# & DOMESTIC FACTORIES

## SALE

First showing of new designs of highest quality in wall systems, dining, recliners, bedrooms, bunk beds & sofas. Also Knoll, Eames, Directional, etc.

At home decorating service.

### SCANDINAVIAN FURNITURE

N.Y. 15 E. 32nd St. 212-889-2655

PARAMUS, N.J. 128 W. Rte. 4 201-843-2208

SIGNED GRAPHICS

Americana, Currier & Ives, Views Legal, College Golf, Medical, Maps, Audubon, McGinnis & Ray Harm Birds.

Publishers Dali Graphics,

Dali Color Cat. $1., Foreign $1.50

Phyllis Lucas Gallery

OLD PRINT CENTER

981 2d Ave (52 St). NYC 10022

Hours: 9:30 to 6 PM Moh. thru Fri. PL5-1516-Closed Mon, Open Sat.

CREATIVE FRAMING

Carly/e
custom convertibles ltd.

## FROM OUR FACTORY TO YOU WITH PATIENCE AND PRIDE

ONE OF THE LARGEST AND FINEST SELECTIONS OF SOFA/BEDS ON THE EAST COAST,

MANHATTAN • 1055 Third Avenue near 62nd Street • (212) 836-1525
OPEN MON. & THUR. 10 to 9 TUES., WED., FRI., SAT., 10 to 6

SCARSDALE, N.Y. • 365 Central Avenue • (914) 723-4446
OPEN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 10 to 9 SATURDAY 10 to 6

PARAMUS, N.J. • 185 Route 17 • 1 Mile North of Route 4 going South
OPEN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 10 to 9 SATURDAY 10 to 6 • (201) 967-0202

FAIRFIELD, N.J. • 330 Route 46 • 2 Miles West Of Willowbrook Mall going East
OPEN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 10 to 9 SATURDAY 10 to 6 • (201) 975-0050

Served Every Night in Famille Style

Two of Many

In the great LUCHOW tradition, each and every HA gets each and every taste to on this m

You start with an

INDIVIDUAL PLATTER OF ASSORTED APPETIZERS

Yes! You get each and every one of these Four V

GOOSE LIVER PASTETE • HERRING SA

GURKENSALAT IN CREAM • GEMISCHTE BOH

followed by a

SILVER TUREEN OF WEISE BOHNEN SUPPER

Then comes the huge

## HARVEST PLATTER

bringing you a generous gleaning of LUCHOW spe

Yes! You get all Seven Of These Favorites

KALBSNUSSCHEN (Roast Veal) • WIENER BACKHENDL

SCHWEINNERRIPPCHEN (Spare Ribs) • BRATWURS

SPECKNODEL (Bacon Dumpling)

Top that off with

ONE AND ONE HALF FEET OF PFLAUMEN

(Plum Cake) served on an Individual baker's paddle. (There'll be plenty of

VINTAGE KAFFEE

ALL FOR $7.95 PER PERSON

Lüchow's

110 E. 14TH ST. • GR 7-4860

Open every day in the year from 11 A.M. to Midnight.

FUN

LUCH

V

We Park You
At Dinner

save on foam-back
insulated draperies

Orig. 14.49
to 57.99.

7.25 to $29

Textured weave in 63" and 84" length,
8 widths. Champagne, green, blue or gold.

**car seats.** Reg. 24.00. Napper style, assorted
colors. **18.88**

**matched golf sets.** Famous make matched sets
of woods, irons. Men's, women's.

30% to 50% off

**famous make tennis racquets.** Wood or
aluminum. **25% to 50% off**

**ready-to-r i d e bicycles.** Reg. $49 to $79.
Children's and adult sizes. Coaster brake, 3-5-10
speeds available. Fully assembled. **$33 to $59**

sale! brass
and wood floor lamps

orig. 39.99 to $55

29.99

Swing arm, 6-way, club and tray floor
lamps in group.

**assorted table lamps.** Reg. $20 to 80. Cer-
amic, metal, china and some wood bases in a good
selection of styles and colors. **9.97 to 39.97**

special group!
brass table lamps

sale

2.99 each

Group includes several styles, many pairs.

$288

Queen or
Contempor-
in a good

le
ces

$289

$199

$44

$90

solid

es

$8

bachelor
aps, night

67

KISSINGER

BY BARRY SCHWEID

WASHINGTON (AP)-SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADER MIKE MANSFIELD SAID TODAY
HE THINKS ATTY. GEN. ELLIOT RICHARDSON WILL PROVIDE THE WIRETAP
INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE IN ITS
CONSIDERATION OF HENRY KISSINGER'S NOMINATION AS SECRETARY OF STATE.

RICHARDSON IS SCHEDULED TO MEET WITH THE COMMITTEE MONDAY MORNING
NEWSBREAK OF RENEWED TESTIMONY FROM KISSINGER. MANSFIELD TOLD
"RICHARDSON ISN'T JUST GOING UP THERE TO TWIDDLE HIS THUMBS. I WOULD
IMAGINE THERE WOULD BE SOME HARD INFORMATION FORTHCOMING."

CHAIRMAN J. W. FULBRIGHT, D-ARK., SEN. CLIFFORD CASE, R-N.J., AND
SOME OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE SEEKING A REPORT ON THE TAPS
REPORTEDLY MADE IN 1969, 1970 AND 1972 ON 13 GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS,
INCLUDING AIDES TO KISSINGER AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, AND
FOUR NEWSMEN.

KISSINGER DEFENDED THE WIRETAPS TO THE COMMITTEE ON FRIDAY AS "A
VERY DIFFICULT AND PAINFUL THING" BUT NECESSARY TO STEM THE
PUBLICATION OF SENSITIVE MATERIAL THROUGH LEAKS TO THE PRESS. HE
SAID HE HAD LEAFED THROUGH THE WIRETAP REPORT, DECLINED TO DISCLOSE
THE DETAILS OF THE WIRETAPS AND SUGGESTED A LIST OF QUESTIONS BEARING
ON HIS NOMINATION BE SUBMITTED TO RICHARDSON.

IF PROLONGED, THE DISPUTE COULD SNAG KISSINGER'S AUG. 22 NOMINATION
TO SUCCEED WILLIAM P. ROGERS AS SECRETARY AND INTERFERE WITH
KISSINGER'S PLANS TO ADDRESS THE UNITED NATIONS LATER THIS MONTH
AND TO CONFER THERE WITH HEADS OF STATE AND FOREIGN MINISTERS
ATTENDING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSIONS.

WE241PED SEPT 8

68

WASHINGTON -- ADD KISSINGER (67)

MANSFIELD SAID HE HAD NOT DISCUSSED THE WIRETAP DISPUTE WITH RICHARDSON AND DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BRING THE REPORT WITH HIM.

JOHN HUSHEN, A SPOKESMAN FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, SAID NO
DECISION HAD BEEN MADE ON WHETHER TO COMPLY WITH FULBRIGHT'S REQUEST
FOR THE REPORT.

IN A SOEWHAT SIMILAR DISPUTE 20 YEARS AGO THE NOMINATION OF CHARLES
BOHLEN TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE SOVIET UNION WAS SIDETRACKED OVER
DEMANDS BY SEVERAL REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE FBI
REPORTS. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DECLINED TO SEND THE MATERIAL TO THE
SENATE.

FINALLY, A COMPROMISE WAS ARRANGED IN WHICH TWO SENATORS INSPECTED
THE FILES AND THE COMMITTEE SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED THE NOMINATION.

WE243PED SEPT 8

UPIA10

(KISSINGER)

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- HENRY KISSINGER HAS GONE THROUGH THE WHITE HOUSE GATES INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, BUT THE ERA OF LIGHTNING AMERICAN DIPLOMACY SHOWS NO SIGN OF ABATING.

EVEN BEFORE HIS CONFIRMATION AS SECRETARY OF STATE IS ASSURED, KISSINGER HAS BEGUN TALKING OF NEW AMERICAN INITIATIVES IN THE MIDDLE EAST, A DIPLOMATIC THRUST TO SOLIDIFY U.S. TIES WITH LATIN AMERICA, A STATE DEPARTMENT SHUFFLE TO BRING TALENTED YOUNG MEN TO THE FORE AND ANOTHER TRIP TO CHINA, ON TOP OF THE IMPENDING NEGOTIATIONS ON EUROPEAN SECURITY AND ARMS CONTROL.

