Morgenthau
Award Recipients

Honorable Angier Biddle Duke

Honorable Sol Linowitz

Honorable Henry A. Kissinger

Honorable Jeane J. Kirkpatrick

Honorable George P. Shultz

David Rockefeller

Honorable James A. Baker, III

Right Honorable Margaret Thatcher

Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering

His Majesty King Hussein

Kennan
Award Recipients

Honorable George F. Kennan

Honorable Cyrus R. Vance

PROGRAM

Presentation of the George F. Kennan Award for
Distinguished Public Service to the Honorable Cyrus R. Vance
in recognition of his imaginative statesmanship, exemplary
moral courage, and passionate advocacy of human rights.

Dr. George D. Schwab
*Welcoming Remarks*

Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
*Introduction*

Honorable George F. Kennan
*Presentation of the Award to Cyrus R. Vance*

Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
*A Tribute to Cyrus R. Vance*

Honorable Cyrus R. Vance
*What Kind of United Nations Do We Want?*

# Welcoming Remarks

by George D. Schwab

On behalf of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, it is my honor to welcome you. This year, unfortunately, two members who had been intimately connected with the National Committee for almost two decades left us — Joanne Toor Cummings, our senior vice president, and Ambassador Angier Biddle Duke, a former president of the National Committee. Both Joanne and Angie contributed to the unanimous decision to present the second George F. Kennan award to Secretary Vance, and I know that they are with us in spirit. We are indeed very happy that Mrs. Robin Chandler Duke is with us today.

Before proceeding with the program, it is my privilege to inform you of a number of activities that the National Committee conducted this year.

At the beginning of the year, the Committee was invited to send a fact-finding mission to Germany to discuss questions relating to our respective national interests such as the eastward expansion of NATO and militant Muslim fundamentalism. On our return, we wrote a report that included the Committee's recommendations, and, as usual, we circulated it widely.

We are now discussing with the German Information Center and Goethe House the details of cohosting a conference on how the younger generation of Americans and Germans envision U.S.-German relations at the turn of the century, and it is our intention to engage young civic and professional leaders to discuss the evolution of this vital relationship.

We have held a number of events during the year. In

- 1 -

April we hosted an extraordinary dinner, the memories of which are very dear to all of us who attended. It was the 1995 Hans J. Morgenthau award dinner held to honor His Majesty King Hussein of Jordan. On that occasion we were still very fortunate to have had Angie Duke and Joanne Cummings with us. Both took a very active part in organizing the dinner, and both contributed decisively to making it a splendid evening.

Over the years the Committee has formed a relationship with the People's Republic of China. Most recently, for example, we met with Chinese diplomats to discuss the implications for U.S.-Chinese relations of the visit to the United States of President Lee of Taiwan. Discussions are now underway about the possibility of a National Committee fact-finding mission to China.

I must also mention the National Committee's intimate involvement with the issue of war and peace in Northern Ireland. In recognition of the talks that we have sponsored during the past year and a half, President Clinton has invited our chairman, Mr. Bill Flynn, to accompany him on *Air Force One* to Ireland at the end of this month. The Committee has been able to make a contribution to the peace process there, and Bill Flynn's leadership certainly has earned this acknowledgement of his contributions to the peace process.

During the past three months, the National Committee received requests from Mr. Gerry Adams, head of Sinn Fein; Mr. David Ervine and Mr. Gary McMichael, leaders of the Loyalists; and Mr. David Trimble, head of the largest political party in Northern Ireland, to appear before the National Committee in order to brief us on the seriousness of the stalemate over the decommissioning of arms. All four have spoken to us in recent weeks, and we believe that their presentations have contributed to a greater understanding of the issue and of each group's desire for a settlement.

-2-

I would also like to mention that during the course of the year, we have participated in other foreign policy briefings, including one by Ambassador Abba Eban who is with us today in the company of his wife, Suzie.

Your presence, Ambassador Eban, and the presence of Ambassador Gad Yaacobi gives me the opportunity to convey publicly, on behalf of the National Committee, what we relayed privately to your government and to Mrs. Leah Rabin, namely, our deepest sympathy on the tragic loss of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, a brilliant warrior and a daring statesman.

Now it is my privilege to call on my good friend and my esteemed colleague at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, the dean of American historians, Arthur Schlesinger, jr., who will introduce Ambassador Kennan.

-3-

# Introduction

by Arthur M. Schlesinger, jr.

