WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL
OF PHILADELPHIA

SERVING EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY
30th ANNIVERSARY YEAR 1949-1979

THE JOHN WANAMAKER STORE, THIRD FLOOR GALLERY, THIRTEENTH AND MARKET STREETS, PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19107 / (215) LO 3-5363

"IN A DEMOCRACY AGREEMENT IS NOT ESSENTIAL; PARTICIPATION IS"

November 19, 1979

The Honorable Henry Kissinger
Suite 520
1800 "K" Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Henry:

The School District of Philadelphia and our World Affairs Council of Philadelphia have cooperated in sponsoring unique educational enrichment activities for over half a million Philadelphia school children for more than three decades. In continuation of these efforts to prepare young Philadelphians for responsible roles as citizens and as future community leaders, we have embarked on a new and unique task, that of planning a Magnet School in International Studies for high school students.

This Magnet School will be based on a specialized curriculum, an important part of which is the use of outside resource personnel who lecture on a specific topic or issue within the framework of that curriculum. An integral part of the Magnet Schools now operating in Philadelphia - specializing in such professions as engineering, design and arts - is close contact with institutions of higher education, corporations and civic organizations.

It is expected that this Magnet School in International Studies - the first of its type to be established in the nation - in which international and national economics and politics are addressed in a challenging manner and the standard academic subjects, including a strong foreign language component, form the core of the specialized curriculum, will meet with outstanding and gratifying success. Thus, the ever increasing need to educate our citizenry about important global concerns will have been responded to by the School District of Philadelphia with the guidance and advice of the World Affairs Council.

This proposed school takes on special significance in light of the distressing report just released by the President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies. In the words of the Commission members, "America's continental position between vast oceans was a basis for linguistic as well as political isolation, but rocketry as well as communications satellites render such a moat mentality obsolete." The time is indeed right for this special school in International Studies.

NOV 26 1979

GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE CENTER
AT PHILADELPHIA

Sponsored by the WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA in partnership with the UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

HENRY A. KISSINGER

JUN 1 1979

I

Dear *melda*:

I cannot begin to tell you how much Nancy and I enjoyed our stay in Manila and how much we appreciated all you did for us. As you know, we both have a very special affection for the Philippines. Your thoughtfulness and hospitality touched us as always, and as always we found it hard to leave. We are deeply grateful to you and the President for welcoming us so warmly and so generously, and we want you to know that we will remember our visit with great pleasure for a long time to come.

Mrs. Ferdinand E. Marcos
Malacanang Palace
Manila

SSM:cb

w
w
w
western union

Telegram

RBA030 1056A EDT AUG 16 79

WAA236(0857)(1-087878G228)PD 08/16/79 05

ICS IPMIIHA IISS

IISS FM ITT 16 0856

PMS OWN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON DC

AWN456 VIA ITT MAA904 161338 PPD494 VL

UIWA CO PMMA 134

MANILA 134/128 16 2107

DR HENRY KISSINGER

GOERGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

WASHINGTON DC

PLEASE ACCEPT MY CONGRATULATIONS FOR YOUR VERY

PERCEPTIVE AND WISE SYNTHESIS OF COMPLICATED

PROBLEMS CMA LIKE SALT II AND MILITARY AND DEFENSE

POLICIES CMA UPON WHICH YOU EXPOUNDED BEFORE

A SENATE HEARING AND AT A RECENT MEET THE PRESS

SF-1201 (R5-69)

w
w
w
western union

Telegram

PROGRAM STOP YOUR STATEMENTS WILL GO A LONG WAY
TOWARD CONVINCING WORLD LEADERS THAT IN THIS
PERIOD OF PESSIMISM THERE IS HOPE OF MAINTAINING
PEACE CMA PRECARIOUS THOUGH IT MAY BE STOP YOUR
PERCEPTIVENESS AND ELOQUENCE HAVE PLACED THE
PROBLEM OF NUCLEAR BALANCE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE
STOP PLEASE DO ME THE FAVOR OF SENDING ME A COPY
OF THE FULL TEXT OF YOUR STATEMENT STOP AGAIN MY
CONGRATULATIONS AND WARMEST REGARDS TO YOU AND

NANCY

PRESIDENT MARCOS

COL SALT II

POSS DUPE NNN

NNNN

SF-1201 (R5-69)

AUG 17 1979

#

Goldman, Sachs & Co. | 55 Broad Street | New York, New York 10004

Tel: 212-676-8270

James S. Marcus
Partner

Goldman
Sachs

November 30, 1979

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Suite 520
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Remembering our conversation in Rio in which you said you liked all Mozart except *The Magic Flute*, Ellen and I would like to invite you and Nancy to a performance of *Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail* on either Thursday, April 3 or Monday, April 8, 1980, which are the two remaining evening performances of this work. Our music director, James Levine, will conduct and the cast will include Christiane Eda-Pierre, Kathleen Battle, John Alexander, James Atherton, Ara Berberian and Werner Klemperer. This is a new production this season of an opera which has rarely been performed at the Met.

