The New York Times

Henry A. Kissinger as he spoke before business seminar at the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington yesterday. His critical remarks brought a sharp reply from Donald M. Kendall, the chairman of Pepsico.

Leonard Silk

Kissinger Assails Businesses And Draws a Counterattack

As the Marxists see it, business and government in capitalist countries work in close harmony with business calling the tune. But that is not the way Henry A. Kissinger sees it; based on his experience as Secretary of State,

“Business has no perception of its long-range interests,” Mr. Kissinger told a group of high-level business executives meeting here today in a seminar staged by Georgetown University's Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mr. Kissinger has become a professor at Georgetown. He accused business of being extremely shortsighted and contradictory in its attitudes toward government. “When a business gets into deep trouble abroad,” he said, “it sends its lobbyists around.” He charged that businessmen were always looking for solutions that would pay off rapidly. Labor, he added, was “far more intelligent.”

Mr. Kissinger asserted that business

did not understand how to influence the long-term political environment in which it must operate. “Usually,” he said, “I saw business when it was already so far behind the power curve there was nothing to do.”

Apparently enjoying his freedom as a private citizen to speak out candidly and critically, Mr. Kissinger chided business for thinking it was “smart politics” to placate a host government and not to ask for help from its own government until it was already deeply in trouble.

But then, when the United States Government came to business's rescue, Mr. Kissinger said, and the host government responded to official pressures, the businessman characteristically “took the first windfall and ran.” Mr. Kissinger said that businessmen were usually concerned only with the “limited issue of compensation.”

When the United States Government

Continued on Page 41, Column 1

Continued From Lead Financial Page

remonstrated with business, said the former Secretary of State, the business executive would often shout, “free enterprise”—and tell the Government official, “it’s none of your business.”

Mr. Kissinger feels that business is so shortsighted, even on such fundamental issues as the law of the sea, as to “work against its own interests.”

However, his sharp criticism of business did not go unanswered. Donald M. Kendall, chairman of Pepsico Inc., noted that the former Secretary of State had, in an address the preceding night, qualified his competence on economic matters. Mr. Kendall said that he had now demonstrated that his ability to discuss international business relations should also be qualified.

The Pepsico chief said that he himself had been involved in negotiations with the Soviet Union since 1969, while Government officials had come and gone, with frequent changes in perspectives and policies.

Mr. Kendall objected to Mr. Kissinger's lumping together all sorts of businesses in their dealings abroad. “Companies,” he said, “never have a common view.”

Nathaniel Samuels, chairman of the Louis Dreyfus Holding Company, a director of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and a former Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, also disagreed with Mr. Kissinger. “The question of business-government relations,” Mr.

Samuels said, “is not which is at fault— but what is deficient on both sides.”

The reason business does not come in soon enough to discuss developments with government officials, he held, is that this would often be “an invitation to trouble.”

“You stay away as long as you can,” he added.

Mr. Samuels said there was frequently a lack of perception by government of its role.” He implied a frequent tendency on the part of government officials to overstep their proper limits, failing to recognize the urgency and complexity of many business problems that business itself could best handle.

Mr. Samuels also criticized government for its failure to deal wisely, and bargain sensibly, with businessmen who came to seek special help from government.

Businesses these days, he said, are often seeking help on tradet—through “voluntary” quota agreements with foreign governments, provisions for “orderly” marketing by foreign competitors, and other forms of “subtle beggar-my-neighbor” actions. This, he added, had already happened in steel, shoes and textiles, and might happen in many other industries.

When the United States Government agrees to lend its help under the pressure of economic and political conditions, Mr. Samuels said, it should ask the businesses concerned what they will do to deal with their basic problems, lest there be too serious a devia-

tion by this country from liberal trade principles.

“How will business make itself competitive? Or will it phase out an uncompetitive activity?” Mr. Samuels asked. “Government does not ask these questions.”

Responding to the countercriticism by the businessmen present at the seminar, Mr. Kissinger said, “I’m so intimidated.”

“That’ll be the day,” said the seminar’s chairman, Anne Armstrong, former Ambassador to Britain.

Indeed, Mr. Kissinger appears to have carried his authority and high office with him into the private sector. Two of his current aides who were present —Peter Rodman and Jock Covey— were identified on the program as representing “the Office of Henry A. Kissinger.”

[10]

NUTS 6 30/77

Vance vs
Kissinger

By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.

The internationalist set is so greatly addicted to cliches, it is incapable of getting out of their way even when loosened on a collision course. It is, for instance, impossible to attend a half-hour's speech at any certified meeting of internationalists in which the theme of interdependence is not struck. I am even surprised that nobody has composed an international anthem to interdependence, to be sung at opening meetings of the UN or wherever.

But during the same half-hour we also hear about the doctrine of non-interference, about the sacred right of people to run their own affairs. Last week Secretary of State Vance made this point as emphatically as he has made any declaration since plighting his troth to his spouse: the United States is not going to interfere in any way in the forthcoming European elections.

But the forthcoming European elections are probably going to determine the fate of Europe. And the fate of Europe, not improbably — in an interdependent world — will determine the fate of the U.S.

Henry Kissinger will have none of this synthetic detachment, and there are those who rejoice at his reentering the public scene in this mood. The same week that Secretary of State Vance spoke, Henry Kissinger in a speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington predicted that executive leverage by the Communists in the nations of Western Europe would have disastrous consequences for the Western alliance.

The speech is wonderfully worthwhile. Kissinger appears here in his role as the historian-advocate. His long memory turns up declarations of independence from Moscow by European Communist parties dating back a generation. In 1945, the East German Communists solemnly promised that, in power, they would provide "a parliamentary democratic republic with full democratic rights and liberties." That phrase is a code-word for a Soviet puppet with concentration-camp authority to deal with the dissenters.

