one of his henchmen.

Ex-dictator Peron certainly did expect so much unhappiness as of state. The break between and right extremists in Peron's own party is beyond repair. Assassinations and kidnaps are on the increase. Unemployment is high, inflation at a high peak.

Peron has strong fascist tendencies and is regarded as an ardent anti-Communist. He admired botholf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and his sympathies were with the Axis powers in World War II.

But an unusual thing happened when Campora was sworn in as president. With Peron calling the initials, Campora poured out honored words for Cuba, Fidel Castro and North Vietnam. Argentina wants to recognize Communist Cuba and North Vietnam.

So what's Peron up to? Whatever it is, there'll be no embraces for the United States unless he finds needs some American dollars to give him over the economic jam in which he finds himself.

Peron is 77 so he won't have too many years to be an international

campaign and thereafter. To some, Mitchell

ings, which make everybody self-cons-

that Cox might complain publicly about

down in the next

Jack Anderson

Inside Report

State Department
Kissinger To Take

By ROWLAND EVANS and ROBERT N.

WASHINGTON — The polished corridors of the State Department last week echoed a mocking sound: Ridicule of Secretary of State William P. Rogers for what one of his underlings called "a faux pas that anyone in his job for four years should have avoided."

Behind that soft mocking is the beginning of a new low-keyed move to pry Rogers out of State and replace him with Dr. Henry A. Kissinger. True, Kissinger is loathed by some Foggy Bottom diplomats for usurping U.S. foreign policy as President Nixon's alter ego. But he is also seen as the one man who could reestablish State's traditional control and arrest the abysmal decline of morale there.

THE ROGERS faux pas, as perceived by foreign policy experts both at State and elsewhere in the Nixon Administration, was suddenly broaching the subject of U.S. diplomatic recognition of West

therefore, the question asked at staff. There has been at top State Department singer's forconheim other example: in the State Department that neither the possess all the doings the second Nixon month.

"We don't have to memoranda or longer," a high official told us. them."

Some Administration outside the White House worry about potential exclusion of cratic machinists and participation danger, as these

12 off
Original prices

Givenchy Nouvelle Boutique on Two.

No Exchanges, No Credits, No C.O.D.'s
ALL SALES FINAL

5TH AVE., 57 TO 58TH STS.

ON THE PLAZA, N.Y.C.

LEGAL

NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
NOTICE OF APPLICATION

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Article 15, Title 5 (Protection of Water) of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Public Law 92-500, Section 401 (a) (1) and Part 608 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York for administering said Laws, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. has filed an application with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation at its Regional Office at Building #40, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11790 where the application and published rules and regulations for administration of the law are available for public inspection.

The applicant requests that he be issued a permit to Install 4-15 KV electric cables by dredging 795' x 4' x 6' and backfilling under Hutchinson River, just west of Bronx-Pelham Parkway Bridge, Bronx, New York.

The applicant further requests that the project be certified that there is a reasonable assurance that such activity will be conducted in such a manner as not to violate applicable water quality standards.

Any person interested in this application who wishes to become a "Party in Interest" in this proceeding in accordance with the published rules and regulations of the Department must notify the undersigned in writing on or before the 15th day of August, 1973, stating specific areas of interest.

Any Party in Interest will be eligible to be heard if a public hearing is ultimately held in connection with the application.

GORDON C. COLVIN

Alt. Local Permit Agent

July 10, 1973

DEC #20303-0060 SP WQ

EDUCATION

Fall Semester Begins
Monday, September 17
For information Write or Phone
285-3323
Pace University, Pace Plaza, N.Y.C.

READ 4.7
TIMES FASTER
Evelyn Wood at the Lyceum:
869-9440

The tight, run-
73.

In Wabur Mills
as Committee
to "Impound"
ates, returning
next recession.
formally dis-

of memoirs,"

lctly private
would still talk
yourself —
curled in the
library. After
all, you could
years, so no
be embar-

ping every-
he'd be criti-
f not be the

going back
"but you'll
o the tapes

lays. "Hold
o discrimi-
of the re-
y. It'll serve
the country.

with hon-
ra horren-

President"
ping pro-
hose, like

Kissinger in the Cabinet?

REPORTS HAVE cropped up periodi-
cally suggesting that President Nixon
plans to name White House adviser
Henry Kissinger to the post of secretary
of state.

The latest such report has come from
CBS, to the effect that Kissinger will re-
place William Rogers, an attorney and
close friend of the President; and that
Rogers is in line for the next vacancy in
the Supreme Court.

Whether the rumor raised by CBS is
anything more than that, it has created
considerable speculation because of Kiss-
singer's unique position in the Nixon ad-
ministration.

Other presidents have had Independent
advisers on foreign policy. But in Kiss-
singer's case the role has been so
shaped that Kissinger is in effect Pres-
ident Nixon's secretary of state on crucial
foreign policy decisions, while Rogers
carries out largely the ceremonial aspects
of the office.

No doubt Congress in general, and the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee in
particular, would like to see Kissinger's
role clarified.

Back in March of 1971, Sen. Stuart Sy-

ington, D-Mo., an influential member of
the committee, complained that a con-
gressional appearance by Rogers was
viewed as "an empty exercise," since
Kissinger was actually Mr. Nixon's chief
foreign policy adviser.

The disturbing aspect of this arrange-
ment to Congress has been that Kiss-
singer, unlike Rogers, is not accountable
*to Congress*. While Kissinger has met pri-
vately with the Foreign Relations Commit-
tee from time to time for briefings, the
complaints voiced by Symington still are
raised in Congress.

DESPITE KISSINGER'S acknowledged
success as a negotiator on agreements
with North Vietnam, China and the Soviet
Union, he is not a particularly popular fig-
ure on Capitol Hill. And should President
Nixon actually name him secretary of
state, the administration might run into
difficulty trying to persuade the Senate to
approve the choice.

Since the current arrangement has
worked well for the President, it would
seem wiser for that setup to continue, al-
though we believe Kissinger is fully capa-
ble and deserving of Cabinet status.

Afghanistan: Shift to Right?

THIS WEEK'S ABRUPT change of
government to the contrary, Afghanistan
seems destined to retain its place as one
of the world's least favored nations for a
long time to come.

The known facts of the Kabul coup are
few. In brief, however, it appears that
former Prime Minister Mohammed Daud
Khan, in alliance with 50 or so young
army officers, seized power while King
Mohammed Zahir Shah was vacationing

King Mohammed Zahir Shah assumed
the throne in 1963 when he was 19.

It took the King 30 years—until 1963—to shake off the influence of the Daud Khan clique; at that time Zahir Shah promulgated a new constitution that was to have allowed greater mass participation in government—and Daud Khan was shunted off into limbo.

THE WASHINGTON POST, SATURDAY, JULY 21, 1973

Sen. Kennedy

Sen. McGovern

Sen. Fulbright

Sen. Symington

Sen. Mansfield

Tom Braden

Creating a Bipartisan Foreign Policy

Henry Kissinger intends to wait out the current Watergate hearings and then embark upon an attempt to create a bipartisan foreign policy. Tentatively, his initiative is set for September.

He is already totting up the leaders of the opposition to whom he will appeal. Majority Leader Sen. Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) is on the list; so are Sens. J. William Fulbright (D-Ark.), George McGovern (D-S.D.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Stuart Symington (D-Mo.). So is Clark Clifford, former secretary of defense, and others who do not now hold official posts. To all of them, Kissinger will make the following three points.

First, that the Nixon administration has been badly hurt by the Watergate. Kissinger makes no pretense as to some in the administration that the Watergate is a Democratic plot to embarrass Mr. Nixon and that the President will emerge unscathed.

Second, that despite the Watergate,

the world must go on, and that because of the Watergate it may go on in a manner harmful to the United States.

If, for example, the President were to appear so crippled that he could not lead the nation in crisis, the Nixon-Kissinger detente with Russia and China could come apart. Russia might decide to take out the Chinese nuclear capability; China might decide to try to re-establish a common front with the Soviet Union.

Third, that the way to mitigate the possibility of foreign danger during a crippled administration is to present a common front between the administration and its Democratic opposition. In effect, Kissinger will appeal to the patriotism of the Democrats, asking them to rally 'round the institution of the presidency in order to strengthen the United States in foreign affairs.

What the Democrats will say to this approach remains to be seen, but one of those whom Kissinger named out-

lined to this reporter what he thought might be his own reply.

"If Kissinger is suggesting," he said, "that high-level Democrats might take positions in the Nixon administration, he will not get very far. That would carry the inference of approval. Stimson and Knox joined the Roosevelt Cabinet when the nation was girding for the emergency of war. But the emergency this time is moral and economic. I don't think you'll find Democrats of stature willing to join up.

"On the other hand, if what Kissinger wants is an informal group of Democratic policymakers to advise the President, I think no one could refuse to serve."

Kissinger's decision to approach the Democrats gives added impetus to rumors that he may become Secretary of State. He denies that the President has offered him this post or even spoken to him about it.

Nevertheless, Kissinger cannot be unconscious of the fact that he is the only member of the President's admin-

istration who carries weight with Democrats. They admire him for his accomplishments and for his knowledge, including his ability to state it. Though they have disagreed strongly with his views on Vietnam, they do not fault him—as they do Mr. Nixon—for being unwilling to argue his case on a face-to-face basis.

Whether Kissinger's store of respect among Democrats would be enough to win him confirmation to the post of Secretary of State is an open question. In confirmation hearings, he would have to explain the bugging of his own employees. If he took public responsibility for this wiretapping, he would risk the opposition of liberal Democrats. If he told the Senate that the President had ordered him to wiretap, he might face a denial by Mr. Nixon.

But as things stand now, Kissinger's title doesn't matter much. He will make the approach for bipartisanship because he is the only member of this administration who can do so.

Los Angeles Times

dence in the agency.

Some may work. Others are ques-
tionable.

He has started his own "in-house"
investigation but admits that he can't
assign a top priority to investigating
the full scope of alleged IRS tampering
arized in the Ervin Committee hear-
ings. Other matters that he does intend
to probe are being checked out by the
staff of the Congressional Joint Com-
mittee on Internal Revenue-Taxation.
Full cooperation with the committee
would avoid duplication and free the
commissioner for other matters.

From the public interest, the
advisory group is now composed of
corporate tax lawyers and professors.
Alexander believes persons from pub-
lic interest law firms and from citizen
groups like Common Cause can also
help make meaningful contributions.

"Some of my best friends are
'enemies,'" said the new commission-
er, who has promised to go "straight
down the middle" on politics.

There is good evidence to believe
in the wake of the Watergate probes
that the public will support such re-
forms.

Right on, Mr. Alexander.

the possible long-range cost of losi
the anti-inflation war.

Just as he ordered the June
across-the-board freeze over the advi
of those same advisers, Mr. Nixon h
now constructed a Phase 4 anti-inf-
tion program streamlined for quick |
litical approval and flying a bo
"Made by Nixon" pennant.

Even when he was riding hi
earlier this year after his record lan
slide and before the Watergate scand
broke, his loose-controls Phase 3 pi
gram grew politically intolerab
Geared for high profits and hence t
panding production, Phase 3 did n
prevent prices from going up. The t
sult: his much-delayed order of Ju
13 which put the economy in the stra
jacket of a freeze.

Now fighting for his political life
Mr. Nixon understandably dares r
risk a repeat of that baleful Phase
More than any decision he has recent
made, the President has proved by l
choice of Phase 4 weapons that appr
al of the voting public, not the opin
of business or economists, is now l
first concern.

