ANNEX I

14 September 1983

Jacqueline Saab
40 Roxborough
Montreal H3Y1M4
Canada

To the Editor:

I am writing in connection with your lead article "Out of Lebanon Slowly" published on 11 September 1983. This article fails to draw attention to the leading role of Syria in stirring up factions and supporting with men, money and arms intercommunity violence in Beirut and in the Shouf mountains. It has been Syria's contention and avowed intention since 1975 that Lebanon is not a country which can rule itself and that Syria alone can bring peace to this divided land. The role of Syria in the Lebanon has been documented by many inclusive of official US spokesmen, and it should not be ignored now by one of the most important US newspapers.

Rather than deploring the US predicament in Lebanon and rather than throwing the blame on "the dozens of tribes that call themselves Lebanese" it might be more fruitful to make the US public aware of the erratic policy pursued by the Administration in the Lebanon since the demise of Secretary Haig. The sudden and humiliating refusal to host in Damascus Ambassador Habib and the subsequent inopportune journey there of Secretary Schultz are tangible evidence of the poor results of an erratic policy which fails to recognize that strength and dignity are still cherished values in the Arab world and that without them US initiatives in the region can only be counterproductive.

ANNEX II

WHEN LEBANON WAS CARVED OUT OF SYRIA

When discussing the issue of Lebanon and of its relations with
Syria, it is more and more being repeated in editorials of leading U.S.
newspapers that "Lebanon was carved out of Syria only 50 years ago". 1.)
This erroneous statement stems from confusion as to the history of the
Near East during the last two milleniums and in particular as to the course
of political events in the two last centuries in Lebanon and Syria, which
culminated for each of them in their accession to nationhood in 1919.
The following historical summary sheds light on the background history
of the Near East and on that of Lebanon and Syria.

150 BC - 350 AD After more than four centuries of Roman domination of the Near East, Asia Minor, the Syrian plains inclusive of half of Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt and part of North Africa were submitted as from 350 AD to the rule of the Byzantine Empire

/...

1.) for example A. Lewis on page A19 of the New York Times of 19/12/1983.

[LC]

-2-

AD

636 The Byzantines are decisively defeated at Yarmouk by the Moslem Arab armies. Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq and parts of Persia are then incorporated in the newly established Arab Empire centered at Mecca in Arabia.

660 The seat of the Arab Empire is moved by the Ummayad Caliph's to Damascus. Syria and Lebanon are a minute part of that vast Empire.

763 The Abbassid Caliphs take over the Arab Empire and select Bagdad as their capital.

850 Breakdown of the authority of the Caliph of Bagdad. Turkish warlords hold sway over the towns of Aleppo, Damascus and Mosul and their adjoining areas.

913 Egypt breaks away from the Abbassid Empire. The Shia Fatimid Sultans rule from Cairo over North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon and most of Syria.

1097 The Frankish crusaders conquer the Syrian coastline, Lebanon, Palestine and establish the Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem.

1169 Saladin overthrows the Fatimids in Cairo. After seizing Damascus, Aleppo and Mosul he defeats the Crusaders in 1187 and occupies South and Central Palestine. Northern Palestine, Lebanon and the Syrian coastline remain in the Crusaders' possession until 1301.

/...

[Lc]

-3-

AD

1258 The last Abbassid Caliph is killed by the Mongols as Hulagu Khan conquers Persia, Iraq, Syria and Palestine. Lebanon alone remains under crusader rule.

1301 The Mamlouk Sultans of Egypt after defeating the Mongols complete the retrieval of all Crusader possessions and enforce their authority throughout Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

1516-1517 The power of the Mamlouk Sultans of Egypt is smashed by the Ottoman Sultan of Turkey Salim I.

Thereafter the Turkish Empire englobes the Balkans, Asia Minor, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Arabia and North Africa. It will subsist for nearly four centuries. During this period Syria is governed by the Pasha of Damascus nominated by the Turkish Sultan, South Lebanon and Palestine by the Pasha of Akka, also a nominee of the Sultan. Mount Lebanon is ruled by the semi autonomous Princes of Lebanon who are acknowledged as vassals by the Sultan.

1830-1845 The Sultan of Constantinople is challenged by the Viceroy of Egypt Mohammed Ali. His victorious armies are welcomed by the Prince of Lebanon Bashir Chehab and by its people. Under the pressure of the Great Powers, Egypt is compelled to retreat. The Turks return to Lebanon and Syria and with them Absolutism, exactions and abuses. Prince Bashir is imprisoned in Istanbul.

/...

[LC]

-4-

AD

1860 The Druze community inspired and armed by the Turks massacres over 7000 Christians in Lebanon in a few days. Similar events take place in Syria. France, Austria, Russia dispatch their fleets to Lebanon to prevent further bloodshed. After lengthy negotiations including the British, the Turkish Government is forced by the Great Powers to grant complete internal autonomy to the inhabitants of Mount Lebanon. Syria remains a Turkish province.

1915 As Turkey enters World War I it annulls the internal autonomy of Mount Lebanon and submits it to drastic military rule. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese starve to death as the Turkish Governor Djemal Pasha commandeers all grain supplies.

1919 In spite of Lawrence of Arabia and Prince Feysal's efforts to recon-
stitute the Arab Empire of the Middle Ages, the Treaty of Versailles
concedes to France a mandate over Syria and Lebanon. Syria's boundaries
with Iraq and Turkey are defined on the basis of the Anglo French Sykes
Picot Agreement of 1917. Two independent republics with parliamentary
institutions are set up by France in Lebanon and Syria. A customs and
monetary union links the two countries whose institutions though
similar are totally independent from one another. The Lebanese Republic
now comprises Mount Lebanon, North Lebanon, South Lebanon and the Bekaa.

[LC]

-5-

AD

1939 Turkey with the connivence of the Great Powers seizes the Syrian Territory of the Sandjak of Alexandretta, north of Aleppo.

1943 France evacuates Lebanon and grants it total independence; it then follows suit in Syria a few months later.

1946 The Lebanese Syrian customs and monetary union is dissolved: Syria plunges into state intervention and state control in all economic and financial matters, whereas Lebanon opts for an open free enterprise economy.

1948 Democratic institutions are swept away in Syria and replaced by a string of short lived military dictatorships. The rate of economic growth slows to a snails pace.

1967 During the six day war the Golan province at the door of Damascus is seized and subsequently annexed by Israel.

As can be seen from this historical summary Lebanon and Syria both acceded to nationhood in 1919; since time immemorial Lebanon and Syria had unfortunately been parts of the Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Turkish, Fatimid, Ayoubid, Crusader, Mongol, Mamlouk and Ottoman Empires. Under such circumstances can it be stated that modern Lebanon was carved out of Syria fifty years ago? If anything Syria and Lebanon were both carved out of Ottoman Turkey in 1919.

/...

[LC]

-6-

Rather than raise controversial claims and so-called strategic and political demands against its sister state Lebanon, Syria should now be working in earnest for the complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon, while pressing its rightful claim for the return of the Golan and for the return of the Sandjak of Alexandretta, and for an equitable issue to the Palestinian problem.

A quotation from a matterly article of U.S. Ambassador Armin H. Meyer in the Washington Post of 3 November 1983 sums up for the U.S. public the present plight of the Lebanese Republic "when trouble has occurred in the Lebanon it has invariably been due to agitating forces from outside".

ARNOLD & PORTER

1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
(202) 872-6700

1700 LINCOLN STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
(303) 863-1000

CABLE: "ARFOPO"
TELECOPIER: (202) 872-6720
TELEX: 89-2733

STEPHEN M. SACKS
DIRECT LINE: (202) 872-6681

October 30, 1984

Mr. Werner Fricker
United States Soccer Federation
350 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10118

Dear Werner:

I know it has been some time since I have written
to you and to the Federation concerning our prior out-
standing statements. However, I am writing this letter
in the hope that something can be done about these state-
ments.

As you know, we were retained by the Federation
to assist in efforts to get the World Cup for the United
States. We put in a substantial amount of time and incurred
significant out-of-pocket expenses in our work. As I
understand it, everyone was pleased with our work. When
I submitted my first statement to the Federation on
May 24, 1983, as I informed the Federation at that time,
we substantially discounted our statement in light of the
Federation's financial condition.

To date, we have received neither any payment nor
any explanation as to why we have received no payment.
This leaves us in the situation of, not only not being paid
(on a discounted basis) for the legal services we per-
formed, but also not being paid for out-of-pocket expenses
we directly incurred on behalf of the Federation. We
believe that this situation is most unfair, and certainly
not one in keeping with the manner in which we understand
the Federation conducts itself.

I would appreciate it if you could look into this
matter. In the event there are financial problems, we
remain more than willing to make accommodations concerning

NOV 2 1984

Apartado Postal 497. Monterrey. N. L. 64000 México • Teléfono 72-4515 • Telex 382871

ROGELIO SADA
Director General

September 7, 1984

Mr. Amos A. Jordan
President
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Georgetown University
1800 K. Street Northwest
Washington, D. C. 20006
U. S. A.

Dear Mr. Jordan:

It is indeed a privilege to be asked again as "your special guest"
to attend your Paris meeting in November.