KISSINGER GAVE NO DETAILS OF HIS PLANS IN ANY OF THESE AREAS AND FURNISHED FEW CLUES. BUT IN HIS FOUR-HOUR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE FRIDAY, HE ROUSED MEMBERS OUT OF A DEEP, A 1/2-YEAR SLEEP IN WHICH THEY HAD TO CONTENT THEMSELVES WITH SECRETARY OF STATE WILLIAM ROGERS' GENTLE BLANDISHMENT WHILE THE REAL FOREIGN POLICY BUSINESS WENT ON IN KISSINGER'S SHOP AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

IT WAS KISSINGER'S FIRST APPEARANCE AS A WITNESS BEFORE ANY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, AND THE SENATE PANEL LIKED IT SO WELL THEY ASKED HIM BACK FOR ANOTHER SESSION MONDAY.

THERE ARE A FEW OBSTACLES TO KISSINGER'S CONFIRMATION. CHAIRMAN J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, D-ARK., AND SEN. CLIFFORD CASE, R-N.J., SAID THEY WOULD SEEK TO DELAY A VOTE UNTIL THE COMMITTEE GAINS ACCESS TO THE RESULTS OF WIRETAPS CONDUCTED ON KISSINGER'S AIDES DURING THE SEARCH BY THE "WHITE HOUSE PLUMBERS" FOR NATIONAL SECURITY LEAKS. FULBRIGHT PLANNED TO CALL IN ATTORNEY GENERAL ELLIOT RICHARDSON MONDAY MORNING TO DEMAND AN FBI REPORT ON THE WIRETAPS AS THE PRICE FOR KISSINGER'S CONFIRMATION.

BUT FEW COMMITTEE OBSERVERS DOUBT THAT, IF FACED WITH THE CHOICE BETWEEN KISSINGER AS SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE FBI DOCUMENTS, THE COMMITTEE WILL CHOOSE KISSINGER.

THE SECRETARY-DESIGNATE MADE IT CLEAR THAT ANY DELAY IN HIS CONFIRMATION MIGHT UPSET HIS PLANS TO MEET WITH ARAB AND ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTERS AND CHIEFS OF STATE SEPT. 24 BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONVENES.

IN ADDITION, KISSINGER SAID A DATE FOR HIS TRIP TO CHINA WOULD BE HELD IN ABEYANCE UNTIL CONFIRMATION.

UPI 09-03 03:46 AED

UPI 171

ADD 5 KISSINGER, WASHINGTON

KISSINGER CALMLY AND UNFALTERINGLY ANSWERED A WIDE VARIETY OF
QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS INCLUDED SENATORS' COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED ADMINISTRATION
DECEPTION, WIRETAPPING, LACK OF WHITE HOUSE COOPERATION IN CONSULTING
CONGRESS ON FOREIGN POLICY, THE MIDDLE EAST, RELATIONS WITH THE
SOVIET UNION AND HOSTILITIES IN INDOCHINA.

KISSINGER SOUGHT THROUGHOUT TO ESTABLISH AN ATMOSPHERE OF
REASONABLENESS AND TO CALM Fears HE MIGHT CONTINUE TO REFUSE
TESTIMONY BEHIND THE WHITE HOUSE SHIELD OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

HE SOUGHT TO BLUNT CHARGES BY CASE AND STUART SYMINGTON, D-MO.,
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAD GIVEN CONGRESS FALSE INFORMATION ON THE
SECRET 1969-70 BOMBING OF CAMBODIA.

"IT WAS A VERY PECULIAR SITUATION," HE SAID. "IN THE UNBELIEVABLE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IT MIGHT ARISE AGAIN, WE MUST FIND A WAY TO INFORM
THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES."

ON OTHER POINTS, KISSINGER SAID:

-- HE WOULD MEET ARAB AND ISRAELI REPRESENTATIVES AT THE U.N.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN AN EFFORT TO PROMOTE A MIDDLE EAST SETTLEMENT.

-- THE UNITED STATES SHOULD EXTEND NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TO THE
SOVIET UNION WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH ITS RESTRICTIVE EMIGRATION
POLICIES FOR SOVIET JEWS, WHICH HE TERMED AN INTERNAL SOVIET AFFAIR.

-- THE SECRET BOMBING OF NORTH VIETNAMESE SANCTUARIES IN CAMBODIA
IN 1969-1970 WAS KEPT FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ALL BUT A HANDFUL
OF CONGRESSMEN TO AVOID EMBARRASSING PRINCE NORODOM SIHANOUK, NOW
EXILED IN PEKING.

THE COMMITTEE WILL MEET PRIVATELY MONDAY MORNING, BEFORE ITS
HEARINGS RESUME, TO DISCUSS THE WIRETAP ISSUE WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL
ELLIOT RICHARDSON.

SEN. CHARLES PERCY, R-ILL., WARNED THE COMMITTEE AGAINST
COLLECTING WIRETAP INFORMATION THAT MIGHT JEOPARDIZE THE CIVIL RIGHTS
OF KISSINGER STAFFERS AND THERE WAS NO SIGN THE CASE-FULBRIGHT THREAT
TO HOLD UP CONFIRMATION WOULD PROVE SERIOUS.

UPI 09-07 06:02 PED

UPI 173

(MEHDI-KISSINGER)

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- DR. M.T. MEHDI, AN AMERICAN-ARAB LEADER, URGED THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE TODAY TO MOVE WITH CAUTION ON THE NOMINATION OF DR. HENRY KISSINGER AS SECRETARY OF STATE.

MEHDI, SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE ACTION COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN-ARAB
RELATIONS, DECLARED THAT ZIONISTS CLAIM "AMERICAN JEWS ARE JUNIOR
PARTNERS OF THE ISRAELI STATE."

IN A TELEGRAM TO CHAIRMAN J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, MEHDI SAID "MOST
AMERICAN JEWS HAVE INDEED BEHAVED AS ISRAELI PARTNERS." HE CITED IN
HIS TELEGRAM FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS, ARTHUR
GOLDBERG, CHARGING THAT GOLDBERG'S MOVES WERE "SO IDENTICAL WITH THE
ISRAELI AMBASSADOR'S ACTIONS."

MEHDI SAID AN AMERICAN SECRETARY OF STATE COULD NOT BE BOTH "A
FULL FLEDGED AMERICAN AND A JUNIOR ISRAELI PARTNER AND THE ARBITER OF
THE ARAB-ISRAELI DISPUTE."

UPI 09-07 06:07 PFD

UPI112

(TAPES)

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- HENRY KISSINGER TODAY DEFENDED THE WIRETAPPING OF MEMBERS OF HIS NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF BUT DECLINED TO TELL THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, CONSIDERING HIS NOMINATION AS SECRETARY OF STATE, WHAT INFORMATION WAS GATHERED.

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, D-ARK., AND SEN. CLIFFORD CASE, R-N.J., IMMEDIATELY THREATENED TO HOLDING UP THE NOMINATION UNLESS THE FBI FURNISHES THE WIRETAP RESULTS.

IN HIS APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, KISSINGER WAS SHARPLY QUESTIONED ABOUT ADMINISTRATION WIRETAPPING BEGUN IN 1969 TO TRACE INFORMATION LEAKS.

KISSINGER SAID THE DECISION WHETHER TO MAKE THE WIRETAP INFORMATION AVAILABLE WAS UP TO THE FBI AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. AT THIS POINT, CASE SAID "IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THE COMMITTEE WILL NOT BE IN A POSITION TO ACT ON THE NOMINATION" UNLESS THE RESULTS ARE FORTHCOMING.

FULBRIGHT AGREED, SAYING HE HAD PREVIOUSLY ASKED THE FBI FOR A WRITTEN SUMMARY ON THE WIRETAPS AND BEEN TURNED DOWN.

AS FOR THE PROPIETY OF THE WIRETAPS, KISSINGER SAID "I MUST SAY IT DID NOT OCCUR TO ME TO QUESTION THE JUDGMENT" OF THEN ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN MITCHELL AND FBI DIRECTOR J. EDGAR HOOVER IN ORDERING THEM.

