WASHINGTON
WATCH

Sonnenfeldt U challenge

By Clark R. Molienhorf

(C) Register and Tribune Syndicate

WASHINGTON — One of the most amazing stories in the Nixon administration is the ascendancy of Helmut Sonnenfeldt as a major influence on American foreign policy, despite unresolved charges that he lied to a congressional committee on matters dealing with national security.

Sonnenfeldt, 49, is an expert on Soviet-American affairs. His influence on foreign policy is second only to that of Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, and for details of Soviet-American relations, Kissinger leans heavily upon Sonnenfeldt, an old friend.

While the special prosecutor pursued in detail the charges that former presidential aides Dwight Chapin, Egil Krogh, Herbert L. Porter, and Jeb S. Magruder lied about campaign financing, the Justice Department has exhibited no interest in exploring the possibility that Sonnenfeldt committed perjury.

AND AS THE controversial Sonnenfeldt has survived, prospered, and been approved by the Senate as counselor in the State Department, he owes it all to the passing of the magic words: "Henry wants him."

As Chapin, Krogh, Porter and Magruder have been convicted or pleaded guilty in the Watergate affair, Sonnenfeldt sits in on White House conferences with Kissinger and takes a leading role in preparing for Nixon's meetings with Soviet leaders this summer.

Meanwhile, serious questions remain unresolved concerning

Sonnenfeldt's truthfulness before congressional committees and his handling of information with high Soviet leaders this summer.

Those questions were raised, but not resolved before two Senate committees — Foreign Relations and Finance — and still are under active investigation by the House internal security subcommittee, where Kissinger has been able to stall the appearance of key witnesses for several months with "executive privilege" assertions.

SEVERAL RESPONSIBIE witnesses have testified against Sonnenfeldt, and John Hemenway, a former Foreign Service officer, spelled out the problem succinctly in a letter to the Justice Department asking for a criminal investigation.

"Specifically, Mr. Helmut Sonnenfeldt, an employee of the U. S. Department of State and the NSC [National Security Council], stands accused of 'leaking' highly classified information to foreign agents with whom he had frequent and close association and to other persons.

"These charges were made in the public record. The charges were specific, capable of being decisively proved or disproved, and were made under oath by a number of responsible citizens including Mr. Otto Otepká, retired member of the Subversive Activities Control Board, and Mr. Stephen Koczak, retired U. S. diplomat who currently holds a responsible position with the AFGE [American Federation of Government Employees] of the AFL-CIO. Many corroborating witnesses are available and have been named in the record."

HEMENWAY NOTED that Sonnenfeldt denied the charges under oath before the Senate Finance Committee.

Political figures who have abhorred the lack of investigations that was the Watergate cover-up and who have criticized arbitrary executive secrecy in connection with the Watergate tapes have been unconcerned or silent as the Kissinger branch of the same Nixon administration refuses to answer factual questions and produce witnesses in the Sonnenfeldt controversy.

Newspaper and magazine writers, who rightly pursued the suspected perjury in the Watergate cover-up and who defied into Nixon's tax matters, seem content with inaction on the serious charges against Sonnenfeldt.

Although some of the security violation charges against Son-

Richmond Times-Dispatch, Sun., Apr. 21, 1974

## 'Henry Needs Him'

Sonnenfeldt go back to the late 1950s, his most recent triumphs over his critics stem almost entirely from the fact that Kissinger regards him as an indispensable man in negotiations with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.

FROM ALL THAT is known or written, Sonnenfeldt's brilliant talents are as indispensable to Kissinger as Kissinger is to Nixon. And, as Kissinger becomes more involved in the whole sweep of American foreign policy and running the State Department, he becomes more dependent upon Sonnenfeldt for the detailed staff work in preparation for international meetings.

While Sonnenfeldt is described as a "hard-liner" in American-Soviet negotiations, he and Kissinger presided as the major policy planners in the disastrous Soviet grain deal and the much-criticized strategic arms limitations talks agreements.

We are told that Sonnenfeldt's abrasive personality causes periodic clashes with Kissinger, but it was Kissinger who rescued Sonnenfeldt from his most recent Senate confirmation problems by passing the word to the Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright, D-Ark., that he wanted Sonnenfeldt as counselor and would personally vouch for his loyalty and integrity.

FOR FULBRIGHT and Sen. George Aiken, R-Vt., the ranking Republican member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the fact that "Henry wants him" was enough. They didn't even require Kissinger to appear formally under oath to be precise, about just why he wanted and needed Sonnenfeldt, or why the serious charges made under oath should not be resolved with an examination of all available witnesses and documents.

While Kissinger was still President Nixon's special assistant for international affairs, he suggested Sonnenfeldt, then his top White House aide, as an undersecretary of Treasury in charge of all East-West trade relations. However, that nomination was bottled up in the Senate Finance Committee where Sen. Harry Byrd, D-Va., expressed concern over Sonnenfeldt's role in the Soviet grain deals.

Byrd also questioned whether Sonnenfeldt had an adequate background in business and international economics for the Treasury post, and cited the grain deals as indicative of the consequences of a lack of experience in trade matters.

CHAIRMAN RUSSELL Long, D.-La., heard testimony from two former Foreign Service officers.- Hemenway and Koczak concerning the alleged leaking of classified information to intelligence agents for Israel. They said their allegations could be supported by other witnesses and documents at the FBI, CIA and State Department.

Long made a futile effort to obtain those documents, and finally gave up in the face of an executive branch stall. When he reported the Sonnenfeldt nomination to the floor he explained, that it was not his fault that all of the evidence was not explored because the executive branch had refused to cooperate.

Before the Sonnenfeldt nomination came to a vote in the Senate, it was withdrawn and, at Kissinger's urging, Sonnenfeldt's name was submitted as counselor at the State Department. That move brought the nomination under the jurisdiction of Fulbright.

WHILE FULBRIGHT expressed concern over the allegations against Sonnenfeldt, he prevailed upon his committee to vote approval because "Henry wants him." Fulbright didn't even call the witnesses who wanted to appear against Sonnenfeldt, nor did he require that Kissinger be questioned under oath on the handling of the security questions in the Sonnenfeldt matter.

That laxity of the Senate investigation was called to the attention of the House Internal Security Committee investigating the effectiveness of government security programs.

A preliminary investigation demonstrated to chairman Richard Ichord, D-Mo., and Rep. John Ashbrook, R-Ohio, that there were many unanswered questions.

ALTHOUGH SUBPOENAS were approved for several witnesses, the State Department and the Justice Department have engaged in a stall of several months comparable in many respects to the delays the House Judiciary Committee is getting from Nixon on the White House tapes.

What makes the Sonnenfeldt affair most amazing is the fact that it is taking place at a time when it appeared the press, politicians and political scientists had made new resolves on the dangers of executive secrecy, the importance of executive department accountability to Congress, and the corruptive impact when allegedly false testimony is permitted to go unchallenged.

NEW YORK NEWS - 21 APRIL 1974

# Stalin's Men Still Rule Russia,
Expert Cautions

By JERRY GREENE

Washington, April 20—The critical ingredient in any military intelligence estimate that is almost always missing is an indication of enemy intent—more particularly the time and place of any intended attack. The recent Yom Kippur war and even the Pearl Harbor bombing are prime examples.

It is reassuring, therefore, that some of the American strategists, lacking any precise knowledge of Russian intent, would seek information of the next best sort—an understanding of the nature, of the mental inclinations of men in the Kremlin whose stockpile of intercontinental missiles constitutes the only foreseeable threat of consequence to the security of this nation.

When the Joint Congressional Atomic Energy Committee assembled in customary top-secret session a few weeks past to consider the annual authorization bill for the Atomic Energy Commission, most importantly for the development and production of nuclear weapons in fiscal 1975, the surprise first witness was a Harvard history professor, Richard Pipes. Pipes also is a senior consultant for the Stanford Research Institute. He is, more significantly, one of the country's leading authorities on modern Russian history.

In a half-hour presentation, pipes delivered to the committee a grave warning, a definition of detente as it is seen through Russian eyes, an explanation of why peace-hungry peoples in the U.S. should not be misled by hopes and designs that never entered the Russian mind.

“The present leadership of the USSR,” Pipes

CAPITOL
STUFF

told the committee, “political as well as military, consists of Stalin's men. These people have gone through the most brutalizing political experience ever known and they are the product of a system of natural selection totally unfamiliar to politicians in any other part of the world. They know (the speaker emphasized the word know) that politics is the art of survival, and that survival can be bought only if one is ready ruthlessly to dispose of the liberties, wealth and lives of others.”

As a result, the professor said, expectation of American philosophers of detente that the Russians will enjoy similar feelings and attitudes is not unlike judging the behavior of wild beasts by that of tame, domestic breeds.

Pipes told the committee that the Russians under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev gambled on peaceful economic and ideological competition, and lost the bet.

## The Ultimate Weapon

“There remains only militarism,” he said, “the one sphere of activity in which the Soviet regime can show remarkable and undeniable success. . . . Violence and the threat of violence is the ultimate weapon of individuals as well as nations. that have exhausted all means of argument and know they cannot win in any other way.”

The witness testified that there is every reason to expect that the arming of the USSR “on all fronts and in all the branches of the service will continue unabated.”

“It is most improbable,” Pipes said, “that a single Soviet leader thinks relations with the U.S.A. could or should influence the rate or manner in which the USSR meets what it considers its defense needs. The idea of parity remains entirely alien to them . . . The Soviet Union is striving not for parity but for superiority.”

## Threat Countered

When the Chinese Communists began to confront the Russians with rising military power, and influence the third-world nations, Pipes said, the Soviets met the local threat with a policy of military and naval containment.

In the third world the Russians took guerrilla movements under their wing, making them dependent on sophisticated Soviet weapons that Red China could not supply.

Pipes suggested that strategists seeking to un-

WASHINGTON POST - 21 APRIL 1974

# Kremlin Fails
To Reassert
Its World Role

By Richard Homan

Special to The Washington Post

VIENNA, April 20 — The Soviet Union has apparently failed in a behind-the-scenes campaign to convene a world conference of communist parties that would be expected to affirm the Kremlin's role as communism's global leader.

After eight months of high-level politicking, the Soviet Union has won only a handful of endorsements for the conference, which Romania and many of the non-ruling communist parties in the West fear would be used chiefly by a forum for attacking Peking.

To continue the momentum that had slowly built for the convening of a world conference, the Soviet Union, in the view of Western analysts, needed a public endorsement by its own bloc of military allies — the Warsaw Pact — which held a summit meeting in Warsaw last week.

But opposition by Romanian president and party chief Nicolae Ceaseucescu, which had stiffened only in recent days, made a joint endorsement by the 7-nation Warsaw Pact impossible, and the communique of the Warsaw meeting made no mention of a world conference.

The failure to win significant support for its proposal is certain to be a propaganda soft back for Moscow, softened only by the fact that the Kremlin has carefully avoided publicly issuing a call itself for a conference.