VITRO has "weathered the storm" (the Mexican crisis) nicely and thus we all here feel slightly more relaxed. With pleasure we will make some changes in our schedule so that my wife and I may be able to attend the Paris and Belgium meetings.

I shall also look forward to the CSIS membership meeting in order to better understand:

1) How can VITRO and/or I contribute to the CSIS objectives?

2) Aren't the issues discussed too far reaching, especially the ones related to world security, for a principally Mexican based corporation?

3) There seems to be a weak developing-nations representation in the Council. Is it desirable to increase its participation?

4) VITRO has perhaps the largest private Mexican-owned equity in Mexico and a well developed joint-venture configuration, but still it is mainly an indigenous middle size corporation if compared to the multinational giants that conform the International Council. Won't this create an aberrant focus mismatch?

5) What will be VITRO's financial membership obligation?

(Cont.)

Industrias de Envases • Vidrio Plano • Cristalería • Química Industrial • Recursos Minerales y Bienes de Capital
Investigación y Desarrollo de Tecnología • Tiendas Departamentales

TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM MESSAGE, PHONE WESTERN UNION ANYTIME, DAY OR NIGHT:

FOR YOUR LOCAL NUMBER, SEE THE WHITE PAGES

OF YOUR LOCAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY

DIAL (TOLL-FREE) 800-257-2241

OR DIAL WESTERN UNION'S COMPUTER DIRECTLY:

FROM TELEX I.................. 6161 FROM TELEX II (TWX®)........... 910-420-1212

MESSAGE FROM WESTERN UNION

Message #4-021558S318

On Thursday, December 6, 1984 the Saint Nicholas Society will give their 150th annual dinner at the Plaza in the Grand Ballroom. At this time the medal of merit will be awarded to the Honorable Jeane J. Kirkpatrick for her outstanding achievements. We would be most pleased and honored if you and Mrs. Kissinger would be our guest on that occasion. As a previous medalist we are sure that it would give particular pleasure to Amb. Kirkpatrick as well as our members and guests if you would speak on her achievements. We hope you can find time in your very busy schedule to be with us.

L. George van Sykle
President - Saint Nicholas Society
122 East 58th Street
New York, New York 10022

NOV 13 1984

Scientists for
Sakharov,
Orlov and
Shcharansky

P. O. Box 6123, Berkeley, CA 94706, U.S.A.

Tel: (415) 486-4403

SPONSORS

Robert K. Adair, Physics
Yale University

* **Christian B. Anfinsen, Biochemistry**
  National Institutes of Health

Peter Axel, Physics
University of Illinois

Leo Brewer, Chemistry
University of California, Berkeley

Norman H. Brooks, Environmental
and Civil Engineering
California Institute of Technology

Keith A. Brueckner, Physics
University of California, San Diego

Joseph Cerny, Chemistry
University of California, Berkeley

Marvin Chodorow, Applied Physics and
Electrical Engineering
Stanford University

Ernest D. Courant, Physics
Brookhaven National Laboratory

* **James W. Cronin, Physics**
  University of Chicago

Malcolm Derrick, Physics
Argonne National Laboratory

Mildred S. Dresselhaus, Electrical
Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Thomas Elsner, Biology
Cornell University

John T. Edsall, Biochemistry
Harvard University

* **Donald A. Glaser, Biology**
  University of California, Berkeley

J. David Jackson, Physics
University of California, Berkeley

Nathan Jacobson, Mathematics
Yale University

Jack C. Klefer, Mathematics
University of California, Berkeley

Lester Lees, Aeronautical Engineering
California Institute of Technology

Daniel D. McCracken, Computer Science
Author and Consultant

* **Edwin M. McMillan, Physics**
  University of California, Berkeley

Alhud Pevsner, Physics
Johns Hopkins University

Anthony Ralston, Computer Science
SUNY, Buffalo

Fritz Rohrlich, Physics
Syracuse University

Gerd M. Rosenblatt, Chemistry
Penn State University

Malvin Ruderman, Astrophysics
Columbia University

Edwin E. Salpeter, Astrophysics
Cornell University

Harold A. Scheraga, Chemistry
Cornell University

* **Julian Schwinger, Physics**
  University of California, Los Angeles

William R. Sears, Aeronautical
Engineering
University of Arizona

Robert Serber, Physics
Columbia University

Andrew M. Sessler, Physics
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

Ascher H. Shapiro, Mechanical
Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Louis D. Smullin, Electrical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Paul Stelson, Physics
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Eli Sternberg, Engineering and Applied
Science
California Institute of Technology

Andrew J. Viterbi, Communications
Engineering
Linkabit Corporation

William Weltner, Jr., Chemistry
University of Florida

Edward O. Wilson, Biology
Harvard University

Kenneth G. Wilson, Physics
Cornell University

• NOBEL LAUREATE

May 15, 1984

Henry Kissinger
1800 K Street, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington,D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

We write with a sense of great urgency that arises out of our conviction that two lives are in imminent danger of being wantonly lost. If Dr. Andrei Sakharov and his wife, Dr. Elana Bonner-Sakharov, should die as a result of the current crisis in Gorky, we believe that an even more profound pall will settle over the future of East-West relations. Hence our appeal to you as a holder of the Nobel Peace Prize to aid a fellow Peace Laureate; we ask you to raise your voice on behalf of alleviating the present perilous condition of the Sakharovs.

Quoted below is the full text of a recent statement by Dr. Sakharov written in anticipation of the current crisis. The original Russian text (see attached) was prepared in January 1984. Because it comes directly from Dr. Sakharov's hand, it will tell you more eloquently than any paraphrase of the exact nature of his wishes and the almost incomprehensible and intractable nature of the Soviet state's cruel persecution of the Sakharovs.

TO ALL MY FRIENDS IN THE WORLD:

I appeal to all my colleagues, to public figures and statesmen, to all who have ever spoken out in my defense and are willing now to speak out at this tragic moment in our lives.

I am beginning a hunger strike with the demand that my wife Elana Bonner must be allowed to travel abroad for the purpose of receiving medical treatment and visiting her mother, children and grandchildren.

On April 25, 1983, she suffered a severe myocardial infarct. She has not recovered from that heart attack, and in some respects her condition has become even worse and remains life-threatening. During this entire period, she had been denied any real medical care. Under present conditions, with an all out slander campaign organized against her and with constant KGB interference, the medical treatment that my wife would receive in the USSR could not be effective. More than that, it might prove extremely dangerous. I note in particular that official propaganda has saddled my wife with responsibility for my public statements, proclaiming her to be an imperialist and a Zionist agent, and spreading monstrous slander about her far and wide.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Morris Pripstein, Chairman, SOS
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

* **Owen Chamberlain, Physics**
  University of California, Berkeley

* **Paul J. Flory, Chemistry**
  Stanford University

Kurt Gottfried, Physics
Cornell University

Bruce Alan KLernan,
Executive Director, SOS

Denis Keefe, Physics
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

Joseph Welzenbaum, Computer
Science

An International Movement to Promote the Human Rights of Scientists

[lc]

In [December] 1981 we were forced to go on a hunger strike in order to obtain permission for our daughter-in-law to leave the USSR to join her husband. World public opinion was of enormous help in resolving that tragic problem.

In September 1982, Elena Bonner applied for a visa. On November 10, 1983, I wrote to the head of the Soviet State, Yuri Andropov. Thus far, we have received no response.

Now, once again, I see no alternative to a hunger strike. My wife's health prevents her from taking part in the hunger strike. My hunger strike will be indefinite; I will end it only when my wife is allowed to go abroad. Her death will be mine as well. Once again, as I did two years ago, I ask for your help. Save us!

Andrei Sakharov

We have no way of knowing what will transpire in Gorky while this request for help is en route to you. In their December 1981 hunger strike that resulted in the release of Liza Alexeyeva, the Sakharovs were no forcibly taken to a hospital in Gorky until the 13th day of their protest. We write on May 15th, the 14th day of Dr. Sakharov's hunger strike. It is clear that at this moment, both he and Dr. Bonner are much less able to withstand the stress of such a crisis since they have suffered repeated heart attacks and other physical disabilities in the intervening years as well as the cumulative strain of KGB harassment. This means that our individual and joint efforts to influence the present crisis must be immediate and unequivocal.

We ask you to do the following:

1) Cable your support of Dr. Sakharov's efforts to obtain permission for his wife to receive medical treatment abroad to Secretary General Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko, The Kremlin, Moscow USSR.

2) Let us know at once if you endorse the following statement which SOS would like to release to the world press over the signatures of all holders of the Nobel Peace Prize:

The undersigned recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize urgently ask the appropriate authorities of the USSR to grant the request of Dr. Andrei Sakharov for his wife, Dr. Elena Bonner-Sakharov, to be allowed to obtain medical treatment abroad immediately. Dr. Bonner has been permitted to receive medical help abroad in 1975, 1977 and 1979. The facts of her current medical crisis are not in dispute. Her trip has no political motivations. Allowing her to travel abroad would end an ominous crisis in an appropriate humanitarian way. We believe that the well-being of the Sakharovs in profoundly important to world peace.

3) Take any public or private action within your own country or

3

И ПОВОЗЬ МОЕ В. ВСЕМ ПИЛЕ

[L1]

Я обращаюсь к этим ваязлением к коллегам по науке, к общественникам государственным деятелям, ко всем тем; когда-либо вступал в мою защиту или подготовил это се̇чав, з трагический момент называли.

