Washington Post

Amus
Class
Comi
Edito
Fed.
Finan

TURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1974

Phone (202) 223-6000

Classified 223-6200
Circulation 223-6100

Clerk
Jams,
Chain

By Douglas

Washington Post

Striking retail clerks, dem
from area supermarkets as
picketed 427 chain stores
waited as long as 2½ hours t

Many stores remained op
personnel and those employ
six chains said at least some
of their stores in the metro-
politan area were operating.

But lines were long outside,
and there was a crush at the
checkout counters. Some
stores were open one hour and
cloned the next. Some people

DISTILLERY FIRE IN FRANCE: As workmen rolled barrels fire raged through aging cellars at the House of Maré believed to have begun when a spark from a motor ignite. There were no injuries, but 12,000 barrels of young

elegantly versatile
BLAZER
SUIT

by
Cardin

Its bearing, stance and
appearance immediately
tell you this THE
ESSENTIAL SUIT.
Perfect for formal
afternoon or evening
affairs, for important

Mozambique Independenc

Continued From Page 1, Col. 8
ent Mozambique's first presi-
dent.

Portuguese troops are ex-
pected to stay on during the
transition period and possibly

istry, while the Portuguese will
have the home affairs and de-
fense portfolios.

Mozambique, with an area of
some 300,000 miles, is the sec-
ond largest Portuguese African

# U.S., Soviets Reach Emigration Accord

## TRADE, From A1

from one part of the American government to the other will reportedly be quite detailed, with the administration letter spelling out just what the agreement contains, in exchange for the Soviet Union's receiving most favored-nation trade status from the United States, as well as continued access to Export-Import bank credits and long term credits guaranteeing American investment in the Soviet Union.

The trade bill has been bottled up in Congress for a year and a half, largely over the issue of Jewish emigration. Jackson and 79 other senators sponsored an amendment prohibiting most-favored-nation status and cutting off credits to any nation that refused to allow its citizens the right to emigrate freely.

The amendment, with a similar one passed by the House, is aimed at the Soviet Union, and U.S. officials feared it would severely damage 输出 between the two nations on a wide range of subjects.

As a result, the administration exerted strong pressure on adherents of the amendment to reach a compromise to facilitate the bill's passage. The bill is required before the United States' next round of negotiations with its world trading partners.

The next such meeting is expected about Oct. 24 in Geneva, and the trade bill is now in the Senate Finance Committee for mark-up. Without the trade bill, America's delegates in Geneva will lack the authority to negotiate international tariffs.

President Nixon had threatened to veto the trade bill if it passed with the Jackson amendment. Mr. Ford with-

drew the threat of veto, however, which opened the door to compromise.

Under the compromise, the Jackson amendment will have a rider permitting the President to waive the amendment's requirements for up to a year. This change, according to a congressional source, will defuse the emigration issue.

The expectation last night was that the exchange of letters would come next week or, at the latest, the following week, and that the bill would pass in this session of Congress.

The secrecy covering the negotiations is designed to meet Soviet sensitivities on the question of internal Soviet affairs. There is still fear that the Soviets may yet back out of the agreement or ignore it.

So far this year, many fewer Jews have been allowed to emigrate than in 1973.

## In Congress

### Senate

Meets at 10 a.m. on the Copyright Act.

### Committees:

*   **Finance Subcommittee on Foundations**
    —9:30 a.m. Open. Role of private foundations in public broadcasting. 2221 Dirksen Bldg.

*   **Joint Economic—10 a.m. Open. Inflationary impact of pricing by concentrated industries; Sens. Nelson and Metzenbaum; others.**
    1202 Dirksen Bldg.

### House

Not in session.

### Committees:

None.

> We will pay you $100 per month 'til Hell freezes over*
> 
> See HAMPSHIRE WEST Today's Real Estate Section.

Mideast Muddle

Israel's new prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, is in town for a few days of consulting with top administration officials in a determined attempt to find a formula for breaking the deadlock in negotiations for a Mideast settlement. His visit is the latest — and perhaps the last — in a month-long series of talks between Israeli and Arab leaders and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger which have served so far to underscore the problems without arriving at solutions.

The various factors in the muddle are clear enough. Since Kissinger's limited success in negotiating a separation of forces between Israeli, Egyptian and Syrian troops, no progress toward a wider settlement has been possible. On the contrary, all of the parties to the conflict have hardened their positions, the Arabs demanding prompt Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories, the Israelis refusing to discuss further moves without the strongest possible security guarantees.

The situation is further complicated by divisions within the Arab world, especially over the role to be played in future negotiations by the powerful Palestine Liberation Organization. The claim of the PLO to speak for all displaced Palestinians is challenged by Jordan's King Hussein, with back-

ing from Egypt's president, Anwar Sadat. The new Israeli government is also in an awkward position, commanding a one-vote majority in the Knesset and faced with determined right-wing opposition to any further concessions.

The object of the present exploratory talks is to find some way of maintaining what is optimistically called a "momentum for peace" through new negotiations. More realistically, it is a search for some way to create at least an appearance of movement sufficient to cool the demands of Arab radicals for a new round of fighting and also, quite probably, a re-imposed oil embargo against the West. The possibilities include a resumption of the full-fledged peace conference at Geneva under the joint chairmanship of the Soviet Union and the United States or less public, bilateral talks between the Israelis, Egyptians and Jordanians on some form of new, limited agreement.

On the face of it, the quiet, bilateral talks hold more promise of success than an effort to reach a comprehensive settlement between Israel and all her Arab neighbors. But whether such a modest, step-by-step approach will succeed in keeping the lid on an increasingly precarious situation will call for careful calculation on everyone's part.

A 12 Wednesday, Sept. 11, 1974 THE WASHINGTON POST
... R

Letelier, Ex-Envoy Here,
Freed by Chilean Junta

By Lewis H. Diuguid
Washington Post Staff Writer

Orlando Letelier, Chile's former ambassador to the United States who has spent the last year imprisoned without charge, was released yesterday by the ruling military junta. He flew to Caracas, Venezuela.

Letelier was minister of defense in the government of President Salvador Allende, which was toppled a year ago today. He spent most of his confinement in an austere prison camp on Dawson Island in the Straits of Magellan.

With him on Dawson Island were 34 other top officials of the Allende government. While some of them are expected to be released, the only other prisoner freed with Letelier was Osvaldo Puccio Jr., the student son of Allende's personal secretary. The elder Puccio is still held and the son until yesterday had preferred to stay with his father.

The cases of several thousand Allende backers, in and out of jail, were not affected by the action yesterday.

join him at the end of the school year in December.

The release came after an intensive campaign by congressmen, civil libertarian groups and friends of Letelier in this country and abroad. The junta's embassy staff here is also thought to have urged the sep. American University here and the State University of New York in Buffalo have teaching posts awaiting him. He also has a job offer in Caracas, and it was not immediately known if he would stay there or come to the United States.

It was also understood that representatives of the U.S. government had urged the junta to release Letelier.

In the telephone interview from Caracas, Letelier expressed his gratitude to the Venezuelans for their help in obtaining his release. He also thanked the people in the United States who had offered aid and encouragement.

