HENRY A. KISSINGER

Dear Ann:

One of the saddest inevitabilities of
advancing years is the loss of old friends,
those precious few with whom one has shared
the ups and downs of time. I have also, too
frequently now, experienced that loss and
understand the deep sense of sorrow it brings.
I hope your visit with David and his family
was able to restore the happy and hopeful
vision of life going on.

Thank you for your good wishes. Nancy and I
are both well and hope you are, too.

Best regards,

Mrs. Saul Cohen
90 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02116

Jessee LePorin

From: Stape Roy [jsroy@kmaglobal.com]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:27 PM
To: Jessee LePorin
Subject: Message for Dr. Kissinger re Cohen Article

MAY 30 2006

Henry,

I read the Roger Cohen piece in the International Herald Tribute on "Reading Between the Lines of U.S.-China Discord." I hope the discussions at the Williamsburg Conference were better than they are made to appear in Cohen's article. I read it as a morality play designed to show how two countries that should be engaged in serious dialogue are talking past each other.

Cohen's recitation of the themes that each side hurls at the other is very close to reality. This is indeed the way top levels of the administration tend to think and talk about China. The Chinese are less direct in hurling accusations at the United States, but the words Cohen puts in their mouths is the way they think about us.

In some ways the situation Cohen describes is a reversal of the situation you found in China during your early trips. At that time China was in a highly ideological mode, while we were very practical in our approach. Now the Chinese are very practical, while we are highly ideological in the way we view China. I suppose that having at least one party take a practical approach is better than having both sides in highly ideological modes, but it is much less desirable than having both take a practical approach, which was pretty much the case during Reagan's second term.

My biggest criticism of the administration's approach would be that it misunderstands the purpose of diplomacy, which is not to preach and harrangue but to resolve differences and avoid unnecessary conflicts. I see little prospect that this will change in the absence of major personnel shifts that are not likely to happen.

Stape

5/30/2006

Stephen F. Cohen
340 Riverside Drive
New York, New York 10025

Tel: (212) 865-3139

Fax: (212) 865-3873

Messages: (212) 222-9320

JUN 26 2006

June 24, 2006

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

We've been out of touch for some time, but I wanted you to see my new article on US-Russian relations -- more exactly, on the relationship since 1991.

You will not agree with my over-arching interpretation, but I think you will agree with some aspects of my argument. Or rather, judging from your recent writings, interview with Charlie Rose, and meeting with Putin, I agree with much that you say on the subject.

We are living (again) in bad times, but I hope this finds you well.

July 10, 2006

The Nation.

9

ARTICLES

Contrary to established opinion, the gravest threats to America's national security are still in Russia. They derive from an unprecedented development that most US policymakers have recklessly disregarded, as evidenced by the undeclared cold war Washington has waged, under both parties, against

post-Communist Russia during the past fifteen years.

As a result of the Soviet breakup in 1991, Russia, a state bearing every nuclear and other device of mass destruction, virtually collapsed.

During the 1990s its essential infrastructures—political, economic and social—disintegrated. Moscow's hold on its vast territories was weakened by separatism, official corruption and Mafia-like crime. The worst peacetime depression in modern history brought economic losses more than twice those suffered in World War II. GDP plummeted by nearly half and capital investment by 80 percent. Most Russians were thrown into poverty. Death rates soared and the population shrank. And in August 1998, the financial system imploded.

No one in authority anywhere had ever foreseen that one of the twentieth century's two superpowers would plunge, along with its

arsenals of destruction, into such catastrophic circumstances. Even today, we cannot be sure what Russia's collapse might mean for the rest of the world.

Outwardly, the nation may now seem to have recovered. Its economy has grown on average by 6 to 7 percent annually since 1999, its stock-market index increased last year by 83 percent and its gold and foreign currency reserves are the world's fifth largest. Moscow is booming with new construction, frenzied consumption of Western luxury goods and fifty-six large casinos. Some of this wealth has trickled down to the provinces and middle and lower classes, whose income has been rising. But these advances, loudly touted by the Russian government and Western investment-fund promoters, are due largely to high

world prices for the country's oil and gas and stand out only in comparison with the wasteland of 1998.

More fundamental realities indicate that Russia remains in an unprecedented state of peacetime demodernization and depopulation. Investment in the economy and other basic infrastructures remains barely a third of the 1990 level. Some two-thirds of Russians still live below or very near the poverty line, including 80 percent of families with two or more children, 60 percent of rural citizens and large segments of the educated and professional classes, among them teachers, doctors and military officers. The

gap between the poor and the rich, Russian experts tell us, is becoming “explosive.”

Most tragic and telling, the nation continues to suffer wartime death and birth rates, its population declining by 700,000 or more every year. Male life expectancy is barely 59 years and, at the other end of the life cycle, 2 to 3 million children are homeless. Old and new diseases, from tuberculosis to HIV infections, have grown into epidemics. Nationalists may exaggerate in charging that “the Motherland is dying,” but even the head of Moscow’s most pro-Western university warns that Russia remains in “extremely deep crisis.”

The stability of the political regime atop this bleak post-Soviet landscape rests heavily,

if not entirely, on the personal popularity and authority of one man, President Vladimir Putin, who admits the state “is not yet completely stable.” While Putin’s ratings are an extraordinary 70 to 75 percent positive, political institutions and would-be leaders below him have almost no public support.

The top business and administrative elites, having rapaciously “privatized” the Soviet state’s richest assets in the 1990s, are particularly despised. Indeed, their possession of that property, because it lacks popular legitimacy, remains a time bomb embedded in the political and economic system. The huge military is equally unstable, its ranks torn by a lack of funds, abuses of authority and discontent. No wonder serious analysts worry that one or more sudden developments—a sharp fall in world

10

The Nation.

July 10, 2006

oil prices, more major episodes of ethnic violence or terrorism, or Putin's disappearance—might plunge Russia into an even worse crisis. Pointing to the disorder spreading from Chechnya through the country's southern rim, for example, the eminent scholar Peter Reddaway even asks “whether Russia is stable enough to hold together.”

As long as catastrophic possibilities exist in that nation, so do the unprecedented threats to US and international security. Experts differ as to which danger is the gravest—proliferation of Russia's enormous stockpile of nuclear, chemical and biological materials; ill-maintained nuclear reactors on land and on decommissioned submarines; an impaired early-warning system controlling missiles on hair-trigger alert; or the first-ever civil war in a shattered superpower, the terror-ridden Chechen conflict. But no one should doubt that together they constitute a much greater constant threat than any the United States faced during the Soviet era.

Nor is a catastrophe involving weapons of mass destruction the only danger in what remains the world's largest territorial country. Nearly a quarter of the planet's people live on Russia's borders, among them conflicting ethnic and religious groups. Any instability in Russia could easily spread to a crucial and exceedingly volatile part of the world.

There is another, perhaps more likely, possibility. Petrodollars may bring Russia long-term stability, but on the basis of growing authoritarianism and xenophobic nationalism. Those ominous factors derive primarily not from Russia's lost superpower status (or Putin's KGB background), as the US press regularly misinforms readers, but from so many lost and damaged lives at home since 1991. Often called the “Weimar scenario,” this outcome probably would not be truly fascist, but it would be a Russia possessing weapons of mass destruction and large proportions of the world's oil and natural gas, even more hostile to the West than was its Soviet predecessor.

How has the US government responded to these unprecedented perils? It doesn't require a degree in international relations or media punditry to understand that the first principle of policy toward post-Communist Russia must follow the Hippocratic injunction: Do no harm! Do nothing to undermine its fragile stability, nothing to dissuade the Kremlin from giving first priority to repairing the nation's crumbling infrastructures, nothing to cause it to rely more heavily on its stockpiles of superpower weapons instead of reducing them, nothing to make Moscow uncooperative with the West in those joint pursuits. Everything else in that savaged country is of far less consequence.

Since the early 1990s Washington has simultaneously conducted, under Democrats and Republicans, two fundamentally different policies toward post-Soviet Russia—one decorative and outwardly reassuring, the other real and exceedingly reckless. The decorative policy, which has been taken at face value in the United States, at least until recently, professes to have replaced America's previous cold war intentions with a generous relation-

ship of “strategic partnership and friendship.” The public image of this approach has featured happy-talk meetings between American and Russian presidents, first “Bill and Boris” (Clinton and Yeltsin), then “George and Vladimir.”

The real US policy has been very different—a relentless, winner-take-all exploitation of Russia's post-1991 weakness. Accompanied by broken American promises, condescending lectures and demands for unilateral concessions, it has been even more aggressive and uncompromising than was Washington's approach to Soviet Communist Russia. Consider its defining elements as they have unfolded—with fulsome support in both American political parties, influential newspapers and policy think tanks—since the early 1990s:

§ A growing military encirclement of Russia, on and near its borders, by US and NATO bases, which are already ensconced or being planned in at least half the fourteen other former Soviet republics, from the Baltics and Ukraine to Georgia, Azerbaijan and the new states of Central Asia. The result is a US-built reverse iron curtain and the remilitarization of American-Russian relations.

§ A tacit (and closely related) US denial that Russia has any legitimate national interests outside its own territory, even in ethnically akin or contiguous former republics such as Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia. How else to explain, to take a bellwether example, the thinking of Richard Holbrooke, Democratic would-be Secretary of State? While roundly condemning the Kremlin for promoting a pro-Moscow government in neighboring Ukraine, where Russia has centuries of shared linguistic, marital, religious, economic and security ties, Holbrooke declares that far-away Slav nation part of “our core zone of security.”

§ Even more, a presumption that Russia does not have full sovereignty within its own borders, as expressed by constant US interventions in Moscow's internal affairs since 1992. They have included an on-site crusade by swarms of American “advisers,” particularly during the 1990s, to direct Russia's “transition” from Communism; endless missionary sermons from afar, often couched in threats, on how that nation should and should not organize its political and economic systems; and active support for Russian anti-Kremlin groups, some associated with hated Yeltsin-era oligarchs.

That interventionary impulse has now grown even into suggestions that Putin be overthrown by the kind of US-backed “color revolutions” carried out since 2003 in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and attempted this year in Belarus. Thus, while mainstream editorial pages increasingly call the Russian president “thug,” “fascist” and “Saddam Hussein,” one of the Carnegie Endowment's several Washington crusaders assures us of “Putin's weakness” and vulnerability to “regime change.” (Do proponents of “democratic regime change” in Russia care that it might mean destabilizing a nuclear state?)

§ Underpinning these components of the real US policy are familiar cold war double standards condemning Moscow for doing what Washington does—such as seeking allies and military bases in former Soviet republics, using its assets (oil and gas in Russia's case) as aid to friendly governments and regulating foreign money in its political life.

More broadly, when NATO expands to Russia's front and back doorsteps, gobbling up former Soviet-bloc members and

Stephen F. Cohen is professor of Russian studies at New York University. His books include *Rethinking the Soviet Experience* (Oxford) and *Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia* (Norton).

July 10, 2006

The Nation.

13

republics, it is "fighting terrorism" and "protecting new states"; when Moscow protests, it is engaging in "cold war thinking." When Washington meddles in the politics of Georgia and Ukraine, it is "promoting democracy"; when the Kremlin does so, it is "neoimperialism." And not to forget the historical background: When in the 1990s the US-supported Yeltsin overthrew Russia's elected Parliament and Constitutional Court by force, gave its national wealth and television networks to Kremlin insiders, imposed a constitution without real constraints on executive power and rigged elections, it was "democratic reform"; when Putin continues that process, it is "authoritarianism."

§ Finally, the United States is attempting, by exploiting Russia's weakness, to acquire the nuclear superiority it could not achieve during the Soviet era. That is the essential meaning of two major steps taken by the Bush Administration in 2002, both against Moscow's strong wishes. One was the Administration's unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, freeing it to try to create a system capable of destroying incoming missiles and thereby the capacity to launch a nuclear first strike without fear of retaliation. The other was pressuring the Kremlin to sign an ultimately empty nuclear weapons reduction agreement requiring no actual destruction of weapons and indeed allowing development of new ones; providing for no verification; and permitting unilateral withdrawal before the specified reductions are required.

The extraordinarily anti-Russian nature of these policies casts serious doubt on two American official and media axioms: that the recent "chill" in US-Russian relations has been caused by Putin's behavior at home and abroad, and that the cold war ended fifteen years ago. The first axiom is false, the second only half true: The cold war ended in Moscow, but not in Washington, as is clear from a brief look back.

The last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, came to power in 1985 with heretical "New Thinking" that proposed not merely to ease but to actually abolish the decades-long cold war. His proposals triggered a fateful struggle in Washington (and Moscow) between policy-makers who wanted to seize the historic opportunity and those who did not. President Ronald Reagan decided to meet Gorbachev at least part of the way, as did his successor, the first President George Bush. As a result, in December 1989, at a historic summit meeting at Malta, Gorbachev and Bush declared the cold war over. (That extraordinary agreement evidently has been forgotten; thus we have the *New York Times* recently asserting that the US-Russian relationship today "is far better than it was 15 years ago.")

Declarations alone, however, could not terminate decades of warfare attitudes. Even when Bush was agreeing to end the cold war in 1989-91, many of his top advisers, like many members of the US political elite and media, strongly resisted. (I witnessed that rift on the eve of Malta, when I was asked to debate the issue in front of Bush and his divided foreign policy team.) Proof came with the Soviet breakup in December 1991: US officials and the media immediately presented the purported "end of the cold war" not as a mutual Soviet-American decision, which it certainly was, but as a great American victory and Russian defeat.

