INNFAX EUROPE

P02

Forbes Tax

T-201-012-01/00

(01) 11/10/01

12:44PM

11:44

Possible direct quotes, for Dr. Kissinger's review
Forbes magazine article

Dyan Machan
201-612-8487

Quote 1: Reference is to anti-globalization protesters. "I do not like their methods, I do not like some of their personalities," says Kissinger, "But I do think some of the (anti-globalization protesters) have a

point. I'm calling attention to the fact that economics is not enough to build a society.

Quote 2: "The process of economic development produces huge social and cultural dislocation. It moves people from the countryside to cities and produces a sense of impotence about affecting events. So it's almost always accompanied by some degree of social unrest. It is compounded in the present period because people know that decisions made very far away can affect their lives and their futures. Even their own government has no control over those decisions. So there is a big gap in the globalized world between the economics, which are global, and the politics, which are national. So, in that sense, the protesters are tapping into a genuine unease."

Quote 3: The context: Similarity between views of George Soros. Kissinger admits they have some similar views on the pitfalls of capitalism. But he says the similarly ends there, "Soros is what I call a soft liberal. That is, he is inching toward left wing of liberals. We do agree on some consequences of globalization. For instance, the frequently negative impact of speculative capital and difficulty of small countries to manage it. Also, the impact and conditions set forth by the IMF and the affect on political stability."

05/20'd

25:01 10:02-21-NUS

INNFAX EUROPE

P04

I am sorry, I cannot recognize any text from the provided image. The image is too blurry and does not contain any discernible characters.

☎ 1 (001) 01-00/00

Fax: + 358 1 234 567 89

will find more resentment around the world. Does he have a solution? "I am telling you what the problem is, not the solution."

Quote 10: Kissinger calls for enlightened capitalism, which he defines as "capitalism that is aware of social conditions. A company should try to do what is necessary to help that economy survive--- which can mean educating its workers, addressing health concerns, giving the workers a voice, and a sense of belonging. It is having a corporate policy that goes beyond saying that anything that is good for me is good for everybody."

Quote 11: "I think I have said enough to lose all my consulting clients," he smiles.

Quote 12: What about the accent? Kissinger, who arrived in the U.S. when he was 15 says his brother, who is one year younger, speaks with no accent. "My brother tells people that he is the Kissinger who listens."

P.04/57

JAN-17-2002 10:52

******************* -COMM. JOURNAL- ******************* DATE JAN-18-2001 **** TIME 09:20 *** P.01

MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION

START=JAN-18 09:19

END=JAN-18 09:20

FILE NO. = 232

| NO. | COM | ABBR/NTWK | STATION NAME/ TELEPHONE NO. | PAGES | PRG.NO. | PROGRAM NAME |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OK | @ | 12016128786 | 003/003 | | |

INNFAX EUROPE

P02

topos ex

1-01-01C-0/00

01/11/01

1:45PM

1:24

Forbes magazine article

Dyan Machan

201-612-8487

says Kissinger, "But I do think some of the (anti-globalization protesters) have a point. I'm calling attention to the fact that economics is not enough to build a society."

LS/20'd

25:01 10/2-7-01

HENRY A. KISSINGER

August 9, 2001

Dear Steve:

Many thanks for sending me the issue of *Forbes* magazine in which I was quoted. I was flattered that you printed part of my eulogy to Kay and appreciated your sending me the piece.

Mr. Steve Forbes
Editor-in-Chief
*Forbes*
Forbes Building
60 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10011

TWENTY-SIXTH FLOOR • 350 PARK AVENUE • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 • (212) 759-7919
FACSIMILE (212) 759-0042

OTHER COMMENTS

> *You have the God-given right to kick the government around—don't hesitate to do so.*

—SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE, 1968

**Wrong Direction** With respect to Internet sales, states and retailers say that imposing a sales tax on retail sales and not e-tail sales discriminates against retail sales and thus violates the principle of fairness. The problem with the fairness argument is that it only wants to go one way—increasing taxes—which makes fairness-argument proponents appear to be less than honest. Another way to create the level tax playing field they want would be to lower sales taxes on retailers as some states have already done. But no one, especially not government officials, appears to be taking that approach. For government officials, it is clear that their real concern is revenue—*increased* revenue.

