass Congress to wage war is in the wrong form of government. The absolute monarch attitude has no place in our system. Neither does Mr. Laird.

## LET'S MAKE A DEAL!

Most foreign aid has long been a waste of the taxpayers' money. I am not opposed to foreign aid. I am opposed to the mismanagement and lack of proper administration. When you go to a bank to borrow money, you are asked to fill out a form. One of the questions is to ascertain the use of the money. There are laws that pertain to the use of borrowed money. For example, you cannot borrow money from a bank with premeditated intentions of buying stock from your stockbroker with that loan.

If we can take tax dollars and ship to countries around the world, we should be able to see that it is not wasted by the recipients. The latest in our "Let's Make A Deal" give-aways was won by Cambodia. Congressional investigators discovered that U. S. economic aid to Cambodia paid for television sets, cars for officials, air conditioners, and soft drinks, to say nothing of $5,850 worth of Time Magazines.

These "essential items" purchased with U. S. dollars should make certain Americans extremely happy. For example, I am sure the miners suffering from black lung disease in Appalachia, who have nowhere to go or no one to turn to, must be thrilled with this news. Another group of Americans probably cheering the $370,000 spent for automobiles and station wagons earmarked for Cambodian government and banking officials are the American Indians. You do remember the American Indian, don't you? If you do, you are one of the few.

Perhaps Monte Hall, MC of television's "Let's Make A Deal," should be running our economic aide program. At least, he's entertaining as he gives away the goodies.

## ANCHORS "A-WAVE"

Women's Lib has finally come of age and has my full support, at least for the following movement.

The assistant chief of personnel for women for the U. S. Navy, Captain Robin L. Quigley, wants to change the rules. The lady captain is calling for complete integration of the WAVES into the regular Navy. Captain Quigley sees no reason why the WAVES cannot be stationed aboard most Naval vessels.

I, for one, think it's a great idea. Should the prohibition against women serving aboard ship be removed, I can see an all-volunteer Navy of both sexes. That midnight watch would not be nearly as lonely. If the other branches of military service would follow Captain Quigley's desires, the need for the draft would be a memory. Such an arrangement could create a permanent Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Force. Instead of recruiting offices, conscription, and drafts, we could look to the services to provide their own future members.

NOTE TO CAPTAIN QUIGLEY: Don't start without me!

## BEING HUMAN -- LEGALLY

Retired Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark says that sometimes jurors will not go along with unrealistic laws. Justice Clark referred to Prohibition as an example of an unrealistic law. There are other contemporary laws of a similar nature, according to Justice Clark. He said he could see no reason for laws against marijuana, prostitution, drunkenness, and gambling. He pointed out that prostitution between consenting adults has been eliminated as a crime by England without any apparent moral collapse.

Philosophically, I agree with Justice Clark. As soon as we can find a way to eliminate the illegal profit structure from the sale of those items presently prohibited, we can begin to take them in stride as part of our culture. Those pressure groups who advocate legislation of morality are unknowingly assisting the crime syndicates.

Justice Clark does not advocate abandonment to indulgence in these presently illegal acts. He suggests they be made available with strict controls. I cannot accept the four equally. I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana. I consider alcoholism a sickness, and it should be treated as such. I cannot deny man's instinct that causes him to be filled with avarice, greed, and desire for risk, so I endorse controlled gambling. At this point, I would mention that there are some who respond to gambling as others respond to alcohol, and for that reason, there exists an organization called, "Gamblers Anonymous." I also am aware of the desire of many to remain monogamous. For those who are shy, or have an ego problem, or have polygamous tendencies, I believe that regulated prostitution should be made available.

OVERWEIGHT ??

If you are genuinely overweight, you may be a sex addict in disguise. Tension is one of the major villains in the cause of heart ailments. It is often caused by frustration and, specifically, sexual frustration. You may be sexually frustrated and not recognize it. Your early training, conditioning, or present status may put the idea of being sexually frustrated somewhere in the back of your mind. If so, you are truly hurting your body as well as your psyche. If you are obese and continually go to the refrigerator or open that box of candy and gorge yourself, you are substituting food for sex. This may be difficult for you to accept. Of course, this may not be the case where you are concerned, but it is a possibility. Naturally, you should discuss this with a doctor. This is the type of conversation that should be held with a doctor-therapist who knows his field, not just "a doctor." And for Heaven's sake, don't discuss it with your preacher.

