WorldSecurityNetwork.com - FRITZ KRAEMER ON EXCELLENCE - Book pa...

Seite 15 von 15

written by: Stefan Rammer, 16-Nov-04

Buch über Fritz Kraemer, der zum wichtigen Berater Henry Kissingers und Donald Rumsfelds wurde

„Er bleibt für mich der Leuchtturm, der in der Wirrnis des Augenblicks uns die Transzendenz weist.“ Henry Kissinger, der morgen Gast im Medienzentrum sein wird, sagte dies über seinen wichtigsten Lehrer und Mentor Fritz Kraemer. Die Amerikaner nannten ihn „the Prussian“. Eigentlich passte der Sohn aus großbürgerlicher, bismarckisch konservativer Familie mit seinem Monokel, seinem stolzen Selbstbewusstsein und dem kurzen Haarschnitt nicht ins Bild Amerikas. Und doch hat dieser deutsche Emigrant, der als Soldat ins geschlagene Deutschland zurückkehrte, das Bild Amerikas von der Welt vielleicht mehr verändert als jeder andere. Geboren 1908 in Essen, war Fritz Kraemer ab 1933 Jurist beim Völkerbund in Rom und kämpfte dort für das Völkerrecht. 1939 emigrierte er nach Amerika, um dort für eine Weltordnung aus der sittlichen Idee der Freiheit zu werben und die Amerikaner zu einer Weltführungsrolle zu bekehren.

Henry Kissinger (l.) und Fritz Kraemer 1945 als Soldaten in der 84. US-Infanterie Division.

Sehr erfolgreich und mit viel Wirkung auf viele wichtige Personen, vor allem im Pentagon, ist ihm dies gelungen. Dem im letzten Jahr Verstorbenen wird jetzt eine umfassende Würdigung zuteil. Der Autor und Schützling von Fritz Kraemer, der Münchner Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann, der auch Gründer und Präsident der World Security Network Foundation in New York ist, hat bei der Passavia in Passau einen voluminösen, optisch wie inhaltlich hervorragenden Band drucken lassen (der Münchner Buchgestalter Hermann Gruber hat in den Leineneinband sogar ein benutzbares Monokel eingearbeitet). Die Beiträge darin stammen von Alexander M. Haig, Henry Kissinger, US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld, Edward L. Rowny, Wilhelm-Karl Prinz von Preußen, Sven Kraemer und Madeleine Kraemer Byrant.

Das von Hubertus Hoffmann herausgegebene Buch „Fritz Kraemer on Excellence: Missionary, Mentor and Pentagon Strategist“ ist in Deutschland über die Internetadresse www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/fritzkraemer zu bestellen. (204 S., über 300 Fotos, 99 US-Dollar).

Passauer Neue Presse

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/fritzkraemer/bookparties_print.cfm

09.05.2005

Message

Jessee Incao

From: Jessee Incao [jincao@kmaglobal.com]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:14 PM
To: 'hubertushoffmann@gmx.de'
Subject: Meeting

Dear Sir:

Many thanks for your letter to Dr. Kissinger dated May 11. Unfortunately, Dr. Kissinger does not have any US publishers to recommend. However, he would be happy to see you and Mr. Barak during your New York visit. Perhaps we could schedule a meeting for the morning of Tuesday, June 7?

At your convenience, please let me know what suits your schedules.

Best,
Jessee

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

5/27/2005

16/06 2005 18:28 FAX

001

"Elite Network for a Safer World"

To
Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
350 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
U.S.A.
via Fax +1 212 759 0042

JUN 16 2005

Grünwald/Munich, June 15, 2005

Dear Henry:

it had been a privilege to hear your analysis about the future of Israel and Palestine together with Ehud last week Tuesday. Many thanks for your time. I add three articles from my non-profit foundation World Security Network promoting for each and every conflict a combination of diplomacy plus power plus reconciliation. Or in the words of Eric Hoffer: "A war is not won until the defeated enemy has been turned into a friend"

I will be back again in New York next week and would like to present your partner our Germany Investment Fund - my project with Ehud - best Tuesday morning. (Maybe Jessee could mail me back at hubertushoffmann@gmx.de)

I add some informations about my World Security Network Foundation, a global elite network for young people in foreign and defense affairs, which reaches now 167,000. It is a kind of new internet based "Harvard Summer School" which you founded in the 50th with so much success. As well it is based on Fritz Kraemer's demand :"Look for man and women of excellence !"

We would be honored if we could host in Berlin or New York a dinner with young elite people with you as guest speaker maybe this year.

I was very sad to realize that Fritz Kraemer's behaviour towards you still is a burden. As you know I tried a reconciliation several times - it almost cost me his friendship. If you wish we both can talk about it next time maybe with more time.

With best wishes from Bavaria!

945 Fifth Avenue Apt 18 B • New York, New York 10021, U.S.A.

Phone +1 (212) 628 9289 • Fax +1 (212) 628 9167

hubertus@worldsecuritynetwork.com • www.worldsecuritynetwork.com

16/06 2005 18:28 FAX

002

# The World Security Network: "Elite Network for a Safer World"

The World Security Network Foundation—an independent, nonprofit organization—is building a new elite global network for foreign and security policy with the purpose of “Networking a Safer World.” It was founded and funded in New York by German business-man and successful investor Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann, former advisor in the European Parliament, the German Bundestag and U.S. Senate and foreign and defense affairs specialist and activist for over 25 years, member of YPO and IISS.

The goal is the networking of a young elite—those twenty to forty years of age—in America, Europe, Africa, and Asia using the new medium of the Internet, as well as the promotion of an international discussion of new solutions in security policy. Young authors can publish their own analyses worldwide. A network of young editors reports from Washington D.C., London, Rome, Moscow, Singapore, Beirut, New Delhi, Germany, China, and Eastern Europe led by WSN Global-Editor-in-Chief BrigGen (Ret.) Dieter Farwick, former Director of Germany's "Federal Armed Forces Intelligence Office" and close aid to former German Defense Minister and later NATO Secretary General Manfred Woerner.

An International Advisory Board consisting of 34 well-known experts from 13 countries - the USA, Germany, Russia, the UK, Turkey, France, Switzerland, Estonia, Kosovo, Hungary, Lebanon, Pakistan and Greece- including nine generals and admirals (Klaus Naumann, Peter Regli, Klaus Reinhardt, Ed Rowny, Bill Odom, Götz Gliemeroth, Lord Peter Inge, Sebastian Roberts, Chuck Saffell), journalists (Herbert Kremp, Thomas Lipscomb, Henning von Steuben), professors and scholars (Mensur Akgün; Ron Asmus; Rod Beckstrom, Robert Dujaric; Peter Forster, Ortwin Gebauer, Amin Hashwani, Christian Hacke, Robert Hunter, Michael Inacker, Joachim Krause, Ludger Kühnhardt, Holger Mey, Mark Minevich, John Nomikos, Andreas Pruefert, Arben Qirezi, Sergey Rogov) and politicians (Samy Gemayel, Geza Jeszenszky; Tunne Kelam, Peter Kurt Würzbach) advises WSN.

167,000 members of the international information elite including 65,000 business executives and lawyers; more than 52,000 professors, assistants, and alumni of elite universities such as Harvard, Yale, MIT, and INSEAD; 32,000 journalists; 15,000 foreign and defense experts; and more than 3,000 members and staff of parliaments, receive a weekly electronic newsletter with new analyses of foreign and security policy—the largest of its kind worldwide.

www.worldsecuritynetwork.com reports daily on new developments around the globe and receives more than 2 million hits monthly. With the “proposals” we publish, WSN makes a contribution to the discussion of all of the “hot topics” in world politics.

80 media partners (including CNN, UPI and Newsweek) and 52 institutes (including RAND and IISS) cooperate with WSN and make use of the analyses.

WSN supports the young elite with a Scholarship program. In 2004, Dmitry Udalov, the nineteen-year-old President of the Student's Association in Moscow, received an invitation for his first visit to New York and Washington D.C. He is now Editor Russia. In 2005, Manuela Paraipan, from Romania was awarded the WSN Scholarship to visit Beirut as Editor Broader Middle East.

In 2004 WSN President Hubertus Hoffmann published a WSN book on his mentor Fritz Kraemer on *Excellence. Missionary, Mentor and Pentagon Strategist* with contributions by Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger, and Donald Rumsfeld. (more in www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/fritzkraemer)

WSN is also working together with seven research institutes on the international *Codes of Tolerance*, designed to promote cooperation between diverse cultures.

More in www.worldsecuritynetwork.com

16/06 2005 18:29 FAX

WorldSecurityNetwork.com - A New NATO Double-Track Decision Against Terror... Seite 1 von 1

005

# A New NATO Double-Track Decision Against Terror
Only a new combination of containment and dialog can defeat terrorism

written by: [Hubertus Hoffmann](https://www.hubertus-hoffmann.com), 29-Dec-04.

What amazing strategic successes have been achieved by the West in only 15 years: the military threat of the Warsaw Pact has been neutralized; NATO and the EU have been extended throughout the whole of Central Europe. Freedom and human rights dominate in Europe; Germany has been reunited and communism is dead.

These unique victories were based on NATO strategies which consisted of a clever mixture of military strength as well as a willingness for dialog. Outstanding examples are the Harmel Report of 1967 and the NATO Double-Track decision of 1979.

Up to today, there has been a lack of a comparable major strategy to combat the threat by totalitarian fanatics cloaked in the veil of Islam. Military thinking dominates on the one hand, and ignores the fact that a war is only then won when the hearts of the enemy have been conquered (Eric Hoffer), and on the other hand a moralizing "policy of peace" that encourages even more these fanatics through "provocative weakness" (Fritz Kraemer).

Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann is founder of the WorldSecurityNetwork.com Foundation in New York, entrepreneur in Germany and author of the new book *Fritz Kraemer on Excellence. Missionary. Mentor and Pentagon Strategist*.

We urgently need a new transatlantic NATO Double-Track decision "*For the Terrorist Challenge and a Partnership with the Islamic states*" consisting of two equally important columns: a credible law enforcement as well as military containment and power politics on the one hand, and an active dialog with the Islamic cultures regarding a common future on the other hand.

The following basic principles should be included in this dialog:

**Treaties of Friendship:** NATO, America and Europe encourage the cooperation, as friends of the Islamic states, through a mesh of international contracts.

**Mutual Respect and Tolerance:** Fellow citizens of the Moslem faith in Europe and America are to be treated with respect. We, in turn, expect the same in the Islamic partner countries—including the unhindered practice of religion.

