Mr. Heath

But if you want to get out of
the intergovernmental relationship
which produces political
complications, much the best way
of doing it is through individual
companies, because if a company
invests in a Third World country,
then it not only brings money
which is what a government
provides but it also brings
expertise and know-how which a
government doesn't provide, and
it also goes into a partnership
with the country which it's
developing so that, whatever it is,
50 or 60 or 70% is held in the
shareholding and in the directorate
by the country in which it bases
itself. And this gives you a real
partnership.

Kukrit Pramoj

I said from the very beginning
that to have the right kind of
help, the poor countries are
responsible for conditions within
their own country, to encourage
the sort of help we've been talking
about, private companies and so on.

Mr. Heath
If you want an example, then
you've got Singapore close at
hand. Tremendous development.
Japanese money, German money,
British money, and all done in
partnership with people who are
there at the moment.

Mr. Jones
With a very strong central
Government control.

Mr. Heath
Not intervention. It's a very
free enterprise economy.

Kukrit Pramoj
Actually, it is a very free
enterprise only the Government
there has got more power than
the rest of us. Mr. Lee Kwan Yew
seems to have done it very
successfully.

Prof. Galbraith
Principally manifested, Jack, in
an incomes policy that you have
now imitated, isn't it?

Mr. Jones
I'm not sure. I think there's
rather more dictation from the
centre.

Mr. Malone
And yet the Secretary of the
Trades Union is also a Cabinet
member in Singapore.

Mr. Jones
That's probably the reason.

Mr. Heath
Jack, I never knew you had
aspirations in this way.

Mr. Jones

What do you do? You've mentioned an incident, Ted, in Britain. We are subjected in not only undeveloped countries but developed countries, maybe outside of the United States of America, to the whim and will to some extent of multinational companies. Whilst I accept that many multinational companies are efficient, in dealing with labour they're not all that bad - we can negotiate reasonable wages and working conditions - there is just that threat that can be exercised, and unduly exercised, by multinational companies which calls in my view for some form of international code which all countries which have to deal with multinational companies must adopt.

Mr. Malone

Is it preferable that there should be this mechanism for aid which is divorced from ideology.

Mr. Jones

Yes, I'm in favour of that. That's what I hope we might be able to discuss.

Mrs. Williams

That's the fatal question, if I
may say so, and this is where I
think I disagree very much with
Ted Heath. If you look at the
history of the United Fruit
Company in Guatemala, this isn't
the history of a company without
ideology. It's the history of a
company with acute ideology,
which then plays very heavily on
the weakness of the Government to
get its own ends. And if the
company which is providing the
investment is more powerful than
the Government of the country which
it's coming in to, and we took the
case of Singapore where the
Government is probably more
powerful though it's certainly not
generally true, then you get a
travesty of aid, and until we can
move the concept of some
redistribution of income
internationally as one of the goals
of the international community,
we will go on living in a world
of Victorian charity which is
what aid essentially is. And
that's why I think that even the
kind of a penny in the pound,

a penny in the dollar concept
of international levies on nations,
not as an act of charity but as
an obligation, would be at least
the very beginning of the move
towards what we need to see in
relation to the Third World as
much as what we've seen in
relationship to separate nation
states.

Mr. Malone

How could this be achieved though?
I mean...

Dr. Arbatov

I think this is a very painful
way but an inevitable one. The
first experience we had here,
it was with new prices on oil.
This goes about resources and
prices and many things which were
produced in these poor countries
were underpriced, and from rich
countries were overpriced, and
this of course is a very painful
process for many countries, but
it has begun and I think it won't
stop at oil.

Mr. Heath

To come back to Shirley's point,
what are we really saying. What
we are saying is, we're asking
citizens of Britain or America or
Western Europe to accept a

Mrs. Williams

living in order to contribute to
that of other people.

But I think that in some ways
Mr. Arbatov has answered that,
because what he's really said,
and I think it's terribly
significant, if you don't create
a different structure you will end
up with, in effect, a collective
bargaining situation in which the
Third World will force upon the
First and Second Worlds their
requirements, because in the end
the oil lesson is going to be
learned, it seems to me, much more
widely than by the oil producers.

Prof. Dahrendorff

The most powerful argument is
power.

Mr. Heath

Yes. Let's be just a little
sceptical about this. It has
happened with OPEC, and when we
produce oil we become a member of
OPEC and then we shall have
considerable influence in all
these matters.

(GENERAL CHAT)

Mr. Heath

Is this really going to happen
over copper? Is it really going
to happen over aluminium?

Mr. Jones

Mr. Heath

Kukrit Pramej

Is it really going to happen over
tin? Is it really going to happen
over wool?

It could, you know.

It could, but is it really in fact
going to happen.

I tend to agree with Mr. Heath
that the discussion is really out
of date. We're talking about
things that happened in the '50's -
'40's and '50's. I don't think
we need the sort of help from
the so-called rich country at the
sacrifice of the welfare of the
people in the rich country.
The kind of help we need I repeat
again is investment in our country,
to the mutual benefit on an
equitable basis. I would like to
point out the case between Japan
and my country. We both have
problems. Our problem is
unemployment, though our wages are
rather low, and their problem is
high wages, cost. So the can't
afford to produce the usual sort of
cheap things that they produced
before. They transfer the
production of those things to our
country where labour is cheap.

the profit-centre of the whole
venture was in Tokyo and not
half-way between Bangkok and Tokyo.
That's the sort of thing that
usually happens, and if that could
be corrected then we are quite
happy, we are quite satisfied.
And we will discipline our unions
somehow to keep the level of wages
within possible...

Mr. Jones
Kukrit Pramej

Don't discipline them too strongly.
In that case, we'll beg them on our
bended knees.

Mrs. Williams That's a much better technique.

Prof. Galbraith

The discussion now turned to the
rights and function of the
individual in an age of high
organisation.

Mr. Jones

The fact is that in the under-
developed countries, or whatever
we call the countries that are not
industrialised completely, and in
the industrialised countries, the
individual tends to count for less
and less, and we ought to take some

account of how people, ordinary
people, can express their point
of view. The bigger the
organisation, multinational company
is an example, the bigger the
government administration, the
bigger the local authority, the
tendency is always to create
bigger units, and the bigger the
trade union incidentally, the less
the individual seems to have an
opportunity to express him or
herself. Without question it seems
to me that anyone, looking at the
world around us, who wants to see
change must find ways and means
of pressuring for greater
opportunities for people, whether
it's in industry or in society,
to have a say in decision-making,
influencing decision-making.

