Inside Henry Kissinger

By VERA GLASER

One way to know the "real" Henry Kissinger is to spend twelve days cooped up with him in a Boeing 707.

Kissinger's exhausting 25,000-mile round-the-world mission last month was his first such trip since becoming secretary of state. Reporters who traveled with him to 10 countries tagged it "the Yo-Yo express."

Kissinger's talks in the Middle East, China, and Japan drew heavy coverage, but only last week did the story of his traveling "style" emerge.

Judged by insights revealed at the Washington Press Club by four reporters who made the trip, Kissinger is the most colorful, pixie-ish, and indefatigable secretary of state in recent history.

More important, he may be one of the most credible.

Excerpts from the reporters' comments:

"From the moment we took off from Washington for Rabat, Kissinger was back in what we called the 'steerage,' with the press. In fact, we couldn't keep him out. Sometimes he came back to talk substance, but mostly he gave us his latest routine as a stand-up comic.

"On land, here was a fellow one step removed from Harvard, who must have been trained in Mayor Kelly's school of politics or at J. Walter Thompson.

"One minute he was scrambling up a pyramid, telling us it was fine training for a heart attack. The next he was smiling at a camel dance, chucking a five-year-old girl under the chin at a commune, or patting a duck at a Peking duck farm."

What was Kissinger's funniest experience on the trip?

"When a foreign minister held my hand," he reportedly replied.

Whereupon a correspondent observed, "We've been wondering about you."

"I've been wondering about myself. Brezhnev kissed me in the Kremlin," came the retort.

When a reporter told Kissinger actress Jill St. John —

whom he has escorted — had married, he seemed amazed and exclaimed, "She didn't tell me!"

Then he turned to an aide with, "We'd better get back to the department and find out who has stabbed us in the back."

All four gave Kissinger good marks for accuracy and detail in his briefings. One rated him higher in those departments than former Secretaries William Rogers and Dean Rusk.

Kissinger's credibility was rated about 80 percent — unusually high for Watergate Washington.

Despite Edward Kennedy's statements about family opposition to a presidential bid, some Democrats insist the Massachusetts senator has been quietly laying groundwork. They say he is wooing support in the area where he would need it most—the South.

They note Kennedy has gone out of his way to earn credits with such men as Alabama Gov. George Wallace, Mississippi Sen. John Stennis, and Arkansas Rep. Wilbur Mills.

Kennedy flew to Decatur, Ala. last summer, for example, to praise Wallace at a watermelon feast. The powwow was denounced by Mayor Charles Evers of Fayetteville, Miss. and continues to anger some black Democrats.

More recently, Kennedy lined up for an hour at a party honoring Stennis. When Ted finally had to leave before shaking the senator's hand, he went to much trouble to make sure Stennis knew how long he'd been there.

Kennedy has wooed Mills for some time. In 1971, he spoke at a Mills dinner in Little Rock, bringing wife Joan for a rare joint appearance. Mills and Kennedy have worked together on health legislation and teamed up for a presentation to the Democratic platform committee in 1972.

★ John Love, former Nixon energy adviser, urges self-discipline, but doesn't always follow rules himself.

"John refuses to fasten his seat belt in the car," Mrs. Love said. "He claims it makes him too uncomfortable."

(C) Knight Newspapers, Inc.

12-10-73

WOMAN OF THE YEAR AWARD is accepted by Governor Francis Sargent, standing in for his wife who is home in bed with the flu. Presentation was made by Maurice Gordon 3rd for the Greater Boston Ass'n for Retarded Children.

Staff Photo by Frank Hill

# Governor's Wife Honored For Helping the Retarded

By JOHN McGINN

Mrs. Jessie F. Sargent, wife of Gov. Sargent, was named Woman of the Year last night at the annual fund-raising dinner of the Greater Boston Ass'n for Retarded Citizens.

Mrs. Sargent, kept at home by a virus ailment and 102-degree temperature, was represented by her husband before some 1000 persons in the main ballroom of the Shaton Boston Hotel.

Sargent told the audience that public opinion toward the retarded was changing in that people are realizing that "we do not help the retarded through the use of huge institutions."

"They are not the answer," he said. "The answer is small opportunities in the neighborhood that can lead to normal

lives. Through your efforts we are heading in that direction.

"This is more humane, more intelligent and . . . less expensive."

Sargent said the need was to get the retarded "out of the institution, give them an opportunity to be citizens and taxpayers. This applies to all —the slow learner and the retarded."

Mrs. Sargent was cited for her work with halfway houses for the retarded, community based centers and sheltered workshops.

Mrs. Sargent was specifically credited with initiating programs for children's rights, services for those whose disabilities did not qualify them for existing programs, and job-finding for the retarded and mentally rehabilitated.

When the weather turns for the worse, your capacity can give you a scratchy tooth. If it does, turn to Salem. Salem's natural menthol tastes naturally smooth. No harsh, not hot. Weather

Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR - 10 DECEMBER 1973

# Kissinger and a skeptical Europe

By Charlotte Saikowski
Staff correspondent of
The Christian Science Monitor

## Brussels

Preoccupied with the Middle East, peripatetic U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger is now pausing to huddle with the Europeans, and the question is: Can he give fresh impetus to the sputtering transatlantic dialogue?

There will be no effort to smooth over the disagreements that tear at the fabric of the Western alliance as the NATO ministerial meeting gets under way Monday in this crisp capital. Rather, say American officials, Dr. Kissinger wants a serious, candid airing of the problems exacerbated by the Middle East war and the oil crisis with a view to developing common approaches and injecting new vitality in the alliance.

At best this is expected to be only the beginning of a process of repair and renewal and no dazzling fireworks are anticipated here. There isn't any one big decision the alliance can make, commented a high American official traveling with the secretary. Europeans, for their part, are in a cool mood, waiting skeptically to see what Dr. Kissinger has on his mind.

At the heart of the current strains lies a difference in perceptions about the alliance and the Middle East crisis.

The United States maintains that the role of the Russians makes the Middle East a general strategic issue

which falls within the framework of NATO and on which the allies should take a common stand. If the Russians and their Arab clients emerge dominant in the region, it is argued, this will not help Europe.

The U.S. allies, for their part, generally view the Middle East as a regional conflict outside NATO's overall purview. And, because of their great dependence on Arab oil, they question how Washington can expect them to support its policy toward Israel.

Aside from broad East-West relations, a number of specific issues are expected to come up at the NATO meeting and in private discussions:

* Mutual consultations. The Europeans have complained about the alleged failure of the U.S. to advise them on the Middle East crisis and, specifically, to give advance warning of the worldwide U.S. military alert.

* The oil crisis. So far there is no indication of how or whether the U.S. is prepared to join with Europe on a common policy in the face of the Arab oil cutbacks. When asked whether Washington would be willing to aid its distraught allies, officials reply that the Europeans, scared of the Arabs, have been fighting among themselves and failed to put into effect an oil-sharing scheme.

Where the pro-Israeli Dutch are concerned, the U.S. has already said it is willing to be helpful.

* Defense burden-sharing. No precise figures are expected to emerge

on European contributions toward maintaining some 310,000 American troops in Europe but Dr. Kissinger may emphasize to the Europeans that the American commitment to NATO faces severe challenge in the U.S. Congress — the Jackson-Nunn amendment to the military procurement bill would decrease U.S. troops in Europe by the same percentage that Europe fails to wipe out the balance-of-payments deficit.

* The "Year of Europe". Dr. Kissinger has been disappointed in the reluctance of Europe to respond to his call for a redefinition of the Atlantic alliance. Questioning the need for a ringing charter, the Europeans object to the linkage of economic issues with defense and, as a result, there are now two declarations instead of one.

## U.S. criticizes drafts

American officials say the emotional content of the drafts has been drained away and they voice hope that ways may be found to restore it.

To what extent Dr. Kissinger can begin to bridge the gaps on these and other issues remains to be seen. The atmosphere in Brussels seems to be lukewarm and the fact that after two days at NATO the Europeans will go on to Copenhagen for a summit meeting and Dr. Kissinger will travel to the Middle East — where the Europeans are bystanders — seems to underscore that Europe and the United States are riding on different rails.

WASHINGTON POST - 9 DECEMBER 1973(10)

New Mood in Greece

Anti-Americanism Fanned by U.S. Home-Port Plan

By Dusko Doder

Washington Post Foreign Service

ATHENS, Dec. 8—A new mood of anti-Americanism is on the rise in Greece, fanned by resentment of the growing U.S. military presence here and a widely held belief that Washington has an overwhelming influence on Greek political life.