THE WASHINGTON STAR-NEWS, MEANWHILE, REPORTED THAT FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL COUNSEL CHARLES COLSON SOUNDED OUT HOWARD HUNT, WHO LATER HELPED MASTERMIND THE WATERGATE BREAK-IN, ABOUT "NAILING" PENTAGON PAPERS DEFENDANT DANIEL ELLSBERG.

HUNT IS ONE OF FOUR MEN INDICTED BY A LOS ANGELES GRAND JURY EARLIER THIS WEEK IN CONNECTION WITH THE BURGLARLY OF THE OFFICE OF ELLSBERG'S PSYCHIATRIST.

IN MATTERS RELATING TO WATERGATE, MEANWHILE:

-- SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR ARCHIBALD COX MOVED BEFORE THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN SIRICA'S DEMAND FOR ACCESS TO THE TAPES FOR PRIVATE EXAMINATION.

-- THE SENATE WATERGATE COMMITTEE ASKED THE APPEALS COURT'S PERMISSION TO PARTICIPATE IN NEXT WEEK'S HEARING ON SIRICA'S RULING.

UPI 09-07 02:20 PED

Party's Youth newspaper, Kom-
omolskya Pravda, has conducted a one-
man survey and concluded that most of
the Soviet Union is experiencing a severe
shortage of beer. What an opportunity
for the bourgeois capitalists in the Nixon
administration to sign a trade agreement
with the Soviets! Soviet vodka for
American brew. If the agreement were
successful, then both sides might forget
their differences.

By HOLMES ALEXANDER:

Can Kissinger Bridle Fulbright?

WASHINGTON.

ALL THAT'S visible of Henry Kissinger,
designated to be Secretary of State, is his
velvet glove and his sly secret smile, but the
man who came here with the nickname of
"Doctor Bismarck" is underneath them both.

This man is the apostle of Realpolitik. He is
as far as possible from the save-the-world
evanangelism of the Secretaries of State to
whom we've been accustomed. He's at the
other end of the corridor from those who have
been mere managers of the stagnant lake of
bureaucracy called Foggy Bottom. He's on a
totally different cloud from that of his
predecessors who held the title but were re-
quired to let their President swing the squall-
ing cat, foreign policy, by its tail. There is no
resemblance to Cordell Hull, Dean Acheson,
John Foster Dulles, Dean Rusk, William
Rogers.

Kissinger's mission will not be to sanitize
the State Department bureaucracy which is
not different from the melee of busy bees and
useless drones who work at the Departments
of Defense, of Health, Education, and
Welfare, and of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, or for that matter the White House com-
plex. His mission will be to bronco-bust the
rambunctious Senate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee which for a decade under Chairman
Fulbright has tried to toss Presidents out of
the saddle.

HE WILL and can do nothing about the
Department "morale." That is something
everybody talks about, but no man can define,
measure, or alter short of a sweeping pogrom
which would annihilate the tax eaters on the
payrolls all over town. Now and again, there
have been bloodbaths which have dumped
security risks, dissidents and homosexuals,
but the Executive Departments are the only
American community which never suffers
from unemployment.

Unhappiness and inefficiency in Federalia
is greater than what we read about in in-
ustrial plants, for the boredom is as
prevalent and there is an added element of
egomania.

in need: "The longer large overpayments
and payments to ineligible recipients
continue, the more people in real need are
deprived of funds intended for them," he
said. For several years, HEW re-
quirements have kept welfare agencies
from correcting obvious abuses, and both
the taxpayers and the needy have paid.
HEW's latest rulings indicate that some
measure of reason may be returning to
the administration of welfare, and it's a
welcome change to contemplate.

Almost every cell in Federalia has discon-
tented underlings who, like Napoleon's
soldiers, each carry a marshal's baton in his
knapsack and the delusion that he could run the
Department better than his boss. This will not
change under Kissinger,

But he may be able to do something about the
Foreign Relations Committee, by reducing
it from a rogue-mustang to something ap-
proaching a useful family dobbin, as it was in-
tended to be. There are more ways to tame a
wild horse than to whip it into submission, but
the velvet only hides the Doctor's hard hand.
The self-deprecating humor merely covers a
ruthless intellect which has small use for little
minds.

KISSINGER is the guy who ordered the
phone-taps on his own staff in the White
House, as well as those of some respected news-
paper correspondents with whom he shared
witticisms and cocktails. Espionage and
hidden persuaders are part of his bag. There
are Senators who will not know when he slips
on the bridle and tightens the cinch.

It is easier to foretell his purposes than his
methods. This Fulbright committee has got to
be taught, as a beginning, to let the President's
war powers alone. Foreign agreements,
Kissinger has said, are not completed at the
signing ceremony. They have to be enforced,
and this is not done by tying the President's
hands. The committee has got to scrub the idea
that Foreign Aid is philanthropy to turn "have
not" nations into "haves." Truly, our wealth is
(or was) an American weapon, but it should
be used abroad only to benefit America.

Interference in another country's govern-
ment has its place, but thundering at Presi-
dent Thieu's corruption, at Party Leader
Brezhnev's illiberalism, at the Greek
Colonels' phony constitution is not Kissinger's
way of getting anything done.

Endless is the list of usurpations by
Chairman Fulbright's little group of willful
men. They have done many things that they
ought not to have done. If Kissinger becomes an
effective Secretary of State, his work must
begin when these misdemeanors end.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR 5 SEPTEMBER 1973

# State Department awaits Kissinger arrival

By Charlotte Saikowski

Staff correspondent of

The Christian Science Monitor

Washington

There's an air of anticipation — and, for some, uncertainty — at the State Department these days.

No one knows what will happen when Secretary of State-Designate Henry A. Kissinger officially hangs his hat on the seventh floor. But it is certain that many shifts of personnel will take place, some because of existing vacancies and others out of a desire to rotate men who have been on deck for a long time.

Since the beginning of President Nixon's second administration there already has been considerable movement in State Department hierarchy. Nineteen out of 33 high posts have been changed, including career and political appointments.

## Some to stay

At the top Deputy Secretary Kenneth Rush, a political appointee, has already said he will stay on to serve Dr. Kissinger. The No. 3 man, Undersecretary for Political Affairs William J. Porter, who is the highest Foreign Service officer in the department, and a diplomat with long experience in Asia, is expected to remain. So is Undersecretary for Economic Affairs William J. Casey.

Below this apex are a number of vacancies, however. Among them is the post of deputy undersecretary for management, a key slot in the bureaucracy that now functions under an acting head. Others include a legal adviser, a counselor, and a deputy assistant secretary for press relations.

sible changes — will also be made at the level of the assistant secretaries who run the regional bureaus. These likewise are presidential nominations.

## An area of rethinking

It is widely thought, for one, that Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Joseph J. Sisco may be replaced before the beginning of the year. Mr. Sisco has long been the administration's negotiator and expert on the Middle East, a critical area of policy that Dr. Kissinger says needs rethinking.

Still to be filled is the sensitive position of assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific affairs. President Nixon appointed former Ambassador to Laos G. McMurtrie Godley to the post, but the nomination was rejected by the Senate because of the diplomat's close identification with the administration's Indo-China policy.

## European affairs

Head of the Bureau of European

(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)

# Foreign policy: a fresh start?

By Robert R. Bowie

The naming of Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State is a clear improvement over the previous setup for handling foreign policy.

At the least it removes the embarrassing anomaly of having the Secretary of State and his department on the periphery of decisionmaking. More hopefully the change could mean greater openness with Congress and the press, and more use of the expertise in the State Department and elsewhere. If so, the results should be better balance and more realism in United States policy.

The task is much larger than Dr. Kissinger suggested in his press conference. There he indicated that the need was mainly "to solidify what had been started," to "institutionalize" the initiatives of the first term.

In my opinion such a view seriously underestimates the challenge. This article and the next will attempt to show why.

An adequate structure of world order must ultimately come to terms with the dominant facts of growing interdependence, which demands close cooperation by many nations to handle common problems—survival, prosperity, resources, quality of life, etc. That would be hard enough if the major nations and regions which need to collaborate were ready and able to do so. But in fact most are not prepared to accept the implications of the emerging situation.

