HOTEL

El Embajador

November 1st 1972.

SANTO DOMINGO,
Rep. Dominicana

CORPORACION INTERCONTINENTAL
DE HOTELES (DOMINICANA), C. POR A.

CABLE: INHOTELCOR
TEL. 513-2131

Mr. Henry Kissinger
White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Kissinger,

I am following your global peace efforts with enormous interest and wish to express my sincerest wishes for your success. Some years when I visited Vientiane, Laos, an old Frenchman told me these words: "I rather meet up with 10 snakes in the jungle than with one Vietnamese." I suspect that you by now have reason to agree with him, but at the same time I am convinced that you will ultimately emerge as the victor in this multiple tug-o'-war.

As a historian I am intrigued by the thought that you will rank with two other outstanding Jewish statesmen in this century who - perhaps because they were Jewish - weable to "think the unthinkable": Mendes-France and Walter Rathenau (Rappallo). They were able to overcome long ingrained prejudices and to find a formula for peace. This is, in a way, the Jew's strength - but also what is often the reason for anti-Semitism...

As a footnote I should add that while biographical notes on your life elaborate on you, your brother and parents, nobody has yet mentioned your grandfather. My family in Stockholm Sweden was privileged to have him as our weekly guest for "Minyan" on Sabbath when he - in his late 80's - came punctually, led by his nurse. He had a large square face, with almost rugged features. I remember his ruddy cheeks and kindly eyes. We used to call him "der alte Kissinger". When I came to the USA in 1940, my late

NOV 13 1972

CENTRAL FILES

CENTRAL FILES
NO. 13-515

cell him "der alte Kieasinger". When I came to the U2V in 1949, I was late rungled beimessen. I remember his rough cheers and kindlg elus. We used to come hummelnily, fed by his nurse. He fed a large audience l'ce, with almost our weekly treat for "Mirden" on Sepbath when he - in his late 80's - your Grandfather. My family in Stockholm Sweden was privileged to have him little elaprate on your, your brother and bennga, nobody has yet mentioned

the Jem's a strength - but also what is often the reason for anti-Zionism... ingrained prejudice and to find a common front for peace. This is, in a way, France and Water Rotherham (Babelfo). They were able to overcome long because they were jeweil - wasle to "think the unthinkable". Nenpea- with two other outstanding Jewish statements in this century who - Bernhard

As a historian I am intrigued by the thought that you will rank
multiple full-o'-war.

time I am convinced that you will ultimately emerge as the victor in this
I assure that you will now have reason to agree with him, but at the same
"I rather meet him with 10ukes in the jungle with one Viennese.".

when I visited Vienna, I was, an old Frenchman told me these words:
and wish to express my sincere waeles for your success. Some kara
I am following your global peace efforts with enormous interest

Dear Mr. Kieasinger,

Washington, D.C.

White House

Mr. Henry Kieasinger,

El Embarcador

Reb. Dominicus

SALTO DOMINGO

November 1st 1975.

DE HOLES (DOMINICAN) C. SOR V.
CORPORATION INTERCONTINENTAL

TEF. 113-5121
CABINET: INGOLSTOR

HOLET

"The Baron" FRED LEHMANN
Editor and Publisher

Phone 531-4143

MAGAZINE

P. O. BOX 81 • ALLENHURST, NEW JERSEY

COVERING NEW YORK • NEW JERSEY • CALIFORNIA • FLORIDA • and the ISLANDS

MAY 26 1973

DEAR MR HENRY KISSENGER...

A MOST HAPPY BIRTHDAY...AND IN THE NICE TRUE MEANING, AS I TO AM A TAURIS(MAY 13) AND HAVE I MORE YEAR TO GO TO THE BIG 50 MARK??

I GET PRETTY TIRED OF SOME FLUNKY REPORTER ALWAYS ADDING HIS CLEVER 2¢ REMARKS IN A STORY THAT IS SUPOSED TO HAVE A NICE MEANING....I KNOW BECAUSE I AM IN THE TRADE AS A PUBLISHER AND WE LIKE EVERYONE AS THE HEADING STATES.

