PART II -- MAIN EDITION -- 26 JANUARY 1982

WASHINGTON POST

26 January 1982

Pg. 3

# With Kissinger's Disapproval, Haig Knows He Has Arrived

Alexander Haig is now officially where he has always wanted to be, that is in charge of U.S. foreign policy.

After months of stormy uncertainties, the volcanic secretary of state has received confirmation that he has arrived—a Good Housekeeping seal of disapproval from his former mentor. Henry A. Kissinger, in two articles in The New York Times of surpassingly stately murkiness, is complaining about the conduct of U.S. foreign policy since the crackdown in Poland.

The former secretary of state, chafing in retirement, has come in from the cold to fret about the "dithering procrastination, sophisticated justifications for impotence ... and the cascade of arguments for inaction."

From this you might think that the master is dumping on his own policy of detente, which Haig has been faithfully following. But Kissinger assures us that while detente is still good, it's just that without him to supervise, we have not emphasized the "linkage" aspect sufficiently.

Kissinger does not go so far as to say we should stop selling grain to the Soviet Union, which is what Jimmy Carter did, although no one ever took Carter for the lion of anti-Soviet resolve that Ronald Reagan is supposed to be. The continuation of grain sales is the principal alibi given by U.S. allies for not imposing sanctions.

Kissinger thinks that cancellation of negotiations would let the Soviets know how upset we are and bring them to their senses.

"I criticize with reluctance a foreign policy produced in part by so many friends and comrades of difficult battles," he says with a Wagnerian melancholy appropriate for the exercise of doing in his old pal, Haig.

Haig should be delighted, although he is said not to be. Here is proof positive that he has at last consolidated his position in

the White House power structure.

The Kissinger critique coincided with a call for Haig's head in Human Events, the right-wing weekly, which labeled him a "pussycat" and "a pure defenteist."

Is Kissinger, whose scent for power is unerring, trying to destabilize the suddenly secure Haig? Or is he, in the thought of one jaded observer, "trying to improve his chances of being made secretary again, by one one-hundredth percent, by courting the right wing?"

Haig, who lost all of his early power struggles with the Reagan staff, is now enjoying a period of detente. The sniping has ceased. The rout of his nemesis, Richard V.

## Mary McGrory

## DUMPING

Allen, as national security adviser and his replacement by William P. Clark, who learned what little he knows of foreign policy at Haig's knee, has given Haig secure borders.

Anyone looking for further signs of his entrenchment could have found them at the recent meetings of the Conservative Caucus. Haig had been booked to speak, but canceled. His place was taken by the president's foremost counselors, James A. Baker III and Edwin Meese III, the latter of whom nominally supervises foreign affairs. But the audience asked Meese only one question about foreign affairs and that had to do with Jonas Savimbi of Angola.

By their silence, the conservatives seemed to be saying that Haig was the only one in the administration worth talking to about foreign policy.

But if Haig is doing well with Reagan, he is faring miserably in the world. The allies are more balky and divided. France, not a full-fledged member of the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization but helpful of late, has flatly refused to follow Haig's lead.

France has sent military aid to Nicaragua, whose Sandinista government is a personal affront to Haig. It has also renewed financial aid to Vietnam's Marxist regime, which Haig wishes to isolate. On the East-West front, France did the ultimate, agreeing to annual purchases for 25 years of 280 billion cubic feet of gas from the Soviets' planned pipeline to Western Europe.

Only with Italy has Haig had any kind of success in turning off the gas pipeline. But even the Italians, who have declared "a pause" in their participation, are restive. As one Italian official told our ambassador in Rome, "We would like to buy gas from Switzerland, but Switzerland doesn't have any."

What Haig confronts in Europe is massive Soviet subversion. It is not in the form of "international terrorism," against which he so vividly inveighs.

It is subversion by trade. Western European governments have heeded too well our warnings of unreliable energy supplies from the Persian Gulf and have turned East. They do not want to risk high unemployment and idle factories in order to dramatize their sympathy with the Poles or their solidarity with Ronald Reagan.

Haig is currently registering U.S. "outrage" about Poland with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko. But that's the kind of "punishment" the Soviets can absorb.

So while Haig has had his bureaucratic triumphs, he has had nothing but diplomatic defeats. His one accomplishment has been to get NATO agreement that the Soviets were responsible for the repression in Poland, which must have impressed anyone who had suspected the Swedes or the Italians.

But at least, with Kissinger after him, Haig knows he's doing fine at home.

## CHEMICAL WARFARE...Cont'd

controversy still rages about whether or not a breach has occurred, after two years of debate, is a distressing reminder that means for verification of compliance with the agreements must be improved, perhaps including an on-site inspection.

The Soviets deserve to either be proved guilty or exonerated of the charges, as quickly as possible. If the Reagan administration succeeds, through its public campaign, in stopping the chemical attacks, that would serve a moral good. But if responsibility is

left unclear, the larger questions about Soviet capabilities, intentions in upholding international agreements and verification procedures will also go unresolved.

