GENERAL

KISSINGER, HENRY

March 9, 1972 KISSINGER, HENRY A.

Dr. Kissinger
The White House

Dear Henry:

In roundabout fashion through an AP executive in NY, I get word that Peter Boenich, a top executive of the Axel Springer organization (I believe you know about Boenich, if only because he has written some very favorable items about you) seeks a totally confidential, not-for-publication meeting with you.

As I get the picture, some prominent West German political figures from among Brandt's opposition, want a reading from you on where U.S. policy stands vis-a-vis Europe--and Germany in particular. I am told these pols are of such prominence that if you granted one of them an audience, word would leak out and other Germans not so favored would get out-of-joint noses.

Their proposed solution--if you're willing--is I to send Boenich over as their emissary.

If you believe a meeting with Boenich would be feasible, I can get the word to him.

I'm just a middleman in all this and have scant interest in the matter one way or the other.

Frank Cormier

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

PETER RODMAN

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

January 28, 1972

Peter:

This came in with a one-sentence letter
from Dr. Dorwin Cortwright saying that
Mr. Bannester had asked him to pass it
along to HK. A similarly brief acknow-
ledgment of receipt was drafted and signed
by HK to Cortwright.

What do you suggest we do with it now?

jlp

(P.S. you may have already guessed, I
hope the answer doesn't have anything to
do with sending it back up here!)

RECEIVED

APR 5 1972

CENTRAL FILES

KISSINGER, HENRY A./C*

SEP 3 1971

Dear Bob:

I want to thank you for the superb tour you gave us of the NBC Studios and for all you did for me, my family and staff. It was fascinating to see all that goes into television production behind the scenes, and we all enjoyed it immensely. My son will be breaking break-away glass all over the house for the next two weeks, but I will not hold you responsible.

I hope that you will let me know if you are planning to come to Washington. I would be pleased to see you there and to attempt to return your great kindness to us.

PWR:JLP:9/3/71

RECEIVED
SEP 8 1971
CENTRAL FILES

ZÜRCHER WOCHE
SONNTAGS
JOURNAL

Sonderdruck aus dem Sonntags-Journal Nr. 18 vom 2./3. Mai 1970

# Gewaltverzicht?

Von Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi

Die deutsche Ostpolitik operiert seit über einem Jahr – besonders seit letztem Oktober, als Willy Brandt Bundeskanzler wurde – stark mit dem Begriff «Gewaltverzicht». Damit will sie sich den Weg zu den östlichen Hauptstädten bahnen, ohne eine Regelung durch Friedensvertrag vorwegzunehmen. Graf Coudenhove-Kalergi, der Gründer der Paneuropa-Union, erinnert daran im nachstehenden Beitrag. Indem er den Briand-Kellogg-Pakt von 1928, das Litwinow-Protokoll von 1929 und – mit einem beträchtlichen Schuss Ironie auch den Ribbentrop-Stalin-Pakt von 1939 heraufbeschwört, macht er auch aufmerksam auf das traurige Schicksal, das alle diese Verträge und Abkommen hatten: sie wurden gebrochen. Zur Zeit des Kellogg-Pakts und selbst zur Zeit, als sich das Dritte Reich und die UdSSR gegen Polen einigten, gab es allerdings noch keine Atom- und Wasserstoffbomben. Das macht einen beträchtlichen Unterschied aus. Vielleicht liegt gerade darin ein nicht geringer Anreiz, «Gewaltverzicht» von einst mit «Gewaltverzicht» von heute vergleichend nebeneinanderzustellen.

Die deutsche Bundesrepublik bemüht sich, mit der Sowjetunion einen Vertrag abzuschliessen, der beide Nationen verpflichtet, ihre Konflikte künftig gewaltlos zu regeln. Diese Verhandlungen bilden ein Teil der Politik der neuen Bundesregierung, deren Ziel es ist, dem Kalten Krieg zwischen ihr und der Warschauer-Pakt-Gruppe ein Ende zu setzen. Dennoch entbehren diese Verhandlungen nicht einer gewissen Komik. Die beiden verhandelnden Staaten scheinen vergessen zu haben, dass sie längst an einen Vertrag gebunden sind, der sie zur

erstrebten Gewaltlosigkeit verpflichtet. Dieser Vertrag, der 1928 abgeschlossen und daraufhin von 54 Staaten unterschrieben wurde, ist der sogenannte Kellogg-Pakt. Sein offizieller Name: «Pacte Briand-Kellogg».