Я начинаю голодовку с требованием разрешить моё̇ жене Елене Боннэр поездку за рубеж для лечения и для встречи с матерью, детьми и внуками.

25 апреля прошлог года у нее произошел тяжелый инфаркт. Состояние не нормализовалось до сих пор и в ряде отношений обострилось, является угрожающим. Она все это время фактически лишена медицинской помощи. Лечим моё̇ жены в СССР, у условиях всеобщей организованной травли и непрерывно вмешательства КГБ не может быть эффективным, Более того, я убежден, что о было-бы краще опасным. Я хочу напомнить, в особенности, что общинальная пропаганда перекладывает на Е.Г. Боннэр ответственность за мои общественные выступления, объявляет ее империалистическим и сионистским агентом, ширсчальным образом распространяет о ней самую чудовищную клевету.

Единственным возможным решением се̇час является поездка моё̇ жены Е.Г. Боннэр за рубеж.

В сентябре 1982г. Е.Г. Боннэр подала заявление на поездку. 10 ноября 1983г. я написал письмо Главе Советского государства М.В. Андропову. До с пор мн не имеем никаких ответов.

В 1981г. мы были винуждены при помощи голодовки добиваться разрешения на въезд к музку нашей невестки. Поддержка мировой обólеченности тогда огромной мере способствовала решению этого трагического аопроса.

Се̇час я вновь не вижу других путей кроме голодовки. Ввиду состояні я не начинаю здоровья моё̇ жены она не может участвовать в голодовке, потому что начинаю в эти дни. Моя голодовка-бессрочная. А прекращу ее только при разрешении поездки моё̇ жены. Её Ее гибель была бы и моё̇ гибелью. Вновь как два года назад, прошу о вашей помощи. Спасите нас!

Андрей Сакаров, Лауреат Нобелевского премии Мира.

For the Record:

CV received call from Miss Wong on May 22nd. CV regretted HAK's availability. Miss Wong said she understood but complained that she had first contacted Diana May 3rd and expressed her displeasure that she never received a call back after her original conversation nor any response to her letter.

JAPAN INFORMATION CENTER

CONSULATE GENERAL OF JAPAN

299 PARK AVENUE, 18th FLOOR
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10171

TELEPHONE: (212) 371-8222

May 17, 1984

Ms. Diana Boutruss
Kissinger Associates
55 East 52nd St., Suite 1100
New York, N.Y. 10055

Dear Ms. Boutruss:

Pursuant to my letter of May 3, 1984, enclosed here-
with is a letter of introduction from the former Minister
of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Yoshio Sakurauchi, of Mr. Goichi
Sakide, Chief Executive Manager of the International
Music Artist Society.

Mr. Sakide will be in New York until the 24th of this
month. Thank you.

PJW:

enclosure

MAY 22 1984

May 12, 1984

Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger
Faculty of George Town University

Sir:

May I take the liberty of introducing Mr. Goichi
Sakide, Chief Executive Manager of the International Music
Artist society (IMAS), for which I now hold the position
of Chief Adviser.

The IMAS has been carrying out very significant
programs for young Japanese musicians as well as promotions
to further international friendship.

I am well aware of your busy schedule but I am hoping
that a small portion of your most valuable time be allotted
to him.

SCIENCE TRANSFER FOR DEVELOPMENT

Abdus Salam

JUL 9 1984

"Government support of basic research is a Federal trust ... basic research (is) an essential instrument in the nation's long-term welfare ... because its benefits are so broadly distributed. Quite simply basic research is a vital underpinning for our national well being." - George A. Keyworth II, U.S. Presidential Science Adviser, testifying before the House Committee on Science and Technology, 1984.

# 1. The Neglect of Basic Sciences in Developing Countries

Let me say at the outset that my credentials for writing on this subject are those of a humble research physicist from a developing country who has had the privilege of directing a United Nations run International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) at Trieste. Since its inception in 1964, ICTP has welcomed of the order of 22,000 visits of experimental and theoretical research physicists; 11,000 of these working in developing country Universities and Research Institutes.

Based on this experience, gained over the past twenty years, the thesis I wish to present is this: barring a few of its countries - Argentina, Brazil, China and India - the third world, despite its recent realization that science

[LC]

- 2 -

and technology are the sustenance, and its major hope for economic betterment, has taken to science - as contrasted even to technology - as only a marginal activity. This is also true of the aid-giving agencies of the richer countries, of the agencies of the United Nations and also unfortunately, of the scientific communities of the developed countries which might naturally have been expected to be the third world scientists' foremost allies. My purpose in this article is to reflect on the position of Sciences in the developing countries, and to highlight, in particular, the role of the United Nations and other Agencies in ameliorating the situation.

Why am I insistent that science in developing countries has been treated as a marginal activity? Two reasons:

**First:** policy makers, prestigious commissions (like the Brandt Commission), as well as aid-givers, speak uniformly of problems of technology transfer to the developing countries as if that is all that is involved. It is hard to believe but true that the word "science" does not figure in the Brandt Commission report. Very few within the developing world appear to stress that for **long term effectiveness, technology transfers must always be accompanied by science transfers**; that the science of today is the technology

[LC]

- 4 -

if one was being machiavellian, one might discern sinister motives among those who try to sell to us the idea of technology transfer without science transfer. There is nothing which has hurt us in the third world more than the slogan in the richer countries of Relevant Science. Regretfully this slogan was parrotted in our countries unthinkingly to justify stifling the growth of all science.

**Second:** science transfer is effected by and to communities of scientists. Such communities (in developing countries) need building up to a critical size in their human resources and infrastructure. This building up calls for wise science policies, with long-term commitment, generous patronage, self-governance and free international contacts. Further, in our countries, the high-level scientist must be allowed to play a role in nation-building as an equal partner to the professional planner, the economist and the technologist. Few developing countries have promulgated such policies; few aid agencies have taken it as their mandate to encourage and help with the building up of the scientific infrastructure.

## 2. Why Science Transfer?

What is the infrastructure of sciences I am speaking about and why? First and foremost, we need scientific literacy and science teaching - at all levels - and particularly at the higher levels, (at least) for engineers and technologists. This calls for inspiring teachers, and no one can be an inspiring teacher of science, unless he has experienced and created, at least some modicum of living science, during some part of his career. This calls for well-equipped teaching laboratories and (in the present era of

[lc]

- 5 -

fast moving science), the provision of the newest journals and books. This
is the minimum of scientific infrastructure any country needs.

Next, should come demands on their own scientific communities -
consisting of their own nationals - from the developing country government
agencies and their nascent industries, for discriminatory advice on which
technologies would be relevant and worth acquiring.

Still next, for a minority of the developing countries, there is the
need for basic scientists to help their applied colleagues' research work.
For any society, the problems of its agriculture, of its local pests and
diseases, of its local materials base, must be solved locally. One needs an
underpinning from a first-class base in basic sciences to carry applied
research in these areas through. The craft of applied science, in a
developing country, is much harder than the craft of basic science, simply
because one does not have available next door, or at the other end of the
telephone line, men who can tell you what one needs to know of the basics,
relevant to one's applied work *)

*) Fang Yi, the Chinese Minister of Science and Technology has given another reason for support of basic sciences. Noting that major technological advances will become more and more dependent on breakthroughs in basic research he has made the point that "'some foreign countries' will be less willing to publicize their basic research in the open literature. China should therefore pay ever more attention to such fields of basic research".

"Nature", Vol. 307, 2 February 1984.

[10]

- 6 -

And finally, at the advanced stages**) of a country's development, is the need for basic scientific research for the riches it might unexpectedly yield for technology. Many examples of this come to one's mind.

Consider some of the breakthroughs in my own field - the field of unification of fundamental forces of nature. In this context, Faraday's unification of electricity and magnetism, accomplished in the last century, is certainly one of the most striking examples. When Faraday was carrying out his experiments - showing that while a *stationary* electric charge produces an electric force on another charge in its vicinity, a *moving* electric charge produces a magnetic force - no one could have imagined that this simple discovery in a laboratory in a dilettante part of Piccadilly in London would lead to the entire corpus of electrical generation technology.

Just to emphasise how relatively useless Faraday's work was thought to be by his contemporaries, consider the assessment by one of them, Charles Burney, of the uses of electricity versus music. "Electricity is universally allowed to be a very entertaining and surprising phenomenon, but

**) I have assumed throughout this article that no one in authority in developing countries, is in the slightest bit interested in the advancement of knowledge for its own sake - at least not by third world nationals working in the third world!

[LC]

- 7 -

it has frequently been lamented that it has never yet, with much certainty, been applied to any very useful purpose. ... (while) it is easy to point out the humane and important purposes to which music has been applied. ... Many an orphan is cherished by its influence, and the pangs of child-birth are softened and rendered less dangerous ...".

The story of the unification of electricity with magnetism continues with Maxwell, who immediately followed Faraday. From purely theoretical considerations, Maxwell suggested that an accelerating electric charge would produce electromagnetic radiation. A few years after Maxwell's death in 1879, Hertz in Germany verified Maxwell's predictions and found that the spectrum of Maxwell's predicted radiation consisted not only of light waves, but also of waves of longer wave length - radio waves - as well as waves of shorter wave length - X-rays. Thus, from a simple theoretical calculation made by an obscure professor flowed the marvels of radio, television and the modern communication systems, as well as the ability to see through a human body with X-rays.

