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

...WATERGATE AFFAIR, p. 12

# KISSINGER SPEECH ON "NEW ATLANTIC CHARTER" - II

## Summary

West European media commendation of the concepts in Henry Kissinger's "new Atlantic charter" speech of Monday was diluted by reservations and misgivings about its practical application and possible consequences.

(See WTCI No. 48 of April 25 for earlier comment.)

These were among such mixed impressions:

- The London *Financial Times* felt "disappointment in the making" and said Mr. Kissinger "will only succeed in getting this exercise going in the present mood of Europe when he gets down to quiet specifics and leaves the unsettling realm of general exhortation."

- La Libre Belgique of Brussels welcomed "American intention to support European unity" but added, "We would like to see more clearly what reciprocities the U.S. expects in exchange...."

- Les Echos of Paris took a pessimistic view of "the institutional setup that might accompany this new charter of the rich countries" but felt the proposal "deserves discussion and Paris is not closing the door."

Some observers warned fellow Europeans that, as the London Economist said, "it is not at all too soon to start looking at the prospect of a considerable reduction in the American presence in Europe in terms of its specific military implications."

Influential *Weekendavisen* of Copenhagen saw the speech as "an unmistakable warning that neither our security policy nor transatlantic economic relations should be based on previous assumptions."

The unfolding Watergate story continued to suggest to commentators that domestic political problems could hamper Administration efforts to develop the "new Atlantic charter" proposal.

In this regard, the Washington correspondent of state-run French radio cited "American observers" as believing that Mr. Nixon's "authority at home and abroad" had been "jeopardized" by the affair.

No. 49

1

4/27/73

London: "Thin Chorus of Polite Interest"

British media observers today voiced some misgivings about the Kissinger speech, seeing obstacles on the road to practical application of the ideas he expounded.

Political editor David Watt of the independent London *Financial Times* found it "hard to say which produces the more powerful feeling of foreboding--Dr. Henry Kissinger's call for a 'new Atlantic charter' this week or the thin chorus of polite interest that has gone up from the chancelleries of Europe." He reasoned that "on the whole, the reactions over here...are the more seriously disturbing, because they imply that beneath the surface of courtesy there lurks a bedrock of fear, small-mindedness and inertia which may be very difficult to remove.

"On the other hand, the Kissinger speech itself, though excellent in intention, creates an uneasy impression of ham-handedness and disappointment in the making...."

Watt considered that the "advantages ought really to outweigh the fears of both the 'sell-out' and the 'anti-American' schools of thought." He added that while "success could only be achieved by an effort of political will, it would not be necessary to have an elaborate confrontation in mid-Atlantic as part of the process." He concluded:

"It may be that when Dr. Kissinger talked in his speech about 'a rational defense posture' and a new definition of the concept of 'flexible response' to the Soviet military threat, he had something like this in mind; but he will only succeed in getting this exercise going in the present mood of Europe when he gets down to quiet specifics and leaves the unsettling realm of general exhortation."

## The Watergate and U.S. Foreign Policy

The paper's U.S. editor, Paul Lewis, saw problems for U.S.-European relations growing out of the American political situation. He wrote:

"It must be obvious to everyone by now that President Nixon is in serious trouble at home. His Administration had been rocked to its foundations by the Watergate scandal, inflation is rearing its ugly head again, his budget proposals are under increasing attack in the Congress and the Indochinese peace still looks decidedly flimsy...."

No. 49

2

4/27/73

Lewis noted European fears of American "political, economic and even cultural domination," and said the Americans felt "Europe is being 'irresponsible' if it does not accept their view of how the world should be arranged.

"The Kissinger way round these difficulties is to create a new sense of political understanding between the two sides at the onset of their negotiations, in the hope that it will have a beneficial fallout on the more detailed military and economic disputes between them later on. However, this may not be so easy to do now with an American President who has lost personal respect at home and abroad and seen his ability to deliver the Congress diminish, all as a result of the Watergate fiasco."

## "Kissinger Exposed Cold Truth About Europe"

The independent *Times* of London today carried an article by military and foreign affairs writer Lord Chalfont cautioning that "the transatlantic gravy train is about to be taken out of service and it is time for Europe to do some intelligent thinking about its own military arrangements." He continued:

"The unpalatable truth now coldly exposed by Dr. Kissinger is that Western Europe is still in effect a jungle of nation-states....

"Mr. David Packard, until recently American Deputy Secretary of Defense, analyzed the implications of the current nuclear balance and concluded that both the U.S. and the Soviet Union are now effectively restricted to the use of non-nuclear force in almost every conceivable situation in which force may be needed...

"It is against the background of this kind of thinking that Dr. Kissinger's studiously diplomatic references to the Atlantic Alliance should be interpreted; and it would be foolish to wait until there is space in his engagement book for a crisis."

## "Living Without U.S. Troop Strength"

The independent weekly *Economist*, out today, also considered that "it is not at all too soon to start looking at the prospect of a considerable reduction in the

No. 49

3

4/27/73

American presence in Europe in terms of its specific military implications." It maintained further that "the probability must be accepted that American withdrawals from Europe would be accompanied or followed by cuts in some other allies' forces, rather than by any strenuous effort by all the other allies to fill the gap."

With the total of Western armed forces in the crucial central sector of Europe thus reduced, the magazine continued, "it follows almost inevitably that there is going to be a lowering of the nuclear threshold in one way or another. If this means that an American President will have to decide whether to obliterate Russia, and risk obliteration, within a few hours of the launching of any Soviet attack, it will not be surprising that he may hesitate; that the European allies may expect him to hesitate; and that the Russians may deduce that they can safely do some leaning on NATO's newly soft shoulders....