The trouble is, any allegations the US makes about Soviet chemical warfare are assumed by the rest of the world to be politically motivated. It is left to the press and private and international organizations, therefore, to mount independent efforts to weigh the existing information and collect new evidence, until the mystery of who, if anyone, is conducting chemical warfare is solved.

If the Soviet Union is innocent, it would behave that country to assist efforts to investigate the reports of chemical attacks, rather than block them as it has done to date. Because as long as the cloud of doubt upon the Soviet Union remains, the US is liable to avoid further arms agreements - and to steadily increase its own ability to fight chemical war.

Gloria Duffy is a fellow of the Arms Control and Disarmament Program at Stanford University.

11-F

It Was a Fine Yield for the Alfalfa Club

The Celebrities and
Their One-Liners at the
Annual Secret Stag Bash

By Lois Romano

The Alfalfa Club, that indescribable *very private* stag organization, that meets annually for the sole purpose of eating, drinking and telling political jokes, Saturday night nominated Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) for president of the United States. He will run on the Alfalfa ticket.

His 500 or so nominators were an impressive crew, an array of faces often seen on the front pages — Vice President George Bush as well as most of the Cabinet; the chairmen of some of the largest corporations in the country as well as many former household names.

So far only one Alfalfa nominee has ever made it to the White House — Ronald Reagan. Nunn, however, was quite optimistic, according to sources, though the same sources were quick to note that Nunn's one-liners were of such high professional quality that perhaps the senator should consider a new career. "That guy should head for Vegas to do a show," said one ("don't use my name") dinner guest.

As usual, the 69th annual blacktie affair was OFF THE RECORD. Even the sight of a reporter and photographer at the Capital Hilton made guests, some wearing Alfalfa medallions and others wearing patent-leather dinner shoes with little bows, visibly nervous.

However, several eyewitnesses offered to relate some of the remarks if quoted anonymously.

In his acceptance speech, Nunn:

* Said he planned on throwing a dinner for minorities and inviting Mike Wallace to be the caterer;

* Commended Treasury Secretary Donald Regan on being a "scientific objector in the war on poverty".

See ALFALFA, B6, Col. 3

Clockwise from top left: Alexander Haig; Douglas Fairbanks Jr.; and Howard Baker with Joseph Califano; photos by Harry Naltchayan

THE WASHINGTON POST

# The Alfalfa Club's Crop of Celebrities

## ALFALFA, From B1

* Asserted that former president Carter did to America what Sherman did to Atlanta;

* Praised Richard V. Allen for being the first American to beat the Japanese on a business deal.

The evening started out with cocktails, black limos, Secret Service and a big crowd in the hotel lobby. The biggest applause went to George Bush, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

"Oh, he's just so-o-o handsome," sighed one woman of Kennedy. She described herself as a "little ol' gal from Oklahoma."

"He sure is," drawled her friend. "But look — his hair is getting gray."

Secretary of State Alexander Haig arrived with a motorcade, and nearly as many Secret Service agents as Bush. Presidential aides Edwin Meese and Mike Deaver also were accompanied by agents.

Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, a Republican, came with former HEW secretary Joe Califano, a Democrat. As incoming president of the club, Baker was asked to share his remarks

with the press. "I just *caaaan't*," he drawled with firm resolve.

Outgoing president Henry Kissinger also refused to share his remarks, but, sources say, he was almost, but not quite, as funny as Nunn. "I would have preferred to read my memoirs," Kissinger was quoted as saying, "but the Hilton has this room booked for next Tuesday. I could shorten my book by one-third ... by removing all the I's..."

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld flew in from Chicago for the affair "to see some old friends."

"My wife goes to affairs where only women go," said former secretary of state Ed Muskie, "and I don't mind, so why not? Actually, she gives me hell."

The Alfalfa Club, started in 1913, always has 150 members. The only way someone new can join, says a member, is if "someone dies."

Last night, it was unclear who had died, but Robert Strauss, Treasury Secretary Regan, and House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) were invited to join the club.

Other members include former attorney general Griffin Bell; Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.); Chief Justice Warren Burger; Jay Rockefeller, governor of West Virginia; attorney Edward Bennett Williams; and FBI director William Webster.

Each member was allowed to bring two guests to the dinner, which consisted of lobster appetizer, filet mignon and baked Alaska. The wine flowed heavy. The Marine Band played on.

# Henry Kissinger's Night at the Opera

By Lon Tuck

Henry Kissinger disclosed to the world last night that he likes opera but can't stand Wagner.

"I have this friend in Vienna who describes a Wagner opera this way. You go to the opera at 6:30 and you sit there all evening and finally you look down at your watch and it's only 6:45," he related to a gathering of potential corporate donors to the Washington Opera during a party at the Watergate.

This flagrant example of esthetic bias emerged during a speech introducing the company's general director, Martin Feinstein, and the president of its board, David Lloyd Kreeger, whom Kissinger referred to as "these men at my side with their utterly mercenary motives." Kissinger is chairman of what the company calls its "Challenge to Greatness" campaign.