**Youth Politics:** In particular, the young academics of Islamic countries struggling to find a perspective must be addressed. Joint school book commissions should develop new concepts for the teaching of tolerance.

**Media Policy:** Media commissions are to draft concepts for the containment of hate propaganda and put forth examples of cooperation. For example, television broadcast companies must no longer serve as a megaphone for terrorists.

**Dialog of Religions:** The Church has a special responsibility in providing an essential contribution to the dialog with Muslim clerics and reconciliation.

On the level of nation-states—including the U.S.A.—the European Union and NATO, the best suggestions should be collected and bound together in a transatlantic NATO workgroup.

In 2005, the heads of state and governments should agree upon a new Double-Track decision to be put into action by Europe and America.

The dialog should focus initially on key Islamic countries such as Indonesia, the most populous Moslem country in the world, or the Gulf States with their more progressive thinking rulers. Turkey could carry this dialog into the Moslem countries of central Asia.

Only in this way will America and Europe win the war against terrorism, as with so many decisive conflicts before.

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/printArticle3.cfm?article_id=10746

16.06.2005

16/06 2005 18:30 FAX

007

WorldSecurityNetwork.com - The West needs Holistic Formulas for Peace on the b...

Seite 2 von 2

* We must change our outlook, encountering our "old enemy" with a "thoughtful heart and a loving mind". We must be ready to make the first gesture, not just waiting to see what the others will do while keeping a mental tally.

WSN proposal: "*For each conflict we need a holistic formula for peace based on diplomacy plus power plus reconciliation*

* We must open the hearts of our present-day enemies through generosity and specific aid.

I am confident that our Western "peace policy" is in urgent need of these elements of Christian conciliation, but forgets to apply them in day-to-day life.

Our thoughts and our actions are still excessively dominated by diplomatic set phrases and rhetoric on the one hand and operative military planning on the other. Neither approach is wrong, but in Alfons Nossol's experience, this is nowhere near enough.

For each and every conflict, we need a holistic formula for peace based on diplomacy plus power plus reconciliation. Only in this way, proceeding in many hundreds of small, painstaking steps, can we achieve true and lasting peace between peoples who have long been enemies.

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/printArticle3.cfm?article_id=8603

16.06.2005

16/06 2005 18:30 FAX

WorldSecurityNetwork.com - Christian Peace Policy: Combating Ideology and Nati...

008

Seite 1 von 2

Christian Peace Policy: Combating Ideology and Nationalism with a "Thoughtful Heart and a Loving Mind"

written by: Alfonso Nossol, 23-Dec-03.

The understanding that reconciliation heals memory is crucial to the achievement of true peace between peoples. We must rise above stereotypical patterns of thought, strip away prejudice and combat idealologization, tragic hostility and lamentable co-existence. A genuine unity must blossom where simple co-existence once reigned. Hostility must yield to redeeming mutual goodwill and kindness. To achieve this end, we must recognize one another's innate dignity as human beings. Our mission must be first and foremost to respect, heal and liberate human beings. An individual must be allowed to develop as a person. But our success depends upon our ability to break down formulaic patterns of thought - never an easy task.

And yet, without forgiveness, there can be no justice. Justice must also have a soul, and above all a heart. This is merciful love. For this reason, we must truly want to pardon and to forgive. But this does not mean that we should forget the past. Nobody has the right to make us forget. The will to forgive and forget is an ethical concern. But man simply cannot forget. This power lies with God alone. The desire to forgive and the desire to forget should not be placed on the same level.

We must give other people a chance, for in this way we can discover powers within ourselves of which we were previously unaware, become better human beings and inspire others to act humanely. We must not only tolerate our fellow men, but go one step further towards acceptance. We must accept one another with all our differences.

In my home in Upper Silesia, we have successfully pursued this course. The Opole region of Silesia changed hands every 200 years or so. First part of Bohemia, then part of Moravia, it eventually came under Austrian rule. In 1742 the Prussian King Friedrich II claimed the land from the Austrian Empress and the region became Prussian and German. From a historical point of view, we in the Opole region are thus the offspring of three different cultures: Bohemian-Moravian, German and Polish. These three cultures overlap in our region and this

is a wonderful thing. In this sense, we Silesians can long count ourselves Europeans. We have always resided in the heart of Europe, and three hearts have long been beating in our Silesian breasts: a Bohemian-Moravian one, a German one and a Polish one. These three hearts complement one another.

We must take people as they come. We must accept them into our hearts and give them an opportunity to live out their lives according to their own different ways.

Ethnic cleansing and expulsions are the greatest crimes against humanity. People have a right to their home. If you rob a Silesian of his home, you uproot him.

Today, the unity and mutual goodwill of the three cultures in Silesia are a great enrichment. The call by an eminent Silesian poet: "Awake, my heart, and think!" Is as relevant now as ever. Josef von Eichendorff spoke of a "loving mind". This combination of "the thoughtful heart and the loving mind" are deeply Silesian - a wonderful thing - two aspects that complement one another.

This does not mean that we should throw patriotism overboard. Patriotism is a product of love and not of hate. Pure nationalism, however, which can degenerate into chauvinism, is inhumane. Sooner or later, it leads to war.

The three-dimensional nature of Silesia has enabled us to overcome nationalism. The region currently has a German and a Ukrainian minority, a Roma minority and a Polish majority. We support and promote these minorities. Each year, for example, there is a pilgrimage to St. Annaberg for each minority in its own language, whether German, Ukrainian, Czech, Roma or, of course, Polish.

One factor that greatly contributed to the alleviation of tension between Germans and Poles in Silesia was the generous aid packages sent by the Germans during the proclamation of the state of war in Poland. Up to 36 trucks pulling trailers of goods from Germany could gather at any one time on the square called the Domplatz in Opole at that time. Many of the new inhabitants had come from Eastern Poland. A number of them had borne a great deal of suffering and cruelty at the hands of the occupying German army in the Second

Archbishop Alfon Nossol from Opole in Silesia (Poland), the Heart of Europe: "Let's combat ideology and nationalism with a "Thoughtful Heart and a Loving Mind!"

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/printArticle3.cfm?article_id=8604

16.06.2005

16/06 2005 18:31 FAX

WorldSecurityNetwork.com

010

Seite 1 von 5

World Security Network

NETWORKING A SAFER WORLD

About Us

Our Network

Contact Us

HOT TOPICS

Africa

Americas / USA

Asia

Broader Middle East

China

Europe

India

Iran

Iraq

Islamic States

Israel / Palestine

Koreas

NATO

Russia

Terrorism

Other

IDEAS

Democracy

Human Rights

Peace and Conflict

Religion and Politics

Tolerance

Other

CONTINENTS/REGIONS

Africa

Americas / USA

Asia

Europe

Greater Middle East

Latin America

Russia

ORGANIZATIONS

EU

NATO

OSCE

UN

TODAY'S POLL

The heads of 25 EU-
states are meeting in
Brussels to discuss the
way ahead. What is
your view?

C The "European Political Union" is dead

Europe will safeguard
the "European

Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann

President and Founder
Worldsecuritynetwork

Dr. Hoffmann has worked as advisor in the European Parliament (Office of Prof. Hans-Gert Poettering), the German Bundestag (Parl. State Secretary of Defense Peter Kurt Wuerzbach MP) and the U.S. Senate (Sam Nunn, Gary Här t) in defense affairs for many years. He was Research Fellow at CSIS, Georgetown University. He worked as a journalist in the White House Press Corps, as Editor in ZDF, the largest TV station in Europe, and managing director of large German media companies. Dr. Hoffmann holds a PH.D in Political Science with "summa cum laude" (Prof. Karl Dietrich Bracher, University of Bonn, Germany) and is lawyer as well. Dr. Hoffmann is reserve officer in the German Army (Field Artillery).

He is now a successful independent Investor in many companies, Including General Capital Group specialized in MBO/I, and OBOs in Germany.

Dr. Hoffmann has from 1979 to 1983 supported NATO's Two Track Decision to deploy medium range nuclear weapons in Europe combined with mutual arms reductions on the Russian side which put him on the target list of RAF, the German terrorist organization. In 1978 he founded with his MP Peter Kurt Wuerzbach a popular German appeal (Duerener Appell) to dismantle the new Russian SS-20 missiles and to combine it with the non-deployment of NATO Pershing II and Cruise Missiles, which was signed by more than 100 members of the German Bundestag, U.S. Senators like Edward Kennedy and others, which was on December 12, 1979 successfully integrated into NATO's Two Track Decision and later into the INF Treaty.

In 1980 he initiated a CDU/CSU resolution and Federal Law of the Bundestag for an Annual Report on Arms Control and Disarmament, which since then is published by the German Government.

For ten years Dr. Hoffmann was Chairman of the Christian-Democratic (CDU) Committee for Foreign, Defense, European and Inner German Affairs in his home state Lower Saxony in Germany.

In 1984 Dr. Hoffmann organized the exchange program for young reserve officers from the U.S.A. and Germany with the support of than Parl. State Secretary of Defense Peter Kurt Würzbach.

He supported the Mudjahedin from 1985-1990 against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, visiting them in the mountains in 1985 and writing the Afghanistan report for the European Parliament.

In 1989 - during the visit of German Chancellor Helmut Kohl - he initiated and helped to finance the first "Farmers Association of Silesia" - former German homeland of his expelled parents in Poland - which now has more than 3000 Polish and German members and its own dairy.

In 1992 he was Chairman of the Eesti Committee Report (asked by its President Tunne Kelam) about the Future of the "Baltic Hanseatic Region" (Oblast Kaliningrad; Lithuania; Latvia, Estonia) which helped to create stable democratic states in the

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/_dsp/dsp_authBio3.cfm?authID=12

16.06.2005

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/_dsp/dsp_authBio3.ctm?authID=12

16.06.2005

Message

Page 1 of 2

Jessee Incao

**From:** Jessee Incao [jincao@kmaglobal.com]
**Sent:** Monday, June 20, 2005 5:45 PM
**To:** 'Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann'
**Subject:** RE: Hubertus Hoffmann

Dr. Hoffman:

Although Dr. Kissinger is not available for a meeting tomorrow due to a Board meeting, I have passed along your information to his colleagues and will get back to you as soon as I hear from them as to whether or not they are available for a meeting tomorrow morning. Alternatively, you can reach their assistant, Beth Siar, at (212) 759-7919. She works for Alan Batkin, Vice Chairman of Kissinger Associates, and Ambassador Stapleton Roy, Managing Director of Kissinger Associates.