The head of the French Communist Party, Georges Marchais, who has an act he will travel to any modern-sized European city to perform these days, wherein he bumps and grinds his way to the affections of socialist-nationalists, is not afraid to say, as he recently did, that Bulgaria, East Germany, and Poland are countries enjoying a "realistic" party system. He has gone President Ford, who listed only Poland as independent, two better.

The fact of it is that the Communists in France—like George Marchais—continue to see themselves in league with great historical forces led by the Soviet Union. The indifference of Marchais and his counterpart in Italy, Berlinguer, to political freedom or human rights in the satellite countries is always the fest.

If Marchais and Berlinguer were to suspend their realizations with the Soviet Union until the satellite countries were permitted free elections, one might then accept their professions as serious. Until then? I quote Kissinger: "we are entitled to certain skepticism about the sincerity of declarations of independence which coincide so precisely with electoral self-interest. One need not be a cynic to wonder at the decision of the French Communists to renounce the Soviet concept of dictatorship of the proletariat without a single dissenting vote among 1700 delegates, as they did at their party congress in February, 1976, when all previous party congresses had endorsed the same dictatorship of the proletariat by a similar unanimous vote of 1700 to nothing."

Obviously the U.S. should declare that the very concept of Interdependence commits us to back the anti-Soviet parties. In what form? At least negatively. Kissinger recommends that our leaders refrain from "obstinations or opposition or consultation with Communist leaders," which give the impression that we are reconciled to Communist victory.

What to do affirmatively? There is — a role here for American business to play — investment in France is as prudent at this moment as it was in the spring of 1939. After March, 1978, the municipal elections behind France, the situation might be different. Why should not the U.S.I.A. in its broadcasts devote itself to reiterating the warnings, for instance, of such Frenchmen as Jean Francois Revel, or Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber?

The "right" of a people to form their own institutions and elect their own leaders is not a right that can be prescinded from the world situation. To say that a people have the power to commit their own self-destruction is simply not the same thing as to say they have the right to do it. The words of Secretary Vance, while taken out of the pages of diplomatic boilerplate, are the words of a government far gone in the rectitude of despair.

## What a writer needs

Tillie Olsen in "Working It Out," edited by Sara Ruddick and Pamela Daniels (Pantheon, 340 pp., $11.95).

How much it takes to become a writer. Bent (far more common than we assume), circumstances, time, development of craft—but beyond that: how much conviction as to the importance of what one has to say, one's right to say it. And the will, the measureless store of belief in oneself to be able to come to, cleave to, find the form for one's own life comprehensions. Difficult for anyone not born into a class that breeds such confidence.

CHICAGO TRIBUNE

June 20, 1977

# A call to save Europe

The Carter administration has accused Henry Kissinger of having been soft on Communists in the Soviet Union when he was secretary of state. And now Dr. Kissinger has balanced the books by warning the administration to beware of Communists in Western Europe. Both sides may be right.

It was in January that the new secretary, Cyrus Vance, took exception to the "quiet diplomacy" which his predecessor had preferred in dealing with human rights questions.

"We will speak frankly about injustice, both at home and abroad," he said at his first press conference after taking office. He was reminded that Dr. Kissinger had often said that behind-the-scenes efforts on such matters as Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union were more effective than public statements.

"I do not share that view;" replied Mr. Vance. "My view is that at times we will feel it appropriate to speak out and there will be other times when we will not."

Now it is Dr. Kissinger who calls for "an attitude of resolve and conviction" among the people of France, Italy, and Spain to help them resist Red advances.

In a speech at a Washington conference on communism, the former secretary said, "We do our friends in Europe no favor if we encourage the notion that the advent of Communists and their allies into power will make little or no difference to our own attitudes and policies."

He seemed to be alluding to a recent statement by President Carter that "it's not up to us to tell other people how to vote or how to choose their leaders or who those leaders should be."

Dr. Kissinger disagrees—and so do we. He states his position well: "If the United States has a responsibility to encourage political freedom throughout the world, we surely have a duty to leave no doubt about our conviction on an issue that is so central to the future of the Western alliance and therefore to the future of democracy."

Absolutely.

We have applauded Mr. Carter's forth-

rightness in calling the world's attention to the abuse of people's rights behind the Iron Curtain. We cannot for the life of us understand why he does not see the need for similar forthrightness in warning of the dangers people face now on this of the Curtain.

## Quote

Henry Kissinger, speaking June 9 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institution: It is ironic that at the moment when the industrial democracies are most cohesive in their opposition to external threats ... the unity ... should be jeopardized by an internal danger — the growth of Communist Parties and the danger of their accession to power in some of the countries of Western Europe.

... The ultimate decisions are for the voters of Europe to make. But they — and we — would be indulging in wishful thinking if we did not acknowledge now that the accession to power of Communists in an allied country would represent a massive change in European politics ... and that it would alter the prospects for security and progress for all free nations.

... Throughout their existence, the guiding principle of the Communist Parties has been their insistence that a minority had to seize power as the vanguard of the working class and impose its views on the rest of the population. ... I find it hard to believe that after decades of villifying social democracy and treating it as their mortal enemy ... Communist parties have suddenly become social democrats. Whether or not they are independent of Moscow, Communists represent a philosophy which ... stands outside the bourgeois framework of Western constitutional history.

THE

SUN

A 10 •

BALTIMORE, MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1977

WILLIAM F. SCHMICK, JR., Publisher • PAUL A. BANKER, Managing Editor • J.R.L. STERNE, Editorial Page Editor

## Henry and Andy

There is a painful contrast to be drawn between Henry Kissinger and Andrew Young. The former is a Jewish American who was able to show in convincing fashion that his origins did not preclude his playing a productive role in the Middle East. The latter is a black American who kicked away a magnificent opportunity to show that his origins would not preclude his playing a similar role in Africa. It was a sad moment last week when President Carter said Mr. Young would "shift his emphasis more toward other developing nations outside of Africa, in Asia, in this hemisphere and so forth."

