# Brezhnev Terms Kissinger Effort
'Essatz Plans' for Middle East

New York Times

By CHRISTOPHER S. WREN

4-12-74

Special to The New York Times

MOSCOW, April 11—Leonard I. Brezhnev, the Soviet leader, today warned the visiting Syrian President, Hafez al-Assad, that the United States and Israel might try to sueño a Syrian-Israeli disengagement agreement for a genuine peace settlement in the Middle East.

Speaking at a dinner for the Syrian leader, Mr. Brezhnev said "erzatz plans" for disengagement would mean "replacing an over-all settlement with partial agreements of a different kind."

The Soviet leader's warning, which came only a few days before Syria was to send a negotiator to Washington for talks with Secretary of State Kissinger, appeared intended to stiffen the tough bargaining position already taken by Damascus.

Mr. Brezhnev apparently reflecting the Kremlin's sensitivity at having been eclipsed by the personal diplomacy of Mr. Kissinger, went on to thank Syria for recognizing "the importance of the Soviet Union's participation" in any peace settlement.

The Kremlin leaders mounted an elaborate welcome for Mr. Assad, who arrived here today on a visit that appeared directly related to efforts to effect a disengagement. Israeli and Syrian forces have been skirmishing for several weeks in the Golan Heights area.

The top Soviet leaders—Mr. Brezhnev, President Nikolai Podgorny and Premier Aleksai Kosygin—all turned out to meet Mr. Assad at Vnukovo Airport. Their joint appearance was evidence of the importance that Moscow is attaching to its relationship with Damascus in the wake of increasingly strained relations with Cairo.

In his dinner speech, Mr. Brezhnev did not directly name the United States and Israel as conspirators trying to thwart a complete settlement, but his implications were clear.

"The danger lies in the fact that against the background of a certain decrease of tensions, the aggressor and its patrons may try again to avoid a radical all-encompassing solution of the problem," the Soviet leader said.

In an apparent allusion to Mr. Kissinger's successful arrangement of a disengagement between Israeli and Egyptian forces, Mr. Brezhnev continued, "it is not accidental that what I would call ersatz plans for a Middle East settlement have been launched of late."

Mr. Assad has not yet indicated whether he will go along with pressures by Moscow to have the Israeli-Syrian disengagement negotiated at Geneva.

I
s
a

The Washington Merry-Go-Round

THE WASHINGTON POST

Friday, April 12, 1974

D15

# Kissinger Cautious on Mideast Talks

By Jack Anderson

Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger believes he can negotiate an agreement to separate Israeli and Syrian forces on the turbulent Golan Heights. But he has warned President Nixon of the danger that Syria's President Assad might "jump the tracks."

Kissinger's success in arranging a disengagement may determine whether American motorists will have to start lining up again for gas. For Arab leaders have warned that the oil embargo may be reimposed if a Syrian-Israeli settlement falls through.

Kissinger laid the groundwork in Moscow for a settlement by promising to consult with the Soviets. Intelligence reports claim they tried to disrupt the negotiations by encouraging the Syrians to make impossible demands and to open fire on the Golan front.

The Soviets reportedly feared Kissinger was trying to squeeze them out of a Middle East settlement. They are particularly eager, according to intelligence assessments, to retain their influence with Syria and Iraq, which will give them access to the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

During his Kremlin call, Kissinger sought to reassure the

Soviets that they will have a voice in any final Middle East peace. He is expected to stop off in Geneva to consult with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko before beginning the next round of talks with the Syrians and Israelis.

Sources close to Kissinger tell us he has cautioned the President that the psychology of the negotiating process sometimes seems to take precedence over the merits of the arguments.

He has reported that President Assad is highly intelligent, with a sharp sense of humor, but unpredictable. The Syrian leader is caught between factions, some of them extremist, according to Kissinger.

He is carefully informing the Egyptians, meanwhile, of every move he is making. He wants them to understand that he has done his best in case the Syrian negotiations break down. His strategy is to keep the peace on the Israeli-Egyptian front no matter what happens with Syria.