It is a great pleasure for me to be here today. As I look on this assembly, I must say that the wealth of the diplomatic palette in this room is extremely impressive. In fact, I cannot imagine so many skilled diplomats lunching together, except perhaps when Dick Holbrooke lunches by himself.

My particular pleasure today is to introduce the man who more than any other perhaps in this century has embodied the best in American diplomacy, a man who combines diplomatic skill with literary grace, moral authority, and humane wisdom as well as with evident immersion in the fountain of youth. It gives me great pleasure and honor to introduce George F. Kennan.

-4-

# Presentation of the Award
to Cyrus R. Vance

by George F. Kennan

There can scarcely be anyone in this room who is not
well aware of the major forms of distinction that have
marked the career of Cyrus Vance, whom we are
honoring today. They include, of course, his prominence
in his chosen profession of the law and the several high
positions he has occupied at one time or another in
government, culminating in his service, almost twenty
years ago, as secretary of state. Such was the distinction
and quality of these contributions that they alone would
have warranted the honor that is being bestowed upon
him today, even if there had been nothing else to honor
him for.

But the fact is that those contributions, impressive as
they are, have been, at least in my opinion, only the
minor part of what Cyrus Vance has contributed over
the years of his public service to our own country and to
the world at large. The other part has consisted of a long
succession of services that he has rendered as a
conciliator, a mediator, a trouble-shooter, a conflict-
solver in situations in which solution was possible—a
conflict-moderator when it was not.

The number of such situations—situations of bitter
and apparently irreconcilable conflict—in which Cy
Vance has taken the major part is truly impressive. I
could not begin to mention them all at the moment.
They include the disorders in Panama and the problems
of the Dominican Republic in the 1970s; shortly
thereafter, the defusing of the troubles in Detroit's black

-5-

ghetto; the Greek-Turkish crisis in Cyprus; the successive SALT negotiations with the Soviet Union; the problems connected with the independence of Namibia; the troubled situation in Nicaragua; the Camp David accord; more recently, overcoming the deadlock between Greece and the new state of Macedonia. And finally, of course, the services he personally rendered some years ago in negotiating a cease-fire in the war between Serbia and Croatia and then the pioneer work he did together with Lord Owen in laying down a framework for peace in the Balkans—a framework that was then not acceptable to the parties involved but represented the first stones in the wall of agreement that we hope has been finally laid this week. And this is an incomplete list.

One has the impression that whenever the world's great policymakers found themselves up against any conflict threatening the peace of the world or of a region or of their own security—any conflict to which they themselves could neither devise nor perceive any solution—their first instinct was to send Cy Vance to see what he could do about it. And Cy responded, quietly and modestly, recognizing that in most instances the price of any possible success would be the deliberate effacing of his own part in bringing it about—allowing others to claim credit for it. But once called upon, he addressed himself to the task at hand patiently, persistently, and where necessary, insistently and relentlessly but always skillfully and tactfully, always after careful study of the issues involved, never unduly forcing the pace but always declining to take “no” for an answer.

Some of these tasks were undertaken in the line of official governmental duty in his various offices in this country, others at the instance of the United Nations, some at the suggestion of the parties themselves. But an outstanding feature of all of them, it seems to me, was the

- 6 -

small measure of expressed appreciation, often none at all, with which they were so often received. A peace maker's task is seldom fully requited. Impassioned people, dug into positions of hatred and defiance of others, seldom repay with gratitude those who have labored to defuse the resulting conflicts, even when the implicit concessions and compromises would have been, had they only been able to see it, greatly to their own interests.

Only this could have explained the relatively slight publicity and recognition and above all the little public appreciation with which these efforts by Cy Vance have been pocketed by the international community, including ourselves. I suppose we must accept the fact that this is the way of the world and that not much better could have been expected.

We who have come together here today, however, are fortunately not subject to any of those restraints. So I would like to think that the National Committee, in bestowing upon Cy Vance the honor it is about to confer upon him, is doing it in recognition of all and not just a part of the services he has rendered to this country and to world peace over the course of his long career. I hope that he will find in it belated recognition of the many services and achievements that he has been too modest to speak about, that the contestants have usually been too self-absorbed to recognize, and that the outside world, always short of memory, has been too quick to forget.