In a way this is what trade unions
are about, or what they should be
about. But in so many countries
and in so many trade unions, the
leadership tends to dominate and
the membership have little
effective say. But nevertheless
the opportunity is there.

Mrs. Williams

A couple of things about me...
really. I agree very much with
Jack about the question of the
individual being involved in
participating in society. I think
the problem is that we've got to get
from the situation where the
individual sees his role as being
one of protesting to the state,
in ether words saying to the state
this is what you should do, as
distinct from sharing in the
responsibility for decisions, and
that's as I understand it what
industrial democracy is about.
So part of this is the devolution
of decision-making power from the
state itself down the line as far as
it possible can go in respect of
individual work-places, in respect
of local community and neighbourhoods
in terms of their environment and
their choices on that matter, in
terms of schools involving parents,
so that only half the battle is
that the individual shall be better
represented in making his protest.
The much more difficult half of
the battle is in involving the

Prof. Dahrenderf

responsibility. So I go with Jack
on participation, but I think the
much more difficult stage is the
stage of shared responsibility.

Can I add another difficulty before
we go on on participation. We've
been talking about under-developed
or developing countries before.
I think we should be quite clear
in our minds that we cannot solve
all problems by participation.
Indeed there's a great danger that
people who have a chance to
participate delude themselves about
the influence they have. We have
problems of an international
monetary system, and we won't solve
them by participation, and yet they
have to be solved. We have problems
of the control of nuclear
developments. We won't solve them
by participation and yet they have
to be solved. We have problems of
development in many parts of the
world, and we won't solve them
by participation, by industrial
democracy or any other kind of
participatory system.

Prof. Dahrendorf

is affected by decisions about
all these things.

I agree with you and yet I

cannot think of a system which
by immediate participation of all
citizens helps us to solve these
problems. And that I think is
quite a dilemma, quite a dilemma
in which we are in. I think that
therefore we have to think of
other checks and balances for some
of the great international
decisions. That is, don't let us
use participation as an alibi for
those who continue to take the
great decisions without having to
ask anybody. That's the point I
was really trying to make.

Mr. Heath

If you take the big issues which
Jack has been mentioning, what
has gone wrong with the proper
means of dealing with those which
are the political institutions.
These are political questions,
nuclear defence is a political
question. The question of aid to
the developing world, and the
other points you've mentioned.

Prof. Dahrenderf
Mr. Heath

These are political questions,
and we have political institutions
to deal with them in our country.
Do we? National institutions?
Yes. National institutions,
the parliamentary institution.
If you take it down locally, well
then we have constituencies and
within that you have wards and so on.
These are all the institutions.
Well then, what has gone wrong
with all of this. And I think
one of the things that has gone
wrong is that the citizen feels
that on the other things which
affect him, parliamentary
institutions no longer really
represent his views. And if you
take, for example, capital
punishment. Now here Parliament
has repeatedly stood for the
abolition of capital punishment.
If you had a referendum in Britain
at any time over the last 20 years,
there would have been an over-
whelming majority for capital
punishment. That is still the
case today. And so you have this
feeling amongst the citizens, the
same applies to immigration.

Prof. Schlesinger I suppose the question we are concerned with is the fate of the individual in a world of large organisations. I think it would be a mistake to identify those organisations of a particular economic system or whatever. This isn't a new question. No-one thought about it more profoundly than Toqueville a century and a half ago, in democracy in America where he was concerned with precisely the fate of the individual in a mass society. And in effect he came up with two points and they seem to me still applicable today. And the first is the absolute importance of political freedom. Political freedom is qualified. Even in countries which have it, where it allegedly prevails, it's limited as our critics and we ourselves point out. But still, the rights of political opposition, however pallid they may be, are better than having no rights of political opposition at all. I think therefore any serious consideration

of the fate of the individual in
a world of the large organisation
must understand that the individual
is dead without a system which is
devoted, which has amongst its
objectives and alleged rights
the rights of political opposition.

Prof. Galbraith
Would you include the position of
the individual who has no
alternative except to work for a
large organisation?

Prof. Schlesinger
Should he have political freedom?

Prof. Galbraith
No. Would you describe that as an
absence of freedom?

Prof. Schlesinger
I would describe that as an
absence of freedom, yes.

Mr. Heath
What you're emphasising which I
agree with profoundly is in a way
a negative sort of freedom, which
I think is basic. You can insure
by laws in a parliamentary
democracy that people aren't made
to do things, but the real problem
today is to go further than that
and meet their aspirations by
saying, yes your freedom is also
going to enable you to have the
constructive things in life and to
remove the uncertainty from yourself
and your family. If we're talking

about the age with uncertainty,
then it seems to me that the
uncertainty with which we're
really dealing is the uncertainty
of the ordinary man in the street
and his wife and his family, and
what's his future going to be,
and what his children - how are
they going to be educated, and
what's their job going to be after
that, and where they are going to
live, and who's going to look
after their health, and if they
are ill are they going to have to
pay a fabulous bill or do they
find a means, either by voluntary
contribution or through the state,
by which it's met. These are all
the things which really concern the
man in the street and his wife
and his children.

Mrs. Graham

There has to be some sort of
leadership which you trust,
doesn't there? I would say another
thing, that in the '60's here I
think that there was an enormous
movement. People really felt
that they'd been misled, that
their government was too big,
that their organisations were too

Big, and that they as individuals couldn't affect them. We've grown, "The Washington Post" building has grown since I've been there thirteen years, from about 1300 to 2800. I now cope with some very real difficulties because people feel we're cold, we're impersonal, that they're not loved, that people don't want to listen, that management doesn't care. I get that all the time. All I'm saying is that when you do care and you do want to do it right, it's still very hard to do. You have to replace the value of a small institution in which individuals all know each other and therefore can be heard with some very effective machinery through which they can make themselves heard, such as say an open door policy to the top executive.

Mr. Jones

We have the answer to that in Britain in industry, and that's the shop steward system -- a continuous representation system, elected representatives. I think you need to develop that and enrich

Mrs. Graham society.

But, Mr. Jones, as you yourself
said trade unions tend to become
very undemocratic.

Mr. Jones

But the way you insure that they're
democratic is to make sure that
there's a non-representative
selected at the bottom of the union
machinery.

Mrs. Graham

But like every organisation, people
get lazy and they don't go out
and vote and they don't participate.
And the, like every bureaucracy,
the bureaucracy takes over and it's
more undemocratic than any
bureaucracy you can encounter
when it gets rigid, and it's the
first to prevent management from
trying to reach people who work
for them.