This alone explains the Pre-
dent's decision not to push for any t
increase. Dr. Arthur Burns, chaimr
of the Federal Reserve Board, strong
urged a tax increase. Only margina
less insistent was economic cz
George Shultz, Secretary of the Tre-
ury. These advisers were urging
choice of 12 different tax options on t
President, including across-the-boa
personal and corporate income t
hikes between 2 per cent and 6 p
cent.

The no-tax decision, made eal
last week in a three-hour meeting
his economic high command, was t
President's own. Only Dr. Herb
Stein, chairman of the Presiden

Back From Siberia

SHOULD Henry Kissinger succeed Wil-
liam P. Rogers in the office of
Secretary of State, as Washington
sources are predicting, it could have
the effect of restoring the State De-
partment to its traditional role in the
conduct of our foreign affairs.

During the time that Kissinger has
been advising the President on foreign
policy from within the White House—
and in many cases personally directing
the execution of policy as a presiden-
tial representative—the State Depart-
ment has seemed a useless appendage,
albeit an expensive one.

If one thing is clear from the
Watergate mess, it is that too much
policy has been made and executed by
the White House staff—so much of it
that the President, by admission of his
most ardent defenders, didn't always
know what was going on.

Management experts have a term,
"span of control," and they teach that
If the span becomes too wide, an

executive can't manage things. When
execution of policy is delegated to the
departmental level where it normally
has been in our system, you can fix re-
sponsibility—and you can fire the per-
son responsible when things go wrong.
The White House staff will always
have a big job in the development of
policy without getting too much involv-
ed in the execution of it.

One reason, perhaps, that the
Watergate problem crept up on the
President is that overreliance on the
White House staff began with Kissing-
er in the foreign affairs field where it
has appeared to be successful. In the
long run, however, there are potential
problems which have begun to surface
in the domestic field.

With Henry Kissinger there, it is
not likely that the State Department
will remain a kind of Siberia to which
political nonpersons are banished. The
shift could revitalize State Department
morale at a time when an improve-
ment is badly needed.

JUNIOR VILLAGE CHAIRMAN

27/21/73

PRESS PLAY ON DR. KISSINGER'S MEETING WITH A DELEGATION OF AMERICAN
JEWISH LEADERS.

UPI059

(JEWS)

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- THE WHITE HOUSE SATURDAY CONFIRMED THAT NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER HENRY KISSINGER HAS MET WITH A DELEGATION OF AMERICAN JEWISH LEADERS, REPORTEDLY TO DISCUSS THE FATE OF SOVIET JEWS WISHING TO EMIGRATE TO ISRAEL.

IN ATTENDANCE AT THE UNANNOUNCED FRIDAY EVENING WHITE HOUSE MEETING WERE RICHARD MAAS, CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOVIET JEWRY, MAX FISHER, PAST PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF JEWISH FEDERATIONS AND JACOB STEIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENTS OF MAJOR AMERICAN JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS.

KISSINGER REPORTEDLY TOLD THE JEWISH LEADERS THAT SOVIET COMMUNIST PARTY LEADER LEONID I. BREZHNEV HAD ASSURED PRESIDENT NIXON THAT SOVIET JEWS WISHING TO LEAVE RUSSIA WOULD BE ALLOWED TO EMIGRATE.

THE ISSUE HAS BEEN A GROWING ONE IN THE UNITED STATES AND DURING BREZHNEV'S VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES, JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS STAGED PROTEST DEMONSTRATIONS IN WASHINGTON AND OTHER CITIES PROTESTING THE ALLEGED SOVIET POLICY OF REFUSING TO ALLOW JEWS TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

IN ADDITION, SEN. HENRY JACKSON HAS SPONSORED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CONTINUE TO DENY NORMAL TRADE STATUS TO THE SOVIET UNION UNTIL IT CHANGES IT POLICY.

JACKSON, DESPITE ADMINISTRATION LOBBYING AGAINST THE PROPOSAL, HAS GATHERED WIDESPREAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR HIS MEASURE.

UNLESS THE TRADE STATUS IS GRANTED, THE ADMINISTRATION'S 1972 TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE SOVIET UNION WOULD BE BLOCKED. THE SOVIETS AGREED TO REPAY THEIR WORLD WAR II LEND-LEASE LOANS IN RETURN FOR BEING GRANTED "MOST FAVORED NATION" TRADE TREATMENT.

AT ISSUE IN THE DISPUTE IS A LIST OF 738 SO-CALLED "HARDSHIP" CASES JEWISH LEADERS HAD GIVEN KISSINGER EARLY THIS SPRING. BREZHNEV, AT HIS MEETING WITH U.S. SENATORS DURING HIS JUNE VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES PROVIDED HIS OWN BREAKDOWN OF THAT LIST AND SAID THAT 268 HAD BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION TO LEAVE, 149 WERE DENIED PERMISSION TO LEAVE, 177 NO LONGER WANTED TO LEAVE AND 80 WERE BEING CLEARED FOR PERMISSION TO LEAVE. THIRTY-FOUR WERE UNACCOUNTED FOR.

UPI 07-21 12:40 PED

NNNN

#ZZ

RNR 096

1953:BUGGING--KISSINGER:

NEW YORK, JULY 22, REUTER - PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER HENRY KISSINGER SAID IN AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED HERE TODAY THAT HE FEARS AND IS TORMENTED BY THE EFFECT OF THE WATERGATE CRISIS ON FOREIGN POLICY.

"MANY VERY CONCERNED AND DEDICATED PEOPLE NOW HAVE THE GREAT FEAR THAT IF THEY EXALT THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THIS ADMINISTRATION, THEY ARE THEREBY SANCTIFYING OTHER THINGS...(YET AT THE SAME TIME,) YOU CANNOT CONDUCT A LONG-RANGE, GENEROUS, FARSIGHTED FOREIGN POLICY WITHOUT THEIR INTELLECTUAL SUPPORT," KISSINGER SAID IN A NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE INTERVIEW.

"IS IT POSSIBLE TO ISOLATE FOREIGN POLICY FROM THE GENERAL DIFFICULTIES WE ARE FACING AS A NATION. I DONT KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT TORMENTS ME," HE ADDED.

BUT HE ADDED THAT "THE BASIC DESIGN OF FOREIGN POLICY IS INTACT."

KISSINGER SAID THAT WHEN THE SUMMIT LAST MONTH BETWEEN PRESIDENT NIXON AND COMMUNIST PARTY CHIEF LEONID BREZHNEV OCCURRED A WEEK BEFORE THE JOHN DEAN TESTIMONY, "IT WAS SEEN BY MANY PEOPLE AS AN ATTEMPT BY THE ADMINISTRATION TO USE FOREIGN POLICY TO ESCAPE FROM DOMESTIC DIFFICULTIES."

HOWEVER, IF IT HAD OCCURRED AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, "THAT IS, TWO OR THREE MONTHS AFTER THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE LAST AMERICAN TROOPS FROM INDOCHINA, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN BY MANY AS THE BEGINNING OF AN ERA OF PEACE," HE SAID.

KISSINGER SAID THAT IT TAKES TWO YEARS FOR FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO REACH DECISIONS ABOUT U.S. ADMINISTRATIONS--"TO SEE US IN ACTION TO KNOW WHETHER THEY COULD DEAL WITH US...

"ONCE IT IS UNDONE, IT CANT BE PUT TOGETHER ALL THAT FAST AGAIN."
REUTER MD/JC

275A

KISSINGER 7-22

NIGHT LD

NEW YORK (UPI) -- HENRY A. KISSINGER SAYS NIXON ADMINISTRATION CRITICS ARE CONFUSING THE WATERGATE SCANDAL AND THE NATION'S FOREIGN POLICY AND ARE JEOPARDIZING AMERICAN AUTHORITY ABROAD, NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE REPORTED SUNDAY.

THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, IN AN INTERVIEW IN THE MAGAZINE'S CURRENT EDITION, CALLED ON DISSIDENTS TO OBSERVE A SORT OF LIMITED WATERGATE CEASE-FIRE.

"IS IT POSSIBLE," KISSINGER ASKED, "TO ISOLATE FOREIGN POLICY FROM THE GENERAL DIFFICULTIES WE ARE FACING AS A NATION? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT TORMENTS ME."

KISSINGER IS QUOTED AS SAYING HE BELIEVES "THE BASIC DESIGN OF FOREIGN POLICY IS INTACT," DESPITE WATERGATE. HE SAID HE IS WORRIED THAT MANY AMERICAN OPINION MAKERS WHO HAVE APPLAUDED NIXON'S FOREIGN POLICY MAY TURN AGAINST IT.

AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE PUBLIC'S FICKLENESS, HE CITED THE RECENT NIXON-BREZHNEV SUMMIT.

"IF THE SUMMIT HAD OCCURED THE WAY IT WAS DESIGNED," THAT IS TWO OR THREE MONTHS AFTER THE WITHDRAWAL FROM INDOCHINA, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS MANY AS THE BEGINNING OF AN ERA OF PEACE," HE SAID. "WHEN IT OCCURED A WEEK BEFORE THE JOHN DEAN TESTIMONY, IT WAS SEEN BY MANY PEOPLE AS AN ATTEMPT BY THE ADMINISTRATION TO USE FOREIGN POLICY TO ESCAPE FROM DOMESTIC DIFFICULTIES."

NEWSWEEK CONTENDED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE COMMUNIST LEADERS IN BOTH MOSCOW AND PEKING WOULD POSSIBLY LOSE CONFIDENCE IN THE PRESIDENT THE MOMENT THEY SENSED HE HAD LOST CONTROL.

UPI 07-22 07:43 PED

medical school.

At the Raleigh meetings, the consult-
ants, most of whom are medical educa-
tors from outside North Carolina, report-
edly said they think North Carolina
would be better served by small-town
and rural clinics. With physicians over-
seeing the work of para-medical person-

provide
system of
All of this s
a medical school
and one that may be
without much regard
serious health needs.

Kissinger As Secretary Of State?

7/24/73

Charl. Observe

The latest rumors that Henry Kissinger will become secretary of state seem to have more substance than earlier ones. Even though the reports may be emanating from Dr. Kissinger himself, as columnist Joseph Kraft says, the switch at last may be in prospect.

It would be a change of mixed blessings.

As James McCartney of The Observ-
er's Washington Bureau has reported,
many ranking officials of the State De-
partment would welcome it. "He'd put us
back in the ball game," one said. It is ob-
vious enough that the State Department
often has watched from the sidelines as
Dr. Kissinger made policy with President
Nixon in the White House.

Mr. Nixon did not invent the process
of removing high-level foreign policy
decisions from the State Department.
The Kennedy and Johnson Administra-
tions took the same course to a consider-
able extent.

They did, however, make steadier
use of the State Department's resources.
If final decisions were made in the White
House, State nevertheless usually pro-
vided much of the information and the
judgment involved. Of late the State
Department often has been simply ig-
nored. Its Soviet affairs desks, for exam-
ple, sometimes have had no hand in ma-
jor developments involving their area of
expertise.

A major difference is that, in the
Kennedy-Johnson period State's experts
at least were privy to and contributors to
the thinking of their counterparts in the
White House's policy staff. More recently
even that kind of contact has been lim-
ited.

Morale has suffered accordingly. And that has been accelerated by the country's continuing loss of senior diplomats who had the ear of the President. The Averell Harrimans, George Balls, Llewellyn Thompsons, George Keanans and other senior diplomats who had independent force are missing. (Even when they were not serving in the State Department itself, they remained close to it.) Further, the secretary of state, William P. Rogers, often is the butt of jokes because of seeming to have only errand-boy status.

The country cannot afford a continu-
ing decline of the State Department.
Whether Mr. Kissinger could halt it is
uncertain. He at least would presumably
bring to the department, in his own per-
son, great influence with the White
House. But since as a staff administrator
he has largely ignored the department in
the past, he may be ill suited to bring
forth its best as secretary.