Fortunately for them, the Opera didn't perform any Wagner in the 10½-week season that ended just last weekend. Kissinger didn't exactly ban Wagner, but he said, "I told them I couldn't chair the fundraising drive in a year when they had a Wagner opera. There's nothing

Carol Bloom, Henry Kissinger and David Kreeger; by Harry Naltchayan

political about it. It just bores me." Those who dared to disagree remained discreetly quiet.

The former secretary of state was in particularly vigorous verbal fettle. He drew many laughs when he referred to Feinstein, who himself has more than a touch of what might delicately be called Kissingerian "forcefulness," as "the kind of monomaniac under whom this kind of improbable thing can succeed." Feinstein drew more laughs as he retorted that two years ago "when the board asked me to become the director, I told them that I thought I had enough ego to do the job."

These exchanges were the prelude to getting the message to a wide spectrum of the denizens of corporate Washington that 1) the recent season was the most successful ever, and 2) it was the most expensive ever.

Opera is the most expensive art form. Normally an opera company expects to pay for about a third of its costs from the box office and the rest must come from contributions. As Kreeger, who is the former chairman and chief executive officer of

See OPERA, C2, Col. 5

In the Home Rule Act of 1973 the city government was charged with the responsibility of preparing a comprehensive plan for the "District elements" in the capital city. (Another body, the National Capital Planning Commission, retains jurisdiction over the "federal elements.") McGrath's basic charge, the one he repeats, is that the city government, both mayor and council, has dallied far too long on this issue.

There is, as yet, no comprehensive plan. The District's Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Act of 1978 is "so vague and broad that it pleases everyone and no one at the same time," in the judgment of a GWU report of two years ago. As a result, McGrath says, confusion abounds. Citizens, neighborhoods, preservationists, bankers, developers and businessmen do not know what to expect, and the effect is acrimonious debate. Decisions are made on a day-to-day basis; the city's understaffed Office of Planning and Development is kept busy "putting out fires." What's worse, decisions are often contradictory.

Citing "one example of many," McGrath says "the convention center is a very myopic kind of project — everybody has high hopes for what it will generate but no one has a clear idea what activity it should generate, and where and when and how." Its effect on nearby Chinatown has been pernicious, he points out. "We've already watched Chinatown virtually disappear. A couple of street signs appeared in Chinese just won't do. The objective of planning is to break up a single-site mental-

kind of service that would have done away with a lot of cars" when they successfully opposed the subway. "Georgetown now reflects a hundred lessons in mindless, if occasionally elegant, intensification of land use... Having no plan, residents are reduced to wrangling with the developers — and each other — in the unfriendly forum of the zoning commission."

Planner that he is, McGrath tends to take an aerial view of the development process in the District — that is, he sees the "desperate" need to relate developments in one part of the city to those in another place: commercial and office uses in Georgetown, for instance, to those in the West End, and these to the current office building boom in the old downtown. These developments tend to compete with one another, he says, and together they pose a threat to the city's already heavy burden of services. "There should be some knowledge of the limits to which the city can grow without requiring heroic engineering efforts to provide services," he says. "That limit may already have been reached in D.C. at the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant."

McGrath keeps a close nationwide watch on the planning process. All too often, in his view, the city comes up comparatively short. In California, he says, state law requires that "every locality have a comprehensive plan, and you get in serious trouble if your zoning committee goes riding off on its own in contradiction to the plan."

In the District, this situation is reversed. Not only is the city divided, as he

there are some 70 full-time professionals in the city's planning department, compared with some 15 in the District's Office of Planning and Development, and in Baltimore there has been consistent leadership from the executive and legislative branches of the city government. Public money has been targeted to attract specific kinds of private development.

In the nearly 14 years since McGrath arrived at GWU to establish the planning department there, his students have turned out more than 35 detailed studies of planning problems in the city. These range from large-scale issues such as the 1980 study, "Towards a Comprehensive Plan," to neighborhood projects in Takoma Park, Dupont Circle and Congress Heights, to highly critical studies of the university's own development policies. Such studies have provided McGrath an unusual vantage point on the development of Washington. Furthermore, he points out, these studies and many others like them from universities, private consultants and government planning agencies provide much of the foundation upon which a plan for the District could be constructed.

Not unmindful of the District's tremendous set of budgetary and social problems, and not uncritical of the urban policies of the Reagan administration, McGrath still believes that the city can and should expand its planning office and "get on speed" with the business of making a comprehensive plan. "When your funds are most restricted, when your problems are the worst," he asks, "is that the time to get out of planning? Or

semi-annual
SC
10 to 4
our entire
designer h
including

Kissinger's
Night
At the
Opera

OPERA, From C1

GEICO, explained to the group, "That means that every time anybody buys a $20 seat some corporation must put up $40 for that seat."

