CHICAGO TRIBUNE 15 MARCH 1974

# Kissinger denies he stopped Nitze

## Bill Anderson

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says this column reported falsely that he opposed the appointment of Paul H. Nitze, a veteran federal administrator, as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.

In fact, Kissinger says, he favors the appointment of Nitze, calls him an able public servant, and is angry that we reported otherwise. With emphasis, Kissinger denied that he had called Nitze "lazy," as the column quoted him as saying.

Meanwhile, the column learns [at this writing] that the White House continues to sit on the problem by refusing to send Nitze's name to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The White House, buffeted on at least two sides, has taken shelter behind a wall of "no comments" or unavailability.

As we see it, the story is this:

At the beginning of the Kennedy administration, Republican Robert S. McNamara (then secretary of defense) introduced then-Republican Nitze into the Pentagon as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. The ISA was then sort of a small State Department, advising military brass on diplomatic matters.

Under Nitze, the ISA became a ranking and important arm of the military. As a result, Nitze was nominated for secretary of the Navy. But because of a speech he made that implied to some

that the United Nations should have more influence on the American military, the nomination was sharply opposed by some conservatives.

In the battle 11 years ago [covered by this reporter], Senators Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) and Strom Thurmond (R., S. C.) voted against Nitze, as did Sen. Harry Flood Byrd [D., Va.], who has since died. The then Sen. Richard Russell [D., Ga.], who was chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a conservative, went to bat for Nitze by calling him a "two-fisted advocate of national defense."

Russell prevailed. Nitze became secretary and later was promoted to deputy secretary of defense, the No. 2 slot at the Pentagon.

In the early days of the Nixon administration, Nitze became a negotiator in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. If anything, he was viewed more as a hard-liner in relations with the Russians than as a dove.

Yet, when Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger Jr. prevailed on Nitze to accept elimination for the ISA position once again, conservatives began to shoot at Nitze almost immediately. Goldwater joined ranks with them last week by saying he was "unalterably opposed" to the appointment — even though it hadn't been sent from the White House to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

That is when the column learned that

Kissinger, in a conversation reported to our Capitol Hill sources [and elsewhere], said that Nitze was "lazy" [untrue] and "over the hill" for the position. [Nitze is 63.] [We rechecked our sources after Kissinger's complaint and stand by the initial report.] The conventional wisdom, based on speculation, was that the White House was sitting on the nomination simply because of the conservative reaction.

Actually, there appears to be enough votes within the Senate committee to override Goldwater easily. The real bottleneck has obviously been in the White House, where Kissinger has tremendous clout. On the basis of our information, it would be politically simple to forward the name of Nitze to the Senate — if he, in fact, does have the support of Kissinger. After all, Nitze is already backed by Schlesinger. Put another way, is Kissinger ready for the Pentagon to revitalize its own small State Department, so he would have a little competition for a change?

Two persons are finalists for nomination to Navy secretary. They are William Middendorf, current undersecretary, and Samuel W. Sax, president and chief executive officer of the Exchange National Bank of Chicago. To be nominated soon for chief of naval operations: Adm. James L. Holloway III, now vice chief and a naval aviator with nuclear credentials.

3

Kissinger May be in Wrong Capital

WASHINGTON STAR-NEWS

Washington, D. C., Tuesday, March 26, 1974

By Dimitri Simes

Special to the Star-News

Seeking a new accommodation with the
Soviet Union, Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger perhaps went to the wrong
place.

Charm, demonstrations of good will and persuasive abilities — Kissinger's strong points — have never worked on

Dimitri Simes formerly was a specialist in Soviet-American relations for the Institute of World Economy and International Relations in Moscow. Nominally, the institute is part of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, but in fact it is a "think tank" for the Communist party. Simes' work was published primarily in Komsomolskaya Pravda. He came to the United States last April, leaving his country in protest over lack of freedom in his professional work. He is now a senior research fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University here.

Analysis

the Soviets. Moreover, the secretary simply does not have enough bargaining cards and seems reluctant to use even those which are still available to him.

But he might find the necessary leverage if, instead of giving his time to Brezhnev and his lieutenants in Moscow, he made a trip to Peking. It is hard to judge whether such a trip is justified by recent developments in U.S. relations with China, but a trip there by Kissinger could be a warning to Soviet leaders in terms which Moscow used to understand.

Kissinger's trip to Moscow comes against a changed background: Soviet officials and the Soviet mass media have resumed bitter attacks on the United States. Now, in addition to such traditional targets of Soviet propaganda as the Pentagon, Zionists, Sen. Henry Jackson and George Meany, Soviet newspapers have criticized Kissinger outspokenly.

BUT THERE is at least one aspect of U.S. foreign policy which does not now cause a bitter response in Moscow: namely, American relations with China.

If two years ago an American-Chinese "conspiracy" was a favorite topic of Soviet commentators, today a silence in the Soviet mass media on this issue indicates that it is no longer a subject of major concern.

A fear of a rapprochement between the United States and China had been among the most important factors causing Soviet officials to seek better relations with America.

When, at the May 1972 meeting of the

Soviet Communist Party Central Committee, former Politburo member Pyotr Shelest challenged the majority decision to welcome President Nixon in the Soviet Union despite U.S. bombing of North Vietnamese cities, he was told in reply that after Nixon's visit to Peking, it would be irresponsible to push him even closer to the Chinese by refusing to negotiate with him in Moscow.

If the Soviets today are confident that there is no direct threat of American-Chinese accommodation, their interest in detente with the United States might well diminish.

INITIALLY, Soviet objectives in detente had included a desire to avoid a situation in which she could face enemies both in Europe and in Asia. Agree-

ments with West Germany then made this less sensitive.

Secondly, the Soviets desired to broaden the gap between the United States and Western Europe. To some extent, this goal also was achieved, although an apparent Atlantic community consensus over European security and force reductions surprised Soviet policymakers.