Der Text lautet:

1. Die hohen vertragschliessenden Parteien erklären feierlich im Namen ihrer Völker, dass sie den Krieg als Mittel für die Lösung internationaler Streitfälle verdammen und auf ihn als Werkzeug nationaler Politik in ihren gegenseitigen Beziehungen verzichten.

2. Die hohen vertragschliessenden Parteien vereinbaren, dass die Regelung und Entscheidung aller Streitigkeiten und Konflikte, die zwischen ihnen entstehen könnten, welcher oder welchen Ursprungs sie auch sein mögen, niemals anders als durch friedliche Mittel angestrebt werden sollen.

Dieser Vertrag hat im Nürnberger Prozess eine grosse Rolle gespielt. Der Bruch des Kellogg-Paktes durch Deutschlands führende Männer wurde nachträglich zu einem todeswürdigen Verbrechen erklärt. Obgleich einer der Richterstaaten den Kellogg-Pakt bereits gebrochen hatte: die Sowjetunion durch ihren Angriff auf Finnland. Trotz dieser strafrechtlichen Anerkennung des Kellogg-Paktes wurde dieser einige Jahre später von Grossbritannien sowie von Frankreichs Vierter Republik gebrochen: durch ihren Angriff auf Ägypten. So dass von den Grossmächten einzig und allein die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika

den Kellogg-Pakt respektiert haben. Nicht nur alle europäischen Grossmächte haben ihn gebrochen, sondern auch die Grossstaaten Asiens: Japan durch seine Angriffe auf China und die USA, China durch seinen Angriff auf Indien, Indien durch seinen Angriff auf Portugiesisch-Goa. Durch diese Ereignisse ist der Kellogg-Pakt entwertet. Leider gibt es keinen Eid und kein Ehrenwort, das Regierungen stärker bindet als ihre Unterschrift unter einen Vertrag. Sonst wäre es an der Zeit, den Kellogg-Pakt zum zweiten Male zu unterzeichnen und die Vereinten Nationen mit der nötigen Macht auszustatten, um diesem Vertrag Respekt zu verschaffen.

Deutschland und Russland brauchten sich aber nicht den Kopf zu zerbrechen über die Form ihres Vertrages über Gewaltlosigkeit. Sondern einfach zu erklären, dass sie entschlossen sind, in ihren gegenseitigen Beziehungen ihre Unterschrift unter dem Kellogg-Pakt zu respektieren. Wahrscheinlich finden die Regierungen Bonns und Moskaus diese Formel zu dürftig. Sie brauchen nur in ihren Akten nachzuschlagen, um einen Text zu finden, der für einen Antigewaltpakt zwischen ihnen unübertreffbar ist. Es handelt sich um den Nichtangriffspakt, den am 23. August 1939 Ribbentrop und Molotow im Namen ihrer Regierungen und Nationen unterzeichnet haben. Er lautet:

Art. 1: Die beiden vertragschliessenden Teile verpflichten sich, sich jeden Gewaltates, jeder aggressiven Handlung und jeden Angriffs gegeneinander, und zwar sowohl einzeln als auch gemeinsam mit anderen Mächten, zu enthalten.

Art. 2: Falls einer der vertragschliessenden Teile Gegenstand kriegerischer Handlungen seitens einer dritten Macht werden sollte, wird der andere vertragschliessende Teil in keiner Form diese dritte Macht unterstützen.

Art. 3: Die Regierungen der beiden vertragschliessenden Teile werden künftig fortlaufend mit Konsultation in Führung miteinander bleiben, um sich gegenseitig über Fragen zu informieren, die ihre gemeinsamen Interessen berühren.

Art. 4: Keiner der beiden vertragschliessenden Teile wird sich an irgendeiner Mächtegruppierung beteiligen, die sich mittelbar oder unmittelbar gegen den anderen Teil ristet.