Best,
Jessee

-----Original Message-----

**From:** Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann [mailto:hoffmann@gcgb.de]
**Sent:** Monday, June 20, 2005 3:09 AM
**To:** 'Jessee Incao'
**Subject:** Hubertus Hoffmann

Dear Jessee,

Dr. Kissinger proposed at our meeting with Ehud that I meet one of his partners to present our German PE investment Fund.

I will fly to NYC today (Monday) and will have time to meet him Tuesday morning/ lunch time or dinner tonight after 8:30 pm.

Please be so kind to mail me back if a meeting is possible.

I enclose a CV as well for him and Dr. Kissinger.

6/21/2005

HENRY A. KISSINGER

January 20, 2005

Dear Mr. Hoga:

Thank you for the splendid bottle of Dom Perignon,
which you sent me for Christmas. We enjoyed it while
toasting the New Year, and I wanted you to know how
much I appreciated your thinking of me.

Wishing you and your family all the best in the year
ahead, and I hope to see you soon.

Mr. Takashi Hoga
President
Fujisankei Communications
150 East 52nd Street
New York, NY 10022-6017

TWENTY-SIXTH FLOOR • 350 PARK AVENUE • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 • (212) 759-7919
FACSIMILE (212) 759-0042

# "New Course For Kosovo"

Rice Makes Her Presence Felt
By Richard Holbrooke

Published Wednesday, April 20, 2005; in the Washington Post

Significant differences between the first and second Bush terms continue to emerge. After studied silence in her White House years, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is beginning to reveal her style and values, clearly with presidential approval. She seems to be a pragmatic conservative, oriented toward problem-solving, pursuing essentially non-ideological policies. She is careful (and politically smart) to keep faith, in all her statements, with neoconservative values, but she is also finding high-profile, low-cost ways, such as extensive travel, to improve America's shaky image and relationships around the world. Several recent events are worth attention:

* The dramatic policy reversal -- personally shaped by President Bush -- resulting in a decision not to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing a role for the International Criminal Court in Darfur. This was the first time in four years that the Bush administration had departed from its practice of opposing anything having to do with the ICC.

* Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick's well-orchestrated trip to Sudan, following the U.N. vote, to hammer the Khartoum government on Darfur. Zoellick became the first U.S. official to embrace the suggestion of several people, including U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jon Corzine, that NATO could play a role in support of an African Union peacekeeping force. (Next: Appoint a high-level special envoy for Darfur and a separate, full-time ambassador accredited to the African Union.)

* The appointment of outgoing World Bank president James Wolfensohn to the new post of special coordinator for development of Gaza -- an inspired choice, given Wolfensohn's reputation in this field; also a rather bold one for an administration that has famously subjected its appointees to a political litmus test that the liberal Wolfensohn, a Bill Clinton appointee, could never have passed.

One notable policy change has gone virtually unnoticed -- the one concerning Kosovo, where, after four years of neglect and mistakes, the administration has made a major shift. Ever since the 78-day NATO bombing campaign freed the Kosovar Albanians from Slobodan Milosevic's oppressive grip in 1999, political control of Kosovo has been in the semi-competent hands of the United Nations, while NATO has maintained a fragile peace between the majority Albanian and minority Serb populations.

1

Under Security Council Resolution 1244, passed in 1999, the final status of Kosovo was supposed to be worked out through negotiations that would result in either independence, partition or a return by Kosovo to its former status as part of a country once known as Yugoslavia, now "Serbia and Montenegro." But instead of starting this process years ago, Washington and the European Union fashioned a delaying policy they called "standards before status," a phrase that disguised bureaucratic inaction inside diplomatic mumbo-jumbo. As a result, there have been no serious discussions on the future of Kosovo for the past four years, even as windows of opportunity closed and Albanian-Serb tensions rose. Finally, bloody rioting erupted last March, leaving eight Serbs and 11 Albanians dead, a thousand people injured and the region teetering on the brink of another war. Tensions have remained high ever since; just two days ago there was a bomb attack on the offices of an opposition party in Kosovo.

Last month, after warnings about the explosiveness of the situation from Philip Goldberg, America's senior diplomat there, Rice sent Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns to Europe for meetings with the nearly moribund Contact Group (the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Russia and Germany). Burns told them that the situation in Kosovo was inherently unstable and, unless there was an acceleration of efforts to determine its final status, violence would probably increase, with NATO forces, including U.S. troops, tied down indefinitely.

Under American pressure -- always the necessary ingredient in dealing with the sluggish, process-driven European Union -- a new Contact Group policy has begun to emerge. This summer a special U.N. representative will "determine" that Kosovo has met the necessary standards -- self-governance, refugees, returnees, freedom of movement, etc. -- and is therefore ready for status talks. (Of course, this should have been done years ago, but better late than never.) Then will come the really tough part: What should Kosovo's final status be? Separate nation, Serb province, partition?

Although no one is talking on the record in Washington or in Europe, I find it hard to see any ultimate outcome for Kosovo other than independence, perhaps on a staged basis over the next several years. But such an outcome requires strong guarantees for the endangered Serb minority that remains in Kosovo -- between 100,000 and 200,000 people. The protection of Kosovo's Serbs will require some sort of continued international security presence. In addition, the deeply divided Kosovar Albanians, whose last prime minister is now facing war crimes charges in The Hague, must achieve a much higher level of political maturity.

Ultimately, Belgrade will have to accept something politically difficult: giving up Serbian claims to Kosovo, which Serbs regard as their historic heartland. The Serbs will have to choose between trying to join the European Union and trying to regain Kosovo. If they seek their lost province, they will end up with neither. But, if it can opt for the future over the past, Serbia would have a bright future as an E.U. member, and the ancient dream of an economically integrated, peaceful Southeast Europe (including Greece and Bosnia) would be within reach. The European Union, however, must make a real deal on Kosovo an integral part of the membership process for Serbia.

2

There are many complicated subplots here, involving Montenegro, Bosnia, Albania, the United Nations, the E.U. and NATO. But for now the important thing is that after ignoring the issue for four years, the administration is doing something in the Balkans, where nothing happens without U.S. leadership. Given that instability in the Balkans -- and Kosovo is highly unstable now -- has historically spread into other parts of Europe, and that the region lies in the heart of the growing NATO sphere, this is the sort of problem that must be addressed before it grows again into a major crisis.

3

DATE 4/22/05

CORR. FILE Holbrooke, Richard

ACTION: Alan Stape Dennis
Jessee Theresa John B.
Maggie Suzanne

SUBJ. FILE

CROSS REF.

STAFF MEMO

COMMENTS:

DC OFFICE:
Christie / Jody / Ann

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED my

China Makes Its Move

washingtonpost.com

# China Makes Its Move

By Richard Holbrooke

Post

Friday, May 27, 2005; A27

"The storm center of the world has shifted . . . to China," Secretary of State John Hay said in 1899. "Whoever understands that mighty Empire . . . has a key to world politics for the next five hundred years."

Well, everything is different and nothing has changed since Hay announced the famous Open Door policy, which demanded American commercial access in China equal to that of other major nations. A century of Sino-American ups and downs -- with far more of the latter -- followed, but today, in very different ways, the United States still seeks an open door; the secretary of the Treasury and an enraged Congress are hammering China to revalue its currency to give U.S. companies a better chance to compete with the world's fastest-growing major economy.

Arguments over the exchange rate are a small part of what goes on these days between the two most important nations in the world. Washington and Beijing have several vital common interests, notably in the war against terrorism and the desire for strategic stability in the Pacific and South Asia. And the two nations are still making an effort to work together; on the American side, responsibility for what Washington calls "the global dialogue" is primarily in the hands of Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, who is planning a visit to Beijing soon.

But although both sides officially deny it, Sino-American ties are slowly fraying while other issues take up the attention of senior American officials. Beyond the never-ending Taiwan issue and Washington's concern over China's growing military muscle, two huge factors put the relationship under constant pressure: first, substantially different attitudes toward the rights of people to express themselves freely and, second, the massive trade imbalance.

What vastly complicates U.S. relations with China is that every major foreign policy issue between the two countries is also a domestic matter, with its own lobbying groups and nongovernmental organizations ranging across the entire American political spectrum, from human rights to pro-life, from pro-Tibet to organized labor. The bilateral agenda, even a partial one, is daunting: Taiwan, Tibet, human rights, religious freedom, press freedom, the Falun Gong, slave labor, North Korea, Iran, trade, the exchange rate, intellectual property rights, access to Chinese markets, export of sensitive technology and the arms embargo.

In Washington, where different parts of the executive branch dominate on each issue and Congress plays a major role, it can be difficult to stick to a coherent overall policy. China, on the other hand, with its highly secretive, tightly disciplined and undemocratic system, can establish long-term policy goals and then work slowly toward them: The Chinese, are, as they like to remind visitors, a patient people.

China's advance toward long-term goals has produced extraordinary economic results since Deng Xiaoping's reforms began in 1979, notwithstanding the terrible 1989 crackdown in Tiananmen Square. In foreign policy, however, things had been different until recently. After its war against Vietnam in 1979, China became defensive, even passive, on the world stage.

But China's new leaders have begun to match their economic power with a more assertive foreign policy. Taken individually, Chinese actions may look like a series of unrelated events. But they are part of a long-term strategy. Some recent examples:

Faped to HAK in Kent 5/27/05. Page 1 of 2

✓ CHINA

✓ StAPE's China memos

Advertisement

## Energy Efficiency

► Click here to view projected energy demand through 2030

► View our Energy Challenges film

ExxonMobil

Taking on the world's toughest energy challenges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dvn/content/article/2005/05/26/AR2005052601540 nf.html

5/27/2005

China Makes Its Move

Page 2 of 2

· Premier Wen Jiabao's self-proclaimed "historic visit" to India in April, during which the world's two largest nations announced a "strategic partnership" -- vague words, of course, that could mean almost anything, but quite different from those that have, over the past 50 years, characterized this tense rivalry (which included one war).

· President Hu Jintao's stunning meetings in late April and early May with two top Taiwanese political leaders, marking the first such face-to-face meeting since Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek met in 1945.