This year the Washington Opera did a little bit better than that, bringing in $1.36 million from ticket sales, which is 36 percent of the budget. That was one benefit of a 47 percent rise in ticket prices. Also, said Kreeger, "We ran over our budget by about $500,000."

This season was a major turning point in the growth of the 26-year-old company. For the first time it presented a full-scale repertory season. Seven productions, including

five new ones, rotated in the last two months, and to pay for it the fundraisers must come up with about $2.5 million.

Kreeger was quite direct about it. "In the old days we would ask for a minimum contribution of from $500 to $1,000. Now that we are aspiring to world status, we must look to a minimum contribution of $5,000. We don't think it is too greedy to ask for that much." Kissinger was standing right next to him, and neither he nor any of their guests pulled out their wallets.

When Feinstein thanked Kissinger for inviting so many of his friends, Kissinger deadpanned, "I can't tell you how much it means to me to be told I have this many friends." There were about 100 persons there, among them Paul Dragoumis of PEPCO (he is the treasurer of the Opera board), AFL-CIO head Lane Kirkland, Clark MacGregor of United Technologies, chairman of the board of The Washington Post Co. Katharine Graham, David Brinkley, the Watergate's Nicholas Salgo (the Watergate contributed the party), Woodward & Lothrop chairman Edwin Hoffman, Mobil Oil's Paul Petrus and former World Bank president Robert McNamara.

RUDY MAXA'S

FrontPage
Washington Post Magazine 1-17-82

BIG TALK MEANS BIG BUCKS FOR VIP MIGHTY MOUTH'S

ances a month. Last week he addressed
the Formica Corporation in Miami
Beach. Coming up are speeches before
the Angelina County Chamber of Com-
merce in Lufkin, Tex., the Sunbeam
Corporation in Chicago and the Au-
tomotive Service Industry Association
in Las Vegas.

Footnote: Speakers such as Ford and Kissinger normally command $10,000 or more for an hour's appearance. One notch down are veteran media celebrities such as Time's Hugh Sidey and relative newcomers such as ABC's Ted Koppel. Since the success of his late-night news show, Koppel has been asking $7,500 per appearance. And, notes another of Walker's memos, Koppel prefers weekend gigs.

Ever wonder how Gerald Ford
can afford to build a $1 mil-
lion ski chalet in Vail, Colo.?
Or how Henry Kissinger pays
a retinue of staffers? Both
work hard at the lucrative sideline of
giving speeches to organizations that
want to impress their membership at
annual meetings by presenting an ex-
president or former secretary of state.

In a memo to "our VIP clients" caw-
ing about how many of its speakers
have appeared on ABC's new, "This
Week with David Brinkley," lecture
agency mogul Harry Walker listed
some recent as well as upcoming ap-
pearances by Ford and Kissinger. And
by the description of some of the
events, it seems clear that if the money
is right, celebrities will talk to any-
body.

Kissinger recently knocked them
dead at the National Tire Dealers and
Retreaders Association meeting in Dal-
las and next month talks up the Potato
Chip/Snack Food Association in Las
Vegas.

In either a typographical error or an
unconscious slip of the mind, Walker
labels Ford "probably the most after
personality in America." That prob-
ably means "sought after," since Ford's
schedule includes at least three appear-

The Washington Post Magazine/January 17, 1982

Believe it or not, Mr. Detente
himself has turned hawkish

WILLIAM
RUSHER

NEW YORK — Back in 1969, when Henry Kissinger suddenly agreed to become President Nixon's national security adviser after years as chief foreign affairs counselor to Nelson Rockefeller, his fickleness prompted the wisecrack, "I wonder who's Kissinger now?"

The old wheeze comes to mind because Henry seems to have moulted yet again. Gone is the advocate of detente — the negotiator of SALT I and the Vladivostok Agreement and the Paris Accords. In his place is a new Kissinger — Mark III, at the very least. And this Kissinger, believe it or not, thinks Ronald Reagan's foreign policy is wrong because ... it isn't tough enough!

This seems an especially odd time for Kissinger to break with the Reagan foreign policy. Hard-line conservatives, who hailed Reagan's decision not to include him in the new administration, have been complaining loudly in recent weeks that former aides of Kissinger are taking over the State Department lock, stock and barrel. Secretary Haig himself, after all, is one of Kissinger's proteges. So is Lawrence Eagleburger, for whom Haig recently obtained the No. 3 post: undersecretary for political affairs.

To top it all off, Robert McFarlane, yet another Kissinger disciple at State, has just been named deputy to NSC adviser Bill Clark over at the White House, to the utter dismay of conservative observerl reservations.

Resolution after retirement

Writing in Foreign Affairs almost two years ago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn spoke sarcastically of what he called "the 'Kissinger syndrome,' although it is by no means peculiar to him alone. Such individuals, while holding high office, pursue a policy of appeasement and capitulation, which sooner or later will cost the West many years and many lives, but immediately upon retirement the scales fall from their eyes and they begin to advocate firmness and resolution."

