March 23, 1969

Mr. David W. MacEachron
Deputy Executive Director
Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.
The Harold Pratt House
59 East 68th Street
New York, New York 10021

Dear Dave:

You ask:

"1. Do you prefer the Harris or the Hoag draft?"
Answer: The Hoag draft but I prefer no draft of a "consensus" at all.

"2. Are there provisions from the Hoag draft which should be incorporated in the Harris draft?"
Answer: Of course. This is implied by my answer to your preceding question. There are a great many other needed changes besides those suggested by Dr. Hoag.

"3. Do you object to your name being listed as having participated in the group in the event that we circulate the paper confidentially?"
Answer: Yes.

A few words about the wisdom of the Council lending itself to this use. First, over the past 10 years or more, I have taken part in many Council discussion groups. All of the ones I have taken part in have had as their purpose what the name suggests: discussion--an exchange of views and information among participants and, usually, assistance and criticism for a Research Secretary preparing a study for which he would take individual responsibility. None that I have attended in the past has had as its purpose the drafting of a position paper representing a consensus and intended to be made public or to be used privately to influence government decision.

Moreover, I think it in general extremely unwise to use Council discussion groups in that way. If there were to be a document prepared representing a consensus of the group on many specifics, I for one would have wanted to know in advance, in the case of matters of such great importance, how the group was selected, what the degree of information, relevant competence and predisposition of most of the members was on each of the important topics, and how fully they would be able to consider each of the issues.

Mr. David W. MacEachron

March 23, 1969

I attended a Japan-U. S. Kyoto Conference in February. It dealt with an extremely important problem—Okinawa. The Okinawa problem is, however, minuscule by comparison with the set of issues referred to in our discussion group. As it happens, most of the members of the Conference agreed with my paper on Okinawa. Nonetheless, I, like several others, was most eager to have it stated, and it was stated, that a consensus in a conference of that sort had little or no meaning. The membership itself, though it included many distinguished Americans and Japanese, could not validly pretend to be representative of either government or of either society or of any specific group in either society. Nor could the various members be said to have had equally considered opinions on the subject. To say "Most of the Conference members agreed..." and at the same time to ignore the near meaninglessness of such a consensus would have been quite misleading.

A parallel comment applies with even greater force to the Council Discussion Group on Deployment and Control of Arms. The proposed paper expresses opinions on issues of the gravest importance to the security of the United States and indeed, the security of international society. For example, the specific arms freeze suggested, on my view, would leave open the possibility of expanding capabilities for a substantially preclusive first strike but would restrict the possibilities of either side to make adjustments in the protection of its force to meet adverse changes permitted under the freeze. It would, in my view, be quite reckless. Of course these are highly complicate matters, and neither my view nor those of the Chairman of the group are obviously right or wrong. That is precisely the point. Have the members of the Discussion group had enough information and opportunity seriously to weigh so complex and grave a matter?

Individual members of this Council Group have taken the opportunity individually and as members of other groups to make their views known on these subjects. The current period has been characterized by a massive amount of manipulation of the media and government by lobbies with overlapping memberships. It is not enough to say that more than one view has been lobbied for. Clarity and reflective judgment do not emerge automatically from that process. I don't think the Council should constitute itself one more lobby in what is already an extraordinarily muddled and hysterical situation. And I think it *generally* unwise for the Council to lobby.

AW:el

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

OFFICIAL, 9/14/70 jlp

Type of Request & Date

MacGARVEY

(Last name and pending date)

Name: Patrick MacGarvey, Associate Editor, Government Exec. Magazine

**Request:** Government Executive Magazine would like to do its December cover story on Mr. Kissinger. It would require of Mr. Kissinger an interview of no more than an hour in length and if a photographer could be brought along it would be appreciated. The thrust of the interview would be on the workings of the NSC and Mr. Kissinger's responsibilities as head of it--it would not be on any particular situation in the world.

Contact MacGarvey at 347-6240.