-7-

# A Tribute
to Cyrus R. Vance
*by Henry A. Kissinger*

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, my capacity to
admire people is not my outstanding characteristic, and so
it is unprecedented that I find myself sandwiched between
two speakers for whom I have unlimited admiration.
George Kennan, to whom I owe so much of my own
intellectual development and who has been an inspiration
to all of us who studied and practiced diplomacy, and Cy
Vance, my friend, I am proud to say, for many decades, who
has set an example for conduct in public office and for
international leadership out of office.

I want to speak about only one aspect of Cy Vance's
achievements because George Kennan has already
covered his many public roles. For more than two hundred
years, the United States has had to develop a foreign
policy for a country that has never known foreign danger,
that has never known irrevocable mistakes, and that
tends to believe that every problem has an ultimate
solution. That makes us unique among the nations of the
world, but it creates a great tendency for oscillations
between extremes. The fundamental concern of those of us
who have studied foreign policy is to recognize that the
problems and challenges of the United States are
permanent. They're not partisan; they cannot be resolved
on a partisan basis. We need an enduring idea of the
interests and values that we are trying to achieve. Cy
Vance has made an extraordinary contribution to this
effort. I have such a strong opinion about his accomplish-
ments, though he may not consider it great praise, that
when I left office and was asked by a group of journalists

-8-

whom I wanted as my successor (that was before the election), I said, "Cy Vance."

Cy Vance exemplifies the standards that our nation should aspire to. On all the important issues, I talk to Cy Vance. He and I, on a number of occasions, have issued joint statements in order to contribute to a bipartisan direction of our foreign policy on the Middle East, on China, and on overall foreign policy. I do not want to burden Cy with the legion of my critics, although I hasten to add that he has gone beyond my more limited horizons on many occasions and that is also to his credit.

It is a pleasure for me to be here to express my gratification that Cy Vance has been chosen to receive this award, to express my admiration for the leadership Cy Vance has given to our country and to our nation, to express my admiration for the fundamental values of humanity and decency and concern that he has always embodied, and to express my pleasure in sharing the platform again with Cyrus Vance.

-9-

# What Kind of United Nations
Do We Want?

by Cyrus R. Vance

Thank you, George, for your very kind words. I am profoundly touched by them, and because they come from you, who was, as we all know, "present at the creation," I will always treasure them.

George, Henry, President Schwab, members of the National Committee, ladies and gentlemen: I accept your gracious award with deep appreciation and humility—appreciation because your organization has from its earliest days distinguished itself by its commitment to a humane yet realistic foreign policy for our country and humility because as one who has labored in this area, I am aware of the frailties and failures that often encumber even the best efforts of nations to regulate their relations with one another.

As George reminded us at the end of his superb book *Russia and the West*, Bismarck once dismissed some of his eager junior associates with the following words: "Let us leave a few problems for our children to solve; otherwise they might be so bored." Well, I'm sure we can all agree that boredom is not one of our problems on the international scene after the end of the cold war with all its trials and dangers.

This afternoon I would like to share some thoughts with you on the state of relations between the United States and the United Nations. It is appropriate to do so at this time in view of the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War and the creation of the United Nations. It is also appropriate because the relationship between the UN and the United States is, in my

- 10 -

judgment, vital to both. It is vital to the United Nations
because without the active participation of the world's
most powerful democracy, the UN would lack the
essential source of ideas and ideals, of strength and
purpose of will, and of human and material resources
that no other single nation can provide. It is also vital to
the United States because our membership in the world's
only universal organization provides us with a forum in
which to build support for our values and share the
burdens of leadership. It also gives us the means to exert
our influence across the wide range of global activities—
economic, political, social, legal, environmental, and
others—that constitute life in an interdependent world.

What, then, is the state of relations between the United
States and the UN? I regret to say that relations are not
good and there are few signs of improvement, at least in
the short term. Why is this so? The men and women at
the helm in Washington and Turtle Bay are dedicated
and well-meaning. They know what is at stake. I am sure
that the secretary-general, whom I am proud to have as
a colleague and dear friend, shares the same desires for a
peaceful, prosperous, humane world that Washington
does. The administration, too, is struggling to restore our
earlier leadership role within the United Nations system.
Yet the fact remains that relations are troubled. The most
obvious sign is Washington's breaching of its financial
obligation to pay its assessments to the United Nations.

In examining the relations between the United States
and the UN, it may be useful to take a brief backward
glance before we discuss what should be done in the
future to restore a decent working relationship and role
for the United States within the UN.