"Living without the present American strength in Europe is going to mean living with a whole lot of big questions."

### Paris: "Good and Bad in 'New Charter'"

Financial *Les Echos* of Paris today discerned "good, less good, and bad things in this new Atlantic charter....

"The good thing is the form.... less good are the fusion of military, financial and commercial problems... and the argument that the U.S. has 'global interests and responsibilities' while Europe has only 'regional interests.'

"The bad things immediately apparent are the institutional setup that might accompany this new charter of the rich countries, the establishment of a new bloc that would merely replace the old one...and the view of the Brussels Community as just a free trade area....

"However, all this deserves discussion and Paris is not closing the door."

### Communist Paper: "Western Europe Not an Equal"

A writer in Communist *Humanite* of Paris declared today that there was "no longer any question of establishing between the U.S. and Western Europe the 'equal

No. 49

4

4/27/73

partnership' envisioned by Kennedy in 1962." He contended that "the leadership of the new enlarged bloc would belong to the U.S. because, according to Kissinger, only the U.S. has global responsibilities and Western Europe is only a region of the new empire."

## "New Charter a Diversion From Watergate"

State-run French radio's Washington correspondent reported this morning that "many American observers consider Nixon's authority at home and abroad jeop-ardized" by the Watergate affair, and that the 'new Atlantic charter' plan was "just an effort to create a diversion."

## West Germany: "Nixon Wants Brandt Support on 'New Alliance'"

Major West German dailies today carried a DPA report from Washington which said Mr. Nixon "hopes to win Chancellor Brandt's support" for Mr. Kissinger's proposal of a new Atlantic alliance. Papers also reported SPD Majority Leader Herbert Wehner's characterization of Mr. Kissinger's plan as "unrealistic" on the ground that the EEC countries "could never agree to a monstrous organization comprising the U.S, Western Europe and Japan." Influential *Frankfurter Allgemeine* yesterday published the full text of Mr. Kissinger's address.

## "Speech Offers Brandt Many Points"

Business-oriented *Handelsblatt*, Duesseldorf, today ran its Washington correspondent's report that Chancellor Brandt's concept of a "constructive dialogue" between the U.S. and EEC "is in line with American views of the 'Year of Europe' as outlined by Kissinger in his historic speech.

"Kissinger's crystal-clear analysis of the schizophrenic Atlantic relations seems to have set an end to years of efforts to belittle these problems.

"The Kissinger speech offers Brandt many new points for promoting his ideas of the 'constructive dialogue.' However, regardless of the outcome of such a dialogue, it will not stop the campaign of the 'Mansfield group' for substantial U.S. troop reductions in Europe. As a matter of fact, the Mansfield group might give the 'Year of Europe' an entirely different meaning."

No. 49

5

4/27/73

# "How to Give Alliance New Meaning"

A writer in independent *Stuttgarter Zeitung* agreed that one objective of the Nixon-Brandt talks should be to counter isolationism in America, which could result in withdrawal of U.S. forces from Europe. Noting Mr. Nixon's policy of maintaining U.S. troops in Europe, the writer suggested that nonetheless "troop withdrawal might become an effective American campaign slogan in 1976.

"Europe should prepare for this possibility. We will have to make bigger concessions at the coming offset discussions, and we will have to think hard how Europe, in cooperation with the U.S., can give the Atlantic Alliance a new meaning that would guide Western policy."

# "Could Water Down Alliance"

Political analyst Dieter Cycon asserted today in right-center *Die Welt* of Hamburg that Mr. Kissinger's views could imply that the "Year of Europe" did not mean "an intensified American turn toward Europe. Kissinger's message suggests a U.S. belief that at this point America derives more disadvantages than advantages from the Atlantic Alliance."

Referring to Mr. Nixon's statements that there would be no U.S. unilateral troop withdrawal and Mr. Kissinger's perception of a dramatic change in U.S. -USSR relations, Cycon said the latter's call for the Western community to develop a clear set of common objectives suggested the "outlines of a new concept" and that "apparently defense has lost its importance.

"This is a strange idea at the moment when the Soviets are engaged in amazing troop deployments. Kissinger wants the Alliance to embrace Japan in some way. But this might water down the military-oriented nature of the geographically clearly defined Alliance which could be expanded into a transcontinental club keyed to economic goals.

"Kissinger's concept... reflects the quest for a 'rational defense' which cuts the tie linking Europe's defense to a nuclear exchange between the superpowers.... a more or less complete renunciation of the nuclear deterrent.

No. 49

6

4/27/73

"The consequences might frustrate Kissinger's commendable efforts to coordinate the diplomacy of the Atlantic states. For how can policies be coordinated when West European, particularly West German, vital security requirements are neglected? How can Europeans muster the required energy to improve their capacity in conventional weapons if the Americans refer to East-West tension as a thing of the past? Can one expect the FRG to forgo the American nuclear umbrella and count on possible Anglo-French nuclear power?

"The American concept should be countered by a West European concept for the purpose of arriving at a mutually acceptable compromise. The West Europeans should bring about a maximum of unity as soon as possible, and their talks with Nixon should be followed by a West European summit."

"America Expects Europe's Reply"

Right-center Frankfurter Allgemeine's Washington correspondent wrote yesterday that "while Washington is shaken by the Watergate scandal and Nixon has to manage the most serious domestic crises, Kissinger defined what is meant by the 'Year of Europe'... Kissinger has left nothing vague. His warning to his European partners is clear as the call for joint action. Nixon believes frictions and misunderstandings can be ended only by political efforts at the top level....