Some, like the Soviet Union and China, see the world through different lenses. Others, like Western Europe, are not yet organized for the task; or like the U.S. or Japan are still groping to adjust their roles; or like many developing nations are too weak or distracted.

The process of gradually overcoming the obstacles is bound to extend over decades, with inevitable ups and downs. To make progress will require a coherent strategy at least by the main democratic nations.

Such a strategy must clearly articulate the priorities. It must recognize the crucial differences between American relations with the Soviet Union and China, and those with Western Europe and Japan or with the developing countries.

A basic criticism of the first-term Nixon policy is that it failed to do just that, and oversold the initiatives to the Soviet Union and China.

In the case of the Soviet Union, it is especially critical to keep things in perspective. The continuity is at least as significant as the novelty. Since the late '50's, Soviet leaders have been following the policy of coexistence, which recognizes the common interest in avoiding nuclear war while pursuing rivalry by other means.

And for many years the Atlantic

nations have followed a dual policy toward the Soviet Union of maintaining deterrents while seeking cooperation where feasible.

Within that framework, both sides have reacted and adapted to changing conditions. The current detente has its roots in various factors — the Western acceptance of the status quo in Eastern Europe, the Soviets' need for technology and credits, their concern about China and their hope of exploiting U.S. retraction and European uncertainty.

It would be a grave error, however, to assume that the Soviet leaders understand detente as they wish the West to do. That is not how they interpret coexistence to their own people. And their intense repression of dissidents, the blockage of foreign contracts, and the steady military buildup should drive the point home. Dr. Sakharov's warning to the West not to be taken in by detente on Soviet terms should not be ignored. Yet the U.S. should continue to seek areas of agreement, such as arms control to reduce military spending if the Soviet leaders are prepared to accept real parity. It is not yet clear, however, whether they are ready to do so, or whether they still seek political advantages in nuclear "superiority." SALT II should be devoted to clarifying that issue.

As for China the situation is comparable though less vital. The move to normalize relations, which was long overdue, has been fully accepted in this country. In China the future outlook may be less certain. Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-ial were largely motivated by their fear of the Soviet Union. They defined it as the "main enemy." But whether their line will survive a decline in Sino-Soviet hostility or some future change of leaders is quite unpredictable.

In short, in relation to the Soviet Union and China the U.S. problem is less to institutionalize its policies than to keep them in perspective. In Congress, the press, and the public, there is no lack of support for improving relations with both. Indeed the danger is the other way—that false hopes will make it very hard to maintain the deterrent side of the dual policy, or that the desire for short-term successes may lead to unwise concessions.

In the other major field of policy — relations with Western Europe and Japan — there is an urgent need to "institutionalize" cooperation on many fronts. But that will have to be based not on the policies of the first term but on a fresh start, as I will try to show in my next article.

Robert R. Bowie is a member of the Harvard Center for International Affairs and of the Harvard faculty.

5-F

Soviet book edition mistranslates
Fulbright's plain meaning

By Paul Wohl

Written for

The Christian Science Monitor

In an attack on the Voice of Amer-
ica, Pravda's commentator, Yury A.
Zhukov, has warned Soviet audiences
against writing to the VOA lest the
writers' addresses be used for con-
spiratorial purposes.

To buttress his onslaught on VOA
Mr. Zhukov quoted Sen. J. W. Ful-
bright as having written that "these
broadcasts are a part of a system of
lies and deception and conspiracy."

One finds this sentence neither in
Senator Fulbright's recent articles in
the Washington Post nor in his book
"The Arrogance of Power," which is
frequently quoted in the U.S.S.R.

Mr. Zhukov must have thought of
Lenin's statement in "Left-wing Com-
munism and Infantile Disorder," a
pamphlet published in 1920, where the
founder of the Soviet republic advises
his party "to resort to all sorts of
tricks, ruses, illegal methods, reti-
cences, concealment of truth...."

Lenin's advice has been followed to
the letter in the Russian edition of
Senator Fulbright's book published in
1967 by the Soviet Institute of Inter-
national Relations.

As one opens the book, there is a
facsimile of the title of the American
edition and opposite it an exact
Russian translation. This must have
been done to convey the impressions
that the Russian edition is identical to
the original. But it is not.

There are large numbers of
changes in substance by means of
omissions, apparently deliberate mis-
translations. The distortions cover
almost every aspect of Mr. Ful-
bright's presentation.

A comparison of the Russian and
American texts by a reputable
scholar shows that everything consid-
ered to be damaging to basic Soviet

ideology or opposing Soviet inter-
pretation of international events or
which touches upon Soviet difficulties
with its allies in Eastern Europe has
been omitted.

Any expression of hope that "the
American idea can be revitalized,
that" efforts to encourage Communist
imitation of our more sensible atti-
tudes" could succeed, or that ideologi-
cal barriers could be expected to
erode is missing.

Direct or indirect criticism of Com-
munist weaknesses has fallen victim
to the censor's scissors.

Here are a few distortions of Sena-
tor Fulbright's book chosen at ran-
dom:

On page 80 of the American edition,
Senator Fulbright wrote, "Stalinism
had many of the worst features of
Hitlerism." The sentence was omitted
in the Russian edition.

On page 248, Senator Fulbright
wrote about "men . . . who confuse
power with virtue, who believe in
some cause without doubt and prac-
tice their beliefs without scruple.
From Robespierre to Stalin. . . ." he
wrote, "they have been the extreme
practitioners of power — extreme,
indeed, in a way that . . . hopefully
never will be known in America."

In the Russian edition the passage
ends with the words, "without doubt."

On page 104, Senator Fulbright
wrote, "The Eastern European gov-
ernments have demonstrated
that . . . they still wish to free them-
selves as much as they can and as
much as they dare from the over-
bearing power of Russia."

This sentence has been omitted.

On pages 121-122, where Senator
Fulbright deals with Soviet restraint
with respect to the Vietnam war, he
wrote, "my feeling about the matter
is that the Russians are frightened of

us."

The whole passage was omitted.

Senator Fulbright's presentation of
the causes of the Korean war was
removed by the censor. In a foreword
to the Russian edition, Sen. Fulbright
is accused of having "taken his
interpretation from the arsenal of the
cold war."

On page 108, Senator Fulbright,
discussing the attitude of the United
States toward the Vietnam war wrote,
"Whatever the fault may be on our
side, the greater faults have been with
the Communists, who have indeed
betrayed agreements, subverted un-
offending governments, and gener-
ally done a great deal to provoke our
hostility."

The passage is missing from the
Russian text.

Also omitted is Senator Fulbright's
discussion of "building bridges be-
tween the Communist and the non-
Communist world."

While the Soviets are hypersensi-
tive to the faintest criticism of their
system and policy, they find it in
order to flay, as did Mr. Zhukov in his
broadcasts of Aug. 18, the "negative
activity" of "the Radio Center Voice
of America, which has 112 trans-
mitters and broadcasts from morning
to evening throughout the world."

The Soviets have more transmitters
and are on the air in 84 languages for
a total of approximately 1,900 pro-
gram hours (as against 884 program
hours of the Voice of America), not
counting East European broadcasts.
But with the Russians what is "sauce
for the goose" apparently is not
"sauce for the gander."

Moscow's English, Spanish, and
other foreign-language programs
beamed to the U.S., for instance,
constantly solicit letters from Amer-
ican listeners, as do Soviet period-
icals.

STATE DEPARTMENT CONTINUED

Affairs is Walter J. Stoessel Jr.,
another able career officer who
served as ambassador to Poland
before his appointment as assistant
secretary last year. Mr. Stoessel, who
has been working closely with Dr.
Kissinger on a broad gamut of pol-
ics relating to Europe, will most
likely remain.

On the other hand, there may be a
new face at the Bureau of African
Affairs where Assistant Secretary
David D. Newsom has worked for
more than four years.

Dr. Kissinger will also have to
concern himself with filling 17 or 18
ambassadorial posts, including Mos-
cow. It is presumed that President

Nixon has had difficulty filling this
major slot because he has been
unable to find someone as prestigious
as David K. E. Bruce in Peking.

Other vacant ambassadorial posts
include Cambodia, Pakistan, Bangla-
desh, Libya, and Romania.