Anti-American sentiments are not confined to leftist and Communist elements but have spread into traditionally pro-American groups in Greek society, according to interviews with scores of persons representing nearly every shade of public opinion.

Much of this sentiment is based upon the suspicion that the United States encouraged the military takeover by George Papadopoulos in 1967 and the new military coup which toppled him two weeks ago.

The growing American military presence in Athens under a U.S. Navy home-porting agreement concluded last year has been widely regarded as a visible symbol of U.S. support for the military dictatorship. Moreover, the arrival here of U.S. servicemen and their families has caused predictable irritation.

This swing in public opinion has been in the making

traditionally pro-American former politicians.

Pesmazoglu summed up the widespread feeling here that superpower America looks on Greece as nothing more than a piece of desirable real estate for military purposes.

The home-porting agreement was "negotiated behind the backs of the Greek people with unrepresentative rulers," Pesmazoglu declared, "and this alone was an insult to Greek national feeling. Only a government elected by the people could have adequately represented the people of Greece and their national interests."

Among those Greeks who were born after World War II and who do not recall the American role in preventing a Communist takeover in the early postwar period, anti-American sentiments are even stronger. They could be summed up by a 22-year-old student's statement. Standing on Singroul Avenue and looking out at the aircraft carrier USS Franklin D. Roosevelt in Phaleron Bay, he said, "That ship over there is the symbol of our oppression."

The Greek perception of America's overwhelming influence in Greek affairs is deeply rooted. It stems from the 19th Century concept that Greece needed the pro-

endorsement. But the ships were also there when the military decided to oust Papadopoulos.

Apart from its political symbolism, the increasingly visible American military presence directly fans public resentments. One American here calls home-porting "the biggest damned mistake we have made in Greece." Some State Department officials warned against the move, he recalled, "But the Navy had its way."

The rationale for home-porting was to improve the living conditions and morale of U.S. Sixth Fleet sailors by making it easier for them to see their families regularly. But the Navy now finds itself unwittingly embrailed in Greek political controversy.

Under the first phase of the agreement, the Navy placed six destroyers in Elefsis Bay. In the process, however, the Navy appears to have gone further than it said it would toward establishing permanent facilities. Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, Chief of Naval Operations, told a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee last year, "We do not have any intentions to build any facilities for our ships."

area where almost one third of the Greek population lives."

At Elefsis, the arrival of the destroyers was followed by a burst of night-life activities unknown to that previously sleepy town of 30,000. Overnight, fishermen's houses were converted into bars with names ranging from "Sixth Fleet" to "Kennedy" to Dolce Vita."

At night, said one middle-aged Greek, owner of a shoe shop, "It seems like all the prostitutes of Greece are here in Elefsis." Some local businessmen, however, say the Americans are helping their business.

During the past year, American military men have been involved in a number of incidents. In addition to frequent bar brawls, cab drivers have been found slain on several occasions, and their deaths were immediately blamed on the U.S. sailors.

In one such incident, according to Americans residing here, the government-controlled press attempted to pin the blame on the Navy, even though the Navy bent over backward to cooperate with Greek authorities. Although the killer was not found, the average Greek remains convinced that U.S. sailors are a lawless rabble.

In general, Americans here say, the Greek press during this year has focused on such incidents in a way it never did before.

Resentment focuses on the terms of an agreement providing that U. S. servicemen are not subject to Greek laws during the per-

THE NEW YORK TIMES, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1973

# U.S.-French Clash Opens NATO Parley

*Continued From Page 1, Col. 1*

should include talks about trouble spots outside NATO territory, referring to the Middle East conflict and growing Soviet influence in the area.

As a result, other delegates took the sharp Kissingen-Jobert exchange as something that helped clear the air rather than a setback to the goal of reinvigorating and reinforcing NATO.

Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Jobert, who know each other well and have long enjoyed jousting in private, were scheduled to breakfast together tomorrow.

Further, a senior European diplomat said, the French agreed after today's clash to a separate meeting tomorrow of the foreign ministers of the nine European Common Market countries with Mr. Kissinger. Eight of the foreign ministers are attending the NATO session since their countries are NATO members as well; the ninth is Ireland.

## U.S. Sought Meeting

The United States had been seeking a formal session with the Common Market group to discuss American relations with the trade bloc before the heads of governments of the nine countries meet in Copenhagen later this week. But until tonight the French had been resisting the idea on the ground that such a high-level meeting between Common Market and American officials should not be held before the Europeans reached full agreement among themselves on joint positions.

On the question of extending future NATO discussions to tensions anywhere in the world

Mr. Kissinger proposed that deputy foreign ministers or foreign ministry political directors be regularly brought into NATO council meetings, where they could work together on the burning issues of the moment.

Sir Alec seemed to go even further, suggesting regular efforts to make "joint assessments" of possible future crisis anywhere, a kind of political contingency planning that could lead to common NATO policies wherever Western interests faced a threat.

Many speakers, including Mr. Kissinger, drew attention to the rapid growth of Soviet military power and continued need for strong Western defense. The NATO Secretary General, Joseph M. A. H. Luns of the Netherlands, said that NATO had "not kept pace" with the Warsaw Pact —the Soviet-led counter part to NATO—and warned, according to briefing officers, that there were distressing similarities between the current situation and the years just before World War II. At that time, he said, countries were signing nonaggression pacts on the eve of being overrun by war.

Mr. Kissinger who was making his first address to NATO, spoke openly of Washington's dissatisfaction with allied policies on the Middle East and the United States but he gave firm assurance that the alliance remained the "cornerstone" of American policy.

His speech was considered "constructive" by many delegates. "We were all going to sleep here," said one. "He's

Mr. Kissinger told the Europeans of his regret that some allies did not share United

bringing back some liveliness and come clear talk."

States views on how to deal with the Middle East. He said, according to American sources, that United States aims were as much in Europe's interest as in its own.

The aim, as Mr. Kissinger was said to have explained it, is to create a political and strategic setting for an equitable Middle East settlement that would protect both the influence and the interests of the West in the area.

Mr. Kissinger insisted that the United States continues to seek a "creative dialogue" with Europe, and he was quoted as having put a series of tart questions as the central issues of a future dialogue.

These were said to be: Can we remain allies or will we drift into becoming competitors? Can we develop political and military security arrangements that our people will support in a period of diminishing international tension? How far can we transform an alliance, which had its origin in defense, into an effective, shared organ of diplomacy?

In today's world there is a peculiar paradox, an American official reported that he said. It is a time of self-evident in-heavy pressures for a special kind of independence of acition.

Mr. Kissinger reportedly called for three measures. The first was to complete work on the NATO and Common Market declarations to restate basic principles. The second was the proposal to strengthen NATO political exchanges on problems concerning trouble spots outside the alliance. The third was to face the energy problem.

## NBC NIGHTLY NEWS NBC TV
6:30 PM DEC 10

### Military Commandeers Oil

**JOHN CHANCELLOR:** Fuel shortages may not be as severe as originally predicted, but they do exist and Don OLIVER has a story on the effects.

**DON OLIVER:** Since the first of November the U.S. Military has been commandeering gasoline and fuel oil from the refineries of private oil companies.

Twenty-two oil companies have been ordered to cut oil deliveries to other customers, so they can supply some 400 million gallons a month to the armed services.

The Defense Department says the action was made necessary because of the lack of Arab oil. It says the oil is critically needed for national defense.

The diversion of oil to the military is beginning to cause shortages on the West Coast for gasoline station operators, some airlines, and particularly for public utilities.

In San Francisco, Pacific Gas and Electric says its deliveries have been cut 30 per cent by one oil company. It says the military action has created a crisis for the public.

**OFFICIAL:** We do not have adequate supplies, as I mentioned, and consequently this removing of this amount of oil could add to our concerns and could add to the probability of having blackouts in our area.

**OLIVER:** The utilities have complained to state and federal agencies about the military seizure of their oil. They say the military has enough oil of its own, if it would just use it.

They're talking about the oil here in the ground in central California, in the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve. Within two months this oil field could be supplying about half the oil the military has commandeered for November and December. The utilities say that if there was ever a national emergency requiring the use of this oil, now is the time.

President NIXON agrees, but powerful Congressmen won't allow the oil under the ground at Elk Hills to be touched.