Your doctor should find the true reason for your obesity. The odds are that this obsession you have for food is, indeed, a sex substitute. Compulsive eaters who are obese must admit that their needs are not truly satisfied by excessive eating. The need for food and the need for sex are on the same family tree. A group of physicians who made a study of obesity agreed that overeating is a substitute for an essential ingredient missing from an individual's life. The obese person, the compulsive eater, needs a non-fattening substitute for food. There is only one substitute that offers sensual pleasure and satisfies oral needs. That is sex. May I make a suggestion? If you are obese and a compulsive eater, fall in love, or if that is not practical, have an affair, or if that is dangerous, do whatever is necessary within the law to give your sex life some pizzazz.

Frequency in itself will help, but more than that, excitement that leads to the release of your tensions will do wonders for you. If you have had some ridiculous idea about limiting the frequency of orgasms, forget it. Instead of lowering your caloric intake, raise your sexual output (input). Don't construe the aforesaid as a suggestion that you become promiscuous. You can have sexual adventure with your marriage partner.

Another hang-up is the idea that you must be thin. Assuming that you are not really obese, what makes you believe you must be thin to be admired? There is no genuine need for being thin as long as being chunky does not impair your health. When you look through magazines and see a male model in a 40 or 42 suit, or a sweet, young thing in a size 10 dress, remember that they are advertising clothes. There is nothing appealing to men about theTwiggy-type. Given a choice between the thin, gaunt, hollow-cheeked model-type and the gal with a pound or two or even ten more than the charts recommend, I'll take the lady with the extra pounds every time. In those extra pounds, there is quality in living (and loving). And I think it's only fair that you enjoy quality.

AWARD OF THE MONTH

The Alan Burke Award of the Month must be shared by two towns. The first -- Willacoochee, Georgia -- advertised in the classified section of Police Times for two patrolmen with high school education, minimum age, 20 years. The salary was listed at $80 per week, which amounts to $346.66 per month or $4,160 per year. In the same issue of the Police Times, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department advertised for patrolmen with the same qualifications with starting salary listed at $842 per month, or $10,104 per year. The difference between starting salaries in the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and Willacoochee, Georgia, is $5,944 per year. A welfare recipient in Los Angeles can do almost as well as a police officer in Willacoochee, Georgia. Anyone interested in the job in Georgia can contact Mayor O. R. Roberts, and I trust he will accept my first award of the month in behalf of Willacoochee.

The second award is presented to the town of Halifax, Massachusetts. This small New England town has a full-time force of four police officers and one police chief. In a typically short-sighted move of false economy, the town council turned down the police chief's request for two additional men for night watch. This rejection caused the police station to be closed from midnight to 8:00 A.M. Taking advantage of this closure, thieves broke into the police station and stole guns and other items valued at over $2,000. A few nights later, the town hall was burglarized, and approximately $36,000 worth of city property disappeared. The City of Halifax has saved police salaries while the taxpayers have lost $38,000 in stolen property. Congratulations to the brilliant decision made by the town council of Halifax, Massachusetts.

The field of law enforcement is attracting a new breed. Many universities are now offering, for the first time, advanced courses in law enforcement. The actions of Willacoochee, Georgia, and Halifax, Massachusetts, are insults to all law enforcement men. You get what you pay for.

TRUST THE VIEWER

Rumor has it that the Dick Cavett Show is going off the air. The ratings have not met the minimal standards set by American Broadcasting Company. Cavett is following, at least in part, the steps of Merv Griffin. CBS placed Griffin in the late-night strip to compete with Carson and Cavett. He, too, fell victim to the ratings system. Don't blame Mr. Neilsen, who is the head of the ratings system used as a Bible by the television industry. Cavett's failure in the late-night competition was predictable. There was only one unknown factor -- how long before Cavett would fall victim to the flattery and self-importance that goes with that night-time slot?