That (now standard) triumphalist narrative is the primary reason the cold war was quickly revived—not in Moscow a

decade later by Putin but in Washington in the early 1990s, when the Clinton Administration made two epically unwise decisions. One was to treat post-Communist Russia as a defeated nation that was expected to replicate America's domestic practices and bow to its foreign policies. It required, behind the facade of the Clinton-Yeltsin "partnership and friendship" (as Clinton's top "Russia hand," Strobe Talbott, later confirmed), telling Yeltsin "here's some more shit for your face" and Moscow's "submissiveness." From that triumphalism grew the still-ongoing interventions in Moscow's internal affairs and the abiding notion that Russia has no autonomous rights at home or abroad.

Clinton's other unwise decision was to break the Bush Administration's promise to Soviet Russia in 1990-91 not to expand NATO "one inch to the east" and instead begin its expansion to Russia's borders. From that profound act of bad faith, followed by others, came the dangerously provocative military encirclement of Russia and growing Russian suspicions of US intentions. Thus, while American journalists and even scholars insist that "the cold war has indeed vanished" and that concerns about a new one are "silly," Russians across the political spectrum now believe that in Washington "the cold war did not end" and, still more, that "the US is imposing a new cold war on Russia."

That ominous view is being greatly exacerbated by Washington's ever-growing "anti-Russian fatwa," as a former Reagan appointee terms it. This year it includes a torrent of official and media statements denouncing Russia's domestic and foreign policies, vowing to bring more of its neighbors into NATO and urging Bush to boycott the G-8 summit to be chaired by Putin in St. Petersburg in July; a call by would-be Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain for "very harsh" measures against Moscow; Congress's pointed refusal to repeal a Soviet-era restriction on trade with Russia; the Pentagon's revival of old rumors that Russian intelligence gave Saddam Hussein information endangering US troops; and comments by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, echoing the regime-changers, urging Russians, "if necessary, to change their government."

For its part, the White House deleted from its 2006 National Security Strategy the long-professed US-Russian partnership, backtracked on agreements to help Moscow join the World Trade Organization and adopted sanctions against Belarus, the Slav former republic most culturally akin to Russia and with whom the Kremlin is negotiating a new union state. Most significant, in May it dispatched Vice President Cheney to an anti-Russian conference in former Soviet Lithuania, now a NATO member, to denounce the Kremlin and make clear it is not "a strategic partner and a trusted friend," thereby ending fifteen years of official pretense.

More astonishing is a Council on Foreign Relations "task force report" on Russia, co-chaired by Democratic presidential aspirant John Edwards, issued in March. The "nonpartisan" council's reputed moderation and balance are nowhere in evidence. An unrelenting exercise in double standards, the report blames all the "disappointments" in US-Russian relations solely on "Russia's wrong direction" under Putin—from meddling in the former Soviet republics and backing Iran to conflicts over NATO,

14

The Nation.

July 10, 2006

energy politics and the “rollback of Russian democracy.”

Strongly implying that Bush has been too soft on Putin, the council report flatly rejects partnership with Moscow as “not a realistic prospect.” It calls instead for “selective cooperation” and “selective opposition,” depending on which suits US interests, and, in effect, Soviet-era containment. Urging more Western intervention in Moscow’s political affairs, the report even reserves for Washington the right to reject Russia’s future elections and leaders as “illegitimate.” An article in the council’s influential journal *Foreign Affairs* menacingly adds that the United States is quickly “attaining nuclear primacy” and the ability “to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.”

Every consequence of this bipartisan American cold war against post-Communist Russia has exacerbated the dangers inherent in the Soviet breakup mentioned above. The crusade to transform Russia during the 1990s, with its disastrous “shock therapy” economic measures and resulting antidemocratic acts, further destabilized the country, fostering an oligarchical system that plundered the state's wealth, deprived essential infrastructures of investment,

impoverished the people and nurtured dangerous corruption. In the process, it discredited Western-style reform, generated mass anti-Americanism where there had been almost none—only 5 percent of Russians surveyed in May thought the United States was a “friend”—and eviscerated the once-influential pro-American faction in Kremlin and electoral politics.

Military encirclement, the Bush Administration's striving for nuclear supremacy and today's renewed US intrusions into Russian politics are having even worse consequences. They have provoked the Kremlin into undertaking its own conventional and nuclear buildup, relying more rather than less on compromised mechanisms of control and maintenance, while continuing to invest miserly sums in the country's decaying economic base and human resources. The same American policies have also caused Moscow to cooperate less rather than more in existing US-funded programs to reduce the multiple risks represented by Russia's materials of mass destruction and to prevent accidental nuclear war. More generally, they have inspired a new Kremlin ideology of "emphasizing our sovereignty" that is increasingly nationalistic, intolerant of foreign-funded NGOs as "fifth columns" and reliant on anti-Western views of the "patriotic" Russian intelligentsia and the Orthodox Church.

Moscow's responses abroad have also been the opposite of what Washington policy-makers should want. Interpreting US-backed “color revolutions” as a quest for military outposts on Russia's borders, the Kremlin now opposes pro-democracy movements in former Soviet republics more than ever, while supporting the most authoritarian regimes in the region, from Belarus to Uzbekistan. Meanwhile, Moscow is forming a political, economic and military “strategic partnership” with China, lending support to Iran and other anti-American governments in the Middle East and already putting surface-to-air missiles back in Belarus, in effect Russia's western border with NATO.

## The American cold war against post-Communist Russia has exacerbated the dangers inherent in the Soviet breakup.

If American policy and Russia's predictable countermeasures continue to develop into a full-scale cold war, several new factors could make it even more dangerous than was its predecessor. Above all, the growing presence of Western bases and US-backed governments in the former Soviet republics has moved the "front lines" of the conflict, in the alarmed words of a Moscow newspaper, from Germany to Russia's "near abroad." As a "hostile ring tightens around the Motherland," in the view of former Prime Minister Evgeny Primakov, many different Russians see a mortal threat. Putin's chief political deputy, Vladislav Surkov, for example, sees the "enemy...at the gates," and the novelist and Soviet-era dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn sees the "complete encirclement of Russia and then the loss of its sovereignty." The risks of direct military conflict could therefore be greater than ever. Protesting overflights by NATO aircraft, a Russian general has already warned, "If they violate our borders, they should be shot down."

Worsening the geopolitical factor are radically different American and Russian self-perceptions. By the mid-1960s the US-

Soviet cold war relationship had acquired a significant degree of stability because the two superpowers, perceiving a stalemate, began to settle for political and military

"parity." Today, however, the United States, the self-proclaimed "only superpower," has a far more expansive view of its international entitlements and possibilities. Moscow, on the other hand, feels weaker and more vulnerable than it did before 1991. And in that asymmetry lies the potential for a less predictable cold war relationship between the two still fully armed nuclear states.

There is also a new psychological factor. Because the unfolding cold war is undeclared, it is already laden with feelings of betrayal and mistrust on both sides. Having welcomed Putin as Yeltsin's chosen successor and offered him his conception of "partnership and friendship," Washington now feels deceived by Putin's policies. According to two characteristic commentaries in the *Washington Post*, Bush had a "well-intentioned Russian policy," but "a Russian autocrat...betrayed the American's faith." Putin's Kremlin, however, has been reacting largely to a decade of broken US promises and Yeltsin's boozy compliance. Thus Putin's declaration four years ago, paraphrased on Russian radio: "The era of Russian geopolitical concessions [is] coming to an end." (Looking back, he remarked bitterly that Russia has been "constantly deceived.")

Still worse, the emerging cold war lacks the substantive negotiations and cooperation, known as détente, that constrained the previous one. Behind the lingering facade, a well-informed Russian tells us, "dialogue is almost nonexistent." It is especially true in regard to nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration's abandonment of the ABM treaty and real reductions, its decision to build an antimissile shield, and talk of pre-emptive war and nuclear strikes have all but abolished long-established US-Soviet agreements that have kept the nuclear peace for nearly fifty years. Indeed, according to a report, Bush's National Security Council is contemptuous of arms control as "baggage from the cold war." In short, as dangers posed by nuclear weapons have grown and a new arms race

July 10, 2006

The Nation.

15

unfolds, efforts to curtail or even discuss them have ended.

Finally, anti-cold war forces that once played an important role in the United States no longer exist. Cold war lobbies, old and new ones, therefore operate virtually unopposed, some of them funded by anti-Kremlin Russian oligarchs in exile. At high political levels, the new American cold war has been, and remains, fully bipartisan, from Clinton to Bush, Madeleine Albright to Rice, Edwards to McCain. At lower levels, once robust pro-détente public groups, particularly anti-arms-race movements, have been largely demobilized by official, media and academic myths that "the cold war is over" and we have been "liberated" from nuclear and other dangers in Russia.

Also absent (or silent) are the kinds of American scholars who protested cold war excesses in the past. Meanwhile, a legion of new intellectual cold warriors has emerged, particularly in Washington, media favorites whose crusading anti-Putin zeal goes largely unchallenged. (Typically, one inveterate missionary constantly charges Moscow with "not delivering" on US interests, while another now calls for a surreal crusade, "backed by international donors," to correct young Russians' thinking about Stalin.) There are a few notable exceptions—also bipartisan, from former Reaganites to *Nation* contributors—but "anathematizing Russia," as Gorbachev recently put it, is so consensual that even an outspoken critic of US policy inexplicably ends an article, "Of course, Russia has been largely to blame."

Making these political factors worse has been the "pluralist" US mainstream media. In the past, opinion page editors and television producers regularly solicited voices to challenge cold war zealots, but today such dissenters, and thus the vigorous public debate of the past, are almost entirely missing. Instead, influential editorial pages are dominated by resurgent cold war orthodoxies, led by the *Post*, whose incessant demonization of Putin's "autocracy" and "crude neoimperialism" reads like a bygone *Pravda* on the Potomac. On the conservative *New York Sun*'s front page, US-Russian relations today are presented as "a duel to the death—perhaps literally."

The Kremlin's strong preference "not to return to the cold war era," as Putin stated May 13 in response to Cheney's inflammatory charges, has been mainly responsible for preventing such fantasies from becoming reality. "Someone is still fighting the cold war," a British academic recently wrote, "but it isn't Russia." A fateful struggle over this issue, however, is now under way in Moscow, with the "pro-Western" Putin resisting demands for a "more hard line" course and, closely related, favoring larger FDR-style investments in the people (and the country's stability). Unless US policy, which is abetting the hard-liners in that struggle, changes fundamentally, the symbiotic axis between American and Russian cold warriors that drove the last conflict will re-emerge. If so, the Kremlin, whether under Putin or a successor, will fight the new one—with all the unprecedented dangers that would entail.

Given different principles and determined leadership, it is still not too late for a new US policy toward post-Soviet Russia. Its components would include full cooperation in securing Moscow's materials of mass destruction; radically reducing nuclear weapons on both sides while banning the development of new ones and taking all warheads off hair-trigger alert;

IF YOU RAN THE WORLD, WHAT WOULD YOU FIX FIRST?

How to Spend

to Make the World a Better Place

EDITED BY

Bjarn Lomborg

Author of *The Skeptical Environmentalist*

"This is a **stimulating** intellectual game with **important** real-world consequences..."

—Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek columnist and author of *The Future of Freedom*

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS www.cambridge.org/us

## Fight Fire WITH Fire

### Kennedy & Papantonio

RING OF FIRE
on

AIR AMERICA RADIO

FIND A STATION
AT
ringoffireradio.com

866-389-FIRE

16

The Nation.

July 10, 2006

dissuading other states from acquiring those weapons; counter-
ing terrorist activities and drug-trafficking near Russia; and
augmenting energy supplies to the West.

None of those programs are possible without abandoning
the warped priorities and fallacies that have shaped US policy
since 1991. National security requires identifying and pursuing
essential priorities, but US policy-makers have done neither
consistently. The only truly vital American interest in Russia
today is preventing its stockpiles of mass destruction from
endangering the world, whether through Russia's destabiliza-
tion or hostility to the West.

All of the dangerous fallacies underlying US policy are expressions of unbridled triumphalism. The decision to treat post-Soviet Russia as a vanquished nation, analogous to postwar Germany and Japan (but without the funding), squandered a historic opportunity for a real partnership and established the bipartisan premise that Moscow's "direction" at home and abroad should be determined by the United States. Applied to a country with Russia's size and long history as a world power, and that had not been militarily defeated, the premise was inherently self-defeating and certain to provoke a resentful backlash.

*The dangerous fallacies underlying US policy are expressions of an unbridled triumphalism, treating Russia as a defeated nation.*

That folly produced two others. One was the assumption that the United States had the right, wisdom and power to remake post-Communist Russia into a political and economic replica of America. A conceit as vast as its ignorance of Russia's historical traditions and contemporary realities, it led to the counter-productive crusade of the 1990s, which continues in various ways today. The other was the presumption that Russia should be America's junior partner in foreign policy with no interests except those of the United States. By disregarding Russia's history, different geopolitical realities and vital interests, this presumption has also been senseless.

As a Eurasian state with 20–25 million Muslim citizens of its own and with Iran one of its few neighbors not being recruited by NATO, for example, Russia can ill afford to be drawn into Washington's expanding conflict with the Islamic world, whether in Iran or Iraq. Similarly, by demanding that Moscow vacate its traditional political and military positions in former Soviet republics so the United States and NATO can occupy them—and even subsidize Ukraine's defection with cheap gas—Washington is saying that Russia not only has no Monroe Doctrine-like rights in its own neighborhood but no legitimate security rights at all. Not surprisingly, such flagrant double standards have convinced the Kremlin that Washington has become more bellicerent since Yeltsin's departure simply “because Russian policy has become more pro-Russian.”

