# A new Secretary of State

By Charles W. Yost

New York

Having for some time been critical of what has seemed to me the confusing overlap of responsibilities between the Secretary of State and the national security adviser, I am delighted that President Nixon has decided to unite these responsibilities under one man, particularly one as able and experienced as Henry Kissinger.

Dr. Kissinger will now have the advantage of having the full resources of the State Department and the Foreign Service directly at his disposal; and they will have the advantage of participating in the central problems of foreign policy. Both the President and the country should profit from this mutual reenforcement.

The change comes, as Dr. Kissinger noted in his press conference last week, at an opportune time when the chief focus of American foreign relations must shift from secret diplomacy — negotiation of detente and of an Indo-China settlement — to dealing with a series of issues requiring more open negotiation and debate, as well as more informed support by Congress and the public. I have no doubt the new Secretary will show the same capacity for the second as for the first style of diplomacy.

There are four central issues on which negotiations are already under way, and two more which have been slighted of late but which should not be much longer. All six may be briefly

noted here, and dealt with more fully in subsequent columns.

1. **Monetary and trade reform.** This problem is no doubt the most urgent, first, because it involves the economic well-being of all nations, and, second, because failure to resolve it will gravely damage the United States's relations with its closest friends, Western Europe and Japan. In this case the next few months may be decisive one way or the other — either agreement on a new, more stable and concerted course, or drift into trade and monetary warfare. Here the new Secretary of State will have to obtain broad support in the Congress, the executive bureaucracy, and the business community at home, and at the same time restore the shaken confidence of America's European and Japanese partners that the U.S. seeks neither to coerce nor ignore them but to concert in the common interest.

2. **SALT II.** The recent Soviet testing of MIRVs dramatizes the obvious fact that SALT I made only a small beginning in controlling the strategic arms race. Despite detente with the Soviet Union, competition in offensive arms goes on between the two superpowers as extravagantly and provocatively as ever. Both sides seem to be accelerating rather than slowing down the accumulation of nuclear overkill and of enormously expensive "bargaining chips." The new Secretary of State will have to make a sober reassessment of what is, in fact not in fantasy, required for national security under present circumstances; induce the U.S. military-political complex to accept this posture, and persuade their equally ambitious competitors in Moscow to show equal restraint.

3. **Military disengagement from the Asian mainland.** One might have thought that such disengagement would have flowed naturally from President Johnson's decisive turnabout five and a half years ago, from President Nixon's announcement of the Nixon doctrine in 1969 and his detente with China in 1971, and from the Paris agreement on Indo-China last January. Unfortunately the administration does not yet seem to have disengaged psychologically from its curious conception that, because the U.S. has mistakenly expended lives and treasure in Indo-China on a vast scale, it is honorbound to try to enforce from the air settlements which laid upon it no such responsibility. These settlements were certainly the best that could have been made at the time, but they are equally certain to be violated again and again over coming months and years. Is this really a case where vital national interests oblige the U.S. unilaterally to act as the world's policeman? Very few of its allies believe so, and obviously the majority of its Congress does not.

4. **European security arrangements.** Negotiations on such arrangements, including mutual troop reductions in Europe, are already well in train and will be moving forward during the fall and winter. They cannot, however, be disposed of in a single "Year of Europe." Nor will presidential visits or a new "Atlantic Charter" provide more than momentary satisfaction. What is needed to restore and maintain confidence in Europe is concrete progress on security arrangements and on trade and monetary reform.

5. **The Middle East.** The new Secretary will have soon to turn his attention and talents to an Arab-Israel settlement. Neither the need of all the peoples of that area for peace, nor the need of the U.S., Europe, and Japan for an expanding and stable source of oil, can much longer be left exclusively to those who for a quarter century have failed to find, or even to begin to find, a settlement.

6. **Development of less developed countries.** Finally, there is a problem of enormous global significance which, in the backlash of Vietnam, is being grossly neglected by the U.S. Congress and people. They are doing less and less to cope with more and more. Perhaps only a combination of resource shortages threatening its own economy and of famine and breakdown in major parts of the "third world" will persuade the U.S. that international interdependence operates south as well as north of the Tropic of Cancer.

This included eight phone of the taxpayers.

Kissinger Needs Backing

SECRETARY of State-designate Henry Kissinger has demonstrated skill at secret diplomacy and his private negotiations produced an unprecedented string of foreign policy triumphs in the first Nixon administration.

Unknown to the massive diplomatic bureaucracy, which has sti-fled more presidential initiatives than it has conceived, the Ivy League professor elaborated the theoretical underpinnings of the Nixon Doctrine which substituted" limited commitments for global overinvolvement.

SECRETLY he journeyed to Pe-king and arranged the startling rapprochement with mainland China. Repeatedly he travelled to Paris and conducted delicate nego-tiations to end American involve-ment in the Vietnam War.

In these and other maneuvers, President Nixon and Mr. Kissinger acted autonomously, apart from the foreign affairs bureaucracy, unknown to Congress, and distant from average citizens.

SUCH TACTICS, as unusual as they were, reflected the President's own keen perception of the national difficulties he inherited in 1969. The Indochina conflict had divided the American elite which a decade earlier strongly backed military preparedness and the containment of Communist expan-sionism.

Also, bureaucratic sabotage had frustrated policy making under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Not only could second and third-echelon officials block White House policy, they could also define and limit the President's options.

IN 1964, for instance, though President Johnson asked his chief advisers to consider all options to settlement of the Vietnam issue,

the underlings converged on a single solution — bombing North Vietnam.

Recognizing that, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had become prisoners of their own bureaucracy—with fateful consequences—Mr. Kissinger avoided traditional channels. As a result, he effected a revolution in American foreign policy.

BUT NOW as secretary of state Mr. Kissinger faces a different set of requirements, and the most urgent task is to establish permanent public and institutional support for his policies.

Fortunately, Mr. Kissinger recognizes the time has arrived for public diplomacy to replace secrecy. Last week in his press conference he decried obsessions with secrecy and promised an open foreign policy.

AS SECRETARY of state Mr. Kissinger also promised to "create a new consensus" in which the American people and Congress can understand and support adequate defense and diplomatic programs.

His success in mobilizing the State Department bureaucracy, a suspicious Congress, and an exhausted public to back limited commitments in the post-Vietnam world will determine the long-term durability of President Nixon's foreign policy.

MR. NIXON'S place in history as a statesman depends in a large way on how well Mr. Kissinger establishes legitimacy for the diplomatic revolution initiated in the last four years.

A good memory is one trailed to forget the trivial.

Clifton Fadiman

vacation souvenirs, they would discover how true this is.

IT SEEMS that a full life for an American has come to mean expenditure of every last dime he makes.

If the general public is indeed short on knowledge of economics and finance, it is instructive to examine the causes of recent price increases. Three contributory factors can be listed — wage increases, explosive demand for goods and decreasing supply of goods.

THE AVERAGE factory worker's take-home pay has increased 27 per cent in the last three years. Employers everywhere have had to compensate for such increased expenses by raising prices, or risk going out of business.

Total retail sales of goods in the U.S. have increased 33 per cent since mid-1970 and have forced American industry into near capacity production.

SINCE LESS than half this increase can be explained by price level rise, demand for American goods is expanding rapidly and severely challenging producers' abilities to supply the items. Under this condition those demanding will bid up the price and the supplier will sell to the highest bidder.

Most recently the dollar has been very lowly valued in relation to other nations' currencies and this has enabled American businessmen to get more dollars abroad for their products. than they can in the U.S. This reduces the supply of commodities available to Americans and everyone knows that the scarcer an

straint on ing and enforcement of budget as restraint because made of such.

One should the big money and interest on Finally, cry out for help. Let supply and they should my.

IT IS an area that the controls by the President uses them to achieve with omic policy.

America controls. It's people's facts of life.

Colum-

Defen-
Given

To the Editor: I wish to comment on the article by Aspin (De) of the Department of Defense.

The comment was made by a member of the executive committee, and was not made by the President or his representatives.

THE STAFF of the House of Representatives believes that taxation in modern cost-of-living, non-military, non-officio-

## Kissinger at bay?

Hardly anyone contends that Henry Kissinger's accomplishments in negotiating peace terms with North Vietnam and arranging President Nixon's visit to Peking could have been achieved without secrecy. Yet it is an issue of secrecy involving executive privilege, wiretapping to find security "leaks" and his behind-the-scenes work for the President that is being raised by some in opposition to his confirmation as the next secretary of state.

While much of the world press and many foreign officials were saying good things about Kissinger's nomination to succeed William P. Rogers, the New York Times accused him of participating in the wiretapping of State Department officials, without the knowledge of Secretary Rogers. Earlier, Watergate testimony had Kissinger bugging members of his own White House staff and press correspondents in an effort to pin down and stop leaks of security information.

Former Sen. Wayne L. Morse, one-time member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, bore down heavily on this criticism of Kissinger in his interview printed in The Oregonian Sunday under the by-line of Early Dean, of The Oregonian staff. Sen. Morse indicted Kissinger as "dangerous," "completely untrustworthy," a "sponsor of wiretapping" and a negotiator of "secret agreements" with foreign governments.

Although the ex-senator, from Oregon no longer has a voice in Congress, and was pretty much of a lone wolf when he had, his criticism echoes some of that in Democratic ranks in Congress. The Senate hearing and possible debate on the Kissinger confirmation is shaping up as a major opportunity for anti-Nixon senators to put President Nixon's foreign policies on trial. Inasmuch as Henry Kissinger had a strong hand in shaping those policies, this is fair enough. If anyone can explain and defend the Administration's foreign policies adequately, Kissinger can. He has said that he will not invoke executive privilege, which the President retained for him to some degree by continuing him as a personal adviser on foreign affairs, except in matters of confidential discussions with the President in that role.

Kissinger's emergence from the White House back rooms into full view as the nominee for secretary of state is surely cause for re-examination of U. S. foreign policies. Whether or not he approved wiretapping to find security leaks is a petty issue in comparison with the programs for world peace and America's future in world affairs. But anything may be expected in official Washington these days as the miasma of Watergate spreads over Foggy Bottom as well as the White House.

of a hole-in-one contest conducted by a New York newspaper. Competitors included a high percentage of duffers.

There are certainly those among the 12 million, however, who, after a few decades of slicing and hooking, will think the odds must be much too low — or at least they are not getting their share of aces.

Put a man or woman on a grassy plot with a thin shanked club and a little white ball and the intention of putting the ball in a small hole some 200 yards distant, and the imponderables should be enough to humble any statistician or odds-maker.

## A farmer's fair

State fairs in recent years have been phasing out farm exhibits and have been turning themselves into giant trade fairs headlined by movie stars in order to attract the city folk. The Oregon State Fair has followed the trend.

This year the agriculture exhibits were pushed out of a permanent building which would not have been built without strong farm support in the Legislature. Agriculture exhibits wound up in a tent.

But fair officials, who even tried to put on a kissing show in order to boost attendance, have missed a trend that should have been obvious. Last spring when the fair people were promoting their oriental trade fair in an effort to get more money from the Legislature, city folks were out madly buying up seeds.

The soaring price of food has boomed amateur gardening. Seed firms also missed the trend and next year there may be a serious shortage of seeds even for farmers because there has been no "forward contracting" for seed crops.

The amateur gardeners have been flocking to the Oregon State Fair, hoping to find out how the professional farmers do it. Since the fair opened Saturday, the agriculture exhibits in the tent show have been packing 'em in.

Now that food is both scarce and expensive, it has suddenly become a glamorous attraction, state agriculture officials say. Next year, the amateur farmers won't have to look at the food exhibits in a tent. Agriculture will be back in an air-conditioned building.

If prices continue to rise, the state may have to post guards over the farm exhibits, just as if they were showing off the crown jewels.

## Fire threat not over

A change in the weather has brought a measure of relief to firefighters in the western states. The last of 52 major blazes battled out of regional headquarters in Boise — the Freezeout fire in northeastern Oregon — was declared under control Saturday, although some crews remained on the lines. But the public must not delay its vigilance. The Inland Empire is still

200,000 acres the West, the three 1945. Unless

The situation seems severe, as restrictions There is a timber, brooks on both sides of the river. Bryant-Straity is closest to the estuary.

A great deal of the past few years the woods and tions now are public reser- one of the estet-

## Taxp

Californians signed a dent. It is a taxpayer's such gov-

The vote and the state's expected lion. Gov. Ed the credit, ed to spend ices, such as

California. The back for added July was appar- ently to raise tax those with less than a cent for a come.

The resident of

Calculate science that specially with respect to Over the year, with respec- source of such as been too high

LATIMES

8/28/73

## SCORNED FOREIGN SERVICE

# Kissinger's '68 View
Returns to Haunt Him

WASHINGTON (AP) — Henry A. Kissinger: "On the whole, if we could get rid of the bottom half of the Foreign Service we might be better off."

From academia five years ago, Kissinger made that irreverent assessment about the part of government which last week President Nixon asked him to head.

The secretary of state-designate outlined his views during a seminar at UCLA to which he contributed a paper entitled, "Bureaucracy and Policy Making: The Effect of Insiders and Outsiders on the Policy Process."

Together with some extemporaneous remarks he made at the seminar, the paper depicts the then Harvard professor as having disdain for the State Department's processes.

Only a few department officials are familiar with Kissinger's 1968 viewpoints.

"I hold the view," Kissinger said, "that we are so overstaffed that it makes thinking almost impossible. When you have in embassies individuals assigned to particular small groups, each of them filing endless reports, the result is that no senior official can possibly read everything that comes in. No new official in turn will say he has nothing new to

report, so the machine keeps churning on."

During his four and one half years as the President's national security affairs adviser, Kissinger often bypassed the State Department. The most celebrated example of this was his secret 1971 trip to Peking. At the seminar, he explained why secrecy is sometimes necessary — and some of the problems which can result.

"Some of the key decisions are kept to a very small circle while the bureaucracy happily continues working away in ignorance of the fact that decisions are being made.

"One reason for keeping decisions to small groups is that when bureaucracies are so unwieldy and when their internal morale becomes a serious problem, an unpopular decision may be fought by brutal means, such as leaks to the press or congressional committee.

"A result is that the relevant part of the bureaucracy, because it is being excluded from the making of a particular decision, continues with great intensity sending out cables, thereby distorting the effort with the best intentions in the world. You cannot stop them from doing it because you do not tell them what is going on."

KISSINGER SEEKING
ADVICE OF ENVOYS

NYT

8/28/73

Summons Top Ambassadors
for Talks—Confers With
Mansfield and Fulbright

By BERNARD GWERTZMAN

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Aug. 27—
Henry A. Kissinger summoned
several top American ambassa-
dors today to confer with him
on the people, policies and
problems of the State Depart-
ment in advance of next
month's Senate hearings on his
nomination to replace William
P. Rogers as Secretary of
State.

A White House official said
that the ambassadors, many of
whom have worked closely in
the past with Mr. Kissinger,
President Nixon's adviser for
national security, would meet
with him over the next 10 days
at San Clemente, Calif., or
Washington. Mr. Kissinger re-
turned to the California White
House tonight after a weekend
in Mexico and a one-day visit
to Washington.

While in Washington, Mr.
Kissinger held a long session
at the White House this morn-
ing with Kenneth Rush, the
Deputy Secretary of State, who
has agreed to remain in his
job.

Aides said that the two men

Continued on Page 6, Column 1

trapped in the vault by police
men who crept into the rest of
the bank.

After the nine-hour strategy
session today, Commissioner

## Sits East Berlin
About Quarters

recognition are expected to begin in September in Washington. The East German observer had the United Nations already been to Washington to set up an agenda. Recognition is not expected until after both East Germany and West Germany enter the United Nations this fall.

France and Britain already have legations in East Berlin headed by chargés d'affaires.

Before World War II, the French and American embassies were adjacent to the Brandenburg Gate on the East Berlin side while the British Embassy was around the corner from the old Wilhelmstrasse, the seat of government. All three buildings were destroyed in the war and their sites are along the wall. The three nations are expected to maintain their claims to the properties.

HAND-MADE
ENGLISH
SILVER

ONSLOW is one of 17 patterns still hand forged for us from bars of silver by master silversmiths. Their pride of craftsmanship and devotion to detail, so evident in each piece they fashion, impart a character that eludes machine made silverware.