DRY's Recommendation:

HAK's Answer: NO - 9/24

Date and Time: 9/28 = 4 1/2 pm

Party Contacted: MacGarvey away = left mgw plcy = no res

Additional Information:

Resolution:

RECEIVED
SEP 29 1970

CENTRAL FILES

NBC NEWS

A DIVISION OF NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.

4001 NEBRASKA AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20016, EMERSON 2-4000

February 5, 1970

Dear Henry,

This is just to say I really am sorry about the mixup over the
Radio-television Correspondents' dinner. Being so new to this part
of the business, I had no idea there was such a juvenile procedure
as drawing for "VIP's." Surely, there has been nothing like this in
all history since the Roman soldiers cast lots for the tunic of
Christ. Actually, if I could only start thinking the way NBC and
others believe I should, I would just stand in awe of this tidy
little mechanism they have devised. The establishment has such
civilized ways of protecting itself.

Anyway, I was really embarrassed to have to call you. I hope
you are not insulted because my first instinct remains unchanged.

COMMENT:(RADIO) March 6, 1971 exWashington 3/6 RM Sat-Sun

PROFESSOR KISSINGER, SECRETARY ROGERS
AND THE GNOMES OF WASHINGTON

For some reason that eludes most students of politics, there
is a compelling public need to hate government or various objects
within it. Perhaps it is because the imperfections of government,
like Freud's view of Mother and everybody's view of his sergeant
are convenient scapegoats for our own failings.

Back in the eighteen thirties an enduring political myth
was built around a man named Amos Kendall who was a close adviser
and speechwriter to Andrew Jackson. Kendall was a creepy, sickly
sort of fellow who was rarely seen in public. The legend grew that
he was an evil gnome who was manipulating President Jackson. The
legend has persisted ever since - that behind every president
there is a sinister creature unaccountable to God, man or the
Congress.

The latest gnome to be created by the legend is Professor
Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's adviser on national security
affairs. Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri said that a shocking
state of affairs had developed in which people at Washington cocktail

state of affairs had developed in which people at Washington cocktail
salons. Senator Stuartahl Washington of Miami said that a shocking
Henry Klaasen, President Nixon's adviser on national security
The latest news to be created by the legend is Professor
Congress.

there is a further creature insomniable to God, man or the
legend has berated ever since - that being every president
he was an evil one who was manipulating President Jackson. The
sort of fellow who was rarely seen in public. The legend knew that
and speechwriter to Andrew Jackson. Kendall was a greedy, sickly
man built around a man named Amao Kendall who was a close adviser
Back in the eighteen thirties an engineering political man
are convenient assegidents for our own利益.

Like Kennedy's view of Mother and everybody's view of his secretary
within it. Perhaps it is because the imperfections of government,
is a compelling public need to hate government or various objects
For some reason that affords most students of politics, there

AND THE CUMBER OF WASHINGTON
PROFESSOR KISSINGER, SECRETARY ROGERS

COMMENT:(RADIO) March 16/71 exWashington 3/6 PM Sat-2pm

parties were laughing at Secretary of State Rogers because he wasn't as important in the formation of foreign policy as Professor Kissinger. What Senator Symington meant - or should have meant - was that diplomats stationed here didn't think they were getting their money's worth when they talked to Mr. Rogers.

One doesn't have to agree with Professor Kissinger's rather Taoist theories about the world to recognize the large element of nonsense in the charges against him. The difference between Kissinger and Rogers is, roughly, the difference between a province and a federal government. Professor Kissinger's job - created by law -is to sort through and balance the varying views upon which the President makes foreign policy decisions - the intelligence view, the military view, the State Department view and so forth. Secretary Rogers is the projector of one view - the diplomatic. He is also the executor, through the mechanism he governs, of the policies formulated *from* the various views.

All of that notwithstanding, Henry Kissinger is now regarded as President's Nixon's house gnome. It is not surprising that many among the public should think so because many among the public need governmental objects to hate. It is surprising that somebody like Senator Symington would fail to grasp the difference. He knows better.

