TRANSLATION - jw

11 November 2003

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

In memory of a totally special man, our intellectual spirit and guiding muse
Dr. Fritz Kraemer, I enclose two photos, with all good wishes from Germany.
Your moving speech and the burial with military honors were deserving of
him and would have pleased him.

I will be in New York with my wife Tatjana from 8-11 December. May we
invite you and your charming wife to dinner?

With warm regards, also to Nancy,

Hubertus Hoffmann

Kissinger Office - Holbrooke in NYT

**From:** "Intern" <intern@academyofdiplomacy.org>
**To:** "Academy" <aadiplmcy@aol.com>
**Date:** Tue, Feb 10, 2004 9:43 AM
**Subject:** Holbrooke in NYT

A Global Battle's Missing Weapon

By RICHARD HOLBROOKE and RICHARD FURMAN

The New York Times

February 10, 2004

FEB 10 2004

Richard Holbrooke, a member of the Academy and former United States ambassador to the United Nations, is the president of the Global Business Coalition on H.I.V./AIDS. Richard Furman, a thoracic surgeon, is a founder of World Medical Mission.

Of all the mind-numbing statistics about H.I.V. and AIDS, the most staggering — and important — is this: 95 percent of those infected worldwide do not know they are harboring the most deadly virus in history, and are therefore spreading it, however unintentionally. The primary reason for this is that routine AIDS testing is virtually absent in most countries during the long period — it averages eight years — when people don't know they have the disease because they have no visible symptoms.

Having just visited four African nations as part of a delegation led by Tommy Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, we fear that no amount of money — not even the $2.8 billion proposed in the administration's budget last week — will be enough to bring the disease under control until we focus on testing, the missing front in the battle against AIDS. Even in places that have been able to make headway in prevention and treatment, the lack of testing continues to undermine overall progress.

Consider Uganda, one of the countries we visited. Under the no-nonsense leadership of President Yoweri Museveni, it has set the gold standard in efforts to combat the disease, reducing the infection rate to 6 percent from 21 percent over the last decade, an achievement all the more remarkable when contrasted to the terrifying increases in every country bordering Uganda.

President Museveni has deservedly become famous for his AIDS program, called A.B.C. Easy to understand, A.B.C. skillfully bridges the social-political divide between liberals and conservatives over the best methods for dealing with AIDS by simply embracing them all: A is for abstinence, B for be faithful and C for condoms.

But even B, for be faithful, is not really sufficient without widespread testing. Most people assume monogamy is an effective prevention practice. It isn't. Recent research shows that the safety that supposedly exists in such a relationship is illusory even for many couples who are completely faithful. The reason is simple: H.I.V. may have been brought into the new relationship by a partner who could have been carrying it for those eight silent, deadly years. Untested, one partner will inevitably infect the other, and any children they may produce.

In the Tororo area of eastern Uganda, American researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told us that 35 percent of the married couples in their program were H.I.V. discordant (meaning that one of the

Page 2

partners in the marriage was infected, the other not). Furthermore, 9 percent of their children were found to have H.I.V., which means their mother almost certainly passed it on to them during pregnancy.

Current United Nations and United States policy on testing simply does not work. Indeed, it barely exists. Its official name alone suggests the problem: "Voluntary Counseling and Testing," or V.C.T. Throughout Uganda, Zambia, Kenya and Rwanda, we saw posters calling for people to get voluntary counseling and testing, with little or no explanation of what that meant or why testing was essential.

We also witnessed a terrible truth that no one wants to admit: almost no one actually gets tested. In every one of the 10 hospitals and clinics we visited we found that not even the nurses and doctors had been tested. How could they recommend to their patients a "voluntary" test that they themselves had not undergone? The answer is simple: they don't. In general, people do not "volunteer" even for ordinary tests, let alone a test for a disease that carries with it an enormous social stigma and a virtually certain death sentence.

International policy on testing must be changed, not only in Africa but also in every nation that is threatened, including India, China and Russia and countries in the Caribbean. It is time to abandon this ethnocentric Western rhetoric, born in the 1980's in the United States under different circumstances, that led to the "V" in V.C.T.