Comparable vacancies

State Department officials deny
that the Watergate affair has slowed
the filling of ambassadorial and other
positions. They say there is no larger
number of vacancies now than existed
at this point in time in other adminis-
trations.

In any event, what choices Dr.
Kissinger makes will be watched with

interest. As they wait for their new
boss, officials at the State Depart-
ment have been busy drafting lists of
ambassadors and other presidential
appointments as well as briefing
papers on personnel and policies.

"There's been no increase in the
number of people leaving at 5:30 to
see their wives," quipped one official,
referring to Dr. Kissinger's advice
that the men at Foggy Bottom see as
much of their wives as possible before
the new secretary of state takes over.

Dr. Kissinger, for his part, is busy
doing his homework, consulting with
top American ambassadors as well as
with Deputy Secretary Rush and
other key State Department officials.

6-F

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

September 5, 1973

ministration during the course of his confirmation proceedings which begin on Friday of this week.

Dr. Kissinger's relationship in his position as Presidential adviser on foreign policy with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and with the House Foreign Affairs Committee has been excellent. I feel that he will welcome the opportunity to make clear the objectives of the American foreign policy under the Nixon administration.

I feel that Dr. Kissinger would concur with the comment made to me once by a former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, who said:

> Undoubtedly the foreign policy of the United States of America can be no better than the understanding of it and the support given to it by the American people.

The purpose of the public hearings is not only to satisfy the constitutional requirement imposed upon the Senate for confirmation proceedings, but also to add to the public understanding.

It is an opportunity for the administration to have the American public better understand the direction in which we are headed in world affairs.

Because many of my colleagues in the Congress were away during the August recess, I ask unanimous consent that a group of newspaper clippings containing editorial comment as well as observations by some of our Nation's most discerning journalists on Dr. Kissinger's nomination be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Chicago Daily News, Aug. 25-26, 1973]

### KISSINGER MAKES SENSE

Henry Kissinger's accession to the top Cabinet post puts American foreign policy in expert hands for the critical years just ahead. Nearly all the good things that President Nixon has accomplished on the world scene he has accomplished with the powerful help of Dr. Kissinger. As secretary of state as well as presidential adviser, Kissinger will be well-positioned to advance those programs.

The fact of Kissinger's being until now the chief foreign policy adviser while William P. Rogers was secretary of state has been anomalous, and a handicap to the department. It was frustrating to the lower echelons of professionals in the department—and for Congress—to be remote from the chief policy executive, and frustrating for Kissinger to be remote from the agency responsible for implementing all the decisions he was so intimately involved in making.

Now the implementation of what has already been set in motion with Peking, Moscow and elsewhere will become his specific responsibility, along with assisting the President to formulate new policies that will move the nation forward in the years ahead. In the wake of the Vietnam War that Kissinger played so critical a role in ending, half a dozen global matters clamor for urgent attention—the Middle East, the recurring SALT talks, China, Japan, the tottering West European alliance.

The Senate should speedily approve the Kissinger nomination. There are serious questions it will want to ask him, especially regarding how candid and co-operative he intends to be with Congress. But Kissinger has anticipated that problem and given solid assurances that he will communicate freely and not hide behind executive privilege.

We believe the Senate should take Kissinger at his word, and so should the public, that he will "explain our philosophies, purposes and policies" as he goes along.

Dr. Kissinger is not only a wise and competent statesman, but also he brings to his high task a perspective, inspiration and a sense of dedication that will be of great service in advancing policy abroad and clarifying and strengthening it at home.

[From the New York Times, Aug. 24, 1973]

### KISSINGER GOAL: TO CLEAR THE AIR

(By Bernard Gwertzman)

WASHINGTON, August 23.—Henry A. Kissinger moved quickly today to make known his hope that the final years of the Nixon Administration would be marked by an open foreign policy that would produce less friction with Congress, more information for the American people and some meaningful work for the State Department. The Secretary of State-designate was clearly trying to give substance to President Nixon's appeal yesterday to put the Watergate scandal aside and concentrate on the "business of the people." It is questionable whether the mood of the country will support Mr. Kissinger's call for bipartisan unity in foreign affairs, which, he said, "transcends any particular administration."

But in his news conference today at San Clemente, Calif., Mr. Kissinger certainly seemed determined to try to use his own prestige as the intellectual catalyst of the Administration to restore confidence in the Government and prevent serious erosion of America's image abroad.

After consulting with Mr. Nixon earlier today, Mr. Kissinger was like a peace-maker, issuing promises, seeking to create a new atmosphere in Washington.

### PARTNERSHIP WITH CONGRESS

To Congress, instead of the bitter disputes of the past over Indochina, which Mr. Nixon revived as recently as Monday in New Orleans, Mr. Kissinger offered "a new and full partnership" to insure that Congress be involved in the making of foreign policy as well as the approval of it.

To the public and the press, Mr. Kissinger avoided any polemics and promised instead an open-door policy at the new State Department, asserting that we have an obligation to explain our philosophy and purposes."

And finally, to the State Department's foreign-service officers, a group of talented men whose ability was often scorned at the White House, Mr. Kissinger promised plenty of work and a large share of the foreign-policy load.

In nominating Mr. Kissinger, his adviser on national security, to replace William P. Rogers as Secretary of State, Mr. Nixon has granted the former Harvard professor more individual power than any official has been given since John Foster Dulles ran President Dwight D. Eisenhower's foreign policy.

### EMPHASIS ON A TUNE-UP

Hours after the nomination became known, State Department officials and others in the foreign-policy Establishment in Washington were speculating on how Mr. Kissinger would handle this new, dual responsibility. If confirmed by the Senate—some thing that is widely expected—Mr. Kissinger will have the sluggish State Department bureaucracy of 12,000 to direct, along with his own sleek, tailormade 120-man National Security Council staff.

Details have not been worked out, but Mr. Kissinger indicated today that he did not plan any major overhaul in the foreign-policy machinery. Rather, he placed emphasis on tuning up and getting more mileage out of the old-fashioned department.

Mr. Kissinger referred to the foreign-policy officers as "great professionals." He seemed like a football coach when he urged

## DR. HENRY KISSINGER AS SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I commend the President of the United States on his nomination of Dr. Henry Kissinger as his new Secretary of State. Having just returned from South Asia and Europe and having listened to comments from many of my colleagues in the Senate, I feel that this nomination is being virtually universally acclaimed.

Dr. Kissinger has participated actively for the past 4½ years as a principal architect, with the President, on brilliant and creative foreign policy initiatives that have contributed importantly to the prospects for peace in our time.

The admiration of the members of the Foreign Relations Committee for Dr. Kissinger will not cause any restraint, however, on the part of any member to penetrating and searching questioning of Dr. Kissinger with respect to the foreign policy plans and programs—past, present, and future—of the Nixon ad-

Europeans Hopeful on Kissinger's Role

By FLORA LEWIS

Special to The New York Times

PARIS, Sept. 4—The nomination of Henry A. Kissinger to be Secretary of State has raised some hopes in Europe that United States embassies will regain an effective role.

Though little noticed in Washington, the period of almost total foreign policy concentration at the White House while Mr. Kissinger worked there as President Nixon's adviser on national security resulted in as much paralysis and demoralization in American embassies as it did in the State Department.

In some ways the effect on the embassies was even worse for foreign officials and for American diplomats abroad. In Washington top foreign diplomats could bypass the State Department on important issues and take their problems to Mr. Kissinger at the White House.

Foreign ministers and other top officials found that they had to work through their

They See Prospects He
Will Revive Use of
U.S. Embassies

own Washington envoys or hope for one of Mr. Kissinger's lightning trips if they wanted useful face-to-face talks on United States policy because the American ambassadors in their capitals were seldom fully informed.

In two recent sets of negotiations, Europeans even came to the conclusion that United States negotiators were getting separate and contradictory instructions—regular and routine policy advice from the State Department, and, when a crunch came, different orders from Kissinger's shop."

This happened toward the end of the Conference on European Security and Cooperation in Helsinki, a prelude to working negotiations to open in Genva this month.

The American delegation

kept a "low profile," making sure to work closely with European allies and accepting their view that bargaining should proceed with great care and, if necessary, slowly.

Secretary of State William P. Rogers appeared for the formal conclusion of the conference in early July and seemed to endorse this approach.