This is Rod MacLeish in Washington.

This is Rod MacPhee in Washington.

better.

like Senator Smythington would fail to grasp the difference. He knows
need governmental objects to hate. It is amiable that somebody
among the public should think so because many among the public
as President's Nixon's bona fide. It is not amiable that many
VII of that notwithstanding, Henry Klaasen is now regarded
bitterly from the various views.

He is so far the executioner, through the mechanism he governs, of the
Secretary Rogers is the protector of one view - the diplomatic.
view, the military view, the State Department view and so forth.
the President makes foreign policy decisions - the intelligence
law -is to sort through and balance the various views upon which
and a federal government. Professor Klaasen's top - created by
Klaasen and Rogers is, roughly, the difference between a province
nominee in the charges against him. The difference between
Trotat theories about the world to recognize the large element of
One doesn't have to agree with Professor Klaasen's rather
their money's worth when they talked to Mr. Rogers.

was that diplomacy stationed here didn't think they were getting
Klaasen. What Senator Smythington meant - or should have meant -
was it as important in the formation of foreign policy as Professor
parties were laughing at Secretary of State Rogers because he

- 5 -

Lloyd H. MacMorran
Ph: 415-444-1527
521 Prince Street
Oakland, Calif. 94610

AIR

[c]

Oakland, 10 Calif 94610

10 Apl 1969.

Honorable Henry A. Kissinger,
Office of the President,
Washington, 25 D. C.

Dear Doctor Kissinger:

Re: Mine to you: 9 Dec
Yours to me: 30 Dec

You may have received, from Cambridge, a copy of a
brochure inscribed:

"Raphael Demos - January 23, 1892 - August 8, 1968."

One reached us yesterday, presumably through Raphael's widow, my sister, now living in Athens.

Since, in the some 14 printed pp there are many references
to Harvard, naturally, the thought occurs that if you do not have
a copy, you may care to scan one. I shall be delighted to have
my copy xeroxed and mailed to you, with my compliments.

There are several paragraphs which impress us deeply:

"When traveling among strangers - on a bus or train, he would be asked: "What do you do?"' I am a teacher," he would say, simply.... And, indeed he was... one of Harvard's great teachers, as many generations of Harvard's students have attested!"

"Adams House: He was tutor, assistant senior tutor, senior tutor,, associate, fellow, and acting master. Jean has told me that once Raphael said to her, during the past year: "If there were to be anything recorded on my tombstone, I should like it said that I was the first man to admit a Negro to a Harvard house...."

"Martin Luther King was asked what teachers had influenced him most? 'There were two, he said: Edgar Brightman and Raphael Demos!' ......

With every good wish for much success that we are sure you will achieve, on your important assignment, and all good wishes, Faithfully yours,

Lloyd H. MacMorran.

(#####)

CETTUCKY LITTELS
FEB 5 1969
HARRISWELL

Henry V. Klaasinger

Sincerely,

Thank you again for your generous letter.

was a fine man and a great scholar.
and was terribly sorry to hear of his death. He
I do remember your brother-in-law very well.

live up to your high expectations.
comments about me and hope that I will be able to
kind letter. I very much appreciate your thoughtful
Rose Mary Woods has based on to me your very

Dear Mr. MacMoran:
Oakland, California 94610
251 Prince Street
Mr. Lloyd H. MacMoran

December 30, 1968

KLAASINGER, HENRY V.

Merry-Go-Round

A Huge Exodus of
Career Diplomats

Drew Pearson

Today's column is by Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson

PROBABLY AT NO TIME in this century will there be such an exodus of those who form and execute United States foreign policy as will take place on January 20. Age plus politics will see all the veteran diplomats of the U. S. retiring, together with the entire "seventh floor" of the State Department. The seventh floor is occupied by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, together with all his under secretaries and policy makers.