The average viewer could not detect the changes as they occurred. An experienced and objective member of the television industry did not have to be psychic to observe the beginning of the end. At the outset, Dick was a bright, humorous host. He was warm, interesting, and personable, on and off camera. I remember Dick going out of his way and dodging across 58th Street simply to chat a few moments, at the time when his show was on in the mornings. The change in Dick Cavett began with the move to night-time television. He remained humorous, but different nuances began to creep into his television personality. Suddenly, he became "cute." His "put downs" and occasional attempts to be acerbic fell very flat. Apparently, someone told him that he should inject these additional styles into his night-time personality. Unwisely, he took the advice.

*continued on page 4*

Jack Paar, the master of the talk-variety show format and long-time friend of Cavett, made a rare television appearance in the hope of helping Dick survive the ratings battle. At this time of political shenanigans and speculation as to who would or would not run for office, Senator Edward Kennedy appeared on the Cavett Show. Paar's plea to the viewers and the rare appearance of Senator Kennedy were not seen by many, for the viewers had long since switched to the CBS movie.

I feel a personal loss in Dick Cavett's failure in the night-time slot. Like the Monday morning quarterback, who anticipated the plays as he watched the game and saw his team lose, there's the feeling of being a hell of a lot smarter than the coach. It is very difficult to remain unresponsive to the ego-warping adulation that accompanies television's late-night slot. If you permit yourself to be victimized by altering your personality when taking the well-meaning but erroneous advice given by those who profit from your success, you begin to draw the final curtain. No doubt Cavett will have another chance. I trust he will look exclusively to himself for the personality that is uniquely his own, and ignore all advice that attempts to alter his individuality. I hope he never again needs to be embarrassed by having someone plead publicly for his restoration.

The purpose of this commentary on the Dick Cavett Show is not only to inform you, the reader, of the fragile quality of television shows. Dick Cavett reads the Alan Burke Report, and perhaps he will get the message when he reads this issue. Better luck next time, Dick.

## CRITICISM, NOT CYNICISM

As you read these pages each month and note the sometimes sarcastic and often tongue-in-cheek critiques of our men in government, you must wonder whether I am liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. My political affiliation is of no importance. I dislike labels, for when a label is pinned, it becomes an obligation to adhere to that label. One loses his freedom of choice and of thought. The pressure to follow the dictates of the label is immense.

To point out the deficiencies or inaccuracies of an elected or appointed official is not necessarily to attack that person. The purpose is to awaken you to the fact that men do make mistakes and, being human, sometimes make them intentionally. The heady wine of government is often too strong for the egos to absorb, hence, they become less than serving, less than honest, while exaggerating their importance and power. Our forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, in particular, advised us to keep a close watch upon the men in power. He advised us to challenge them and, in effect, to doubt their veracity, for this keeps them honest and on their toes. The advice of Jefferson is as sound today as it was during those quiet days in the unpolluted valley around his Monticello home in Virginia. Time does not alter basic truths. The advice of Biblical Proverbs cannot be dispelled by the thousands of years that have passed since they were written.

I would not want any reader to believe that my constant criticism is cynicism. George Orwell's vision of 1984 will never arrive in these United States as long as the citizens remain alert. Terror wreaked by a super-government brainwashing its citizens can never occur as long as these citizens realize that, not only is it their right, but their obligation, to police the power of the government. Remember, too, that the granting of power to individuals is temporary and must be passed on to others. We must select men who understand that what they have been given is a TRUST that can be RESCINDED.

## APHRODISIAC OF THE MONTH

The celebrated Chinese dish, bird nest soup, is one of the most famous of all aphrodisiacs. It is prohibitively expensive, and today you can hardly be sure that you are getting authentic bird nest soup. Perhaps in some of the more expensive Chinese restaurants, this item still appears on the menu.