Changing Times: A confidential campaign document, which has been buried in President Nixon's files for more than two years, dramatizes how fortunes have changed.

Today, the President is pleading privately for invitations to campaign for Republican candidates, as evidence that he isn't political poison. But the memo

shows that only two years ago he selected what Republicans he would favor with the haughtiness of a dowager queen choosing a ceremonial robe.

In the memo, campaign deputy director Jeb Magruder relayed a message from White House staff chief H. R. (Bob) Haldeman to Attorney General John N. Mitchell.

"Haldeman indicated," wrote Magruder, "that the President will not do TV clips for senators and House candidates, but will do simple written endorsements for these candidates."

As for hopeful GOP newcomers, the President took an even more high-and-mighty view. "The President," Magruder informed Mitchell, "is willing to have his picture taken with incumbent candidates but will not do them for new candidates for the Senate and the House."

Footnote: Many Republicans in Congres are still grumbling about the treatment they got from Mr. Nixon and his campaign committee in 1972. Some of them, ironically, may now sit in judgment on him if his impeachment comes before the House and Senate.

Indian Water: The Pueblo Indians have accused the Justice Department of "throwing" a case concerning Indian water rights in New Mexico. Our own

sources at the Bureau of Indian Affairs agree.

The Justice Department is supposed to defend Pueblo rights to Rio Grande water against the state of New Mexico. The Pueblos, survivors of the oldest civilization on the continent, have used the Rio Grande waters for irrigation for centuries.

Over the years, the government and developers have slowly drained away their water rights for non-Indian projects. Their ancient civilization simply will dry up, they contend, if they lose this latest case.

The Pueblos, therefore, brought in a prestigious Albuquerque law firm to review the Justice Department's preparation of the case. In a confidential memo, the firm warned that "the government's case is not prepared for trial."

Furthermore, "if the preparations proceed without change," declared the law firm, "there is a serious possibility that the case will be lost."

Footnote: A Justice Department spokesman said they had seen the private review prepared by the Albuquerque lawyers. Justice will work with the private lawyers on the case and "will do the best we can," promised the spokesman.

©1974, United Feature Syndicate

THE WASHINGTON POST

D 16

Friday, April 12, 1974

France I
Will Race
After All

Special to The Washington Post

The French tri-color will fly over Newport, R.I., next summer after all. Bruno Bich, spokesman for the French America's Cup challenge headed by his father, Baron Marcel Bich, has reiterated from Paris the family's intention to meet Australia in a best out of seven sail-off to select a foreign challenger.

The challenge trials, to be run by England's Royal Thames Yacht Club, will commence Aug. 22. The protagonists are of the same nationalities as in the last America's Cup in 1970. Bich's Twelve Meter Yacht, France I, lost in four straight races that year to Frank Packer's Gretel II.

France I will again carry Bich's hopes this summer. The yacht has been somewhat modified since her thrashing by Gretel II and will have a new mast and new sails from the Ferrari

the Heech
Budget
we're close to you

saves you

new spring casuals
specially
priced

miss
bar
rib

SPECTRUM
Varying shades of personal opinion on current issues

PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
CBS RADIO NETWORK

APRIL 11, 1974

I'm Phyllis Schlafly.

Contrary to the gloom-and-doom comments of the Western press Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's recent trip to Moscow was really a smashing success. Why? Because he made no agreement with the Soviets. He returned from Moscow without surrendering any free territory, or agreeing to pay billions for some Communist project, or promising to give more U.S. agricultural or industrial commodities to the Soviet Union. All the trip cost us was Kissinger's plane fare to Moscow and back, making it the cheapest international conference we've had in several decades.

The first two summit conferences in recorded history were held with the devil on the pinnacle of the temple and on the top of a high mountain. It is too bad that, in the summit conferences between the United States and the Soviet Union, our representatives did not have the courage to say, "Begone, Satan, thou shall not tempt the West." Entire countries were surrendered to the Communists at the summit conferences of Teheran, Yalta, Potsdam, and Geneva.