While the exodus of political appointees was expected, such key career diplomats as Charles Bohlen, Deputy Under Secretary of State and Llewlyn Thompson, Ambassador to the Soviet Union, and David K. E. Bruce, Ambassador to Great Britain, are also leaving. They have served under both Republican and Democratic Presidents.

A VERELL HARRIMAN, chief negotiator in Paris and former Ambassador in Moscow, London and Paris, will also depart, together with Chester Bowles, Ambassador to India, who has served as Governor of Connecticut, a Democratic member of Congress and Under Secretary of State.

It was a foregone conclusion that Sargent Shriver, brother-in-law of John F. Kennedy, should resign as Ambassador to France. Henry Cabot Lodge, Republican running mate of Richard Nixon's in 1960, has also asked to be relieved as Ambassador to West Germany, though he is available for other assignments, probably as U. S. peace negotiator in Paris.

Robert Wagner, the former Mayor of

New York and a staunch Democrat, is of course slated to leave as American Ambassador to Spain. In addition, Carter Burgess, who served in the Defense Department under President Eisenhower, is leaving as Ambassador to Argentina.

H. Gardner Ackley is departing as Ambassador to Italy; John Hayes as Ambassador to Switzerland; William Heath, the President's old Texas friend, as Ambassador to Sweden, Fulton Freeman as Ambassador to Mexico, and George McGhee, a career diplomat and former envoy to Germany, is retiring as Ambassador at Large.

IT ALSO HAPPENS that most of the assistant secretaries in charge of regional areas of the world will be resigning, most of them career diplomats. They include John Leddy for European Affairs, Covey Oliver for Latin America, and William Bundy for the Far East, despite the fact that his family are Republicans. Luke Battle has recently retired as Assistant Secretary for the Near East while Edward Ray is retiring as Assistant Secretary for Cultural Affairs.

William Gaud is retiring as Administrator of AID; Anthony Solomon as Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs; while Leonard Marks has already retired as Director of USIA.

The danger is that such a large shift both of policy makers and career diplomats at one time could lead to disruption of foreign policy during a period when the international problems of the United States are delicately balanced, especially in Southeast Asia and the Near East.

Copyright, 1968

DEC 23 1968

Oakland, 10 Calif 94610
521 Prince St.,
9 Dec 1968

Honorable Henry A. Kissinger,
Washington, 25 D.C.

Encl: 2 clips, SF CHRON-EXAM: V

Dear Doctor Kissinger:

Your name, frequently, of late, in SF/Oakland papers - and
doubtless in the national press - has recalled to us some highly
laudatory and commendable statements.

The idea has occurred to us that, conceivably, some of the remarks may have come from my late and revered brother-in-law, Raphael Demos, Alford (ret) Senior professor of Philosophy, Harvard University, whom you doubtless knew well: since you both were members of the Harvard faculty.

We were grieved, deeply, some four months ago, to receive a
wire from my sister (NYC) telling us that Raphael had died, sudden-
ly and painlessly, aboard ship, entering NY harbor, from Athens.

He and Jean were on their way to Washington, to welcome the arrival of another grandchild... Both Helen, my wife, and I were very fond of Raphael... He and Jean came out here on their honeymoon. His "Philosophy of Plato" (Scribner's '39,) dedicated to Jean) was written on Bainbridge Island, off Seattle, where my daughter and I visited them... Later, in the East (Mass.) NY, et al. Fine fellow! Big man! His passing was a loss, you may agree... Today, from Greece, we have airmail from Jean, encl clips: NY Times Aug 10, 1 col & 1/2; Nashville Tennessean, et al... Jean is "carrying on" a project (educational) she and Raphael started in Kifissia. She will be in this country during the holidays.

From what we know of you, have heard of you, read of you, your
presence in Washington - NOW! is a major asset to America. Certain it
is you have the background, experience and mental ability to solve
problems for our country... A vet of WW-1, AEF, combat service -
with a fine younger brother k.i.a. five days before the Armistice! - I
we agree there are problems here: and thanks be, YOU are HERE!