The mere magic of the name of Kiss-
singer, at any rate, will not restore the
State Department. Its revival also would
require a White House that is not afraid
of conflicting opinions and that culti-
vates contacts with senior diplomats who
feel they can speak their minds and have
their counsel respected.

And Dr. Kissinger's own involvement
in the deceptions of the American pub-
lic (increasingly coming to light in the
case of Cambodia) hardly enhance his
reputation. He no longer has that high
sheen that had made him seem an adorn-
ment to an administration which has few
ranking officials of stature.

Co
Ar

In you
tled "S
criticized
commission
school:
along w
editorial
shows, that
Nixon, are i

Instead of
showing a
t into a parkin
The Observer
its Ivory Tow
Jones at the b
county comm
along with T
cartoon shoul
t the commission
ing to the peo
to Mr. Jones'

We are pl
education. O
board is tie
McMillan an
time to inve
budget in g
this is the
but it ha
need. Som
the buck
county co

Fortuna'
of Meckl
have c
that will
noise like
not realiz
with th
ers? If
be screa

Matthew

NYT

7/25/73

## Notes on People

# Woman Joins Court

The first woman commissioner of the United States Court of Claims will be Charlotte P. Murphy, who has been working on tax litigation in the office of the chief counsel of the Internal Revenue Service since 1960. Miss Murphy, who is 45 years old, is scheduled to be sworn in to the post on Aug. 5 in Washington. There are 15 commissioners on the court; they serve as trial judges and are paid $36,000 a year. In an interview in Washington, Miss Murphy declined to speculate on whether she might ever be considered for a nomination to the Supreme Court.

A dispatch from Addis Ababa said that Emperor Haile Selassie celebrated his 81st birthday there on Monday and did not even seem tired after a long day of ceremonies. During the day, which the Emperor started by rising at 6 A.M., he visited with dignitaries and made a televised speech in which he told the citizens of Ethiopia to follow his example and help the poor.

Last year, while accompany President Nixon on a visit to Iran, Henry A. Kissinger suddenly found a belly-dancer named Nadia sitting in his lap in a Teheran nightclub. The President's national security adviser said at the time that he was "trying to make the world safe for belly-dancers" and the incident was one of the jolliest of the trip. Yesterday, Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi, on a White House visit, met Mr. Kissinger, who said, "Where's Nadia?" hTe Shah's reply was not recorded.

Just when the flow of news about the upcoming royal

wedding in Britain seemed to be ebbing, it was announced that Queen Elizabeth II had given her official permission for the marriage in November of her daughter, Princess Anne, to Capt. Mark Phillips. The Queen gave her official permission because an act of Parliament in 1772 requires her to do it.

Former Queens District Attorney Thomas J. Mackell and his son-in-law, James D. Robertson, a former assistant Queens District Attorney, have become partners in the law firm of Murphy, Sadowski & Koehler, in Queens. Mr. Mackell and his son-in-law resigned from their public posts in April after they were indicted by a special state grand jury on charges that they obstructed the prosecution of a $4-million get-rich-quick scheme in which Mackell staff members had invested money. The law firm has its office across the street from the Queens Criminal Courts Building, where the District Attorney's office is.

The director of the Great-Toronto Taxicab Conference, Al Sadoff, said he was upset about the deportment of the area's cab drivers and told what might be done about it. Of the problem, Mr. Sadoff said the drivers often refused to open their doors, went unshaven, blew smoke at passengers and wore slovenly clothes. One remedy, he said, would be to issue more cab licenses and sharpen the competition. Another, he added, would be to "take a machine gun and mow down about 8,000 of them." There are an estimated 12,000 cab drivers in the Toronto area.

JAMES F. CLARITY

a style and a following all their own.

"Where we use venders, they represent about 40 per cent of our business for the day," said Pries, recalling a vending duel between Super-dog Wolf of Kansas City and Philadelphia's Charlie Frank during a pro football game when the Eagles still were playing their home games at Franklin Field. It was billed as the Hot Dog Super Bowl.

Frank had the home-field advantage, but Wolf unload-ed some 900 hot dogs during the day, according to local legend, and won the trophy.

"The trophy was three feet high with a gold hot dog on top," said Pries.

HOCKEY

SEASON TICKETS TO

NEW YORK
GOLDEN BLADES

(formerly
New York
Raiders)

CALL (212) 239-4875

madison square garden

a

at

v

ing.

UPI 07-07-70

(KISSINGER)

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER HENRY KISSINGER HAS POSTPONED A TRIP TO PEKING UNTIL AFTER THE AUG. 15 DEADLINE FOR THE HALT OF AMERICAN BOMBING OF CAMBODIA, ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS SAID TODAY.

KISSINGER HAD PLANNED TO MAKE HIS SIXTH TRIP TO THE CHINA MAINLAND EARLY IN AUGUST. A DATE FOR HIS TRIP WILL BE ANNOUNCED WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS, KISSINGER TOLD A REPORTER.

IT HAS BEEN WIDELY SPECULATED THAT A MAJOR REASON FOR THE TRIP WOULD BE TO CONSULT WITH PRINCE NORodom SIHANOUK, DEPOSED CAMBODIAN LEADER NOW LIVING IN PEKING, ON THE POSSIBILITY OF PRINGING ABOUT PEACE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN SIHANOUK AND THE PRESENT LON NOL GOVERNMENT.

SIHANOUK APPARENTLY HAS REBUFFED U.S. APPROACHES FOR DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS BEFORE AUG. 15. TO EMPHASIZE HIS REFUSAL TO SEE KISSINGER, SIHANOUK WENT TO NORTH KOREA FOR A VISIT. HE LEFT PYONGYANG THURSDAY FOR AN UNDISCLOSED REST SPOT ELSEWHERE IN NORTH KOREA, ACCORDING TO A REPORT TODAY FROM THE NORTH KOREAN CAPITAL.

KISSINGER SAID EARLIER THIS MONTH IT WAS INCONCEIVABLE TO HIM THAT SIHANOUK WOULD REJECT PEACE TALKS AT THIS TIME.

SIHANOUK WAS QUOTED IN A RECENT INTERVIEW THAT IF HE AGREED TO SEE KISSINGER, THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION MIGHT CLAIM THE CREDIT FOR PROGRESS IN NEGOTIATIONS AND SEEK PERMISSION FROM CONGRESS TO CONTINUE BOMBING BEYOND AUG. 15.

SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADER MIKE MANSFIELD, WHO ALSO PLANS TO VISIT PEKING SOON, SAID TODAY HE HAD NO INTENTION OF INVOLVING HIMSELF IN NEGOTIATIONS OVER CAMBODIA.

"I DO NOT INTEND TO BE AN INTERLOPER IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD," MANSFIELD TOLD REPORTERS. MANSFIELD HAS BEEN A LONGTIME FRIEND AND SUPPORTER OF SIHANOUK AND IT HAS BEEN SPECULATED THAT MANSFIELD WOULD MEET WITH SIHANOUK WHILE IN CHINA.

UPI 07-27 12:01 PED

THE PRESIDENCY/HUGH SIDEY

Beyond the Watergate Crisis Is the World

And the world keeps on moving—some 3,496,000,000 other people who may be fascinated with our internal miseries but whose self-interest comes first.

It is a new and special mission of a profoundly concerned Henry Kissinger somehow to preserve and nurture the fragile global tranquillity that has been achieved, to push it beyond the poison of Watergate and define a bipartisan national purpose and leadership that can keep up the momentum for peace.

His charter comes from the beleaguered Nixon. Kissinger has been a busy man these past few days, talking into the night with his old patron Nelson Rockefeller, spending hours in gentle advocacy with Democratic and liberal Republican Senators, seeking out editors and friends to search for grounds for unity.

He is not seeking absolution for himself or Nixon of the Administration's troubles, nor is he seeking diversion. That time is past. He knows that doubts and distrust now plague him. He has had his moments of arrogance and made mistakes, but his work has transcended those things, and that is why people still listen. Thoughtful men know Kissinger is right, even while harboring doubts that Richard Nixon is constitutionally capable of any cooperative enterprise. There must be some new sense of leadership.

The other day Kissinger sat at the round table in the corner of his office in the White House, a melancholy place now. Something Chou En-lai had told him on his first visit to China came back with special poignancy, almost like a poetic refrain. "There is turmoil under the heavens, and we have the opportunity to end it," Chou had said in the summer of 1971. That line—that language—alone was almost enough to make Kissinger an admirer of Chou's. It is Kissinger's purpose for being. His deep worry is that the chance may be slipping through our fingers as we stop everything and pour all of our attention and energy into Watergate.

"The opportunity for a lasting peace transcends a particular Administration," says Kissinger. "It has to do with us as a people. We have got to broaden the base so this effort can become truly national and enduring beyond a single Administration. This country has seen so much agony in the past ten years that we must unite in some sense of purpose."

Kissinger still is a bit overweight and fighting it. His hours are full. There still are light flicks of humor in his conversation. Yet, he is changed in a subtle way. He was stunned by Watergate; his prodigious intellectual energies have been idling. He seems just now to have given them renewed impetus. For Kissinger, the special world of the White House that gave him so much protection and so much support over these past 4½ years is shattered. His work is threatened.

"It is a national emergency," he says. "History will not wait until we sort ourselves out internally. I'm not saying that we shouldn't sort ourselves out internally. But while it goes on the world keeps moving, and we cannot neglect it."

The faces of the men he has met in his extraordinary journeys keep floating up in front of him. They are no longer names on yellow cables, or legends out of textbooks. They are colleagues, the most remarkable collection any living man can claim.

"We are dealing with old men in China," Kissinger says quietly. "They have come to certain insights from their long experience. We must make that relationship permanent. The pace at which things have moved in two years, from a secret trip to China to de facto ambassadors, shows how urgent they consider it. In the Soviet Union we have the last generation that went through the whole Communist history. The men there now were in the revolution and World War II, and we must use their experience to bring about a lasting peace. The next generation will be different—born into it. In Europe we still have a generation that formed the Atlantic Partnership. The emotional conditions of that partnership still exist, although adjustments are required. We must strengthen our relationships. Japan is emerging into great-power status for the first time since the end of the war. The underdeveloped world still needs attention, and there are crisis areas like the Middle East."

The anguish of Kissinger rises as he talks. In one sense the world has been his for these past years. He has listened to all its cries for help and to its threats. He has flown to its remote corners and its grandest cities. Almost like a parent with a willful child, there is great love but great concern.

"We can't stop. We can't conduct foreign policy as a partisan matter. I realize that many people are very bitter. I understand that it is the responsibility of this Administration to take the first step in turning this into a national effort. This should not be difficult, because our foreign policy has been based on our common interests as a people. It is essential for the remainder of the President's term that we preserve the chance for a lasting peace. People have to ask what they genuinely want to do. We can't be so mesmerized by the past that we will forget that question."

The historian and scholar in Kissinger feels special pain. He has studied those interludes in the affairs of men that have changed civilization. He senses we are on the brink of one now.

"If we look at history we see that there are certain periods and circumstances that have offered the opportunity for peace. Basic relationships are more important at such times than any conflict. We have China entering the world, the Soviet Union acting like a great power and less like a revolutionary, and the United States understanding she is no longer on a crusade. The leaders of these nations have learned the limits of previous policy. They now relate to each other in a constructive way; the tensions we see now are a healthy sign of growing. We are developing a code of conduct with our former adversaries and a system of competition with our friends. We just can't stop for 3½ years. These are all green shoots. They must be allowed to grow. We have no monopoly on perception. We need everybody's help. We can't conduct foreign policy without the nation's leadership behind us. If there is indifference or nagging at every initiative, it deprives the people of confidence. The country is so absorbed in its internal drama that a lot of people say, 'To hell with foreign policy; we're too tired; we need a rest.'"