But a lot of water has gone over the dam since the spring of 1980. Ronald Reagan and a conservative Republican Senate have been elected, and a good many people far more liberal than Henry Kissinger have hit the sawdust rail and confessed the error of their former ways. Kissinger will be welcome in our white-clad choir just as soon as we get a little more used to him.

What worries me, as a card-carrying hawk, is that Kissinger, for whatever reason, is now measurably more critical of the Reagan foreign policy than I am. Speaking of the lukewarm attitude of our NATO allies toward U.S. proposals for sanctions against the Soviet Union for its role in the Polish crackdown,

Kissinger writes:

"Europe's leaders have little to be proud of. But neither have we put forward a clear signal. European fecklessness is becoming an alibi. It is not the sole cause of Western difficulties."

Kissinger goes on to say that the United States, early on in the crisis, ought to have "declared a moratorium on high-level contacts with the Soviet Union until martial law was lifted in Poland."

Keeping some cards

Such a hard-line attitude is very common among my conservative friends just now, but I cannot help feeling that it vastly underrates Ronald Reagan and his ultimate intentions with respect to Poland. Reagan has, you may be sure, a long list of successively tighter squeezes that he can put on the Soviet Union. But "God is on the side with the last reserves"; why should Reagan play all his highest cards right now?

The Polish crisis is worsening steadily and may shortly prompt stronger and more direct Soviet measures to put down popular unrest. Reagan is undoubtedly planning further and harsher sanctions if events take that course. But if he invokes them now, he will simply be criticized, at home and abroad, for "overreacting" and will widen still further the distance between this country and its laggard allies.

When Henry Kissinger has put in more time as a hawk, he will discover that the point isn't abruptness, but steadiness.