Art. 5: Falls Streitigkeiten oder Konflikte zwischen den vertragschliessenden Teilen über Fragen dieser oder jener Art entstehen sollten, würden beide Teile diese Streitigkeiten oder Konflikte ausschliesslich auf dem Wege freundschaftlichen Meinungsaustausches oder, nötigenfalls, durch Schlichtungskommissionen bereinigen.

Dieser Text lässt nichts zu wünschen übrig. Er leidet nur daran, dass er, auf zehn Jahre abgeschlossen, von Deutschland schon im dritten Jahr gebrochen wurde. Das Schicksal dieser beiden Pakte zeigt, wie brüchig negative Abkommen und Verträge sind, solange sie nicht ergänzt werden durch positive Vereinbarungen. Zu diesen Vereinbarungen, deren Grundlage die Anerkennung des Status quo in Osteuropa sein

müsste, ist auch die neue Bundesregierung nicht bereit. Obgleich es offenkundig ist, dass eine Änderung der Grenzen Osteuropas ohne Krieg in absehbarer Zeit nicht möglich ist. Ebenso klar ist, dass die Bundesrepublik diesen Krieg weder führen kann noch will. Nur wurde das deutsche Volk durch zwei Jahrzehnte durch seine Regierungen irregeführt. Durch die These, eine friedliche Wiedervereinigung wäre möglich und sogar notwendig.

Es gab einen Augenblick, in dem diese Wiedervereinigung möglich gewesen wäre; aber nur im Rahmen eines kommunistischen Deutschlands. Seit dem deutschen Wirtschaftswunder zieht Moskau ein geteiltes Deutschland einem geeinten kommunistischen Deutschland vor, das ihm die Führung der kommunistischen Welt streitig machen könnte. Dass keine der westlichen Nationen ein wiedervereinigtes Deutschland wünscht, dem die Hegemonie über Europa zufallen würde, ist klar: trotz aller gegenteiligen Beteuerungen. Deutschlands Gewaltverzicht wäre also eine indirekte Anerkennung des Status quo. Die Oststaaten aber fordern eine direkte Anerkennung.

Viel schwieriger als die Frage des Status quo ist die Frage Berlins. Berlin bildet kulturell einen Teil der Bundesrepublik, während es geographisch eine Insel innerhalb der DDR ist. Der Westen ist nicht bereit, die Annexion Westberlins durch die DDR zuzulassen; der Osten ist nicht bereit, diesen Anschluss an die Bundesrepublik zu

dulden. Die beste Lösung wäre, auch in dieser Frage zunächst den Status quo anzuerkennen. Und gleichzeitig die Verlegung des Sitzes der Vereinigten Nationen von New York nach Berlin vorzubereiten, das dann den Charakter einer weltlichen Vatikanstadt erhalten würde: als souveräne Brücke zwischen Ost und West.

Es handelt sich also im Grunde nicht um einen deutsch-russischen Antigewaltpakt, sondern um die Frage des Friedensschlusses mit Deutschland – ein Vierteljahrhundert nach dem Ende des Krieges. Um eine Friedenskonferenz zwischen den beiden deutschen Staaten, Frankreich, Grossbritannien, der Sowjetrepublik und den Vereinigten Staaten. Diese Friedenskonferenz ist viel wichtiger als die geplante Konferenz in Helsinki, die entweder ein Umweg wäre zur Friedenskonferenz – oder ein Versuch der Sowjetunion, die Vereinigten Staaten aus der europäischen Staatenwelt auszuschalten, um ein Paneuropa von Lissabon bis Wladiwostok vorzubereiten. Solange Bonn sich weigert, den Status quo anzuerkennen, gibt es kein Ende des Kalten Krieges in Osteuropa.

Dennoch sind die Verhandlungen der neuen Bundesrepublik mit Moskau, Warschau und Ostberlin wertvoll: weil sie die öffentliche Meinung der Bundesrepublik an den Gedanken gewöhnten, dass Deutschland zu wählen hat zwischen der Anerkennung des Status quo oder, früher oder später, einem dritten Weltkrieg.

Release Date:
December 8th, 1970

PANEUROPEAN MOVEMENT
Zurich, Beethovenstrasse 7

OPEN LETTER

to Prime Minister Edward Heath, President Pompidou,
Chancellor Brandt and Prime Minister Colombo

by
Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
Chairman of the PanEuropean Movement

Destiny has placed Western Europe before the alternative
of being transformed into a greater Switzerland - or a greater
Czechoslovakia; into a fourth super-power - or into an annex
of the Warsaw block.