We would plan to meet for dinner at the Grand Tier Restaurant of the Metropolitan Opera House at 6:30. Ellen and I, Anthony A. Bliss, Executive Director and his wife, Sally, and Frank E. Taplin, President of the Metropolitan Opera Association, and his wife, Peggy, would join us. We would hear the performance, which begins at 8 P.M. from the Executive Box. During one of the intermissions, we could go backstage. I think you would find meeting the cast and the scene change very interesting. The performance is scheduled to end at 10:45 P.M.

We really hope you will give us the opportunity to welcome you at the Met.

Kindest regards,

JSM:mc

New York | Boston | Chicago | Dallas | Detroit | Houston | Los Angeles | Memphis | Philadelphia | St. Louis | San Francisco

Goldman, Sachs & Co. | 55 Broad Street | New York, New York 10004
Tel. 212-676-8270

James S. Marcus
Partner

Goldman
Sachs

November 30, 1979

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Remembering our conversation in Rio in which you said you
liked all Mozart except The Magic Flute, Ellen and I would like to invite
you and Nancy to a performance of Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail on either
Thursday, April 3 or Monday, April 8, 1980, which are the two remaining
evening performances of this work. Our music director, James Levine, will
conduct and the cast will include Christiane Eda-Pierre, Kathleen Battle,
John Alexander, James Atherton, Ara Berberian and Werner Klemperer. This
is a new production this season of an opera which has rarely been performed
at the Met.

Kindest regards,

Sincerely,

James S. Marcus

JSM:mc

bcc: Jon Cohen ✓
MShapiro

Embajador de México
Washington

November 5, 1979

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
1800 K Street, N. W.
Suite 1021
Washington, D. C. 20006

Dear Henry:

The Siqueiros painting which I presented to you on
behalf of my government at our recent small lunch, is a
gift in appreciation of your recent efforts to enhance un-
derstanding between our two nations.

The group of eminent persons which you have assem-
bled to consider the common future of the United States
and Mexico, and which met with the President on August -
13, is already making an important contribution. My - -
government greatly appreciates its work.

The compassion and understanding which you bring to
the issue of Mexican-United States relations were dazzling
ly obvious to the Mexicans who attended the recent Council
of Churches' meeting in New York, at which you presented -
the Man of the Year Award to President José López Portillo.
We were all moved by your tribute to our President and to
the people of Mexico. It was a sensitive statement.

My government therefore thought it appropriate now
to recognize the time, attention and leadership you are -
dedicating to relations between our two countries. It --
was in the framework of these efforts that I presented --
the painting to you as a modest expression of our thanks
as a government and a nation.

western union

Telegram

LLC096 WAB271(0853)(1-087454G141)PD 05/21/79 0853

1979 MAY 21 AM 11:08

ICS IPMIIHA IISS
IISS FM FCH 21 0853
PMS WASHINGTON DC
FCA179 VIA FTCC FUF599 ZYC595 YBA811
USWA CO FRXX 070
PARIS 70/67 21 1540 PAGE 1/50
HENRY KISSINGER
1800 K STREET NW
WASHINGTON DC20006

PAR4180 21.5.79 STOP FROM R. MARJOLIN SHELL FRANCAISE PARIS ASPR STOP
OWING TO UNEXPECTED PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH MY NEW EUROPEAN
ASSIGNMENT, I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO GO TO NEW YORK THIS MONTH STOP
PLEASE ACCEPT MY REGRETS FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO ATTEND THE
COL 1800 WASHINGTONDC20006 PAR4180 21.5.79 ASSIGNMENT,
YBA811 PAGE 02/17

MAY 23 1979

SF-1201 (R5-69)

[L]C]

NATIONAL SAVINGS & TRUST COMPANY

CHARTERED BY A SPECIAL ACT OF CONGRESS 1867

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005

September 6, 1979

TELEPHONE

(202) 659-5900

CABLE: NATIONAL-WASHINGTON, D. C.

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER

Mr. Richard Pearson, Secretary
The Alfalfa Club
P. O. Box 1600
Washington, D. C. 20013

Dear Mr. Pearson:

There is nothing I treasure more than my membership in The Alfalfa Club and am so proud to have the opportunity of fellowship with such a distinguished group of national figures. I applaud the achievements of the Board of Managers in maintaining the group as a truly national organization and not an instrument of Washington, D. C., which naturally makes it much more difficult for local personalities to achieve the honor of being invited to join the Club.

