Körber-STIFTUNG
Forum für Impulse

FEB 20 2007

Körber-Stiftung, USable, 20446 Hamburg

Herrn
Henry A. Kissinger
350 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
USA

Kehrwieder 12
20457 Hamburg
Telefon +49 · 40 · 80 81 92 - 168
Telefax +49 · 40 · 80 81 92 - 303
E-Mail usable@koerber-stiftung.de
www.usable.de

Projektleiterin: Eveline Metzen M.A.

Neue Ausschreibung im Transatlantischen Ideenwettbewerb USable

Hamburg, 8. Jan. 2007

Sehr geehrter Herr Kissinger,

»Empowerment. Menschen stärken« – unter diesem Titel startete am 1. Januar 2007 die Ausschreibung des Transatlantischen Ideenwettbewerbs USable.

Gesucht werden Projekt-Ideen und Praxismodelle aus den USA, die im Sinne des »Empowerment« auch in Deutschland Menschen helfen, ihre Kompetenzen auszubauen und sich selbst aktiv einzubringen. Für überzeugende Konzepte und Projektideen vergibt die Körber-Stiftung im USable-Ideenwettbewerb Preise und Fördermittel in Höhe von insgesamt 139.000 Euro. Im Transatlantischen Journalistenpreis USable werden zusätzlich 11.000 Euro ausgelobt. Einsendeschluss für beide Wettbewerbe ist der 31. Oktober 2007.

Amerikanische Best Practices für Deutschland? Der Transatlantische Ideenwettbewerb nimmt die Zivilgesellschaft der USA in den Blick. Hier zeigen innovative lokale und regionale Initiativen, Projekte oder Konzepte, wie Menschen einander zu Selbstverantwortung und Eigeninitiative befähigen können. Das Vertrauen in die Stärken des Einzelnen gepaart mit dem in Amerika stark ausgeprägtem Bürgerengagement können auch Inspiration für uns in Deutschland sein – z.B. in der Arbeit mit Senioren und Migranten aber auch in der Sozial- und Jugendarbeit, in Erziehung und Erwachsenenbildung.

Sie möchten auch Menschen stärken oder arbeiten schon in einem Empowerment-Projekt? Dann freuen wir uns über Ihren Beitrag! Wir freuen uns auch, wenn Sie uns als Multiplikator unterstützen und die Ausschreibung an andere Interessenten weiter leiten – als Flyer oder online. Infos zur Ausschreibung bietet das Internet unter www.usable.de.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Eveline Metzen M.A.

Schriftneramt der Körber-Stiftung

Kuratorium USable

1/24/07

OTHER PIECES OF POSSIBLE INTEREST

Acheson, Dean

Review of Robert L. Beisner's *Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War* published in *The New York Times Book Review*, 10/15/06

Aron, Raymond

Foreword to his memoirs, *Fifty Years of Political Reflection*, February 1989

Churchill, Winston

Review of Norman Rose's *Churchill: The Unruly Giant* published in *The New York Times Book Review*, 7/16/95

DeGaulle, Charles

*International Herald Tribune* article, "DeGaulle: What He Would Do Now", 5/7/90

Diana, Princess of Wales

Introduction of the Princess at the United Cerebral Palsy Humanitarian Award Dinner, 12/11/95

DiMaggio, Joe

Foreword for *DiMaggio: Setting the Record Straight* by Morris Engelberg and Marv Schneider, 5/17/02

Einstein, Albert

Essay for *TIME* "100 Most Important People of the Century", 9/7/99

Gandhi, Indira

Tribute written 9/85

Gromyko, Andrei

Introduction to his memoirs, 9/15/89

Harlow, Bryce

Foreword for his biography - 6/99

Hassan, King (of Morocco)

Tribute written 6/17/86

Kissinger, Paula

Piece you wrote about your mother to accompany photo taken for Mariana Cook's book, *Mothers and Sons*, August-September 1994

(cont'd)

Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping

*Newsweek* article, "The Philosopher and the Pragmatist", 3/3/97

Rabin, Yitzhak

*Washington Post* article, "My Fallen Friend", 11/12/95

Sadat, Anwar

*TIME* article, "A Man with a Passion for Peace", 10/19/81

Schmidt, Helmut

*Advance* eulogy written for *Die Zeit*, 9/3/02

Sisco, Joseph

Remarks at American Academy of Diplomacy 15th Annual Diplomatic Awards

Luncheon honoring the late Joseph Sisco, 12/9/04

Stoessel, Walter

Memorial piece published in *Stanford magazine* (submitted 4/2/91; published 8/91)

Firing Line Roast

Feb. 28, 1986

It's worse than that. He is his own best friend. [laughter, applause]

MR. GREENFIELD: You can gain a measure of my own dumbness by thinking that I was afraid that all our speakers would be finished and we would have loads of time left. Not with our speakers. So, moving to the last but not least celebrant, he needs no introduction, but Henry Kissinger insisted. [laughter] I will only say this is a man, not only a prizewinning writer, head of the National Security Council, secretary of state, the man who singlehandedly abolished Franklin Roosevelt's rule that presidential aides should have a passion for anonymity [laughter], a man who has with the best of grace suffered the fact that the Washington Post has just said that he is out and Richard Nixon is in, a man who has been on every television show this year except Dr. Ruth's Good Sex show [laughter] which is either a burst of modesty or the injunction to talk about what you know [laughter], I don't know; but anyway, one of the most fascinating men probably in 20th century public life: Dr. Henry Kissinger. [applause]

DR. KISSINGER: I am at some handicap compared to my predecessors. The staff of the Firing Line, following instructions issued during the period of detente, refused to answer my telephone calls [laughter] and did not tell me what this program was all about until I got here--this despite the fact that by the time the administration Bill Buckley supports is finished, detente of 10 years ago will emerge as the hardline position. [laughter] so I will describe a few of my experiences on Firing Line. The first time that I recall being on Firing Line was when I was on the cover of a national magazine in a Superman suit and Bill Buckley introduced me as follows: "Henry Kissinger reminds me of an athlete who is carried around the stadium on the shoulders of the multitude while somebody else is winning the race." [laughter] From then on, things went slightly better and in fact we had a rather fascinating discussion of philosophy of history. My most recent appearance on Firing Line was when Bill interviewed me about the report on the Central American Commission, which I chaired, of which he seemed to be slightly approving, an experience I was not used to. His influence on the Reagan administration is shown by the fact that I have recently proposed that the best way to solve the problem of Nicaragua is to drop all the unread copies of the Central American Commission report on Nicaragua unless that is considered too great a violation of human rights to drop such a tonnage of material on so small a country. [laughter] I was interviewed yesterday about Bill Buckley and I told the interviewer that I met Bill shortly after he graduated from Yale, and he announced to me that he wanted to change the direction of American politics by starting a magazine and various other activities. This is so long ago that I was still a member of good standing of the Harvard faculty, and therefore the necessity of that objective was not self-evident to me. But I consoled myself by the conviction that there was no conceivable way that Bill could achieve this objective. Well, I told the interviewer--

12

The interviewer yesterday asked me, "Where would you place Bill Buckley on the political spectrum?" I said, "I would consider him a moderate conservative." She said, "You think he has moved towards the center?" That, with all respect, is like saying the compass needle has stopped pointing north.
[laughter] The center has moved towards Bill. Even more importantly, Bill has moved the center in the direction that he said these many decades ago with an assurance that the decades have not augmented in the direction that he said he wanted to go. Now, we are here, a number of liberals, and I a conservative--considered such only by liberals [laughter]--to celebrate the *Firing Line*. And the most important thing to say about Bill is that whatever objective he set himself these many decades ago, he did not carry out as a sectarian. We have all appeared with him because we trust him and because he is a great healer of a society which in its 200th year has learned that it cannot do everything simultaneously, who has always shown respect for his critics, even though he cannot hide the pain that it causes him, but which he overcomes with the realization that even his best friends cannot be right 100 percent of the time. [applause]

MR. GREENFIELD: In events such as this it is traditional to permit the victim the last word. In the case of Bill Buckley, anything else is unthinkable. To say that he prefers to get in the last riposte is to say that General Custer had a communication problem with the Indians. Personal example: Twenty years ago I wrote a piece in the Yale alumni magazine about a trip Bill Buckley had made to Yale, and I dared to suggest that on something somewhere he had been inconsistent. Three months later a letter comes back from Gstaad with an exquisite, utterly wrongheaded reply. And I have since learned that this is a total phenomenon in America. A food critic in Albuquerque criticizes a recipe Buckley writes about. [Snap] There is a letter on the desk. A music critic in Missoula quarrels with a review he did on Rosalind Tureck. [Snap] In goes the letter. And now he is equipped with a computer and a modem. He can go anywhere around the world. Indeed, I think you have to visualize Mr. Buckley's lust for the last word as including his own personalized strategic defense initiative, a Star Wars permanently stationed in space that will detect and destroy any criticism before it even sees the light of day in 10 years. [laughter] On the other hand, when you consider that for 20 years this man has provided on a weekly basis good conversation, argument, analysis and thought, it's probably a mark of fairness to let him have at us for these last words. Ladies and gentlemen, the host of *Firing Line* for the last 20 years: William F. Buckley Jr. [applause]

MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. The turning of the clock unhappily truncates my remarks on these brilliant columns. I'm dealing, as Tom Wolfe would have me say, with very brilliant people and also with some pretty mean people. [laughter] Gene McCarthy talks about voracious readers, which reminds me that John Kenneth Galbraith in his memoirs said that Adlai Stevenson was so infatuated with books

13

02/26/2007 17:02 FAX

001

FEB 27 2007

Korda

Michael Korda
Stonegate Farm
194 Gretna Road
Pleasant Valley
New York 12569
Telephone (845) 635-3795
FAX (845) 635-1782
c-mail michael.korda@simonandschuster.com

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Kissinger Associates
350 Park Avenue
New York, N. Y.
10022

BY FAX

Dear Henry,

It was a great, great pleasure to see you and Nancy looking so well on Sunday!

I had a thought regarding "Great Contemporaries" (to borrow Harold Nicholson's title for the moment). Would it be possible for you to dictate a list of the people you might cover in such a book? That would be very helpful for me in discussing it at Simon & Schuster.

Given the enormous range of people you have known over the years, one would have to be selective, but the object would be to give the reader an assessment of *your* "great contemporaries," not only to give a portrait in words of the person, but to assess his or her importance in world historical terms.

I think such a book might rely on much you have already done, and thereby reduce to manageable proportions the task of writing, and at the same time it would be a work of enduring interest, one that *only* you could write. I can imagine the obvious ones—Nelson Rockefeller, Nixon, Mao, De Gaulle, Adenauer, etc.—but I think your choice of the people you would include is one of the things that would make the book special and unique.

02/26/2007 17:02 FAX

002

2

I was also amazed (and of course pleased) by your eloquent comment on
how my biography of Eisenhower made you see him in a new and different
light.

I wonder if you would mind writing even a *short* paragraph about this—you
put it far better than I could—since it's exactly the point I'm trying to make
to the HarperCollins sales force?

It would be enormously helpful, and kind, if you could take the time do
this—I know how busy you are—and I need hardly add how very grateful I
would be. People need to be persuaded that they don't really know
Eisenhower, and that much of what they think they *do* know is wrong. He
was, I think, a very great man, both as a general and as a president, and he
lived through, and substantially helped to shape, a period of extraordinary
and dramatic historical interest.

With all best wishes to you both, from Margaret and myself.

03/07/2007 12:10 FAX

horda

MAR 07 2007

001

Michael Korda
194 Gretna Road
Pleasant Valley
New York 12569
845-635-8445
Kordabooks@aol.com

TO: Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
FROM: Michael Korda
DATE: March 7, 2007
RE: Your letter, dated March 6, 2007

Dear Henry,

So many thanks for your wonderful and generous words about IKE. I am, once again, ever so deeply grateful.

I think the list of "great contemporaries" is *very* good and will pass it on to "The powers that be" at S & S, together with my enthusiasm.

I'm going into the hospital Monday, but hope to be home again, scalped, by late Wednesday.

In the meantime, all my fondest wishes, and Margaret's to you and to Nancy.

P.s. If you need to reach me next week, Margaret can pass a message on. Her number is (845) 635-8445.

# Islam and the International System

A collection of quotations, articles, and observations

Schuyler Schouten

February 2007

## CONTENTS

<table><tr><td>Introduction</td><td>p 1</td></tr><tr><td>I: The First Wave of Islamic Conquest and Its Enduring Legacy</td><td>p 3</td></tr><tr><td>II: The Territorial Division of the World and the Role of Jihad</td><td>p 12</td></tr><tr><td>1: Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2: Diplomacy as "A Temporary Necessity"?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3: Islamic Ideological Aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4: An Alternative Perspective: "Is Jihad Closer to Marx than to the Koran?"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>III: The Ideal of Muslim Unity</td><td>p 32</td></tr><tr><td>1: The Dream of a Unified Islamic Polity, and Rejection of the Westphalian State</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2: The Post-Ottoman Void</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>IV: The Sunni-Shia Split</td><td>p 49</td></tr><tr><td>1: General Aspects of the Sunni-Shia Divide</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2: The Sectarian Character of the Iraq War</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3: Saudi-Iranian Rivalry</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4: Strategic Implications: Two Perspectives</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>V: The Present Challenge: Saving the State System in the Muslim World</td><td>p 70</td></tr><tr><td>Bibliography</td><td>p 75</td></tr></table>

2299682-68
HarperCollins*Publishers*
10 East 53rd Street
New York, NY 10022

SEP 11 2007

Julie Baumgold and Edward Kosner

 invite you to celebrate the publication of

 Michael Korda's

IKE
An American Hero

published by HarperCollins*Publishers*

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

6:30pm – 8:30pm
180 East 79th Street
New York, NY 10021

RSVP: 212.207.6904

CONFIDENTIAL - PROPRIETARY

October 12, 2007

PETER W. RODMAN – BOOK PROPOSAL

Presidential Command: Control of National Security Policy from
Richard Nixon to George W. Bush

**SUMMARY:** The subject of the book is how recent Presidents managed their bureaucracy in the national security field – or failed to. The author has served five recent Republican Presidents and has an insider's stories to tell, and insights, about Presidents' relations with their Cabinet secretaries and White House advisers. The aim is a short primer on presidential control of national security policy, drawing lessons from the successes and failures of recent administrations. **END SUMMARY**

# 1. The Author

I have had a unique vantage point in high-level and sensitive positions under five Republican Presidents – Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. For the first four of these, I served on the National Security Council (NSC) staff – that is, the President's staff – including as a special assistant to Henry Kissinger. Most recently, as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush, I often represented the Pentagon in the deliberations by which key national security issues were prepared for presidential decision (including Iraq). How Presidents establish their personal control and policy direction of the sprawling bureaucracy that is the U.S. government is one of their toughest tests. I was able to watch at close range the interaction of policy, politics, and personalities that determined whether they succeeded or failed.