We invite your visit and comparison.

doubt I could find it again without somebody
to show me the way.

After I'd taken Bloom back to his office in

If you do go to see the farkleberry at Za-
valla, you have the defense that it is what for-
esters call a national champion tree. Which

iven since my dependents were in elementary
school and studying wildflowers and collec-
ting specimens of something called a bladder-
wort.

Donald R. Morris

Kissinger's new role chiefly administrative

Dr. Henry Kissinger's translation from his
present, untrammeled position to the more
confining post of secretary of State is not with-
out its bizarre aspects.

There is, to begin with, the further evidence
that the administration's primary criterion in
fitting people to jobs is not so much their suit-
ability for a particular post as the image the
White House holds of their general person-
ality. Patrick Gray's unhappy visitation at the
FBI, Richard Helms as Ambassador to Iran,
and Schlesinger's careening course from the
AEC to the DoD via the CIA all testify to that
penchant.

Dr. Kissinger has been — with enormous
success — the Lord High Panjundrum of for-
eign affairs. If Richard Nixon goes down in
our future history texts for anything, it will
not be Watergate but establishing the matrix
which gave Kissinger free rein — and then lis-
tening to what the man told him.

Lord of the State Department may appear
to be the proper eminence for the chief archi-
tect of our foreign policy, but in fact it is not.

The post is primarily administrative, and
the role in policy formulation is primarily
one of adjudicator — between the National Se-
curity Council (where the broad outlines are
hammered out) and the middle echelons of
the Department (where the actual details are

Tuesday News Analyst
Morris discusses another
peripheral Watergate cost item

arranged).

Kissinger and his staff have combined two
roles. They have formulated the policy itself,
with far greater effectiveness than the Nation-
al Security Council as a whole could do, and
Kissinger has served as his own negotiator,
with authority to speak for our government as
a whole. Without the arrangements the Presi-
dent established, the negotiations would have
been in the hands of a high-ranking but still
subordinate Foreign Service Officer, bound by
a score of strings leading back to higher offi-
cials and even the subordinate echelons on the
Country Desks.

Moving Kissinger to the Department is a
curious surrender of presidential powers. Pri-
or to the move, Kissinger was relatively im-
mune to congressional attack, and Congress,
in its battle to hogtie the Oval Office, now has
free access to the fount of our foreign policy.
It is all the more curious because there was

little pressure on the presidential lager to sur-
render this particular hostage — whatever
bones Congress may have to pick with the ex-
ecutive branch, it has been relatively quies-
cent in the realm of our relations with the
major foreign powers.

Kissinger will undoubtedly put his own
stamp on the Department. The housekeeping
chores are staggering, but they can for the
most part be delegated to career officials who
have dealt with them for years. He will un-
doubtedly assume more of a personal role in
negotiations than the majority of his pre-
decessors who were inclined to let underlings
abroad work out the nitty-gritty descending on
the scene only in the final stages for ceremo-
nial signatures.

Kissinger's administrative talents are still
an unknown quantity, and the academic world
— from which he hails — is notoriously
deficient in that respect. But Kissinger's track
record in selecting personnel, organizing them
and handling them in the much smaller staff
he has been responsible for to date is ex-
cellent.

The detente he pioneered is long past the
stage where secret, personal conferences are
needed to sustain it. As secretary, such ac-
tivity would in any event be impossible. Capi-
tals the world over will be watching himanx-
iously in the months to come.

Today in history

SHOP SAKOWITZ DOWNTOWN MONDAY 'TIL 8; GULFGATE, POST OAK, TOWN & COUNTRY VILLAGE 'TIL 9

The Birmingham News

Clarence B. Hanson, Jr., Publisher

Victor H. Hanson, II,
Vice President, General Manager

Vincent Townsend,
Vice President, Assistant to Publisher

John W. Bloomer,
Managing Editor

James R. McAdory, Jr.,
Editorial Page Editor

Victor H. Hanson, Publisher 1910-1945

V X = PR

Monday, August 27, 1973

A New Consensus

In his diplomatic way Dr. Henry Kissinger has stated an important goal in American foreign policy: A bipartisan "new consensus."

Kissinger did not place blame, although it might be laid at the feet of a certain bloc of senators, for the most definite erosion in bipartisanship in foreign policy within the span of the last two presidential administrations.

Beginning with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, presidents had bipartisan support for their foreign policy. But the bipartisanship broke down while President Lyndon Johnson was trying to conduct a war which had enjoyed almost unanimous support in Congress until a faction of his own party bolted.

Thus the erosion has largely been limited to the Democratic Party — a party

which as late as 1972 was battling out ideological issues and which resolved the struggle by nominating a candidate who was overwhelmingly rejected by the electorate.

For the Nixon administration, a Republican one, to heal the divisions within the Democratic Party will be no neat trick. Not only did the maverick Democratic bloc want their party's own president, Lyndon Johnson, to fail, they are bound and determined to see that Mr. Nixon's policies fail.

Sen. J. William Fulbright and his adherents would rather see the global position of the U. S. crumble than to have all their dire predictions turn out wrong.

And, additionally, Sen. Fulbright wants the power to direct national foreign policy from his seat as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Kissinger's promise that foreign affairs will be much more open and much better explained to the public under the second Nixon administration is good news.

But as perverse as Sen. Fulbright and his bloc have been — throwing tripping-blocks in front of the President's policies at every opportunity — the only way that the Fulbright bloc will be satisfied is if Kissinger would give the Foreign Relations Committee veto power over every decision, no matter how minute.

Of course, foreign policy of the U. S. cannot be conducted that way, but that fact has never bothered Sen. Fulbright.

As with negotiations with some of our international antagonists, it takes two sides to work out a peace; it can only be hoped that the Fulbright bloc will be receptive to Kissinger's call for a "new consensus." Otherwise, Kissinger's proposal will be another meritorious idea that got nowhere.

Kissinger... Seeks Cohesion

PRESIDENT
new secretary
announced on
election.

Before
requested to
President's
year expired
months. This
When the
old friend the
Secretary Ra
be blunt. So

In view
bewildering
Secretary of
might never
destation.

The fac
President's
White House
to overcome

Beginn\>began to be
few were a
state might
April: The
Watergate.

Deserters

OF THE
sole rival
recognition
always be
period, ma
world, has
Nonet
Kissinger
poeple four

The Ethics Bill

Kissinger, as a Jew, Will Face
Hostility of Arabs in New Post

BY WILLIAM J. COUGHLIN

Times Staff Writer

BEIRUT—Henry A. Kissinger, whatever his qualifications as secretary of state, will face a hostile Arab world because he is a Jew.

That already is clear from initial reaction to his appointment.

One newspaper here called Kissinger's new assignment an Israeli victory over the Arabs comparable to that of the June, 1967, war.

Another denounced him as "the Israeli HenryVIII" and declared that the American Zionist movement forced President Nixon into the appointment.

Kissinger's assertion at a California news conference that "I will conduct the foreign policy of the United States regardless of religion and national heritage" was greeted with jibes in the Arab press.

"There is no doubt that the man will serve Israel more than the United States, as do the Jews every-

where and at all times," said Beirut's Al Moharrer.

Arab diplomats here take a similar view, although one suggested that Kissinger, because he is a Jew, might be able to wring more concessions out of Israel than outgoing Secretary of State William P. Rogers.

High officials in several Arab countries have expressed the view that efforts by Rogers to end the Middle East deadlock were blocked by Israeli intransigence. It seemed unlikely to observers here that Kissinger will get the benefit of any such considerations.

Overall, reaction has been that the Kissinger appointment was a setback to any Arab hopes of a more even-handed role by the United States in the Middle East. That, in turn, appeared likely to increase the belligerence of Arab nations toward both the United States and Israel.

Please Turn to Page 12, Col. 1

crowned Miss Black America at a pageant in New York City. "It's spiritual," she said. "It's sharing of oneself with others. That's all I really want out of life." Miss Russell, 23, competed with 31 other young women from around the nation. The new queen for a year is an assistant designer for a New York City clothing firm and hopes soon to join the Negro Ensemble Company, a black repertory theater group.

—The two rulers of Andorra held a summit meeting for the first time since the 13th century. What brought them together in Cahors, France, was the need for "a large and confident review of all the problems" facing the sejmifeudal state of 20,000 persons who live in the area of 190 square miles in the Pyrenees between Spain and France. Actually, the country is self-governed, specializes in stamps, tourism and smuggling, doesn't have many problems, and easily finds the tribute it must pay the foreign rulers. They are the French president, currently Georges Pompidou, and The Most Rev. Ramon Malla Cal, Spanish bishop of Urgel. On alternate years the Andorrans pay

each of their "questors" 12 cheeses, 12 chickens, 12 grouse and six hams.

—Women's Equality Day may be an inappropriate time to make jokes about women but Joel S. Fogel, of Somers Point, N.J., swears their handbags are a valuable asset on a scientific expedition. Fogel is one of a group of scientists starting next month on a trip to

Arnice Russell

(P) Wirephoto

Los Angeles Times

HARRISON GRAY OTIS, 1881-1917
HARRY CHANDLER, 1917-1944

NORMAN CHANDLER, 1944-1960

OTIS CHANDLER, Publisher

ROBERT D. NELSON
Executive Vice President and General Manager

WILLIAM F. THOMAS
Executive Vice President and Editor

CHARLES C. CHASE, Vice President—Production

ROBERT C. LOBDELL, Vice President—Administration-General Counsel

RICHARD S. ROBINSON, Vice President—Assistant to the Publisher

VANCE L. STICKELL, Vice President—Sales

JAMES BASSETT, Associate Editor

JAMES BELLOWS, Associate Editor

ANTHONY DAY, Editor of the Editorial Pages

ROBERT J. DONOVAN, Associate Editor

FRANK P. HAVEN, Managing Editor

2-Part VI

SUNDAY, AUGUST 26, 1973

The Kissinger Outlook

Secretary of State-designate Henry A. Kissinger has set as a primary objective the achievement of a new bipartisan consensus in the conduct of the nation's foreign affairs, and to this purpose he has pledged that there will be both wider consultations and an expanded flow of information about the great and changing international issues that affect American interests.

What Kissinger was acknowledging was a fact too easily and too long forgotten—that if there is to be cooperation and progress abroad, there must first be conciliation and trust at home, a healing of the deep wounds left by the domestic battles over the Indochina war, a restoration of the confidence in the management of foreign affairs that has been so sorely battered.

The restorative process is to begin where of course it must—with greater attention both to public opinion and to the constitutional responsibilities and institutional sensitivities of Congress.

"We have an obligation to explain our philosophies, purposes and policies," to seek understanding and, through that, approval of what the Nixon Administration wants to do overseas, Kissinger said. He intends to seek the advice of "various opinion-forming elements in this country," but a paramount concern is with Congress, with which he wants to see a "new and full partnership" in the making and carrying out of foreign policy.

In setting this welcome course, Kissinger made clear that he was not apologizing for or scorning the secrecy that recently has marked the conduct of American diplomacy. Much of that secrecy was indeed necessary, given the special problems involved. Negotiations to end the Indochina war could not have been a public event if they were to have any hope of success. Neither could the delicate preliminary work that resulted in altered

relations with China and the Soviet Union have taken place in the spotlight.

But now the war is over, the great breakthrough with China has come and awaits opportunities to be expanded, some limited agreements have been reached with the Soviet Union, and others may be possible.

One need now—and it is very closely tied to Kissinger's new job—is to "institutionalize" these changes in the State Department, to energize the bureaucratic machinery to follow through on them. Another need—and this too is closely tied to the Kissinger shift—is to begin the hard work of new thinking about relationships and problems that have been too long neglected or allowed to drift.

Our alliances and, more important, our common interests with Japan and Western Europe require fresh attention and creative initiatives. The Middle East remains an area of major concern to the United States. In coming years, what is happening in the energy-rich Persian Gulf may be especially significant. Disarmament, the shortage of basic resources in the world, the food gap all loom as primary issues.

The big questions, as always, are just what is in the national interest, how is that interest determined, what policies best serve it. The answers, as usual, are seldom clear.

What Kissinger is saying is that from now on the Nixon Administration wants to try to get broad and understanding agreement on those answers, by candidly sharing its thinking and information with Congress and the public, and by listening instead of just talking.

Americans can only welcome that promise, and watch closely to see how it is carried out.

## on Foreign Physicians

BY ALEX GERBER

There may be an argument over whether the Soviet Union or the United States has the most effective missile force or the most powerful nuclear arsenal, but there is one front on which the Russians are clearly in the lead.

Since recovering from the devastation of World War II, the Soviet Union has been creating a humanitarian image by building hospital and clinics in such underdeveloped parts of the world as Ethiopia, Iraq, Algeria, Yemen, and the Congo and staffing them with thousands of physicians and paramedical personnel.

The United States, on the other hand, has been draining away increasing numbers of physicians from many underdeveloped countries that are struggling desperately with medical manpower problems of their own. Indeed, the continuing

> Dr. Gerber is a surgeon and a clinical professor at the USC medical school. His article is adapted from *Prism magazine, a publication of the American Medical Assn.*

"brain-drain" of physicians from the underdeveloped countries to our shores leaves little doubt about who is helping whom medically, and this blatant foreign-aid-in-reverse policy is rapidly becoming a national disgrace.

How did the United States—so rich and strong—become a doctor-debtor nation? Our medical schools, whose expansion was relatively slow for many years, are now turning out physicians at a rate three times faster than the increase in the general population. Moreover, technical advances in medicine, greater use of ancillary personnel, and urbanization have resulted in a marked increase in physician productivity.

It is clear, however, that these factors have been overbalanced by previous population growth that outdistanced the number of physicians in private practice, the "explosion of demand" for health services stemming from higher income and education levels, the remarkable upsurge in private and governmental health insurance, the aging of the population with the attendant increase in chronic disease, and added demands upon the resources of the

health statistics than the United States despite Sweden's lower physician-to-population ratio. This kind of apples-oranges reasoning makes nice fruit salad but doesn't advance the cause of adequate patients care.

For South Dakota is ethnically and culturally homogeneous, and the life-styles of its inhabitants allow them to remain healthy with relatively few physicians. Other factors seldom taken into account play important roles in skewing South Dakota's health level indices.

How many aged and infirm South Dakotans flee the rigors of their home state and place the burden of their medical care upon the physicians of warmer climes? Do all the physicians combined in South Dakota treat as many stab and gunshot wounds in a year as may be seen in a single weekend at the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center?

Indeed, is there any area in South Dakota that can match the unenviable record of the Los Angeles ghetto where, according to California Medicine, the most important health problem is homicide? Our metropolitan hospitals are swamped with admissions for alcoholism and drug overdoses. How many such cases are seen in rural South Dakota?

Health and medical personnel statistical comparisons between the United States and Sweden are no more germane. To begin with, the United States is saddled with many more slum areas, and slums have their own inherent health problems. Few Swedish children are disabled by rat bites, for example, or from eating lead paint peelings from the walls.

The United States is charged with the medical care of a large number of war veterans; Sweden has no veterans hospitals, not having engaged in a war for over two centuries. Moreover, the Swedes rely more upon midwives than obstetricians; they do not make a fetish of annual physical examinations; and they are willing to wait as long as a year for an elective operation.

Our traditions and medical care standards preclude a similar saving of medical personnel, and it is quixotic to assume that our social mores will soon change. But the doctors of the

 mutual Trust

It did so by restricting test activi-

NEW YORK NEWS 28 AUGUST 1973

CAPITOL
STUFF

By JERRY GREENE

Washington, Aug. 27—In the appointment of Henry Kissinger as secretary of state, President Nixon is moving, deliberately or not, to junk a 12-year-old concept and restore a powerful government department to its place in the sun.

This switch doubtless will help the State Department more than it will Kissinger, for, as the incoming secretary well knows, the troubles lying ahead for him will by no means be few. They will begin at his confirmation hearings and they will extend in every direction.

Of course the revival of the State Department as top-echelon policy producer does not mean that the department will be in the same situation it enjoyed in the heady era of Dear Acheson and John Foster Dulles. Kissinger will retain his personal advisory role with Nixon, and his finger on the

National Security Council, which has been his own pet little bureaucracy.