To see how the climate has changed in developed countries since Faraday's time, when a hundred years after Maxwell, in the 1960s, my colleagues at Harvard, Glashow and Weinberg, and I independently took the next step of postulating a unification of two further forces of nature - of electromagnetism with the weak nuclear force of radioactivity - even the London "Economist" took note and counselled perceptive businessmen not to ignore the likely economic consequences of this new development.

[lc]

- 8 -

Last year, in January, the great joint European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) at Geneva provided direct confirmation of our theory. It did so with technical brilliance of the highest order, at a cost of around $50million. I am not suggesting that the developing countries should create accelerator laboratories like Cern. However, even if the London "Economist" may have been optimistic in its forecast of direct economic benefits of the new unification of forces, there is no question that these accelerator laboratories are founts of the highest technology in micro-electronics, in material sciences, in superconductor as well as vacuum technology. I rejoice that the Fermi Lab at Chicago has decided to set up a special Institute linked to the Laboratory, to make this area of science and related technology available to Latin American physicists. And the Cern laboratory has made available to us - the Trieste Centre - the services of some members of their microprocessor team who have already conducted two six-week colleges on microprocessor physics and technology at Trieste at the highest level, for 250 of the developing world's physicists. During June 1984, this team is holding a four week microprocessor college in Sri Lanka for 62 physicists from South East Asia; to be followed during 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 by four week colleges in China, Colombia, Kenya and Morocco on the same subject.

To summarise then, technology in modern conditions cannot flourish without science flourishing at the same time. This was emphasised recently to me by a Turkish physicist from the University of Samsun who recalled that Sultan Selim III did introduce studies of algebra, trigonometry, mechanics, ballistics and metallurgy in Turkey already as long ago as 1799, creating special schools for

[LC]

- 9 -

these disciplines with French and Swedish teachers. His purpose was to modernize his army and rival European advances in gun-founding. Since there was no corresponding emphasis on research in these subjects, Turkey did not succeed. In the long run, in the conditions of today, technology, unsupported by science, simply will not take or flourish.

### 3. The Situation of Sciences in the Third World

Let us turn to the situation of science, and scientific research in the third world, barring the few countries (Argentina, Brazil, China and India) I have mentioned before. I can illustrate the situation from the example of my own country. In 1951 when I returned to teach in Pakistan after working at Cambridge and Princeton in high energy physics, in a country then of 90 millions, I could call on just one physicist who had ever worked on a like subject. The most recent issues of the "Physical Review" available were dated before the Second World War of 1939. There were no grants whatsoever for attending symposia or conferences; the only time I did attend a conference in the United Kingdom I spent a year's personal savings.

After 30 years, the situation in Pakistan has improved. For a population of around 80 million now, there are some 46 research physicists, experimentalists and theoreticians in Pakistan's 19 Universities. (On the US norms these numbers for this population base might have been one hundred-fold larger - i.e. five thousand). These physicists still face the same problems regarding journals, publication dues and attendances at conferences; Pakistan is still not a member of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, since our science administrators do not think we can afford $1.500 of dues; our physicists are still told that all basic science - even the segments

[10]

- 10 -

necessary for 'applicable' physics - is a frightful luxury for a poor country. However, compared to Pakistan - and a privileged group of some 30 countries which I shall presently mention - the situation in the remaining 60 odd other developing countries is as stark as it was in Pakistan of 1951. First and foremost is the problem of numbers - of a critical size. The total number of research trained physicists in many of these countries can be counted on the fingers of one hand - the choice of sub-disciplines in which they may have received training has been conditioned more by chance than design. They make up no communities.

The creation at Trieste of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics in the 1960s came about when some of us from the developing countries urged agencies of the United Nations, and in particular the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), to assist in ameliorating this situation regarding theoretical physics research. We met with incomprehension even from some of the developed countries where physics in fact flourishes. One developed country delegate to the IAEA went so far as to say: "Theoretical physics is the Rolls Royce of sciences - the developing countries need only bullock carts". To him a community of even as few as fifty physicists, all told, trained then at a high level, for a country like Pakistan with a population then approaching 120 millions, was simply 50 men wasted. Even leaving aside any involvement in research - that these were the men responsible for all norms and all standards in the entire spectrum of Pakistan's education in physics and mathematics was irrelevant. He himself was an economist, who had wandered into a scientific organization like the IAEA. He could fully understand that we needed more high-level economists,

[LC]

- 11 -

but a few more research-trained physicists and mathematicians of quality -
that was wasteful luxury.

In 1964, four years after the proposal was first mooted and after intense lobbying, the IAEA did agree to create a physics institute. However, we were voted all of a sum of $55,000 to create an international centre of research. Fortunately, the Government of Italy came through with a generous annual grant of one third of a million dollars and the Centre was set up in Trieste. The international physics community had all along supported us; the Centre's first Scientific Council meeting was attended by J.R. Oppenheimer, Aage Bohr, Victor Weisskopf and Sandoval Vallarta. Oppenheimer drew up the Centre's statutes.

The Centre started operating in 1964. UNESCO joined as equal partner with IAEA in 1970. The Centre has flourished since then, with the support of even those who doubted its validity at first. The bulk of its funds - now amounting to 4.5 million dollars - come from Italy, IAEA and UNESCO. Smaller ad-hoc grants have come from time to time from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Financing System for Science and Technology for Development, the United Nations University, the OPEC Fund, the US Department of Energy, the Ford Foundation, the Intergovernmental Bureau for Informatics (IBI), Canada, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Sweden, Germany, Sri Lanka, Netherlands, Japan and Denmark. Over the 20 years that the Centre has existed now, it has shifted from emphasis on pure physics towards basic disciplines on the interface of pure and applied physics - disciplines like physics of materials and microprocessors, physics of energy, physics of fusion, physics of reactors, physics of solar and other non-conventional energy, geophysics, biophysics, neurophysics, laser physics, physics of oceans and deserts, and systems analysis - this, in addition to the staples of high energy physics,

[lc]

- 12 -

quantum gravity, cosmology, atomic and nuclear physics and mathematics. Such a shift to the interface of pure and basic applied physics was made simply because there was not and still is not, any other international institute responsive to the scientific hunger of developing country physicists.

One of the most important examples today of this is in the field of physics and energy. Provision of energy is at present one of the major concerns of mankind. In country after country, either new departments of energy have been created or the Atomic Energy Commissions transformed to become comprehensive departments of energy. Notwithstanding all the United Nations Conferences, to my knowledge there still does not exist any International Centre for Energy Research and Training on the scientific side, for meaningful training and research for developing countries' scientists. Without a good base in solid state and material sciences, there is no hope whatsoever of making good in this area. An optical convertor must make use of as little material as possible; how little is determined by the penetration depth of the solar light and drift length of the excited state on which the conversion is based. For an amorphous material this depends on the density of defects and an understanding of these. Efficient and cost-effective photo-voltaics thus depend on physics of solid state materials and not on a technologist's tinkering. To fill part of the need, the Trieste Centre has felt that it should develop and concern itself with high-level physics of energy-related materials, and in particular, with physics of absorbing and emitting surfaces. So far our Colleges in this field have had participation of around 1000 physicists.

[L.C]

- 13 -

To quote the London "Economist" again; in its issue of 27 September 1980, it had this to say about this area: "If solar energy is to provide the solution to the world's fuel crisis, that solution will not emerge from low-technology roof-top radiators. A breakthrough (will) come from applying quantum physics, biochemistry or other sciences of the 20th century. Today's technology-based industries all depend on new science".

During 1983, 2400 physicists came to work at the Trieste Centre - 1400 of them from 90 developing countries. Those from developing countries spend on the average, of the order of two months or more at the Centre, participating in its research workshops and extended research colleges. Since 1981, we have held four of these colleges in developing countries - Ghana, Bangladesh, Columbia and now, in Sri Lanka; these were 4 - 8 week research colleges on solid state physics, monsoon dynamics, solar physics and microprocessors. We have pioneered an associateship scheme which guarantees that top physicists in developing countries can come to the Centre, at times of their choosing, for a period ranging between six weeks to three months, three times in six years, to work in a stimulating environment of their peers, to charge their batteries and then to return to their teaching and research positions. We do not pay salaries - only travel and stay. There are 200 such associates at present. We have a network of 102 institutes of physics in 41 developing countries federated with us with cost sharing arrangements. Through a Book Bank scheme, we have distributed, from individual donations, a total of 2,565 books and 8,542 copies of recent journals to 132 institutions in 66 countries, and we are beginning a scheme to collect and distribute unused surplus equipment.

[L]

- 14 -

donated by developed country laboratories. With an Italian Government grant of the order of one third of a million dollars annually, we have placed 75 experimental physicists for 6-9 month research in Italian University and industrial laboratories since 1982. In its humble way, the Centre has enhanced the subject of Physics in general, and physics communities in developing countries in particular.