© 1982 Universal Press Syndicate

The News World, 1/28/82

["Federal funds rates — which rose earlier this week and triggered fears the discount rate would increase — eased. Bonds were higher, as a result.", "Composite volume of NYSE issues listed on all U.S. exchanges and over the counter totaled 57,672,260 shares compared with 52,442,690 traded Tuesday.", "Mobil Corp. tacked on 7/8 to 25 3/8 and Shell Oil lost 1/4 to 36 1/8. All reported higher fourth-quarter earnings.", "Superior Oil rose 3 1/4 to 35 1/4. The company late Tuesday retained Morgan Stanley & Co. to help it thwart any potential takeover bids.", "Cannon Mills, subject of a $44-a-share takeover offer from Pacific Holding, eased 2 to 38. The company has bought Designer Accents of", "Find your something\nin The News World\nClassified Ads.\n684-4803\nMon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00", "TwinDs 1.10 5 6 17 - 1/4\nTycoLab .70 5 30 12\nTyler Cp .55 6 8 20 1/8\nTymshare 11 518 19 1/4 - 1/8\n--- U U ---\nU AL Inc 17 2459 15 1/8 + 3/8\nUAL pfA .40 3 15 1/2 - 2 1/4\nUGI Cp 1.88 5 34 x25 + 1/4\nUM C 1.20 5 158 9 + 1/4\nUmet T 1.20 3 3 3/8 - 1/8\nUNR Indust 22 5 4/8 - 1/8\nUNC Res 11 635 6 1/8 + 3/8\nUnilvr 1.92b 5 2 46 1/4 + 1/4\nUnINV 4.55b 4 23 61 - 1/8\nUCamp 2.80 6 175 44 1/2 + 3/8\nUnCarb 3.40 5 464 45 3/4 - 1/8\nUnCmrc .20 9 14 13\nUnionCo 5k 9 92 4 1/4 - 1/8\nUn Elec 1.52 6 230 g11 + 1/8\nUn El pf2.12 1 13 1/2 - 1/8\nUnElc pL 8 .200 48 1/2 + 1/8\nUnOil Cal 1 7 238 33 3/4 + 3/8\nUnPac 1.80 10 1445 44 3/8 + 1/8\nUnroyl Inc 5 373 p6 3/8 - 1/8\nUniroyal pf 250 41 - 1/8\nUnit Drilling 8 71 g16 - 1/4\nUBrands .40 12 2 10 1/8 - 1/8\nUBrn Cp 1.20 2 93 3/8 + 1/8\nUtd Cbl .14g 31 24 25 3/8 - 1/8\nUEnrgy 1.92 5 99 34 3/8 - 1/8\nUnitlill 2.76 4 49 19 - 1/8\nUill pfB 3.97 9 24 - 1/8\nUnitlill pfC .4 .300 25 + 1/8 - 1/8\nUtdlill 2.20 .580 14 1/2 + 1/8\nUtdlndins 19 11 42 40 1/2 + 7/8 - 1/8\nUtd Inns .22 7 1 16 1/8 - 1/8\nUjsyB 1.12a 4 12 11 1/8 - 1/8\nUtdMrch Mf 7 145 3 1/8 - 1/8\nUtd PkC Mn 38 40 2 1/4 - 1/8\nUS Air .12 3 1159 u10 1/4 - 1/8\nusfsc 4.47d 31 17 1/2 - 1/8\nUS Gvp 2.40 6 29 u30 - 1/8\nUSHome .36 5 371 10 1/8 - 1/8\nUS Inds .76 1 151 8 1/8 - 1/8\nUSLease .60 8 8 22 1/8 - 1/8\nUS Rity .05d 12 40 14 1/8 - 1/8\nUSShoe 1.25 5 802 u27 + 1/4\nUS Tob 2.40 10 48 44 1/2 + 3/8\nUt Tch 2.40 5 582 37 1/2 - 1/8\nUTpf ch 3.87 42 46 1/8 - 1/8\nUTpf pf 2.55 36 21 - 1/8\nUtdTele 1.68 6 668 19 1/8 - 1/8\nUniTpfA 1 1/2 5 23 3/4 + 1/8\nUnitrode .25 13 53 24 1/8 + 1/8\nUnivar .68a 7 33 24 3/4 + 1/8\nUnivLT 1.52 6 18 23 3/8 - 1/8\nUpiohn 2.28 10 393 53 + 1 1/2\nUSLIFE .84 5 215 22 1/2 + 1/8\nUSLfpf 3.33 .2300 25 1/2 - 1/2\nUSLpf pf2.25 .2600 24 1/8 + 3/8\nUslife Fnd 1 29 7 1/8 - 1/8\nUtahPL 2.20 8 224 18 1/8 - 1/8\nU1 PL pf2.90 51 g18 1/8 - 1/8\nU1 PLpf 2.80 61 18 1/8 - 1/8\nU1 PL pf2.04 8 13 3/8 - 1/8\n--- V V ---", "VdNorn 1.12 7 9 14 1/8 + 1/8\nVarcoint .12 8 125 14 3/8 + 3/8\nVarianC .52 33 54 26 3/8 + 3/8\nVaro Inc .40 5 35 7 - 1/8\nVeeclins .20 13 105 13 1/8 - 1/8\nVendo Co 3 8 10\nVestSc 1.28a 7 11 9 - 1/8\nVFCorp 2.40 6 420 34 1/8 + 1/4\nViacom .25 16 1034 24 1/8 - 1/8\nViac 2.10 pf 2 29 - 1/8\nVaEPpf 2.90 .27 19 3/8 + 1/8\nVaEl pf 7.20 .2250 6 4/6 + 1/8\nVEIpfM 8.60 210 63 1/2 - 1 1/2\nVaEl pf 9.75 .300 63 - 1/8\nVornado Inc 90 13 1/8 + 1/8\nVulcanin .92 8 14 18 1/8 - 1/8\nVulcnM 2.20 7 20 49 3/4 - 1/2\n--- W W ---\nWaRRpf 4 1/2 .2180 36 + 1/4\nWachva 1.24 6 32 23 1/8 - 1/8\nWachovia R 13 14 7 1/2 + 1/8\nWackht .409 10 20 17 1/2 - 1/8\nWainoco .14 8 604 18 3/8 + 