ATLANTIC MAGAZINE APRIL 1974 ( 22 MARCH )

# WHO'S RUNNING THE COUNTRY?

by Joseph Kraft

As Washington's power center weakens in a season of distraction, the barons take over. Here is the story of how Kissinger, Schlesinger, Shultz, and Weinberger moved into the void.

“One year of Watergate,” as Mr. Nixon put it, may not be enough for the President’s critics. But it has been enough to redraw the map of Washington. An enormous change has come over the workings of the federal government. The structure of power here has been altered in ways likely to endure no matter what the denouement of Watergate. The presidency, as well as the President, has been weakened—and the change will affect the man who succeeds Richard Nixon, whoever he is or whenever the succession occurs.

The decline at the center has led to a tremendous growth of power in parts of the bureaucracy. Much presidential authority has been hived off to the State Department, the Treasury, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. So far this diffusion of responsibility has had no adverse effects. Indeed Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Schlesinger, and Caspar Weinberger have done some good things that they might not have been able to accomplish if big brother had been watching closely. But although government continues, the general condition has altered. The king has slipped, and the barons have taken over.

The most striking sign of the weakened presidency is the decline of the small, elite offices set up to manage the rest of the government on behalf of the President. At the top of the list comes the White House staff itself. From Franklin Roosevelt through the first Nixon Administration, central positions on the staff were held by presidential confidants whose chief task was to develop a domestic program in cooperation with the various agencies and the Congress. Hence Samuel Rosenman under Roosevelt; Clark Clifford under Truman; Sherman Adams under Eisenhower; Ted Sorensen under Kennedy; Bill Moyers and Joe Califano under Johnson; and John Ehrlichman in the first Nixon Administration. Under the impress of Watergate, three men with that kind of capacity came to the White House—John Connally, the former governor of Texas; Melvin Laird, the former Secretary of Defense; and Bryce Harlow, who had served as a White House staff man under both Eisenhower and Nixon. All three urged more open government, with a larger role at the White House for the Cabinet and the Congress. All three were turned off.

In the battle for control of the White House staff they were routed by two unlikely victors—Ronald Ziegler, the former press secretary, and Alexander Haig, the former general who succeeded H. R. Haldeman as White House chief of staff. Mr. Ziegler has the President's confidence, and as a punching bag he's in the Olympic class. His view that "contrition is bull" seems exactly to express the President's own attitude toward the Watergate scandals. But he is no heavyweight in any matter of substance. The Watergate hearings showed that even junior members of the staff regularly lied to him. Both Laird and Connally advised Nixon to fire him—and let that fact be known. The best he himself can say of his professional background is, "I was trained thoroughly in political communications." The one man in the White House who sees Mr. Nixon more than Ziegler is General Haig. Haig is a bureaucratic general. He rose by serving as an expediter for civilians (first in the Johnson Administration, then for Henry Kissinger) who needed to make the military bureaucracy work. His disposition to give orders makes him a fish out of water in dealing with civilians. But, like Ziegler, he is prepared to cover Mr. Nixon. His reaction, on learning from the Chicago Tribune that its reporters had the story of Pentagon "spying" on Henry Kissinger, was: "This story isn't going to do the country any good . . . but I don't think it will hurt the President." Thus for the first time in over two decades, the close-in White House staff has virtually no role in formulating domestic programs.

A special place of distinction in the White House has long been reserved for the staff of the National Security Council. Henry Kissinger, and before him Walt Rostow and McGeorge Bundy, made the staff the vital center for the making of foreign policy. Academics and young officers in the Pentagon and State Department and the intelligence community vied for the few available places. But since Dr. Kissinger became Secretary of State, the NSC staff has fallen into disuse. The full council, which the staff serves, met only twice last year, and not once between September, when Dr. Kissinger moved to the State Department, and the end of the year. Three of the leading staff members, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, Winston Lord, and Lawrence Eagleburger, have gone to State with the boss. While the NSC still functions as a clearinghouse for formal policy papers, the initiative comes from Dr. Kissinger's office at State, not the other way round. As Lawrence Eagleburger puts it, "When I was at the NSC, people at State always used to call me to find out what was going on. Now that I'm at State, people at the NSC call me to find out what's going on."

( SEE WHO'S RUNNING....... Pg. 8-F)

Joseph Kraft writes a widely syndicated political column.

7-F

(WHO'S RUNNING THE COUNTRY? CONTINUED.)

Next to the NSC, the most prestigious White House group was the Council of Economic Advisers. The membership of the Council is still distinguished. Herbert Stein, the chairman, is a leading light of the Chicago school of economics. William Fellner, another member, is a former chairman of the Yale economics department, with an international reputation as an expert on inflation. But Dr. Stein is stepping down to teach at the University of Virginia. Dr. Fellner, who came to the council at sixty-eight years of age, after a lifetime in the academic world, is said to write memos which never reach the President because they would be better received at some technical journal. The third member, Gary Seevers, is too young (thirty-six) to exert much influence.

In the inner bureaucratic battling of the past few years the council has lost much ground. The fight against inflation is being led by a new organization—the Cost of Living Council. Another new organization—the office of the Federal Energy Administration—has assumed responsibility for programs that hold tremendous consequences for employment, investment, and economic growth. One of the new men in that agency once told me, “Stein doesn’t count for anything in energy. To me, he’s just a guy in the back of a crowded room.”

At the last annual meeting of the American Economic Association in New York, Dr. Stein acknowledged that the United States should perhaps develop a large-scale economic planning ministry of the kind that has grown up in Japan and France. He said it might be “inappropriate” for the council to continue as “a little agency focusing mainly on manipulating fiscal and monetary policy.”

It could be argued, of course, that the plight of the Council of Economic Advisers merely expresses the inveterate Republican dislike of government intervention in the economy. But a similar stagnation has affected the Domestic Council, which was set up by President Nixon himself in 1970. John Ehrlichman, its first head, used the council to undo domestic programs dear to the Democrats and, whatever the complaints, no one could claim that the Council lacked purpose or clout. Now it seems to have lost both. The present director, Kenneth R. Cole, Jr., is an adman with a degree in business administration, who said after his appointment, “I’ve always been interested in this country and the way it’s run, probably more in the foreign affairs area.” The staff has been cut in half. Mr. Cole seems to have little contact with the President, nor has he any drive to achieve particular programs. He is almost unknown to most of the country’s mayors and governors, and one, Jimmy Carter of Georgia, considered it demeaning when he was asked to tell his troubles to Mr. Cole. Cole apparently considers his main goal to be keeping the Domestic Council alive against assault from the other White House agencies. “I see the politics of government being formed by the Cabinet,” he said recently, in what seemed like a bid for allies outside the White House. “His big task now,” one official here claims, “is ushering mayors and governors in to meet Cabinet officials in Washington. Even when he’s doing that, he tiptoes.”

The great threat to the Domestic Council has always been the Office of Management and Budget. OMB was created out of the Bureau of the Budget at the time the Domestic Council was formed in 1970. In theory the policy was to be handled by

the Council, while OMB doled out money and audited performance. Rivalry was inevitable given the porous quality of the dividing line, and the character of the Bureau of the Budget. The Bureau had been picking up more and more power since the Roosevelt administrations. Its permanent officials were men of the highest caliber, and they had close ties with the leading departments, the key committees of the Congress, and the White House. In particular, the Bureau had become central to the process of creeping government or incrementalism, which developed steadily from the New Deal through the Great Society. Under the incremental approach, small programs expanded year by year in reach and cost until they became major items. For example, educational grants, funneled through a score of narrow programs, increased sev- enfold to $3.5 billion in the years between 1960 and 1970. Budget obligations for a dozen different manpower training programs increased from about $300 million in 1963 to about $4.8 billion in 1971. The Bureau of the Budget—because of its communications with the White House, the departments, and the appropriations committees of the Congress—came to have a unique feel for setting the proper dosages from year to year. As Professor Erwin Hargrove writes in a forthcoming book on the presidency: “The Bureau of the Budget became expert at striking balances and reconciling the President’s directives with the missions of agencies and the perspectives of Congressional appropriations committees. Bureau functionaries were experts in the politics of incremental adjustment. ...”

But though not many recognized it at the time, the transformation of the Bureau of the Budget into the Office of Management and Budget actually signaled an end to the politics of incremental adjustment. Instead of developing new programs for the White House and feeding them in small doses—past the stiny appropriations committees, after the fashion of the old BOB, the new OMB has been dedicated to cutting back old programs and improving performance of extant operations. Not surprisingly, the character of the leadership has changed. The economists who were dominant from 1960 through 1970 have been replaced by the business school managers, headed up by two products of the Harvard Business School: director Roy Ash and his deputy, Frederic Malek. About a hundred business school graduates have been brought into the OMB, nearly a sixth of its total staff. Two new associate directors—Walter Scott and Frank Zarb—have been recruited from the business community. When a very highly trained Harvard economist applied for a post at that level, he was rejected by Mr. Ash with a telling epithet. “He’s a phud,” Ash said, using the term of derision applied by Harvard Business School types for persons with advanced academic degrees.

Just how well OMB does in improving government operations is a matter of dispute. Some claim that truly important progress has been made in developing a capacity to assess government operations. Mr. Malek claims, “The team we’ve put together ... may be the best in government.” Mr. Scott asserts that the OMB stepped in and helped run the Justice Department during the period after the firing of Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus. Others say that the management boys in OMB waste everybody’s time with complicated studies built around slogans. An OMB attempt to

(SEE WHO'S RUNNING......Pg. 9-F)

8-F

define the "major goals" of the Transportation Department, for example, yielded a directive already issued by the Congress: "Develop a national transportation policy." In any case, the new managerial function makes OMB far less a power than in the days when it occupied the center of incremental politics. And OMB's effectiveness has been further limited by the involvement of some of its top officials in personal scrapes that would have been unthinkable in the old Budget Bureau. As a founder and former chief executive of Litton Industries, Mr. Ash is constantly being questioned about the decline of that company. Mr. Malek, as a former high official of the Committee to Re-Elect the President, has Watergate on his hands. So does Lawrence Higby, a former lieutenant to H. R. Halderman who has been promoted to a top spot as a special assistant in OMB.

As a final index of the plight of OMB, there is clear evidence that the present director does not have what all past directors have always had—good access to the President. Mr. Ash went to San Clemente for a final scouting of the budget on the weekend of January 4. I happened to ride with him to Dulles Airport, and he was quite confident that he would be talking to Mr. Nixon. As it developed, he did not get to see the President. He did all his business with General Haig. When that information came back to Washington, the stock of Mr. Ash and his OMB plummeted. As one former director of the Bureau of the Budget remarked: "That the director didn't have access to the President when he needed to see him is inconceivable to me. It means OMB has gone to hell."

Theoretically, the weakening of the central control mechanisms should have been a boon for the rest of the government. The cat was away and the mice could play. Only it turns out that some of the mice can play a little better than other mice. To understand why, it is useful to borrow a distinction made by Professor Thomas Cronin between the "outer Cabinet" and the "inner Cabinet."

The outer Cabinet comprises those relatively new departments of government which have grown up as a result of constituency pressures, such as Agriculture and Labor. To improve presidential control over such departments, they were brought, in the second Nixon Administration, under the direction of men without any special drive or political independence. As a result, almost all the departments in the outer Cabinet have missed the present opportunity for self-aggrandizement. Interior, despite its historic role in the making of oil, gas, coal, and electric power policies, has not taken hold of the energy problem. Housing and Urban Development, despite the potential stimulus that home building could give a flagging economy, has not been able to put across its plans for a system of housing allowances. Agriculture, despite the strategic importance of American wheat and soybean production, has exerted less and less strength in international matters; indeed, Agriculture has been forced by the State Department to accept American participation in an international food conference, which Secretary Earl Butz was resisting for months. While Transportation has a new program whereby money from the Highway Trust Fund can be used, depending on local options, for mass transit, the idea came not from the department, but from a veteran of the OMB, associate

director Paul O'Neill. Commerce seems not even to have a connection with the trade bill now going through Congress. The Labor Department has become a joke. Peter Brennan, the building trade union leader from New York, has not even been given the task of liaison with the AFL-CIO. That has been done by a former Labor Secretary, an old friend of George Meany's, Secretary of the Treasury George Shultz. Another official on good terms with the unions, W. J. Usery, Jr., has been named a White House assistant for labor relations. Sign-readers interpret this as a hint to Mr. Brennan that he's dispensable.

The case of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare is different. Under Caspar Weinberger, HEW has emerged as a true powerhouse, able to push through major projects long held in abeyance. A $60-billion health insurance program has been sent up to Congress this year. The Administration wants to transfer the food stamp program from Agriculture to HEW. And, despite long odds, the Administration is again asking for a welfare reform package—another HEW proposition.

The exception in this case does prove the rule. Mr. Weinberger comes out of the inner White House circle; before going to HEW he had served as director of OMB, and won the President's personal confidence. Moreover, he has been strategically placed to take advantage of important congressional pressure. Some of the most powerful national Democrats—Ted Kennedy and Fritz Mondale in the Senate, and Wilbur Mills and Paul Rogers and John Brademas in the House—have been pushing hard for additional benefits in health, education, and welfare. The best way for the White House to avoid confrontation with the Congress was to give Mr. Weinberger his head.