My aim is to produce a short primer on how Presidents can maintain control over national security policymaking. The book would be accessible to the general reader, with a narrative and anecdotes about these Presidents and the problems they faced managing their Cabinet secretaries and other subordinates. The real subject is not bureaucratic process but watching Presidents in action as they strive, successfully or unsuccessfully, to run

CONFIDENTIAL - PROPRIETARY

their government. The comparative perspective will shed some interesting
light on the problems of the present administration, for example.

Many biographies exist of these Presidents and other leading figures,
and institutional histories of the NSC have been written, but not by someone
with my vantage point and with the goal of distilling the kind of practical
and political lessons I have in mind. Richard Neustadt's classic primer on
*Presidential Power* (1960) may perhaps be a model, but I will focus on
national security policy and draw lessons of my own from my experience.

## 2. Overview and Themes

No organization chart or procedural formula on paper will tell you
how an administration works in practice. In our system, intangibles reign,
most importantly the management style, personality, and preferences of the
person at the top. Short-circuiting the formal procedures is commonplace.
Presidents come to rely most, for example, on individuals whose judgment --
and loyalty -- they have most confidence in. In some instances power
gravitates to personalities strong enough to seize it; in other cases, this only
provokes negative reactions (ask Al Haig). Centrifugal forces pull at
Cabinet officers, and tensions between them and the President are built into
modern government. ("The members of the Cabinet are a President's
natural enemies," Charles G. Dawes once asserted.) Sometimes tensions
even develop between a President and his closest White House advisers (as
Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger could testify).

Some Presidents were well served by the methods they followed;
others were not. Some Presidents were well served by the individuals they
appointed to the highest positions; some were not. I will describe some
episodes not generally known; I intend to give a candid assessment of events
and of personalities that may not comport with conventional wisdom or with
conventional historical accounts.

There is a famous (probably apocryphal) anecdote about President
Lincoln, taking a vote in a Cabinet meeting on whether to sign the
Emancipation Proclamation: All his Cabinet secretaries vote "nay" —
whereupon Lincoln raises his right hand and declares: "The ayes have it!"
Such a story brings a smile when the President under discussion is the most

2

CONFIDENTIAL - PROPRIETARY

revered political leader in the history of the Republic. But our modern
political culture and sensibility are more ambivalent. Where more
controversial decisions by less revered Presidents are concerned, what do we
really believe about presidential authority?

How do we feel, for example, about Richard Nixon overruling the
dissent of both his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense to order
military operations that he thought essential to prosecute the Vietnam War?
What do we think of Ronald Reagan pursuing what he thought was a
strategic opening with Iran, over the objection of his chief Cabinet officers?
With respect to the very public anguish of Secretary of State Colin Powell
and his State Department over George W. Bush's decisions on Iraq, do we
identify with Bush or with Powell? In the age of the whistle-blower, what
do we really think about a President's authority to decide and carry out
policies with which subordinates disagree?

The answer should not depend simply on one's own policy or partisan
preferences in a given case. There ought to be neutral principles, not only to
guide public discourse but to guide Presidents. The modern trend since the
United States emerged as a global power after World War II has been to
expand the White House staff and institutions like the NSC precisely to
enable more centralized control, or at least better central coordination, over
the expanding Executive Branch. But there have also been countertrends at
work – powerful trends of resistance to this centripetal force in Congress, in
the media, and in the government itself.

The experience of modern Presidents since Nixon is rich in lessons for
future Presidents seeking to insure their dominance of the policies of the
Executive Branch: How should a President manage Cabinet dissent and
Cabinet rivalries? What qualities should future Presidents look for – and
watch out for – when they choose their key Cabinet secretaries and White
House advisers? How can a President impose effective political direction on
the large, modern national security bureaucracy? When should Cabinet
officers be replaced for policies that aren't working or for bureaucratic
resistance to presidential desires? How much can a President delegate to
subordinates, and how much does the whole system depend on a President's
personal direction, energy, and control? What does this analysis tell us
about the qualities most needed in a President?

3

CONFIDENTIAL - PROPRIETARY

If there is a bias in the book, it will be in favor of presidential
authority and effectiveness. While checks and balances are the core of our
constitutional system, good policy and good governance depend on effective
presidential management of the Executive Branch. This may seem self-
evident, but the centrifugal forces cited above weaken that control, and the
book will show a perhaps surprising number of examples of when
procedures and policies both foundered when a President was not in
effective personal command.

3. The Structure and the Story

An **opening chapter** will trace some antecedent history going back to Truman and the creation of the modern processes of presidential policymaking, such as the NSC. Foreshadowing the main themes of the main section of the book, this chapter will sketch how several postwar Presidents wrestled with the fundamental problem of gaining mastery over their governments – not only how they made key decisions but how they maintained control over their Cabinet subordinates and the sprawling modern national security bureaucracy.

The book's principal focus will be on the five Presidents I worked for -- Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. But I will also deal, albeit more briefly, with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, for the continuity of the story, though I cannot claim the same vantage point on their presidencies. All these Presidents present a dramatic variety of personalities and methods of leadership:

**Richard Nixon** brooded in seclusion, often with his key aide and intellectual ally Henry Kissinger, excluding his Secretaries of State and Defense from crucial deliberations and decisions. Nixon came into office with the firm conviction that the permanent bureaucracy, especially in the State Department, was probably Democratic in affiliation and presumptively disloyal to him. Unfortunately for the State Department, it made several missteps in the first months of the new administration, ignoring explicit presidential instructions on key issues such as U.S.-Soviet relations and the diplomacy over Vietnam. This only confirmed Nixon's suspicions. His response as time progressed was to establish "backchannels" to foreign leaders directly from the White House, with Kissinger as the channel, bypassing the Cabinet secretaries completely. Nixon ordered significant

4

CONFIDENTIAL - PROPRIETARY

military operations in Indochina over the dissent of both his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. Nixon stressed publicly that he did not want to be offered a consensus of his Cabinet advisers; he wanted to know what the disagreements were, and what his options were, so that he could make the decisions.

The dramas of the Nixon-Kissinger period are well known, recounted in various memoirs and in revelatory accounts based on recently-released documents. I was a special assistant to Henry Kissinger throughout this period, and will offer my own insights into such matters as the personal relationship between Nixon and Kissinger, White House relations with both State and Defense, and lessons to be drawn from the Nixon experience. I will draw on fresh archival material on, e.g., how State and Defense rebelled against Nixon's policies (including new information on Pentagon spying on the White House).

Nixon's first term clearly represented one pole, one paradigm, of how to run national security policy. The White House team of Nixon and Kissinger achieved the most centralized, consistent, disciplined, and strategically coherent policymaking of any modern presidency – but it came at the price of the demoralization and alienation of the rest of the government. When Kissinger became Secretary of State in 1973, the process normalized to a great extent – a President relying on his chief Cabinet officer as his chief adviser. Kissinger himself later concluded in his memoirs, having experienced the system both ways, that the exclusionary White House-dominated model of Nixon's first term was the anomaly: If a President doesn't trust his Secretary of State, he should replace him, not bypass him.

But for Nixon, the damage was done. There is a theory of the Watergate scandal, advanced by writer Nicholas von Hoffman, that attributes Nixon's ultimate demise to the rebellion of the permanent government – the despised bureaucracy which by leaks and other forms of resistance brought down the elected chief executive who had sought to centralize power to an unprecedented degree at their expense.

**Gerald Ford** could not have been more different in personality and management style. In contrast with Nixon, who chose Cabinet secretaries he knew he could dominate or ignore, Ford – a man without complexes and at

5

CONFIDENTIAL - PROPRIETARY

ease with himself – presided comfortably over a Cabinet of heavyweights. He reposed full confidence in his Secretary of State (Kissinger), in the classical mode of a President's relationship with his Cabinet. (Cf. Truman and Acheson, Eisenhower and Dulles.) Ford's White House national security adviser (Brent Scowcroft) helped insure a transparent process, and Scowcroft himself came to embody the "honest broker" paradigm of a national security adviser.

Yet, despite all this, Ford's collegial system broke down and his administration was torn apart by powerful forces. The controversy over détente with the Soviet Union was tearing the Republican Party apart, as reflected in Ronald Reagan's nearly successful challenge to Ford's nomination in 1976. The country was moving to the right, perhaps as a delayed reaction to the humiliation in Indochina. Meanwhile, the Congress, elected in 1974 in the wake of Watergate, had shifted sharply to the left. The straddle required was probably more than any President could have managed.

The Ford Administration was rocked by furious bureaucratic warfare fueled by leaks against Kissinger, as some elements of the administration shared the conservative critique of détente. But Ford shrewdly perceived that the attacks on Kissinger were really attacks on himself, because, as he told Kissinger (with reference to Defense Secretary James Schlesinger): "Jim's fight is not with you but with me. He thinks I am stupid, and he believes you are running me...." This Ford resented. He fired Schlesinger in the fall of 1975. But where Nixon had erred by not firing people, Ford tried firing people and it only deepened his political crisis. The struggle within the government proved to be among political forces, not personalities. (The rivalry of Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld, Schlesinger's successor, was even sharper.) Ford never achieved dominance over this struggle within his own government, and it deprived him of flexibility he needed to make decisions and of possible policy achievements that might have won him the election. (Democratic friends have told me their biggest fear during the 1976 campaign was that Ford would sign a strategic arms limitation treaty.)

Similar internal contradictions over Soviet policy also bedeviled **Jimmy Carter's** administration. Carter deliberately set up a system in which his conservative national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and his liberal Secretary of State Cyrus Vance would be counterweights to each

6

CONFIDENTIAL - PROPRIETARY

other; Carter wanted to hear opposite points of view so he could decide, and thereby be in control. This looked good on an organization chart but it proved a formula for policy incoherence. Carter was in control, but he gave no clear direction because he had no consistent view. These divisions in the administration – and in the President's mind – appeared dramatically in the internal debate over “linkage” (Soviet geopolitical aggression and its relationship to strategic arms control), and also in US policy toward the fall of the Shah of Iran.

**Ronald Reagan** has to be regarded as the most successful and consequential President of the modern period. He embodied and led the country's recovery from its Vietnam trauma. With his election in 1980, not only the Republican Party but the country seemed to have come together behind a muscular and self-confident foreign policy. But his administration had its share of internal problems.

On issues on which Reagan was most engaged – especially broad policy toward the Soviet Union – he left his firm imprint on his government and on history. But the major paradox of the Reagan presidency was that on disputed issues on which he was less engaged, his government was rudderless. The NSC staff was generally perceived to be weak – structurally, one should probably say, because on these issues they could not credibly claim to speak for the President to decide them.

The result was protracted trench warfare between Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz. “Nothing ever gets settled in this town,” Shultz famously lamented. State and Defense clashed over U.S.-Soviet arms control, over Shultz’s Central America diplomacy, over Lebanon, over Panama, and in a philosophical debate over the use of military force. Reagan continued to be uncomfortable with dissension in his Cabinet; he much preferred to see a consensus of his advisers. Where consensus was unattainable, he sometimes avoided decisions – making only incremental changes in policy under pressure of events, or trying to split the difference between sharply opposing positions. The debacle in Lebanon in 1983-1984 was due in large part to the resulting incoherence of U.S. policy. Reagan was particularly averse to ordering his military to do something they did not want to do. A crisis with Panama, triggered by a U.S. Attorney in Miami indicting Manuel Noriega on drug

7

CONFIDENTIAL - PROPRIETARY

charges, produced another bureaucratic stalemate as State and Defense wrestled over what to do next and Reagan never decided.

I was Director of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff under George Shultz during much of this period, and played a personal role in many of these disputed issues. In 1986 I moved back to the NSC staff as a Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, where I was an eyewitness to the making of policy on such issues as U.S.-Soviet relations, Central America, Afghanistan, Panama, and the U.S. tilt in favor of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.

**George H. W. Bush**, the 41st president (or "Bush 41," as his family later dubbed him) was, from a management point of view, more successful. His Cabinet too was a Cabinet of heavyweights, but it operated collegially, presided over by a leader who was thoroughly knowledgeable in the details of foreign affairs and comfortable making decisions. (Perhaps it's no accident that in terms of bureaucratic effectiveness, the two most effective Presidents I served had both served eight years as Vice President.) Bush's national security adviser (Brent Scowcroft again) performed again as honest broker. The diplomacy over the unification of Germany was handled with great sophistication – there was nothing inevitable about the smoothness with which it came about – as was the planning and execution, military as well as diplomatic, of the 1991 Gulf War. Bush was not shy about commanding his generals.

If there were limits to Bush 41's success, they were not likely the product of faulty procedures. The debate still persists over whether he ended the Gulf War too soon, but it seems to have been the unanimous preference of Bush and all his top advisers. While the breakup of the Soviet empire in Central Europe in 1989 was handled exceptionally skillfully, the breakup of the Soviet Union itself in 1991 seemed to catch the administration both off-guard and out of step with a historical inevitability. Perhaps it was indeed "the vision thing." It is no accident that when most Americans think of the end of the Cold War, they don't associate it with Bush, on whose watch it actually occurred, but rather with his predecessor.

**Bill Clinton** was elected at a moment in history when domestic and economic issues seemed to dominate and to supplant national security

8

CONFIDENTIAL - PROPRIETARY

concerns. He was the first post-Cold War president, and the last before the
War on Terror. Not coincidentally, the outstanding Cabinet personality of
the period was arguably Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, not anyone from
the traditional national security team. Clinton's priorities and strengths were
not in foreign policy, and there were early stumbles in using force in
Somalia and Haiti. His policymaking process was marked by informality,
lack of structure, lack of consistent presidential direction, and bureaucratic
conflicts that festered - on China policy, North Korea, Bosnia and Kosovo -
reflecting a President whose interest and skills lay elsewhere.

**George W. Bush** ("Bush 43") likes to describe himself as "the decider," in the Trumanesque image of a gutsy chief executive taking on controversial decisions and not looking back. In fact, the boldness of many of his decisions and doctrinal pronouncements has already made him a consequential President whether one agrees with him or hates him. Yet many of the controversies engulfing the Bush foreign policy have had to do with *how* some of those decisions have been made. The word "dysfunctional" has been tossed around with abandon, including by champions of both State and Defense, the two main antagonists in the interagency quarrels.

But for a serious student of the subject, the definition of "dysfunctional" has to be more than just having one's own policy preference overruled in a presidential decision. My own insider's critique - reinforced by a comparative perspective - identifies not "cowboy" impetuosity or nefarious "cabals" led by Vice President Cheney as the source of the problems, but rather a systemic difficulty in managing conflicts among the departments.