"America expects Europe's reply soon. For if the President returns from Europe empty-handed, he will be unable to resist Congressional pressures calling for troop reduction....

"But which Europe will furnish the answer? Pompidou's fading Gaullism? Brandt's, which is confronted with the alternatives of Atlantic loyalty and the need for an opening toward the East? A Near East-oriented Italy in the throes of internal crisis? NATO Secretary General Luns, who is against NATO's becoming a society to protect the environment?

"Kissinger's commendable clarity notwithstanding, the question arises whether the President's hesitation to meet his European colleagues as a group weakens the desired partnership. Or does Nixon want Europe the way it now is--a regional entity?"

No. 49

7

4/27/73

Influential Catholic weekly *Rheinischer Merkur*, Cologne, said yesterday that Mr. Kissinger's address was "a significant countermove" to correct the view that the U.S. was withdrawing into new isolationism.

## TV: "Alliance Endangered by Decay From Within"

The Washington correspondent of West Germany's second television network, Hans Herbert Westermann, said Wednesday night that because of the Watergate story and the deterioration of the Vietnam situation, Mr. Kissinger could have announced "the end of NATO" without creating a stir. He continued:

> "Only _The New York Times_ compared Kissinger's proposals with the famous Marshall speech.... The U.S. and Europe face another historic decision. But the Alliance is endangered today not by attack from the outside, but by decay from within. That is one main point American analysts make. The second is that the Western Alliance cannot end on the Atlantic shores but must include Japan.

> "Kissinger's more detailed proposals of the American concept will precede President Nixon's European trip. Meanwhile, the partners are invited to an Atlantic dialogue starting with the visit of Willy Brandt."

## "Europe Must Match America's Style"

Independent *Die Presse* of Vienna maintained today that Mr. Kissinger "knows how to secure a favorable bargaining position for his President" on the issues of "trade, monetary affairs and the stationing of troops... He adds that the burdens must be shared fairly--which means that he regards the present distribution as unfair...

> "Unhesitatingly, Kissinger had placed his finger on the vulnerable areas of defense, the lack of agreement over use of tactical nuclear weapons, shortcomings in the field of conventional armament, etc.... Europe must prepare to meet America's vital, dynamic style of negotiations, which are better countered by a flood of Europe's own ideas than by holding to cliches and prejudices."

No. 49

8

4/27/73

Switzerland: "Up to Europe Now"

Comment in leading Swiss dailies emphasized the linkage between economic cooperation and defense.

Editorials asked whether Europe would be able to come up with positive ideas
before President Nixon's visit this fall.

Gazette de Lausanne said:

"It is... up to Europe to assume the initiative--if it cares to--and to show that Europe has as clear a concept of its self-interest as does the White House. That may be rather difficult."

Copenhagen: "Should Help End Danish Hesitation"

The influential Copenhagen weekly *Weekendavisen*, issued today, declared that "nothing in the proposed new Nixon Doctrine for Europe will run counter to Danish interests." On the contrary, "Danish quarters have for years stressed not only the usefulness but the necessity of continued Atlantic defense cooperation in which the U.S. plays the leading role." It continued:

"However, U.S. protection has been taken for granted--and Denmark is not alone in that--and defense cuts have been made in the confidence born of the protection and in the expectation of continued East-West detente."

"Kissinger's speech and U.S. policy in general are an unmistakable warning that neither our security policy nor transatlantic economic relations should be based on previous assumptions...."

"Kissinger's underlining of the significance of West European unity to the U.S. and to peace in Europe should help break down Danish hesitation about achieving that unity, which is a prerequisite for the dynamic contents of the proposed Atlantic charter."

The *Kristaligt Dagblad* of Copenhagen said few could "reproach Nixon for taking this initiative" but questioned whether "it is the right time to modernize the Atlantic Pact, and whether it is possible to make a new arrangement."

No. 49

9

4/27/73

The paper called the U.S. proposal "the starting signal for heated discussion of Western defenses at a time when there is talk of--but no real evidence of-- disarmament in concord between East and West.

"This discussion will also go on in Denmark... and with the present political situation here, it may become extremely difficult to keep Denmark in any new alliance."

## "Rather a Proposal to Debate"

Conservative Berlingske Tidende, Denmark's leading paper, pointed out that the Kissinger speech, rather than a project for a new alliance, was "a proposal for debate on a high level, a first attempt at a new definition of the Atlantic relationship... an effort to safeguard the essentials of Atlantic cooperation." The paper said this was "constructive" and "deserves to be treated as such."

## Milan: "Kissinger and Marshall"

Independent conservative Corriere della Sera of Milan said today:

"Marshall's speech in 1947 and Kissinger's speech are similar in tactical method. Marshall aimed at sending a signal to the Europeans on U.S. 'availability' for a common program... Kissinger adopted the same approach, leaving it to the Europeans to assume responsibility for receiving the signal and sending a reply...."

Right-center Il Tempo of Rome remarked today:

"The new phase of East-West relations presents some serious risks. Western Europeans must not relax their security systems represented by the Atlantic Alliance and by the presence of U.S. troops in Europe...."

Left-of-center La Stampa of Turin said the inclusion of Japan in the new Atlantic charter was "one of the main points, inasmuch as Japan may support China and the Soviet Union in the long run if left out of the U.S. -European relationship."

## Pro-Communist Paper: "Europe Is Stronger Now"

Pro-Communist Paese Sera said yesterday in its Rome edition that the "comparison between the U.S. economic proposals and the Marshall Plan... does not take into

No. 49

10

4/27/73

consideration a substantial difference, that the weak Europe of 1947 is now
strong enough to realize that Washington's offers are only threats...."