We propose redesignating Voluntary Counseling and Testing as something like "Confidential and Recommended [or Routine] Counseling and Testing," or C.R.C.T. This is not simply a small change in terminology. Words have meaning and power. This phrase would not only mean that testing was routine, it would further emphasize the primary concern on people's minds when they consider testing: confidentiality. Given the huge stigma attached to the disease, people must have complete assurance that their test results will be kept truly confidential. It also does not preclude the right to refuse a test, which is part of a promising new "opt out" concept being tried in Botswana.

Even in countries with the highest H.I.V. rates, the majority of the population — over three-quarters — is still uninfected. People who learn that they do not have H.I.V. will have a much greater incentive to practice safe sex in order to stay uninfected.

But our recommendations on testing go even further. We believe that, at a minimum, testing should be required at three specific moments in a person's life: at marriage, before childbirth and upon any visit to a hospital. At these moments (and, we hope, others), public health criteria legitimately take priority over the desire of an individual. This has historically been the case with contagious diseases. (But, as a doctor said to us recently, "When AIDS hit the U.S., the entire rule book on dealing with epidemics was thrown out.")

In Uganda, Secretary Thompson discussed this idea with senior government officials, pointing out that in the United States many states have at various times required blood tests before marriage for sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, without any public protest. Why, then, should there be objections to routine testing for a disease far more deadly, one that

threatens entire nations?

Of course, discussions of testing always come back to the social stigma attached to anyone with AIDS, as a result of local cultural taboos that can often lead to losing one's job or being thrown out of one's home — especially for women. One can argue over how deep these so-called cultural taboos really are, but their hold on the (mostly male) elites in Asia and Africa is real enough. However, when these taboos threaten to destroy the culture itself, they must be defied for the health of the overall public — and to save the culture itself.

Finally, in order to make this all happen, we propose that part of
international and American financing for AIDS programs be set aside
specifically to encourage and carry out testing; that new technologies, like
a quick, cheap and reliable saliva swab test, be widely distributed in
Africa and other highly affected areas; and that all public education
programs be reoriented to stress the importance of testing.

All this may seem self-evident to those who have not been through the AIDS
wars, foreign and domestic, of the last two decades. But testing has always
been controversial, and it has never received the high priority it deserves.
The next big step is simple: expand President Museveni's A.B.C. mantra.
Let's add T for testing. Otherwise, AIDS — the ultimate weapon of mass
destruction — will continue to spread no matter what else is done.

Intern
American Academy of Diplomacy
1800 K Street NW, Suite 1014
Washington, DC 20006

T: +1 202/331-3721

F: +1 202/833-4555

www.academyofdiplomacy.org

Kissinger Kissinger - Holbrooke in WSJ

**From:** "Academy of Diplomacy" <academy@academyofdiplomacy.org>
**To:** "Academy" <aadiplmcy@aol.com>
**Date:** Thu, Mar 18, 2004 5:54 PM
**Subject:** Holbrooke in WSJ

What Others Think of Us
By RICHARD HOLBROOKE

MAR 19 2004

Wall Street Journal
March 18, 2004

Mr. Holbrooke, an Academy member and former US ambassador to the UN, is an
adviser to John Kerry.

By saying that "many leaders" would prefer him to George W. Bush, John Kerry
caused a lively, if sanctimonious, stampede inside the Beltway. And when he
refused to identify those who had indicated that they would prefer him to
Mr. Bush -- a perfectly appropriate respect for confidential discussions --
the GOP launched a campaign demanding that he "name names." This included a
comment by the president, made in the Oval Office itself, and a drumfire of
criticism from Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, many senators, and even Colin
Powell (who holds a job that by long tradition is supposed to be kept out of
domestic politics).

The second issue first: Should Mr. Kerry disclose the names of those who
made private comments to him or to others, including -- full disclosure --
me? Everyone in D.C. knows that one should not betray such comments. Good
reporters protect sources; so should government officials, including
senators, and, for that matter, anyone having a private conversation with a
public official. And in this case, foreign officials know two things: First,
they must deal with the incumbent U.S. administration, whatever their
personal preference; and second, other governments must not interfere in our
elections (as John Major's government unwisely did in 1992 by looking for
information on Bill Clinton's antiwar activities while he was at Oxford).