· The anti-Japanese riots in April, which could not have taken place without the acquiescence of the government. Ostensibly meant to protest Japanese schoolbook misrepresentations of World War II atrocities, the demonstrations were in fact a crude signal that no matter what China's official position is, it does not really want Japan to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

· The highly unusual public criticism on May 12 by a Chinese Foreign Ministry official of American policy toward North Korea. Beijing is just plain tired of being called upon by Washington to salvage the six-party talks that North Korea has boycotted for almost a year, when, China says, there has been a "lack of cooperation from the U.S. side."

· China's intent -- for the first time since Beijing took over the Chinese seat in the United Nations -- to play a central role in the choice of the next U.N. secretary general, who is slated, by regional rotation, to be from Asia. The new secretary general, who takes office Jan. 1, 2007, cannot be Chinese (no permanent member of the Security Council can have one of its own in that post). One leading candidate called on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this month, but Washington has not yet paid the issue enough attention.

· Finally, China has begun buying oil fields in such remote areas as Sudan and Angola, part of a long-term strategy to address its rapidly growing energy needs. With energy policy come major foreign policy interests; this is probably related, for example, to China's reluctant attitude toward strong U.N. action in the Darfur region of Sudan.

China's gradual emergence as a political player on the world stage comes when there is a growing impression among other countries in East Asia that Washington is not paying the region sufficient attention. (Ironically, this is in sharp contrast to India, where relations with the United States are at their historical best.) If we lose interest and political influence in the Asia-Pacific region just as it grows in economic importance, the imbalance will surely return later to haunt a new generation of policymakers -- and the nation. The challenge is obvious, but the lack of clear focus at the highest levels in Washington on our vital national security interests in the region is disturbing.

Richard Holbrooke, who served as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs at the time of normalization of relations with China, writes a monthly column for The Post.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Advertising Links

What's this?

MyCashNow - $100 - $1,000 Overnight

Payday Loan Cash goes in your account overnight. Very low fees. Fast decisions. Direct deposit is not required. No credit check. Confidential - secure.
www.mycashnow.com

LendingTree.com - Official Site

LendingTree - Find a mortgage, refinance, home equity or auto loan now. Receive up to four loan offers within minutes. When banks compete, you win.
www.lendingtree.com

$150,000 Home Loan for $720/Mo

Mortgage rates hit record low. Refinance and save $1000s.
www.lowermybills.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dvn/content/article/2005/05/26/AR2005052601540nf.html

5/27/2005

Page 1 of 1

Jessee Incao

JUN 03 2005

Holbrooke's office

From: Loretta Graham [lgraham@perseusllc.com] on behalf of Richard Holbrooke [rholbrooke@perseusllc.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:30 PM

To: Ashley Bommer

Subject: Washington Post Column - May 27, 2005

Attached please find a copy of my monthly column which appeared in the Washington Post on May 27, 2005

6/2/2005

"China Makes Its Move"

By Richard Holbrooke

Published Friday, May 27, 2005; Page A27 in the Washington Post

Richard Holbrooke, who served as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs at the time of normalization of relations with China, writes a monthly column for The Post. He is also a member of the Academy.

China's intent -- for the first time since Beijing took over the Chinese seat in the United Nations - to play a central role in the choice of the next U.N. secretary general, who is slated, by regional rotation, to be from Asia. The new secretary general, who takes office Jan. 1, 2007, cannot be Chinese (no permanent member of the Security Council can have one of its own in that post). One leading candidate called on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this month, but Washington has not yet paid the issue enough attention.

Kissinger on China in the IHT

JUN 22 2005

Jessee Incao

**From:** Loretta Graham [graham@perseusllc.com] on behalf of Richard Holbrooke [rholbrooke@perseusllc.com]
**Sent:** Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:11 PM
**To:** Jincao@kmaglobal.com
**Cc:** Ashley Bommer
**Subject:** FW: Kissinger on China in the IHT

Henry,

Very Good column on China. I hope they listen. But the mood in Washington on China is awful.

All the best,
Richard Holbrooke

**From:** Academy of Diplomacy [mailto:academy@academyofdiplomacy.org]
**Sent:** Thursday, June 09, 2005 5:30 PM
**To:** academy@academyofdiplomacy.org
**Subject:** Kissinger on China in the IHT

"Conflict is not an option"

By Henry A. Kissinger

Published THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2005 in the *International Herald Tribune*

Henry A. Kissinger, and Academy member, heads the consulting firm Kissinger and Associates.

NEW YORK The relationship between the United States and China is beset by ambiguity. On the one hand, seven presidents have affirmed the importance of cooperative relations with China and a commitment to a one-China policy.

Nevertheless, ambivalence has suddenly re-emerged. Various U.S. officials, members of Congress and the news media are attacking China's policies, from the exchange rate to military buildup, much of it in a tone implying that China is on some sort of probation.

Before continuing on this subject, I must point out that the consulting company I chair advises clients with business interests around the world, including China. Also, in early May, I spent a week in China, much of it as a guest of the government.

The rise of China - and Asia - will, over the next decades, bring about a substantial reordering of the international system. The center of gravity of world affairs is shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

China's emerging role is often compared to that of imperial Germany at the beginning of the last century, the implication being that a strategic confrontation is inevitable and the United States had best prepare for it. That

6/22/2005

Kissinger on China in the IHT

Page 2 of 3

assumption is as dangerous as it is wrong. Military imperialism is not the Chinese style. China seeks its objectives
by careful study, patience and the accumulation of nuances.

It is also unwise to apply to China the policy of military containment of the cold war. The Soviet Union was the heir of an imperialist tradition. The Chinese state in its present dimensions has existed substantially for 2,000 years.

This is often invoked as a potential trigger. This could happen if either side abandons the restraint that has characterized U.S.-Chinese relations on the subject for more than a generation. But it is far from inevitable. All major countries have recognized China's claim that Taiwan is part of China. So have seven American presidents of both parties, none more emphatically than President George W. Bush.

With respect to the overall balance, China's large and educated population, its vast markets, its growing role in the world economy and global financial system foreshadow an increasing capacity to pose an array of incentives and risks, the currency of international influence.

Short of seeking to destroy China as a functioning entity, however, this capacity is inherent in the global economic and financial processes that America has been pre-eminent in fostering.

The test of China's intentions will be whether its growing capacity will be used to seek to exclude America from Asia or whether it will be part of a cooperative effort.

Paradoxically, the best strategy for achieving antihegemonic objectives is to maintain close relations with all the major countries of Asia, including China. In that sense, the rise of Asia will be a test of America's competitiveness in the world now emerging, especially in the countries of Asia.

The vast majority of Asian nations view their relations with the United States in terms of their perception of their own interests. In a U.S. confrontation with China, they would seek to avoid choosing sides; at the same time, they would generally have greater incentives for participating in a multilateral system with America than adopting an exclusionary Asian nationalism.

They will not want to be seen as pieces of an American design. India, for example, finds no inconsistency between its improving relations with the United States and proclaiming a strategic partnership with China.

China, in its own interest, is seeking cooperation with the United States for many reasons, including the need to close the gap between its own developed and developing regions; the imperative of adjusting its political institutions to the accelerating economic and technological revolutions; the potentially catastrophic impact of a cold war with America on the continued raising of the standard of living, on which the legitimacy of the government depends.

But from this it does not follow that any damage to China caused by a cold war would benefit America. The United States would have few followers anywhere in Asia. Asian countries would continue trading with China. Whatever happens, China will not disappear. The American interest in cooperative relations with China is for the pursuit of world peace.

6/22/2005

Kissinger on China in the IHT

Page 3 of 3

Attitudes are psychologically important. China needs to be careful about policies that seem to exclude America from Asia and about U.S. sensitivities regarding human rights, which will influence the flexibility and scope of America's stance toward China.

America needs to understand that a hectoring tone evokes in China memories of imperialist condescension and is not appropriate in dealing with a country that has managed 4,000 years of uninterrupted self-government.

As a new century begins, the relations between China and the United States may well determine whether our children will live in turmoil even worse than the 20th century or whether they will witness a new world order compatible with universal aspirations for peace and progress.

6/22/2005

DATE 7/20/05

CORR. FILE Holbrooke, Richard

SUBJ. FILE

CROSS REF.

STAFF MEMO

COMMENTS:

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED ✓

# Was Bosnia Worth It?

By Richard Holbrooke

If you wonder whether the 1995 American intervention in Bosnia was the right decision, go to a really horrible place, one whose name has become synonymous with genocide and Western failure. Go to Srebrenica.

Ten years after Bosnian Serbs under the command of Gen. Ratko Mladic murdered 7,000 Muslims there, I found myself back in that valley of evil as part of the official American delegation representing President Bush and the nation. We walked across muddy fields, under leaden skies, through a vast throng of victim families who were burying more than 600 of their loved ones, their grief and personal hatred of those who had done this undiminished by the passage of a decade.

But even in Srebrenica, there has been progress since my last visit, five years ago. Then, only 10 brave -- one might say recklessly brave -- Muslim families had returned to their homes, and they lived in constant fear among 12,000 Serbs. Today 4,000 Muslims have returned, and one-third of the Serbs have already left. This is astonishing, and more of the same seems certain if the international community -- and especially the United States, the most respected nation in the Balkans -- remains involved; in this regard, Bush's strong words of support at the ceremony -- read by the head of his delegation, Ambassador for War Crimes Pierre Prosper -- were welcomed. There was also an important effort at reconciliation: Top leaders from Serbia and the Serb part of Bosnia came to lay wreaths, an important acknowledgment of Serb responsibility for what happened.

Things have improved even more in the rest of Bosnia. Above all, there is peace and not simply a cease-fire; this war will not resume. Nor has Bosnia become two separate states, as many critics of the Dayton Peace Agreement predicted. Although many (including in the Pentagon) predicted a Korea-like demilitarized zone between Serbs and Muslims, there are no barriers between the regions, and there are growing economic and political ties between ethnic groups. More than a million refugees have returned to their homes, many, like those in Srebrenica, to areas where they are in a minority. Both the European Union and NATO are beginning talks that could lead to association agreements between Bosnia and Brussels.

So there is good news (which often means "no news" to editors) from Bosnia. But not nearly enough. From the beginning, implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement was insufficiently aggressive. The most important failure was not capturing the two most wanted war criminals in Europe, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. This is a story unto itself of missed opportunities and poor intelligence. Mladic is, after all, in Serbia, and has been seen in public. I would guess that Karadzic has trimmed his trademark gray pompadour, grown a beard, and is hiding in some monastery in the deep mountains of eastern Bosnia or Montenegro. If Karadzic and Mladic are not brought to justice, the international security force (now a European Union force, with NATO reduced to a small office and fewer than 200 American troops) will never be able to leave, and Bosnia's return to a multiethnic society (and the institutions of Europe) will be delayed or prevented.