WHEN THEY REACH FOR WORDS TO FILL A COLUMN ABOUT LOUSY HORS D'OEVRES....WINE PRICED AT $25 SOLD AT MACYS....BAH WHO ARE THEY KIDDING...THEN WILLIAM SAFIRE(HENRY AT 50) MAKES A BIG POINT OF SINATRA NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE IT....THIS IS THE LAST STRAW..

WE HAVE A FEW FRIENDS IN WASHINGTON, THAT FEEL IN SOME SMALL WAYS WE TRY TO HELP PEOPLE...AND BE NICE...TO BAD THE REST OF THE WORLD CAN'T BE THE SAME WAY.

I SINCERELY HOPE YOU HAVE MANY HAPPY YEARS OF GOOD HEALTH....THE WORLD NEEDS MORE MEN LIKE YOU AND YOUR GOOD DEEDS...AND THEY NEED THE PRES. NIXON GOOD DEEDS, TO STAY ON TOP...THAT IS FOR SURE? AT LEAST "LIKE LIKES YOU"....AND MAYBE ONE DAY YOU CAN DROP US A LINE..I WILL SEE THOUSANDS OF MY READERS HEAR ABOUT IT...AND WE ARE NOT ANYWHERE IN THE LEAGUE OF THE NY TIMES....THANK GOD..

PRESIDENT NIXON AND VP AGNEW KNOW OF OUR SINCERE DEEDS ALSO..I WORKED WITH THEM HERE IN N.J.

A FELLOW TAURIS

"BARON"

FRED LEHMANN

Leibman, Williams, Bennett, Baird and Minow

ONE FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA • SUITE 3200 • CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60670 • 312-329-7700

CABLE ADDRESS "CROLEX CHICAGO"

MORRIS I. LEIBMAN
RUSSELL O. BENNETT
RUSSELL M. BAIRD
NEWTON N. MINOW
GALE A. CHRISTOPHER
JOHN E. ROBSON
LAURENS G. HASTINGS
JOHN H. ROCKWELL
DAVID P. LIST
A. BRUCE SCHIMBERG

THOMAS H. MORSCH
FRANKLIN A. CHANEN
ROBERT E. MASON
NEIL FLANAGIN
R. QUINCY WHITE, JR.
DONALD A. MACKAY
THOMAS H. BALDIKOSKI
JAMES L. MAROVITZ
WILLIAM L. KELLEY
STEPHEN P. THOMAS

D. B. WILLIAMS (1945-1969)

January 15, 1971

BARRY D. BAYER
H. BRUCE BERNSTEIN
PAUL D. CARRIER
STEPHEN P. DURCHSLAG
JON N. EKDAHL
MATA P. HILGSON
EDWARD T. JOYCE
MARK J. LEVICK
KENNETH A. MANASTER
HENRY L. MASON III

LEE M. MITCHELL
MARTIN J. OBERMAN
ALAN P. OLSCHWANG
MARTIN F. ROBINSON
MERLE L. ROYCE II
TOMAS M. RUSSELL
DAVID SHAYNE
MICHAEL S. SIGAL
D. WILLIAM WAGNER
PATRICIA A. WILBERT

OF COUNSEL G. KENNETH CROWELL J. ARTHUR FRIEDLUND JOHN R. GOLDEN

WASHINGTON OFFICE • 1156 FIFTEENTH STREET, N. W. • WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 • 202 833-8606

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

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

We haven't seen each other for too long
and I hope you will not mind the formal salutation.

My congratulations on your brilliant
presentation to the Leadership Conference on January
11th. It set the tone for the entire Conference and
impressed all of our invitees.

My particular congratulations too on the
tremendous job your staff did throughout the days
in all ways and particularly in meeting with and
handling the conferees.

It has been a long way since our early efforts
to accomplish this kind of communication forum.