By focusing on Mr. Kerry's refusal to betray confidences, Republicans are
having fun while diverting attention from the important issue Mr. Kerry
raised: that the U.S. is losing support in many parts of the world amid
growing unease about our foreign policy. This is not, as some charge, the
ravings of North Korea or the latest French sourness. Nor is it about our
legitimate war on terrorism. What Mr. Kerry refers to is the widespread
concern, usually stated quietly, from many of our closest allies that U.S.
leadership has faltered in a central task: building international resolve to
stand with us. (A notable exception is Mr. Bush's highly commendable
leadership in the world-wide fight against HIV/AIDS, an issue on which Mr.
Kerry has also been a leader.) The Pew poll on foreign attitudes toward us
confirms Mr. Kerry's statements.

I am not suggesting that Americans should vote based on what others think of
us. But it is wrong to suggest that foreign views of our nation are
irrelevant, even something to be defied. The ability to gain international
support is a test of presidential leadership, and manifestly in our national
security interests. What the rest of the world thinks of us is a legitimate
issue; in fact, in a similar situation in 1960, JFK made much of polling
data very similar to that of the Pew poll. Once elected, he set out to

Kissinger Kissinger - Holbrooke and Bacon on Sudan in Boston Globe

**From:** "Academy of Diplomacy" <academy@academyofdiplomacy.org>
**To:** "Academy" <aadiplmcy@aol.com>
**Date:** Fri, Aug 6, 2004 9:52 AM
**Subject:** Holbrooke and Bacon on Sudan in Boston Globe

Death's grip on Darfur
By Richard Holbrooke and Kenneth Bacon

Boston Globe
August 6, 2004

'AUG - 6 2004

Richard Holbrooke, Academy member and former US ambassador to the United Nations, is a board member of Refugees International and Kenneth H. Bacon is president of the organization.

THERE IS widespread agreement that the genocidal killing in Darfur in western Sudan is currently the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Yet far too little has been done so far by the United States, the United Nations, the international community, and relief organizations. The killing must be stopped, and the flow of humanitarian aid must be improved.

The humanitarian catastrophe in southern Sudan is the worst since 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in 1994. Ever since that disgrace, the international community, including the United States, has chanted the "never again" mantra. But it is happening again.

The circumstances of dying are different and more varied than in Rwanda. Instead of machete-wielding civilians, there are now Sudanese air strikes against the villages followed by the camel-borne Janjaweed militia murdering, raping, and pillaging hundreds of villages, forcing thousands to run for their lives.

Death is beginning also to come in the form of starvation and disease descending on the displaced and traumatized survivors, compounded by heavy seasonal rains. Without swift humanitarian action, more people will die of cholera than at the hands of the militia.

Secretary of State Colin Powell's July visit to Darfur was a belated but welcome sign that the Bush administration is beginning to understand the extraordinary stakes in western Sudan. Fourteen more villages were torched by the Janjaweed shortly after Powell's visit, and yet the administration still holds back from calling these government-sponsored atrocities by their real name -- genocide.

At the very least it should be possible to get relief and medical aid to the victims who have survived the scourge of the Janjaweed. Yet even here the international response is lagging, in part because the United States and other donors have not dispensed funds quickly enough.

The UN must urgently engage all of its resources. The following quickly achievable actions will save hundreds of thousands of lives.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan should immediately appoint an internationally known emergency coordinator with full authority to lead all the UN agencies in Darfur and the surrounding region and leverage support

Page 2

from major donor nations. A critical area of focus must be on heading off
the outbreaks of diarrhea and cholera and the growing threat of malaria.

The United States must show more aggressive leadership in the UN Security Council on this issue. Last week the Security Council adopted a resolution calling on the Sudanese government in Khartoum to disarm the government-supported Janjaweed militia and facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid. While the United States successfully fought for a tough resolution that permits the imposition of sanctions if Sudan doesn't stop the fighting, the resolution alone is not enough. Now the United States must make sure the Security Council acts if Sudan doesn't comply. Unfortunately, France, which has energy interests in Sudan, raised concerns about possible sanctions, although France did vote for the resolution. The United States must also lead in supporting the international monitoring team from the African Union.