Letelier, 41, worked for the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington for a decade before becoming Allende's ambassador in 1970. He was a member of the Socialist Party

Santiago that Letelier and others carved bas reliefs on black volcanic pebbles, sea-rounded on the beach, which their wives now wear as a gesture of defiance.

Wind and cold are intense on the island, some 700 miles north of the Antarctic Circle, and the Letelier family filed pleas from his doctor here that the climate could aggravate a lip cancer for which the ambassador was treated early last year.

A doctor eventually saw him on the island, and he had some teeth pulled, but he was not transferred. A Rome-based Chile resistance group charges that Letelier was tortured and subjected to mock-assassination. The family has said, however, that they have no indication he was tortured.

Letelier, six-foot, heavyset, with a red moustache, lost 18 pounds on the poor Dawson diet.

According to Novitski in Santiago, a key figure in Lete-

lier's release was Diego Arria, a Venezuelan Christian Democrat who is governor of Caracas and an advisor of President Carlos Andres Perez.

Rights Group Reports
On Torture in Chile

From News Dispatches

LONDON, Sept. 10 — Amnesty International said today that widespread torture and executions were continuing in Chile, a year after the coup which overthrew President Salvador Allende.

The London-based human rights organization has published an 80-page report on Chile to coincide with the first anniversary of the coup Wednesday.

The report said that anywhere between 5,000 and 30,000 persons are believed to have been killed in Chile since the Sept. 11, 1973 coup. The report said between 6,000 and 10,000 prisoners are still being held without trial.

[LC]

EDITORIALS

WASHINGTON POST 11 August 1974 (12)

Aid for Vietnam

CONGRESS, in its deliberations on aid for South Viet-
nam, is shying away from the central issue: What is
the American interest? For if it matters to the United
States whether Saigon fares well or ill, one aid strategy
is dictated; and if not, another. To proceed as though
the level and kind of aid has no real connection to the
goal of American policy is to fly blind.

Like many Americans, we had hoped that the Paris
Agreement of 1973 would launch the contending Viet-
namese on the path to eventual reconciliation. This would
have resolved the America dilemma. But it has not hap-
pened. Hanoi and Saigon are still fighting; it looks as
though they will for a long time. If one side or the other
were clearly at fault, that would be one thing. We ac-
cept, however, the judgment of a new Senate Foreign
Relations Committee staff study: "Lack of respect for
the Agreement is so widespread that it is impossible to
apportion responsibility for the continued fighting."

This bears directly on congressional efforts to cut aid. It would be grievously unfair in our view for the United States—by withholding aid—to penalize Saigon alone for a breakdown which is properly the responsibility of both Vietnamese sides. Nor does withholding aid.become any fairer in these circumstances when it is described as a way to induce President Thieu to honor the Paris Agreement and to make concessions to his Vietnamese rivals. We have leaned toward this view ourselves in the past. But looking at the record of the last 20 months, we have had second thoughts. We now conclude that it is wrong to try to make Saigon alone observe the agreement, to its political detriment, when Hanoi is under no similar pressure to observe its side of the agreement. Unilateral pressure, furthermore, precludes a new American approach to Moscow and Peking—an approach we believe should be made—to reduce further all outsiders' roles, especially as arms suppliers.

The only correct basis for phasing out aid, we now
believe, is a determination that it no longer is important
to the United States what happens in South Vietnam.
A powerful case for this can be made: the United States
has invested an immense amount of blood, treasure and
prestige in Vietnam, won that country the opportunity
to fend for itself, and now has its own good reason to
turn aside. But if this determination is to be made, we
Americans owe to ourselves—and to the Vietnamese and
to others elsewhere who rely upon us—to make it openly.
To pledge fidelity but to reduce our support progressively

or even precipitately is to undermine both interest and
honor. If the Congress in its fatigue or wisdom—what-
ever the mix—is to pare aid this year and to threaten to
cut even more next year, it should have the courage to
announce that it no longer considers the outcome in
Vietnam as a matter of American consequence. To cut
aid while claiming that the cut will actually improve
Saigon's chances of securing its own salvation is double-
talk. To cut aid while declaring that the people of South
Vietnam will benefit from the new policies thereby
forced upon President Thieu is at best, speculation; in
our view, it is too flimsy a foundation for policy.

The alternative approach is, of course, to acknowledge
a continuing interest in the fate of Saigon and to act
accordingly on aid. This is the course we have come to
favor, after having inclined the other way during the
past 20 months. What has persuaded us to change our
view is largely the prime new fact that a mutually
acceptable political solution has seemed progressively to
recede from reach. We think that Americans would not
like to live in a world where a small nation that had
strong reason to rely on American steadfastness had
been let down. In that sense, the American "commit-
ment" to Saigon is open-ended. To hold otherwise is to
advertise one's own unreliability. It can be argued, with
all too much merit, that the assurance of American sup-
port lets Saigon ignore American efforts to induce
changes in its domestic policies and in its attitude towards
Hanoi. The answer—surely worth testing—is that Saigon
may become more responsive to American advice as it
becomes less fearful of American abandonment.

Aid to Vietnam should be offered on the basis of
what dollar levels and what forms of aid (economic or
military) and what particular programs will enable
Saigon to tend effectively to its citizens' security and
welfare. This formulation admittedly leaves many loose
ends, many unresolved arguments, many uncertainties.
There is in the United States an evident shortage of
economic and political resources to assure success. And
whether the Thieu government can adequately respond
is a question bound to trouble any realistic observer.
We are convinced, nonetheless, that the principle of
American steadfastness deserves to be honored as best
we can, even though the particular government benefit-
ting from its application in this instance is far from a
model regime. There is where the overriding American
interest lies.

Aid for Vietnam (Cont.)

MR. EARL RAVENAL'S article elsewhere on this page meets square the issue which, as we have argued in several recent editorials, the Congress should be meeting—but isn't—in its consideration of aid for Vietnam. Does it matter to the United States what happens to South Vietnam? That Americans are sick of Vietnam is not the issue, unless one holds that only enterprises promising success deserve support. Nor should it be controlling that President Thieu's regime is undemocratic and corrupt; a great power concerned with the world balance of power cannot avoid getting stuck with some questionable clients. Nor is it central, though it is distressing, that Moscow and Peking seem to get more mileage out of their military aid to Hanoi than Washington does out of its greater aid to Saigon. These matters affect the political atmosphere in which aid is debated, but the real issue remains the American interest in the outcome.

It is Mr. Ravenal's view that since the United States can't and won't give Saigon enough aid to enable it to win militarily—and the struggle is a military one—then rather than sponsor an indefinite stalemate we should cut military aid to zero and accept whatever outcome results. We do not have either the power to ensure success in Vietnam or to make good on most of our other commitments, he goes on. "The sooner our allies and clients become properly skeptical of our promises of support, the better for us, and possibly for them and for the international system."