As a face-saving move, the Kremlin is believed now to be working toward a pan-European conference which, if the political climate were to change, could become an in-

termediate step toward a later world meeting. Even a meeting limited to European communist parties, however, is likely to be opposed by those who are trying to maintain neutrality between Moscow and Peking. Western diplomats believe.

Ceaseucescu, in an interview two weeks ago with the British newspaper, The Guardian, virtually ruled out Romanian participation in a world conference in the foreseeable future. International meetings, he said, must exclude any criticism or condemnation of an individual party.

The Soviet Union is believed to have first raised the question of a world conference last August when leaders of the Warsaw Pact nations and Mongolia met in the Crimea.

The last world conference was held in Moscow in 1969 and, since then, the complexion of international relations had changed considerably, with detente, rather than rivalries, being emphasized.

Moscow hoped to use a new conference to halt the process of weakening Kremlin authority within the international communist movement, to allay fears that its detente policies contradicted the revolutionary basis of communism and, if possible, to isolate China from the world communist movement.

So far, only six of the worlds 14 ruling communist parties have publicly endorsed the Soviet proposal — five Warsaw Pact nations and Cuba. Fewer than a dozen of the many non-ruling parties in the West have endorsed it.

derstand Soviet behavior should study Russian proverbs, not the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, for “culturally the Soviet elite is descended from the Russian peasantry . . . Life, as they have been taught by 1,000 years of history, is a pitiless conflict in which there are, by the nature of things, those who rule and those who are ruled. The rulers are the stronger, tougher, cleverer; the ruled are the innocent, weak, foolhardy.”

The professor by no means opposed detente. He thought it a “perfectly reasonable premise” that the U.S. and the USSR “must at all costs avoid situations which may lead to nuclear war.” But he also thought a little realism was in order in figuring the requirements of national security for this nation.

5-F

WASHINGTON STAR-NEWS 19 APRIL 1974 (21)

# Martin: Envoy Still at War

By Mary McGrory

Star-News Staff Writer

The flaming pen of Graham Martin, the U.S. ambassador to Saigon, is focusing aggravated attention on Vietnam, a subject the administration prefers to forget except in emergency budget requests.

## Point of View

Martin's molten-lava prose is something new in diplomatic annals. But not his uncritical devotion to the regime of the moment. U.S. envoys from the beginning having tended to adopt the government of Saigon as their own. Henry Cabot Lodge attempted to school Nguyen Cao Ky in the niceties of the sound truck, and Ellsworth Bunker patiently shepherded Nguyen Van Thieu through his scandalous one-man election.

Martin, who served as ambassador to Thailand during the years of the buildup of the secret airbases, and who once urged the CIA to finance the Christian Democratic party in Italy, is of the belief, that U.S. critics of the Thieu regime and unending financial support for it are agents and tools of the Hanoi government. His strictures bring back the 1968 New Hampshire primary, when voters were warned that a vote for peace candidate Eugene McCarthy would signal Hanoi that it could win at the ballot box what it could not win on the battlefield.

A FEBRUARY dispatch by David Shipler in the New York Times, detailing continued U.S. involvement, prompted Martin to cable the State

Department that it was "propaganda disguised as investigative reporting."

When the Defense Department recently requested an "emergency fund of an additional $474 million for South Vietnam, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., asked Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for a clarification of our intentions, Martin counseled Kissinger that it would be "the height of folly to permit Kennedy the tactical advantage of an honest and detailed answer."

The cable was mailed to Kennedy by an unknown hand and he read it on the Senate floor.

Martin's ultimate communication so far, however, is a letter he sent to a New York clergyman. Dr. William Webber, president of the New York Theological Seminary, visited Martin with four other members of a peace delegation. One of them, Robert Ransom, had, like Martin, lost a son in Vietnam.

THE GROUP wanted to ask the Thieu government about political prisoners and other touchy U.S.-funded projects. Martin advised them in effect "to tell it to Hanoi," when they protested the unceasing violence and deaths in "peace with honor."

He urged them to call up the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, with whom they would have "great influence." He gave them the numbers. Dr. Webber says that they were wrong numbers.

In his letter, written on embassy stationery, Martin virtually accused Webber of responsibility for the deaths of 34 children and the wounding of more than 50 others in a mortar attack on the village of Cai Lay.

"As the son of a clergyman,"

writes Martin in his disemboweling conclusion, "I was taught by my father to have a wholesome respect for the truth, that whatever the apparent advantages of the moment might be gained by toying with the truth were bound to be, in the end, transient and illusory and that the infinite mercy and compassion of God was beyond the finite comprehension of mortals ... But I am only an imperfect mortal and no matter how hard I try, I find it impossible to either forget or forgive that, in the case of these children, when I asked you to assist in achieving the cessation of the use of the weapons which killed and maimed them, you wouldn't even try."

The ambassador's fulminations are really beside the point. It is not Martin's cables and letters, but Kissinger's letter to Kennedy which illustrate the true problem.

THE SECRETARY of State wrote, with admirable candor, "We believe it is important that we continue our support as long as it is needed."

There is, in short, no light at the end of the tunnel in peace with honor. Administration partisans claim that it is only money we are now sending, not men. But critics insist that as long as the dollars and weapons pour in, the killing will go on and the Thieu regime will continue in its corrupt, repressive and unrepresentative ways.

Some thought has been given on Capitol Hill to calling Martin back for an explanation of his verbal "search-and-destroy" tactics. But the trouble, obviously, is not in Saigon with a fanatical ambassador, but in Washington with an administration that will not let go.

NEW YORK TIMES 21 APRIL 1974

# Martin Makes An Unresolvable Accusation

Clearly, the fact that the United States Ambassador to Saigon refuses to see the press is no measure of his determination to be heard. Once again, Graham A. Martin has made a controversial written statement, this time telling a leading American churchman he may have been responsible for the deaths of 32 South Vietnamese children.

It is the third such incident in recent weeks. The first was a message to the State Department in which Mr. Martin complained about an article in The New York Times. The second was a message from Mr. Martin urging Secretary of State Kissinger not to give an "honest and detailed answer" to Senator Edward M. Kennedy's questions about American policy in Indochina.

Last week's was a four-page leamer to the Rev. Dr. George W. Webber, president of the New York Theological Seminary. In it, the Ambassador accused Dr. Webber and other antiwar activists of having failed, during a January visit to Saigon, to carry out Mr. Martin's request that they appeal to the Vietcong and North Vietnamese to stop mortar and rocket attacks.

Enclosed with Mr. Martin's letter were 10 photographs of children maimed and killed March 19 in shelling at the village of Cai Lay. The Ambassador wrote: "No one can be certain your intervention would have saved these children. It was my judgment that it might well have had a determining influence.

"But for the rest of your life, you will have to live with the unresolvable doubt that, but for your decision not to call, these dead children might still be alive and these horribly maimed children might be whole."

The attack on Cai Lay took place two months after Dr. Webber's visit to South Vietnam.

It was not clear why the Ambassador felt that Dr. Webber and members of his group might have had influence with the Vietcong or North Vietnamese. Dr. Webber has said that until his January visit to South Vietnam—during which he and others in his group denounced President Nguyen Van Thieu and called for an end to all United States aid—he had never even met a Vietnamese, and had never been to Asia. He has not been regarded as an unusually active anti-war figure.

Dr. Webber said that he was shocked at the Ambassador's charge. He recalled that during his meeting in January with Mr. Martin the United States envoy gave him telephone numbers of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong delegations to the Joint Military Command and asked him to meet with them and persuade them to "de-escalate the violence."

The theologian said that he had not been able to do so because he had been unable first to discuss the step with the Saigon Government, whose guest he was in Vietnam.

6-F

KISSINGER CALLS
LATINS 'PARTNERS'

Continued From Page 1, Col. 8

of Chile, Rear Adm. Ismael Diáz, charged that "Castroism continues to be an aggressive policy of intervention and constitutes a danger for peace and security of the continent."

When 24 Latin-American and Caribbean foreign ministers met with Mr. Kissinger in Washington on Thursday, it was decided that Mr. Vignes should poll his colleagues on whether they wanted to readmit Cuba to the hemisphere fold.

But an Argentine delegate said today that Mr. Vignes would do no polling at the sessions here, having acknowledged that the majority of O.A.S. members were still opposed to Cuba.

"He will play for time, believing that time is working for him," the delegate said. "Maybe by next March when we all get together in Buenos Aires a majority will have developed."

Mr. Kissinger and other speakers who made formal statements to the assembly indicated that they felt the main concern at this stage should be a thoroughgoing reform of the Organization of American States and the resolution of hemisphere economic problems.

Mr. Kissinger described the organization as "overly rigid" and proposed "less formal" meetings.

KT

NEW YORK TIMES 21 APRIL 1974

# A Foreign Policy Emerges

## Crosby S. Noyes:

Don't look now and don't say it too loudly, but something new and potentially very hopeful is happening in this town. For all the problems that the Nixon administration is having at this point, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is well on his way to putting together a foreign policy that has bipartisan approval in this country and general acceptance abroad.

It is no mean feat, and one for which Richard Nixon, of course, comes in for a share of the credit. But Kissinger, even more than the President, personifies American foreign policy these days. And with the administration disintegrating about him, he is doing a remarkable job of promoting not only American interests abroad but the broadest interests of the world community as a whole.

THIS IS A ROLE which the United States very largely abdicated in the last ten years. Because of the war and the bitter divisions that it generated — in the country, between the executive and the Congress and among our most important allies — American leadership faltered and almost foundered.

It probably is no accident that during this period things went to pot in a good many other places as well. Our alliances became disoriented, losing their sense of direction and purpose. The erosion of executive authority in the United States has been reflected in a corresponding weakening of governments associated with us — in Europe, in Asia and in the Middle East.

Which is not to suggest, of course, that things have now been put to rights and all is well. The deterioration of the administration continues. Our alliances are still in disarray. Peace in several critical areas remains a precarious proposition.

BUT AT LEAST a more hopeful start has been made. Today for the first time in many years, there is some-

thing like a consensus about the main lines of our foreign policy. Henry Kissinger may still have his problems from such as Teddy Kennedy and Scoop Jackson — even, possibly, with administration insiders like Defense Secretary James Schlesinger. But there is nothing like the bitterness that marked dissent from our foreign policy in the past.

Perhaps it is because they don't understand it as well as they used to. Kissinger's concepts of detente and multipolar maneuvering are a good deal more complicated and subtle than earlier formulas for bashing Communists and buttering up allies. And yet I think there is a very general perception — not only in this country, but almost everywhere — that the secretary, in his own somewhat obscure way, is on the right track.

NOT JUST in the business of bailing us out of Vietnam, improving things a bit in our relations with the Russians and Chinese or trying to patch together some kind of peace in the Middle East. In these matters, Kissinger has demonstrated enormous energy and impressive skill. But he is also, perhaps, something of an illusionist, whose most dazzling achievements have a way of going up in smoke as time goes on.