In the various U.S.-Soviet conferences of the last two years, our representatives agreed to ship the Soviets vast quantities of our wheat and other grains, plus entire industrial plants to manufacture trucks, fertilizers, and chemicals. In the SALT Summit in 1972, we surrendered our right to defend our cities against hostile nuclear missiles, whether they are launched from the Soviet Union or Red China or accidentally.

The agreement which ended hostilities in the recent Israeli-Arab war has cost us plenty. We agreed to sweep out the mines and reopen the Suez Canal at the expense of the American taxpayers, a costly project which will not benefit America or Israel, but will tremendously benefit the Soviets, saving their ships a 6000-mile journey around the tip of Africa. Speaking of canals, Secretary Kissinger's brief flying visit to Panama was also very expensive. It may end up costing us the $5 billion Panama Canal.

If we face reality rather than succumb to the illusions of detente, we must admit that the United States comes out on the short end of every agreement with the Communists. It is very good news, therefore, that Dr. Kissinger came back from Moscow without making any new agreement with the Soviets.

I'm Phyllis Schlafly for Spectrum.

The diverse opinions expressed on SPECTRUM are those of the commentators themselves and should not be attributed to CBS or any of its affiliates

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR 11 APRIL 1974

# Agenda for a newlywed

By Charles W. Yost

## New York

It is cruel and unusual punishment to present to a man just returned from a honeymoon an agenda of almost insoluble problems, each of which calls for emergency treatment almost immediately. Yet this is inevitably the situation that confronts the American Secretary of State as he returns to his desk this week.

Some issues have to be dealt with at once because machinery is already in motion — a special session of the United Nations General Assembly; a Syrian negotiator arriving in Washington to discuss disengagement on the Golan Heights. Other problems have only a slightly less-peremptory deadline, such as sufficient progress in strategic-arms negotiations to warrant a Nixon visit to Moscow in June.

For the most part, however, the urgency and variety of problems confronting the Secretary arise from two factors. First, in regard to some of the most significant, momentum has been built up which must not be allowed to lapse. If it did, progress might be indefinitely interrupted.

The second factor is the sudden emergence of a new set of problems, or startling new aspects of old ones, which, if neglected, could produce quite disastrous consequences.

As to the first, it would be hazardous and irresponsible to interrupt the extraordinary movement which has been generated on strategic arms negotiations, and on a settlement in the Middle East.

Both are issues which for more than two decades have gravely threatened the peace of the world. Yet so fragile is the progress so far achieved, and so emotion-freighted the issues, that a loss of momentum could set back further movement for years.

As to the second, the newly-emerged or newly-perceived problems — energy, food, population, and monetary instability — they still baffle as much as they frighten the experts. Coping with them will involve, not extrapolating from past experience, but taking a quantum jump through the looking glass into that queer world where one has to run fast merely to stay in place.

So Dr. Kissinger's first task will be to sort out his priorities. No matter how extraordinary his performance, he cannot do everything at once nor everything himself. He will have to choose and to delegate. What issues should he put at the top of his list?

1. The Middle East comes first, not because it is in itself more important than others, but because it could fall apart more rapidly — and because, if it did, its impact on other situations, such as United States-Soviet detente, oil supplies, and world economic stability, could be disastrous.

In dealing with this issue, however, Secretary Kissinger will find it necessary to disengage himself from his time-consuming personal involvement of recent months, to return the issues to the Geneva conference where the influence of governments other than the U.S. can more easily be brought to bear, and to convince all concerned that such colleagues as Undersecretary Sisco and Ambassador Bunker can authoritatively speak for him and for their government.

2. The second item on his agenda must be a further substantial step by the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the reduction of strategic arms.

We are already witnessing a revival of public polemics on this critical issue. If there is not soon an advance there will be a retreat, and both the arms race and the cold war may resume with their former senseless extravagance. The June deadline is not imperative; it might indeed be rendered "inoperative" if Mr. Nixon were to be impeached. But some further substantial agreement this year is indeed imperative.