It is not impossible that there is some opportunity to be seized in the Watergate disgrace, Kissinger believes. When the trauma has passed, it could bring people to a common cause.

"Watergate could throw us back to essentials," he says. "We could come together on the fundamentals. Most leaders in the other nations are still with us. They feel that our policy has been creative. They will continue to believe that if they can count on us. But if we do not live up to our commitments now, they will have to begin to reassess their relationships based on what we can deliver."

The world keeps moving. Henry Kissinger looks out over the White House lawn. Bathed in the golden sun of a summer afternoon, all the world with all its nations and all its leaders come together for a moment. He talks finally of those who possess the power and have that chance to end "turmoil under the heavens."

"The only reason for being in these positions is to leave something behind that makes life better. Power is so transitory."

PAUL CORKLIN

TIME, JULY 30, 1973

INTERNATIONAL

Kissinger:
A Watergate
Cease-Fire?

By Edward Klein
and Henry L. Trewhitt

He was the champion ascensionist of postwar American foreign policy, soaring over everyone's head into the diplomatic stratosphere, dipping down to pay secret visits on new friends in Moscow and Peking. But now Henry Alfred Kissinger is worried that like some unpluggable leak in the balloon of state, Watergate has begun to deflate his grand design. "Is it possible," he asks, "to insulate foreign policy from the general difficulties we are facing as a nation?" He pauses for a moment, then says: "I don't know the answer, but that is the question that torments me."

It is a lonely torment, for nowadays Kissinger is the last surviving member in the original band of Nixon praetorians. And in the hushed disaster area known as the West Wing of the White House, he is haunted by the fear that his policy might be the next casualty. So far, he believes that he has been able to keep foreign policy—and his career—steady on course despite the Watergate whirlwind. "The basic design of foreign policy is intact," he says. And he is not displeased that people are still touting him for the job of Secretary of State.

**Revulsion:** But he is sufficiently concerned over the trend of events to accept a NEWSWEEK request for an interview—and then carve an hour and twenty minutes out of a busy schedule to explain why the public revulsion with White House horrors threatens the very fabric of détente. He worries, for one thing, that the American opinion-makers who have applauded Mr. Nixon's foreign policy may turn against it. "Many very concerned and dedicated people," he says, "now have the great fear that if they exalt the foreign policy of this Administration, they are thereby sanctifying other things . . . [Yet at the same time], you cannot conduct a long-range, generous, farsighted foreign policy without their intellectual support."

As historian, teacher and Washington guru, Kissinger has consistently cited a strong domestic base as essential to an activist foreign policy. But in the current

context of Watergate, his plea for public support smacks a bit of political special pleading. Kissinger is already on record urging "compassion" for the Waterbuggers—a request he admits making before he knew all the facts. Now he is telling the Administration's critics that by confusing Watergate and foreign policy, they are jeopardizing confidence in American authority abroad—and that if they care about national security, they should observe a sort of limited Watergate cease-fire.

**Crash:** In Kissinger's judgment, the Nixon Administration has been instrumental in exploiting the most favorable conditions for a stable peace that have existed since World War I. Now, at the critical moment, the nation's attention has been abruptly diverted and the edifice may come crashing down. Indeed, Kissinger and his balance-of-power philosophy have become the objects of an increasingly vocal school of revisionist criticism (box, page 26). For a man of normal vanity, this would be hard enough to

swallow; but Kissinger is a man of larger than normal vanity. As an illustration of the public's fickleness, he cites the recent Nixon-Brezhnev summit. "If the summit had occurred the way it was designed," he says, "that is, two or three months after the withdrawal of the last American troops from Indochina, it would have been seen by many as the beginning of an era of peace. When it occurred a week before the John Dean testimony, it was seen by many people as an attempt by the Administration to use foreign policy to escape from domestic difficulties."

By implication, he thus raises one of the great ironies of Watergate: that Moscow and Peking seem more interested in the success of certain aspects of U.S. policy than Americans themselves. Short of a Presidential resignation or impeachment, he evidently expects the Communist capitals to continue to tough it out with the man on whom they have placed their big diplomatic chips—Richard Nixon. On the other hand, Mr. Nixon's fall from power—or his permanent political paralysis—could threaten the survival of those in Moscow and Peking who engineered rapprochement, and lead to a take-over there by more militant factions. Indeed, the White House believes that, whatever their new protestation of friendship, Communist leaders would turn on Mr. Nixon the moment they sensed he had lost control.

That loss of confidence could occur in different ways—from either a snap decision or a longer process of erosion. "Every time a foreign leader deals with us,

LURIE
Ranan R. Lurie

INTERNATIONAL

he is betting on us,” Kissinger says. “I have now been in the government during two changes of administration, and each time it took foreign governments two years [to reach a judgment about us]. If you look at our foreign policy, it didn’t really start paying off until 1971, because the Chinese, for example, knew what we wanted as early as June 1969, but they had to see us in action to know whether they could deal with us. It just takes two years. Once it is undone, it can’t be put together all that fast again.”

Kissinger goes even further. Through a combination of historical circumstances, he believes, the Nixon Administration was presented with a golden opportunity to create an international framework of peace. “Now,” he continues, “that opportunity will exist for [only] three or four more years”—conveniently, just the period of the unexpired term of Richard Nixon. “I think this is our big challenge as a nation. Can we maintain it?”

In a similar vein, Kissinger acknowledges only minor blemishes in the policy he crafted for Richard Nixon. “Poor intelligence,” he says, prompted the Administration to strike its first massive grain deal with the Soviet Union at then going rates, forcing enormous subsidy payments

and providing windfalls for speculators. As for Japan, Kissinger recognizes several U.S. diplomatic fumbles—from the failure to notify Tokyo in advance of the switch in America’s China policy to the last-minute withdrawal of two U.S. Cabinet members from last week’s economic talks in Japan. Still, although the evidence indicates that Kissinger harbors serious doubts about Japan’s ability to frame a coherent foreign policy, he rejects with irritation the frequent charge that he is basically anti-Japanese. “It is untrue,” he says. “Moreover, whether I like a country or not is totally irrelevant because I hope that we conduct our policy on the basis of more permanent factors than the personal like or dislike of particular nationalities.”

**Aware:** Kissinger is keenly aware of European concern that rapprochement between the U.S. and Moscow was achieved at the expense of the Atlantic alliance. His reply: that by signing a pact with the Soviet Union on the avoidance of nuclear war, the United States has in fact strengthened the NATO alliance, since the prevention of an East-West conflict has been the main goal of the alliance from the beginning. As for the

five-year SALT agreement with Russia, which some Europeans criticize for what they perceive as U.S. concessions, he says: “What have we given up that we were going to do in those five years? Nothing.” He is less talkative on the Congressional imposed deadline for U.S. bombing in Cambodia. But he is known to believe that such Congressional combativeness in foreign policy could cripple long-range policy in Indochina.

At Watergate flood tide, then, Henry Kissinger leaves a complex and, ultimately, disturbing impression. In his determination to preserve the fruits of a fundamentally successful policy, he is trying to stake out new high ground above the political fray. But for a man who has insisted all along that imaginative foreign policy has to be rooted in domestic confidence, he must be aware that he may be embarked on an impossible mission. He talks longingly of “the need for some act of national pause.” With a possible constitutional crisis loom-ing in the days ahead, however, such a pause does not seem very realistic. For now, Kissinger will have to thrash about like everyone else in the midst of the melee.

THE KISSINGER
REVISIONISTS

"I consider him the brightest spot in the Nixon Administration," J. Kenneth Galbraith says of his former Harvard colleague. But while foreign-affairs experts may still admire Henry Kissinger for his considerable achievements, many of them have taken to speaking out forcefully against some of the policies associated with his name. Last week yet another Harvard don, former Ambassador to Japan Edwin Reischauer, took off the gloves: "I'll attack my colleague Henry Kissinger quite directly because I think he's as much to blame for this [shocking treatment of Japan] as anybody... He's Europe-oriented. He hates to think about economic things and does his best to turn his back on them. In other words, he's determined not to look at the future, only at the past, and he's done what he's done there very well indeed."

Nobody ever thought that Kissinger was perfect, but until recently the criticism was largely lost in a sea of praise. Now a revisionist school of thought about the President's national security adviser has begun to gain ground. Below, a synthesis of what the critics are saying:

Kissinger's enchantment with the concept of balance of power is hard to fathom. In 1973, the five major powers are not balanced as the classic diplomatic game requires. Furthermore, twentieth-century political realities make

continual shifting of working alliances among the great powers hard to execute. "That was only viable for the autocratic governments of the nineteenth century, which made decisions without reference to public opinion or Congress," says former Under Secretary of State George Ball. Yet under the President's direction, Kissinger carries out surprise strokes that confound both the public and U.S. allies, who are accustomed to predictability.

While Kissinger gets high marks for skillful handling of relations with the Soviet Union and China, his approach to allies is another matter. "The Administration has been unilateralist in dealing with problems affecting American-European and American-Japanese relations," says Columbia University's Zbigniew Brzezinski. "I'm not so sure all that negotiating in secret [with the Chinese] was even necessary," Edwin Reischauer asserts. "And by allowing Japan to feel insulted by neglect, Kissinger has struck a raw nerve." Europeans feel equally neglected and misunderstood, and they

fault the President's adviser for a lack of candor on topics ranging from trade to possible military force reductions. Says one French Government expert: "He lies like someone about to pull a tooth."

Despite his expertise in other areas, Kissinger is not well versed in economic problems—a considerable failing, given today's complex interweaving of political and economic issues. This blind spot affects relations not only with the industrial states but also with Third World nations on which the U.S. is increasingly dependent for oil and other resources.

To halt the drift in American policy that occurred while Kissinger's attention was riveted on Moscow and Peking, many experts plead for an end to the President's habit of relying on one confidant. They especially recommend that Mr. Nixon establish a real dialogue with the much-neglected State Department. "While I greatly respect Henry Kissinger," says George Ball, "no one is able to be the sole adviser to the President of the United States."

AP

Bernard Gotryd—Newsweek

UPI

Ball, Brzezinski, and Reischauer: The critics begin to be heard

THE PRESIDENCY/HUGH SIDEY

PAUL CONKLIN

TIME, JULY 30, 1973

Arkansas Gazette.

Established November 20, 1819

The Gazette Is the Oldest Newspaper
West of the Mississippi

Published every day by Arkansas Gazette Company, Gazette Building, Little Rock.
Second Class Mail Privilege authorized at Little Rock, Arkansas. Second Class postage
paid at Little Rock, Arkansas.

6A Tuesday, July 31, 1973

The Fears of Dr. K

In his whining interview in a recent
issue of Newsweek, Henry Kissinger
complains that because of Watergate
and the excavation of about a trillion
other bodies that the administration
thought it had safely buried, the fickle
American public — Nixon's "children"
— might turn against the detente with
the USSR (and the former Communist
China) that a large majority of the peo-
ple at first had accepted with varying
degrees of reluctance — or none.

Possibly. But if that happens, whose fault, pray tell, will it be? The administration's for creating the climate of almost universal distrust of it that would let the understanding come unstuck? Or, again, that of the poor put-upon American press for uncovering some of the bodies itself or merely for pointing out that they have been dug up by others and now are lying out there — and in pretty sorry condition at that?

Let us, as they say, declare our own
"interest" in these two matters, which is
the only interest we are accountable for.

(1) We were against the Nixon admin-
istration before there was a Nixon ad-
ministration, because we knew Nixon,
and had observed him as closely as we
would observe something in a test tube
ever since his first political campaign 27
years ago.