But definitely the business of two foreign offices, which was begun by President Kennedy with the choice of McGeorge Bundy as personal foreign affairs expert, and continued under Lyndon Johnson with Walt Rostow, and under Nixon with Kissinger, is at an end.

At the State Department, Kissinger will absorb the help of, and the responsibility for, a potentially potent 12,000-man force with highly trained, skilled experts by the score. And he will need all the help he can get, at home and abroad.

If there is any serious concern about Kissinger's confirmation it hasn't surfaced. But the secretary-designate can expect some hard questioning from a good number of senators who are beginning to wonder whether this new season of peace and harmony with Russia and China isn't costing us considerably more than we are about to get in return.

The question of a price paid in the eagerness to register gains toward President Nixon's widely advertised generation of peace has been heightened here within the last few days because of the Moscow press conference

## President Moves

## State Department

## Back to Eminence

NEW YORK TIMES

28 AUGUST 1973

### Turkey and Iraq Will Build Pipeline to Mediterranean

ANKARA, Turkey, Aug. 27 (UPI)—Turkey and Iraq today signed an agreement for the construction of a 40-inch pipeline to carry Iraqi oil across Turkey to the Mediterranean.

The 625-mile pipeline between Kerkuk in Iraq and Dortyol on Turkey's Mediterranean coast will bring Turkey revenues of about $100-million a year. It is scheduled to be completed by 1977.

The pact, signed by the Turkish Foreign Minister, Haluk Buyulken, and the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Murteza Saint Abdel Baki, also calls for Iraq to supply crude oil to Turkey after 1977.

of Andrei D. Sakharov, the physicist largely responsible for development of the Russian version of the H-bomb.

Sakharov defied the Kremlin and broadcast a warning to the rest of the world not to accept detente on Russian terms.

The bombmaker's risky warning disturbed liberals here who have been pushing for closer understanding and relations with Russia almost as hard as Nixon. Conservatives generally have been far less than enthusiastic at the new accords with the Communists, whether in Moscow or Peking.

And such men as Sen. Henry (Scoop) Jackson (D-Wash.), an ardent liberal in domestic affairs, have been screaming that the U.S. was—or permitted itself to be—bilked in the Russian grain deal last year.

To the administration's distress, Jackson has been adamant in hanging in there for approval of his trade bill amendment that would compel the Russians to ease emigration restrictions in return for benefits granted by this country.

So the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be wanting to hear from Kissinger on who gives what and who gets what in return, in terms of trade and people.

Similarly, as Kissinger knows, more than a few senators are restive over the coming strategic arms limitation talks.

### Jackson's Tough Amendment

Russia's recent development of separately aimed multiple warheads (MIRV) for intercontinental missiles cast a heavy shadow over the second SALT talks; it was Jackson again who obtained an amendment to the first nuclear limitation pact instructing the President to seek parity with the Russians next time out.

Kissinger's proposal for a new Atlantic Charter to bring the old Nato alliance up to date appears to be finding more disfavor the longer Europeans study it; Kissinger faces a growing difficulty in selling a new "declaration of principles" he and Nixon had hoped might be approved at a wholesale summit meeting at the windup of the President's planned swing through Europe in late October.

Closer to home, Latin American policy is more or less a shambles if indeed there is any; Nixon had to cancel a Latin trip this fall because of Watergate.

Looking to the Far East, Kissinger — and Nixon — have a massive job to do in putting relations with Japan on a more suitable footing—an association that could at present by no means be called buddy-buddy.

### The Importance of Japan

Nixon has said more than once that Japan must be considered the key to peace in the Pacific; Kissinger is known to regard the Japanese as the "toughest negotiators" he has ever encountered. And the Japanese have been sorely miffed at what they have looked upon as cavalier treatment by Washington.

As for the Middle East, Kissinger has for years believed this area the world's greatest danger spot. He once told us: "If we can avoid disaster and prolong the peace we will be doing very well."

Probably the relations with Russia — because of SALT and trade — and Europe, and the Congress will be occupying Kissinger's immediate attention. Congress, and a substantial segment of the public, still fret over the one-way-street with the Communists. Kissinger may be able to ease the worries if he can persuade his inquisitors that he really understands, as he has said privately, that Russia is ruled by a very tough bunch of men who reached the top by brutal methods, that he will demand that the U.S. gets as good as it gives.

BOSTON GLOBE - 26 AUGUST 1973 (28)

advancing on all fronts?

By Phil Gailey

Knight Newspapers

FT. BENNING, Ga.—A captain in the 197th Infantry Brigade recently made 13 long distance telephone calls in a single day trying to locate and persuade an 18-year-old AWOL to return to his unit.

In the old days, before the Army went volunteer, an AWOL rarely received such consideration. Today, he is more likely to get an understanding ear from his superiors and an Article 15 (Administrative punishment such as a fine) instead of being slapped in the stockade.

"There's a lot of emphasis these days on keeping (the number of) AWOLs down, so we have to spend a lot of time on the phone begging these guys to come back," the captain explained.

Some officers and noncommissioned officers feel that it is a sign of the Army relaxing discipline; but others welcome it as a sign that at last the Army is treating soldiers like men.

And no where is the new attitude more evident than in the 197th Infantry Brigade, the Army's model volunteer unit.

In three years it has been transformed from what one colonel called "the worst unit I've ever seen" to what some now think is the best the volunteer system can hope to achieve.

In February 1971, the 197th was selected to pioneer VOLAR — the acronym for volunteer Army. Its barracks were remodeled into semi-

this volunteer concept work instead of training," grumbled one artillery captain. "Instead of being out training troops, I have to spend a lot of my time trying to straighten out the personal problems of these guys— bad debts, bad checks, run-ins with the law and everything else. The kind of troops we're getting today bring in all kind of personal problems with them."

Another officer shook his head and said, "Sure, we can train these guys to be damn good riflemen as long as they have strong leadership. But what bothers me is that I see very little leadership potential among the volunteers we're getting. Where are we going to get our NCOs in the future? They have to come from the ranks and right now I don't see much NCO material around."

A first sergeant in the unit said he is hanging it up next March after 20 years in the Army. "What else can you do when your officers won't back you up when you give an order," he complained over a beer in a base bowling alley. "Everyone is supposed to coddle these soldiers today so we can have a volunteer Army. I've had enough."

Much of the grumbling is coming from officers and NCOs who are reluctant to accept the recent changes in Army life — the end of reveille, greater concern for a soldier's personal problems, the elimination of irritants.

"The only thing that concerns me about the volunteer army is those officers and NCOs who think the Army has gone to hell because we're treating these guys like men," said Lt. Col. Curtis Hoglan, commander of the 10th Field Artillery Battalion.

However, if the 197th had to draw its recruits from, say, the New York area, it would be in trouble.

Col. Steele thinks it is too early "to tell about the quality of the volunteer Army," but adds, "based on my four months experience, I am optimistic."

The number of troops with low intelligence scores and without high school diplomas have increased; but on the other hand, the problems of drugs, crime, AWOLs and racial incidents have decreased.

The 197th is 31 percent black, but there has not been a reported racial incident in almost a year, according to Col. Steele.

"Everybody I know in the Army is working like hell to get the troops and to train them" the colonel said. "I think in time we'll see a more motivated Army with less personnel turnover. If we're going to have a small Army, then it's got to be a good one."

Just how good the 197th volunteers are is a matter of opinion.

"What's disappointing to me is the educational level we're getting," said Sgt. William Chappell, an 11-year Army veteran. "A lot of these guys are harder to train than the draftees because some of them can't read. I know schooling has nothing to do with it once a man learns what he's supposed to do, but it takes a lot more time and work to teach him now."

Lt. Col. Hoglan said, "To me, motivation can offset smarts. Hell yes, there's a lot of advantages to having a cross-section of the people in the Army. But there's another side to that coin — some of the problems we were having were caused by college graduates."

WEDNESDAY MORNING, 29 AUGUST 1973

WASHINGTON POST - 29 AUGUST 1973 P-17

Rowland Evans and Robert Novak

Kissinger and the Bombing

Although eventual Senate confirmation of Dr. Henry A. Kissinger as Secretary of State is not in doubt, President Nixon's ace diplomatic operative is going to be pressed hard on the secret U.S. bombing of Cambodia in 1969 when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee starts its hearing Sept. 7.

The fact that President Nixon, in his Aug. 20 speech at New Orleans, took full responsibility for the Cambodian bombing decision has not in the slightest diminished the senatorial appetite for a full-scale expose of how the decision was made and whether Kissinger himself will be able to justify it.

One reason: even senators completely committed to confirming Kissinger are troubled by his future dual role as Secretary of State and also as the President's White House foreign policy adviser, in charge of the National Security Council staff.

Their question: will Kissinger give them the full background of the March 1969 decision to bomb Cambodia or will he claim executive privilege on grounds of his confidential relationship with the President? If the latter, Kissinger will risk raising senatorial hackles at a time when congressional suspicion of presidential power and secrecy has reached its high point of at least the last 50 years.

Moreover, what gives the Cambodian issue special spice is the fact that high officials now in the Defense Department, most particularly Deputy Secretary William P. Clements, left the im-

pression with the Senate Armed Services Committee and the nation on Aug. 9 that the orders to falsify bombing reports in order to maintain total security had emanated from the Pentagon.

Clements, in fact, actually produced a now widely published document authorizing 14 B52 strikes into Cambodian border areas adjacent to South Vietnam on the nights of Nov. 24-25 and Nov. 29-30, 1969. The document, which Clements indicated was the only one he could find in Pentagon files on the Cambodian bombing, bore the signature of Gen. Earle G. Wheeler, then, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the initials "MRL" or Melvin R. Laird, the then Secretary of Defense. It was marked "top secret—eyes only" and dated Nov. 20.

So astonished was Democratic Sen. Stuart Symington of Missouri, acting chairman of the committee, when Clements produced this document that he telephoned Laird in Chicago (where he was addressing the National Legislative Conference) and warned him: Mel, they're trying to do you in up here.

As a former Air Force secretary, Symington knew neither Gen. Wheeler nor Laird had authority to falsify bombing reports. Only the President himself could order an official cover-up of bombing operations against a neutral nation, together with the falsification of reports essential to make that cover-up work.

At the White House itself, the disclosure by Clements was received with amazement and chagrin. Clements'

decision to finger Laird as chief villain in the hunt for Cambodian scapegoats was not appreciated, even though some cynics at first thought that Clements must have had White House authorization before producing the "top secret—eyes only" memorandum.

In fact, he had none at all. Clements, an aggressive Texan who had hoped to be named deputy defense secretary in 1969 (Laird chose David Packard instead), was operating on his own and apparently without the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Thus, the key document justifying the secret bombing policy was written not on Nov. 20, 1969, the date of Clements' memorandum, but the previous March 16—just before the secret bombing started.

It spelled out the entire "press guidance" secrecy policy for the military to follow. One copy of this key document, obviously top secret and with limited distribution, is in the Joint Chiefs' files. However, Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, present chairman of the Joint Chiefs who was testifying with Clements Aug. 9, the day Clements disclosed the Wheeler-Laird memorandum, did not give Clements the Joint Chiefs' own record.

The real push for the Cambodian secrecy policy in 1969 came not from Laird and Wheeler but from the diplomats—the State Department and Kissinger—who knew that disclosure would gravely compromise the then Cambodian government of Prince Sihanouk.

The Senate will insist on all the intimate details from Kissinger. If he refuses them, his transition to the No. 1 Cabinet post will have some rocky spots.

© 1973, Field Enterprises, Inc.

as part of a surprise attack, it also means it would be impossible, under an arms

NEW YORK TIMES - 29 AUGUST 1973 P-1

# West Point Simplifies Cadet Regulations

By JAMES FERON

Special to The New York Times

WEST POINT, Aug. 28—The United States Military Academy has rewritten its book of regulations, replacing decades of accumulated restrictions with a simplified code emphasizing self-discipline.

The revised version, which took four months to complete and went into effect yesterday, is part of a new philosophy that the Academy is introducing to adapt to a changing society as well as to respond to its critics.

Lieut. Gen. William A.

Knowlton, the superintendent, said he felt the time was ripe to make the changes, which he had been planning over the last few years.

"We've been manning the bastions here, hanging tight to our standards in a society that was saying there were no standards," General Knowlton said. "Now we feel the pressure is off, and the first step was to redo the 'blue book.'"

## Broad Outlines Offered

The revised code, described by officers here as the most comprehensive regulation change in the academy's 171-year history, simplifies many rules and offers broad outlines

The superintendent said he had asked General Feir to come up with a book of regulations "one-tenth the size of the old one—the cadets didn't need a laundry list of prohibitions—and one that was positive in tone. We wanted it to say: 'Okay, you have more to do with running this place.'"

Other changes include a new system for granting privileges, previously restricted for the most part to upperclassmen and to those with high academic scores, as well as additional modifications to traditional hazing procedures.

Some things will remain unchanged, including the cadets' own honor code—no lying or cheating — and "the silence" meted out to those found in violation. The academy was engulfed in controversy two months ago when James J. Pelosi, now a second lieutenant, was found to have endured this official ostracism for 10 months although the superintendent had dismissed the case against him.

Among those likely to feel the changes most dramatically will be the plebes, or entering cadets, who marched into the military post today, hot and tired after an 18-mile hike that ended their summer introductory training period, "ar "beast barracks."

An afternoon with them at Lake Frederick on the last day of their bivouac indicated that while the new changes are be-

# Military Stay In Allende's New Cabinet

By Marlie Simons

Special to The Washington Post

SANTIAGO, Aug. 28—For the third time in two months, Childean President Salvador Allende has made major Cabinet changes in an effort to defuse the nation's political and economic crisis.

Contrary to expectations here, four of the 15 portfolios remained in military hands—those of transport, finance, mining and land—all four technical rather than political posts.

Observers here see this continuing military support of the government as victory for the President, whose relations with the military have been precarious in recent weeks.

"Unrest in all three branches of the armed forces about their role in the Socialist-led government forced the president to change three of the four military members of his Aug. 9 Cabinet.

In a fierce attack last week the opposition-controlled House of Deputies declared

WASHINGTON POST

29 AUGUST 1973 P-19

Visibly angry, the president told striking bus and truckowners tonight to return to work "this very evening." If not, he threatened, he would withdraw all police vigilance from the halted vehicles and mobilize all available transport in the country.

In his speech at the swearing-in ceremony of the Cabinet, the president also made two references to The Washington Post, which on Monday quoted the leader of the fascist Fatherland and Freedom movement as saying that he wanted to overthrow the government and see a military dictatorship established in Chile.

"We must fight these people," the president said. "In Chile there will be neither a military coup nor a civil war."

Although a long train of civilians and military men have passed through the Moneda presidential palace in the last few days, it is still unclear what political moves were made to shape the new Cabinet.

One important question, for example, is to what extent the hardline leadership of the Christian Democratic Party will find the new team acceptable.

SEA POWER MAGAZINE - AUGUST 1973 ( 29 )

# Fighter Prototype Battle Continues;
The Spangenberg Input

By L. EDGAR PRINA
Editor Emeritus

IT'S "fall out and fall in, again" time for the Navy's fighter plane modernization program.

Faced with strong opposition in both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Defense Department is scaling down sharply its remarkable plan to spend at least a half billion dollars and three years to build and test prototypes of two competing aircraft (a "stripped down" Grumman F-14D and a modified McDonnell Douglas F-15N Eagle) in order to select a "less expensive" follow-on to the much superior F-14A Tomcat swing-wing jet.

In an interview in his Pentagon office, Deputy Defense Secretary William P. Clements, Jr., said he is going ahead with a prototype fly-off despite the refusal by the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Tactical Air Power Subcommittee to provide the $150 million he requested for it in the fiscal 1974 budget.

Clements said he had told Congress earlier he would come back with a firm plan, that everything before had been preliminary. He disclosed that the Pentagon, Navy, and manufacturers are still "scrubbing down" the proposal (that is, cutting costs).

It was learned that the pricetag has been lowered to $74 million for a "simulated" prototype of a carrier-capable F-15 and the F-14D. The fly-off would be moved up a year to October 1974.