Mr. Jones

But a trade union shouldn't stand
in the way of direct and effective
representation of the employees
to the management. That's what a
trade union really should be about.

near such a lot of sound criticism
of this side, not on Soviet Union
but on United States and Great
Britain, and I share it and I
could add something as well.
But we have our concerns here
and a lot of things are being done
here. We are not completely
satisfied, and I think when you
speak about the right to oppose —
well, we could rephrase it — the
right of criticism, which is
cherished in our country. I
think it is very important, and
we consider it to be very important.
But at the same time I don't think
it is enough, and there is no
simple answer to this problem.
How to really make people
participate in decisions beginning
from the grass roots. Of course
I have some grave doubts on how
it will be done in the United States,
how, for instance, the steel worker
can influence the major decisions
of U.S. Steel, or even the
editorial policy of "The Washington
Post". But I see a certain search

Mr. Heath

for it here in this country,
and I think it is a very sound
development.

Can I just ask one question,
really from the British/American
point of view, because when I
was ever here nine months ago,
it was just after an article had
appeared in "Time" - I'm sorry
it's the sort of rival concern,
which was entitled Them and Us.
And it was about a British firm
talled Ruberry Owen, and it wasn't
in any way malicious, and I'm
sure it wasn't meant to be, but
what it described was a situation
in a medium-sized British firm.
It described how the Chairman and
Managing Director, which was
originally a family business, lived
and his very nice Tudor house,
and his children were taken to
prep school in the mornings in a
car, and how he had his recreation
at weekends and so on. And then
it described what happened with
the senior shop steward in the
factory, and how he lived in a
small local authority house with
no garden, and his two children

school, and he went off to the
pub and so on. Now everywhere I
went in the States, whether it
was in Wall Street - I was a
visiting Fellow of Yale at the time -
the students there talked to me
about it, on the West Coast they
talked to me about it. And
everybody said, but how can you
run a country if you have this
situation of them and us. Is it
true to say that in the United States
you don't have a situation of them
and us?

Prof. Schlesinger

There is them and us in the United
States but it's much easier for
them to become us or whatever.
In other words, matters of birth,
accent and all that kind of thing
are far less decisive, or at least
perceived as far less decisive.
And therefore peanut farmers
become presidents.

Prof. Galbraith

We have a hell of a lot more
mythology than you, and the ancient
mythology of Britain is that of
a class structure; and the equally
and much more powerful mythology
of the United States is fo

whole the belief in both
 countries is strong, but if
 anything our capacity for
 illusion is greater than yours.

**Prof. Dahrendorf** You haven't read your Marx very
well, Ken, if you believe that
mythology can be sustained for any
length of time without a basis
in fact.

**Mrs. Graham** Well, there's a little mythology
everywhere and I certainly
wouldn't deny that.

**Mr. Jones** The important thing about this
discussion is that, it seems to me,
we all recognise that there is a
problem of ensuring the ordinary
factory hand, whether it's a man
or a woman, and the person in the
street should have a say, and we
should encourage this participation.
It's how you do it, how to have
some form of continuous
association, either in the streets
or in the factories, we need to
look at and develop. I think in
the factories it becomes very much
a question of the trade union
operation. This is what trade
unionism is about. It's not

Just about concluding ...
on wages and working conditions.
It is about representing people
and seeking to secure the freedoms
which Ted Heath mentioned, the
freedom from unemployment and the
freedom from insecurity and so on.
These are vital factors which
people want to do something about,
and they should be encouraged to
do something about them.

Prof. Galbraith

We were to continue our talks
later in the evening in Newfane,
our neighbouring town eight or
nine miles away.

AGE OF UNCERTAINTY - PROGRAMME L3

ROLL 3

PROF. GALBRAITH

MAN Newfayne is the prettiest village in New England, which means the United States. It has also two superb inns where most of our guests were housed. Never before had it had such a concentration of Cabinet Ministers and former Prime Ministers and, in the finest Vermont tradition, no one paid any particular attention.

(sound of men and women talking together)

PROF. GALBRAITH

MAN There's probably an art in arranging dinner guests, but it can't be as recondite as my wife makes it appear. She leaves a place down at the end of the table for Henry Kissinger, who, of course, was Secretary of State when we had this meeting. Henry is being disciplined for arriving late.

PROF. GALBRAITH

MAN Our guests started on the topic we had been discussing during the afternoon.

PROF. GALBRAITH

MAN I not only remember the discussion but I also remember the instruction as to who was to start it, and as soon as he has had a chance to look at the menu, I am going to ask Jack Jones to pick up the discussion of this afternoon, and start the conversation, not on the negative form in which we all rejoiced this afternoon as to how difficult the problem of the individual is in a world of great organisation but in the affirmative sense of what can we do about it.

MR. JONES

MAN Well I think we're living in a time of very considerable change and in this respect working people are more educated, they manage to watch television for one thing and see Kenneth Galbraith and take an interest in what he has to say. Anyway, there is a new trend in the sense that people question

authority of management, they question authority of Government,
it's how you can apply that constructively. You see we've learned
that not all brains lie with the top, there's a collective experience
that is necessary and that even in terms of products - take a
motor car, the person who participates in the manufacture of a
motor car, these days often will drive that motor car, is very
proud of the product that he's a part of, but he will have views
to express about the performance and maybe the construction of the
car that ought to flow to management, and this is what we mean now
by industrial democracy, to involve this expertise of the shop floor
up to the level of management.

We in Britain, the Trade Unionists in Britain, for
the most part, not every one, feel that it will add to the enrichment
of the life of the worker to feel a part of - much more a part of
management decision making and in the process it can add to efficiency
But how far you can apply that to society I don't know.

SHIRLEY WILLIAMS Let me ask you this Arthur, I mean my impression is
that if what Jack says is true, a lot of West Europe at the moment,
you've got Sweden, you've got Norway, you've got Denmark, you've
got Germany, all engaged in this great move towards what's called a
national democracy and it takes different shapes, it doesn't always
take the same shape that it does in Britain, it's a universal
movement in Western Europe and there's even the EEC attempt now to
lay down what we call the European Company Statute which requires
Union representation not perhaps again in the form that everybody's
happy with but nevertheless the move is in all the same direction.
My impression is that the United States Trade Union movement is
nothing like as pulled into the centre of policy making as it now
is in Western Europe. Why this is, I am not quite clear except that
it seems to me that the Trade Union Movement in the States has been
astonishingly and physically ineffective, maybe it wants to be, I

OF politicians of taking different forms, it hasn't been the relationship, for example between the American Labour Movement and even the Democratic Party comparable with the organic relationship that exists between the TUC and the Labour Party in England. I mean the results are a feeling which may be right or may not be right that the more the Labour business and Government get involved in a collusive relationship and settle decisions among themselves, you get into a situation of the corporate society, that these decisions are taken at the expense of all the non-Union - we only have 28% of Labour force in Unions in this country, so that means on the one hand that all the fears of Trade Union tyranny are nonsense but which on the other hand means that the Trade Unions cannot legitimately claim to represent the entire working force and the problems of, as I say, collusion between big business, big Labour, and a subservient and acquiescent Government are a serious question which proponents of Professor Galbraith's incomes policy will answer for us.