The inner Cabinet includes those departments which, far from representing a particular constituency interest, are intrinsically presidential in focus. State, Defense, Treasury, and Justice (the original nucleus of the Cabinet) are included in Professor Cronin's list. All but the Department of Justice are flourishing. Justice has suffered because the Watergate Special Prosecutor has taken over most of the truly important cases. Attorney General William Saxbe, moreover, is not a figure who has worked for long with the President. On the contrary, he is in the job because, as a sitting member of the Senate, he could be confirmed without any embarrassing questions being asked. But the other department heads in the inner Cabinet are names to conjure with in Washington. They are the men whose hands work the lever of power.

Henry Kissinger's enormous power at the State Department is celebrated daily in headlines. Dr. Kissinger is always at pains to assert publicly that, as he told his January 3 news conference, the "Secretary of State has to be the agent of the President or he represents nothing." Wherever possible, Dr. Kissinger advertises personal involvement by Mr. Nixon. When the President, in October, 1973, ordered the airlift to Israel, that word was rapidly sent around town. Mr. Nixon himself spoke at great length of his "personal relations" with Leonid Brezhnev after the nuclear alert of October 24-25. The President personally announced the dis-

(SEE WHO'S RUNNING......... Pg. 10-F)

9-F

(WHO'S RUNNING THE COUNTRY?....................................CONTINUED.)

engagement between Israel and Egypt. He issued invitations to the foreign ministers who attended the international energy meeting in Washington on February 11. But much evidence indicates that—while it is bad form to say so, given the President's Watergate troubles—Kissinger is operating on his own to a remarkable extent. The nuclear alert, for example, was not preceded by a full-scale National Security Council meeting, contrary to what Kissinger at one point asserted. The Egyptians and Israelis with whom he conducted most of the negotiations for settlement in the Middle East did not have the impression they were dealing with Mr. Nixon. Golda Meir, in announcing the disengagement agreement, said that Kissinger "made history." One high official in Jerusalem put out a story, later denied, that Kissinger had told him President Nixon would yield office to Vice President Ford in another six months. In Cairo, the independent status of Kissinger was equally a matter of note. Egyptian journalist Mohamed Hasannein Heikal, who had a private interview with Kissinger, reported (in another statement denied in Washington) that the Secretary of State told him: "The President of the United States is incapable of performing any positive role in the Middle East crisis, even if he wanted to, because of domestic pressure on him."

As for the international energy problem, a critical step was taken on December 12 when Dr. Kissinger, in a speech in London, first proposed setting up an "action group" of the main consuming and producing countries. Until the very last moment the Kissinger text called only for a meeting of the consuming countries. He was persuaded to include the producing countries only when French Foreign Minister Michel Jobert indicated that his country would not participate if the group looked like a gang-up on the Arabs. It is not easy to see how Mr. Nixon could have done much more than accede to sudden shifts like that. One of Dr. Kissinger's chief assistants in the energy field says: "I don't think the President has any idea of what Henry is doing in energy."

George Shultz's personal impact on economic policy was less visible perhaps, but no less deep, than Kissinger's on foreign affairs. On succeeding John Connally as Secretary of the Treasury in 1972, Shultz made himself absolute master of the Administration's economic policy, with a powerful say in social policy. As boss of the Treasury Department, he asserted with a vengeance the Treasury's constant bias against tax changes. The result last year was a paucity of resources which powerfully inhibited the efforts of other departments to develop new programs. Perhaps the central decision of this year's budget was not to fight recession with a tax cut—a decision particularly dear to Shultz. Shultz also manipulated the dismantling of price controls, and arranged for a close friend, John Dunlop, to take over the Cost of Living Council. He put his own man, the then Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, William Simon, in charge of the energy program—with a strict injunction to avoid rationing at all costs. As a former Secretary of Labor, he was easily able to keep his touch on the Administration's relations with George Meany, and as the first director of the OMB, he knew how to influence overall budgetary policy and determine allocations to various departments.

Mr. Shultz has been far too good an operator—and too honorable a man—to allow much daylight to show between him and the President. Certainly

Mr. Nixon was not strongly opposed to what Shultz did. Still, the economic policy of the past few years does bear Shultz's distinct ideological brand, his pronounced belief that the free play of the market is the best of all possible regulators. The abandonment of Phase II economic controls back in January was probably precipitated by the Shultz influence; more important, its significance was advertised to the whole world as a Shultz move, a green light for market forces because the Secretary of the Treasury made it known that he had cleared the action on the golf course with none other than George Meany. Without in any way being disloyal to the President, moreover, Mr. Shultz slapped down hard anyone else who tried to get into the act. Arthur Burns, an old rival who now heads the Federal Reserve Board and entertains skeptical notions about Shultz's latter-day laissez-faire views, found that the only way he could make his ideas known in the White House was to lobby them through the leading Democrats in the Congress. When Melvin Laird urged the Administration to consider the possibility of tax changes, Shultz told him bluntly to keep his "cotton-picking hands off."

The influence of James Schlesinger at Defense is less clear. He has been in the office less than a year. He is surrounded by men appointed before his arrival—notably Deputy Secretary William Clements, a hard-bitten Texas oilman with whom the Secretary has little rapport. And the huge independent power of uniformed military always makes it difficult to tell where the real strength lies at the Pentagon.

Certainly the Secretary and the Pentagon are getting their way on some big programs. Defense outlays have risen from about $79.5 billion last year to nearly $85.8 billion for the 1975 fiscal year. Big ticket items, notably the Trident submarine and the B-1 bomber, are still going on the go-go board, and talk about cutting troop commitments in Europe is down to a whisper.

Like Kissinger and Shultz, Schlesinger is a Ph.D. who went on to an academic career—another indication that academic politics may be the best training ground for government these days. His specialty at the RAND Corporation was defense planning. He is probably the first Secretary of Defense to come to the job with a sophisticated interest in nuclear strategy. He has pushed into the public arena an abstruse debate about the appropriate design of the nuclear deterrent. This question has been discussed at high levels in the government for several years. Since about the middle of the last decade, the strategic deterrent has been designed according to the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction—MAD for short. The theory has been that if both the United States and the Soviet Union had enough nuclear weaponry to destroy one other power, even after suffering a first strike, neither would hit first. But Schlesinger and others have long pointed out that the MAD theory puts a premium on hitting cities—where the most destruction can be done. In the light of a stepped-up Soviet weapons program featuring highly accurate intercontinental missiles of enormous power, American strategists have come to fear that the Russians might be developing a capacity to knock out major parts of the American deterrent force. Behind this move, the strategists speculate, is a Russian calcu-

(SEE WHO'S RUNNING.........Pg. 11-F)

10-F

March 20, 1974 (22)

Aerospace Daily

STRATTON SEES FB-111 PUSH AS RESULT OF B-1 COST RISE

Rep. Samuel Stratton (D-N.Y.) indicated yesterday that the disclosure of new B-1 bomber program cost rises makes it increasingly likely that the House Armed Services Committee will vote to fund the FB-111 program.

Stratton told The DAILY that he expects a move to add FB-111 money to the fiscal 1975 military procurement bill. "If someone else doesn't, I probably will," he said. This could set up a repeat of last year's insertion by Congress of $167.8 million to keep the General Dynamics F-111 line open despite an Air Force refusal to seek funds.

The new B-1 cost increases amount to $1.3 billion and bring the total program estimate to $15 billion (DAILY, March 18). The AF seeks $499 million for the B-1 in FY 1975 with a production decision due to be made in November 1976.

Reiterating his firm support of the Rockwell International bomber program, Chairman F. Edward Hebert (D-La.) nevertheless acknowledged that there was strong support on the committee for the FB-111, but not necessarily as a hedge for the B-1.

Sen. Thomas J. McIntyre (D-N.H.), an aide said, is having his Senate Armed Services research and development subcommittee undertake "a very searching analysis of the whole program." McIntyre said that the increased B-1 estimate pushes Congress closer to making the basic decision of when the program ceases to be cost effective.

Stratton, pushing the FB-111 as a hedge or perhaps a supplement, said that even if the B-1 is better, "it will be so expensive we won't get the quantity we need." The latest cost estimate, he said, makes it a "hazardous thing to expect that Congress will appropriate all the money" the program will require.

The Air Force F-15 fighter, with a program cost rise of $1.4 billion to $9.3 billion, is probably less danger because it is further down the line in development. The service is seeking $1.076 billion in FY '75.

But Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.) said he wants the General Accounting Office to conduct a "thorough audit" of the program. He said he "doubts the Pentagon claim that restructuring the program caused all the increase and resents the Pentagon assertion that Congress was at fault."

Aspin, charging "goldplating" on the F-15, cited new versions of the Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles and a new gun for the aircraft which he said would cost more than earlier versions of the same weapons and have encountered technical difficulties and delays.

(WHO'S RUNNING THE COUNTRY?........................CONTINUED.)

lation that under such a Soviet threat, the United States, rather than go to total war, would yield on some key political issue. In response to this potential danger, the Pentagon has been moving to develop new intermediate weapons—notably smaller and more accurate nuclear bombs that would take out parts of the Soviet deterrent force. Similarly, the United States is beginning to re-target missiles toward Soviet launching sites as well as cities.

Schlesinger apparently went public in the strategic debate without much consultation inside the National Security Council. State Department negotiators, including Secretary Kissinger, were less than pleased. They felt that Schlesinger's assertions might complicate the next round of strategic arms control talks by giving Moscow the impression the military lobby had taken over in Washington. As one State Department official complained, "Whether he's right or wrong, Schlesinger shouldn't have said that publicly at a time when foreign countries are wondering about the staying power of the President." But right or wrong, Schlesinger has injected himself into the strategic debate. This time, President Nixon and Kissinger are not going to be able to make an arms limitation agreement without bringing the civilian side of the Pentagon into their discussions. As Kissinger himself once said to me, "Unless Schlesinger and I get together, this town will blow apart."

So far, they have been getting together. It can even be argued that, given the wounded condition of the President, government by his principal lieutenants works better. A nice example is the nuclear

alert called on the evening of October 24-25 in response to intimations of unilateral Soviet entry into the still hot war between Egypt and Israel. The American move—a proclamation of Defense. Readiness. Condition 3, known as Defcon 3—was decided by Secretary Kissinger and Secretary Schlesinger working together in the West Wing basement of the White House. President Nixon in the residential quarters was not present and seems to have been only belatedly informed. Defcon 3 was a rather cool reaction—a similar state of alert was in effect in the Western Pacific all during the last seven years of the Vietnam War. The proclamation of the alert was followed by a rapid standing-down by the Russians. A nascent crisis was thus ended without much fuss. The fuss came two days later when President Nixon at a press conference characterized what had happened as the most serious confrontation we had had since the Cuban missile crisis. In other words, when the President came into the picture, his need for a public triumph tended to make matters a good deal worse. Had he been involved all along, there might well have been genuine confrontation.

Still, cooperation among the barons is hit-or-miss. Moreover, there is something radically wrong when basic decisions of peace and war are made without the active participation of the country's highest elected official. So even if the barons of government stay strong, a new President will have to re-establish the powers of coordination. He will want to rebuild control mechanisms at the center, to re-implant a brain in the dinosaur. ☐

11-F

# What Does It All Mean?

By David Eisenhower

WASHINGTON—To a society that takes pride in political candor and directness, the current Confucius-Bee-thoven-Lin Piao fury in China is hilarious.

Newspapers have reported banner-waving throngs raging against ancient philosophers they have never read, German composers they have never heard, Italian films they have never seen. And China-watchers shower us with speculation on the campaign's potential impact on China's future leadership.

Nowhere else can politicians arouse the political passions of an entire nation for months with no obvious villans, heroes or immediate purpose while reserving all options. The campaign's unspoken targets have presumably gotten the message. Instigators remain free to press on or to cease, with no hard feelings, after deviators are "re-educated."

Imagine how different things might have been had we, six months ago, seen this news dispatch:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21—Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger today broke official silence on the explosive Andrew Jackson controversy, charging Jackson with "crimes, outlandish trickery, and bourgeois fetishism."

Appearing before a frenzied American University audience, Kissinger inserted his surprise comments at the conclusion of a speech denouncing John Jay as a "stool pigeon, renegade, Soviet lackey, gangster and generally devious fellow."

Diplomatic sources hesitated to ascribe great significance to Kissinger's remarks. State Department spokesman Robert J. McCloskey confined his reaction to a quote from Richard M. Nixon's "Six Crises" in which Nixon exhibits cadres: "Dare to struggle until all enemies of the people are brought to their just deserts."

The development ignited a storm of rumors around Washington in anticipation of possible Congressional countermoves. A peace of sorts settled over the city as Senator Sam J. Ervin Jr. in a late-afternoon press conference, termed Kissinger's remarks "appropriate," adding he for one would not rest until "we deal firmly with Trot-skyite bandits like Jackson."