In my fifteen years of membership I have never been presumptuous enough to propose a candidate for membership but I would earnestly like to suggest that The Honorable Leonard H. Marks be considered. While Mr. Marks is a Washingtonian I think with complete integrity he should be recognized as a national, indeed international, personality. His identities and personal relationships throughout the world place him in this unique category.

He is so prominent in his special field of law regarding communications. His contributions of public service could not be more distinguished. In 1963 he was appointed by President Kennedy to be one of the incorporators of COMSAT. He was appointed by President Johnson as Director of the United States Information Agency from 1965-1969. In 1969 he was given the title of Special Ambassador by President Johnson to serve as head of international conferences attendant to communication satellites. In 1973 he was appointed by President Nixon as Chairman of the United States Advisory Commission on International Education and Cultural Exchange and continued to serve in this capacity until 1978. Since 1973 he has been President of the International Rescue Committee which requires frequent executive responsibilities in the major capitol of the world. He is President of the American Historic and Cultural Society. On the masthead of their stationery are representatives of many of the most

Mr. Richard Pearson

September 6, 1979

distinguished citizens of our country. He is President of the National Home Library Foundation, which makes important charitable grants across our entire country. He is Vice Chairman of the Foreign Policy Association, a group of enormously knowledgeable international sophisticates and has just recently returned from a special trip to China as an honored guest of the highest government officials of that country. He has long been a major personality in Radio Free Europe.

I think sometimes in our cosmopolitan city it is easy to take our frequently seen friends only as of the local structure. I most sincerely believe that Mr. Marks should and could be considered as a candidate who would have cordial and congenial identities with the broadest segment of our membership.

March 28, 1979

Dear Dr. Marois:

Because Dr. Kissinger is out of town, I am taking
the liberty of repending to your letter of March
19, 1979. Unfortunately, because of his heavy
involvement at this time with the completion of
his memoirs, Dr. Kissinger regrets that he will
be unable to play a role in securing funding to
allow American scientists to attend the July
Conference in Austria. Nevertheless, he sends
his best wishes for the success of the Conference.

Professor M. Marois
Boulevard Saint-Michel 89
Paris 5e
France

SSM:cb

Sir and dear Colleague:

The Institute of Life is organizing
a world conference on "Science
Dedicated to Life" to be held in
Vienna from the 8th to the 15th
of July, 1979 under the auspices
of the Austrian Government (ref:
letter from Chancellor Kreisky)
and in cooperation with the United
Nations.

The most important US scientists
have contributed to the organization
of this conference.

The USSR Academy of Science has
decided to send a very important
delegation. We also have received
a promise of participation from the
P.R.C.

I am "daring" to ask for your advice
regarding the American participation.
The "Institute of Life" would have
liked to cover all expenses but has
not managed to raise sufficient funds
to pay for the travel costs.
Soviet and Chinese scientists will
not need any financial support for
their travel, even though almost
all American scientists ask for
financial help.

The lack of American representation
in a conference which could have a
major historical importance would
marr the universal outlook of the
Institute. Our organization ardently
hopes to avoid such a happening.

.../...

MAR 23 1979

Page Two

Because our Vienna conference will
not only have the highest scientific
dimension, but a geopolitical and
diplomatic one as well, I am daring
to submit this dilemma for your
"ingenuous perspicacity".

Yours sincerely,

M. Marois

Professor at the Paris Medical School
and Founding President of the Institute
of Life.

PS: all documents are being sent under
separate covers

(SSM: FYI they are attached)

INSTITUT DE LA VIE

PARIS 5e, le 19 mars 1979

89, Bd Saint-Michel

Tél. : 033.94.86

Secrétariat : 033.60.51

Monsieur le Professeur Henry Alfred KISSINGER
Suite 520
1800 K Street, Northwest

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
U.S.A.

Monsieur et Cher Collègue,

L'INSTITUT DE LA VIE (document 1) organise du 8 au 15 juillet 1979 à Vienne, une Conférence Mondiale sur le thème "La Science au Service de la Vie" (document 2) sous le haut patronage de l'Autriche (document 3 : lettre du Chancelier B. KREISKY) et en coopération avec l'organisation des Nations Unies (document 4).

Les plus hautes personnalités scientifiques des Etats-Unis ont coopéré à l'organisation de cette conférence (document 5).

L'Académie des Sciences de l'U.R.S.S. a décidé d'envoyer une très importante délégation. Nous avons d'autre part reçu la promesse d'une participation de la République Populaire de Chine.