Kissinger's peculiar genius, it seems to me, is not so much a matter of razzle-dazzle diplomacy as a personal concept of how the world should be — an ability which few other people have to recognize a given problem in its global dimensions and explain with unusual lucidity how to go about solving it.

A striking example of this faculty was his recent speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations debating the question of raw materials. The special session had been called largely at the urging of producing nations which have been threatening to follow the example of the Arab oil exporters in the matter of prices and supply.

(See FOREIGN POLICY, Pg. 4-F)

disasters have resulted in excessive deaths because of the lack of communications and resulting inability to get word to the outside world quickly and on a continuing basis. The new global satellite terminal system could have a major part in speeding aid to such stricken areas.

First and most important in the immediate future, however, is the military application of the system. And, while steering

clear of any hint of nuclear firing instructions being flashed through the stations, RCA's James M. Osborne makes it tacitly clear how far-reaching is their potential:

> "They are designed to bring satellite communications directly to the battlefield on a fully operational basis... Thus, this application of Space Age technology will open a new era in military communications for today's Army on the move."

SAN DIEGO UNION 12 APRIL

(21)

# A-Alert
Stations
On Order

By JOHN PINKERMAN

Copley News Service

CAMDEN, N.J. — One of the problems nuclear war planners have faced is how to get a White House or Pentagon “go” signal to field troops in Europe or Asia before the enemy destroys America’s capability to obliterate.

To overcome this problem the Army has ordered nine transportable ground satellite terminal stations for testing instantaneous communications on a global tactical and strategic basis. The stations are being built here by RCA on a $7.5 million initial contract with the Army. While the stations will have application to all three military services — and will be useful in civilian disaster communications — the Department of Defense selected the Army for the experimental phase of the program.

Neither the Army nor RCA will admit that fast nuclear weapons use is a factor in establishing the new worldwide system that could connect the White House with a brigade of troops in the front line. However, this application is obvious to anyone who looks carefully at the communications network involved.

## Application Made Clear

Joseph C. Belanger, RCA engineer in charge of portions of the program, made this clear even as he declined to answer direct questions along such lines.

"These transportable satellite terminals are in four configurations," he said, "ranging from a size that fits into a one-quarter-ton trailer to one requiring a two-and-one-half-ton truck. Through satellite facilities their range can go up to one-third of the globe. The stations will be in forward areas, at brigade level, and they are designed to accept security, devices to prevent jamming by any enemy. Also, they can be set up in the field in not more than 20 minutes."

The Army Electronics Command will test the new system at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., and at Ft. Huachuca, Ariz., the vast desert and prairie area where some of the nation's most sophisticated electronic warfare developments get their initial field tests.

It is conceivable that these mobile field stations could receive White House nuclear firing orders within seconds of proof that enemy troops, missiles or bombers were launching an atomic attack.

## Role In Natural Disaster

Like many military developments in communications, the mobile satellite terminals also could have an important role in a major natural disaster. Often, in South America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, earthquakes, floods and other

3-F

Capital Is Taken With Kissinger

My Times 4/21/74

By LESLIE H. GELB

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, April 20— Through a combination of circumstances: success, candor, deviousness, brilliance, and sheer motion, Henry A. Kissinger has transformed most of Washington into a cheering section for his foreign policies.

Like no other recent Secretary of State, Mr. Kissinger has commanded or cajoled support for most of what he wants to do.

Richard M. Nixon is still the President. His aides in-

sist that he runs the show, and that Mr. Kissinger regularly consults him. But Mr. Kissinger is treated by legislators, diplomats and journalists as if he had the last word. He is widely regarded as "president for foreign affairs"—and as his own best public-relations man.

The President's weakness because of Watergate has meant added political strength for his Secretary of State. Senators and Representatives freely acknowledge in private that Mr. Nixon's domestic

difficulties have led them to place even greater reliance on the person and the power of Mr. Kissinger.

Many legislators speak of Mr. Kissinger as a "national asset" because of what they see as his diplomatic wizardry in opening new channels to Moscow and Peking and in bringing about negotiations in the Middle East. As a Senate staff member put it, "There's nothing like success for gaining support up here."

Many legislators also ad-

Continued on Page 16, Column 1

Like it
Way

A regulated place
in the summer. Away

for Mom, brides, graduation—any lucky
lady you love. It's a 14 karat yellow gold
ball pendant and chain, and it comes with
a dear little eye-dropper. The ball is
filled with cotton, and the eye-dropper is
for putting perfume into the cotton. And
when the lady wears it, the warmth of her
body releases the magic of the perfume.

Saturday Review
World

## Latin America: 4 Reports

# Kissinger's "New Dialogue"

### U.S. relations with Latin America, long chilled by mistrust and clumsy diplomacy, are thawing out in the warm glow of Henry Kissinger's new inter-American dialogue.

by Alan Riding

The sad truth about U.S.-Latin American relations is that ten decades of intercontinental conferences, "new dialogues," and proclamations of friendship have done little to redress the hemispheric imbalance: Latin America remains poor and frustrated; the United States remains rich and powerful.

Everything else follows from this. U.S. programs of trade and aid are merely frosting on the cake. The reality is that forty years of "good neighborliness" have not enabled a single Latin American nation to step out of poverty and underdevelopment.

Any "new relationship"—and the possibility is once again being aired—must therefore be based on a realistic appraisal of the basic relationship between the United States and Latin America. And if the Latins want to get rich and the Americans want to stay rich, the conclusion may well be that their interests are incompatible. To change the relationship, a clash of interests may therefore be inevitable.

Traditionally, Washington's policy toward the southern continent has consisted of negligent paternalism. And by constantly asking for a "new relationship" and complaining that "the United States doesn't care," Latin America has only encouraged this paternalism. Talking from a position of weakness, Latin America has only obtained reluctant charity;

talking from a position of strength, Washington has only responded to threats to its interests.

To smooth over the wrinkles in this traditional relationship, endless numbers of inter-American organizations and committees have been created. Almost monthly, one or the other produces yet another study or resolution or declaration on the state of relations between the regions. But the names and acronyms—OAS, ECLA, CIAP, CECLA, CIES, CECON, and so on—are important only as symbols of mounting frustration for the continent's governments. There are some diplomats who have spent their working lives going from one of these committees to another. Eventually, their vision of reality also wrinkles beyond recognition.

But once the organizations and the reports are set aside—so repetitive, so depressing; so accurate, yet so irrelevant—Washington's policy toward Latin America can be seen in all its simplicity and nakedness: It involves maintaining the continent generally within Washington's sphere of influence, preventing the emergence of leftist regimes, protecting U.S. investments, developing a market for U.S. exports, and securing the region as a fount of raw materials. Liberalism apart, there is nothing wrong with this. Washington defends its interests as it sees them—and it softens the blow with some charity and rhetoric.

The Alliance for Progress, launched with such flair by President Kennedy in 1961, fell perfectly into this pattern. It was realism wrapped in goodwill. Once the CIA-guided invasion of Cuba had col-

lapsed on the beaches of the Bay of Pigs, Washington accepted the permanence of Fidel Castro and sought to neutralize his influence through the Alliance for Progress. Right-wing dictatorships therefore were frowned upon, democracies were bolstered, and economic and social reform was encouraged. This prong of the alliance was aimed at defusing popular unrest. The other prong—that of sharing the grim secrets of counter-insurgency with Latin America's armies and police forces—was to prevent this popular unrest from taking political shape.

Throughout the Sixties, U.S. advisers therefore helped Latin American governments to fight the extreme Left until the guerrillas of the continent were virtually exterminated. And as the ruling oligarchies modernized themselves to face the new challenges of the masses, Washington found that it could relax its vigil over the continent and concentrate on the problems of Southeast Asia. The Alliance for Progress consequently lost impetus and resources.

BUT THERE WERE occasional problems that required attention. In April 1964 Brazil's left-leaning government of President João Goulart was ousted with Washington's blessing. A few months later the defeat of the Marxist Salvador Allende in Chile's presidential elections was assisted by U.S. funds. In 1965 the Dominican Republic was invaded by U.S. Marines "to prevent another Cuba." And in 1968 a leftist military regime in Peru was boycotted—though it could not be ousted—after it had nationalized a major U.S. oil company. The collapse of the leftist regime of Gen. Juan José Torres in Bolivia in 1971, however, was a relief to Washington. And the successful termination of its campaign against the Allende government in Chile between November 1970 and September 1973 was toasted with champagne in Washington.

But none of these "occasional problems" were sufficient to alter U.S. policy toward the continent. In fact, in October 1969, in his only major speech on Latin America, President Nixon felt so confident about the region that he formally buried the Alliance for Progress and announced the start of a "more mature" relationship based on trade, not aid. Two years later this new maturity meant burdening Latin American products with a 10 percent import surcharge even though the continent had a huge trade deficit with the United

Alan Riding specializes in Latin American affairs and is a contributor to the Economist and the Financial Times of London.

Latin America: I

States. But in November 1971 Mr. Nixon dispatched his special assistant, Robert Finch, around the continent to "confirm" his goodwill. And in May of last year, the then-Secretary of State William Rogers traveled Latin America to announce his stillborn "new relationship."

Now, with Henry Kissinger (who was quoted as once having characterized Latin America as "a dagger pointing at the heart of the Antarctic") in the State Department, the proclamation of yet another "new dialogue" is echoing over the bones of the decades-old "special relationship." And to this end, Dr. Kissinger met the foreign ministers of Latin America and of the Caribbean— of all except Cuba—in Mexico City in February and meets them again this month in Atlanta, Georgia.

But Dr. Kissinger is not a man given to political romanticism. This "new dialogue" is therefore different because it starts from a premise of realism rather than guilt. The words are the same, but the mood reflects a change in the basic relationship between the United States and Latin America. Washington has begun shaping a new policy toward Latin America because suddenly it has an interest to defend. And Latin America is responding differently to the invitation of a "new relationship" because suddenly it has acquired relative strength.

The change can be explained in one phrase: the energy crisis. It is, of course, an oversimplification, but the impact of the energy crisis on the attitudes and policies of the United States and Latin America threatens to transform the basic relationship between the two regions more than do any number of conferences and declarations.

For many Latin American countries, the hike in world oil prices has meant serious short-term economic problems, not least through increased inflationary pressures. But it has also left another mark. Many governments are now becoming aware that the terms of trade for their raw-material exports might also be altered dramatically if they follow the Arab example and join forces to push up world prices.

In a sense, Latin America has been preparing for such an action for over a decade. The mounting disillusionment with inter-American and even international forums has slowly pushed Latin America into the Third World camp of mili-tancy. Only a few countries of the region are encompassed by the political non-

aligned nations movement, but governments with the most divergent ideologies—such as Brazil and Peru—stand together on most world economic issues. In their relations with the United States, Latin American governments disagree on such political questions as Cuba, but they face Washington as a bloc on trade, investment, and monetary issues.