Nor was American triumphalism a fleeting reaction to 1991. A decade later, the tragedy of September 11 gave Washington a second chance for a real partnership with Russia. At a meeting on June 16, 2001, President Bush sensed in Putin's "soul" a partner for America. And so it seemed after September 11, when Putin's Kremlin did more than any NATO government to assist the US war effort in Afghanistan, giving it valuable intel-

ligence, a Moscow-trained Afghan combat force and easy access to crucial air bases in former Soviet Central Asia.

The Kremlin understandably believed that in return Washington would give it an equitable relationship. Instead, it got US withdrawal from the ABM treaty, Washington's claim to permanent bases in Central Asia (as well as Georgia) and independent access to Caspian oil and gas, a second round of NATO expansion taking in several former Soviet republics and bloc members, and a still-growing indictment of its domestic and foreign conduct. Astonishingly, not even September 11 was enough to end Washington's winner-take-all principles.

Why have Democratic and Republican administrations believed they could act in such relentlessly anti-Russian ways without endangering US national security? The answer is another fallacy—the belief that Russia, diminished and weakened by its loss of the Soviet Union, had no choice but to bend to America's will. Even apart from the continued presence of Soviet-era weapons in Russia, it was a grave misconception. Because of its extraordinary material and human attributes, Russia, as its intellectuals say, has always been “destined to be a great power.” This was still true after 1991.

Even before world energy prices refilled its coffers, the Kremlin had ready alternatives to the humiliating role scripted by Washington. Above all, Russia could forge strategic alliances with eager anti-US and non-NATO governments in the East and elsewhere, becoming an arsenal of conventional weapons and nuclear knowledge for states from China and India to Iran and Venezuela. Moscow has already begun that turning away from the West, and it could move much further in that direction.

Still more, even today's diminished Russia can fight, perhaps win, a cold war on its new front lines across the vast former Soviet territories. It has the advantages of geographic proximity, essential markets, energy pipelines and corporate ownership, along with kinship and language and common experiences. They give Moscow an array of soft and hard power to use, if it chooses, against neighboring governments considering a new patron in faraway Washington.

Economically, the Kremlin could cripple nearly destitute Georgia and Moldova by banning their products and otherwise unemployed migrant workers from Russia and by charging Georgia and Ukraine full “free-market” prices for essential energy. Politically, Moscow could truncate tiny Georgia and Moldova, and big Ukraine, by welcoming their large, pro-Russian territories into the Russian Federation or supporting their demands for independent statehood (as the West has been doing for Kosovo and Montenegro in Serbia). Militarily, Moscow could take further steps toward turning the Shanghai Cooperation Organization—now composed of Russia, China and four Central Asian states, with Iran and India possible members—into an anti-NATO defensive alliance, an “OPEC with nuclear weapons,” a Western analyst warned.

That is not all. In the US-Russian struggle in Central Asia over Caspian oil and gas, Washington, as even the triumphalist

> *The dangerous fallacies underlying US policy are expressions of an unbridled triumphalism, treating Russia as a defeated nation.*

July 10, 2006

The Nation.

17

Thomas Friedman admits, "is at a severe disadvantage." The United States has already lost its military base in Uzbekistan and may soon lose the only remaining one in the region, in Kyrgyzstan; the new pipeline it backed to bypass Russia runs through Georgia, whose stability depends considerably on Moscow; Washington's new friend in oil-rich Azerbaijan is an anachronistic dynastic ruler; and Kazakhstan, whose enormous energy reserves make it a particular US target, has its own large Russian population and is moving back toward Moscow.

Nor is the Kremlin powerless in direct dealings with the West. It can mount more than enough warheads to defeat any missile shield and illusion of "nuclear primacy." It can shut US businesses out of multibillion-dollar deals in Russia and, as it recently reminded the European Union, which gets 25 percent of its gas from Russia, "redirect supplies" to hungry markets in the East. And Moscow could deploy its resources, connections and UN Security Council veto against US interests involving, for instance, nuclear proliferation, Iran, Afghanistan and possibly even Iraq.

Contrary to exaggerated US accusations, the Kremlin has not yet resorted to such retaliatory measures in any significant way. But unless Washington stops abasing and encroaching on Russia, there is no "sovereign" reason why it should not do so. Certainly, nothing Moscow has gotten from Washington since 1992, a Western security specialist emphasizes, "compensates for the geopolitical harm the United States is doing to Russia."

American crusaders insist it is worth the risk in order to democratize Russia and other former Soviet republics. In reality, their campaigns since 1992 have only discredited that cause in Russia. Praising the despised Yeltsin and endorsing other unpopular figures as Russia's "democrats," while denouncing the popular Putin, has associated democracy with the social pain, chaos and humiliation of the 1990s. Ostracizing Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko while embracing tyrants in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan has related it to the thirst for oil. Linking "democratic revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia to NATO membership has equated them with US expansionism. Focusing on the victimization of billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky and not on Russian poverty or ongoing mass protests against social injustices has suggested democracy is only for oligarchs. And by insisting on their indispensable role, US crusaders have all but said (wrongly) that Russians are incapable of democracy or resisting abuses of power on their own.

The result is dark Russian suspicions of American intentions ignored by US policy-makers and media alike. They include the belief that Washington's real purpose is to take control of the country's energy resources and nuclear weapons and use encircling NATO satellite states to "de-sovereignize" Russia, turning it into a "vassal of the West." More generally, US policy has fostered the belief that the American cold war was never really aimed at Soviet Communism but always at Russia, a suspicion given credence by *Post* and *Times* columnists who characterize Russia even after Communism as an inherently "autocratic state" with "brutish instincts."

To overcome those towering obstacles to a new relationship, Washington has to abandon the triumphalist conceits primarily responsible for the revived cold war and its growing dangers. It means respecting Russia's sovereign right to determine its course at home (including disposal of its energy resources).

As the record plainly shows, interfering in Moscow's internal affairs, whether on-site or from afar, only harms the chances for political liberties and economic prosperity that still exist in that tormented nation.

It also means acknowledging Russia's legitimate security interests, especially in its own "near abroad." In particular, the planned third expansion of NATO, intended to include Ukraine, must not take place. Extending NATO to Russia's doorsteps has already brought relations near the breaking point (without actually benefiting any nation's security); absorbing Ukraine, which Moscow regards as essential to its Slavic identity and its military defense, may be the point of no return, as even pro-US Russians anxiously warn. Nor would it be democratic, since nearly two-thirds of Ukrainians are opposed. The explosive possibilities were adumbrated in late May and early June when local citizens in ethnic Russian Crimea blockaded a port and roads where a US naval ship and contingent of Marines suddenly appeared, provoking resolutions declaring the region "anti-NATO territory" and threats of "a new Vietnam."

Time for a new US policy is running out, but there is no hint of one in official or unofficial circles. Denouncing the Kremlin in May, Cheney spoke "like a triumphant cold warrior," a *Times* correspondent reported. A top State Department official has already announced the "next great mission" in and around Russia. In the same unreconstructed spirit, Rice has demanded Russians "recognize that we have legitimate interests...in their neighborhood," without a word about Moscow's interests; and a former Clinton official has held the Kremlin "accountable for the ominous security threats...developing between NATO's eastern border and Russia." Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is playing Russian roulette with Moscow's control of its nuclear weapons. Its missile shield project having already provoked a destabilizing Russian buildup, the Administration now proposes to further confuse Moscow's early-warning system, risking an accidental launch, by putting conventional warheads on long-range missiles for the first time.

In a democracy we might expect alternative policy proposals from would-be leaders. But there are none in either party, only demands for a more anti-Russian course, or silence. We should not be surprised. Acquiescence in Bush's monstrous war in Iraq has amply demonstrated the political elite's limited capacity for introspection, independent thought and civic courage. (It prefers to falsely blame the American people, as the managing editor of *Foreign Affairs* recently did, for craving "ideological red meat.") It may also be intimidated by another revived cold war practice—personal defamation. The *Post* and *The New Yorker* have already labeled critics of their Russia policy "Putin apologists" and charged them with "appeasement" and "again taking the Russian side of the Cold War."

The vision and courage of heresy will therefore be needed to escape today's new cold war orthodoxies and dangers, but it is hard to imagine a US politician answering the call. There is, however, a not-too-distant precedent. Twenty years ago, when the world faced exceedingly grave cold war perils, Gorbachev unexpectedly emerged from the orthodox and repressive Soviet political class to offer a heretical way out. Is there an American leader today ready to retrieve that missed opportunity?

18

The Nation.

July 10, 2006

MALE PRISON RAPE IS STILL NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY, DESPITE THE HUGE NUMBER OF VICTIMS.

# 'They Deserve It'

DAN BELL

RAN INZANA

Even as the gates slammed shut and he stepped out into the roar of the main cell-block, T.J. Parsell was still in denial. He had landed in prison after a drunken prank with a toy gun netted him $50 and two and a half years. His older brother, who had served some brief jail time, had given him some advice: Look tough. Show no fear. Be a man.

But even if Parsell could have kept his shoul-
ders back, his chin cocked and the panic out
of his eyes as he walked beneath five stories of
barred cells, through the echoes of slamming doors, the clatter
of chow trays and the shouts of 500 inmates, they already knew:
This paper-thin kid with a desperate game face was fresh meat.
Barely six weeks later, according to Parsell, he had been drugged,
gang-raped by three inmates and “sold” to a fourth with the flip
of a coin. He was 17 years old.

Parsell's story is horrifying, but hardly surprising. And therein lies a paradox: If prison rape is as prevalent as it is thought to be, it stands as one of the most appallingly frequent human rights abuses in America. But as a matter of public concern, when the victims are male, the issue remains little more than a dirty joke.

In 2001 Human Rights Watch attempted to turn off the
canned laughter. Drawing on testimonies from 200 prisoners
in thirty-four states, HRW released a report titled "No Es-
cape: Male Rape in US Prisons." The findings suggested that
male rape, often accompanied by almost unimaginable vio-
lence, is widespread throughout the US prison system. The
report was damning enough to help convince Congress to pass
the optimistically named 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act.
In writing PREA, Congress estimated that 13 percent of inmates
had been sexually assaulted. Even if that is (as many experts be-
lieve) a conservative estimate, it translates into a stunning number
of victims. "Nearly 200,000 inmates now incarcerated have been
or will be the victims of prison rape," the act states. "The total
number of inmates who have been sexually assaulted in the past
20 years likely exceeds 1,000,000."

The act is intended to tackle rape in both male and female prisons; there is no reliable gender breakdown of prison rape victims, but 93 percent of America's prison population is male.

Despite the bold promise implied by its name, PREA hasn't
made a dent in the statistics so far. Although the act sets out to
define new standards for detection, prevention, reduction and
punishment of prison rape, no new standards have yet been
established—and when they are, they are unlikely to go into
effect before 2010. Even then, it is by no means certain that they
will be effectively enforced.

But the problem goes deeper than inadequate legislation.

The prevailing social attitude toward male prison rape was typified by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer back in 2001, when Enron CEO Ken Lay was in the news. “I would love to personally escort Lay,” Lockyer said, “to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, Hi, my name is Spike, honey.”

"I think in a lot of ways this issue is where the women's issue was about thirty years ago," says Lara Stemple, former executive director of Stop Prisoner Rape, the only national organization dedicated to advocating on behalf of prison-rape survivors. "People still make jokes about men being raped that people would never make about women." If the male victim is behind bars, the problem is compounded. Louise Kindley, a veteran rape-crisis counselor who recently opened New York's first program for male survivors, says, "There is an idea that they deserve it."

As a first-time teenage offender, Parsell fit the profile of a
prison rape victim to a T. After an initial six weeks on lockdown,
he was transferred into the general population at Riverside
Correctional Facility, at that time (the late 1970s) one of
Michigan's three "close-custody" security prisons—one security
level down from maximum. It could hardly have been a worse
place for him to land: In a 2000 investigation of medium- and
maximum-security prisons in the state, PREA commissioner
Cindy Struckman-Johnson surveyed 1,788 inmates. One in ten
said they had been raped, and one in five had experienced "pres-
sured or forced sexual contact."

Parsell didn't know that, of course. But he did know that he
was scared and lonely. So despite his brother's warning that any
sign of weakness would turn him into a victim, when an older
inmate came up and started talking to him on his first day at
Riverside, Parsell opened a chink in his exhausted defenses.
"The guy was just very friendly," he remembers, "and he said,
You know, after count [the roll call of inmates] why don't you
come down to chow with me?" By late morning the following
day, Parsell and his new friend, Ron, were in the card room with
two other inmates, dipping into a plastic bag full of homemade
hooch. The old Maxwell House coffee jar Parsell was drinking
out of never seemed to get empty.

It took about half an hour for the Thorazine they'd spiked his drink with to hit. Suddenly Parsell couldn't think straight. He couldn't understand what was being said to him, and he couldn't understand why he couldn't understand. It was, he says, like watching a film with pieces of blank tape spliced into it: "skips, like mini-blackouts," flashes followed by darkness.

Then he was back in one of the dormitories. Four inmates
were waiting for him. It was only then that Parsell began to
understand what was happening. But by the time the panic hit,
it was too late. Ron shoved Parsell onto one of the bunks and

*Former Nation intern Dan Bell lives and writes in London.*

Jessee LePorin

From: Emily Lazar [Emily.Lazar@TheColbertReport.org]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 2:22 PM
To: JLeporin@KMAGlobal.com
Subject: Stephen Colbert Request for Dr. Henry Kissinger

Hi Jesse—

I'm writing to see if Dr. Henry Kissinger would help Stephen Colbert in a short comedy bit on The Colbert Report next Wednesday, December 20th.