—MERRILL MATTHEWS JR.,
Institute for Policy Innovation

**Noxious Neglect** The 1990s began auspiciously for Latin American currencies with the establishment of Argentina's currency board. Inflation fell, and both the economy and financial markets surged. Soon, however, the Clinton Administration and the IMF, working closely together, declined to work for currency stability in Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, or Southeast Asia. The U.S. intoned that “a strong dollar is in our national interest,” but did nothing to share this approach abroad. Latin American poverty grew sharply. The World Bank [counted] 183 million people living on less than $2 per day in 1998, up from 162 million in 1993. A U.N. study found that 54% of rural Latin households lived in poverty in 1997. In Colombia, where civil war threatened, the currency sank and rural poverty rose to 54% in 1997 from 45% in 1980.

The Clinton-Gore Administration wasted a decade of U.S.

prosperity, making no real effort to share the U.S. techniques of prosperity with our neighbors. The policy vacuum has hurt both the U.S. and Latin America and deserves to be corrected.

—DAVID MALPASS,
chief international economist,
Bear Stearns, *Wall Street Journal*

**It's A Dog's World** Jet-lag massage for jet-set pets is on the menu at Las Ventanas al Paraiso resort in Los Cabos, Mexico. A 10-15 minute neck and shoulder massage runs $25 and up, depending on the pet (“the dogs are much more spa-oriented than cats,” notes an assistant general manager).

—KITTY BEAN YANCEY, USA Today

**At It Again** [The IRS will soon levy a] new tax on workers in employee stock purchase plans. Under these plans, employers allow their workers to buy a set amount of their company's shares at discounts to current market prices. For many rank-and-file workers, these plans are the only way to amass any assets. The government [has] decided that working people in these plans should be taxed on the difference between the discounted price at which they buy the shares and the prevailing market price.

Executives at public companies have pocketed obscenely rich compensation recently. Is anybody else outraged that under this new tax, lowly workers will fall even further behind the fat cats?

—GRETCHEN MORGENSON,
*New York Times*

**Rule of Thumb** Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.

—WINSTON CHURCHILL

**Uncommon Wisdom** In the midst of a divisive Vietnam debate in which *The Washington Post* had been quite unsympathetic to the administration in which I served, Kay [Graham] telephoned and said: “You need some rest. Let’s go to the movies.” During yet another crisis, Kay telephoned with a comparable message: “Things are tough right now. Why don’t you use my house in Virginia for a weekend?” It was her way of asserting the permanent Washington in which human relations mattered more than the controversies of the day and in which the political battles were a prelude to a new elaboration of national purpose.

—HENRY A. KISSINGER, Newsweek

34 FORBES • August 20, 2001

Rotn.pp* 1/6/01 3:20 pm page 1

From: CW

To: AU, KS, JT, RH

Cc: JH, GR, File

Friday, July 6 2001

First Proofs

Reads due: Wednesday, July 11 (am)

Response

JUL - 6

# The Case for Universal Jurisdiction

Kenneth Roth

Behind much of the savagery of modern history lies impunity. Tyrants commit atrocities, including genocide, when they calculate they can get away with them. Too often, dictators use violence and intimidation to shut down any prospect of domestic prosecution. Slowly, over the past decade, an emerging system of international justice has begun to break this pattern of impunity in national courts.

The United Nations Security Council established international war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia in 1993 and Rwanda in 1994, and is now negotiating the creation of mixed national-international tribunals for Cambodia and Sierra Leone. In 1998, the world's governments gathered in Rome to adopt a treaty for an International Criminal Court (ICC) with potentially global jurisdiction over genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

With growing frequency, national

courts operating under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction are prosecuting despots in their custody [AU: ARE ANY COURTS RUNNING TRIALS IN ABSENTIA WHEN DO NOT HAVE THE ACCUSED IN CUSTODY?] for atrocities committed abroad. Impunity may still be the norm in many domestic courts, but international justice is an increasingly viable option, promising a measure of solace to victims and their families and raising the possibility that would-be tyrants will henceforth think twice before embarking on a barbarous path.

In "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction" (July/August 2001), former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger catalogues a list of grievances against the juridical concept that people who commit the most severe human rights crimes can be tried wherever they are found. But his objections are misplaced, and the alternative he proposes is little better than a re-

KENNETH ROTH is Executive Director of Human Rights Watch.

[1]

Roth.pp* 7/6/01 3:28 PM Page 2

Kenneth Roth

turn to impunity.

Kissinger begins by suggesting that
universal jurisdiction is a new idea, at
least as applied to heads of state and se-
nior public officials. However, the exer-
cise by U.S. courts of jurisdiction over
certain heinous crimes committed over-
seas is an accepted part of American ju-
risprudence, reflected in treaties on ter-
rorism and aircraft hijacking dating from
1970. Universal jurisdiction was also the
concept that allowed Israel to try Adolf
Eichmann in 1961.