Moreover, while the U.S. continues to focus on reducing tensions and confrontations with the Soviet Union, great care must be taken not to neglect a corresponding improvement in America's relations with China. This means, for example, that the Taiwan and Cambodia issues cannot be put on ice for an indefinite time.

3. The third item is that complex of international economic problems

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

11 APRIL 1974

## Portuguese troopship delayed by bomb blasts

### Lisbon, Portugal

A troopship carrying more than 1,000 troops to the West African territory of Portuguese Guinea was held up here Wednesday after two bomb blasts ripped holes in the hull.

Four soldiers were wounded in the blasts, which occurred while troops were drawn up on deck of the 10,742-ton Niassa.

A left-wing guerrilla group claimed responsibility for the attack, which it termed an "anti-colonialist action in solidarity with the fight of the people of Guinea-Bissau."

## WALL STREET JOURNAL

11 APRIL 1974

A Syrian negotiating team arrived in Washington to present its troop-disengagement ideas to Secretary of State Kissinger. Maj. Gen. Hikmat Chehabi, chief of army intelligence, heads the Syrian team. Kissinger, as mediator, may go to the Mideast again later this month. Dayan is Israel's chief bargainer.

which has never been Dr. Kissinger's forte but must now become so.

These problems concern U.S. relations both with its allies in Western Europe and Japan and with the two billion people in the developing world. If the U.S. falls to cope effectively with some of these problems, it risks entering into ruinous competition with its allies, and witnessing helplessly a series of calamities to the poorest nations.

Some fear that, no matter how energetic and adroit Secretary Kissinger may be, he will be thwarted in dealing with these great issues by the cloud that hangs over the President. I disagree. Impeachment, if it occurs, might delay definitive agreements on some of these matters. But whatever the outcome of impeachment, the power, the authority, and the interest of the U.S. would remain essentially unchanged and unimpaired.

The author of this article writes from a background of 40 years as a United States diplomat.

© 1974 Charles W. Yost

## ( THE MEANING OF KISSINGER...................CONTINUED.)

tion which recognizably does share our political values.) It is also clear, however, that American foreign policy will now have to encompass other values as well—such as international stability or regional balances-of-power. There is nothing immoral about such values. On the other hand, it is close to impossible to state them in the moralistic way so congenial to American ears—and they will therefore be perceived, by purists as compromising American values.

### The Need for Compromise

There is a sense in which these purists are correct. One does not achieve international stability among hostile powers without occasionally compromising some of one's values. A doctrinaire refusal to compromise any of one's values is the sign of

the perpetual adolescent. The sign of maturity, on the other hand, is a prudential management of one's values in a world that permits *no one's* values to be fully achieved. No great power—not the United States, not Russia, not China—can have a foreign policy that fits neatly into an ideological *Weltanschauung*. This has always been true, and in an age of nuclear armaments it is an absolute and overriding truth.

What Henry Kissinger signifies is the "Europeanization" of American foreign policy—a process already visible in the writings of George F. Kennan, whose heir Kissinger can properly claim to be. He also consequently, signifies the end of "American exceptionalism" and a considerable lowering-of-the-sights of American foreign policy. "International stability,"

after all, which must be a major purpose of the foreign policy of a responsible great power, is not the same thing as "an enduring world order" or "making the world safe for democracy." It is, in truth, a much lesser thing. Whether the American nation—which still likes to think of itself as "young," and still has all the large ambitions appropriate to the young—can come to terms with its middle-aged reality, is the interesting question.

Mr. Kristal is Henry Luce Professor of Urban Values at New York University and co-editor of the quarterly The Public Interest. He is also a member of the Journal's Board of Contributors, four distinguished professors who contribute periodic articles reflecting a broad range of views.