The idea, in its simplest form, is to have Dr. Kissinger adjudicate a guitar playing competition between Stephen Colbert and a rock group called The Decemberists who have called into question Mr. Colbert's acoustic abilities. Stephen needs a formidable arbiter of this contest and he thought there was no one that had more stature or sense of humor than Dr. Kissinger.

We would tape this bit from 7:00-7:30 at our studio at 513 West 54th Street in New York City.

I'm aware that this small bit of show business might seem an unusual departure from Dr. Kissinger's usual expertise.

I assure you if he joins us he'll become a hero to his grand children and earn for himself a cult status among the under 40 set.

Can I discuss this in greater detail with you on the phone? Please call me at 212-649-6226 and I can give you the hilarious particulars.

All the best,

Emily J. Lazar
Talent Producer

DEC 18 2006

12/15/2006

Page 1 of 1

Jessee LePorin

Hi Jesse—

All the best,

12/18/06

E-mail request for you to participate in a
comedy sketch on The Colbert Report this
Wednesday from 7-7:30PM at their studio.
Attached is a description of the sketch.

You are having dinner with WBK at
7PM.

Thank them; but explain I am not
available _________

Prefer _________

JL

12/18/2006

COLIN
POWELL
CENTER FOR POLICY STUDIES

COLIN L. POWELL, FOUNDER AND DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR

September 27, 2006

General Colin L. Powell, USA (Ret)
Suite 700
909 North Washington Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
703-224-5013

Dear Henry,

It was wonderful to see you at the first Advisory Council meeting for the Colin Powell Center at CCNY. I thought we made some valuable progress, and I appreciate the ideas, enthusiasm, and support that you and the other Advisory Council members brought to the meeting.

I was pleased that you had the opportunity to meet some of the students that so impress me every time I come to CCNY – young people like Heather, Trevor, Therese, and Brad. Their stories are remarkable, and I hope meeting them gave you a sense of why I have been so eager to support the Center at CCNY, and to involve you in that effort.

The Center's staff is pulling together more information about the Center, as well as a complete business plan for Council members. You will receive that information during the next several months, along with other updates about Center activities.

There is tremendous room for growth in our programs, both with students and in different policy areas. I welcome reactions you've had to the meeting, and I look forward to working with you on figuring out the best ways for you to contribute to the Center's success and expansion in the coming months. Thank you, again.

The Honorable Henry Kissinger
Kissinger Associates
350 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022

SHEPARD HALL, ROOM 157 • 160 CONVENT AVENUE • NEW YORK, NY 10031 • 212.650.8551 • CPOWELLCTR@CCNY.CUNY.EDU

09/14/2006 07:15 FAX 4169642301

FOUR SEASONS TORONTO

001

URGENT

YANOU'S Please forward to:

CHOICE

SEPTEMBER 3, 2006.

SEP 14 2006

HI!

ARIELLE DOMBASLE WHO IS THE WIFE OF MY FRIEND, THE FRENCH PHILISOPHER BERNARD-HENRI LEVY, MAKES HER AMERICAN DEBUT ON BROADWAY, AT THE SUPPER CLUB ON SEPTEMBER 19,20 AND 21.

THE CONCERT WILL FEATURE SONGS FROM HER RECENT RELEASE "AMOR, AMOR" AND FROM HER FORTHCOMING ALBUM "C'EST SI BON" TO BE RELEASED IN OCTOBER.

BOTH FIND ARIELLE RECONNECTING WITH HER ROOTS AND PAYING HOMAGE TO HER BIRTHPLACE (NORWICH, CONNECTICUT). WITH CLASSICS SUCH AS "DREAM A LITTLE DREAM", "CHEEK TO CHEEK", "PARIS IN DELIGHT" OR "DARLING JE VOUS AIME BEAUCOUP" SHE ACKNOWLEDGES HER AMERICAN-FRENCHNESS AND FRENCH-AMERICANNESS - THE GREAT TIME WERE FRANCE AND AMERICA WENT REALLY CHEEK TO CHEEK !

I MUST ADD THAT ARIELLE IS NOT ONLY AN INDISPUTABLE FRENCH ICON, AN ARTIST AND PUBLIC FIGURE OF GOOD STATURE - BUT ALSO A MARVELOUS AND SMART LADY. THAT'S WHY I DO MY BEST FOR SPREADING THE WORD ! IF YOU ARE FREE ONE OF THESE THREE EVENINGS, PLEASE DO TELL ME. I WOULD BE OVERWHELMED WITH JOY IF YOU WOULD ACCEPT TO ATTEND, AS MY GUESTS, PREFERABLY ON THE 19TH AS WE WILL CELEBRATE AT THE END OF THE CONCERT ARIELLE AND BERNARD-HENRI'S VERY FIRST ENCOUNTER IN MILANO, TWENTY YEARS AGO. I'M SURE YOU WILL HAVE A GREAT EVENING !

GOD BLESS YOU REAL GOOD.....LOTS OF LOVE

PS I EXPECT YOU AT THE SUPPER CLUB AT 7.30 PM. THE SHOW STARTS AT 8.

TEN DOLLARS OF EACH TICKET SOLD WILL BE DONATED TO "THE MUSEO DEL BARRIO, A MEXICAN CHARITY DEAR TO ARIELLE'S HEART.

YOU CAN REACH ME IN TORONTO AT THE FOUR SEASONS (+416 9640411) FROM SEPTEMBER 5 UNTIL THE 16 INCLUDED AND AT THE CARLYLE (+212 744 1600) FROM SEPTEMBER 17. MY CELL : +377 678632794

YANOU COLLART LES FLORALIES
3, AV. DE GRANDE BRETAGNE MONTE CARLO MC 98000

TEL +377 678632794 FAX +377 97705479

yanouschoice@yahoo.fr

FOUR SEASONS TORONTO

002

YANOU'S
CHOICE

ARIELLE DOMBASLE
AMERICAN DEBUT IN BROADWAY AT THE SUPPER CLUB
SEPTEMBER 19, 20, 21

Arielle Sonnery de FROMENTAL, a Taurus with a Libra ascendant, double Venus was born in Connecticut in 1958 and raised in Mexico where her grandfather, Maurice Garreau-Dombasle was Ambassador of France. It is him who signed, in 1937, the first commercial agreement between the US and France and served, in 1940, as General de Gaulle's spokeperson in America. Her mother, Francion Garreau Dombasle was Jackie Bouvier's friend.

At 18, Arielle moved to Paris to study Opera and Theater at the "Conservatoire de Musique". She became the muse of French Director Eric Rohmer and her part as Marion in the 1983 film "Pauline a la Plage" made her a star. She also worked with Raul Ruiz and Alain Robbe-Grillet (her last movie with him is in competition at the Venise Film Festival).

Her first CD launched in 2000 was dedicated to Haendel and Bach as well as other composers of classical music. The second one "Amor, Amor" was inspired by all the Spanish songs she heard her Mexican cook sing in the kitchen of the family home in Mexico. This CD was number one in France and sold over 500.000 copies.

The third one "C'est si bon" is a return to her roots with all the medleys famous in the US in the fourties and fifties, the glorious years of innocent and unconditional love between French and American.

Arielle Dombasle - her stage name - who performed already in France, Italy, Germany and Monaco will make her US debut on September 19, 20, 21 at the Supper Club in New York with Joe Battaglia and the New York Big Band.

For this occasion, she will wear three different dresses : one designed by Vanessa Seward for Azzaro, one by Roberto Cavalli and a vintage Jacques Fath. Christian Louboutin created especially for her platform shoes in crystal (Marilyn's style) allowing her to dance on stage.

Arielle who is a vegetarian (she cannot digest agonies, she says) has three secrets to remain young, slim and sexy : LOVE- SWIMMING and LAPSANG TEA !

September 19, the day she chose for her US debut is also the celebration of her first encounter with her husband, the French philosopher, journalist and activist Bernard-Henri Levy in Milano, twenty years ago.

Among the guests : Diane von Furstenberg and Barry Diller, Lenny Kravitz, Salman Rushdie, Elisabeth and Felix Rohatyn, Isabella Rossellini, Shashi Tharoor, Francis Fukuyama, Graydon Carter, Tina Brown, Lauren Bacall, Kathleen Turner, Michael Douglas Lord Weidenfeld, Sidney Pollack, Milos Forman, Harvey Keitel and French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Philippe Douste-Blazy, etc...

Arielle and Bernard-Henri keep an apartment at the Carlyle, near the place where Arielle spent part of her childhood, where they will arrive on September 4

Her CD will be released in October by Red Music SONY.

yanouschoice@yahoo.fr

DATE 1/4/06

CORR. FILE Colony Club

ACTION: Alan Stape Dennis
Jessee Theresa John B.

Maggie Suzanne Rose

COMMENTS:

SUBJ. FILE

CROSS REF.

STAFF MEMO

DC OFFICE:
Christie / Jody / Ann

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED Next

WTO-OMC

WTO at 10
CONFERENCE

NEW YORK CITY
APRIL 2006

Governance, Dispute Settlement, and Developing Countries

February 22, 2006

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Chairman
Kissinger Associates, Inc.
350 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022

FEB 4 2006

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

As a Member of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization and a Professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, I am writing to extend an invitation to a conference celebrating the tenth anniversary of the WTO and its dispute settlement system, "The WTO at 10: Governance, Dispute Settlement, and Developing Countries". This conference, which will take place from April 5 to 7, 2006 at Columbia University in New York, is the final in a series of six regional conferences which have been initiated by the Members of the Appellate Body in coordination with their affiliated universities. The first conference was held in Stresa, Italy in March 2005; the second in Sao Paulo, Brazil in May; the third in Tokyo, Japan in October; and the fourth recently took place in Cairo, Egypt in February 2006.

The two day conference will examine the governance and operation of the international trading system, the WTO dispute settlement system, and the WTO and developing countries. We have an outstanding group of trade officials, legal and academic experts and opinion leaders from around the world participating in this event. Please see the attached brochure and visit the conference website: www.sipa.columbia.edu/wto.

Given your broad interest in international economic matters, I would like to draw your attention to several keynote events of this conference:

* You will receive an invitation shortly to attend the keynote opening dinner on April 5th, hosted by Columbia University President, Lee Bollinger. This event, by invitation only, will feature a discussion among an extraordinary group of international trade leaders including Carla Hills, Clayton Yeutter, Jagdish Bhagwati, Peter Sutherland, Charles Hagel (invited) and Robert Zoellick (invited).

* Over lunch on April 6th, the Indonesian Minister of Trade Mari Pangestu, along with the Nigerian Minister of Finance Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, will discuss the topic of the WTO and developing countries.

* Over dinner on April 6th, we will have a special opportunity to hear from Brazil's Minister of Foreign Relations Celso Amorim, the EC's Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson (invited) and the U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (invited). Several leading faculty of Columbia University will also exchange ideas with the distinguished speakers, followed by open discussion with the attendees.

Columbia University | 3022 Broadway, 321 Uris Hall, New York, NY 10027-6902 | telephone 212.854.3976 | fax 212.678.6958

Commentary

165 East 56 Street
New York, New York 10022
(212) 891-6735
Fax (212) 891-6700

NEAL KOZODOY, EDITOR

JUN 07 2006

June 6, 2006

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Kissinger Associates
350 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10022

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

This is a very belated and heartfelt note of thanks to you for joining us at the Commentary dinner, and especially for your marvelously stirring tribute to Norman. I'm sure he's told you what it meant to him. In different ways, it meant at least as much to everybody in that room, and to me above all.

I've heard from Roger that you were interested in seeing the text of the talk given later in the evening by David Gelernter. I'm pleased to enclose a copy, along with a transcript of your own remarks.

With deep appreciation, and warm wishes,

Enclosure

NK:sr

Second Annual Podhoretz Lecture

May 17, 2006

New York City

Toast by Dr. Henry A. Kissinger

Neal Kozodoy (introduction):

We are honored tonight by the presence of . . . another of Norman's elders, one whose schedule last year made it impossible for him to join us for the inaugural lecture. But, fresh off the plane from somewhere or other, and no doubt en route to somewhere else, he has made it here this evening to help us raise a glass to his young friend. In front of this tough crowd, I almost despair of explaining the deep personal bond that has grown over the years between these two men, who come at the grand questions of politics and policy, and no doubt at life itself, from such dissimilar assumptions and understandings--and the elder of whom, as he will not hesitate to remind you, has been, especially during the days when he served in high national office, the object of the younger's incessant reproof. Think of other improbable pairings in history: Moses and Aaron; da Vinci and

1

Machiavelli; Lewis and Clark; Martin and Lewis. Each of them unlikely, no? Now try to imagine any of these partners actually loving each other. Here to explain it all to you is Henry Kissinger.

Dr. Kissinger:

When I was serving in government, the idea that I would come to an occasion to celebrate Norman Podhoretz would have seemed absolutely grotesque to me. The truth is that I am a veteran of encounters with Norman. He attacked me from the Left, he's attacked me from the Right, and when we became good friends he attacked me from the front. In fact, I have spent my life trying to get a little approbation from Norman Podhoretz.

But it was correct to point out that what binds us together is huge admiration and deep affection. Norman is a prophet. He's written about prophets, and he thinks like a prophet--which means that he believes not only in absolute values but in the fact that absolute values must be realized instantly and that any time lag is unacceptable. And here am I, somebody who has tried to conduct foreign policy, which deals with the contingent and which tries to adapt goals to necessities. And therefore I have from time

2

to time fallen short of Norman's expectations--*frequently*
fallen short of Norman's expectations.