Public caricatures notwithstanding, the travails of this administration present a number of paradoxes. Bush's management model has led him to trust his Cabinet subordinates and, where possible, defer to them. Thus, Bush and his NSC advisers have struggled hard for bureaucratic consensus as a matter of good governance. Yet, on many difficult issues such consensus is simply not to be had. The result - reminiscent of the Reagan experience -- has often been decisions delayed, or not made, or differences split. When the President has sided in the end with one view over another (which he often must), the bureaucratic result has often been not a sense of acceptance nurtured by the prior striving for consensus, but controversy.

9

CONFIDENTIAL - PROPRIETARY

Examples of the problems relate not only to Iraq but also to North
Korea, Iran, Syria, and other issues. For a number of reasons I do not wish
to be more specific on paper at the present stage.

A **concluding chapter** will draw lessons from the successes and failures of these Presidents, from Nixon to Bush 43. Each administration, as we have seen, exemplifies a different approach -- and a different set of problems. The chapter will offer recommendations on such matters as: the necessity of presidential dominance of the system; how to insure accountability (and what that means when subordinates are resistant to presidential direction or policies aren't working); what kind of personalities are best suited for key positions and best suited to a President's needs; whether the State Department will ever be able to recapture a role of primacy in the policy process; what kind of direct relationship the President should have with the uniformed military; what tasks the President's NSC staff should focus on; how to understand the phenomenon of leaks as a weapon of bureaucratic warfare; and what reforms might be undertaken to improve interagency coordination.

To take an example: One clear lesson is that the quest for bureaucratic consensus can be a fool's errand. It does not assure the wisdom of decisions; on the contrary, if it is achieved by papering over important debates, or by attempting to split the difference between incompatible positions, it may undermine the coherence of policy. A President in the end will be judged by the results of decisions and the effectiveness of policies, not by the smoothness of bureaucratic relations.

Without a President's vigorous engagement and readiness to make
hard choices, the system is liable to run aground. This may require
overruling somebody -- with attendant risk of mischievous leaks and
controversy. But these may be unavoidable. In a turbulent world, the
United States needs to get ahead of events and shape them; this puts a
premium on bold, timely, systematic, and consistent decision-making.
These qualities are not the natural product of bureaucracies operating
without strong political direction.

Many past Presidents have come into office determined to avoid the
mistakes, real or perceived, of their predecessors. Sometimes they have
drawn the right lessons, sometimes not. Given the emotion of the

10

Page 2 of 2

wonderful talk. I look forward to getting together with you at 1:00pm on June 12.

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

From: <Stape Roy <jsroy@kmaglobal.com>
To: <Jianmin Wu <wujianmin@cfau.edu.cn>>
Subject: Meeting with Dr. Kissinger
Sent: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 07:32:18 -0700 (PDT)

6/6/2007

DATE:

CORR. FILE

ACTION:

Paul

Stape

Dennis Gish

Jessee

Ann R.

Theresa

Security

Suzanne

COMMENTS:

SUBJECT FILE

CROSS REFERENCE

STAFF MEMO BY:

DC OFFICE:

Christie / Jody / Ann J. / Rose

INFORMATION COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED

Peace on the Korean Peninsula Draws Near

Speech by Dr. Kim Dae-jung

Former President of the Republic of Korea

At the Korea Society

On September 25, 2007

Honorable Chairman Donald Gregg, Honorable President Evans Revere
of the Korea Society, and distinguished guests!

First, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for inviting me here
today. I am also greatly honored and humbled to be the recipient of this
year's 'Van Fleet Award'.

Before starting my speech, I would like to share a few words about the
accomplishments of the 'Korea Society'. Over the past years when we
were grappling to find our way through the long and dark tunnel that is
the North Korean nuclear issue, the 'Korea Society' helped direct us
towards right direction in solving the nuclear issue through its effective
and enthusiastic efforts. The imminent resolution of the North Korean
nuclear issue and the improved relations between the ROK and the U.S.
has been greatly enabled by the endeavors of the 'Korea Society'. I am
sincerely grateful for such efforts. In particular, I would like to pay my
tribute to Chairman Donald Gregg, who has led the 'Korea Society' for
many years with keen insight and excellent capability, and who has made
tremendous advances in resolving the nuclear issue on the Korean
Peninsula.

Ladies and gentlemen!

The North Korean nuclear issue, which has been a key factor in creating
an unstable environment on the Korean Peninsula for a long period of
time is now likely to be resolved. The principle of action for action was
introduced under the February accord. The United States has promised to

1

guarantee security assurance, lift economic sanctions, and normalize its relations with North Korea. In return, North Korea has promised that it would completely give up its nuclear ambitions and join the efforts for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Indeed, a dramatic change is now being made.

Recently, President Bush announced that 'he made his choice' to actively pursue direct dialogue and give and take negotiations with the North. In addition, the United States is saying that it would declare the formal end to the 50-year-long Korean War and sign a peace treaty when the scrap of nuclear arms by the North is verified. I wholeheartedly welcome this wise decision of President Bush.

Distinguished guests!

From the moment I began my run for presidency in 1971, I suggested the 'Sunshine Policy' based on three principles of unification, namely, peaceful coexistence, peaceful exchange, and peaceful unification, and three-step unification of South-North confederation, South-North federation, and lastly, complete unification. Furthermore, as a solution to the North Korean nuclear situation, I stated that North Korea should completely abandon weapons of mass destruction and nuclear arms, and the U.S. should, in return, guarantee North Korea security assurance, lift economic sanctions, and normalize relations with North Korea. Then, not only could the nuclear issue be resolved but lasting peace could also be established on the Korean Peninsula. I have stated this same point of view when I was in the opposition party, and during my presidency, and even after my retirement.

I have continued with the same message despite pessimistic views at home and abroad, which significantly arose after North Korea's nuclear testing in October last year. I firmly believe that 'going nuclear' is not North Korea's purpose. Once the United States guarantees security assurance, lifting of economic sanctions, and normalization of relations, North Korea will give up its nuclear ambition completely. I have been convinced of this after meeting with Chairman Kim in June 2000 and

2

having indirect contact since our initial meeting. I have strongly insisted
on such arguments at the time via numerous press interviews at home
and abroad.

Fortunately, with President Bush's resolute decision, the February
agreement could be reached. Under the accord, North Korea has carried
out the first-phase requirements, which were shutting down nuclear
facilities at Youngbyun and inviting IAEA inspectors to the North. The
next phase, which will include the disablement of nuclear facilities and
declaration of all nuclear programs including uranium enrichment, seems
also likely to proceed smoothly. The U.S. has also declared to provide the
returns promised to North Korea.

It seems that our wandering in the long, winding and dark tunnel is
almost over, and we can now see the light at the end of it. I once again
wholeheartedly welcome and strongly support President Bush's decision
to discard the former unrealistic policies and pursue productive ones in
regards to North Korea.

Ladies and gentlemen!

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il earnestly desires, above all,
normalizing relations with the United States. I am well aware of this.
Once North Korea's security and survival are ensured, Chairman Kim
will strongly cooperate in scrapping its nuclear ambitions and weapons
of mass destruction, since he understands that he cannot feed the
impoverished North Korean people with weapons, nor revive the
economy. It is clear that unless its economic condition improves, North
Korea cannot survive.

In addition, Chairman Kim agreed with my view that the U.S. troops
should remain on the Korean Peninsula even after unification. He
pointed out that in late 19th century toward the end of the Chosun
dynasty, China, Japan, and Russia waged wars to absorb Korea and as a
result, Korea lost its sovereign rights. He said that if we had had the help
of the United States at the time, we could have avoided the years of

3

sorrow and grief. Upon hearing his remarks on the U.S. forces stationed
in the Korean Peninsula, I was very astonished on the one hand, and very
much relieved on the other hand.

Distinguished guests!

We understand that there are some critical voices in the U.S. against
Korea that claims that 'Korea forgets the graces they received during the
Korean War,' that 'anti-American sentiment is on the rise in Korea,' and
that 'Korea may be more inclined towards China.' However these views
are simply not true. The absolute majority of the Korean people
remember the benefits they received from the U.S. and they are well
aware of the significance of the U.S. We understand that the alliance and
cooperation with the U.S. is indeed critical in order for Korea to maintain
its security and achieve development while being surrounded by big
powers such as China, Japan, and Russia.

Korea participated in the Vietnam War, where 5,000 Korean soldiers
lost their lives and 10,000 were injured. We are currently dispatching
2,000 soldiers in Iraq, which is the third largest next to that of the U.S. and
U.K. In addition, we are sending our troops to Afghanistan and Lebanon.

Both nations are strengthening bilateral collaboration not only in
international affairs but also in the current issues of each nation. When
the U.S. decided to relocate its forward-deployed troops to the bases in
the rear for the strategic flexibility of U.S. forces, we accepted the idea.
We are also actively cooperating with the relocation and restructuring of
U.S. Command. Not only that, we signed the Free Trade Agreement with
the U.S. despite opposition of some Koreans. The Korea-US FTA will
further consolidate not only the economic ties but also ROK-US security
cooperation.

I think ROK-U.S. alliance is significant not only for Korea but also for
the U.S. in terms of its military, economic, and diplomatic interests in
Northeast Asia. I believe the alliance will remain strong and last for a
long time, since both nations share common interests.

4

Distinguished guests!

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun will visit North Korea on October 2 and have a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. I understand the upcoming inter-Korean summit has progressed after sufficient consultation with President Bush. At the summit, I believe both Koreas will agree to support the efforts of the six-party talks that are aimed at resolving the North Korean nuclear issue. At the same time, such items as the peace treaty and South Korea's participation in the recovery of North Korean economy will be heavily discussed. The discussion on economic cooperation will be focused on how to pursue mutual benefits that does not depend on unilateral aid.

China is extensively involved in the North Korean economy. I believe we should expedite our entry into North Korea so as to attain balance against China. Once the North Korean nuclear issue is resolved, international organizations such as IMF and ADB, enterprises of the U.S. and the western world should also advance into North Korea together with South Korea.

For the peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula, I believe it is critical that U.S forces continue to remain on the Korean Peninsula, and the U.S. and South Korea should take part in the North Korean economy. I am confident that the upcoming President Roh's visit to the North, which has already gained support of President Bush, will reap much success.

Ladies and gentlemen!

For many years, I have insisted that we make the six-party talks as a permanent security and cooperation system for Northeast Asia, rather than dissolving the six-party process. Now along with the close reconciliation and collaboration between the two Koreas and normalization of ties between the U.S. and North Korea, such consultation over a standing security and cooperation body in Northeast

5

Asia is on the progress. Once such a mechanism is established in
Northeast Asia, peace on the Korean Peninsula will be consolidated as
well. Furthermore, such developments will be in the common interests of
the U.S., Japan, China, and Russia, and will greatly contribute to world
peace.

Distinguished guests!

The long period of uncertainty is disappearing on the Korean Peninsula, and the concerns of a nuclear war and illegal proliferation of nuclear arms are also vanishing. As peace on the Korean Peninsula draws near, let us, Korea and the U.S., further cooperate closely so that we will be able to achieve the mutual interest of peace and prosperity. I hope the 'Korea Society' will make further efforts and greater contributions to such a process.

Thank you.

(End)

6

MAY-03-2007 15:10 FROM HAK DC OFFICE

TO KAI NY

P.002

EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
WASHINGTON, D.C.

THE AMBASSADOR

LEE, TAE-SIK

His Excellency J. Stapleton Roy
Vice Chairman
Kissinger Associates, Inc.
1800 K Street, NW; Suite 302
Washington, D.C. 20006
VIA FACSIMILE: (212) 753-7248

Dear Ambassador Roy,

May 1, 2007

Let me begin by thanking you for the wonderful dinner we enjoyed in March. It is always a pleasure to see you and I found our time together a useful opportunity to exchange our views. Furthermore, I appreciate your role in planning the dinner at my residence with Dr. Kissinger on May 21. I will look forward to seeing you there for what promises to be a wonderful evening.

The purpose of my letter today is to seek your assistance, if possible, in arranging a meeting for former Korean Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan with Dr. Kissinger when he visits Washington on May 13-16 and New York from May 16 through 17. As you may know, Prime Minister Lee has greatly contributed to the development of our bilateral relationship while he served as Prime Minister from June of 2004 through March of 2006, and still maintains considerable influence as a senior member of the National Assembly and as Chairman of the Northeast Asia Peace Committee within the Uri party.

Furthermore, Prime Minister Lee has always strived to further strengthen the US - Korea alliance. He is currently serving as the special advisor to the President and also played a leading role in the Inter-Ministerial meetings responding to the tragic events of Hurricane Katrina to offer the donation of $30 million towards relief efforts.

Recently, he visited North Korea and had a good discussion with the leadership. Considering this, I believe he could provide some good insights and experience on how to deal with North Korea along with Northeast Asian peace and security issues. As I know of Dr. Kissinger's keen interest in Northeast Asian affairs, I believe that Prime Minister Lee is the right person for him to meet with to share thoughts on these valuable topics.

In that vein, I would greatly appreciate your assistance in facilitating this meeting. I will call your office in a few days to follow up on this matter. In the meantime, should you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact my office at: (202) 939-5606. As always, thank you for your kind attention on this matter.

TOTAL P.002

KBS

The Korean Broadcasting System / KBS Special

18 Yeouido-dong, Youngdungpo-gu, 150790 Seoul, Korea / Tel +82-2-781-1894 / http://www.kbs.co.kr

JUN 25 2007

June 25, 2007

To: Henry Kissinger, Kissinger Associates

CC: Jessie Leporin

From: NaRa Song, Korean Broadcasting System, "KBS Special"

Subject: Interview Request

This is NaRa SONG, coordinator for general production of "KBS Special" at the Korean Broadcasting System (KBS). As a leading public broadcasting service in Korea, KBS is committed to produce high quality programs that educate, inform and entertain its audience. It regards it a core duty to reflect the diverse voices of Korea through the distinctiveness of its programs, while bringing the world home to its audience through speedy and impartial news reports.

A KBS Documentary titled 'KBS Special' is the most renowned television documentary program that features current issues of inside and outside Korea. Through its 60 minute-broadcast, the program has been continuing its efforts to provide its audience with the accurate information and insight on various current issues of Korea.

In the upcoming program scheduled to be aired on August 12th, we will feature the 'Process and Prospects of Korean Peninsula's Denuclearization in tandem with Peace Regime'. Since February 13th agreement which was struck among six parties, the hope for denuclearization of Korean Peninsula is getting stronger. In the middle of the unpredictable scene, the Bush administration hopes to see success of its 'Broad New Approach', working North Korea denuclearization together with the US-North Korea normalization. Also, having been witnessed 54th year of the armistice, a lively debate over building 'peace regime' in Korean peninsula is discussed in South Korea.