Mr. Ravenal is not afraid to pursue his logic to its end: Is one commitment wobbly? Away with them all. The conclusion he salutes so cheerfully, however, is one that shakes us to the roots. His idea of a world "system" is one we would equate with anarchy and an open invitation to violence. For what the Vietnam aid debate is finally about, after all, is the kind of world that Americans want to live in. Is it a world where our friends and values generally fare well, or one where we pull up the ladder, wave to our allies and clients, and tell them that whatever happens, it's for their own good? A proper

post-Vietnam humility is one thing; the denial of any possibility for constructive American involvement is another. Yes, we did get into Vietnam carelessly, and we have paid for it. To pass through the final stage of our exit no less carelessly, however, is to add further risk to damage already done.

The claim that there is a connection between how the United States discharges one "commitment" and how its allies and adversaries regard its other commitments is indeed prone to abuse. The claim can be used to justify excessive support of obsolete, unwise or exorbitantly expensive commitments. But this is, as we have been saying, a question on which reasonable men can differ. The trap on the other side is the contention that the end game in Vietnam has no connection with the American position elsewhere. And this is wrong.

We are not arguing for indefinite and very high levels of aid. We are arguing for an approach to aid that recognizes precisely this broader connection. In such an approach, aid would be offered at levels which allowed Saigon a fair prospect of holding its own. It would be offered with the expectation of being continued for some time, not yanked back next year or the year after. This is what Congress has failed to do.

If Congress, in cutting aid substantially now and in threatening to cut more soon, were willing to accept whatever outcome ensues, that would be one thing. We suspect, however, that Congress is repeating the mistake which it and the Executive Branch together made in Vietnam during the 1960s: Making an investment too slight to bring about the desired result. In the '60s the United States sought military victory but did not achieve it. Now Congress says it wants a political settlement, but it is pursuing an aid strategy more likely to produce Saigon's military defeat. The better course, we believe, is to accept the costs and uncertainties of a further commitment, even while trying to minimize them, and to provide aid in a way calculated to serve the American interest in a stable and interdependent world.

SUMMARY

The report makes the following points:

-- The United States should adopt a posture at the World Food Conference worthy of the moral and economic position of this nation.

-- Three basic elements of a viable food policy are grain reserves, food aid and increasing world agricultural production.

-- Existing PL-480 food aid is too "political" in bias.

-- The Department of Agriculture's opposition to government-held grain reserves is unrealistic.

-- Concern is expressed that the Administration is not making adequate preparation for the World Food Conference.

In fact, the three basic elements cited by the report constitute the main points of the Administration's position as it is now being developed. Preliminary staff work on grain reserves has been completed; and Ambassador Ed Martin has been authorized to begin discussions with other governments concerning the formation of a world-wide grain reserve system. Food aid, specifically the FY 75 PL-480 program and aid constraints due to this year's drought, will be one of the agenda topics at the Food Committee meeting you will chair on September 17. Although increasing agricultural production is a matter largely for the less developed countries, we are orienting our development assistance in that direction, in addition to having removed restraints on our own agricultural production.

LAJ:Gen S:wgh:10 Sep 74 [Retyped without change]

9/12/74

THE JEWISH TIMES

L[C]

# In Hollywood
by BARNEY GLAZER

Lucille Ball and Gary Morton, the Jewish ex-comedian who has given her the most happiness in her life, will celebrate their 14th wedding anniversary Nov. 19. It's the same night Lucy's new CBS special, "Happy Anniversary - Goodbye," airs.

The odds are stacked high against it, but **Dinah Shore** is optimistic that she and Burt Reynolds will be able to arrange their respective schedules to take a Caribbean cruise via the Panama Canal. It all depends on Burt completing two movies in January and Dinah managing time off from her 90-minute daily show, "Dinah!" She starts taping this month with first air date Oct. 21.

Tragically, Michele Lee has lost her beloved mother, Sylvia Dusik. A few years ago, Michele's father, Jack Dusik, one of the industry's most competent and highly respected make-up artist, suddenly passed away.

"Shortly after that," Michele

says, "my mother suffered a slight heart attack. The doctors told me and my husband, James (Faren- tino), that if she had been older she actually would have died of a broken heart. They had been deeply devoted to each other. Mom never really stopped mourning dad's loss. As she grew older, as much as she tried to conceal it, it caught up with her and her heart finally failed."

How do Jack Klugman and Tony Randall get along after being together for five years in "The Odd Couple"? They've never had an argument. That's amazing, considering that they're thrown in together, man to man, about 50 hours every week. There's a lesson here for other actors who rumble and mumble under much less trying conditions.

SALLY STRUTHERS had announced that she and Jewish director Art Fisher will be married in July, which has come and gone without the ringing of wedding bells. Art explains it thusly, "We're very much in love, but we'll take it easy for quite a few months before making any definite announcement."

Meanwhile, Art is into the Sonny Comedy Revue at ABC. He's convinced that viewers love Sonny Bono. Without Cher, they have established him as the underdog and everybody wants to see the underdog come out on top. Alan Blye and Chris Bearde are producing. Alan also manages to get in a few moonlighting licks as cantor at the Synagogue for the Performing Arts in West Los Angeles.

MONROE ROSENTHAL and Donald Munson have hit the world with their Freeway Press bombshell, a paperback titled, "President Kissinger." The government has labeled it vile and pornographic. In the book we are told that Jewish film beauty Jill St. John injected her pacificist philosophy into Kissinger's mind, that Zsa Zsa Gabor treated him like a teddy bear, Judy Brown, of the pornographic world, berated him for being ashamed to be photographed with her in public.

Also that Samantha Eggar provided him with a hotter piece of spice than he could swallow; that Marlo Thomas picked him up, examined him and put him down, treating him all the while like an unusual specimen she may have found on the beach.

And that Nancy Maginnes maintained but one criterion for any possible man in her life: that he be more intelligent than she.

THE JEWISH TIMES

n America
by HARRY GOLDEN

## Television

In Americans reproduces some of Not even the witch doctor who is more misguided. I get countless television programming is a crying incident that the people own the air in the air wave. The people who -- own the air waves.

Ownership has been circulated by they convince people they own the tuning in on their programs.

On of the farmer who watched the seven years and kept telling himself to use the front lawn for grazing

much more forthright. This is a Howard newspaper. This is one of about the public owning the press. He that gets taken seriously is that are always the most adept at this. Technical piece of tomfoolery with the things I shouldn't do myself -- like he is worth money.

the time you work. Anyone who in a day will find that sanitariums

raw in operation here. The guy that fellow who spends three hours at they own the air waves are the ones a little worse than the other, will

MEMBERS OF THE GOLDEN Chain, present Children's Hospital for cancer research. At present Glick, associate professor of Hospital; Mrs. Nathan Silverman, Mrs. Hy Ecksel, Golden Link son, associate oncologist at

### Services for the Deaf Planned

Friends of the Deaf will conduct High Holy Day services for the deaf at the center, 255 S. 16th St. Rosh Hashanah services will be conducted by Harold B. Weissman and Yom Kippur services by Charles Jay Bogdanoff and Weissman. Rose S. Olanoff will in-

## Center City Religious

Charles F. Ludwig, school committee chairman of the new Board of Jewish Education-operated Center City Regional Religious School, announced that the school has completed its faculty-curriculum plans. This is the first regional community elementary school operated by the Board of Jewish Education and is under the supervision of Judith Hershkovitz, principal. Classes will be taught by methods emphasizing individualized instruction, so that each child can be challenged not only in his/her own class but on an individual level as well. The primary department for ages 5 through 7 will be taught through team teaching and open classroom methods.