The effect of bird nest soup is based upon the edible seaweed, of which it is made. It is stuck together by the bright birds, along with the clinging spawn of fish. All of these things really add up to a high degree of phosphorus. Bird nest soup should be eaten in small quantities, not only because it is fabulously expensive, but too much can result in a toxic reaction.

Do not attempt to substitute any other form of bird nest for the original, which is made by the sea swallow. It takes a particular bird to know what he is doing. If you cannot find the sea swallow bird nest with which to make your soup, then make chicken soup out of real chicken. Chicken soup cures everything.

## THINGS THAT MAKE ME YAWN

The Justice Department, Frank Sinatra, and the Press. The newspaper coverage given to the Justice Department's chase of Frank Sinatra is reminiscent of a Mack Sennett comedy with the Keystone Cops. *** The Press gives me another great yawn in its persistent reporting of every word of wisdom and nonsense that gushes from Martha Mitchell's Mouth. So let them get out of politics, and let's get on to something more important. *** The monotony of gazing into the limelight that has surrounded Angela Davis for much too long is really putting me to sleep, so -- yawn -- until next month -- yawn -- ZZZZZZZZZZZ!

SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM
The ALAN BURKE REPORT, Inc.
P.O. Box 189 - BOCA RATON, FLA. 33432

I enclose $10.00 for one year of the ALAN BURKE REPORT.

Name _______________

Address _______________

City _______________

This is a new subscription _______________

This is a gift subscription _______________

Sign gift card: "From _______________

I solicit your views, opinions, and subject suggestions.

The ALAN BURKE REPORT is compiled and edited by Alan Burke. Unless otherwise noted, all opinions and editorial comments are those of Alan Burke. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. Alan Burke Report is published monthly by the ALAN BURKE REPORT, INC., P.O. Box 189, Boca Raton, Fla. 33432. Subscription $10 one year. Copyright © 1972. Printed in the U.S.A.

Seton Hall Law Review

40 CLINTON STREET
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07102

July 26, 1971

Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir:

Presently, we are mailing our spring edition of the *Seton Hall Law Review*, and hopefully you have already received your copy. We hope you enjoy this issue, as we are particularly proud of the final product which I'm sure you are well aware is a compilation of many hours of hard work.

As Editor-in-Chief of the *Law Review* for the coming academic year, I feel we have a highly qualified editorial board, who are extremely eager to surpass the efforts by our previous *Law Review* staffs. As you know, we are a young organization and in our short history we have developed a fine reputation for both professionalism and high standards in publishing our *Review*. Our continued development requires a more restrictive cross section of both authors and articles. Our view is toward a law review that is both national and local in its outlook, thereby providing a progressive legal publication that is scholarly and informative.

With this view in mind, I write you at this time requesting that you consider writing an article for our fall issue. We would be willing to place our full facilities at your disposal in order to assist you in any possible way. In closing, I cannot emphasize enough what a meaningful contribution your article would have in the development of our Law School and in particular our *Law Review*.

Thank you and I await your reply.

LE MATIN
LE PLUS FORT TIRAGE DES JOURNAUX HAITIENS

66ème ANNEE No. 20.422

PORT-AU-PRINCE, (HAITI)

JEUDI 20 AVRIL 1972

HAITI, SIEGE D'UNE RENCONTRE ULTRA-SECRETE ?

—<005>—

Dans son numéro du 11 mars reçu cette semaine à Port-au-Prince, Paris-Match publie un entrefilet qui a suscité notre plus vif intérêt et qui ne manquera pas de surprendre plus d'un lecteur. Selon le magazine français à grand tirage, Haiti serait le siège d'une rencontre ultra-secrète entre M. Henry Kissinger, conseiller spécial du Président Richard Nixon, et des émissaires de Fidel Castro.

Le texte publié dans Match est ainsi rédigé : «Dans les sous-sols de la Maison Blanche où sont installés ses bureaux, Henry Kissinger, le Père Joseph de la politique américaine, pèse le pour et le contre de son nouveau projet : un voyage à Haiti pour rencontrer des émissaires de Fidel Castro. Le chef de la Révolution cubaine aurait fait savoir qu'il serait disposé à recevoir Nixon l'été prochain à Cuba.»

