FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20535

CLARENCE M. KELLEY
DIRECTOR

October 19, 1973

BY COURIER

Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
The Secretary of State
Washington, D. C. 20520

My dear Mr. Secretary:

I have just read the text of your speech given
October 8, 1973, before the Pacem in Terris Conference
at the Sheraton-Park Hotel.

I thought those portions concerning the nature of
national dialogue and other matters concerning foreign policy
were very good. I, however, was most impressed and want to
compliment you particularly on that portion of the speech con-
cerning the matters set out on page four, second paragraph
through the last.

This is one of the finest discussions I have ever read
of the problems which beset the policy maker. It truly depicts
the difficulties and the sometimes agonizing which he must go
through in order to arrive at a judicious decision. Never can it
be perfect and always is it accompanied by great problems.

I at the same time want to wish you great success in
your new assignment and pledge to you my complete cooperation
in any matter over which I have control.

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[LC]

October 8, 1973

No. 362

TEXT OF SPEECH OF THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER

SECRETARY OF STATE
PACEM IN TERRIS CONFERENCE
SHERATON-PARK HOTEL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
OCTOBER 8, 1973

(FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY, EXPECTED AT 8:45 PM E.D.T. MONDAY, OCTOBER 8.)

The Nature of the National Dialogue

This is an important anniversary. A year ago today - on October 8 - came the breakthrough in the Paris negotiations which led soon afterward to the end of American military involvement in Viet-Nam. It is strangely difficult now to recapture the emotion of that moment of hope and uncertainty when suddenly years of suffering and division were giving way to new possibilities for reconciliation.

We meet, too, at a time when renewed conflict in the Middle East reminds us that international stability is always precarious and never to be taken for granted. Pacem in Terris remains regrettably elusive. However well we contain this crisis as we have, contained others, we must still ask ourselves what we seek beyond the management of conflict.

The need for a dialogue about national purposes has never been more urgent and no assembly is better suited for such a discussion than those gathered here tonight.

Dramatic changes in recent years have transformed America's position and role in the world:

- For most of the postwar period America enjoyed predominance in physical resources and political power. Now like most other nations in history, we find that our most difficult task is how to apply limited means to the accomplishment of carefully defined ends. We can no longer overwhelm our problems; we must master them with imagination, understanding and patience.

- For a generation our preoccupation was to prevent the Cold War from degenerating into a hot war. Today, when the danger of global conflict has diminished, we face the more profound problem of defining what we mean by peace and determining the ultimate purpose of improved international relations.

For further information contact:

PR #362

-2-

[LC]

-- For two decades the solidarity of our alliances seemed as constant as the threats to our security. Now our allies have regained strength and self-confidence, and relations with adversaries have improved. All this has given rise to uncertainties over the sharing of burdens with friends and the impact of reduced tensions on the cohesion of alliances.

-- Thus even as we have mastered the art of containing crises, our concern with the nature of a more permanent international order has grown. Questions once obscured by more insistent needs now demand our attention: What is true national interest? To what end stability? What is the relationship of peace to justice?

It is characteristic of periods of upheaval that to those who live through them, they appear as a series of haphazard events. Symptoms obscure basic issues and historical trends. The urgent tends to dominate the important. Too often goals are presented as abstract utopias, safe-havens from pressing events.

But a debate to be fruitful must define what can reasonably be asked of foreign policy and at what pace progress can be achieved. Otherwise it turns into competing catalogues of the desirable rather than informed comparisons of the possible. Dialogue degenerates into tactical skirmishing.

The current public discussion reflects some interesting and significant shifts in perspective:

-- A foreign policy once considered excessively moralistic is now looked upon by some as excessively pragmatic.

-- The Government was criticized in 1969 for holding back East-West trade with certain countries until there was progress in their foreign policies. Now we are criticized for not holding back East-West trade until there are changes in those same countries' domestic policies.

-- The Administration's foreign policy once decried as too cold-war oriented is now attacked as too insensitive to the profound moral antagonism between Communism and freedom.

One consequence of this intellectual shift is a gap between conception and performance on some major issues of policy:

-- The desirability of peace and detente is affirmed but both the inducements to progress and the penalties to confrontation are restricted by legislation.

-- Expressions of concern for human values in other countries are coupled with failure to support the very programs designed to help developing areas improve their economic and social conditions.

-3-

PR #362

-- The declared objective of maintaining a responsible American international role clashes with nationalistic pressures in trade and monetary negotiations and with calls for unilateral withdrawal from alliance obligations.

It is clear that we face genuine moral dilemmas and important policy choices. But it is also clear that we need to define the framework of our dialogue more perceptively and understandingly.