Thirdly, the troubled Soviet economy desperately needed either reform or an infusion of foreign technology and investments. The party apparatus was reluctant to share its power with the economic management. That is why, in order to overcome economic difficulties, Brezhnev appeared abroad in the role of a purchasing agent. However, despite the fact that Soviet trade with the West has grown, the most ambitious projects still exist only on paper — due largely to Soviet failure to offer acceptable conditions and to provide potential investors with necessary information.

Another initial Soviet goal in detente was a reduction in the momentum of U.S. military programs and a shift in the balance of power further in favor of the Soviets. But Defense Secretary James Schlesinger's recent proposals to increase the accuracy of U.S. long-range missiles as well as a new and larger Pentagon budget disappointed the Soviet leadership.

Finally, detente had seemed to be dictated by the Soviet fear of some form of American-Chinese combine, directed against the Soviet Union.

IF THESE fears were now to disappear, the Soviet Union might consider itself comfortable without detente. That would change the rules of superpower interplay built up by Kissinger during his visits to the two Communist capitals.

These were major considerations as Kissinger returned to Moscow, with U.S.-Soviet relations in their most difficult stage since the first summit meeting in Moscow.

The Soviet leadership always preferred to interpret detente as a one-way street, with the United States making real concessions and the Soviet Union kindly agreeing to accept them in the name of detente. Kissinger at times seemed to feel that way, too.

-Associated Press

U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Soviet Communist party leader Leonid Brezhnev enjoy a laugh in the Kremlin.

But inevitably the time had to come when the limit of American agreement to make concessions would be reached. At the current arms limitation talks in Geneva, at discussions on mutual reduction of forces in Vienna, and at the Middle East peace conference in Geneva, the United States has less it can yield. At the same time, the Soviet Union presumably does not feel that it is her responsibility to find a way out of stalemate.

IT THIS appears that the best thing Kissinger could do in order to keep detente going would be to play his Chinese card.

If the President and Kissinger were to show an interest in replacing, as a keystone of global strategy, special relations with Russia by even more special relations with China, how would the Soviets be likely to respond? Would not such a new policy orientation ruin detente irreparably?

Obviously, bitter new attacks from Moscow could be expected. It is also possible that further attempts to strengthen U.S. ties with China would convince Soviet policymakers that Nixon and Kissinger were unreliable as detente partners. Superficially, it might even be suggested that the Soviets would toughen their positions on arms limitations and mutual force reduction and refuse to cooperate in the Mideast.

But, in the final analysis, the United States would not have much to lose, especially in the long-term perspective.

It is hard to find any indication of real Soviet cooperation in the Middle East, and Soviet proposals on SALT and MBFR are far from acceptable to the United States.

ALL OF THIS is not to suggest that this country does not need detente with Russia. The opposite is true.

Detente can be approached in two ways: by convincing the other side about one's serious and good intentions, or by persuading it from a position of strength. A proper balance between the two seems important.

The United States has tried moderation, and it was not appreciated in Moscow. Thus, this may be the right time for Kissinger to go to Peking.

Kissinger
Has No Word
On Embargo

By BARRY SCHWEID

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger said today he has received no word yet on whether the Arab oil-producing countries intend to lift their embargo against the United States.

"Your speculation will be as good as
mine," Kissinger said in an unusual
personal appearance at the daily State
Department briefing for correspondents.

Earlier in the day, Vice President
Gerald R. Ford said he understood the
embargo had been lifted. He said he had
talked with Kissinger before making the
remarks in a television interview.

But Kissinger told newsmen: "There
must have been some misunderstanding
of my remarks."

The two men were together Wednesday
night at a dinner given by King Hussein.

"It's my understanding that the oil embargo has been lifted," Ford said in a televised interview.

The vice president said he had talked
earlier today with Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger who has been leading ef-
forts to have the Arab oil embargo,

invoked since the Mideast war began last
October, lifted.

The State Department had no official
comment but officials there said they
were encouraged by the word they had re-
ceived. There was no elaboration.

"The particular announcement, the
official announcement, will come at a
later date, a day or two from now," Ford
said.

In Tripoli, Libya, a high-ranking Libyan
official said earlier that the Arabs have
agreed to end their oil embargo against
the United States and the decision may be
announced Sunday in Vienna.

The Los Angeles Times said today in a
story from its Washington bureau that the
agreement to lift the embargo against the
United States is limited to a two-month
trial period.

"To preserve some semblance of unity
the Arab nations agreed to a compromise
which commits them to take another look
at both the embargo and the production
levels in two months," the newspaper

See OIL EMBARGO, Page 14A

2A

CORPUS CHRISTI TIMES, Thurs., Mar. 14, 1974

TIMES

State

National

Bentsen, Tower Agree

U.S. Sens. Lloyd Bentsen, D-Texas, and John
Tower, R-Texas, voted together twice yesterday
as the Senate held roll call votes on handguns and
the death penalty.

The Senate tabled, and thus killed, an
amendment to require registration of handguns.
Both Bentsen and Tower voted for tabling.

Then the Senate passed 54-33 a bill to restore
the death penalty for espionage, treason, and
certain other federal crimes, Both Tower and
Bentsen voted with the majority

Flood Warnings Issued

Flash flood warnings went out early today for
residents of Maverick County on the Mexican
border as thunderstorms grew intense around
Eagle Pass on the Rio Grande.

Scattered showers and somewhat milder
thunderstorms along the same stream from near
Laredo upstream into the Big Bend country of
far West Texas, and near Sweetwater in West
Central Texas, around Fredericksburg in South
Central Texas and on the Middle Texas Coast
from Palacios into the Gulf of Mexico.

Amnesty Not Exp

The chairman of a congressional
he doubts amnesty for Vietnam War
and draft evaders will be enacted in
Robert W. Kastenmeier, D-Vi
Washington yesterday that the
hearings "have shown grave differ-
issue. I just don't think we're clos-
it, that's all." Kastenmeier said he
it is likely that his House Judicia-
will put out a bill this year and s
been no movement in the Senate on t

Heavy Workload

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Le
Jr., says the workload of the court
the point where it's quite difficult
the cases that reach us the care
and material reflection I myself
need."