If Clements is still "scrubbing," the estimated costs could go even lower. But there is a serious question as to whether either of the Armed Services Committees would reverse themselves and authorize the funds.

The House committee, which is headed by Representative F. Edward Hebert (D-La.), approved funds for 50 F-14As, as per Clements' request. However, the Senate subcommittee, chaired by Senator Howard Cannon (D-Nev.), voted only $197.6 million to carry the Tomcat program through next December. It wants the Navy and Grumman to work out a precise cost figure for future F-14As before that time.

On June 7, the Deputy Secretary sent a memorandum to Navy Secretary John W. Warner informing him of a plan for a three-plane prototype competition involving: (1) a "stripped down" Tomcat, designated F-14D and minus the fantastic AWG-9/Phoenix very-long-range air-to-air missile system; (2) a carrier-capable version of the Air Force F-15 Eagle; and (3) a modified F-4 Phantom II.

Both the F-15 and F-4 are built by McDonnell Douglas Corp. of St. Louis. But before June 15 rolled around, Clements had dropped the F-4 from the competition.

A preliminary estimate of $250 million had been given by Clements as the cost of the three-plane prototype program. The Navy's estimate, however, was nearly double that—$474 million.

Dropping the F-4 would cut that figure by $106 million, to a total of $368 million. But the Navy pointed out that additional expenses would be incurred to complete engineering development. If the F-15 were selected, the added tab would be $215 million, for a grand total of $584 million. If the "stripped down" F-14D were the winner, the cost to complete would be only $52 million, sending the total cost to $420 million.

It has occurred to members of the Hebert committee and to Senator Howard W. Cannon (D-Nev.), chairman of the Tactical Air Power Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the Navy could buy a lot of aircraft for the half billion dollars the Clements prototyping plan would cost.

## Legendary Bluntness

The man who did more than any other to inject a measure of realism and practicality into the whole matter of Navy fighter plane modernization was George A. Spangenberg, one of the nation's leading aeronautical engineers.

For nearly 38 years Spangenberg has been intimately associated with naval aircraft programs. He has had a hand in the selection of just about every Navy plane from the F-6F Hellcat and F-4U Corsair of World War II to today's F-14 and S-3A Viking ASW planes.

From 1957 until he retired last June 22 he had been director of the

evaluation division of the Naval Air Systems Command and predecessor organizations. In this post he had the responsibility to analyze for the Navy the competitive design proposals submitted by aerospace manufacturers.

The 61-year-old Spangenberg has always worked within the system and up the chain of command. But he always told his superiors exactly what he thought when it came to evaluating aircraft proposals. In fact, his bluntness is legendary in aerospace circles.

It was no surprise, therefore, that, when Cannon invited him to testify June 26, he gave the Senators his unadulterated views. He started off rather politely, however.

"Inasmuch as my conclusions on the wisdom of embarking on a prototype program are at variance with those of Mr. Clements, I would assume that we are operating on a different set of facts," he said.

"From data available, it is clear to me that no money can be saved in following the proposed prototype program, but, in fact, more capable airplanes can be produced at a lower total cost using more conventional and proven approaches."

Without commenting directly on Clements' estimate of $250 million, Spangenberg noted that the price of the prototype program "can obviously be reduced by deferring development tasks" until the second phase, if one is willing to accept a time extension and the increased cost that goes with it.

The Naval Air Systems Command (NavAir) compared the prices for 400 F-14D or 400 F-15N aircraft to follow the 174 F-14As expected to be purchased from FY 1974 through the first half of FY 1977. The comparison showed that, as Spangenberg pointed out, a continuation of the F-14A at a reasonably economical rate of 72 per year would be more than $1 billion less expensive than embarking on the prototype and F-15 route.

## Three Thousand F-14s?

Under questioning, Spangenberg declared he would prefer to have all F-14s with the Phoenix missile.

"I think the number should be 722

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

6-F

NEW YORK NEWS 31 AUGUST 1973

CAPITOL
STUFF
On TOUR

By STAN CARTER

San Clemente, Calif., Aug. 30— A procession of American ambassadors from distant corners of the world is passing through this small Southern California town, giving advice to Henry Kissinger on how to take command of the State Department's cumbersome bureaucracy —and win its allegiance.

Until now, Kissinger has been a loner, with a disdain for the striped-pants bureaucrats from Foggy Bottom.

"I'vet always acted alone," the presidential adviser said in an embarrassingly frank interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci last year. "Americans admire the cowboy leading the caravan alone astride his horse, the cowboy entering a village or city alone on his horse. He acts, that's all: aiming at the right spot at the right time."

Kissinger Seeks
Key to Unlocking
The Red Tape

The presidential adviser openly expressed his disdain for the cumbersome procedures of the State Department five years ago, while he was still a professor at Harvard, at a seminar at the University of California at Los Angeles. The German-born, naturalized American who was named by President Nixon last week to succeed William P. Rogers as Secretary of State contributed a paper entitled, "Bureaucracy and Policy Making: The Effect of Insiders and Outsiders on the Policy Process."

"On the whole, if we could get rid of the bottom half of the Foreign Service we might be better off," Kissinger said then.

"I hold the view that we are so overstaffed that it makes thinking almost impossible. When you have in embassies individuals assigned to particular small groups, each of them filing endless reports, the result is that no senior official can possibly read everything that comes in. No new official in turn will say that he has nothing new to report, so the machine keeps churning on...

"Some of the key decisions are kept to a very small circle while the bureaucracy happily continues working away in ignorance of the fact that decisions are being made..."

As the President's adviser on national security affairs, Kissinger has passed the State Department more often than not during the past 4½ years, most spectacularly with his secret 1971 trip to

NEW YORK NEWS

31 AUGUST 73

Reds Put TV Eye in Sky

Moscow, Aug. 30 (AP)—The Soviet government launched a new communications satellite named Molnia 1 today, Tass reported. It said the satellite would be used for transmission of television programs to Soviet Central Asia and the Far East.

NEW YORK NEWS

31 AUGUST 73

• President Nixon and Yugoslav President Tito are among 47 candidates nominated for this year's Nobel peace prize.

NEW YORK TIMES 31 AUGUST 1973

American Jets Begin
Thailand Withdrawal

BANGKOK, Thailand, Aug. 30 (UPI)—A squadron of United States Marine Corps. A-6 Skyhawk jets left Thailand today, beginning the withdrawal from the last American seat of military power in Southeast Asia.

The squadron, from Marine Air Group 15, left from Nam Phong airbase, 240 miles northeast of Bangkok, with the unit commander, Mai.

Ron Merrihew of Mission Viejo, Calif., commanding the first plane out.

United States and Thai military spokesmen said that the squadron was returning to its home base at the Iwakuni Marine Air Station in Japan. By Saturday, they said, 2,100 men and 36 planes from Nam Phong will have departed.

A second squadron of Marine F-4 Phantom jets, was to leave Nam Phong tomorrow and the last F-4 squadron based there will leave Saturday, the spokesmen said.

Peking which began a new chapter in U.S. relations with the People's Republic of China.

He also visited the Soviet Union for talks with Kremlin leaders without any advance notice to the American Embassy in Moscow. And the secret negotiations for a Vietnam peace settlement that the presidential adviser began with Hanoi Politburo member Le Duc Tho in late 1969 had been going on for nearly a year at hideaways in the Paris suburbs before Philip C. Habib, the head of the U.S. delegation to the regular peace talks in Paris, was informed.

He'll Be Boss of Those He Denigrated

But now the former professor who described himself to Miss Fallaci as a lone cowboy has been named secretary of state in addition to his duties as presidential adviser. After confirmation by the Senate, he will be the boss of the 12,000 diplomats, code clerks, economic analysts, secretaries, and other civil servants whom he denigrated.

He has called for help and advice from a handful of professional diplomats whom he has worked with in the past.

They have been summoned from posts as far away as Tehran, Nicosia, and Peking for long, bull-session conferences at the Western White House.

Kissinger flew to Washington Sunday to ask Deputy Secretary of State Kenneth Rush to stay on as his No. 2 man and handle for him many of the ceremonial chores of his new job. Then he flew back here Monday night for the round of meetings with ambassadors.

On Tuesday, Kissinger met separately with Ambassador-at-large U. Alexis Johnson, a former undersecretary of State who now heads the U.S. Delegation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, and William H. Sullivan, now ambassador to the Philippines after having served as Kissinger's right-hand man in the final stages of the Vietnam peace negotiations.

The Political Appointees Are Noticeably Missing

He met yesterday with Habib, who now is ambassador to South Korea, and L. Dean Brown, ambassador to Cyprus who was the State Department's press spokesman for many years, and former CIA Director Richard Helms, now ambassador to Iran. Veteran Ambassador David K. E. Bruce, who heads the recently opened U.S. liaison office in Peking, is coming tomorrow.

Noticeably missing from the list are the political appointees who are ambassadors in many countries. Obviously, what Kissinger is seeking is professional advice on how to reshape the foreign policy bureaucracy to make it do his bidding.

Kissinger also will fit in a meeting Saturday with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. But he has not completely neglected his social life. He was seen the other night dining with a handsome, gray-haired woman at Matteo's, an expensive, dimly lit restaurant at Corona Del Mar, 20 miles up the California coast.

FEATURES COLUMNS

Joseph Alsop

WASHINGTON POST 31 AUGUST 1973

Reading the 'Samokhin Paper'

Suddenly, the policy-makers in the government's backrooms are displaying a lively new interest in the "Samokhin paper." In London, this remarkable document was described some time ago by the veteran student of Soviet affairs, David Floyd. The document now deserves to be better known in this country, however.

Briefly, this 3,000-word document is called the "Samokhin paper" because it carries the otherwise unknown, all but certainly imaginary signature, "Andrei Samokhin." It was sent out of Leningrad this summer by a man claiming to be a member of the Soviet liberal underground. The German traveller who agreed to carry the document was requested to publish it in "Posev," the Frankfurt periodical which has published many earlier texts from the Soviet underground.

The core of the document is as follows: "Today war with China, a bloody war involving colossal loss of life, but a victorious war, is the most pressing and principal foreign policy aim of the Soviet government. They (meaning the government leaders) do their best to conceal the approach of war, but it is moving steadily closer ... it hangs over us like a black cloud."

The first arguable point about this ambiguous warning is simply its genuineness. It could be a KGB plant, basically intended for Chinese consumption, and aimed to influence the power struggle in Peking. If the Samokhin paper originated as a KGB plant, it is almost certainly out of date already.

The announcement of the Chinese party congress means that in Peking, a brief power struggle has culminated with Prime Minister Chou En-lai still in charge under Mao Tse-tung. There is still plenty for the experts on China to argue about. But at least for the time being, there is an end to the former concern about a radical change in China's leadership, which might have endangered the new Chinese-American relationship.

Momentary fear of such a change in Peking was one reason for the sudden renewal of U.S. governmental interest

VIRGINIAN-PILOT 22 AUGUST 1973 (31)

A Stagnant Military Emerges
From Our Unsteady Society

By Kevin P. Phillips

WASHINGTON.

On Sept. 3, MacMillan Publishing Co. (the Free Press) plans to release a book of 23 essays on "The Military and American Society" edited by James A. Barber and Stephen Ambrose. These essays can hardly be more depressing than the reality, which is that our crippled society seems to be producing a crippled military.

Rudyard Kipling and others have popularized the old bar-racks refrain that the heroes of wartime become the outcasts of peace. But Southeast Asia has written a new verse; this time, unpopular war helped turn our military into outcasts, and the peacetime prospects are bleaker still.

In political terms, the faults of the Nixon administration and liberals alike are undermining the military and its capacity to defend America. The interaction of the two mentalities is devastating, and conservatives ought to perceive and criticize this dual danger.

First, the all-too-obvious abuses of the liberals. In the name of

the "liberal Democratic defense Establishment" is betraying both the Truman-Kennedy-Johnson heritage and basic U.S. needs.

Yet few people seem to care. While the appalling statistics of Jane's seapower portrait may produce quiet consternation in Western naval headquarters from Norway to the Cape of Good Hope, they spur only laughter in university coffee houses and boredom in middle-class living rooms. Military needs and affairs are indisrepute. Many liberals howl irresponsibly about national and war crimes, but others are making telling points against Pentagon fripperies and waste. Sen. William Proxmire and Rep. Les Aspin, both from traditionally antimilitary Wisconsin, are among the most effective critics.

***

If the military suffers mostly from the atmosphere created by its critics, sad to say it also suffers from that created by its supposed friends. For one reason or another, perhaps the diplomatic needs of U.S.-Soviet detente, President Nixon has never chosen to bolster the services by confronting the public with a televised, ship-by-ship, missile-blast missile analysis of our deteriorating defense posture. The use of the military for secret activities

Grey to acting FBI Director.

Presidential chief of staff Alexander Haig provides the best example of the new, controversial interaction of the military and the White House court. Just a colonel when he came to Henry Kissinger's White House staff in 1969, Haig picked up four stars in as may years and was finally promoted to 4-star general in 1973 over the heads of hundreds of senior officers. Despite Haig's retirement from the Army to serve in the White House, his duel status still raises legal questions.

In recent weeks controversy has arisen over the jump promotions of two other officers serving as administration aides: Marine Maj. John V. Brennan (up for lieutenant colonel) and just promoted Army Col. Dana Mead, whose unmilitary post is White House coordinator for District of Columbia Affairs. The promotion of both men disregarded seniority and the views of military selection boards, and Sen. Proxmire is charging that the administration's politicization of the military is a threat to a democratic procedure.

Such White House politicization detracts from the military's already poor image. The more the

Kissinger and the Bombing

Washington Post
August 29, 1973

Moreover, what gives the Cambodian issue special spice is the fact that high officials now in the Defense Department, most particularly Deputy Secretary William P. Clements, left the impression with the Senate Armed Services Committee and the nation on Aug. 9 that the orders to falsify bombing reports in order to maintain total security had emanated from the Pentagon.

gia and the District of Columbia between Aug. 31, 1969, and Sept. 28, 1970, was a key figure in awarding GSA architectural, engineering and construction contracts to private firms.

The GSA is in charge of construction of federal buildings and also leases office space for federal agencies from private developers. Badger specifically was questioned about his knowledge of Agnew's relationships with engineers, contractors and other consultants hired by the GSA in connection with the construction of government buildings, the sources said.

It could not be learned what information Badger supplied to the prosecutors.

Badger, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, was assistant public works director in Baltimore County between 1964 and 1966. Agnew was county executive from 1962 to 1966 and governor of Maryland from 1967 until he took office as Vice President in January, 1969. Sources said, however, Badger was not questioned about Baltimore County.

In the past several months, prosecutors in the office of George Beall, the U.S. attorney

choose from
25,000 top quality
long sleeve dress shirt
from two of the
world's most famous
makers!
fall colors & patter
perma-press blend
comparable $7 to $99

## Kissinger's Inheritance

Joseph Alsop's description of the Department of State being in ruins and "ruled by a strange Mafia passionately dedicated to dimness and mediocrity" is not quite precise enough. I would agree with him if he pinpointed his comment on the clique that advises and rules the personnel function.

Throughout the foreign affairs agencies, in State, U.S.I.A. and in A.I.D., there is still an abundance of highly competent and professional people, civil service as well as foreign service. Henry Kissinger will inherit a still intact apparatus that he can easily revive by focusing his attention at the root of the problem, which is the hanky-panky games played by a small group of obviously incompetent administrators. He inherits an apparatus that is ready to respond to any kind of positive leadership that shows the slightest interest in the human side of the resources available to the United States in the formulation and conduct of foreign affairs.

THOMAS M. MARTIN,
President

Foreign Affairs Employees Council.

Washington.

## A Household Word

After a long delay, Dr. Kissinger was honored with the appointment as Secretary of State. Dr. Kissinger would deserve all the honors and medals the

country could bestow on him since he saved through honorable peace treaties, multitudes of American soldiers from being wounded, maimed, taken prisoners, or killed. Spectacular are his negotiations with Russia and China, having turned these hostile countries into friendly, coexistent neighbors. The name of Dr. Kissinger has become a household word for good will and peace among the leaders of the world and surely will be of the greatest benefit for the future security of the United States.