(2) We were for detente when Nixon
was not only just against it, but was
working overtime to make certain that
nobody else could achieve it. We are still
for it, in spite of the awful price the
country has paid, literally, in the price
of dearer bread, for example, and intel-
lectually, in the use that Nixon made of
it in pressing his phony peace that is no
peace in Indochina.

That much stated, we will pass on to
the example Dr. Kissinger used to "il-
lustrate" his fears and the related wist-
ful hope that the impossible might some-
how be accomplished and the whole
spectrum of our dealings with other na-
tions "isolated" from the biggest inter-
nal scandal in the nation's history. The
example was the Brezhnev-Nixon sum-
mit, and here is Kissinger's actual
words to Newsweek:

"If the summit had occurred the way designed, that is, two or three months after the withdrawal from Indochina [what withdrawal from Indochina, Herr Doktor?] it would have been seen by many as the beginning of an era of peace. When it occurred a week before the John Dean testimony, it was seen by many people as an attempt by the administration to use foreign policy to escape from domestic difficulties."

And whose fault was this, again? Did
Sam Ervin, then, first schedule and then
reschedule the Brezhnev visit?

We would like to hope at least that Dr.
Kissinger is not trying to say that Mr.
Nixon does not try to "use" overseas
visitors with the hope of maybe taking
the top off the long-running Watergate
story every few days.

Everyone from the Sultan of Swat
(Babe Ruth) on down has been ferried to
Washington to pose—or, rather, posture
—with the President to the din of 76
trombones, if not in every case an actual
76-gun salute.

* * *

TWO DAYS after the Kissinger inter-
view appeared in Newsweek here was
the Shah of Iran, and there was Nixon
hailing him in what has become the
standard Nixonian expression as "a
world statesman of the first rank" —
like the bestower of the fulsome tribute
himself. No mention was made that the
Shah also has the oil, and this oil of a
rather more substantial variety than
Nixon's self-produced store of unction.

We have not seen anything in print
about what gifts were exchanged this
time, but would like to hope at least that
the Shahinshah brought along an exact
replica of the golden "Peacock Throne",
since that is how Nixon views the Ameri-
can presidency. The old Whittier used
car dealer, in turn, could have given the
Iranian potentate a new Huppmobile, at
our expense, of course.

To return to Kissinger's original spec-
ulation as to the possible separability of
Watergate and foreign affairs, let us
point out only that if the Persian had
come just a week earlier he could have
had the privilege of having Nixon tape
their supposedly private conversations
without his knowledge. The master re-
cording rig is gone now, Nixon himself
having pulled the plug in anger — thus
demonstrating again that he never cor-
rects a wrong until he has been caught,
if then.

Henry Kissinger's vaunted "intelli-
gence" is quite real, which is one more
reason why we wish he would quit insult-
ing that of the rest of us.

6 AUGUST 1973

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AUGUST 2, 1973

AS DELIVERED REMARKS OF DR. HENRY A. KISSINGER
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
INTERNATIONAL PLATFORM ASSOCIATION
SHERATON-PARK HOTEL

8:00 P.M. EDT

DR. KISSINGER: Mr. Roosevelt, Mrs. Longworth, ladies and gentlemen:

I am very grateful for the honor that has been bestowed on me this evening, especially by the hand of Mrs. Longworth, who, it is true, is, if I may say so, one of my girl friends here. At least she was my first date in Washington.

The second night that President Nixon was at the White House, he gave a private dinner, and we were all still very stage struck, and he said, "Don't bring anyone, I have a date for you," and that date was Mrs. Longworth.

At that time, I thought of myself as a very serious professor, and during the course of the evening, Mrs. Longworth said to me, "You will do all right. You don't take yourself too seriously." (Laughter) She was wrong about the second part.

Now, this award represents something of an encouragement at a time when we in Government are not exactly overwhelmed by expressions of approbation. More importantly, the award bears the name of a man, Theodore Roosevelt, whom I have, both as a historian and as a public servant, admired above most others in our Nation's history.

I have already expressed how delighted I have been to be seated next to one of the great ladies of our time, Mrs. Alice Roosevelt Longworth.

Mrs. Longworth, who has brought grace and dignity to two already renowned names in American political history, is one of the handful of people who makes living in Washington a worthwhile and exciting experience.

Last week, while I was preparing my remarks for this evening, I spent some time looking for an appropriate Roosevelt quote. One particularly struck a responsive chord, since I have not too many weeks ago before this returned from the latest of my seemingly unending sessions with my North Vietnamese counterpart, Le Duc Tho.

In 1905, during his mediation of the Russo-Japanese War, President Roosevelt confided to a friend, "Dealing with Senators is at times an excellent training for the temper, but, upon my word, dealing with these peace envoys has been an even tougher job, to be polite and sympathetic and patient in explaining for the hundredth time that something that is perfectly obvious when I really want to give utterance to whoops of rage and jump up and knock their heads together -- well, all I can hope is that self-repression will ultimately be good for my character."

MORE

- 2 -

How often I, like he, was tempted to explode in
"whoops of rage and jump up and knock... heads together."
Most of you ladies and gentlemen think that very profound
things go on in these negotiations, and that the conver-
sation is always at a very elevated level, but I can tell
you about one occasion when my opposite number that I
mentioned before said to me, "Let me speak to you honestly,
frankly, open-heartedly. You are a liar." (Laughter and
applause.)

You are not supposed to applaud that. At any
rate, I can only hope that my character has been improved
by self-repression, though many of my colleagues and all of
my staff would question whether self-repression is my most
distinctive trait.

However, given the temper of the times, I do not
want to seem disrespectful of the Senate. So, let me say
for the record that I have never encountered a member of the
Upper House who has tested my temper. Obviously, one of
two things must have changed since Theodore Roosevelt's
time; either the nature of Senators, or the veracity
and courage of public officials. I will let you choose
which.

In a more serious vein, something that Theodore
Roosevelt once said contains the essence of the idea I
would like to place before you this evening. In 1899,
he said in a speech in Chicago: "Far better it is to dare
mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though
checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor
spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they
live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

That statement, it seems to me, epitomizes the
essence and the strength of this Nation. In 1893, the great
historian Turner wrote an essay about the significance of
the frontier in American history. He argued that the
disappearance of the frontier would have a profound effect
upon the American mentality. He was premature.

The frontier disappeared, in the physical sense,
in Theodore Roosevelt's lifetime, but its psychology
has remained. The American usage of the term "frontier" is
in itself interesting. In Europe, frontier has always
indicated something permanent and sacrosanct. In America
it connoted something constantly shifting.

In Europe the frontier repelled; in America it
beckoned. In Europe the frontier was a physical state; in
America it was an emotional commitment. It implied a belief
that greatness is an idea before it can become a reality,
that man fulfills himself by striving.

This experience of a common challenge was one
of the reasons why we never directed the social, economic
and political barriers that afflicted so many other
nations with permanent and irreconcilable internal division.

MORE

- 3 -

Our experience led us to look upon ourselves and
what we did as having universal meaning, a relevance that
extended beyond national boundaries to encompass the well
being of all mankind. America was not itself unless it
had a meaning beyond itself.

This is why Americans have always seen their
role in the world as the outward manifestation of an inward
state of grace, if I may use an ecclesiastical term.
Foreign policy was not the exercise of one man, nor the
reflection of one group, or one party. It was the
expression of the collective spirit and the common
aspirations of the entire Nation.

It is in that context -- the belief that
foreign policy is, and must be, the expression of a national
and not a partisan purpose -- that I have accepted this
award tonight.

What is so striking as we look back at the America
of Theodore Roosevelt is the feeling of self-confidence, the
sense of optimism, we displayed as we went about our
business, foreign and domestic. Both self-confidence and
optimism are far less in evidence today. The consensus
that sustained our international participation is in danger
of being exhausted, and it must be restored.

A series of tragic events over the past decade has
contributed to this sense of uncertainty. A young, dynamic
and popular President assassinated; his brother and a great
civil rights leader, murdered; Lyndon Johnson returned to
office by an overwhelming majority, only to see that vast
majority steadily eroded; ever greater involvement in a war
which we seemed for too long unable to win or to end, and
the present ordeal of the whole Nation is too obvious to
require commentary.

The impact of this decade of tragedy has been
profound. The once apparently inexhaustible reservoir of
faith in our ability to do, and of confidence that the future
would be better than the past, has been seriously taxed.

Yet, the future will not judge us by the magnitude
of these trials, only by the adequacy of the response. If
history teaches nothing else, it makes clear that no great
nation can afford to pass by the moment when, in Theodore
Roosevelt's words, "mighty things must be dared." Once
the opportunity is past, no rationalization or self-
justification will bring it back.

MORE

- 4 -

The United States, in my view, faces such an historic moment. It exists for us as a people, not as partisans of any particular cause. The consequences of failure to grasp it will be borne not by this Administration, but by its successors in the decades to come, not by our contemporaries but by future generations.

Over the past four years major changes have been registered in this nation's international relationships.

-- We have ended the war in Southeast Asia. We now seek to create conditions of stability to replace the bloodshed and hatred which for over a generation have torn Indochina.

-- We are building a new relationship with an old adversary -- the People's Republic of China. The hostility of two decades has been eased, normal relations are approaching, and for the first time since the end of World War II all great nations have become full participants in the international system.

-- We have worked persistently to resolve by negotiation many of the political issues which have made our relationship with the Soviet Union contentious, and which for so long threatened world peace. The very process of negotiation, over a wide range of issues, has created the possibility of a strong and lasting mutual interest in peace and cooperation.

-- We are embarked upon reinvigorating traditional friendships with our closest friends and allies in the Atlantic Community and with Japan. It is a journey which we hope will end not simply in a repetition of familiar liturgies but in a new recognition that what unites a community of free nations far transcends the secondary issues that divide us.

We found a world so accustomed to the Cold War that even the most routine business of peaceful relations among nations was carried on in the shadow of global confrontation. Fundamental problems persist; but they no longer dominate the conduct of all international affairs. The history of the post-war period has been a never-ending effort to maintain peace through crisis management. The peace we envisage would, instead, be sustained by a growing realization on the part of all nations that they have a stake in stability and that stability is ensured by acting from a sense of justice and with moderation. The world is beginning to sense that its purposes need not be the captive of its fears; that they can be shaped by its hopes and dreams.

But these prospects are only beginnings; they are not yet accomplished facts. Whether the shoots that have been planted will mature will depend in large measure upon how we conduct ourselves as a nation over the course of the next decade. And what we are 10 years hence depends upon what we do today, next week, and in the months that follow.

Our influence for good or ill will be measured by the world's judgment of our constancy and self-confidence. Our foreign policy will mean little if other nations see our actions as sporadic initiatives of a small group reflecting no

MORE

- 5 -

coherent national purpose or consensus. No foreign policy --
no matter how ingenious -- has any chance of success if it
is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of
none.

Foreign policy must not become an alibi or a distrac-
tion from domestic ills. But equally, domestic problems must
not be used as an excuse for abandoning our international
responsibilities. There can be no moratorium in the quest
for world peace. And as we pursue that quest, we will need
to draw upon the country's best minds, no matter what their
political persuasion -- not on a bipartisan but on a non-
partisan basis. Especially at this moment of necessary self-
examination, it is essential that we also reaffirm the basis
of our national unity, for the spirit and vitality that Teddy
Roosevelt represented still run deep in America.

As someone who came to this country as a refugee
from totalitarianism, I have a special feeling for what
America can mean to the world, and how a withdrawal of
America from the world would deprive mankind of hope and
purpose. This is why I hope deeply that we will recapture
the spirit that Theodore Roosevelt so well represented, and
that once more a generation of Americans will be prepared to
"enjoy and suffer much" as they strive mightily on frontiers
that are set by our common purposes.