## The Competing Elements of Foreign Policy

Foreign policy must begin with the understanding that it involves relationships between sovereign countries. Sovereignty has been defined as a will uncontrolled by others; that is what gives foreign policy its contingent and ever incomplete character.

For disagreements among sovereign states can be settled only by negotiation or by power, by compromise or by imposition. Which of these methods prevails depends on the values, the strengths and the domestic systems of the countries involved. A nation's values define what is just; its strength determines what is possible; its domestic structure decides what policies can in fact be implemented and sustained.

Thus foreign policy involves two partially conflicting endeavors: defining the interests, purposes and values of a society and relating them to the interests, purposes and values of others.

The policy maker, therefore, must strike a balance between what is desirable and what is possible. Progress will always be measured in partial steps and in the relative satisfaction of alternative goals. Tension is unavoidable between values, which are invariably cast in maximum terms, and efforts to promote them, which of necessity involve compromise. Foreign policy is explained domestically in terms of justice. But what is defined as justice at home becomes the subject of negotiation abroad. It is thus no accident that many nations, including our own, view the international arena as a forum in which virtue is thwarted by the clever practice of foreigners.

[LC]

PR #362

-4-

In a community of sovereign states, the quest for peace involves a paradox: the attempt to impose absolute justice by one side will be seen as absolute injustice by all others; the quest for total security for some turns into total insecurity for the remainder. Stability depends on the relative satisfaction and therefore also the relative dissatisfaction of the various states. The pursuit of peace must therefore begin with the pragmatic concept of coexistence -- especially in a period of ideological conflict.

We must, of course, avoid becoming obsessed with stability. An excessively pragmatic policy will be empty of vision and humanity. It will lack not only direction, but also roots and heart. General de Gaulle wrote in his memoirs that "France cannot be France without greatness." By the same token America cannot be true to itself without moral purpose. This country has always had a sense of mission. Americans have always held the view that America stood for something above and beyond its material achievements. A purely pragmatic policy provides no criteria for other nations to assess our performance and no standards to which the American people can rally.

But when policy becomes excessively moralistic it may turn quixotic or dangerous. A presumed monopoly on truth obstructs negotiation and accommodation. Good results may be given up in the quest for ever elusive ideal solutions. Policy may fall prey to ineffectual posturing or adventuristic crusades.

The prerequisite for a fruitful national debate is that the policy makers and critics appreciate each other's perspectives and respect each other's purposes. The policy maker must understand that the critic is obliged to stress imperfections in order to challenge assumptions and to good actions. But equally the critic should acknowledge the complexity and inherent ambiguity of the policy maker's choices. The policy maker must be concerned with the best that can be achieved, not just the best that can be imagined. He has to act in a fog of incomplete knowledge without the information that will be available later to the analyst. He knows -- or should know -- that he is responsible for the consequences of disaster as well as for the benefits of success. He may have to qualify some goals not because they would be undesirable if reached, but because the risks of failure outweigh potential gains. He must often settle for the gradual, much as he might prefer the immediate. He must compromise with others, and this means to some extent compromising with himself.

The outsider demonstrates his morality by the precision of his perceptions and the loftiness of his ideals. The policy maker expresses his morality by implementing a sequence of imperfections and partial solutions in pursuit of his ideals.

There must be understanding, as well, of the crucial importance of timing. Opportunities cannot be hoarded; once past, they are usually irretrievable. New relationships in a fluid transitional period -- such as today--- are delicate and vulnerable; they must be nurtured if they are to thrive. We cannot pull up young shoots periodically to see whether the roots are still there or whether there is some marginally better location for them.

We are now at such a time of tenuous beginnings. Western Europe and Japan have joined us in an effort to reinvigorate our relationships. The

-5-

PR #362

Soviet Union has begun to practice foreign policy -- at least partially -- as a relationship between states rather than as international civil war. The People's Republic of China has emerged from two decades of isolation. The developing countries are impatient for economic and social change. A new dimension of unprecedented challenges -- in food, oceans, energy, environment -- demands global cooperation.

We are at one of those rare moments where through a combination of fortuitous circumstances and design man seems in a position to shape his future. What we need is the confidence to discuss issues without bitter strife, the wisdom to define together the nature of our world as well as the vision to chart together a more just future.

## Detente with the Soviet Union

Nothing demonstrates this need more urgently than our relationship with the Soviet Union.