FROM DR. KISSINGER'S global perspective, the danger that Third World producers' cartels may spread from oil to other key raw materials is therefore apparent. And if they do spread, the industrialized world will be convulsed even more than now. Latin America thus takes on strategic significance: By wooing the continent, the United States not only would divide and weaken the Third World but also would assure itself a continued supply of cheap raw materials.

As with the Alliance for Progress, the first coherent U.S. policy toward Latin America in thirteen years has grown out of necessity and self-interest rather than goodwill and justice.

Though he is by no means a specialist in Latin American affairs, Dr. Kissinger nevertheless has found a place for the continent in his global pattern of power. And once his Atlantic Community had been rejected by a restive Western Europe, his concept of a Western Hemi-

sphere Community's linking the United States and Latin America seemed all the more necessary. Ideally, such a community—a concept of mutual obligations and understanding rather than a juridical body—would bring Latin America closer to Washington and would separate the continent from the Third World.

The community idea was launched in Dr. Kissinger's masterly opening statement to the Mexico City Foreign Ministers' Conference on February 21.

He began by stressing the interdependence of world regions today and the need for collaboration and cooperation between "consumers and producers, the affluent and the poor, the free and the oppressed, the mighty and the weak." Then came the acorn. "So let us begin in this hemisphere. . . . The world community which we seek to build should have a Western Hemisphere Community as one of its central pillars." Soon "our community" already seemed to exist. "We must renew our political commitment to a Western Hemisphere system," he went on. "In this way, the Western Hemisphere Community can make its voice and interests felt in the world."

As proof of Washington's goodwill, he cited the February 7 Agreement of Principles for a new canal treaty signed by the United States and Panama and the February 19 agreement on compensation

UPI

"Spirit of Solidarity"—Secretary of State Kissinger with Mexican President Echeverría (left) and Guatemalan Foreign Minister Jorge Arenales Catalán in Mexico City.

Henry's Frantic Year

As far as Henry Kissinger is concerned, rest is a four-letter word. After having carved out a Vietnam settlement in Paris, he could have re-clined on his laurels for a spell. After being named Secretary of State, he might have settled down to wrestle with the bureaucracy at Foggy Bottom. But in both cases Kissinger's flair for personal diplomacy prevailed and pro-duced another year of peripatetic travel for the architect of U. S. foreign policy.

At the start of 1973, Kissinger's at-
tention was still focused largely on
Asia. In early February he set off on an
"exploratory mission" to Hanoi to fol-
low up his successful peace talks in
Paris. On the way he stopped off in
Thailand and Laos to discuss the pos-
sibilities of expanding the Vietnam
cease-fire; after three days in Hanoi, he
and Premier Pham Van Dong an-
nounced an agreement for setting up a
Joint Economic Commission for fun-
neling U.S. reconstruction aid to the
bomb-blasted nation (if U.S. congres-
sional objections can be met). After a
brief stopover in Hong Kong, Kissinger
pressed on to Peking for five days of
talks with Chou En-lai and Mao Tse-
tung, and they agreed that the United
States and China would open "liaison
offices" in each other's capitals. On the
way home, Kissinger met with Japanese
Premier Kakuei Tanaka.

The next phase of Kissinger's travels had a more Western flavor. In March he met in Mexico City with President Luis Echeverría, just prior to Echeverría's six-nation, three-continent "mission of peace." In early May Kissinger was off on another globe-girdling mission of his own, with Moscow the first stop. He discussed American concern over continued fighting in South Vietnam—and Russian interest in U.S. trade. Before he returned to Washington, Kissinger spent two days in London with then-Prime Minister Edward Heath and other British officials. The main subject of conversation: Kissinger's controversial proposal for a new Atlantic Charter, made earlier in his "Year of Europe" speech in New York.

On May 31 President Nixon took Kissinger, then still his national security adviser, along on a trip to Reykjavik, Iceland, for talks with French President Pompidou—who seemed less than enchanted by the new U.S. line toward Western Europe. Kissinger arranged for subsequent meetings on that matter with French Foreign Minister Michel Jobert, but tensions continued to build. In mid-May and early June, back in Paris, Kissinger conducted three more rounds of negotiations with Vietnam's Le Duc Tho. They drew up a fourteen-point agreement designed to strengthen the Vietnam truce.

ON AUGUST 22 the obvious became official: President Nixon announced that Kissinger would replace William Rogers as Secretary of State. Three days later the Secretary-designate made a semi-official visit to Mexico. The trip, Kissinger said, was scheduled to underscore the "importance we shall attach to relations with Latin America." In October he reiterated that point in a New York speech that called for a "new dialogue" between the United States and its hemispheric neighbors. But once again Kissinger was distracted by problems farther afield—the Arab-Israeli war. Early in November he set off on a marathon mission to the tense Middle East and stopped in Morocco and Tunisia en route to talks with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in Cairo. The two men agreed to resume formal diplomatic relations (broken off since 1967) and worked out a plan for strengthening the Mideast cease-fire.

Afterward, Kissinger met with Jordan's King Hussein in Amman and with Saudi Arabia's King Faisal in Riyadh and then went directly to China for a previously scheduled visit. Kissinger took the opportunity of allaying any fears about President Nixon's Water-gate-weakened domestic position. "No matter what happens in the United States in the future," he said, "the friendship with the People's Republic of China is one of the constant factors of American foreign policy." On the trip home Kissinger stopped to talk with Japanese Premier Tanaka and South Korea's President Park Chung Hee.

The "Year of Europe" ended, appropriately, with Kissinger working to repair U. S. relations with the Western allies—dealings that had been severely strained by the Arab oil squeeze. In December, after having conferred with NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, he became the first high U.S. official to meet with foreign ministers of the European Economic Community. Then, in London, Kissinger proposed a massive joint effort by Europe, the United States, Canada, and Japan to develop long-term solutions to the world energy crisis. Then, characteristically, Kissinger set off on another round of personal talks with Mideast leaders prior to the beginning of Arab-Israeli peace talks in Geneva. In six hectic days he covered Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. After brief stopovers in Lisbon and Madrid, he arrived in Geneva on December 21 to act as co-chairman of the Mideast peace conference.

Henry Kissinger's itinerary for 1974 has been following the familiar far-flung pattern. In early January he shuttled between Egypt and Israel to work out an agreement for the disengagement of troops along the Suez, and he again met with King Hussein and Syrian President Hafez Assad. On February 7 he was in Panama City to sign a new treaty governing the Canal Zone. The agreement stipulated an eventual relinquishing of the enclave to Panama, and Kissinger called that an "example of what we mean by the spirit of community in the Western Hemisphere." His meeting with Latin American and Caribbean foreign ministers in Mexico City followed shortly thereafter, but by February 24 Kissinger was again jetting toward the Middle East, to try to engineer a troop separation on the Golan Heights.

On his way back to Washington, the Secretary of State made sure to brief European leaders in Bonn and Brussels on the latest Middle East developments. Then, in late March, he set off for another trip to Moscow (setting up a return visit by President Nixon), prior to his attendance at the Organization of American States conference this month. The OAS meeting is practically a neighborhood jaunt; it will be held in Atlanta, only 543 miles from Kissinger's Washington backyard.

David M. Alpern is a general editor in
the national affairs section of Newsweek.

DAVID M. ALPERN

Latin America: 1

to expropriated U.S. companies signed
with Peru. The other point of friction—
Cuba—he refused to discuss, but he left
broad hints that Washington's policy to-
ward the island was under review. For the
future, he proposed a mechanism for set-
tling disputes between U.S. companies
and Latin American governments with-
out involving Washington, and he sug-
gested an "equitable interim accord" for
resolving the problem of U.S. fishing
boats arrested inside the 200-mile terri-
torial waters claimed by several Pacific-
coast nations.

"But we cannot achieve our goals by
remedying specific grievances," he said.
"A special community can emerge only if
we infuse it with life and substance."
Wisely, he chose to be vague on the de-
tails, but the concept was clear. Mem-
bers of the community would assume an
obligation to consult at regular intervals
and, in effect, to take no unilateral
measures (such as joining raw-material
producers' cartels) to harm the spirit of
the community.

The reaction of Latin America was
immediately negative. Most large coun-
tries prefer to deal bilaterally, rather than
en bloc, with Washington. A few min-
utes before Dr. Kissinger had spoken,
Mexico's President Luis Echeverría had
also declared categorically that "Latin
America forms part of the Third World."
Brazil, supposedly Washington's closest
ally on the continent, had already suc-
ceeded in sinking Dr. Kissinger's pro-
posal for an energy debate for fear of
offending the Arab oil producers that
supply two-thirds of its oil needs. Vene-
zuela, the continent's major oil exporter,
felt under siege from Washington for
its solidarity with the Arabs and re-
sponded by urging the producers of cop-
per, bauxite, iron ore, manganese, and
other key raw materials to follow the
example of the Arabs. Argentina, which
is currently strengthening its ties with
Western Europe, was not interested in
the community. Peru's left-leaning mili-
tary rulers felt that they had little in com-
mon with Washington.

Even smaller countries were sus-
picious. Guyana's highly lucid foreign
minister, Shridath S. Ramphal, asked
how a Western Hemisphere Com-
munity could exist between one super-
power and twenty-four poor nations and
without the inclusion of Cuba or Canada.

But as the conference continued, it
became clear that Dr. Kissinger had
made an offer that Latin America could
not refuse. The Latin and Caribbean

foreign ministers had wanted to talk
frankly and informally about a whole
range of issues—aid, trade, and mone-
tary questions, U.S. economic coercion,
multi-national corporations, transfer of
technology, and so on—and Dr. Kis-
singer was simply saying, "Fine, let's do
so in an inter-American spirit." His
presumption was that regular consul-
tations and negotiations will create
natural reciprocal obligations, even
though the word *community* is aban-
doned. After all, as the secretary told the
foreign ministers privately, hegemony
comes from power, not words. So in the
final Declaration, the foreign ministers
"agreed that interdependence has become
a physical and moral imperative and that
a new vigorous spirit of inter-American
solidarity is therefore essential."

Economic relations are the obstacle,
because political harmony largely exists.
With the Allende regime removed from
the map of Latin America, Dr. Kissinger
could indeed afford to proclaim in Mex-
ico that "we will not impose our political
preferences; we will not intervene in the
domestic affairs of others." After all, the
vast majority of Latin American govern-
ments are already to Washington's pref-
erence. Generals rule in Brazil, Para-
guay, Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia, Peru,
Ecuador, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras,
El Salvador, and Guatemala, and mil-
itarism is still spreading. Of these, only
Peru has a progressive regime.

But, largely because of Dr. Kissinger
himself, international affairs are no
longer guided by ideology. So Latin
America's real problems—its economic

> "The strategy is clear: Washington wants Latin America back in its camp and is prepared to pay to achieve this end."