The reasons why the United Nations ambassador lost his usefulness in African diplomacy are fresh in the nation's mind. His application of the "racist" label to the British, the Russians, the Swedes, five presidents and even theborough of Queens was not simply provocative. It left the impression, correctly or otherwise, that he was so obsessed by his personal background that he was incapable of fulfilling his diplomatic responsibilities.

This is doubly depressing—first, because Anyoung's civil rights career focused on inter-racial understanding; second, because his lack of self-discipline was a source of glee to elements in this country and in Africa that are indeed racist.

Imagine how different history would have been had Henry Kissinger gone around accusing all and sundry of anti-Semitism. He could not long have stayed in his job, let alone rise to become a powerful, creative Secretary of State.

At the outset of his White House career, Mr. Kissinger kept a very low profile on Middle Eastern affairs—partly because it was Mr. Nixon's wish, partly because he did not want to become a target for Arab extremist propaganda and partly because he knew comparatively little about that part of the world. Only after the 1973 war did Mr. Kissinger move publicly into Middle Eastern diplomacy, establishing himself as a professional who could deal with Arabs as well as Israelis.

We would like to think that Mr. Young will be able to develop a similar professionalism. Precisely because he is a black American, he could do much to show that the United States, as a multiracial nation, can maintain a constructive dialogue with all races in the tortured southern part of Africa.

As Mr. Young emphasized in speeches overshadowed by his bizarre utterances, an outbreak of racial war in Africa could cause profound unrest in this country. This danger underscores how large is the mission the ambassador has bobbled but may fulfill in the end.

THE WASHINGTON POST

Monday, June 20, 1977

B 11

Jack Anderson and Les Whitten

# Kissinger's Billion-Dollar Close Call

The State Department has suppressed a confidential study which relates how former Secretary Henry A. Kissinger's dilly-dallying almost cost the United States a cool $1 billion.

The episode has the slight smell of Watergate. For the study was deliberately withheld from Congress, which was supposed to get a copy. We have also uncovered another study, involving an impropriety, that the State Department held back from Congress.

The billion-dollar slipup occurred two years ago in Thailand, which was then loaded down with U.S. military equipment left over from the Vietnam war. The Thai authorities, nervous over the Communist breath on their backs, ordered the United States to clear its military forces out of the country.

This presented Washington with a logistical nightmare. So the State Department dispatched an Inspector General's team to Thailand to check upon the billion-dollar military stockpile. The inspectors inquired into what arrangements had been made to salvage the equipment.

To their horror, they discovered that Washington had sent no instructions. The U.S. diplomatic and military authorities in Thailand had submitted three options. All three proposals were so similar that immediate steps could have been taken to save that $1 billion. But there had been no word from Washington.

The Pentagon was responsible, in part, for the delay. But the inspectors' confidential report, and backup papers provided to us, lay the blame largely upon the State Department

"Secretariat." This was a polite, bureaucratic term that the inspectors used to identify their own boss, Kissinger.

"In the absence of sufficient guidance from Washington," declares the suppressed report, "the (U.S.) country team had no plan of action." One of the backup papers estimated that "the U.S. might have to abandon more than $1 billion in needed materials."

The Inspector General's office, responsible for policing foreign assistance, sounded the alarm. According to the background papers in our possession, the inspectors called the emergency to the attention of "the Secretariat and the National Security Council — and timely action was taken." A last-minute salvage operation was ordered shortly before the Thai deadline.

But the story of the close call, which almost cost the taxpayers $1 billion, was covered up. Inspector General Webster Todd Jr. neglected to send the report to Congress as is required.

Nor was this the only embarrassing report he withheld from Congress. He covered up another study, which could have made his assistant, Joseph Z. Taylor, an ex-Central Intelligence Agency man, look bad.

Before joining the State Department, Taylor operated his own private company, Joseph Z. Taylor and Associates, which had performed technical services for the Thai police under an Agency for International Development contract. AID auditors later found that travel and other expenses, totaling $26,712, had been improperly charged against the contract.

Yet the same Taylor, wearing his new inspector's hat, helped to investigate Thai police support from AID. Their confidential report criticized AID, which earlier had criticized Taylor's company.

Taylor did not return our calls. But his superior in the Inspector General's office, Todd, acknowledged that Taylor had assisted on the suppressed study of the Thai police.

Todd could not explain why the two reports had been withheld from Congress. "I can't articulate a very good reason," he said. He insisted, however, that he had not tried to protect anyone.

Todd, a staunch Nixon supporter, recently moved up to head the National Safety Transportation Board. He was replaced as inspector general by John Shaw, a former history teacher with no investigative experience. Named as his deputy was none other than Joseph Z. Taylor, who was promoted rather than reprimanded after the Thai episode.

The mismanagement of the Inspector General's office, meanwhile, has led to a move on Capitol Hill simply to eliminate it. Yet this office had a reputation as a crack unit before the Nixon administration politicized it. "The answer is reform, not removal," said one veteran who remembers the unit from better days.

Footnote: We were unable to reach Kissinger for his comment. In fairness, however, it should be pointed out that he was personally absorbed in some serious world crises at the time of the billion-dollar dilly-dallying.

By Charles Rodrigues

[1C]

w.P.
6/20/77

A24

C

family/style

THE NEW YORK TIMES, P

Lovers of the Ballet
Dance a Night Away

By ENID NEMY

T. Denton Carman could scarcely conceal his impatience. He had asked Lester Lanin to play "The Sheik of Araby" and the orchestra had obliged, and here some reporter was asking him questions.

His feet began moving, his white-gloved hands reached for his partner and the music carried the couple away, just as the sheik was creeping into that tent.

Five minutes later, he was back—eyes twinkling, white mustache curling a bit upward in a face beaming with happiness.