But I am here to tell you that the role that Norman
has performed in our society--to hold us true to our
values, to look into a future from a perspective of what is
needed and not of what is expedient--has been an
inspiration to me, and an inspiration to many others. We've
gone in this period through extraordinary changes: the
70's, with the 1973 war and with the debate over how to
deal with the Soviet Union; the 80's, with a gradual
victory in the cold war; the 90's, which to some seemed a
final culmination of history; and now the extraordinary
phenomenon of the reappearance of many of the issues that
were dealt with or had to be dealt with 30 years ago.

If one takes the debate on energy, for example: every
issue was before us 30 years ago, and was not solved then,
and has come back in more acute form. And now at this
moment we are facing a watershed. There are all kinds of
tactical discussions about how to deal with Iran, and we
all make contributions to those discussions. But there are
a number of fundamental principles to keep in mind. If Iran
acquires nuclear weapons, we will live in a new world. That
is *the* fundamental issue we must face. And our only choice
is either to prevent it, or to pay the price of not having

3

prevented it. We have to understand how much time we have
and what, in all the discussion of tactics, the penalties
are that we can exact. But above all we have to know that
this is not a tactical issue. This is a fundamental issue
of a historical turn.

But I am not here to make a speech on foreign policy.
I am here to say that whenever we are in a crisis we need
Norman more than ever--because he will make sure that we
will keep our eye on fundamentals. My wife says: he quotes
you all the time, but he's an optimist; he _believes_ that
life, that the world, can be better, and he feels we have a
_duty_ to make the world better, and he also knows that you
cannot do that by phrases, but only by commitment.

So I want to thank Roger [Hertog] and this evening's
organizers for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to
a man who has meant so much to our country, to the Jewish
people, to the future of freedom, and without whom it would
be hard for me to imagine what my life would have been
like. Thank you for giving this opportunity, and thank you
for letting me say a few words about a remarkable man.

4

David Gelernter
Podhoretz Lecture

May 17, 2006

It's an enormous honor to be speaking at Commentary's dinner in honor of Norman Podhoretz. Norman has been a leader of my personal pantheon since I was a teenager, which (Lord knows) was a long time ago; but his career is not only inspiring, it's mysterious. By training he's a literary critic. He studied with some of the great literary minds of the 20th century, notably Lionel Trilling (he was Trilling's favorite student) and FR Leavis; he was tipped as one of the sharpest critics of his generation—if there'd been a young critics draft, he would undoubtedly have been number one draft choice the year he emerged from graduate school & would probably have wound up at Harvard, or whatever university had finished last the year before; and even though he decided to become a real writer and editor instead of a professor, he published some brilliant literary criticism at the start of his career—and in recent years has done so again. Yet early in his brilliant career he threw literature over to write mainly about politics and contemporary culture. Why? Why did he hang up his gloves and turn his back on the field he loved and was made for?

Because the real character of this civilization of ours in broke in on Norman when he was a young man, and ever since he has been following the hardest, most exalted profession of all: he's been telling the truth. No man has been a better, straighter, braver truth-teller than Norman, no matter what it cost him—and it cost him plenty. A whole book full of ex-friends, for one; and much else. It was hard work, but there aren't too many men who have changed a great nation's political culture, and Norma is one. Nietzsche gives a description of

1

"philosopher" that's strikes me as just right for Norman. "This is a man," says Nietzsche, "who constantly experiences, sees, hears, suspects, hopes and dreams extraordinary things; who is struck by his own thoughts as if from outside, from above and below, as if by his type of events and lightning bolts; who is perhaps a storm himself, pregnant with new lightning." Throughout his career Norman has been a storm, angry and dangerous; cleansing and purifying; pregnant with new lightning; and he still is today. Reading Nietzsche's definition reminds us of how closely philosopher, poet and prophet are related; Norman represents all three lines of work. He didn't abandon literature, he transcended it. In my life no one on earth has been a greater inspiration, and I can't think of a bigger privilege than to speak at a dinner to do him honor.

As for Commentary—as Auden said about Freud, it’s an entire climate of opinion. It’s one of the world’s most important intellectual institutions. Think of its extraordinary influence on the political life of this country—it’s put more important thoughts *and* thinkers into play, during Norman’s reign and then Neal’s, than any other periodical or newspaper in the country. Commentary and its writers have more breadth, depth and throw-weight than any university department in the humanities or social science anywhere in the world—under the leadership of its dean, provost and president all in one, Neal Kozodoy. It’s a great honor and privilege to congratulate Commentary on having completed yet another year at ground zero of American culture.

And finally one word about Neal. My own career has been easy in some ways, hard in others—true of nearly everyone; and of absolutely everyone whose interests don’t quite line up with the standard categories. But the luckiest break in my professional life was meeting up with Neal Kozodoy. That blessing

2

overwhelms me still, and fills me with gratitude; I'll never be able to thank Neal for all he's done for me. But you can't blame a fellow for trying. Thank you, Neal.

And now I'd like to sit down—but I'm supposed to say a few words; and here they are.

If I were a rabbi or minister, I'd probably start with a Biblical text. I'm not, but I'd like to start with one anyway—and discuss it not from a religious point of view but from the viewpoint of a literary critic of American life—or a 2-bit street-corner philosopher, which is what I am. The text is familiar, from the Book of Psalms: "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

There are many things a rabbi could say. But what I'd like to say is that the psalmist has put his finger on one of the bitterest arguments in modern American life. Is religion political? Of course I don't mean, is it connected Democratic or Republican party politics? I mean, do the religious lives of the citizens matter to the nation as a whole? To the spiritual health and physical safety of this great American city on a hill? Or is religion (on the contrary) a strictly private affair? Does it *matter* if the Lord keep the city?

Americans are free to choose any religion they like, or to choose none. Over the roughly 400 years since Europeans first settled this continent, most Americans have been Jews or Christians. In asking whether the religious lives of American citizens matter to society as a whole or are merely and strictly private, one asks: is America (in some sense) a Judeo-Christian nation, or only a secular

3

nation with many Jewish and Christian citizens? I'd like to consider that
question, and then circle back to the biblical verse.

*****

Today, America's cultural leadership mostly says that the psalmist was wrong: Judeo-Christian ideas and beliefs don't matter to the public life of this nation. Our cultural leadership asserts that *America is a secular republic*; that secularism is in fact one of the great ideas on which this nation is built.

I want to assert to the contrary that America is no secular republic;
America is a *biblical republic*. A term I'll have to define or at least explain.

Our secularist culture-leaders are a large contingent—big wheels in elementary, high school and college teaching, at Ed schools, law and graduate schools, at major newspapers, the broadcast networks, the Hollywood studios. And some of our leading secularists are rabbis, ministers and priests—in “main-line,” left-leaning institutions.

Promoting the secularist agenda involves many kinds of hard work:
suppressing religion in public life, starting with “under God” in the pledge of
allegiance. Working to delete Judeo-Christian morals from the nation’s view of
childhood and what children should be taught. (Religion out, sex in.) Changing
the nation’s view of marriage and the family, its view of euthanasia and its ideas
on many other important topics.

4

In working on all these issues, secularist culture-leaders can't claim to be supported by a public consensus--because the public is floundering; there is no consensus. Mostly our leaders don't even bother to make such a claim. They claim instead to be defending the American way. In working on behalf of secularism, they claim to be realizing ideals that are latent in the American tradition, just as civil rights were latent in "all men are created equal."

Concretely they believe that America's founders and framers were secularist; or at least, not traditionally religious. And they believe that freedom of religion and separation of church and state *imply* secularism.

Are they right? *Were* the founders and framers essentially secularist?

There's far too much contrary evidence to mention, and it starts with the place of the Bible in early American life--especially the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible. The 17th-century Puritan settlers who did so much to create the idea of America were obsessed with the Bible, and saw many Bible stories mirrored in their own lives, including the resettlement of Abraham that begins Israel's history—and the exodus above all. They had escaped a tyrant and settled in a new promised land. "Let my people go"—in Exodus 5:1 and many other verses—was understood to explain the Puritan emigration to America in the 17th century—as it would later explain the American revolution of the 18th, and the Civil War of the 19th as Lincoln came to interpret it. The same phrase would play a role in the civil rights movement and in several other struggles of the 20th century too.

5

As for the founding fathers themselves, consider an incident Michael Novak discusses in his seminal *On Two Wings* (2002). "The first official prayer before the Continental Congress was Psalm 35, [read] aloud from the Book of Common Prayer..." -it begins 'Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me.' "The emotion in the room was palpable," Novak continues, "and John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail that he 'had never heard a better prayer.... I never saw a greater effect upon an audience. It seemed that heaven had ordained that psalm to be read.... I saw tears gush into the eyes of the old, grave pacifist Quakers of Philadelphia.... I must beg you to read that Psalm."

The founding fathers were not biased against religion, they were biased in favor--especially of biblical religion. One glance at the proposed seal for the new Republic, designed in 1776 by a congressional committee of Adams, Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, makes that clear—it showed Israel crossing the Red Sea, with the divine pillar of fire and the motto "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." The founding fathers had the Bible on their minds; and would almost certainly have agreed with the psalmist: Religion must guide not merely private life but public and political life. Political from *polis*, city. "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

Much of today's cultural leadership argues also that freedom of religion and separation of church and state *imply* secularism.

Religious freedom is indeed, *is of course*, a founding and guiding principle of this nation. But this noble idea is often misunderstood. Freedom doesn't imply indifference. "I won't interfere" doesn't imply "I don't care." Perhaps I

6

have no right to interfere; nonetheless I might strongly prefer one choice, or
dislike another. Parents often say: you may choose any college you like; any
major you like. Some parents even say "you may marry anybody you like."
(Misguided parents.) Which certainly does *not* mean "we don't *care* what college
you choose, what major you choose, what wife or husband you marry." The
American public is *not* unconcerned whether you choose to be religious or an
atheist; whether you choose a biblical religion or some other kind. Although it
respects non-biblical religions (especially ones with their own scriptures) far
more than it does atheism, it strongly prefers biblical religion.

The founders believed that a religious public is essential to a free nation—
and by accident or on purpose, they hit on the best method for achieving one. If
it's important that everyone eat ice cream, let everyone choose his own flavor.
America's religion menu can't compare with Britain's several centuries ago,
when Voltaire is supposed to have said that "England is the nation with five
thousand religions and one sauce." (A perfect summary of the French
worldview, on practically everything.) But it's still no surprise that America,
with its history of absolute religious freedom, should have a far more "religious"
public today than any other nation in the West. In fact, sad to say, America
today might easily be a more Christian country than Israel is a Jewish one.

In sum: secularism is not a great American idea, and is *not* inherent in
America's founding documents *or* in the thought of America's founding fathers.
But something else *is* inherent in both, and *is* a great American idea. I'll call it
"democratic chivalry."

7

There's an important point here about America that far transcends the import of identifying some new category for discussion of debate. Too many intellectuals (and other naïve Americans) believe that, where the big problems of war and peace are concerned, in principle you have two choices. You can be pro-war or anti-war. You can be pacifist or a war-monger. When it comes to war in Iraq there are (as always) two choices-- and it's impossible that intellectuals and their followers should be war-mongers. So they're pacifists, and oppose the war in Iraq.

This is a failure of reason and language; a failure to know history. In fact there are three choices, not two. You can be pacifist, **chivalrous**, or a war-monger. The middle alternative (chivalry) doesn't mean that you are "in favor of war." It means that you accept it as a terrible tool for accomplishing noble goals.

Chivalry is essentially a religious idea, a Judeo-Christian idea, a biblical idea. Roughly 200 years ago Edmund Burke famously wrote that "The age of chivalry is gone: that of sophisters, economists and calculators has succeeded: and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever." The glory of Europe, maybe. But what should we call the heroism of America's combat troops in Iraq, who fight bravely for the weak against the strong every day, if not chivalrous?

Chivalry in medieval and late-medieval Europe made noblemen believe that they had a Christian duty to butt in on the side of right. In the late 1200s, the Spaniard Ramon Lull wrote a handbook of chivalry that required aspirants to "protect the weak, women, widows and orphans"; required a knight to "be ready to go out from his castle to defend the ways and to pursue robbers and malefactors." In other words, to make the world safe for decent people. In another treatise of around 1350, the Frenchman Geoffrey de Charny wrote that

8

"those who have served with distinction in wars in their own land are to be honoured, but still more to be honoured are those who have seen service in 'distant and strange countries.'"

Even though chivalry was a Christian duty, its underpinnings lay in classical Israel—which in time made chivalry a perfect fit to American thinking. Chivalry required godly heroes. Classical Greece and Rome could provide heroes but not godly ones; the New Testament doesn't deal much in heroes at all. So medieval authorities looked to the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha. "For the perfect model of knighthood," de Charny continued, "one should look to Judas Maccabeus, who was worthy and hardy, handsome but without pride, ever honourable, a great fighter who died armed in God's cause. He who can be likened to this noble knight will come to the highest honour in chivalry."

And what *are* the Hebrew Prophets (after all) but recruiters for proto-knights in arms to protect windows and orphans, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and above all free the captive all over the world--while cleansing and purifying the service of the Lord?

America took up this same large theme of chivalry; but American chivalry unlike Europe's had nothing to do with aristocracy. Americans believed nearly from the first that it was their Christian (or Judeo-Christian) duty to intervene on the side of right. And they have groped steadily towards the realization of these principles. Americans started lecturing the world on right and wrong long before the United States was born. (One reason the world loves us so much.) Lincoln taught the nation to look at war not only as a means of self-protection but as an instrument of God's justice, a way to do God's work. If God wills that

9

the Civil War continue, said Lincoln in the second inaugural, "until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said: The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." (Psalms 19:9) Woodrow Wilson turned Lincoln's worldview outward. Today in Iraq the nation is struggling to digest the new dangers, opportunities and chivalrous duties of the post-Cold War world.