Dans certains milieux à Port au-Prince, on affirme sans pour voir donner des précisions sur des références valables, que cette rencontre a déjà eu lieu et qu'elle s'est déroulée dans la plus totale discrétion à l'Hôtel Beau Rivage vers la mi-avril. Kissinger serait venu dans la capitale d'Haiti en se faisant passer pour un simple homme d'affaires et les émissaires de Castro se seront présentés comme des délégués d'un organisme international. On avance aussi que les auto-rités américaines auraient fait part de ce projet au Gvt d'Haiti par l'intermédiaire des ministres de l'Intérieur et des Af-FAIRES Etrangères, lors de leur séjour à la mi-mars à Washington.

EMBASSY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Port-au-Prince

[LC]

24 April

Dear Henry,

Sorry to have missed you during
your recent "secret visit" here. (See
attached clipping.)

In case you ever do decide to come,
I would advise against the Hotel Beau
Rivage. Its cuisine is terrible.

With respect and best regards,

THE NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE

Washington, D. C.

4 November 1969

Dear Henry,

I just wanted to say that I found last night's speech a most eloquent statement of policy and to compliment you on the undoubtedly important part you played in its composition. I think it went over very well.

As usual I found myself acutely irritated by some of the interpretive comment aired immediately on radio and television after the President had concluded. It seems that another sort of moratorium is in order -- a moratorium on radio and television punditry for at least an hour or two following a presidential address so that the public could weigh his words and decide for themselves just what it was he intended to say. Instead, they are immediately assaulted by the likes of Marvin Kalb, Dan Rather, Ave Harriman, et al, who quickly inform the nation just what it was the President was trying to say and, by implication, how they, the public, should react to it. There's something wrong there somewhere.

John Burke

as from

Kent, Conn., Jan. 27, 1969

Dear Henry:

By an odd concatenation, I spent an hour January 22 in private
conversation at the Zarzuela Palace (his residence) with Don Carlos.
By private, I mean with the two of us only present. He talked with
extraordinary, indeed often indiscreet, frankness (at any rate, what
gave the impression of frankness) about Spain's and his own problems.
Why he did so I do not know; negatively, I do know that he
was not talking to me as journalist or writer.

If it would be useful to you (I say "you" in a somewhat *xx* collective
sense), I will prepare and send you a summary of the conversation.
He also gave me the draft of a presentation he said he had made a few
days earlier on the Spain-U.S. Agreement renewal negotiations; and I could
send also a copy of this.

So, if a) it is worth the bother, and b) you will tell me a rea-
sonably secure way to transmit it (I wouldn't want Drew Pearson, say,
to be able to cite his comments on relations with his father, on the
prospects of the succession, attitudes toward Nixon, etc.), and c) you
let me know, I'll send it along.

Professor Henry Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D. C.

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

Dear Jim:

My apologies for having been so long in replying to your letter of January 27. But no doubt you understand that getting under way here, plus making preparations for the President's trip, have taken just about every waking minute.

I do think it would be useful and interesting to see your notes of your talk with Don Carlos, particularly in view of the current base negotiations with Spain, provided it is not too much trouble for you to put them down on paper.

So far as I know, Drew Pearson is not on my internal office routing lists, so I recommend that you simply send your comments in a registered letter marked for me personally. Thanks for your help.

Best regards.

Mr. James Burnham
National Review/New York
150 East 35th Street
New York, New York 10016

DR Lesh - 2/24/69 - 2

RECEIVED

MAR 4 1969

CENTRAL FILES

JAMES BURNHAM

Kent, Connecticut 06757

March 13, 1969

Dear Henry:

I send notes on my talk with Juan Carlos and a copy of his paper on the bases agreement. (You would have got these sooner except that your letter was sent to the NR office, where I am not very regularly present.) I hope they may be of some use, interest or amusement.

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D. C.