EDWARD HEATH

But with the greatest respect you are baiting one of the questions there, aren't you, because you are saying a subservient Government. We've got less than 50% of our workers in Trade Unions, that's also true, but if a Government is going to deal with anybody at all, then the only people it can deal with is the organised Trade Unions. But in doing that and dealing with employers, then it has got a responsibility to represent the consumers, as we said earlier on, but also order those people who aren't, in fact, in Unions. What worries me more than anything is how do we create a situation in which the individual who's got the initiative and got the incentive will in fact, do things for himself. Now you asked me about the individual and that is the thing that most concerns me today.

MAN

This comes down to a practical matter as to how the small firm, the independent entrepreneur can make his way against the

EDWARD HEATH Yes and against the bureaucracy and against the tax system, against all those things which discourage him from doing it at this moment, against every sort of planning regulation against every sort of restrictive practice, against every sort of activity.

MR. JONES

MAN But what of the consideration of the job Ted?

E HEATH What?

MR. JONES How can we ensure that everybody has the right to a job?

E HEATH Yes but that is an allied question because if you have individuals who get the opportunity of doing this for themselves, they create jobs for other people.

MR. JONES

MAN I am not against the small business man, maybe there's a case for encouraging it in some of the craft trades, but in fact the idea is a bit outmoded. In some areas of industry quite frankly the small business man couldn't compete with modern mass production. And it is the big mass production units where the inpersonalisation occurs.

PROF. SCHLESINGER

MAN ...in smaller services, the small entrepreneur is still - still has a role.

PROF. GALBARTON

MAN Still keeping the affirmative tone which we have more or less successfully tried to sustain, what's the most important thing that could be done to affirm the position of the individual consumer?

SHIRLEY WILLIAMS It won't work like that, you can't really create an organisation of consumers, they don't work that way, common interests aren't sufficient for that. But what you can do, must do is give them a bit of muscle in the sense of the kind of expert backing that Ralph Dahrendorf was talking about in another context. And let me look at three sorts of consumer interests. One sort is the straight desire not to be exploited, in other words not to have

a situation in which you could see the two sides of industry coming
together and simply passing this on to the consumer and if the
consumer is helpless that situation can't be resisted. Secondly,
you have a consumer interest, viz-aviz the Government itself, and
Government's - and we were saying this, this afternoón - whether
it's central or local, has links in the lines of communication, in
some cases beyond the point where it communicates at all, has lost
touch to a very great extent with the man and woman in the street
and tends to work increasingly through layer after layer of
bureaucracy to the point where its voice isn't even heard clearly
by the people: it is meant to be addressing, and I think that many
of the mistakes have been made, not least by architects and planners,
would not have been made if there had been the kind of consultation
with the human being at the end of the process that Jack Jones was
talking about earlier in the case of industry, where he wants the
worker and the Plant to be consulted, and yet we haven't developed
really any really effective techniques for doing this except after
the thing has happened. After it's happened, we deal with the
process, before it's happened, we've got no effective machinery for
trying to avoid the process before it happens. And you asked me
for a constructive view, well I'll give you two and I think that in
the case of civil servants, no civil servant should take up his post
or be promoted until he's spent at least a period of time at what
you might call the shop front, dealing with the individual either
appreciating or rejecting him for a pension
or coaching him for unemployment benefit or coaching him for a
public with which he or she is meant to deal and to which they are,
in the end, the servants. And at least in our country that happens
very little, far little than it should.

PROF. SCHELESINGER

MAN Any majorism in England, I mean the use of the law
suit as means of consumer challenge and anything that results in a
Court decision automatically therefore applies to a 100%

of the consumer movement, and here again the parrallel with the
Trade Union Movement is not bad, is, of course, on statutes.

PROF. SCHLESINGER

MAN In addition to statutes the technique of the law
suit is a useful one.
MR. WINSHIP

MAN I would like to try another one, I've spent 12
hours listening to this high flown verbage about problem solving..
(interruption)

DR. WINSHIP

MNA ...hasn't it been nearly 12, it seems it, and
then returning it to the people. I've heard one mention of the
only medium, the only media that the people read, television and
newspapers. It really quite appals me that this group of heavy
thinkers haven't thought about the public education techniques that
we've used in this country we - with some success I think, and...

MR. JONES

MAN ...how do we inform the British Press?

MR. WINSHIP Well your...

MR. JONES It's all so fine over here, but I am not so sure
that it is fine over in Britain.

DR. ARBATOV

MAN It is my personal observation, I don't think the
British Press, however brilliant it can be, should learn very much
from American Press.

MR. WINSHIP

MAN What's your problem with the American Press?

DR. ARBATOV Well we have a lot of them.

MR. WINSHIP For starters?

DR. ARBATOV Well there are many, many political things, how they
were handled and I have my observations in general with the -
especially to this subject that the sensationalism which goes quite
contrary to the ease of public education, such stress upon violence,
upon many other things, which has become a sort of public education
of a very negative kind, I think, in this country, and although
there are exceptions, there are good articles in some papers, but
if you take it as a whole, especially, well these papers which have

MAN Of course we can't hope to achieve the balance and impartiality attained by Pravda and Izvestia in these matters, but we do our best!

DR. ARGEATOY Maybe you should learn a little bit from them as well.

S WILLIAMS May I ask you a question, I mean you have got a great tradition in the States of what they used to call muck raking journalism and I suppose at the highest level one might describe the Watergate business as the very highest kind of muck raking journalism, I mean in a sense the Press became the loyal opposition over that. What I want to ask is at what point does the Press have a greater responsibility towards matters that are crucial to the well being of its society, or does it always have a greater responsibility to its readership to give the readership what it may want.

KATHARINE GRAHAM Well I think it is one of the most interesting problems the Press has is, what is its role in Society? And I think that there are certain things that we can do and try to do, and certain things that we really probably can't and shouldn't, because there are limitations to what we can do and there are limitations of time and space of the degree of sophistication of the reporters that are handling these subjects and there are all sorts of constructions. WALKER LIPMAN Healey-Littleton used a very good phrase once. He was making the point that the Press couldn't replace institutions, that it's duty was - that it's obligation was to inform as best it could and that by doing this, it was, in effect, what he called a restless searchlight in the dark illuminating here and there, that if you call attention to problems in an intelligent way, and get the facts to people, that then institutions really

an instance of that because what the Press did was to keep the issue
alive while the institutions were not working...