Regarding this issue, we would like to request an interview with you on:

- the US's foreign policy toward Northeast Asia, including North Korea

- evaluation of the Bush administration strategic policy changes toward North Korea and Northeast Asia

- the challenge the US confronts to stabilize NPT paradigm under its leading initiative

- history of the US-China strategic amity and the US strategic foreign policy on Northeast Asia in early 70s

- the US position during the struggle between the two Koreas soared high in the 70s.

We would like to interview with you any date between July 16th and July 20th, 2007. Your interview will definitely enhance our quality of program.

Thank you very much for your valuable time and we look forward to hear your favorable answer soon.

Yours sincerely,
NaRa SONG
Office: +82-2-781-1894
Cell: +82-01-3696-9834
Fax: +82-2-781-1339
Email: nrsong@hotmail.com

Korean Broadcasting System

President

Korea's representative public broadcaster-KBS

3/17/2007 4:04 PM FROM: The Korea Society The Korea Society TO: (212) 759-0042 PAGE: 001 OF 001

MAR 19 2007

1957-2007

50TH

ANNIVERSARY

UPCOMING PROGRAMS
AT THE KOREA SOCIETY

The Korea Society, 950 Third Avenue, Eighth Floor, New York City (Building entrance on SW corner of Third Avenue and 57th)

Diaspora Series

Koreans in Japan:
Ethnicity, Citizenship and Education

with

Soo im Lee

Professor
Ryukoku University

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

6:30 PM

REGISTRATION FEE:

☐ $10 (MEMBERS)

☐ $15 (NONMEMBERS)

Contact Christine Kang at
christine.ny@koreasociety.org

Young Professional Forum

Investing in Korea

Panel Discussion and
Networking Session

presented by

ASIAN ALUMNI CLUB OF NEW YORK

sponsored by

Merrill Lynch

Korean Business
Association
of Columbia
Business School

Tiger Asia
Management, L.L.C.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

6:30 PM

REGISTRATION FEE:

☐ $30 (MEMBERS)

☐ $35 (NONMEMBERS)

Contact Patrick Clair at
patrick.ny@koreasociety.org

Forum

presented with Asia Society

Famine in North Korea

Markets, Aid, and Reform

Marcus Noland

location:

Asia Society
725 Park Avenue at 70th Street

Thursday, March 29, 2007

6:30 PM

REGISTRATION FEE:

☐ $10 (MEMBERS)

☐ $15 (NONMEMBERS)

More information on these programs and speakers can be found at www.koreasociety.org

To register, please fill out this form and return with payment information by fax or mail to The Korea Society, 950 Third Avenue, Eighth Floor, New York, NY 10022; fax: (212) 759-7530.

I WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND:

☐ KOREANS IN JAPAN

☐ INVESTING IN KOREA

☐ FAMINE IN NORTH KOREA

NAME

TITLE

AFFILIATION

ADDRESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP

TEL (____): FAX (____)

EMAIL

☐ ENCLOSED IS MY CHECK FOR $

MADE PAYABLE TO: THE KOREA SOCIETY

☐ CHARGE $

TO: VISA

AMEX DINERS CLUB

DISCOVER

CREDIT CARD #

CVV* EXPIRATION DATE ____ / ____

CARDHOLDER'S NAME

SIGNATURE

The Korea Society will send registration confirmations by email. Those attending events without registering will be charged an additional $.5 at the door. Please note that refunds will not be issued but substitutes are welcome.

*In order to keep up with current credit practices, we now require the 3 or 4 digit code on the back of your credit card.

To be removed from future faxes, contact Peter Stuehmke at (212) 759-7525 ext. 320 or email peter.ny@koreasociety.org.

Page 1 of 1

Jessee LePorin

From: Stape Roy [jsroy@kmaglobal.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:12 PM
To: Jessee LePorin
Subject: Proposed Van Fleet Award for HAK on May 15

Jessee,

The following is from Evans Revere, the President of the Korea Society. They want to honor Dr. Kissinger at their annual gala at the Waldorff on May 15 this year. The reference in the last sentence to "Don" is to Don Gregg, the former president of the Korea Society. I would be most grateful if you could pursue this, or pass it on to whomever should do it. Many thanks, Stape

We will be celebrating The Korea Society's 50th anniversary in grand style on May 15th at the Waldorf-Astoria. UN SYG Ban has agreed to attend and speak, and this is certain to elicit keen interest in the event. I am also working on DepSec Negroponte to speak as well. In light of the Deputy's new position, his role as the 7th Floor's "Asia hand", his recent trip to Asia, and ongoing developments in the Six-Party process, I believe that his presence will also spark keen interest.

As we celebrate our anniversary, we also want to recognize, as we always do at our annual dinners, a figure who has played an important role in U.S.-Korea relations. This recognition is given in the form of the Van Fleet Award, named after General James Van Fleet, who besides his role as a noted commander of our forces during the Korean War was also instrumental in the founding of The Korea Society. Past winners of the award have included Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, and former ROK President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Kim Dae Jung. (FYI: President Kim was a recent awardee but was unable to travel to the U.S. Part of this year's ceremony will be the playing of a videotape showing him receiving the award in Seoul late last year.)

Don and I have been deeply impressed by the degree to which Dr. Kissinger's role in normalizing relations between the United States and the PRC has had an impact on DPRK thinking, and by the deep impression that Dr. Kissinger's geo-strategic vision has made on DPRK officials. The U.S.-China normalization process, by profoundly changing the strategic environment in Northeast Asia, made possible other openings in the region, including raising the prospect of U.S.-DPRK normalization. I also believe that the process of U.S.-PRC normalization and dialogue that Dr. Kissinger set in motion and which he has helped sustain over the years has made possible the close cooperation that we have seen between Washington and Beijing in seeking a resolution of the North Korea nuclear issue in the Six-Party Talks. I think it would be highly appropriate -- and important -- to recognize Dr. Kissinger's accomplishments in a public and prominent way at this year's anniversary dinner. If you agree, we would appreciate your assistance in exploring this possibility with Dr. Kissinger. Don and I would of course be pleased to call on Dr. Kissinger to propose this in person.

3/16/2007

2007 Annual Dinner in NY, Investing in Korea, Marcus Noland

Page 1 of 2

Jessee LePorin

From: The Korea Society [announcement@koreasociety.org]

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:29 AM

To: Henry Kissinger

Subject: 2007 Annual Dinner honoring Ban Ki-moon

MAR 28 2007

If this email does not display correctly, please click here.

1957-2007

50
TH
KOREA
SOCIETY
ANNIVERSARY

ANNIVERSARY

SAVE THE DATE

Tuesday, May 15

2007

ANNUAL DINNER
honoring

H. E. Ban Ki-moon
Secretary-General of the United Nations

H. E. Lee Hee-Beom
Chair
50th Anniversary Commemoration

MORE
DETAILS

Van Fleet Awardees
Houghton and Doreen Freeman
The Freeman Foundation

BUY
TICKETS

The Waldorf-Astoria
301 Park Avenue
New York City

DOWNLOAD
RSVP FORM

black tie/traditional attire

For further information, contact
Christine Kang at 212-759-7525 ext. 311
christine.ny@koreasociety.org

Thursday, March 29, 6:20 PM

Famine in North Korea:
Markets, Aid and Reform

with co-author
Marcus Noland
Institute for
Int'l Economics
presented with

Asia
Society

store.info

FORUM

Gallery Talk

Exhibiting Korea:
Cultural Expression in
Contemporary Korea

New Series, Starts April 5

3/28/2007

4/17/2007 11:34 PM FROM: The Korea Society The Korea Society TO: (212) 759-0042 PAGE: 001 OF 001

APR 18 2007

1957-2007

50TH

ANNIVERSARY

The Korea Society, 950 Third Avenue, Eighth Floor, New York City (Building entrance on SW corner of Third Avenue and 57th Street)

Economic Forum

U.S.-Korea Trade
After the FTA

with
a delegation of senior
members of the American
Chamber of Commerce in
Korea (AMCHAM Korea)

Monday, April 23, 2007

1:30 PM

REGISTRATION FEE:

☐ $10 (MEMBERS)

☐ $15 (NONMEMBERS)

VOICES

Cho Se-hui's The Dwarf

with
Bruce Fulton
Professor
University of British Columbia

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

6:00 PM

REGISTRATION FEE:

☐ $10 (MEMBERS)

☐ $15 (NONMEMBERS)

Forum

co-presented with Japan Society

KORUS FTA:
Bilateral Benefits & Implications
for U.S.-Japan Trade

with
Wendy Cutler
location:
Japan Society
333 East 47th Street, New York

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

12:00 PM

To register for this event, please visit www.japansociety.org or email register@japansociety.org. For additional information, please call Tomoko Okuno at 212-715-1247.

I WISH TO ATTEND: ☐ **U.S.-KOREA TRADE AFTER THE FTA** ☐ **THE DWARF**

NAME ____________________ TITLE ____________________ AFFILIATION ____________________

ADDRESS ____________________ CITY/STATE/ZIP ____________________

TEL (____) ____________________ FAX (____) ____________________ EMAIL ____________________

☐ ENCLOSED IS MY **CHECK** FOR $____________ MADE PAYABLE TO: **THE KOREA SOCIETY**

☐ **CHARGE** $____________ TO: **VISA** ______ MASTERCARD ______ AMEX ______ DINERS CLUB ______ DISCOVER ______

CREDIT CARD # ____________________ CVV* ____________________ EXPIRATION DATE ______ / ______

CARDHOLDER'S NAME ____________________ SIGNATURE ____________________

The Korea Society will send registration confirmations by email. Those attending events without registering will be charged an additional $5 at the door. Please note that refunds will not be issued but substitutes are welcome.

1957-2007

50TH

ANNIVERSARY

EIGHTH FLOOR
950 THIRD AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10022
TEL: (212) 759-7525
FAX: (212) 759-7530
KOREA.NY@KOREASOCIETY.ORG
HTTP://WWW.KOREASOCIETY.ORG

August 24, 2007

AUG 2 8 2007

The Hon. Henry A. Kissinger
Chairman
Kissinger Associates
350 Park Ave, 26th Fl.
New York, NY 10022-6022

Dear Chairman Kissinger:

On behalf of The Korea Society, I am delighted to invite you to attend a luncheon in honor of His Excellency Kim Dae-jung, former president of the Republic of Korea and Nobel Peace Prize winner, on Tuesday, September 25, 2007. The luncheon will be held in the Louis XVI Suite of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, located at 301 Park Avenue at 49th Street in New York City. Registration and a reception will commence at 11:30 a.m., followed by the formal luncheon program at noon.

As The Korea Society celebrates its 50th anniversary, we are honored to host this special luncheon with the former Korean president and to hear firsthand his views on major developments on the Korean Peninsula, including the upcoming North-South summit. The planned summit has clearly focused the world's attention on Korea and raised hopes that further steps towards reconciliation between Seoul and Pyongyang may be in the offing. It has also prompted speculation about whether the meeting could result in further progress in the Six-Party Talks.

As the first president of the Republic of Korea to meet with the leader of the DPRK, President Kim used his historic summit with Chairman Kim Jong-Il in 2000 to launch a process of dialogue and cooperation between the two Koreas. He is therefore in a unique position to assess the prospects for the second-ever ROK-DPRK summit, now set for October 2-4 in Pyongyang. President Kim will also address the current state of the U.S.-Korea relationship, the Six-Party Talks, and the search for permanent peace and stability in Northeast Asia.

We hope you can join us for what promises to be an important and fascinating encounter with one of the world's leading figures. Seating will be limited, so please confirm your participation in this event with Ms. Jiyoung Suh of The Korea Society at (212) 759-7525 ext. 311, or via e-mail to jiyoung.ny@koreasociety.org no later than Friday, September 7, 2007.

I look forward to seeing you at the luncheon on September 25, 2007.

Page 1 of 2

Jessee LePorin

**From:** Jiyoung Suh [jiyoung.ny@koreasociety.org]
**Sent:** Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:42 PM
**To:** Jiyoung Suh
**Subject:** The Korea Society - Luncheon in Honor of His Excellency Kim Dae-jung - Invitation

SEP 06 2007

Jiyoung Suh
Development Associate
The Korea Society

950 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10022
T: 212-759-7525 ext. 311
F: 212-759-7530
E: jiyoung.ny@koreasociety.org

9/6/2007

Page 1 of 2

Jessee LePorin

**From:** Jessee LePorin
**Sent:** Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:42 PM
**To:** 'Jiyoung Suh'
**Subject:** RE: The Korea Society - Luncheon in Honor of His Excellency Kim Dae-jung - Invitation

Many thanks for your e-mail inviting Dr. Kissinger to The Korea Society luncheon honoring former president Kim Dae-jung. Unfortunately, Dr. Kissinger regrets he is unable to attend the luncheon as he will be out of town on September 25-26. However, he appreciated the invitation and sends his good wishes.

**From:** Jiyoung Suh [mailto:jiyoung.ny@koreasociety.org]
**Sent:** Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:42 PM
**To:** Jiyoung Suh
**Subject:** The Korea Society - Luncheon in Honor of His Excellency Kim Dae-jung - Invitation

Sincerely yours,

9/18/2007

9/26/2007 2:06 PM FROM: The Korea Society The Korea Society TO: (212) 759-0042 PAGE: 001 OF 001

FORUM

1957-2007

50TH

ANNIVERSARY

THE KOREA SOCIETY
Eighth Floor
950 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022

(Building entrance on
SW corner of Third Av-
enue and 57th Street)

Please RSVP with payment
information by fax or mail
no later than **Tuesday,**
**September 25, 2007**

to

Patrick Clair
THE KOREA SOCIETY
EIGHTH FLOOR
950 THIRD AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10022
Tel: 212-759-7525 ext. 328
Fax: 212-759-7530;
patrick.ny@koreasociety.org.

To register online, go to
**www.koreasociety.org.**

WEDNESDAY

SEP 27 2007

Don Oberdorfer:
Report from
Tokyo and Seoul

Don Oberdorfer
Chairman
US-Korea Institute at SAIS

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

3:00 PM-3:30 PM Registration and Reception

3:30 PM-5:00 PM Presentation and Q&A

Don Oberdorfer, Korea correspondent emeritus and chairman of the U.S.-Korea Institute as SAIS, has just returned from a trip to Seoul and Tokyo. Oberdorfer met with political figures and senior officials in both cities, and at this afternoon program will share what he learned about the political scene in South Korea and the dynamic state of relations in Northeast Asia.

About the Speaker

Don Oberdorfer is distinguished journalist in residence and adjunct professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University's Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C. Previously he worked as a journalist for 38 years, including 25 years on the Washington Post. He is the author of five books, including *The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History.* In September 2006 Oberdorfer was named chairman of the U.S.-Korea Institute at SAIS.