But later, European officials said, they got word through their embassies in Washington that this was not the way the White House wanted the coming working sessions to go.

They heard that signals had been switched to rush through the Genva sessions and, if possible, come up with a document that could be the basis for a large-scale East-West summit conference during President Nixon's expected European tour.

That caused renewed tension in Europe-American relation-

Continued on Page 10, Column 4

SPECTRUM
Varying shades of personal opinion on current issues

M. STANTON EVANS
CBS RADIO NETWORK

SEPTEMBER 3, 1973

I'm M. Stanton Evans.

Appointment of Dr. Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State is a climactic event which is in one sense fitting, in another profoundly disturbing.

It is fitting because Kissinger has been the de facto arbiter of American foreign policy for the past four years while Secretary of State William Rogers fulfilled a largely secondary and ceremonial role. Kissinger's new position will bring the formal structure of our government in line with the realities of the situation, ending possible confusion about who is generating policy and who is responsible for the results.

It is disturbing in that Kissinger's power will be enhanced by the move and there is every reason to wish that his power be diminished. Kissinger is the country's chief promoter of detente with the Communists, and as such has played a major role in befuddling popular and official understanding on the nature of the Cold War conflict. As Secretary of State he will be able to spread befuddlement on an even broader scale.

Kissinger was the architect of the Paris peace agreement on Vietnam. Today that agreement lies in shambles as the Communists continue to press their aggression all over Indochina -- as Kissinger argued they would not. He was also the author of the strategy which wound up with Free China thrown out of the United Nations -- another outcome directly contrary to Kissinger's assurances.

More generally, it has been in obedience to Kissinger's convoluted notions of detente that the United States has embarked on trade agreements with the Communists which have weakened our economy, as in the grain deal, and strengthened the enemy, as in the construction of a one billion dollar truck factory for the Soviets on the Kama River. Any solid benefit to America from all this has yet to be demonstrated.

Even more important, Kissinger is the godfather of the SALT agreements which embrace the far-out theories of the disarmament lobby, explicitly disowning the idea of defending America's civilian population from enemy attack. Indeed, our whole strategic arsenal is crumbling as popular backing for strong defense has melted away in the euphoria of detente. The prospect for more of the same is not encouraging.

This is M. Stanton Evans with Spectrum.

The diverse opinions expressed on SPECTRUM are those of the commentators themselves and should not be attributed to CBS or any of its affiliates
Produced under the supervision of CBS News, 524 West 57 Street, New York, New York 10019 (212) 765-4321

ETHEL PAYNE
CBS RADIO NETWORK

SEPTEMBER 3, 1973

AAX

I'm Ethel Payne.

Dr. Henry Kissinger comes to the State Department with the potential of being one of the strongest Secretaries in its history -- perhaps even the strongest. I base these superlatives on his skilfull performance on the diplomatic front, as well as his close relationship with the President. He is uniquely his own man -- able to make and carry out decisions. Other secretaries have not always been able to enjoy that privilege. Particularly when the occupant of the White House is one who insists on imposing his own brand on the conduct of foreign policy.

Some areas are badly in need of overhauling. For too long our policy towards Africa has been one of benign neglect. It was pushed to the back burner and left to simmer slowly in its own problems.

It was just 16 years ago that Ghana became the first African country to gain independence. In the rush towards freedom most of the emerging nations were left by their former rulers with not even the rudiments of administrative machinery to carry on. Very little was done to educate the ruled to become the new rulers. So the problems were inevitable.

It is miraculous that great progress has been made despite the handicaps. As for our policy on Africa, our total aid money for the entire continent is less than the amount we have been spending in Indochina for one month. We have officially denounced colonialism but shamefully supported the racist regimes of the white governments of South Africa, the Portuguese territories of Angola and Mozambique and Rhodesia. We send ambassadors to some countries who are openly racist, and whose performances are a positive embarrassment to our posture as a democratic country.

In 1970, the outgoing Secretary of State, William Rogers, made a visit to 10 African countries. He was the first U.S. Secretary to do so. The trip was largely ceremonial; no new commitments were made. But it did give long overdue recognition to Africa. We hope that Kissinger, when he has been confirmed, will give immediate consideration to the urgent problems of our African relations. It would be even better for him to make a visit there.

This is Ethel Payne for Spectrum.

Patrick Owens

Highbrow Footwork by Humble Henry

9-11-73

This is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sitting in all its majesty in the Senate Caucus Room. But the proceedings sound rather like those of a fusty parole board.

Henry Kissinger has re-learned humility, or a facsimile, and seems almost to luxuriate in the role of petitioner. He waits as dutifully as a schoolboy or a yardbird for the senator to finish his question. Then, in a voice that marries deference to authority, he says that, yes, the senator certainly has a point.

By yesterday afternoon, the Chancellor from Graustark had pledged himself to honesty in state-craft and congressional consultation so often and in such a variety of circumstances that only those as hardheaded and cynical as Kissinger himself could be left in doubt about the good doctor's good intentions.

Kissinger has a truly splendid mind and that alone made him a joy to hear. After the parade of zoning lawyers, publicists and other stumblebums who have for so long represented the Nixon administration before the Watergate Committee, it is a pleasure to encounter a man capable of straightforward, nimble intellection.

The Kissinger intelligence shows, too, in the tone he has adopted and the style he has set for his confirmation hearings. He has proved lavish in the dispensation of good wishes, hair-splitting second thoughts and general function. He is the probationer, and he has remembered this, but he seems fairly often to speak from the vantage point of a probationer whose big daddy owns the big house. He is not

notably generous in dealing with precise and concrete questions that could cramp his future style.

Pressed for what seems the hundredth time on the possibility of a repetition of the famous wiretaps, Kissinger says: "I cannot now foresee the circumstance where this is a very likely eventuality." Pressed further, and specifically on the question of whether a President should be permitted to wiretap on his own authority, without anyone's concurrence, Kissinger finally adds: "I would think that in these cases the demonstration of necessity is reasonable." In other words, Kissinger thinks it reasonable to require the President to get approval of a judge, or a congressman, or somebody. The answer is not very specific, and has been two days coming, but it seems the best the Senate will be able to do.

Kissinger comes before the committee in the peculiar role of a man who has given specific, very grave offense to the country, the Congress and (most specifically and gravely of all) the Foreign Relations Committee.

The wiretapping is most troubling to the committee, in part for the parochial reason that one of those tapped subsequently became a member of the committee staff. Of second (though not secondary) concern is the conduct of the war in Southeast Asia, most especially the invasion of Cambodia in 1970 and the marathon bombing of Cambodia before and after under seven veils of secrecy. There are a host of other complaints, ranging from Kissinger's faint complicity in the burglary of Ellsberg's psychiatrist (one of the plumbers was on his National Security

Council payroll, or had been) to his substitution of executive agreements for treaties in dealing with other nations, with the consequent monopolization of foreign policy by the executive branch.

Kissinger says, over and over again, that a repetition of the circumstances that caused the bombing to be kept secret is not faintly foreseeable. Finally, he says he trusts that it would be possible to notify the chairman and ranking minority member of Foreign Relations of any comparable future initiatives. (The congressmen who were notified were all ranking hawks.) But the basis for his optimism is notable. By then, he says, he assumes that the Nixon administration's relations with Congress "would have reached a position of trust" so great as to permit the sharing of the most vital secrets.

In other words, Kissinger promises to tell all hereafter, but only if J. William Fulbright, et al, establish that they can be trusted with his secrets.

Such a position assumes, at a minimum, that the executive branch remains free to wage war when and how it likes, and that even the notification of congressmen not of its choosing is an affront to the imperium that need not be tolerated.

This is not much of an improvement on the present arrangement, if indeed it is any improvement at all. But the Foreign Relations Committee does not seem profoundly concerned about such cheeseparing. It is heading into a showdown with the Nixonites on the issue of FBI reports on the wiretaps. And that issue seems the only one which can deprive Dr. Kissinger of his cabinet rank.

Barring some dramatic change in mood or situation, the Senate lacks the nerve to reject Kissinger simply on his record. Next to Nixon himself, Kissinger is the man most responsible for the bloody course of U.S. policy in Southeast Asia over the past four years. He has also been intimately involved in the deceits by which that policy has been defended and sustained.