As always, I am available to you and General
Haig if I can be of any service.

Best, as always.

MIL/dm

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

FEB 18 1971

Dear Morris:

Thank you for your letter and for sending
copies of some of the mail you received
in response to Kup's Show. I was fascin-
ated to see it and appreciate your thought-
fulness in passing it along.

Please stay in touch. Let me know if ever
you are planning a trip to Washington. It
would be a pleasure to see you again.

Mr. Morris I. Leibman
One First National Plaza
Suite 3200
Chicago, Illinois 60670

RECEIVED
FEB. 18 1971

jlp:2/18/71

D. B. WILLIAMS (1945-1969)

BARRY D. BAYER
H. BRUCE BERNSTEIN
PAUL D. CARRIER
STEPHEN P. DURCHSLAG
JON N. EKDAHL
MATA P. HILGESON
EDWARD T. JOYCE
MARK J. LEVICH
KENNETH A. MANASTER
HENRY L. MASON III

February 9, 1971

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

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

Dear Henry:

Recently, I was called upon to discuss with
Jane Fonda and Mark Lane their usual line on local TV.
Mark Lane didn't appear.

I received some very unusual letters and some
of our mutual friends suggested that I send them on to
you as evidence of the great need there is to elevate
the public dialogue.

Best, as always.

MIL/dm

Enclosures

ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

225 WEST RANDOLPH STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606
AREA CODE 312
TELEPHONE 727-3142

DONALD H. SHARP
VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL

January 26, 1971

Mr. Morris I. Leibman
Leibman, Williams, Bennett, Baird and Minow
One First National Plaza, Suite 3200
Chicago, Illinois 60670

Dear Mr. Leibman:

The hour was very late and I suspect that each of us
would have preferred to be in bed, but I am glad we were not.
It was helpful to me to see and hear your conversation on
Kup's show and I admire you for your courage as well as your
convictions.

The kind of party line blather that is spouted by Jane
Fonda and others is difficult to answer. (They won't shut up
long enough so that someone else may speak.) You answered
it well. And you're so right!

DHS:db

John D. Savich,
410 So. Michigan Ave. (310)
Chicago, Illinois 60605

Mr. Morris I. Leibman,
Attorney at law
One First National Plaza
Chicago, Illinois

Chicago, January 27, 1971

Dear Mr. Leibman,

I am taking the liberty of addressing you, concerning your television appearance on Irv Kupcinet show on January 23rd, 1971.

It was a pleasure to watch a knowledgeable man like yourself, dis-
secting the silly ideas of actress Jane Fonda before millions of
American viewers. Not that she was your equal in any respect. She is
just one of those liberals (read: leftists!) who are coming every night
on television news and so called "talk-shows". She is for revolution,
not knowing what a revolution really is: a civil war. I went through
one, in Yugoslavia in 1944-1946, and I do know what it is.

Both Jane Fonda and her brother Peter are drug-addicts, making millions of dollars in some third grade movies. Does she think, if the Communists had taken over this country, they would have tolerated her?

She was telling you, there was no political freedom in this country.
That all prisoners were political prisoners. That she was for Black
Panthers. Instead of talking to you that night on television, if she
had gone by any chance to the Chicago's West or South Side for a con-
ference with members of the same organizations, you and me know well
what would have happened to her!

I only wish, that people like yourself would appear more often on te-
levision shows like that of last Saturday. By the way, I came to this
wonderful country in 1957 as a political refugee from the Communist
Yugoslavia, where I used to be a lawyer.

ELIEL and LOEB COMPANY
insurance

Jan 25th, 1971

Mr. Irv Kupcinet,
c/o Chicago Sun-Times,
Chicago, Illinois.

Dear Mr. Kupcinet:

I wish to compliment you on your last telecast, especially
the last segment, which was all I was able to view. It was
certainly worth the loss of some sleep.