Kissinger says that the drafters of the
Helsinki Accords—the basic human
rights principles adopted by the Confer-
ence on Security and Cooperation in Eu-
rope in 1975—and the U.N.'s 1948 Uni-
versal Declaration of Human Rights
never intended to authorize universal ju-
risdiction. But this argument is irrele-
vant, because these hortatory declara-
tions are not legally binding treaties of
the sort that could grant such powers. As
for the many formal treaties on human
rights, Kissinger believes it “unlikely”
that their signatories “thought it possible
that national judges would use them as a
basis for extradition requests regarding
alleged crimes committed outside their
jurisdictions.”

To the contrary, the Torture Conven-
tion of 1984, ratified by 124 governments
including the United States, requires
states either to prosecute any suspected
torturer found on their territory, regard-
less of where the torture took place, or to
extradite the suspect to a country that
will do so. Similarly, the Geneva Con-
ventions of 1949 on the conduct of war,
ratified by 189 countries including the
United States, require each participating
state to “search for” persons who have

committed grave breaches of the conven-
tions and to "bring such persons, regard-
less of nationality, before its own courts."
What is new is not the concept of ex-
traterritorial jurisdiction but the willing-
ness of some governments to fulfill this
duty against those in high places.

ORDER AND THE COURT

Kissinger's critique of universal jurisdi-
tion has two principal targets: the soon-
to-be-formed International Criminal
Court and the exercise of universal juris-
diction by national courts. (Strictly
speaking, the ICC will use not universal
jurisdiction but, rather, a delegation of
states' traditional power to try crimes
committed on their own territory.)
Kissinger claims that the crimes detailed
in the ICC treaty are "vague and highly
susceptible to politicized application."
But the treaty's definition of war crimes
closely resembles that found in the Pen-
tagon's own military manuals and is de-
rived from the widely ratified Geneva
Conventions and their Additional Proto-
cols adopted in 1977. Similarly, the Rome
treaty's definition of genocide is bor-
rowed directly from the Genocide Con-
vention of 1948, which the United States
and 131 other governments have ratified
and pledged to uphold, including by
prosecuting offenders. The definition of
crimes against humanity is derived from
the Nuremberg Charter, which, as
Kissinger acknowledges, proscribes con-
duct that is "self-evident[ly]" wrong.

Kissinger further asserts that the ICC prosecutor will have “discretion without accountability,” going so far as to raise the specter of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and to decry “the tyranny of judges.” In fact, the prosecutor can be

[2] FOREIGN AFFAIRS · Volume 80 No. 5

Roth.pp* 7/6/01 3:28 PM Page 5

removed for misconduct by a simple majority of the governments that ratify the ICC treaty, and a two-thirds vote can remove a judge. Because joining the court means giving it jurisdiction over crimes committed on the signatory's territory, the vast majority of member states will be democracies, not the abusive governments that self-protectively flock to U.N. human rights bodies, where membership bears no cost.

Kissinger criticizes the "extraordinary attempt of the ICC to assert jurisdiction over Americans even in the absence of U.S. accession to the treaty." But the United States itself asserts such jurisdiction over others' citizens when it executes terrorists or drug traffickers, such as Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, without the consent of the suspect's government. Moreover, the ICC will assert such power only if an American commits a specified atrocity on the territory of a government that has joined the ICC and has thus delegated its prosecutorial authority to the court.

Kissinger claims that ICC defendants "will not enjoy due process as understood in the United States"—an apparent allusion to the lack of a jury trial in a court that will blend civil and common law traditions. But U.S. courts martial do not provide trials by jury; U.S. civilian courts routinely approve the constitutionality of extradition to countries that lack jury trials, so long as their courts otherwise observe basic due process. The ICC clearly will provide such due process, since its treaty requires adherence to the full complement of international fair-trial standards.

Of course, any court's regard for due process is only as good as the quality and

temperament of its judges. The ICC's judges will be chosen by the governments that join the court, most of which, as noted, will be democracies. Even without ratifying the ICC treaty, the U.S. government could help shape a culture of respect for due process by quietly working with the court, as it has done successfully with the international war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Regrettably, ICC opponents in Washington are pushing legislation—the misnamed American Servicemembers Protection Act—which would preclude such cooperation.

The experience of the Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals, of which Kissinger speaks favorably, suggests that international jurists, when forced to decide the fate of a particular criminal suspect, do so with scrupulous regard for fair trial standards. Kissinger's only stated objection to these tribunals concerns the decision of the prosecutor of the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to pursue a brief inquiry into how NATO conducted its air war against the new Yugoslavia—an inquiry that led her to exonerate NATO.