REPORT FROM TOKYO AND SEOUL WITH DON OBERDORFER

NAME _______________ TITLE _______________ AFFILIATION _______________
ADDRESS _______________ CITY/STATE/ZIP _______________
TEL (____) _______________ FAX (____) _______________ EMAIL _______________

REGISTRATION FEE:

☐ $10 (MEMBERS)

☐ $15 (NONMEMBERS)

☐ ENCLOSED IS MY CHECK FOR $________ MADE PAYABLE TO: THE KOREA SOCIETY

☐ CHARGE $________ TO: VISA ____ MASTERCARD ____ AMEX ____ DINERS CLUB ____ DISCOVER ____
CREDIT CARD # _______________ CVV* _______________ EXPIRATION DATE ____ / ____
CARDHOLDER'S NAME _______________ SIGNATURE _______________

The Korea Society will send registration confirmations by email. Those attending events without registering will be charged an additional $5 at the door. Please note that refunds will not be issued but substitutes are welcome. To be removed from future faxes, contact Peter Stuehmke at (212) 759-7525 ext. 320 or email peter.ny@koreasociety.org.

*In order to keep up with current credit practices, we now require the 3 or 4 digit security code on the back of your credit card.

Page 1 of 4

Jessee LePorin

From: Peter Stuehmke [peter.ny@koreasociety.org]

Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:35 PM

To: jleporin@kmaglobal.com

Subject: BCIU Breakfast Discussion - Korea FTA - Thursday, October 4th

OCT 03 2007

Dear The Hon. Kissinger:

Citi, in conjunction with the Business Council for International Understanding (BCIU), will be hosting a
breakfast panel discussion on the U.S.-Korea FTA on Thursday, October 4, with Wendy Cutler,
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Japan, Korea & APEC Affairs, and Minister Choi Seok-young,
economic minister of the Embassy of the Republic of Korea. The discussion will be held at the
Citigroup Center in New York and will be chaired by William Rhodes, President, Chairman & CEO,
Citibank, N.A., and Chairman of the U.S.-Korea Business Council.

On behalf of Citi and the BCIU, we would like to encourage all to attend. If you cannot attend this event
we encourage you to pass on the invitation to the New York representatives of your company or
association and urge them to attend it.

Please find additional information about the event below and follow up with Christine Wiltshire at christine.wiltshire@citi.com if you would like to attend.

Thank you.

Date: Thursday, October 4, 2007

8:00 AM - 9:30 AM

Place: Citigroup Center

153 East 53rd Street, 14th floor

Hosted by:

Ms. Laura Lane

Senior Vice President for International Government Affairs

Citigroup Inc.

10/2/2007

Ms. Cutler received her Masters Degree in Foreign Service from Georgetown University and her B.A. from the George Washington University.

MR. SEOK YOUNG CHOI
MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Mr. Seok Young Choi is Minister for Economic Affairs in the Korean Embassy at Washington D.C since January 2006. He was born in Korea in 1955.

He was educated at the Seoul National University (BA) in Korea, the University of Heidelberg in Germany, and the Korea Development Institute School of Public Policy and Management (MBA) in Korea.

After joining the Korean Foreign Ministry in 1979, he has served various diplomatic postings in Korean Embassies in Kenya, Germany and in Permanent Missions to the United Nations in New York and Geneva. He has been representative of the Korean Government for a number of UN, WTO, APEC and other multilateral organizations-sponsored conferences.

He possessed Chairmanships in various meetings. He was Vice President of the 8th UNCSD (Commission on Sustainable Development) for 1999-2000 and Chairman of Working Group on Finance, Trade, Investment and Economic Growth of the 8th UNCSD (1999-2000). In 2001, he served as adviser in economic and social fields to the President of the UN General Assembly. In 2002-2003, in his capacity as Deputy Director General of the multilateral trade bureau of the Korean Foreign Ministry and Trade, he also served as Korea's Deputy Senior Official to APEC.

Mr. Choi served as Ambassador and Deputy Executive Director of the APEC Secretariat in Singapore for the 2004 APEC Year, and Ambassador and the 13th APEC Secretariat Executive Director for 2005 APEC Year.

He is an author of numerous articles particularly in the fields of trade and environment as well as the climate change negotiations. He also wrote articles on APEC. His most recent publications are "Revisiting the Open Regionalism of APEC" published by KIEP (Korea Institute for International

10/2/2007

Page 1 of 4

Jessee LePorin

**From:** Jessee LePorin
**Sent:** Wednesday, October 03, 2007 4:09 PM
**To:** 'Peter Stuehmke'
**Subject:** RE: BCIU Breakfast Discussion - Korea FTA - Thursday, October 4th

Many thanks for your e-mail. Unfortunately, Dr. Kissinger is unable to attend as he is out of the country this week.

**From:** Peter Stuehmke [mailto:peter.ny@koreasociety.org]
**Sent:** Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:35 PM
**To:** jleporin@kmaglobal.com
**Subject:** BCIU Breakfast Discussion - Korea FTA - Thursday, October 4th

Dear The Hon. Kissinger:

Thank you.

8:00 AM - 9:30 AM

Place: Citigroup Center

Hosted by:

10/4/2007

Page 3 of 4

Since joining USTR in 1988, Ms. Cutler has held a number of positions, including Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for North Asian Affairs, as well as for Services, Investment and Intellectual Property. She has negotiated bilateral agreements on a wide range of issues, including telecommunications, insurance, transparency and semiconductors. She also has extensive multilateral negotiating experience as the U.S. negotiator for the 1997 WTO Financial Services Agreement and the Uruguay Round Agreements on Rules of Origin and Import Licensing. Prior joining USTR, Ms. Cutler worked at the Commerce Department from 1983 to 1988.

MR. SEOK YOUNG CHOI

MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

He was educated at the Seoul National University (BA) in Korea, the University of Heidelberg in Germany, and the Korea Development Institute School of Public Policy and Management (MBA) Korea.

He possessed Chairmanships in various meetings. He was Vice President of the 8th UNCSD (Commission on Sustainable Development) for 1999-2000 and Chairman of Working Group on Finance, Trade, Investment and Economic Growth of the 8th UNCSD (1999-2000). In 2001, he served as adviser in economic and social fields to the President of the UN General Assembly. From 2002-2003, in his capacity as Deputy Director General of the multilateral trade bureau of the Korean Foreign Ministry and Trade, he also served as Korea's Deputy Senior Official to APEC.

10/4/2007

He is an author of numerous articles particularly in the fields of trade and environment as well as the climate change negotiations. He also wrote articles on APEC. His most recent publications are "Revisiting the Open Regionalism of APEC" published by KIEP (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy) in September 2004; and "The outcome of APEC 2005 Korea and Challenges ahead" published by the APEC Studies Association of Korea in December 2005.

10/4/2007

11/28/2007 1:29 PM FROM: The Korea Society The Korea Society TO: (212) 759-0042

PAGE: 001 OF 001

1957-2007
50 TH
ANNIVERSARY

Asia
Society

This program will be
held at

Asia Society

725 Park Avenue at 70th
Street, New York City

Registration Information:

$50 for Korea Society Members, Asia Society Members and Students; $75 Nonmembers.

For tickets, call the Asia Society box office at (212) 517-ASIA or visit

https://tickets.asiasociety.org.

No cancellations, ex-
changes or refunds.

For information, visit
www.koreasociety.org
or
www.asiasociety.org.

This program is made
possible with generous
support from the Korea
Foundation.

SYMPOSIUM

NOV 29 2007

Korea and Its Neighbors:
Securing Regional Stability

Thursday, December 6, 2007

8:00 AM-8:30 AM Breakfast and Registration

8:30 AM-2:00 PM Presentation and Q&A

2007 was a year of much activity on the peninsula. In early February, the six-party talks resulted in an agreement to de-nuclearize the Korean Peninsula. In October, the Presidents of the two Koreas met for the first time at the second inter-Korean Summit. In addition, South Korea has elections on the horizon, which have the potential to change the political landscape at home and abroad. Please join us for a discussion of these and other pressing issues.

Keynote Speakers:

His Excellency Lee Tae-sik, Ambassador of Korea to the United States

Alex Arvizu, Deputy Assistant Secretary, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, United States Department of State

Session I: After the Summit: Toward Reconciliation?

Charles Armstrong, Professor of History, Columbia University

Victor Cha, Professor of International Relations, Georgetown University

John Park, Director, Korea Working Group, USIP

L. Gordon Flake, Executive Director, The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation (moderator)

Session II: Korea at a Crossroads: Domestic Leadership and Regional Stability

Haeran Lim, Visiting Fellow, The Brookings Institution

Scott Snyder, Senior Associate, International Relations, The Asia Foundation

J.J. Suh, Associate Professor and Director of the Korea Studies Program, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University

Charles Pritchard, President, Korea Economic Institute (moderator)

To be removed from future faxes, contact Peter Stuehmke at (212) 759-7525 ext. 320.

DATE: 12/17/07

CORR. FILE Korea Society

ACTION:

Paul Stape Dennis Gish

Jessee Ann R. Theresa

Security Suzanne

COMMENTS:

SUBJECT FILE

CROSS REFERENCE

STAFF MEMO BY:

INFORMATION COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED

Jessee LePorin

From: Samuel Jamier [samuel.ny@koreasociety.org]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:54 PM
To: jleporin@kmaglobal.com
Subject: 24 Hours After South Korea's Presidential Election: An Assessment

DEC 17 2007

Dear The Hon. Kissinger:

The upcoming presidential election in South Korea on December 19 could mark a critical turning point in U.S.-ROK relations and the ongoing negotiations over North Korea's nuclear programs. At stake are potential realignments in economic, political and military relationships that will have a significant impact on all the countries of the Northeast Asian region, including China and Japan.

The outcome of this pivotal election will be analyzed in an informal discussion led by leading experts on Korea and the region, including Donald P. Gregg and Evans J.R. Revere, the chairman and president of The Korea Society; Don Zagoria, project director, Northeast Asia Projects, National Committee on American Foreign Policy; and Leon Sigal, director, Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project, the Social Science Research Council.

Come join us for this timely event on Thursday, December 20 at 12:00 PM, just 24 hours after the election.

This program is free, but RSVP is required before the end of the business day on
Wednesday, December 19.

Registration, questions or concerns? Contact Samuel Jamier at samuel.ny@koreasociety.org

Tel: 212-759-7525 ext. 358, Fax: 212-759-7530

Page 1 of 3

Shantala DuGay

**Subject:** FW: For Ambassador Roy, From Yeun Suk, Korean Chamber of Commerce
**Attachments:** executive committee members and companies.docx

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

**From:** admin@kocham.org [mailto:admin@kocham.org]
**Sent:** Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:38 PM
**To:** scurran@kmaglobal.com
**Subject:** For Ambassador Roy, From Yeun Suk, Korean Chamber of Commerce

AUG 0 1 2007

Dear Ambassador Roy,

How are you? I wish everything is well for you.

As remember, I am chairman of Korean Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the United
States, Inc, whose office is in Manhattan. Your coming to our executive committee
meeting some years ago was great and very joyful for us. We deeply appreciate it.
KOCHAM is the only national organization of Korean business entities operating in the
United States. KOCHAM represents more than three hundred Korean businesses and
investors, many of which are based in New York and New Jersey. Our executive
committee members come from major Korean companies, including Samsung, Hyundai,
and LG, and Hyosung America, Inc., of which I serve as president.

I am writing this letter to invite Dr. Kissinger as our distinguished luncheon speaker at the executive committee meeting of Tuesday, August 21 or 22 from 12PM through 1:00 or 1:10PM. I expect that around 25 or 28 executive members will attend this luncheon meeting. The purpose of the luncheon meeting with you is to make acquaintance with him and get the information on the Kissinger Associates, Inc. I am sure that the meeting will contribute the relationships between him, Kissinger Associates, Inc and our member companies. He can present any topic, just for example, the prospect for Korean peninsular, the political prospect of China, the US-Korea relations, or the life of Dr. Kissinger or the activities of Kissinger Associates, Inc, whatever for around 20 minutes in a informal and cordial atmosphere.

Our meeting will be held at Korea Society in Manhattan that I think is maybe convenient to him.

Again, please be reminded that his coming will greatly contribute to the relationship between Kissinger Associates, Inc and Korean companies. I am looking forward to getting your positive response ASAP. Please tell me his convenient day for our meeting or his another convenient day. I attached the list of our executive committee members and the names of their companies.

Please enjoy this summer.

8/1/2007

Page 2 of 3

Chairman, Korean Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the U.S.A., Inc

admin@kocham.org Tel. 212-644-0140, Fax. 212-644-9106

460 Park Ave., Suite 410, New York, NY 10022

## Chairman of KOCHAM

Suk, Yeun Ho Hyosung (America), Inc.

## Vice Chairmen

Ahn, Myeong Kyu LG Electronics North American Headquarters

Cho, Yong Heung Woori Bank NY Agency

Kim, Kwan Dong Samsung America, Inc.

Kim, Kye Dong The Korea Development Bank NY Branch

Lee, Hyun Joo Hana Bank NY Agency

Ma, Young Nam Daewoo International (America) Corp.

Nam, Jin Woo Korea International Trade Association, Inc.-NY Headquarters

Oh, Dong Jin Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Oh, Kyu Chul Korean Airlines Co., Ltd.-NY Passenger Sales Office

Pae, Greg Hankook Tire America Corp.

## Directors

Chang, Edward K.H. The Federation of Korean Industries-Washington D.C. Office

Cho, Yong Byoung Shinhan Bank NY Branch

Choi, Jong Weon Hyundai Motor America Corp.-Eastern Region

Chung, Tae Won CJ America, Inc.-NJ Office

Im, Sang Hyun Industrial Bank of Korea NY Branch

Kim, Chang Hyun Korea Express U.S.A., Inc.

Kim, In Hwan Samsung Life Insurance-US Representative Office

Kim, Moon Gie SKC, Inc.