10-F

What Henry Kissinger signifies is the "Europeanization" of American foreign policy—a process already visible in the writings of George F. Kennan, whose heir Kissinger can properly claim to be. He also consequently signifies the end of "American exceptionalism" and a considerable lowering-of-the-sights of American foreign policy. "International stability," after all, which must be a major purpose of the foreign policy of a responsible great power, is not the same thing as "an enduring world order" or "making the world safe for democracy." It is, in truth, a much lesser thing. Whether the American nation—which still likes to think of itself as "young," and still has all the large ambitions appropriate to the young—can come to terms with its middle-aged reality, is the interesting question.

Mr. Kristol is Henry Luce Professor of Urban Values at New York University and co-editor of the quarterly The Public Interest. He is also a member of the Journal's Board of Contributors, four distinguished professors who contribute periodic articles reflecting a broad range of views.

## THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Published since 1880 by

DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC.

Editorial and Corporate Headquarters
32 Cortlandt Street, New York, N.Y. 10007
Telephone: (212) 283-3000

WASHINGTON NEWS AND SALES OFFICE
245 National Press Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 783-0164

This edition printed at 11501 Columbia Pike,
Silver Spring, Md. 20910

Kissinger Sees Detente Gain

By Jeremiah O'Leary

Star-News Staff Writer

Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger has told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he believes progress is being made toward normalizing relations with the Soviet Union but conceded that it is "a difficult, slow process."

There were also indications that Kissinger and the senators discussed the problems of conducting foreign policy while the United States is preoccupied with a crisis of leadership over the Watergate affair.

At least two senators who are not members of the committee, Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., and Charles Mathias Jr., R-Md. — attended the executive session, lending credence to reports that there was at least some discussion about whether the Russians are trying to take advantage of the U.S. domestic situation in the negotiations on strategic arms limitations talks.

KISSINGER was asked by the press if the subject was discussed. He said in reply, "Relations between the executive branch and this committee are conducted on a bipartisan basis. Peace will have to be maintained beyond the lifetime of this administration."

But the thrust of the remarks by Kissinger and Sen. J. William Fulbright, D-Ark., was that they agree that some progress was made on SALT during the Moscow talks despite gloomy reports that resulted from the failure to make a "conceptual breakthrough" with the Russians.

Fulbright told reporters after the two-hour closed-door meeting that he be-

lieves the widespread reports on the failure of the secretary's recent visit to Moscow indicate the results were "misunderstood."

Neither Kissinger nor committee members elaborated on what elements of progress were achieved in Moscow, visited by Kissinger last month to prepare the way for a proposed June summit meeting between President Nixon and party leader Leonid I. Brezhnev.

FULBRIGHT also announced that Kissinger has agreed to testify at an open

meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee and to discuss in public the whole question of normalization of relations with the Soviet Union. He did not say when this appearance would take place.

Kissinger said he could not assess the impact of the announced intention of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to resign but he declared he believed progress was being made on disengagement of Syrian and Israeli forces. He said he could not be certain about when he would make

his fifth trip to the Middle East until he has seen the Syrian delegation which arrived here yesterday.

The Syrians, Kissinger said, probably will meet with him tomorrow at the State Department to present their counter-proposals to the first Israeli withdrawal offer received March 30 from Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. The anticipation in diplomatic circles is that the Syrians will reject Dayan's first plan as inadequate and present a propos-

al of their own, probably calling for Israeli withdrawal to the Golan Heights frontier that existed before the 1967 war.

Today, Kissinger was expected to meet in separate sessions with Algerian President Houari Boumedienne, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko and West German Foreign Minister Walter Scheel. He also was to see Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Gaston Thorn at breakfast and discussions of Atlantic and European relations.

several of its members said was the
only face-saving option President Nixon
had left them.

Barring some 11th-hour concession
by Nixon's lawyers, the committee
was expected to subpoena the tape
recordings of 42 presidential conversations
that were requested more than
six weeks ago as possible evidence in
the panel's impeachment investigation.

Frustrated committee Republicans
notified the President yesterday that
he had lost some of their votes on the
subpoena question unless he agreed to
immediately turn over at least some of
the tape recordings.