It should be noted, in addition, that the jurisdiction of the Yugoslav tribunal was set not by the prosecutor but by the U.N. Security Council with U.S. consent. The council chose to grant jurisdiction without prospective time limit, over serious human rights crimes within the territory of the former Yugoslavia committed by anyone, not just Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims. In light of that mandate, the prosecutor would have been derelict in her duties not to consider NATO's conduct; according to an extensive field investigation by Human Rights Watch, roughly half of the approximately

FOREIGN AFFAIRS · September/October 2001

[3]

Roth.pp* 7/6/01 3:28 PM Page 4

Kenneth Roth

500 civilian deaths caused by NATO's bombs were attributable to NATO's failure, albeit not criminal, to abide by international humanitarian law.

Kissinger claims that the ICC would violate the U.S. Constitution if it asserted jurisdiction over an American. But the court is unlikely to prosecute an American because the Rome treaty deprives the ICC of jurisdiction if, after the court gives required notice of an intention to examine a suspect, the suspect's government conducts its own good-faith investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution. It is the stated policy of the U.S. government to investigate and prosecute its own war criminals.

Moreover, the ICC's assertion of jurisdiction over an American for a crime committed abroad poses no greater constitutional problem than the routine practice under status-of-forces agreements of allowing foreign prosecution of American military personnel for crimes committed overseas. A constitutional issue would arise only if the United States ratified the ICC treaty; then an American committed genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity on U.S. soil; and then U.S. authorities did not prosecute the offender. Yet that remote possibility would signal a constitutional crisis far graver than one spawned by an ICC prosecution.

NO PLACE TO HIDE

National courts come under Kissinger's fire for selectivity in applying universal jurisdiction. He characterizes the extradition request by a Spanish judge seeking to try former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet for crimes against Spanish citizens on Chilean soil as singling out a

"fashionably reviled man of the right." But Pinochet was sought not, as Kissinger writes, "because he led a coup d'état against an elected leader" who was a favorite of the left. Rather, Pinochet was targeted because security forces under his command murdered and forcibly "disappeared" some 3,000 people and tortured thousands more.

Moreover, in recent years national courts have exercised universal jurisdiction against a wide range of suspects: Bosnian war criminals, Rwandan genocidaires, Argentine torturers, and Chad's former dictator. It has come to the point where the main limit on national courts' exercise of universal jurisdiction is the availability of the defendant, not questions of ideology.

Kissinger also cites the Pinochet case to argue that international justice interferes with the choice by democratic governments to forgive rather than prosecute past offenders. In fact, Pinochet's imposition of a self-amnesty at the height of his dictatorship hindered Chile's democratic options. Only after 16 months of detention in the United Kingdom diminished his power was Chilean democracy able to begin prosecution. Such imposed impunity is today far more common than democratically chosen impunity.

Kissinger would have had a better case had prosecutors sought, for example, to overturn the compromise negotiated by South Africa's Nelson Mandela, widely recognized at the time as the legitimate representative of the victims of apartheid. Mandela agreed to grant abusers immunity from prosecution if they gave detailed testimony about their crimes. In an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion, no prosecutor has challenged this

[4] FOREIGN AFFAIRS · Volume 80 No. 5

Roth.pp* 7/6/01 3:43 PM Page 5

arrangement, and no government would
likely countenance such a challenge.

Kissinger legitimately worries that the nations exercising universal jurisdiction could include governments with less-en-trenched traditions of due process than the United Kingdom's. But his fear of governments robotically extraditing sus-pects for sham or counterproductive tri-als is overblown. Governments regularly deny extradition to courts that are unable to ensure high standards of due process. And foreign ministries, including the U.S. State Department, routinely deny extradition requests for reasons of public policy.

If an American faced prosecution by an untrustworthy foreign court, the United States undoubtedly would apply pressure for his or her release. If that failed, however, it might prove useful to offer the prosecuting government the face-saving alternative of transfer to the ICC, with its extensive procedural protec-tions, including deference to good-faith investigations and prosecutions by a sus-pect's own government. Unfortunately, the legislation being pushed by ICC oppo-nents in Washington would preclude that option.

Until the ICC treaty is renegotiated to avoid what Kissinger sees as its "short-comings and dangers," he recommends that the U.N. Security Council deter-mine which cases warrant an interna-tional tribunal. That option was rejected during the Rome negotiations on the ICC because it would allow the council's five permanent members, including Russia and China as well as the United States, to exempt their nationals and those of their allies by exercising their vetoes.