This Administration has never had any illusions about the Soviet system. We have always insisted that progress in technical fields, such as trade, had to follow -- and reflect -- progress toward more stable international relations. We have maintained a strong military balance and a flexible defense posture as a buttress to stability. We have insisted that disarmament had to be mutual. We have judged movement in our relations with the Soviet Union, not by atmospherics, but by how well concrete problems are resolved and by whether there is responsible international conduct.

Coexistence to us continues to have a very precise meaning:

-- We will oppose the attempt by any country to achieve a position of predominance either globally or regionally.

-- We will resist any attempt to exploit a policy of detente to weaken our alliances.

-- We will react if relaxation of tensions is used as a cover to exacerbate conflicts in international trouble spots.

The Soviet Union cannot disregard these principles in any area of the world without imperiling its entire relationship with the United States.

On this basis we have succeeded in transforming U.S.-Soviet relations in many important ways. Our two countries have concluded an historic accord to limit strategic arms. We have substantially reduced the risk of direct U.S.-Soviet confrontation in crisis areas. The problem of Berlin has been resolved by negotiation. We and our allies have engaged the Soviet Union in negotiations on major issues of European security including a reduction of military forces in Central Europe. We have reached a series of bilateral agreements on cooperation -- health, environment, space, science and technology, as well as trade. These accords are designed to create a vested interest in cooperation and restraint.

[LC]

PR #362

-6-

Until recently the goals of detente were not an issue. The necessity of shifting from confrontation toward negotiation seemed so overwhelming that goals beyond the settlement of international disputes were never raised. But now progress has been made -- and already taken for granted. We are engaged in an intense debate on whether we should make changes in Soviet society a precondition for further progress -- or indeed for following through on commitments already made. The cutting edge of this problem is the Congressional effort to condition most-favored-nation trade status for other countries on changes in their domestic systems.

This is a genuine moral dilemma. There are genuine moral concerns -- on both sides of the argument. So let us not address this as a debate between those who are morally sensitive and those who are not, between those who care for justice and those who are oblivious to humane values. The attitude of the American people and government has been made emphatically clear on countless occasions, in ways that have produced effective results. The exit tax on emigration is not being collected and we have received assurances that it will not be reapplied; hardship cases submitted to the Soviet Government are being given specific attention; the rate of Jewish emigration has been in the tens of thousands where it was once a trickle. We will continue our vigorous efforts on these matters.

But the real debate goes far beyond this: Should we now tie demands which were never raised during negotiations to agreements that have already been concluded? Should we require as a formal condition internal changes that we heretofore sought to foster in an evolutionary manner?

Let us remember what the MFN question specifically involves. The very term "most favored nation" is misleading in its implication of preferential treatment. What we are talking about is whether to allow normal economic relations to develop -- of the kind we now have with over 100 other countries and which the Soviet Union enjoyed until 1951. The issue is whether to abolish discriminatory trade restrictions that were imposed at the height of the Cold War. Indeed, at that time the Soviet Government discouraged commerce because it feared the domestic impact of normal trading relations with the West on its society.

The demand that Moscow modify its domestic policy as a precondition for MFN or detente was never made while we were negotiating; now it is inserted after both sides have carefully shaped an overall mosaic. Thus it raises questions about our entire bilateral relationship.

Finally the issue effects not only our relationship with the Soviet Union, but also with many other countries whose internal structures we find incompatible with our own. Conditions imposed on one country could inhibit expanding relations with others, such as the People's Republic of China.

We shall never condone the suppression of fundamental liberties. We shall urge humane principles and use our influence to promote justice. But the issue comes down to the limits of such efforts. How hard can we press without provoking the Soviet leadership into returning to practices in its foreign policy that increase international tensions? Are we

PR #362

[LC]

-7-

ready to face the crises and increased defense budgets that a return to
Cold War conditions would spawn? And will this encourage full emigration
or enhance the well-being or nourish the hope for liberty of the peoples
of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? Is it detente that has prompted
repression -- or is it detente that has generated the ferment and the
demand for openness which we are now witnessing?

For half a century we have objected to communist efforts to alter
the domestic structures of other countries. For a generation of Cold War
we sought to ease the risks produced by competing ideologies. Are we
now to come full circle and _insist_ on domestic compatibility as a
condition of progress?

These questions have no easy answers. The government may under-
estimate the margin of concessions available to us. But a fair debate
must admit that they _are_ genuine questions, the answers to which could
affect the fate of all of us.

Our policy with respect to detente is clear: We shall resist
aggressive foreign policies. Detente cannot survive irresponsibility in
any area, including the Middle East. As for the internal policies of
closed systems the United States will never forget that the antagonism
between freedom and its enemies is part of the reality of the modern age.
We are not neutral in that struggle. As long as we remain powerful we
will use our influence to promote freedom, as we always have. But in
the nuclear age we are obliged to recognize that the issue of war and
peace also involves human lives and that the attainment of peace is a
profound moral concern.