I can't figure whether Jane Fonda is out for publicity,
which as a mediocre actress she needs, is a starry-eyed
idealist or anarchistically inclined. I congratulate you
upon the selection of Mr. Leibman, who was most capable
of putting her in her place.

The lady in question is obviously ill-informed as to World
history and geography and seems to comment exclusively on
a single subject (albeit in many diversifications) however
her remark to the effect that everyone in jail was there
as a political prisoner was the most asinine remark in a
long line of similar statements and I thank Mr. Leibman
for showing up for the idiot she seems to be.

Too bad this show can't be re-broadcast for the entire
public to view.

P.S. For the sake of charity, I prefer not to comment
about the student-veteran who accompanied her.

HSR:fr

cc: Morris Leibman

175 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 / Telephone 312 • WAbash 2-3961 / Cable Address ELIELOBE

EXECUTIVE

FC6-11/KISSINGER, HENRY A.
KISSINGER, HENRY A. 1/2

Dear Morrie:

Many thanks for your kind note of July 1 with the interesting enclosures.

Your kind words about my briefings are very much appreciated. Most of my official briefings, as you know, are printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents and also in the Department of State Bulletin.

The energetic efforts of Freedom House, and your own distinguished record of service, have made a notable contribution. Anything you can do at this juncture to contribute your responsible voice to the public debate will be especially valuable.

Mr. Morris I. Leibman
Leibman, Williams, Bennett,
Baird and Minow
One First National Plaza
Suite 3200
Chicago, Illinois 60670

PWR:nm:7/13/72

MAARIV, Editorial

June 15, 1972

(Translation).

## The Ambassador and the Elections

Whether or not there is any truth to reports published in the New York Post to the effect that persons close to Senator McGovern have complained to Golda Meir that Ambassador Rabin has been overly generous in his praise for Nixon (though no such complaint has been received in Jerusalem) - one fact is certain beyond a shadow of a doubt:

> Never before has an American President displayed greater understanding of Israel's defence requirements than Nixon - and never before has a candidate raised as many doubts, from Israel's point of view, as McGovern.

Momentarily putting aside the question of what the Ambassador chooses to say during an election year, the fact remains that Israel is vitally interested in Nixon's victory, and that out of all his Democratic opponents, McGovern can be singled out as the one having taken the most outspoken Anti-Israel stand.

At the present time, and understandably, he makes promises - as do all politicians seeking the Jewish vote - and claims he was misquoted a year ago. No long does he advocate Israel's withdrawal from all the territories - so he now claims. He no longer says that supply of Phantoms to Israel must be conditioned on her commitment to refrain from using them. He no longer declares that the Arab refugees must be party to a solution of the Middle East conflict. Nonetheless, even his current remarks suffice to raise the heaviest of doubts.

McGovern ranks among the first fighters for the withdrawal of American forces from Europe. He believes that there is no Soviet danger, no need for NATO. And since there is no need for NATO, there is no need to maintain a U.S. fleet in the Mediterranean. It is perfectly safe, he claims, to leave the Mediterranean to the Soviet fleet.

Campaigning amongst the Jews, he does not use this as a basis for his speeches - yet he has consistently and stubbornly fought for it in the Senate. It is toward this cause that he seeks the trust and vote of the citizen. He strives for withdrawal from Vietnam, South-East Asia, Europe, and all other locations in which the U. S. has undertaken military commitments.

Needless to say, this negligent, irresponsible policy - which gives way to Communist control - presents a threat to the very existence of the State of Israel.

But in spite of this, the Pacifist Senator has gained no small number of supporters amongst American jewry - especially the Liberal-Philanthropists, whose contacts with reality are doubtful, to say the least.

There are the wiser and more loyal Jews, who traditionally vote for the Democratic ticket. This time, however, they seem to sense a turn of events. This time, a vote for the Democrats might mean a vote against Israel's existence. These voters, in view of their dilemma, expect and anticipate some form of guidance on Israel's part.