Thank you.

END

(AT 3:17 P.M. EDT)

SMITH HEMPSTONE

Diplomatic Shuffle in the Works

Predictions: Before the year is out, Secretary of State William P. Rogers will become ambassador to Moscow and Russian ambassador to Washington Anatoly F. Dobrynin will become Soviet foreign minister, replacing Andrei A. Gromyko. Henry A. Kissinger, President Nixon's adviser on national security affairs, may replace Rogers at State, although this is less certain.

In the tripolar world which Nixon and Kissinger have been carefully constructing, every move toward China must be balanced by a gesture of similar weight toward the Soviet Union. The Russians—and the Chinese—are sensitive as debutantes at their first cotillion about such things.

With the appointment, in March, of David K. E. Bruce to be chief of the United States liaison office in Peking, Nixon created a problem for himself. The Bruce appointment was generally considered a masterstroke. The 75-year-old Marylander had few peers as diplomat: He had served five presidents as ambassador to France, West Germany and Britain, and as head of the American delegation at the Vietnam peace talks in Paris. The Chinese, not unnaturally, were flattered.

But, with the retirement of Ambassador Jacob D.

Beam, a career diplomat, in January, the Moscow post had become vacant. After Bruce's appointment to Peking, the Russians made it clear that they wanted an ambassador of similar stature. That ruled out a number of area specialists such as Adolph Dubs, the American charge d'affaires in Moscow, and career ambassadors to Eastern European countries such as the able "Mac" Toon in Belgrade.

When you think about it, it is incredible that, in a nuclear age, there should be no American ambassador in Moscow. With the signing of various trade deals between the Soviet Union and the United States, the urgency of the situation was underlined. President Nixon and Soviet Communist leader Leonid I. Brezhnev discussed the matter during the latter's visit to Washington in June.

When David Rockefeller turned down the job, reportedly with a resounding "hell no," the problem became acute. Moscow simply hasn't the allure for big campaign contributors (or, perhaps more importantly, for their wives) that London and Paris have: Winters are long and you can't go to the ballet every night.

So, almost by elimination, Rogers became the most logical appointee. As far as the Russians were con-

cerned, a man who had been Eisenhower's attorney general, Nixon's secretary of State and a close friend of the man in the White House was a trump to Peking's Bruce ace. The appointment would satisfy Nixon's well-known penchant for "firsts": No secretary of State in modern times has been named ambassador after a tour in Foggy Bottom.

Rogers, as is well known, would not be sorry to leave State. The rise of Henry Kissinger's star had put his own into eclipse and subjected him to almost daily humiliation in the press. What he would really like is appointment to the Supreme Court, but there are not vacancies at present, and a dutiful stretch in Moscow would have its virtues as a holding pattern.

As for Dobrynin, who has developed a close working relationship with Rogers over the past four years, he is long overdue for reassignment and promotion. The affable, 54-year-old Russian has been Soviet ambassador to Washington for an incredible eleven years, during which time he has helped to direct the transition from an era of confrontation to one of negotiation.

If you assume that from the Russian point of view Soviet relations with the

United States are of transcendental importance—and you cannot assume otherwise—then the appointment of Dobrynin to replace Gromyko, a hard-nosed relic of the Cold War (he has been foreign minister since 1957), makes eminent good sense, particularly at this time.

Kissinger's appointment to be secretary of State seems to this observer to be slightly less logical. He has, after all, been secretary of State in everything but name for the past four years. The gap between Kissinger and the top career men at State, embittered by his abrogation of their power and prestige, is great.

And yet the wisest of the career men realize that the department cannot hope to regain its lost luster without strong leadership. Rogers is not providing this, and the effect on morale at State has been disastrous. For this reason alone, most career diplomats would swallow their pride and rejoice in Kissinger's appointment.

While Kissinger probably is content to remain where he is, he unquestionably would accept the appointment if Nixon urged him to do so. So it really all boils down to whether Nixon prefers to maintain the White House staff system of conducting foreign policy or to transfer this function, perhaps with some modification, back to State.

So the Kissinger appointment seems a little less than certain. But both Rogers and Dobrynin appear headed for Moscow.

RADIO TV REPORTS, INC.

→ HAK FYI

4435 WISCONSIN AVE. N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20016, 244-3540

FOR COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT

PROGRAM David Susskind STATION WTTG TV
Syndicated

DATE August 4, 1973 11:00 P.M. CITY Washington, D.C.

FULL TEXT [HAK EXCERPTS]

DAVID SUSSKIND: Good evening and welcome. I'm David Susskind. Tonight our show is about gossip -- what's new with Jackie and Ari, Liz and Dick, Frank and Spiro. My guests tonight are a special breed of journalists: they know gossip, they love it, and they print it. It's their business to know who's in, who's out, who's doing what, to whom, and why.

We'll be back in one minute with Rex Reed, Joyce Haber, Liz Smith, James Brady, and Kandy Stroud.

*

*

*

SUSSKIND: And now I'd like you to meet our guests. First, former publisher of Women's Wear Daily and Harpers Bazaar, James Brady is a contributor to New York magazine and is finishing a book called "Superchic." Liz Smith writes a column for the Ladies Home Journal, Show magazine, and the Palm Beach Social Pictorial. Film critic for the New York Daily News, Rex Reed has a syndicated newspaper column for the Chicago Tribune Syndicate; his latest book, a collection of reviews, is titled "Big Screen, Little Screen." Washington correspondent for Women's Wear Daily, Kandy Stroud also writes for Town And Country, Cosmopolitan, and Pageant magazine. Time magazine has called Joyce Haber "Hollywood's number one voyeur, the woman responsible for reviving the Hollywood gossip column"; Miss Haber's syndicated column appears in over 100 newspapers.

Are you a voyeur, Miss Haber?

JOYCE HABER: Well, on some things I am, on some things I'm not, David.

SUSSKIND: How do you compose your column?

HABER: It's hard work.

SUSSKIND: Do you sit at home and press agents call you and say, "You should have been at the party last night. You would have seen Burt Reynolds and Dinah Shore dancing a wild fandango"?

OFFICES IN: WASHINGTON, D. C. • LOS ANGELES • NEW YORK • DETROIT • NEW ENGLAND • CHICAGO

8

SMITH: I'm sure she was just standing there and the thing happened to her.

STROUD: I was running very fast.

SMITH: No, I don't feel a bit self-conscious about taking others' things and taking off them, because I think that we're all now rewriting each other and that's what media is all about. And there is so much going on, and people don't remember anything anyway: they don't mind reading it two or three times.

SUSSKIND: Did Sinatra really say those terrible things to Miss Cheshire?

STROUD: And worse. You really don't know what he -- we deleted.

SUSSKIND: He called her a two dollar, uh, lady?

STROUD: Yes, he did. He impugned her chastity. And...
[Laughter]

SUSSKIND: He did what?

STROUD: He impugned her chastity. He used a four-letter word which -- which I don't think you can use on the air.

SUSSKIND: No, not on this station.

We'll be back in a minute.

*

*

*

SUSSKIND: How do you stay on top of the news the way you do? Where -- where's Kissinger? If I said to you right now, where is he?

STROUD: He's in Palm Springs en route from Acapulco back to Washington.

SUSSKIND: How do you know all that?

STROUD: Because I call his office. I just finished a story on his staff.

SUSSKIND: Is he with anybody?

STROUD: Well, he was supposedly going to go with Nancy McGuinness, but she resigned.

SUSSKIND: Who is Nancy McGuinness?

STROUD: Nancy McGuinness is a tall, blonde, willowy,

9

Rockefeller aide. And she is his constant Washington companion.
When he's not in Hollywood he's with Nancy McGuinness. And she
was asked last week if she were going to accompany Kissinger to
Acapulco, and she said, "I wouldn't go on vacation with an unmarried
man."

[Laughter]

BRADY: Only -- only with a married man.

HABER: Oh, that's great.

SUSSKIND: Do you pick up Kissinger when he comes into
your turf, if he -- if he comes into Palm Springs, does he become
your grist?

HABER: Well, he usually calls me a lot when he's going
to come out.

SUSSKIND: He calls you?

HABER: Uh-huh. We're old friends. [Words unintelligible]

SUSSKIND: Does he want his name in your column?

HABER: Oh, no. No. He...

SUSSKIND: Well, isn't a good way to get his name in
your column to call you?

BRADY: He gets it there anyway.

[Laughter, confusion of voices]

LIZ SMITH: He might as well have it right by giving
it to Joyce and letting her be accurate.

HABER: Well, he called me, for example, a couple of
weeks ago and said he was going to Acapulco. And also I knew
because Robert Evans [?] is a friend of mine and [words or name
unintelligible] of Paramount was going to join Kissinger and [words
unintelligible] in Acapulco.

SUSSKIND: Bob has a lot of interest in foreign policy?

HABER: No, but he has a lot of interest in Mr. Kissinger,
who's delightful company...

SUSSKIND: All right.

HABER: ...as I think Kandy will agree.

STROUD: Very charming.

10

SUSSKIND: Would he be equally delightful if he owned a delicatessen on the corner?

STROUD: Yes.

HABER: Yes, he would, really.

SUSSKIND: You'd say, "God, he's a delicious delicatessen"...

[Laughter]

STROUD: Slices bologna well. No, he always has a very witty remark. You know, he always comes up with something very funny. He keeps his staff in -- in hysterics all the time.

HABER: Another reason he calls is because I usually see him when he's in Los Angeles.

[Confusion of voices]

SUSSKIND: Romantically?

HABER: No, just socially.

SUSSKIND: Just socially.

LIZ SMITH: Well, he has singlehandedly saved the Nixon administration from going down in history as the dullest thing that ever happened in the country. I mean, if it weren't for him there wouldn't be a single -- outside of the Kennedys there's noth- -- be nothing in Washington to write about right now.

REX REED: Barbara Howar.

SUSSKIND: Barbara...

REED: She's always good for a story.

STROUD: She had a big -- she had a big garage sale.

REED: Yes. She's always good for a story.

STROUD: She's a little demure.

SUSSKIND: But doesn't she violate that thing you have to say who? Who is that?

STROUD: Barbara Howar?

SUSSKIND: Yes.

REED: I think most people know who Barbara Howar is.

SUSSKIND: I would think not. It's my show and I say

no.

11

REED: If it was your wife's show, then everybody would've
said yes.

SUSSKIND: Well, that's true.

STROUD: Well, she dates Kissinger, for one thing.

STROUD: You know, one interesting thing about Kissinger
as far as phone calls are concerned -- I was at lunch at the Sans
Souci in Washington a couple of weeks ago, and I was doing very
quietly a piece on his girl friends. And I think I had spoken
to four of them. And he walked over...

SUSSKIND: Who? Who?

STROUD: Marlo Thomas. Jill St. John.

SUSSKIND: Couldn't he be their father?

[Laughter]

STROUD: Could be. But he walked over and he said,
"I understand you're doing a piece on my girl friends."

And I said, "How did you know?" He'd just come back
from China. I said, "How did you know?"

And he said, "I have sources, Miss Stroud." So he
had obviously called all of them, been in touch with all of them
the minute he got back.

BRADY: Kandy, doesn't it go to your head, all the
power that you have? Here's Kissinger, who -- who pulls the strings
and Mr. Nixon dances, and you're pulling Kissinger's strings.

STROUD: I don't have any power. I don't have any
power at all.

BRADY: Very impressive indeed.