JOHN G. FRANK.

Washington.

Henry A. Kissinger

## Facetious Remark

Dr. Kissinger's facetious remark, in his press conference August 23, about State Department wives who will not be seeing much of their husbands, does not dignify the position to which he aspires. Dr. Kissinger knows, or should know, that there are hundreds of officers in the State Department and the Foreign Service for whom hours of work and personal risk are unimportant when there is a necessary job to be done. This was true long before Dr. Kissinger was ever considered as a possible Secretary of State, and it will be true long after he has left the post in which we all wish him all good fortune.

EDWARD A. JAMISON.

Eau Claire, Wis.

3

Scoop up these famo
Widest selections of
in easy-care permanent
14½ to 17, 32-35 sleeves

Badger on Monday marked the first time it was known that a former federal official was questioned about Agnew's activities as Vice President in connection with the probe.

Badger also served for almost three years in the administration of Dale Anderson, the current executive of Baltimore County. He joined the state government in 1970 as deputy to George R. Lewis, Maryland's secretary of general services, who also worked for Agnew in Baltimore County and was brought into state government by Agnew when he was governor.

Anderson was indicted by a federal grand jury in Baltimore last week on 39 counts of bribery and extortion. He was charged with receiving $46,420 in kickbacks from eight engineering, architectural and consulting firms that do business with Baltimore County.

Anderson's indictment and the investigation of the Vice President are part of the same massive probe into alleged political corruption in Maryland that is being conducted by Beall.

It was also learned yesterday that John B. Funk, head of an engineering firm that

ment of sources of supply and the
distribution of water, leaving regu-
lation to the present management
district.

It is this phase of the plan now
under discussion which most rep-
resents the "think small" attitude.
Within the next two and half dec-
ades the three counties involved
are expected to double their
present populations to some 2.5
million people. It is extremely
doubtful that wellfields and other
sources lying within their bounda-

concerned about their own future
supplies and needs, and are aware
if the bulk of what's available in
the aquifer under their county is
committed now to their neighbors
to the south, they themselves in
time will have to look elsewhere.

If that elsewhere isn't the now
highly expensive process of desa-
linization of sea water, it probably
lies outside the three-county area,
and any plans for a regional water
system should think big enough to
take that into account.

Good Goals, Tough Going

Henry Kissinger has laid down
some laudable goals for the State
Department he has been nominat-
ed to head: a bi-partisan approach
in foreign policy and making
greater use of the Department's
talents.

The energetic Kissinger should
prove a strong catalyst for shaking
up the Department's 12,000-man
bureaucracy.

A bi-partisan foreign policy is
desirable but not so easy to
achieve. First, the Fulbright policy
must be reckoned with. That's the
one-man policy-making of J. Wil-
liam Fulbright, of Arkansas, chair-
man of the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee. Fulbright seems
still resentful that President Ken-
ney, didn't name him Secretary of
State and has sought to impose his
own policies of every Administra-
tion since 1959.

He has made trouble for Pres-
idents Kennedy, Johnson and
Nixon. If a President didn't go
along with him, the cantankerous
Fulbright used his chairmanship to
fire away at the White House.

The Senator's explanation for op-
posing Presidential control of
foreign affairs is that he wants to

restore the Senate's role in policy-
making, whatever that means.

Typical of the Fulbright attitude is the vindictive fight he led against confirming McMurtrie Godley as head of the Far Eastern Affairs section of the State Department. Godley had done an outstanding job as ambassador to Laos, but Fulbright objected that he was too diligent in carrying out President Nixon's orders.

Although Kissinger undoubtedly
will be confirmed as Secretary of
State, he is in for tough questioning
from the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee. Sen. Stuart Symington of
Missouri says he will ask Kissinger
about the "secret war in Southeast
Asia." Other Senators plan to grill
him on his close relationship with
President Nixon and his views on
executive privilege.

When confirmed, Kissinger can
also expect a hard time from old-
line bureaucrats who resent their
loss of importance while Kissinger
was, in effect, executing foreign
policy outside the State Depart-
ment. As a policy planner and ne-
gotiator, Kissinger has shown ex-
ceptional abilities. If he can gain a
firm administrative grasp on his
sluggish Department he will be-
come an outstanding Secretary of
State.

sources have told us that one reason for
continuing the freeze on beef and gas
line is to keep the August increase
low as possible.

Not only does a low price index ma-
the Administration's economic polic-
look good, but it helps dampen inflation.
If the index goes up, so do many lab-
salaries that are pegged to the inde-
Social Security and other costs are al-
tied to the index.

The sleight-of-hand on the price index
was built in long before the Nixon A-
ministration took office.

The index has never figured in the
increased price of cars, for example,
because auto quality allegedly has got
up with the price. Nor does the price-
index account for the fact that when you
buy meat you get more and more bor-
and fat included in the price per pound.
Most stores and gas stations have
stopped giving trading stamps, yet the
index reflects none of this loss to the
consumer.

If you buy a can of peaches, you may
get one less peach and that much more
syrup, but there is no adjustment then
either. In fact, the index has rarely be-
adjusted for lower quality of goods sin-
World War II.

DESPITE THESE facts, the inde-
still shows a rise of 7.4 per cent in the
last year and is up 32.7 per cent since
1967. A shopping bag full of groceries
1967 costing $10 would cost $13.27 today.
But because quality has generally deter-
orated, you would have gotten more for
the $10 in 1967.

Just for Friends

POSTMASTER: General Ted Klass
has loyally given move than $600,000
worth of Postal Service contract work

Klass
Contracts

BALTIMORE SUN 27 AUGUST 1973

Marquis Childs

Transition Will Not Be Easy for Kissinger

Washington.

Having supplied the creativity, the imagination and the skill in the conduct of foreign policy for four years, Henry A. Kissinger is now about to move into the top job as Secretary of State. From mastermind behind the screen of executive privilege to the exposed position in the No. 1 Cabinet post, the train- sition will not be easy.

His friendly relationship with Chairman J. W. Fulbright (D., Ark.) and other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would seem to insure his quick confirmation by the Senate. And as the President pointed out, that is important because of Dr. Kissinger's travel plans.

He had hoped to go to Peking sometime during the first two weeks of September for a session with the leaders of the People's Republic, thereby continuing his friendship with Premier Chou En-lai.

But when he comes up for his confirmation hearing, there is one hurdle he will have to clear in view of the fact that he will continue to be personal adviser to the President as well as Secretary of State. Can he claim

executive privilege for his discussions with the President at the same time that, as secretary, he must testify before committees of Congress?

This is what some senators on the Foreign Relations Committee will want to know from Dr. Kissinger when he comes before them. To equivocate in his answers could put his confirmation in jeopardy.

Repeatedly, the same senators have complained that the decision making process rested with the President's adviser rather than with the retiring secretary, William P. Rogers, and that, therefore, they were denied any insight into the conduct of foreign policy. The feud over executive privilege has been the source of rancor and resentment.

Another looming question mark will be the nature of the No. 2 person in the department. Dr. Kissinger has administered his small apparatus in the National Security Council as a stern taskmaster. So stern in demanding a 14-hour day and unquestioning obedience, he has alienated able persons who could not, or would not, keep up that pace.

The huge bureaucracy at

stake cannot be administered that way. The plain truth, as those who know him well and admire him greatly are frank to say, Dr. Kissinger is not an administrator. That means his deputy secretary must have full authority to carry out Dr. Kissinger's overall directives on personnel and policy.

Morale in the department and in the foreign service has slumped badly as Secretary Rogers seemed again and again to be superseded by the President's advisers on national security. Able foreign service officers with invaluable experience have resigned, to the loss of the service and the nation. One reason was the increasing number of ambassadorial posts filled by political appointees who were big contributors to Republican campaigns.

This may not have mattered when the vital decisions were being made by Kissinger & Co. in the White House. Perhaps for that reason, no person of stature could be interested in a post largely ceremonial in nature under the stresses and strains inevitable in Moscow.

The cloistered operation out of his capacious and brilliant mind will surely not be possible in the large, impres-

sive office of the secretary in the unimpressive, factory-like building of State in Foggy Bottom.

The drama of his appointment is in itself extraordinary. In 1938, he was one of the small number of Jewish refugees to escape Adolf Hitler's cause. He has said that 11 members of his family were liquidated by the Nazis. It is a grim past that must always be present in his memory as he moves through the corridors of power.

The consequence of Watergate and the threat of disruption of the initiatives taken so successfully with China and the Soviet Union have greatly depressed him. With his rich knowledge of history and the follies of the past, as they have far too often overwhelmed man's noblest aspirations, the glooms have fallen on him.

But he has a flexible spirit and, above all, a superb sense of humor. He will need all resources of his remarkable mind, a genius really, and his resilient spirit, as he walks a narrow path between the thunder of a critical Congress and the sun of his patron and friend, the President.

NY TIMES 27 AUG 73

VIENTIANE SHRUGS
AT ABORTIVE COUP

By DAVID K. SHIPLER

Special to The New York Times

VIENTIANE, Laos, Aug. 26
—The curfew has been relaxed,
and although soldiers in battle
gear still guard officiels' houses,
the little city of Vientiane has
shrugged off last Monday's at-
tempted coup d'état in a spirit
of nonchalance and self-depre-
cating humor.

The movie theaters, which
show Thai and Chinese films,
are back on a full schedule. The
assortment of French, Chinese,
Thai and American-style res-
taurants are doing their normal
weekend business.

Even during the brief period
of the coup itself, Vientiane
scarcely flinched. Both in the
rich villas cleared by tropical
gardens and in the wooden
shacks on stilts the serenity
and listlessness of life remained
undisturbed.

Despite the serious political
implications of the abortive at-
tempt to overthrow the Gov-
ernment, residents of Vientiene
generally greeted it casually
and without fear.

When the rebels stole an
armored personnel carrier
bristling with machine guns
and pulled out into the Mon-
day morning traffic of cars,
motorbikes and bicycles, the
rush-hour crowd simply fol-

THE NEW YORK TIMES, MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 1973

U.S. Arms Sales to Iran Worrying India

By BERNARD WEINRAUB

Special to The New York Times

NEW DELHI, Aug. 26—India,
worried about American arms
sales to Iran, has begun a ma-
jor reassessment of her power-
ful armed forces.

In recent weeks the Defense
Minister, Jagjivan Ram, has
visited Moscow amid increasing
speculation about "new de-
fense requirements," especially
for the Indian Air Force and
Navy. At the same time politi-
cians and legislators have ex-
pressed concern about India's
military position as a result of
Iran's warm friendship with
Pakistan.

Officials here decline to dis-
cuss the nation's defense needs
but make it clear that, even
with her current economic
crisis, India is seeking to
streamline and modernize the
nation's navy and air force.

Intertwined with deep un-
certainty about American arms
sales to Iran—sales that will
turn Iran into a major power
in the Persian Gulf—India re-
mains deeply suspicious of
American motives and views
the arms shipment as a threat.
The United States is selling
Iran $3.7-billion in up-to-date
equipment and will probably
sell $2-billion more in the next
few years.

'All Sorts of Speculation'

"Large-scale acquisition of
arms in this part of the world
by a country which has no
potential enemy with compar-
able strength naturally leads to
all sorts of speculation." Mr.

to keep the war industry going
after the lull in Vietnam. They
have a good customer to keep
the war industry going."

Unclear About Intentions

He added, however, that
"America has not been selling
arms to all countries requiring
it," and he indicated that it
was unclear "about the inten-
tions of Iran and the intentions
of America in arming Iran to
that extent."

What plainly worries Indian
officials is that Iranian military
equipment—either the new
American weapons or arms that
have been replaced—will slip
into Pakistan, a close ally of
Iran and a hostile neighbor of
India. India humbled Pakistan
in the three-week war in
December, 1971, that saw the
creation of Bangladesh, for-
merly East Pakistan.

"They have since added a
few divisions to their armed
forces," Mr. Ram said of the
Pakistanis. "When Pakistan
adds to their army, and when
they say they have no military
or territorial designs, the ques-
tions is why, why do they do
it."

Mr. Ram and other senior
Indian officials tend to mute
the growing concern in the
United States about oil and
about the fact that by 1980 an
estimated 25 per cent of Ameri-
can oil will be imported from
the Persian Gulf, primarily
Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Seen as a Threat

Officials at the highest levels
insist that the motives of the

are required. We have Soviet
arms, ships and aircraft. If
changes are effected in the
MIG's we have, if more modern
weapons systems are found for
these MIG's, we would want to
effect these changes too."
effect these changes too."

Interest in MIG-25's

Since 1961, the Soviet Union
has been the major supplier of
arms to India. Between 1961
and 1971 the Soviet Union
shipped $1.87-billion worth of
arms to India.

Sources here say that the
arms include MIG-21 fighters,
destroyer escorts, helicopters,
guided-missile boats, tanks and
radar units.

Defense planners here have
expressed interest in the Soviet
Union's sophisticated MIG-25
interceptors, as well as fighter-
bombers.

There are plans for the
strengthening of the navy, the
branch most in need of modern
equipment. India is said to have
only 4 patrol submarines, 21
patrol craft, 2 cruisers, 6
destroyers and one aircraft car-
rier. Reports have circulated
that Soviet-built vessels have
either been ordered or are un-
der consideration for purchase.

Indian defense planners point
out that Pakistan has sharply
increased her military strength
in recent years. The planners
say that the Indian Army now
totals about 826,000 men —
probably as an underestimate—
the air force 90,000 and the
navy 40,000.

They say Pakistan's armed
strength is 460,000 in the army,

NEW ORLEANS TIMES-PICAYUNE

25 AUGUST 1973(30)

## Kissinger Takes Title

In matters of real substance the changeover in the State Department from Secretary William Rogers to Secretary-designate Henry Kissinger should mean little, for Dr. Kissinger, as President Nixon's chief foreign affairs adviser and negotiator, has functioned virtually as a secretary of state in the most telling foreign initiatives of the Nixon administration.

Mr. Rogers has served ably, if often in the shadows, and has rated high marks for his ability to deal creatively not only with foreign leaders but with congressional powers. His position under a strong President whose own forte is foreign affairs was difficult, but he filled it with grace and effectiveness.

One may wonder how the deep bureaucratic cushion that is the State Department will respond to Dr. Kissinger's brisk efficiency, and how Dr. Kissinger himself will respond to the day-to-day global details of the department after being first an organizer of overall policy and then a troubleshooter in highly specialized areas.

Washington judgments seem to be that he will take it all in his customary stride, and that his star quality will raise the department's status, and with it the administration's glory in a way that will give emphatic credit to a second term badly in need of visible pluses.

MILWAUKEE JOURNAL - 27 AUGUST 1973(30)

## State Department Out of Limbo

Henry Kissinger is finally to be secretary of state in name as well as in fact. President Nixon has underlined his faith in his top adviser on foreign affairs by retaining him as special assistant for national security affairs while assigning him to take over at Foggy Bottom.

The move makes sense from a number of standpoints. Early in the first Nixon administration Kissinger assumed real control over foreign affairs. The State Department was relegated to secondary status, much to the dismay of its career officers and to the damage of their morale. Secretary of State Rogers, though a longtime friend of the president with long years in public service, had to play second fiddle to Kissinger. Understandable bitterness was held in check only because Rogers is amiable and lacked the stomach to fight for his department.

In the great achievements of the past few years — the opening to China, the detente with Russia, the final ending of participation in the Indochina war — Rogers played no significant part. Kissinger was the mastermind. More fortunately for Rogers, he had no part, either, in the less palatable foreign policy events — the astoundingly inept handling of the

India-Pakistan crisis, the international economic disasters, the failures of the Vietnam peace agreement, the weakening of the Atlantic Alliance, the repeated snubbing of Japan, the secret bombing of Cambodia.

There has long been competition between the National Security Council complex and the State Department, ever since John Foster Dulles was secretary of state. It makes sense to bring the two under one manager, and Kissinger is the logical man for the job. He has long been known as a pragmatist and has generally proved it at the White House. There is much to be done in foreign affairs in the next year. Kissinger has been in on the groundwork. It is well that he continue to build the structure. It won't be an easy job, given the domestic difficulties the administration faces.