[LC]

PR #362

-8-

The World As It Is And The World We Seek

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly two weeks ago, I described our goal as a world where power blocs and balances are no longer relevant; where justice, not stability, can be our overriding preoccupation; where countries consider cooperation in the world interest to be of their national interest.

But we cannot move toward the world of the future without first maintaining peace in the world as it is. These very days we are vividly reminded that this requires vigilance and a continuing commitment.

So our journey must start from where we are now. This is a time of lessened tension, of greater equilibrium, of diffused power. But if the world is better than our earlier fears, it still falls far short of our hopes. To deal with the present does not mean that we are content with it.

The most striking feature of the contemporary period -- the feature that gives complexity as well as hope -- is the radical transformation in the nature of power. Throughout history power has generally been homogeneous. Military, economic and political potential were closely related. To be powerful a nation had to be strong in all categories. Today the vocabulary of strength is more complex. Military muscle does not guarantee political influence. Economic giants can be militarily weak, and military strength may not be able to obscure economic weakness. Countries can exert political influence even when they have neither military nor economic strength.

It is wrong to speak of only one balance of power, for there are several which have to be related to each other. In the military sphere, there are two super powers. In economic terms, there are at least five major groupings. Politically, many more centers of influence have emerged; some 80 new nations have come into being since the end of World War II and regional groups are assuming ever increasing importance.

Above all, whatever the measure of power, its political utility has changed. Throughout history increases in military power -- however slight -- could be turned into specific political advantage. With the overwhelming arsenals of the nuclear age, however, the pursuit of marginal advantage is both pointless and potentially suicidal. Once sufficiency is reached, additional increments of power do not translate into usable political strength; and attempts to achieve tactical gains can lead to cataclysm.

This environment both puts a premium on stability and makes it difficult to maintain. Today's striving for equilibrium should not be compared to the balance of power of previous periods. The very notion of "operating" a classical balance of power disintegrates when the change required to upset the balance is so large that it cannot be achieved by limited means.

More specifically, there is no parallel with the nineteenth century. Then, the principal countries shared essentially similar concepts of legitimacy and accepted the basic structure of the existing international order. Small adjustments in strength were significant. The "balance" operated in a relatively confined geographic area. None of these factors obtain today.

Nor when we talk of equilibrium do we mean a simplistic mechanical model devoid of purpose. The constantly shifting alliances that maintained equilibrium in previous centuries are neither appropriate nor possible in our time. In an age of ideological schism the distinction between friends and adversaries is an objective reality. We share ideals as well as interests with our friends, and we know that the strength of our friendships is crucial to the lowering of tensions with our opponents.

PR #362

[LC]

-9-

When we refer to five or six or seven major centers of power, the point being made is not that others are excluded but that a few short years ago everyone agreed that there were only two. The diminishing tensions and the emergence of new centers of power have meant greater freedom of action and greater importance for all other nations.

In this setting, our immediate aim has been to build a stable network of relationships that offers hope of sparing mankind the scourges of war. An interdependent world community cannot tolerate either big power confrontations or recurrent regional crises.

But peace must be more than the absence of conflict. We perceive stability as the bridge to the realization of human aspirations, not an end in itself. We have learned much about containing crises, but we have not removed their roots. We have begun to accommodate our differences, but we have not affirmed our commonality. We may have improved the mastery of equilibrium, but we have not yet attained justice.

In the encyclical for which this conference is named, Pope John sketched a greater vision. He foresaw "that no political community is able to pursue its own interests and develop itself in isolation" for "there is a growing awareness of all human beings that they are members of a world community."

The opportunities of mankind now transcend nationalism, and can only be dealt with by nations acting in concert:

- For the first time in generations mankind is in a position to shape a new and peaceful international order. But do we have the imagination and determination to carry forward this still fragile task of creation?

- For the first time in history we may have the technical knowledge to satisfy man's basic needs. The imperatives of the modern world respect no national borders and must inevitably open all societies to the world around them. But do we have the political will to join together to accomplish this great end?

If this vision is to be realized, America's active involvement is inescapable. History will judge us by our deeds, not by our good intentions.

But it cannot be the work of any one country. And it cannot be the undertaking of any one Administration or one branch of government or one party. To build truly is to chart a course that will be carried on by future leaders because it has the enduring support of the American people.