Thus Latin America finally had found
a place in Kissinger's view of the world.
At last, U.S. diplomats and even busi-
nessmen scattered around the continent
knew that Washington's new policy was
aimed at preventing Latin America from
joining the Third World as an unseemly
threat to the industrialized nations.

The informal meeting of ministers in
Atlanta (April 17 and 18) and the
formal OAS session from April 19
to May 3 fall into the new "spirit of
solidarity." The dialogue continues, and
the negotiation toughens. Divisions are
apparent in the Latin camp—some gov-
ernments are prepared to brave on and
to fight for a new world economic order;
others would prefer to extract short-term
advantages from Washington—but the
confrontation is more equally balanced
than before.

Washington still has huge bargaining
power—and Dr. Kissinger insists on
bringing congressional leaders for his
talks with Latin America to secure his
freedom of action—but U.S. concessions
will be unavoidable. It could mean an
early end to the economic blockade of
Cuba or a generous new canal treaty for
Panama or specialized preferences for
the manufactured exports of the con-
tinent. But the strategy is clear: Wash-
ington wants Latin America back in its
camp and is prepared to pay to achieve
this end.

problems—are now the determining fac-
tors in any new relationship with Wash-
ington. And the concept that these prob-
lems can be resolved without a reordering
—and perhaps a convulsion—of the
world economy is as outdated as a reli-
ance on ideology.

But at the human level, at the sub-
sistence level at which most—yes, most
—Latin Americans live, what does this
mean? Dare one say, nothing? The for-
mer foreign minister of Venezuela, Dr.
Aristides Calvani, liked to compare the
battle of developing countries to the
struggle of the trade unions in nineteenth-
century England. "The oil producers are
merely the first trade union," he said.
"But with courage and short-term sacri-
fice, the producers of other raw materials
can help build a massive trade union
movement of developing nations."

THE ANALOGY is interesting and appro-
priate, but what about the real trade
union movements of Latin America—
will the benefits of any world economic
reform seep down to the poor workers
and peasants of each country? The case
of the Arab oil producers offers no en-
couragement. In Venezuela the oil
wealth is also concentrated in a few
hands. In many cases, in fact, new wealth
will merely strengthen right-wing and
repressive regimes. In Panama, for ex-

*(Continued on page 56.)*

Science

(Sex Barrier: continued from page 49.)

It's not merely a matter of changing a first name. In modern society a person is little more than what his records say he is. Thus the successful post-operative transsexual, especially if he is trying to conceal his past, must change his first name and sex on his birth and baptismal certificates, school records, military papers, prior employment records, Social Security, driver's license, insurance policies, and a variety of other records.

Miss Deborah Marie Hartin, a New York City transsexual who got her operation four years ago in Casablanca and now makes her living lecturing about transsexualism, takes credit for being the first transsexual to get a divorce and for having her name changed on a city birth certificate, a Catholic baptismal record, Navy records where she was a third-class petty officer, and even on her honorable discharge papers. Though she got a new name on the birth certificate, she can't get the Health Department to fill in the blank for sex—refusing to put in “female,” the city agency has left it blank—and Miss Hartin has gone to court to make it happen.

Paul Grossman, 54, was dismissed as an elementary music teacher in the Cedar Hill School in Bernards Township, New Jersey, when he went into an operating room in 1971 and came out as Mrs. Paula Grossman. The school board thought she would have a negative effect on the children. Outraged by this, Mrs. Grossman, a fourteen-year veteran of the school system, went to court, where the matter is now being considered by the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.

A Stanford University study, one of the few substantial attempts to get scientifically valid follow-up data, shows no improvement in the job status of transsexuals following surgery and only slight psychological improvement as measured by objective tests, though the patients reported much subjective improvement.

Johns Hopkins surveyed its forty-two patients, who reported improvement in employment, sexual relations, and personal adjustment, but the treatments didn't seem to eliminate the psychiatric problems the patients came in with—such as suicidal depression, schizophrenia, and psychopathic delinquency.

Just how much of a transsexual's psychological burdens come from social disapproval and inculcated taboos is difficult to say. Would an operation be necessary if the transsexual were accepted

as she or he is without being forced into a subculture that not only doesn't satisfy basic needs but also nurtures guilt?

This very question is under study at Stanford, where therapists discovered, to their surprise, that pre-operative counseling sometimes relieved problems substantially. Patrick Gandy, who coordinates the Stanford program, said definitive therapy wasn't intended when surgical candidates were first entered into the center's grooming clinic. The goal was to prepare them for the sex they would join after surgery.

Doctors have had difficulty developing a satisfactory treatment, because they can't agree on the cause of transsexualism. Some believe that it has a genetic origin with essentially a physical or biochemical base. Others are still convinced that it is solely mental, the unfortunate result of inappropriate parent identification. The most generally accepted view, if there is one, is that transsexualism is a combination of the two.

Transsexualism is deeply mired in the unknown. Doctors are not even sure what, precisely, happens to patients when they treat them.

In a loose, general way, they might say they are changing sex or turning a male into a female or vice versa; but the scientific accuracy of these statements depends on the definition of sex being used, and such definitions are never very clear.

Stretching all the definitions to the limit, it could be argued that the hormonal sex of the patient is being changed, and perhaps even the physiologic or morphologic sex. The mental sex was out of step with the body in the first place. But the chromosomal sex wasn't touched at all. So what does the doctor have at the end of treatment?

All this is more interesting to the academician or philosopher than it is to the patient who just wants to feel totally a member of one sex or the other. Most transsexuals who have undergone treatment say they feel substantially better.

"I feel like I have been let out of a prison," said one. "It's like being given a second chance at life," said another. And still another celebrates her birthday on the anniversary of her operation rather than of her birth.

But these are subjective evaluations from persons who have reason to see things as they would like them to be rather than the way they are. Such assessments are notoriously inaccurate, but at this time there is little else to go on. ☐

(Kissinger: continued from page 15.)

ample, opponents of the dictator, Gen. Omar Torrijos, feel he will be secure for years once the massive Cerro Colorado copper project gets rolling. In Ecuador, which became an oil exporter in 1972, an unpopular military regime already has been saved by increased oil revenues.

According to Washington's new policy toward the continent, all this is irrelevant. Its rather special “hands-off” policy—non-interference in the internal affairs of right-wing dictatorships—ensures that poverty will remain widespread even if raw-material prices rise sharply.

But the U.S. influence—political, economic, and cultural—is enormous even without a policy of rapprochement in Washington. The economic shadow is obvious. Trade between the regions in 1973 exceeded $16.5 billion—$1.8 billion to the advantage of the United States—and U.S. private investment in the continent approached $18 billion. In some smaller countries a single U.S. company dominates the entire local economy. U.S. businessmen are not reluctant to express and promote their preferences in local politics, too.

CULTURALLY, U.S. companies provide most of the entertainment and information available in the continent—films, television, and wire-service news. Local U.S.-owned subsidiaries also bring with them a special consumer consciousness that eventually distorts local tastes to conform with the American Dream.

On critical occasions, the United States, of course, intervenes directly in local affairs. But its indirect political influence is perhaps even more important. Events in the United States are followed and are reported closely in Latin America. The “demonstration effect” is powerful, and political unrest in the United States is quickly reflected in Latin America. For example, upheavals in Latin America during the Sixties cannot be separated from the anti-war movement in the United States at the same time.

Thus, even without an interventionist policy, the United States, by its very nature, cannot avoid intervening as a domestic political factor in every Latin American country. So, once again, the basic power relationship should not be obscured by conferences and declarations. Change will probably come to Latin America some time after it has reached the United States. ☐

Kissinger Calls on Latins to Seek Firmer Ties

By DAVID BINDER

Special to The New York Times

ATLANTA, April 19 — The 23-nation Organization of American States began its general assembly here today with Secretary of States Kissinger calling for progress toward "new horizons" of hemisphere cooperation and understanding.

In his brief opening remarks in the Chamber of Georgia's House of Representatives, Mr. Kissinger noted that the session to last until the end of the

month, was the first in any United States city other than Washington.

In his opening address, Foreign Minister Alberto J. Vignes of Argentina alluded to Cuba, which has been excluded from the O.A.S. since 1962. Noting eased tensions in the world, he said: "In the search for a new international equilibrium no nation may be left on the sidelines and Latin America is ready to carry forward a policy of clear, effective and immov

able solidarity which will allow achievement of a new order in international relations."

Argentina is a principal proponent of moves to invite Cuba to attend an informal hemisphere foreign ministers meeting in Buenos Aires next March as a step toward ending Havana's isolation. This proposal, made at such a foreign ministers' meeting in Washington yesterday, was not opposed by the United States, which said other countries involved should be polled for their view.

However, United States officials said they did not expect Cuba to win enough backing to get an invitation to Buenos Aires.

The Secretary General of the O.A.S., Galo Plaza of Ecuador, said in his welcoming remarks that "the crisis of the inter-American system," was a symptom of "the crisis in relations between the United States and Latin America." Governor, Jimmy Carter, welcomed the delegates, telling them in Spanish with a Southern accent to feel at home.

In a noon ceremony, Mayor Maynard Jackson of Atlanta and Mr. Plaza unveiled a plaque renaming the downtown Centrall City Park as "Park of the Americas." A steel band from Trinidad-Tobago and 24 dancers from the University of Guadalajara entertained.

But when Chile's Foreign Minister, Ismael Huerta, was introduced, a young man in the large crowd shouted loudly: "We pray today that the murders end and freedom returns to Chile." He was detained by Atlanta policemen.

HORTICULTURAL DIRECTOR

ment you walk in and see vi-
cause I cherish them. Strong,
places like Guatemala, the
Over 200 different varieties
nosphere of affection.

They get loads of personal
at way for you to show that
you feel. Every plant says love
nally trained assistants will be
at the one that best expresses

ions to find the plant that
open 7 days a week.

BETTER NATURED

OTIC PLANTS

98 THIRD AVE. 355-8620

80 SECOND AVE. 744-6875

74 AVE. OF AMERICAS 889-7796

RGDORF

ODMAN

United Press International

Secretary of State Kissinger greets delegates on his way into chamber to address general assembly of OAS.

# U.S. Denies Shift on Cuba Trade Policy

## KISSINGER, From A1

Argentine request, they would be subject to severe penalties—including possible jail terms for company officers—under the U.S. Trading With the Enemy Act.

To resolve the dilemma of the companies, an "exception" to the act was granted by the Treasury Department, with

the approval of the State Department and the President.

Another factor, an official said, was fear in the State Department that a refusal to grant the "exception" would poison U.S. relations with Argentina.

Thus, the United States and the three companies were caught in a squeeze play, according to the official explanation.

Argentina unilaterally rejected the OAS embargo against Cuba last year and claims that the United States has no right to impede a sale by firms incorporated under Argentina law.

The granting of the "exception" under Argentine pressure drew a negative re-

sponse from one senator, Edward Gurney (R-Fla.). He urged the Nixon administration to rescind this decision.