It was his 70th birthday, he said, and according to biblical lore, he should be dead. Ha, ha. Here he was enjoying every minute, as were some 1,200 others who ate, drank, and danced, danced, danced a good part of Wednesday night away.

It was the spring gala of the New York City Ballet Guild, held on the Promenade of the State Theater at Lincoln Center, after the preview performance of Balanchine's Vienna Waltzes. Both the ballet and the floodlit terrace adjoining the promenade were the inspiration for more dancing than is usually seen at benefits. (This one, with tickets at $100 and up for performance and party, raised about $150,000.)

The inspiration, however, wasn't quite enough for Henry Kissinger, who spent most of the evening flanked by Patricia McBride, the dancer, and Jacqueline Lachman, the recent bride of Charles Lachman, who is the L in Revlon.

Mr. Kissinger guarded his newly svelte figure by pushing away most of the dinner but, in fact, had little opportunity to eat in any case. He was busy with a constant stream of visitors.

In the meantime, such as Patricia Kennedy Lawford, Sandra Payson Weidenfeld, Stewart Mott and his friend, Diane Dunning, Pat Patterson, the chairman of the gala, Mary Hemingway, Joanne Cummings, Nancy and George Stavropoulos and Sylvia and John Mazzola were dancing. Mr. Mazzola, who is the head of Lincoln Center, had only one bad moment, when he heard a crash of dishes.

T. Denton Carman waltzing with Elizabeth Twyeeffort.

Many of the partygoers at

"Let's hope they belong to the caterer," he said.

Shortly before midnight, Governor Hugh Carey and Kitty Carlisle Hart joined one of the prime location tables, already occupied by Felix G. Rohatyn, Elizabeth Vagliano and Frederick Melhado, and Robert Marschik, the consul general of Austria. The Governor had appeared earlier, at a pre-performance cocktail party, and then went on to a Democratic dinner at the Waldorf.

THE SUN, Monday, June 13, 1977

• A 3

Kissinger calls profit
of memoirs justified

London (AP)—Henry A. Kissinger has told a London newspaper that his years of public service left him in deep debt, so he sees nothing wrong with receiving large sums of money for his memoirs.

"I think one has to consider that I was deeply in debt when I left office as a result of public service," the former secretary of state said in an interview published yesterday in the London *Observer*.

"Even now, a considerable amount of my income has to go for providing personal security for myself, which doesn't affect my style of life."

Mr. Kissinger has signed a contract with Little, Brown & Co. to publish his memoirs and with the National Broadcasting Company to appear on one news special annually and to serve as a news consultant.

Although there was no announcement of his fees, sources said Mr. Kissinger would receive an estimated $2 million in advance from Little, Brown.

The interview, conducted in Washington by Douglass Cater, *Observer* vice chairman, and Kenneth Harris, associate editor, centered on Mr. Kissinger himself rather than the events he helped shape.

Mr. Kissinger, who had a reputation as a swinger before his marriage in 1974 to Nancy Maginnes, was asked to explain his often-quoted remark that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."

"Well that was a joke, but you certainly ... I mean it's clear that when you are in high office, your social life sometimes multiplies beyond your intrinsic merits," he said.

On other topics, Mr. Kissinger said:

* Despite his image as a stern taskmaster, most of his associates remained with him during his eight years in the Nixon and Ford administrations. "I will not

pretend that I was easy to deal with," he said. "My job was to inspire, not to gratify."

* On two unspecified occasions, he almost resigned as secretary of state but decided resignation would get him "headlines for three days" at the expense of being able to shape "events over a long period."

* Congressional intervention in day-to-day foreign policy matters "creates enormous complications." He said the role of Congress is "to pass laws."

* His Jewish heritage injected "poignant elements" into his dealings with the Arabs, but "I attempted in any negotiation to understand as profoundly as I could the psychology and the aspirations of the people with whom I was dealing."

A4•

Teaches Bible class

Carter urges couples

Washington (AP)—President Carter, apart from his wife, Rosalynn, for nearly two weeks while she traveled in Latin America, urged married couples yesterday to be faithful through separations, disappointments, even infidelities by one or the other spouse.

The President taught adult Bible class at the First Baptist Church.

Both the Bible class and the congregation
prayed for Mrs. Carter's safe return from her
13-day diplomatic mission, during which she
met with leaders of seven Latin American and
the Caribbean nations.

In his Bible lesson, Mr. Carter said married
couples should make a "lifetime commitment"
to one another. During times when fidelity is
abused, "when a husband or a wife succumbs to
temptation," the President said, "that's when
faithfulness is paramount."

His theme was the necessity for strong faith,
and he began the lesson by likening fidelity to
God with fidelity between husbands and wives.
"I'm lucky," Mr. Carter said, "to have married

enough. He cited times during the lives
married couples when "wedges drive us"
"-perhaps a husband's failure, a
struggle for individuality, a time of separation
maybe even a first child.

He and daughter Amy, in a white
dress with a blond ponytail tied in a w
bon, later attended services along with
including the President's daughter-in-
ron's parents, Ben and Mandy Griffin.

The President sprinkled his class with
ences to a handful of his own experi-
cluding his recent voyage with Adm. Hy
Rickover aboard a nuclear submarine
meeting here in May with Saudi Arabia
Fahd.

With readings from Saint Paul, Mr.
said that strength in faith requires the
tough training soldiers need. Mr. Carte
submariners. During his voyage with
Rickover, he said, the admiral ordered
up to full speed, then disabled its rea
made mock casualties out of its officers

Junior officers and enlisted men to
"There was never a tremor of fear or

not

Rosalynn
to praise

Washington—A proud P
ter, welcoming home his w
yesterday after her seven
American mission, said he
helped resolve problems in
United States and Latin Amer

"This has been a trip of
cance to our country and to the
has visited," the President
drews Air Force Base, with M
his side.