It is very probable that the United States will withdraw
from Europe before 1973. Afterwards Europe will have no choice.
It is therefore too late for slow evolution.

Europe can still secure its liberty by executing the
European testament of General de Gaulle, which he presented
at the end of his mandate to the British Ambassador in Paris:
the political union of Europe by means of an initiative of
its four Great Powers: France, Great Britain, Germany and Italy.
Without waiting for the results of the economic negotiations.

Great Britain and Italy should join the franco-german
pact of friendship and, in the name of 215 millions of
Europeans, establish a joint General Secretariat and start
a joint international policy. All free nations of Europe
ought to be invited to join this powerful nucleus of union.

Europe, united by such a rapid and courageous action,
could then participate at the Security-Conference, after
having assured its balance of powers with Eastern Europe,
united by the Warsaw Pact.

Your nations and your parliaments wish to see Europe
unite. It is for you to unite it. Before it is too late.

In the name of the overwhelming majority of Europeans
I appeal to you: to transform weak and disunited Europe into
the fourth World-Power! Equal and friend of its two neighbours,
the United States and the Soviet Union.

Free, peaceful and happy!

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

The Thomas J. Watson Meetings

(212) 535-3300

KISSINGER, HENRY A. /C*

The Council on Foreign Relations
is pleased to announce a series of two lectures on
THE CDU'S VIEW OF GERMAN FOREIGN POLICY
You are cordially invited to attend the first lecture
"Alliance-Europe-and the Relaxation of Tensions"

by
Dr. RAINER BARZEL, MdB
Chairman, CDU/CSU Group in the Bundestag
Federal Republic of Germany

at
The Harold Pratt House
58 East Sixty-eighth Street
Thursday, April 15, 1971
Tea at: 5:15 pm
Meeting from: 5:30-6:30 pm

Presiding
Dr. Fritz Stern
Seth Low Professor of History, Columbia University

The meeting will be private and off-the-record. Please
return the enclosed card **ONLY** if you plan to attend.

Dr. Barzel will speak in German. Simultaneous translation will be provided.

The second lecture in the series:

Monday, April 26, 1971

"European Perspectives"

Dr. Gerhard Schroeder, MdB

Deputy Chairman, CDU

The Honorable Philip C.

Jessup will preside

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, INC.

THE HAROLD PRATT HOUSE 58 EAST 68TH STREET
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10021

CABLE ADDRESS: FORAFFAIRS, NEW YORK
AREA CODE: 212 LEhigh 5-3300

INVITATIONS TO MEETINGS

In order to be sure that Council members receive invita-
tions to meetings and study groups on subjects which interest
them most, the Council periodically sends out a questionnaire to
bring its data on members' special interests up to date. You
will note that on the questionnaire we have asked you not to
select more than a limited number of areas or countries as of
special interest. Since any one member receives only a limited
number of invitations to the smaller meetings, selection of too
many areas of interest means that your invitations are divided
among all these areas and thus defeats our desire to be sure you
get invitations to those meetings you would most like to attend.

I shall appreciate your letting me have the questionnaire
as soon as you conveniently can, but in any event by June 15th
in order to permit our staff to make the necessary changes in our
records in time for the fall season.

May 13, 1971

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS INC.

THE HAROLD PRATT HOUSE | 58 EAST 68TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10021 | TEL. (212) 535-3300 | CABLE: COUNFOREL, NEW YORK

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

HENRY KISSINGER MEETING

Due to an exceptionally high response from members to the Council's announcement about Henry Kissinger's meeting, it will be appreciated if members plan to arrive at the Council **NOT LATER THAN 5:25 P.M.** on December 21.

In order to allocate the available seating space in the best possible way, front doors will be **CLOSED PROMPTLY AT 5:25 P.M.** and no one will be admitted to the building afterwards.

It is also suggested that members **TELEPHONE THE COUNCIL** on the day of the meeting as Mr. Kissinger's schedule occasionally necessitates last minute changes.