"An exception such as this," he said, "would not only be an unsconscionable reversal of past policy, but would also be viewed as a tacit acceptance of Soviet hegemony over Cuba and the export of revolution throughout the hemisphere."

At the OAS meeting in Atlanta yesterday, the subject of Cuba was much alive, although not on the agenda. The organization's general assembly expects to hear some debate on lifting the OAS embargo officially, but any action is thought unlikely. It would take a two-thirds approval—or 16 votes—by permanent OAS

council members to lift the embargo.

Secretary General Gao Plaza said a simple majority for lifting the sanctions could probably be mustered. "But other countries believe that the situation that brought about the suspension of Cuba," he said, "is still evident and that Cuba hasn't proven the opposite. So it seems at this date that there isn't a two-thirds majority for lifting the sanctions."

Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger flew to Atlanta yesterday to attend the meeting.

He opened the session by repeating his call for a "new dialogue" of cooperation between the United States and Latin America.

Doctors Are Reinstated
In Boston Abortion Case

By Richard A. Knox
Special to The Washington Post

BOSTON—Reversing its ac-
tion of a week ago, Boston
City Hospital has reinstated
three staff doctors under in-
dictment in connection with
legal abortions and experi-
ments involving dead fetuses.

The hospital's trustees came
to the defense of the indicted
doctors, saying in a statement
they "found nothing in these
cases to indicate that anything
occurred which could be con-
sidered illegal."

Earlier the hospital's direc-
tor, Francis E. Guiney, sus-
pended the three doctors say-
ing that "such acts," if they
occurred, "are against hospital
policy." He did not specify
what he meant by such acts,"
and the office of Suffolk
County District Attorney Gar-
rett H. Byrne has refused to
divulge the specific allega-
tions behind the indictments.

The changes have perplexed
and disturbed Boston's entire
medical community. Many
here view them as a politically
motivated attempt to set up a
test case against both the Su-
preme Court's decision on

abortion and the equally emo-
tional issue of experimenta-
tion with dead fetal tissue.

Although all the indict-
ments grew out of the same
investigation and were handed
down by a single county grand
jury, the two issues are dis-
tinct and circumstantially un-
related.

A charge of manslaughter
against Dr. Kenneth Edelin, a
third-year obstetrical resident
at the city hospital, is essen-
tially an allegation that he
acted negligently in the death
of a 24-week-old male fetus
during an elective abortion
performed last October 3.

Since the abortion was per-
formed within the Supreme
Court's 26-week guideline the
issue is not whether the proce-
dure was illegal—the District
Attorney's offices agrees it
was not—but whether the doc-
tor could and should have
kept the fetus alive.

The hospital trustees, after
reviewing the evidence with
county prosecutors, concluded
independently that there was
"nothing in the record to indi-
cate that Edelin did anything
inconsistent with his duties...

or with established hospital
practices, applicable to Su-
preme Court rulings and ac-
cepted medical practice."

In restoring Edelin to his
duties, the board said it con-
sidered his "outstanding rec-
ord of service over the last
three years, the fine reputa-
tion he enjoys among the sen-
ior staff . . . and the fact that
prior to this situation (he) was
invited to join the hospital as
a full time junior staff mem-
ber next July."

In the case of four other
Boston City Hospital doctors
indicted in connection with ex-
periments involving fetal tis-
sues, the board also said it
could see nothing illegal. Two
of the four, Drs. Leonard Ber-
man and Leon D. Sabath, have
been restored to the staff. Drs.
David Charles and Agneta
Philipson, also indicted, ear-
lier left the staff.

"No experiments were per-
formed on any living tissue
nor was any harm done to any
living organism," the trustees
said in reference to these in-
dictments. "There is no allega-
tion that any abortion was per-
formed except in accordance
with the guidelines laid down
by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Many medical researchers
here are concerned that the
case might lead to legal obsta-
cles to the use of fetal tissue,
which they assert is indispen-
sable in much research involv-
ing viruses, the immune sys-
tem, cancer, and the safety
and efficacy of drugs taken
during pregnancy.

Some Boston researchers
are reported to have sus-
pended their work with fetal
tissue, pending outcome of
this case.

The hospital trustees, in
reinstating the doctors, have
taken a position which exposes
them to criticism from Bos-
ton's large Catholic popula-
tion, the state's vocal anti-
abortion groups and some po-
litical leaders

San Francisco Mayor Jo

Manhun

From News Dispatches

SAN FRANCISCO, April 19
—As hundreds of young black
were stopped on San Francisco
streets and arrested.

CAB Approves Talks
On Transatlantic Flights

The Civil Aeronautics Board
yesterday gave thenation's two
largest international airlines
permission to work out a plan
for sharing revenues and oper-
ations on flights between the
United States and Europe.

The action could mean fewer
flights to Europe and Africa for
U.S. travelers, although the
board said approval of the talks
did not mean it would approve
the final plans of the two
carriers.

could be made better through
talks between carriers operat-
ing in the market than
through unilaterat actions by
each carrier.

CAB Boosts Fares
To Caribbean

Associated Press

The Civil Aeronautics Board
yesterday approved a 10 per
cent fare increase for air
transportation between the
United States and Puerto Rico

Rowland Evans and Robert Novak

WASH POST

4-18-74

# Kissinger: Is He Getting All The Facts?

The dismissal of Seymour Weiss as head of the State Department's Political-Military Affairs Bureau has crystallized concern among strategic arms hard-liners that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger may not be getting all the facts about momentous negotiations with Moscow now in progress.

Weiss spoke up at length in a recent top-level meeting of U.S. officials dealing with East-West troop reductions in Central Europe, arguing that a relatively minor point in the negotiations had been misunderstood by the Secretary (who was chairman of that meeting).

The decision to shift Weiss out of the Political-Military Bureau is privately described by one high official as a result of Weiss's lack of "administrative ability." But Kissinger's critics, who include Democratic Sen. Henry M. Jackson and other hard-line strategic arms experts, say Weiss was relieved because he contradicted the Secretary and expounded on his own interpretation of the disputed point at that meeting.

Although that may well be unfair to Kissinger, some highly credible admirers of Kissinger as well as hard-line critics believe it to be the case. That tells much about the dangerous controversy building within the administration on negotiations with the Russians.

Weiss is believed to have fallen because of what he said about proposed mutual reduction of NATO and War-

> "Both hardliners and admirers feel Kissinger must expose himself to every side of the argument."

saw pact forces, but even more important negotiations are the parallel talks on Strategic Arms Limitation (SALT). It is here that hard-liners most fear Kissinger may be cut off from adversary opinions.

Thus, some critics are fearful Kissinger is under mounting pressure from Nixon to achieve a SALT II breakthrough to help in his fight against impeachment, likely to reach its climax after he returns from the June summit.

These critics claim that potential Soviet gains from the President's weakened political strength at home are fully percieved in the Kremlin and that Kremlin's game is obvious: use Mr. Nixon's vulnerability to extract concessions on SALT, troop reductions and everything else

The administration itself is jittery about this. In a recent press conference, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger felt impelled to defend Mr. Nixon, proclaiming that "anybody

that knows President Nixon knows full well that he would do nothing that would compromise the national security."

Yet, what happened to Weiss deepens the concern of Nixon-Kissinger critics. Weiss personally leans toward a fairly hard line on both European troop reduction and SALT.

But he is regarded as an absolutely loyal team player and, say intimates, his frontal disagreement with Kissinger had only one purpose: to correct a misapprehension distorting Kissinger's view of one phase of the troop-reduction negotiations.

The broader question—and the heart of the controversy over SALT—is whether and how these negotiations can be used to limit Soviet development of MIRV—the process by which one intercontinental nuclear weapon can be armed with multiple warheads, each independently targeted.

When SALT I was signed two years ago, the U.S. had a virtual MIRV

monopoly. Since then, Soviet technology has caught up. What makes this so lethal is the fact that Soviet missiles are much larger than any the U.S. possesses, and hence each can carry more and larger MIRVs.

The Nixon-Kissinger critics are now saying that getting the Soviet Union to agree to limit the number of MIRVed missiles was never a realistic possibility. Of the four new monster missiles brought to Soviet production since the signing of SALT I, two are MIRV substitutes for single-warhead missiles limited by the SALT I agreement.

The Soviet refusal to accept Kissinger's "conceptual breakthrough" on limiting MIRVs, conveyed during his recent Moscow visit, seems to bear that out. Administration hard-liners have now strongly advised Kissinger to forget about SALT II at the June summit, on grounds that any quickie agreement would be worse than none.

But more than anything else, both hard-liners and admirers feel Kissinger must expose himself and his small group of intimate aides to every side of the argument, no matter how alien to President Nixon's need for a new SALT agreement. If not, they genuinely fear the monopoly of power and decision-making Mr. Nixon has vested in his phenomenally successful Secretary of State will carry dangerous overtones into the future.

© 1974, Field Enterprises, Inc.

proudly arranged
ition of over 1,000 proverbs
ally compiled in 1876. Illus.
over 45 engravings. Originally
hed at $2.95.

THE WORLD SERIES: THE
ISTICAL RECORD. This book
the records for each World Se-
rom the first in 1903 through
All the minor or forgotten
ers, all the home runs ever hit;
dual leaders in fifteen different
ories. Orig. $5.95.

WHO OWNS AMERICA? An
ing book by the Interior Secre-
tary of State who was fired by Presi-
nixon. Mr. Hickel describes the
ly-two months of efforts he
to get the administration to
on people rather than politics.
pub. at $6.95

ADY OF QUALITY. Gothic ro-
e at its best. The setting is Bath,
and. The Lady of Quality is rich,
iful, independent and at
y-nine, considered long past
ageable age, agrees to take a
teen-year old heiress under
ing. Orig. pub. at $6.95

THE TEMPERANCE SONG-
K. A collection of songs pub-
lished in 1907 as a protest against
vils of liquor. Each song is easy
g or play. Great fun for parties!
pub. at $3.95

SALE $1.98
SALE $1.98
SALE $1.98
SALE $1.98
SALE $1.98

40. THOUGHTS TO BRIGHTEN THE DAY. A variety of favorite es-says, poems, stories, and accounts to acquaint the reader. Orig. pub. at $4.95.

big best-sellers

41. A PORTION FOR FOXES. A story set in the heart of the rich, green Virginian hunt country, a brilliant mixture of social observation and romantic storytelling. Orig. pub. at $8.95.

42. TO SERVE THEM ALL. MY DAYS. Set in England just after World War I, focuses on the career of David Powlett-Jones, who comes from the trenches of the Western Front to teach at a remote school. Orig. pub. at $8.95.

43. GENTLE GREAVES. A tender story of an old man's affection for his daughter. Set in London after World War II., The old gentleman begins to write the memoirs of his childhood, and all that happened in the old house. Orig. pub. at $8.95

paperback with
color at Just $1

49. A CONCISE HISTORY OF VE-
NETIAN PAINTING. by Bruce Ar-
nold. The 78 black-and-white and
color illustrations have been chosen
to show the best and most charac-
teristic work of the artists. Orig. pub.
at $4.95.