(On January 22, 1969 I had an hour's conversation with Juan Carlos at Zarzuela Palace, his residence outside Madrid. No one else was present during the conversation. Juan Carlos indicated that he regarded the meeting as confidential, not to be discussed or written about publicly. However, it was my impression that he hoped, even expected, that its content would be communicated to the White House. The conversation was informal, without any particular order. The following numbered paragraphs summarize points he made during its course. -- James Burnham, March 13, 1969.)

1. He congratulated me as an American on the election of Mr. Nixon. The Spanish military leaders had strongly favored Nixon, as had Franco and himself. (In his first two references, Juan Carlos said "the Generalissimo," but thereafter said "Franco.") The Cabinet ministers who are members of or associated with Opus Dei were for Humphrey and were much disappointed by the outcome. He hadn't met Nixon personally but cherished a memory concerning him. When he (Juan Carlos) had visited Washington some years ago and addressed Congress, Nixon had been in Latin America, but had sent him a courteous telegram regretting his absence.

2. To be a monarch in this period is not a pleasant or sympathetic thing. Nevertheless he had come to the decision that he would accept the summons if it came. This was his duty, and his life had in truth been a preparation for fulfilling that duty if called on to do so. His father knew of his decision.

3. The succession depends entirely on Franco. He can legitimize

- 2 -

it and no one else can. If Franco names him (Juan Carlos), the military will accept Franco's command, the Cortes will approve and the nation will accept. So also if Franco names a general or even a civilian. But if Franco does not designate a successor, there will be bitter division and probably political chaos.

4. The chief reasons why the succession can be carried through if Franco acts in time are: a) The military are loyal to Franco and to the nation. b) The economic advances have greatly expanded the number and influence of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie wants, indeed demands, a liberalization of the regime, but above all it wants to avoid a new civil war.

5. (I asked a deliberately loaded question: "Is it true, as I have been told, that Franco turned from your father to you as his choice for successor because he considered your father too reactionary and behind the times?") This was not at all true. Franco negated his father for three reasons. a) There was too much bitterness on both sides in their past personal relations. In the years immediately following the close of the civil war, each had said things about the other that could not be forgiven. b) His father had been too long away from Spain, was no longer known in the country, and had lost touch with its people. c) On the political side his father had associated with materialist liberals and leftists and had absorbed some of their ideas, which Franco judged false and dangerous for Spain. In contrast, Franco considered him (Juan Carlos) to be more in keeping with Spanish tradition. He (Juan Carlos) had now lived continuously in Spain for eleven years,

- 3 -

had served in all three military services, had attended the Univer-
sity of Madrid, had traveled everywhere in Spain, was known to every-
one, and was looked on as wholly Spanish.

6. Undoubtedly there will be trouble with the separatist move-
ments. Basque separatism is much fiercer than Catalonian, and is
aggravated by the labor troubles in the Basque region. The
modernist turn in the Church has had an unexpected and disturbing
effect on the separatist movements in Spain as in other places --
e.g., Brittany. Saying Mass in the vernacular is interpreted to
mean in Catalan and Basque. This tends to convert the religious
services into political expressions, especially since some local
priests have all along been nationalist leaders. The problem of
separatism is and will be difficult, but a new regime should find
it easier to come to a new accommodation. Unquestionably the Basques
and Catalonians must be granted greater autonomy.

7. The operations of the Spanish economy must be decentralized, with greater responsibility taken by the provinces. The bureaucratic over-centralization in Madrid is an increasing obstacle to healthy economic development. He would consider it a primary task of a regime he headed to promote decentralization.

8. The government has been in close touch with the French in connection with the student riots. There has been foreign influence, including foreign money, exploiting the student unrest, as the information from the French has helped confirm. Spain will not permit the situation to develop into a Spanish May. (This was

- 4 -

two or three days prior to the clampdown.) Moreover, the Spanish military is old-fashioned in its conceptions of honor. The military cannot tolerate the desecration of the flag and other symbols of the nation.

9. With the buildup of Soviet naval power in the Mediterranean and the disarray of NATO, Spain and Greece become the two most critical positions not only for the Mediterranean area but for the defense of western Europe in general. It will be catastrophic if the negotiations for renewal of the U.S.-Spanish agreement do not come to an amicable solution. He had presented his own views on this subject not long before to a military seminar, and would turn over to me for Xeroxing the draft from which he had spoken. (I attach a Xerox of this draft. The handwritten corrections and additions shown are in his handwriting.)