## Brussels: "A Dangerous Pace for Europe"

Catholic La Libre Belgique of Brussels commented that "although we cannot but welcome American intention to support European unity, we would like to see more clearly what reciprocities the U.S. expects in exchange for this support, particularly in the economic and agricultural fields."

"Mr. Kissinger has expressed a wish for an agreement on principles of the 'new charter' before President Nixon's autumn trip to Europe. Only a few months to define the precise nature of the ties that will link the Atlantic world seems a short time and hardly serious. It would be dangerous for Europe to try and follow the pace which Mr. Kissinger would like to impose upon it."

Left-wing Socialist La Wallonie judged that "in the long term, the U.S. initiative appears to be repetition--in another form and with other means--of a policy of political, economic and military annexation on a world-wide scale."

## Norwegian Impressions

Conservative Aftenposten, Norway's largest daily, observed:

"The way the initiative was presented bears witness to the development of American-European relations over the last decade.... This time, Europe's counsel is sought--in the spirit characteristic of the first Atlantic Charter."

Oslo's Labor Party daily Arbeiderbladet emphasized that "an Atlantic manifesto which would also include Japan must not be merely a means for protecting the rich Atlantic nations' interests, but must contain clear responsibilities toward the world's poor."

## A Finnish View

Among the Helsinki papers, independent Swedish-language Hufvudstadsbladet observed:

"Both the Soviet Union and the United States offer security within their alliances. The West is now openly discussing the price of this security. It is not known how a similar discussion could be started in the East."

No. 49

11

4/27/73

## Moscow: "Attempt to Overcome Disagreements"

Radio Moscow's domestic service reported Wednesday that most West European papers saw the Kissinger address "as an attempt to formulate a new stage in America's relations" with West Europe. Washington's postwar policy, it said, had been established on the "bases" of U. S. "colossal military potential," Washington's economic strength and "active penetration of U. S. capital into Western Europe" and the "propagandist doctrine... of the imaginary Soviet menace." These "bases," the radio contended, "no longer exist."

The report concluded: "In the almost unanimous opinion of the West European press so far no alternative has been proposed on which to base an American policy in Europe. There is only an attempt to overcome the countless disagreements in economics, trade and policy by means of an appeal for Atlantic unity."

## THE WATERGATE AFFAIR

Foreign media comment on the Watergate story did not develop until this week except in Britain.

Much discussion of the subject was prompted by Henry Kissinger's Monday speech on "a new Atlantic charter." (See _WTCI_ No. 48 of April 25 and the first article of this number.)

Following are examples of more general discussion of the developing story.

* * *

A Washington correspondent for the second network of West German TV said, "The Watergate affair is no longer an adventure story. It has become a government and even a Constitutional crisis, one of the greatest political scandals in American history."

"And nobody in Washington wants to discuss the question of when the President first knew of the affair and whether he helped in the cover-up. Even his own party said his appeal to the public came far too late. They fear not only immeasurable damage for the present Administration but for the Republican Party in future elections. Nixon is facing very difficult times in the weeks ahead."

No. 49

12

4/27/73

A political analyst in right-center *Frankfurter Allgemeine* said today:

> "The prestige, efficacy and future of the U.S. Presidency are involved.... The American public, which for months remained almost unaffected by piecemeal disclosures, is extremely worried."

A Washington correspondent of Munich's independent *Sueddeutsche Zeitung* asserted that the most recent disclosures "shake the U.S. capital and reveal the decay in the electoral process.

> "This is even more devastating than the bugging itself, for it undermines American confidence in democracy."

The independent London *Economist* remarked today, "Things have come to a strange pass in Washington when a Vice President publicly affirms his faith in the President's integrity...."

> "The decent man's distaste for vindictiveness to which Mr. Kissinger gave expression is neither here nor there. What matters is whether the Presidential election of 1976 is to be permitted to be rigged and bought as the election of 1972 was; for by that the legitimacy, and therefore the continuity, of future American government may be decided."

BBC radio-TV and commercial television yesterday and today covered latest developments but did not comment.

The New York correspondent of independent conservative *Corriere della Sera* of Milan stated on Wednesday:

> "If compared to Cambodia... the Watergate crisis is less harsh when viewed from the outside. But it actually goes very deep because it may undermine an essential and tangible element of the American system of government, trust in the President..."

> "It is vital for Nixon to solve this crisis of confidence... both through a deep purge of White House personnel and by dis-solving every suspicion of his connivance in the scandal."

No. 49

13

4/27/73

The independent *Kurier* of Vienna wrote today:

> "Both America's 'silent majority' and the whole Western world fear for the prestige of American democracy...and would have preferred a big temper tantrum in Johnson's style to the controlled detachment with which Nixon now washes his hands."

Leftist-nationalist *Excelsior* of Mexico City spoke of a "cartload of mud that this scandal is throwing over the present American Administration" and emphasized the "positive action of an independent press...."

Right-of center *El Sol de Mexico* yesterday said it hoped "everything will be clarified, that the guilty will be punished, and that the scandal will cease to serve those inside and outside the U.S. who are determined to discredit the democratic system."

Independent *El Comercio*, Quito's largest paper, said today:

> "As is understandable, Mr. Nixon has begun a general cleaning out of the White House and a preventive disinfection of the most hidden corners of his Administration. The moralizing tide has begun to rise and to lap the steps of the Presidential throne. It is likely that it will take with it some influential names and well-known faces, to the applause of the citizenry."

No. 49

14

4/27/73

# ‘Grand Design’ for Europe

by Peter Jenkins in Washington

In an ambitious move to make a reality of the "Year of Europe," the United States this week proposed "a new Atlantic Charter" to set common goals for the future. It revived the idea of new Atlantic institutions for pursuing these goals.