So it's not *secularism* that inheres in the idea of America. It's chivalry, with an American twist. Chivalry as a profoundly serious, *religious* ideal—a Judeo-Christian idea—a *biblical* idea. And a nation that adds chivalry to its worldview must agree with the psalmist: religion is a *public* not only a private matter.

I hope this all helps explain why I call America a biblical republic. A "biblical republic" is no theocracy; nor is it ruled by Biblical law. The only definition I have is informal. *A biblical republic has the Bible on its mind,* the way you might be obsessed with a melody you can't get out of your head. A biblical republic is full of citizens who agree with Samuel Taylor Coleridge when he said that "In the Bible, there is more that *finds* me than in all other books put together."

The words and stories of the Bible are in America's ear, on its mind, in its heart; they are the wallpaper and elevator music of American life. And sometimes—especially in hard times—the background becomes the foreground, and the Bible gets woven right into the stuff of American history.

10

Of course the assertion that America has the Bible on its mind is hard to prove. I won't even try. But I want to describe a small handful of episodes that hint at the truth. There are a lot more where these come from.

I have already spoken of the Puritans, who consistently projected themselves into Biblical stories and cited Biblical passages with new words dubbed in to make the point that America was a new promised land and they themselves were new Israelites. This is well known. So let me skip several centuries forward, to Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln's knowledge of the Old and New Testament was profound, and the Bible was deeply important to him—"the best gift God has given to man," he called the Bible; "But for it we could not know right from wrong."

Lincoln said "I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go"--although he had difficulties even calling himself a Christian. He refused throughout his life to join a church. Yet he often went to church. And he explained his refusal to join this way: "When any church will inscribe over its altar as its sole qualification of membership the Saviour's condensed statement of the substance of both the law and Gospel, Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself,--that Church will I join with all my heart and soul." Of course he is referring, as Jesus himself did, to two verses in the Hebrew Bible, in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. George Washington personally added the Bible to the presidential inauguration ceremony; he reached impulsively, intuitively for the Bible as an expression of

11

unity, of America's unofficial yet *chosen* religion—Judeo-Christianity, *biblical* religion. Lincoln did him one better: he put Jesus right at the center of his spiritual life, yet derived its substance wholly from the Hebrew Bible. And the Hebrew Bible is the text Lincoln cited in his climactic statement to America in the second inaugural. Lincoln knew America profoundly, and had the uncanny gift of elevating the democratic consensus like a chalice to the level of sanctity.

Lincoln is our last founding father (he completed what the others started) and the most important religious figure in American history. And he would certainly have agreed that, "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." Biblical religion is a private *and* public affair.

Now let me skip a few decades again, to a different kind of story.

In October 1897, Columbia University dedicated its Morningside Heights campus, not *too* many blocks from here. Its eminent former president Seth Low spoke in the rotunda of the new library that had been named for him. "The founders of this university," he said, "looked upon God as the source of all wisdom, and they placed upon the college seal as its motto for all time 'In thy light we shall see light.'" From Psalms 36. [36:10] "A century and a half of years almost have rolled around since then," he continued, "and the authorities of Columbia still believe that this is the spirit in which all study should be carried on. The seal of the college is set in the pavement of the corridor just outside the entrance to this room. I can hardly imagine a better motto for a library or for a university."

12

Nowadays an Ivy League University is the last place you'd look for a celebration of the Bible. But it wasn't always so, and at Low Library, the campus itself says what the faculty would mostly rather forget.

Another step ahead: In his January 1942 State of the Union message, weeks after Pearl Harbor and the Nazi declaration of war, FDR said, "We are inspired by a faith which goes back through all the years to the first chapter of the Book of Genesis: "God created man in His own image." We on our side are striving to be true to that divine heritage...."

Certainly America as a nation had the Bible on its mind during the Second World War. Sometimes the Bible was woven into life on the frontlines too. The best movie ever made about World War II—though not the best known, by a long shot—dates from 1949, it’s about a small unit trapped in the Battle of the Bulge. It’s no documentary or newsreel. But sometimes art can be truer than life.

The film shows us the front lines as America pictured them, or remembered them, or chose to remember them, only a few years later. Life in the mud, bedded down in a frozen hole, where each night offered a fresh chance of being blown to bits by a shell or a bomb; winners picked strictly at random. Guaranteed.

The movie is called *Battleground*—directed by William Wellman at MGM. The story is about the famous battle for Bastogne, where the Americans are surrounded by Nazis and smothered under snow and fog; but the sub-text is about a young soldier seeing combat for the first time, and his changing attitude to a verse from Isaiah. At first he clutches it like a child with a security blanket.

13

Then he pushes it away bitterly: as the danger grows the verse seems to mock him--and he mocks it. "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint." From Isaiah 40. (40:31) But in the end it sees him through. The fog lifts and the air force can mount up once again with wings as eagles, and the infantry can at last renew its strength, and run and not be weary, and walk and not faint.

In the end the soldier sees that it's okay to lean on the Bible, even to draw comfort where the facts don't seem to justify any. Because if you advance the Bible some trust and some faith--it will pay you back in the end. It will make the debt good.

And once again we find Americans with the Bible on their minds, who likely believed that, "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

One final leap forward takes us to a modern transitional president, John F Kennedy. Kennedy was the bridge between Eisenhower, hero of the Second World War, and LBJ, during whose administration America began to come apart at the seams.

Secularist intellectuals run American culture today because of two simultaneous events between the late 1940s and the late '60s: the coup of the intellectuals; the breakout of the universities. In the coup, America's left-leaning secularist intelligentsia took over American universities; henceforth intellectual (not social) bigshots would be faculty stars, and top colleges would recruit

14

students with good intellectual and not social bloodlines. During the breakout of
the universities, American colleges and graduate schools and (especially)
professional schools came to dominate much of U.S. culture.

At all events, JFK and his staff wrote a speech for him to deliver at lunch on Nov 22, 1963. Of course he didn't live until lunch, and this speech was in a sense his last. Its *very* last line was a quotation from the Psalms: Psalm 127, verse 1. "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

Kennedy never made the speech; he never quoted the verse; the secularists took over American culture instead. And ever since, Kennedy's (so to speak) unspoken last words and that withhold verse have overhung the American landscape like a heavy cloud in a dry, drier, finally drought-stricken land. Today in our biblical drought, the cloud still hangs there.

Kennedy kept a personal Bible in the bedside table on Air Force 1; LBJ was sworn in using that Bible. But right after the swearing-in, that Bible disappeared. An unknown stranger asked for it at the Dallas airport, the judge who'd administered the oath turned it over--and as of 1967, when William Manchester published his semi-official book on the assassination, it had never been seen again.

Which makes a perfect, ominous picture of the end of an age: the Biblical warning that is never delivered; the Bible that vanishes into the hands of a somebody no one seems to know, who was wandering around the field at Dallas. One can't help thinking of verses from Job: "The Lord said unto Satan whence

15

comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord and said, From going to and fro in
the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

Years after the assassination the Bible turned up somehow, and today it's
in the LBJ museum at the University of Texas. So this isn't really the story of a
missing Bible, it's the story of a missing story. When the Bible was lost it was a
big deal; when it was found, no one cared very much any more.

Yet the Bible is still waiting for someone to pick it up and read out that
missing verse from Psalms--the silence at the center of our noisy national life.
The withheld verse. The verse Kennedy meant to read, before the culture war
closed in.

Today the public is uncertain and foundering. Polls show it. On the one
hand, America remains strongly Christian; but knowledge of the Bible is
collapsing, among young people especially. A majority of Americans opposes
the marriage-mocking plans of the homosexual rights contingent—brutal plans
to kidnap a sacred ceremony, and violate it; but the majority that insists on the
sanctity and sacred resonance of marriage seems to grow steadily smaller. A
case like Terri Schiavo's seems to pose the simplest kind of moral question: when
a person is too sick or weak to speak for herself, and has made no serious plans
for this contingency--is it all right to kill her? When her parents plead for her
life? If it is all right, might it at least be okay to slip the dying woman an ice-chip
while she starves to death, at a time when she's suffering agonizing thirst—or
might be? America's duly constituted legal authorities approved the killing;
forbade the ice-chip. And the public wasn't sure whether it agreed or not. A

16

terrifying low-point in this nation's moral pulse, which almost disappeared. At that moment our heart nearly stopped.

Why is the public confused? Why is it foundering? The Bible has
temporarily been dismissed from American public life. We no longer have the
Bible on our minds. That might be part of the reason.

Ultimately morality can't get any purchase without religion; without
divinity to hold onto, morality is a first-time roller-skater trying but failing to
keep its rear end off the floor. But today's secularists have left morality far
behind and foresee a society where human rights have replaced human duties;
where only the state has obligations and the passive, bovine citizenry can relax
and let the government take care of everything.

But the secularists won't succeed. Someday soon someone will remind us
that tolerance is American but secularism is not. That absolute religious freedom
is American but contempt for religion is not. That religious doubt is American
but religious indifference is not. That heated religious debate is American but
cold academic disdain is not. That chivalry is American but complacency is not.
And someone will take up that Bible that was lost and found, and read out the
missing verse, or shout it out—and sounds of Bible will return full-flood to the
sullen, cracked, dry earth of American public life—and we'll say with the Song of
Songs “The winter is past.... The flowers appear in the land.” We'll remember
that “Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain”; and we'll
be proud once again of who we are.

17

Committee for Economic Development

2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 296-5860
Fax: (202) 223-0776

MAR 27 2006

March 24, 2006

Dear Colleague:

I am pleased to invite you to a special luncheon forum sponsored by the Committee for Economic Development (CED), featuring remarks from Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT), to highlight the recent successes of the reform movement in Washington and to underscore the need for further action. The event will take place on Monday, April 24th from 12:00 pm to 2:00 p.m. in New York City at the Waldorf=Astoria, 301 Park Avenue.

Congressman Shays has long been a principal champion of reform in Washington. He helped lead the fight for campaign finance reform in Congress that resulted in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). At our lunch, the Congressman will discuss several timely reform topics, such as the success of BCRA; the proliferation of "Section 527" groups formed to circumvent the BCRA "soft money" ban; the need for comprehensive lobbying reform; and the importance of improving ethics in government.

CED is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy research organization led by 200 senior corporate executives and university presidents. CED has worked closely with Congressman Shays on campaign finance reform and played a key role in building support among the business community for enacting BCRA and in defending the law against a constitutional challenge in *McConnell v. FEC*.

Last year, CED released a policy statement, *Building on Reform: A Business Proposal to Strengthen Election Finance*, that deals with the critical post-BCRA issues, such as regulating "527" groups; reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC); and strengthening the Presidential public financing system. CED will continue its work on "money and politics" issues with an ambitious new project that will examine how to make Washington work better. The project co-chairs are W. Bowman Cutter, Managing Director, Warburg Pincus LLC; Roderick M. Hills, Chairman, Hills & Stern LLP; and Edward A. Kangas, Retired Chairman and CEO, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. The project will be directed by Dr. James A. Thurber, Director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University.

I hope you will be able to join us on April 24th. Please RSVP via the enclosed form or contact Rachel Pilliod at 202.296.5860 ext 20 or rachel.pilliod@ced.org with any questions.

Enc.

DATE 3/30/06

CORR. FILE Connecticut Republicans

SUBJ. FILE

CROSS REF.

STAFF MEMO

COMMENTS:

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED

CORRIERE DELLA SERA

Alessandra Farkas
U.S. Correspondent

U.S. Bureau:
31 West 57th Street 4th Floor • New York, NY • 10019
Tel: (212) 308-2000 • Fax: (212) 308-3719
E-mail: afarkas@rcs.it

August 10, 2006

Dear Ms. Leporin,

I am the U.S. Correspondent of *Corriere della Sera*, the oldest and most highly circulated Italian daily newspaper, read in Italy and throughout the world by over 6 million people.

I would like to request an interview with Henry Kissinger, at his earliest possible convenience, on the documentary "The U.S. vs. John Lennon." The interview can be done by phone or by e-mail, whichever Mr. Kissinger prefers, and will be prominently published in *Corriere della Sera*.

The deadline for the article I am writing is August 16, 2006, so please let me know at your earliest convenience if and when he will be available, so that we may schedule a time for the interview. I look forward to your response and thank you for your time.

Kindest regards,

Alessandra Farkas
US Correspondent

Email: afarkas@rcs.it
Mobile: (917) 715-1947
Office: (212) 418-2319
Home: (212) 678-2050
Country: (845) 246-1148

October 2006

Kissinger & Associates, Inc.
350 Park Ave., floor 26
New York, NY 10022

Attention: Mr. Henry Kissinger

Dear Mr. Kissinger,

With some recollection of memories by chance you may remember the Casino Restaurant in Albany, New York.

I am Donald Cotter, son of Orfina Cotter who along with my grandfather John DiSciullo owned and operated the Casino.

The purpose of my letter is to inform you that my wife Janet, under my direction and guidance, has written a book of history and recipes on the Casino Restaurant. We felt it was a courtesy to inform you that you and Nancy are named in the book. It is an honor to name you along with Governor Rockefeller, Senator John Kennedy and other great names in history that frequented the restaurant when in town for legislative sessions.

The book has not gone to print as of this date we are presently seeking a publisher. This is only to inform you of our intentions regarding the mention of your name.