8/1/2007

Page 3 of 3

<table><tr><td>Kim, Sun Ki</td><td>Korea Export Insurance Corporation-NY Representative Office</td></tr><tr><td>Kim, Young Heon</td><td>Asiana Airlines Co., Ltd.-NY Office</td></tr><tr><td>Kong, Joo Shik</td><td>The Export-Import Bank of Korea-NY Representative Office</td></tr><tr><td>Lee, Sang Won</td><td>Kookmin Bank Park Ave. Branch</td></tr><tr><td>Lim, Joong Bin</td><td>Hanwha International Corp.</td></tr><tr><td>Min, Young Soo</td><td>KEB NY Financial Corp.</td></tr><tr><td>Park, Jung Keun</td><td>Korea Electric Power Corp.-NY Office</td></tr><tr><td>Park, Ki Hoon</td><td>Hyundai Merchant Marine America, Inc.-NY Headquarters</td></tr><tr><td>Park, Yong Soon</td><td>Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.-NY Headquarters</td></tr><tr><td>Shin, Yang Soon</td><td>Lotte Trading New York Corp.</td></tr><tr><td>Song, Mal Ho</td><td>Doosan Heavy Industries America, Corp.</td></tr><tr><td>We, Soo Hyeon</td><td>Hyundai-Kia Machine America Corp.-Headquarters</td></tr><tr><td>Yoo, Jongwan</td><td>POSCO America Corp.</td></tr></table>

## Advisors

Chung, Hong Taek
Kim, Young Man
Kim, Yung Duk

## Consultants

<table><tr><td>Chung, Min Ju</td><td>Financial Supervisory Service-NY Representative Office</td></tr><tr><td>Kim, Joo Nam</td><td>Korea Trade Promotion Center-NY Office</td></tr><tr><td>Rhu, Hoo Kyu</td><td>The Bank of Korea-NY Representative Office</td></tr></table>

8/1/2007

Page 1 of 4

Jessee LePorin

stape Roy

Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:30 PM

To: Jessee LePorin

Subject: Info on Koreans Referred to at Dinner with ROK Amb

MAY 23 2007

Jessee, at dinner last night, the names of Sohn Jung Do and Kim Ki-nam were mentioned. Following is some material from the internet about them. Stape

Kim Ki Nam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kim Ki Nam

McCune-Reischauer: Kim Ki-nam

Revised Romanization: Kim Gi-nam

Kim Ki Nam (b. 1926, Wonsan) is a North Korean official. He is vice-chairman of the Committee for Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland, in which capacity he has led numerous visits to the South. He is also Secretary of the Workers' Party, and has served several terms in the Supreme People's Assembly, to which he was first elected in 1977.

February 7, 2007: General Secretary Kim Jong Il gave field guidance to Chongjin University of Mining and Metallurgy. Kim was accompanied by Hong Sok Hyong, chief secretary of the North Hamgyong Provincial Committee of the WPK, Kim Ki Nam, secretary of the C.C., WPK, and Pak Nam Gi, department director of the same. [Kim visit to the university comes a day after the KCNA ran an article about mining and geological prospecting in North Korea, though that article focused on non-ferrous metal ore and coal.]

February 8, 2007: General Secretary Kim Jong Il gave field guidance to the newly built Orangchon Power Station No. 1, the construction site of the Orangchon Dam, and the Jangyonho Fish Farm in North Hamgyong Province. Kim was accompanied by Hong Sok Hyong, chief secretary of the North Hamgyong Provincial Committee of the WPK, Kim Ki Nam, secretary of the C.C., WPK, and Pak Nam Gi, department director of the same. [Kim's visit to the Power station comes as North Korean media focuses on power generation, and as the six party nuclear talks kick off in Beijing, discussing new supplies of heavy fuel oil to North Korea.]

February 8, 2007: General Secretary Kim Jong Il gave field guidance to the Chongjin Primary Seasoning Factory and the newly built Army-People Power Station. Kim was accompanied by Hong Sok Hyong, chief secretary of the North Hamgyong Provincial Committee of the WPK, Kim Ki Nam, secretary of the WPK Central Committee, and Pak Nam Gi, department director of the same.

March 4, 2007: General Secretary Kim Jong Il visited the Chinese embassy in Pyongyang at the invitation of the Chinese ambassador e.p. on the occasion of the Lunar New Year. Kim was accompanied by Secretary of the WPK Central Committee Kim Ki Nam, First Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Kang Sok Ju, First Vice-Department Director of the WPK Central Committee Ri Yong Chol, Councilor of the DPRK National Defence Commission Kim Yang Gon, KPA Generals Kim Jong Gak and Hyon Chol Hae, Col. General Choe Pu Il, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Kim Yong Il and Vice-Department Director of the WPK Central Committee Pak Kyong Son. Kim was greeted by Chinese Ambassador E.P. to the DPRK Liu Xiaoming and leading officials of the embassy on the spot.

5/22/2007

Page 2 of 4

March 7, 2007: General Secretary Kim Jong Il enjoyed the art performance "The Blue Sky over My Country" (Part Dawn.) Also in attendance were Choe Thae Bok, Kim Jung Rin and Kim Ki Nam, secretaries of the Central Committee of the WPK, and other senior officials of the WPK Central Committee and Vice Marshal of the KPA Kim Il Chol, member of the DPRK National Defence Commission and minister of the People's Armed Forces, and other KPA commanding officers, servicepersons and officials in the fields of literature and arts and media.

 UPDATED: 10:35, May 06, 2007

Kim Ki-nam meets with Russian Delegation

Kim Ki-nam, secretary of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK), on Saturday met with a visiting delegation of the Maritime Territorial Regional Committee of the All-Russian Party "United Russia" in Pyongyang, the official news agency reported.

The report didn't release further details about the meeting.

The Russian delegation was headed by Vladimir Kurilov, member of the General Council of the party and secretary of its Maritime Territorial Regional Committee.

Source: Xinhua

Name ??? ?? (2004-10-12 15:41:32, Hit : 247, Vote : 99)

Subject: Sermon at Elder Won Tai Sohn's Funeral

Rev. Heechul Lee

Scripture reading: Book of Revelation, 14:13: Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "write: blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." "Yes" says the spirit, "they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them."

We are all afraid of death. In Korean hotels and hospitals, there is no fourth floor. For the Korean word for four ("Sa") is homonymous with another word "Sa" which also means "Death." We all want to stay away from death.

However, there is a blessed, propitious death. Ordinarily, you can't combine blessing and death at the same time. How can you? Today's scripture reading says that blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. When is a death blessed? All deaths seem unfortunate. Death is unfair. It is scary. But there is a blessed death. That is when you die in the Lord. You die in blessing when you die in the Lord. Let me show you such a blessed death. That is what we have with the late Elder Sohn Won Tai. Blessed is the passing away of Dr. Sohn.

First of all, Elder Sohn lived to be 90 years old. He lived long. Longevity is a blessing from God.

Proverb 4:10 says: Listen my son accept what I say, and the years of your life will be many.

When you listen to the word of God and act in accordance with it, you enjoy a long life. "The length of our days is seventy years or eighty, if we have strength." Dr. Sohn lived to be 90 years old, which is a tremendous blessing.

Ephesians 6:2-3 says: Honor your father which is the first commandment with a promise. That it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.

The Scripture says, when you honor your father and mother you will enjoy a long life on earth. Dr. Sohn honored his father, Rev. Sohn Jung Do, who was a rare patriot. He prayed hard for the independent of the homeland and practiced his patriotism in life. Dr. Sohn inherited such a characteristic. He honored his father's will and enjoyed the blessing of long life. So his death is blessed as his long life was god-given.

Secondly, Elder Sohn lived a righteous life. He worked hard when alive. He was honest with everybody. He always did his best within his belief, knowledge, and faith. He was a physician who helped cure the sick. He lived for the kingdom of heaven when everybody is living a worthy life.

The sound of a bell reverberates. The value of a bell is determined by how long its sound reverberates.

5/22/2007

Page 3 of 4

His life will be reverberating ever more as the time goes by. That is why his death is blessed. His passing away today is the beginning of a long reverberation.

Thirdly, Elder Sohn died in the Lord. He was a son who received Jesus Christ as his savior. When it gets dark, the children playing in the playground go back home to their fathers' house. The Children of God go back home to God's house. The children of the Satan go back home to the Satan's house.

Why is everybody afraid of death? It is because of their sins. We all committed sins. We are afraid of the sin-induced hell. We are anxious. You would not fear death if you could not go to hell. But what if you could go to hell?

Romans 4: 23 says: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

There is no way overcoming fear unless you resolve the problem of sin. And there is only one solution to the problem of sin. That is when some one else exonerates you. Jesus died on the cross on behalf of our sins. Whether you believe or not, he died on the hill of Calvary 2000 years ago. He was sinless but died anyway to redeem us. If you believed this, your sin will be cleared. When you are justified with your sins cleared, you can enter the kingdom of heaven. You are not afraid of death any more. No, death becomes a gateway to heaven. This is what we mean by death in the Lord. All of Elder Sohn's sins have been forgiven as he received Jesus. He is now a citizen of the Kingdom of heaven. That is why blessed are those who die in the Lord.

My dear fellow condolers!

If Elder Sohn were alive today, what do you think he would say to us? I can say it with full assurance:

We have to believe in Jesus Christ. It is heavenly to believe in him. You will never enter into heaven unless your sins are exonerated. This is what he would say to us.

Right now I thank God – thank him for bringing all of us here today. Where are we? We are in the house of God. It is a holy place where holy spirits dwell. The passing away of Elder Sohn has brought all of us here to the house of the Lord. And let us receive the Good News. I truly believe that the hold spirit will guide each of you to the belief in Jesus Christ. You will be redeemed when you believe in him. Just as the death of Jesus cleared our sins, the death of Elder Sohn has led us to the belief in Jesus. That is why his death is a blessing.

Let us pray silently. You may pray in your heart. You shall be redeemed. You shall be the citizens of the kingdom of heaven. Thank you, Jesus. I am a sinner. Thank you for dying on the cross for our sins.

Today I accept and receive you. Halleluja - in the name of Jesus Christ, we prayed. Amen.

## NORTH KOREA: MBC president visits Pyongyang

MBC head will meet with Korean Central News Agency to explore future plans of cooperation

The Korea Times

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Pyongyang -- Choi Mun-soon, president of broadcaster MBC, flew to Pyongyang to discuss cooperation and exchanges with North Korea, according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

Choi was accompanied by Lee Hak-yu, an official of an association to commemorate Sohn Jung-do, who was a pastor at a church in Jilin Province, Northeast China, in the 1920s after serving in the Korean government in exile in Shanghai.

North Korea's late founder Kim Il-sung attended Sohn's church.

An MBC official confirmed Choi visited North Korea to discuss cooperation in broadcasting.

Date Posted: 8/28/2005

2005/4/17

## Veteran manager offers honest business insight

Veteran manager Sohn Myoung-won does not have a high profile in the business publishing sector but when someone with his background finally puts out a book, it is interesting to examine the motive.

Although Sohn has been slow to publicize his business expertise, it seems he has decided to set his

5/22/2007

Page 4 of 4

sights on the field seriously with a Korean-language essay collection titled "Naneun dashi taeonado gyeongyoungja-ro salgo sipda (I want to be a manager even if I'm born again)" (Dasan Book; 320 pages; 11,000 won).

As with other business-related essay collections, the book is full of personal anecdotes, musings and arguments that percolate his private life and corporate path. But what should be noted is that, strictly speaking, Sohn is not an entirely self-made man.

He is the grandson of Rev. Sohn Jung-do, a leading independence fighter who devoted himself to Christianity during the Japanese colonial period, and the eldest son of Sohn Won-il, who was the nation's first Chief of Naval Operations.

Sohn's widely-respected father advised him to become an engineer, and he obliged. Thanks to his father's stint as a diplomat, Sohn attended a high school in Germany and later moved to the United States and majored in engineering.

Now 65, and looking back, the privileges he enjoyed were not insignificant in the eyes of lay people. But his college life was not leisurely. His father stressed the spirit of independence and pushed Sohn to do all sorts of part-time jobs to learn to survive on his own two feet.

Sohn's business career began when, just 33, he left a telecom company in Washington and founded a small enterprise, Sohn Consulting Engineering. He climbed the corporate ladder when he returned to Korea to work for Hyundai Group affiliates such as Hyundai Construction and Engineering Co.

After building up his executive-level expertise, he worked as a top manager for Hyundai Mipo Dockyard, Ssangyong Motor Co. and Maxon. Sohn spent about 30 years as a professional manager, rare in Korea where chief executives tend to have a shorter career span due to various economic and political factors.

Despite his long business experience, Sohn does not provide rules or lessons for young, aspiring executive wannabees to memorize; instead, he constantly resorts to a theme he adopted a long time ago, "Begin with end in mind.""About 15 years ago at a London airport, I bought a book titled '7 habits of highly effective people.' I read it on the plane but couldn't continue after the second chapter because the impression I got was so strong," Sohn recalls.

The second chapter's title was "Begin with end in mind." Inspired by the message, he took every opportunity to preach it in talks with younger managers. And he believed he was doing what's right. But this conviction fell apart in 2002 when Sohn attended a leadership lecture. His assignment was to present what is most important in his life. Initially, he thought he could come up with the answers within 30 minutes at the maximum. But he was unable to write even a single line after an hour.

"I thought I did my best in doing what I was given. But now I realize that I didn't devote my energy after setting long-term and clear objectives. Furthermore, I never thought seriously about my future, which is entering a new phase," Sohn says.

The dilemma was that he always preaches, "Begin with end in mind," but he cannot say whether he follows the message properly.

On the day of the fateful lecture, he mapped out his life again, and set a new goal for himself: sharing his life experiences with others.

So, the essay collection is a result of Sohn's humble realization that a definite goal should be actually set, not preached about. Of course, Sohn is no Jack Welch, and his essays are not about eye-opening rules that may reshape the entire business publishing industry in Korea.

But the book achieves Sohn's newfound vision, and its serene, honest tone helps accentuate his life as a guide to other younger managers.

(insight@heraldm.com)By Yang Sung-jin

5/22/2007

05/18/2007 11:06

NO. 792 0001

MAY 18 2007

EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
AMBASSADOR'S OFFICE

2450 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20008

PHONE: (202) 939-5606

FAX: (202) 232-0117

FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET

TO:
Shantala

FROM:
Jonathon Price

DATE:
05/18/2007

ORGANIZATION:
Korean Embassy

FAX NUMBER:
(212) 759-0042

TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
2

Dear Shantala:

Good afternoon. Attached, please find a formal reminder card for Dr. Kissinger for the dinner Ambassador Lee will be hosting on May 21, 2007. I am also sending a map to the residence. Please feel free to contact me at the above-referenced numbers if you have any questions or need any further information.

MAY 25 2007

BEST WISHES ON YOUR BIRTHDAY,
FROM AMBASSADOR TAE- SIK LEE,
ROK

Madison Avenue Florist.com • (212) 319-0242

teleflora.