Dr Henry Kissinger announced the plan in a major policy speech in New York. In it he linked together problems of economics, politics and defence, asserting that they could not be dealt with each in isolation.

Making it clear that he was speaking with the full authority of the President, Dr Kissinger said that Mr Nixon's approach in his discussions with heads of European Governments 'will be to deal with Atlantic problems comprehensively.

"The political, military, and economic issues in Atlantic relations are linked by reality, not by choice nor for the tactical purpose of trading one off against the other. The solutions will not be worthy of the opportunity if left to technicians. They must be addressed at the highest level."

One of the themes of Dr Kissinger's speech was that the "Year of Europe" was too serious a business to leave to the monetary and trade experts. Another was that it must embrace Japan.

One of the goals of the proposed new "Atlantic Charter" would be the creation of a new relationship for the Atlantic nations in whose progress Japan could share. American insistence on Japan's inclusion in the Atlantic Community was underlined several times.

Dr Kissinger hinted that the

"Atlantic Charter" might require new Atlantic institutions, although he also made the point that the institutional means were a "technical question," less important than the drawing up of common ends.

However, he pointed out that the allies dealt with each other "regionally and even competitively in economic matters, on an integrated basis in defence, and as nation States in diplomacy." These institutional arrangements were no longer in harmony and sometimes obstructed each other. The Atlantic nations "must find a solution for the management of their diversity, to serve the common objectives which underlines their unity."

Dr Kissinger's (and President Nixon's) tendency to link economic, political, and military problems has been generally unwelcome to the Europeans, chiefly because of their reluctance to see the US troops in Europe used as a bargaining counter in transatlantic diplomacy. Dr Kissinger's speech gave a prominent place to the "linkage" concept. At the same time, however, it was designed to be reassuring on all three counts.

On defence, he said: "The President has asked me to state that America remains committed to doing its fair share in Atlantic defence. He is adamantly opposed to unilateral withdrawals of US forces from Europe. But we owe to our peoples a rational defence posture, at the safest minimum size and cost, with burdens equitably shared. This is what the President believes must result from the dialogue with our allies

in 1973."

On the trade and money negotiations: "They must engage the top political leaders, for they require above all a commitment of political will. If they are left solely to the experts the inevitable competitiveness of economic interests will dominate the debate. The United States intends to adopt a broad political approach that does justice to our overriding political interest in an open and balanced trading order with both Europe and Japan. This is the spirit of the President's Trade Bill and of his speech to the International Monetary Fund last year."

On political cooperation: "The United States will continue to support the unification of Europe. We have no intention of destroying what we worked so hard to help build. For us, European unity is what it has always been — not an end in itself, but a means to the strengthening of the West. We shall continue to support European unity as a component of a larger Atlantic partnership."

Dr Kissinger's speech marks the emergence of a "Grand Design" for transatlantic relations as counterpart to Mr Nixon's global design for a balance of super-power in the world. Although it lifts the argument above the level of tariffs and exchange rates, it confronts the European Community with the problems of its political role in the world and its defence relations with the US. The speech may come to be seen as Mr Nixon's "Europe doctrine," as important a basic text as the "Nixon doctrine" became for the reshaping of US policy in Asia.

Judges its
possibilities
else

Why the TUC must play its
allow its unions to do so

which in June will be setting up a
policy which will cover pensions,
redundancy pay, vocational train-
ing, and industrial injury pay-
ments. The EEC is giving top
priority to this committee which
has eight representatives from
British industry and none from
the TUC. In effect this TUC non-
attendance means that the em-
ployers' votes count as double — a
situation which enrages the Euro-
pean trade unionists. The TUC
has yet to publicly defend its
policy, certainly trade unionists in
Britain would like to hear an
explanation why their interests are
not being represented.

The TUC was formed to rep-
resent British trade unionists and
has successfully done so for over
100 years. The representations
have taken them to the South
Vietnamese Embassy, the South
African High Commission, Mr
Enoch Powell (as Minister of
Health), Mr Heath, Moscow, and
Washington. However, two resolu-
tions (Nos. 65 and 66) at the
TUC Congress in Brighton, and
an inflexible General Council
mean that the TUC is not taking
a journey to Brussels.

Within the TUC, certain unions
have decided that while the policy
may be good for the TUC it cer-
tainly is not good enough for them.

Vic Feather at European TUC — blurring the edges

Mr Gormley have earned more
work for his members and the res-
pect of the European Coal con-
sumers and trade unionists.

Also represented at the Coal
and Steel Community are the steel
workers (the Iron and Steel Trades
Confederation) whose general sec-
retary, Dai Davies, is tipped as
the next chairman of the Iron and
Steel Community. Hector Smith,
the general secretary of the blast-
furnacemen's union, has also taken
his place on this committee and is
fully representing his union and
its members. As is John Boyd of
the AUEW, representing the
craftsmen in the steel industry.

No other British union has so
far been officially involved, though
most of the larger unions have
had representatives in Brussels
trying to find a backdoor entrance.
Indeed, the TUC has asked for
observer status at various meet-
ings, but was bluntly told by the

needed — such as shipbuilding and
aero-space — where the most
prominent trade unionists are the
most anti-European: Danny
McGarvey (boilermakers' union)
and Hugh Scanlon (the engineers).
Other unions with a more practical
streak, e.g. APEX, the clerical
workers' association, have made
no secret of their belief that the
TUC General Council has decided
to let the matter rest until the
Trades Union Congress in Sep-
tember, when the matter will be
debated again.