10. (I asked whether his brother-in-law was going to get his throne back, and Juan Carlos replied: "Not unless he accepts the colonels' terms.")

and September 1968. By the deadline of September 26, no agreement had been reached. (We will call these meetings the first phase of the negotiations).

Spain consequently invoked the machinery provided by the Agreement for such a contingency; she signified her intent to cancel the Agreement, which automatically opened a further six months of consultations. (We will call this the second phase in the negotiations). If these were to be unsuccessful, the Agreement provides for a further year to wind up the installations.

A first meeting within the consultation-period was held by Secretary Rusk and Sr. Castiella in Washington on October 16, 1967. They will be meeting again in Madrid on November 17. General Wheeler will be conferring with his Spanish colleagues in Madrid around the same date. The period for consultations ends on March 26.

## 5.- The first phase, Basic postures.

As explained by Sr. Castiella to Mr. Rusk, Spain has been a most faithful friend and ally of the U.S. (Examples). She is most desirous of continuing this alliance which for many years has been mutually advantageous. But she would not submit the people to great new risks without adequate compensation and guarantees. She reiterates her desire to find an arrangement and has no wish to seek an alternative foreign policy; she would do so if she had no adequate option/satisfaction through the alliance.

On the U.S. side, the same sentiments of friendship were reiterated, but the basic posture during this phase may best be described as a desire to continue the status quo with very slight modifications.

6.- Some of the questions raised during the first phase.

a) Military aid. Spain is now one of the worst-armed nations in the Mediterranean. Contrary to either mischievous or deliberate newspapers stories, she never asked for "a billion" (and did not evaluate in cash) but for aid --not troops-- to meet her moderate defense requirements. The U.S. counter-offer was 100 millions over 5 years and a further 100 millions in Eximbank credits: about a fifth of Spanish needs. Spain came down a third but the U.S. happily went up. The material offered was old and the delivery delay rendered it useless. The U.S. attitude was beyond redress: out and frigid on the part of the U.S. military negotiator.

b) Adequate security guarantees (comparison with Iran) and a sufficient voice and presence in strategic-political planning. ✖

c) The question of removing non-essential facilities.

d) Other matters, such as the status of U.S. servicemen in Spain

e) President Johnson's measures in defense of the U.S. balance of payments. This important question is technically separate from the negotiations. Some time prior to them these measures classified Spain among the super-developed countries, a serious case of discrimination. She wished to be re-classified. During the talks --and as a result of economic meetings-- a joint committee was agreed to examine ad-hoc cases, and later a letter from Mr. Rusk to Sr. Castiella was released, designed to improve the investment climate in Spain. But a re-classification was denied.

7.- How the negotiations developed. The time-element.

Let us now see how the first phase of the talks proceeded,

because otherwise we shall not understand why they failed. Let us
re-create the atmosphere.

**November 1967** The first talk in which the specific question of re-negotiation was a main topic. Mr. Rusk brings it up. Señor Castiella agrees and insists on a sensible time-table to avoid last-minute rushes before September 26. Mr. Rusk is in agreement.

**June 1968** A Spanish military commission under General Diez Alegría meets with a U.S. military team in Washington under General Spivey. The Spanish side delivers a Memorandum on Spanish defense requirements in connection with the agreements. No evaluation in cash was made; but a detailed list was included under functional headings (Air defense, defense of sea communications, forces in immediate readiness, operational support, maintenance, training, supplies, etc.)

There was no U.S. reaction either positive or negative. The
U.S. side declared they would study these proposals in detail.

**July 1968** A further Rusk-Castiella meeting. The latter brings up the political aspect of a sufficient and adequate guarantee of Spain's security. Rusk declares his understanding and says he will consult the President, the Congressmen and the presidential candidates after the conventions. He will also consult them on the level of military aid (on which he makes no disclosure).