As a nation committed to human

rights and the rule of law, the United
States should be embracing an interna-
tional system of justice, even if it means
that Americans, like everyone else, might
sometimes be scrutinized. ❧

[5]

Foreign Affairs Museum Council

2855 Tilden St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20008

Tel/Fax: (202) 362-0759

FEB 20 2001

February 12, 2001

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Kissinger Associates
350 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10022

Dear Henry,

I am writing to bring you up to date on the progress of the U.S. Diplomacy Center which the State Department is proposing to create in space vacated by AID on the ground floor of the 21st Street entrance. It is to include a museum of the history of U.S. diplomacy and a briefing center and will be open to the public with airport screening type security.

Following a successful first year including a groundbreaking, we are pleased to have received a firm commitment of support for the project from the new administration in the form of a statement from Secretary Powell a copy of which is enclosed.

On November 1 last year, Secretary Albright presided over a colorful groundbreaking ceremony at which Secretary Christopher, Senator Sarbanes, and I also spoke. We all testified to the importance of creating a place where the public can learn of the accomplishments of American diplomacy and discuss current policy issues. You may find the excerpts from the remarks which are included with this letter of interest. It was a grand occasion, full of hope.

During the year 2000 the FAMC was incorporated; received its 501(c)(3) credentials and began planning its campaign to raise the twenty million dollars which experts tell us will be needed to create the displays (12 million), maintain them (6 million endowment) and support expenses (2 million). We have collected a small startup fund of 55 thousand dollars and asked a number of foreign affairs related

**Honorary Directors**

Henry A. Kissinger
Cyrus Vance
Alexander M. Haig
George P. Shultz
James A. Baker III
Lawrence Eagleburger
Warren M. Christopher
Madeleine K. Albright

**Board of Directors**

Charles McC. Mathias
Chairman
Frank C. Carlucci
Ruth Davis
Robert L. Galucci
Leslie H. Gelb
Lee H. Hamilton
Herbert Hansell
Stephen Low
Leonard Marks
Paul Sarbanes
Richard H. Solomon
Terence A. Todman
Paul D. Wolfowitz

**Officers**

Stephen Low
President
Steven Jacques
Secretary
Walter J. Woolwine
Treasurer

Recognizing United States Diplomacy

foundations for lead grants to get started with the designing and major fund raising. Our plan is to raise as much as 2 million from the foreign affairs community before going out to the major corporations and foundations.
We have held useful discussions with the President of the Statue of Liberty - Ellis Island Foundation about providing advice as a consultant.

Meanwhile the Department has appointed an able project coordinator and the Assistant Secretaries for Administration and Public Affairs are cooperating to give strong support to the effort. The rest will have to be done by the FAMC. We are working with the Department to reduce this arrangement to writing in the form of a memorandum of understanding. Ralph Appelbaum, the country's leading historical museum designer, has agreed to undertake the project once we have the funds.

The task is a formidable one for which we will need all the help we can get. We will be in touch to discuss this with you further. In the meantime please let me or Steve Low know of any thoughts or suggestions you may have.

[10]

THE SECRETARY OF STATE
WASHINGTON

The United States Diplomacy Center

The Department of State is committed to the creation of the United States Diplomacy Center, a place where the general public and scholars alike can explore the United States' pivotal role in world affairs.

As Secretary, I want us to do a better job explaining to the American people why what we do in the State Department matters to them and merits their support.

The United States Diplomacy Center will bring the deeds of our diplomats to life for the broader public. It will honor past accomplishments and illuminate present challenges, and it will underscore how diplomacy affects all our lives and how ordinary citizens as well as professionals contribute to its successes.

With interactive exhibits, briefing space, multimedia stations and the latest technology, the Center will use inventive activities and displays to both teach and engage the public. The Center and an adjacent conference center and auditorium will be easily accessible to the public through the 21st Street entrance.

The Center will be a major educational resource for schools and citizens across America. It will also be a valuable tool for professional education and development within the Department and the broader foreign affairs and national security community.

The Department of State is providing renovated space, staff and security for the Diplomacy Center. We are grateful to the Foreign Affairs Museum Council for spearheading the effort to raise the necessary public funds.

The United States Diplomacy Center will be an important part of our efforts to help free people everywhere understand the crucial role of diplomacy in keeping the peace and advancing the cause of freedom.

Excerpts from Speeches at Groundbreaking for
United States Diplomacy Center

November 1, 2000

Secretary Madeleine Albright:

...our country rightly honors its traditions in hundreds of historical and military museums, including shrines to everything from stamps and cars to cowboys and rock and roll. But America has not accorded a similar recognition to the immense contributions that diplomacy makes to our security and prosperity and freedom -- not, that is, until today.