President Nixon remained in isolation at the Camp David Presidential retreat, working on his scheduled address before the Solidarity Alliance. Presidential spokesman Gerald L. Warren dismissed as "foolish" suggestions that Kissinger had acted at Nixon's behest.

On second thought, one wonders if the Chinese way of politics—subtlety and circumspection—is so ridiculous after all. A difference of substance—or style?

David Eisenhower is a student at George Washington University law school.

Art Buchwald

What Are Friends for?

WASHINGTON — People may deny it, but there is nothing a country enjoys more than being insulted and threatened by another country. It brings the natives out of their lethargy, it gets the juices flowing in the parliament and the press and it gives leaders an opportunity to distract their countrymen from their problems at home.

It is in this context that we must look at the recent attacks Henry Kissinger and President Nixon have made on the Western European countries. I can now reveal exclusively what was behind the attacks and why they were made.

Six weeks ago the foreign ministers of Europe demanded to meet with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The announced purpose of the meeting was to discuss what to do about the oil situation. But the real purpose of the gathering was to discuss ways of getting Europeans excited again about their role in world affairs.

At the meeting Kissinger led off by saying how happy he was that things were going so well between the United States and Europe, and that President Nixon was looking forward to his trip there in April. He predicted that with the detente, the ties between the Common Market countries and the United States would be closer than ever.

The French foreign minister said, "That is what we came to talk to you about. We don't want closer ties, we want worse ones."

Kissinger looked shocked. "I don't understand."

"Speaking for my own government, the French are sick and tired of having good relations with the United States. It was all right when we had bad relations with the Soviets and the Chinese. But now that we can't attack them any more, you're the only superpower left that the French can get angry at."

"Why tell me?" Kissinger said in a huff. "Why don't you just get mad at us?"

"We can't do it alone. We have to be provoked into taking a hard line against you. The provocation can only come from you and the President."

"You're asking us to attack you so the French people can get mad at us?"

"You owe it to us," the French foreign minister said, "after all France has done for you."

Kissinger looked at the other foreign ministers. "Do you feel that way, also?"

"I'm afraid so, Henry," the West German foreign minister said. "It would be a big help to Willy Brandt's government if we could accuse you of bad faith. The German people have had it so good for so long that they're miserable. If we could drive a wedge between the United States and Germany it would seem like old times."

The Italian foreign minister said, "My

government will fall unless the people have something else to worry about other than the corruption of their own politicians."

The Danish foreign minister added, "We're a small country, but if you would just insult us by name you can't imagine what it would do for Danish morale."

Kissinger said he would discuss it with the President.

The next day when he relayed the request to Mr. Nixon, the President was horrified. "But what about NATO and the defense of the Free World?"

"No problem," Kissinger said. "No one takes NATO seriously anyway. Actually I don't think it's a bad idea. If we could get a good feud going with Europe, it would help us as well. It might take the American people's minds off Watergate."

"All right, Henry, it's worth a try. Why don't you insult the NATO countries at a briefing you're giving to the American diplomatic wives in Washington, and I'll threaten to take the troops out of Europe when I go to Chicago."

Kissinger went back and reported the President's decision to the foreign ministers. They were elated at the news.

He shrugged off their gratitude with a smile and said, "After all, what are allies for?"

Los Angeles Times

## to Prison Units

will be Saturday, April 13, at the Huntsville units of Walls, Diagnostic, Ferguson, and Bethune Day Nursery.

Grip is $15 for adults and no charge for children small

enough to be held. Some half-fares are available for children.

Tickets will be sold Saturday between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. at the Mercantile National bank parking lot at 4211 Ayers and at the Bethune Day Nursery at Coke and Winnebago.

## in corpus christi

* George Parr, Duval County political leader who was convicted this week of income tax evasion, was interviewed yesterday by Calvin H. Bowden, federal probation officer here. It was the first of several interviews held during a pre-sentence investigation, Bowden said. U.S. District Judge Owen D. Cox said he will sentence Parr after the investigation is completed. Maximum penalty for the charge is 32 years in prison and $60,000 in fines.

* Travis Wilson of 110 W. Roosevelt, whose wife, Margaret, was killed when two Arab terrorists threw firebombs into a Pan American jetliner they were on at Rome airport Dec. 16, has sued the airline

for sale will be an old road maintainer, a water well pump, desks, chairs, typewriters, adding machines, mercury vapor lighting fixtures and others.

* The City of Corpus Christi while making good progress in getting temporary buildings for use in its program for the aged is making less progress in appeasing ethnic groups. City Manager Marvin Townsend said there has been resistance by the elderly. City Councilman Ricardo Gonzalez said the old Washington Elementary School as a result might end up a "black center."

* City Manager Marvin Townsend said

## line

plumbers to fix the leak

Were government employes negligent?

It's a complex problem, so you should contact a lawyer. Or you could contact the U.S. attorney in Houston and ask about filing a claim. You might want to write your congressman and senator, Legal Aid suggests.

in the recent brush fire at are told the fire started on Shouldn't they be

Nixon, Kissinger provoking
showdown with our allies

Why did President Nixon take a gratuitous
shot at the European allies in his Chicago
appearance last week? And why, for the previous
10 days, did Henry Kissinger knock the allies in
statements to newsmen, senators and even
congressional wives?

The answer is that the President and the secretary of state are provoking a showdown in order to force the allies, once and for all, onto the road of Atlantic partnership with this country. In the bargain, the allies would be put on the defensive and therefore unable to upset ongoing negotiations in the Near East and with the Soviet Union. Which is very nice, except that the bold move is apt to backfire with adverse consequences both abroad and in the United States.

Behind all this is the slow, unsteady progress
towards political unity which Europe has been
making following the entry of Britain in the
Common Market last year. The French have
been using the process to build a Gaullist Europe
—divorced from the United States.

Most of the other European countries, and
especially West Germany, want to stick close to
the United States. So while going along with
France on procedural questions, they have tried
to cooperate with the United States on practical
matters.

Practical cooperation on specific problems
has not been good enough for the President and
the secretary of state. A year ago, in a speech
which spoke of the Year of Europe, Dr. Kissinger
called for an Atlantic dialogue to foster
agreement at the highest levels on a joint
statement of basic principles.

As predicted here and elsewhere, the dialogue
resulted only in a highly generalized statement.
Moreover, Dr. Kissinger was furious when the
Europeans, last fall, prepared a draft statement
and presented it to the United States without
previous consultation, as an accomplished fact.

The consultation issue erupted again as a
result of Dr. Kissinger's efforts to organize
cooperation with the allies on the energy
question. At the Washington energy conference
last month, he did prevail on eight of the
European countries to agree to work jointly with

the United States in dealing with problems
growing out of the energy crisis. France, which
opposed any cooperation, was left isolated.

But the French made a slight comeback by
prevailing upon the other European countries, on
March 4, to agree to a forthcoming meeting with
Arab leaders from which the United States would
be excluded.

Immediately thereafter, Dr. Kissinger began
loosing against the Europeans what the
Economist of London called "Henry's
thunderbolts." The President then piled it on in
Chicago by indicating this country would
withdraw troops from Europe if the allies did not
cooperate more in political and economic issues.

Both men have a point. The habit of
nonconsultation is bad. Unless checked soon, it
could harden over the years so that eventually
the United States and Europe would drift apart
on all major issues.

At bottom, however, I think the President and
Dr. Kissinger are playing with fire. Advance
consultation is not all that important — and they
know it better than anybody. No present
government, not excluding the Nixon
government, is strong enough to make binding
commitments about the future of Atlantic
partnership.

By forcing a conflict now, practical
cooperation on specific issues is made more
difficult. Worst of all, by raising the troop
question, Mr. Nixon is only playing into the
hands of those in this country who want to
withdraw troops as a first step in an over-all
thinning of relations with Europe.

By Joseph Kraft

Publishers-Hall Syndicate

Horace Cleveland, retired Social Security director here and a member of the site selection committee of the elderly program, also defended the selected spot. He said other parts of the park could be turned into grassy and shade areas. He said "it didn't occur" to his committee to consult with the park board before making a selection.

Jack Solka, a member of the Municipal Arts Commission, spoke from the audience to recommend formation of a

-Approved preliminary plans for improvements to McGee Beach, which will include a new bathhouse, redevelopment of the sandy beach and improvements to the breakwater. The only unhappiness expressed by the board concerned a statement by Lontos that there would not be enough money for putting lighting along a large part of the breakwater.

-Directed the park and recreation staff to work with representatives of the Track 16

approval will go to the City Council.

-Heard and approved a proposal from R. S. Garza, superintendent of the West Oso school district, for the district to make available school property for development as a city park. The proposal will go to the City Council for consideration.

-Approved the high bid of $6,001.50 from Robert Tamez for rental of Memorial Coliseum and Exposition Hall for New Year's Eve dances. Two bids were received.

## of senior citizen centers backed

considerations.

Moves were made to postpone the group's recommendation, but after some prompting a decision was made to support the "esthetics of the plan."

The full recommendation included one reservation though. "The Municipal Arts Commission approves the design concept ... subject to approval by the (commission's) architectural design committee and proper screening and landscaping of

the center's parking areas ...," said commissioner member Jim Boggs, who stated the recommendation for the record.

A commission subcommittee, headed by Boggs, has been working on a landscape ordinance for the city similar to ones now in effect in Miami, Fla., and San Diego and Fresno, Calif.

The ordinance would require parking areas for all buildings receiving new construction and reconstruction permits "to ...

enhance the character and value of neighborhoods."

One of the biggest hurdles to a successful ordinance will be enforcement, he added.

In other action the commission also recommended approval of plans for McGee Beach improvements "subject to design changes to insure sanitary and security provisions for the women's and men's rest rooms." Suggested changes were skylights and open ventilation for the rest room areas.

1874-1974

Lichtenstein's
A Century of Service to South Texas

A4

Friday, March 22, 1974

THE WASHINGTON POST

# Kissinger Tells of 3-Power
## Talks on Europe Troop Cuts

### KISSINGER, From A1

tente. As a consequence, he avoided specific forecasts about his task of preparing the ground for a projected trip by President Nixon to Moscow in June.

His reference to U.S.-British-German talks here on European troop reductions was volunteered, but fleeting. Kissinger cited these discussions as an illustration—that allied consultations are going on despite strains in the alliance.

Kissinger said that "With respect to... the negotiations of troop reductions, they are continuing on the course that has been agreed to in NATO. We have had a trilateral conversation that has been foreseen with the United Kingdom and the [West German] Federal Republic this week. These conversations went well, and there is an agreed allied position which we will continue to pursue."

U.S. officials sought afterward to minimize the significance and the timing of the talks with British and German

experts, which took place from Monday to Wednesday. They said they were long planned, held by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency at request of the Europeans, and only coincidental with Kissinger's trip to Moscow.

Other sourceese described the talks as significant, but too sensitive to describe. The basic East-West negotiations are under way in Vienna, and there is high allied sensitivity about discussions in other forums.

Kissinger appealed twice during his press conference to the Europeans to respond to the American initiative to redefine the common purposes of the Atlantic alliance.

"It is now up to the European countries to respond to the many overtures we have made over the last year," he said. "It is now up to the Europeans, either individually or as a group, to make a proposal to us."

He lamented that what he had hoped would become "a symbolic expression of a set of new purposes... has turned

into a jurisdictional, doctrinal, legalistic dispute."

Kissinger said that efforts to get new U.S.-Common Market declarations in the economic and security fields—growing out of his speech last April calling for a "year of Europe"—were designed to counter a growing sense of isolationism in the United States. "The purposes of which we were conscious," he said, "were to counteract what seemed to us an evolution in America towards shedding responsibility."

The United States, Kissinger said, had not proposed linkage of political, economic and security factors "as a form of blackmail. We were not trying to trade in one negotiation against another negotiation... It was an appeal to common statesmanship, not an invitation to a barter."

Kissinger sought to discount the impact of the impeachment threat hanging over President Nixon on the negotiations he will conduct to prepare for new U.S.-Soviet summit talks.

He said, "My understanding is that—from what I have read in the papers—that the impeachment inquiry is likely to be concluded before these trips."

The prime subject on Kissinger's agenda in Moscow is achieving a breakthrough in the present, second stage of U.S.-Soviet Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, now recessed in Geneva.

Kissinger said technical discussions had reached a point where a "conceptual breakthrough" had become necessary to move the negotiations forward. "The two sides have to agree on what it is they are trying to accomplish," he said.

Kissinger at one point qualified the prospects by saying "if" there is "a SALT agreement this year." At another point he said, "I think the prospects are reasonably good," for achieving an agreement. Kissinger, however, made no attempt to project the completion of a fully comprehensive accord in 1974. The focus is on a limited accord on multiple nuclear warheads in initial stages.

Kissinger acknowledged that it will be insufficient to produce a new SALT accord at this stage that would be only a generality. Instead, he said, it should have "an adequate concreteness, and it will not be simply general principles."

Associated Press.

Kissinger tells reporters of trilateral discussions.

THE WASHINGTON POST

Friday, March 22, 1974

Consumer
Measure
Advances

By Mary Russell

Washington Post Staff Writer

Legislation to establish a consumer protection agency was approved yesterday by the House Government Operations Committee after the committee repeatedly rebuffed last-minute attempts by the Nixon administration and business to weaken the bill significantly.