Madison Avenue Florist.com

437 Madison Avenue • New York, NY 10022
(212) 319-0242

HONORABLE DR. HENRY KISSINGER
KISSINGER ASSOCIATION
350 PARK AVE. 26TH FLOOR,
NEW YORK, NY 10022
(217) 759-7919
0000053070 Friday May 25, 2007

SEP 21 2007

cc NK

On the occasion of the National Foundation Day
the Permanent Representative of
the Republic of Korea to the United Nations
& Mrs. Kim Hyun Chong
request the honor of the company of

Dr. Henry & Mrs. Nancy Kissinger

at a Reception
on Tuesday, 2 October 2007
From 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Regrets Only
(212) 439-4059

Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea
335 East 45th Street (between 1st & 2nd Avenues)

PERMANENT MISSION
OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
TO THE UNITED NATIONS
335 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017

UNITED STATES POSTAGE

PITNEY BOWES

02 1P $00.41¢
0002340188

SEP 20 2007

MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 10017

Dr. Henry & Mrs. Nancy Kissinger
Chairman
Kissinger Associates Inc.
350 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10022

10022+6045

To bid farewell

REPUBLIC OF KOREA
UNITED NATIONS
The Permanent Representative of
the Republic of Korea to the United Nations
and Mrs. Y.J. Choi

AUG 2 2 2007

at a Reception
on Tuesday, 4 September 2007
From 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Regrets Only
(212) 439-4059

UNITED STATES POSTAGE

PITNEY BOWES

$00.410

02 1P

0002340188

AUG 21 2007

MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 10017

# Writing the Next Chapter of Atlantic History

John C. Kornblum

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

January 3, 2007

page . 10

One doesn't have to read too many newspapers to
understand how difficult life is for governments right now.
Not just in Germany, but throughout the Western world.
The road ahead to the new world order prophesied by
George Bush senior has become a pock-marked rocky trail
of surprises and disasters.

The result of the dramatic changes of recent years has
been a loss of our common historical memory. Our peoples
understand less and less why the Atlantic world came
together in the first place. Appreciation for the great
achievements of the past sixty years is declining rapidly.
Belief that the Western world can deal successfully with
the future is virtually non-existent.

This drastic drop in public confidence. makes our leaders
even more confused. They are doing exactly what they
have been trained to do. They are trying to please their
voters. They are giving the public what they the politicians
believe the voters want to hear. Neither government nor
industry should wish these trends in the direction of voter
frustration and weak government to continue. It is time to
take command of events and risk a great leap forward.

There are examples from the recent past which illustrate
how a spark of political creativity can change the course of
history. What is impressive about these successes is their
simplify Dramatic ideas succeed best when they go back
to basic principles and use them as a framework for
turning history on its axis to move events in a totally new
direction.

For example, following World War II, Europe was in a state of destruction and despair. It needed a signal of future directions. Western democracies went back to the foundations of Western society and proposed a European community based on freedom and democracy. Visionaries such as Truman and Marshall, Churchill and Schumann and Adenauer turned these visions into reality. The rest is history.

In the 1960's, Western Cold War strategy had run – literally – against a wall. The world was becoming impatient with the East-West stand-off. It took a man from Lübeck and an émigré from Fürth – Brandt and Kissing to understand that Western strength combined with the principles openness and dialogue could open the Communist world.

The end of the Cold War essentially made obsolete the idea of a two-pillar West facing a line of division through Europe. Returning to first principles could again be an impetus to break out of the cold war framework and redefine Western unity in a dynamic new way,

A dramatic way to redefine deepened Western unity could begin, as it did 50 years ago, with a commitment to build a closer economic and trade arrangement across the Atlantic. Such proposal already exists. It has been on the agenda for several years. This is the vision of a Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Area – TAFTA for short.

This is a good idea. But before beginning a debate, it is important to understand what such a proposal should actually be. A TAFTA initiative should not be a vehicle for negotiating proposals or detailed trade arrangements as some German politicians seem to fear

The role of a TAFTA proposal would be to take us back to first principles. It should remind us why the current phase of Atlantic history was begun at all and why it has been so successful. By committing Atlantic nations to harmonize their approach to the next chapter of Atlantic history, the TAFTA could break through the petty disputes which continue to result from the growing uncertainty about the future on both sides of the Atlantic., and would help us remember who we are and why we came together in the first place

A key to success would be the commitment to negotiate. Our files are filled with Atlantic declarations, most of which were forgotten the day they were signed. The European process succeeded because it contained a concrete commitment to action.

Opponents of a TAFTA have traditionally concentrated on the difficulty in achieving most of its goals in the short term. Others argue that agreement on a new trans-Atlantic trade grouping now would send the wrong signal to the rest of the world. It would seem to be creating a fortress Atlantic trying to block competition from newly emerging powers.

A TAFTA wouldn't project an Atlantic fortress against others. Nor should it require that others follow our vision exactly. Rather, a successful TAFTA would be one which used the unity of the West to overcome the difficult challenges which have divided Americans from Americans and Europeans from Europeans and have also hurt cooperation across the Atlantic.

Just as the European economic community was not primarily about economic and NATO not just about defense, so too would a TAFTA be about much more than trade. A common effort to formalize the growing integration across the Atlantic would send a message to

Ein neues Kapitel der transatlantischen
Geschichte

John C. Kornblum

Frankfurter Allgemein Zeitung

3. Januar, 2007

Seite 10

Man muss nicht allzu intensiv in Zeitungen suchen, um
den Eindruck zu bekommen, dass Regierungen es dieser
Tage nicht leicht haben. Nicht nur in Deutschland,
sondern in der gesamten westlichen Welt. Der Weg in eine
neue Weltordnung hat sich als ein holpriger und steiniger
Weg, mit einer Unzahl von Überraschungen und
Katastrophen, erwiesen.

Die Folge der dramatischen Veränderungen in den letzten
Jahren ist der Verlust unseres gemeinsamen historischen
Bewusstseins. Mehr und mehr Menschen fragen sich
heute, ob die atlantische Welt eigentlich tatsächlich eine
Gemeinschaft darstellt, die Anerkennung der Leistungen
der vergangenen 60 Jahre schwindet. Der Glaube daran,
dass der Westen heute erfolgreich auf die
Herausforderungen, die die Zukunft an uns stellt reagieren
könnte, ist faktisch nicht mehr existent.

Ein drastischer Niedergang an Wählervertrauen trägt zu
weiterer Unsicherheit bei Regierungen bei. Und
Regierungen handeln, wie sie es in der Regel tun, in dem
sie den Wähler so weit irgend möglich versuchen zu
befriedigen. Die Politik gibt der Öffentlichkeit ergo was sie
hören will.

2

Weder die Wirtschaft noch die Politik kann letztendlich ein Interesse daran haben, dass sich ein solcher Trend fortsetzt. Es ist an der Zeit, das Heft des Handelns wieder in die Hand zu nehmen und einen großen Schritt nach vorne zu wagen.

Es lassen sich tatsächlich auch Beispiele in der jüngeren Vergangenheit finden, die uns deutlich vor Augen führen, wie politisch kreatives Denken und Handeln den Lauf der Geschichte verändern kann. Das beeindruckende dieser Erfolge ist ihre Einfachheit. Ein Garant für den Erfolg radikaler neuer Ideen liegt oft in ihnen zugrundeliegenden Grundprinzipien, die die Rahmenbedingungen darstellen, dem Lauf der Geschichte eine neue Richtung zu geben.

Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg beispielsweise, befand sich Europa in einem Zustand der Zerstörung und der Verzweiflung. Was fehlte war ein Zeichen, dass auf eine Zukunft, eine gute Zukunft, deutete. Die westlichen Demokratien initiierten die Bildung einer europäischen Gemeinschaft, basierend auf den Werten von Frieden und Freiheit. Visionäre, wie Truman und Marshall, Churchill, Schumann und Adenauer setzten in der Folge diese Ideen um. Der Rest ist in der Tat Geschichte.

In den 60er Jahren war die Strategie, die dem Kalten Krieg zugrunde lag, im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes an die Wand gefahren. Die Welt wurde angesichts des Ost-West-Konfliktes und dessen scheinbarer Unlösbarkeit zunehmend unsicher. Es bedurfte der Visionen eines Mannes aus Lübeck und eines aus Fürth – Brandt und Kissinger – um zu verstehen, dass die Grundsätze des Westens, Stärke und Offenheit der Weg sind, die kommunistische Welt zu öffnen.

Seite 2 von 5

3

Das Ende des Kalten Krieges macht die Vorstellung eines sich auf zwei Pfeilern befindlichen Westens obsolet. Die Revitalisierung gemeinsamer Werte und Normen könnte der Ausschlag gebende Faktor sein, aus dem Korsett des Systems des Kalten Krieges auszubrechen und die westliche Staatengemeinschaft dynamisch und neu zu definieren.

Ein einschneidender Schritt wäre beispielsweise ein Bekenntnis, ähnlich wie dem vor 50 Jahren, die Wirtschafts- und Handelsbeziehungen quer über den Atlantik als Fundament der Einheit zu konzipieren. Ein solches Konzept existiert zudem bereits. Die Vision ist in der Bildung einer Trans-Atlantic-Free-Trade-Area verankert—kurz TAFTA.

Ich halte dieses Konzept für gut. Aber bevor man in eine Diskussion einsteigt, ist es notwendig zu verstehen, worum es sich eigentlich handelt. Eine TAFTA-Initiative ist nicht, und sollte nicht sein, eine Vehikel Handelsbeziehungen zu definieren, ebenso wenig wie ein detaillierter Plan den internationalen Handel zu regulieren, wie einige deutsche Politiker befürchten..

Die Bildung der TAFTA würde uns zu unseren Grundpfeilern zurück bringen. Es erinnerte uns daran, wie wir tatsächlich an dem Punkt der transatlantischen Geschichte angelangt sind, an dem wir uns gegenwärtig befinden und gibt uns das Bewusstsein unserer gemeinsamen Ursprünge unsere Erfolge zurück.

Seite 3 von 5

4

In dem wir uns verpflichten, unsere gemeinsamen Anstrengungen innerhalb der atlantischen Gemeinschaft zu harmonisieren schlagen wir eine neues Kapitel transatlantischer Beziehungen auf. Die TAFTA würde hier als Grundlage fungieren, unsere oft kleinlichen Auseinandersetzungen zu überwindem die ihren Ursprung in der Wirkungslosigkeit von sich ausschließlich auf unsere Vergangenheit stützenden Vorstellungen haben.

Der Schlüssel zum Erfolg wäre die Verpflichtung zum Handeln. In unseren Archiven lassen sich unzählige gemeinsame Absichtserklärungen transatlantischer Zusammenarbeit finden, die meist am Tage der Unterzeichnung bereits wieder vergessen wurden. Die Europäische Einigung war nur deswegen ein Erfolg, weil er ein bindende Verpflichtung zum Handeln darstellte.

Gegner der TAFTA fokussieren ihre Kritik auf den Umstand, dass viele Ziele einer solchen Gemeinschaft kurzfristig nicht umsetzbar seien. Andere wiederum argumentieren, dass mit einer neuen, größeren transatlantischen Gemeinschaft ein falsches Signal an den Rest der Welt gegeben würde; dass so möglicherweise eine Art Schutzwall um die atlantische Welt gebildet würde, um aufstrebenden Nationen den Wettbewerb zu erschweren.

Die TAFTA ist nicht ein Instrument der Abschottung, ebenso wenig wie eine Aufforderung an Andere unserer Richtung zu folgen. Im Gegenteil ist sie eine langfristige Verpflichtung der westlichen Welt den Herausforderungen, die derzeit Europäer und Amerikaner, gegeneinander und untereinander zum Schaden aller auseinander dividieren, zu begegnen.

Seite 4 von 5

5

Ebenso wie die europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft nicht primär Regelung der Wirtschaft, die NATO nicht in erster Linie die Organisation Verteidigung im Visier hatte, ist die TAFTA weit mehr als eine Handelszone. Eine gemeinsame Aufgabe, die dem Rest der Welt ein Zeichen setzt, ein Zeichen, dass die Bereitschaft sich gemeinsam und offen den Veränderungen zu stellen und unsere Zeile gemeinsam zum Wohle aller umzusetzen.

aus dem Englischen von Sabine Bresser

Seite 5 von 5

Page 1 of 2

Jessee LePorin

From: Stape Roy [jsroy@kmaglobal.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:55 AM
To: Jessee LePorin
Cc: Ann Rastl
Subject: Fw: Writing on Europe and America
Attachments: Böll Stiftung III, 09.11.07.doc; Handelsblatt Limits of Power 290507.doc

NOV 19 2007

Jessee, this was addressed to Rebecca, which shows ambassador Kornblum is a bit out of date. Still, the missive should go to HAK, who has great respect for Kornblum's views. Thanks.

Stape

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: "john.kornblum@lazard.com" <john.kornblum@lazard.com>
To: rjordan@kmaglobal.com
Cc: jsroy@kmaglobal.com
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:38:27 AM
Subject: Writing on Europe and America

(See attached file: Böll Stiftung III, 09.11.07.doc)

Henry: It was as always a great pleasure to listen and talk with you last week-end. This is such dynamic time that hearing your analysis is more than important. As you suggeted, we see things very much the same way. We are in a period of desconstruction. Old structures of weaking, and good solid diplomacy is more important than ever. Unfortunately, that is the one qualntity which is much in short supply at the moment.

I enclose two pieces. One appeared int eh Handelsblatt as a scene-setter for the G-8 summit. The other will appear in December in a series published by the Böll Stuftung, which is the Green Party foundation. Hope you find them interesting. Warmest regards. John

(See attached file: Handelsblatt Limits of Power 290507.doc)

Lazard & Co. GmbH
Neue Mainzer Strasse 69-75
60311 Frankfurt am Main

11/16/2007

Learning to Remember

John C. Kornblum

Let's be honest. If they had been given the choice, most Europeans and Americans would probably not have put together the complex web of institutions which makes up our current Atlantic world. There is growing nostalgia for the days when Europeans lived more openly together in the loose empires of the 19th century.

Many Americans would have similar feelings, only from a different point of view. In America, the years before 1914 have become a symbol of innocence and purity. This was a time when America could be itself without the responsibilities of leadership. Many ideas coming from the Bush Administration reflect this nostalgia.

But there is more to this look backwards than mere romantic dreams. Eighteen years after the end of the Cold War, Europeans and Americans are slowly beginning to notice how much they have forgotten about how nations lived with other in the absence of war and division.

For nearly four hundred years the European world had developed steadily, if often unevenly, on both sides of the Atlantic. By 1900 there was already an integrated trans-Atlantic structure of human, cultural, political and economic cooperation. The Atlantic community that existed before 1914 projected a more natural identity with more human appeal than the many treaties and committees which hold us together today.

This is not to say that things were better 100 years ago. But this organic community offered a greater sense of responsibility and identity which helped people deal with the troubles they faced. It is this sense of identity which is missing from our partnership today. This is one of the

reasons Europe and America have found it so difficult to
fashion joint visions for the future.

But this first Atlantic community also carried the seeds of
its own destruction. Its leaders were too slow to react to
the upheavals of the industrial revolution. Our Atlantic
system could not survive the resulting social and military
conflict.

By 1945 new totalitarian systems had ripped societies
apart and had visited untold misery on the peoples of
Europe. The Atlantic bridge no longer existed. The peoples
of Europe were isolated in their desolation and were
destined to remain divided among themselves for the next
45 years.