HABER: Kandy, do you know the story about Kissinger
that he was warned by someone in Washington that the lady he was
seeing was connected with the Mafia and he said, "But I don't
know anything about that. I don't know from that. And, I mean,
what are you telling me? I'm just an humble professor; I don't
know anything about people with the Mafia." And they said, "Well,
read 'The Godfather,' Henry."

So a couple of weeks passed and this reporter found
out that he had been in Palm Springs, and she asked someone who'd
been in the house party, she said, "Well, what did -- what did

12

Kissinger do?" And they said, "Oh, he just lay by the pool all weekend reading 'The Godfather.'"

SUSSKIND: Why does a man of that wit and that cerebral majesty, why does he date the Jill St. Johns and the Marlo...

STROUD: Because he loves the attention that he's gotten since he's been in Washington, and the swinger image was created for him really by the press. I mean, he -- he was the kind of a man who was married to his wife for 19 or 20 years, dated her for a long time before they were married; he was never a swinger at Harvard.

SUSSKIND: What's the definition of a "swinger"?

STROUD: Well...

SUSSKIND: You used the word twice. And what does he do?

STROUD: Well, he's a man who's out with beautiful women all the time. He's at all the chic and super parties. And -- and he's considered a lady's man. And...

SUSSKIND: Does "a swinger" have to do with what a man does with ladies, or just that he's with them?

STROUD: Well, Barbara Howar always said that Henry Kissinger just slowed down to 30 miles an hour to let her out from a date.

[Laughter]

STROUD: Some swinger.

BRADY: David, a couple of -- couple of years ago -- I don't entirely agree with Kandy that Kissinger -- his reputation is a creation of the press, because I remember when Kandy was working for me at Women's Wear Daily she interviewed John Mitchell one night after Mr. Mitchell, then the Attorney General, had apparently dined rather well, and he gave her a -- a memorable interview in which he said, among other things, that Kissinger is a -- an egomaniac who has an inferiority complex and loves to be seen with movie actresses. And this I think predated much of -- of what we knew about Kissinger. And I think that Kandy's interview, which Mr. Mitchell then denied the next day, and -- and his wife, fortunately, saved us from a libel suit, I think, by getting on the phone and saying, "You know that -- that ridiculous interview that John didn't give? Well, I agree with everything he said."

[Laughter]

13

BRADY: That -- that to me was the beginning of the --
of the Kissinger legend.

STROUD: Very true.

REED: But even in my Harpers Bazaar piece I wrote
Henry Kissinger was the -- the Group A's politician but not his
dates. So even if -- even in Group A functions his dates are
not considered Group A's, because he has not very good taste in
women.

[Laughter]

SUSSKIND: You -- you have some recommendations on
people he might see on his next trip West?

REED: Oh, gosh, yes. There are a lot of people.
Almost anybody except the people he dates.

SUSSKIND: Now, you know him. You go out socially
with him.

HABER: Yes, but I often do dinners for him, at home
with some of my favorite...

SUSSKIND: And does he say, "Joyce, get me something
young and dumb"?

HABER: He doesn't really have to say that.

SUSSKIND: You know that.

HABER: A hostess usually knows that.

STROUD: Do you get him somebody young and dumb?

HABER: Occasionally. But occasionally he brings his
own.

SUSSKIND: Young and dumb. What would be a typical
dinner party that you've assembled in honor of Mr. Kissinger?

HABER: Well, they vary a lot. I've introduced him
to Paul and Mickey [name unintelligible] -- he's a Democratic,
a prominent Democrat.

SUSSKIND: I know. A national committeeman.

HABER: National committeeman from California. And
Paul and Henry fell in love with one another, and they just get
along very well. Or Robert Evans of Paramount.

SUSSKIND: Bob would take him into the cutting room

The Dallas Morning News

The News, oldest business institution in Texas, was established in 1842
while Texas was a Republic

Joseph M. Dealey
President

Richard D. Blum
Vice-President

Robert T. Richardson
Treasurer

Jack B. Krueger
Vice-President and
Executive Editor

James M. Moroney Jr.
Executive Vice-President

William C. Smellage
Vice-President
and Secretary

Sol Katz
Vice-President

Dick West
Editorial Director

SATURDAY, AUGUST 11, 1973

It's Isolationism, All Right

A QUICK AND easy multiple
choice question:

European leaders are vocally upset because they believe that the Nixon administration is (a) not leading vigorously (b) not paying enough attention to Europe (c) paying too much attention to Moscow or (d) all of the above.

The answer is (d). Believing those things, the Europeans have good reason for being upset.

The reasons go far beyond Watergate or the Nixon administration or even Washington.

The U.S. people have taken a turn toward isolationism on a broad front. It is more than a momentary disillusionment and it is at least as unhealthful for our best interests as it is for the Europeans'.

The most alarming thing about this trend is that there doesn't seem to be much anybody can do about it at this point.

IT IS rather late in the game, unfortunately, for Western Europe to encourage U.S. internationalism, even by starting to pull more of its own weight in NATO defense. The American people are already so soured on the job of world policeman that it's doubtful Europe is going to make NATO commitments look good. Americans aren't even looking in that direction.

Here at home, the executive

branch is weakened by Watergate and the military is struggling to make the new volunteer-army concept work. Congress has been turning inward, reflecting the general public trend. Attempts there to cut back our troop level in Europe can be expected to continue.

After more than a decade of letting Sam do it for their defense, the Europeans awoke belatedly to discover that Americans were turning to isolationism. Now, according to wire service reporters on the continent, some of the European leaders have concluded that isolationism is inevitable.

For once, it appears that the Europeans have probably read the American public mood correctly. That's how it looks from here, too.

HENRY Kissinger recently made a heartfelt plea, begging Americans not to use domestic problems "as an excuse for abandoning our international responsibilities."

Granting that "we are tired of turmoil and exhausted by effort," Kissinger said that the U.S. faces a moment when "mighty things must be dared. That moment exists for us as a people, not as partisans of any particular cause."

Kissinger's estimate was timely and it was true. But in the welter of the Watergate summer, it stirred hardly a ripple of response from Americans.

FIRST LINE REPORT
WITH DAN RATHER

AUGUST 6, 1973

DAN RATHER: First Line Report, news and an analysis,
Dan Rather, CBS News, The White House.

Good morning.

Some items off the White House grapevine after
this.

(Announcement)

DAN RATHER: The revelation of Watergate and related crimes has been so mind-numbing and time-consuming that pickings off the Washington grapevine about other subjects has been pushed to the bottom of the basket, such as the Secretary of State William Rogers letting word spread among his friends that he expects to do one of four things in the near future:

Be the next U.S. Ambassador to Moscos;

Be a high-ranking White House confidant to the
President:

Get an appointment to the United States Supreme
Court:

Or go back to private law practice.

Some of Rogers' friends wish he would push to be Attorney General again as he was in the Eisenhower years. Whatever he does, and the betting is heavy that Rogers will wind up in Moscow, whatever he does, Rogers is not apparently going to be Secretary of State much longer, not if those who know him best know what they are talking about.

John Connally still wants that job of Secretary of State so bad he can taste it. Most other named Republicans, especially Vice President Agnew, believe Connally's chances of being the GOP Presidential candidate have faded, if indeed they ever were as bright as Mr. Nixon led Mr. Connally to believe, but the flames do still burn brightly within Connally.

He has been talking to some big money types in

- 2 -

Florida and Texas lately, still talking like a man who plans
to try in the 1976 Presidential sweepstakes and like a man
who, in the meantime, would very much like to be Secretary
of State.

The trouble is that the good Dr. "K" wants
that job, too, Henry Kissinger. Within the past few months,
President Nixon has been reported by a person who talked
with him as indicating he hopes to name Kissinger Secretary
of State when Rogers leaves.

So, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
The talk, at least, has been keeping the grapevine heavy
anyway. So is chatter that Pete Peterson may be coming
back into Government. Peterson was brought into the White
House during the first Nixon term as resident expert in
international economics.

For one thing, Peterson had a long record of
effectively meeting Japanese competition in foreign trade
as head of Bell and Howell. Peterson didn't last long at
the White House. He had enough of Bob Haldemand and John
Erhlichman and they got enough of him.

Wham, bang. Peterson wound up in the Commerce
Department. After the election, his resignation there
was sought, received, and accepted.

Now, there are various unconfirmed reports that
Peterson has had tentative feelers about possibly coming
back aboard in some capacity.

Then there is the case of Ronald Ziegler, among the
strangest cases in Washington lately. The current appearance
is that Ziegler had showdown battles with Connally and Melvin
Laird over keeping his job as Press Secretary and won them
both. Nobody can remember the last time anybody in this
town beat John Connally and Melvin Laird in successive fights.

Some die-hards think they still don't believe it
and think that they may yet go. He is briefing the press
far less now, but Ziegler still has the title "Press Secretary"
and he now has listed officially as among the President's
top advisers.

Also, off the grapevine, are those continuing
stories about President Nixon's various houses. The latest
istthat well over $3 million in taxpayers' money has been
spent on or around Mr. Nixon's houses in San Clemente or Key
Biscayne, plus houses owned by his friends Charles Bebe Rebozo
and Robert Abplanalp in Washington and the Bahamas.

The White House sometime this week, and probably today, plans to make another try at explaining what the exact amounts are, why they have been so long coming out, and why they are legitimate uses of taxpayers' funds.

So far as can be determined, the White House does
not plan any further explanation of why two different stories
have been told about how Mr. Nixon financed the purchase
of his San Clemente house in the first place.

The Santa Monica Register newspaper claimed
campaign funds from 1968 were involved. The President
has had his aides say that isn't true. He has not revealed
full details of exactly how the house was financed.

Now please, this message.

# # # # #

RUSSELL BAKER

Nixon-Tanaka Transcript

Our authoritative White
House leak has just arrived
with the secret record of
President Nixon's secret
talk with Premier Tanaka
of Japan, which is repro-
duced here in the interest of
refocusing public attention
on the truly great world is-
sues.

President Nixon asked
Tanaka what was new.

Not much, replied Tanaka. He asked what was new with the President.

The President said he had
some truly great world
problems on his hands,
which left him no time at all
for wallowing in Watergate.

Tanaka said he had heard
before leaving Tokyo that
Nixon was not wallowing in
Watergate. In fact he had
mentioned it at a meeting of
the Japanese cabinet, which
has applauded the Presi-
dent's resolution to keep his
eye on the great issues.

The President asked Tanaka what he thought about the trade that had brought Duane Thomas to the Washington Redskins.

While he was not prepared to comment on specific deals, Tanaka replied, Japan was always happy to see completely uninhibited economic intercourse and hoped that the Duane Thomas deal indicated the Washington Redskins might now be ready to sell soybeans to Japan.

Nixon asked Tanaka if
there was anyone special to
whom he would like to talk
during his American visit.
Tanaka said that, like ev-
eryone else, he was dying to
talk to G. Gordon Liddy.

The President replied that
the Washington Redskins
were going to need every
soybean they had this year.

In that case, Tanaka said,
the President could forget
all about the special show-
ing of "Patton" starring
George C. Scott which he
had scheduled in the White
House theater that night, as
he, Tanaka, would be much
too busy trying to trade two
Sumo wrestlers to the Mi-
ami Dolphins for some soy-
beans.

Nixon said Tanaka would
regret it. "Patton" was a
great movie. In fact, the
President said he intended
to go see it again whether
Tanaka attended or not.
The President asked wheth-
er Tanaka had some territo-
ry in Japan which needed to
be bombed.

Tanaka expressed alarm
and said he was sorry he
had mentioned Liddy, soy-
beans and the Miami Dol-
phins, and had, in fact, only
been kidding about not com-
ing to see "Patton," which
had been given four stars in
the Asahi Shimbun review.