**CONGRESSMAN F. EDWARD HEBERT:** I consider the energy shortage as serious as those speaking attempt to make it.

**REPORTER:** Do you consider Elk Hills sacrosanct, except in the gravest national emergency?

**HEBERT:** Yes.

**REPORTER:** And you're going to stand on that position?

**HEBERT:** Until somebody convinces me otherwise, and I haven't seen anything yet to convince me otherwise.

**OLIVER:** So, it all boils down to the definition of emergency. Is the public's need to be protected from blackouts and brownouts right now as important as the military's desire to save the oil in the event that there is some war off in the future. As the winter grows colder, the debate over this will grow hotter.

Don OLIVER, NBC News, Los Angeles.

### Kissinger Warns N.A.T.O.

**CHANCELLOR:** Secretary of State Kissinger warned today that the United States and its N.A.T.O. allies must stick together at a time of growing Soviet military strength.

**KISSINGER** spoke at a N.A.T.O. conference in Brussels. He was trying to heal the latest split in the alliance, which is over American support of Israel and European support of the Arabs.

The meeting kept KISSINGER from going to Oslo to collect the Nobel Peace Prize he won, along with North Vietnam's Le Duc THO.

The prizes were handed out today, and the American Ambassador accepted KISSINGER'S. THO wasn't there either. Earlier he had turned down the prize because he said, there is still no peace in Vietnam.

### SVN Claims Recapture of Kinh Duc

**CHANCELLOR:** The latest fighting in South Vietnam is over the District Capitol of Kinh Duc,

2 Tuesday, December 11, 1973

RADIO - TV
DEFENSE DIALOG

RADIO TV REPORTS INC. WASH., D.C., SUMMARIES NOT TO BE QUOTED.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1973 (BROADCASTS OF DECEMBER 10)

SUMMARY OF NETWORK NEWS IN THIS ISSUE

On the NBC Nightly News, Don OLIVER reports on the commandeering of gasoline and fuel oil from private oil companies by the military. He also comments on the possibility of civilian fuel shortages on the West Coast as a result of the commandeering.

Next, John CHANCELLOR, NBC News, reports on KISSINGER's efforts to heal the split between NATO allies at the NATO meeting in Brussels.

Then Denis TROUTE, NBC News, reports on the latest fighting in Kinh Duc, South Vietnam. He states the counterattack of the South Vietnamese was successful in retaking Kinh Duc.

On the CBS Evening News, CBS TV, Marvin KALB covers in detail, the NATO meeting in Brussels, and cites the oil issue stemming from the Arab-Israeli war as the immediate reason for differences in opinion between the United States and her NATO allies.

On the ABC Evening News, ABC TV, Howard K. SMITH reports on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prizes at Oslo, and several demonstrations in connection with it.

Frank BLAIR, the "Today" show on NBC TV, reports on the Secretary General of NATO Joseph LUNS and his speech concerning the threat of Soviet action if U.S. troop strength in Europe is reduced.

Then in an interview with Vice President Gerald FORD by Frank McGEE, the "Today" show, FORD discusses the President's foreign diplomacy successes in South Vietnam, in bringing the POW's home, his efforts in the Middle East, and discusses the prospects for peace in the Middle East.

On the CBS Morning News, CBS, Hughes RUDD reads a letter sent in by two star Admiral J. P. MOORER concerning the stupidity of Hughes RUDD on a statement made about switching to Daylight Saving Time, and the general atmosphere of biasness surrounding the network news media.

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

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS PUBLICATION CALL MR. HARRY ZUBKOFF, OX 52884

near the Cambodian border.

The Communists took it last week, but the government claims today it's been recaptured. There's some question about that, the government counterattack began last Friday.

Denis TROUTE reports.

DENIS TROUTE: Kinh Duc was the focal point of the effort, not for its tactical value but because the loss of a district town had so angered the central government in Saigon.

Refugees who had fled the fighting settled in temporary camps near the provincial capitol. They told local officials that a strong North Vietnamese force backed by tanks had taken their town, and dug in to hold it.

Commanders who directed the drive to regain control of the area were given top priority for air and artillery strikes. But the wounded, returning to regional headquarters for medical treatment, said most of their casualties had not been caused by small arms fire but by pinpoint shelling attacks on government columns as North Vietnamese troops pulled back.

The shelling and feared ambushes slowed the government advance, but reconnaissance elements reached and occupied the northern fringe of the town on the third day of the push.

The government's hold on the area is tenuous, the North Vietnamese were neither routed nor destroyed, they simply faded away. They could reappear any time to counterattack at Kinh Duc or even make a drive toward another vulnerable spot, perhaps the provincial capitol just 15 miles east of here.

Denis TROUTE, NBC News, Quang Duc, South Vietnam.

CBS EVENING NEWS CBS TV
7:00 PM DEC 10

KISSINGER Speaks at NATO Meeting

WALTER CRONKITE: Foreign Ministers of the 15 North Atlantic

Treaty Organization countries met in Brussels today. Strong words were exchanged, some of the firmest came from Secretary of State KISSINGER.

Marvin KALB reports.

MARVIN KALB: Although the Secretary reaffirmed America's commitment to NATO, he minced few words in posing the question on everyone's mind, can we remain allies, he asked pointedly, or will we drift into becoming competitors?

The drift is caused largely these days by sharply differing perspectives on the Middle East, which translates here as oil, and on Soviet-American relations. KISSINGER argued that it's best for everyone, in the short run, if the Europeans would stop heckling from the side and let him try to negotiate an Arab-Israeli peace.

In the long run, KISSINGER promised to come up with far ranging proposals for a common Atlantic approach to the energy crisis.

KISSINGER had barely finished, when French Foreign Minister JOBERT stunned everyone by challenging this American position, accusing Washington of setting up a Soviet-American condominium, or running the Middle East war recently without ever checking with its European allies.

KISSINGER, of course, disagreed, though he did acknowledge the need for tighter and better consultation. KISSINGER tried to have it both ways, he cited diminishing international tensions and detente on the one hand, and rising Soviet military threats and the Mid-East war on the other.

The Europeans remained profoundly skeptical about this American argument, and it's clear the Atlantic Alliance is now at a major turning point, with ally differences now commanding far more attention than at any other time since the Alliance was founded 25 years ago.

Marvin KALB, CBS News, NATO Headquarters in Brussels.

3 Tuesday, December 11, 1973

ABC EVENING NEWS ABC TV

7:00 PM DEC 10

Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded

HOWARD K. SMITH: In Oslo, several thousand Norwegian students demonstrated today against the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Secretary of State Henry KISSINGER.

KISSINGER was not there to accept, he was in Brussels attending a NATO meeting, the U.S. Ambassador to Norway accepted for him.

The other recipient, North Vietnames Polit Bureau member Le Duc THO, said he could not accept the award for negotiating the Vietnam cease-fire because of the continued fighting there.

THE TODAY SHOW NBC TV

7:00 AM DEC 10

LUNS Warns NATO Members

FRANK BLAIR: The Secretary General of NATO, Joseph LUNS, told Secretary of State KISSINGER and other NATO Foreign Ministers today that the Soviets may be talking softly, but they're carrying a big stick, which he suggested they might be tempted to use if U.S. strength in Europe is reduced.

LUN'S speech at NATO's winter meeting in Brussels reflected Western Europe's uneasiness over the Soviet-American detente.

Interview With VP FORD

FRANK MCGEE: I don't want to harp on this, but it seems that with each effort the President makes he becomes more mired down. Suppose it happens that the white papers, on the ITT and the milk fund case, are no more effective than what appears to be the reaction to his disclosure of his personal finances?

VICE PRESIDENT GERALD FORD: Well, then I think you have to look at the other side of the coin, Frank. The American people, at least in my opinion, ought to look at the tremendously effective things the President has done in the field of foreign policy. Shouldn't they say, well, the President ended the war in Vietnam, he's brought the POW's back, he's brought the troops back. He's doing a superb job in the Middle East. Isn't peace more important than some of the nitpicking that I think seems to go on and on? You have to put on the scales, what's more important than peace? And when the scales are -- when the scales reflect peace as being far more important than some of these other things, I think public opinion will turn.

MCGEE: You met with Israel's Defense Minister Moshe Dayan at your own request. And I wondered if you believe that Israel is going to this Geneva Conference on December 18th, with a sufficient willingness to withdraw from certain occupied territories to give some reasonable prospect of a permanent peace or at least, a seeming permanent peace in that part of the world?