ROBERT McCLORY, a GOP leader
on the committee, told a reporter late
yesterday: "God, I don't want to vote
for a subpoena, but what choice have
they left us?"

Spurning a deadline for a yes-or-no

sel John M. Doar, St. Clair implied
that the President would surrender
whatever materials he felt were relevant
to the investigation after April 22,
the end of the congressional Easter
recess, but the White House lawyer
provided no particulars.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS reacted
to the letter with a mixture of wrath,
disappointment and disbelief. Republicans
on the committee, some of whom
said they had been led to expect an
affirmative response from the White
House, were particularly outspoken.

Rep. Edward Hutchinson of Michigan, the panel's senior Republican, characterized St. Clair's response as "totally unsatisfactory."

"I think it was an offense to the
House, I'm sorry to say," Hutchinson,
one of the President's most loyal
supporters, told newsmen.

McCLORY FOLLOWED Hutchinson
from the closed-door session to predict
that a subpoena would be issued, "no
question about it."

Committee Democrats, called together by Chairman Peter W. Rodino Jr., D-N.J., emerged almost simultaneously from a caucus of their own, grim-faced and apparently resolved to force a showdown with the White House over the tapes.

Although some of them earlier had
strongly denounced the White House
position, the Democrats generally
adhered to instruction by Rodino not
to discuss strategy for today's committee meeting.

It was reported, however that Rodi-
no advocated an immediate subpoena
for all of the materials requested from
the White House, returnable following
the Easter recess.

See IMPEACHMENT, A-6

ence

for a four-day recess for
end and because of a family.
Mitchell will face
questioning as well as cross
the prosecution when the
day.

be followed by former
orary Stans next week as
ward a windup.

Mitchell, wearing a tie with
the stripes, leaned back in
legs crossed and his fin-
lap as he answered in a
abdued voice that some-
v audible. But later, he
uffness when a newsman
felt.

be part of the action,"
who had sat in the court-
t weeks before taking the

See TRIAL, A-6

ident

Crosby S. Noyes:

# The Chief Ball Carrier

Early in the first Nixon administration, Henry Kissinger, then a relatively shadowy adviser to the President, was warned that at some point he was likely to be shoved out front. His reply was quick and abrupt:

"If that happens", said Kissinger, "my usefulness will be finished."

It was a reasonable supposition at the time that a man of unusual ability and eloquence would not remain in an obscure position in an otherwise lack-luster administration. It was an equally logical conclusion on his part that when an *eminence grise* becomes the chief ball carrier, he is also likely to become a dead duck. In Kissinger's case, one prediction has turned out to be true; the other, in my view, is dead wrong.

FOR BETTER or worse, Henry Kissinger has indeed been shoved out front. As secretary of State, he is not only the chief ball carrier of the Nixon administration but also quite probably its major protection against ultimate

disaster. The threat, authentic or not, that Kissinger will resign if Nixon is impeached is perhaps the strongest thing that Nixon has going for him at this point.

It is an unusual situation. At a time when the presidency is in a state close to complete disintegration — when the survival of the incumbent president is in serious doubt and the authority of the executive branch is being challenged on all sides — the conduct of our foreign policy is hailed throughout the world and heartily supported by the Congress.

Somehow or other, Kissinger has succeeded in separating himself from the series of disasters that have overtaken this administration. Although, in fact, he possesses no authority except that which is delegated to him by the President, he speaks for the United States in a way which very few secretaries of State have managed to do in the past.

This secretary of State is not the creature or the creation of any administration. In simplest terms, he is a man who

understands and appreciates the power of the United States — militarily, economically and politically — and knows how this power can be used to build a more rational and stable order in the world.

THIS IS not a particularly novel idea — except perhaps to Americans. Every other government in the world recognizes, respects and in some cases fears the reality of American power. But it is a rare person in this country who not only sees the reality, but is also prepared and able to exploit it.

Kissinger is. In the most profound sense, it is not the authority of the administration that he represents in the world but the authority of the United States. And wherever the action may be — in the Middle East, in China, in Europe or the Soviet Union that authority is immense.