This month sees the beginning
of the various trade union con-
ferences. Fifty unions, including
the TGWU, EET/PU and sections
of the AUEW, are holding their
conferences before the annual
Trades Union Congress in the
autumn. Many of these unions will
be debating resolutions similar to
those at the NALGO, USDAW,
and APEX conferences.

12

COMMENT

# A new Atlantic Charter

If Cleopatra's nose had been shorter history might have taken a different course: for as Pascal noted, Anthony might then have stayed at home. The success of Dr Kissinger's welcome call for a new Atlantic Charter will depend to some extent on how clean Mr Nixon has kept his nose in the Watergate affair. It is still uncertain how deeply the President is personally implicated in the bugging of the Democratic headquarters, but even if fewer of his aides are indicted than now seems likely the scandal must set back Mr Nixon's ambitious foreign policy. To carry Congress along on a policy which involves maintaining US troops in Europe and liberalising trade, Mr Nixon is going to need all the support that he can muster. Watergate has not only united the Democratic opposition but alienated many of the men in the President's party. It may even make some of the proposed Charter states reluctant to negotiate with the President, not least if there is a dramatic fall in support for him at home.

This is all the more poignant because what Dr Kissinger had to say made good sense. It follows a speech earlier this month in which he spoke of the danger of the United States withdrawing from the world. The difference he found then between the old isolationism and the new was that

whereas the United States felt itself too good for the world in the 1930s, it now felt it was not good enough. His plan for a new Atlantic Charter is true to the spirit which he called for earlier in the month: that problems should be a challenge not an alibi; that it is better to aim grandly than to wallow in mediocre comfort.

In America Dr Kissinger's speech was being compared this week to the Harvard speech that launched the Marshall Plan 26 years ago. That may be somewhat extravagant, but it is true to say that Europe has reached another historic point in its relations with the United States. The old American hegemony weighs far less heavily, particularly in the economic field. Dr Kissinger may be disappointed that NATO allies did not show enough trust during the President's negotiations with Peking and Moscow, but America must take some of the blame. Consultations, particularly in economic matters, have been far from full. Mr Connally's arm-twisting term at the US Treasury has still left Europe with sore arms and economic bruises.

For a speech which has been long heralded, it provided only a vague outline of what the United States wants to achieve. But the Marshall Plan too began with a vague outline. The most important message

for Europe was the declaration that political, economic, and military issues cannot, or should not, be separated. Although there was a specific commitment that there would be no unilateral withdrawal of US troops, it is clear that Europe is going to have to share more of the burden. Only this week a Congressional study group proposed that some overseas US military bases should be turned over to host governments on a caretaker basis.

The dangers of not talking with each other are obvious. It reduces the effectiveness of the military alliance and increases the chances of a trade war. It was right for Dr Kissinger to insist that Japan should be included in the alliance because a trade war is still possible. All sides have been making threatening noises, and although Mr Nixon has produced a respectable trade bill this month it could still be used, if things go wrong, to erect new trade barriers rather than remove the old. International trade talks are due to begin in Tokyo in September. How these would fit in with Atlantic talks is just one of the many unanswered questions. But the answer to Dr Kissinger's main question, does Europe want to join America and Japan in seeking common objectives, is a clear and resounding "Yes."

11

Clearly makes things more
not but we are all victims of
on and history. There is no
able behind it. All you can
to rationalise differences.
Don't have complete equality."
we can't have equality then I
interested in justice — or at
objectivity. At two points
book Jones seems back

objective. But in a situation of
subjective judgments some object-
ivity is of value." Certainly the
key to the Jones plan is a long-
term incomes policy worked out
voluntarily by Government, the
unions, and industry, policed by
some independent body — a Prices
and Incomes Board by any other

is no longer the national guardian
above the fray. Government is a
political machine ruthlessly mani-
pulating inflation for electoral
advantage, it is a major employer,
it is a big market force, it is a
provider of pensions, grants and
aid. It is not above the system.
It is part of it. Once you see
government in those terms then
it is no longer subversion to
expect it to bargain with interested
groups.

As Prime Minister, Jones would
be prepared to give the unions a
lot of ground even before the
detailed bargaining on prices and
incomes policy got under way.
Management is authoritarian.
Replace it with worker participa-
tion, force big concerns to accept
joint councils with real powers.
Then go for some form of profit
sharing. He would also have a
go at the Industrial Relations
Act. "The basic philosophy of the
Act requires reconsideration," he
says.

What about specifies like school
meal charges, prescription
charges, and the level of pensions?
"They are all an integral part
of the exercise — and it is not an
exercise conducted entirely within
Parliament."

As for the machinery behind the
policy Jones

ciliate in a vacuum. If there are
formal incomes policy guidelines
Government "peacemakers" must
follow them. If there aren't then
the conciliators will merely be told
how to behave by the Govern-
ment and trade union confidence
in them will be eroded as it has
been over the past couple of years.
The result of that has been the
emergence of the TUC/CBI "do it
yourself" conciliation service
which takes no notice whatsoever
of the public interest.

A former Tory Minister himself,
Jones can find few kind words for
Mr Heath. He blames union mili-
tancy on "provocation" by Govern-
ment, adding: "I don't think this
Government's conversion to a
prices and incomes policy is real
or lasting. Public opinion now
accepts the policy as an emer-
gency matter — but they do not
see the need for a permanent
policy. But Treasury officials and
the Bank (of England) see it as
permanent and certainly I do."