The school will be directly administered by the Board of Jewish Education and its educational director, David P. Tulin, and will be the recipient of the professional services of the Board of Jewish Education-supervised consultants from the Division of Community Services of Gratz College. It is located at Temple Beth Zion - Beth Israel, 18th and Spruce Sts.

Rowland Evans and Robert Novak

... With an 'Expected' Pardon

Hours before resigning the presidency in the face of hard obstruction-of-justice evidence against him, Richard Nixon was convinced that his successor, President Ford, would issue him a full and complete pardon.

But outgoing President Nixon never received assurances from Gerald Ford himself that a pardon could be counted on.

Indeed, even though President Ford secretly informed intimates that a presidential pardon for Nixon—eventually—was an absolute certainty, he did not undertake direct negotiations with Nixon on the pardon question.

The bridge between Nixon and Mr. Ford was Nixon's White House chief of staff, Gen. Alexander Haig, and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the senior member of the Cabinet and Nixon's closest collaborator outside the White House itself during Nixon's 5½ years in office.

In addition, one key Republican member of the House who supported impeachment against Nixon was authorized to inform Nixon just before his resignation that powerful House Democrats were totally opposed to his criminal prosecution. That strengthened Nixon's confidence about a pardon.

Against that background, Mr. Ford inexplicably succumbed to pressure last week from Nixon intimates and agents and secretly decided, without consulting a single politician, to pardon Nixon months before anyone expected it—except possibly Nixon himself.

It was Haig and Kissinger who carried on their shoulders the awful burden of convincing Nixon he must resign. Although neither one committed incoming President Ford to a Nixon pardon, Nixon left the White House convinced that President Ford was, indeed, committed.

"Nixon had one thought and only one on his mind during those last days and that was his pardon," one highly qualified Ford insider told us. "If he hadn't believed he had the pardon in his pocket he might have put the country through the torture of full impeachment proceedings."

It was precisely the prospect of that calamity which propelled Haig, Kissinger and every other major figure in the transition drama five weeks ago to get Nixon out of the White House. If the prospect of a full pardon was held out to Nixon in exaggerated form, that was the reason. All else gave way to the single objective—get Nixon out.

Nixon had been judged mentally

aberrant for fully two years by observant officials who had worked with him closely and known him well. Their judgment was ruthless—but, in the circumstances, inevitable. Nixon must be removed from the presidency to safeguard the nation.

With Nixon back in San Clemente, convinced his pardon was only a matter of time, and with Mr. Ford having revealed to close aides his hard intention to grant the pardon—presumably months in the future—the stage was set for the course of events that led to last Sunday's shocking decision.

Thus, President Ford several times wondered out loud why he saw no pictures of Nixon walking the beach at San Clemente—or riding the freeways, as he used to do. Heightening this presidential concern about Nixon were alarming reports flowing into the Oval Office—reinforced by Haig and Kissinger—that the former President was on the edge of a mental breakdown. At one point, Kissinger expressed a private fear that Nixon's life might be in danger by his own hand.

Adding to the pressure on Mr. Ford was a crescendo of warnings from Casa Pacifica that the allegedly promised pardon must be delivered soon or Nixon's health might be fatally undermined. So, acting with uncharacteristic

and politically damaging stealth, Mr. Ford made his decision to pardon.

In retrospect, some Ford intimates now deeply regret that the President did not embark on a major campaign in Congress for a resolution looking toward pardon the minute he took office. They feel that if Mr. Ford had spelled out immediately and publicly his own intention to issue a complete pardon, and used his full power to lobby a sense-of-Congress pardon resolution, he could have had it.

At least two powerful Democrats had given private assurances to the Ford White House that such a resolution was quite feasible.

Even without such a resolution, one leading House Democrat said that if Mr. Ford had given advance notice to allies in Congress, a powerful backfire could have been built, partially offsetting the devastating political reaction of last Sunday's shocker.

As for the true mental state of the former President, some Ford advisers doubt that he is any worse off than he has been the past two years. If so, those who propelled President Ford into his sudden decision—and his stunning political decline—made a delicate and complex political problem infinitely worse.

By Jeff MacNelly

"Although neither Kissinger nor Haig committed Ford to a pardon, Nixon left the White House convinced Ford was committed."

© 1974, Field Enterprises, Inc.

SCANNER READY COPY

Release on Receipt

Dispatched 9/13/74

INSIDE LABOR

By Victor Riesel

Spies Pouring In:

Soviet Undercover Action in U.S.
Sharply Increased Since 'Detente'

NEW YORK--The Soviets, with atavistic Stalinist
cynicism, are on as much a spying spree in the U.S. as
they are on a buying binge, according to the highest
counterintelligence and security circles. The sources
and authority for this conclusion are unimpeachable.

Further, National Security Council insiders have
reported that government failure, especially by the
Commerce Department, to control the flow of strategic
military-associated products to the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics "verges on a scandal."

American equipment sold to Moscow's "scientific
research" and "industrial" trade trusts, for example,
include a 7600-type computer used in U.S. ballistic
missile-site defenses.

"There is a much larger flow of military-related
technology to the Soviets than the government had
previously suspected," says a Council source, "...our
system of control is full of loopholes and can be and
has been easily evaded and Soviet military capabilities
have already profited extensively."

Other sources disclose that the inflow of Soviet
espionage agents since "detente" has increased
"overwhelmingly and dramatically." There has been "an
unprecedented jump" in the number of Soviet commercial
missions and exchange students. The latter are of the
"graduate" type, mostly in their early 30s, mature and
hardly the sort of young scholars expected.

( MORE )

Victor Riesel--9/13/74

The commercial commissions are believed to be "loaded" with Red intelligence agents. There is positive evidence of this. Nor is this uncharacteristic of the Soviets. They have, for example, according to the record, used their official 50-year-old foreign commercial organization, the Amtorg Trading Corporation, as a source for spies and recruiters of agents in the U.S.

Amtorg, created in May 1924, shortly after V. I. Lenin's death when most of the world sympathized with the millions of starving Russians, is alive, flourishing and is being hailed as a fine contribution to international trade and understanding.

It has vast office space on the 86th floor of the World Trade Center here. According to FBI records, an Amtorg employe, Semen Semenov, recruited at least one atomic spy, the late Harry Gold, for espionage in the U.S. Years later Igor Ivanov, an Amtorg official, was charged with obtaining information from an engineer who operated computers for the Strategic Air Command. Ivanov was permitted to leave the U.S.

Now federal officials, eager to do business with the Soviets, hope that the KGB, the Soviet secret police and espionage agency, just doesn't attempt to use Amtorg again. They hope.