Although it was American leadership that provided the
stimulus for the creation of the UN at the end of World
War II, this represented—as we all know—a break with
some deeply-rooted American attitudes. These attitudes

-11-

understandably persist, and it is important to try to
understand them because only by doing so can we
understand what is damaged in our relationship with the
UN and what we can do to fix it.

There are three principal attitudes that have
historically shaped American responses and actions on
the world scene and within the United Nations—
isolationism; particularism; and unilateralism. Let me
focus on each of them briefly.

First, *isolationism*. Because of America's geography—a continent with oceans on two sides and no threats from our neighbors—isolationism was our predominant response to the outside world throughout much of our history. It led, of course, to President Wilson's historic defeat when the Senate rejected American participation in the League of Nations after World War I. After the Second World War, isolationism took a back seat to the long global struggle against Soviet communism. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union has permitted a comeback for isolationism, and it has assumed new justifications.

As isolationism grew out of our country's geographical position, *particularism* grew out of our history. We speak with pride of the "New World," the "City on a Hill," our "Manifest Destiny," the "Melting Pot," and other things that make us different—what we call the American Way. This has also led to a particular style of U.S. activity in international organizations. It often means that we tend to judge our actions in multilateral organizations mainly by the effect they produce domestically, especially in Congress and the media. And as individual congressmen and women have come to focus more and more on the specific interests of their constituents, American diplomacy in the UN and in other multilateral institutions tends to become increasingly narrow and particularistic.

Last, but not least, is *unilateralism*. Let me be very

- 12 -

clear on this point. America's power and wealth often allow us to act alone in situations in which others might take no action or to act together only with like-minded nations. There have been and will be times when it is right and proper for us to act alone or with a few followers. But as a matter of policy and practice, the wise course, I believe, is not to take a go-it-alone course of action but rather a course in which America leads as well as shares the burden of leadership across a wide spectrum of international activities. Unilateralism, however, can be a temptation to some who do not understand that within the UN such behavior by the United States has sometimes undercut rather than advanced our interests.

Examples can be seen in our decision in the early 1980s to leave UNESCO rather than work within the organization to reform it and in the Reagan administration's decision to withdraw from World Court jurisdiction over Nicaragua. Such actions were short-sighted and harmed our larger, long-range goals of a predictable and cooperative international system.

What, then, can be done to improve the working relationship between the United States and the UN? As we think about this, let us remember that what we are talking about is not a world government that exists above and apart from its members but rather an organization composed of and governed by 185 member states. In short, the UN is all of us: Its shortcomings are our shortcomings; its successes are our successes.

Let me turn to the UN's financial crisis. Our government now owes a little over 1.2 billion dollars to the United Nations. Although we are not the only debtor, we are by far the largest. The size of our shortfalls, the continued growth in our indebtedness, and current attitudes in Washington threaten the basic viability of the organization. This should not be viewed as a matter of trade-offs or of disliking this or that UN program. Paying our assessed budgetary contributions, both to the regular

- 13 -

budget and to the UN's peacekeeping accounts, should not be a matter of congressional discretion. It is a solemn international obligation, and if Washington is serious about upholding and bolstering international law, we should be equally serious about paying our UN assessments in full and on time. I would hope that President Clinton would follow his recent statements of support for the United Nations and his stated intention to meet the United States financial obligations by undertaking a bipartisan initiative in Congress to get this done. Even though he and Congress are immersed in a late-year budget crisis, I would hope that our United Nations assessments would be included in the discussions now taking place to shape a final budget agreement.

The current situation is not only a financial crisis for the UN—it is also a serious domestic American political problem—how we see our role in the world and what kind of world we want our children to inherit. Unless and until our leaders and our people decide what they want our role to be, this crisis is likely to continue and worsen. What is needed is a serious and urgent national debate on the issue of America's proper role inside the UN and, in turn, the UN's purposes in the world. I for one would not fear the outcome because I do not believe that the American people will heed the voices of those whose theme is “Stop the world; I want to get off.” Leadership from the top is required. Otherwise piecemeal quick fixes that do not get at basic problems will prevail and America's relations with the UN will continue to drift downward. I repeat: This financial issue is at bottom a political problem, and only political leadership can cope with it.

In this connection, we often hear uninformed grumbling about the need for UN reform. No one opposes this because reform is one of those words that can mean different things to different people and usually does. Just look, for example, at our domestic debates on “welfare reform” or “medicare reform.” In reality, the UN has

-14-

implemented almost every reform pressed on it over the
last decade by various U.S. administrations, and still our
indebtedness grows.