I remember your visits to the restaurant as I assisted my grandfather cooking and on occasion when I served tables. It was always a memorable evening when you visited.

Upon closing I hope this letter finds you and your family doing well and in good health.

Best regards,

Donald R. Cotter
36 South Riverwalk Dr.
Palm Coast, FL 32137
386-439-0590

OCT 10 2006

HAK:

Robbie Lyle forwards a letter from MGen.
Bernard Loeffke, who was on your staff at
the NSC in the early 1970s, and in '72, as
Director of the White House Fellows, took
the Fellows to China. Later he was assigned
to the US Embassy in Beijing.

He hopes you will write a letter to Stan
Cottrell, who hopes to repeat a 1984 "friend
ship run" this October at age 63 from the
Great Wall to Hong Kong. Lyle says the
Chinese government would appreciate your letter
of support for this project.

OK ✓ Forget it

SSM

DATE : 12/20/06

CORR. FILE Cottrell, Stan

ACTION: Paul Stape Dennis

SUBJ. FILE

Josh Jessee Maggie

CROSS REF.

Security Suzanne Theresa STAFF MEMO

COMMENTS:

DC OFFICE:
Christie / Jody / Ann /Rose

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED

88 St James's Street
London
SW1A 1PL

Tel. 020 7930 3570
Fax. 020 7839 4700

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Kissinger Associates
River House
350 Park Avenue
New York

20th December 2006

Dear Dr. Kissinger

I trust this email finds you well. I recently spoke to Chris Vick about the content of this letter. Chris kindly suggested that I write to you directly regarding the long-distance runner Stan Cottrell, and on the advice of Maggie in your office I am sending this to you directly through her.

The letter which I was copied in to from Major General Bernard Loeffke (attached) is self-explanatory. I understand that the Chinese government would appreciate a letter of support from both yourself and, separately, President George Bush Snr. The Chinese people continue to regard you as the most eminent Americans alive today. I hope that time will allow you to assist Stan's cause. Coincidentally, I recently spoke to Bill Niggemyer who I am sure would like to pass on to you his very best personal wishes.

A small piece of personal news; I remarried last year to a wonderful lady called Lysanne (formerly Koetser).

Currently I am working on a joint proposal with Harvard and Wharton Business School, the World Energy Council and the IAEA to do with political risk and political terrorism insurance of nuclear fuel supplies worldwide. When my mind wanders onto Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace", you often spring to mind.

I trust that you have a great holiday and send my best personal respects to you and your whole family.

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 06:57:35 -0800 (PST)

Dear Doctor Kissinger,

You were my boss in the early 1970s when I was a young LtColonel
working in the NSC. In 1972 I came back again to DC to be the
Director of the White House Fellows when Colin Powell was one of the
fellows. When you opened China to the US in 1972 you encouraged my
proposal to take the Fellows to China that year following President
Nixon's visit. It was the start of my China experience that I had
only known from the receiving end of Chinese shrapnel in Vietnam. In
1982 I became the first Army General to be assigned to the US Embassy
in Beijing. It was then that I met you again as you were travelling
with the late Senator Jackson. You introduced me as one of your
colonels who had made good.

Please see my website; www.helpingotherstoday.com

It was during 1982 that I helped a man, Stan Cottrell, who has become
my friend. He is an incredible athlete, motivator and humble
ambassador whose goal is to create friendships between nations. He
does this with his friendship runs. In 1984 he ran from the Great
Wall to Canton at the age of 42. He ran forty miles a day for 58
days. Now at age 63 he will run the same route and add about 100 more
kilometers as he will finish in Hong Kong instead of Canton. He will
start his run in Oct of 2007. His 1984 run did more to better Sino/US
relations than anything we did in the embassy that year. We see this
run by a 63 year old American through China as one of the most
exiting things in 2007. If 1984 was a success the 2007 run will be an
inspiration. Chinese magazines and TV have started running clips of
his 1984 run.

You, Dr Kissinger, are revered in China and your words encouraging
Mr. Cottrell will be welcomed by millions. Stan mentioned that Mr.
Robbie Lyle has also written you and I wanted to join him in
respectfully requesting that you consider sending Mr. Cottrell your
words of encouragement.

Very Respectfully
Bernard Loeffke
MGeneral USA(R)

DATE 5/1/06

CORR. FILE Siedenzahn, Michael

COMMENTS:

SUBJ. FILE

CROSS REF.

STAFF MEMO

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED

Autogramm **COUNTDOWN** 3

Liebe Fußballfans!

Warum fasziniert
der Fußball Mil-
liarden Mensch-
en weltweit und zieht
sie in seinen Bann?

Die Antwort ist

simpel: Keine
andere Sport-
art ist so

leicht zu ver-
stehen.

Aber
gleichzei-
tig ist es
so schwer,
den Aus-
gang eines
Fußball-
spiels vor-
herzusagen.

Auch ich
kann mich
dieser Fas-
zination seit
meiner Kind-
heit nicht mehr
entziehen. Als
Junge kickte ich
lieber mit meinen
Freunden, als zu
Hause für die
Schule zu lernen.

Immerhin spielte ich
in der Schülemann-
schaften des jüdischen
Sportklubs der KAnalya
und der SpVgg. Fürth und
war Kapitän meiner Klassen-
mannschaft. Vielleicht verste-
hen Sie jetzt, warum ich seit der
WM 1970 in Mexiko – mit Aus-

nahme der WM in Japan
und Südkorea – keine
Fußball-Weltmeister-
schaft verpasst
habe. Mein erstes
WM-Spiel war das
Finale 1970 Brasilien
gegen Italien und
ich erlebte
erstmals
die

sagenhafte Spielkunst von Pelé. Er ist
für mich der beste Stürmer aller
Zeiten. Kein anderer Spieler hat öfter
die menschliche Dimension über-
troffen und mit seiner Spielfreude so
viele Menschen begeistert.

Der »Kaiser« in New York. Vier
Jahre später saß ich als Zuschauer im
Münchner Olympiastadion beim WM-
Finale zwischen Deutschland und den
Niederlanden. Ein fantastisches Spiel,
bei dem das bessere gegen das diszi-
plinierte Team verlor. Ich entdeckte
dabei einen anderen großartigen
Spieler: Franz Beckenbauer. Er ist für
mich der größte Stratege des Spiels.
Einige Jahre später traf ich den
»Kaiser« in New York wieder. Wir lern-
ten uns näher kennen und führten
viele Gespräche über das Thema Fuß-
ball. Momentan sehe ich keinen
Spieler, der die Klasse und Persön-
lichkeit von Pelé oder Beckenbauer
hat. Vielleicht liegt es an der Art, wie
heute Fußball gespielt wird. Das Spiel
ist inzwischen sehr standardisiert, es
produziert kaum noch Dramen und
Helden so wie 1970 das Halbfinale
zwischen Deutschland und Italien.
Dennoch bin ich auf die Fußball-Welt-
meisterschaft in Deutschland sehr
gespannt. Als gebürtiger Fürther
freue ich mich natürlich auf die WM-
Spiele in Nürnberg. Dort sah ich 1938
mein erstes Länderspiel. Deutschland
spielte damals 1:1-Unentschieden
gegen Ungarn. Und natürlich werde
ich das Finale im Olympiastadion
Berlin am 9. Juli nicht versäumen.
Vielleicht werde ich dann ja einen
Spieler entdecken, der die Massen
ähnlich fasziniert wie es Pelé oder
Beckenbauer früher getan haben.

Ihr

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger (82) war Außenminister der USA (1973-1977) und erhielt 1973 den Friedens-nobelpreis. Bei der FIFA WM 1994 in den USA war er im Organisa-tionskomitee tätig.

Foto: dpa

3/21/06

HK: Michael Siedenhans of *Countdown*, 2006 FIFA World Cup magazine, hopes for either an interview or article on your memories/ impressions of the 1974 semifinal between the Netherlands & Brazil, which he believes you attended (July 3rd in Dortmund).

According to your travel schedule (attached), you were in the Soviet Union & Belgium that day. But if you somehow managed to squeeze in a secret trip to Dortmund, also attached is a recap of the match, as well as an overview of the '74 World Cup.

DEADLINE: MON. APR. 3RD

Wasn't at the match____

soon but

I did attend; Jessee can schedule interview✓ brief

I did attend; will write article, find out length____

Prefer____

Jody

IFA World Cup - Classic Moments from FIFA World Cup History

Page 1 of

FIFA worldcup.com »

Hi, Guest | Sign In

THE OFFICIAL SITE FOR THE 2006 FIFA WORLD CUP GERMANY™

FIFA WORLD CUP
GERMANY
2006

YAHOO!
OFFICIAL PARTNER

Home

Tournament

Destination Germany

Fun and Games

Organisation

Classic Football

Mobile

CLASSIC FOOTBALL

Classic Football Home

Previous FIFA World Cups™

Golden Zone

Matches Database

Classic Coaches

Classic Stadiums

Classic Games

Classic Players

Video Archives

History

Search

Select a Team

Help

Site Feedback

Official Sponsors
UNICEF
SOS Children's Village
FIFA.com

1974: Netherlands - Brazil

Overview

Watch Video Clips

Date: 03 July 1974

Stadium: Westfalenstadion

City: Dortmund, Germany

Attendace: 52500

© AFP

NETHERLANDS 2:0 BRAZIL

[NEESKENS Johan (NED) 50', CRUYFF Johan (NED) 65']

Colossuses facing in different directions

It was a clash of two footballing titans in the second group stage of the 1974 FIFA World Cup Germany™ when the Netherlands met Brazil. Two of the best and most entertaining sides in the world had all to play for as the winner would head into the final match. against either hosts West Germany or Poland. Both teams were playing well, neither had lost yet in the tournament and each had won their first two matches of the second stage.

But there was extra spice to this clash. Brazil were the champions and had been since 1958 (save for a four-year spell after 1966). They were not just winners but they won in style with technique and skill the talk and envy of every nation. Holland were the young pretenders, threatening to steal the crown from the South Americans and do it in a style combining European efficiency with skills the equal of anything on view on the beaches of Brazil. While styles hardly clashed, colours did and Brazil swapped their canary yellow shirts for blue ones with the Netherlands lining up in white instead of their famous orange.

Total Football and life after the beautiful game

This was the golden generation of Dutch football, all shaggy hair, sideburns and intelligence. Of course it was the team of "Total Football", where defenders attacked and attackers defended. And at the centre of it all was captain Johan Cruyff leading by example. He seemed to turn up wherever there might be space and that always meant danger when he had the ball at his

feet. The key to the team though was that the other players filled in around Cruyff and combined to form a coherent whole even when they seemed destined to drift into chaos.

© Popperfoto

The probing acumen of Johan Neeskens was also vital to the team,

Classic Games

1998: Nigeria - Spain

1994: Brazil - Netherlands

1986: Brazil - France

1986: USSR - Belgium

1966: Portugal - Korea DPR

More...

Trivia Game

Test Your Knowledge

Kick your football smarts into gear and see if you can outmatch our experts.

Photo Zone

Previous FIFA World Cup™ Photos

Korea/Japan 2002

France 1998

USA 1994

Italy 1990
More Photos

Spotlight

Teams

Meet the Teams on the road to 2006.

Continental Zones

Get the latest updates on Continental Zones.

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/p/cg/ned_bra_1974.html

3/21/200

FIFA worldcup.com

YAHOO!

Close Window

FIFA

For the Good of the Game

## Match Report

### Fédération Internationale de Football Association

Hitzigweg 11 P.O. Box 85 8030 Zurich Switzerland Tel: +41-43/222 7777 Fax: +41-43/222 7878

## Netherlands - Brazil

Match

Date
03-JUL-74

Venue
[Dortmund]

Stadium
[Westfalenstadion]

Time

2:0 (0:0)

Spectators
52500

### Goals Scored

NEESKENS Johan (NED) 50', CRUYFF Johan (NED) 65'.

## Netherlands

[ 2 ] HAAN Adrianus

[ 3 ] VAN HANEGEM Wim

[ 6 ] JANSEN Wim

[ 8 ] JONGBLOED Jan (GK)

[12] KROL Ruud

[13] NEESKENS Johan (-85')

[14] CRUYFF Johan

[15] RENSENBRINK Rob (-67')

[16] REP Jonny

[17] RIJSBERGEN Wim

[20] SUURBIER Wim

## Brazil

[ 1 ] LEAO Emerson (GK)

[ 2 ] LUIS PEREIRA

[ 3 ] MARINHO PERES

[ 4 ] ZE MARIA I

[ 6 ] FRANCISCO MARINHO

[ 7 ] JAIRZINHO

[10] RIVELINO

[11] PAULO CESAR (-61')

[13] VALDOMIRO

[17] CARPEGGIANI

[21] DIRCEU

### Substitutes

[ 1 ] GEELS Ruud

[ 4 ] VAN IERSSEL Cornelius

[ 5 ] ISRAEL Rinus (+85')

[ 7 ] DE JONG Theo (+67')

[ 9 ] KEIZER Piet

[10] VAN DE KERKHOF Rene

[11] VAN DE KERKHOF Willy

[18] SCHRIJVERS Peter (GK)

[19] STRIK Pleun

[21] TREYTEL Eddy (GK)

[22] VOS Harry

### Substitutes

[ 5 ] PIAZZA

[ 8 ] LEINVINHA

[ 9 ] CESAR AUGUSTO

[12] RENATO (GK)

[14] NELINHO

[15] ALFREDO III

[16] MARCO ANTONIO

[18] ADEMIR II

[19] MIRANDINHA (+61')

[20] EDU

[22] VALDIR PERES

Coach MICHELS Rinus

Coach ZAGALLO Mario

### Cautions

ZE MARIA I (BRA) 37', MARINHO PERES (BRA) 44', REP Jonny (NED) 69'.