VICE PRESIDENT FORD: Well, I am guided in this regard by what General DAYAN said, I think, yesterday, and may have repeated today, that Israel is willing to make some territorial adjustments. That is a somewhat different attitude than they've had before. I think it's also a further indication of their willingness to agree with the UN Resolution-242. I hope that the Arab nations will also go to that peace conference indicating their support for UN Resolution-242. That's the first real document that indicates that Arabs and Israelis are willing to sit down, in the first instance, and hopefully negotiate. So I'm quite optimistic in the initial stage, and hopefully in the longrun.

4 Tuesday, December 11, 1973

Nobel Prizes Awarded; King Olaf Jeered

NY Times 12-11-73

STOCKHOLD, Dec. 10 (UPI) — Ten men cited for exploring new paths of knowledge received 1973 Nobel Prized today and were honored at a formal tie ceremony for rendering the "greatest service to mankind" during the preceding year."

Before an assemblage of 1,800 people at Stockholms Concert Hall, King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden made the presentations to the winners of the Nobel Prizes for Literature, Physiology or Medicine, Chemistry and Physics and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science.

In Olso, Norway's King Olav V presented this year's controversial Nobel Peace Prize to Secretary of State Kissinger, who was represented by the American Ambassador, Thomas R. Byrne.

Mr. Kissinger and Le Duc Tho of North Vietnam shared the prize for their efforts in negotiating an end to the Vietnam war. Mr. Tho said he could not accept the prize while fighting continued in Vietnam.

At the Stocholm ceremonies, three Americans, three Britons, two West Germans, one Australian and an Austrian, or their representatives, picked up their diplomas and medals and

the total of some $600,000 in prize money. Each prize is worth about $120,000.

After the presentation ceremonies, the King was host to 780 guests at dinner at Stockhold City Hall.

Funds for the Nobel Prize were established by Albred Nobel, the Swedish inventor of dynamite.

There are five Nobel Committees in Sweden, one for each prize. The committee that chooses the peace laurates is selected by the Norwegian Parliament.

The following were the 1973 winners of the prize in five categories:

**PHYSICS**—Ivar Giaever, 44 years old, of the General Electric Company, born in Bergen, Norway; Leo Esaki, 48, of the International Business Machines Company, and Brian D. Josephson, 33, of Cambridge University, for their research on semiconductors. Drs. Giaever and Esaki will share one half of the prize and Dr. Josephson the other half.

**CHEMISTRY**—Ernst Otto Fischer, 55, of Munich, and Geoffrey Wilkinson, 52, of London University, for their independent work on the organic and metallic atoms.

**MEDICINE**—Karl von Frisch, 86, of Munich, Konrad Lorenz, 69, of Vienna and Nikolaas Tinbergen, 66, of The Hague, a professor at Oxford University, for their studies of animal and individual behavior patterns.

**ECONOMICS**—Wassily Leontief, 67, of Harvard University for his development of the input-output method and for its applications to economic problems.

**LITERATURE**—Patrick White, 61, of Sydney, Australia, for what the Nobel Committee called "an epic psychological art which has introduced a new continent into literature."

Oslo Students Demonstrate

OSLO, Norway, Dec. 10

(Reuters)—About 500 Norwegians

students demonstrated outside Oslo University today against the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Secretary of State Kissinger, pelting snow balls at the car bringing Ambassador Thomas R. Byrne and jeering King Olav when he arrived for the ceremony.

Tonight, in a torchlight procession from the University Square, about 5,000 youths marched to another city square carrying posters with such slogans as "Victory to the National Liberation Front!" and "No to war prize!"

Mr. Kissinger, who was not present and whose speech was read by Ambassador Byrne, said: "Certain war has yielded to an uncertain peace in Vietnam. Where there was once only despair and dislocation, today there is hope, however frail."

Mr. Kissinger's share of the money will go to a scholarship fund for children of American servicemen killed or missing in action in Indochina.

Visits by Appointment Only

MILLEN, Ga. (UPI) — Jones Plantation, a rambling, romantic house built in the 1780's by the family which still occupies it, is open to visitors by appointment.

The entire proceeds of this 18kt. gold and flower, local sales tax to the research institute.

This time have we given our newest jewel from Paris.

In our Shop will be open from 8.00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

FIFTH AVENUE
NORTH RODEO DRIVE
& WORTH AVENUE

Macy's Men's Store (Dept. 069), Street Floor, Herald Square, and the Macy's near you.

Deliveries outside UPS area, add 1.25. Add sales tax. COD's for mail or phone orders only (within delivery area), add 85c for handling.

PHONE MACY'S 24 HOURS A DAY. LA 4-6000 in New York City. in New Jersey 800-221-6822. or your nearest Macy phone order number.

All Macy stores are open late every night till Christmas

MÄDLER

Europe's Most Famous Name in Fine Luggage Since 1850

JEWEL CASE
A perfect Christmas gift.

Beautifully finished calf case with special compartments to keep your jewelry neatly organized at home and abroad. Exquisite detailing, meticulously constructed in Red, Teak or Red/Blue/White combination, $200. Just one from our exciting collection of fine leather jewel cases for men and women.

KISSINGER AIDE GETS
WISE AWARD FOR '73

The American Jewish Congregress last night presented its 1973 Stephen S. Wise awards to Francis L. Kellogg, special assistant to the Secretary of State, Nathan Cummings, the philanthropist, and the Jewish Telegraph Agency.

Mr. Kellogg, who directs the State Department's refugee and migration affairs, was cited for "distinguished contributions to the movement and resettlement of persecuted and homeless refugees around the world."

Mr. Cummings, the founder and honorary board chairman of the Consolidated Foods Corporation, was honored for "distinguished achievement and inspiring leadership in strengthening Israel and Jewish communal life in the United States."

William Landau, president of the Jewish Telegraph Agency, accepted the award for the agency, which was cited "for distinguished service as an essential instrument of news and information to the Jewish community at home and abroad."

The presentations were made at a dinner a the Pierre Hotel at which Simcha Dinitz, Israel's Ambassador to the United States spoke.

REMEMBER THE NEEDIEST!

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

11 DECEMBER 1973

# Kissinger, at NATO

By Takashi Oka
Staff correspondent of
The Christian Science Monitor

Brussels

Can the United States and its European allies remain allies, or will they drift into becoming competitors?

How far can the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, still geared for defense, be transformed into a vehicle of diplomacy?

Can the 15 NATO allies develop political and military security arrangements that their people will support in a period of diminishing international tension?

In a long-awaited 30-minute speech to the NATO ministerial council Monday, United States Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger proposed that these were among the searching questions the allies had to face. His remarks were reported by United States officials, who allowed no direct quotations.

## Actions explained

Dr. Kissinger spent considerable time explaining American actions in the Middle East crisis. He also spoke positively of Atlantic unity, saying he saw no incompatibility between such unity and the European search for its

own personality.

Yet Dr. Kissinger's speech showed once again that he had no inclination to gloss over the disagreements that have simmered along within the alliance over Atlantic relationships and that burst into the open since the most recent Arab-Israeli war.

## No common policies

The United States and its European allies have devised no common policy toward the Middle East.

They have no common policy to deal with the energy crisis provoked by Arab oil cuts (including a total embargo on the Netherlands and the United States).

And NATO Secretary-General Joseph Luns has delivered a stern warning that the "Soviet defense effort has caught up with and probably overtaken that of the United States."

Amid these problems, it seems doubtful that the foreign ministers meeting this week will be able to go far toward redefining the entire Atlantic bond. Other concerns are more pressing.

## Shortages hit Netherlands

The Netherlands, Foreign Minister Max Van Der Stoel told Dr. Kissinger Sunday, is still trying to solve its increasingly acute oil shortage within the context of the European Economic Community, to which it belongs. But if this does not work out, because of British and French reluctance to adopt a firm posture publicly toward the Arabs, the United States is already pledged to do its utmost to help the Dutch.

Dr. Kissinger, meanwhile, is pre-

occupied with his own efforts to obtain a Middle East settlement as soon as possible. He told British Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home at dinner Sunday that if Europeans were excluded from the peace talks opening in Geneva next week, it was only because this seemed the quickest way to move toward a settlement. Sir Alec agreed with the urgent need to obtain a settlement.

## Backdrop of detente

These allied disagreements are taking place against a backdrop of detente with the Soviet Union coupled with no slackening in Moscow's own military buildup. Despite strategic arms limitations talks with the United States, mutual force reduction talks with NATO's central European powers, and the catch-all Geneva Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Warsaw Pact forces are growing stronger all the time.