Israel, on the other hand, in an official and governmental capacity, is not in a position to offer such guidance. This being as it may, every Jewish ear seeks to hear from Ambassador Yitschak Rabin.

While in no position to voice his preference for one candidate or another, Mr. Rabin enlightens confused Jewish hearts, concerned with Israel's welfare, with his remarks regarding Israel-U.S. relations.

Saying nothing basically different from his remarks in the past - when the elections were a thing for the distant future - his words now take on an air of significance.

When Ambassador Rabin stated in an interview broadcast last Saturday, that no American President had ever publicly committed himself towards Israel as Nixon had, and that praise was due those who acted for Israel and not only spoke in her favor, he was not taking a formal stand regarding the U.S. elections. There was, however, a clear guideline for anyone in doubt as to how a Jew might cast his vote.

It is easy to understand the feeling which gave way to Ambassador Rabin's remarks. It is difficult to restrain oneself from identifying with these feelings.

The violent reactions from McGovern's supporters were to be expected.

In the heat of an election campaign, it might have been more fitting for Mr. Rabin to curb his remarks - rather than to open the door for accusations by Israel's enemies, of interference in another country's election campaign.

Any able-bodied person not officially representing Israel might do well to use his good offices in assisting his American friends in the choice of a candidate "favourable to the Jews" - rather than one who might represent an element of danger.

-2-

W

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Tues., June 20, 1972

CHALLENGES THAT FACE U.S. POLICY

P. 14

Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's as-
sistant for national security affairs, last
week briefed members of congressional
Foreign Relations and Defense Commit-
tees on the arms control agreements
signed last month in Moscow. Before
dealing with their specifics, however, he
outlined the administration's view of fun-
damental political and military changes
now underway in the world. His remarks,
excerpted below, form a succinct state-
ment of current White House perceptions
of international affairs and how it feels
the U.S. should deal with them.

The international situation has been un-
dergoing a profound structural change since
at least the mid-1960s. The post-World War II
pattern of relations among the great powers
had been altered to the point that when this
administration took office, a major reassess-
ment was clearly in order.

The nations that had been prostrate in 1945
had regained their economic strength and
their political vitality. The Communist bloc
was divided into contending factions, and na-
tionalistic forces and social and economic
pressures were reasserting themselves within
the individual Communist states.

Perhaps most important for the United
States, our undisputed strategic predomin-
nance was declining just at a time when there
was rising domestic resistance to military
programs, and impatience for redistribution
of resources from national defense to social
demands.

An Important Constant

Amidst all of this profound change, how-
ever, there was one important constant—the
continuing dependence of most of the world's
hopes for stability and peace upon the ability
to reduce the tensions between the United
States and the Soviet Union.

The factors which perpetuated that rivalry
remain real and deep. We are ideological ad-
versaries, and we will in all likelihood remain
so for the foreseeable future. We are political
and military competitors, and neither can be
indifferent to advances by the other in either
of these fields. We each have allies whose as-
sociation we value and whose interests and
activities impinge at numerous points.

We each possess an awesome nuclear
force created and designed to meet the threat
implicit in the other's strength and aims.
Each of us has just come into possession of
power singlehandedly capable of exterminat-
ing the human race. Paradoxically, this very
fact, and the global interests of both sides,
create a certain commonality of outlook, a
sort of interdependence for survival between
the two of us.

Although we compete, the conflict will not
admit of resolution by victory in the classical
sense. We are compelled to coexist. We have
an inescapable obligation to build jointly a
structure for peace. Recognition of this real-
ity is the beginning of wisdom for a sane and
effective foreign policy today.

President Nixon has made it the starting
point of the United States policy since 1969.
This administration's policy is occasionally
characterized as being based on the princi-
ples of the classical balance of power. To the
extent that that term implies a belief that se-
curity requires a measure of equilibrium, it
has a certain validity.

No national leader has the right to mort-
gage the 'survival of his people to the good
will of another state. We must seek firmer re-
straints on the actions of potentially hostile
states than a sanguine appeal to their good
nature.