And the United States Diplomacy Center will bring the deeds of our diplomats to life to the broader public. It will show the challenges that they face and the risks they run to advance America's interests and values around the world. And it will use state-of-the-art technology to illuminate and inform and inspire. It will appeal to people old enough to remember the League of Nations, and those not old enough to recall the collapse of the Berlin Wall. And it will not only commemorate the achievements of the past, but also attract support for the work of the present and the needs of the future.

.....In the long run, however, there is no firmer foundation for success than a citizenry that is engaged and informed about America's global role and our responsibilities. And that is why I am so excited about the United States Diplomacy Center, for this will be far more than a museum. It will be the finest vehicle for public education and outreach that our calling has ever known. And that is because of the innovative exhibits that will be mounted here and because of the vital national mission that is carried out here.....

Millions of Americans may recall learning something in school about the Louisiana Purchase and Seward's Folly, but until now there has been no place for them to fully explore the diplomacy that shaped the growth of our country. The hallowed grounds of Gettysburg, Antietam and Vicksburg have long attracted visitors with an interest in the Civil War, but there has been no place for them to learn about the crucial role of diplomacy in keeping Great Britain from tipping the balance to the South in that terrible conflict.....

But much of what we do can and should be on display for the public. We must do a much better job of communicating with the American people, explaining how our accomplishments affect their lives, and how their support contributes to our successes. And that is the great mission of the United States Diplomacy Center, and one I am confident will be performed brilliantly. Because the story that we have to tell is compelling, and I am

sure that it will tell it, and that we will tell it well, and find an
audience that is as receptive and attentive as this one has been this
afternoon.

Senator Paul Sarbanes:

....The Center will show the important work that our diplomats
perform day in and day out, work that enhances our national security,
promotes the values of democracy and human rights the world over.

...a lot of Americans are told by critics of the foreign service that we
don't do a very good job of diplomacy, and I think American history doesn't
sustain that. Right from the very beginning, the skillful negotiation by
the American peace commissioners at that time nearly doubled the size of our
country by extending the boundaries of the 13 colonies northward to Canada,
southward to Florida, and west to the Mississippi.....

And Richard Morris, the very distinguished historian, in his book, "The
Peace Makers," says -- and I want to quote this -- "The peace of Paris
involved concessions on both sides. What was so remarkable about the
achievements of the American commissioners was that where they compromised
it was on inessentials, and where they conceded it was to yield the
trivial." Not a bad record, I might say.....

And this Center, as the living history museum of American foreign relations, will help to
bring that story to the American people.

Former Senator Charles Mathias:

.....But implicit in words like that is the need to preserve, to protect and to
present the historical record in a way that makes it accessible to foreign
service officers and to those in the general public who are interested. It
is a remarkable story that before long -- the story that began long before
the Treaty of Paris and continues today in the Balkans, the Middle East,
and, as Secretary Albright can testify, in North Korea....

The management of foreign affairs has engaged the attention and skill of
many remarkable men and women, including six who became President of the
United States. The Foreign Affairs Museum Council has been established to
help in this effort. We shall attempt to increase the collection of
artifacts and documents for exhibit, to help raise the money that will be
needed to supplement the expenses of the museum and the Center, and I am

happy to say that our president, president of the Council, Ambassador Low,
has already begun that serious effort, that very tough job.

Former Secretary Warren Christopher:

.....Envy is not a very nice human emotion, and I try to avoid it when I can, but I must say when I used to work in this building I would often go to meetings at a building across the river and have to confess to a little envy. I suppose the main subject of my envy was the size of their budget and the way they were received on Capitol Hill, but I was also somewhat envious at the wonderful displays they had in all of their halls -- very handsomely gotten up, and I think no expense spared. And I learned later on when I looked into it a little bit that the United States Government supports over 2,000 museums dedicated to our military men and women, each deserved, and has a separate museum for each of the services -- Army, Navy and Marines and Air Force -- four, I guess, by now.....

(The Department) has found some space, ideally outside of the security perimeter because it is my hope, and dream really, that this exhibition, this museum, could be available not just to policy wonks but also to the general public so they can see what it is that diplomats really do and how much they contribute. And so the general public of the United States could come here to Washington, D.C., and get a sense of what foreign service officers and diplomats have contributed over the years.

Dana Murray, Second Tour Foreign Service Officer and Master of Ceremonies

I was always fascinated by foreign events, cultures and travel, so it seemed
natural that I would join the foreign service. Looking back, though, I
realize how little I really knew about diplomacy and the work of the State
Department.

That is why I am so pleased the US Diplomacy Center will be here for
future generations. So few Americans have a clear understanding of what
diplomacy really is and how, throughout our history, the Diplomacy of State
has served and defended American interests and freedom with the same
dedication and spirit that exemplify its employees here and abroad. The
Center will tell their story.