It is by now universally understood that a great crime was committed
in Srebrenica. As assistant secretary of state for European affairs at
the time, I argued, unsuccessfully, that we needed NATO airstrikes to
stop the Bosnian Serbs -- bullies who preferred long-range artillery
and short-range murder to anything resembling a real military
operation. But Britain, France and the Netherlands had troops deployed,
as part of the United Nations' peacekeeping force, in three extremely
exposed enclaves in eastern Bosnia, including Srebrenica. Facing the
brutal threats of Mladic, they refused to consider airstrikes until
the Dutch troops were ignominiously escorted out of Srebrenica. By then
it was too late.

From 1991 to 1995 the United States had been reluctant to act in
Bosnia. But after Srebrenica, President Bill Clinton knew that although
the American people would not like it, the United States could no
longer avoid involvement there. Thus began the diplomatic and military
policy that led to the Dayton accords, to peace in Bosnia and, four
years later, to the liberation of the Albanian people in Kosovo from
Slobodan Milosevic's oppression.

Sending 20,000 American troops to Bosnia as part of a NATO-led
peacekeeping contingent to enforce Dayton took real political courage.
There were widespread predictions that it would fail, and there was
opposition from most of Congress and the foreign policy elite. In a
poll at the time, Clinton's decision was supported by only 36 percent
of the American public, who expected heavy U.S. casualties. As it
turned out, that expectation was misplaced; in the 10 years since
Dayton, no -- repeat, no -- American or NATO military personnel have
been killed by hostile action in Bosnia. It is a mark of the respect in
which NATO -- that is, the United States -- is held.

This was Clinton's most important action in regard to Europe -- an
action opposed, incidentally, by most of his political advisers. It was
a classic commander-in-chief decision, made alone, without
congressional support and with only reluctant backing from the
Pentagon. But it worked: Without those 20,000 troops, Bosnia would not
have survived, 2 million refugees would still be wandering the face of
Western Europe, a criminal state would be in power in Bosnia itself --
and we would probably have had to pursue Operation Enduring Freedom not
only in Afghanistan but also in the deep ravines and dangerous hills of
central Bosnia, where a shadowy organization we now know as al Qaeda
was putting down roots that were removed by NATO after Dayton.

Was Bosnia worth it? As we approach the 10th anniversary of Dayton,
there should no longer be any debate. Had we not intervened --
belatedly but decisively -- a disaster would have taken place with
serious consequences for our national security and the war on
terrorism. Dayton reasserted an American leadership role in Europe
after a period of drift and confusion. But the job is not yet finished,
and it is encouraging to see President Bush and the new team at State
recommit the nation, as they did last week at Srebrenica.

Richard Holbrooke was the chief architect of the Dayton Peace
Agreement. He writes a monthly column for The Post.

DATE 8/12/05

CORR. FILE Holbrooke, Richard

COMMENTS:

SUBJ. FILE

CROSS REF.

STAFF MEMO

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED

1 of 15 DOCUMENTS

Copyright 2005 Newsweek
Newsweek

For original reprints (with graphics) available http://www.rsicopyright.com/ics/prc_main/prs_request.html/

August 15, 2005 Atlantic Edition

SECTION: THE LAST WORD; Pg. 60

LENGTH: 832 words

HEADLINE: Richard Holbrooke

BYLINE: By Fred Guterl

HIGHLIGHT:
Dealing With The Disease

BODY:

News of the devastation caused by aids has been a steady drumbeat for decades now, and it keeps getting louder. The New York-based Council on Foreign Relations recently reported that 39 million people are expected to die of the disease in the next five or 10 years, and warns that some countries may find themselves unable to perform basic func-
tions of governance. For the past five years, former U.S. ambassador Richard Holbrooke has been at the forefront of the war on AIDS, acting as CEO of the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, a member-supported group that works to enlist corporations to fight the disease. NEWSWEEK's Fred Guterl spoke with him about the growing crisis. Excerpts:

GUTERL: How bad is the situation?

HOLBROOKE:

AIDS is unquestionably the worst health crisis in 700 years, since the Black Death. It decimates societies, and if it's not stopped it can wreck the social fabric and security of entire nations. This is already happening in parts of Africa, and other countries from Papua New Guinea to India are threatened. The fastest-growing AIDS rates in the world are in Russia, Ukraine and Estonia. Therefore, it is correct, in my view, to call it a national-security issue.

Africa, though, is still the biggest problem?

Africa is the heart of the problem, and South Africa is its epicenter. The South African government has come under well-deserved criticism for being slow to react to the problem. The Mbeki government has not been a very strong voice in this issue. They've been famously confused over it. They have undermined the effort to educate people on how to prevent its spread and how to deal with it. Church leadership in many countries has also been slow.

But it's not just an African disease. India has the first or second largest number of AIDS victims already, and the Indians are in heavy denial--they don't spend many resources on it. The new government is better than the last government, but not better enough. By denying the problem, the Indians are actually letting it spread, undetected, so the explosion will come down the road when it's too late.

In what sense is India in denial?

They haven't declared it a national emergency. They talk about it occasionally, but they don't have an all-out na-
tional campaign of prevention and education. They haven't put enough resources into it.

Other than Africa, is India the most worrisome?

Newsweek August 15, 2005 Atlantic Edition

I definitely worry about India more than Russia or China, because of the size of the population, the density and the fact that it can spread much more rapidly in those circumstances. China's problem is real, but precisely because China uses such brutal and draconian methods that no democracy could use, they're likely to be able to contain it. Russia is a major problem. But if you polled 100 AIDS experts in the world, they'd vote India as the most worrying, aside from Africa.

Why is denial so problematic?

AIDS spreads most rapidly when people are in denial about what causes it and how to prevent it. Ninety-five per-
cent of all the people in the world who are HIV-positive don't know it, which means that they're unintentionally spread-
ing it for the seven or eight years it lies without any symptoms in a person's body. Prevention is the No. 1 issue. Other-
wise, the amount of money we spend on treatment will be a bottomless pit. Nothing is going to work unless the spread
of it is stopped, which means prevention, which means testing.

Is the World Health Organization's effort to administer antiretrovirals to 3 million people by year-end making a dent in the problem?

Even if [the program] succeeded--and they have now admitted that they won't make it--in 2005 about 4.2 million people will get infected with HIV. It's the tortoise and the hare, and the hare is going to win. If ever an ounce of prevention was worth a very large pound of cure, it's in this area. That means condoms, abstinence, the development of female microbicides (which everyone is working on), education and, above all, testing. We will never get in front of the disease and stop it until we put more effort into prevention. Testing must be confidential, and the disease must be destigmatized. The stigmatization issue is enormous, but testing must be encouraged.

One country in the world has done this: Botswana, with 30-plus percent infection rate, has moved from purely vol-
untary testing to highly encouraged testing--they've increased testing from about 7 percent to over 90 percent in the last
year. The result is the beginning of a turnaround.

What can businesses do to combat the AIDS epidemic?

They have a vital role to play in the fight against AIDS. It's in their own financial interests to do so, because other-
wise large companies are going to find that they have to keep training new workers. So they have to get heavily engaged
in the prevention and treatment of the disease. If they operate in heavily affected areas, they should encourage testing,
free counseling and free treatment.

LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2005

# Our Enemy's Face

By Richard Holbrooke

Let us take a hard look at some extremely important words: "the global war on terrorism." Since Sept. 11, this phrase -- often reduced in Washingtonese to "GWOT" -- has entered the English language, popularized by journalists and administration officials. It is the way our highest national priority is described by almost everyone.

But "GWOT" is not an accurate description of America's enemy or of what we are engaged in. Unless people know whom we are fighting, it will be virtually impossible to win the war of ideas that is such a key part of this struggle. The new undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, Karen Hughes, who is charged with primary responsibility for this part of the war, has a chance to fix the problem, but only if she is willing to change some deeply ingrained rhetoric and the political reasons behind it.

Stopping terrorists, using all necessary means, is vital in protecting the nation. We cannot win without the use of force and first-rate intelligence. But suicide bombers are merely the expendable, deluded cannon fodder of ruthless ideologues. This has been true with terrorists throughout history. The long-term battle is against the underlying ideas and leaders behind these specific groups of terrorists.

Despite factionalism and fierce doctrinal disputes, our enemies, broadly speaking, constitute a movement, with goals, gurus, ideologues, myths and martyrs. They share a core set of virulently anti-Western beliefs and have common goals: to destroy the moderate (and still majority) wing of Islam, to establish Islamist theocracies that look backward toward a mythic "golden age," to seek the destruction of Israel, and to inflict maximum damage and human suffering through acts of terrorism.

Among its leaders, there is one whose face is as internationally recognized today as Adolf Hitler's was in 1941. He was responsible for Sept. 11. Yet the United States has not made it a primary goal to expose Osama bin Laden as the monster he is, something Roosevelt and Winston Churchill did to Hitler, and American leadership did to communism during the Cold War by demonstrating its moral and intellectual bankruptcy. Bin Laden (unlike Saddam Hussein) has been virtually ignored in public by official Washington.

Terrorism is not an end in itself; it is a tactic, just as it has been for countless other movements throughout history that sought to destroy or paralyze the established order, or attract attention to their cause. Over two years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski, among others, pointed out that a "war on terror" was like a "war on blitzkrieg" or a "war on war." For this important insight, the former national security adviser was both attacked and ignored. During the 2004 campaign, I stumbled into a public dispute with senior administration officials, including Vice President Cheney, when, as a John Kerry surrogate, I told a New York Times Magazine writer that the phrase could be considered a metaphor and compared it to phrases such as the "war on poverty." For this both Kerry and I were assailed as naive, and I was asked, in the sneering

tones of certain cable television interviewers, if I really thought we
were at war with a "metaphor."

Of course not. But despite the grand rhetoric, does anyone think the
United States is actually fighting "terror" or "terrorism" globally? We
may detest terrorism in Sri Lanka, but we are not engaged in that civil
war. Nor in Nepal, northern Uganda, Aceh or countless places around the
world.

By calling both Iraq and Sept. 11 part of the war on terrorism, the administration has been partially successful in linking public support for the less popular war in Iraq to the universally supported fight against al Qaeda, even though no convincing evidence has been produced connecting the two. No other explanation has proved as valuable in keeping Americans, albeit in declining numbers, behind our increasingly controversial involvement in Iraq. "GWOT," as Dan Froomkin wrote on The Post's Web site last month, is "the metaphor that has consistently been [President Bush's] most potent weapon in the battle for public opinion."