In the early 1980s we called for zero-growth
expenditures, and for ten years the UN has complied. Its
budget in real terms has been practically flat for fourteen
years. We sought a consensus-based procedure for
determining the UN budget—in other words, giving
ourselves and all other member states a veto—and the
UN complied in 1986. We called for reducing the number
of senior positions in the Secretariat, and the UN
complied. We called for a reduction in overall staff and
the creation of an inspector general's function, and the
UN instituted those reforms. Therefore, we can see that
tit-for-tat actions have not solved problems in the past.
Moreoever, they are not likely to do so in the future.

I would suggest a more fundamental approach to the
financial problem. I would propose that a flat cap be
established for any one nation's assessment—15 percent
for the regular budget and 20 percent for permanent
members of the Security Council with respect to the
peacekeeping budget. As we all know, the United States
is currently assessed 25 percent for the regular budget
and 32 percent for peacekeeping, although in fact we pay
much less because of Congress's refusal to meet its
obligations.

At first glance it may seem as though I am suggesting
that we be rewarded for nonfulfillment of an obligation.
Such is not my intention; nor is it the case. Let me recall
that only ten years ago a similar proposal was put
forward by Secretary General Perez de Cuellar and by
Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme.

This flat 15 percent cap would be coupled with a
revised scale of assessments so that all members could
participate more equitably in financing the UN. It may be
the case that some of our closest friends among the

-15-

advanced industrial democracies will need to be
convinced of the wisdom of the flat cap. But I think that
they can be persuaded of its utility when they realize, as
the UN itself will realize, that the cap, in leveling the top
payments, will provide for steadier and more reliable
financing. It will also prevent the UN from being held
hostage to any one large debtor.

A second area in which American relations with the UN
needs a fundamental reexamination is the large and
complex area of economics and humanitarian affairs.
Over the past fifty years, peace, stability, and human
development have been well served by UN agencies and
functions that have kept at the business of building self-
sufficient and prosperous economies in countries that
have shed their colonial status and achieved nationhood.

Although the press and political leaders often focus on
peacekeeping and human rights issues such as proposals
for enlarging the Security Council and strengthening the
UN's capacity to deploy security forces, we must never
forget that although many of the world's children still go
to sleep at night hungry and wake up the next morning to
face an uncertain future, the UN and its agencies are
working to improve the situation. It has been estimated
that in recent years twenty million people would have
died from smallpox had the World Health Organization
not eradicated it in 1981 and that three million children a
year live because WHO and UNICEF have cooperated on
a program that immunizes 80 percent of the world's
children against the major killer diseases.

After fifty years we must acknowledge that resolutions
emanating from the General Assembly and from the
Economic and Social Council have, unfortunately, not
been of much help even though they have often been well-
intentioned. Powerless deliberative bodies cannot effect
the transfer of resources from the rich to the poor.
Working together with the world's international financial

-16-

[cc]

institutions, which, let us remember, are also members of
the UN family, private capital investment can and should
take on this task.

In the social area, the United Nations does not have to
pry into every nook and cranny of every social issue. But
its moral authority should be preserved. Here, too,
establishing norms and guidelines may prove more
productive than trying to be everywhere and to do
everything.

As to humanitarian affairs, we would be remiss if we
did not single out for recognition and increased support
those humanitarian organizations, both within the UN
system and outside of it, that provide essential aid and
relief to the most vulnerable people in time of natural or
manmade disasters. There are many worthy organiza-
tions. I cite in particular the UN High Commission for
Refugees and the International Committee of the Red
Cross. I have had occasion in recent years to be in several
of the world's most tragic and woeful places where I
witnessed the quiet and heroic work of the men and
women of UNHCR and ICRC. Whatever happens in our
political and budgetary debates, I hope that America will
always act generously toward these organizations that
are in the front lines every day helping the innocent
victims of war, famine, and other disasters.

Another area for improvement concerns the rule of law
and its place in a disorderly and unruly world. If nations
are to learn to live in peace, international law will need to
be strengthened. In spite of all the obstacles that face us
in this endeavor, I see no other course but to press ahead
—sensibly and realistically—and not to surrender to
cynicism. Working with other UN members, we should
examine the entire range of international legal
institutions, including the major regional courts, to see
where improvements can be made. Eventually, we should
work toward a functioning International Criminal Court.