Nixon explained that one
of the great problems be-
fore him was where to bomb
next after he ended the
bombing of Cambodia in
mid-Ausust at the insistence
of Congress. He had hoped
Norway might volunteer to
provide some target land in
its sparsely populated
northern latitudes. Some-
one, however, had urged the
Norwegians not to agree.
There suspicions that it was
Daniel Ellsberg.

Tanaka said American
agents in Japan believer

Ellsberg was behind the
installation of Gen. Hideki
Tojo as premier of Japan in
1941 and was, therefore,
directly responsible for the
attack on Pearl Harbor.

The President said Japan
was lucky it had lost the
war. For the United States,
he said, it had been nothing
but bomb, bomb, bomb ever
since we had knocked out
Tojo and become No. 1. And
now for the first time in
years there was going to be
no place to bomb. How
could he possibly explain it
to the Air Force?

Tanaka asked why the
United States did not bomb
a large uninhabited tract of
the Pacific Ocean as the
French were doing at that
very moment?

Nixon asked how Japanese public opinion would react to a prolonged carpet-bombing of Daniel Ellsberg.

Tanaka replied that this
was strictly an internal
American matter. And
speaking of internal mat-
ters, he said, he wondered if
the President could tell him
where he might get a decent
piece of beef in America
without having to meet a
beeflegger off the Maryland
coast during the hours be-
fore dawn.

Nixon told Tanaka to quit
wallowing in food consump-
tion and concentrate on the
great issues. Tanaka prom-
ised to try. Nixon said it
was too bad Tanaka would
not stay in America long
enough to see Duane Thom-
as run out of the Redskins'
backfield. Tanaka said
good-by.

NEW YORK (UPI) — Ted Patrick, hired by the father of a young man to abduct the youth and talk him into quitting a fundamentalist religious sect, has been found not guilty of unlawful imprisonment.

Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Bruce McMarian told the six jurors that if they believed Patrick's abduction of Daniel Voll, 20, of Farmington, Conn., was justified, they should find him not guilty.

Voll, 20, had left home to join the New Testament Missionary Fellowship of New York and his father hired Partick, a former aide to Gov. Ronald Reagan of California, to capture the youth and get him to leave the sect through several talk sessions.

Patrick had successfully "deprogrammed" other youths at their parents' requests to counter what he called "brainwashing" on the part of the "Jesus People" sects.

But Assistant District Attorney Juan Ortiz said this constituted illegal imprisonment, a misdemeanor. He said there would be "chaos if we are going to allow parents who disagree over the religious doctrine of their children to kidnap them."

A key defense witness was another young man Patrick had "captured" and talked into quitting the sect. The witness, William W. Lockwood, 21, is a former Yale roommate of Voll's.

Lockwood said that while he was in the religious group, "Elders told us God had greater plans for our lives than staying with our parents." He also testified the group told young members their parents were instruments of the Devil.

Lockwood said, "we were told to take money from the kingdom of the Devil and put it to use of the kingdom of God."

The jury deliberated 45 minutes, ending the 11-day trial with acquittal. In an earlier case last June, a grand jury refused to indict Partrick and four others on a similar charge.

IN HIS LETTER to Santa, however, the President added this significant passage:

"The independence of the three banches of our government is at the very heart of our constitutional system. It would be wholly inadmissible for the President to seek to compel some particular action by the courts. It is equally inadmissible for the courts to seek to

## Wave of Kidnapings Mounts in Argentina

### BUENOS AIRES (UPI)

—Kidnapers released three persons but seized four others yesterday in an unchecked wave of Argentine abductions aimed chiefly at foreigners and the rich.

More than 100 persons have been reported kidnaped this year, with ransoms paid for their releases ranging from a few thousand dollars to millions of dollars.

Alberto Martin Weber, 13, one of the kidnap victims freed yesterday, went home by taxi, his fare paid by a banknote removed by kidnappers from the ransom paid for his release. He was seized near his Buenos Aires home on July 26.

### ALSO FREED yesterday were:

—Alejandra Gallego Sanchez, 10, who was freed on a street corner in Cordoba, about 400 miles northwest of Buenos Aires. Police did not say if a ransom was paid.

—Rogelio Giabone, an official at the Buenos Aires airport kidnaped two days earlier. There was no report of a ransom in his case.

Shortly before the release of the 10-year-old girl, police reported two more kidnapings in Cordoba. The victims, they said, were Mrs. Amelia de Guerin and her son Carlos, 10, who were forced into a car as they left their home.

### POLICE in the city of Pergamino, near Buenos Aires, reported the kidnaping of a textile plant owner. And police sources in the same city said men identifying themselves as members of the leftist guerrilla People's Revolutionary Army seized Nestor Parnaso, 16, son of a wealthy cattle grower.

Earlier, ransoms of $3 million were reportedly paid for U.S. tire executive John R. Thompson, $2 million for British financier Charles Agnew Lockwood, $1.7 million for British tobacco merchant Francis Brimicombe, and $1.5 million for Kodak engineer Anthony Da Cruz.

A 71-year-old farmer was killed earlier this year after his family refused to pay an $8,000 ransom for him.

WASHINGTON CLOSE-UP

Kissinger's Lament...

By Frank Getlein

Inevitably, no doubt, as one reaction to the inevitable boredom produced by Watergate's complicated and seemingly endless tale of crimes and cover-ups, the theory is being floated around Washington that, whatever the merits, even the need, of the Watergate investigations, they are distracting the mind of America from the rare opportunities for world stability now presenting themselves.

Not surprisingly, the principal source of the theory is the principal practitioner of American foreign policy, presidential aide Henry A. Kissinger.

At first in melancholy conversations with sympathetic journalists whose friendship he hadn't sacrificed by bugging their telephones, and more lately in public addresses, Kissinger has bemoaned the national preoccupation with Watergate and the consequent ignoring of foreign policy chances.

Kissinger's concern is understandable enough on the purely personal level.

He finds himself rather in the position of the old-time vaudeville star—a master juggler, perhaps, or a fancy ballroom dancer—abruptly replaced in the public's favor by jerky, flickering images on the silver screen, silent and graceless but somehow imbued with the ability to command, to dominate, public attention.

A Vernon Castle without the timely patriotic death, Kissinger watches the clowns, the Keystone Kops of the Nixon administration, recount their bumbling stumidities — all so wildly irrelevant to his own preoccupations — and watches the nation and the world intent upon them, caring no more

for the infinite grace of his adagio.

His view of himself and the tragedy of Watergate is shared by a number of Washington journalists, including some who nevertheless believe that the burglars and their employers must all be brought to book in some way more efficient than the original Justice Department prosecution which assumed that the whole enterprise was an aberration of Hunt and Liddiy.

Faced with this unavoidable result of the pursuit of justice, we can take consolation in a different reading of the facts.

In the very first place, of course, Watergate was not a natural disaster, something that happened, like an earthquake or a hurricane. Nor, on the other hand, was it the creation of White House "enemies," of Sam Ervin or Jack Anderson, Judge Sirica or Archibald Cox.

The various interlocked crimes were planned, financed and some of them even executed in White House offices a few yards from Kissinger's own. The crimes were planned, financed and executed solely and entirely in the interests of Kissinger's master, President Nixon.

Thus, if American foreign policy is in collapse because of Watergate, it has reached this condition through the dedicated efforts of Kissinger's fellow-laborers in the Nixon vineyard, and through no one else's.

Secondly, a very plausible case can be made that Kissinger already has made his most important contribution to world peace and stability by his part in the detentes

between the United States and Russia and China.

The key factor in those two operations, after all, was not the amazing grace of the Vernon Castle of diplomacy in dealing with the Chinese and Russians, but the convincing of Richard Nixon that he could turn his back on his own past with impunity and even with profit.

After a career very largely based on militant, evangelical anti-communism, Nixon abruptly became the principal American pal of the most powerful Communists in the world in the interests of peace. If Kissinger was responsible for that conversion of his master, it was a very great achievement indeed, but it had little to do with diplomatic genius.

Finally, the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy is by no means as removed from those aspects of the Mitchell-Haldeman-Ehrlichman-Dean-etc. domestic policy for Nixon as Kissinger implies.

If the Chinese and Russian detentes are considered, realistically, as a spiritual conversion of Nixon, then the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy can be seen more clearly as what it is: namely, bombing, bombing and then some more bombing of peasants and soldiers in their own countries halfway around the world.

But the Watergate crimes and the incessant bombing of Indochina reveal a common origin in what the CIA might call a psychological profile of the administration. This is the determination to be in constant and absolute control of every situation, and when this is impossible, to stop at nothing in the effort.

Kissinger in the Cabinet

Det. Free Press 8/29/73

# Watchman on the Tower

## BY TOM BRADEN

WASHINGTON—In moments of reflection, Henry Kissinger likes to recall Barbara Tuchman's description of the accidents which led to World War I. Most of them, he points out, were caused because leaders were out of touch—the French premier on the high seas; the foreign office in Leningrad on the second day of a bacchanalian party; others off grouse hunting. "What was needed," Kissinger says, "was one person who had his eye on every one of them, knew where they were and how to get them quickly together."

He does not ascribe this role of watchman on the tower to himself, but there is a little of Walter Mitty in us all. Henry Kissinger is no exception.

Braden

Moreover, senators who will be questioning him next week on the subject of his confirmation will find that Kissinger has absolute confidence in his ability to play the role to perfection.

There is no foreign statesman whom he has not measured, and none with whom he is not on friendly terms. Nor is there a foreign power whose policy aims he has not studied.

Kissinger is a balance-of-power man. He sees the world in terms of the aspirations of nations, and he believes that the way to keep the peace is to measure the aspirations of each nation against the power that lies behind them, to decide at what point conflicts may arise with the aspirations of other nations and to be prepared to check power with power.

No doubt senators will discover what Kissinger sees as possible conflicts. For they will be dealing with a very factual mind. Being a balance-of-power man is just as important for what it does not mean as for what it does mean.

What it does not mean is sloganeering or appealing to prejudice or crisis. Henry Kissinger could never use such words as "brinksmanship" or such phrases as "a bigger bang for a buck," not only because he would consider them puerile, but because he would consider them dishonest.

No more could he resort to such softer but equally puerile admonitions as "leave it to the United Nations" or "national sovereignty is the cause of war." He knows that however united nations would like to be, they are still nations, and he doubts that the way to solve a difficult problem is to transfer one's attention to an insoluble one.

But I have been talking about the mind of Henry Kissinger. It is the most important thing the senators will meet but is not the only thing. They will also meet a man of enormous wit and good humor who can be the gayest of companions. They will meet a man who listens carefully to the opinions of others. The common conception of Kissinger as arrogant is nonsense. He has thought through those problems which interest him deeply and therefore he often seems sure.

How could he be? In 1938 when he was 15, he put on his best leiderhosen and went to stand in line with his father, mother and brother before a counter in a Stuttgart office where exit visas on Jews were available at a high price. Behind them, the Kissingers left their house, their property, their books, their savings account. For a year prior to that time, Henry Kissinger had gone off to school each morning wearing on his shirt a yellow badge to show that he was "inferior," a member of Hitler's "mongrel race."

When the Senate confirms him, as it no doubt will, it will confirm an old Americanism. To what other country in this world may a social pariah emigrate at 15 and run its foreign policy at 50? Henry Kissinger will be proud of being Secretary of State and Americans can be proud of the new watchman on the tower.

THE NEW YORK TIMES, MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 1973

Associated Press

IN MEXICO CITY: Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State-designate, with President Luis Echeverría of Mexico during a semiofficial visit. During the trip, made at the "expressed request" of President Nixon, there were talks on the salt content of the Colorado River and on the Charter of Economic Rights and Obligations.