The vote was 33 to 2 with only Republicans Sam Steiger of Arizona and Johnchanan of Alabama voting no. Another pro forma vote to report out the bill is to be taken next Tuesday, since a quorum was not present during the final minutes yesterday.

Attempts to pass legislation establishing the agency have been snafued in either the House or the Senate for five years. But prospects for the current bill are considered good, since the measure represents a compromise between pro-consumer and pro-business interests.

An even stronger bill is pending before the Senate Government Operations Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee, where action is expected in about a month.

Despite the last-minute weakening efforts Office of Management and Budget Director Roy L. Ash, in a letter to committee chairman Chet Holifield (D-Calif.) Tuesday,

THE WASHINGTON POST, F

Joseph Alsop

3/22/74

# Arms Limit: Another Turning Point?

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger's oncoming journey to the Soviet Union may perhaps be another major turning point, like his first journey, but a lot less encouraging. This is the current view in the small inner group of U.S. policymakers.

Superficially, many of the signs are hopeful. For example, the Soviets have already let it be known that General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev will probably receive the Secretary of State at the politburo's hunting lodge, Zavidovo.

This is a far more signal honor, with far more political importance than anyone seems to understand in this country. Prior to last year's four day meeting between Brezhnev and Kissinger, no Western leader had ever been received at this huge, closely guarded, strongly walled lodge in the deep forest. But now Kissinger is apparently to see Zavidovo a second time. If Kissinger's French counterpart, Michel Jobert, were ever to be admitted to Zavidovo, it would be on the French front pages for a matter of days.

But showing exceptional honor to a visitor does not always insure agreement with the visitor and that is the source of apprehension in the policy makers' inner group.

To balance the prospect of Zavidovo, to begin with, there have also been some warning signals in Moscow. Minor criticisms of the Secretary of State have appeared in the Soviet press. Brezhnev has been a bit less optimistic about the future of "detente." The formidable minister of defense, Marshal Andrei Grechko, has roared loudly

about the importance of a super-strong national defense.

Yet the main sources of concern are far more general. Month after month, the U.S. policymakers have been vainly trying to square the circle in their search for the best U.S. line in the second round of SALT talks. In other words, they have been looking for a possible basis for accommodation with the Soviets, that would also meet the requirements of our national defense.

This has been like squaring the circle because of the successful Soviet tests of a whole new generation of intercontinental missiles, embodying MIRVed warheads and other major improvements. The Soviet missile tests exploded the illusion of a permanent U.S. technological lead. And it was this illusion that really made the first SALT agreement possible.

The policymakers trying to square the circle finally had to face up to the threat of heavy Soviet superiority in nuclear-strategic power in the near future. In consequence, they agreed that circle-squaring was not feasible. They concluded they must insist upon "essential equivalence" in the nuclear-strategic power of the United States and U.S.S.R.

At a minimum, unhappily, a new SALT agreement honestly based upon "essential equivalence" will require the Soviets to put a halt to major weapons programs they are already working on. That is the rub of what Kissinger is going to have to propose to Brezhnev, and through Brezhnev, to Grechko.

Barrels of hogwash have been written about an alleged tug-of-war between Grechko and Brezhnev over

"detente." In reality, the evidence is almost overwhelming that Brezhnev and Grechko form an intimate partnership that is the real power-center of the present Soviet government. That situation first arose when Brezhnev helped Grechko become defense minister, despite the desire of a politburo majority for a minister who was not a professional military officer.

The Intimacy of the Brezhnev-Grechko partnership was fully confirmed during President Nixon's visit to Moscow in 1972. It was then possible to make detailed, prolonged observations of the demeanor of the Soviet leaders in their dealings with one another. The general secretary and the defense minister were visibly much closer to each other than any other leaders of the regime. Nor is it necessary to suppose that they have ever disagreed about "detente."

What is called "detente," after all, can easily turn out to be a policy of tranquilizers-for-the-West. Such a policy will be most useful, if and when the Soviets decide to get tough. That is all but certainly the way Brezhnev has presented "detente" to Grechko. But it will be quite different, rather obviously, if American insistence on an honest nuclear-strategic balance turns out to require Grechko to roll back some of his key defense programs.

One can hardly imagine the Soviet government taking such a step. So you have a dilemma with the usual two horns. Either Kissinger may not really insist on an honest nuclear-strategic balance. Or the recent trend of U.S.-Soviet relations may easily go into reverse.

© 1974, Los Angeles Times

Kissinger Foresees

# No New Arab Oil Embargo

By BARRY SCHWEID

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger today said he does not expect the Arabs to reimpose their oil embargo against the United States and that he does not hold the Soviet Union responsible for the outbreaks of fighting between Israel and Syria in the Golan Heights.

At a news conference in advance of a trip to Moscow, Kissinger said, "Both of us have an obligation to contribute to peace and both of us are exchanging ideas on this subject."

Most of the Arab oil countries announced last Monday in Vienna that they would lift the embargo against shipments that they had imposed during the Middle East war because of United States support for Israel.

Kissinger said it was his understanding that the embargo could be reimposed only by unanimous vote and that he did not consider such a reversal likely. Arab oil ministers are scheduled to meet in Cairo on June 1 to review the situation.

Kissinger called the clashes between Israel and Syria in the Golan Heights an inevitable result of friction in the region.

He flatly dismissed any suggestions that Moscow had provoked Syria.

"We do not hold the Soviet Union responsible for the artillery exchanges now going on in the Golan Heights," Kissinger said.

On another subject, U.S. relations with Europe, Kissinger said he and President Nixon were not using "a form of blackmail" in warning that Congress

See KISSINGER, Page 16A

Washington told an international conference on artificial fishing reefs here Wednesday such a move is necessary to prevent depletion of America's fisheries by foreign fleets.

Stroud said it would be difficult to enforce a State Department plan to extend U.S. territorial control based on how far or near into the ocean fish stocks might range.

Representatives from several nations told of reef building activities in their countries.

Takashi Ino of the Japan Sea Park Society in Tokyo said concrete-block reefs have been installed in 3,866 locations throughout the country since 1962."

Michel Beguery, scientific attaché of the French Embassy in Washington, said only three artificial reefs have been constructed in France. He said his country considers reefs less effective than aquaculture in increasing fishery

"The only significant opportunity this Congress will have to prevent future Watergates is campaign finance reform," the newspaper ad said.

corpus christi

TIMES

P. O. Box 9136

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, 78408

Published each weekday afternoon except Saturday at 820 N. Lower Broadway, Corpus Christi, Texas by the Caller-Times Publishing Co. Second class postage paid at Corpus Christi, Texas.

<table><tr><td>Edward H. Harte</td><td>Editor and Publisher</td></tr><tr><td>Allan P. Johnson III</td><td>President</td></tr><tr><td>John L. Stallings</td><td>Executive Editor</td></tr><tr><td>John B. Anderson</td><td>Managing Editor</td></tr><tr><td>Ronald A. Miller</td><td>Advertising Director</td></tr><tr><td>George Wanstrath</td><td>Business Manager</td></tr><tr><td>Clarence Trafton</td><td>Circulation Manager</td></tr><tr><td>J. Roy Daniel</td><td>Production Manager</td></tr><tr><td>James J. Wesson</td><td>Personnel Manager</td></tr><tr><td>Andy L. Schoepf</td><td>Retail Manager</td></tr><tr><td>Richard D. Hardin</td><td>Classified Manager</td></tr><tr><td>Steve W. Sullivan</td><td>National Manager</td></tr><tr><td>Charles F. Hoch</td><td>Creative Director</td></tr><tr><td>Kenneth D. Holt</td><td>Controller</td></tr></table>

Member of The Associated Press. The Associated Press is entitled exclusively to the use for publication of all local news

CROSBY S. NOYES

STAR-NEWS

3/21/74

# Rumblings From Abroad

President Nixon's foreign policy — the often-invoked pride of his administration and the major bulwark against his impeachment for high crimes and misde-meanors — is in serious trouble in every major area of concern.

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, to be sure, is still the greatest asset the administration has going for it. The record of accomplishment is still there to be recited: Extrication from Indochina, reconciliation with China, detente with Russia and movement toward arms limitation, progress toward peace in the Middle East.

Yet it is one thing to point to what has been done over the last five years and quite another to predict the results of the next three. For a variety of reasons, there are serious doubts, both inside the administration and out, that the momentum of accomplishment in the area of foreign policy can be maintained.

Relations with Western Europe are worse today than at any time in the last 20 years. The "cornerstone of American foreign policy" — the Atlantic Alliance — is visibly crumbling and the process is being accelerated by the administration which itself proclaimed the need for a "new Atlantic Charter" less than a year ago.

On two occasions within the last week, both the President and his secretary of State have seen fit to take off against the European allies in terms that must have been calculated to arouse the strongest adverse reaction in any European audience.

The rhetorical line taken by the administration has greatly strengthened the argument, pressed by the French, that the United States is seeking to reaffirm a position of political and economic hegemony in Western Europe. It also has amounted to an open invita-

tion to the American Congress to follow its isolationist inclinations by stripping Western Europe of any American protection unless it shapes up in the economic and political areas.

It simply is not realistic to believe that at this point such an approach to Atlantic solidarity will work. Even Europeans who worry about their security are offended by the crudity of the American demands. For the last 20 years, with strong American encouragement, they have tried to build themselves into a viable economic and political entity. They have not yet succeeded, but they have gone far enough to refuse to return to the condition of complete psychological dependency on the United States that existed 20 years ago.

Our increasing problems in dealing with our friends inevitably complicate the problems of dealing with our adversaries. Henry Kissinger's judgment that the latter exercise is the easier of the two is likely to be severely tested in the coming months.

In the area of strategic arms limitation, the second of the SALT negotiations seems to be getting nowhere. The strong impression is that if the Russians come to the conclusion that we are serious in demanding a kind of institutionalized balance of nuclear power, they will very rapidly lose interest in these negotiations. Or else they will stall for time in the hope of a more compliant American administration in the reasonably near future.

As the alliance relationship deteriorates, detente itself becomes an increasingly dubious currency. Detente, as the name implies, is very much a European concept, designed to secure certain desirable objectives. As the sense of insecurity in Europe grows — and as detente is increasingly recognized as a series of one-way concessions by the West to the Soviet Union — its attraction as a policy is likely to suffer.

There is no space, very obviously, to go into any detail when it comes to the other major areas of Nixon's foreign policy. But it is probable that his efforts and initiatives in Vietnam, China and the Middle East also are in for rough sailing in the coming months.

In Vietnam, the pace of the fighting reached its highest point this week since the proclamation of the "cease-fire" more than a year ago, while resistance grows in Congress to further economic and military aid for the government in Saigon. In China, the chief architect of reconciliation with the United States, Premier Chou En-lai, appears to be coming under attack from more radical elements of the Communist establishment.

But it may be that the greatest crisis for the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy will take place in the Middle East in the very near future. Despite a great deal of optimistic talk, there is little real evidence that either the Arabs or the Israelis are prepared to make the concessions that will be necessary to achieve a peace settlement. It is quite possible that Kissinger's peace-making efforts will founder on the shoals of mutual suspicion and hostility. And if this should happen, the administration, rightly or wrongly, would receive a large share of the blame.

Meeting In Moscow

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's forthcoming trip to Moscow this weekend will afford him an opportunity to test his theory that it is easier to deal with this country's adversaries than its friends. The Kremlin leaders with whom Kissinger will spend several days conferring apparently intend to raise a number of sticky questions about the future of East-West relations.

The overall question apparently troubling the Soviet leaders concerns the validity and durability of the Soviet-American detente. Since President Nixon's last visit to Moscow in 1972, a number of problems have arisen which threaten the spirit of cooperation between the two superpowers. The purpose of the Kissinger trip is to deal with these problems in preparation for the next summit conference, scheduled later this spring.

The Soviet press in recent days has been sharply critical—even derisive—of American peace-making efforts in the Middle East. Pravda this week charged that “the United States continues to support the expansionist course of Israel both militarily and economically.” The Russians complain that the United States is proceeding unilaterally instead of cooperatively to achieve a settlement between Israel and her Arab neighbors. They are demanding that the coming negotiations between Israel and Syria on troop disengagement should take place within the framework of the Geneva conference in which they serve as co-chairman with the United States. They have been urging the

Arabs—apparently unsuccessfully—to maintain their oil embargo until Israel agrees to withdraw from Arab lands.

There are other points of friction as well. The Russians have reacted indig-nantly to calls for a new American strategic policy from Defense Secre-tary James R. Schlesinger, including plans for retargeting American mis-siles against Russian missile sites, and the development of new weapons systems. Disregarding their own mas-sive buildup, the Soviet leaders are warning of a new arms race in viola-tion of the agreement to limit strategic arms. In their view, the trend can only be reversed by new decisions taken at the summit level.