J'ose solliciter votre conseil pour la participation américaine. L'INSTITUT DE LA VIE souhaite offrir le séjour aux congressistes mais n'a pas pu rassembler suffisamment de moyens financiers pour les frais du voyage. Les hommes de science Soviétiques et Chinois ne demandent aucun soutien financier pour leur voyage, alors que la presque totalité des hommes de science des Etats-Unis demandent un tel soutien.

L'absence massive des Etats-Unis dans une conférence qui pourrait avoir une importance historique romrait le caractère universel de l'INSTITUT DE LA VIE. Notre institution souhaite ardemment éviter une telle éventualité.

MAR 23 1979

HENRY A. KISSINGER

OCT 25 1979

Dear Don:

I want you to know that it was with great reluctance that I finally made the decision to consolodate all my financial responsibilities at Wertheim. You and Walcott Henry have done an outstanding job with the Trusts and my personal investments, to which the phenominal growth of the 1971 Trusts can attest. With the increasing complexities of my financial situation and the attendant tax consequences, however, it seems to make sense to centralize everything under one roof. Since Fred Klingenstein at Wertheim has been looking after book and consulting income and some tax-related investments, he seems to be the logical person to do it.

It goes without saying that I am very grateful for your guiding hand through the investments thicket over the past years. Without you I would not have had an estate to worry about!

It has been far too long since we have gotten together, and I hope to see you soon.

Mr. Donald Marron
Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc.
140 Broadway
New York, New York 10005

November 29, 1979

Dear Tony:

How kind of you to send me your paper
and speech! Please forgive the delay
in responding to your paper on Africa,
but I have been out of the office a
great deal recently. Your thoughts
were indeed of great interest, and I
very much appreciated your taking the
time to share them.

It was good to hear from you.

Mr. Anthony Marshall
50 East 77 Street
New York, New York 10021

STC:sc

[LC]

Pg. 1 of 11

EVOLVING IMPORTANCE OF AFRICA TO THE U. S.
IN POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND STRATEGIC TERMS

by Anthony D. Marshall

Man started in East Africa. The focus of world development then moved elsewhere evolving into a phenomena called "civilization." It is only "yesterday" in historic terms that Africa has received attention in political, economic and resultant strategic terms from the developed countries that hunger after trade, minerals, and raw materials. Twenty-five years ago, when Africa was barely given a mention on an inside page of the *New York Times*, when there were only two independent African countries, when decisions on Africa were made in Paris, London, Lisbon, Rome and Madrid, Africa was as unknown to Washington as the Moon. The State Department *did* cover it: a few people were relegated to a dark corner of the Near East and Africa Division, waiting assignment to a more important post.

Then, suddenly, in the late 1950s all changed. Ghana, Somalia, Nigeria and others rushed into independence. South Africa, which to many seemingly has existed "forever", only became a Republic in 1961. The 1960s changed the colors and names on maps and gave the *National Geographic* an opportunity for their own Stanleys to seek Livingstonian, pictorial feature stories.

[1C]

- 2 -

As the yoke of political dominance was unleashed from Europe, the African countries set out to establish their own systems, contacts, associations, and to impose on themselves new (or perhaps they were old?) laws of conduct. Sometimes the system has proved fragile and has been restructured, either by intent or by force.

In the 1960s, 129 coups took place, 38 being successful. Generally, and guided by the determination - albeit *uninforceable* - of the OAU, the African countries have maintained the arbitrary boundaries established by colonial powers. Some former French countries, the Ivory Coast being an outstanding example, have maintained close economic ties with France and cultural ties, of course, being of paramount concern to Parisian sensitivities.

The British-formed Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the East African Economic Community sadly dissolved from what could have been viable, regional entities into countries with individual programs, interests and associations. In West Africa, regional economic groupings have been established, mostly - like ECOWAS, still slumbering.

Colin Legum prognosticates that "Africa's postcolonial conditions of political instability will, if anything, be greater in the 1980s than in the past two decades." He may well be right. Boundary lines may be redrawn. That of Cameroon was done in an orderly fashion with U.N. assistance; today, Cameroon is a model of

[1c]

- 3 -

agricultural success, economic growth and current political sta-
bility. However, the determined, aggressive spirit of the
Somalis, as a case in point, who seek a geographic empire far ex-
ceeding their present borders, may pose a problem. If Zimbabwe-
Rhodesia's future is not amicably settled (and it looks bleak),
then violence from within and without that country may well result
in boundary changes. The fragile giant, Zaire, with such wealth
and potential, but hindered in positive progress by the lack of
internal physical communications, burdened down by a $3.5-billion
foreign debt, and the lack of a viable economic development plan,
is a political Humpty Dumpty. Western financial backers continue
to support Zaire, for if Mobutu falls off the wall, can national
leadership for Zaire be put together again?