### Expulsions

LUIS PEREIRA (BRA) 84'.

### Match Officials

Referee TSCHENSCHER Kurt, GER

Asst. Ref. SUPPIAH Govinahsamy, SIN

Asst. Ref. DAVIDSON Robert, SCO

Copyright © FIFA 2002

Page 1 of

FIFA worldcup.com »

Hi, Guest | Sign In

FIFA WORLD CUP
GERMANY
2006

YAHOO!
OFFICIAL PARTNER

Home

Tournament

Destination Germany

Fun and Games

Organisation

Classic Football

Mobile

CLASSIC FOOTBALL

Classic Football Home

Previous FIFA World Cups™

Golden Zone

Matches Database

Classic Coaches

Classic Stadiums

Classic Games

Classic Players

Video Archives

History

Search

Select a Team

NEED A PLACE
TO STAY?

Help

Site Feedback

Germany 1974

Tournament : Overview | Results | Photo Gallery

Preliminary : Overview | Results

Other Previous FIFA World Cups™

Another host triumph as the West Germans took the new FIFA World Cup™ for the first time with a quite exceptional display of the hard-running, interchanging style in a tournament remembered for the arrival of "total football".

The Netherlands, with Johan Cruyff outstanding, beat Argentina 4-0 and Brazil 2-0 to announce their arrival, but could not overcome West Germany in the final and went down 2-1, Gerd Müller, "Der Bomber", typically scoring the winner.

Awards for the 1974 FIFA World Cup™

20 years on...

West Germany, after a somewhat shaky start to the tournament, eventually ran into form to win "its" FIFA World Cup. In the final, led by the "Kaiser", Franz Beckenbauer, the West Germans were at the top of their game to beat a brilliant Netherlands side. The 10th FIFA World Cup tournament in Germany in 1974 was marked by the arrival of colour television! And as if to highlight this cultural revolution even more, the "Weltmeisterschaft 74" featured two other major changes. The first was a change in the tournament rules. The first round group system followed by knock-out in the second round was replaced by a group system in both rounds. The second change was the replacing of the Jules Rimet trophy - won outright by Brazil four years earlier after winning the FIFA World Cup three times (1958, 1962, 1970) - by a new solid gold statuette known as the "FIFA World Cup".

Like its predecessor, the new trophy, sculpted by Silvio Gazzaniga, was coveted by many, and 98 nations took part in the qualifiers. Notable first-time qualifiers for the finals were East Germany, Haiti, Australia and Zaire, the first sub-Saharan African nation to reach the FIFA World Cup proper. But Hungary, Spain, France and most surprisingly England all failed to make it through. As a prologue to its vanguard tournament, FIFA appointed itself a new President, the first non-European, when the Brazilian João Havelange replaced Englishman Sir Stanley Rous, who had held the post since 1961.

Did You Know?

East Germany's 1-0 win over their political enemies from the west, on opposition territory too, may not have had much meaning in the sporting sense since both teams had already qualified for the next round. It certainly had an emotional effect, however: the West Germans were shaken and their captain Franz Beckenbauer reacted in a manner unusual for this

Photo Gallery

Tournament Photos

Video Clips

Video Highlights

Wallpaper

1024x768 | 800x600

Classic Game

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/p/pwc/1974.html

3/21/200

Page 2 of

On the field, the favourites, West Germany, qualified for the second round, if rather unconvincingly. And following a defeat at the hands of East Germany in the first round, there was even a minor revolution: Beckenbauer, the team captain, was begged by his team-mates to urge coach Helmut Schön to make changes in the team's line-up and tactics.

For the team from the Netherlands, however, which included in its ranks Cruyff, Neeskens, Rep and Rensenbrink, it was all plain sailing as they qualified from both the first and second rounds, beating Argentina (4-0), East Germany (2-0) and Brazil (2-0) by playing the brand of "total football" made famous by the Dutch club side, Ajax. The revelation of the tournament proved to be the multi-talented Polish team which finished third, with its ace marksman Gzregorz Lato crowned as the competition's top goal-scorer (7 goals).

part of the world - he held a crisis meeting with the team and later appeared on television to explain the situation to an unsettled public. With evident success - 20 years after the "Wonder of Bern" the West Germans went on to win their second World Cup.

Scotland, as has since become their wont, failed to qualify for the second round of the World Cup final tournament, but they came very close. One win and two draws in their group matches were still not enough and they were eliminated early. To add to their disappointment they finally proved to be the only undefeated team of the competition.

The Poles, however, could not stop the Germans from reaching the final against the Netherlands. The final began dramatically as Cruyff was brought down in the German penalty area following a solo run. The Dutch took the lead from the ensuing Neeskens penalty before the Germans had even touched the ball and with just a minute gone on the clock. German pride was stung. Maier, Beckenbauer, Vogts - who thereafter stifled Cruyff's influence - Hoeness and Overath soon fought their way back into the game and finally triumphed 2-1 with goals from Breitner (penalty) and Müller. This was the Germans' second world title, twenty years after their first victory in Switzerland in 1954.

Official FIFA World Cup™ Awards

<table><tr><td>Winner</td><td>Germany FR</td></tr><tr><td>Second</td><td>Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>Third</td><td>Poland</td></tr><tr><td>Fourth</td><td>Brazil</td></tr><tr><td>adidas Golden Shoe winner</td><td>Gregorz LATO (POL) 7</td></tr></table>

2006 FIFA World Cup Germany™

Home | Tournament | Destination Germany | Fun and Games | Organisation | Classic Football | Mobile

FIFA Confederations Cup Germany 2005

FIFA Women's World Cup USA 2003 | 2002 FIFA World Cup Korea/Japan™

© 2001 - 2006 FIFA, All Rights Reserved | Terms of Service | Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy

NED:BRA

Classic Coaches

Rinus Michels

Classic Player

Franz Beckenbauer
Johan Cruyff
Gerd Mueller

Classic Stadiums

Olympiastadion

FIFAworldcup.com

3/21/200

Following your telephone interview, Michael Siedenhans asks you to authorize the use of the attached text for the official magazine of the 2006 FIFA World Cup.

OK AS EDITED

 selection essential

Liebe

Die Antwort ist

simpel: Keine
andere Sport-

art ist so
leicht zu ver-
stehen.

Immerhin spielte ich
in der Schülermann-
schaften des jüdischen
Sportklubsatanach
und der SpVgg. Fürth und
war Kapitän meiner Klassen-
mannschaft. Vielleicht verste-
hen Sie jetzt, warum ich seit der
WM 1970 in Mexiko - mit Aus-
nahme der WM in Japan
und Südkorea - keine
Fußball-Weltmeister-
schaft verpasst
habe. Mein erstes
WM-Spiel war das
Finale 1970 Brasilien

Ihr

Foto: dpa

Mr. Siedenhans:

Dr. Kissinger has had the opportunity to review the interview and has said the following edits should be made: In the sentence that reads "Immerhin spielte ich in der Schülermnanschaften des jüdischen... ADD the word "Fürther", following jüdischen and REMOVE the words "Bar Kochbas und der SpVgg. Fürth". He said this deletion is essential. Could you make the changes and send us back an edited copy?

Thank you.

Best,
Jessee

Jessica P. LePorin
Office of Henry A. Kissinger
Kissinger Associates, Inc.
350 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10022
TF (212) 759-7919
Fax (212) 759-0042

DATE 1/24/06

CORR. FILE CPAFFC

ACTION: Alan Stape Dennis

Jessee Theresa John B.

Maggie Suzanne Rose

COMMENTS:

SUBJ. FILE

CROSS REF.

STAFF MEMO

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED

MAY-7-2002 09:11 FROM:

P:1

中国人民对外友好协会
THE CHINESE PEOPLE'S ASSOCIATION FOR
FRIENDSHIP WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES

January 24, 2006

Ms. Jessica LePorin
Secretary to Dr. Henry Kissinger
355 Park Avenue
New York
USA
Tel: 212-759-7919
Fax: 212-759-0042

JAN 24 2006

Dear Ms. LePorin,

Thank you for your fax dated Jan. 19th. I am so sorry to learn that Dr. Kissinger broke his shoulder recently and I wish him the speediest recovery.

We are so honored that Dr. Kissinger could kindly meet with Mr. Chen Haosu, President of the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries at 3 p.m. on Feb. 13th. But unfortunately, we tried very hard to change our flight from New York to Hawaii, and there is no flight leaving from New York to Honolulu later than 2 p.m. on Feb. 13th. And we have to arrive in Hawaii on Feb. 14th morning due to our tight schedule in Hawaii. Is it possible for you to change the meeting from 3 p.m. to 10 or 11 a.m., so that we can catch the latest flight to Honolulu? Thank you for your understanding. If not, please let me know ASAP.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Address:1 Taijichang Street
Beijing 100740
China

Tel: (86-10)65122474
Fax: (86-10)65128354
http://www.cpaACC.org.cn

FROM : MEIDABUCAFFC

FAX NO. : 861065131016

2006.01.16 02:58PM

JAN 17 2006

January 12, 2006

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

I wish you have enjoyed your Christmas season and everything is fine with you and
your family.

It is my pleasure to inform you that Mr. Chen Haosu, president of the CPAFFC and I are going to Washington DC to attend a conference of The World Organisation of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) from February 7th to 10th. We will be visiting New York afterwards. We would very much like to pay a courtesy call to you on the 13th. President Chen and I would like to discuss with you about Sino-US relations and seek your suggestions on further promoting people-to-people exchanges between our two countries. Please let me know whether you will be available then.

Yours friendly,

Li Xiaolin
Vice President
CPAFFC

Tel: (86-10)65122474
Fax: (86-10)65128354
http://www.cpaaffc.org.cn

01/25/2006 17:28

2125649370

CPS

January 12, 2006

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

Yours, friendly,

Address: 1 Taijichang Street
Beijing 100740
China

DATE 6/7/06

CORR. FILE Creda Svisse

COMMENTS:

SUBJ. FILE

CROSS REF.

STAFF MEMO

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED my

CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President & CEO

DEC 14 2005

12 December 2005

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

I am delighted to present you with an inscribed copy of our new book, *War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World*. As the title suggests, many of my Center colleagues and other distinguished co-authors have helped me present some fresh ideas about the nature of the war we are fighting – and how we can do so far more effectively. It is our hope that this book will help engender a new sense of bipartisan purpose and commitment to victory on the part of the American people and their leaders.

Reduced to its essence, this war is about nothing less than our future survival and that of other freedom-loving people. The immediate foe – adherents to a totalitarian political ideology we call Islamofascism – is determined to replace our free societies with a global Caliphate whose authority will be enforced via a Taliban-style religious code, known as Shari'a.

Our Ten Steps offer specific recommendations about how to: **know the enemy** (including Saudi Arabia); **really support our troops**; provide for our **energy security**; stop **investing in terror**; equip the country for **war at home**; counter the mega-threat – an **EMP attack**; **secure our borders** and interior against illegal immigration; wage **political warfare**; launch **regional initiatives** to counter our enemies and help our friends; and wield **effective diplomacy**.

You will doubtless recognize many of these themes as central elements of the Center for Security Policy work program. If we can adopt the sort of War Footing that was indispensable to winning past wars against totalitarian enemies bent on our destruction, we can prevail in this one. We appreciate your interest and hope you will use your considerable influence to continue to acquaint our countrymen of this need – and opportunity – and, thereby, help ensure our essential victory in the War for the Free World

Best personal regards.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
President and CEO

1920 L Street, N.W., Suite 210, Washington, D.C. 20036 • (202) 835-9077 • (202) 835-9066 FAX • www.security-policy.org

Message

Jesse LePorin

From: Hollings, Jennifer [JHOLLINGS@SRF.ORG]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:53 PM
To: jleporin@kmaglobal.com
Subject: SRF Invitation to LTG David Barno Dinner

APR 04 2006

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

At the suggestion of Devon Cross, I am writing to invite you to a dinner on Monday, April 24 in New York City in honor of Lt. Gen. David Barno, the former American commander of Coalition forces in Afghanistan. Lt. Gen. Barno, who led our forces on a central front in the war on terror, will share his thoughts and insights regarding the evolution of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and what it will take for the United States and the new Afghan government to succeed in stabilizing the country. In addition, he will share his views on current U.S. approaches to the war on terror.

During his service in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Barno transformed the Coalition's strategy and operations in the war. He shifted our strategy from a counter-terrorism to a counter-insurgency paradigm, improving the effectiveness of our forces in the key contested areas along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. He accelerated the development of the Afghan National Army, expanded the scope of civil-military stabilization activities through Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and worked closely with the U.S. Embassy to integrate fully the political and military dimensions of U.S. policy. Few U.S. military leaders have such an accomplished record in the war against terror. Lt. Gen. Barno will be retiring from the Army in early April and will become the director of the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University.

The event will begin with cocktails at 6:30 pm. Dinner will begin 7:00 pm and end promptly at 9:00 pm. The dinner will be held at the Union League Club in New York City, which is located at 38 East 37th Street.

The Smith Richardson Foundation supports public policy research. We have an extensive program that supports defense and national security research, and we occasionally host small roundtable dinners designed to encourage discussion among policy makers and opinion leaders.

Please RSVP to Jennifer Hollings (jhollings@srf.org; 203-222-6222) by Monday, April 17, 2006.

I hope you'll be able to join us for what promises to be a lively evening with a dedicated leader and practitioner of American national security policy.

4/3/2006