4. Stages and Growth of Sciences in the Third World

Based on the experience gained in Physics, we could divide the developing countries (other than Argentina, Brazil, China and India) into three categories. The first category would consist of 9 countries - Bangladesh, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore and Turkey in Asia, plus Egypt in Africa and Mexico and Venezuela in Latin America. These countries have a population of physicists, currently approaching criticality, as well as a few centres of high quality for physics where teams of scientists can perform independent research. By and large, these centres are capable of awarding Ph.D. degrees for physics within the countries themselves.

In the second category, there would be some 19 countries which consist of Iran, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon in the Middle East; Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam in South East Asia; Algeria, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania in Africa; and Chile, Colombia and Peru in Latin America. These countries have a modest population of physicists though at any given university the numbers working are rather small. There are no research groups as such, though in some cases individuals are highly active. As a rule, Ph.D. degrees are not awarded within the countries concerned. I

- 15 -

mention these two categories, because with organized help from the rich world's scientific communities, these countries may take off in a short span of time.

The remaining 60 countries are below the "poverty line" - some exceptionally bright individuals, whom we elect as associates of the Trieste Centre for the day when active research starts in their countries - but no organized physics research. I stress once again, that these are impressions based on our experience with physics communities. No other significance should be read into them.

## 5. Modalities for Growth of Sciences

In the end, the growth of science in our countries is our problem. But in this article, I shall speak only of help which we may hope to receive from the scientific communities and others in the developed countries, for enhancing the practice of high level science in the third world? There is no doubt that outside help - particularly if it is organized - can make a crucial difference. First, regarding the work of individual physicists, this could take various forms: for example, the physical societies of developed countries could help by donating 200-300 copies of their journals to deserving institutions and individuals. They could waive publication and conference charges. In this context, the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) has helped the Trieste Centre defray postage costs for distribution of old runs of journals; the American Physical Society has helped us with shared subscriptions to 31 physicists from 13 least developed countries.

- 16 -

The research laboratories and the university departments in developed countries could also help by building up Federation links with their opposite numbers and by financing organized visits of their staffs to the institutions in developing countries. They could create schemes like the associateship scheme I have already described at the Trieste Centre (whereby a high-grade physicist working in a developing country becomes part of our staff by being accorded the right to come to us three times in six years), at least for their own ex-alumni.

May I be forgiven for thinking in the following terms: that the physics institutions in developed countries may consider contributing in their own ways (in kind) according to the norms of the well-known United Nations formula, whereby most developed countries have pledged to spend .7% of their GNP resources for world development. In the end, it is a moral issue whether the better-off segments of the science community should be willing to look after their own deserving but deprived colleagues, helping them not only materially to remain good scientists, but also joining them in their battle to obtain recognition within their own countries as valid professionals, who are important to the development of their countries and the world.

Let me now come to the question of the long term help the United Nations agencies can give in respect of building up scientific infrastructure, in their own areas of competence. I wish, in particular, to emphasise the role of the modality I am personally most familiar with - international centres of research. There is no question but that the developing world needs today, international research institutions, e.g. on the applied side, like the Wheat and Rice Research Institute; on the science side, centres like the International Centre for Insect Physiology (ICIPE) in Nairobi. Without

- 17 -

internationalization, science cannot flourish; one cannot guarantee standards, guarantee keeping abreast of new ideas, guarantee a continual transfer of science by men who created it and who come to such centres, moved by their idealism.

Recently there have been created an international Centre in Mathematics at Nice, an international Science Centre in Sri Lanka, one in Turkey and another in Venezuela. An international Physics Centre, directed towards Latin America, was formally inaugurated in Colombia by its President a few months ago. Also the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) is on the way to creating two international centres in the field of biotechnology, one located in Trieste and one in India. In biotechnology, we observe that modern advances in genetics started with the unravelling of the genetic code by Watson and Crick. Revealing as it does the basis for all known life, this has been one of the most synthesizing discoveries of the twentieth century, possibly of all times. I take pride in the fact that Walter Gilbert, who took a Ph.D. with me in theoretical physics at Cambridge in 1956 and then turned over to genetics, was among those who discovered elegant techniques for deciphering the genetic code. For this work, he received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1980. In 1981 he went on to found a company, Biogen, which exploits, among others, techniques of genetic manipulation to manufacture human insulin. Again we observe the mutuality of high science and high technology.

To return, however, to the UNIDO initiative, the Executive Director of UNIDO, Dr. Abd-El Rahman Khane of Algeria, who, on a visit to Trieste, had been impressed with our example of interfacing the basics of pure with applied physics, conceived the idea that time was ripe for creating one or more

- 18 -

similar Centres for Biotechnology for the third world. On UNIDO's call, a competition was instituted. This brought offers from Italy, Spain, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Thailand and Cuba. Three inter-ministerial meetings were held to choose the location. In April 1984, Delhi and Trieste were finally selected for the location of a joint centre.

To my mind, one of the most significant features of the Biosciences situation is the fact that so many of the third world countries were so keen to make credible offers for it from their own resources. Personally, I was sorry at the decision of the assembled ministers who, by a majority vote, refused to accord to the losers of the competition - Egypt, Thailand, Pakistan and Spain - the status of even affiliated centres. These countries desperately wanted even a subsidiary status to share in the benefits of an internationalisation of their local efforts. I hope this will soon be rectified and these other offers will also be accepted. The point I wish to make is that even countries with moderate traditions of scientific research are beginning to show an interest in hospitating United Nations run Centres of Science.

In this context, to highlight the role which agencies like the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) can play, consider the following quote from a recent biography of the World Bank by E.S. Mason and R.E. Asher: "UNESCO has been providing sensible advice on educational planning for years, before the World Bank entered the field ... Sometimes, some parts of this advice were accepted but there was a notable increase in attention given to educational planning when it became clear that some projects had some chance of being financed by the World Bank".

[L]

- 19 -

Besides educational planning, besides help with development of scientific agriculture, I would also wish that the World Bank could take it upon itself to emphasise to the developing countries that the fastest route to financial prosperity today lies with areas of Science-based high Technology - for example, of micro-electronics, computer soft-ware and the like, and that the major investment needed in these areas is investment in creating scientifically highly-literate manpower. The day that the entrepreneurs (either in the government or the private sectors of developing country economies) begin to understand this, our economic salvation will start.

To summarize, my feeling is that almost every developing country has a scientific and technological problem which needs scientific expertise. I strongly feel that the United Nations system must take a lead with this legitimate movement towards internationalisation of science within the developing world for the developing world. The research centres do not have to be within the developing countries. Some years back, Dr. Henry Kissinger, the then US Secretary of State, on behalf of the US Government, promised to the third world a multiplicity of institutions which would include institutes to improve access to capital technology. He mentioned, in particular, an International Energy Institute, an International Centre for Exchange of Technological Information and an International Industrialization Institute. I am sure some day soon, the US Administration will carry these promises out, adding to each Institute, its due quantum of science.

Finally, let us turn to the role of the national aid-giving agencies.

[LJ]

- 20 -

My plea to the development agencies everywhere would be that they may take
a long-term attitude to the growth of science. They exert an immense leverage
which they must use to ensure that an adequate infrastructure is built in the
countries they help and that the scientific communities there are enabled, and
allowed to play their rightful roles in the process of development.

In this context, one may remark that one of the well-tried modalities for
science transfer is the creation of an International Foundation for Science
for giving grants to individual scientists in the developing countries. An
International Science Foundation with these aims was in fact created at the
suggestion of Roger Revelle, Pierre Auger, Robert Marshak and myself in 1972
in Stockholm. This Foundation is currently supported by Sweden, Canada, USA,
Federal Republic of Germany, France, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium,
Nigeria, Norway and Switzerland. Its funds are given for research in the
areas of aquaculture, animal production, rural technology and natural
products, to individual researchers in developing countries, in grants not
exceeding ten thousand dollars per grant. Unfortunately, the total funds at
the disposal of this Foundation are only two million dollars. A similar
function is carried out by the Bostid organisation in the US which is
supported by the Aid organisations. These initiatives do not cover other
natural sciences nor is there any provision of funds for building up of
scientific infrastructure.

With the Brandt Commission's recommendations on technology transfer in
mind, in August 1981 I took the initiative of writing the following letter to
the Heads of States participating in the Cancun Summit:

- 21 -

"I understand that technology transfer, with emphasis on problems of energy, will be one of the items for discussion at the forthcoming North-South Heads of States meeting in Mexico. Unhappily, most developing countries need help in building up scientific infrastructure at all levels and <u>Science Transfer must accompany technology transfer</u> if the latter has to take root in our countries. The scientific community in the North can, and I am sure will, be willing to help in building up the corresponding community in the South, provided it is mobilised for this".

I suggested the creation of a <u>North-South Science Foundation</u> to build up a movement towards Science Transfer, with funds at its disposal of an order at least similar to those, for example, disbursed by the Ford Foundation (between one hundred and two hundred million dollars a year). This Foundation should be run by the world's scientific community for research and training for research, in basic sciences in developing countries.

I received polite replies of support to my plea from all Heads of States from the developed countries; from among the Heads of developing countries, only Mrs. Gandhi replied. (This unconcern perhaps emphasises once again the marginality of the scientific enterprise in the third world). Let me say, however, that such a modality is very much worth building up, particularly since the Ford Foundation, in a letter to the Secretary of the recently founded Third World Academy of Sciences, has told us that scientific research in developing countries is no longer a priority area for the Ford Foundation itself.