The book suggests that lack of
a policy could put our entire
political system "in jeopardy."
Isn't that a bit alarmist? "I'm
not alarmist in the short term —
in the long term I am. I do not
believe in a political system in
which the Conser-

...WATERGATE AFFAIR, p. 12

## Summary

No. 49

1

4/27/73

No. 49

2

4/27/73

No. 49

3

4/27/73

"The good thing is the form.... less good are the fusion of military, financial and commercial problems...and the argument that the U.S. has 'global interests and responsibilities' while Europe has only 'regional interests.'

No. 49

4

4/27/73

No. 49

5

4/27/73

A writer in independent *Stuttgarter Zeitung* agreed that one objective of the Nixon-Brandt talks should be to counter isolationism in America, which could result in withdrawal of U. S. forces from Europe. Noting Mr. Nixon's policy of maintaining U. S. troops in Europe, the writer suggested that nonetheless "troop withdrawal might become an effective American campaign slogan in 1976.

"Europe should prepare for this possibility. We will have to make bigger concessions at the coming offset discussions, and we will have to think hard how Europe, in cooperation with the U. S., can give the Atlantic Alliance a new meaning that would guide Western policy."

# "Could Water Down Alliance"

Political analyst Dieter Cycon asserted today in right-center *Die Welt* of Hamburg that Mr. Kissinger's views could imply that the "Year of Europe" did not mean "an intensified American turn toward Europe. Kissinger's message suggests a U. S. belief that at this point America derives more disadvantages than advantages from the Atlantic Alliance."

Referring to Mr. Nixon's statements that there would be no U. S. unilateral troop withdrawal and Mr. Kissinger's perception of a dramatic change in U. S. -USSR relations, Cycon said the latter's call for the Western community to develop a clear set of common objectives suggested the "outlines of a new concept" and that "apparently defense has lost its importance."

"This is a strange idea at the moment when the Soviets are engaged in amazing troop deployments. Kissinger wants the Alliance to embrace Japan in some way. But this might water down the military-oriented nature of the geographically clearly defined Alliance which could be expanded into a transcontinental club keyed to economic goals."

"Kissinger's concept... reflects the quest for a 'rational defense' which cuts the tie linking Europe's defense to a nuclear exchange between the superpowers.... a more or less complete renunciation of the nuclear deterrent."

No. 49

6

4/27/73

No. 49

7

4/27/73

No. 49

8

4/27/73

Gazette de Lausanne said:

No. 49

9

4/27/73

Conservative *Berlingske Tidende*, Denmark's leading paper, pointed out that the Kissinger speech, rather than a project for a new alliance, was "a proposal for debate on a high level, a first attempt at a new definition of the Atlantic relationship... an effort to safeguard the essentials of Atlantic cooperation." The paper said this was "constructive" and "deserves to be treated as such."

Independent conservative *Corriere della Sera* of Milan said today:

Right-center *Il Tempo* of Rome remarked today:

Left-of-center *La Stampa* of Turin said the inclusion of Japan in the new Atlantic charter was "one of the main points, inasmuch as Japan may support China and the Soviet Union in the long run if left out of the U.S. -European relationship."

Pro-Communist *Paese Sera* said yesterday in its Rome edition that the "comparison between the U.S. economic proposals and the Marshall Plan... does not take into

No. 49

10

4/27/73

## Norwegian Impressions

## A Finnish View

No. 49

11

4/27/73

## THE WATERGATE AFFAIR

* * *

No. 49

12

4/27/73

No. 49

13

4/27/73

The independent Kurier of Vienna wrote today:

> "Both America's 'silent majority' and the whole Western world fear for the prestige of American democracy... and would have preferred a big temper tantrum in Johnson's style to the controlled detachment with which Nixon now washes his hands."

Leftist-nationalist Excelsior of Mexico City spoke of a "cartload of mud that this scandal is throwing over the present American Administration" and emphasized the "positive action of an independent press...."

Right-of center El Sol de Mexico yesterday said it hoped "everything will be clarified, that the guilty will be punished, and that the scandal will cease to serve those inside and outside the U.S. who are determined to discredit the democratic system."

Independent El Comercio, Quito's largest paper, said today:

No. 49

14

4/27/73

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

# KISSINGER SPEECH PROPOSING "NEW ATLANTIC CHARTER"

## Summary

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

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

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

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

These were among representative views:

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

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

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

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

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

No. 48

1

4/25/73

London: "Provides New Impetus"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. 48

2

4/25/73

"Constructive, But Is It New?"

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

"Success Depends on Watergate Outcome, Congress Support"

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

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

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

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

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

"Europe's Understandable Fears"

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

No. 48

3

4/25/73

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

## "Europe Must Not Be Rushed"

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

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

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

## Diplomacy and the Watergate

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

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

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

No. 48

4

4/25/73

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

## West German Play of Kissinger, Rogers Speeches

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

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

### "Commonality of Views"

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

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

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

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

No. 48

5

4/25/73

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

## "A Position Paper Submerged in Scandal"

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

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

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

## "Answers Brandt's Call for Dialogue"

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

## "Remarks Directed at Bonn?"

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

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

No. 48

6

4/25/73

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

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

"As Significant as Peking, Moscow Visits?"