Kissinger has long contended that strong domestic policies must furnish the foundation for successful foreign policies. He must hope now that some degree of stability will be achieved internally to buttress necessary but difficult action externally. Given his confirmation by the Senate, which should be no problem, he will have the prestige of cabinet rank to bolster the real power he has assumed with the backing of the president.

CHICAGO SUN TIMES 8/27(30)

SEATO:
a useless relic

Before his resignation was an-
nounced last Wednesday, Sec. of State
William P. Rogers had intended to
meet with envoys from the other
Southeast Asia Treaty Organizations
to emphasize its nonmilitary func-
tions. Rogers was expected to hold the
meeting on Sept. 28, as the United Na-
tions General Assembly reconvenes.
But he is scheduled to leave govern-
ment on Sept. 3, and any such meeting
will have to be arranged either by the
interim secretary, Kenneth Rush, or
by Rogers' designated successor, Hen-
ry A. Kissinger. We hope Rogers' con-
cern over SEATO is not forgotten in
the change of administration at State,
since events have established that it
has outlived any usefulness it might
have had. While it is understandable
that Washington wishes to breathe
new life into SEATO by transforming
it, we believe the only realistic deci-
sion is to let it die a natural death.

SEATO was created in 1954 in re-
sponse to what John Foster Dulles saw
as the menace of Chinese military ex-
pansionism. That view was distorted
then, and is even more so now. Peking
has joined the UN, been given de facto
diplomatic recognition by the United
States and is increasingly mature in
the ways it deals with other nations.
SEATO's existence today constitutes a

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER

30 AUGUST 1973

137 Cambodians are killed
the Air Force brass shrug

The image of American professional military leaders as incorrigible boys with an overriding obsession to play with their multibillion-dollar toys of mass death is exaggerated portraiture, the artistic hyperbole of a genre of books and movies that range from Slaughterhouse Five to Dr. Strangelove. Artistic expression never was meant to be tempered analysis; the image, most reasonable observers would agree, represents only a tiny, aberrant minority of U. S. military men.

Despite My Lai and the unnumbered
similarly inhuman massacres from the
air over Indochina, we favor the more
sober view as the more accurate one.

It is difficult to maintain that favorable
view, however, when the command and
disciplinary mechanisms of U. S. mili-
tary services fly in its face.

That, we are sad to conclude, is pre-
cisely what the hierarchy of the U. S.
Air Force has done in the case of the
slaughter of 137 Cambodians and the
wounding of 268 others in the village of
Neak Luong on Aug. 6.

The Air Force concluded that the vil-
lage was hombarded because Capt.

self-caricature of gross insensitivity to
human decency.

Eighth Air Force headquarters at
Guam swiftly punished the four offi-
cers. Capt. Brumfield, through the lowest
level of routine disciplinary procedure,
was ordered to forfeit $350 a month in
pay for two months, and a reprimand
was put in his personnel file. Capt.
Brumfield and his aircraft commander
were suspended from flying duty and
must face a flying evaluation board —
not a disciplinary panel, but a technical
one — before flying again. The other
two go on flying, but with letters of "ad-
monition" in their files.

All that strikes us as just punishment,
perhaps, for something like getting
drunk in the officers' mess. Capt. Brum-
field's fine works out at $5.11 per
human being slaughtered in the night. It
is outrageous that any possibility could
be left that he, or anyone else who
shared the responsibility, should ever
again exercise flight or command au-
thority in which negligence could cost
others' lives.

What would proper punishment be?
We do not presume to know, without a
thorough and public and detailed expo-

SIMMONS

At Levitz Warehouse Savings!!!

Own This SIMMONS Luxuriously Quilted
3-Pc. KING Size Set At Warehouse Savings!

* KING SIZE MATTRESS

* 2 FOUNDATIONS

$188
3-Pc.
SET

Built for heavenly comfort and pleasant dreams, this quality bedding from Simmons is luxuriously quilted for the utmost in comfort! The exclusive auto-lock coils give you firm yet gentle support for years to come ... quilted decorator floral cover. Set includes mattress and 2 box foundations.

HEADQUARTERS FOR
SIMMONS

MAKERS OF WORLD
DUS BEAUTYREST!

M. to 10P.M.

be August 26, 1973

Monday Globe

review

the polluter's claims that correc-
tive measures were underway,
would start soon, or that financial
problems prevented remedy. Land
was not available for alternatives
to municipal dumps. A new in-
cinerator was scheduled to re-
place the Boston facility then
pumping an estimated 2000 tons
of pollutants into the city air each
year. Ships dumping raw sewage
into the harbor were waiting new
regulations before installing cost-
ly holding tanks, which incident-
ally will be unworkable without
shore-based dumping facilities.

Elsewhere violations continued
despite either inducement or
threat to stop them. Litton Indus-
tries and the Weyerhaeuser Co.,
both huge corporations, had re-
ceived $5 million in Federal funds
for a project to end pollution from

COMMITTEE ON REFORM APPOINTED BY
the governor, subject to State Senate
confirmation. This would be similar to
the federal judiciary selection process.
The reform plan would ask the voters

WINNINGNESS TO CONFRONT ELECTION ABUSES
and submit disputed issues to the
voters must be judged as real
progress, however, no matter how
long overdue.

Nixon still secretary of state

Under recent presidents the secretary of state has been largely a figurehead. John Kennedy and Richard Nixon have been their own secretaries of state, formulating and originating policy and leaving its implementation to Dean Rusk and William Rogers respectively. Despite the fact that Henry Kissinger, the new head of the State Department, has placed his name in the record as a thinker and doer in foreign policy, future policy will remain in the hands of President Nixon.

America's involvement directly in
international affairs in the last genera-
tion made that sort of operation
inevitable. In an era of increasing
summitry, national leaders, particu-
larly the top superpower men, want to
meet and sum up the personality and
motivations of their opposite numbers.
That cannot be done by remote
control.

Where Kissinger, adviser to the
President on national security affairs,
has demonstrated his originality has
been in his conviction that the centers
of power have shifted since the Cold
War began. He believed a new balance
for peace had to be struck. Mr. Nixon,
pledged to a new generation of peace,
fully subscribed to that concept which
was made possible when the Soviet
Union and mainland China split more
than a decade ago. In addition, the
economic recovery of war-torn Europe
and Japan were factors.

The change of office will not mean a
change in policy because Mr. Nixon's

policy will be unchanged as will be
that of his confidant who established it
with him and has been, as it were, its
advance man. Rogers, loyal to the
President, was not experienced in
foreign affairs when he came to office
— unlike Kissinger — and the State
Department has played a secondary
role. What the change has done is to
recognize a reality long disguised.

Kissinger has been mainly concerned with Asia, particularly China and Vietnam. Both still constitute unfinished business but the vital importance of a long neglected Europe has now been recognized and he will have to bring his expertise and originality to bear on rehabilitating our relations with allies across the Atlantic.

There is one remarkable achievement for which Rogers deserves full credit. He alone patiently labored to silence the guns in the Middle East. He drove through the Suez Canal ceasefire agreement which has held up for three years. That remains a strictly State Department feat in the old fashioned style.

We are sorry to see Rogers leave.
But, as Mr. Nixon said, "The change
will put the work into the department
where it belongs." The State Depart-
ment will welcome a shot in the arm.
Rogers also is one of Mr. Nixon's
oldest and most loyal friends and,
even more important these days,
untouched by any breath of Watergate
scandal.

★ Kissinger Starts Well ↗

At his first press conference after the announcement that he would be nominated to be secretary of state, Dr. Henry A. Kissinger sounded the right political note.

He appealed for a "national consensus" behind the administration's foreign policy. He said he would work for a "full partnership with Congress" in the "development, planning and execution" of future United States foreign policy initiatives. The foreign policy of the U.S., Dr. Kissinger declared, is not a partisan matter. It concerns the whole nation, and it has to be well understood and fully supported by the whole nation.

These are fine words, indeed, and we fully indorse them. We have advocated, for many, many years, exactly this kind of foreign policy. We have said time and again that an effective and successful U.S. foreign policy can be worked out only with the full co-operation of American public opinion. Foreign policy initiatives, however good they may appear to international experts in the State Department or in the White House, will lead the country nowhere unless they are properly explained, understood and supported by a solid majority of the people.

As Dr. Kissinger himself has said, "no foreign policy, no matter how ingenious, has any chance of success if it is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none."

As an example, the success of the Nixon administration's initiatives toward Red China and the Soviet Union was due in no small part to widespread public support for them.

Dr. Kissinger also revealed that immediately after his nomination he spoke personally on the telephone to every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to all key members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He said he would testify often in Congress and would meet regularly with the press. He proposes to invite "leaders of various opinion-forming groups" in the country to the State Department to seek their advice on foreign policy problems.

These first steps of the newly designated secretary of state nominee are truly excellent, and we congratulate Dr. Kissinger for having had the good sense to take them. We hope his other initiatives in this field prove equally wise.

It's easy to
lines. He has

ident, Kenney tells about a short, pri-
vate talk they had in which Mr. Nixon

took a job with the FBI right after
getting his law degree in 1940 from the

cover agents on campuses and spy
rings and high political scandals.

Hometown to Salute 'Heinzi

The West German city of Fuerth is planning a big wel-
come for its most prominent native son, Henry Kissinger,
whom it once rejected.

On Sept. 11, President Nixon's nominee for secretary of state will be awarded the gold medal of the city he fled at age 15 during the Nazi persecution of Jews.

Last May, when Kissinger turned 50, the city fathers de-
cided to salute his efforts for world peace.

In Fuerth, a city of 104,000 west of Nuernberg, Kissinger is
still known among older citizens as "Heinzi." They recall that
the slender boy would rather play soccer with school chums
than play the piano, as his parents would have liked him to do.

The local birth register records that Heinz Alfred Kissinger was born on May 27, 1923, the son of teacher Louis Kissinger and his wife.

In 1934, one year after the Nazis assumed power, he had to switch to a Jewish school. After the 1938 Crystal Night, when the persecution of Jews began in earnest, the Kissinger family emigrated to the United States, where he changed his first name to Henry.

Wallace Throws a Birthday Bash

Alabama Gov. George Wallace turned 54 Saturday and in-
vited 15,000 people to a barbecue picnic at Montgomery's Gar-
watermelons and more than a million beans.

There was a 1,200-pound birthday cake, five feet tall and six feet wide.

The whole affair was free and open to anybody who wanted to come. Wallace supporters had been handing out tickets for weeks.

Science Fiction ... or Truth?

Isaac Asimov, the prolific writer of science fiction, says he's angry that some of his dire predictions might come true.

"I don't want to be proven correct because people didn't do anything," the 53-year-old author of 143 books told a seminar at Rensselaerville, N.Y.

One of his books predicted a massive food shortage by 1960, and the author commented: "They don't call me a doom crier any more."

'Legitimate Plumber' Defends the Name

A plumber in Newberg, Ore., has told Sen. Sam Ervin that he
does not like the use of the term "White House plumbers."

"Since the advent of the 'White House plumbers,' the public attitude toward legitimate plumbers has become increasingly adverse — almost to the point of being intolerable," wrote Eugene Wedmore, who said he had been "a legitimate plumber" for 18 years.

Ervin, chairman of the Senate Watergate committee, has
only been following the lead of the White House, which orig-
nally hung the "plumber" tag on the group of men hired to
"stop leaks" to newsmen.

This doesn't satisfy Wedmore, though. He asked: "Since the men involved in performing the covert actions were lawyers and otherwise prominent minions of the law, why weren't their own professions named?"

helo
glar
ro-ro-
sts
ark
he
si-
y.
em-
w
a
la-
ite

Ris greater
For Kissinger
At State Dept.

By Murrey Marder

Washington Post Staff Writer

SAN CLEMENTE, Calif., Aug. 25—Using a current catch-phrase, the State Department is going to get a doctor whether it needs one or not.

The extension of Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger

News Analysis

from the White House to the State Department, however, carries implications that transcend rewarding the President's chief international strategist, or mending the crushed morale of the U.S. Foreign Service after he helped to deflate it.

A post-Indochina reassessment of the United States' role in the world, and President Nixon's power to determine that behind closed doors in the White House, was making erratic progress in Congress even without the goad of the Watergate scandals.

President Nixon had the choice of joining or fighting that trend. At least until Kissinger's press conference on Thursday, the President was welded to the track of besieged belligerence. Kissinger, in the President's name and his own, offered reconciliation. A wary Con-

See DIPLOMACY, A19, Col. 1

Kissinger Starts Well

At his first press conference after the an-
nouncement that he would be nominated to be
secretary of state, Dr. Henry A. Kissinger sounded
the right political note.

As an example, the success of the Nixon admin-
istration's initiatives toward Red China and the
Soviet Union was due in no small part to wide-
spread public support for them.

Chicago Daily News

An Independent Newspaper Founded January 1, 1876

Marshall Field, Publisher

Emmett Dedmon

Vice Pres., Editorial Director

John G. Trezevant

Executive Vice President

Daryle M. Feldmeir

Editor

Leo R. Newcombe

Vice Pres., General Manager

Donald W. Gormley

Managing Editor

Albert E. von Entress

Vice Pres., Circulation

Kenneth McArdle

Associate Editor

Charles D. Fegert

Vice Pres., Advertising-Marketing

Russ Stewart

Vice President

Virgil P. Schroeder

Vice Pres., Production

Robert W. McAllister

Vice Pres., Industrial Relations

Walter C. Bishop

Vice Pres., Financial

Winner of 15 Pulitzer Prizes for Meritorious Public Service and Excellence Editorial Page Staff: Fred J. Pannwitt, Chief Editorial Writer; David Hall, Joseph E. Geshwiler, John Fischetti, Sydney J. Harris

10

Saturday-Sunday, August 25-26, 1973

X-PR

Kissinger makes sense

Henry Kissinger's accession to the top Cabinet post puts American foreign policy in expert hands for the critical years just ahead. Nearly all the good things that President Nixon has accomplished on the world scene he has accomplished with the powerful help of Dr. Kissinger. As secretary of state as well as presidential adviser, Kissinger will be well-positioned to advance those programs.

The fact of Kissinger's being until now the chief foreign policy adviser while William P. Rogers was secretary of state has been anomalous, and a handicap to the department. It was frustrating to the lower echelons of professionals in the department — and for Congress — to be remote from the chief policy executive, and frustrating for Kissinger to be remote from the agency responsible for implementing all the decisions he was so intimately involved in making.

Now the implementation of what has already been set in motion with Peking, Moscow and elsewhere will become his specific responsibility, along with assisting the President to formulate new policies that will move the nation

forward in the years ahead. In the wake of the Vietnam War that Kissinger played so critical a role in ending, half a dozen global matters clamor for urgent attention — the Middle East, the recurring SALT talks, China, Japan, the tottering West European alliance.

The Senate should speedily approve the Kissinger nomination. There are serious questions it will want to ask him, especially regarding how candid and co-operative he intends to be with Congress. But Kissinger has anticipated that problem and given solid assurances that he will communicate freely and not hide behind executive privilege.

We believe the Senate should take Kissinger at his word, and so should the public, that he will "explain our philosophies, purposes and policies" as he goes along.

Dr. Kissinger is not only a wise and competent statesman, but also he brings to his high task a perspective, inspiration and a sense of dedication that will be of great service in advancing policy abroad and clarifying and strengthening it at home.

NORFOLK VIRGINIAN-PILOT 25 August 1973 (6Sept)

# Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Rogers

Because Dr. Henry A. Kissinger has been considered the "real" Secretary of State since Mr. Nixon first entered the White House in 1969, there is an anticlimax to the fact of his selection to succeed the retiring William P. Rogers.

The long-rumored switch was announced by the President at the beginning of his press conference in San Clemente on Wednesday. In his prefatory remarks Mr. Nixon praised Mr. Rogers, said that Dr. Kissinger would retain his responsibilities as Assistant to the President for National Security, and expressed the hope that the new Secretary of State would be confirmed quickly by the Senate.

"And now we'll go to the questions," concluded the President. The first question was about the secret tapes. The second about the conversation with Pat Gray, when the acting director of the FBI said that the President was being "mortally wounded" by men in the White House. The third about H. R. Haldeman . . . Watergate, Watergate, Watergate. There were no questions about Dr. Kissinger or Mr. Rogers or the country's foreign policy.