December 11, 1972

RECEIVED

DEC 21 1972

CENTRAL F

58 EAST 68th STREET | NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021

Please send me at my Member's Discount Price

FIFTY YEARS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

___ copies @$9.87 (Make checks payable to Praeger Publishers)

Name

Address

Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.
58 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

Program Statement
1974-75 Competition

The Council on Foreign Relations is pleased to announce its 1974-75 International Affairs Fellowship competition. Initiated in 1967, the fellowships are designed to bridge the gap between theory and practice in international relations and to encourage the better use of scholarly or reflective wisdom in the making of decisions on international problems. With the support of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation, a number of fellowships will be awarded to Americans between the ages of twenty-seven and thirty-five with demonstrated intellectual ability and promise who come from the academic, government, business and professional communities. The fellowships will enable each to undertake an examination of an important problem in international affairs and to explore the implications of that problem for the interests and policies of the United States, foreign states, or international organizations.

With this broad objective, a wide variety of proposals will be considered. The Advisory Selection Committee will, for example, welcome proposals which focus the fellowship year on the task of looking for solutions, or partial solutions, to an identified problem. Taking the point of view of government officials or others who are faced with

-2-

alternative courses, a candidate might lay out a year's work designed to
produce practical recommendations based on the information, analyses and
theories already available.

An alternative for the academically-based person who has
perhaps already developed some hypotheses about policies to be adopted
by governments, would be to spend up to a year in government in a
position which permits him to observe and understand the forces that
influence the decision-making process.

The younger government official, on the other hand, is
encouraged to think through and reflect on a problem in a scholarly
environment free from the pressures of daily decision-making, and
based on the lessons of his own first-hand experience, to draw
generalizations or lessons that may be of value both to scholars and
to decision-makers who may be faced with similar problems in the future.

A fourth possibility would be to study some aspect of the
policy-making process itself and how that process might be improved.
One might, for example, study the process by which theoretical knowledge
and scholarly understanding at present affect the conduct of foreign
relations, and formulate suggestions for improving that process.

While these suggestions are illustrative of the main focus of
the program, other proposals that examine the policy implications of a
given problem are not precluded. It is not intended, however, to sup-
port research as traditionally understood -- the gathering of new in-
formation and the development of new generalizations concerning it -- if
the results will be of primary interest only to scholars or theoreticians.

-3-

Since one of the major purposes of the program is to have a constructive impact on the careers of promising young men and women, the proposals, whatever their nature, will be judged not only for their creativity and practicality, but for the contribution they seem likely to make to each recipient's individual development.

While there is no fixed requirement that a fellow produce a book, article or report, it is hoped that some written output will ordinarily result. Awards will not generally be made to complete books or other projects on which substantial progress has been made prior to the beginning of the fellowship period. In any case, candidates are urged to consider their proposals with care and to discuss them thoroughly with advisors or others who are knowledgeable in their project area before submitting them to the Council for consideration. Revisions may be suggested by the Council before a proposal is submitted to the Selection Committee.

Fellowships will ordinarily be granted for a period not to exceed twelve months. Since broadening the experience and understanding of each Fellow is an important aspect of the program, only under exceptional circumstances will an award be made permitting the recipient to remain at his or her home institution during the fellowship year. There are no other restrictions as to where or how a Fellow may work, although some Fellows may find it advantageous to be in residence at the Council for all or part of the fellowship period. Fellows-in-Residence will be given office space as well as the privilege of participating in Council afternoon and dinner meetings, study and discussion groups, and other activities relevant to their area of interest. They will also have the benefit of the advice of the Council's own senior research staff. The Council's regular program for this past year is described more fully in the accompanying Annual Report for 1972.

-4-

The small size of the program affords Fellows an opportunity to develop a special sense of community. Those who are not resident at the Council will be brought to the Council during the year to meet with other Fellows, the Council's studies staff, and Council members.

To ensure nomination of superior candidates, application will be primarily by invitation, on the recommendation of a panel of individuals throughout the country who, because of their own position in academic, government, and other institutions, have occasion to know able young men and women in the international relations area who might be particularly well-suited for the experience the Council program offers. Others who inquire directly and who meet preliminary requirements may also be invited to apply without formal nomination.

To be eligible for the fellowship, an applicant must be an American citizen or a permanent resident who has made application to become one. Candidates should be between the ages of twenty-seven and thirty-five; only in exceptional circumstances will applications be accepted from men and women who are older or younger. While the Ph.D. degree or its equivalent is not a firm requirement for academic applicants, fellowships will not be awarded to support writing of dissertations or research toward the Ph.D.