- 17 -

Finally, given the broad reach of issues already mentioned, it seems to me that the time is at hand to consider an overall review of the UN Charter. Such a review is foreseen by the Charter itself in Article 109.

I believe that a Charter Review Conference could serve a useful purpose for at least two major reasons. First, as good as it is—and the Charter is indeed a far-sighted document—fifty years have passed since its adoption. A half century is a long time in the life of any organization, and I think the Charter merits another close examination.

Second, in the final analysis, the United Nations is us. It is not only the member governments but also the people of the world who comprise it. That being the case, I see no reason not to put the issue squarely before governments: What kind of a United Nations do we want? A Charter Review Conference would and should take time—perhaps four or five years—and while it is deliberating, the necessary reforms and restructuring of the organization could proceed.

Some may find this view radical or utopian. It seems to me, however, that given the wide array of old and new problems that face the world community, we would be remiss indeed if we shied away from a fundamental examination of what is, after all, our own organization and what we are prepared to contribute to it. In such an important task, I would hope and expect the United States to play a leading and constructive role.

Thank you very much.

- 18 -

OUR PURPOSES

The National Committee on American Foreign Policy, which was founded by the late Professor Hans J. Morgenthau, among others, in 1974, is a voluntary, nonprofit organization that seeks to stimulate informed interest in and concern for the serious problems confronting the United States in its foreign relations. The membership consists of former U.S. ambassadors as well as leaders in academia, the professions, finance, commerce, industry, and communications.

The National Committee's principal concerns after the termination of the cold war continue to be focused on American interests in a shifting political and economic environment. They include

1. preserving and strengthening open-society countries,

2. improving America's relations with the developing world,

3. advancing human rights,

4. curbing nuclear proliferation and extending arms-control agreements, and

5. promoting an open and global world economy.

The National Committee on American Foreign Policy is nonpartisan and nonsectarian; it maintains no ties with any special interest group or foreign government.

A major and distinguishing activity of the National Committee is the presentation of firm and reasoned positions on specific issues. When, after study and discussion, it reaches an internal consensus on a particular foreign policy problem, it seeks to make that view known to the administration, Congress, the media, and the general public. It is this willingness to take a public stand— independent of partisan, ethnic, or regional special interests— that makes the National Committee on American Foreign Policy different from other nonprofit organizations in the field of foreign affairs.

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, INC.

## FOUNDER
Dr. Hans J. Morgenthau

## MORGENTHAU AWARD RECIPIENTS

David Rockefeller
Honorable James A. Baker, III
Rt. Honorable Margaret Thatcher
Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering
His Majesty King Hussein

## KENNAN AWARD RECIPIENTS

Honorable George F. Kennan

Honorable Cyrus R. Vance

## OFFICERS

Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
*Honorary Chairman*

William J. Flynn
*Chairman of the Board*

Dr. George D. Schwab
*President*

William M. Rudolf
*Senior Vice President*

Donald S. Rice, Esq.
*Vice President*

Honorable Francis L. Kellogg
*Treasurer*

William Pickens III
*Secretary*

## TRUSTEES

*Professor Howard L. Adelson

*Kenneth Bialkin, Esq.
Honorable Harlan Cleveland
John V. Connorton, Jr., Esq.

*Professor Michael Curtis
Candace de Russy, Ph. D.

John Dee

*Viola Drath

*Robin Chandler Duke
Anthony Drexel Duke

*Dr. Eve Epstein
Peter J. Flanagan

*Sandy Frank

*Mrs. Herbert Gussman
Judith Hernstadt

*Honorable Fereydoun Hoveyda
John F. X. Mannion

*Thomas J. Moran

*Joan Peters

*Ann Phillips
Professor Richard Pipes

*Honorable Maxwell Rabb

*Dr. Carol Rittner
Julia Robinson

Professor Henry Rosovsky
Professor Dankwart A. Rustow
Honorable Arnold A. Saltzman

*Mona Schlachter
Professor S. Fred Singer

Herbert Singer
Jacob Stein

*G.L. Ulmen
Professor Donald S. Zagoria

*Executive Committee

## BOARD OF ADVISERS

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow
Saul Bellow
Professor Bernard E. Brown
Dr. Roy A. Eckhardt
Honorable Seymour M. Finger
Honorable Roger Hilsman

Professor F. H. Littell
Professor Stephanie Neuman

Dr. Donald Rotunda
Dr. Ronald J. Sheppard
Dr. Arnold Soloway