The struggle against violent extremism will continue, of course, long
after bin Laden is eliminated by death or capture. It will be a long
conflict, with casualties and high costs, just like the efforts against
fascism and communism. But fundamentally this is a war of ideas, and a
more aggressive, direct attack on those ideas, and the men behind them,
is necessary.

For starters, Osama bin Laden must be discredited, even if he remains
at large. He is not, as some argue, irrelevant simply because his war
will continue after he is gone (although, of course, it will). He
remains a folk hero to millions of Muslims; youths wear T-shirts of him
and children are named after him throughout the Muslim world. The
United States should stop ignoring him and his henchmen; exposing them
must become a top priority. He is a false prophet who incites mass
murder, but he is clearly eloquent and charismatic. His ideas, no
matter how insane they seem to us, appeal to many people. (Hitler had
those qualities, too.)

Which brings us back to Karen Hughes. With her enormous bureaucratic
clout, derived from her closeness with President Bush, the new
undersecretary of state has a chance to make history. To do so,
however, she must change some fundamental parts of our public message,
and then devise better delivery systems for it -- precisely what she
did so effectively for Bush during so many campaigns.

Hughes should begin by revisiting what her own boss said on Aug. 6, 2004, speaking without a text. "We actually misnamed the war on terror," the president said that day. "It ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies, who happen to use terror as a weapon." He was, inexplicably, laughed at for this remark, and rapidly retreated to safer rhetorical terrain. More recently, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tried to replace "GWOT" with the "global struggle against violent extremism" -- a somewhat more accurate phrase -- the president immediately overruled him and again linked GWOT closely to Iraq during a series of public appearances.

THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY
IN BERLIN
Hans Arnhold Center

Honorary Chairmen
Thomas L. Farmer
Henry A. Kissinger
Richard von Weizsäcker

Chairman
Richard C. Holbrooke

Vice Chairman
Gahl Hodges Burt

President
Robert H. Mundheim

Treasurer
Karl M. von der Heyden

Executive Director
Gary Smith

Trustees
Anthony Appiah
John P. Birkelund
Diethart Breipohl
Gahl Hodges Burt
Gerhard Casper
Thomas L. Farmer
Marina Kellen French
Vartan Gregorian
Andrew S. Gundlach
Franz Haniel
Jon Vanden Heuvel
Karl M. von der Heyden
Richard C. Holbrooke
Dieter von Holtzbrinck
Michael J. Inacker
Josef Joffe
Henry A. Kissinger
John C. Kornblum
Otto Graf Lambsdorff
Regine Leibinger
Nina von Maltzahn
Erich Marx
Sir Deryck Maughan
Wolfgang Mayrhuber
Robert H. Mundheim
Joseph Neubauer
Heinrich v. Pierer
Robert C. Pozen
Volker Schlöldorff
Fritz Stern
Tilman Tödenhöfer
Kurt Viermetz
Richard von Weizsäcker
Klaus Wowereit, ex-officio

September 16, 2005

Mr. Louis V. Gerstner
Chairman
The Carlyle Group
520 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Dear Lou!

During the seven years of its existence, the American Academy in Berlin has become a focal point for a broad based dialogue and encounter between the United States and Germany. The Academy brings together Germans and Americans to share ideas and experiences in fields as diverse as music, art, literature, history, journalism and to discuss important public policy issues. Its efforts have created a prototype for a new concept of public diplomacy attuned to the challenges of the post-9/11 world.

In recognition of our deep engagement in cultural interchange, the Berlin Philharmonic's prestigious Scharoun Ensemble has agreed to perform at a special performance honoring the American Academy in the Joan and Sanford I. Weill Recital Hall at Carnegie Hall on Tuesday, January 24, 2006. This will be the first New York event ever held by the American Academy in Berlin.

By underwriting one of only twenty tables being offered for this evening with a $25,000 tax-deductible contribution, you will be able to underscore your own commitment to a new form of trans-Atlantic dialogue ~ and participate in a unique musical event. Sir Simon Rattle and the members of the Ensemble will join us for dinner in the Felix and Elizabeth Rohatyn Room in the James Wolfensohn Wing of Carnegie after the concert, which will start at 7:00 p.m. Seating is limited to 200 people. It will also offer you the opportunity to invite friends to a memorable evening with the members of the Berlin Philharmonic and the Academy's distinguished network of Trustees, alumni and friends. The enclosed RSVP sheet summarizes the many additional benefits offered.

To bring you up to date on the Academy and its activities, I have enclosed an overview of its current program. Also included is a recent edition of the *Berlin Journal*, the Academy's semi-annual journal of culture, politics and the arts.

We are sure that you will find enjoyment and satisfaction in supporting the Academy by sponsoring a table at the January 24 dinner, and inviting your friends.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Kissinger
Honorary Chairman

Richard C. Holbrooke
Chairman

14 East 60th Street, Suite 604, New York, New York 10022 • Tel. (212) 588-1755 • Fax (212) 588-1758 • E-mail: nyoffice@americanacademy.de

Am Sandwerder 17-19, 14109 Berlin, Germany • Tel. +49 30 804 83 0 • Fax +49 30 804 83 111 • E-mail: mailbox@americanacademy.de

Washington Post - October 23, 2005

'The System Worked'

By Richard Holbrooke

Now we know for sure what we knew all along. Thanks to a colorful
outburst by Lawrence Wilkerson, former secretary of state Colin
Powell's chief of staff, the full dimensions of how "dysfunctional"
(his word) the national security apparatus was during President Bush's
first term are clearer than ever. Any residual effort to present the
rift between Powell and Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld as a series of minor disagreements should be dead,
given Wilker-

son's closeness -- on a day-in and day-out basis -- to Powell. In
fact, the speech should remind journalists that they failed to dig
enough; the outlines of the high-stakes struggle were widely known but
vastly underreported; administration denials, including disingenuous
State Department denials, were routinely publicized as fact, and billed
equally with reports of friction. But, according to Wilkerson (and many
others), it wasn't Washington's usual bureaucratic friction; it was
war.

Wilkerson's brutal attack on what he called the "Cheney-Rumsfeld
cabal" was intended as a full-scale defense of his former boss. But
what he shows is something quite different.

In a rambling presentation to the New American Foundation on
Wednesday, Wilkerson said Bush was "not versed in international
relations and not too much interested either." Then Wilkerson really
got down to business. Recommending George Packer's brilliant new book
on Iraq, Wilkerson said that he "could have given George a hell of a
lot more specifics" on how "the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal flummoxed the
system," supported by people such as Defense Undersecretary Douglas
Feith ("Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man."). He added that
Rumsfeld had been "given carte blanche to tell the State Department to
go screw itself in a closet somewhere."

Asking himself "Who's causing this?" Wil-

kerson offered a strange answer: "The national security adviser . . .
who made a calculated decision to build her intimacy with the
president" rather than do her job. He predicted that if there were a
major terrorist attack on a U.S. city, "you are going to see the
ineptitude of this government."

As George F. Will would say: Well, Wilkerson is a retired colonel who
sat in the office closest to Powell's at State. While he says his
decision to go public was opposed by Powell, "one of the world's most
loyal soldiers" (a view not shared by the White House), it will be hard
for anyone to deny that Wilkerson in large part reflects the thinking
of the man he served loyally for 16 years.

I am certainly not going to defend Cheney or Rumsfeld. They made
mistakes of historic proportions in Iraq and elsewhere, and the damage
done to America's world role in the past four years will, I believe,

take a decade to undo. But for Wilkerson to describe major policy
mistakes as the result of a process that was dysfunctional -- even
though it was -- is inaccurate. In the end, presidents get the advice
they deserve, from the advisers they pick. Those advisers never agree
completely, nor should they. Bush was surely aware that there were two
views in his administration on most critical issues, but the buck
stopped on his desk. Apparently, Cheney's voice was often the most
influential, but Bush made the final calls. As Les Gelb wrote about
Vietnam with deliberate irony, "the system worked," but it produced the
wrong outcome.

Wilkerson (and, presumably, his former boss) are looking in the wrong
place for the answer to the wrong question. Neither man has explained
publicly what he would have done differently in Iraq and elsewhere, nor
why the president apparently ignored most of their advice. The "evil
influence" theory Wilkerson laid out is fun to read and surely reflects
Powell's feelings, but it does not explain how a national hero
universally respected for his decency and integrity, and whose approval
ratings were 30 points higher than those of Bush, could lose so many of
the big battles.

Powell's supporters often offer the "effective trap" explanation for
why he stayed, the same one Robert S. McNamara gave for staying in the
Johnson administration for two years after he had concluded that the
Vietnam War was unwinnable: Things would have been much worse if he had
abandoned ship.

But that argument is no more valid today than it was in 1968 (when
McNamara's successor, Clark Clifford, helped turn policy around). If
you think things are that bad, is your first loyalty to the president
or to the nation? And would your departure make things better or worse?

Which brings us to an even deeper paradox. It is not surprising that
Wilkerson lashed out at Condoleezza Rice, although he failed to note
that she was serving the president as he wanted to be served. But, in
recent moves rich with irony, as secretary of state she has improved
many first-term policies, in such places as North Korea, Iran, Bosnia
and Kosovo, and in relations with some of our major European allies.
(Powell's friends say with bitterness that when he proposed similar
policies, he was thwarted, in part, by her.)

Not everything is better in the second term -- confusion and mixed
signals still reign in such critical areas as the United Nations and
China -- and then there is Iraq. But things are looking up in foreign
policy. The immensely disciplined Rice is seeking to undo damage done
in the past four years without ever admitting there was any -- a nifty
bit of cognitive dissonance, but one she seems determined to pull off.
Events have, of course, pushed her and the president in this direction,
and it is easier with Feith and Paul Wolfowitz gone. But -- and this
may be the most painful irony of all -- Powell's departure opened the
door to somewhat more pragmatic policies, which Bush and the
"cabalists" had been opposing.

Richard Holbrooke, an ambassador to the United Nations during the
Clinton administration, writes a monthly column for The Post.