Re Drew Pearson's column today: We know something - too much!
of the "under secretaries and policy makers on that seventh floor!"
Some of them, for years, have evaded facts; brushed us off; accorded
to us "under-the-rug" treatment on a valid claim of ours against an
Agency of the Danish Government: ECA $$$$ employed,** from abroad,
against us; valid contract - we ACCEPTED a FIRM order!* patently and
deliberately breached, NO earned indemnification ever paid us: NOT
defended by State Dep't as the Foreign Office of any Northern European
country would have protected one of their own nationals, had "the shoe
been on the other foot!" (*) 1,000 metric tons fishmeal FEED** Danish
Embassy has circulated two incorrect statements, repeated by State:
statements favoring the Danish defaulters!.. If you'd like details,
sworn statements, we'll oblige!.. We NEED some assistance! Best
wishes, Faithfully,

(#####)

Lloyd H. MacMorran.

(**) NOT
Danish
kronen!

(***)
$ 165,000.
cif Copenhagen.

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY

WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02154

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICS

17 February 1970

Dr. Henry Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Dear Henry:

It seems to me that since you moved into the White House I have sent
you a letter of congratulations and one inviting you to return to
academic life. Now for the first time I would like to ask you for a
favor if I may.

My old classmate who has been in a concentration camp on a small
Greek island, George Mylonas, former member of the Greek cabinet,
will be coming to this country in a few weeks. He will be giving
some talks at M.I.T. and, I hope, at Brandeis. He will be here
for about four weeks beginning on March 15 and would like very much
to have the opportunity to talk with you about some problems
pertaining to the Greek political situation and developments there
that are likely to interest you very much. May I please ask you to
see him some time at your convenience, and if you would indicate a
time and place I would try to bring him down myself and deposit him
at your doorstep. He is a man of very good judgment with no
particular axe to grind, personal or otherwise, and therefore I know
that the information he wants to give you and his general evaluation
of the situation there will be very enlightening.

May I please ask you to see him if it is at all possible.

RCM:h

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY

WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02154

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICS

April 30, 1971

Dear Henry:

Reports reached me that John Roche has been invited to visit China in a junket organized by the State Department. Without for a moment assuming that you are responsible for what the State Department does, let me lodge a mild protest, not because John Roche was invited, but because I am not....True, I have never been in the White House and I am not a columnist; true, my many erudite works may have been ignored. But what could not and should not have escaped the sharp eyes and ears of the CIA, if not the State Department, is the distinctions I have held in the Chinese national past-time -- ping-pong. To wit:

* Champion of Athens College, Athens, Greece (c. 1937)

* Champion of the University of Paris, Paris, France (c. 1940)

* Champion of Lowell House, Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass.
* U.S.A. (c. 1946)

I could take any Chinese colleague of comparable age and show him.

Do not let this mild form of protest "intimidate" you in any way. There is always and there will always be a place for you here at Brandeis.

RCM:1c

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY

WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02154

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICS

June 1, 1973

Dear Henry:

I would not be writing this had I not been impressed with the
depth and perspicacity with which Stevie M. and David K.
discoursed on international problems on their way to the
Buckingham Fair - which, incidentally, was a smashing success.
They both seem to agree that it is high time for the NSC to
make some contingency planning regarding Greece; they agreed
that the bayonets on which the junta is sitting are getting
increasingly sharper; while excluding the Papandreou hypothesis
they seemed in agreement that viable alternatives existed
ranging from a return of the King to and Centrist leaders
in and out of Greece; I did not quite share their concern
with our NATO flank but I had to agree that no alternative
should jeopardize the position of our fleet there. It was
a good discussion and I was proud of Buckingham for giving
this kind of insight to our children.

I mentioned to the kids that there were two men eminently
qualified to deal with the situation and that they happened
to be their fathers and they asked me to write to you accord-
ingly. Busy as you are you may have given some thought to
the matter. But I doubt it - much as I wish it - that there
would be an opportunity for some of us to talk with you.

All good wishes,

RCM:jv