On the optimistic side, common sense (or whatever else may have
been the reason) has recently toppled the regimes in Equatorial
Guinea, the Central African Republic and Uganda. Although, it is
very sad indeed to look at the results in Uganda. Malimu - the
teacher - Nyerere has taught the Ugandans a lesson. Nyerere,
whose past-time is translating Shakespeare into Swahili, must have
had the Merchant of Venice in mind when he ordered his unpaid
troops into Uganda; demanding in return his pound of flesh. I
have heard that Nyerere has also ordered Uganda's only financial
asset, 200,000 tons of coffee, to be airfreighted to Dar Es Salaam
in "payment" for Tanzania's liberation of Uganda from Amin. In

[1c]

- 4 -

contradiction to this information, the U.S. firm TAW reportedly plans to provide 200 trucks to Uganda to transport the coffee *for Uganda*. If the coffee "payment" story is, indeed, true, then it augers ill for poor suffering Uganda. There is no police force in Uganda; no transport to deal with criminals (who are well armed). As hard as President Binaisa tries, the National Consultative Council lacks cohesiveness and the ability to enforce law. It has been suggested that an international police force replace Tanzanian troops. This idea should receive immediate attention and favorable consideration as an intelligent approach to the problem. That beautiful country, rich in agricultural potential and containing mineral wealth, is perhaps an example favoring the OAU position that boundaries should not be crossed, whatever the reason. A lot of water has gone down the Nile since Henry M. Stanley wrote, in 1875, "When the traveller first enters Uganda, his path seems to be strewn with flowers, greetings with welcome gifts follow one another rapidly, pages and courtiers kneel before him, and the least wish is immediately gratified, for to make a request of the Emperor is to honor him with the power of giving."

Situations move rapidly in Africa. U.S. reaction to developments in Africa has been slow. At first, as I have said, the U.S. ignored Africa. Slowly, as countries became independent, the U.S. admitted it was there, but continued to ignore it. In 1960, when I established a food-processing company in Nigeria, there were no U.S. investments in that country; by 1962, three aerated beverage companies

[Lc]

- 5 -

had established themselves, plus only four other companies besides
my own. Today, with the magnet of petroleum production, Nigeria
has more American investments than any other black African country.

Nigeria's transition from a military government to a civilian
government on 1 October this year is a most hopeful sign for
Nigeria, and for Africa. Now, if Nigeria can only have better
management and fewer controls, develop its agriculture and reduce
corruption, it will be the success story many of us have been
saying it could be, for years.

U.S. political reaction to Africa has been mixed, changing, and
is still without the direction it should have. Our principle
policy statements on Africa cite: non-interference, right to self-
determination and recognition of human rights. By the time Wash-
ington spells it out on paper and in speeches such an air of con-
fusion has been created that one thinks it makes sense. It doesn't.
It's hogwash! The Africans want interference - as appropriate to
them. Witness the Cubans in Angola, the Russians and Cubans in
Ethiopia, and Russian and Chinese support to the Patriotic Front.
President Carter, in 1978, stated that the "Africans on a temporary
basis will turn to the Soviets to buy weapons because we won't
sell weapons to them....We come in later....with economic aid, with
trade, with friendship, with the commitment to human rights.... In

[LC]

- 6 -

the long run our system will prevail." Kenneth Adelman, writing for the *Wall Street Journal* in August of this year, concluded quite rightly that "Africa needs development and security." We still rattle our sabres, but the edge is dull: we send naval vessels into the Indian Ocean but we have already stated in advance that we won't use them. Maybe we wouldn't, but why say so? We feel - and say: let the Soviets go in; They'll go away. We also say: the Africans are not communists; they never will be. The 6,800 Soviet and 35,000 Cuban troops and technical "advisers" now in Africa may not go away. When they do - if they do - what kind of structure will they have left? Economic development? No. What good thoughts will they have left in the minds of the Africans? Marxism? Communism? For the most part, no, I agree. But, under different labels, the potential dangers are real. The Soviets have made their position clear. In 1960, Khrushchev stated that the purpose of the Patrice Lumumba Friendship University was "to educate students from underdeveloped countries so that they can return to their homelands to become the nucleus for pro-Soviet activities." While there have been marked successs, there have also been failures. I have spoken to a number of Lumumba graduates, many disenchanted by the treatment they received. Some were not. In 1972, Brezhnev stated, on the subject of detente with the U.S., that it "in no way signifies a possibility of weakening the ideological struggle" against the West. "On the contrary, we should be prepared for an intensification of this struggle."