Mrs. Carter added that
"goodwill and friendlin

DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, JUNE 11, 1977

DAILYNEWS
NEW YORK PICTURE NEWSPAPERS

220 E. 42 St.

(212) 949-1234

Published every day by New York News Inc., 220 East 42d St., New York, N.Y. 10017.
W. H. James, President and Publisher; Michael J. O'Neill, Editor and Vice President.
V. E. Palmer, Secretary, and R. C. Schneider, Treasurer.

Mail subscription rates per year: U.S. Daily and Sunday $135.00. Daily $90.00. Sunday $45.00. Armed Forces Special Rates: Daily and Sunday $90.00. Daily $60.00. Sunday $30.00. Foreign and short term rates upon request.

Copyright New York News Inc. 1977. The Associated Press is entitled exclusively to the use
for republication of all local news printed in this paper. All other rights reserved.

## WHAT 'TAME' REDS?

Henry Kissinger struck a vulnerable spot in the Carter administration foreign policy when he lit into the White House's complacent attitude toward what is called Eurocommunism.

At home and abroad, Mr. Carter has talked and acted as though he considers the possibility of Communists acquiring a share of power in Italy, France, Spain and Portugal a matter of indifference to the U.S.

The President has at least created the impression that Red participation in West European governments would neither alter relations with America nor alter the nature of NATO.

Henry Kissinger

We agree wholeheartedly with Kissinger's belief that such an idea is dangerous nonsense. Communists are Communists. They may change their tactics for political advancement. But their irrevocable aim is to achieve a Marxist dictatorship and smash the democratic system which is the foundation of America's and Western Europe's common heritage.

As for NATO, its very purpose is to frustrate Moscow's expansionist ambitions. How could it stand as a bulwark against communism with Communists admitted to its councils?

Mr. Carter is doing this nation and its allies a grave disservice by treating the rise of Eurocommunism as inevitable or unimportant.

We should care—and care deeply—about the trend, and we should use every opportunity to express our concern so as to strengthen the will and influence of true democrats in Europe.

[L.C.]

U.S. News-World Rep.

Washington Whispers®

## Political Office for Anita Bryant? . . . Why Kissinger Worries About Andy Young . . . Brezhnev's One Ambition

Whatever else it accomplishes, the Internal Revenue Service is hoping that its decision to audit President Carter's 1975 tax return will help restore Americans' confidence in the tax-collecting system and lead to greater voluntary compliance.

Anita Bryant's political future is the subject of considerable speculation. Despite her disclaimers, many politicians feel she can ride her victory in Miami's homosexual-rights referendum into elected office in Florida.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is telling friends privately that he fears that U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young is fueling a race war in southern Africa by giving encouragement to black extremists in the Rhodesian conflict.

Democratic leaders in Congress have suddenly stopped predicting that they can easily override expected Carter vetoes of appropriations bills far exceeding his proposals. The reason: Lawmakers are getting the word from voters back home that the President's antispending talk has caught on.

You rarely see his name in the news, but Charles Kirbo, Atlanta lawyer and close friend of Carter's, retains as much influence with the President as anyone. The two are on the phone frequently, and Kirbo is often an unpublicized White House guest.

It is Moscow's refusal to accept what the White House considers a reasonable arms-control agreement that is prompting Carter to reconsider his campaign opposition to continuing production of the B-1 bomber. Barring a change in Soviet attitude, the odds are that the Administration will give the go-ahead on the controversial war-

plane—but not the full fleet of 244 sought by the Air Force.

Close associates say that Russian boss Leonid Brezhnev has one unfulfilled ambition: Bring back into the Soviet fold the "rebel" Communist nations—China, Yugoslavia and Albania.

It will be 1981 at the earliest before any national health-insurance plan goes into operation. As Administration officials see it, Carter's program won't pass till late 1978 or 1979, then will take three years to get into gear.

Secretary Joseph Califano's Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which has seethed with feuds for decades, is at it again. Anonymous tips about a coming shake-up are being mailed to gossip columnists. High officials claim that the rumors are being floated to embarrass them.

Look for this surprising testimony to emerge from congressional investigations into the dangers of radiation: Occupants of skyscrapers in some U.S. cities get more radiation from TV transmitter towers than people in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow received from Soviet electronic devices.

Business groups still suspicious of Carter are now accusing him of embarking on "creeping wage and price controls." Cited are his proposals for regulations on hospital costs, reins on oil and natural-gas prices and increased funds for the watchdog Council on Wage and Price Stability.

Backers of the equal-rights amendment are trying to recruit organized labor's active help for the measure with this argument: If anti-ERA forces succeed, they will next mount a full-scale drive

in support of "right to work" laws that labor is trying to repeal.

State police say that federal bureaucrats are copping out on enforcement of the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit. Lawmen claim the Department of Transportation talks tough but gives States no financial or other help.

From U.S. officials comes advice to take with a grain of salt reports that Saudi Arabia will raise its oil price by a set amount. They note that the Saudis regularly float trial balloons before making final decisions.

White House advisers are operating on the assumption that California Governor Jerry Brown will make a serious bid against Carter for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1980.

A State Department official's comment on the release by Vietnam of names of 20 more American soldiers missing in action: "They have a vault full of bodies and will produce them, not all at once, but as circumstances suggest."

Latest on women's equality in Russia: A new breakdown of the Soviet elite shows that none of the 14 Politburo posts or any of the 107 jobs of ministerial status is held by a woman.

So quickly do new nations spring up or achieve independence these days that the Central Intelligence Agency now prints its world maps by computer, allowing revisions in a twinkling.

The Carter Presidency is turning out to be a mixed blessing for Georgia's peanut-commodity commission, which is running out of money filling requests for recipes using peanuts.