[lc]

- 22 -

In sciences, as in other spheres, this world of ours is divided between the rich and the poor. The richer half - the industrial North and the centrally managed countries, with an income of 5 trillion dollars, spend 2% of this - more than 100 billion dollars - on non-military science and development research. The remaining half of mankind - the poorer South, with one fifth of this income of around one trillion dollars - spend no more than 2 billion dollars on science and technology. On the percentage norms of the richer countries, they should be spending ten times more - some 20 billions. At the United Nations run Vienna Conference on Science and Technology held in 1979 the poorer nations pleaded for international funds to increase their present annual expenditure of 2 billions to 4 billions. They obtained promises, not of two billions, not of one billion, but only one seventh of this. As we know, even this has never been realised and the United Nations Funding System for Science and Technology for Development is without adequate means. Contrast this with the situation in the military sphere. Each nuclear submarine costs 2 billion dollars and there are at least 100 of these in the world's oceans. Five hundred centres like mine at Trieste could be funded for a year for the price of one nuclear submarine.

Let me end by quoting from a great mystic of the 17th century - John Donne - a man who believed in the moral state of man and the international ideal: "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee".

SOLTERS/ROSKIN/FRIEDMAN, INC.

PUBLIC RELATIONS

5455 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90036
(213) 936-7900

January 16, 1984

Dr. Henry Kissinger
435 52nd Street
New York, NY 10022

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

We are writing to you in behalf of our client, Viacom Productions, whose president, Sy Salkowitz, is a great admirer of yours. Mr. Salkowitz, whom you may know as an award-winning writer-producer of nearly 30 years' standing, and who was formerly the president of Twentieth Century-Fox Television, occasionally hosts informal dinner parties at his home in Malibu for both corporate and programming executives of the major networks. These gatherings offer a chance to exchange ideas and anecdotes in an entertaining and relaxed setting to industry people whose busy schedules seldom permit such a luxury.

Mr. Salkowitz would very much like to invite you to be the guest of honor at one of these dinner parties, at a mutually convenient date. Since Mr. Salkowitz is presently out of town, he asked me to make this initial contact. If the idea appeals to you, I wonder if you could let me know, and Mr. Salkowitz will be in touch with you personally to extend a formal invitation and to make other necessary arrangements.

MF:kt

45 WEST 34TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10001 (212) 947-0515

HENRY A. KISSINGER

December 4, 1984

Dear Nat:

I was delighted you could be with us for the CSIS International Councillors meeting. It was good seeing you again. I especially want to thank you for your comments during the course of the program. I always appreciate your insights, and I know the group did, too.

The Honorable
Nathaniel Samuels
Advisory Director
Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb
660 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10021

SUITE 1021 • 1800 K STREET, N. W. • WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 • (202) 872-0300

HAK:

Terry Sanford is asking you to join the committee for the Nancy Hanks Endowment Fund. They will be trying to raise $5million to support the arts at Duke, where she was an alumna and a trustee.

Sanford writes" ... "we would not expect you to become any more actively involved than you might choose."

Accept with understanding I can't
fundraise directly or be active ✓

Tactfully get out of it

HENRY A. KISSINGER

November 23, 1984

Dear Governor Sanford:

I would be happy in principle to serve as a member of the Nancy Hanks Endowment Fund Committee. But, in all candor, I could not at this time be active or be directly involved in fundraising. If you would prefer to have someone who can devote time to the Committee I will fully understand. However, if the use of my name alone would be helpful, I will be more than happy for the Endowment Fund to use it.

Do let me know whatever you decide.

The Honorable
Terry Sanford
President
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina 27706

Duke University
Durham
North Carolina 27708

Terry Hankford, President

October 30, 1984

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Suite 400
1800 K Street
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

Nancy Hanks, that great lady of whom both you and I were very fond, was one of Duke University's most distinguished and loyal alumni. As we both know so well, she was instrumental in focusing attention on the importance of the Arts in the lives of all Americans, and, as I can attest, she made certain as a Duke trustee that her University also recognized and stressed the value of the Arts. Nancy was one of the strongest proponents of the University's Museum of Art, and, along with Mary D. B. T. Semans, was one of the prime movers in the development of Duke's multi-disciplinary Institute of the Arts. As student, as alumna, and as trustee, she left a lasting imprint here, and Duke is a better university because of it. We are moving forward with plans to honor the memory of Nancy Hanks so that succeeding generations may be aware of her commitment and service.

In June 1983 the Duke Board of Trustees established The Nancy Hanks Endowment Fund for the Support of the Arts: "Be it resolved that all gifts made to Duke in memory of Nancy Hanks, not otherwise designated, and the bequest to Duke in her last will and testament, to the extent allowable, be used to establish The Nancy Hanks Endowment Fund for the Support of the Arts...." We plan a special appeal to Nancy's friends, classmates, and colleagues for further funding of this endowment.

We are in the process of forming a committee to help us plan and implement this appeal. Mary Semans, Florence Lowe of the National Endowment for the Arts, and Ralph E. Bailey, Chairman of the Board at Conoco where Nancy was a member of the Board of Directors, are among the individuals who have agreed to serve on the committee. Increasing The Nancy Hanks Fund is one objective of Duke's Capital Campaign for the Arts and Sciences, a drive now in progress to double the University's endowment over a five-year period. The Hanks Fund endeavor will be a "mini-campaign" with its own goal, $5 million, to be raised within an eighteen to twenty-four month period, July 1984 through December 1985 or July 1986.

I am writing to ask for your help. Would you be willing to serve as a member of The Nancy Hanks Endowment Fund committee? I realize that an enormous number of demands are made upon your time, and I therefore want to assure you that this commitment would not be demanding. While we would welcome your help at any time, we would not expect you to become any more actively involved than you might choose. Your endorsement would, of course, be of tremendous value in our effort to memorialize in an appropriate way

NOV 2 1984

2345 Fulton Street, No. 1
Berkeley, California 94704

22 August 1984

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
1800 K Street, N.W., Suite 1021
Washington, D. C. 20006

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

A Portuguese citizen and I recently met in Lisbon, and
among other subjects we discussed American policies towards
Portugal.

He presented the following argument. The Portugese
ruled for over five centuries a vast empire of countries in
South America, Africa, Asia and Europe. It was his country
that "discovered" the world--not individual landscapes, for
that had been done earlier, but their relation as a world.
These facts grounded his point, that Portugal has extensive
international experience and political wisdom, acquired and
tested in the diverse countries of its former empire.
He suggested that Lisbon may have counsel especially useful
to the United States, since many of those countries are now
the loci of American interests and efforts.

I have forwarded this information through President
Reagan to the Department of State, but without prejudicial
comment or questions. Would you please tell me whether
Portugal in fact is the resource for a statesman that this
citizen claims?

With authentic appreciation for your consideration, I
am,

AUG 27 1984

1. Hal Saunders wrote asking for your help in the book he is writing on the policies of Presidents from Truman to Reagan toward the Arab-Israeli conflict. Saunders is proposing 4 sessions among former Presidential assistants --to discuss how a President's mind works in making policy---Saunders says this discussion is to be about Presidents, not the Middle East.

The sessions are:
* Jan. 10th in NYC hosted by Bill Butcher
* Jan. 15 - DC at AEI
* Jan. 23 - AEI (Your first day back)
* Jan. 28 - You're in NYC

Obviously you cannot make any of these. -- My question is do you want me to offer the possibility if a separate meeting or simply let Saunders know your schedule is such that these sessions don't work.

Explain my schedule won't work and leave it at that ☐ Done

Explain my schedule; but I am interested in meeting with him if it works out ✓ Jan. 24th

Other __________

r

1

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 862-5800

December 17, 1984

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Kissinger and Associates
Suite 400
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Henry:

I am writing to you as one who has worked closely with Presidents to ask your help on a book I am writing. I even hope you may find what I am proposing an enjoyable intellectual experience.

My main project now is a book on the policies of our Presidents from Truman to Reagan toward the Arab-Israeli conflict. It starts with the premise that the President -- even taking into account all the other influences -- is the central figure in sifting out what becomes the core of policy. The next questions then are how that human mind gets around the policy agenda it must cope with, how it "makes" policy, and what "policy" is when it comes out of that mind. As I address each President's approach to the Middle East, I am experimenting with the proposition that policy changes as the President's picture of the problem -- however developed -- changes.

What I am proposing is a series of discussions among former presidential assistants and others who have worked closely with Presidents. The issue we would discuss is how a President's mind works in making policy and what we should and should not expect that policy to be. This is a discussion about Presidents -- not about the Middle East.

For convenience, we will hold four sessions -- three in Washington and one in New York -- from which I hope you will pick one:

- New York on Thursday, January 10 from 3:00-6:00 p.m. Willard Butcher, AEI's Vice Chairman, has kindly offered to host us at the Chase Manhattan Bank, 410 Park Avenue, 4th Floor.

- Washington on Tuesday, January 15, Wednesday, January 23, or Monday, January 28 from 2:15-5:00 p.m. at the American Enterprise Institute, 1150 17th Street, N.W., 7th Floor.