The emphasis upon Watergate is not surprising, since the President had been dodging questions on the topic for months. But it is also symbolic, since

the Kissinger-for-Rogers switch is not unrelated to Watergate.

Mr. Rogers is an old friend of Mr. Nixon's and the last of the original Cabinet that was introduced to the nation by the President-on television. While Mr. Rogers surely was not pleased with Dr. Kissinger's prominent role in the White House and the talk of his own figurehead status as Secretary of State that was widespread in Washington, he has been loyal to the President—"completely dedicated and completely selfless," in Mr. Nixon's own words.

But the announcement of the departure of Mr. Rogers came just two days after he had said that the country must not "become so obsessed with security matters that laws are freely violated." In his Monday valedictory, Mr. Rogers sought to dissociate himself and the Department of State from Watergate. If he is not covered with glory as Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers is not leaving town under a cloud like most of the other recent refugees from Washington.

The evident eagerness of Dr. Kissinger to assume the title, as well as the responsibilities, of Secretary of State seems to be motivated partly by the wish to dissociate himself from Watergate and even from the precincts of the White House. Dr. Kissinger, like Mr.

Nixon, is aware of the historic significance of the Administration's accomplishments in foreign policy and he doesn't want his share in them to be stained by Watergate.

That is not all of it, to be sure. Dr. Kissinger has spoken of the necessity to institutionalize in Mr. Nixon's second term the breakthroughs with Moscow and Peking that were made in the first term. Foggy Bottom is the place to do that. And Dr. Kissinger, who is no shrinking violet, appreciates the pomp and glory of being Secretary of State, an office that was first held by Thomas Jefferson and later by John Marshall, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Charles Evans Hughes, Henry L. Stimson, George C. Marshall, and Dean Acheson.

Dr. Kissinger promises to grace the illustrious list of his predecessors. Not since Jefferson or General Marshall, perhaps, has there been any individual who so clearly merited the office. And Dr. Kissinger's promise to conduct the country's foreign policy more openly, seeking to build a "new consensus" for it, is the best hope of getting on with the business of the country in the wake of Watergate.

## For Rogers, a 'Well Done';
For Kissinger, a New Task

THE RESIGNATION of William P. Rogers as secretary of state and the appointment of Henry A. Kissinger to succeed him in the Cabinet have resolved an unusual situation in the Nixon administration.

Over the past 4 1/2 years, Rogers served President Nixon loyally and well as close confidant and counselor, but his role as secretary of state centered largely on the ceremonial aspects of the office.

During the same period, Kissinger held the posts of national security adviser and head of the National Security Council, but he was the President's secretary of state on crucial foreign policy matters—and often a brilliant one—in fact if not in name.

THE ARRANGEMENT was at times an unsettling one for Congress since Rogers, as a Cabinet member, was obliged to report to congressional committees on administration policy, while Kissinger, as a special advisor, was not.

Although Kissinger has met with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

from time to time, as well as with the press for briefings, complaints have persisted in Washington about his availability as an administration spokesman.

And Rogers was often placed in the uncomfortable position of speaking out for the administration without being deeply involved in the decision-making process.

Yet despite these drawbacks, the arrangement worked well for President Nixon while it was in effect.

ROGERS' HANDLING of the ceremonial duties of the office of secretary of state, left Kissinger free to deal with the intricate, sensitive negotiations that led to key agreements with North Vietnam, with China and with the Soviet Union. At the same time, Rogers made an important contribution to the Middle East peace dialogue with a proposal to reopen the Suez Canal.

Without question, the Nixon administration's most prominent successes have been in the field of foreign affairs. And the contributions of Kissinger and of Rogers have been indispensable to these suc-

cesses.

As he leaves government office, Rogers has earned a "well done" for the quality of his service to the nation. A less conscientious man would not have managed to work as effectively in the dual foreign policy situation developed by President Nixon.

THAT KISSINGER is eminently qualified to serve as secretary of state—by intellect, training and experience—there can be no doubt.

He will have to mend some fences in Congress over his past inaccessibility, and most recently over his role in the secret bombing of Cambodia and of the wire-tapping of his own assistants on the staff of the National Security Council.

But Kissinger's achievements far outweigh any of his handicaps. He fully deserves to be secretary of state in his own right. We trust that the Senate will act promptly and favorably on his appointment when Congress reconvenes next month.

DENVER POST
24 August 1973
(6 Sept)

4-E

THE NEW REPUBLIC
1 September 1973 (6)

AIR FORCE TIMES
5 September 1973 (6)

## Whose Right to Know?

During the 1968 presidential campaign Richard Nixon appealed to the voters with a "secret plan" to end the war. But what the President actually implemented, within days of his inauguration, was a secret plan to expand the war, carrying marine combat operations into Laos, extending the then-secret air war in Laos to include base camps and supply routes inside "neutral" Cambodia, and conducting frequent clandestine raids into both of those countries using special military and paramilitary units. The administration did not seek congressional approval for these activities and did not truthfully inform more than a half dozen legislators of the details. Instead while key congressional committees received falsified bombing reports and the American people received reassurances from the President that his war policy showed restraint and "scrupulous" respect for neutral nations, the administration spent an estimated $150 million for the strikes against Cambodia and $1.5 billion for the operations in Laos.

Since the first disclosures in July, the response from top present and former Defense officials has stressed the military "necessity" of the raids, which few legislators seem inclined to dispute. But Congress reacted coolly to the administration's rationale for the massive deception, namely that Prince Sihanouk—allegedly a collaborator in the air war—would have been forced to disown the bombing and call for its halt. Last week in New Orleans the President took the same approach in his first public address on the matter. His military justification contained the usual tough rhetoric about not "copping out" of our world responsibilities, not "bugging out" of Vietnam, and giving the enemy "one more incentive to move to the conference table." But to answer the accusations of deceit, he asserted that "The fact of the bombing was disclosed to appropriate government and congressional leaders ... who had any right to know or need to know."

According to the testimony of Gen. Earle Wheeler and Adm. Thomas Moorer before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the only members of Congress provided accurate information were the late Sen. Richard Russell (D, Ga.), the late Sen. Everett Dirksen (R, Ill.), Sen. John Stennis (D, Miss.), the late Rep. L. Mendel Rivers (D, SC), Rep. Gerald Ford (R, Mich.), and Rep. Leslie Arends (R, Ill.). (Stennis, one of the three surviving members of this group, is not certain that the Pentagon specifically told him of the bombing and maintains that he was unaware of its scope.) For the President to suggest that six legislators—all enthusiastic supporters of the war—were the only ones with a "right to know" about the bombing serves to reinforce the impression that the secrecy and falsification were intended to protect President Nixon (rather than Prince Sihanouk) from unfavorable public opinion.

Within 24 hours of the President's speech Sihanouk strenuously denied having acquiesced in the secret bombing, insisting that he had repeatedly protested the strikes to the US embassy. It was his uncooperativeness and objections to the US intervention, tended Sihanouk, that led to the coup against him in March 1970. But no matter whose version one believes, it is not clear that the bombing would have had to stop

## When Cuts Come

STRENGTH CUTS now seem inevitable. The big question is not whether there will be reductions but how large they will be.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is talking big numbers (150,000-plus) and Sen. Walter F. Mondale (D-Minn.) wants the reductions spread proportionately among the grades — officers, NCOs and lower-ranking enlisteds — to stop "grade creep."

The House has approved only small cuts but it may be talked into larger ones when the two chambers work out their differences.

We don't know what force levels are "safe" so we have to leave it to the Pentagon and Congress to work out the arithmetic. We can only hope that, somewhere between combat effectiveness and cost effectiveness, they hit the right numbers.

We do feel competent, however, to talk about one problem in the troop reduction process. It is the problem of career enlisted men.

Traditionally, big cuts have been met largely by reduced recruiting and early releases and retirements. All of this is pretty painless on the individuals, though forced early retirement has its hardships.

Another big cut — particularly one calling for reductions in the NCO grades specifically — could be a problem. However, it could require the services to force out enlisted men with more than four but fewer than 20 years. Such men, having reenlisted once, assume they can stay for a full career. There is nothing in their enlistment contracts to guarantee 20 years, but if ever there were an "implied agreement" it exists here.

At present, there is no severance pay for career enlisted forced out before 20 years. Nothing like the $15,000 RIF pay allowed officers who are separated involuntarily.

In the Pentagon's new nondisability retirement bill, there is provision for enlisted severance pay. But that bill is not given much chance of early passage. If major reductions are ordered before it is passed, some career noncoms could be forced out with little more than their back pay and travel-home money. That, we think, would be grossly unfair.

We asked Mondale's office if the senator had thought about this situation when he called for specific reductions in the NCO grades. A spokesman said the question had not come up but it would be looked into before any final action was taken.

We certainly hope so. Providing some severance pay for forced-out enlisteds would cut into some of the savings predicted in a force cut. But we don't think the country is so close to going broke, it must save dollars at the expense of troops whose only sin is that of being too numerous.

had it been disclosed while Sihanouk remained in power. In March 1970, the regime of Souvanna Phouma survived the revelations of US air operations in Laos. Furthermore the need to protect Sihanouk does not explain the persistent refusal to tell the American people the truth after the prince had been overthrown.

That the President did not inform the public in 1969-1970 of the military necessity for the bombing suggests a remarkable lack of confidence in his own appraisal. Despite the campaign promises, the specter of "North Vietnamese invaders within Cambodia ... killing Americans from this area" might have drawn sufficient public support for the bombing then. Although on May 9, 1969 a story describing several weeks of B-52 raids in Cambodia appeared on the front page of The New York Times, it produced little visible public response. Still, if the President had disclosed the war plan, he risked that the public would not have tolerated the escalation indefinitely, especially as it appeared that more American lives were being lost than saved. The Pentagon tallies show that monthly casualties increased during the first six months of the Cambodian bombing, in part reflecting the dead and missing from the secret missions.

3-E

WGN Continental Broadcasting Company • 2501 Bradley Place, Chicago, Illinois 60618 • Telephone 312 528-2311

as presented on
WGN Radio 720 • WGN Television 9

WGN EDITORIAL #73-230 "MR. SECRETARY KISSINGER"

Saturday, August 25, 1973

The appointment of Henry Kissinger to Secretary of State should be beneficial for the Nixon administration, at a time when its image at home has tarnished both the image and the fact of its foreign policy abroad. The appointment also replaces another image with fact ... the image that it has been Dr. Henry Kissinger and not Secretary of State William Rogers who has been exercising the functions, at least at the policy level, of that office.

Whether Rogers ever was more than a figurehead is not important. The illusion was there, taking its toll on morale in the State Department, and compromising Rogers' own dealing with foreign ministers of other nations. It was Henry Kissinger who made the secret trip to Peking, did most of the traveling between Washington and Paris during the Vietnam negotiations, and then explained various agreements to the American people.

There are, of course, risks in the appointment, risks of which the President is aware. There is the possibility the Senate will reject the appointment, a possibility which has become reality more than once for Mr. Nixon. We feel the President is entitled to the advisors and executives he wishes, and believe a majority of the Senate will concur.

However, one other risk, and perhaps the more important, is that posed by the confirmation hearing. During his almost personal service to the President, executive privilege ... now being tested in the Watergate case ... kept Dr. Kissinger away from and out of the reach of the Senate foreign relations committee. Around the time of the Cambodian invasion, some of its members would dearly have loved an inquisition featuring Dr. Kissinger.

The foreign relations committee will now have the opportunity to ask the questions it wanted to ask a few years ago. Perhaps, with the war behind us, this is the time for those questions to be asked, and the hearings may be the most appropriate forum. While public hearings can provide a public service in informing the nation, there can be little question of Dr. Kissinger's qualifications to hold the post to which he has been appointed. The Senate should consider the appointment and confirm Dr. Kissinger as soon as it returns from the summer recess.

The Atlanta Journal

COVERS DIXIE LIKE THE DEW

Since 1883

Jack Tarver, President

32-A

Jack Spalding, Editor

Secretary of State

IT IS A well accepted fact in American politics that the President, any president, has the option of dominating his administration's foreign policy or of permitting his secretary of State to do so.

In the administration of Dwight Eisenhower, for example, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was the architect of foreign policy. In the administration of Richard Nixon, the architects have been the President and

his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger.

Secretary of State William P. Rogers has had the responsibility of office, but little of the authority. He has handled the ceremony and acted the role of secretary of State. But any contributions he might have made to the formulation of policy have been overshadowed by the dramatic maneuvers of Dr. Kissinger.

Secretary Rogers merits high marks for loyalty and dignity in what must have been a frustrating assignment. But his departure from the Cabinet will generate not so much as a ripple of change in the area of foreign policy.

What we have here is the de facto secretary of State is to become the de jure secretary of State. And, in the process, at long last he becomes accountable to Congress.

# Kissinger Takes the Title

In matters of real substance the changeover in the State Department from Secretary William Rogers to Secretary designate Henry Kissinger should mean little, for Dr. Kissinger, as President Nixon's chief foreign affairs adviser and negotiator, has functioned virtually as a secretary of state in the most telling foreign initiatives of the Nixon administration.

Washington judgments seem to be that he will take it all in his customary stride, and that his star quality will raise the department's status, and with it the administration's glory, in a way that will give emphatic credit to a second term badly in need of visible pluses.

Reg Murphy

X=P.R.

WK

# The Swinger in the State Department

For a long time the foreign policy of the United States has been the most suspect aspect of the government. A remarkable turnabout is taking place.

In that long agony of the spirit, the war in Vietnam, the American foreign policy was so bitterly divisive that it cut up everybody who had anything to do with it.

Even so good and wise a man as Dean Rusk could not convince the voters that the State Department was operating in the best interests of either the nation or the world.

Grown sluggish with a 12,000-man corps, the State Department rarely got credit for its tremendous job of promoting foreign commerce, which

was one of its principal concerns. It caught only hell for its other works — both from people who deplored foreign aid programs and from those who wanted to spend more on the unfortunate overseas.

But now the hurts of American internal problems and the end of American bombing and shooting in Indochina have combined to give foreign policy a better name.

Dr. Henry Kissinger — a swinger by anybody's standards — has looked as upright and moral as a church deacon in the aftermath of the Watergate scandals.

Kissinger's voice is burred with a European accent, and his background is in the academic world. As a student in one of his seminars, I can recall watching him work. Nobody had ever seemed to bring more coherence to the world's history and challenges than he did.

Now he will go to the State De

partment — surely he will be confirmed speedily — and carry with him the prestige and authority of the President's most trusted adviser. It will help the diplomats who work for him to have that prestige and access.

Kissinger warned the foreign service officer to spend some time with their wives now, for they won't have time after he moves to State. It was his way of assuring them that he intends to use, rather than ignore, the trained professionals.

Inevitably, there was immediate criticism of his appointment. Kissinger is a Jew. Some said choosing him makes war in the Middle East inevitable. In his press conference, Kissinger alluded to the problem:

> "I'm asked to conduct the foreign policy of the United States and I will conduct the foreign policy of the United States, regardless of religious and national heritage. There is no other country in the world in which a

man of my background could be even considered for an office such as the one to which I have been nominated, and that imposes on me a very grave responsibility which I will pursue in the national interest."

Kissinger has been the foreign policy adviser in the White House, and it didn't lead to war between Israel and the Arabs. There is no reason behind the suggestion war is inevitable now.

> "This nation overlooked finally the Catholicism of John F. Kennedy and elected him President after a long night of dark religious arguments. Kennedy made this nation proud while avoiding any conflict between his religion and his job."

Kissinger deserves the same chance to go at his job without everybody throwing his religion at him. He is the kind of man who surely would choose his nation's best interests above his personal religious beliefs.

Atlanta Const. 8/25/73

Kissinger PR ok

Republican was sent to Congress last Tuesday.

You can't trust anyone else.

# Mr. Rogers Steps Down

The resignation of William P. Rogers as Secretary of State and the nomination of Henry A. Kissinger as his successor were logical and all but inevitable developments in the greatly altered picture of international relations.