(H Kissinger entering room)

PROF. GALBARTA

MAN Secretary Kissinger is arriving.

(everybody talking together)

PROF. GALBARTA

MAN Well Mr. Secretary, we thought you would be
lonesome if you didn't have some television cameras! And so
you will not be lonesome. Now I am going to turn it over to you
Ted.

E HEATH What are you turning over?

PROF. GALBARTA

M I am turning over to you now to shift the question
of how does the Press serve, help, hurt, in informing on the complex
and technical issues, have to do with, for example, a large issue
like your entry into the Common Market?

H KISSINGER The last time I talked on this subject, Kate Graham
walked out!

K GRAHAM Henry I hate to tell you, I don't even remember that!
(ALUGHTER) I think you've made it up.

H KISSINGER It was at a dinner party, but I didn't know you did.

E HEATH We've been arguing about the Press and various
aspects and so on, and the media as well. I would have thought
broadly speaking, that on foreign policy the Press does a better
job than it does on many other aspects of international life,
because in most countries at any rate, there is still a general
agreement between political parties that foreign affairs is something
that ought to be kept out of the ordinary dog fight and ought to be
dealt with on a rather higher level than most of the current
discussion in the Press or in Parliament. Now of course it can
be that foreign policy does at times become so entangled in domestic
affairs it is very difficult for them to do this, but it does raise
the basic question of is it a good thing to have the whole of foreign

K GRAHAM I think it is a difficult issue but I think it has to be resolved in our country which is really very unlike yours, we do not have a Parliamentary democracy and to some extent we don't have the questioning devices that exist in Parliament or the Royal Commissions or the devices you have to question the Government, or in fact, the ability to make the Government fall, if the people want it. So you have to start from the fact that we have a different problem, and in this country, for a long time, I think, the Press was not sceptical enough and did not report enough and I certainly don't think that in the early days of Vietnam enough people were reporting what was really going on. In Vietnam we were taking the official version of it much too - much too literally. I think that when you say that there are Government secrets, we all know there are and I think that it is the view of the Press in this country that it is up to the Government to keep those secrets, but that once one of them leaks, that it really does more, much more harm than good to then say we want to get it back, and you all have to agree not to publish it. I know that the official secrets act seems to work in England, but I feel that it would be very damaging here. I think that the Government has...

(interruption by several people talking at once.)

E HEATH Yes, but there are criticisms from both points of view, that in fact the existing act is not effective in dealing with breaches of security which matter. But the point with a Parliamentary system, you see you have a secretiy question. A Prime Minister can stand up and say this matter has been raised, but I must assure the House that this is a matter of security, and the Parliament will not press the Prime Minister on this, and he will say I am perfectly prepared to tell the Leader of the Opposition in the usual way under Privy Council the whole of the facts about this. And the Leader of the Opposition comes along into his room directly after question time

THE AGE OF UNCERTAINTY

PROGRAMME L3

ROLL 4

EDWARD HEATH

...take another example, take Northern Ireland, I don't think many people in Britain are in doubt that a very large amount of the coverage given by television and by radio to the IRA in Northern Ireland has impeded to an enormous extent, the ability of the forces to deal with the IRA. No doubt about it at all, and what that has meant is, that a large amount of civilian life has been lost and forces lives have been lost.

MAN

Why should television coverage have impeded it?

E HEATH

Because television takes the view that if they can get a secret interview, a so called secret interview with the IRA, in some back street in Belfast, or Londonderry, then they do that, they will not reveal where the IRA are operating and it gives the IRA the opportunity on television of putting across...

H.

Television, the BBC has a better intelligence service than the British Government?

E HEATH

Well, to the extent that the IRA will send a message to the BBC saying, if you meet such a man in such a place, at such a time, then you will be taken unbeknown and blindfolded to another place and there we will give an interview on television or on radio and the conditions are, of course, that you don't reveal this and in any case you are blindfolded, you won't know where you are going and if you do reveal it, your life is in danger because we will take jolly good care that you are bumped off afterwards.

S WILLIAMS

Anyway, it's useful that Governments abide by a set of unwritten rules about how they behave. Now if you take one historic example where Governments didn't obey that set of unwritten

Suez, because the matter was not an issue which came to Cabinet
and was resolved at Cabinet level, it was resolved by a much smaller
group of Ministers who in effect, concealed from the Cabinet what
they were intending to do. Now I think the Press was not wrong
to pick up the Suez issue and to fight the Government on it, and I
think the Press has a right, in a sense, to break the rules, if
Government itself, in a democracy, breaks the rules.

E HEATH
Yes, if you go back to Suez, and you say the Press
broke the rules, the reason wasn't that they believed the Cabinet
hadn't been informed about the decisions, in actual fact, of course,
the Cabinet was fully informed about the decisions,

S WILLIAMS
Not at the beginning.

E HEATH
The Press took this view because they were against
this particular venture.

PROF. CHARLES GRAHAM
When I get to Henry Kissinger, I want him to make
the difference between what he would like to have now that he's in
power as distinct from five years hence when he's a Harvard Professor.
(everyone talks together at this point.)

E HEATH
It's complicated from the point of view of analysis
and I think the first part you have to do - to divide up, is the
Defence/Foreign Affairs aspect from the Domestic aspect, insofar as
you can have that division, and here, I think, you are dealing with
confidentiality as compared with what I would call security.

Now on confidentiality, I take the view that a
Government is just as entitled to be able to discuss policies with
its administrators, with its civil service and its colleagues, as any
other organisation in the country is. Now I do not find that the
Press accepts this. In other words if Kate found that one of her
senior executives after every Board Meeting was going out and
telephoning the New York Times and telling them what had happened,
she wouldn't be very amused. And yet the Press takes it for granted

view entitle officials, except under conditions of a total
disbreakdown of public confidence to play their own game because
what very often happens is that precisely the people who have
some hobby horse, who are pushing it most strenuously, and it is
almost impossible for the Press to distinguish between the
validity of various secret documents that are now practically being
forced on them. I don't know what I would do, if I were to
publish - having stated this problem. The easiest solution would
be to get discipline in the Government but how you can get that
with all the present impact, I have no answer at all. Now since
the fact that I may not get the floor again, knowing this eloquent
group, if I could make a few comments on some other things that
were said here?