OCT 18 2001

October 8, 2001

**Honorary Directors**

**Board of Directors**

Charles McC. Mathias
Chairman
Frank C. Carlucci
Robert L. Galucci
Leslie H. Gelb
Lee H. Hamilton
Herbert Hansell
Stephen Low
Leonard Marks
Paul Sarbanes
Richard H. Solomon
Terence A. Todman

**Officers**

Stephen Low
President
Dennis Kux
Secretary
Walter J. Woolwine
Treasurer

Dear Henry,

In the new world of non-state warfare some old practices have not been eclipsed. Diplomacy is one of them. In response to the September 11 attack our country is now engaged in a major diplomatic effort, led by Colin Powell, to build a broad alliance against terrorism. The FAMC's project to create a display of the record of American diplomacy can help put this in context, emphasizing the importance of diplomacy in our country's history and making clear that this is not the first time we have become engaged in such an effort.

Work is beginning at the 21st Street entrance while we raise the funds to establish the museum in the State Department's new United States Diplomacy Center. The preliminary design study by Appelbaum Associates will start in a few months as soon as the Department settles on an architectural plan for the space. The proposals are impressive. We have collected funds in cash and pledges exceeding $500,000. Charlotte Beers, the new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, will oversee establishment of the Center. She started work on October 1. As the former CEO of J. Walter Thompson and Ogilvy & Mather in New York, she is in a position to be very helpful. She begins work at a crucial time when the Department of State has important messages to get across. Nevertheless, we hope to arrange a meeting of the board with her.

We are particularly pleased that besides a number of smaller grants, three and perhaps four individuals/foundations have pledged gifts of at least $100,000 to become Founding Donors. Their names will be included on a plaque in the 21st street entrance.

Our effort is complemented by both the Army's plans to raise $100 million for a museum of its history at Fort Belvoir and the Congressional project for a $265 million Capitol Visitors Center. Our costs should be much more modest

The Blackstone Group

AUG 09 2001

Peter G. Peterson
Chairman

August 2, 2001

The Hon. Henry A. Kissinger
Chairman
Kissinger Associates
350 Park Avenue
26th Floor
New York, NY 10022

Dear Henry,

Lynn Forester and Evelyn de Rothschild have asked us to sponsor them for membership in The River Club, which we are delighted to do.

Would you be willing to second their nomination?

If so, please send a letter to:

Board of Governors
The River Club
447 E. 52nd Street
New York, NY 10022

Many thanks.

The Blackstone Group L.P.
345 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10154
Tel 212 583 5819
Fax 212 583 5711

Blackstone Financial Services®

27 YEARS AGO IN TIME

Colin Powell is not the first Secretary of State to come into the job with high expectations. **HENRY KISSINGER**, named Richard Nixon's man at State in 1973, had a portfolio of diplomatic successes and "the unmistakable aura of a true celebrity."

According to a recent Gallup poll, Kissinger is the man Americans admire most in the world today. Abroad he has achieved the kind of celebrity status seldom enjoyed by anyone but top movie stars; in fact, he has become in some places almost a cult figure. His round, expressive face draws more instant

recognition in many nations than even that of the local ruler. Government leaders, like so many shy fans, inveigle ways to be photographed with him. Arab sheiks, fascinated as much by the *machismo* image of his well-publicized dates with actresses Jill St. John and Marlo Thomas as by his statesmanship, insist on being briefed by no one else ... Meeting other Western Hemisphere foreign ministers in Mexico City recently, the Secretary of State was so sought-after by his Latin American counterparts that they even pursued him to the men's room to carry out impromptu discussions.

—TIME, April 1, 1974

By Melissa August, Jeffrey Kluger, Ellin Martens, Benjamin Nugent, Sora Song and Heather Won Tesoriero

TIME, SEPTEMBER 10, 2001

21

May 6, 2001

Mr. Andrew V. Frankel
208 East 51st Street, #399
New York, NY 10022

Hon. Henry A. Kissinger
Kissinger Associates
350 Park Avenue - 26th Floor
New York, NY 10022

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

I do not know whether you remember me, but in 1989 I accompanied you, David Rockefeller, Bill Hyland and several others on a Trilateral Commission task force trip to Moscow for meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev and others. At the time, I was Assistant North American Director at Trilateral.

Last August I returned to school to pursue an MBA at the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University. This summer I will be at Lehman Brothers. I am writing to inquire whether you would be available to meet with me and a small group of students – four to five people at most – for 30 minutes of very informal conversation anytime between June 11th and August 17th. For most of these students you will be the most famous person they have ever met and, I know from my own contact with you, one that will make a lasting positive impact.