Powell made the comment ye
joint meeting of the Richmond
Association and the University
Law School.

# Kissinger faces tough assignment keeping detente alive

Caller

March 14-17

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Kissinger is going back to Moscow again fairly soon to ask and answer some awkward questions about the state of U.S.-Soviet relations.

The reason for his visit is fairly obvious. He has to find out if his affair with Moscow is real or fake. Both sides have been supporting the notion of "detente" or "peaceful coexistence," but increasing their military budgets while talking about reducing them. They glorify trade while differing about the terms of trade, proclaim about their desire for peace in the Middle East, while shipping arms to their belligerent clients.

There is something false at the bottom of this Washington - Moscow "detente" and both sides know it. On the surface, things are much better. Kissinger and Ambassador Dobrynin talk much more and much more frankly than in the old Cold War days. The two sides meet in Geneva to discuss the control of strategic arms, and Nixon and Soviet Communist

By James Reston

party chief Brezhnev will meet again soon to discuss the peace and world order their people want.

But meanwhile, President Nixon is asking for the largest peacetime military budget in the history of the republic, the Soviet Union is building up its forces in Europe and urging the Arabs to maintain the oil embargo against the United States, and President Pompidou of France is in the Soviet Union demonstrating his "independence" of the United States, and weakening the Western alliance.

So there are obviously some awkward questions to be asked on both sides before Nixon makes his next appearance on satellite television from the Kremlin. For example:

- If the Soviet Union is really serious about reaching a mutual reduction of military forces in Europe, why does it now have 10 tank and 10 motor rifle divisions with 45,000 boats west of the Urals, an increase of 9,000 in the last three years?

- Why some 31 or 32 Soviet divisions in central and eastern Europe, with 430,000 to 450,000 men in place in these areas, and more than 4,000 new armored personnel carriers since 1969?

- Why, if Moscow is really serious about the principles of the last Nixon-Brezhnev Kremlin doctrine for a new world order, should there be such a frantic build-up of Soviet naval and missile power?

The Soviets also have some unanswered questions:

- Why a record U.S. peacetime military

budget when the Nixon administration is boasting about its new accommodation with Moscow and meanwhile struggling with inflation and a recession at home?

- Why all this talk out of Washington about expanding world trade, while denying to the Soviet Union equal trade terms with other "most favored nations?"

- Why does Washington defend the principle of "noninterference" in the internal affairs of other nations, and still interfere in the Soviet Union's policy of deciding who should be allowed to emigrate from the USSR?

It will not be easy for Kissinger to ask or answer these questions, for there is obviously a difference between the words and the actions, the propaganda and the policies on both sides. It is good politics at home for both Nixon and Brezhnev to talk about "detente" and "peaceful coexistence," but there is something bogus about their protestations of good faith, and neither side is taking any

chances.

The result is that the Congress of the United States is not going along with Nixon and Kissinger in their appeals to grant Moscow "most favored nation" trading rights, or forget about the Soviet Union's emigration policy governing Soviet Jews. The Congress is voting for the big U.S. military budget, and saying "no" to Soviet trade and Soviet emigration plans for the simple reason that it fears the policy of "detente" is not genuine but phony.

Kissinger is clearly going to have to grapple with these questions when he gets to Moscow, and before he recommends that Nixon follow him there later in the year.

For the main argument for voting against the impeachment of Nixon on Capitol Hill, regardless of the evidence against him, is that he has been a successful, even a brilliant leader in the field of foreign affairs, especially in

reaching accommodations with the Soviet Union and China.

But the accommodations with China and the Soviet Union — to say nothing about our troubles in Europe and Japan — are beginning to look a little dubious on Capitol Hill. Members are asking whether those Nixon broadcasts from Peking and Moscow were for real, or whether, like so many other Nixon triumphs, they were merely tactical and may be even bogus.

Kissinger will be exploring all this on his forthcoming trip, looking for genuine agreements on the arms talks, and the Middle East talks, and the balance of power in Europe and on the oceans, and if he can get them, the Congress may cooperate on trade. But this time, the Congress will be looking for policy and not propaganda — certainly not for a splatty diversion from the impeachment proceedings in the House — and this could be the most difficult assignment of Kissinger's career.

New York Times News Service

The Senator and the Secretary

JOHN
CROWN

ONE OF THE key points in President

Nixon's endeavor to relax tensions with the Soviet Union has been his commitment to grant that nation a number of trade concessions.

But while the President and his Secretary of State were willing to make trade concessions, Congress—not surprisingly—has not exhibited the same degree of enthusiasm. There is a certain amount of skepticism within Congress as to whether "detente" means the same thing to the Soviets as it means to us.

And while the administration has been laboriously pursuing a relaxation of trade with the Soviet Union, at the same time it has been trying to place tighter restrictions on our trade with the tiny African country of Rhodesia,

Last Thursday before the Senate Finance Committee there was an enlightening exchange along this line between Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Sen. Harry F. Byrd Jr., I-Va., a member of that committee.

In essence, Sen. Byrd extracted an admission from Secretary Kissinger

that there might be a doubt as to the legality of the United Nations embargo against Rhodesia. Secretary Kissinger conceded, "...I would have to review the particular positions of the embargo."

The exchange is worth recounting here. It began with questions regarding the Soviet Union and whether we should consider domestic policy in determining foreign policy, as well as any commitments that might have been made in order to bring peace to the Middle East.

Sen. Byrd: "Do you think our actions toward Rhodesia are just or unjust?"

Secretary Kissinger: "...Yes, I recognize it as just."

Sen. Byrd: "Do you regard the Soviet Union as being governed by a tight dictatorship, by a very few persons over a great number of individuals?"

Dr. Kissinger: "I consider the Soviet Union, yes, as a dictatorship of an oligarchic nature, that is, of a small number of people in the Politburo."