Nominations for 1974-75 should be submitted not later than July 15, 1973, while application forms (which will be sent out by the Council after receipt of nomination) and supporting materials must be filed not later than October 1, 1973. Following a preliminary screening by the Selection Committee, those candidates who are selected as finalists may be asked to furnish additional material and, where possible, to

-5-

participate in a personal interview. All candidates will be informed of
their status following the preliminary screening, and notification of the
awards themselves will be made not later than February 1974. In most
cases fellowships are expected to begin in the fall of 1974, although in
special circumstances they may begin earlier or later in the year.

In making awards, consideration will be given to income from
all sources and the total expenditures essential to carrying out the
project. The fellowship stipend normally will not exceed the salary
relinquished during the period of the fellowship. There is no objection
to combining a fellowship with grants from other sources so long as
these impose no conditions inconsistent with the Council's requirement
that a Fellow devote full time to the project he has outlined. Indeed,
such additional grants will often be the best way of financing travel
and other extra expenses.

* * * * *

The Council on Foreign Relations is a private, nonprofit,
nonpartisan institution devoted to the study of political, economic and
strategic problems related to United States foreign policy. It has no
connection with the United States Government and takes no stand, express
or implied, on American foreign policy. Rather it provides a meeting
place and study center where individuals of widely varying interests and
views can exchange ideas on international issues. Through its study and
discussion groups, off-the-record meetings and publications (both its
books and its quarterly journal, FOREIGN AFFAIRS), the Council aims to
help both its own members and others throughout the nation to enhance their
knowledge and understanding of the international problems facing the United
States.

5/15/73

NORMAN COUSINS
380 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK

October 28, 1969

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500

Dear Henry:

As you know, there has been considerable activity on the Biafran matter since we spoke in San Clemente. I am most grateful for the opportunity to work with Roger Morris, who has handled every aspect of the problem with sensitivity and adroitness.

You were good enough, when we spoke, to put some questions to me about the negotiations in Paris. I don't profess to have any answers but some approaches have occurred to me that I should be glad to go over with you, if this is your wish.

NORMAN COUSINS
TWO DAG HAMMARSKJOLD PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

January 10, 1972

Dear Henry:

My nomination for what could become the essay of the year would be a modern-day version of "The Education of Henry Adams" - except that the subject would be Henry Kissinger. What did Henry Kissinger read when he was maturing that brought him the wisdom, the satisfactions, and the philosophy for his present post as perhaps the most important foreign policy adviser in the world? Where did he travel and whom did he meet with what consequences when he was young and impressionable? How was his intellectual life shaped and by whom? It would be a very personal piece - and an important one for our times.

What we would like most of all, of course, would be for Henry Kissinger to do the piece himself or with the aid of one of his staff, possibly through a tape-recording. Failing this, I would be willing to be the questioner, or to provide anyone you believe qualified for such an assignment. In any case, we have discussed the idea briefly with members of your staff. We would plan to use the essay as a lead article in the first issue of our new world magazine. We should like to do this before you leave in late February. I personally could make any arrangements you wish as to time and place, modus operandi, and other details of the project. I eagerly await your reaction.

RECEIVED
MAR 2 2 1972

CENTRAL FILES

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

March 29, 1972

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Executive Offices of the President
Washington, D. C.

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

I write to you personally because I thought you might be interested in knowing that my colleagues and I have decided to launch a new magazine. The magazine will be called, simply, *World Review*, and will be published every two weeks.

Ever since I resigned from the Saturday Review, for reasons you may know about, I have been thinking and dreaming about the possibility of starting a magazine that, quite literally, would belong to its readers and editors.

This has never been done before. Usually, new magazines call for a prodigious investment. The reason for this is the traditional way a magazine operates. Magazines and newspapers are the only products sold to the consumer at less than the cost of manufacture. Advertising is expected to make up the difference. What compounds this problem is that the standard way of building a subscription list is through cut-rate introductory offers.