E HEATH Can I take you up on one point, Henry, on this.
Let's take a practical...(LAUGHTER) Let's take a practical
point...

H KISSINGER I was going to attack Shirley Williams!

E HEATH Let's take a practical point in negotiations. We
both know perfectly well that you can have a situation in which
one side will make an advance to the other in which if it's
reciprocated, you are going to have a successful outcome and
therefore you can stand the cost or the racket, whatever you like,
of the advance you make. On the other hand, if you don't get the
response, it is extremely damaging to the Government, the Secretary
of State, the Foreign Secretary, whoever it may be. Now that, I
believe, is a crucial incidence where if the press come to know
about it, there is a very heavy responsibility on them not to
publish that, because it endangers the success of the operation
because the other side is also in a position that if they respond
and don't get success, they are in danger as well. Now if this is
known in State Department and Foreign Office or say wherever you like

releases confidential documents when it wants to sell its point of
view, quite often Henry? And would you reserve the right to the
Government to use them when they saw fit but not to the right of
the Government Opposition?

H KISSINGER Well we should assume that the Watergate phenomenon is an exception and not a rule of Government. One should assume that the Government requires a minimum of trust. I can give, since this will not appear for several months, last week we had a difficult situation in Lebanon in which we were trying to evacuate Americans and in which their departure was delayed. We deliberately, not because we wanted to hide anything, from the public, refrained from blaming the PLO because we did not want to turn it into a test of strength with the PLO and because we thought that the lives of the people was more important than some grandstand play. It was leaked what the obstacle was, what our concern was and until we get these people out, we still don't know whether this does not greatly complicate the issue. Now this is a case where there is no policy id dispute within the Government at all, and where it is simply some official who is trying to prove to some columnist that he is a big shot and is in on some information, is releasing information next Wednesday or Thursday would do nobody any damage and does nobody any good this week.

FROM: SCHLESINGER

MAN Was that released from the field Henry, or from the
State Department?

H KISSINGER Well in this particular case, The State Department is guilty enough in these matters. In this particular case, I don't believe it came from the State Department, it came from somebody who wanted to prove how able his organisation was in effecting evacuation. It wasn't even malicious, it was just self service, but potentially very dangerous. We hope it won't be dangerous.

BBC TV

AGE OF UNCERTAINTY

PROGRAMME 13

ROLL 5

PROF. GALBRAITH

MAN Monday morning, Katharine Graham and Shirley

Williams were staying with us up at the farm house. Mrs Graham
had breakfast with us and she demanded to know what we had paid
for this house and 250 acres 30 years ago in 1947. I told her it
was 86,750 about £1,600 in those days.

K GRAHAM Other people work for theirs, they don't just sit

on real estate.

MRS GALBRAITH

W I tell you I've never sat on it, I've painted it,
I've kept it from falling down for 25 years.

PROF. GALBRAITH

M I want you to know that this is unearned income.

(Music)

PROF. GALBRAITH

M Shirley Williams was more energetic and took my
daughter-in-law's horse out for a ride. The horse is a sprightly
15 year old.

(music)

S WILLIAMS

She's a lovely horse, a very nice horse.

PROF. GALBRAITH

M Want me to demonstrate now?

PROF. GALBRAITH

M About 10 o'clock the other guests began to arrive
from the inns at Newfaye.

(background sounds of cars arriving etc)

PROF. GALBRAITH

M The discussions were to break up at lunchtime.

Some to catch planes, more, including Ted Heath, to attend the
famous Marlboro Concerts which are nearby.

(people talking together)

PROF. GALBRAITH

M Before the serious business, it turned out that

some of the guests had found a new use for lilies.

NRS. GRAHAM

MAN No, no, lilies.

MR. JONES Oh lilies, what are they like?

KUKAIT PRANOT

WOMAN They're rather tasty, like cucumber, raw and if you cook them you cook them like beans.

MR. JONES What do you call them?

K. PRANOT

M Bay lilies, Bay, you know, they bloom once a year.

(everyone talks together at this point)

PROF. GALBRAITH

MAN I sat in on a number of conversations and negotiations between national leaders, and they sound very much like those you are about to hear. However, for me as I imagine it will be for you, this was my first chance to eavesdrop on conversations at the summit between American and Soviet Leaders. It will be, as you will see, by far the most urgent issue of the age. This was the discussion about nuclear diplomacy and control. On one or two technical points I'll interrupt with an explanation. Some of our guests, you will see, took notes for themselves.

Ted you stand between relevant powers, you lead off on this.

E HEATH I am not sure that it's a very good thing for me to lead off on this one, I thought the two super powers would really set out their positions.

PROF. GALBRAITH

M It is only appropriate that they be given a certain sense of modesty.

E HEATH Because you said that we don't necessarily want to concentrate on negotiations, after all there is going to be the main feature.

PROF. GALBRAITH

MAN I think I misspoke on that, what I don't want to concentrate on past flames. Albert's office persuaded me that we're wicked, and everybody else has persuaded me that the Soviet's are wicked which of course deeply I believe and since we have established both of those points, I would not like to pursue them

to know that you are morally right, I feel that we have the
satisfaction, I won't speak about it, but I'll put out one of the
problems which makes me especially concerned.

The political process of negotiating arms control
lags very much behind the technological progress in the armaments
field, and so we are getting some sort of vicious circle, we have
to try to solve problems and in the meantime new weapons systems
are created which bring in new, even more complicated problems.
And this vicious circle has to be torn somehow.

H KISSINGER There are two basic categories of problems in
relation to nuclear peace or peace. One is the political
relationship of the two countries and the other is the strategic
relationship of the two countries. Arbatov wanted to separate
these two and say that the nuclear relationship can be stabilised
in the absence of stabilising the political relationship. Given
the enormous complexity of the discussions on nuclear controls and
nuclear stability, given the fact that it is a very really unusual
approach involving unconventional thinking, there is no practical
possibility of getting a significant degree of nuclear disarmament
and nuclear control if there is also not a matter of restraint in
the political field. I don't think it is possible to advance the
proposition that the two countries can press each other to the
limit in the political field while they should regularise their
armaments with each other, and I think both sides, not just the
Soviet Union have an obligation to keep in mind that we are living
in a very unusual world, the sort of gains that one can make on the
traditional balance of power politics are really quite marginal
compared to the risks that are involved in terms of our long term
future and the permanent benefits that can be achieved from it.
And while it is of course true that the Soviet Union and the United

world are bound to be in competition and while nucleo[logy is going
to produce frictions, it is also true that the leaders of both
sides lead a new dimension of thinking and not press every
opportunity to its ultimate conclusion. When I think back over
the last 15 years, we were talking about it informally before, I
was very linchless of the Kennedy administration without any
influence whatsoever, and I know that in 1961 my colleagues entered
the Government with the firm intentions of making progress in the
relations with the Soviet Union and then the Berlin crisis set matters
back for three years with no benefit to anybody. I would therefore
urge that there must be political restraint and there cannot be
selective detente, and I want the record to show that this word has
been introduced by Mr. Arbatov and only politness as the host
country induces me to use it and under no circumstances would I
otherwise disobey firm instructions. But it isn't possible either
to have detente that is applied to the nuclear field and not to the
political field, or detente that applies to the centre of Europe
but not Africa or Asia. This doesn't mean that we will not be
competing to some extent, but some limits have to be put on the
competition, some restraint has to be exercised, and this is an
injunction I would make to both sides, not just to the Soviet Union.