Sen. Byrd: "In your judgment, is Rhodesia a threat to world peace?"

Dr. Kissinger: "No."

Sen. Byrd: "In your judgment, is Russia a potential threat to world peace?"

Dr. Kissinger: "I think the Soviet Union has the military capacity to disturb the peace, yes."

Sen. Byrd: "In your judgment, does Russia have a more democratic government than Rhodesia?"

Dr. Kissinger: "No."

Sen. Byrd: "...Now you have testified that the then foreign secretary of Great Britain, Douglas Hume, in an interview last December, said that while his government supports trade sanctions against Rhodesia because it had been put on by the previous labor government, he did not think it was the correct policy. And then he added, 'We disagree with the political systems of a number of countries, for example, South Africa. But we trade with them. And by and large, we do not believe in ostracism and a boycott.'

"Would you care to comment on that?"

Dr. Kissinger: "I agree with the principle he has enunciated."

Sen. Byrd: And then you have testified that you do not regard Rhodesia as being a threat to world peace."

Dr. Kissinger: "That is correct."

Sen. Byrd: "And then you know, of course, that under the United Nations Charter action can only be taken against a country in regard to an embargo, if that country is judged to be a threat to world peace.

"And so my question to you is do you think the United Nations acted improperly?"

Dr. Kissinger: "I had not thought that the United Nations acted improperly, but in the light of what you have said, I would have to review the particular positions of the embargo."

Loosen restrictions against the Soviet Union and tighten them against Rhodesia. Ah, a topsy-turvy world.

4A THE KANSAS CITY TIMES

Thursday, March 14, 1974

May 8 Award

Kissinger
Visit Here

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, secretary of state, has informed Independence city officials he plans to travel here May 8 to accept the first annual Harry S. Truman award for public service.

In a letter to Mayor Phil K. Weeks of Independence, Kissinger says in part: "Thank you for your invitation to come to Independence on May 8 to accept the (award). I am deeply honored and pleased to accept."

A spokesman for Kissinger's office in Washington said yesterday the secretary of state probably would travel to Independence unless unforeseen business forces a cancellation of the trip.

Arthur W. Lamb, an Independence council member who heads an awards committee and who nominated Kissinger, said if Kissinger comes he also may participate at the annual wreath laying ceremony that day at the grave of Truman in Independence. May 8 was Truman's birthday anniversary.

The Independence city council last year established the award to be given to an outstanding elected or appointed official of the city, county, state or nation in honor of the former President. The council unanimously selected Kissinger at a January study session.

Lamb said the award would be presented at the Harry S. Truman Library in Independence. Details of the ceremony will be arranged later, he said.

## Evidence

Tomasic said the jury should
nd Noel guilty based on the
dge's detailed instructions on
sanity as a defense. "The
dge said if a defendant is
entally capable of understand-
ing what he is doing and has the
ower to know that his act is
rong, then the law will hold
m criminally responsible for
" the prosecutor said.

Tomasic asked the jury to
onsider carefully the judge's
omments about persons found
nocent by reason of insanity.
uch a person is committed to
he state hospital for criminally
sane but can be discharged at
ny time by the chief medical
fficer if the officer determines
he patient is not dangerous to
her patients, Tomasic said.

"The only requirement is that
he district attorney be notified
0 days before they turn him
ose on the streets," Tomasic
aid. "I know this defendant has
ghts but so did Roberts and so
bes Mrs. Roberts and all of the
ther citizens of our
munity."

In his closing arguments Feir-
ing said Tomasic had twisted
the judge's instructions. "Mr.
omasic ignored the first part
of the judge's instructions on in-
nity as a defense." Feiring

defense..., means that the de-
fendant is laboring under such a
defect of reason from disease of
the mind as not to know the na-
ture and quality of the act he
was doing, or if he did know it,
that he did not know that what
he was doing was wrong be-
cause of his mental inability to
distinguish between right and
wrong."

The defense attorney said the
only two persons who had
lengthy conversations with Noel
since Robert's death were Feir-
ing and Dr. McKnelly. "Both of
us concluded Noel is crazy."
Feiring said. "You heard him
tell you that he thought it was
right to kill his tormentor. But
he believed he was killing a
spirit, not a body.

"Dr. McKnelly is an estab-
lished expert in psychiatry. If
you reject his testimony you've
got to have something to put in
its place," Feiring said. "Mr.
Tomasic doesn't give you any-
thing to replace it."

Feiring said the prosecutor
was engaging in scare tactics in
suggesting Noel might be re-
leased from a mental hospital
within a few days. "Statistics
show that people who are com-
mitted to mental institutions

U.S. Seeks to Soften
Kissinger's Remarks

The State Department tried to soften the sting yesterday of Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger's blunt criticism Monday of Western Europeans who take "a competitive posture" toward the United States.

Department officials withdrew from circulation the transcript of Kissinger's remarks to a meeting of wives of congressmen. Kissinger had said "the biggest problem American foreign policy confronts right now is not how to regulate competition with its enemies," but "how to bring our friends to a realization that there are greater common interests than simply self-as-ertiveness..."

Kissinger believed he was addressing "a private session" when he made those complaints about the lack of consultation between the Western European Common Market and the United States, it was said.

A gentler version of Kissinger's official position was issued yesterday in his name. It said:

"The overwhelming problem today is to construct a cooperative world order. The essential component of this is unity in the West.

"In the last year, in trying to inject a new vitality into

the Atlantic relationships we have encountered difficulty in working out consultative practices which would meet the needs of all.

"These difficulties are real and serious and will take some time to resolve. But we are determined to resolve them with patience and good will. Our overriding objective is to preserve the unity of the West, which has brought us to this point and which is even more essential for our future."

French Foreign Minister Michel Jobert, prime protagonist of Kissinger in the trans-Atlantic debate, said in an interview that Kissinger is using the wrong strategy in Europe.

Jobert said, "Dr. Kissinger's attitude toward Europe seems to me, in the first place, to be artificial, and in the final analysis, excessive."