[Lc]

- 7 -

It is principally to the good work of the 9th and 10th geo-
graphic departments of the KGB's First Chief Directorate that the
Kremlin looks for its clandestine operations in the English-
speaking and French-speaking nations of Africa. Meanwhile, torn
apart by our administration, Congress and press, the CIA has
been made public by the Freedom of Information Act and weakened
so as to threaten the security of the U.S. My point is: the
Soviets are at work promoting their cause in Africa, they intend
to increase their military presence, and their KGB activities are
not a matter of public record. If the U.S. intends to succeed in
developing its economic interests, in maintaining and further
establishing political alliances, and in protecting its strategic
interests in Africa, then we had best take an immediate, intro-
spective look at what kind of an association African countries
want with us and what kind of an association we want with the
nations of Africa, and adapt our actions to the reality of the
situation.

The U. S. advocated that Africa should be "free of great-power
rivalry," but by our government's actions, this seems to mean only
us. This past June, Secretary Vance stated that "our best course
is to help resolve the problems which create the excuse for external
intervention and to help strengthen the ability of the Africans to
defend themselves." This is moving more in the right direction,
but while words are comforting, soothing and appeal very much to the
Africans - as evidenced by the popular reception Andy Young

[L]

- 8 -

received on his ambassadorial eight-country swan song trek through
the Continent - the question remains: **what" help" can the U.S.
give Africa? And how?**

The point is: black Africa's 45 countries **need** help. We should
help those who help themselves; we should help those who have
established a workable plan to make that plan work. We should pro-
vide economic aid to projects that will hasten to develop the
economic growth based on infrastructural assistance from the World
Bank, which we should support. **Most** important: we should provide,
whether it be through the Ex-Import Bank, OPIC, or some other
financial institution, credit terms for financing American projects
which will be totally competitive with EEC, Japanese, Indian and
Korean terms that are now beating us to good investment - and
trade - opportunities. Mr. John L. Moore, president and chief
executive officer of the Export Import Bank, has recently indicated
that $1-billion in credit could be offered to Africa. I caution that
while volume of credit available is important, **terms** are even more
important. We should help certain countries which have proved
leadership quality, stability and economic direction as opposed to
bailing out countries that are without organization or achieve-
ment. We should provide moderate military aid to certain countries
as a deterrent force to protect their boundaries, to protect their
future.

[Lc]

- 9 -

If we - the U.S. - do not provide this kind of interest, this kind of support, this kind of action, then we have failed in Africa. We will have lost the few remaining toe-holds that we have for port visits for our naval vessels, and overflight and landing rights for our aircraft. We will have lost that potentially dramatic and useful military presence to protect the sea-lanes. We will have lost access through trade; and - this is the most critical issue of all, to the mineral wealth of Africa, just beginning to be explored. For the fight between the Soviets and the U.S., between the Soviets and the Chinese, between the free world and the World-Without-Individual-Choice, is basically economic. The individual moves for possession of land, or on the sea, or in the air, are targeted toward the possession and utilization of natural resources.

Africa is strategic to us in many ways. The international political forum at the U.N. sways thinking, and Africa's major presence when tied-in to the Third World policy positions can change the intent of the West. The population of Africa is growing at an enormous rate. Nigeria's population 20 years ago was 56-million; today it is over 80. Kenya's population today is 16-million; by 2005, it will be 45-million. We are, therefore, not only faced with a consideration of the development of Africa's many countries, but with an explosive population growth rate seeking food, shelter,

[L]

- 10 -

water and technology. The task for our Administration (and which
should receive universal public support) on Africa is to elevate
our priority status on Africa to: "critical - take immediate
action on economic issues." Note that the U.S. has a $12-billion
trade deficit with Africa. We should improve our negative trade
balance with Nigeria. This year Nigeria will produce $15-billion
worth of oil; after Saudi Arabia, Nigeria is our greatest supplier
of oil. This results in a trade balance strongly in their favor,
as we export only $700-million in goods to Nigeria. We should
work with Nigeria on a massive agricultural program, provide com-
petitive financing, tying-in exports. Pullman-Kellogg's reported
$340-million fertilizer plant, still working toward formal approval,
is a positive case in point, with $230-million in financing by Ex-Im.

We must get away from words and into programs. American business
and banks should take the lead but they cannot achieve the successes
Africa wants and which we should be providing without U.S. govern-
ment assistance. Leadership must, of course, come from the top.
President Carter has much on his mind today. He did meet with the
presidents of Liberia and Zaire this month, and visits
by other African heads of state are on his schedule. But more is
necessary: follow-up. The National Security Council, which could
evidence leadership, has not shown great interest. The Department
of State has been primarily heard through the voice of Ambassador
Young. Our AID program is bogged down with paperwork, taking a

[c]

- 11 -

project two years to clear the horrendous AID and Congressional
red-tape requirements. Action is not quick at AID: although with
a new director there is always new hope. What is needed is a
master economic plan (some government officials may think we've
got one; we don't) for AID, trade and investment, and
effective tools in the field of finance, which I have already
referred to, in order to implement such a plan.