What disturbs American counterintelligence officers is the head-to-head dealings of Soviet commercial mission members with American corporate executives here. The Soviets' desperate need for American computer, industrial, electronic and aerospace expertise is insatiable. There is little doubt that the Soviet industrial "plant" as well as its agricultural and food distributive systems are

( MORE )

Victor Riesel--9/13/74

x x x are
collapsing.

The picture is not as grim today for the U.S.S.R.
as it was in 1923 when Lenin mockingly began dealing with
American capitalists and was supported by at least one
powerful American labor chief now dead. (But there is
definite word that the Soviets are urging their people to
save bread crumbs to keep from going hungry.) Then,
Lenin sent his commercial agents to deal with capitalist
businessmen and his underground revolutionists to stir
revolt against the very same commercial interests and
nations from whom he sought extensive credits.

History reveals that first Lenin, and then Stalin,
saved the Soviet Union with capitalist credits and then
turned on international democracy and capitalism. Now
history is repeating itself. With an additional starter.
In the '20s America saved 11 million Russians from dying
of starvation. But we sent no military equipment. Today
we are.

Early this year it appeared that Boeing, Lockheed
and McDonnell Douglas aerospace companies would form a
consortium to accede to the Soviets' request to construct
a huge aerospace factory in Russia. This would
eventually whip out 100 wide-bodied commercial jets a
year.

In effect, the Russians wanted the deal on long-
term credits at low interest rates (6 per cent or so)
which would be repaid out of sales of the jet products
back to us--or repaid by cash made by driving our
aerospace industry out of some markets. The deal didn't
materialize. But always the technique is the same.

( MORE )

Victor Riesel--9/13/74

x x x same.

And always, there are American industrialists who
believe they can count on the good faith of the Soviets.
They'll learn.

American naivete--which eventually will cost the
U.S. considerable money and jobs--is matched by that in
Italy, Germany and Britain into which the Soviets also are
pouring a goodly quota of spies. Even the Chinese
Communists are outraged by Soviet espionage. The Peking
publication Hsinhua in an edition I picked up in Europe
recently denounced: "The Dirty and Ugly Espionage
Activities of the Soviet Revisionists," and then followed
with, "Soviet spies under the cloak of 'diplomats, '
'journalists,' 'merchants,' 'seamen,' and 'technicians'
ran amuck everywhere, collecting intelligence and
carrying out sabotage activites with most despicable
means." It takes one to know one.

And should the U.S.S.R. obtain most-favored-nation
low tariff status here, we will have embraced a
totalitarianism which negates our national outcry for
morality and justice.

There is no detente. It is only Lenin's 1923
"New Economic Policy" revisited. It's a golden shot in
their shaky outstretched arm.

All Rights Reserved

Publishers-Hall Syndicate
401 North Wabash Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611 bp

E3

4-B

THE MIAMI HERALD

Fri., Sept. 13, 1974

# Kissinger Skirting Law on Turk Aid?

By JAMES McCARTNEY
Herald Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is trying to continue U.S. military aid to Turkey — in spite of serious problems with the law.

Kissinger has been told that U.S. laws all but specifically forbid continued aid to Turkey, since its invasion of Cyprus, nearly two months ago.

But according to State Department sources, Kissinger has decided to try to use what some consider a "loophole" in the law to justify continued aid, and is attempting to sell the idea to President Ford.

The issue is now heading for a showdown in Congress, however, and it is not yet clear what the outcome may be.

INVOLVED is a clearly stated provision of foreign-military-aid legislation that U.S. military equipment shall be used "solely for international security" or "legitimate self-defense" by its recipients.

The law says that if a country violates these provisions, it "shall be immediately ineligible for further assistance."

State Department and Pentagon experts openly concede that Turkey, one of the major recipients of U.S. military aid, clearly violated these provisions when it invaded Cyprus two months ago.

The Nixon Administration,

however, and since then the Ford Administration, have failed to cancel military aid to Turkey.

Asked why, in a news conference a month ago, Kissinger said: "I will have to get a legal opinion on that subject, which I have not done."

A LEGAL opinion was, indeed, produced within the State Department legal adviser's office within a few days, according to well-posted sources.

The lawyer originally assigned to the project concluded that the law required the U.S. to cut off aid to Turkey.

That opinion, however, was rejected by his superiors, as "incomplete... not adequate... and too hasty."

More studies were ordered.

Sen. Thomas Eagleton (D., Mo.) charged on the

Senate floor last week that "the law is either being ignored or openly abridged."

He said that "now, more than a month after the invasion of Cyprus, it is obvious that Turkey has clearly violated" at least two provisions of the foreign-aid law.

"IT CANNOT, in my opinion, legitimately be argued that the administration has acted in good faith ..."

Eagleton said that "the President in this rare instance has virtually no discretion" but to cut off Turkey's military aid.

Eagleton last Friday introduced a bill in the Senate calling for an immediate cutoff of aid to Turkey and plans to fight to make it an amendment to this year's foreign aid bill.

Saturday, the day after Eagleton introduced his bill, Kissinger called a top-level meeting in the State Department to examine his options.

He was told that there was a loophole in the law which might be tried, if he wanted to attempt it.

The law includes a waiver clause which would empower President Ford to authorize up to $50 million a year in aid to a nation waging aggressive war "when the President determines that such authorization is important to the security of the United States."

Henry Kissinger
...eyes 'loophole'

But that meant that Kissinger would have to get Ford's specific approval.

And there appears to be little question about what Congress meant when it wrote the law.

FORD, having worked in Congress for 25 years and voted on many a foreign aid bill, probably has a better idea of what Congress intended than Kissinger.

A Library of Congress study commissioned by Eagleton on the intent of those who wrote the law, said in part: "That U.S. military aid is intended for the

sole and exclusive purpose of permitting the recipients to defend themselves against aggression ... seems to permeate the laws governing this matter."

Turkey was hardly defending itself against aggression when it launched the Cyprus invasion, with U.S. weapons.

Kissinger has made clear that he wants to continue aid to Turkey, which is earmarked to receive about $209 million in military equipment this year.

HE HAS said that aid would be cut, as far as he is

concerned, "only in very extreme circumstances ... which I do not foresee."

Kissinger considers Turkey a vital link to NATO defenses.

But Eagleton makes the point: "We have just emerged from a trying period of American history, a period when laws were winked at and rationalized to fit the concepts of policy-makers."

Eagleton is now looking for co-sponsors to his proposal, and believes he can muster enough votes in the Senate to require a Turkish aid cutoff.

[L.C]

Kissinger keeps U.S. policy
on course in domestic storm

By Joseph C. Harsch

The foreign policies of the United
States have not missed a beat either
through or because of the dramatic
political events of the past week in
Washington, so far as this reporter
can discover.

Nor is there any serious reason to think that these events will harm the world interests of the Western alliance either now or in the longer run. Those interests are under strain, yes. And there may well be development to cause concern before President Ford gets the American economy back onto an even keel. But the danger to foreign-policy interests comes from the uncertain state of the economies of the industrial democracies, not from partisan politics in the United States.