For more than four years Dr. Kissinger has acted as President Nixon's super agent in arranging the extraordinary deals worked out with Hanoi, Moscow and Peking. In doing so he of necessity usurped many of Mr. Rogers' normal duties.

The result of the by-passing was a considerable demoralization of State Department regulars. It was not shared by Mr. Rogers, who faithfully and cooperatively carried out the functions left to him by presidential choice.

It was a most difficult task, done as well as

could be done by an intelligent and dedicated man. His own personal contribution to the cause of peace — and it was a large one — was arranging the Mideast cease-fire three years ago.

Now that the essential groundwork of Dr. Kissinger's assignments has been laid down, furthering of new relations will be far more in keeping with regular State Department procedures than in the past.

No man is more qualified to carry through what he started than Dr. Kissinger. And no public servant deserves relief from further personal sacrifice more than does Mr. Rogers.

We hope the Senate will quickly confirm the nomination of Dr. Kissinger. To Mr. Rogers goes our admiration and gratitude for a tough job well done.

EDITORIAL PAGE

BUFFALO EVENING NEWS

Founded Oct. 11, 1880

EDWARD H. BUTLER—1850-1914—Founder

EDWARD H. BUTLER, JR., 1883-1956

Editor and Publisher 1914-1956

MRS. EDWARD H. BUTLER

President and Publisher

Editor-in-Chief Editor—MILLARD C. BROWNE

Published Daily Except Sunday by Buffalo Evening News Inc. Mrs. Edward H. Butler, President;

Saturday, August 25, 1973

B-2

Re-Accent on Bipartisanship

Coming just at the conclusion of the bitterly divisive conflict in Indochina, and after several months of national preoccupation with the Watergate scandal, Secretary of State-designate Henry Kissinger has chosen what must surely be the most propitious moment in a long while to plead for a revival of constructive bipartisanship in our foreign policy.

For far too long, even without the Watergate distraction, the most threatening Cold War on our foreign-policy horizon has been that between the administration and Congress, largely sparked by differences over Vietnam. But with Southeast Asia now receding rapidly as an area of primary U. S. concern, and with America's world role changing rapidly and obviously needing careful and comprehensive rethinking, the time should be ripe for getting all the creative interplay possible between the initiating and the "advising and consenting" branches of the government.

Dr. Kissinger stressed this theme throughout his press conference Thursday, and we hope the spirit in which he indicated the administration is prepared to do its part will evoke a prompt echo in similar vein from the key foreign-affairs committee of Congress.

The Kissinger initiative inevitably recalls the kind of bipartisanship that flowered so effectively in the development of the Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan and NATO just after World War II. Then, too, there were those who, weary of war and overseas involvements, wanted to lapse back into isolationism. That danger was especially acute after the Truman presidency had been rejected in the 1946 mid-term election of on overwhelmingly Republican Congress. But thanks to the high-order statesmanship of such Truman administration stalwarts as George Marshall and Dean Acheson, on the one hand, and the chief Republican foreign-policy spokesman, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, the compelling

realities of the day were faced squarely and co-operatively, and the resulting bipartisan policy of generous U. S. support for European (and Japanese) recovery and containment of communist expansion prevailed pretty much unchallenged for nearly a generation.

But now we are in a new age, where many of the premises of that policy no longer prevail, and where, as Mr. Kissinger notes, "many important and some revolutionary changes" in our relations with other great powers have been made. But now he sees us entering a new phase where our post-Cold War role on the world stage is being "institutionalized." And a vital aspect of that institutionalization, as he emphasizes, will be to "bring Congress into a close partnership in the development, planning and execution of our foreign policy."

That, of course, will require a lot of give and take on both sides. One of the memorable complaints by some Republicans during the Truman era was that "bipartisanship" too often meant "leaving the Republicans out of the takeoffs but inviting them in for all the crash landings." With the party roles now reversed, the same complaints will doubtless be heard from Democratic senators if this new bid for bipartisanship amounts in practice to little more than a plea for Democratic consent to Nixon-Kissinger initiatives. What is important is that there be real bipartisan input to the formulation of policies as well as to the implementing of them.

This Dr. Kissinger fully recognizes as he promises a foreign policy of maximum openness to public view, developed in close partnership with Congress and carried out in the spirit of such predecessors as Stimson, Marshall, Acheson and Dulles—"all of whom were united in one basic approach:" that U. S. foreign policy must be above partisanship, that it concerns the whole nation, and that it transcends any one administration.

Richmon~ Times-Dispatch

DAVID TENNANT BRYAN, Chairman and Publisher
ALAN S. DONNAHOE, President and Associate Publisher

JOHN E. LEARD, Executive Editor ALF GOODYKOONTZ, Managing Editor
EDWARD GRIMSLEY, Editor of the Editorial Page

Saturday, August 25, 1973

Kissinger to State

President Nixon's appointment of his national security adviser, Henry A. Kissinger, to the added post of Secretary of State appears to be a sensible move, provided that Foggy Bottom's bureaucratic weight doesn't prove to be an albatross around the neck of the globe-trotting refugee from Harvard.

During the first Nixon term, recalled rather nostalgically now. Dr. Kissinger clearly was the President's chief helper in formulating the world-shaking changes in foreign policy that have been the administration's most heralded accomplishment. As the President's personal representative, Kissinger was a tough and able negotiator in the difficult assignment of extracting the United States from its longest war on acceptable terms. He reopened the door to mainland China; and to balance out the new China policy, he laid the groundwork for a new Russian policy enabling the U.S. to play off one Communist giant against the other, or to be an "honest broker" between them. He proposed a new Atlantic Charter to guide the free West into a new era.

Beside Kissinger's, the record of departing Secretary of State William P. Rogers may appear to some to be rather anemic. Rogers too often has failed to receive proper credit for what he has done, perhaps because he does not date Hollywood starlets or allow Arabian bellydancers to sit on his lap. But as he returns to private law practice, Rogers is entitled to thanks for his skillful arrangement of a 1970 cease-fire in the Arab-Israeli war that has helped keep the Middle East from embroiling the world in another major conflagration. He also was a capable reorganizer and manager of the

State Department itself and it remains to be seen if Kissinger can handle such mundane chores with similar dispatch. Moreover, on diplomatic journeys to Latin America, Japan and elsewhere, the affable Rogers showed a knack for making friends for the U.S., an ability of which we have no surplus.

However, there's no doubting that Kissinger has been the intelloctel— the President's Metternich—behind a whole new approach to world affairs aimed at weaving a framework in which differing nations can trade words and goods instead of bullets. In that sense, he has been the President's secretary of state in all but name anyway.

Kissinger's move to State could improve morale among career officers there who felt the department's role was neglected during the first term, but some sensibilities may be chafed by Kissinger's retaining his White House post at the same time. Of course, the way a President organizes the executive branch's conduct of foreign affairs is up to him, under the Constitution. And with a President as actively involved in foreign policy as Mr. Nixon, it makes good sense to have ready-made liaison between the White House and State Department in the powerful personage of Dr. Kissinger.

Naturally, the Congress also has a legitimate interest in foreign affairs and Kissinger's dual appointment should be of benefit in that connection, too. For, as Kissinger himself noted in a press conference yesterday, the new Secretary of State would be able to testify freely before congressional committees in a way that a man who was strictly a personal presidential adviser could not do.

Basketbrawl

Des Moines Register 8/24/73

# Kissinger in for Rogers

Henry Kissinger has been President Nixon's chief foreign policy adviser and executant for a long time, not the President's old friend William P. Rogers, secretary of State. Now that Rogers is resigning effective Sept. 3, Kissinger is to become secretary of State in name also, on confirmation by the Senate—retaining his title as assistant to the President on foreign policy and national security affairs as well.

Kissinger is amply qualified, and combining the two rival posts in one man should be a neater arrangement. Foreign diplomats have been embarrassed by the dual set-up, and foreign policy has been more of a one-man show and a one-issue-at-a-time show than desirable.

The Rogers contribution to Nixon foreign policy, which the President praised, has been minor but helpful as far as it went. Restoring the cease-fire

between Arabs and Israelis in President Nixon's first term was primarily a State Department job, with career man Joseph Sisco doing much of the leg-work.

But most of the Nixon spectaculars were White House jobs, carried through by Kissinger and President Nixon himself: the Vietnam peace agreement, the Peking and Moscow visits and the easing of relations with both Communist giants.

Kissinger long ago retracted his early support for "limited nuclear war" as a sensible option for U.S. foreign policy, but he remains a hardliner with an old-fashioned view of the effectiveness of military alliances and coercion by air-power. These views worry us, but they coincide with President Nixon's, and a President is entitled to name Cabinet officers who share his outlook.

# Kissinger: Good Man for the Job

THE UNQUESTIONED ability of Henry A. Kissinger in foreign affairs makes him an excellent choice to replace William P. Rogers as secretary of State. But President Nixon's proposal that he remain as chief White House advisor on national security affairs presents problems that should be faced squarely before the Senate confirms his appointment.

Mr. Kissinger has been running the nation's foreign policy since 1969. He negotiated the breakthrough with China, the rapprochement with the Soviet Union and the end of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

His obvious position as the President's No. 1 man in foreign affairs lowered morale in the State Department, which felt ignored in the very area of its expertise. His move to State, bringing with him the great prestige earned by his work in the White House, should help raise morale again.

As national security advisor, Mr. Kissinger has been protected by executive privilege. And if he is allowed to remain in that position, there will likely be grave problems concerning his freedom to testify before congressional committees which must know what the State Department is doing.

Mr. Kissinger has generally maintained

good relations with Congress over the past four years, meeting informally with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the home of its chairman, J. William Fulbright. But nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of formal testimony by the secretary.

As with all too many things in Washington today, the problem stems in part from Watergate. Mr. Kissinger's logical successor in the national security post would be Gen. Alexander Haig, who served as Kissinger's deputy until he was forced to fill the void left in the White House by the departure of H. R. Haldeman.

Aside from the very important problem of Mr. Kissinger trying to wear two incompatible hats, two minor problems should be explored by the Senate before confirmation.

One is his approval of telephone wiretaps on top aides during the early months of the Nixon administration. The Senate should, however, be satisfied if he gives the proper assurances of future safeguards on the privacy of State Department officials.

Another possible problem has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Kissinger's qualifications. The fact that he is Jewish could, however, raise questions concerning his objectivity toward the Middle East. Mr. Kissinger has, in the past, been content to leave the potentially explosive Middle East in the very capable hands of Assistant Secretary of State Joseph J. Sisco, and could avoid future difficulties by continuing to let Sisco operate pretty much on his own.

If the major problem of his intention to keep his White House job can be surmounted, however, Henry Kissinger will make an excellent secretary of State. He has the energy, the credentials and the prestige to give Foggy Bottom the leadership it could never have had as long as there was a Henry Kissinger in the White House.

## Intercepted Letters

HOUSEHOLDERS

At The Thermostat

Dear Shiverers:

SUMMER was great, both days.

Pipeline Pete

THE KANSAS CITY STAR

Founded September 18, 1880, by William Rockhill Nelson.
The Kansas City Star Company, Owner and Publisher.

MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Associated Press exclusively is entitled to use for
replication of all local news published
herein as well as all AP dispatches.

Vol. 93

Friday, August 24, 1973

No. 341

Kissinger Is Qualified to Become
A Great Secretary of State

Henry Kissinger has been the strong man of American foreign policy since the fledgling months of the Nixon administration in 1968. His advancement to secretary of state therefore is logical and, indeed, it was all but inevitable. He has long held the authority of that post in all save title.

To characterize the extraordinary role of Kissinger in the Nixon government in no way is to criticize or belittle the official chief of the State Department, William P. Rogers. The problem of Rogers was simply that he was in the wrong job in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Rogers, one of the more attractive and less reactionary high officials of this administration, might have done quite well as secretary of state had he been allowed to function in the nonceremonial aspects of that position. Intelligent, able and distinguished-looking, he was an excellent man to represent the United States at diplomatic gatherings and international conferences. But his influence on policy-making was minimal, made so by Henry Kissinger's presence at the White House as chief adviser on foreign affairs and special presidential envoy with a suitcase always packed.

President Nixon wanted it this way and he still does. Kissinger not only becomes secretary of state but will remain the President's national security adviser. There has never been an arrangement exactly like that before in the U.S. government. Some members of Congress may have misgivings about it. If so their views will be made clear when the appointment of Kissinger comes up for approval in the Senate.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is likely to insist that Kissinger be prepared to testily openly in future committee sessions and not invoke his special relationship with the President to hold back key information. In other

words, Sen. J.W. Fulbright and his committee members can be expected to balk at any use of the executive privilege doctrine because Kissinger's second office will be at the White House.

In his press conference yesterday Kissinger promised "a full and new partnership" with Congress and said he would not invoke executive privilege except as it regards "personal conversations between the President and myself or about direct advice I gave the President." The question is whether this reservation will satisfy Fulbright & Co.

Kissinger also spoke of operating American foreign policy on a bipartisan basis with increased information to Congress and the country. These are worthy goals and the citing of them suggests correctly that there has been too little bipartisanship in foreign policy in recent years as well as too much concealing of facts the public is entitled to have. Now the question will be what Kissinger as secretary of state can do to effect improvements on both counts.

Undoubtedly he is a creative thinker with a genius for spotting openings for constructive change. He has performed brilliantly in carrying out initiatives toward Red China and the Soviet Union and in handling Vietnam peace negotiations. As the first secretary of state of Jewish heritage, Kissinger may find it difficult to deal with the explosive Middle East. But there are ways of getting around such considerations and Kissinger above all has shown himself to be resourceful.

With good reason President Nixon has faith in Kissinger's wisdom and ability. If he is also willing to let Kissinger have plenty of room to shape and make large decisions, he might turn out to be one of the nation's great secretaries of state. At least he has the qualifications to achieve such eminence.

upon request. Mail subscriptions not accepted from offices of local distribution.

Jyväskylä Värjistö

247-249, Helsinki, Finland

Connecting All Departments

Friday, August 24, 1973

## In Name as Well as Deed

President Nixon's latest change in his Cabinet membership is probably the most painless of any to date and, in fact, can probably be regarded as gratifying to everyone concerned, notably the principals.

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger will take over the No. 1 Cabinet post, Secretary of State, succeeding William P. Rogers, effective Sept. 3. This assumes, of course, that the Senate will confirm the Kissinger appointment and that not even the Watergate confrontation between the President and the Senate investigators will interfere in any way.

It seems safe to assume that the changes — Kissinger to the Cabinet and Rogers back to private law practice — will be welcomed by both men. That Dr. Kissinger would eventually take the top post in the Cabinet has been rumored for months and there has been no secret to Mr. Rogers' yearning to get back into private life.

It is undeniable that the President critically needed some Kissinger-like strategy to compensate to some extent for the battering White House circles have been undergoing for some time. Dr. Kissinger has been regarded, at least in form if not in substance, as occupying the top spot in the State Department for months while the real Secretary, Mr. Rogers, has been handling minor matters of state. The change has for long been regarded as inevitable.

Foreign nations, particularly Russia and Red China, which unquestionably have been wondering what effect Watergate might have on East-West relations in the future, will undoubtedly be quite satisfied. There has been considerable speculation in Moscow and Peking, where the Nixon-Kissinger operations have been the most notable, about the President's vigor and credibility in his remaining years in the White House.

The Kissinger appointment now serves to reinforce the Nixon administration at what is probably its weakest point and both domestic and world opinion undoubtedly will approve. It was needed by the troubled President and certainly is of incalculable value in reinforcing relations with foreign countries.

The Mozambique massacre, if there was one, took place late last year. At this late date it remained for The London Times to confirm the story. In an interview with a 15-year-old boy who claims to be a survivor of the village, The Times reported the atrocity in grisly detail.

Yet Portugal continues to claim that the story is a hoax, that the people and the village of Wiriyamu never existed.

This is a situation made to order for a United Nations investigation. In fact the U.N. would do well to set up a permanent investigating committee to check such reports. The argument that this would constitute interference in domestic problems which are none of the U.N.'s business is a specious one. An atrocity is an atrocity, no matter how far from home, and the massacre of helpless villagers isn't merely a domestic matter, but eventually a problem for the whole world.