On a new magazine, the subscription list generally consists almost entirely of cut-rate introductory offers. This is why massive outside investment has usually been necessary to see a magazine through to the point where introductory-offer readers can be graduated to full-rate subscribers. Outside investment frequently means outside control -- and this is something we want to avoid if we possibly can.

My hope, therefore, is that we can find enough readers willing to take a chance on us by becoming long-term subscribers from the very outset. This would make it unnecessary to seek outside financing. It would also put the reader where he should rightfully be -- in a position of ultimate authority.

We decided to put these hopes to the test. I am delighted to say that the first responses to our testing have been favorable beyond even our most extravagant expectations. As a result, we are scheduling our first issue for late Spring.

What about the magazine itself?

- 2 -

We believe that a magazine is essentially a reading, rather than a viewing, experience. In this sense, we will publish for a readership rather than a flippership.

The new magazine will be concerned with ideas and the arts. Our arena, however, will be the world. We will do more than report on books, plays, movies, music and the arts in just the United States alone. We will attempt to review and report on cultural events on a world scale -- cultural being defined in its broadest sense.

We will write about the human condition at a time when the ability of human intelligence to meet its problems is being tested as never before. Our hope is to see the world as the astronauts saw it -- a beautiful wet blue ball with millions of factors in the delicate combination that makes life possible. Our dominant editorial concern, then, will be the proper care of the human habitat -- whether that means world peace and everything that is required to bring it about, or world environmental deterioration, or overcrowding, or any of the things that indig-nify and humiliate human beings.

We will also give major attention to what we believe will be one of the most compelling issues in the years ahead -- the waste of human resources, which is far more costly than the waste of physical resources.

I think I have said enough to indicate that *World Review* will direct its central editorial energies both to the enjoyment of creative living and to the pursuit of vital ideas. But it would be a mistake, I think, to attempt a full description of the magazine. Magazines are not really invented or created. They evolve. They are the product of creative interaction between the special tastes and enthusiasms and concerns of a few editors, and the tastes and concerns of the readers. In this way, a magazine takes shape issue by issue and year by year. No single issue can really be expected to tell a reader everything he may want to know about the nature of a magazine, its underlying philosophy, or its capacity for growth. Since it might be mis-leading to try to tell you exactly what our new magazine will be like, what I have tried to do is to tell you something about our philosophy and our approach -- and to seek your help in achieving our aims.

- 3 -

Some specifics: The rates will be $12 for one year; $20 for two years.

For pre-publication Charter subscribers we propose a
special three-year rate of $25.

The reason we emphasize three-year subscriptions is
that this reduces sharply the astoundingly high cost of process-
ing renewals.

Even more important is the fact that long-term sub-
scriptions will free us to do our main job -- which is to try to
put out the best magazine in the world.

We ask no money now. That can come later. What we do
need right now is your encouragement and your backing.

As I said above, in inviting you to join us in what we
hope will be an exciting adventure in ideas, we realize we are
asking you to take a chance on us. We have high hopes of justify-
ing that confidence. The process begins with the Charter Sub-
scription form enclosed.

Sincerely,

Enc.

August 26, 1969

TO: Gardner Cowles

FROM: Bill Attwood

SUBJECT: *Letter from Dr. Kissinger*

I discussed Henry Kissinger's letter at length with Gerry Astor. Since I have great respect for Kissinger's integrity as well as for Astor's, it distressed me that the article in question upset Kissinger -- who has more than enough problems to cope with these days without our unwittingly causing him any embarrassment.

Astor, as you know, is also an extremely competent and reliable reporter. His articles on Nelson Rockefeller and John Lindsay drew high praise from them both, and Lindsay in fact wanted him to join his staff. I took up all of Kissinger's comments with him and am fully satisfied with Astor's explanations.

First, Kissinger acknowledges that Astor did check out the quotes used in the article -- with the exception of his comments on the Harvard riots. In fact, Astor went so far as to show Kissinger the manuscript of his piece -- something we don't normally do with people we interview -- and it was while they were reviewing it that they discussed Harvard. Astor took notes all during this talk and assumed that Kissinger knew he was recording the Harvard comments since nothing was ever said about their being off-the-record. He agrees now that it would have been more prudent as well as courteous to make absolutely certain that Kissinger understood he was talking for publication. Still, you and I know that reporters generally assume that everything's on the record unless otherwise specified.