On Monday, Dr. Luns, the craggy, witty, totally dedicated NATO secretary-general noted a "distressing similarity" between present-day lack of public interest in defense and the situation preceding World War II, when nonaggression pacts with potential invaders were the order of the day.

But while many of NATO's 15 foreign ministers sympathize with Dr. Luns's evaluations, in a period of looming economic setbacks and even perhaps of depression, increasing defense budgets are not popular in any country.

The short-term emphasis still is very much on how to deal with the oil crisis and the Middle East.

NEW YORK TIMES - 11 DECEMBER 1973

# Kissinger Is 'Star' at NATO Parley

By BERNARD GWERTZMAN
Special to The New York Times

BRUSSELS, Dec. 10—Hungarian journalist asked an American today if Secretary of State Kissinger would hold a news conference while in Brussels. When he was told that it was unlikely, the Hungarian replied: "But I came from Budapest only to see Kissinger. Do you think I care about the NATO meeting?"

Mr. Kissinger's arrival for the meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was clearly the chief focus not only for Hungarian journalists but for newsmen and diplomats from America and all over Europe. His very presence seemed to distract attention from the main issues of the conference. "He's a real star, no doubt about it," a Belgian official said in admiration.

The Secretary was scheduled to speak 14th in the list of 1st today. Normally, this would have delayed his remarks until the early evening. But the 13 speakers who preceded him completed their speeches by 1 P.M., probably a record for NATO

brevity, one veteran diplomat said, "so they could all hear Henry first thing after lunch."

Anticipation for Mr. Kissinger's NATO speech had been building up for weeks. On American diplomat said it reminded him of the atmosphere surrounding a heavy-weight championship fight. "The European journalists were looking forward to a bloody slugfest between Kissinger and the rest of NATO," he said.

What they got, however, was a rather constructive, restrained address, in which Mr. Kissinger said the usual things about the American commitment to the alliance and jabbed the allies only for their disagreements with Washington.

But the newsmen got their "fight" after all. Just as the last bus was about to leave the press center for downtown Brussels, word quickly spread: Michel Jobert, the French Foreign Minister, and Mr. Kissinger had a sharp exchange at the end of the meeting.

Newsmen scurried around trying to find diplomats who had witnessed the clash. Germans, Canadians and Bel-

gians provided eyewitness details that did not necessarily correspond with each other. The official NATO spokesman said it had been a "constructive exchange," and for a long time the American side refused to comment, allowing the French to make whatever points they wanted.

But while the press was reporting the clash, Mr. Jobert and Mr. Kissinger were planning to have breakfast tomorrow.

Despite Mr. Kissinger's preeminence here, few newsmen have seen him since he got off his Air Force 707 jet plane on Saturday night. He has worked in a 16th-floor suite in the Hilton Hotel on either State Department matters or the major foreign policy address he plans to deliver in London on Wednesday night. The rest of the time he has been shuttling back and forth in his limousine either to the treaty organization's Headquarters for conference business or to the residences of other diplomats and officials for private talks.

At NATO, he and the other foreign ministers are effectively sealed off from members of the press, who can

only receive accounts of what they have talked about from various spokesmen.

Photographers have seen Mr. Kissinger, however, and one of them reported that during one picture-taking session, the Secretary joked with the photographers: "Please do something to make me look thinner."

Mr. Kissinger, a man not known for his lack of vanity, has clearly been putting on weight lately. When asked recently why this had happened, he replied that he tended to eat more when involved in difficult negotiations. "The way it's going with the Arabs and Israelis," he joked, "I'll be 360 pounds before we get a settlement."

The men around Mr. Kissinger report that he is an intensely emotional person, not cool and aloof as foreign ministers are supposed to be. In private, he says what is on his mind, and he is not adverse to salting his language.

He is particularly demanding of persons who draft things for him to sign or to say. "Henry once said, 'What imbecile did that?' and I knew he meant me," one aide said. "But I didn't get up tight because I knew that if I was an imbecile he wouldn't allow me to work for him."

3-F

FROM KING FEATURES SYNDICATE, 235 EAST 45TH ST., NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT

Columnist Chamberlain wonders whether Kissinger knows as much about Admiral Mahan as he does about Metternich.

## THESE DAYS
BY JOHN CHAMBERLAIN
### HOW DOES NATO PLAN TO COPE WITH THE SOVIET NAVY?

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is an artful man, thoroughly schooled in the history of Nineteenth Century diplomacy. But in trying to deal with the European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, he is up against something that would have stumped the combined brains of Talleyrand, Metternich, Otto von Bismarck and any other Nineteenth Century luminary that might be mentioned.

NATO was originally set up as a means of securing Western Europe against a frontal attack from the Communist East. A child of the Nineteen Forties, when the Cold War was raging and the status of West Berlin was the big issue (Berlin was the "bone" in Soviet Russia's throat), NATO was never designed to cope with the emergence of the Soviet Union as a great sea power capable of dominating Western Europe from both the northern and southern flanks.

### Russia Fears NATO

If NATO didn't exactly telegraph its punch, it at least telegraphed its defensive stance. No Soviet General Staff in its right mind would bother to tangle with a NATO ground force armed with tactical nuclear weapons once the prospect of controlling the sea approaches to Italy, France, and West Germany had become a practical reality.

The new standard of living in Western Europe depends on oil, and oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Libya moves by water. So the emergence of the modern Soviet Navy, as detailed in the latest edition of "Jane's Fighting Ships," becomes the relevant document in any discussion of NATO's shortcomings.

What possible leverage does Kissinger have to bring the nations of the Common Market to cope with the problem of NATO's flanks? The presence of American ground forces in West Germany is hardly relevant; a Western Europe deprived of Middle Eastern oil wouldn't be able to fight a ground war for more than a few weeks anyway. What NATO should be talking about now is the problem of sea power in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf. It should be worrying about the status of the Suez Canal and the possibility of neutralizing the narrow waters that separate Europe from Asia Minor at the Dardanelles. It should be concerned with the storage of bunker oil in Cape Town and other South African ports.

The ability to close the entrance to the Baltic Sea should be a paramount consideration, and the fate of the port of Londonderry in North Ireland, which is a base that might be needed in the event of submarine threats in the North Atlantic, is another item for a NATO agenda. If Kissinger cannot talk to West European foreign ministers with any assurance that the U.S. plans to keep a Navy second to none, with Trident missile submarines coming off the ways at critical intervals, he will have little to offer.

(MORE)

FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT

BY JOHN CHAMBERLAIN

xx offer.

'A New Act of Vision'

Kissinger, in Brussels to "stress that the Atlantic Alliance remains the cornerstone of American foreign policy," talks about "a new act of vision." But a United States that is unable to project its sea power into the Eastern Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean lanes leading to the Persian Gulf can have no vision that will appeal to Western Europe. Sea power and sea power alone is vital to a guarantee that even the oil of sympathetic Iran will reach Western industrial nations.

If the Soviets can cut off the oil spigots in the Middle East simply by deploying missile cruisers and atomic submarines in superior force through the Red Sea, Western Europe must, in the long term, seek an accommodation with Moscow. The "Finlandization" of Western Europe is in the cards if the U.S. refuses the challenge to become the world's strongest blue water power. Admiral Mahan and Teddy Roosevelt would have understood this; the question now is whether Henry Kissinger is as conversant with the works of Mahan as he is with the deliberations of the Congress of Vienna in post-Napoleonic Europe.

Maybe Western Europe doesn't want to be saved from a Russian Bear whose suffocating hug will come from the sea. If that is true, history will be rewritten without benefit of NATO, and Henry Kissinger will live in the books as the last defender of a lost cause.