"Dr. Kissinger does not have the feel of Europe," said Jobert.

"The Europeans," Jobert said, "are hagglers, distrustful and crafty. Some are soldiers, others are jurists. Still others are merchants. All indulge in intellectual speculation or just plain speculation. You can exert pressure on such and such a group, but what you obtain against their will is no victory."

JAMES RESTON

worn Star-News

9-13-74

# Kissinger's Toughest Job

The reason for his visit is fairly obvious. He has to find out if his affair with Moscow is real or fake. Both sides have been supporting the notion of "detente" or "peaceful coexistence," but increasing their military budgets while talking about reducing them. They glorify trade while differing about the terms of trade, proclaim their desire for peace in the Middle East, while shipping arms to their belligerent clients.

There is something false at the bottom of this Washington-Moscow "detente" and both sides know it. On the surface, things are much better. Kissinger and Ambassador Dobrynin talk much more and much more frankly than in the old Cold War days. The two sides meet in Geneva to discuss the control of strategic arms, and Nixon and Soviet Communist Party Chief Brezhnev will meet again soon to discuss the peace and world order their people want.

But meanwhile, President Nixon is asking for the largest peacetime military budget in the history of the republic, the Soviet Union is building up its forces in Europe and urging the Arabs to maintain their oil embargo against the United States, and President Pompidou of France is in the Soviet Union demonstrating his "independence" of the United States, and weakening the western alliance.

* If the Soviet Union is really serious about reaching a mutual reduction of military forces in Europe, why does it now

have 10 tank and 10 motor rifle divisions with 45,000 tanks west of the Urals.

* Why some 31 or 32 Soviet divisions in Central and Eastern Europe, with 430,000 to 450,000 men in place in these areas, and more than 4,000 new armored personnel carriers since 1969?

* Why, if Moscow is really serious about the principles of the last Nixon-Brezhnev Kremlin doctrine for a new world order, should there be such a frantic buildup of Soviet naval and missile power?

* Why a record U.S. peace-time military budget when the Nixon administration is boasting about its new accommodation with Moscow and meanwhile struggling with inflation and a recession at home?

* Why all this talk out of Washington about expanding world trade, while denying to the Soviet Union equal trade terms with other "most favored nations?"

* Why does Washington defend the principle of "non-interference" in the internal affairs of other nations, and still interfere in the Soviet Union's policy of deciding who should be allowed to emigrate from the USSR?

The result is that the Congress of the United States is not going along with Nixon and Kissinger in their appeals to grant Moscow "most favored nation" trading rights, or forget about the Soviet Union's emigration policy governing Soviet Jews. The Congress is voting for the big U.S. military budget, and saying "no" to Soviet trade and Soviet emigration policy for the simple reason that it fears the policy of "detente" is not genuine but phony.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn has contributed to this doubt on Capitol Hill, and it is odd that the Soviet leaders should not have anticipated the consequences of banishing him from his homeland. Why, he asked, in his letter to the Soviet leaders, should the Western nations have made such concessions to Moscow "simply to win the favor of the rulers of Russia?"

How could it be, he inquired, that the Western democracies would almost vie with one another to gain Moscow's favor "just so long as the Russian press would stop abusing them...?" Truly, he remarked, the foreign policy of czarist Russia never had any successes to compare with the expansion of Moscow's power into Europe, the Mediterranean and the oceans of the world.

Kissinger is clearly going to have to grapple with these questions when he gets to Moscow.

For the main argument for voting against the impeachment of Nixon on Capitol Hill, regardless of the evidence against him, is that he has been a successful, even a brilliant leader in the field of foreign affairs.

Kissinger will be exploring all this on his forthcoming trip, looking for genuine agreements on the arms talks, and the Middle East talks, and the balance of power in Europe and on the oceans, and if he can get them, the Congress may cooperate on trade. But this time, the Congress will be looking for policy and not propaganda — certainly not for a splashy diversion from the impeachment proceedings in the House — and this could be the most difficult assignment of Kissinger's career.

KING HUSSEIN IN U.S.,
MEETS NIXON TODAY

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, March 11—
King Hussein of Jordan arrived
in Washington today for talks
tomorrow with President
Nixon, Secretary of State Kissinger and other officials on
the current Middle East diplomacy.

While in Washington, the
King is also to meet with Con-
gressional leaders and speak
Friday to the National Press
Club. Although his visit is
regarded as "unofficial," he
will be given a dinner tomor-
row night by Vice President
Ford.

Foreign Minister Abba Eban
of Israel is expected to arrive

in New York tomorrow in con-
nection with the sale of Israeli
bonds and will talk later in the
week in Washington with Mr.
Kissinger.

Later next week, an Israeli
delegation, probably headed by
Defense Minister Mushe Dayan,
is due in Washington to begin
talks with Mr. Kissinger on
troop separation on the Syrian
front. A Syrian group is ex-
pected to come to Washington
soon thereafter to receive the
Israeli ideas from Mr. Kissinger
and give him their own pro-
posals.

# U.S. Fatalistic on Embargo End

Wash Post 3-12-74

U.S. officials declined yesterday to make any new predictions about the end of the Arab oil embargo, following the postporement in Cairo Sunday of a conference that was supposed to discuss the subject.

On Capitol Hill, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Joseph Sisco told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "the embargo was a collective decision in terms of changing the situation."

The Cairo conference was put off until Wednesday and shifted to Tripoli when Libya, Algeria and Syria failed to show up.

Administration officials yesterday adopted a fatalistic tone in speaking of the chances for a lifting of the embargo, now 4½ months old.

Addressing a meeting of congressmen's wives, Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger said in respect to the Arab oil stoppage:

"I would state what the President said last week when he expressed some hope for the next meeting of the oil ministers."

At the State Department, spokesman George Vest said "the problem is among themselves." He said the United States is prepared to wait and "see what they produce."