The oil crisis was a vivid and recent example. When the embargo was declared last October, the United States was intended to be the chief victim of the oil weapon. Other oil

consuming nations — notably those in Western Europe and Japan — hastily conformed to the Arabs' political demands in the hope of assuring their essential supplies of energy.

AS IT has turned out, however, the political effect of the oil weapon has been minimal on American policy and the United States has emerged from the crisis as the dominant great power in the Middle East. The leaders in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran are more aware than ever of the importance of the American connection. And the reason, quite simply, is that the United States has an authority in world affairs that no other nation, including the Soviet Union, can rival.

It is a force which cannot be diminished by the temporary tribulations of any administration. When it comes to the conduct of American foreign policy, the problems of Richard Nixon are of secondary concern. And Henry Kissinger, as chief ball carrier, is making skillful use of the power he represents.

Kissinger to See Syrians

From News Dispatches

The resignation of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir yesterday clouded Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger's efforts to secure a disengagement of Syrian and Israeli troops in the Golan Heights.

As Washington prepared for disengagement talks with a seven-man Syrian delegation, one U.S. official said Mrs. Meir's resignation "raises the question of whether [the Israelis] are going to have a government that will want to continue with disengagement."

The delegation, headed by Brig. Gen. Hikmak Chebabi, Syria's leading military intelligence expert, arrived yesterday. Chebabi would make no comment to reporters when he arrived at Dulles International Airport.

Chebabi, who is expected to see Kissinger today, is understood to be bringing a Syrian proposal for disengagement. It was understood, however, he has not been authorized to enter into any negotiations.

It was also expected Kissinger will inform Chebabi of

the details of the proposal Israel made several weeks ago when Defense Minister Moshe Dayan conferred here with Kissinger.

Kissinger, who returned Tuesday night from a 10-day Mexican honeymoon with his bride, Nancy, has predicted that having heard the Syrian views he will have to return to the Middle East toward the end of the month to secure the troop disengagement from the Heights, which have been occupied by Israel since June, 1967.

In contrast to his first disengagement negotiations, which secured the separation of Israeli and Egyptian forces along the Suez Canal last January, Kissinger planned to involve the Soviet Union and interested Arab states in the current talks.

He is scheduled to meet Algerian President Houari Boumedienne for lunch today and Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko today or Friday—or both.

SALT in Detente

In his Moscow visit, Secretary Kissinger sought without success to lay the basis for a second strategic arms limitation treaty (SALT II) by seeking "conceptual" agreement on establishing "essential equivalence" for the two sides in strategic offensive forces. Two years after SALT I, an agreed concept is still lacking. The fundamental problem is that the two sides have very different forces quantitatively and qualitatively and both are engaged in vigorous modernization programs which will further alter the force relationships.

The Soviet Union is concerned about the three-to-one American lead in separately-targetable missile warheads and a similar advantage in long-range bombers. By 1977, when the present five-year interim agreement on offensive weapons expires, the United States is likely to have a five-to-one lead in missile and bomber warheads.

The United States is concerned about the "throwweight" of the U.S.S.R.'s big land-based missiles and the even bigger ones the Soviet Union is now testing and may begin deploying in 1976-77. At present, taking missiles and bombers together, the two sides can hit each other with about the same payload of nuclear explosive, about eight million pounds. But counting land-based ICBMs alone, the Soviet throw-weight advantage is about three to one, and if the U.S.S.R. replaces all its existing ICBMs with the bigger ones it is now testing, it could double its ICBM throw-weight by the mid-1980s.

Land-based missiles are more accurate than submarine-based missiles and far quicker in reaching their targets than bombers, on which the United States spends 40 per cent of its strategic arms budget. If Russia's big ICBMs are equipped with MIRV multiple warheads, the Pentagon fears that a small part of the Soviet force would be able to destroy most of America's land-based missiles in a pre-emptive attack.