Distributed by King Features Syndicate

(MJF)

Dec. 11, 1973

Confidential

Foreign Report

Published by The Economist Newspaper Limited
25 St. James's Street, London SW1A 1HG

1323 12 December 1973

Contents

Oil is Nixon's best hope

Arabs for Nixon

Oil power, copper power, cocoa power

Brezhnev's European disappointments
Come back Albania

ANDERSON

HOLDRIDGE

HORMATS

JORDEN

KENNEDY

LEHMAN

LEVINE

NEGRORONTE

ODEEN

RATLIFF

RONDON

SAUNDERS

SONNENFELDT

V. I. G.

WALSH

COOPER

DAVIS

JANKA

RODMAN

SCULLCROFT

15

L

Oil is Nixon's best hope

President Nixon's survival in office may well turn out to depend on a lifting of the Arab oil embargo. With **Mr Gerald Ford** installed as Vice-President, the President's chances of staying in office are rated no better than even. If there is widespread hardship in the United States this winter as a result of fuel shortages, he may find it impossible to hang on. The Secretary of State, **Mr Kissinger**, is reported to be putting virtually all his energy into promoting the Arab-Israeli peace conference and doing something about oil. So his efforts to patch up the Atlantic alliance in Europe this week, however necessary, were hobbled from the start by their relatively low priority.-

Mr Kissinger's main purpose at the Nato meeting was to assess the damage done to the alliance by the Middle East crisis and to devise some remedies. The Europeans are still unhappy about Mr Nixon's failure to give them advance notice of the American military alert in October, or at least to keep them informed about events before the alert. The emphasis in Brussels was therefore on the adequacy of consultative procedures. Inevitably the discussions focused on short-term problems, but this was probably all that could be expected.

The United States has long since abandoned the hope that a 'new Atlantic charter' can be signed with the Europeans this year. Negotiations have been going on to work out an agreed declaration of principles, and the Europeans have now improved on the first draft which the Americans found so unsatisfactory. But the business will not be completed in 1973.

Before the Secretary of State left Washington, senior American officials acknowledged that if Mr Nixon and Mr Kissinger want to revive the Atlantic charter idea, they will have to accept some important modifications. They outlined a possible scenario in

1

which the President would visit Europe early next year, going first to Brussels to sign a Nato document dealing with defence matters and then to Bonn to ratify a declaration on relations with the EEC (it will be the Germans' turn to act as EEC 'chairman' next year). This would be a significant step back from the Kissinger proposal for a single charter which recognised that political, military and economic issues are linked, although the Americans think that the essential concept of Atlantic interdependence can be kept in the EEC document.

Mr Kissinger is still trying for linkage but it is an uphill struggle against long-standing European, and especially French, doubts, which have recently been intensified by the disagreements over the Middle East. The Europeans suspect, with good reason, that linkage implies that the American defence contribution is contingent on the settlement of trade and monetary questions. Since Mr Nixon remains eager to visit Europe, he probably will have to settle for the separate documents proposed by the Europeans.

As much as Mr Nixon hopes to go to Europe next year, the lifting of the oil embargo takes precedence. His motive is the same in both cases but the removal of the embargo would do much more to keep him in the White House than any improvement in relations with Europe. Some State Department observers believe that Mr Kissinger is about halfway towards arranging a relaxation of the embargo. This assessment may prove too optimistic, but it would account for Mr Nixon's reluctance to impose petrol rationing and the other fuel restrictions which almost all American energy experts consider necessary.

The impression is growing in Washington that Mr Nixon and Mr Kissinger are trying to arrange an announcement that the embargo will be relaxed even though it may be months before oil actually began to move again from the Gulf to American east coast ports. The President's hopes for a breakthrough depend, of course, on Arab and Israeli reactions to Mr Kissinger's feelers.

(i) **The Yamani plan.** The White House has displayed particular interest in the proposal of the Saudi Arabian oil minister, Sheikh Ahmed Zadi Yamani, for a phased relaxation of the embargo in conjunction with an Israeli timetable for withdrawal from the occupied territories. This would enable Mr Nixon to make his promise to the American people – and thus get them and himself through the winter – and leave the more difficult substance for later.

Sheikh Yamani's statement that 'if Israel decides to withdraw and agrees to a timetable, there could be a timetable to relax the embargo' brought an unusually warm response from the State Department, which described his meeting with Mr Kissinger as 'very frank, serious and useful'. Significantly, Mr Nixon sent a whole bevy of top Administration officials to take part in the Kissinger-Yamani meeting, among them the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr Shultz (the chief opponent of rationing in the cabinet), and the government's new energy director, Mr William Simon.

(ii) **The message for Israel.** There is no doubt that Mr Nixon is putting intense pressure on the Israelis to agree to a withdrawal schedule, provided the other parts of the deal are satisfactory to Israel. At a private meeting with Democratic members of Congress last month, Mr Nixon emphasised that Israel must realise that the United States is its only friend among the major powers. He also insisted that retention of the occupied land was not a feasible policy. When one of the participants in the meeting, Representative Andrews of North Carolina, reported the President's views, the White House pointedly did not disavow them. The message to the Israelis was clear: if they want Mr Nixon to remain in office (and they do), they must make concessions.

2

## Arabs for Nixon

The Arabs have ambivalent feelings towards President Nixon but they would very much rather that he stayed in office than be succeeded by Mr Gerald Ford. Most American politicians, including Mr Nixon, are considered by the Arabs to be pro-Israeli; Mr Ford is considered to be especially so.

The evidence on which this opinion is based is not spelled out very clearly, but the Arabs cite two things about Mr Ford:

1. He was one of the first politicians to argue that Israel should be supplied with Phantom fighter-bombers;

2. He is among the minority of Republican politicians who say that the United States should recognise undivided Jerusalem as Israel's legal capital and transfer the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

His stand about Jerusalem (the same position was taken by the Democrats as part of their platform at the last presidential election) creates particular concern, among Arabs, since the status of Jerusalem is regarded as the chief test of success or failure at the coming peace negotiations in Geneva. And, coincidence or not, the Arabs felt that Mr Ford was acting in character when the first foreign dignitary the new Vice-President received was Israel's Moshe Dayan.

## Oil power, copper power, cocoa power

The effectiveness of the Arab oil weapon has led other developing countries to consider launching similar embargoes of the raw materials they control. Among the commodities which might be turned to political uses are copper, cocoa and coffee - or at least the attempt may be made.

(i) **Copper.** The possibility of extending embargo tactics was discussed by delegates outside the conference hall during last month's Arab summit meeting in Algiers. Specifically, President Mobutu of Zaïre, the first non-Arab leader to address an Arab summit, is said to have been offered Arab money to stockpile Zaïrian and Zambian copper, in return for African support for the Arabs' Middle East policy. The Africans' aim in controlling supplies in this way would be to maintain prices at their present high levels even if Chile's copper production increases.

Copper-exporting countries have been trying for some years to follow the example of Opec (the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) in negotiating better prices for their product. Cipec, the copper exporters' grouping, which consists of the four largest suppliers, Zaïre, Zambia, Chile and Peru, met a few weeks ago in Paris and agreed that all four members would restrict supplies to consumer countries if the current favourable price structure threatened to collapse. A unilateral move by the African exporters, with the help of Arab money, would threaten the Cipec front.

One of the reasons why Zambia has extended its control over the management of the mining industry and the marketing of the metal is to prevent resistance from the companies in the event of concerted Cipec action. On 30 November President Mobutu declared his intention to put his country's copper production under state direction. Neither country is yet in a position to dispense with the assistance of foreign companies. But with both China and Japan anxious to secure fresh copper supplies, the producers are less dependent on their traditional mining partners than before.

3

Even if Cipec were to succeed in maintaining or raising world prices by following the Opec example, this would not in itself turn copper into a political weapon. Unlike the Arab oil producers, Cipec members do not now have a common foreign policy objective. Would Chile and Peru support Zaïre and Zambia in a campaign against apartheid? It looks unlikely.

**(ii) Cocoa and Coffee.** Until recently African and Latin American cocoa-producing countries had similarly divergent interests. But last month the conference of east and central African foreign ministers threatened Brazil with diplomatic and economic action if it continued to support the white governments in southern Africa. Whether it was because of these African threats or because of the danger of being classified as unfriendly by the Arabs, Brazil (which gets most of its oil from the Middle East) has recently stopped its total support for Portugal at the United Nations, and some Brazilian newspapers are now calling on the Lisbon government to negotiate autonomy for the African territories. Brazil is also engaged in a major export drive in Africa and, to promote trade, is even buying up surplus African coffee under the new international price support scheme for this commodity.

It would take some time for cocoa and coffee producers to evolve a common strategy and the developed world would certainly find it easier to get along without hot drinks than without oil. But the emergence of a cocoa weapon or a copper weapon can no longer be ruled out indefinitely. The lesson of oil power will not be lost on any producer with a corner on a market and a political cause.