Earlier in the year, Kissinger had said he expected the embargo would be lifted before the end of the now expired 40-day period set for the disengagement of Israeli and Egyptian military forces

around the Suez Canal. Vest cautioned yesterday, however, that "you have to have a Bibli cal view of 40 days and 40 nights."

While diplomats took the view that the embargo decision was largely out of their hands, they turned their attention to a new flurry of Middle East diplomacy centering this week on Washington.

Jordan's King Hussein arrived here yesterday afternoon, and Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban is due in Washington Thursday, after stopping in New York.

King Hussein's visit was de-

scribed as "private," but he will have talks with President Nixon, Secretary of State Kissinger and Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger.

Testifying before the Senate committee, Sisco said that Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meier had promised to send a high-level representative here within two weeks, and the Syrian government will send one as well.

However, it was left uncertain by administration officials when Israeli-Syrian talks on a military disengagement in the Golan Heights area would actually get under way.

State Department spokesman Vest said he did not rule out the possibility that the talks could start in less than two weeks.

President Hafez Assad of Syria said in an interview published this week in Time magazine that he was "not pessimistic" about chances for a Middle East peace.

He said a demilitarization of the Golan Heights area would be a "limitation of (Syrian) sovereignty," but he added that this might be acceptable as a "temporary measure."

Controversy Over Allied Consultation

Wash POST
3-12-74

# Brandt Gets Nixon Complaint

By Murrey Marder

Washington Post Staff Writer

President Nixon has personally entered the sharp controversy over consultation between the United States and the Common Market with a complaining letter to West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, the State Department confirmed yesterday.

The depth of the American version of the disagreement was acutely characterized yesterday by Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger as "the biggest problem in American foreign policy."

Speaking to wives of congressmen at the State Department, apparently without realizing at first that reporters were present, Kissinger said:

"The United States has no objection whatever to an independent European policy. It does have an objection when independence takes the form of basic hostility to the United States. It does have an objection when, in a crisis which can only be dealt with cooperatively, the Europeans deliberately adopt a competitive posture...

"I would say," Kissinger said, "... that the biggest problem American foreign policy confronts right now is not to regulate competition with its enemies—we have a generation of experience with that, and with ups and downs we are going to handle it.

"But (the biggest problem is) how to bring our friends to

a realization that there are greater common interests than simply self-assertiveness, and that the seeming victory that they are striving for is going to prove hollow in an atmosphere of constant strife and endless competition."

Kissinger, who is German-born, prefaced these remarks by saying "Europe has never recovered from World War I," not in terms of recovery from physical devastation, but "because the governments... have never fully regained public confidence."

He said, "The deepest problem in Europe today, which we still see, is that there have been very rarely fully legitimate governments in any Eu-

See ALLIANCE, A21, Col. 1

state would lose $70 million, mostly in New York City.

"New York pays a large amount of taxes and we're constantly being penalized by the House, and this has got to stop," Rep. Abzug said. She cited a recent Rules Committee decision blocking a mass transit bill with large subsidies for New York as another example of discrimination.

She promised, with the aid of other members of the New York delegation, to call for frequent quorums and roll call votes to delay consideration of the education bill.

The attack started yesterday when a series of routine funding resolutions for 10 committees was before the House. Rep. Abzug called for a roll call vote on funding for the Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Lester Wolff (D-N.Y.) called for a quorum. The leadership decided to postpone consideration of the resolu-

"Essentially we hope to get the education bill put off so we can renegotiate the formula," Rep. Abzug said. The leadership, however, intends to go ahead with it.

Only debate is scheduled for today—no voting. Under order from the Rules Committee, all amendments to Title I of the bill must be printed in the Congressional Record at least two days prior to being offered, unless they are committee amendments, so members can get information on any changes in the formula for their districts or states.

Attempts to insert antibusing provisions and the change in the Title I formula are expected to be the most controversial sections of the bill.

The committee changed the Title I formula in an attempt to update the definition of poverty in a way that will eliminate inequities it felt had come to favor wealthier states.

Under the present formula created in 1965, every local school district is entitled to a grant based on its number of children from families with incomes over $2,000 a year and according to the census.

The grant also is based on the number of children from families with incomes over $500 who receive federal aid, families with dependent children (AFDC).

Over the years, however, children counted under the AFDC formula have expanded until they have overwhelmed the number of children counted from the census. In fiscal 1966, 10 percent of the children we AFDC children. In the present fiscal year they total over per cent.

Studies have shown that the wealthier a state, the more likely that its level of AFDC payments will be high. New York, as a wealthier state, makes higher AFDC payments and was eligible for almost

## France and U.S.
On Familiar
(Battle) Ground

Washington and Paris are squabbling again, over issues properly *au courant*, but disagreement between the two nations is really an old story that scarcely needs an issue.

From the State Department's point of view, what the trouble is now is that France is trying to separate the United States from the members of the European Common Market. Secretary Kissinger was openly annoyed at what he saw as French efforts last month to wreck the Washington conference of oil-consuming nations. His exasperation grew last Monday when the market countries acting together but without the United States, offered long-term economic and technical aid to Arab countries; he was sure the French were behind it. In Mr. Kissinger's view, Paris is being inconsistent—at the least—when it tries to sever Europe's ties with the United States while at the same time insisting that the United States maintain its NATO troop strength at 300,000.

Paris makes no secret of its viewpoint: that the United States often is an overbearing giant bent on telling Europe how to run its affairs, grandly making policy along the Potomac without consideration of allies on the Rhine and the Seine.

This bickering and distrust began during World War II. President Roosevelt found it difficult to accept the posturing of Charles de Gaulle, who spent much of his time in London, or traveling in North Africa, awaiting the war's end and proclaiming, "I am France."

In the late forties and fifties, the distrust continued while France fought a losing war with her Indochinese colonies. The United States considered coming to her aid but did not; American policy was anticolonial at the time, and American officials questioned France's fighting ability.

A decade later it was the United States that was fighting in Indochina, for what it said were altruistic reasons, and the French who suspected imperialisalist motions; it is a suspicion they retain.