The break with the past was in fact so total that Europeans
and Americans soon began to forget what it had been like
to live in the more organic communities of the 18th and
19th centuries. Milan Kundera once called this loss of
historical memory "The Unbearable Lightness of Being."

Here is the irony of today's Atlantic world. Rather than
helping to growi together, our many institutions are
pushing us apart. Our strict treaty-based communities
have built a sort of emotion-free stability but have given
neither Americans nor Europeans an understanding of
why they came together in the first place.

Our only enduring vision remains a negative look
backwards. Both Europeans and Americans still fear the
explosive nature of Europe's rich mixture of peoples. The
core of Atlantic cooperation is mutual determination to
avoid replaying a disastrous past. The normal give and
take of life has been replaced by endless haggling over
milk quotas and NATO communiqués. Even such an
important innovation as the Euro was sold not as a tool for
unity, but as a guarantee that Europe would never

2

experience another war. Our current system was hastily organized to prevent war. It was never suited to building a deeper sense of identity.

John F. Kennedy gave vision to this formalistic Atlantic world in 1962 with his proposal for a two-pillar Alliance resting on the equality of Europe and the United States. What looked at first like a grand leap forward, was in reality a backward step. Europe could regain its self respect only by defining itself separately from the United States. **Not** being like America is still one of one of the strongest of European motivations.

Flawed as it might have been, the post-war system made it possible for both the United States and the Europeans to build an Alliance against the Soviet threat. Unfortunately, when the Cold War was over, the two sides of the Atlantic began to notice that they had been seeing the world from dramatically different points of view. When we today wonder why Europe and America so often follow different visions of the future, it is important to remember how much common identity was lost during the past 100 years.

The loss of historical memory has been especially damaging to Europe. Post war Europeans were taught that only through living the multilateral, consensus-oriented ideals of the Rome Treaty could they one day again revive the greatness of the past. Europeans began to style themselves as the "new peace power." The important concepts of self-reliance, patriotism and sacrifice were defined as dangerous tendencies which had gotten Europe into trouble to begin with. Modern technology, free markets and national defense were lumped together as being contrary to the new European morality.

As a result, the United States became both the guarantor of world order and the repository of the bad traits which were being exorcised from the European soul. And it has

3

become increasingly difficult for the Americans to strike the right balance between the two. It is fascinating to note that the only recent President more criticized than the warlike George Bush was the pacifist Jimmy Carter

These differences first came to a head during the Viet Nam era and later during the dramatic confrontation over the NATO dual track decision in the early 1980's. By the early years of the 21st century, the die had been cast. America was becoming increasingly restless in as the leader of a multilateral structure which seemed to be heading nowhere. Europeans were unnerved by post Cold War uncertainties and held even more tightly to their structured world. A deep trans-Atlantic conflict was virtually inevitable.

Unaccustomed to the burden of world leadership, the United States is finding it easy to blame the Europeans for military weakness and political timidity. Many Europeans use the more rambunctious American society as a perfect foil for their efforts to build a new peaceful European identity which can retreat from the realities of an increasingly difficult post Cold War world. They often define their fears by referring to "amerikanische Verhältnise".

As a result, both the United States and the Europeans are becoming increasingly provincial. Both sides of the Atlantic need positive dialogue with each other. Instead, we spend our time defining differences among ourselves.

Absent the historical understanding of why we are important to each other, we are dangerously ill prepared to deal with the challenges of a new era. Rather than defining a new role in a multi-polar world, the West is occupied more with fighting the past.

4

Luckily it is the rest of the world which is likely to save the Atlantic nations from themselves. They will have none of our multilateral world order which was designed by Westerners for Westerners. They find it hard to comprehend the petty debates which shoot back and forth across the Atlantic. Instead they are demanding a sort of open-sourced international order which will focus more on concrete agendas than on Western neuroses about their own past. And they are working hard to make it happen.

As we get down to the business of actually dealing with issues of survival in a new Millennium, the Atlantic nations will be forced to abandon outdated visions of the post-war world just as they long ago forgot what it was like to live in the integrated world of the 19th century. Slowly, they will start to become "normal" again.

None of this will come easily, but some leaders are starting to chart a new vision of the future. Interestingly enough, two of the most farsighted are Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy. Both are outsiders in the European power structure. Maybe they see things that others don't.

5

# Limits of Power

*Our concept of Global Management no longer Satisfies the needs of a Globalized World*

John C. Kornblum

Handelsblatt

May 29, 2007, page 9

Boris Yeltsin's recent death coincided with a watershed of sorts in the history of the post-cold war world. His passing came almost exactly ten years after hopes for traditional multilateral cooperation reached their peak with Russia's entry into the club of the world's leading nations at the Denver summit in 1997.

Yeltsin was welcomed warmly by host Bill Clinton in recognition of his dedication to the integration of a newly democratic Russia into the group of leading industrial nations. Economic officials such as Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin had at first argued that Russia was not ready to participate in management of Western economies. Others argued that Russian membership was essential to ensure success of the G-7's growing political role. In the end, Russia got a sort of split membership, and was not admitted to the economic discussions.

Despite this limitation, the spirit of the 1997 gathering was confident and hopeful. Great Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair presented his vision of the "Third Way," which was intended to combine the power of markets with social consciousness. With the Balkan conflict heading towards solution, the new economy boom just picking up speed, and

the Russian financial meltdown a year off, the leaders who gathered in Denver that year we convinced that the G7/8 countries would become the global coordinators of worldwide economic policy in the 21st century.

The contrast between the optimism of the Denver meeting and the tense atmosphere which proceeds this year's Heiligendamm summit couldn't be greater. It demonstrates how premature the expectations of ten years ago turned out to be.

After the crises which followed 9/11, Iraq and the war on terrorism, and in light of the challenges all of us are facing with climate change, some commentators have even started to wonder whether the G-7/8 has lost its reason to exist. Where are China, India and Brazil? How can this group of representatives of the Old Economy seriously believe that they can objectively represent the interests of the many new players in a globalized economy? Thousands of demonstrators from all over the world seem still to believe that the G 7/8 wields real power, but their goal is to destroy whatever influence might be left. . They have turned Heiligendamm into an armed fortress.

Only five years ago, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer declared that anchoring multilateralism in their foreign policies was one of the most important goals of European and German diplomats. But the faster globalization spreads to the far corners of the earth, the harder it is to fit countries and issues into neat organizational boxes. Neither ambitious entrepreneurs nor disgruntled nationalist dissidents feel it necessary to accept the authority of "the world's leading nations," the United Nations or anyone else.

2

Why have our carefully laid plans for an orderly multilateral
management of the new era fared so badly? Are we the
victims of our own success? The forces let loose by
technological change and by the end of the Cold War appear
to have made highly organized hierarchical structures
increasingly unworkable, both in government and the
private sector. .

"We are entering an age of irrationality," argues Francois-Henri Pinault, CEO of France's PPR Group." We are at the beginning of a social trend and a change in values which will go on for years — after all the age of rationality lasted for more than a century."

For example, the Kyoto Protocol was designed to be a
rational means of dealing with the challenges of climate
change. Unfortunately, it neglected to provide a role for the
billions of persons whose existence depends on the
production of greenhouse gases.

Our highly structured concept of global management is too
slow to satisfy the new sense of urgency spreading among
the world's populations. Old hierarchies cannot make room
for new, ambitious players. In a way, George Bush's
"coalitions of the willing" in Iraq and the anti-EU voters in
France and the Netherlands are part of the same
phenomenon

Henry Kissinger has often pointed out that when new
international players enter the scene, the old order will start
to crumble. This was certainly the case when the United
States, Germany and Russia pushed their way into the club
of leading industrial powers in the late 19th century. It
happened again after World War II in the wake of
decolonization.

3

We are again leaving an era characterized by a stable, but inflexible world order and entering an era of growing pluralism and transparency, accentuated by unsettling change. Rather than controlling events, both governments and corporations are likely to find themselves scrambling to keep up with developments which can no longer be managed rationally. They will be obliged to abandon old structures and ways of thinking. They must learn to find new paths in the search for solutions.

Pinault's prediction that we are entering "an age of irrationality" highlights the biggest challenge arising from these trends. Democracy and rule of law replaced autocratic societies in the 19th century. Today's multilateral organizations reflect the post World War II conviction in Europe and the United States that a "structured" series of institutions should be established to guide the postwar world.

Motivated by a combination of Woodrow Wilson's American idealism and European state theory, postwar statesmen believed that Europe and America should create a binding democratic world order as the only means of overcoming the aggression and nationalism of the past. Thus, the UN, the Bretton Woods system of global economic management, NATO and of course the European Union.

The rules of the game for this system were based not only on the values of the leading industrial nations, but also on their political and economic goals. The discipline of the Cold War made it possible for them to maintain these rules as the basis for international cooperation. But the end of the Cold War led to a new, more diffuse situation.

4

With the expansion of the EU and NATO, for example, our
Atlantic world has not only become significantly larger, it
has also become an ever deepening network of societies who
are committed to common democratic principles, but who do
not necessarily pursue identical goals. As our Cold War
model recedes into the past, even European commentators
are resurrecting more indirect models of governance such as
the Hanseatic League...

These are revolutionary thoughts, especially for Europeans
and Americans. Political and psychological recovery of the
Western world from the depressions and wars of the 20th
century was predicated on structures of multilateral
cooperation. They helped Europe overcome nationalism.
For America they meant the end of isolation. They also
provided a means of establishing Western leadership over
the economic and security management of the entire world.

Thus it is no wonder that Western members of the G-7 were
so happy to welcome Boris Yeltsin into “their club” ten years
ago. He signified Russian acceptance of Western rules of the
game.

In 2007 his successor is confusing all of us by clearly being
unwilling to play by our rules. So are several new members of
the EU and much of the non-Western world. These trends
do not mean that institutions will or should disappear or that
traditional multilateral cooperation is no longer practical.
But it does mean that a new set of values and structures will
emerge.

Future international cooperation will be based on constantly
changing alliances rather than from the firm structures of
one or more organizations. Industrial corporations and
financial institutions will play a more important role in

5

helping governments to build consensus around workable
solutions. Market-based solutions will increasingly be
substituted for treaties or new organizations. A new type of
global corporate citizenship is likely to emerge, through
which the tools of production and capital can be applied to
pressing political and social issues through methods based
on profit and loss rather than government programs.

An excellent example of new methods of cooperation is
Chancellor Merkels trans-Atlantic market place initiative. It
includes a wide group of Atlantic nations in a cooperative
process between government and business. It establishes no
hierarchies, other than the priority of concrete agendas.

Its implementation will draw on various methods. There
will be both formal agreements and informal declarations
and understandings. . But there will be few entry
requirements and no impermeable walls or barriers between
participants and non-participants.

Since the results will be based on outcomes rather than
bureaucratic structures, they can be "open sourced" as they
say in the software business.. Such open-sourced networks
are likely to form the foundation for the next phase of post
Cold War history.

As these new methods redeveloped, it will be especially
important not to lose sight of the values on which they
should continue to be based. If freedom and democracy are
to be maintained as the foundation for the future, must
global behavior be guided by the principles of the UN
Charter. Achievement of this goal should become the new
common foundation of the Atlantic world. Openness and
pragmatism, yes. But guided be a firm commitment to our
democratic values

6

JUN 05 2007

After February 10, 2007

Tom and Ann Korologos

3150 South Street N.W. Apt. 2A
Washington, D.C. 20007
(Office) 202-364 4528
Assistant - Sarah Agnew

Ski Season and Summer Months

0390 Sopris Mountain Ranch Road
Basalt, Colorado 81621

E Mail: Tom: tk@korologos.net
Ann: ak@korologos.net

March 28, 2007

Live Blogging - Should I Be Getting Afraid, Very Afraid

It's not that I'm a newbie at live blogging. Under my belt as a live blogger are the landmark four-month Rhode Island lead paint trial, an ethics hearing, a business trip to Florida, and some non-noteworthy conferences. *But*, as Shel Israel, co-author of "Naked Conversations," points out on his *blog* someone or some several can take the content of our live-blogging too seriously and/or not agree and/or aggressively not agree. So, I'm getting weak in the fingertips about live-blogging from 5:15 P.M. to after the speaker's address which starts at 7:15 P.M. at the *Fairfield County Public Relations Association* Annual Dinner on April 18th.

The who's of public relations in the Manhattan Metro area will be there. Yes, it's being held in Fairfield County, CT at the DoubleTree Hotel in Norwalk. However, the guest speaker is *Robert L. Dilenschneider*, a legend in public affairs. That means a lot more than the usual suspects from Greenwich, Stamford, and Darien will be there.

See, Bob Dilenschneider morphed from being a smart public relations representative to his current global role as coach to chief executive officers and other leaders. Full Disclosure: Bob is sometimes my client and that's just the beginning of my angst.

Immediately following the agita about live-blogging a client's address is the content of that address. It's breakthrough.

Way back in the late 1980s, when power was still in the closet, Bob Dilenschneider published a book outing that it existed and here's how you can get and keep it. On April 18th he's returning to the subject but outing that what he said in that book is no longer true. Technology, my pretty, has changed just about everything about power - who has access to it (as we ragtag bloggers know who are taking on the elite media), who's losing it, who's losing it and getting it back, who's losing it and not getting it back, and why it's a professional must-have, not a great-to-have, in the 21st century.

All that Bob has penned, sort of like Martin Luther with his points that he nailed to the church door, in his new book "Power and Influence: The Rules Have Changed." It's being published by McGraw Hill and will be out this August (can pre-order from Amazon.com.)

Well, that content is complex and complexity is hard to understand and deconstruct in real time. I worry: Will I get it right? Will THE NEW YORK TIMES reporter who isn't live-blogging get it better than I did? And will Bob and all those PR Bigfoots in attendance return home to their laptops, shake their heads as they read my posts and say, no, that isn't it at all.

My third excuse for being Lizzy in a Tizzy about this is the long time span. Oh, I have plenty of things to cover - e.g. What's happening in the PR scene in Fairfield County vs Manhattan? Is a Manhattan trophy address an anachronism or still useful? Will the PR market hold up if there's a recession when it sure didn't during the 2001 global downturn?

However, there's the possibility those I want to interview will clam up because of the lack of control they have over this medium. So, will I have to resort to that lame commentary sports folks engage in to fill dead air if a game is delayed? Should I come prepared with stock material about trends in PR, the number of Fortune 500 based in Fairfield County and how the boundaries between PR and marketing communications are blurring? Of course, I'm already stockpiling that material.

Aside from all that interior drama, I guess I'm excited about this first for a Fairfield County gala event like this one on the 18th of April. And all writers are narcissists so who wouldn't love this opportunity to show off: Look folks I'm putting this out there live.

Those who want to attend should contact Edward Block at 203-227-4920, edbloch@optonline.net. Those who want to read what I post need to check out not only this blog but also my law one (copyright will be an issue) and the writingonly.com one.