You may reach me at the above address or by e-mail at avf2@duke.edu. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Sincerely,

Andrew V. Frankel

MAY 10 2001

APR 04 2001

Rebecca Jordan

From: Paul Fribourg [paul.fribourg@conti.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 9:40 AM
To: msosland@sosland.com; Carrette@pargesa.ch; BSteinweg@aol.com; jdavid@worldbank.org; ebotwinick@worldbank.org; hubert_goldschmidt@yahoo.com; mark.baker@conti.com; mary.greenebaum@conti.com; susan.mcintyre@conti.com; michael.zimmerman@conti.com; vart.adjemian@conti.com; rebecca.jordan@kainy.org
Subject: MF

After a very tough day yesterday he's doing better this morning. He had a much better night and they're starting the feeding again.

It's hard to understand why things change so much from one day to the next but fortunately it's in the right direction today.

Best,

Paul

1

Vielen Hervor

15. 6. 2000

[c]

Al loffe es gelh Oin gil u. Du last
Vins ere gemeinsamen Sebintstagsminste uich Partill erlaßen -

Mечite schiite il Div, dso il gerade bei der Aitorin
dles Bures (enver Freindin) in kom vin, das Bure siker
menie tamulie u. olie ws Zeh in Nurnberg, Vielleill intenessint
es Die, dros sie zu gründil alles rellcrchort lah..

Noh lerklichen Ersisser

07/30/2001 16:43

202--483--3430

GHI WASHINGTON

PAGE 02/02

The Friends of the German Historical Institute

1607 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20009
USA

AUG 0 8 2001

TEL: (202) 387-3355
FAX: (202) 483-3430

July 30, 2001

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

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

Today's mail brought your wonderful contribution of $2,500 to the Fritz Stern Dissertation Prize Fund. Your generous gift moves us forward substantially and infuses our efforts with great energy. Die Freunde und ich danken Ihnen von ganzem Herzen!

We are very much in your debt and look forward to adding your name—with your permission—to the program for this year's Fritz Stern Dissertation Prize award ceremony on November 9, 2001, to which you and all donors are warmly invited.

Ms. Incao's welcome letter and my July 26 letter to you clearly crossed in the mail. I thus hasten to express our thanks swiftly by fax. With the stroke of your pen you have moved us forward tremendously. If your time and calendar were also to allow for a brief advisory meeting, The Friends and I shall advance with "Sieben-Meilen-Stiefeln." I also look forward to forwarding Lord Dahrendorf's lecture on *Democracy under Pressure: the European Experience* to you as soon as the proofs have been returned.

Above all, let me thank you for your generous response.

cc Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke
PD Dr. Christof Mauch, Acting Director, the GHI
Prof. Andrew Zimmerman, Treasurer, The Friends

Diane Barron Fritch
The Hidden Meadow
24 Hidden Meadow Lane
South Kent CT 06785

October 10, 2001

Dr. Henry Kissinger
Henderson Road Estate
South Kent CT 06785

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

I have had the greatest pleasure of meeting you and
having you visit my home, "The Hidden Meadow", here in Kent.
My name is Diane, and my husband Kevin (DBA Fritch TLC)
works daily at your beautiful Kent estate.

Perhaps this letter will never reach you, as you probably
have many qualified assistants who take care of
correspondence and "fan letters", however I will take my
chances and at least feel satisfied that I have sent along my
thoughts.

Sir,

I believe you are a brilliant man...
and one of the greatest thinkers of our times!

These adjectives are used over and over again about you,
everywhere in the world, and although I have tried to think of
some other clever way of complimenting you and your life's
work, "brilliant" and "greatest" truly make the point!

Born August 1st 1953, I grew up during our country's
"Vietnam era", and I became aware of you at that time. Since
then I have followed your career with interest, as well as great
appreciation for your political skills, knowledge, and wisdom.
That is all on the one hand. On the other hand, having you as a
"neighbor" here in Kent has allowed me to see a bit of the
personal side of you - such as how devotedly you cared for
your beloved mother... how beautifully you have developed
your country home... how generous you are with our town...
how graciously you accept our invitations when able to... and
just being "a good guy" around here!

I would be remiss if I did not mention here that Kevin and
I - and I think all of Kent - adores Nancy! She is considered a
lovely, personable, generous woman, as well as the finest lady!

Kevin and I have purchased all of your books and you
have kindly autographed several. We just acquired your two
newest and look forward to having them autographed as well.
Please know that we ask for your autograph out of admiration
and respect for you - and that these books are considered
"treasures" in our home.

Thank you for letting me share with you sir.

Warmest regards,