8

U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, June 20, 1977

Columbia vs. Kissinger [10]

We are indebted to Roscoe Drummond of the Christian Science Monitor for putting in perspective the controversy over Columbia University's offer of a professorship to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

In a recent column he wrote of the opposition as follows:

> "It develops that a little band of Columbia University teachers and students has constituted itself jury and judge. . . . The Nazis would never let anyone teach at their universities unless they hold opinions the same as their own. . . . Now the Kissinger cabal on the Columbia campus is practicing the same policy. . . . They seem quite willing to sacrifice academic freedom for others in the expectation they can retain what is left of it for themselves."

It has happened before. When another Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was sought by the University of Georgia as a professor of international law, criticism hit him from all directions. However, as Mr. Drummond notes:

> "The University of Georgia did not yield."

Similar treatment was given Walt Rostow, economist, former MIT professor and adviser to President Johnson. Critics questioned his credentials when he was offered a job on the faculty of the University of Texas, but again, as Mr. Drummond informs us:

> "The University of Texas did not yield."

We do not know what went on in Dr. Kissinger's mind before he decided he preferred Georgetown University to Columbia. It would be unfair to suggest that Columbia "yielded" any more than the Universities of Georgia and Texas did, or that its top leadership is any less adamant in its devotion to academic freedom.

Whatever course the Kissinger career takes, we hope he never again encounters the narrowness of the "little band" of critics on the Columbia campus. He is faithfully portrayed in the Drummond column as a man "whose scholarly writing and academic work at Harvard are more distinguished than that of most of his detractors." His record as teacher and scholar need no apologies, whereas those who sought to bar him from Columbia owe an apology to the professor who took time out to serve his country.

Their anti-Kissinger outbursts, as Mr. Drummond says in his concluding paragraph, "is carrying arrogance, smugness, and self-cneteredness beyond the call of duty." They are guilty of behavior unbecoming teachers and students presumably devoted to principles of free inquiry and human rights. Columbia deserves better.

Reg. $12.99 gal., 31 colors, white

C. Sears latex fashion flat interior wall paint

Reg. $11.99 gal., 23 colors, white

D. Sears interior wall and trim latex semi gloss

E. Sears interior/exterior floor and porch enamel

Reg. $10.99 gal.

E. 52205

CHARGE IT
on Sears Revolving Charge

26005

$4 OFF-Flat latex house paint

Reg.
$8.99

499
Gal.

57605

$3 OFF-Sears latex texture paint

Reg.
$8.99

599
Gal.

81005

$2 OFF-Interior Flat latex wall paint

Reg.
$5.99

399
Gal.

Limited warranty

Sears paints, when applied according to directions, will cover any color with one coat (except rough or textured surfaces) where indicated by checkmark in the chart and have the quantities indicated for the years shown in the chart, or contact Sears and you get necessary additional paint or your money back.

This warranty does not include labor or cost of labor for the application of any paint.

<table><thead><tr><th>Interior Paint No.</th><th>One coat</th><th>Washable</th><th>Color-fast</th><th>Spot resistant</th><th>Dura-bility</th><th>Stain removal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>90005</td><td>✓</td><td>5 yrs.</td><td>5 yrs.</td><td>5 yrs.</td><td>5 yrs.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>77005</td><td>✓</td><td>5 yrs.</td><td>5 yrs.</td><td>5 yrs.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Chicago Tribune, Sunday, June 12, 1977

Section 1 3

Energy crisis is real, Kissinger warns

By James Elsener
and Casey Bukro

FORMER SECRETARY of State Henry Kissinger said Saturday the United States must reduce its demand for imported oil if it is to have continued economic stability and an independent foreign policy.

"We saw in 1973 what a small cut in imported oil can do," Kissinger told a press conference prior to a day-long energy conference here. "It caused the worst recession, highest unemployment and inflation in our history."

He said he supports the energy policy of the Carter administration and said the biggest problem is convincing the public that an energy crisis exists.

Kissinger was the keynote speaker at the conference at the University of Illinois-Chicago Circle Campus. The conference was sponsored by Sen. Percy [R., Ill.], Sen. Stevenson [D., Ill.], Gov. Thompson, the University of Illinois Energy Resources Center, and the Alliance to Save Energy.

KISSINGER SAID world oil prices are "totally out of our hands, and foreign countries can raise them at will."

He praised Saudi Arabia for its restraint in raising oil prices, saying that the Saudis are the "finest friends the United States has," but he warned that the U.S. cannot continue to expect the Saudis to hold down prices.

He said Saudi Arabia is caught between its friendship with the West and its membership in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Kissinger also said he believes that President Carter is sincere in his efforts to seek peace in the Middle East and that he thinks the Saudis understand that.

AS KISSINGER addressed reporters, about 20 persons representing the Spar-tacus Youth League, a socialist organi-zation, demonstrated outside, chanting: "Protest Kissinger — butcher of Viet Nam."

Irene Gardner, spokesman for the protesters, said they were members of the same group that protested recent plans to offer Kissinger a faculty posi-tion at Columbia University.

GOV. THOMPSON said in his speech to the conference that Illinois is waiting to see what Congress will do about energy conservation.

"It's sort of like waiting for the other shoe to drop, only in this case, it's beginning to look more and more like the other shoe is going to be dropped squarely on the President's program without providing an alternative. When President Carter asked for the 'moral equivalent of war,' I don't think he expected Congress to fire the first shots in his direction."

At a private breakfast before the conference, business and civic leaders met with Percy to express their concern about public doubts that an energy crisis exists and to discuss federal efforts to encourage conservation.

[1C]

RADIO-TV MONITORING SERVICE, INC.