They are especially irked at what they see as an effort by the American Congress to meddle in their internal affairs. The outcry in this country over the suppression of Soviet dissidents and restrictions on the emigra-tion of Soviet Jews, combined with the failure of the administration to secure most-favored-nation status for Soviet trade, has cast a considerable chill over Russian-American relations.

It is Henry Kissinger's thesis, to be sure, that in a nuclear age there is no sane alternative to detente as a means of managing problems and avoiding nuclear war. Until now, it has seemed that Party Chief Leonid I. Brezhnev agreed with him. But it is also quite possible that next week's meeting in Moscow will mark a decisive turning-point on the road to East-West rap-prochement and it will take all of Kissinger's ingenuity to see that things turn the right way.

## INETTE

Danish octagon
It tone mar-re-
enhances the
fashioned chairs,

(Customer Pick-Up)

94

ery Only $96

## INETTE

Great things for
is finished in a
set with one leaf
pace when you
color metal legs
free wear.

(Customer Pick-Up)

67

very Only $69

(Customer Pick-Up)

On Trip to Soviet Union

wasserfass
3/21/74

# Kissinger Plans Stop In Bonn Next Week

Reuter

Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger will stop in Bonn for a few hours Monday on his way to the Soviet Union, the State Department announced yesterday.

During his stopover, Kissinger will have an opportunity for discussions with West German Foreign Minister Walter Scheel on Kissinger's trip to Moscow, the department said.

Tuesday, the United States and West Germany agreed in principle on a new two-year agreement for Germany to help finance the cost of stationing American troops in Europe.

The two ministers are likely to put final touches on the offset pact and also presumably will discuss the Atlantic split caused by differing views over the need for U.S.-European consultations on alliance matters.

## Nuclear Sales

Agence France-Presse

NEW DELHI, March 20—Prime Minister Indira Gandhi told Parliament today that India had started exploring foreign markets for export of nuclear components and instruments.

THE WASHINGTON POST

Wednesday, March 20, 1974

C3

# 'They Made Me Feel at Home'

By Judy Bachrach

Reprinted from yesterday's late edition.

Downstairs, in the Lincoln Museum section of Ford's Theater, Victor P. Sakovich, the Soviet Embassy's cultural counselor, was pouring champagne for every lady in reach and saying, "I must tell you, they really made me feel at home."

"They" was the City Center Acting Company, which had just opened "The Three Sisters" upstairs, and Sakovich was full of praise. For

everybody it seemed. Although one network newscast said that Pravda had announced the previous day that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's Mideast diplomacy was "a mountain that produced a mouse," Sakovich said that he personally felt that Kissinger "made a very good job."

But most of the 50 or so Russian dignitaries (a group that did not include Mrs. Anatoliy F. Dobrynin, although her attendance had

been expected) at the party were more anxious to discuss culture than politics.

Alexander P. Yevstafyev, the press counselor, first talked at length on the virtues of Dostoevsky with 71-year-old John Houseman, Oscar-nominee for best supporting actor in "Paper Chase," as well as artistic director of the City Center Acting Company. Then he launched into a jovial discussion with Alan Schneider, associate director of

Arena Stage. "Did you see 'Enemies'?" asked Schneider, referring to Gorky's play performed recently at the Arena. "How'd ya like it?"

Yevstafyev nodded his approval.

"Well, I directed it," crowed Schneider proudly. Yevstafyev considered that statement for a moment in silence, then said, "I liked it because it seemed to me like a seminar in Marxism in the capital of the United States."

THE WASHINGTON POST

C4 Wednesday, March 20, 1974

PEOPLE

COMMENTARY, From C1

Good Intentions,
Bad Vibrations

are controlled by the same companies selling fancy-wrap cancer of the spleen, or cancer of the colon in the package with the new, new, NEW, see-through window.

In an odd way, requiring nutritional labeling may make technically accurate but essentially misleading advertising claims about what's enriched, fortified, strengthened, pure and natural. Even the recommended minimum daily allowances of various nutrients that the government puts out are only ballpark estimates of doubtful use.

Pending better research and better dissemination of

But What Do Calendars Know About It

SPRING, From C1 eights, the falling leaf or a

12

MANCHESTER (N. H.) UNION

Auto Toll

Up to March 18, 1974

19-1,303

Up to March 18, 1973

15-1,607

CHAPLAIN

(Continued from Page One)

faced with the serious problem of inflation. Today inflation is no longer just a problem—it is a crisis,” said the former alternate delegate to the Democratic National Conventions pledged to Sen. Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and to Sen. George McGovern in 1972.

"The present administration has also pursued a policy which holds wage increases to a bare minimum, but permits corporate profits to rise by leaps and bounds. And now, at a time when inflation is at its worst, the administration is moving toward removing all controls. A move of this kind can only spell a lower standard of living for the people of New Hamoshire." forecast Mrs. Chaplain, who holds a master's degree in public law and government from Columbia University.

The Massachusetts native recalled that in 1972 she cited "the need for a federal policy to insure job security" "pointed out the glaring inequities in our present tax structure" and "called for federal legislation to guarantee adequate health care coverage for every citizen." She said all of these issues face "the citizens of the First District" today.

Mrs. Chaplain said she chose the State House press room to announce because "Concord is the capitol, it's convenient to the news media and I announced here two years ago." although privately she admitted she hoped Gov. Thomson might challenge her use of the press room.

She said she thinks "being a Congresswoman, being a Governor being any kind of

An Editorial

More Than Stupidity?

(Continued from Page One)

munist agent. This newspaper has never gone as far as that in its views of Dr. Kissinger.

However, we call our readers' attention to the article at the top of our back page today by our Washington columnist, Paul Scott. It contains some extremely shocking statements. It now appears that Russian Ambassador Dobrynin was receiving advance information on United States' strategy in Vietnam! That apparently was one of the reasons the Pentagon was so nervous over what was going on at the White House — about which they were not informed but which involved the safety of this nation.

FOR INSTANCE, SCOTT POINTS OUT THAT THE SOVIET EMBASSY LEARNED OF THE PLANS TO SEND TROOPS INTO CAMBODIA WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER THE DECISION WAS MADE AND EVEN BEFORE THE U.S. MILITARY COMMAND IN SAIGON WAS ORDERED TO BEGIN THAT OFFENSIVE!

Among other things, the Russians received information, that was immediately relayed to Hanoi, concerning the fact that our troops were not to go beyond 21 miles inside Cambodia. Naturally, the North Vietnamese Communists fled beyond the 21-mile limit and thumbed their noses at the U.S. forces, thus preventing the success of the plan to capture a large segment of the North Vietnamese army.

MAYBE this is all due to stupidity, but we are sure that many of our readers will ask the question: Can anyone BE so stupid?

WILLIAM LOEB, Publisher

currently held by Republican Congressman Louis Wyman of Manchester who seeks the Senate seat being retired by Norris Cotton. Atty. Normand D'Amours of Manchester announced last week.

Bridges will hold a news conference in Bedford today and is expected to become the

conduct a referendum on participation April 23. A date for a vote on participation in the voucher experiment has yet to be set in Deerfield, Berlin, Salem and Claremont. Salem conducted a public hearing last night and has another scheduled tonight while Claremont has a public hearing scheduled for April 4.

STAY ALIVE

(Continued from Page One)

dressed. And he loves a nice home as much as I do."

Income Or Insurance

But Charlie didn't have time to enjoy his wife or his home. To keep up with her increasing demands, he worked far into the night. He ignored his twinges of indigestion and laughed off the shortness of breath.

After his sudden death Joan said: "I wish I still had the choice. It wouldn't be hard to decide which I'd rather live on—my husband's income or his life insurance!"

Charlie, like all husbands, needed time to be lazy.

He needed the peace of mind that comes from being able to meet bills on time without living awake at night figuring out how to do it.

He needed a wife to stand between him and too much orestry: he needed a home filled with love and harmony.

"Heli mate" is a word that has gone out of fashion. Too bad, isn't it? Because that is precisely what a wife should be. A combination of mother, friend, companion, lover—and dietitian.

What's Your Wife's N.Q.?

Good nutritional habits can improve your health from poor to good, from good to optimum.

Strengthen your body's resistance to disease and you increase its capacity for repair.

A wise wife would not feed her overworked husband an indigestible, high-fat diet. She'd know that the fat, by turning it into excess cholesterol, could clog his blood vessels and choke up his coronary arteries.

The food we eat sustains our every life. But how many wives and mothers know which foods are good or bad for their families?

Test your wife on her N.Q. nutrition quotient.

Most women know the latest styles, but they lack the knowledge they need to feed a husband properly for his ordeal in the workaday world.

Knowledge is our weapon in the fight against disease. Facts alone the courage and determination to use them.

Why Invite Early Death?

Israel-Syria
Negotiations
Are Deferred

Wash Post 3-19-74

Reuter

The start of negotiations on the disengagement of Syrian and Israeli forces along the Golan Heights has been delayed, and the talks will not begin until March 29 at the earliest, U.S. officials said yesterday.

The talks were to have begun by the end of this week, but Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger said yesterday he would not meet with the Israeli representative, Defense Secretary Moshe Dayan, until Kissinger returns from a trip to Moscow and London at the end of next week.

The Syrian delegation will not arrive until after Dayan's departure, according to current expectations.

State Department spokesman George Vest made it clear that the Syrian and Israeli delegations would not be in Washington at the same time.

The best prospect now is that Kissinger will have to return to the Middle East, probably around April 21, to conclude a disengagement agreement.

March 18, '74
# Kissinger Plans April Trip
For Mideast Troop Accord

Hopes to Conclude Disengagement Pact
Between Israel and Syria Following
Preliminary Talks in Washington

By BERNARD GWERTZMAN

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, March 17—Secretary of State Kissinger has told his top aides that he will probably leave on another trip to the Middle East around April 20 to try to conclude a troop-separation agreement between Syria and Israel in the Golan Heights area.

The trip—his fifth to the Middle East since November—would take place after Mr. Kissinger holds preliminary talks in Washington with top Israeli and Syrian officials. Following the pattern he set during January's "shuttle diplomacy" between Egypt and Israel, Mr. Kissinger wants to narrow the differences between Israel and Syria before embarking on another mission to Damascus and Jerusalem.

Israel announced today that Defense Minister Moshe Dayan would come to Washington soon for the initial exchange with Mr. Kissinger on disengagement proposals for the Golan Heights. Syria has not yet chosen her representative but is expected to name a high-ranking military leader.

Mr. Kissinger leaves next Sunday for several days of talks in Moscow on the agenda for President's Nixon's expected return trip to the Soviet Union in June.

He is not due back in Washington until March 29 or 30. This means that his separate

talks with Mr. Dayan and the Syrian representative would begin either late this week, before his departure for Moscow, or in early April.

A State Department official said that Mr. Kissinger had discussed his travel plans at a meeting of his assistant secretaries late last week. Mr. Kissinger also said that he wanted to take a week-long vacation after the Moscow trip.

Mr. Kissinger has stressed that his negotiating plans were independent of whatever action the Arab oil ministers take on lifting the oil embargo against the United States.

But it was clear—as President Nixon stressed publicly on Friday—that the United States would not consider it helpful to Mr. Kissinger's peace efforts if the Arabs made the lifting of the embargo conditional on his getting concessions from Israel.

The White House and the State Department both declined to comment officially on the inconclusive meeting of Arab oil ministers in Vienna today, preferring to wait until a formal decision on the oil embargo was reached by the Arabs, perhaps tomorrow.

Some Administration officials said today that they thought the delay in an announcement of an end to the embargo was a result of dif-

Continued on Page 10, Column 1

Kennedy Complains to Kissinger
On Criticism by Envoy in Saigon

NY Times 3-18-74

WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters)—Senator Edward M. Kennedy has told Secretary of State Kissinger that a cablegram from the United States Ambassador in South Vietnam has raised the "worst kind of innuendo" about Congressional criticisms of American policy in Indochina.

Mr. Kennedy made his March 13 letter public today as he and other members of Congress critical of the continued United States involvement in Indochina stepped up the campaign to cut off military aid to South Vietnam. The Massachusetts Democrat asked Mr. Kissinger to explain exactly what the United States was doing in Indochina with its continued military and economic aid to South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

Mr. Kennedy's letter criticized a March 6 cablegram sent to the State Department by Graham A. Martin, the Ambassador to Saigon. The cablegram, which was published in part in the press earlier this month, said that Hanoi was trying to use "the remnants of the American 'peace movement' to bring influence to bear on selective susceptible, but influential, elements of American communications media and, particularly, on susceptible Congressional staffers."

"For him to suggest a tie," Mr. Kennedy wrote, "between alleged decisions in Hanoi and the views of members of Congress and their staffs about the course of American policy toward South Vietnam and In-

dochina is the worst kind of innuendo and regrettably ignores the many legitimate questions and concerns of the Congress and the American people over our commitments to the governments of Indonesia and over the continuing level of our involvement in the political and military confrontations of the area."

A sizable portion of Mr. Graham's cablegram contained criticism of an article written from Saigon by David K. Shipper of The New York Times. That article, which was printed on Feb. 25, reported on United States military aid to the Saigon Government.

This said, the article said, "continues to set the course of the war fore than a year after the signing of the Paris peace agreements and the final withdrawal of American troops."