## Brezhnev's European disappointments

Mr Brezhnev's 'Year of Europe' has gone just about as sour as Mr Nixon's. Originally the Soviet party leader's hopes of making spectacular progress in this particular sector of international relations were fully as high as the President's. As seen from Moscow, 1973 was going to be the year that saw not only the opening but also the triumphant conclusion of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) which Brezhnev had laboured so long to bring to life. The CSCE was intended to work up to a grand finale at summit level, attended by all Europe's heads of government, who would personally subscribe to a joint declaration of mutual goodwill and confidence. What the Russians hoped would follow from this is that the west European allies would disarm, send the Americans packing, and dissolve their alliance. (Russia would be perfectly happy to go through the motions of a corresponding dissolution of the Warsaw pact alliance, which would not deprive it of its real means of keeping eastern Europe under its control.)

For the achievement of these aims, Brezhnev counted on a good deal of active co-operation from the French, who had shown themselves to be as enthusiastic about the CSCE as they were unenthusiastic about Nato. He counted on Herr Brandt's eagerness to complete his Ostpolitik, both to ensure that Russia's East German client state would obtain full acceptance as a member of the society of nations, and to provide the lagging Soviet economy with generous West German credits and other support. Brezhnev expected the Americans to help him to get the Europeans to toe the right lines, and he expected the Europeans to become so helpfully passive and docile that he could deploy the full weight of the Soviet Union against those maddening Chinese.

But, so far, the only score that he has been able to chalk up is the acceptance of East

4

Germany as a member of the United Nations and as a legitimate participant in international negotiations. And this success was really achieved in 1972, when East Germany was accepted as a participant in the preliminary talks held before the formal opening of the CSCE. After years of dogged exclusion of East Germany from international gatherings, the western powers have now accepted it with an almost cheerful insouciance which has deprived Mr Brezhnev of much of his expected triumph. Its foreign minister, Herr Winzer, was positively embarrassed by the beaming welcome he received from his West German counterpart, Herr Scheel, at the CSCE opening in Helsinki in July; and by the time the East German delegation took its seat at the UN assembly in September, anti-climax had set in. Moreover, it did not escape Brezhnev's notice that the western governments' readiness to sit down at last with East Germany was connected with their strong desire to involve it in the talks on force reductions in central Europe which have opened in Vienna – and which he had been obliged to accept as part of the price for getting his CSCE started.

The CSCE itself has gone all wrong from Russia's point of view. Its working sessions began in Geneva in September, but it is now about to adjourn for a Christmas recess without having got anywhere near the spectacular climax on which Brezhnev had set his heart. Having already had to abandon hope of completing the conference in 1973, he is now obliged to worry about the chances of ever getting a final summit at all. On 10 December, when Sir Alec Douglas-Home told the Nato foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels about his visit to Moscow a week earlier, he argued that there would be little justification for a summit session at the end of the CSCE. Mr Mitchell Sharp, the Canadian foreign minister, who had visited Moscow just before Sir Alec, went even further, suggesting that it might be better to refuse to hold a final stage of the conference at any level if the Russians did not modify their position. Similar disenchantment is observable outside Nato's ranks, among the non-allied European governments.

To Mr Brezhnev's alarm, his CSCE negotiators have been finding both the allied and the non-allied western governments insistent that Russia must concede greater freedom of movement and more exchange of information and ideas among Europeans, and that these concessions must be genuine ones, not mere pieties on paper. At Helsinki in July Russia had to agree to a conference agenda that gave these matters a prominent place. This agenda has never been published inside the Soviet Union, but many Russians have learnt about it – thanks, partly, to the reduction of radio jamming that had been one of the tokens of goodwill Russia had to give in order to get the conference going. The extent of the Soviet authorities' sensitiveness to the issue was shown last week when their controlled press launched a massive campaign of counter-propaganda. In one of the first articles in this campaign, Moscow's *Literaturnaya Gazeta* complained bitterly about foreign radio stations 'rejoicing in the defence of our rights and freedoms'.

It is particularly galling to Mr Brezhnev that the French have proved as insistent about human freedoms as anybody else. At Helsinki in July the French foreign minister, M. Michel Jobert, declared that the road to security was by way of liberty. When he addressed the Western European Union assembly on 21 November, M. Jobert said it all again, insisting that 'security is inseparable from liberty' and naming the 'free exchange of ideas' as one of the 'fundamental conditions for a true detente'. The build-up for Brezhnev's 'year of Europe' had included many glowing references to the example of good east-west relations set by France and Russia. But now Moscow is

5

Noticably worried, by Jobert's speeches, by the French CSCE team's attitude at Geneva, by the signs of a new French interest in the joint defence of western Europe, and by French complaints about the two superpowers' alleged ambitions - which, as in Jobert's WEU speech, are often coupled, in a way that puzzles and irritates Russia, with declarations that the Atlantic alliance and the continued presence of American forces in Europe are 'indispensable' to its security.

The French connection has also become a cause of friction in Moscow's relations with European Communist parties. Unprecedentedly, the French Communist party's organ, *L'Humanité*, published on 26 November an attack on the foreign minister of Bulgaria - Russia's most docile east European ally. While visiting Paris, **Mr Mladenov** had publicly praised France's role in the CSCE. The French party newspaper commented acidly that he must be the only person who did not know that the French government was putting all its effort into working against the success of the conference and against European security and detente.

A breaking point seemed to be reached last week. Up to 6 December *Pravda* and other Soviet organs were anxiously denying that there had been any deterioration in Russian-French relations, and denouncing the 'malicious fabrications' of western commentators who had - quite logically - detected criticism of M. Jobert in the Soviet newspapers' attacks on unnamed persons who were reported to be wanting 'the creation of a military apparatus of WEU'. But on 8 December Moscow's weekly *Novaya Vremya* (New Times) published a similar attack in which Jobert was prominently identified by name, and which declared that 'Europe does not need these projected new blocks' and that the kind of west European defence system Jobert had in mind 'could never be anything but an appendage of the powerful military mechanism controlled by the Pentagon'. Despite official denials, some doubt now seems to surround the prospect that **President Pompidou** will make the visit to Russia which has been tentatively set for next February.

Problems for Moscow have piled up in several other parts of Europe apart from France. While the Soviet authorities were deciding that they would have to let their press come out openly against Jobert, they were simultaneously having to watch **Rumania's President Ceausescu** visiting Washington and sitting down with Mr Nixon to sign a joint statement of principles - the first such document ever agreed upon between the United States and one of Russia's Warsaw pact allies - which incorporated many of the points about national independence and sovereignty that the Rumanian communists are so fond of making in order to express their defiance of Moscow's authority. At Geneva the Russians are finding Rumania a tenaciously awkward partner in the CSCE. This is less a reflection of Rumania's independent links with the United States than of its links with China, which has maintained a totally hostile attitude to the whole CSCE operation throughout. (China's fully aligned ally, Albania, is the only European state that has refused to participate in the Geneva conference at all.) And it is, again, the influence of Peking that makes Rumania one of the sources of Mr Brezhnev's difficulties over the convening of the international communist conference which is his next big objective.

Indications of Brezhnev's eagerness to stage such a conference, which would be the first to be held since 1969, and only the second since the great Chinese-Soviet split, have been building up for some time. On 6 December the first public call for a new communist conference was made by the Bulgarian and Hungarian leaders, **Mr Zhivkov** and **Mr Kadar**, obviously at Moscow's instigation. A fortnight earlier

6

Brezhnev was reported to have urged the necessity of holding a conference at an early date upon the French Communist party leader, **M. Marchais**, and to have found him ready and willing; but the official statement issued after Marchais's visit to Moscow kept quiet about this. Here, the Rumanians are not the only reluctant comrades. The Korean and Vietnamese communists are, understandably, equally unenthusiastic about a gathering that would clearly be intended to reassert Soviet primacy in the communist movement and to isolate China. And in western Europe the Italian party is visibly digging in its heels. Its secretary-general, **Signor Berlinguer**, has given many signs that he will not be brought round to acceptance of the project as easily as was M. Marchais.

## Come back Albania

The Russians and their east European allies seem to be trying to woo Albania back into the fold. On the eve of Albania's national day last month, Czechoslovakia's main party daily, *Rude Pravo*, cited Czechoslovakia's warm friendship for Albania that 'even the years of isolation had done nothing to weaken'. The next day *Pravda* referred to the difficulties in Soviet-Albanian relations as transient, and reminded Albanian comrades that the present 'abnormal situation' only played into the hands of 'enemies of socialism'. It went on to offer Albania a relationship based on those hallowed and much abused principles of equality and non-interference in internal affairs. Similarly friendly articles have appeared recently in Polish, East German, Hungarian and Bulgarian newspapers. Why is the Soviet alliance suddenly making so much fuss about Albania?