50: A Concise History of Irish Art by Bruce Arnold. The 78 black-and-white and color illustrations have been chosen to show the best and most characteristic work of the artists, and the story of the art. Originally pub. at $4.95

51. THE ARTS OF MAN. by Eric Newton. A complete view of the history of art in one volume. With 115 color and 59 black and white illustrations. Orig. $3.95.

more reading
treasure

52. JEWISH COOKING FOR PLEASURE. By Molly Lyons Bar-David. Over 450 easy-to-make, traditional favorites from Bagel to Kugel.

53. GUN DIGEST: 1972 DELUXE EDITION. World's most complete firearms encyclopedia for hunters, collectors, etc. Softbound. Pub. at $6.95.

The Great Finance Capitalists 1925-1950. By Matthew Josephson. Fascinating study of men who amassed immense personal wealth during unfettered capitalism's last hurrah. Pub. at $10.00.

65. AFRICAN MYTHOLOGY. By Geoffrey Parrinder. Gods and Spirits, all the folklore of the continent are here. $5.00 value.

66. BIOLOGY. By Johnson, Lau-
bengaver, DeLaney & Cole,
3rd Ed. College-level comprehen-
sive study, from cell and tissue anal-
ysis through plants and vertebrates.
Pub. at $10.95.

67. BOTANY. By C. Wilson, W.
Loomis, 4th Ed. College-level, 28
chapters starting with basics about
plants and history of the science, to
advanced Pub. at $9.95.

68. BRITISH INN SIGNS AND THEIR STORIES. By Eric R. Delderfield. The intriguing stories behind the naming of inns as well as a delightful survey of the origins and development of sign "language." Pub. at $7.00.

69. CLASSICAL SCULPTURE. By G. M. A. Hanfmann. Heroic sculpture of Hellenic & Hellenistic Greece, of Etruria, and of Republican & Imperial Rome. Pub. at $14.50.

first-time hobbyists. Very Special
$4.98

80. BOXING: The Great Champions. By Gilbert Odd. The renowned boxing journalist presents over 100 profiles of great prize fighters and their careers.

81. PHOTOGRAPHY FOR THE SE-
RIOUS AMATEUR. By Eugen J. Sku-
dryk. Reference book for the ad-
vanced amateur acquainted with
the basic rules of photography who
wants to perfect his technique. Pub.
at $12.00

89. GARBO. By Ture Sjolander. In nearly 200 rare photographs and accompanying text, the incredible story of Greta Garbo's private and public life $12.00

83. CIVIL WAR: THE YEARS ASUNDER. By the Eds. of Country Beautiful. The fascinating drama of the most wounding years in American history—all the nuances of battle and camp life, the grandeur the horrors of hospital and prison. Pub. at $15.95.

84. THE GREAT RACING CARS & DRIVERS. Covers all aspects of motor racing gives life to the daring drivers and color to their powerful cars. Pub. at $17.95.

the Hecht co

we're close to you

00; OUTSIDE WASHINGTON AREA DIAL 800/424-9205 TOLL FREE • C.O.D. 1.00 HANDLING CHARGE WITHIN OUR DELIVERY AREA • MINIMUM C.O.D. ORDER 10.00
PLAZA, MD • TYSONS CORNER, VA • LANDMARK, VA • MONTGOMERY MALL, MD • SILVER SPRING, MD • PARKINGTON, VA • LAUREL, MD • MARLOW HEIGHTS, MD • LANDOVER MALL, MD.

A 8

Wednesday, April 17, 1974

THE WASHINGTON POST

# Latin Americans, Kissinger Confer

United Press International

Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger will begin two days of talks here today with 24 Latin-American and Caribbean foreign ministers seeking to give substance to the economic and other issues they discussed in Mexico City two months ago.

President Nixon will address the foreign ministers to-night at a White House dinner.

After a final conference late Thursday, Kissinger and his guests will adjourn to Atlanta for a larger, more formal meeting of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States which will last through May 1.

A high State Department official said the private, informal talks starting today "could become a format to be adopted at the OAS and could become a new type of multilateral diplomacy within the Western hemisphere."

The Washington agenda, like that of Mexico City, will be heavily weighted with economic issues, including joint economic development, technological cooperation and the sensitive issue of multilateral corporations operating in Latin-American countries.

The department source said working groups might be created during the Washington talks to deal with specific problems such as the controversy over private U.S. foreign investments.

Although Cuba is not on the agenda, this official acknowledgment

that it might be raised —as it was in Mexico City—by one of the seven hemispheric nations that maintain full diplomatic relations with the Castro regime.

In preparation for this week's talks, Kissinger met separately at his office with foreign ministers Alberto J. Vignes of Argentina and Antonio F. Azeredo da Silveira of Brazil. The hemispheric ministers also caucused at the Argentine embassy.

THE WASHINGTON POST

Wednesday, April 17, 1974

A 7

Blood Donors
Sought Here

To increase the supply of needed blood the D.C. chapter of the American Red Cross, is sponsoring a blood drive in the Metropolitan area particularly for donors with blood types AB negative and B negative.

The address of the center is 2025 E St. NW with hours are on Monday from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and Tuesday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

For information concerning other bloodmobiles in the metropolitan area, call 857-3400. Patricia Warden of the D.C. chapter is available for any further information and can be reached at 857-3628 or 857-3629.

ina?

* An Argentine judge today overruled a government decree shutting down the left-wing newspaper El Mundo for allegedly backing left-wing guerrillas.

From staff reports and news dispatches

Retarded Man
Freed in Rape
After 14 Years

TALLAHASSEE, Fla., April 16 (AP)—Jesse Daniels spent 14 years in a mental hospital for a crime which officials now say he did not commit.

The Florida House voted Monday to pay Daniels $75,000 compensation following a motion

Associated Press

Soltysik, Camilla Christine Hall, Nancy Ling Perry.

## Developments

United Press International

Patricia Hearst, Patricia Soltysik, Camilla Hall, Nancy Ling Perry.

—Three women with middle-class backgrounds, brought together by left-wing politics and radical feminism, became involved last fall in a group they called the Symbionese Liberation Army.

All three were charged Monday with armed robbery of a bank. They are Nancy Ling Perry, 26; Patricia Soltysik, 23; and Camilla C. Hall, 29.

If captured and convicted, they face up to 25 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Named as a material witness in the federal warrant was Patricia Hearst, whom the SLA claimed it kidnaped from a Berkeley apartment on Feb. 4.

STAR-NEWS

4-17-74

NOT JUST HIS PROBLEM

# Nixon's Foreign Policy Dilemma

By Oswald Johnston
Star-News Staff Writer

It is gradually being realized in the administration and on Capitol Hill that the impact of Watergate on foreign policy involves a great deal more than the survival of Richard Nixon's presidency.

The issue far transcends questions of short-term political expediency — for instance, the apparent manipulation of events that leads the White House to insist upon a June summit meeting in Moscow even when it is increasingly evident that impeachment proceedings in Congress will be approaching the crisis point about then.

More to the point, it is a question

of whether the Nixon administration can continue to carry out its responsibility to conduct a foreign policy on behalf of the United States under circumstances such as it finds itself in today.

In the administration itself, where a solid chorus of official voices for months has insisted that Watergate and foreign policy have nothing to do with one another, some discords can now be heard.

Several weeks ago, a high-ranking official close to the ongoing strategic arms negotiations with the

Soviets was confiding to associates his fear that the impeachment proceedings had injected a new uncertainty into the SALT negotiations. The Soviets, this official concluded, are determined to stall on the issue until the impeachment question is resolved.

SECRETARY OF State Henry A. Kissinger is sticking close to the official line in public, but his denials that foreign policy has been affected by Watergate have become less sweeping of late. The President, Kissinger told a group of reporters at the White House only last week, "does not conduct himself as if he were in a position of weakness."

There is, further, growing evidence that Kissinger is deeply worried by the impact of the coming impeachment crisis on the basic policy issues dividing the United States and the Soviet Union: In addition to SALT, these include the controversial trade package, the troop reduction and East-West security talks in Europe and the Middle East.

A congressional critic of administration detente policies summed it up in a sardonic aphorism recently: "Kissinger's current line is to blame Watergate for the fact that the Russians are behaving like Russians."

See SUMMITRY, A-17

SUBSIDIARY and AFFILIATED COMPANIES

THE EVENING STAR NEWSPAPER CO.

THE EVENING STAR BROADCASTING CO. (WMAL AM-FM-TV)

FIRST CHARLESTON CORP., Charleston, S.C. (CWIC-TV)

WLVA INCORPORATED, Lynchburg, Va. (WLVA-AM-TV)

WASHINGTON-STAR SYNDICATE, INC., New York, N.Y.

TAL STAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., Princeton, N.J.

COMMERCIAL ELECTRONICS, INC., Mountain View, Calif.

Washington Star-News

JOHN H. KAUFFMANN, President

NEWBOLD NOYES, Editor

Published Daily and Sunday by

The Evening Star Newspaper Co.

225 Virginia Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 484-5000

The Associated Press is entitled exclusively to the
use for reproduction of all the local news printed in
this newspaper as well as all AP news dispatches.

RATES: BY CARRIER

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>4 weeks</th><th>1 week</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Eve. & Sun.</th><td>4.60</td><td>1.15</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Eve. only</th><td>3.00</td><td>7.50</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Sunday</th><td>1.60</td><td>4.00</td></tr></tbody></table>

BY MAIL—WASHINGTON, D.C.
MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA

(Payable in Advance)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>EVE & SUN.</th><th>EVE ONLY</th><th>SUN. ONLY</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">1 year</th><td>54.00</td><td>38.00</td><td>23.00</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">6 mos.</th><td>28.00</td><td>20.00</td><td>12.00</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">3 mos.</th><td>14.00</td><td>10.00</td><td>6.00</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">1 month</th><td>5.00</td><td>3.75</td><td>2.25</td></tr></tbody></table>

Rates outside U.S. furnished on request. Entered at Post Office, Washington, D.C. Second class postage paid.

BY MAIL—BEYOND
WASHINGTON, D.C.
(Payable in Advance)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>EVE & SUN.</th><th>EVE ONLY</th><th>SUN. ONLY</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">1 year</th><td>60.00</td><td>40.00</td><td>27.00</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">6 mos.</th><td>32.00</td><td>21.00</td><td>14.00</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">3 mos.</th><td>16.00</td><td>10.50</td><td>7.00</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">1 month</th><td>5.75</td><td>3.75</td><td>3.00</td></tr></tbody></table>

these times.

He said that the "efficiency of the service" standard "would appear to bring within its reach, as permissible grounds for dismissal, even thrtuful criticism of an agency that in any way tends to disrupt its operation."