So let us search for a fresh consensus. Let us restore a spirit of understanding between the legislative and the executive, between the government and the press, between the people and their public servants. Let us learn once again to debate our methods and not our motives, to focus on our destiny and not on our divisions. Let us all contribute our different views and perspectives but let us, once again, see ourselves as engaged in a common enterprise. If we are to shape a world community we must first restore community at home.

With Americans working together, America can work with others toward man's eternal goal of a Pacem in Terris -- peace abroad, peace at home and peace within ourselves.

*****

THE SECRETARY OF STATE
WASHINGTON

September 11, 1974

Dear George:

Thank you for your recent letter. I want you to know how much I appreciate your kind words, and how envious I am of your researches in Paris. I trust that you soon will publish a definitive work which makes sense of French revolutionary politics.

I also very much appreciated your offer in regard to Brussels and do not doubt that you could make an important contribution there. Your background is truly impressive.

Ambassador Firestone, however, has been at post only three months. I have not received word that he intends to retire and do not foresee a vacancy at this time.

Mr. George Armstrong Kelly,
Scudder Lane,
West Barnstable,
Massachusetts.

MORE THAN FORTY YEARS GAINING EXPERIENCE TO HELP YOU

NATIONAL EMPLOYEE RELATION INSTITUTE, INC.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CONSULTANTS • PENSION AND PROFIT-SHARING PLANNING

6 EAST 45TH STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017 • (212) OX 7-5423

I. AUSTIN KELLY III
PRESIDENT

DAVID H. RUDNER
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH

ARTHUR S. JARCHO
GENERAL COUNSEL

May 12, 1976

The Honorable Henry Kissinger
State Department
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

In 1974 I had the pleasure of meeting you and renewing an acquaintance of many years ago with Nancy at a Buffet Reception you gave for the "Loaners and the Donors" of the Diplomatic Reception Rooms at the State Department.

This year unfortunately, we were unable to attend as we were not in the country. I had hoped to have the opportunity to ask you if you would accept an invitation to be a member of the International Council of the Institute of World Affairs at Salisbury, Connecticut.

I am currently President of the Board of Trustees of this 52 year old group which plays host each year to graduate students from all over the world at its summer seminars. This year during the winter we have also held a lecture series on U.S. Foreign Policy as part of a continuing education plan for adults. We felt this was an important service in a period of our history when international relations have become such a key issue in our conduct of government.

The Institute of World Affairs is completely unique in the United States, although I understand there are a few similar institutions in Europe. It is a non-profit, non-partisan, academic and educational organization with its own Board of Directors, Academic Committee and International Advisory Council. More than 2000 students from 100 countries have attended the Institute over the years. A significant number of its graduates are now in high governmental and industrial posts throughout the world. The summer program is designed for scholars at graduate and post-graduate levels, especially those considering careers in education, government service or international affairs.

We are hoping to expand our program into a year round educational effort. At the moment I am seeking to upgrade academic contacts and develop an International Council with distinguished names. Recently we have added William Rees-Mogg, my nephew who is Editor of the London Times, and last

NATIONAL REPRESENTATION IN ALL PRINCIPAL CITIES

The Honorable Henry Kissinger

-2-

May 12, 1976

week Dr. James R. Killian, former President of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I would be extremely proud if you would lend your name to the Advisory Committee. There will be no obligation. We realize, of course, your commitments are such that you could not devote any time to us at present. It would be a great honor to have your support in this educational endeavor for foreign affairs.

Members of the International Council have no obligation towards the Institute although we hope that they would feel free to become interested and involved to their own degree of satisfaction.

Please convey my best wishes to Nancy with the hope she has fully recovered from her recent operation.

Enclosure:

[LC]

THE INSTITUTE

The Institute of World Affairs was founded in 1924 in Geneva, Switzerland, as a forum for scholars to promote world understanding through the discussion of significant international problems. The Institute's headquarters were moved in 1941 from Geneva to its 500 acre center in Salisbury, Connecticut. Professor Gilbert Murray of Oxford University was the Institute's first President, with some of the first Academic Directors being Professor Sir Salvador de Madariaga of Oxford University, Sir Norman Angell, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Professor William Y. Elliott of Harvard University.

The Institute is an active organization offering a variety of programs throughout the year. Apart from the summer Seminars, the Institute is sponsoring and organizing expert-level international conferences at its center in Salisbury with recognized authorities attending and delivering papers on vital international issues affecting the United States and other countries. Submitted papers will be published as will the conclusions and recommendations.