We _must_ become more involved. We cannot afford to stand by and adopt a wait-and-see attitude, for in Africa's future stands our own.

*********************

Hartford; October 19, 1979

2309 Belair Drive
Bowie, Maryland 20715

January 12, 1979

Dr. Henry Kissinger
Center for Strategic and International Studies
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

I am sending you with this letter a copy of my recent
book "Patriot or Traitor: The Case of General Mihailovich".
I do so in the belief that you share my conviction on the
importance of establishing the historical truth - not merely
for the sake of truth in its own right but for the larger
purpose of providing us with navigational bearings that will
help to chart a surer course for our diplomacy of the future.

As a Senate staffer, there hasn't been much time to
write books, as you can imagine. If I did succeed in produc-
ing this book over two years of evenings and weekends and
vacations, it was because I was afflicted with an obsessional
conviction that it had to be done at this time if it was
going to be done at all and that I was the only person capable
of pulling together the evidence in defense of Mihailovich -
evidence which has been consistently ignored by William Deakin
and Fitzroy MacLean and Basil Davidson and Phyllis Autey and
all the other "historians" who have a vested interest in
defending the British decision to abandon Mihailovich and
throw all support to Tito.

My opening essay underscores the axiom that no political
policy can be better than the intelligence on which it is
based, that faulty intelligence leads inevitably to mistaken
policy. In the case of Mihailovich, the intelligence avail-
able to Churchill and to Eden was sadly deficient because of
a systematic and ideologically motivated campaign, involving
the suppression of important information coming from the field
and the fabrication of spurious intelligence reports by elements
in MI6. On this point I refer you to the quotation from Sir
Douglas Howard which appears on the back page of my book jacket.
As director of the Foreign Office Southern Department during
World War II, it was Howard's responsibility to read all com-
munications and to provide Eden with a daily briefing on the
situation in Yugoslavia. Howard admits that he had not seen
much of the documentation reproduced in my book, and, to his
very great credit, he implicitly admits that British policy
was mistaken and that the decision would have gone otherwise
had my documentation been available at the time.

Population
Crisis
Committee

Draper Fund

1120 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 659-1833
Cable: CRISIS WASHINGTON
Telex: 440450

Founder

William H. Draper, Jr.
1894-1974

Officers

National Chairman
Fred O. Pinkham

Honorary Chairmen
J. George Harrar
James W. Riddleberger
Joseph D. Tydings

National Co-Chairmen
Robin Chandler Duke
Robert B. Wallace

President
Lawrence R. Kegan

Secretary
Phyllis T. Piotrow

Treasurer
Tom Lilley

Directors

Norman E. Borlaug
Harold W. Bostrom
Ellsworth Bunker
Cass Canfield
Mrs. Otis Chandler
Philander P. Claxton, Jr.
John Conyers, Jr.
William H. Draper III
Angier Biddle Duke
William D. Eberle
Henry H. Fowler
Lincoln Gordon
Marshall Green
Louis Hellman
Julia Henderson
Mary Lasker
Mrs. John L. Loeb
Henrietta H. Marshall
Edwin M. Martin
James S. McDonnell
George C. McGhee
Helen S. Meyner
Mrs. Edward P. Morgan
Stewart R. Mott
Robert R. Nathan
Claes Nobel
Russell W. Peterson
Rodney Shaw
Frank A. Southard, Jr.
Robert Taft, Jr.
Maxwell D. Taylor
Mrs. Carl T. Tucker, Jr.
Charles E. Wampler
William C. Westmoreland

New York Office:
435 East 52nd Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 751-9511

9 November 1979

Dr. Henry Kissinger
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I assume you have just as much right to continue
to be so addressed as I have to be called an Ambassador.

As one of the founders of the Georgetown University
Center for the Study of Diplomacy, you will be receiving
a short monograph which I have written on some of the
negotiating highlights of the World Food Conference
which the Center has been kind enough to publish.

I have tried to be as objective as I could about
both the negotiating process in Washington and in the UN.
I would hope you might feel I have treated your central
role in the Conference with justice. I still regard your
speech to the Conference as one of the boldest and most
constructive you made as Secretary of State.

Naturally I appreciate greatly your willingness to
give me this challenging assignment so late in my bureau-
cratic career. I learned a great deal from the processes
involved and learning new things is always enjoyable.
Moreover, I am still using what I learned then, primarily
for the moment as an active consultant to Ambassador Sol
Linowitz, Chairman of the President's Commission on World
Hunger.