There have been other issues: France exposed Britain's entry into the Common Market and Gen. de Gaulle ordered NATO military bases off French soil. But to many observers, the ex-

planation of the recurring quarrel is simply French dislike of all things American.

Perhaps closer to the truth is what appears to be the official French attitude toward all her allies: France has her own sense of mission and will not be significantly deterred from its pursuit, especially by an ally. France will act with the allies, so long as they are going her way.

Trade, Detente—and Soviet Emigration

Wash. Post 3-10-74

THE ADMINISTRATION and Sen. Henry Jackson (D-Wash.) may finally be moving toward a com- promise on the politically related and diplomatically critical issues of trade benefits for Russia and Jewish emigration from Russia. Even while he says he would recommend a veto of a trade bill carrying the Jackson Amendment—as written, it conditions equal-tariff treat- ment and continuance of credits on free emigration— Secretary of State Kissinger allows that the administra- tion will accept a bill which in some manner links trade and emigration. The administration position is appar- ently based on discreet Kremlin assurances that Jewish emigration will proceed at the level (3,000 a month) of the last three years.

On his part, Senator Jackson has indicated awareness that emigration cannot be expected to be totally free. Together with the large congressional majorities he commands for his point of view on this issue, he is con- cerned with numbers of emigrants and also with the common Soviet practices of arresting and harassing applicants for emigration and of refusing to permit the reunion of families divided by the Soviet border. Un- questionably, free emigration is too onerous a condition to load on trade. But reasonably steady numbers and minimal frictions are not too onerous. Dr. Kissinger's forthcoming trip to Moscow, to plan the June summit, should provide indications of whether Moscow agrees.

If a three-cornered compromise comes to be made by the administration, the Kremlin and the senator, then it will have been for Mr. Jackson a remarkable achieve- ment. It would attest not only to his political skill in mobilizing congressional leverage and his personal power in this area of foreign affairs but to the rightness of his long-held view that the Russians would indeed pay a price in emigration in order to strengthen their economic ties with the United States. The administration claims that its own "quiet diplomacy" has produced the emigration of the last three years, but it is hard to see how its soft approach would have worked if the trade stick wielded by Sen. Jackson had not been in hand.

If, however, the three-cornered compromise breaks down, Senator Jackson will bear a heavy responsibility. For it is foolish to expect that the Soviet government will accept unlimited emigration, and unlimited inter- vention of this sort in its domestic affairs, in order to serve trade and detente. At a certain point, as Dr. Kissinger told the Senate Finance Committee the other day, trade would be jeopardized, and so would detente, on which trade to an extent depends, and emigration as well. For Mr. Jackson and his amendment, the test has always been to know when to bend. Holding firm in the name of emigration and human rights sounds noble. But holding too firm could be disastrous all around.

We have also come to recognize the need to reduce economic barriers to care. Yet the Assisted Health Insurance Plan offers some Medicaid recipients fewer benefits than they now have and sets significant economic barriers for many — barriers that would reduce the utilization of income. While a family with income of $4,-

greater benefits to some elderly, particularly that very small number with unusually high medical expenses, while reducing cash benefits to the many whose medical expenses are more limited. These proposed changes surely need to be seriously debated.

So, also, does the departure from the Medicare social insurance principles. Medicare would be transformed into an income-related program as it is replaced by a plan that would introduce income tests and vary the cash value of benefits with income. This, too, is the result of policy makers' preferences. Can we believe that the introduction of income tests into the social insurance system represents the preferences of the people?

In both these programs, with premium costs and benefits that are income-related, attention must be paid to the creation of "notch effects": situations in which small increases in income result in large increases in costs to the covered person. These difficulties are illustrated by a simple example: In the Assisted Health Insurance Plan, an increase in family income of $500 (from $4,500 to $5,000) would lead to an increase of $300 in premium costs, of $50 in per-person medical deductibles, of $25 in drug deductibles, and of almost $200 in maximum liability. Though the dollar amounts differ, a similar situation is found in the Medicare-replacement

Social Security Administration is simply not supported by the facts.

Nor do we face a choice only between public insurance with the demise of the private carriers and private insurance with their survival. Other alternatives are available. Medicare, after all, is a public program that utilizes the private sector in the role of fiscal intermediary. The desirability of that alternative needs examination. It is clear, however, that the issues are considerably broader than the administration suggests.

There is, however, one difference that the President chooses to stress that is nonexistent and fictitious. Three times in his message he stated that his plan would "insure that doctors work for their patients, not for

THE NEW REPUBLIC MAGAZINE 9 MARCH 1974 (6)

Kissinger Down South

The best that can be said for Secretary of State Kissinger's three-day encounter with the Western Hemisphere foreign ministers in Mexico City late last month is that it could have been worse. Assisted by Jack Kubisch, the State Department's senior Latin America specialist, Kissinger had wisely prepared for the meeting by deflating in advance several contentious questions that might have turned the gathering into a shouting match. He had settled an old dispute with Mexico over the salinity of the Colorado River. He had reached an agreement with Peru under which nationalized US firms would be compensated. He had set in motion the eventual transfer of the Canal Zone to Panama. And at the conference itself, he initiated what the final communique called a "new dialogue of the Americas," which hopefully will encourage governments throughout the hemisphere to discuss candidly their complaints against the US. Yet the meeting failed to grapple with some of the deeper issues that strain US ties with the Latin American and Caribbean states. The role of US multinational corporations, on which hang so many economic and political problems, was side-stepped. The controversy over Cuba's position was also bypassed. And most significantly the hemisphere representatives rejected Kissinger's appeal for

a regional "community" and instead served notice that their relationship with the US is changing drastically. When Kissinger opened the conference with a plea for a "new community," for example, President Luis Echeverria Alvarez of Mexico rebuffed the suggestion and said that Latin America has a separate identity as part of the "third world."