To put them in your hands promptly I am enclosing the present drafts of the two opening chapters of the book with an issues paper on top. Our purpose will be to discuss the issues, not the drafts, but I hope the drafts will stimulate thought. This is the same package I will

DEC 20 1984

3. I have said a policymaker deals with three questions any of us might ask in making a decision: What is the problem? Why do I care about it? What should and can I do about it? (page 32) Is that a fair statement, or would you describe the mental process another way?

4. I'm fascinated with how you get your mind around so many unfamiliar problems. How do you get a handle on a fresh problem? To what extent did you find yourself trying to define new problems in terms of old ones more familiar?

5. Did you feel that other people made a major effort to shape your view of a problem before you even began thinking what to do about it? (pages 33-35)

6. Did you find in defining U.S. interests that you factored into your definition more views from the political arena than most of your colleagues in government did? (pages 18-21 and 35-38)

D. What do you think of tracing the development of a President's policy toward a problem within the following framework? (pages 16-62)

*   **Pre-presidency.** His exposure to the problem and his thoughts about it give him some initial posture toward it before he becomes President. That may include some experience in dealing with it as a public issue before his presidency.

*   **Becoming President.** From the moment he starts on the road to the Oval Office, he begins a process which brings his views together in some mix with ongoing policy which reflects the constraints of the real world. Some of this time is actually spent after inauguration in his first struggles to set his own policy. In a sense, he "becomes President" with regard to that problem when he finally sets his own policy toward it -- a policy which marries his own views with ongoing policy. (pages 48-51)

*   **Policymaking as President.** After his own policy is set, U.S. policy really changes when the President's view of the problem changes -- not necessarily when new governmental decisions are reached. The President's perception of the problem and what can be done about it may shift before or after his advisers' views or the public's views change. We cannot always know what goes on within the President's mind, but trying to identify those moments when his perceptions shift may help us to understand why policy direction changes.

[LC]

E. Could you please talk a bit about the relationship between you as a human being and the institution of the presidency? (pages 45-48)

1. It is possible for you to identify key elements of personality which affect the performance of any President? How does your longstanding overall world view color judgements as President? How did earlier established ways of dealing with people influence ways of dealing with staff, opponents, allies? Do you think of yourself as having developed a political style of your own? When did it settle down for you and become comfortable.?

2. To what extent is it possible for a man in the Oval Office to feel that his policy judgements are rooted in his own personal convictions about life -- rather than being mainly the product of rational calculation?

F. How important in your thinking was "peace" as a touchstone for policy? We all agree that peace in a nuclear age is the central objective of foreign policy? But does the concept of peace have other dimensions in your thinking that make it more broadly important, for instance, in guiding the way you conduct relations with other leaders or nations? Does it have particular philosophical or religious meaning for you? (pages 8-16)

G. Finally, may I ask you to talk for a moment about the nature of your first exposure to the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

1. What kinds of views came from reading of the Bible or other history?

2. Before 1947, what experience did you have with Zionism, the problems of Jewish persecution, or political pressures for Jewish immigration into Palestine?

3. When did you first hear the Arab viewpoint? When did you first think about the Palestinian dimension of the Arab-Israeli conflict as reflecting issues beyond refugee problems?

4. What did you think about the U.N. vote to partition Palestine in November, 1947? What position did you take publicly? (Are any of your statements then in writing? We've searched hard for them.) What did you think or say about Israel's independence?

5. What was your personal attitude toward U.S. withdrawal from the Aswan Dam deal and toward Eisenhower's position on the Suez War? Eisenhower pressing Israel to withdraw from the Sinai in March 1957? The Eisenhower Doctrine? Landing of the Marines in Lebanon in 1958?

[lc]

# CONTENTS

## Section One: PRESIDENTS AND POLICY

### Chapter One: "Policy Is a Mix of People and Ideas

One Human Being

Policy as Process

The President Is Key

Peace Is the Main Idea

My Purpose in Perspective

Rational Analysis

Contending Interest Groups

Presidential Policymaking

### Chapter Two: Presidents as Policymakers

The President's Policy

What is the problem?

Why do I care about it?

The President's Decisions

The President as a Person

The Experience of Becoming President

Being President

Policy Analysis

Organizing for decision

Carrying out decisions

The Stage Is Almost Set

-2-

[LC]

## Chapter One

### "Policy Is a Mix of People and Ideas"

#### One Human Being

One night in February, 1980, at the height of the hostage crisis in Iran, I was awakened by a phone call from New York. A message had arrived at the United Nations from Tehran suddenly calling into question the Iranian commitment to a scenario we had painstakingly worked out through intermediaries for ending the crisis. I called Acting Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and together we had the Operations Center at the State Department patch through a call to President Carter. It was then about 3:00 a.m. He said he would be in his office at 5:00 a.m. and asked us to join him.

Christopher and I met in the deserted State Department garage and drove in his car to the White House. We entered the west basement, the usual entry for officials to the working wing of the White House. As we climbed the stairs to the main floor and walked through a narrow corridor in the crowded west wing toward the President's office, we found the halls darkened with the exception of a small light and one guard outside the Oval Office. When we entered, we found the President tieless and wearing a heavy light blue cardigan in a dimly lit room with a low fire in the fireplace. I had been in that office on many occasions at moments of deep crisis and exhilarating success mostly in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Never before had I been struck by so vivid a picture of the humanity of the man in that office -- surrounded by

-3-

[LC]

darkness in the empty west wing in a dark and sleeping capital with the flickering firelight rapidly shifting the light falling on his face. In that moment with few of the trappings of the presidency visible, it was clear how heavily national policy depends on the knowledge, experience, personality, and judgements of one human being -- the President of the United States.

As I look back, it occurs to me how much that shifting firelight says about the presidency. One human being occupies the Oval Office and sets a direction for our nation, but each hour we may see him in a different light. Sometimes he is head of state, sometimes chief executive. Sometimes he is chief policymaker, sometimes chief negotiator, sometimes commander-in-chief, sometimes chief diplomat. Sometimes is a peacemaker and mediator among his own advisers, sometimes a firm decisionmaker. Beneath the shifting light and shadow, he is still one human being.

Almost twenty years earlier in 1961, I had come to the White House as a very junior and inexperienced young person aspiring to a career in public service. I had spent five years in the Air Force and as a junior officer trainee in the Central Intelligence Agency. Now this was the beginning of what would stretch into two decades of working with Presidents and their top advisers helping shape our policy toward the Middle East.

One day in that first year, a senior White House adviser told me: "Remember, policy isn't made on paper. It's a constantly changing mix of people and ideas." In those exciting early months in the Kennedy White House, the President -- one human being -- dominated that process which determined that mix. I have thought of those words dozens of

-4-

times since. Now they form the premise from which this book starts.

The premise, as I have lived with it, has grown into three more specific points.

## Policy as Process

First, policy is not static. Policy lives in a process in which ideas are formed to deal with a problem and then are continuously refined as a situation develops. Policy is not made in a single decision. In fact policy makes decisions as much as decisions make policy. It is constantly in the making and the remaking. It is not captured in one decision memorandum or in one statement. Policy lies as much in how decisions are carried out as in how they are made. Often it is less a set of precise points, more a frame of mind or touchstones for responding to new opportunities or developments. Policymaking involves a virtually continuous process of judgement, reassessment, decision, and mid-course correction. It is more like a game of racquet ball in a five-sided court with four falls in play at the same time; it is less like a game of chess or football with their precisely defined sequence of plays and responses. In part, this is true because history itself is a continuum, not a neatly punctuated series of episodes. It is also true because human beings are never finished their goals are constantly reassessed and their capacity to change course is part of growth.

## The President Is Key

-5-

Second, the President is the key figure among the people who sift the ideas and shape and reshape foreign policy. The President is the keystone in our system because more than any other single actor the President crystallizes policy, symbolizes the sense of direction he sets, and articulates policy to the voters to maintain support for it. Key cabinet and sub-cabinet colleagues share the responsibility both for shaping the President's choices and for carrying out his policies. For extended periods, a Secretary of State may occupy center stage dramatically in implementing policy, but regardless of the President's personal expertise, he will be the first to say how essential it remains at home and abroad to demonstrate that he is carrying out the President's policies. Only the President has the breadth to pull together all the strands, domestic and foreign, that make up the fabric of a foreign policy. Only the President speaks for the United States when nations meet to decide the large issues that affect peace and war. How a President sifts the ideas which define a problem, explains why he should care about it, and determines what he should do about it forms the foreign policy of the United States.

This book reflects my experience with policymaking, but it aspires to much more. It is an effort to understand how the United States can preserve a position of moral and political leadership in the world. It is an effort to understand more exactly how the human being who is President makes policy on issues of war and peace. It is an effort to understand how eight men as President came to grips with one of the most dangerous and persistent conflicts of our time. Americans who so often ask what our policy is or how Washington makes policy are asking

-6-

[LC]

profound questions. Policy is neither so obvious as it is occasionally stated nor so murky as it often looks. How those eight men tried to prevent war and make peace in the strategically important Middle East reveals much about how the President forges the foreign policy of the United States. A coherent foreign policy is critical to the United States' leadership in the world. Understanding what policymaking requires is essential to understanding what we must expect of our Presidents in building a more peaceful world.