Teaching-seminars/lectures on a professional level are also available to universities, governments and businesses. These conferences and "teaching packages" are an effective and progressive educational method taught by qualified experts and are tailored to the individual requirements of each client. Topics vary from career counseling and course orientation programs to international law, political analysis and multinational corporations. They are designed for grade and high school groups to graduate, executive and diplomatic groups.

The Institute also offers an annual series of lectures by prominent Ambassadors and United Nations officials, distinguished professors and business executives, well known journalists and area specialists. The lectures are open to the public and are intended to be televised.

Within the Institute's program of Continuing Education are courses on international relations, U.S. foreign policy and area studies. The courses offered are both in the form of lectures and seminars, and are supplemented by invited guest speakers from univer-

[LC]

sities, business, government, and the diplomatic community. Moreover, the Institute is also the teaching center for the Foreign Policy Association in Northwest Connecticut and adjacent New York and Massachusetts.

European, African, Asian and Latin American Universities are invited to avail themselves of the facilities of the Institute as their American Center for students and professors as well as for their own seminars and conferences. The Institute is also available to scholars with sound credentials who wish to use the facilities to complete books, articles and other manuscripts relating to international affairs. Scholarships, grants and fellowships are available to qualified scholars for this purpose, as are the Institute's library and library acquisition fund to secure required books for such research.

Plans are currently in progress for the publication of a scholarly journal containing articles written by distinguished graduates and recognized authorities.

Speakers at the Institute have included George Bernard Shaw, Madame Curie, Albert Einstein, Dr. Ralph J. Bunche, Professor Paul Samuelson, Professor Walt Rostow, Eduard Benes, Lord Cecil, and Harrison Salisbury. Among others who have lent support to the Institute are: President Franklin D. Roosevelt; President John F. Kennedy; Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, former Vice President and President of India; Sir Norman Angell, Nobel Peace Prize winner; Cordell Hull, U.S. Congressman, Secretary of State and Nobel Peace Prize winner; General Jan Christian Smuts, former Prime Minister of South Africa; Charles Colingwood, Chief News Correspondent for C.B.S.; Mrs. Andrew Carnegie; Thomas J. Watson, former President of I.B.M.; Professor Sir Salvador de Madariaga; James Linen, former Publisher, President and Director, *Time* magazine; General Omar Bradley; General Jonathan Wainwright; Admiral C. W. Nimitz, former Commander and Chief of the Pacific Fleet; and William Rees-Mogg, Editor of *The Times*, London.

The Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, non-governmental, academic and educational organization incorporated in the State of Connecticut. It has its own Board of Directors, Academic Committee and International Advisery Council. The Institute is the only organization of its kind in the United States.

[LC]

SEMINAR PROGRAM

Every summer the Institute conducts Seminars on international relations for selected graduate scholars from throughout the world to meet for intensive study under a renowned international Faculty. Intrinsic to the experience is a disposition of objectivity, candor, and a spirit of give-and-take among all participants. In the best traditions of scholarly debate, the course is designed as a combination of lectures and seminars to encourage both provocative learning and challenging reply. Such an intellectual attitude makes for a highly charged atmosphere in which career goals are reassessed, philosophic commitments forged and lifelong friendships created. The result of this scholarly environment is a list of more than 2000 alumni and Faculty from more than 90 countries, among which are leaders in education, government and business throughout the world.

The Seminar provides an opportunity for participants to study international problems of contemporary life and to examine and question their own ideas and those of others from many nations and cultures. This program is for scholars of exceptional senior and graduate and post-graduate levels, especially those considering careers in education, government service or international affairs.

Due to commitments in other sectors, this year the Seminar Program will consist of only one session, with enrollment limited to 25/30 students, three fourths of whom must be from countries other than the United States. Plans for 1977 include a program of three or possibly four sessions. Admission is without regard to race, color, creed or sex. This particular Seminar is not designed for those who wish to engage in extensive research. This is a graduate course of study of current international affairs leading to the awarding of the Institute's Certificate of Examination. The language of the Seminar is English and proficiency in spoken and written English is required.

1976 SUMMER SEMINAR

The topic of the Institute's 1976 Summer Seminar will be "An Analysis of the Problems of Détente and and its Affect Upon and Response to the Third and Fourth Worlds". The Seminar convenes on July 16 and concludes on August 8. Interdisciplinary in approach, the Seminar will examine political, legal, economic and social implications. The course will be more intensive and on a higher academic level than previously, with Certificates awarded only by both examination and an oral defense of submitted papers.

Seminar sessions will meet each morning, Monday through Friday, for a duration of approximately 2½ hours. Group discussions and special individual or group projects will occupy at least three afternoons per week. Three evening sessions will be scheduled weekly. Evening meetings are more informal and less structured than the morning sessions, not necessarily following the Seminar syllabus. They are designed to be more of a discussion, provoking participants to think and challenge certain assumptions. Weekends are free for recreation and sightseeing.