3/8\nWalgreen 2 8 219 30 1/8 - 1/8\nWikerH 1.32 4 89 15 1/8 + 1/8\nWilace B .66 10 3 57 + 1/2\nWalMart .26 18 38 39 1/4 - 1/8\nWalmrt pF A 1 5 2 22 3/8 + 1/4\nWarnock 18 53 27 1/4 + 1/2\nWarnpfC 1 1/2 5 44 - 1 1/2\nWarner C 1 18 3057 57 + 1/8\nWashGs 2.64 8 128 17 1/2 + 1/4\nWashNt 1.08 5 121 17 1/2 + 1/4\nWa Wtr 2.32 6 60 p17 1/2 - 1/8\nWastMlt .40 18 1868 32 - 1/8\nWatknJn .48 12 117 27 1/2 - 3/8\nWaynG .20b 7 1 9 1/4 - 1/8\nWean Utd 9 1 4 1/4 - 1/8\nWebbDel Cp 6 136 p6 3/4 - 1/8\nWeisMk 1.14 10 51 39 + 1/2\nWFargo 1.92 5 413 24 1/2 - 1/8\nWFMTg 2.80 10 107 21 1/4 + 1/8\nWendys .28 9 246 13 1/8 - 1/8\nWscosTr .92 3 10 1 - 1/8\nWest Co .60 10 30 31 1/8 - 1/4\nWPEPpf 4 1/2 .200 31 1/2 - 1/2\nW PPEb 1.80 .353 21 1/8 - 1/8\nWstnArL .25 358 47 1/8 - 1/8\nWstn NA .20 8 141 18 1/8 - 1/8\nWst Pac Ind 5 35 57 1/2 - 1 1/2\nWUunion 1.40 12 205 32 1/8 - 1 1/8\nWsUn pf4.60 15 69 - 1 1/8\nWU pfS 1.18 39 8 + 1/8\nWuTi pf 2.56 3 16 - 1/8\nWestE 1.80 5 1286 24 + 3/8\nWstvac 1.20 5 62 21 1/4 - 1/8\nWeyhrs 1.30 15 z110000 25 1/4 - 1/8\nWeyr pf 2.80 .222200 33 1/2 - 1/8\nWy pfA 4.50 .157 38 7/8 - 1/8\nWhiFry 1.80 8 z4500 36 1/8 + 1/4\nWhiF pf4.12 1 35 1/2 + 1/2\nWheeling St 7 14 29 1/8 - 1/4\nWhistl pfB 6 .2200 48 1/2 - 1/8\nWhipool 1.60 6 1789 24 - 1/4\nWhite C 1.50 5 59 p25 1/2 - 1/8\nWhitek 1.60 7 1162 31 3/8 + 3/8\nWickes .78f 13 115 8 + 1/2\nWicor 2.14 6 10 18 1/4 - 1/8\nWiebolt .44b 8 14 5 1/4 - 1/8", "TREASURY NOTES", "| Bid | Ask | Chg | Yld |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| 11 1/2s 1982 | Jan | 99.30 | 99.31 | 16.33 |\n| 6 1/8s 1982 | Feb | 99.18 | 99.19 | 14.57 |\n| 13 7/8s 1982 | Feb | 100.01 | 100.03 | 12.02 |\n| 7 1/8s 1982 | Mar | 99.00 | 99.01 | 13.43 |\n| 15s 1982 | Mar | 100.06 | 100.07 | 13.02 |\n| 11 1/8s 1982 | Apr | 99.11 | 99.13 | 13.45 |\n| 7s 1982 | May | 97.29 | 97.30 | 14.13 |\n| 8s 1982 | May | 98.02 | 98.06 | 14.21 |\n| 9 1/4s 1982 | May | 98.12 | 98.16 | 14.31 |\n| 9 1/4s 1982 | May | 98.12 | 98.14 | 14.04 |\n| 8 1/4s 1982 | Jun | 97.20 | 97.24 | 13.86 |\n| 8 1/4s 1982 | Jun | 97.25 | 97.27 | 13.99 |\n| 8 1/4s 1982 | Jly | 97.10 | 97.14 | 14.31 |\n| 8 1/4s 1982 | Jly | 96.28 | 97.00 | 14.00 |\n| 8 1/4s 1982 | Aug | 97.02 | 97.06 | 14.52 |\n| 9 1/4s 1982 | Aug | 98.07 | 98.09 | 14.22 |\n| 9 1/4s 1982 | Sep | 96.04 | 96.08 | 14.37 |\n| 11 1/4s 1982 | Sep | 98.10 | 98.12 | 14.42 |\n| 11 1/4s 1982 | Oct | 98.10 | 98.12 | 14.40 |\n| 12 1/8s 1982 | Nov | 94.24 | 94.28 | 14.11 |\n| 7 1/8s 1982 | Nov | 95.04 | 95.08 | 14.35 |\n| 13 1/8s 1982 | Nov | 99.22 | 99.24 | 14.13 |\n| 9 1/8s 1982 | Dec | 96.00 | 96.04 | 13.97 |\n| 15 1/8s 1982 | Dec | 100.22 | 100.26 | 14.11 |\n| 13 1/8s 1983 | Jan | 99.10 | 99.12 | 14.31 |\n| 8s 1983 | Feb | 94.10 | 94.14 | 13.86 |\n| 13 1/8s 1983 | Feb | 99.08 | 99.10 | 14.54 |\n| 9 1/4s 1983 | Mar | 94.08 | 94.12 | 14.61 |\n| 12 1/8s 1983 | Mar | 97.24 | 97.28 | 14.61 |\n| 14 1/2s 1983 | Apr | 99.20 | 99.24 | 14.67 |\n| 7 1/8s 1983 | May | 92.12 | 92.16 | 14.40 |\n| 11 1/8s 1983 | May | 96.24 | 96.28 | 14.31 |\n| 15 1/8s 1983 | May | 100.26 | 100.30 | 14.78 |\n| 8 1/8s 1983 | Jun | 92.28 | 93.04 | 14.38 |\n| 14 1/8s 1983 | Jun | 100.36 | 100.30 | 13.85 |\n| 15 1/8s 1983 | Jly | 101.16 | 101.20 | 14.63 |\n| 9 1/4s 1983 | Aug | 92.20 | 92.21 | 14.55 |\n| 11 1/8s 1983 | Aug | 96.08 | 96.12 | 14.56 |\n| 16 1/4s 1983 | Aug | 102.04 | 102.08 | 14.58 |\n| 9 1/4s 1983 | Sep | 93.06 | 93.10 | 14.36 |\n| 16s 1983 | Sep | 102.16 | 102.20 | 14.14 |\n| 15 1/2s 1983 | Oct | 100.28 | 100.10 | 14.79 |\n|