His confirmation will mean that the country has learned nothing from Vietnam that it wants to remember.

"[Kissinger's] position assumes, at a minimum, that the executive branch remains free to wage war when and how it likes, and that even the notification of congressmen not of its choosing is an affront to the imperium ..."

51

THE HOUSTON POST

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1973

Donald Morris

Senators forgot to line up their ducks for Kissinger

It was, really, a remarkable confrontation, between Dr. Kissinger and the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Everyone was well aware the confirmation would go through — Sen. Muskie admitted as much — so despite Sen. Fulbright's ardent desire to make it look like a horse race, much of the questioning and many of the answers were only pro forma and largely predictable.

The object of such a hearing is to determine the candidate's fitness for the office proposed, but a good measure of the chronic congressional inability to assume control of the nation's course was evident in their approach. The Congress in general and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in particular is most unhappy about the minuscule role to which it has been relegated, and the unhappiness has been compounded in recent years by their lack of access to Dr. Kissinger. The secretary of state could be sent for at will, but the secretary of state wasn't formulating policy. Dr. Kissinger was formulating — and executing — policy, and his activities were protected from congressional scrutiny by the formidable ramparts of executive privilege.

Now, at long last, here was the fount of formulation, out in the open, where his past record and his intentions could be examined. It was the perfect opportunity and the proper forum, and had the committee had its ducks

in a row, major issues might have had a profitable airing.

But the ducks weren't in a row. Sen. Fulbright simply divided the time available by the

Post news analysis:
On Monday, senators
focus on the CIA

number of members, giving each senator something less than 10 minutes to ask whatever questions popped into his head, and since the allotted time had to cover the answers as well, the net result (by a factor of about four to one) was more senatorial oratory than candidate response.

The senators ran true to form. Several of them (notably Messrs. Symington and Pell) put pertinent questions which drew pertinent response. Some put questions, verbatim, which had been provided by special interest constituents. Sen. Fulbright wanted confirmation that the President would not lead the country into war without the approval of the committee, to which Dr. Kissinger made a

careful response which neither surrendered executive prerogatives nor satisfied Sen. Fulbright.

Sen. Aiken made a long, rambling and apparently pointless statement which ended abruptly with the suggestion that the committee not waste time in confirming the candidate, as there was business for the State Department in the immediate future and the sooner its new chief were confirmed the better. Sen. Fulbright, with his horse race slipping away, bridled mightily at this.

Several senators found it difficult to disentangle foreign affairs from their fixation on Watergate. There are a number of questions which might be put to Dr. Kissinger on wiretapping in his former capacity as an NSC staffer, but they really have no bearing on his capacity as potential secretary of state.

Sen. McGovern put leading questions designed to draw agreement with the proposition that the CIA should cease and desist from covert actions abroad. Dr. Kissinger was not drawn, and did not agree. His answers to the predictable questions were predictable bromides, but when they were critical he departed from bromides and when they got too close to the bone he stated bluntly they would best be dealt with in closed session.

It was an impressive performance, which he dominated easily without exerting himself. It augurs well for the future of his department.

A threat to world stability

Del. News 9/11/73

Henry Kissinger, recently designated as secretary of state, warned —Congress and the American people the other day about the danger of permitting Watergate to influence this country's foreign policies and actions.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on his nomination, Kissinger noted that the Watergate scandals had come just as the country was recovering from the divisions caused by the Vietnam war. Then he added:

> "These traumatic events have cast lengthening shadows on our traditional optimism and self-esteem. A loss of confidence in our own country would inevitably be mirrored in our international relations.

> "Where once we ran the risk of thinking we were too good for the world, we might now swing to believing we are not good enough. Where once a soaring optimism tempted us to dare too much, a shrinking spirit could lead us to attempt too little.

> "Such an attitude—and the foreign policy it would produce—would deal a savage blow to global stability."

In effect, Kissinger seemed to be advising the country and Congress to take Mr. Nixon's advice and move on to the consideration of other problems and other issues. As Kissinger makes clear, Watergate could have a serious effect on global stability if the rest of the world concluded that the United States had now adopted a neoisolationist foreign policy.

Early approval of Kissinger's nomination would be one way for the U.S. Senate to show that it is not so preoccupied with Watergate as to neglect the nation's foreign affairs. A strong Senate endorsement of Kissinger, the architect of Mr. Nixon's foreign policy, would also give the lie to the fear that this country is embracing neoisolationism.

Dear old dad is free at last from his duties at the barbecue grill. Meat is too expensive to let him ruin it.

BILL VAUGHAN

# Who Is Haskell's Guru?

Sen Floyd Haskell, D-Colo., evidently is marching to a different drumbeat (along with Sen. James Abourezk, D-S.D.) than the rest of the U.S. Senate.

These two apparently will cast the only two negative votes when the Senate confirms Henry Kissinger as U.S. secretary of state. At best, their action can only be described as some sort of misplaced idealism.

If there is any member of the Nixon administration leadership team who has distinguished himself—judged by the standards of any period in U.S. history—it is Kissinger.

As national security adviser, Kissinger has pushed, prodded and cajoled on behalf of peace.

He has shown stubborn dedication in that cause and often brilliance. He has done so with a rare show of grace which enhanced the U.S. image when such posture was desperately needed.

That is why, we believe, Haskell and Abourezk are very much in an odd position in their opposition to Kissinger's nomination to succeed William Rogers as secretary of state.

One specific aspect of Haskell's opposition bothers us: his apparent sense of omniscience concerning the U.S. relationship with India during the Bangladesh freedom struggle. Who is Haskell's guru to make his views so expert — in hindsight?

It is quite true that the long U.S. relationship with Pakistan put us initially on the less humane side of the Bangladesh struggle. And it is unfortunate that some White House staffer leaked word that the

administration was taking a posture of "tilt" toward Pakistan.

But this was no abstract condition — it was a moving, evolving international event. Peking backed Pakistan. Did the new U.S. relationship with China influence the U.S. reaction?

Perhaps Haskell's worst oversimplification is that because of the U.S. attitude, India was "driven toward the waiting Soviet arms." Let us not forget, in that context, that Prime Minister Gandhi launched her wooing of the Soviets some five years before the Bangladesh affair.

The "purity" of the Haskell-Abourezk position reminds up of U.S. Rep. Jeannette Rankin's lone vote against war in World War II. She was against war, even when attacked. Haskell seems to espouse such purity that no one who has ever taken a compromise position on behalf of a worthy objective is worthy of public office.

Things seldom work that way. The policy of which Kissinger was a part now has led us to better relations with India than we have had in a long time. We have exceptionally competent ambassadors in both capitals now — Daniel Moynihan in New Delhi and T. N. Kaul in Washington. The international community, of which the U.S. has been a part, has encouraged India and Pakistan to achieve stability. To a large extent they have done so.

That ought to be the standard by which Senator Haskell judges Kissinger's worthiness — not a nit-picking perfectionism which, to our recollection, has seldom been demonstrated in politics, least of all, perhaps, in the hallowed halls of Congress.

The Dallas Morning News

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

Joseph M. Dealey
President

Richard D. Blum
Vice-President

Robert T. Richardson
Treasurer

Jack B. Krueger
Vice-President and
Executive Editor

James M. Moroney Jr.
Executive Vice-President

William C. Smellage
Vice-President
and Secretary

Sol Katz
Vice-President

Dick West
Editorial Director

X=PR

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1973

Cool Hand Henry

THE NEWLY DESIGNATED secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, is no novice at handling tough diplomatic problems. And that's all to the good, for he begins his tenure with a problem that has defeated every previous-attempt to solve it: The struggle between Arabs and Israelis in the Mid-East.

From the beginning the U.S. has contended that its Mid-East policy is "evenhanded." And President Nixon recently made a statement carefully designed in that spirit:

"Israel simply can't wait for the dust to settle, and the Arabs can't wait for the dust to settle in the Mid-East. Both sides are at fault. Both sides need to start negotiating. That is our position."

Unfortunately this isn't the sort of problem that allows us to leave it at that. Neither the pox-on-both-your-houses nor the benign neglect approach will stand up. The Mid-East confrontation and its effects reach directly into our politics and our economic system.