Even someone who has participated intensively in policymaking for twenty years can puzzle over what policy is and how it is really made. I was in the White House situation room during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war when President Johnson and Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin exchanged the first hot line messages. I shuttled with Secretary Kissinger under Presidents Nixon and Ford. I worked with President Carter and Secretary Vance at Camp David. I agonized through the hostage crisis with President Carter and Secretaries Vance and Muskie. Sometimes policy was so sharply defined that you could feel it as the force powering a great engine. Other times when we could not quite get our act together I wondered whether even the President knew what policy was -- and I say that not critically but with deep respect, knowing the complexities Presidents face.

This book focusses on the Presidents' policies because policymaking is an intensely human process and because the President's policy is national policy. It may overstate the point to say that policy is as much people feeling and acting in relation to problems and ideas as it

-7-

[Lc]

is the product of people thinking and calculating. Policy is made by
the President and the people around him interacting intellectually and
personally with each other, agreeing, disagreeing, supporting one
another, and at times at odds with one another. Most important
decisions have been discussed in a small group around the President, and
the character of that group does influence the judgements made. At the
end of discussion, however, after a President has been back and forth
over the pros and cons of an argument, the best he may be able to come
up with is not a neatly totaled bottom line but a gut feeling that one
approach is preferable to another.

Lyndon Johnson captured the President's agony in policymaking
starkly for me one day in the Oval Office late in 1968 during his last
weeks in the White House. He was talking privately about the war in
Vietnam with Morarji Desai, the old and wise statesman who was serving
as Deputy Prime Minister of India at that time. A wide gulf separated
the two men on the United States' objectives and heavy involvement in
Southeast Asia, but the humanity of the two politicians drew the two men
together for a moment of personal sharing. Johnson hunched forward in
his chair, clenched his hands between his knees and looked Desai in the
eye. "I've been back and forth over this problem day after day for four
years. It's tearing my country apart. It's tearing my party apart. It's
tearing my family apart. But I don't know what else I could have done."

Nothing could have been more vivid than the personal agony of that
huge man bowed in his chair in the most powerful office in the land.
The policy of a sharply divided nation of over 200 million people had

-8-

[lc]

been crystallized by one human being -- the President -- after talking endlessly with a small group around him. Policy started with the sense of direction distilled from hours of discussion and cumulatively set down in specific decisions at one fork in the road after another. Those men had talked together day after day in the situation room, in the Oval Office, in the Cabinet room on the phone. They had talked over breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and in the middle of the night. They had sifted the most minute reports from the jungles of Southeast Asia. They had talked about world peace, about the power of the United States, the Soviet Union, and China, and about the geopolitical shape of the world. They had talked as proud Americans about their hopes and fears for the United States, its health at home, and its responsibility for world peace and progress. At each fork in the road, the President had made decisions to achieve their purposes as they came to see those purposes. The decisions of the President and, perhaps more important, the judgements underlying them were national policy.

Presidents may not always feel that their role is quite this central. They must often feel that there are large bureaucracies and a nation out there going their own ways regardless of the President's views. But it is all too quickly apparent when the President is absent from policymaking or deliberately decides not to give a policy his full backing. It is also all too clear when he stands back and allows advisers with different viewpoints to send mixed signals to other governments on what our policy is. When our policy is the President's and when it is persistently and coherently carried out, it can achieve significant results, and respect for the United States increases. When

-9-

it is not, the power, will, and influence of the United States are questioned. Those who have tried to manage policy on a major problem without a clear sense of Presidential direction know the feeling of trying to pilot a ship without a rudder or a spacecraft tumbling without a guidance system.

## Peace Is the Main Idea

Third, policymaking begins with ideas about how the world works and about how particular problems affect specific American concerns in the world, about what kind of nation we want to be, and about what kind of world we want to live in. Those ideas define problems and objectives. They capsule judgements about how to move other actors on the global stage -- whether by the preponderance of power or by the enticement of conciliation. They express rigorous analysis of interests and convictions about morality. Every leader comes to his job with a collection of concepts, convictions, objectives, principles which serve as touchstones. Increasingly in the nuclear age, those ideas have turned one way or another around the goal of peace.

My focus in this book is less on the mechanics of how a President makes policy than on how he deals with the ideas that shape policy -- how one human being gets his mind around the myriad problems that confront him. Power can come from ideas, not only from the mouths of guns. The ability to lead depends on the ability to inspire not just to manipulate or force. Without purpose and vision, policy has no sustaining force. Without a concept of where we want to go, there is no

-10-

[LC]

policy. Peace is both a powerful idea and a practical objective in a
nuclear world.

The position of the United States as a world leader has come to
depend increasingly on whether we can help deal imaginatively, fairly,
effectively, and peacefully with the world's pressing problems. As
influence slowly accumulates in the hands of nations where the vast
majority of the globe's people live, the big powers' ability to shape
the course of events will depend less on military might and more on
their capacity to relate constructively to the needs and hopes of the
world's peoples and their rights as human beings. Of course, it is
essential that we continue to develop our military strength; we have no
choice in that. Where we as a nation do have a choice is in whether our
leaders equally develop a vision and policies for building a more
peaceful world.

I underscore peace as a central objective of policy for three
reasons. First, with many others I believe that peace is the condition
God intended for humankind. It is not by accident that "peace" --
"shalom" and "salaam" -- is the common daily greeting exchanged across
the Middle East, the birthplace of the world's three great monotheistic
religions. It is a wish for inner serenity, wholeness in life,
security, and dignity. Second, in a unique age where nuclear weapons
could destroy life on this planet, our ability to safeguard peace and
prevent conflict is vital. Third, the capacity to make peace enhances
the stature and serves the interests of the United States. The
experience of American diplomacy in the Middle East in the 1970s

-11-

[L]

demonstrated that the effort to move toward an Arab-Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement could be the centerpiece for sophisticated policy toward a complex area of the world. It was not by accident that we came to think of our policy there as the "peace process."

The effort to move effectively toward peace nourishes sensitivity to the world's basic problems and thought about how to deal with them creatively. Two decades of dealing intensively with the obstacles to an Arab-Israeli-Palestinian peace have taught us how critical peacemaking will be to the diplomacy of a truly great power in the future.

Through those two decades, our vision of peace has also grown. Through exhausting days, months, years of talk and negotiation, we steadily defined and redefined in concrete and practical terms the concept of peace. Lawyers, soldiers, economists, and diplomats over almost two decades in war and truce gave real-world meaning to an old dream.

We also learned that peace in its fullest meanings can become not just a distant ideal, but a touchstone in the grueling, time-consuming, politically painful, day-to-day business of conducting relationships among the nations on the world stage. We learned that peacemaking is a process that does not end. It is a way of life, not an event, or a decision or achievement. It involves the reduction of tension, the cessation of conflict, the end of belligerence, the negotiation of treaties which not only define a juridical end of war but steps toward relations normal to states at peace, the reduction of social, political,

-12-

[L]

and economic injustice which are causes of conflict, the construction of
power relationships which make war less attractive. The diplomat's and
the soldier's definition of peace and the philosopher's definition have
moved closer. Peace is no longer the rhetoric of the politician. It is
the agenda of the statesman and the negotiator. This was as true in the
nuclear arms limitation negotiations as it was on the Middle East
shuttles or at Camp David.

At the end of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the definition of peace
was the common one. Everyone will agree that peace requires the absence
of disturbance in the public order, particularly the absence of a
shooting war. But a truce or an armistice is not necessarily peace.
Israel has lived all of its life as a modern state still at war with
most of its neighbors, but in only a few of its years of independence
have there been major shooting wars. Nevertheless, the focus in 1967
was on producing a juridical state of peace -- an end of belligerency --
between Israel and its neighbors. After an armistice of eighteen years,
that in itself seemed a solid objective.

Then another element was added to the definition of peace. Israel
insisted that peace would be no more than a piece of paper unless it
carried with it mutual recognition and acceptance in demonstrable form.
Israelis insisted on face-to-face negotiation as a demonstration of that
mutual recognition. They insisted on the formulation "peace with
Israel." They insisted on peace treaties with signatures on the same
document symbolizing reciprocal recognition, obligation and commitment.

-13-

[L.C.]

In our recent experience in the Middle East, however, even that form of legally agreed peace has been said not to be "real peace." The Israelis have feared that their Arab adversaries would sign an agreement, thereby put themselves in a better position to attack Israel, and then break the agreement. The Israelis looked for some sign that the Arabs really meant to live at peace. Golda Meir used to say she would believe Egypt and Israel are at peace when she could shop in the markets of Cairo. Or another Israeli leader put it in terms of exchanging basketball teams. In other words, a third element was added to the other two -- what we have come to call the "normalization" of relations in which each side develops a stake in not seeing the relationship broken again by war. In the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty signed at the White House in March 1979, an annex was included which provided for building normal commercial relations and exchanges among journalists, scholars, tourists, businessmen and others.

That in itself might be going quite far enough to define what most of us mean when we talk of "peace" on the international stage. But in the early 1980s we hear voices which stretch our vision of global peace even farther. Some tell us that we are not fully committed to the goal of peace until we are committed to removing the _causes_ of conflict, be they economic, strategic, political, social or psychological. Peace and security cannot exist, they say, without economic, political and social justice. They cite Lebanon as a nation becoming an international battleground while tearing itself apart over issues of political, social, and economic imbalance. Others go even further and tell us we cannot achieve global peace without developing a sense that global

-14-