3408 WISCONSIN AVENUE, N. W. :- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20016 :- 244-8682

<table><tr><td>PROGRAM:<br/>AGRONSKY & COMPANY</td><td>DATE:<br/>SAT., JUNE 4, 1977</td></tr><tr><td>STATION OR NETWORK:<br/>WTOP TELEVISION</td><td>TIME:<br/>7:00 PM, EDT</td></tr></table>

AGRONSKY PANELISTS NOTE KISSINGER'S RETURN TO CAPITAL

MARTIN AGRONSKY: Henry Kissinger is back, and Georgetown University's got him. What do you think of that, Jack?

JAMES J. KILPATRICK: I'm glad he's here and didn't go to Columbia University in New York. I thought that display by those Columbia professors and students opposing Kissinger's prospective appointment was perfectly disgraceful, so I think it certainly will be a great gain for Georgetown. Glad to have Henry back. I understand he's lost 25 pounds. I haven't seen him in several weeks.

AGRONSKY: Svelte... George?

GEORGE F. WILL: Well, I mean, the hypocrisy of academic politics is larger than the scale of the stakes. In other words, people get so bitter about small issues. At Columbia it was purely a case of punishing Kissinger for taking political views that are not popular in academic circles. I've had my disagreements, and we all have, with Mr. Kissinger, but that is, I think, a pernicious doctrine, that that should be held against a man when it comes to replacing him in an academic setting.

AGRONSKY: Carl?

CARL ROWAN: It just sickens me a little bit that the people most inclined to speak out about intellectual freedom and academic freedom are the ones who can be the most narrow-minded when they come up against somebody who's held some strong views or pushed some policies with which they disagree. That's when you find out who's really for intellectual freedom.

AGRONSKY: Hugh?

HUGH SIDEY: Well, I echo Carl absolutely. I'm still appalled, having gone through that period in the sixties when mediocrity in many instances triumphed in classrooms and on campuses and the kids, and also some of the faculty, were led by people who could not make their impact through true academic

- 2 -

achievement, and I still apparently see that there are those
around, and that's what happened at Columbia.

WILL: You have to remember, the campuses are full of people who have no business being there, and don't really want to be there. They're there because it's sort of the thing to do after high school, and they're desperately looking for another cause to take them away from the tedium of scholarship. Now, I've noticed that some of them are up flopping down in front of nuclear plants and doing this sort of thing, but they still--you have a floating proletariat of bad students and mediocre faculty who are looking for some way to enliven their lives, and Kissinger was it for a week, and they'll find something else.

KILPATRICK: I'll bet the students are going to love him, though. They're going to have to fight them off with baseball bats when it comes time to open that class for enrollment. You'll have students just swarming to get in on that.

SIDEY: Kissinger remains the single most fascinating person in this country. Still, in this city--he gets more excitement when he moves out than any other person.

ROWAN: I hope he stops giving those off-the-record classroom lectures, though. He might as well let all of us have the benefit of his wisdom.

SIDEY: He's making money, Carl. (LAUGHTER)

AGRONSKY: That's the last word, Hugh.

Laurence Silberman

Exposing Academia's
Anti-Right Bias

The outburst of faculty resistance to Columbia University's offer of a professorship to Henry Kissinger—which he has now declined—has drawn condemnation from editorial writers and columnists defending academic freedom. But, strictly speaking, academic freedom—the right to teach and write without restraint or guidance—is not involved. Rather, the issue is what, if any, ideological-political tests should be applied by universities when recruiting professors who will thereafter (particularly if tenured) enjoy the benefit of academic freedom.

For years Ivy League alumni groups

The writer is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

have ineffectually complained to university and college administrators about dominant leftward trends in faculty recruitment. Administrators typically deny that ideological factors enter into faculty-recruitment decisions, and the alumni—without recourse to the decision-making process—are impotent to challenge these blanket assertions. But a part of the Columbia faculty has torn away the veil of secrecy and dramatically confirmed its ideological bias, an action for which all the Ivy League alumni groups should be most grateful.

That is not to say that the Columbia faculty's reaction to Kissinger's proposed appointment is the only indication of a leftist recruiting bias at our most prestigious universities. Eight years ago Walter Rostow was denied reappointment by MIT. Moreover, some of the relatively few conservative Ivy League faculty members will privately tell the most hair-raising stories of crass political objections to distinguished conservative applicants. Unfortunately, but understandably, they will not make common cause with alumni groups because of a reluctance to support even implicitly a challenge to faculty autonomy. In other words, although recognizing the validity of Irving Kristol's description of the "new class," they are reluctant to become traitors to it.

Recently I returned to my own Ivy League alma mater, and at a reception in the government department was intrigued to see one after another of the faculty office doors festooned with cartoon attacks on Ford and Kissinger. Now one might argue that this display of black and white badges of liberal conformity was merely fatuous (I half expected the doors to open simultaneously, the professors emerging to sing a Gilbert and Sullivan air starting, "We are the members of the liberal faculty ... ") and therefore harmless. But what would be the reaction of a young faculty applicant with a conservative bent and, more important, what would be the reaction of the government department to him?

An Ivy League college administrator, in a recent conversation with an alumni-group representative, suggested that since it was the university's function to challenge the status quo, it was natural and appropriate that the faculty be oriented toward the left. Although widely held, this notion is palpable nonsense: A university's function is to pursue knowledge that may or may not support the "status quo," i.e., the prevailing view, in any subject. (It reminds me of the similar notion that newspapers should perform an adversary role versus certain institutions rather than simply tell the truth, which may or may not bring them into conflict with those institutions.)

By "status quo," the administrator of course meant the existing political-economic-social structure in the United States, and it is revealing of his own profound bias that he implicitly suggested that it can respectably be challenged only from the left. This is a corollary to the view that our country will continue to move—as it has for 40 years—toward a greater degree of government involvement and increased efforts to redistribute wealth both domestically and internationally. That is

> "[The notion that] it is the university's function to challenge the status quo... is palpable nonsense."

the core of the problem: These university faculties tend to select young men and women whose views are intellectually respectable because they are ahead (to the left) of where the country as a whole is perceived as moving. "On the cutting edge" is the favorite cliché.