Now with respect to the nuclear field, it is an
unprecedented situation for nations to face the problem of having
too much usable power. Until the end of World War Two it would
never have occured to anybody that a country could have more power
than was either strategically or politically useful. The people
who have spent their lives in military service, and I would suspect
oh both sides, find it very hard to come to grips with this, so in
their own analysis, they tend to speak of superiorities, and dangers
that are really quite theoretical when casualties involve hundreds
of millions globally and probably over one hundred million in each

that your people have questions about in the United States. I think that is going to be a difficult but masterful negotiation and we shouldn't forget, that in my view, 90% of the agreement is either conceptually or actually completed. So we should concentrate on that reanimating 10% and get it done. That can be done without this issue of banning new weapons systems. That could be put into the next negotiations.

G ARBATOV But otherwise, they will be simply deployed, and be out of negotiations anyway.

H KISSINGER Otherwise they will be deployed because if you introduce the idea of new weapons, then we inevitably are going to introduce new weapons, the idea of new weapons, then we will have to define what is a new weapon and then we will run into complications that we can't even imagine today because the experts on both sides are going to get into endless definitions of what new weapons are.

E HEATH Are you really saying that the way to deal with this now is just to be specific about weapons up to the Vladivostock totals and not to try to have an overall principle so to speak which will lead to all these arguments.

H KISSINGER The Vladivostock agreement is that there should be fixed ceilings of 2,400 for both sides within which each side can compose it of whatever weapons it wishes that has been defined as strategic in this agreement.

PROF. ALBERTA

MAN The discussion now turns from the relations between Russian and America, to the spread of nuclear weapons, to nuclear proliferation.

PROF. DAVID DOAR

MAN To what extent would you believe that it is the United States and the Soviet Union or perhaps the United States which alone has a major role to play in the attempt to control nuclear proliferation? Or putting the question the other way round, to what

the problems, is this a matter of arrangements between major powers, or is it a matter of setting up reviving existing institutions?

H KISSINGER Let me say one thing on behalf of the Soviet Union here. In the field of nuclear proliferation, I must say that on the whole the Soviet Union has, on the whole, behaved responsibly. It has not pushed the question, it has not pushed its own exports of nuclear installations to anything like the extent that say the European community has,

E HEATH This is peaceful nuclear

H KISSINGER Peaceful nuclear, I am speaking about nuclear proliferation, peaceful.

E HEATH But you weren't dealing with that though?

H KISSINGER But that's what you are really talking about in the nuclear proliferation field. I don't think that any major country or any country is going to give away nuclear bombs. So when we are talking about nuclear proliferation, to me it suggests the utilisation of peaceful nuclear technology for weapons purposes by recipient countries. This is my definition of the nuclear proliferation problem.

E HEATH A very limited definition isn't it?

H KISSINGER Well, but there hasn't been any case of a Super Power except in our relationship in Britain and the United States that had its historical origin in the co-operation during World War Two, I don't know a case of a Super Power making available nuclear technology for weapons purposes to another country.

E HEATH No, I wouldn't challenge that for a moment. What I mean is that when one talks about nuclear proliferation, or perhaps proliferation is the wrong word. What I mean by it is, other countries, having nuclear weapons, even though they are producing

that everybody has been hoping that this problem will go away.

H KISSINGER But if you ask yourself how are other countries going to develop nuclear weapons, they can do it in two ways, they can do it either like China by developing the whole nuclear programme on their own, this is one set of problems, that has happened only once or maybe twice, in China and in France. The second is, that...

E HEATH It could happen again.

H KISSINGER It could happen again. The second is whether countries develop nuclear weapons on their own but with the indirect assistance of the advanced nuclear countries in the form of peaceful nuclear technology, and both of these problems have to be dealt with.

(end of roll 5)

BBC TV

AGE OF UNCERTAINTY

PROGRAMME 13

ROLL 6

H KISSINGER ...on the other hand given the prize of oil and given the fact that it is a resource that will be depleted or eventually depleted in the foreseeable future, the spread of nuclear technology is very probable and will accelerate. That is the basic dilemma that as these nuclear reactors spread, how does one prevent the diversion of the product for terrorist use or to national use. This incidentally, cannot be done by the United States or Soviet Union alone. This is an area in which the European Community for example, or at least the European individual exporting countries have to participate on a level of total equality.

not something that we and the Soviet Union can negotiate.

PROF. GALBART H

MAN I have the impression that the alarm over the explosion of the nuclear device in India, while it must have been extremely rewarding to the Indians, had very little world significance. That if this is a pattern of the perspective proliferation, there is some danger that we have it slightly out of perspective. I am constitutionally incapable of minimising this sort of issue, but I have a feeling that it was exaggerated in that case.

H KISSINGER I think they are two separate problems. One is the - will the acquisition of nuclear weapons by developing countries change the balance between it and the Super Powers. I think not, and I think it may enhance its inferiority because it will take the case of the country - let's not mention countries - the case of any of the foreseeable developing countries, it will take at least a generation before they can create any plausible threat to a Super Power, and they would be totally destroyed unless they made themselves

MAN Well Henry, can you reassure my old friend that you will be equally uncareless? As well as on the question that he asked about proliferation?

H KISSINGER I think that on the level of strategic arms, it has to be arranged between the nuclear Super Powers because they are the ones that have the capabilities of annihilating humanity, and I believe that the arrangement as long as it doesn't lead to a political condiminium is in the interest of all of mankind because a nuclear war between the Super Powers would have physical consequences every where, not just indirect ones. How one can associate other countries with that process is important, but I don't think that the non-nuclear countries need necessarily be associated with the negotiation of a nuclear agreement, unless they are part of an alliance system that is effective.