Domestic event

The pardoning of Richard M. Nixon was a domestic political event that makes a difference in domestic American politics. President Ford proved his credentials as a conservative Republican by his deed. He proved his loyalty to the wing of the party that still supports Richard Nixon. He made himself more a politician and less a President of all the people. But — all of this seems isolated from foreign policy.

Initiator, too

The thinking on this subject among
those who are much concerned about
any, event touching foreign policy
runs as follows:

Henry A. Kissinger has been both
the executor and to a large extent for
a long time even the originator of
American foreign policy. The record is
not entirely clear yet about how much
of the initiative came from Mr. Nixon.
He was, of course, the political benefi-
ciary. And it seems clear that in the
early days of the Nixon adminis-
tration there was close working part-
nership between the two men on all
foreign-policy matters. There was
certainly a substantial Nixon input in
the early days, particularly on the
most dramatic move of all, the recon-
ciliation with mainland China.

PATTERN OF
DIPLOMACY

Input from beginning

But it is largely taken for granted
now that the Kissinger input was
major even from the beginning, and
increased decisively from the begin-
ing of the second Nixon term. By the
time of the Mideast crisis of last
October, Mr. Nixon had turned for-
eign-policy making almost entirely
over to Dr. Kissinger.

There are three reasons why the
take-over at the White House by Mr.
Ford has left that condition un-
changed.

First, Mr. Ford has always been
more interested in domestic matters
than in foreign affairs.

Second, he correctly recognizes the
economic condition of the United
States as being his overwhelming first
problem. And it is a big enough
problem to require most of his time
and attention.

Full confidence

Third, he gives every evidence of
having full confidence in Dr. Kiss-
singer's ability to take care of foreign-
policy matters.

The result is that Dr. Kissinger
occupies the kind of position in for-
eign-policy making in Washington
that Dean Acheson enjoyed under
President Truman and which, to a
lesser degree, John Foster Dulles
enjoyed under President Eisenhower.
In the latter case the President,
having spent much of his life over-
seas, took a more active hand in
foreign policy than had President
Truman. Mr. Dulles was occasionally
overruled. Mr. Acheson almost never
was.

Matters were entirely different dur-
ing the Kennedy-Johnson years when
Dean Rusk as secretary of state was
the executor of policy, but policy
initiative was largely exercised at the
White House by the president himself.

Under Mr. Nixon the initiative was
still at the White House, but more and
more with Dr. Kissinger. When he
moved to the State Department, in-
itiative went with him. That tendency
was accelerated by Watergate and
seems to have been institutionalized
by the change from Mr. Nixon to Mr.
Ford at the White House.

None of the above means no foreign-
policy problems ahead. There are
plenty. The prime concern is that the
economic weakness of all of the
industrial democracies will become
Moscow's golden opportunity. No one
in the Kremlin needs lift a finger to
weaken the NATO alliance. It is
weakening all by itself.

Value undermined

Italy's value to the alliance is being
undermined by near bankruptcy.
Greece is so angry at the failure of its
NATO allies to restrain the Turks on
Cyprus that it is already out of the
military activities of the alliance.
Several NATO members are cutting
back on their military budgets as they
try to check their inflation woes. The
British will be cutting back on their
military spending later in the year, no
matter which party wins their Octo-
ber election.

All NATO members seem to re-
member, if perhaps vaguely, the
disastrous result of their failure to
concert their economic policies dur-
ing the depression of the early 1930's.
They talked about common problems
to cure the condition. They failed —
and drifted into World War II. The
memory lingers.

Coordination discussed

All today are talking about con-
certing their economic policies. The
Common Market countries are think-
ing of working together. Their leaders
have started talking to Washington.
They know the danger of failure. But
will they do better than did the
statesmen of 1933 who failed at the
London Economic Conference of that
year?

So long as they might fail, Moscow
has little to worry about, and no
reason to help the West by doing
anything that might stimulate their
common concerns.

The Secret Agency That Oversees Cover CIA Activities [Le]

# White House '40 Committee Fed Overthrow of Allende

By JOHN J. FARMER
Of The Bulletin Staff

Washington — On a warm Saturday morning, June 27, 1970, Henry Kissinger, addressing the most secret committee of the United States government, laid down in highly personal terms what was to become official American policy toward Chile.

"I don't see why we should have to stand by and let a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people," he reportedly declared.

That statement, according to government intelligence sources, was made to the 40 Committee, a five-man group so secret that its existence was unknown at the time to the vast majority of Congress, the press, and even the White House staff.

Kissinger, through a State Department spokesman, said he could not recall making the statement but, in any case, could not comment on 40 Committee activities.

The 40 Committee is elected by no one, and responsible to no one except the President, who appoints its members.

Serious students of foreign-policy-making have questioned whether, in a democracy, such a five-man directorate should have this kind of unbridled power, whether the

five are really in touch with American public opinion, and whether Congress should not have tighter reins on their covert programs.

As a consequence of the 40 Committee's action however, large sums of Central Intelligence Agency money were poured vainly into Chile to avert the election of leftist Salvador Allende. And that money was followed in later years by even larger sums to "destabilize" the Chilean economy and topple the Allende regime.

With the Chilean military uprising in 1973 and Allende's violent death, the policy ultimately succeeded.

But it has produced in recent days several developments certain to provoke a new national debate on the role of the CIA and even of Kissinger himself. It has:

- Focused attention, at last, on the 40 Committee, dominated by military and intelligence professionals of the World War II-Cold War vintage, as the real overseer, even operator, of the CIA's covert activities and responsible only to the President.

- Made clear the emergence of Kissinger as the most powerful non-elected official in the nation's history, standing astride the intelligence, covert-operations and foreign-policy apparatuses as Secretary of State, chairman of the National Security Council, National Security Adviser to the President and Chairman of the 40 Committee.

- Destroyed what was left of the belief that at least a few members of Congress have knowledge of and a veto over the cloak-and-dagger aspects of CIA.

"The CIA is the tool of the President and it works today for Kissinger," according to one government source.

The history of the U. S. government's Chilean adventure dates back to 1964 when Allende, a proclaimed Marxist, first sought the presidency. CIA funds helped his Christian Democratic opponent, Eduardo Frei, capture the presidency that year.

## Greater Danger Seen by Washington

But by 1970, Frei could not succeed himself and the Allende threat was seen by Washington as greater than ever. This time even more money was funneled by CIA into anti-Allende efforts.

In all, according to secret testimony April 22 this year by CIA Director William Colby, as revealed by Rep. Michael J. Harrington (D-Mass), the agency pumped $11 million into anti-Allende efforts in Chile between 1964 and 1973. It was spent as follows:

- $3 million went in 1964 to help finance the Christian Democratic Party, Allende's chief opposition.

- About $500,000 was advanced in 1969 to help Chilean individuals and organizations gear up to oppose Allende the next year.

- Another $500,000 went to opposition party personnel during the 1970 campaign, and $350,000 was authorized to bribe the Chilean congress, but this last effort was abandoned.

- Following Allende's election, $5 million was authorized to disrupt the Chilean economy from 1971 to 1973, and $1.5 million more was spent to influence Chilean municipal elections in 1973. Some of these funds helped finance an influential Chilean newspaper.