ON THE ONE hand, President Nixon has a political debt to pro-Israeli American voters from 1972 and there is considerable sympathy for the Israelis here. On the other hand, even the most hopeful estimates show that the U.S. will become more dependent on imported oil and it is nearly certain that some of that oil will have to come from the Arab oil countries.

To be sure, there is no consensus view among the Arab states either of

the U.S. or of the need to use oil as a weapon. But the potential exists and that's enough to make the leadership of our oil-fueled country increasingly nervous.

To make the administration's problem even more complicated, it's obvious that Americans generally are fed up with international feuds and our involvement therein. Politically, there is no great amount of support for any ambitious program of active peacemaking between far-off combatants, evenhanded or no.

The speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick approach that has been used in other diplomatic approaches has little appeal. Regardless of their tone of voice, our diplomats are not carrying a particularly big stick.

AND FINALLY, that Mid-East dogfight Thursday exploded any hopes that the situation would cool down to provide a better scene in which Kissinger could do his diplomatic stuff. By the Israeli account, the latest air battle claimed 13 Syrian jets and one Israeli. By the Syrian account, it took out five Israeli jets while eight Syrian planes were hit.

By any account, it's clear that the dust of conflict is not only not settling but is being kicked up in greater volume.

Secretary-designate Kissinger has shown in the deals with Red China and Russia that he plays a skillful hand of big-power diplomacy. But the Mid-East game is going to require all those skills and more. So far, at least, he's not drawing the cards.

wheat surpluses. How many tons have English muffins."

# Kissinger Challenged From the Right

### By Herbert W. Stupp

Having presided over a campaign and a White House staff infested with those who had little regard for the historically successful domestic principle of rule by law, President Nixon has nominated for secretary of state someone who has little regard for the foreign-policy principles or even the international framework that have kept the U.S. free and sovereign.

In many quarters, Henry Kissinger's nomination has been hailed as the best Nixon has ever made. A media-made euphoria has followed every Kissinger agreement, with hosannas that a 'structure of world peace' is that much closer. I would speculate that a typical citizen's reaction toward Henry Kissinger is now one of awe at his quasi-mystical skills.

Yet any dispassionate scrutiny of Kissinger's negotiating prowess ought to leave serious Americans with less cause for joy than the media has thus far allowed them.

* As liberal a senator as Hubert Humphrey has questioned the wisdom of the Nixon-Chou communique, which announced that Taiwan's future would become an "internal Chinese question," abandoning a faithful ally to a government that has slaughtered as many as 64,000,000 of its own people. And the administration refuses to even acknowledge the detente-shattering existence of a multimillion-dollar Chinese heroin trade in the U.S.

* Dr. Kissinger's role in the SALT talks culminated in the U.S. accepting a three-to-two inferiority in nuclear strength compared to Soviet Russia alone, thereby institutionalizing the

abstract theories of the disarmament lobby which Nixon campaigned against. Additionally, Kissinger is credited with persuading the President to abandon the "assured-destruction" policy that guaranteed retaliation as a response to a Soviet nuclear first strike. Today, such an attack on this country would allow us only to "review our options" rather than to retali ate automatically.

* The Soviet wheat deal has even some liberals questioning the trade-equals-detente logic. In dealing away thousands of tons of American wheat to our "partners for peace" in the Kremlin, we averted another of the massive shortages for which their

economic system has become notorious.

* Most recently, Dr. Kissinger "negotiated" a cease-fire in Vietnam whereby Communist troops codified into an agreement their right to remain in a country they invaded. The end result was predictable: continued pillaging of Southeast Asia, witness Cambodia today. Historians should note that Kissinger's pre-peace pact statements argued that the agreement would incur a reduction of North Vietnamese troops in the South. The cold facts indicate the exact opposite, with more dicate the exact opposite.

Almost every Kissinger pact, deal or agreement was consumated only with the U.S. capitulating a large portion of its interests in any given discussion.

Another possible area of concurrence among doves and hawks might be the use of secrecy and other dubious instruments allegedly safeguarding the national security. Certainly I am in favor of secrecy when our security could be compromised; but some points need to be raised here: Liberals have, thus far only decried secrecy in matters self-serving to them, i.e., Cambodia bombings. What about the questionable secrecy shrouding the $1 billion truck factory built with American capital on the Soviet Kama River? What about the secrecy blanketing our SALT surrender and Gordon Liddy's possible involvement in plugging leaks of information about that agreement?

It seems a distinct possibility exists that the White House has been invoking privileges of secrecy to withhold breaches of the national security (as it has, been historically defined), as opposed to protecting our interests.

It is hoped that the senators passing

judgment on our possible next secretary of state will examine these tapes and will have their staffs scrutinize Dr. Kissinger's writings with diligence, hacking away the ambiguities and the oxy moronic postulations that have made Dr. Kissinger many things to many men.

If they do, they will discover some interesting opinions and perhaps some explanations for our present policy of negotiation through capitulation, Dr. Kissinger's doctoral thesis, for example, argued paradoxically that Prince Metternich's greatest accomplishment was the demise of the country he served. And in "The Troubled Partnership," he wrote that the nation-state system was only transitory, suggesting that the U.S. ought to lead the way in surrendering its sovereignty.

Over the coming days, the senators will have a unique opportunity to question Dr. Kissinger as to whether or not he still holds those views. And if the media is a bit more restrained in embracing Kissinger and his detente, the senators will at least be able to vote their consciences without undue political repercussions. If Russian scientist Andrei Sakharov can risk everything to warn us against detente, it is this too much to ask?

Mr. Stupp, who lives in Rego Park, is a former national director of Young Americans for Freedom, a politically-conservative group. Now the group's mid-Atlantic regional representative, he is studying for a master's degree in government from Fordham University.

Deayan from life by Oscar Berger.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

PR

# Kissinger Track Record Is Poor

The Senate hearing on Dr. Kissinger's predicted confirmation is another instance of the fumbling and bungling over the past decade of U.S. senators in the field of foreign affairs. The subtlety of the nomination has escaped national attention in an eagerness to fill an important vacancy.

The principal issue raised by the senators was the wire tapping of Dr. Kissinger's staff members. What nonsense is this in the light of a nominee who has a track record since 1969.

Dr. Kissinger was the undisputed architect of our foreign policy. He was the unofficial secretary of State

"His (Kissinger's) pledge to cooperate with Congress, to tell the truth and nothing but the whole truth, sounds hollow and ambiguous..."

and he must be presumed to have recommended the prolongation of the Vietnam war, the bombing of Cambodia; the U.S. troop invasion in a neutral country, the indiscriminate bombing, and unknown and secret trade agreements with foreign governments.

The Russian wheat deal is a glaring example of a trade agreement in which the U.S. was badly "taken." And to add insult to injury, Russia is about to be added to the U.S. list of 'most-favored nations,' a trading clause offering Russia equal standing with other powers.

Our relations with European nations and in the Middle East are shaky; our diplomatic and trade negotiations with Japan are at the lowest ebb since World War II.

If the senators consider the downward path of U.S. esteem in foreign capitals, the decline in U.S. influence around the world in the past few years, how can its architect be con-

firmed and his mismanagement be ignored and condoned? Is it by reason of his arrangement of trips to Peking and Moscow for President Nixon? His accomplishments may perhaps become historical virtues, but today, his brilliance is highly overrated.

To a large extent as a result of foreign policy, the U.S. civilian population is enduring the pangs of war-shortages from A to Z, and yet there is no war.

The other odyssey, the one to Peking, was an inflated balloon and neatly punctured this very week by the Chinese leader who interpreted the visit as a cream puff or whatever its equivalent in the Chinese vocabulary.

Dr. Kissinger made some diplomatic concessions to his peers. He promised to make foreign policy more accessible to the scrutiny and views of Congress. Will this purge him of past sins and will future policy be less disastrous if it is revealed to a Senate committee? His pledge to cooperate with Congress, to tell the truth and nothing but the whole truth sounds hollow and ambiguous against the echo of past performance, where deception, foul secrecy and misleading statements under oath to Congressional committees prevailed.

Happily there may be a solution. Allow Dr. Kissinger the benefit of his own brilliance, and his pledge, and confine him to his role as Presidential adviser, one of the two positions tendered him by the President.

BAYARD STRELL