Foreign policy

Conservative
discontents

WASHINGTON, DC

Not unwisely, President Reagan in his state of the union message was reticent about foreign policy, "a subject I intend to address in detail in the near future". Not only is the eventual management of foreign policy a matter still unsettled. The debate about the character of foreign policy, between the diplomatists who believe that it requires continuity, and the radical nationalists who welcomed the Reagan administration in the expectation that it would change the world, rages unabated. The mere fact of the Reagan administration arriving last week at its second year set many of Mr Reagan's right-wing followers, who came to Washington to celebrate the anniversary, asking what his first year had brought forth in the way of enhanced American control over global affairs.

With the replacement of Mr Richard Allen in the White House by Judge William Clark, the state department has gained advancement and its head, Mr Alexander Haig, is for the present the man in charge of foreign relations. He in turn has advanced the European connection in the consequent state department reshuffle, and he was back in Europe himself this week, coping with Mr Gromyko. Judge Clark showed his awareness of possible discontent among the radicals at the advancement of the diplomatists and pro-Europeans by appointing two conservative notables, Mrs Claire Boothe Luce and Mr William Buckley, to vaguely defined temporary White House advisory positions.

That is not likely to change anything: still, those Reaganites who hold that there is a "Reagan revolution", and that it affects not only government and economics but foreign relations as well, are not giving up, so long as Mr Reagan himself has not made it unequivocally clear where he stands. That he is willing and able to make up his own mind when he chooses to do so, his refusal this week to take advice and levy more taxes bears witness. He might bang the table about foreign policy yet.

A good, scholarly example of the radical approach was provided in Commentary magazine last September by Professor Robert Tucker, who criticised the Middle East policy of the Reagan administration under the title: "Carterism without Carter". Mr Tucker reproached the administration with looking over its shoulder at the Arabs when it ought to

have been supporting Israel on the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor. He recalled a "hope that the Reagan administration would provide the occasion for the United States to assume once again a leadership role commensurate with its power", and deplored the fact that the "new" American game in the Middle East seemed so little different from the old.

Conservative misgivings tend to accumulate as the administration finds accommodation to external facts unavoidable. Judge Clark played a part in one such episode when he went to southern Africa last year and found it necessary to put some distance between himself and the South African government. On another front the administration made an adjustment when, deferring to pressure from Peking, it changed its mind about selling very advanced fighter aircraft to Taiwan (a place that ranked high in the symbolism of the Reagan campaign for the presidency). Most lately came the administration's approach to the necessity of reacting to the repression in Poland—an approach which may have seemed bold and rash to Europeans, but to the neo-conservatives in the United States appeared timid and dithering.

Into the lists at this point rode the horsemanlike figure of the most famous living former secretary of state, Mr Henry Kissinger. In two articles in the New York Times on successive days, January 17th and 18th, Mr Kissinger castigated the western allies, including the United States, as quibbling sophisticates for whom no excuse for inaction was too contrived. He denounced the American "foreign policy bureaucracy" for "its preference for talk over action", he poured scorn on the "sanctions of marginal significance" that had been adopted, he scolded the Nato allies for neutrality and pacifism.

As is obvious, the administration contains factions with different views of the Polish matter, some inclined with Mr Kissinger to see it as a decisive test of western will and resolve, others siding with the professionals of European diplomacy, who at present have Mr Haig at their side, who see only a limited capacity for western action in a matter which Russian and Polish politicians will, in the end, decide. Mr Kissinger in his two long articles was intervening against Mr Haig, against the European allies and, it perhaps wrongly seems in misunderstood retrospect, against the Kissinger of earlier times who used to conduct a diplomacy of detente and who was hated and abused by the Reaganite Republicans for that very reason.

Whether the Kissinger attack influenced Mr Haig in his handling of his

meetings with Mr Gromyko in Geneva this week is a matter of speculation. Mr Haig did, however, curtail the time allotted for those meetings from two days to one and let it be known that he was not going to discuss a summit meeting or a date for the next round of strategic nuclear armament talks.

It fell to the neo-conservative intellectuals close to Commentary to put, for the present, the coping-stone on this wall of division. This group has organised itself for some purposes in a Committee for the Free World, and held a conference in Washington from January 21st to 24th on the subject "The Transatlantic Crisis". Its organiser, Ms Midge Decter, wife of the editor of Commentary, Mr Norman Podhoretz, in announcing the conference further defined the subject as "the rising tide of western European neutralism and anti-Americanism and what to do about it". The conference was the scene of a

Kissinger enters the lists

reconciliation between Mr Kissinger and the neo-conservatives who so recently loved to denounce him as an architect of accommodation.

"A dispute among friends" was Mr Kissinger's characterisation of his earlier differences with these intellectual nationalists. The three days of talk seemed to crystallise the essential matter of dispute as between those who want to see international differences compromised and those who want to see them clarified and sharpened. To a certain extent it is a simple difference between those in office, and those out. The struggle for the mind of President Reagan is, however, not concluded.

AMERICAN SURVEY

THE ECONOMIST JANUARY 30, 1982

23