Mr. Martin, in his cablegram, submitted a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal of the article, which he said contained "numerous inaccuracies and half truths."

Soviet, Awaiting Kissinger, Mocks His Mideast Role

NY Times 3-18-74

By HEDRICK SMITH

Special to The New York Times

MOSCOW, March 17—Pravda, the authoritative Communist party newspaper, today ridiculed the Mideast diplomacy of Secretary of State Kissinger as a modern “mountain that produced a mouse,” noting with approval that the Arab leaders completed their meeting in Libya last week without announcing the end of their oil embargo against the United States.

The newspaper also asserted that the Nixon Administration's latest volley of criticism against Western Europe "threatens to sink" the expanded European Common Market.

The Pravda article was the most pointed criticism of the United States to appear here in months.

It came only a week before Mr. Kissinger is due in Moscow for talks with high Soviet officials, including Leonid I. Brezhnev, the Communist party leader, to prepare for President Nixon's expected visit in June and also apparently to try to break the deadlock in the Soviet-American negotiations in Geneva on strategic arms.

The attack on Mr. Kissinger's personal diplomacy was extremely unusual for the Soviet press, given the high regard in which he had been held by the Soviet leadership previously. But the general tone of the

commentary was in keeping with what West European diplomats have interpreted as a hardening Soviet line on the Middle East.

It followed Mr. Brezhnev's sharp accusation two nights ago that the Western press was engaging in "malicious attacks" on the Soviet Union to try to slow détente.

Pravda declared that despite talk that Washington's Middle East policy had been reoriented, "actually the United States continues to support the expansionist course of Israel both militarily and economically."

The comments, appearing in Pravda's weekly international review, came closer than ever before to urging publicly that the Arab countries maintain their oil embargo against the United States, crediting that policy with having caused the present Western disarray and frictions.

"The oil embargo against the imperialist protectors of Israel proved effective and forced Washington to make certain gestures toward Arab countries," Pravda said.

"The energy crisis exerts its influence upon the whole system of relations in the camp of modern capitalism," it went on. "That is why issues of Arab oil and, inextricably linked to them, issues of a Middle East

Continued on Page 11, Column I

35

FROM KING FEATURES SYNDICATE, 235 EAST 45th ST., NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

FOR RELEASE MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1974

CHAMBERLAIN: Success in dealing with the Kremlin usually involves standing up to its leaders, not knuckling under.

## THESE DAYS
BY JOHN CHAMBERLAIN
### KISSINGER SHOULD LEARN FROM SOLZHENITSYN

There have been two of them. The first to stand up to the insatiable lords of the Kremlin with complete and utter defiance was Hungary's Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty. The second was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who dared to be himself as a free-wheeling critic and man of letters inside the prison camp that is Brezhnev's Russia. Solzhenitsyn even had the nerve to advise the Kremlin to give up Marxism.

The two men have been alike in preferring martyrdom to capitulation. Mindszenty spent seven years in jail and 15 years in forced asylum in the U.S. Embassy in Budapest rather than truckle to his Marxist oppressors. Solzhenitsyn was in and out of Communist labor camps, living to tell the lugubrious and still continuing story of the Soviet prison system in "The Gulag Archipelago," a work that has been described by those who have read it in German translation as "the greatest human document of our era."

Beyond their comparable qualities of character the two men have had another thing in common: their captors never quite dared kill them. Their bravery, coupled with the fact that they were sufficiently well known to be symbols, was the thing that saved them.

### Obvious Conclusion

You would think, then, that the lesson was plain for all to see: the way to get at least a modicum of respect and forebearance out of the lords of the Kremlin is to stand up to them. But the lesson has been lost on Pope Paul VI — "Maolo Sexto" as he is rudely referred to by the graffiti scrawlers of Rome — and on Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The Pope, hoping to gain some advantage for the church behind the Iron Curtain, retired the 82-year-old Mindszenty as Archbishop of Esztergom and Primate of Hungary, a title which the Cardinal had kept for some 25 years after his original arrest on trumped-up black market charges in 1949. As for Henry Kissinger, he would prefer to see nothing done in the U.S. Senate to exalt Solzhenitsyn. Kissinger thinks his policy of pushing detente with Moscow could be threatened if an anti-Communist spirit were to dominate on Capitol Hill.

The Vatican's action in the Mindszenty "retirement" is one more nail in the coffin of Captive Nation hopes for eventual freedom. The Pope's maneuver may get a few fellow-travelling priests appointed to vacant bishoprics inside of Hungary, but the big Catholic population will surely take the retirement for what it was, a surrender.

The Communists are chortling because they think Mindszenty's dismissal will more or less "neutralize" his memoirs, which are scheduled to be published in Germany some time in April.

### Not So Fast!

But you don't "neutralize" a good man that easily. The Hungarian-Americans whom I know as an old friend of the late Bela Fabian, who was Mindszenty's biographer, will see to it that the memoirs are spread wide and far in America once the anti-anti-Communist line in New York's publishing world has been breached, as it must be in the case of an author of the Cardinal's stature and fame.

(MORE)

BY JOHN CHAMBERLAIN

xx fame.

Henry Kissinger has obviously kept the White House from taking any interest in the effort of Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina to get Congress to proclaim Solzhenitsyn as honorary citizen of the United States. Surely if Winston Churchill deserved that honor for his services to the cause of freedom, Solzhenitsyn, who has caused the Kremlin to tremble without a single tank or machine gun to support him, merits as much. Sen. Helms's co-sponsors, Senators Bennett, Bartlett, Buckley, Beall, Brock, Curtis, Dole, Dominick, Fannin, Gurney, Hansen, Hatfield, Hruska, Javits, McIntyre, Packwood, Schweiker, Thurmond and Weicker, differ radically among themselves on general philosophy, but they have the Yankee common sense to agree that the only way to get a quid pro quo out of the Communists is by a show of strength.

Solzhenitsyn was saved by his refusal to bow his head. Why doesn't Henry Kissinger benefit by the example? He might even save his faltering detente if he were to take a few days off to go to the Solzhenitsyn-Mindszenty school.

Distributed by King Features Syndicate

(MP)

Charles W. Yost

BALTIMORE SUN 18 MARCH 1974 (17)

U.S., France Should End Quarreling

New York.

As a student in Paris in the late 1920's I acquired an affection and admiration for France and the French which has never been shaken. It is therefore with great distress that I find our two governments once again engaged in one of those unseemly public debates which all too often mar our traditional friendship.

It might well be agreed that both nations, particularly both governments, are displaying the withdrawal symptoms of those accused in the past to larger doses of power than they can now muster. In this respect France's plight is no doubt more traumatic, since for more than 400 years it was one of the giants of the Western world, and for part of that time the strongest giant.

The United States has had a much shorter period of pre-eminence, only about three decades, but also has not fully awakened to the fact that this pre-eminence is considerably less total than it was. The recovery of Europe, the rise of Japan, the independence and nonalignment of most of Asia and Africa, the waning of the Communist threat, the shift in the focus of scarcity from dollars to raw materials, have combined to make American power and presence less needed and hence less wanted.

The natural exasperation

which these respective reversals of fortune have evoked in both Gallic and Yankee breasts is foolishly being vented on each other. During the past 40 years this has become a bad habit on both sides. The Roosevelt administration treated General De Gaulle, during his most difficult days, with shocking ungraciousness. The General, when he came to power, repaid the "Anglo-Saxons" in the same coin with equally shocking displays of pique.

This inglorious tradition of family quarreling is now being continued by Henry A. Kissinger, the U.S. Secretary of State, and Michel Jobert, the French Foreign Minister. The French and other Europeans have been protesting for some time that the United States does not consult them adequately about its negotiations with the Soviet Union, its Middle Eastern policies and its sudden economic shocks and tolls. Now the Americans are complaining that they were not sufficiently consulted about the European Economic Community's offer last week of economic co-operation to Arab countries.

What the argument is really about is not consultation but concurrence. Both Americans and Europeans have on the whole, with some notable exceptions, been lavish in their mutual consultation, but both have also too often promptly thereafter exercised their

sovereign right to act unilaterally.

The French have recently been broadcasting their oft-heard charges of American "domination." This is of course silly. Europe has not been "dominated" by the United States for 20 years. Unfortunately it is not even dominated by Europeans.

There certainly is a regrettable imbalance within the alliance, between the powers of an undivided United States and those of a divided Europe. But that is largely the fault of France. France has, since 1958, been the main obstacle to a more united Europe. If France really wants Europe to match the strength of the U.S., it will have to insist much less on the independence of Paris and much more on the independence of Brussels, or wherever the headquarters of European Union may be.

The United States also is exasperatingly self-righteous. No matter how pure the administration's intentions may be in regard to detente with the Soviet Union and China, to a settlement in the Middle East, to coping with the energy crisis, to reviving the dollar, there is no reason to assume that we are always more right on these matters than are our European and Pacific allies, that they should gracefully fall in line with whatever tack we may take, or that we are entitled to display public indignation

U.S. & FRANCE-CONTINUED

I doubt it. President Pompidou's policy is still Gaullist, if on a deliberately reduced scale. It has pulled away from excessive pretensions—such as interference in Canadian Quebec—and helped Britain into the European Community. This reduction in scale has enabled France to concentrate on areas it considers of immediate interest, like Europe and the Mediterranean with its periphery of Arab oil-producing states.

In those areas, French determination is to be more, not less, influential and to bring the European Community's power along with it. Moreover, it has succeeded to a considerable extent, despite the pique this has produced in Washington, which would like to organize the whole show according to its own concepts.

Obviously, before going to Moscow this last week, Messrs. Pompidou and Jobert have determined to improve their negotiating position as much as possible on the two issues of European security and the Arab world by sticking a thumb in Uncle Sam's eye.

Henry Kissinger himself has stated that "a power which is absolutely committed has no negotiating position." France tried to negotiate a bit with Russia before turning back to Common Market Europe and the U.S.A. Now perhaps one may anticipate a less acerbic expression of French views toward this country's irritated American friend.

if they do not.

While hardly expecting, therefore, that Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Jobert will kiss and make up tomorrow (though if Dr. Kissinger can kiss Anwar Sadat, why not Mr. Jobert?), we might at least hope that a little sober reflection will once more remind both them and their respective publics of what a great friend of France, Benjamin Franklin, once said: "We must all hang together or we shall all hang separately."

SAN DIEGO UNION 4 MARCH 1974 (17)

IRVING SALOMON

Soviet Union Notebook

The Soviet government is having great difficulty in securing people to re-settle in areas where there is a strong demand for farm workers. Typical of the miscarriage of their program, more benefits are granted to people who settle in certain border regions than where the greatest labor shortage exists.

Soviet spokesmen suddenly have begun extolling the economies accruing from large-scale factory-farm complexes. They commenced many of these complexes in 1960, but they were not successful. In De-

cember the complexes were given the green light to commence again.

The Russian news media constantly is reporting on the wage conflicts, strikes, walkouts, etc. in the capitalist countries. They compare such activity with the domestic situation where workers are not allowed to strike.

Radio Moscow reports a crisis in the United States educational system — discrimination against national minorities and social inequality.

All of the Soviet news

media gives considerable coverage to Andrei Gromyko's recent visit to Washington and stresses that the visit was at the invitation of the American government.

A recurrent news item in the Soviet press has emphasis on the dissension within the European economic community. Among other things, it mentions the inability to reach a common approach to the energy crisis.

A talk over Radio Moscow deals with police repression in the United States and stated that "thousands and thousands of political prisoners are in American prisons."

Tass reports that aggressive reactionary forces in the United States oppose detente and invent conditions tantamount to interference in the domestic affairs of socialist countries. Tass also states that the U.S. circles which advertise military spending are the ones most active in opposing detente.

Party Chairman Leonid Brezhnev has persuaded Cuba's Fidel Castro to take an active part in the implementation of his "peace program" and to actively promote detente with Latin America and the United States.

The writer is a student of communism and a former United States envoy to the United Nations.

4-F

ARMY TIMES 20 MARCH 1974(17)

# The Colonel Didn't Like the Book

By Col. (USMC-Ret.) ROBERT D. HEINL JR.

A NOW-VANISHED rural sport at county fairs and carnivals used to feature luckless blacks, poking their heads through a canvas screen to be strafed with baseballs by show-off yokels at a nickel a throw.

The armed forces today are in the same fix as the gentleman with his head through the canvas. The pitchers today are a menagerie of self-anointed critics, instant experts who throw spitballs and cheap curves to discredit the competence, integrity or necessity of the American military establishment.

It was Robert Moskos who observed; "Antimilitarism is the anti-Semitism of American intellectuals."

Anybody who doubts Moskos need go no further than a new book — *Defeated: Inside America's Military Machine*, by Stuart H. Loory. It exemplifies the unfairness, factual looseness and intellectual shoddiness of those who make a good thing out of cutting up the military.

Do I mean Stuart H. Loory, award-winning foreign correspondent, ex-Washington reporter, ex-Woodrow Wilson fellow, ex-NBC-TV news editor, now Prof. Loory at Ohio State? Yes, I do.