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

"New Phase for Alliance"

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

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

TV Coverage

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

No. 48

7

4/25/73

## West Berlin: "Challenge to Visiting Leaders"

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

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

## "Atmosphere Not Ideal for Brandt Visit"

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

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

## Paris Coverage

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

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

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

No. 48

8

4/25/73

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

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

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

## "Gracious Condescension"

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

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

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

## "Pompidou Questions for Nixon"

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

No. 48

9

4/25/73

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. 48

10

4/25/73

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

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

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

## "Timing Perhaps Not Accidental"

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

## Rome Radio: Comparison With Marshall Speech

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

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

No. 48

11

4/25/73

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

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

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

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

Vienna: "Hard to Make a New Pact"

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

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

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

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

No. 48

12

4/25/73

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

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

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

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

### "No Need for New Charter"

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

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

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

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

### Stockholm: "Speech Will Outline Watergate"

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

No. 48

13

4/25/73

## Tokyo: News Play Only

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

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

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

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

## "Object Not to 'Orphan' Japan"

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

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

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

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

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

No. 48

14

4/25/73

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

Sofia: "A Well-Known Kissinger Idea"

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

No. 48

16

4/25/73

Summary

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

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

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

No. 48

1

4/25/73

No. 48

2

4/25/73

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

No. 48

3

4/25/73

No. 48

4

4/25/73

### "Commonality of Views"

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

No. 48

5

4/25/73

No. 48

6

4/25/73

"New Phase for Alliance"

TV Coverage

No. 48

7

4/25/73

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

## Paris Coverage

No. 48

8

4/25/73

## "Gracious Condescension"

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

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

No. 48

9

4/25/73

No. 48

10

4/25/73

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

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

No. 48

11

4/25/73

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

No. 48

12

4/25/73

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

### "No Need for New Charter"

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

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

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

No. 48

13

4/25/73

## Tokyo: News Play Only

No. 48

14

4/25/73

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

## "World-wide Implications"

Independent conservative Donga Ilbo of Seoul declared today:

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

## Hong Kong Communist Paper

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

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

## Hanoi: "Kissinger Falsely Accused DRV"

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

## Moscow: "Called for More Military Expenditure"

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

No. 48

15

4/25/73

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

No. 48

16

4/25/73

FBIS 47

MOSCOW SEES NO BASIS FOR NEW U.S. EUROPE POLICY

L251523 MOSCOW DOMESTIC SERVICE IN RUSSIAN 1300 GMT 25 APR 73 L

(TEXT) THE SPEECH OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER KISSINGER AT THE ANNUAL ASSOCIATED PRESS DINNER, SETTING OUT U.S. POLICY IN EUROPE, HAS PROVOKED COUNTLESS REACTIONS IN THE AMERICAN AND WEST EUROPEAN PRESS.

AP WRITES THAT THIS IS THE FIRST IMPORTANT POLITICAL STATEMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT THIS YEAR, WHICH IS CALLED THE YEAR OF EUROPE. IT CONTAINS A SPECIAL APPEAL FOR THE REBIRTH OF THE ATLANTIC PARTNERSHIP.

MOST WEST EUROPEAN PAPERS STRESS THAT THE SPEECH IS AN ATTEMPT TO FORMULATE A NEW STAGE IN AMERICA'S RELATIONS WITH THE WEST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. INDEED, WASHINGTON'S POSTWAR POLICY IN EUROPE WAS FOUNDED ON THREE BASES: FIRST, THE COLOSSAL MILITARY POTENTIAL OF AMERICA; SECOND, THE ECONOMIC POWER OF WASHINGTON AND ACTIVE PENETRATION OF U.S. CAPITAL INTO WESTERN EUROPE; THIRD, A PROPAGANDIST DOCTRINE WHOSE BASIS WAS THE THESIS OF THE IMAGINARY SOVIET MENACE. BY NOW THESE THREE BASES NO LONGER EXIST.

SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AMERICAN PROPAGANDA WAS FORCED TO REFRAIN FROM INSTITUTING MILITARY SUPREMACY, IN PARTICULAR NUCLEAR SUPREMACY, OVER THE SOVIET UNION. THE SUPREMACY OF WASHINGTON MEANT PROVOKING A SERIOUS DANGER THAT THE WEST EUROPEAN BLOC MEMBERS' NATIONAL INTERESTS COULD BE SACRIFICED TO THE GLOBAL STRATEGY OF THE UNITED STATES. IT AROUSED SPECIFIC DEBATES WITHIN THE BLOC, IN PARTICULAR CONCERNING THE PROBLEMS AND CRISES OF NATO THAT HAVE CONSTANTLY ARISEN IN THE LAST FEW YEARS IN ALL (? MEETINGS) OF THE BLOC AND CONFERENCES OF ITS SEPARATE COMMITTEES. OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE IS THE FACT THAT FROM BEING A JUNIOR PARTNER, WEST EUROPE HAS GRADUALLY BECOME AN ECONOMIC AND TRADE RIVAL OF THE UNITED STATES. MONETARY DIFFICULTIES AND LOSS OF CONFIDENCE IN THE DOLLAR HAVE DEEPENED THESE DISAGREEMENTS EVEN FURTHER.

FINALLY, THE SOVIET MENACE, WHICH FOR A VERY LONG TIME WAS PART OF THE CEMENT STRENGTHENING THE ATLANTIC UNITY, HAS COMPLETELY LOST ANY CREDENCE. THE PEACEFUL, CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY OF THE SOVIET UNION AND THE PRACTICAL INTERESTS OF BUSINESSLIKE COOPERATION BETWEEN EAST AND WEST HAVE TURNED THIS CHILD OF THE COLD WAR INTO A MUSEUM PIECE. HOWEVER, IN THE ALMOST UNANIMOUS OPINION OF THE WEST EUROPEAN PRESS SO FAR NO ALTERNATIVE HAS BEEN PROPOSED ON WHICH TO BASE AN AMERICAN POLICY IN EUROPE. THERE IS ONLY AN ATTEMPT TO OVERCOME THE COUNTLESS DISAGREEMENTS IN ECONOMICS, TRADE AND POLICY WITH THE AID OF AN APPEAL FOR ATLANTIC UNITY.

25 APR 1656Z DEH/CAJ