Participating in the course will be Professors from Yale, Harvard, Geneva, Oxford and Cambridge. Invited speakers will also attend from various Embassies, universities, the United Nations, the U.S. Government, as well as acknowledged experts in the fields of law, politics and economics.

CERTIFICATES

The Institute of World Affairs awards successful scholars of the summer Seminar's course of study one of three Certificates: (i) Certificate of Examination (with Honors); (ii) Certificate of Examination; and, (iii) Certificate of Attendance. The Certificate awarded shall be determined by the level of scholarly and intellectual contribution, the degree and sophistication of participation, and attendance, coupled with the results of examination and the oral defence of the final paper.

[L.C.]

## CREDIT TRANSFER

Letters recommending the transfer of credit are given by the Institute to students who successfully meet the requirements of the course. For students attending universities in the United States who wish to receive credit for the Seminar as well as students of other countries whose universities recognize the credit system, the Institute will cooperate with respective university Registrars, Department Chairmen and Professors in granting credit for the Seminar's intensive graduate-level work. The Institute, which is endorsed by and has worked in close cooperation with major universities of most countries, recommends and has usually been able to have granted to Institute graduates three (3) semester credit hours for completion of the Seminar. Students contemplating study at I.W.A. with the expectation of earning credit towards a university degree should first consult the appropriate university authorities and the Institute.

## LOCATION

The Institute is located in the Northwest corner of Connecticut, approximately 100 miles north of New York City. The area is one of the scenic beauty spots of New England, rural in atmosphere and rich in a variety of cultural opportunities. The 300 acre campus, in an area of woods and fields in the foothills of the Berkshire Mountains, borders the larger of the Twin Lakes.

The Institute has a lake front beach and facilities for swimming, boating, water-skiing, soccer, hiking, cycling, ice skating and cross-country skiing. Nearby are tennis courts, golf courses, squash courts, riding stables and ski areas. Students are given the opportunity to meet families residing in the area, many of whom are artists, writers and educators.

## CULTURAL ACTIVITIES

There are many musical, dance and summer theatre groups in the vicinity, including the famous concerts of the Boston Symphony Orchestra at Tanglewood, ballet performances at Jacobs Pillow, and plays at the Sharon and Stockbridge Summer Theatres. 1976 being the Bicentennial Year, participants may benefit from the numerous Bicentennial activities in surrounding historical New England cities, towns and villages. A Coordinator of Student Activities will be present to arrange for visits to nearby cultural activities.

[LC]

## FEES

The fee for tuition, lodging, meals, books and teaching materials is $375, payable in full by June 21, 1976. This is a subsidized fee underwritten by the Institute, grants from foundations, corporations and organizations such as the Institute of International Education, and individual gifts and donations. Tuition payments cover only a fraction of the actual cost of the program. In addition, each successful applicant is also required to pay a $50 non-refundable Registration Fee in payment of, among other things, accident insurance. This payment will be due to the Institute by June 1. Tuition for the Seminar is tax-deductible.

This year only a limited number of partial scholarships will be available to candidates exhibiting both exceptional intellect and scholarship as well as need. Documents in support of these three criteria should be received by the Admissions Committee before the date indicated below (see "Applications"). Further information concerning scholarships is available from the Institute. The Institute does not pay travel costs.

## APPLICATIONS

Application forms for admission as well as further information concerning the Seminar are obtainable by mailing the detachable back of this brochure or writing to:

Dr. Richard S. Grayson
Executive Director
Institute of World Affairs
Salisbury, Connecticut 06068
U. S. A.

Candidates for the Institute's Seminar should be proposed by his or her Professor. Applicants will have demonstrated a level of professional achievement or significant promise in their fields. Completed application forms and three letters of recommendation from members of their Department or Faculty should be submitted and received by the Institute by May 15. Decisions of the Admissions Committee will be delivered by June 1. An Early Decisions Policy has been adopted by the Institute allowing early applicants the option of an early decision. After the deadline date of May 15, applications received for both places and scholarships will be considered with respect to availability on the date of receipt, although applications received before the closing date will be given preference. It is reiterated that a command of spoken and written English is a prerequisite for admission.