NOV 09 2005

Jessee Incao

**From:** Loretta Graham [lgraham@perseusllc.com] on behalf of Richard Holbrooke [rholbrooke@perseusllc.com]
**Sent:** Tuesday, November 08, 2005 4:56 PM
**To:** Ashley Bommer
**Subject:** Testimony on Kosovo before Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Attached is a copy of my testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Richard Holbrooke

11/8/2005

11/8/2005, 5:09 PM

Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, November 8, 2005

I AM DEEPLY HONORED to be here, before your Committee once again, and to appear
before so many friends and associates.

Allow me to begin with a brief reminiscence. Ten years ago today, I was at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, in the eighth day of the twenty-one day negotiation that brought the war in Bosnia to an end. The route to get there had been tortuous, and the end came only after almost 300,000 people had died, and over 2,500,000 people had been made homeless, by the worst war in Europe in fifty years.

Decisive American intervention had been slow, and two Administrations had failed to take sufficient action to stop the conflict, leaving the primary responsibility in the hands of the European Union and the United Nations, which had utterly failed this first significant post Cold War test. During that long, bleak period, members of this Committee, including its current chairman, Senator Lugar, and its ranking minority member, Senator Biden, had pressed the case for American action, I remember especially coming before this Committee for confirmation as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs in 1994. Prior to that hearing, I met privately with Senator Biden in a room off the Senate floor, and he delivered one of those warnings that most of you in this room are quite familiar with. While the Senate rules of decorum prevent me from repeating verbatim what Senator Biden said that day, I can tell you that he was scathing in his denunciation of American inaction and lack of leadership; precise in his description of the situation on the ground; visionary in his prescription of what had to be done to stop

1

11/8/2005, 5:09 PM

the war; and very explicit in his references to which part of my anatomy would be lost if I
did not do something about it.

Dayton ended that war, and among the many lessons of that negotiation is the one
that Joe Biden was so forceful in putting forward, as he has done again in Iraq: the
absolute necessity of strong American leadership. I would also add one lesson from
Bosnia and Kosovo that was not applied in Iraq, with tragic consequences: we took to
Dayton a two-hundred page peace plan, with detailed documentation covering every
aspect of the post-war period from giving authority to the military to shoot first and ask
questions later, to eleven detailed annexes on political and economic issues. Dayton was
not perfect - far from it - but it ended the war - and contrary to almost every prediction -
there were no American or NATO casualties. I repeat: in the ten years since Dayton, not
one American or NATO soldier has been killed or wounded from hostile action. Today,
out of the 20,000 soldiers we sent to Bosnia in 1996, only about 150 remain, an essential
symbolic reminder that we will remain engaged.

So I want to thank my friend Joe Biden, and his colleagues, for their support and
encouragement that day and beyond. I hope you feel that, however imperfectly and
belatedly, we achieved the lofty goals you set out for us, and that SenatorBiden did not,
therefore, have to relieve me of any body parts.

On another personal note: ten years ago today, as I was at Dayton, my friend and
colleague Nick Burns, then the Secretary of State's spokesman, was flying back to

2

11/8/2005, 5:09 PM

Dayton with his boss, Warren Christopher, for one of four trips he would make to our negotiating site. Nick, whom I consider one of the outstanding diplomats of the current generation, was not only a frequent visitor to Dayton – he was also the only person, in Dayton or Washington, authorized by all the parties to speak on the record about what was going on. This experience ten years ago has been critically important, I believe, in preparing him for the important assignment that Secretary Rice gave him when he became Undersecretary of State, to oversee American policy towards the Balkans.

I am very pleased, therefore, that Nick Burns has, at Secretary Rice's direction, re-engaged American policy in the Balkans after four years of drift and neglect that was at times hardly benign. Under their guidance, a plan to mark the tenth anniversary of Dayton, November 21, with a series of improvements on the original agreements. These improvements are long overdue, such as police and military reform, movement toward a single presidency, reconciliation commission – are finally underway. They have my full support.

In Kosovo, Ambassador Burns has undertaken an even more daunting task. For if the war in Bosnia is over and will not resume, this cannot be said of Kosovo. War could break out there at any time. Tensions between the two main ethnic groups are as high as ever. The loss of four vital years pursuing a failed U.S.-EU-UN theory called "standards before status" – which was really a way of avoiding action – is irretrievable. During that time ethnic tensions rose, opportunities were missed, and events have removed or weakened two of the leading political figures in the region – the late Serbian Prime

3

11/8/2005, 5:09 PM

Minister Zoran Djinjic, who was assassinated, and Kosovo President Ibrahim Rugova, who is now ill with a serious disease.

Now, standards before status has finally been removed as an obstacle to progress in implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of 1999, which called for final status talks. The delay was, as I have said, costly, but now it is time to get on with it.

Where do we go from here? I am pleased that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has appointed Marti Atissari, former president of Finland, as his negotiator to resolve the final status of Kosovo. I look forward to the appointment in the near future of an American of comparable rank to ensure that progress is made.

This will be a difficult task, but it is essential to start. The end result is one that official negotiators cannot, of course, proclaim in advance; no good negotiator would do so. But outside observers, especially when appearing before the United States Congress, have an obligation to speak the truth as they see it. In that spirit, let me be clear that I cannot see any final status for Kosovo other than independence, but at the same time – and this must be stressed equally – this cannot be achieved without ironclad guarantees for the safety, security, and protection of the rights of the Serbs who live in Kosovo.

When I have said this in the past, each side has, characteristically, quoted only half of my statement. So let me repeat; Kosovo's destiny is as an independent state, but it will not get there unless its Serb minority can live in peace with the Kosovar Albanian majority.

For the long-oppressed Albanian majority, this will finally rectify the events of 1911, and

4

11/8/2005, 5:09 PM

this is an historic necessity. But independence cannot come simply to replace one form
of oppression with another. Will independence for Kosovo be accompanied by another
bloodbath, this time of Serbs? We cannot let this happen.

When I said things along these lines in Pristina two years ago, and repeated them
in an article in The Wall Street Journal, I was roundly attacked by the Serbs. And the
Albanians ignored the parts of my comments concerning minority rights. This is to be
expected in any situation as fraught with history and hatred at Kosovo; think of Kashmir,
the Middle East, Aceh, Sri Lanka, and so on. But there really is no other choice if we are
ever to get to the end of this expensive process without further bloodshed.

Whatever happens, a residual international security force will be necessary in
Kosovo. I believe that this is an appropriate function for NATO, and that any
international contingent must include American troops. That is the lesson of Bosnia and
Kosovo over the last ten years. I know that there are those in the U.S. government who
have questioned this, especially with the overwhelming troop requirements in Iraq and
Afghanistan. But precisely because we must show the world that we do not abandon our
commitments, we must finish the job. And, if we don't, the subsequent costs will be even
higher, and what was done so far will have been wasted.

One additional point: the European Union. The long range goal should be the
full integration into a unified Europe of the entire Balkans, including Serbia, Bosnia,
Albania, Montenegro (as, I believe, a separate country, but that is their decision to make),

5

11/8/2005, 5:09 PM

Macedonia, and Croatia. Nothing would do more for expanding the zone of freedom and
democracy eastward, an historic necessity of the highest order. Vast economic benefits
can flow to the region from such events. But to get there will take time, as it will also
with Turkey. And the EU should not – I repeat, not – give away moves towards
membership for too low a price, as they have sometimes done in the recent past. The
standards of the EU should not only be maintained, they should be used as leverage and
incentive for the reforms needed in every one of these countries on such critical issues as
war criminals (especially, of course, Karadzic, Mladic, and Gotovina), a single
presidency, respect for individual and group rights, press freedom, viable and transparent
governments, and so on.

I hope that the Congress, led as always by his committee, will take the lead in
supporting American engagement in the process, and that it will indicate its support for a
process that gives true self determination and security to all the people of Kosovo. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you today.

6

DATE 11/18/05

CORR. FILE Holbrooke, Richard

ACTION: Alan Stape Dennis

Jessee Theresa John B.

Maggie Suzanne Rose

COMMENTS:

SUBJ. FILE

CROSS REF.

STAFF MEMO

DC OFFICE: ✓
Christie / Jody / Ann

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO: ✓

TO BE FILED ✓

Jessee Incao

From: Loretta Graham [lgraham@perseusllc.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:51 PM
To: Jincao@kmaglobal.com

Dear Henry and Nancy,

As you may already know, the memorial service for my father-in-law, Endre Marton, will be held on
Monday, November 28th, at 211 Central Park West, Apartment 8-G, at 5:30 p.m. Several people,
including Kati, Julia, and Andrew, will make remarks.

A buffet will be available afterwards, if you can stay. We hope you can come.

Richard Holbrooke

NOV 18 2005

11/17/2005

You have been sent this message as a courtesy of washingtonpost.com

# Endre Marton Dies at 95; Reporter in Postwar Hungary

By Adam Bernstein

Endre Marton, 95, an Associated Press diplomatic reporter in Washington best known for his dispatches from his native Hungary, where he briefly was a political prisoner, died Nov. 1 at his daughter's home in New York. No cause of death was disclosed.

A former economist, Dr. Marton switched to journalism in postwar Budapest. At the AP, he competed against his wife, United Press International correspondent Ilona Nyilas, as they covered the postwar communist regime's show trials of such figures as Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty and former foreign minister Laszlo Rajk.

The Martons were rare English speakers working for Western news organizations who also were well-versed in the language, history and customs of Hungary. Because of the authority of their reporting, their bylines became well known to Western news organizations -- as well as to the communist rulers.

For a while, there was a farcical element to the workings of the AVO, the despised secret police in Hungary. When the family's cook told Dr. Marton that she had been approached to inform on him, he told her he would gladly write the reports himself.

This blithe defiance ended in February 1955 after the Martons returned from a party at the U.S. Embassy. Six men concealed in the shadows of their garage arrested Dr. Marton on charges of "espionage and plotting against the people's democratic regime" and alleged that he had furnished the U.S. ambassador with state secrets. They allowed him brief parting words with his wife before whisking him off in a black Mercedes.

That June, his wife was taken away by four burly men in overalls who had burst into the family home. She arranged for their children to spend time with strangers sympathetic to her plight. Meanwhile, Dr. Marton was sentenced to six years in jail; his wife received half that term.

Both were released in 1956 during a period of clemency for political prisoners, and they returned to work covering the uprising that began that October in response to a renewed call by the Communist Party to limit freedom of expression. Seeking a story of struggle that also provided a personal angle, Dr. Marton once wrote of teenagers who destroyed a Soviet tank but wanted to get home because they were scared of their mothers' anger if they were late for dinner.