The worldwide scramble for oil and other raw materials has given the Latin Americans immense bargaining power. This has in turn strengthened nationalistic tendencies, with the result that they now have the confidence to take over US firms and to challenge Washington's outmoded ostracism of Cuba. Though they may not have sympathized with the late President Salvador Allende Gossens' Marxist government in Chile, many Latin Americans believe that the US engineered its downfall through economic pressures and other maneuvers, and that, in their eyes, was unwarranted interference in the hemisphere's affairs. They have also resented the low priority accorded them by the Nixon administration.

It was Kissinger's intention to correct this situation, and the "dialogue" in Mexico City was a start. But the exchange of views revealed profound differences between the US and its neighbors to the south, which will take more than rhetoric and ambiguous communiqués to bridge.

March 7, 1974 (8)

Aerospace Daily

ABRAMS SEES DIFFICULTIES IN U.S.-SOVIET CONVENTIONAL ARMS BALANCE

Gen. Creighton W. Abrams believes that differing U.S.-Soviet military doctrines make a conventional arms balance harder to achieve than a strategic balance.

Abrams' candid remarks--which apparently underscored problems in the mutual and balanced force reductions (MBFR) talks between the NATO nations and Warsaw Pact countries--came in an exchange between the Army chief of staff and House Appropriations Chairman George Mahon (D-Tex.) near the conclusion of a defense appropriations hearing on the Army's FY 1975 budget request Tuesday.

Mahon wanted to know if it was possible for the U.S. and the Soviet Union to put an end sometime soon to "both sides working feverishly to improve their military posture."

Abrams offered little encouragement although he did say--in qualified terms--that with sufficient understanding on both sides the military forces in Europe can be reduced.

Mahon noted that the U.S. and the Soviet Union were able to limit the numbers of nuclear weapons in the strategic arms talks and asked why there couldn't be similar gains in the conventional field.

"Getting a balance in conventional forces," remarked Abrams, "is even more complex" than in the strategic field.

He said the difficulty is that the U.S. doctrine in the use of conventional forces is quite different from the Soviet Union's. Over the years, he explained, the U.S. has tried to do things with weaponry and machines in a sense replace the masses of soldiers at the front. Thus, he continued, the design of U.S. forces is somewhat different than the Soviet's, creating a situation in which it is hard to work out the differences and still meet the doctrinal concepts of each side.

Asked Mahon: "Don't you think it's possible to achieve verification" in conventional forces?

Replied Abrams: "I think not."

In his prepared testimony, Abrams warned that detente "can easily lull us into a false sense of security. American strength made detente attainable, and it is hard to see it continuing unless we maintain our strength."

He said the assessment of Soviet capabilities is more than just military strength, but includes "the subtle array of economic, political, social and psychological pressures which the closed societies opposing us can concentrate so powerfully. Oil, for instance, may be only the first of many vital resources used as strategic weapons against us."

Army Secretary Howard H. Callaway said that Safeguard deployment is on schedule at Grand Forks, N.D., and the achievement of an equipment readiness date of October 1974 "appears attainable."

"Site Defense, however, is not faring as well. Without your support of the full $160 million requested, there will be delays and costs will rise."

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR 8 MARCH 1974

Story on Kissinger
Jolts Europeans

Born

"Not even in a million years could Europe achieve anything in the Middle East."

A Washington reporter for the German Press Agency (DPA) attributes this comment - and other critical remarks - to United States Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger in a report that has created a sensation in this and other European capitals, writes Monitor correspondent David Francis.

The comments, according to the DPA report, were made by Dr. Kissinger in a background briefing of other journalists during the flight home from Brussels earlier this week.

Dr. Kissinger reportedly also spoke with bitterness of the total miscalculation of Europe's "al-ience-readiness," leading him astray in making his proposal last April 23 for a new Atlantic char-

He worried about the long-term perspective for keeping U.S. troops in Europe.

[On Thursday in Washington Secretary of State Kissinger firmly refused before a Senate Finance Committee to link the presence of American troops in Europe to agreement with European countries on oil and economic matters. But in an apparent reference to State Department charges that he was not consulted in advance on a Common Market plan for economic cooperation with Arab countries, Dr. Kissinger said. It was incongruous for the United States to be asked to consult with Europe on NATO matters if European countries failed to consult with Washington on matters affecting both sides of the Atlantic.]

According to the DPA account, Dr. Kissinger's bitterest words were reserved for France. He accused French President Georges Pompidou of accepting the year of Europe, but then blocking its progress by accusing the U.S. of having intentions of establishing a hegemony.

EXCERPTS FROM KISSINGER'S STATEMENT

(CONTINUED)

with the U.S.S.R. in the perspective of the past few years. When this Administration assumed office, it was under great pressure to relax restrictions upon Eastern-West trade. Arguments at that time—when our trading position with other parts of the world was deteriorating and our friends in other industrialized countries were moving energetically into Eastern markets—emphasized not only the economic benefits to us, but also stressed that expanded trade would improve relations where diplomacy had failed to do so.

Removal of Discrimination

Title IV will give the President authority to extend most-favored-nation treatment—to countries not now enjoying that status. This is not a privilege; it is the removal of a discriminatory aspect of our policy without which we cannot claim to be moving toward more normal trade relations with these countries. The extension of nondiscriminatory tariff treatment would, for some time to

come, have only a modest impact on Soviet exports to the United States, which are largely raw materials not now subject to substantial tariffs.

Thus the major impact of the continued denial of M.F.N. to the Soviet Union would be political, not economic. M.F.N. was withdrawn in 1951 largely as a political act. Our willingness to remove this discrimination now would call into question our intent to move toward an improved relationship. It would jeopardize a moderate evolution in all areas including the Middle East. It would prevent the implementation of the U.S.-Soviet trade agreement, as well as the lend-lease accord — involving repayment of over $700-million to the United States.

The Export-Import Bank now extends credits to U.S. businesses exporting to the Soviet Union and some Eastern European countries. These credits are granted under terms and conditions equally applicable to all countries.

6-F