THE INSTITUTE OF WORLD AFFAIRS

Salisbury, Connecticut 06068

1976

Dr. Richard S. Grayson

Mrs. Terry Blackburn

Mr. Donald Barnum

Marie Barnum

Executive Director

Administrative Assistant

Facilities Manager

Business Manager

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

I. Austin Kelly III, President

Harrison E. Salisbury

Prof. Charles P. Kindleberger*

Dr. J. W. Wunsch

Prof. Arthur Smithies

Col. James W. Gerard

Charles D. Cook, Esq.*

F. Taylor Ostrander*

Howard L. Aller III

Mrs. LaVerne Baldwin

Edwin B. Colwell

Andrei Horbez*

Mrs. Janet Stason

Mrs. Robert H. Estabrook

Edwin F. L. Bruen, Esq.

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL

Hon. Lowell Weicker, Jr. - United States Senator

H.E. Pierre H. Coeytaux* - Secretary of the Executive Council and Assistant to Director General, UNESCO

Charles Collingwood* - C.B.S. Television and Radio, Chief News Commentator

Dr. Maurice Cranston* - Professor, London School of Economics

H.E. Jean-Claude Eeckhout* - Assistant to Vice President, Commission of the European Communities

Dr. Walt Rostow* - Former Presidential Advisor; Professor, University of Texas

William Rees-Mogg - Editor of *The Times*, London, and Director and Member of the Executive Board, Times Ltd.

Harrison Salisbury - Pulitzer Prize winner; former Associate Editor, Assistant and Managing Editor, National News Editor and Moscow Correspondent, *New York Times*; President of the National Institute of Arts and Letters; Author and Television Host and Commentator.

Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan† - Former Vice President and President of India

Sir Norman Angell† - Former Member of Parliament, Author and Nobel Peace Prize winner

ACADEMIC COMMITTEE

Prof. Adam Ulam* - Harvard University

Prof. Peter Gay* - Yale University

Prof. Gerard Braunthal* - University of Massachusetts

Prof. Lewis L. Gerson - University of Connecticut

Dr. Samuel P. Hayes - Former President, Foreign Policy Association

Dr. Richard S. Grayson* - Formerly Oxford and Cambridge Universities; Executive Director, Institute of World Affairs.

Prof. Charles P. Kindleberger* - Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Prof. Ruth Lawson* - Mount Holyoke College

Prof. Arthur Smithies - Harvard University

Prof. Donald R. Shea - University of Wisconsin

Prof. Maurice Cranston* - London School of Economics

Prof. John Plank - University of Connecticut

Prof. William Nolan - Yale University

* IWA Graduate † Deceased

New York, New York.
6 East 42nd Street,
National Employee Relation Institute, Inc.,
President,
Mr. I. Austin Kelly, III.

Peasonal Assistant
Suzanne 2. McFarlane

Sincerely,

enterPRISE.
Institute continued success in this important educational
for your letter, however, and to wish you and the
must regretfully decline. He would like to thank you
asked to lend his name, but feels that at this time he
The Secretary is deeply honored to have been

Sallapuru, Connecticut.
Tional Council of the Institute of World Affairs at
a member of the Advisory Committee of the Interna-
Secretary Klaasinger, in which you invite him to become
I have your letter of May 15th, addressed to

Dear Mr. Kelly:

July 2, 1976

JACK KEMP
34TH DISTRICT, NEW YORK

WASHINGTON OFFICE:
132 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
AREA CODE 202: 225-5265

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS:
HARRY WARREN CLARK
LOU ROTTERMAN

GENERAL COUNSEL:
RANDAL CORNELL TEAGUE

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

DISTRICT OFFICE:
1101 FEDERAL BUILDING
111 WEST HURON STREET
BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202
AREA CODE 716: 854-2155

COMMITTEES:
EDUCATION AND LABOR
SMALL BUSINESS

DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES
EDWARD J. RUTKOWSKI

March 25, 1974

Honorable Henry Kissinger
Secretary of State
22nd & C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary:

As a great admirer of yours, I'd be honored to
have your signature on the enclosed photograph.

With thanks and kindest regards, I remain

JK:lr

Enclosure

February 28, 1976

Honorable Henry M. Kissinger
Palm Springs, California

My dear Mr. Secretary:

Welcome to the Desert!

If you are free and not engaged for luncheon, I should be happy to have you join me and Judge Methenay "Nebraska's football hero" for luncheon at the Racquet Club; which is only a few moments from the Douglas home. If Mrs. Kissinger is so inclined, it would be wonderful to have her join us.

I would be happy to have a visit with you while you are here if time and inclination permits. On the attached card are the addresses and telephone numbers for our home and my office.

Mrs. Kemper remembers with great pleasure the night at the White House when you were her dinner partner. I am sure she would like you and Mrs. Kissinger to see our habitat.