Right, on the question of accidents, I agree with

Ted that there are many levels.

MAN You are concerned about the dangers of accidents and the possibilities of say..

H KISSINGER Let me make one other point about accidents. If there is a danger of accidents or as the danger of accidents increases, it must lead, inevitably, to precautions by countries that might be drawn in, that they will not be drawn into a nuclear war against their will, and you already see agreements between the Soviet Union and the United States, and between the Soviet Union and France by which they can inform each other about accidental nuclear explosions so that they are not triggered into a catastrophe by the actions of others, so the spread of nuclear weapons may have the paradoxical consequence of drawing those who have the greatest risk of being involved into a closer co-operation than would otherwise be the case.

that we have some agreements to prevent accidental, non-authorised
launching of nuclear weapons. I am not in a position to judge
whether it is enough or we need some more provisions for this. This
must be always cared for by the Governments. But in general I
wouldn't say that our position is such that the steps that already
were taken in Soviet-American relations or the negotiations which
are under way now, take away the whole danger of nuclear war. There
must - this is a very complicated task and there must be a lot of
work done to ensure all guarantees because here you cannot have
99% guarantees, it must be over 100 to make it sane and safe, and
I might remind you that one of the reasons of deterioration of our
which Chinese require to help them
relations machinery was our ratios in acquiring nuclear capability.
And so we don't do it with Allies, we don't do it with other
countries, and we, I am sure, will be very positive on this in any
international agreements for organisations which can be built up
for it. Nobody can complain about our allies what they do.

MAN
But can one be sure that as we are trying to reach
international agreements against terrorism, the Soviet Union will be
on the side of those who actually sponsor such agreements?

G ARBATOV
We are against terrorism, we are against terrorism
and this we have declared many times, but it will depend on the
proposed agreement because the concern is that it cannot include
some - it will be too broad and will not include not only
terrorists as such but will also be directed against some parts
of liberation.

SHIRLEY WILLIAMS Can I ask a little question?

MAN I am going to come to you Shirley and then to Arthur Schlesinger.

M May I just ask a question? When I was in China last
year, they were positive, they were quite sure that there will be a
nuclear war between the Super Powers, and they are making all kinds

convince them that it is all as cosy as we have arranged. A judge
from their remarks and their statements and conversations that they
were absolutely sure that that War will happen in the near future.

PROF. GALBRAITH

M I accept that, Kukrit, as a rhetorical question
because I would think that on one point, there would be one point
of agreement that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union
will be able to reassure the Chinese on that particular point.

DR. AGATOV
R-K PRANJU
Especially, they need it, this war danger for their
internal purposes.

K. PRANJU

M But they are digging tunnels and things and are very
comfortably furnished underground.

H KISSINGER I haven't availed myself of the opportunity. They
seem to be more convinced that one Super Power will attack them,
than concerned that the two Super Powers may co-operate with each
other.

R K PRANJU What they said to me was that the two Super Powers
will fight each other in their country.

S WILLIAMS In China?

DR. AGATOV

R-K PRANJU A very interesting scenario, yes.

PROF. GALBRAITH

M Well I must get to Shirley Williams.

S WILLIAMS I only wanted to make two points and perhaps
before Arthur Schlesinger speaks, and he can take them into account
really. One is conscious that we live literally from month to
month being mizzily surpirsed that something like the Lebanon happens
and the two sides don't get involved, or if something like Angola
happens and at the right moment the United States decide not to take
the matter any further, and therefore what I really want to throw
into the pot and bring you back to, is how you deal with the chaotic
political situation in which the rest of the actors insist on being
on the stage and how you relate this to what seems to be to me, an
extraordinarily kind of controlled kindness that you feel about the
nuclear situation because it is very hard to see how you can keep

and the point for very much longer. In fact they insist upon being
bought together.

H KISSINGER Ken, can I respond to this before Arthur?

PROF. SCHLESINGER

M Well this actually enters into the point that I
would like to make.

H KISSINGER I was afraid that you would shake me so much that I
would forget my reply to this!

PROF. SCHLESINGER

M Well you go ahead and reply but I till...

PROF. SCHLESINGER

M No I think I will override even the Secretary of
State because Arthur has been so unnaturally silent this morning, as
you would be the first to agree Henry, that we must give him his
moment.

ARTHUR SCHLESINGER Well my moment, my point is not a momentous one. It is really very much related to what Shirley Williams was saying, and that is that the one point of agreement which the two distinguished representatives of the Super Powers seem to have was in the rejection of the notion of selective detente, which I understood Mr. Arbatov to endorse Henry Kissinger's rejection of that idea. I find myself as an historian unable to conceive any other kind of detente except the selective detente. Now there may be ambiguities between descriptive and prescriptive uses of the word detente, but it seems to me that essentially detente is an expression of a stabilisation which has been brought about for other reasons and other grounds. And when that stabilisation has reached a point, it is recognised and we call it detente. Therefore detente is possible in Europe where the balance of forces and the exhaustion of efforts to upset that balance has reached a point where finally it could be formalised in one form or another. But where this antecedent stability is not exist as in the Middle East and as in Africa, it seems to me that you cannot expect detente to operate in the same sense that it does in Europe, so when Henry, you said you can't separate detente in Europe

not Kay's worry about an accident, I would have thought that people who have got the nuclear really have got such a complicated chain of control, that it really is difficult to have accidents, and I noticed that Henry sat up very smartly when Shirley said that you were offhand about your things. I certainly wouldn't support that for a moment.

S WILLIAMS I won't pursue it now, but there has been a loss of plutonium certainly.

H KISSINGER But not from military bases.

E HEATH Well let's not argue about this...

S WILLIAMS Well there has been a loss of plutonium where it has been stored.

E HEATH The general control of weapons, so that if somebody goes mad or runs amok or gets a brain storm or something, I would have thought that the combination necessary for that to happen, is so minute that the chance of that sort of accident is remote. Now on the other hand, I think the chance of political misjudgement is very acute and I don't really accept the business about overall detente, because I don't think that is what Mr. Arbatov was saying. He said quite specifically there will be things from the Sovietside the Americans won't like and there may be things from the American side which the Soviets don't like, it is a perfectly fair statement. And that's where the danger of misjudgement is. Now I don't want to go back over Angola, but my view of Angola is that the Soviets made a specific judgement that the action they took would not bring an American response. Very well, they were right because they made in the circumstances of Presidential Election Year, and the revulsion of Congress against ventures abroad like Vietnam and so on.

Now this is where the danger of misjudgement comes and it is misjudgement which is on Europe's doorstep. One can see