NOV 13 1982

LIEUTENANT LEE MARTINY

Lt. Martiny has been teaching English and history at the Naval Academy for the past few years. Last year he was selected by the Naval Academy and this is somewhat unusual for so junior an officer, to do a research project at the National War College on the Indian Ocean.

I have known Lt. Martiny and his family for many years. He was born in New Orleans in 1949. He went to Tulane and graduated with his BA. He spent his junior year at the University of Newcastle in England and visited me in Paris during one of your discreet visits. Following graduation in ROTC he was commissioned an Ensign in the Navy and served in Vietnam on the destroyer "Lynde McCormick". While at Annapolis he attended Law School at night at the University of Baltimore and got his Law Degree there this year.

He is extremely interested in History and has a very high degree of motivation and unusual integrity of character. I want to see him get ahead in the Navy. He will do them good.

In connection with this project he has already seen Jim Schlesinger, Dick Helms, Bill Colby, Ambassador Yaqub Khan, Ambassador Zahedi, Adm. Menetrier the French Naval attache and former Commander of the French Naval Squadron in the Indian Ocean, Commodore Du Plessis the South African Naval Attache, the N.I.O at C.I.A. for the Indian Ocean Area, and Dr. Kraemer. You will not be wasting whatever time you can give him. IT IS ABOUT THE U.S. VITAL INTERESTS IN THE INDIAN OCEAN AREA THAT HE WANTS TO TALK TO YOU FOR BACKGROUND NOT ATTRIBUTION

Dick Walters

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW

500 WEST BALTIMORE STREET

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201

May 7, 1979

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Center for Strategic and
International Studies
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

I am pleased to invite you to attend a Law Professor Workshop, "The Chinese Connection and Normalization," which will be held at our School of Law on June 8-9, 1979. The Workshop, jointly sponsored by The American Bar Association and the University of Maryland's School of Law, is intended to enrich the instruction of international law in our law schools by seminar type coverage, involving a group of distinguished speakers, of a significant, contemporary international issue. The draft program is enclosed. Should you desire to attend the Workshop, please appropriately mark and return the lower portion of this letter.

If you attend, you will be reimbursed for all of your transportation expenses (at the coach rate, if by air) and provided all program-related meals (two luncheons and a dinner). You will be expected to cover your hotel and other expenses. We are holding a block of rooms and have arranged special rates at the Baltimore Hilton for the nights of June 7 and 8. We would ask that you notify the Baltimore Hilton of your accommodation needs by sending the reservation card or by calling (301) 752-1100.

Enclosures

"The Chinese Connection and Normalization"

Law Professor Workshop jointly sponsored by the Standing Committee on
Law and National Security of the American Bar Association and the Uni-
versity of Maryland School of Law, June 8-9, 1979, Baltimore Hilton.

## Tentative Program

MORNING

June 8th

Opening Remarks by Dean Michael J. Kelly

1. Historical Perspective (U.S.-Chinese relations and Sino-Soviet relations
   -- stability of regime policies; U.S.-Taiwan relations).
   Donald Treadgold, Professor and Chairman, Department of History,
   University of Washington.

2. Government and Legal System of the PRC. Jerome Alan Cohen, Professor and Associate Dean, Director of East Asian Legal Studies, Harvard Law School.

LUNCH . . Value of Connection (political, economic and strategic analysis).

3. Pacific and Triangular Diplomacy (impact on stability in Far East and U.S.-Soviet relations). Gaston Sigur, Professor of International Affairs and Director of the Institute for Sino-Soviet Studies, George Washington University.

4. The Taiwan Issue (Did U.S. adequately protect its mutual defense partner?). Richard Walker, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Institute of International Studies, University of South Carolina. Yuan-li Wu, Professor of Economics, University of San Francisco and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.

DINNER . "Dealing with the Chinese." Alfred Le Jenkins, former Deputy Chief of U.S. Liaison Office in Peking and the only American diplomat to have served both before and after the communist revolution on the mainland of China.

MORNING

June 9th

1. The Normalization Process (legal, procedural and other aspects of recognition of PRC and restructuring of relations with Taiwan).

2. Commercial Implications of Normalization. William Clarke, Director of the People's Republic of China Desk, Bureau of East-West Trade, Commerce Department.

LUNCH . . Human Rights in the PRC. Ross H. Munro, Time-Life News Services (his seven-part series on human rights in China - or the lack of them - appeared in Toronto's *Globe and Mail*, The Washington Post, The New York Times and many other newspapers).

3. Scientific and Technical Exchanges with the PRC.

Small Group Discussions