Conservative academics who would quarrel with these assumptions, those who—to turn the sword—would challenge the universities' prevailing view or status quo, are kept through "negative action" to a small quota. Thus at a distinguished Ivy League graduate school it was once seriously argued that adding a third conservative would throw a 45-member faculty out of balance. We should not be surprised, then, that the faculties also wish to fend off alumni influence on the selection process; they wish to preserve a secure base from which to sally forth to challenge other statuses quo.

But the Columbia faculty, exposed in its political bias, has given Ivy League alumni groups solid ammunition in their case against recruitment practices that discriminate against conservatives. For that the protesters at Columbia should be warmly thanked.

# KISSINGER: Victim of Liberal
"Witch Hunt" at Columbia?

BY FRED W. FRIENDLY,
PROFESSOR AT THE COLUMBIA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM

U.S.N. & W.R.

When it was learned that former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger was being considered for a post as a professor at Columbia University's School of International Affairs, a bitter controversy developed on the campus. Students held rallies, and both students and faculty members signed petitions of protest. Their objections were based chiefly on Kissinger's role in the Vietnam War. The following comments by Friendly are reprinted by permission of the *Baltimore Sun* from the Perspective section of its May 29, 1977, issue.

I grew up in the shadow of Columbia University, and in 61 years of love and frustration involving that institution, I know of only two moments that give a flush of shame. The two moments are separated by 45 years, and simply prove that liberals-like conservatives-sometimes forget the history they are employed to teach. In 1932, McCarthyism stalked Morningside Heights, long before the Senator came out of Wisconsin. And it was alive and frightening at the 1977 commencement last week.

Reed Harris, who wanted to graduate in 1932, and Henry A. Kissinger, who may wish to teach at Columbia in 1977, are the two victims of a strange virus that is often carried by those who have the most reason to fear its malignancy.

Mr. Harris was an editor of the Columbia *Spectator* during the depths of the Great Depression. He also wrote a radical book about the attitudes of students and faculty. Entitled "King Football," Mr. Harris's book espoused the right of professors to teach anything-including that marriage "should be cast off our civilization as an antiquated and stupid religious phenomenon."

"King Football" was a flop even in the Columbia bookstore, but it proved to have a half life of 20 years. In 1952, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy exploited it to poison Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris, by then a civil servant in the State Department, was directing U.S. Information broadcasts to Israel. Senator McCarthy accused him of curtailing certain anti-Communist broadcasts to Israel. The charge had no basis, but Senator McCarthy used Mr. Harris's 1932 book and his suspension from Columbia to humiliate him before a congressional hearing, and then drive him from office....

The filmed sequence was part of the documentation of Edward R. Murrow's 1954 broadcast about Senator McCarthy. Every year I have run the sequence for my students at Columbia, and every year members of the class are riveted in their seats. This year, however, the witch hunt being portrayed inside seminar room 207 was being matched by one taking place in faculty offices and at the sundial on College Walk.

I've never met Henry A. Kissinger. In five different elections, I voted against his President, Richard M. Nixon. But I am offended because Dr. Kissinger is being witch-hunted by 140 faculty members and researchers and a reported 1,000 students seeking to blackball the former Secretary of State and former Harvard professor of international affairs from being considered for a chair at Columbia's School of International Affairs.

It was all as simple as it had been in Reed Harris's day. Mr.

Harris had expressed unorthodox views about marriage, hence he was not fit to serve his Government. A former Secretary of State, once acclaimed as a man of the year and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, was being held not entitled to a faculty post because, his detractors said, he had "caused the extension of the most brutal, aggressive war the United States had ever fought."

His Columbia opponents protest that their crusade against Dr. Kissinger "does not infringe on academic freedom," but is motivated by his "immoral actions" in the bombing of Vietnam and Cambodia.

I gather that my fellow liberals at Columbia truly believe that their definition of morality, and even their version of right and wrong, is cast in the granite of history-a granite that permits them to be the arbiters of who shall or shall not be entitled to academic freedom.

One recalls the post-Hiroshima attacks on J. Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi. Under the new revisionism of the liberals, both the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton and the University of Chicago acted immorally in according them academic posts.

Norman Thomas, the beloved pacifist, was wrong about World War II. Presumably, then, the New School acted immorally in giving him a teaching assignment because he had associated with America Firsters.

John F. Kennedy was wrong both about the Bay of Pigs and later in sending the first Americans into Vietnam. Had he lived, one can draw the assumption that there would have been an uproar had Harvard or Columbia offered him a teaching post following his Presidency.

According to the new liberal doctrine, the University of Georgia did an evil thing by opening its arms to former Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

This is not to say that there is no useful debate in the academic community about a potential Kissinger chair at Columbia. It is a nice question whether an endowed chair should be created by rich benefactors for a preordained luminary. That argument, as it pertains to Dr. Kissinger, can and should continue.

Stripping away the McCarthyist oratory reduces the argument to the central point as to whether Dr. Kissinger has a useful teaching role to offer, and whether he is prepared to instruct and not to reign. Two experienced negotiators like President William McGill and Dr. Kissinger should be able to settle that.

The pertinent issue is Dr. Kissinger the teacher....

What alarms me most is the misguided arrogance of those who so arbitrarily reject Dr. Kissinger's possible appointment. Can they be so shortsighted to the lessons of the last half century that they do not recognize their own vulnerability? Causes like those of Reed Harris and Henry A. Kissinger, and all the others that have come in between, are demonstrably mercurial and deceptive. Of all people, those in universities should always be aware that today's scattered minority can easily become tomorrow's ruthless majority.

What makes Columbia, and all the other great academic institutions, worth preserving is the very academic freedom that these protesters would forfeit to destroy today's "villain," Henry Kissinger. What a travesty!

U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, June 13, 1977

33