To maximize international burden-sharing and to ensure that the US government is acting in concert and with maximum speed and effectiveness, the president should appoint a US coordinator for this issue. The United States has made generous financial commitments to UN relief efforts in Darfur, but France, Japan, Italy, Spain, and Germany have been slower to commit funds, UN officials say.

The UN and donors should ensure that delivery of relief supplies is maximized on all available channels, including by truck from Libya and Chad, by rail from Port Sudan, and by additional charters of commercial aircraft.

Historical parallels are never exact, but the emergency in Sudan is similar to Cambodia on the brink of famine in early 1979. The appointment of Sir Robert Jackson as the UN czar, authorized to speak for the secretary general and US leadership, saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

President Bush has said that never again means never again in Sudan. The time to act on that is now.

DEC 10 2003

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON UNITED STATES-CHINA RELATIONS

71 WEST 23RD STREET, 19TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10010-4102

JOHN L. HOLDEN
PRESIDENT

December 8, 2003

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Kissinger Associates, Inc.
350 Park Avenue
26th Floor
New York, NY 10022

Dear Henry:

We tried, but failed, to put you together with our Young Leaders Forum (YLF) this year in China. Perhaps the scheduling will work next year, when the program will be held in the United States.

In the meantime, if you had the time, I would like to invite you to join some of the East Coast-based YLF group at an informal dinner at the Holden residence sometime before spring. My wife Isabelle is keen to cook up a nice French dinner; I'm sure you would enjoy her cooking and, more importantly, the chance to meet some very talented and interesting young people. I know they would enjoy an evening with you.

If you think this might work, please have someone give me a call to schedule it.

Kissinger Kissinger - Hume Horan obituary in WP

Page 1

**From:** "Academy of Diplomacy" <academy@academyofdiplomacy.org>
**To:** "Academy" <aadiplmcy@aol.com>
**Date:** Mon, Jul 26, 2004 1:09 PM
**Subject:** Hume Horan obituary in WP

washingtonpost.com
Ambassador Hume Alexander Horan Dies

By Patricia Sullivan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 25, 2004

JUL 26 2004

Hume Alexander Horan, 69, an American ambassador to five countries who was recalled from Saudi Arabia in 1988 because of King Fahd's wrath, died of prostate cancer July 22 at Inova Fairfax Hospital. He was an Annandale resident.

Mr. Horan, widely described as a quiet and conscientious man who spoke excellent Arabic, spent six months in 2003 as a senior counselor with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, dealing with religious and tribal affairs.

Fifteen years earlier, he was recalled from his ambassadorial post in Riyadh, nine months after his arrival. In the spring of 1988, the United States discovered that Saudi Arabia had bought and accepted delivery of medium-range ballistic missiles from China. Mr. Horan was instructed to make a strong demarche to King Fahd about the unacceptability of the missiles.

Mr. Horan served as the second-ranking officer in the embassy from 1972 to 1977 and had wide-ranging contacts in Saudi society, which annoyed the ruling family. So he called Washington to be sure officials understood how offended the king would be by the verbal rebuke. He was ordered to deliver the message. When he returned from carrying out his task, he received a new telegram from Washington saying "a message different in tone and substance" had also been communicated to the Saudi Embassy in Washington. "My goose was cooked," he told The Washington Post in 2002.

In an unusual move, Philip Habib, a retired undersecretary of state, tried to mend fences with the king. But Fahd asked Habib, in the presence of Mr. Horan, to have him replaced. The State Department then asked Mr. Horan to seek Saudi approval for the next ambassador, a request that humiliated the career diplomat.

"They made us kowtow," he said. "The American ambassador's influence ended in Riyadh" and from then on, the Saudi ambassador in Washington dominated the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

Mr. Horan's parentage didn't help the situation. He was a native Washingtonian whose mother, Margaret Robinson Hume, was from a prominent family and whose father was Abdollah Entezam, an Iranian diplomat who served as foreign minister long before the 1979 downfall of the shah. They divorced when Mr. Horan was 3, and his mother remarried Harold Horan, a newspaperman. But the Saudis disliked the Iranians, and by extension, Mr. Horan.