Secretary Kissinger's concept for SALT II was to head off a first-strike force of this kind for either side by limiting deployment of MIRVed missiles to roughly equal throw-weight. But that would permit the United States, with smaller missiles, much larger numbers of missiles and warheads. The Soviet Union suggested that numbers of missiles and warheads be made more comparable. But that would permit Russia an advantage in throw-weight.

Squaring this vicious circle will not be easy. Difficult compromises will have to be made by both sides. It can

er Golda Meir of Israel, an-
1:8.]

Sports

People in Sports: A black rac-
ing driver. Page 42

Apodaca saves 3-2 Met vic-
tory over Cards. Page 43

Tenor and Mayor make their
pitch at Shea. Page 43

Front-court players figure in
Knicks' plans. Page 43

Canada offers a bill to keep
out W.F.L. Page 43

An old favorite gets ready for
Masters today. Page 43

Rangers' Rousseau no stranger
in Montreal. Page 43

Expos sink Pirates, 12-8, on
4-run 13th. Page 46

Padre owner scored; calls
players "stupid." Page 46

Twins, aided by walks, beat
White Sox, 6-5. Page 46

Lie-detector tests sought by
2 accused drivers. Page 47

Notes on People Page 47

Man in the News

Teng Hsiao-ping, Chinese who
made comeback. Page 12

Editorials and Comment

Editorials and Letters. Page 34

Anthony Lewis on reaction to
Nixon tax trouble. Page 35

William Safire views Mr. Ford
"off the record." Page 35

Spartak Beglov assails U.S.
anti-Sovietism. Page 35

George Higgins: How stupid
is stupid? Page 35

News Analysis

Flora Lewis analyzes French
presidential race. Page 4

CORRECTION

An article in The New
York Times yesterday re-
ported erroneously that the
Getty Oil Company would
raise prices, beginning to-
day, on home heating fuel,
diesel fuel, jet fuel (JP5) and
certain petroleum blending
agents. The price rises be-
came effective April 4.

the way they tell the history
of biology. In each paper,
a scientist writes what his
predecessors learned, and so
forth, and winds up with a
linear history, from error to
truth. It's not like that."

Science and Society

Dr. Jacob said discovery
arises often out of error, as
when generations of savants
hunted for the "vital force"
they thought distinguished
life from inanimate matter.

When conditions are ripe,
he continued, many scientists
will be racing for the same
answer, as when Darwin
brought out his concept of
evolution, and when the time
is not ready, even the right
answer will be ignored, as
were for 35 years Mendel's
great discoveries about he-
redity.

The path of science is en-
twined, in Dr. Jacob's view,
with the needs and outlook
of each age — the Indus-
trial Revolution, for example,
creating a great need for
more food, which biology
helped to supply. Before
that, he said, savants were
busy classifying things by
their outward appearance; by
the 19th century, they were
studying the interdependence
of organs. (In arts, it was the
new Age of Romanticism—
and that was no coincidence,
according to Dr. Jacob.)

Rejects 'Mandarin' Role

"Then," he went on, "the
systems of cells, of genes,
of molecules, one within the
other like Russian dolls, un-
folded, each explaining the
other."

"What next? Ah, if we
knew, I would be very busy
in the lab. In coming years,
there will be a new way of
looking at things, and we'll
see things we can't see to-
day."

As if in apology to his
students for having written
a book, Dr. Jacob explained
that "It came at a moment
when I was changing fields."

With Dr. Jacques Monod
and Dr. André Lwoff, with

Continued on Page 47, Column 6

only be done if there is good will, mutual confidence and
a genuine atmosphere of détente.

The worst kind of agreement will be one that permits
the military on both sides to carry out present and pro-
jected programs of expansion. Both sides already have
far larger strategic offensive forces than are needed for
mutual deterrence.

The best kind of agreement would involve reductions
in overkill by both sides. That is unlikely right now, but
a first step in this direction should be possible by adopt-
ing the concept of a slow-down in modernization and a
freeze in destructive capability at present levels. Unlike
the proposals both sides have made so far, that would
really be a "conceptual breakthrough."