— Finally, in August, 1973, just one month before Allende's downfall, another $1 million was authorized to press home the effort to wreck the Chilean economy, already in trouble because of Allende's own misguided policies.

In each case, the effort and the expenditure were approved by the 40 Committee, or by the same committee operating under another alias, such as the 303 Committee.

"No more mysterious group exists within the government than the 40 Committee," according to David Wise, a journalist who has long been a student of the American intelligence community.

"Its operations are so secret that in an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, CIA Director Colby was even reluctant to identify the chairman," he said.

The Bay of Pigs invasion attempt, the U-2 overflights of Russia, the overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala—each of these was a CIA covert operation approved by the 40 Committee, or its predecessors.

In most cases, it now appears, Congress was kept in the dark, at least until after the operations were completed, and sometimes beyond that.

The Chilean intervention is an example of how this blindfolding of Congress works.

On March 29 this year, Charles A. Meyers, former Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs, told a Senate subcommittee that "the policy of the government . . . was that there would be no intervention in the political affairs of Chile . . . we financed no candidates, no political parties . . ."

As late as June 12 of this year—two months after Colby's secret admission—Harry Schlaudeman, number two man in the American embassy in Chile from 1969-73, denied that any such U.S. effort was made.

"There was no funding, of that I am quite sure," Schlaudeman told a closed hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

CIA Director Colby emphasizes when questioned that the agency makes full secret reports to the "appropriate" Congressional committees, the so-called CIA "oversight" subcommittees of the House and Senate.

But what they are told, according to a former top official of CIA, depends on what questions they ask—and frequently they don't ask the right questions.

"The CIA deals with Congress in the way that Congress requests it to," said the official, who requested anonymity. "Often they don't know enough to ask the right questions. But it's their fault."

Among the subjects that have escaped close congressional questioning have been the operations of the 40 Committee.

Despite its anonymity, the committee appears to have existed under one name or another since at least 1954.

It was apparently formed officially in 1954 as the Special Group and later called the 54-12 Committee. In President Kennedy's time, it operated under the name 303 Committee, apparently a reference to the room it used in the Executive Office Building adjoining the White House.

The names, in each case, have been deliberately designed to provide no clue as to its function. Its members communicate mostly by word of mouth, with little paperwork and a staff of one man, believed to be a CIA employe.

"You can look all you want but you won't find any document with the title '40 Committee' on it." said one former intelligence officer. "It's like, officially at least, it didn't exist."

From its pre-1954 origins as a loose group of top State and Defense Department officials, the group has evolved a fixed membership based on title and formalized in a directive of the National Security Council. The name 40 Committee is believed to refer to an NSC directive number 40.

Kissinger, as national security adviser to the President, took charge of the 40 committee under former President Nixon and retains the chairmanship today.

The other members are Air Force Gen. George S. Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; William P. Clements Jr., deputy Secretary of Defense; Joseph J. Sisco, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and Colby, the CIA director.

They are men in their 50s, veterans of World War II and the Cold War periods.

Colby's membership, according to critics, is the classic story of the "fox in the hen coop" — the CIA director, in effect, sitting in judgment on plans and proposals of his own agency.

At times, other officials have sat in; John Mitchell, as Mr. Nixon's Attorney General, was a 40 Committee member and there is some dispute over whether the late Robert Kennedy, in his turn as Attorney General, also was a member. It is believed that Mr. Nixon's controversial assistants, H. R. Haldeman and John Fhrlichman, also attended meetings, but evidently not as members.

Each 40 Committee, according to past and present intelligence officers, has tended to become an extension of the chairman, chiefly because he alone has access directly to the President.

Kissinger has come to dominate the 40 Committee far beyond the power of his predecessor and to an extent some intelligence specialist here believe is dangerous.

In the past, for example, the 40 Committee met weekly, but not today.

As his own responsibilities have expanded, Kissinger has convened the committee less frequently, intelligence specialists here say. Much of the time, according to several sources, Kissinger merely confers with the other members by telephone, dealing with them individually rather than as a group, and passing on to the President the consensus that he alone has had a real hand in fashioning.

The result, according to specialists who have served in both the CIA and State Department, has been to concentrate decision-making in fewer hands, mostly Kissinger's hands.

"A lot of the consultation and argumentation that went on is missing now," said one official.

The controversy over Kissinger's role extends to the Chilean adventure and who really initiated it.

The CIA clearly has taken most of the heat to date, but at least one official highly placed in the State department from 1970 to 1973, the years of the most ambitious anti-Allende effort, believes the "CIA may be getting a bum rap."

The idea for intervention, he said, appears to have come from the White House — "from Nixon or Kissinger."

It was then farmed out to CIA to develop a plan and provide funds and routed routinely back to the 40 Committee, where Kissinger, as 40 Committee chairman, approved what may have been his own plan, this source said.

According to this official, the CIA "was not that hot" for intervention.

The State Department was divided, he said. Edward Korry, then ambassador to Chile, appeared to favor some CIA role, but the State Department's own Intelligence and Research experts opposed the idea, not on moral grounds, but in the belief it would not work and was too risky.

It is not known, he said, how U. Alexis Johnson, then as under Secretary in the State Department's man on the 40 Committee, "played it in the committee." But in any event, Kissinger's view would have been irresistible because of his influence with the President, he added.

There are some intelligence specialists here who credit Kissinger with having imposed some restraint on CIA after a decade in which the White House and the 40 Committee stood in awe of the agency's glamorous "dirty tricks" department.

This was particularly true under President Johnson's hawkish National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, of whom one ex-State department intelligence officer said, "he scared even the CIA."

But at the same time, there is apprehension among the same sources that Kissinger has compounded what many saw all along as a real shortcoming of the 40 Committee operation — the concentration of a review function in the hands of men already busy with daily operating responsibilities in their own fields.

The agenda of the 40 Committee includes some of the most delicate foreign-policy decisions of the United States government. Besides the CIA's covert projects, it also reviews and approves monthly a Joint Reconnaissance Schedule that involves, among other things, the use of spy satellites around the world.

Outside the intelligence community there is criticism of the secrecy which shrouds the CIA and hands over its operations to a non-elected elite such as the 40 Committee. But within the intelligence community here—men sympathetic to the need for clandestine policy alternatives in a divided world — the concern is that there is not enough control of CIA by institutions such as the 40 Committee.

For example, Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, former U.S. Intelligence officers and authors of "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence," maintain that covert operations account for only $440 million of CIA's estimated budget of more than $750 million a year. The actual figures are a closely held secret.

By far the larger, more important operation—world-wide espionage—is subject to no review by the 40 Committee.

This is true even if the espionage involves as sensitive an operation as hiring a key official of a foreign government—as has been done in Latin America at the risk of a serious diplomatic incident.

## Some Results Never Envisioned

Even covert operations approved by the 40 Committee have some history of generating capers never envisioned by the Committee. The Russian sugar case is an example.

Directed by the 40 Committee to do its damned to foul up the Cuban economy, CIA agents picked on a load of Cuban sugar bound for Russia that had been off-loaded in an American port. They contaminated the sugar, risking a real ruckus with the Russians.