But to the extent that balance of power
means constant jockeying for marginal ad-
vantages over an opponent, it no longer ap-
plies. The reason is that the determination of
national power has changed fundamentally in
the nuclear age. Throughout history, the pri-
mary concern of most national leaders has
been to accumulate geopolitical and military
power. It would have seemed inconceivable
even a generation ago that such power once
gained could not be translated directly into
advantage over one's opponent. But now both
we and the Soviet Union have begun to find
that each increment of power does not neces-
sarily represent an increment of usable politi-
cal strength.

With modern weapons, a potentially decl-
sive advantage requires a change of such
magnitude that the mere effort to obtain it
can produce disaster. The simple tit-for-tat
reaction to each other's programs of a decade
ago is in danger of being overtaken by a more
or less simultaneous and continuous process
of technological advance, which opens more
and more temptations for seeking decisive ad-
vantage.

A premium is put on striking first and on
creating a defense to blunt the other side's re-
talatory capability. In other words, marginal
additions of power cannot be decisive. Poten-
tially decisive additions are extremely dan-
gerous, and the quest for them are destabiliz-
ing.

The argument that arms races produce
war has often been exaggerated. The nuclear
age is overshadowed by its peril. All of this
was in the President's mind as he mapped the
new directions of American policy at the out-
set of this administration. There was reason
to believe that the Soviet leadership might
also be thinking along similar lines as the re-

Tues., June 20, 1972

CONTINUED

[L]

peated failure of their attempts to gain mar-
ginal advantage in local crises or in military
competition underlined the limitation of old
policy approaches.

The President, therefore, decided that the
United States should work to create a set of
circumstances which would offer the Soviet
leaders an opportunity to move away from
confrontation through carefully prepared ne-
gotiations. From the first, we rejected the no-
tion that what was lacking was a cordial cli-
mate for conducting negotiations.

Past experience has amply shown that
much heralded changes in atmospherics, but
not buttressed by concrete progress, will re-
vert to previous patterns at the first subse-
quent clash of interests.

We have, instead, sought to move forward
across a broad range of issues so that prog-
ress in one area would add momentum to the
progress of other areas.

## Benefits of Mutual Restraint

We hoped that the Soviet Union would ac-
quire a stake in a wide spectrum of negotia-
tions and that it would become convinced that
its interests would be best served if the entire
process unfolded. We have sought, in short, to
create a vested interest in mutual restraint.

At the same time, we were acutely con-
scious of the contradictory tendencies at work
in Soviet policy. Some factors—such as the
fear of nuclear war; the emerging consumer
economy, and the increasing pressures of a
technological, administrative society—have
encouraged the Soviet leaders to seek a more
stable relationship with the United States.
Other factors—such as ideology, bureaucratic
inertia, and the catalytic effect of turmoil in
peripheral areas—have prompted pressures
for tactical gains.

The President has met each of these mani-
festations on its own terms, demonstrating re-
ceptivity to constructive Soviet initiatives and
firmness in the face of provocations or adven-
turism. He has kept open a private channel
through which the two sides could communi-
cate candidly and settle matters rapidly. The
President was convinced that agreements
dealing with questions of armaments in isola-
tion do not, in fact, produce lasting inhibitions
on military competition because they contrib-
ute little to the kind of stability that makes
crises less likely. In recent months, major
progress was achieved in moving toward a
broadly-based accommodation of interests
with the U.S.S.R., in which an arms limitation
agreement could be a central element.

This approach was called linkage, not by
the administration, and became the object of
considerable debate in 1969. Now, three years
later, the SALT Agreement does not stand
alone, isolated and incongruous in the rela-
tionship of hostility, vulnerable at any mo-
ment to the shock of some sudden crisis. It
stands, rather, linked organically, to a chain
of agreements and to a broad understanding
about international conduct appropriate to the
dangers of the nuclear age.