Overall, he called the failed revolt "the lost opportunity of our generation," blaming inaction from the West for losing a chance to create "what could have been the turning point in the growth of international communism."

After Soviet troops entered Budapest to quell the rebellion in November 1956, the Martons again were susceptible to arrest. They fled

to the U.S. legation -- where Mindszenty was also hiding -- and were spirited out of the country, first to Vienna and then to New York. They were hailed by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles for providing "a solid basis for the free world['s] judgment" of events in Budapest.

In 1957, Dr. Marton and his wife received the prestigious George Polk Memorial Award for their coverage of the revolt.

Dr. Marton was born Oct. 29, 1910, in Budapest and enjoyed luxuries provided by his father, a stock trader. He was a 1932 graduate of Budapest University, where he also received a doctorate in economics in 1936.

During World War II, he spent time under Hungarian command in a forced labor brigade near the Russian front. Returning to Budapest, he was briefly a correspondent for the London-based Daily Telegraph before being lured to the AP.

Starting in the late 1950s, he spent about 20 years specializing in diplomatic correspondence from Washington. To many younger correspondents, he was a polite and dignified presence at news conferences -- rigorously prepared but seldom confrontational.

His memoir about the revolution, "The Forbidden Sky" (1971), highlighted a respectful, even chummy tone among him and his jail interrogators. "The eighteen months left no scar on my mind," he wrote. "I have no nightmares and seek no revenge. Ilona is even more magnanimous. She thinks it was an experience which made our lives richer and more appreciative of what life offers. She may be right."

In retirement, he was a diplomatic policy consultant to the pre-deposed shah of Iran and spent several years as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's foreign service school.

After his wife's death last year, he moved to New York from the Bedford Court retirement facility in Silver Spring.

Survivors include three children, Julia Marton-Lefevre of Costa Rica, Kati Marton of New York and Andrew Marton of Fort Worth; and four grandchildren. Through his daughter Kati, a journalist and author, Dr. Marton has been the father-in-law of broadcaster Peter Jennings and U.S. diplomat Richard C. Holbrooke.

Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
c/o E-mail Customer Care
1515 N. Courthouse Road
Arlington, VA 22201

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

DATE 12/8/05

CORR. FILE Hollywood Dogs

ACTION: Alan Stape Dennis
Jessee Theresa John B.
Maggie Suzanne Rose

SUBJ. FILE

CROSS REF.

STAFF MEMO

COMMENTS:
*taxed signed release*

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED ✓

Page 1 of 1

Theresa Cimino

**From:** Kim and Galina Holmes [holmesgalina@yahoo.com]
**Sent:** Thursday, February 17, 2005 11:21 AM
**To:** tcimino@kmaglobal.com
**Subject:** Attn: Theresa Cimino

FEB 17 2005

Dear Ms. Cimino:

Please forward this message to Dr. Kissinger. I met with him in Washington and he is expecting a reply from me.

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Thank you for seeing me the other day. It was a real pleasure to see and talk with you again.

You were kind enough to offer to send my resume to some corporations for their consideration. I very much appreciate your help in this matter. However, I have accepted a position to return to the Heritage Foundation. I therefore will have no need for you to send out the resumes. I hope that once I return to Heritage we can resume our correspondence.

All the best to you,

Kim R. Holmes
Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations

2/17/2005

DATE 7/5/05

CORR. FILE Holocaust Museum

Maggie Suzanne

COMMENTS:

SUBJ. FILE

CROSS REF.

STAFF MEMO

DC OFFICE:
Christie/Jody/Ann

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED

UNITED STATES
HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

JUL 05 2005

July 2005

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
350 Park Ave Fl 26
New York, NY 10022

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

If you have ever visited the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, you know what a deeply personal experience it can be. Upon arrival, each visitor is given a passport-sized ID card like the ones Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other "undesirables" were forced to carry in Nazi Germany.

The individual on each ID card – an actual person who experienced the Holocaust – serves as a companion who accompanies the visitor through the Museum, deepening the impact of our exhibitions in a profound way. These silent companions reach out to us across the decades with their stories of strength, suffering, and survival, making our Museum truly a living memorial to Holocaust victims and survivors.

Whether or not you have yet been a guest of our Museum, whether you have visited once or many times ... you play a vital role in our work. Within our Museum and through numerous outreach and education programs, your commitment is shaping history as people are finally able to learn Holocaust history from the viewpoint of the victims, not the oppressors.

As a valued Member, you play a vital role in honoring the memory of the millions who were killed by the Nazis, and using the lessons of the past to promote justice, tolerance, and peace today. That is why I am counting on you to renew your membership in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

If you have already renewed your membership and our letters have crossed in the mail, I thank you for your prompt reply. But if you have not yet renewed, please return the enclosed Renewal Form with your contribution today.

We urgently need you to stand with us again as we work to make the lessons of the Holocaust relevant and meaningful to the millions of people who visit our Museum exhibitions and take part in our programs nationwide.

Your renewal donation of $1,000 or more will also help us rescue and preserve the "evidence" of the Holocaust – artifacts, photographs, and documents that bring history to life for our visitors. From the tiny shoes of an infant who was murdered by the Nazis ... to a Jewish

(over, please)

MEMBERSHIP CORRESPONDENCE • P.O. BOX 90988 • WASHINGTON, DC 20090 • 202.488.2642 • membership@ushmm.org • www.ushmm.org

2

family's prized Shabbat candlesticks ... to artwork done by a child in the Theresienstadt camp, artifacts show the humanity behind the statistics and add depth to what we know about this era in history.

Yet we are in a race to rescue these precious artifacts, as fragile pieces of history become irreparably damaged or naturally deteriorate over time. Irreplaceable documents - like our recent acquisition of 350,000 pages of Vienna Jewish community records - too often are lost or fall into the hands of those who may not fully understand their historic significance. And invaluable collections held in governmental archives worldwide are frequently inaccessible or not properly conserved due to political agendas.

During this brief window of opportunity, the Museum needs your renewed membership to help us aggressively search for Holocaust-era material - from survivors, rescuers, liberators, family members, eyewitnesses, and in state and local archives around the world. We also need your support to reach out beyond our Museum walls to bring the lessons of the Holocaust to people nationwide through our traveling exhibitions and programs.

In addition, your renewed membership will help our Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies encourage, train and support new scholars in each generation to pursue Holocaust studies as an academic career. In fact, since 1994, the Center has hosted 167 research scholars from 22 countries.

And with antisemitism on the rise and ethnic violence raging in regions throughout the world, the Museum's Committee on Conscience relies on your generosity to vigorously apply to contemporary society one of the paramount lessons of the Holocaust - in the face of prejudice, hatred, and mass murder, we must not look away. Our initiatives on Sudan and Chechnya, as well as Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, help the world understand that genocide cannot be ignored.

You can see that whether within the halls of our Museum ... inside our schools and universities ... or through our nation's discourse as we contemplate the symptoms of hatred and indifference in today's world ... millions of people are touched by the lessons of the Holocaust in a meaningful, personal way through your generosity as a Member.

So please continue your important commitment to the Museum by renewing your membership. I thank you - in advance - for responding today.

P.S. When you renew, you will continue to receive your membership benefits, including your subscription to our newsletter, a 10% discount at the Museum shop, and invitations to Members-only events. I will also send you complimentary passes to the Permanent Exhibition, *The Holocaust*, as detailed on the enclosed reply form.

JUL 29 2005

August 2005

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

Your membership in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum partners you with one of the most visited museums in Washington, D.C. – indeed the world.

As a valued part of this important institution, you are also entitled to an array of special benefits designed specifically to enhance your experience with our Museum and bring you information and insights available only to Members like you.

However, your membership expires this month. So to ensure that your benefits continue without interruption, I have taken the liberty of extending your membership for 60 days. I have also enclosed a temporary Membership Card – personalized with your name – for you to keep until your new card arrives in the mail.

Yet, in order to receive your new Membership Card and continue a full year of benefits, please send your renewal contribution of $1,000 or more today.

Of course, if you have already responded to my previous renewal notice and our letters have crossed in the mail, please disregard this reminder and accept my thanks for renewing so promptly.

But if you have not yet renewed, I hope you will return the enclosed renewal form along with your contribution right now, while my letter is in front of you. When you renew, you will receive:

**Advance notification of our special Museum outreach and educational programs.**

Special events give you insider access to our Museum, and the opportunity to meet other Members who share your interest in preserving Holocaust history.

Six passes that you or your family and friends may use at any time within the year to view the Permanent Exhibition, *The Holocaust*. You can enjoy the convenience of not needing to reserve your passes ahead of time through a ticket service for admission ... and, unlike others who visit, you can go straight to our Members-only line, saving you the hassle of extended wait times.

(over, please)

2005.08.26

2

**Members-only discounts in our Museum shop.** Our diverse selection of merchandise will allow you to continue the experience that you started when you walked through the door. It is also a great opportunity to share our mission with your friends and family.

**A subscription to our newsletter.** Our exceptional quarterly publication keeps you abreast of activities not only at our facility in Washington, D.C., but those coming to your area through our traveling exhibitions.

**Your United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Insignia Pin.** This attractive lapel pin will demonstrate your pride in being a Member.

Additional membership benefits are also available when you renew at other levels of participation. A comprehensive listing of these benefits is included on the reverse of the enclosed reply form, as well as some up-to-date information regarding our latest exhibitions.

Of course, I realize that you did not join the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum only to receive the benefits I have mentioned. Like me, you joined because you take pride in being a part of a historic effort to memorialize more than six million Jews who were murdered and others who were victimized by the Nazis.

Yet, your annual membership support is critical. So it is our pleasure – and our privilege – to offer you these benefits to recognize your invaluable role in our work and enhance the special relationship that you have with our Museum.

Since we opened our doors, more than 21 million people have visited – from schoolchildren hearing about the Holocaust for the first time, to survivors who experienced it personally. Especially today, with antisemitism on the rise throughout the world, our mission of remembrance, education, and conscience takes on an even deeper significance.

You can be proud of all that we have accomplished together with your past membership support – encouraged by the millions who have finally begun to understand this era – and inspired by the future projects and exhibitions that are in the works today.

So, please continue the important partnership that you have with our Museum by renewing your membership today. I look forward to receiving your reply.

Sincerely,

Sara J. Bloomfield
Director

P.S. Please take a moment to detach and sign the enclosed temporary Membership Card, and return the renewal form along with your contribution today. When we receive your reply, we will send you your new Membership Card, so that you can continue the benefits that come with being a vital part of our Museum.