"The theme of Defeated," to the extent any coherent theme can be synthesized, is that the American military machine has somehow defeated itself morally, technically and professionally. The defense establishment is, in his phrases, "wounded confused, drugged, demoralized, knotted in bureaucratic tape." Duty, honor, and country, he says have been replaced by a new trinity — me, myself, and I. He adds that the force is "incapable of defending the nation against attack, it is defeated."

It should immediately be interposed that, in the opinion of many experienced officers, the U.S. armed forces may well indeed be in their worst condition at any time in this century.

If this lends credibility to Loory, so be it.

But the reasons for this state of affairs, and indeed its real nature, are so remote from Loory's mishmash that no reader would discover them.

As a point of departure — and some indication of his attitude — Loory paid spot visits to U.S. bases bearing a letter from the Center for Constitutional Rights — a coven of antimilitary radical lawyers — introducing him to its network of "Dear Brothers in Peace."

Under this sponsorship and in company with the likes of antimilitary Rep. Ronald Dellums (D., Calif.) Loory gathered his evidence.

For example, while Loory writes in characteristically knowing style about Fort Bragg, he admits he only visited the place in early 1971, along with Dellums to talk to junkies and stockade inmates.

He received his perceptions of the officers from a cell of the Concerned Officers Movement.

He hadn't even taken on the book at the time and never bothered to go back just in case he might have missed something.

As might be expected, the book is a thicket of hit-and-run non-sequiturs, "facts" selectively arranged around such unrelated general subjects as race and drugs, weapons systems, alleged regular officer careerism and scandals in Vietnam.

The stupidity — generic, he infers, is because of the Joint Chiefs of Staff system.

His maldescription of the latter, and the way the JCS system works is about as bizarre as anything that could be smoked up. It is off-base in detail, with which Loory seeks to mesmerize readers, and devoid of insight.

The prose of "defeated" cloys with sincere protestations of regard for "new and cherished friends" made as the author circulated. They are "sensitive, concerned, intelligent, patriotic Americans drawn to the profession of arms..." With such a friend as Loory, the profession has no need for enemies.

And what cherished friends and disinterested sources he leans on. The Army's Lt. Col. Edward L. King, who retired rather than face Vietnam and has since been trying to pull down West Point. Pvt. Andrew Stapp, the left-wing ex-soldier who tried to unionize the Army; David Addlestone, who counseled Gay Liberation's litigation to liberate the Army. Rear Adm. Gene LaRocque, a privy councillor in the defense formulations of Sen. George McGovern; Gen. David M. Shoup, the controversial ex-marine who publicly disowned his profession. Mark Amsterdam, well known in Saigon as representative of the court-martial ambulance-chasers of the Lawyers Military Defense Committee.

What is truly maddening about *Defeated* — at least for readers who have serious knowledge and insight — is it disarray, superficiality, unwarranted generalities and equally unwarranted air of omniscience.

Fortunately, not even reviewers have to eat the whole egg to know it's bad. Tinny with false plausibility, slipshod with inaccuracies, squint-eyed with bias and preconception, the book turns out to be its own worst enemy.

## ( CRISIS ................... CONT'D )

marked out by the United States and the Soviet Union as their own privileged domain.

The old Gaullist passions were reawakened by what France saw as new evidence of an American-Soviet "condominium," now escalating its reach in the name of determine. At the NATO Council of Ministers last December, combative French Foreign Minister Michel Jobert, who is a match for Kissinger in shrewdness and articulateness, both men respectfully agree, raised open challenge. Jobert, on that occasion, attacked the American-Soviet

declaration of the previous summer on the prevention of nuclear war as evidence of U.S.-Soviet "condominium" strategy.

Kissinger vigorously denied that the nuclear declaration was a division of world power at the expense of allies. On the contrary, Kissinger insisted, all nations would benefit by measures to avoid U.S.-Soviet nuclear conflict.

The U.S.-French collision was repeated more bruisingly at the 13-nation Washington Energy Conference in February. This time, France ended on the losing side of

an open split with its Common Market partners, as the United States, with the vigorous support of West Germany, swept the field with a 12-to-1 vote in favor of the U.S. energy approach to international cooperation.

On March 4, however, France struck back through its Common Market partnership, gaining a unanimous vote to proceed with a Common Market initiative for political-economic cooperation with 20 Arab nations. French Prime Minister Pierre Messmer exulted in "the affirmation of an au-

thentic European personality, independent of its world partners."

On Friday in Chicago, President Nixon mounted his frontal assault, declaring that "the day of the one-way street is gone" for Europe to benefit from American security protection while rejecting the American version of political-economic cooperation.

The European allies as a whole now face in wholesale fashion what they always have dreaded most, a compulsion to choose between the United States and their own cohesion.

7-F

EDITORIALS

LONG ISLAND NEWSDAY 18 March 1974 (24)

Honoring Veterans With More Than
Words

President Nixon has proclaimed March 29 "Vietnam Veterans Day" and called for "appropriate ceremonies and observances" to mark the occasion. Although March 29 is the anniversary of the day the last American combat soldier left Vietnam, it would seem an occasion for protest rather than celebration. Not only are the more than 2,500,000 Vietnam veterans among the most cynically neglected minorities in this country, but the war they are alleged to have ended with honor is still raging, just about where they left it. And vast sums that the U.S. might be using to better the lot of the veterans, among other ill-starred population groups, are being funneled instead into the continuation of the war.

Ever since they began returning in large numbers, the Viet vets, especially those in the 20-to-24 age bracket, have suffered some of the highest unemployment rates in the country—at times more than double the national average. In New York City alone over 4,000 vets were on the welfare rolls last year.

The vets have fared little better in education. Many complain bitterly about the meager $220-a-month allowance they are given to cover both tuition and living costs—a long cry from the full tuition plus subsistence provided for World War II veterans. Thousands of GIs who turned to drugs in the despairing climate of the war have also found themselves caught up in a kind of Catch-22. As Representative Louis Stokes, an Ohio Democrat, explained at a hearing last year on veterans problems: "In order to get treatment for drug abuse, they have to have a good discharge. But in order to get a good discharge, one must not use drugs."

The irony has not been lost on the returning veterans that the nation's honors and hero's welcome have fallen largely on the POWs while the average GI came back to obscurity and hard times. "Words of thanks are not enough for the 2,500,000 men who have returned home from this conflict," President Nixon said last March. But he has mainly celebrated the 600 POWs who have been promoting his

"peace with honor" message around the country. For the others he offers little but words of thanks. The President, in fact, has vetoed, threatened to veto or otherwise bottled up virtually every piece of legislation that would have raised GI benefits or extended preferential hiring programs for veterans, on the ground that they would be inflationary. Meanwhile, the Vietnam war itself continues to enjoy lavish expenditures and attention from the administration, as if it were some favored social agency of the federal government.

In the current amnesty hearings in Washington, Pentagon officials have argued that forgiveness of deserters and draft evaders would create serious "moral" problems for armies of the future. What sort of inspiration will the plight of today's veterans create for the armies of the future? Will soldiers stand ready to give their lives for a country that provides nothing in return but a hollow proclamation of Veterans Day?

If the President really wanted "appropriate observances" on March 29, he would proclaim his determination to help get veterans the recognition and the improved education and job opportunities that they have earned and he has so far denied them.

WALL ST. JOURNAL 22 March 1974

"MOD ADMIRAL" Elmo Zumwalt will probably be succeeded as Navy chief by Adm. James L. Holloway III. Holloway is rated a middle-roader who wouldn't liberalize personnel rules further but wouldn't turn the clock back either. Insiders expect Adm. Worth Bagley, a Zumwalt man, to get the Navy's No. 2 spot.

BALTIMORE SUN 24 March 1974

Envoy to Sweden

Prime Minister Palme of Sweden wanted an American ambassador, didn't he? Critics wanted an end to the administration's piqued delay in sending one, didn't they? Wry humor may not be the mark of the Nixon team, but Secretary of State Kissinger's is on display. The chosen envoy to the young, brisk, American-oriented and ostensibly neutralist Swedish premier is an elderly, Central European, conservative scholar and cold warrior, Robert Strausz-Hupe. This is grinding Mr. Palme's nose in it a bit, as he had been forced to drop his first choice of a left-wing journalist in favor of a noble career diplomat to be Swedish ambassador here. Be that as it may, Ambassador-designate Strausz-Hupe cut his eyeteeth in Mr. Nixon's diplomatic service as ambassador to Sri Lanka, which is really leftwing and really neutralist. If the assignment is to end the silliness and restore official harmony with Stockholm, Mr. Strausz-Hupe should have no difficulty doing it.

1-2

# Plain Words for Europe

STAR-NEWS 3-16-74

By Oswald Johnston

Star-News Staff Writer

In a sudden reversion to plain speech, the Nixon administration has dropped all pretense of papering over American differences with Europe over the Atlantic Alliance and with the Arab states over the oil embargo.

Discarding an administration policy of treading softly on the embargo issue, President Nixon told an applauding crowd of Chicago businessmen yesterday that too much Arab pressure on the oil question could slow down American efforts to work out a Middle East settlement.

At the same time, Nixon offset public gestures by Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger toward mollifying the Europeans by delivering some of the harshest words about U.S. allies to have been delivered by an American president in the post-war era.

Only the Soviet Union, whose motives Nixon declined to criticize in a statement defending his administration's detente policies, escaped the President's blunt language yesterday.

THE ATTACK on the Europeans was keyed to a theme Kissinger has characterized privately as seriously dividing the United States and its allies: Failure in cooperation of trade, economic and energy poli-

cies even while the Common Market and other West European nations depend on U.S. troops for their defense.

The warning that U.S. Middle East policy may change if the Arabs press too hard echoed Kissinger's declaration more than a month ago that a continued oil embargo would force the United States to reconsider its policy of pressing Israel to yield conquered territory

in return for a peace settlement.

The immediate reaction of diplomatic observers to both statements was that Nixon "is playing a pretty dangerous game."

Relations with Europe have already dwindled to the point where Kissinger on Thursday felt he had to apoligize in public for incautious remarks delivered earlier this week to an audience of 1150 congressional

wives — and a handful of reporters he apparently was unaware was present.

In a parallel show of restraint, administration officials have all week avoided comment on the oil embargo for fear the Arab oil nations might rescind at their scheduled meeting in Vienna tomorrow the tentative decision to lift the embargo they took in Tripoli on Wednesday.

See EUROPE, A-4

—Associated Press

President Nixon returns to Washington.

LITTLE ROCK. Ark. — With one of their co-conveners noticeably absent, delegates to the second Black National Political Convention here have been told that they must organize successfully at home before they can expect to have a profound political impact on the nation.

"Until we can successful-

tures, calling for the resignation of President Nixon is like "spitting into a hurricane," Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson said yesterday.

"Until we can back up our demands, we will be a joke to the nation's power-brokers," he said, echoing the convention's theme of organizing political power at the local level.

ward, and city organizing was essential "before we can talk seriously about delivering on a national scale. You can't deliver what you do not have."

HE GAVE one of the key addresses in a chaotic day in the city in which National Guardsmen were first used to enforce the U.S. Supreme

The convention's first day was buzzing over the decision of Rep. Charles Diggs, D-Mich., not to attend because of reported concern that black nationalists, far outnumbered black elected officials, would try to take over.

Mayor Richard Hatcher of Gary, Ind., one of the conveners, said Diggs had sent a telegram saying he had a prior commitment. Only a few prominent black elected officials attended yesterday's opening of the three-day meeting.

Rep. Ronald Dellums, D-Calif., said all black elected officials should have attended to represent their constituencies.

"ANY BLACK elected official who understands why she or he is in office ought to be here," he said.

"If there are five people in a room and there are 10,000 people pushing at the door, it's not time for an argument on who is a nationalist and who is not," he said. "You had better get together and hold that door."

In an address, Dellums said that over the last few years black people have "been so busy becoming Americanized that we no longer pose the alternative" to a corrupt value system.

He said blacks should not accept "an economic system that made you a slave ... a system that allows a criminal to become vice president ... and a system that allows a man to become president who denies your humanity."

The question for black people, Dellums said, is should "we become 12 per-

## TODAY'S WEATHER REPORT

**District and vicinity—** Showers and possible thundershowers today, high in mid-60s. Rain likely early tonight, followed by partial clearing, low in upper 30s. Partly cloudy tomorrow, high in upper 40s. Chance of precipitation 90 percent today, 60 percent tonight and 20 percent tomorrow.

**Maryland** — Rain today, changing to snow flurries in western mountains, high from 40s in mountains to 60s elsewhere. Rain likely tonight followed by partial clearing, low from mid-20s to upper 30s. Partly cloudy tomorrow, snow flurries likely in mountains, high from low 30s to upper 40s.

**Virginia** — Rain today, high from 40s in mountains to 60s elsewhere. Rain likely tonight, followed by clearing, low in 30s. Mostly sunny tomorrow, high from 40s to low 50s.