The agreements on the limitation of strate-
gic arms is, thus, not merely a technical ac-
complishment, although it is that in part, but
it must be seen as a political event of some
magnitude.

This is relative to the question of whether
the agreements will be easily breached or cir-
cumvented. Given the past, no one can an-
swer that question with certainty, but it can
be said with some assurance that any country
which contemplates a rupture of the agree-
ment or a circumvention of its letter and
spirit must now face the fact that it will be
placing in jeopardy not only a limited arms
control agreement, but a broad political
relationship.

At this point, these principles reflect an as-
piration and an attitude. This administration
will spare no effort to translate the aspiration
into reality. We shall strive with determina-
tion to overcome further the miasma of suspi-
cion and self-confirming preemptive actions
which have characterized the Cold War.

## Lessons of History

Of course the temptation is to continue
along well worn paths. The status quo has the
advantage of reality, but history is strewn
with the wreckage of nations which sought
their future in their past. Catastrophe has re-
sulted far less often from conscious decisions
than from the fear of breaking loose from es-
tablished patterns through the inexcusable
march towards cataclysm because nobody
knew what else to do. The paralysis of policy
which destroyed Europe in 1945 would surely
destroy the world if we let it happen again in
the nuclear age.

Thus the deepest question we ask is not
whether we can trust the Soviets but whether
we can trust ourselves. Some have expressed
concern about the agreements not because
they object to their terms, but because they
are afraid of the euphoria that these agree-
ments might produce.

But surely we cannot be asked to maintain
unavoidable tension just to carry out pro-
grams which our national survival should die-
tate in any event. We must not develop a na-
tional psychology by which we can act only on
the basis of what we are against and not on
what we are for.

Our challenges then are: Can we chart a
new course with hope but without illusion,
with large purposes but without sentimental-
ity? Can we be both generous and strong? It
is not often that a country has the opportunity
to answer such questions meaningfully. We
are now at such a juncture where peace and
progress depend on our faith and our forti-
tude.

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

30 WADSWORTH STREET
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 02139

13 June 1970

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

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

I am rather uncertain about the proper protocol in urging attention to my colleague, Dr. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, as a most highly qualified successor to Mr. Eliot Richardson as Undersecretary of State. However, on the assumption that your advice will be sought in filling that post, I am taking the liberty of addressing this letter to you.

I know that you are familiar with Linc's work on arms control, the United Nations, peacekeeping, foreign policy planning, European security, and conflict in the developing areas of the world. It has been my privilege to work with Linc in these areas; I am continually impressed not just with the depth of his scholarship but also with his great capacity to relate the products of his research to the problems confronting U.S. Government decision-makers at all levels. Linc, of course, had many years of experience in the State Department, during the Eisenhower Administration, in dealing with these same problems. And since leaving the Department to come to the Center for International Studies and Department of Political Science at M.I.T., he has continued actively as a consultant to State, Defense, ACDA, and many other federal departments and agencies.

I have not detailed Linc's professional qualifications, because they are well-known to you. You may, however, not be so familiar with the singular position Linc has achieved on this troubled campus. He has won and retained the respect of students, faculty, and staff of all political persuasions and degrees of activism because of the integrity and honesty of his own position and his willingness to listen seriously to the views of othersSome faculty members seek the good-will of the students by being more radical and activist than they; Linc has won their respect and admiration by clearly and forthrightly stating his own, frequently differing views. Evidence of this respect is the fact that Linc is the unanimous choice of the Political Science students to succeed Bob Wood as Head of the Political Science Department.

I cannot think of anyone else whose personal and professional qualifications and experience better suit him for active consideration for this important post.

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

May 27, 1969

Dear Wassily:

I apologize for the delay in replying to your letter of May 16. I would, of course, be interested in talking to you about your Cuban trip. Please phone my secretary, Mrs. Joan McCarthy, to arrange a mutually convenient time.

Dr. Wassily Leontief
Department of Economics
Littauer Center 309
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

HAK:LSE:lds:5-27-69 - 2