Castiella raises the economic question of the very serious discrimination and the harm it caused. (This question was also discussed in April between Ambassador at large Armijo and Messrs. Katzenbach-Deming) Rusk and Castiella

Both Sr. Castiella and General Diez Alegría pointed out the unacceptability of this offer, which did not even bother to answer the strategic arguments set forth in the Spanish memorandum, in spite of retaining it for so long.

On September 19, in an effort of good will, the Spanish delegation withdrew one third of their list. But the U.S. position was almost totally rigid; the U.S. raised its offer from 100 millions to 120 millions, a good part of the extra 20 millions being for the modernization of the Alert control-warning system which in any case is already part of the early-warning system of NATO. (The early warning systems) On September 25 Spain made a further sacrifice, shortening her list again; no positive response at all on the U.S. side; therefore, given this atmosphere, further discussion was obviously useless and the realization began to take hold that Spain would invoke Article V. (the consultation period). Mr. Rusk then asked that the agreements should be prolonged and remain in force a further 6 months to help the new Administration. Spain was not able to agree, as the Agreement stood on this question as it did and all its provisions had been accepted and ratified as such by the Spanish Cortes.

Spain, however, would be prepared to listen directly to the representatives of the Administration both on the substance of the matter and on an arrangement in the time-table of future conversations. (The new representatives will be chosen after this period)

## 8. An in-between period.

Thus ended the first phase. Before the new consultations began, there were some days in which the representatives of the outgoing administration attempted to justify the failure to NATO countries --who were worried by the outcome-- by saying that the Spaniards were "asking for the moon". etc. Some leaks to the press also exaggerated the Spanish military requests to grotesque proportions.

The truth is that there was no effort on the U.S. side to close the gap that in fact

Lastly, it was agreed that further meetings on military aid
would be held on September 3 and a new Rusk-Castiella talk on
September 9. Still complete U.S. silence on the Spanish military
requests.

Suddenly, and close to September 3, Spain was informed that
the Rusk-Castiella meeting must be postponed to September 16 and
that the military talks would only be held after this. Spain had
to agree but stressed the danger of allowing for only a week
before deadline.

To the Spaniards, forced back to the deadline and with still
no word on the U.S. military counter-offer, it seemed as if pres-
sure were being applied for future approval of the as yet-undis-
closed offer, the signature of which was being assured in this way.
This impression is not surprising considering that the Spanish
requests had been retained for three whole months with no response
at all, instead of using this time for a constructive discussion
of them.

September 16-27. The crucial days before the breakdown.
Castiella-Rusk have four talks, and there are several meetings
between the military teams, headed by General Diez Alegría and
Air Undersecretary Mr. Hoopes. (all in Washington).

On September 16 Señor Castiella describes at length the
little-known but very great and varied advantages for the U.S. and
NATO of Spanish cooperation. This explanation is in contrast with
a mischievous and irresponsible story in the "New York Times",
which, quoting "official U.S. sources", said the bases were "more
conveniences" with no serious purpose; places "for our soldiers
to relax", etc.

At last, on September 16, Mr. Rusk delivered a note with the
U.S. offer of military assistance: 100 millions in grant-aid, 100
in credits for military purchases in the U.S.

POLLY BURROUGHS
EDGARTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS

June 28, 1972

Dr. Henry Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Henry:

With all you're doing -- and it's astounding! -- I hope this reaches your desk. Senator Kennedy, who cannot leave this bruised island alone, has dreamed up the Nantucket Sound Islands Trust Bill. Without taking your time with the details, it would, in effect, make Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard and the Elizabeth Islands a national seashore.

If the bill should pass Congress, I hope the President can and will veto it on Constitutional grounds. It is one thing to have a section of a community open to the public (20% of Martha's Vineyard shorefront is now open), and quite another thing to declare the seven towns, actually all of Dukes County and Nantucket public lands. I hope, with all my heart, you agree.

Alfred Eisenstaedt, with whom I have just finished a book, says he was in Washington photographing you recently. Eisie says you're the hardest working man there --I'm not surprised.

Best wishes,