Soviet leaders may have been encouraged by their relatively successful seduction of President Tito into making an effort to win back the other prodigal communist state in Europe. Russia would probably like to get back its old submarine base in Vlore (Valona), from which it was expelled when Albania left the Soviet sphere of influence in 1961. Another reason for wooing Albania would be to strengthen pro-Soviet forces in Jugoslavia and to heighten Rumania's isolation in the Balkans. Most important of all, Albania's return to the Soviet block would be a serious blow to China's prestige in the world communist movement and, by the same token, a victory for Russia.

So far the Albanian government has not publicly responded to any message from eastern Europe except from Rumania. Albanian propaganda continues to attack the Russian 'social-imperialists' for their alleged collusion with western 'imperialists' in the Middle East and Europe. In other words, it continues to echo the Chinese line. But the Russians are not discouraged in their suit, for several reasons.

**(i) The removal of the Jugoslav buffer.** The Russians calculate that the Albanian leaders themselves must realise that the international situation has changed to Albania's disadvantage. Jugoslavia's rapprochement with Russia threatens to remove the buffer which has stood between Albania and the Warsaw pact. A pro-Soviet Jugoslavia might at some stage in the future be encouraged by Moscow to use its own Im-strong Albanian minority to put pressure on, or even to annex, Albania. Albania will not want to rely on its non-communist neighbours, Greece and Italy, as a possible counterweight to the Russians because they might make territorial claims. So Albania might decide to make peace with the Russians as the only way of keeping itself secure.

**(ii) China's uncertain future.** The alliance with China, Albania's main provider of money and arms, remains firm. A Chinese economic-technological delegation visited

7

Albania at the end of last month, and a senior Albanian army delegation led by the chief of staff, Petrit Dume, visited Peking at the same time. But China may be heading for another period of internal turmoil; and the possibility of an eventual reconciliation with Russia under a post-Mao leadership, which would leave Albania high and dry, is something that no Albanian leader can rule out.

This kind of reasoning is bound to strengthen the hand of those Albanian leaders who favour a reconciliation with the Soviet Union. The pro-Soviet faction was decimated after the purge which followed Khrushchev's unsuccessful attempt to unseat Albania's leader, Enver Hoxha, in 1961, but it seems to be asserting itself again. The sacking of the national assembly chairman, Fadil Pacrami, in September for 'anti-national activity' may have been due to his advocacy of an accommodation with Moscow. The same applies to the dismissal of the secretary of the national assembly presidium, Bilbil Klosi, a senior party figure and for many years Albania's interior minister.

(iii) The fear of 'liberalism'. For all its isolation, Albania has not been immune to the virus of western ideas. Years of austerity and indoctrination have produced a reaction, particularly among intellectuals; and party leaders have responded with a campaign of suppression. In July the officers of the national youth organisation were sacked for failing to guard the country's youth against 'liberalism'. The leaders of the writers' union were replaced for a similar offence. Earlier this month party conferences were held in several cities to discuss the struggle against 'bourgeois revisionism'.

One important conduit for alien influences has been the contacts Albania has permitted in recent years with Jugoslavia, and especially with the Albanian community in the Jugoslavs' nearby Kosovo province. So Albania might be expected to try to strengthen its barriers against its communist neighbour. But now that Jugoslavia is also cracking down on 'liberal' tendencies, Albanian leaders might feel that closer links with both Jugoslavia and Russia could actually help them to control their own dissidents.

Enver Hoxha's position still appears to be strong, although the 65-year-old leader has been in power for nearly 30 years. At the moment he is dealing with the divisions within the party by sending cadres off to do manual work Chinese-style in factories and on farms. This has the double advantage of removing potential Soviet sympathisers from influential positions and allowing ambitious younger men access to the top. But a backlash against this unpopular programme might end up by rusticating Mr Hoxha himself.

© WORLD COPYRIGHT RESERVED 1973 THE ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER LTD.

'FOREIGN REPORT' IS SUPPLIED ON THE CONDITION THAT IT IS REGARDED AS CONFIDENTIAL BY THE RECIPIENT IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES MAY THE CONTENTS BE REPRODUCED WHOLE OR IN PART.

PRINTED BY WATERLOW LONDON, FOR THE ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER LTD. LONDON SW1A HG

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

December 12, 1973

No. 452

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL 4:00 P.M. E.S.T. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1973.
NOT TO BE PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED, QUOTED FROM OR USED IN ANY WAY.

ADDRESS BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
BEFORE A DINNER MEETING OF
THE PILGRIMS OF GREAT BRITAIN
EUROPA HOTEL
LONDON
December 12, 1973

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to you this evening because, like most Americans, I am seized by a mixture of pride and terror when invited to appear before a British audience. In my particular case and without any reflection on this distinguished assemblage, it is probably more terror than pride for there is no blinking the fact -- it is there for all to hear -- that my forebears missed the Mayflower by some three hundred years.

Our two peoples have been more closely associated than any other two nations in modern history -- in culture and economics, in peace and in war. We have sometimes disagreed. But the dominant theme of our relationship in this century has been intimate alliance and mighty creations.

In 1950, while the Atlantic Alliance was considering a continuing political body, my great predecessor Dean Acheson spoke to this Society. Describing the travails of creation, Acheson noted that a "strange and confusing dissonance has crowded the trans-Atlantic frequencies." But he added that this "dissonance flows from the very awareness that difficult decisions must be made and is a part of the process of making them."

Again today America and Western Europe find themselves at a moment of great promise and evident difficulty -- of renewed efforts to unite and old problems which divide. It is a time of both hope and concern for all of us who value the partnership we have built together. Today, as in 1950, we and Europe face the necessity, the opportunity and the dilemma of fundamental choice.

## The Year of Europe

Because we have an historical and intimate relationship, I want to speak tonight, frankly, of what has been called the "Year of Europe" -- of the difficulties of 1973 and the possibilities of 1974 and beyond.

Last April, the President asked me to propose that Europe and the United States strive together to reinvigorate our partnership. He did so because it was obvious that the assumptions on which the Alliance was founded have been outstripped by events.

For further information contact:

PR #452

-2-

-- Europe's economic strength, political cohesion, and new confidence
-- the monumental achievements of Western unity -- have radically altered
a relationship that was originally shaped in an era of European weakness
and American predominance.

-- American nuclear monopoly has given way to nuclear parity raising
wholly new problems of defense and deterrence -- problems which demand a
broad reexamination of the requirements of our security and the relative
contribution to it of the United States and its allies.

-- The lessening of confrontation between East and West has offered
new hope for a relaxation of tensions and new opportunities for creative
diplomacy.

-- It has become starkly apparent that the great industrialized
democracies of Japan, Europe and North America could pursue divergent
paths only at the cost of their prosperity and their partnership.

These historic changes were occurring in a profoundly changed psycho-
logical climate in the West. The next generation of leaders in Europe,
Canada and America will have neither the personal memory nor the emotional
commitment to the Atlantic Alliance of its founders. Even today, a majority
on both sides of the Atlantic did not experience the threat that produced
the Alliance's creation or the sense of achievement associated with its
growth. Even today, in the United States, over forty Senators consistently
vote to make massive unilateral reductions of American forces in Europe.
Even today, some Europeans have come to believe that their identity should
be measured by its distance from the United States. On both sides of the
Atlantic we are faced with the anomalous -- and dangerous -- situation
which in the public mind identifies foreign policy success increasingly
with relations with adversaries while relations with allies seem to be
characterized by bickering and drift.

There exists, then, a real danger of a gradual erosion of the Atlantic
community which for 25 years has ensured peace to its nations and brought
prosperity to its peoples. A major effort to renew Atlantic relations
and to anchor our friendship in a fresh act of creation seemed essential.
We hoped that the drama of the great democracies engaging themselves once
again in defining a common future would infuse our Atlantic partnership
with new emotional and intellectual excitement. This was the origin of
the initiative which came to be called the "Year of Europe."

Let me lay to rest certain misconceptions about American intentions:

-- The President's initiative was launched after careful preparation.
In all of our conversations with many European leaders during the winter
and spring of 1972-73 there was agreement that Atlantic relations required
urgent attention to arrest the potential for growing suspicion and aliena-
tion between Europe and America.