As to Astor's distorting Kissinger's meaning, this could only be a case of faulty communication and was certainly not deliberate.

Second, the passage citing Kissinger's belief in the bad faith of political leaders (last paragraph on page one of Kissinger's letter) was contained in the manuscript which Astor showed him. Had Kissinger objected then, it could have been rectified. Astor, by the way, tells me he *has* read Kissinger's writings, including *The Necessity for Choice*, so that he is not unfamiliar with Kissinger's published views.

Third, Kissinger objects on page two of his letter to Astor's conclusion that he believes in an elitist conception of foreign policy. Astor concedes that he made a judgment based on what Kissinger actually said -- but points out that what *was* said is not disputed. And in his next to last paragraph, Kissinger recognizes that "judgment, favorable or unfavorable" is a reporter's legitimate function.

All in all, I think this is a case of an article giving a different impression in print than it did in manuscript form. We do owe Kissinger an apology for not checking the Harvard quote with him, but I can't fault Astor too much for assuming that a public official expects to be quoted unless he prefaces his remarks with the condition they be off the record.

SRA

SCIENCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., 259 East Erie Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611, (312) 944-7552,
A Subsidiary of IBM

Cable SCIRESUS, Chicago

Charles J. Coyle, Industry-Government Consultant
113 Westover Drive
Cherry Hill, New Jersey
Telephone: (609) 428-0556

KISSINGER, HENRY A

November 25, 1969

Dear Henry:

My four girls were thrilled when they saw your note on the
White House stationary; they've tacked it on their wall right
next to Engelbert Humperdinck, as "Dad's claim to fame".

I was quite flattered that you remembered but then, looking
back, there wasn't too much that brain of yours ever did miss.

It was good to see the moratorium events handled so well and
from the headlines, it even seems as though Spiro is becoming
more and more "Ted" everyday.

My continued best wishes, Henry; if at any time you feel there
is a way I might be useful, I'd be delighted to get your call.
If, in your travels, you happen to get stuck on the New Jersey
turnpike, we're right off exit 4. Door's open, coffee's on
and good cheer's in the closet.

RECEIVED
DEC 9 1969

DEC 9 1969

CENTRAL FILES

Materials of instruction

Tests and evaluation services

Guidance publications and services

SRA

Cable SCIRESUS, Chicago

Charles J. Coyle, Industry - Government Consultant
113 Westover Drive
Cherry Hill, New Jersey
Telephone: (609) 428-0556

October 15, 1969

To: Henry Kissinger

Henry, I didn't take the opportunity to congratulate you
from a distance of 25 years when you started your new job
but "Moratorium day" activities compel me to express to you
and your "boss", a single, but sincere vote of confidence
for your continued sensibility.

Perhaps the attached might provide a reminiscent chuckle
for lighter moments.

Sincere best wishes

Materials of instruction

Tests and evaluation services

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

December 6, 1971

Mr. Henry Kissinger
National Security
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

One February night two years ago, just before making a speech at the Harvard Club in New York, you were handed a letter marked Personal & Confidential - an attempt of mine to be eloquent on the "world as a neighborhood," and a description of an article "American Military Semantics and the Vietnam War" in a letter of mine to Jim Keogh. Also enclosed was a New Yorker cartoon of a football player who cared more for the direct approach than computer plays.

My husband and I and our two little girls will be in Washington Tuesday and Wednesday (December 7 and 8). He will represent Time Magazine judging an Army Photographic contest at Fort Meade. It is my hope that you might have a few moments to spare one of those days. My knowledge of history is not very great, but your approach to foreign affairs reminds me of that of Ben Franklin - direct, balanced with a sense of humor (that alone could save the world), and a deep knowledge of problems of saving face - our own and that of other countries. I prize the personal note you wrote me in reply to my letter. Precarious though the efforts of America toward the dream we share may be - that dream appears to be coming true.

I know your days are hectic and each minute precious - but if I could bring my children to meet you I would be very proud. If you should be able to see us tomorrow we will be on a special White House tour arranged by the Time D.C. bureau - I'm not sure which one or at what time Tuesday. I will try to get this letter to you then. Or perhaps you can leave a message for us with your secretary, if you can fit us in either Tuesday or Wednesday. I realize this is a last minute request and therefore close to hopeless.