**Lower Potomac and Chesapeake Bay** — Small craft advisory in effect. Southerly winds increasing to 15 to 25 knots today, shifting to northwest 20 to 30 knots, with higher gusts tonight and tomorrow. Rain today and early tonight, followed by partial clearing

ibility 5 miles or more, except less than 1 mile in heavier showers.

### Outlook

Monday through Wednesday — Fair Monday, chance of precipitation Tuesday and Wednesday. Highs from 40s to about 50 Monday, increasing to 50s and low 60s by Wednesday. Lows in 20s Monday, rising to 30s and low 40s by Wednesday.

### Air Quality

The air quality index in the Washington area yesterday during the 2 to 3 p.m. period was 19 for the pollutant photochemical oxidant. Index values between 0 and

Yesterday's high was 63 at 5:15 p.m., and the low was 29 at 5:55 a.m. High and low temperatures on March 15, 1973, were 71 and 48. Average high and low temperatures for the date are 54 and 35.

### Temperatures

<table><caption>Temperatures for Yesterday</caption><tbody><tr><td>Midnight</td><td>40</td><td>Noon</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>4 a.m.</td><td>36</td><td>4 p.m.</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>8 a.m.</td><td>34</td><td>8 p.m.</td><td>54</td></tr></tbody></table>

Record Temperatures for the Year Highest, 80 on March 4. Lowest, 18 on Feb. 10.

### Tide Tables

(Furnished by the National Ocean Survey.)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Today</th><th>Tomorrow</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>High</td><td>2:47 a.m.</td><td>3:46 a.m.</td></tr><tr><td>Low</td><td>9:39 a.m.</td><td>10:38 a.m.</td></tr><tr><td>High</td><td>3:09 p.m.</td><td>4:09 p.m.</td></tr><tr><td>Low</td><td>10:18 p.m.</td><td>11:14 p.m.</td></tr></tbody></table>

For high and low tides at the following points subtract times indicated from the above:

Annapolis, 3¼ hours; Bloody Point Light, 4¼ hours; Colonial Beach, 5¼ hours; Solomons Island, 6¼ hours; Tidewater Bay, 7¼ hours; Chesapeake Bay, 8¼ hours; and the rest of the country, 9¼ hours.

EUROPE

Continued from Page A-1

NEVERTHELESS, there
is every evidence that Nix-
on's press conference state-
ments yesterday were
deliberate, carefully
weighed and planned well in
advance. The harsh reply
on Europe, in particular,
was evidently based on a
prepared answer to an an-
ticipated question that was
never asked at the last pres-
idential news conference,
March 6.

In it, Nixon apparently
intended to tell reporters
that his planned April trip
to Europe would be can-
celed unless the Common

Market countries stopped
"ganging up" on the United
States on energy and eco-
nomic questions and agreed
to a formal policy of cooper-
ation in all fields. The sub-
stance of this reply was
conveyed to West German
Chancellor Willy Brandt in
an exchange of letters last
week.

Going a bit further yester-
day, Nixon came close to
threatening that he would
let Congress throw out the
American garrison in Eu-
rope if the Common Market
nine did not abandon their
"confrontation and hostili-
ty" on economic and politi-
cal questions. "The day of

one-way streets is gone,"
Nixon said sternly.

IN DIPLOMATIC circles
here, the bluntness of the
Nixon remarks came as a
shock, and it was interpret-
ed as a not-so-veiled threat
to the Germans to make a
choice between Atlantic
security with Washington or
economic solidarity with
Paris.

Otherwise, it was seen as
a frenzied personal reaction
to the Common Market deci-
sion earlier this month to
make a separate approach
to the Arab oil-producing
states.

Bluntness aside, the sub-

stance of Nixon's diatribe
was seen as consistent with
the drift over the past year
toward a redefinition of na-
tional interest in U.S. for-
eign policy.

"He was only saying in
public what Kissinger has
been saying in private,"
remarked one practiced
observer from Europe.

On Thursday, only hours
after his public statement
expressing "regret" for
those parts of his criticism
of Europe which had made
unpleasant headlines, Kiss-
singer discussed Europe in
what Capitol Hill sources
report to have been tough
and uncompromising terms
in a closed session with the
Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.

Accordingly, even the
harsh, nationalistic tone of
Nixon's remarks yesterday
is presumed by diplomatic
sources here to be part of a
campaign of orchestrated
pressure to bring the Euro-
peans in line with U.S. poli-
cy.

AS FOR the unvarnished
Nixon warning to the Arabs
that pressure on American
Middle East policy might
baackfire, one source close
to Egyptian thinking said
philosophically:

"It will make (Egyptian
President Anwar) Sadat's
(foreign minister Ismail)
Fahmi's job of presuading
the Arab radicals even
harder. But I don't think
Egypt will misunderstand."

Statements such as Nix-

on's are inevitably played
up in the controlled press of
such countries as Algeria,
Libya and Syria, whose fi-
nal decision on the embargo
may be still in question.

Egypt's task has been to
persuade them that the
United States, after its suc-
cess in getting the Israelis
to pull back from the Suez
Canal, should not be pun-
ished further with an oil
embargo lest a political
backlash develop. Yester-
day, Nixon seemed close to
provoking one on his own.

Ford Cha
'Dictating'

New York Times News Service

CHARLESTON, S.C. —

Vice President Gerald Ford
says the staff of the House
Judiciary Committee ap-
pears to be seeking to "dic-
tate proceedings" involving
impeachment of President
Nixon to committee mem-
bers.

"If I were a member of
the Committee," Ford said
he would tell them "you
aren't telling us how the
impeachment proceedings
should go ahead."

His criticism of the com-
mittee staff came at a news
conference yesterday at
The Citadel, a military col-
lege here which gave him
an honorary doctor of laws
degree.

1967 base level in
February, only 1.1 percent
above a year earlier.

Auto assemblies led the
February drop, declining 4
percent to an annual rate of
6 million units. The Feder-

Reserve Board said this
as about one-third below
the level of 1973.

ALSO DOWN in February
as production of electrici-
for both residential and
commercial use, and in-
ustrial materials produc-
tion.

"The Palestinians must
make the choice. They may
choose federation with Jor-
dan, union with Jordan or a
separate state. Whatever
their choice is, I will sup-
port it," Hussein said.

But he added he hoped
the Palestinians would re-
main with Jordain, and
pointed out that half the
cabinet, half the govern-
ment and half the army of
Jordan are Palestinians.

On the question of Jerusa-
lem, he said peace will be

gestions by the Soviet
Union" that the Arabs
should assume a hostile
attitude toward the United
States and Israel are
inconsistent both with U.S.
Soviet detente and with
Russia's role as co-chair-
man of the Geneva peace
talks.

"We took notice of the
Soviet-Syrian statement in
Damascus that Syria has
the right to take all effec-
tive means to regain control
of its territory," Eban said.

led to the 1967 war," Eban
said. "Had Syria started its
1973 attack a few kilometers
closer to Israel than it did, I
might not now be standing
so tranquilly before you.
For Israel, the key word is
compromise toward secure
and recognized boundaries,
not to precarious bound-
aries conducive to war."

He remained adamant on
the unified status of Jerusa-
lem under the Israeli flag
but with special access and
jurisdiction over the holy

make war improbable.

He indicated that an
Israeli delegation might
turn up in Washington next
week, and said he assumed
Syria would take part in
further discussions here
this month.

He said Israel wants to
negotiate peace with Jor-
dan, too, but that conditions
on the Jordanian-Israel
frontier are not as perilous
as with Syria.

Jeremiah O' Leary

People in the News

Connally Wields Toe

Five-Year Sentence

John B. Connally says he's keeping "a toe in the door" for the 1976 presidential elections. The former Texas governor and one-time Nixon Treasury secretary said yesterday in Salt Lake City that he doesn't want to be ruled out of the race for the Republican nomination, but he doesn't want to be ruled in either. The former Democrat was here for a banquet in honor of retiring Sen. Wallace F. Bennett, R-Utah.

Is Down

ight boxing champion
going medical tests to
recurring headaches. A
s Jewish Memorial Hos-
the 79-year-old restau-
condition and was expect-
k.

'Kissind

Bavarian Radio says it
spirit" a splinter political p-
tion in the pronunciation of
inger. "We shall go on to
Schlesindsher" for the nar-
taries of State and Defense
Munich-based station said.

Compiled from Wire Se-

United States and France: I

By C. L. Sulzberger

New York Times

3-16-74

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

PARIS—The petulance now featuring United States relationships with France is ridiculous and unnecessary. From certain remarks attributed to Henry Kissinger one must conclude he should never be indiscreet in private, which he now inferentially acknowledges. It is one thing to use the calculated public leak for policy purposes but it is quite another to blow off steam and have it surface in a cloud of embarrassment.

Mr. Kissinger was quoted in a pro-American London paper Feb. 10 as having told a small group that Europeans are "craven," "contemptible," "pernicious" and acting like "jackals," to say nothing of appraising Saudi Arabia's King Faisal as a "religious fanatic," which neither helped prospects of trans-Atlantic amity nor facilitated easement of the anti-U.S. oil embargo.

On March 6, the normally pro-American Paris Figaro reported the Secretary of State as saying the United States knew better how to choose enemies than friends and it was easier to treat with the former than the latter. These alleged opinions, added to those publicly enunciated, raised hackles.

One result is that recent U.S. policy has proved counterproductive. The Washington petroleum consumers meeting, at which France was the odd-man-out, was swiftly superseded by a European Community policy that excluded America. And French Foreign Minister Michel Jobert, who admires Mr. Kissinger's person more than his current views, has recently taken to rubbing mustard into U.S. irritations.

It is even reported that Washington has begun re-examining policy toward

France, which I take to be nonsense since things are certainly in no more critical state between the two countries than frequently in the past and it would be folly to heat up the situation.

Mr. Kissinger has for years been pro-French and a considerable admirer of Gaullism, the philosophy represented today by President Pompidou and Mr. Jobert. Indeed, Mr. Kissinger—then a Democrat—had been brought into the Kennedy Administration early as an adviser on nuclear strategy and European matters.

He was often used as a secret messenger between President Kennedy and Chancellor Adenauer, an ardent Gaullist and Francophile, and once was dispatched by the former "to find out what's gone wrong with our German policy." Mr. Kissinger replied: "That will be easier if you'll tell me one small thing: What is our German policy?"

The present Secretary of State broke with Mr. Kennedy over France, especially on the question of de Gaulle's so-called *force de frappe*. He argued there was absolutely no escaping the existence of a French national atomic force. Subsequently, he became a Republican policy expert, first for Nelson Rockefeller, then Mr. Nixon.

Now, one might ask, just what is our French policy as applied by the man who seemed an early U.S. Gaullist and in the name of that avowed admirer of the General and friend of Pompidou, Richard Nixon? The answer is, things will probably simmer down and our policy is already seeking to

calm the situation, not exacerbate it.

Mr. Kissinger certainly knows that foreign policy for one country means internal policy for another. Thus Mr. Nixon has been accused of seeking political coups abroad to strengthen his sagging situation at home. Likewise, with Mr. Pompidou in Soviet Russia this week, it was reasonable to expect his journey to be preceded by a dash of French nationalism at American expense.

Now that the French President is home one can anticipate a switchback, even if he isn't going to change his mind on dealing with the energy crisis, a subject viewed differently in fuel-poor France than in fuel-rich America. But the old French-American friendships retains plenty of vitality.

In 1965 de Gaulle received Hubert Humphrey and told me afterward: "You know, in our conversation, Vice President Humphrey and I were in agreement on this point—our countries, the United States and France, have often been in disagreement over the last two centuries. Certainly we were not in agreement over Mexico one hundred years ago."

"And from 1914 to 1917 the United States had relations with Germany while we were at war. After the Versailles Treaty, the United States failed to join in the League of Nations and opposed reparations for France. In 1940 the United States was not ready to go to war to protect France and England.

"We have often been in disagreement and Humphrey shared my view that it doesn't matter. Despite our differences, our two nations have always remained friends, naturally and spontaneously. I see no reason why this should not continue."

ters site raised questions among coal industry officials, some of them said today, about Mr. Miller's ability to obtain the union's consent to more difficult decisions that may arise in U.M.W. contract negotiations with the mine operators this year. The current contract expires Nov. 12. Without a new contract by then, the nation's coal miners are expected to strike.

# Major Coal Mines Open After Strike In West Virginia

CHARLESTON, W. Va., March 15 (AP)—All but a handful of the major coal mines in southern West Virginia were back in operation today, marking the end of a two-and-a-half-week strike over gasoline allocations.

The West Virginia Coal Association estimated that 80 to 85 per cent of the some 27,000 miners who had stopped work were back at their jobs, leaving about 4,000 still out of work.

A spokesman for the association said he expected about 20 per cent of those remaining men to return to work before the mines are shut down for the weekend.

The few mines remaining closed today were mostly in McDowell, Mingo and Wyoming counties, the heart of the Strike area.

Bill Sparks, a spokesman for some of the miners in Bone County during the strike and one of two men charged with criminal contempt of court by picketing, was urging men in his area to return to work.

"It's to the advantage of all the men to go back to work as soon as possible," he said. Mr. Sparks, who said he planned to return to work himself today, warned of possible legal