The deed was undone only when President Kennedy learned of it in time.

With the growth of multi-national corporations — the spread of American business abroad in the 1960s — the chance for unmonitored CIA mischief has expanded mightily. For many of these businesses, the CIA is fertile recruiting ground, and the list of American banks and international business is replete with ex-CIA employes whose old loyalties can be tapped by the agency.

According to one published report, Colby has said the CIA maintains some 200 agents abroad posing as businessmen.

With the disclosure of its role in Chile, there are signs at last that Congress, which has closed its eyes to the ever-widening CIA role, may be about to take a tougher line.

Sen. Frank Church (D-Ida), chairman of a Senate Foreign Relation subcommittee on multi-national corporations, is exploring the possibility of perjury prosecutions against Administration officials who denied any U.S. effort to topple Allende.

And even Sen. Stuart Symington (D-Mo), a member of the Senate's CIA oversight subcommittee and supposedly one of the few men in Congress informed about the agency, expressed surprise at Colby's admission of the depth of CIA intrusion into Chile.

Among Congress's younger members, like Harrington, there is a rising cry for more control of the agency.

What form that might take is not yet clear. But many intelligence specialists questioned here for that the CIA might well have to surrender some of its covert operations to protect its more vital intelligence gathering and evaluation capability.

Colby seemed to suggest that late Friday, when, at a conference here on "CIA and Cover Activities," he declared that an end to covert activities "would not have a major effect on the current security of the United States."

In fact, according to Ray S. Cline, a former CIA deputy director, covert activity is on the decline, and has been since its hey-day in the 1950s and 1960s. The thawing of the Cold War, and the detente in general have made the difference, he said.

## 'Cold Warrior' Started It All

The man who started it all was that first Cold Warrior, Harry S. Truman, who put together the CIA in 1947, primarily as an intelligence-gathering agency, and saw it quickly enter the cloak-and-dagger trade.

At the end, it seems, Mr. Truman had some second thoughts, and it may be that Congress, will take its lead from this comment attributed to the former President in 1963:

> "I never had any thought when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak-and-dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment that I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role...

> "I would like to see the CIA restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President and whatever else it can properly perform in that special field and its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.

> "We have grown up as a nation respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position, and I feel that we need to correct it."

Diversified Histories

Backgrounds of the 40's Five

Washington—These are the men who comprise the 40 Committee, the secret White House policy group which reviews and oversees all covert CIA activities:

DR. HENRY A. KISSINGER, 51, ... Chairman of the 40 Committee ... German-born, Harvard-educated ... with his family fled here from Nazi Germany before World War II ... worked with American military intelligence in World War II ... brilliant foreign policy formulator, architect of the Nixon "detente" with Russia and China ... an American Metternich and the most powerful non-elected official in the nation's history ... Secretary of State; chairman, National Security Council; National Security Advisor to the President, and Chairman of the 40 Committee.

JOSEPH J. SISCO, 55 ... Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs ... son of a middle-class, Italian-American family from Chicago ... Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Knox College in Illinois ... specialized in Soviet Affairs and received doctorate in International Relations from University of Chicago ... known as "jumping Joe" for his aggressive, gregarious personality and 12-hour work days ... once worked as bartender, another time in a steel mill, but for most of his life has been a career diplomat ... served as political adviser to the U. S. delegation to the United Nations ... best known for his patient mediation efforts in the

Middle East ... knows CIA first hand ... he entered government service in 1950 with the CIA, went from there to the State Department.

WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS JR., 56 ... Deputy Secretary of Defense ... came to the post after Nixon's reelection in 1973 ... served as co-chairman of the Texas Committee to Reelect the President ... heavy financial contributor to the Nixon campaign ... a self-made millionaire in the oil-drilling and equipment business ... estimated to hold stock worth $65.6 million in SEDCO Inc., of Dallas, an oil-drilling and pipeline company of which he was board chairman ... also holds interests in Texas real estate and the First National Bank of Dallas ... a close friend of Sen. John Tower (R-Tex), among the most hawkish members of Congress ... Clements appointment viewed as a signal to conservatives that Pentagon would not suffer in Nixon second term ... it alarmed some liberals who felt that, at the January, 1973, confirmation hearings, he did not renounce possible use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam in strong-enough terms.

AIR FORCE GEN. GEORGE S. BROWN, 55 ... Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ... the choice of Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, former director of the CIA ... son of an Army general and married into an Army family ... West Point graduate

... World War II bomber pilot, as a major he took charge of the famous 1943 raid on the Plesst oil fields in Romania after lead elements of the attack had been shot down ... awarded Distinguished Flying Cross for his effort ... considered more analytical and articulate than his successor, Admiral Thomas Moorer, he is said to have raised the intellectual level of the Joint Chiefs ... low-keyed, with a sense of humor, according to associates, and one who listens to views of subordinate ... like Sisco, an aggressive tennis player.

WILLIAM P. COLBY, 51 ... Director of the CIA ... a professional spy who came in from the cold ... joined the OSS, forerunner of CIA, shortly after graduation from Princeton ... parachuted into France in World War II to help resistance fighters ... brief post-war career as lawyer, but joined CIA at outbreak of Korean Conflict ... served in Stockholm and Rome, where he was heavily engaged underground in work against the Italian Communist party ... served several tours in Vietnam as CIA station chief ... headed Pacification program, which included the controversial "Phoenix" program, involving capture, imprisonment and frequently murder of suspect Viet Cong ... in 1970, conceded to Congress "abuses" in the Phoenix program ... he headed the clandestine, or "dirty tricks," department of CIA before becoming director.

["The Sunday Bulletin\n# Opinion and Review\nVA SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1974 5", "William F. Buckley Jr.: Dissent", "Pardon decision\nis defended", "New York — Concerning the presidental pardon, a few observations:", "(1) It is objected that Richard Nixon has not shown a proper construction, that he \"did not \"apologize.\" I do not know what \"the fact\" is. \"No words can describe the depths of my regret and pain at the angriest mistakes over Watergate have caused the nation to the President, a nation I so deeply love and an institution I so greatly respect.\"", "(2) That do they want from him? He even went so far as to say his erudition is \"unreliable\" and that he \"knows that many fair-minded people believe that my motives were not entirely pure.\"", "(3) It is the opinion of many as things now stand, the record doesn't establish whether Richard Nixon was actually responsible for the Watergate cover-up. But anyone around who believes that Richard Nixon's administration is responsible for the granting of pardons only when the President has made a clear popular sanction for the pardon, and I know that President Ford has done honorably, prudently, and charitably.", "(4) It is the opinion of many as things now stand, the record doesn't establish whether Richard Nixon was actually responsible for the Watergate cover-up. But anyone around who believes that Richard Nixon's administration is responsible for the granting of pardons only when the President has made a clear popular sanction for the pardon, and I know that President Ford has done honorably, prudently, and charitably.", "(5) The argument that it is now not equal to the erudition is illogical. It is illogical to say that we are granted the right to die in the field of death is illogical to say that we are granted the right to die in the field of