Audi I00LS

CPA
CAPITOL PORSCHE-AUDI
3110 HAMILTON STREET
MYATTEVILLE, MD. 239-0200

Shriner

Dress for all occasions in this slim
tailored slipon, with elegant
strap trim. Brilliant in
Black, White, Burgundy or Blue
Krinkle Patent Leather.

French Shriner "Sabra" $36

Carlton's

26th Year at
18th & M Streets N.W. in the Ring Building
Park Free PMI 19th & M or any nearby parking facility.

Major Credit Cards Honored

DOOR
PRIZES

VIRGINIA

Myer em

WILLSTON SHOPPING CENTRE
ARLINGTON BOULEVARD
7 Corners, Near Montgomery
Park At Our Door

(WASHINGTON

Washington Star-News

Wednesday, April 17, 1974

# SUMMITRY

Continued From Page A-1

In a more friendly setting, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kissinger is understood to have explored the problems at length last week. During an extended closed-door briefing, Kissinger reportedly gave the committee a somber account of his recent trip to Moscow and impressed on the members the urgency, in his view, of a SALT agreement in the next two or three years.

In the discussion, the growing weight of impeachment as a factor in U.S.-Soviet relations was a recurring subject, sources reported afterwards. One source close to the committee remarked that Kissinger's failure in Moscow to achieve the "conceptual breakthrough" toward a SALT agreement, which he had forecast earlier, was confirmation that the Russians have decided to mark time on arms negotiations until the fate of Nixon's presidency is known.

TO THIS TURMOIL within the administration's own policy-making apparatus must be added the growing determination of Congress to exert its influence on foreign affairs, an influence that is increasingly weighty as the executive appears to weaken.

But in Congress, also, there are conflicting currents. The administration's detente policies are meeting resistance from a disparate coalition of conservatives, cold warriors, trade protectionists and liberals who abhor Soviet repression of Jews and intellectuals. Some are hard-core adversaries of Nixon, others down-the-line Nixon loyalists. Most deeply distrust the role of Kissinger.

Opposing them are liberals and centrists who believe relaxation of tension with the Soviets is a basic necessity for survival and who fear a renewal of the Cold War would be inevitable if the Nixon-Kissinger detente policies are torpedoed.

These opposing currents are still ill-defined and have not crystallized into coherent political movements. But it is not too much of an oversimplification to say that Sen. Henry M. Jackson, D-Wash., has clearly emerged as the leader of the first group, and that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy D-Mass., is moving into a position of prominence in the sec-

Running through this complex tangle of political notions, national security interests and personal ambitions are three basic themes, layered one upon another and in some degree influencing every current estimate of the nation's relationship with the rest of the world at a time of domestic turbulence and uncertainty:

* Nixon's motives. Will a president weakened by Watergate and facing a Soviet leadership that senses an historic opportunity for nuclear dominance, yield too much on SALT in order to preserve his popular image as a peacemaker?

Conversely, will Nixon, realizing he must rely on a nucleus of 34 hard-line conservatives to escape conviction in an impeachment trial, revert to his Cold War persona of the 1950s as a man who "stands up to the Russians" and undercut his own detente policies?

* Soviet motives. Are the Soviets merely temperizing when they stall on SALT negotiations, or was the apparent bargaining reversal during Kissinger's recent Moscow trip a prelude to a new hard-line push against a weakened U.S. leadership?

Despite Pravda editorials denouncing Nixon's critics, does the Kremlin see the Nixon presidency near an end and are they preparing for President Ford? Will they try to do a deal now to forestall the emergence of Jackson as the Democratic candidate in 1976?

* Kissinger's motives. Under this heading come the substantive criticisms of administration foreign policy, especially Kissinger's efforts to recast U.S. relations with allies and adversaries alike in terms of achievable national interests rather than ideologies and moralities. The questions here are posed by both Nixon loyalists and Nixon opponents, who alike can be counted on to use the President's difficulties against policies they dislike, aiming at Nixon's weakness when their real target is Kissinger.

For both groups, the strategy is to separate Nixon from the policies. A Nixon opponent who approves the policies puts it this way: "The foreign policy goals Nixon is associating with are not dependent on him. The key factor in the SALT negotiations is Kissinger, while Nixon by now is essentially irrelevant to the

policy. No one seriously thinks he makes any difference any more."

Conversely, from an administration opponent who distrusts his foreign policy: "The Russians would just as soon negotiate with Nixon if Nixon were standing on the gallows. His signature would still be binding."

One of the most cogent and, in its way, most sympathetic assessments of Nixon's foreign policy motives came recently from an unlikely source: Rep. Les Aspin, the liberal Democrat from Wisconsin whose views on foreign and defense policies are usually tinged with the academic-intellectual liberal orthodoxy Nixon personally abhors.

ASPIN, URGING on his colleagues a sense-of-congress resolution to keep Nixon away from summitry and out of vital foreign policy negotiations so long as the impeachment issue is unresolved, presented this analysis:

"The temptation for any indicted president to sign dramatic international agreements to bolster his popularity and thereby, perhaps, enhance his chances for acquittal are only too obvious. As (White House counsel James D.) St. Clair pleads the President's case before the Senate, one can only imagine the pressures on Mr. Nixon to conclude, for example, a strategic arms limitation treaty with the Soviet Union. ...

"But even if a SALT agreement concluded during the trial were the best one imaginable for our country, there are many in the country who might not believe it.

"It isn't hard to imagine how easy it would be for those who are opposed to any arms limitation agreement to undermine public confidence in one negotiated under conditions like this. There is no way the President could defend himself against charges of having 'sold us down the river.'"

"A FAKE CRISIS is bad enough, but there's something worse — and that's a real one. What happens during an impeachment trial if we really do have a confrontation with the Soviet Union, and when Mr. Nixon announces it to the nation, everyone thinks he's just playing politics? If this happens, there would clearly be a temptation for the other side to raise the stakes, perhaps even to the point of creating a genuine nuclear showdown."

Paradoxically, one of Nixon's theoretical defenders on this point is Kennedy, who is beginning to assert

a more high-profile image on foreign policy questions than he has up to now.

Some political commentators are already suggesting Kennedy is preparing his ground for a concerted challenge to Jackson's presidential hopes as a harbinger of a renewed great-power rivalry with the Russians after Nixon's detente policies collapse with his shattered presidency.

It would be a "catastrophic mistake" for Nixon to try to ease the pressure of Watergate by negotiating a "bad treaty" — "it wouldn't pass" when submitted to Senate ratification, Kennedy warned.

Much harder on Nixon is Sen. James Buckley, the New York conservative who was counted a staunch Nixon loyalist until his unexpected call a month ago for the President to resign before an impeachment proceeding cripples the country.

"I STRONGLY recommend

against a presidential visit to Moscow while impeachment proceedings are under way," Buckley said in a formal statement a week ago. Explaining afterward, Buckley stressed that he was passing no judgment on Nixon's possible motivations under the stress of an impeachment proceeding, such as Aspin sought to put forward.

Rather, he was worried about the appearance of a weakened President in head-to-head negotiation with the Soviets, and how this would seem to U.S. allies in Western Europe.

Buckley's basic assumption — that the Soviets have decided on a harder line as a result of Nixon's troubles — is widely held among those who hold detente policies suspect, but it is echoed also by those who see in the administration's foreign policies its only claim for distinction.

ACCORDINGLY, that note of caution underscored last week's unusu-

al message of confidence to Kissinger from a bipartisan group of senators — including majority leader Mike Mansfield, minority leader Hugh Scott, Charles McC. Mathias, R-Md., and Walter F. Mondale, D-Minn.

"There is concern among many of our colleagues," their message began, that "the leadership of the Soviet Union may have come to believe that internal issues in the United States might somehow lead the United States to accept an unfair agreement." The message urged Kissinger to press ahead toward a SALT agreement, whose benefits, the senators said, "should transcend any present domestic difficulties."

But that vote of confidence in Kissinger, as the administration official primarily responsible for foreign policy initiatives which up to now have borne Nixon's stamp as well as his own, only emphasizes the vulnerability of those policies now that the President is under a cloud.

Europe, p. 2

Asia, p. 6

Latin America, p. 7

Communist Countries, p. 9

KISSINGER SPEECH AT UNGA SPECIAL SESSION

Summary

Secretary of State Kissinger's speech Monday before the special session of the U. N. General Assembly on raw materials and development was widely reported abroad.

Correspondents' accounts and sparse comment stressed Mr. Kissinger's specific proposals and his warning against "the politics of pressure and threats."

--West German television called the address "a brilliant programmatic speech" but said U. N. observers "doubt that he will be able to fulfill his political vision in this Administration."

--A byliner in *Le Monde* of Paris declared that the Secretary "matched his preaching with proposals...among the most numerous and most concrete heard from the U. N. rostrum in recent days" and added: "No doubt many in the audience were impressed."

--Switzerland's *Neue Zuercher Zeitung* judged the speech "a factual but nonethe-
less impressive appeal to the other member countries to become conscious of
their common interest in a new, more stable global economic pattern."

--Independent *Correo* of Lima headlined an Agence France-Presse story, "U.S. Counters With Threats; Wants to Put Conditions on Third World."

Moscow TASS in a brief report said Mr. Kissinger loosed a "barrage of attacks" on developing countries "for their striving toward unity for the sake of protecting the prices of some individual types of raw materials they produce."

Peking NCNA asserted that the Secretary "advocated the necessity of...the con-
tinued maintenance of the relationship between the exploiters and the exploited."

*

*

*

No. 48

1

4/17/74

West German TV: "Brilliant Program, Faces Resistance"

U.N. correspondent Ingeborg Wurster of West Germany's first television network yesterday noted Secretary Kissinger's warning to the underdeveloped nations of the link between poverty and overpopulation, his "defense" of the Washington energy conference and his emphasis on the interdependence of the industrialized and raw materials producing nations.

The correspondent said Mr. Kissinger had "emphasized, obviously for the benefit of the Chinese and the French, that the U.S. is not interested in stability at the expense of others, but in peace through cooperation rather than through the rather illusionary calm of condominium...."

"The Secretary of State delivered a brilliant programmatic speech, but political observers here doubt that he will be able to fulfill his political vision in this Administration; they also point to the political resistance in Congress."

The address received considerable play in major papers in West Germany and West Berlin. Reports stressed his warning to raw material suppliers against "a policy of threats and pressure" and his promise of increased U.S. aid for developing countries.

"Bloc-building Endangers All"

Hamburg's right-center Die Welt today carried a byliner's observation that "bloc-building endangers everyone's welfare, and this time it was Henry Kissinger, following many others, who urgently appealed to the developing nations at the U.N. natural resources conference not to continue in the way they are now going..."

"Till now the EC has drawn most of the criticism for efforts to organize a bloc. In Washington there was even talk of forming anti-blocs. America itself is an Asia-Pacific bloc...."

"In his speech, Kissinger made it clear that any country or group of countries that threatens free trade threatens itself as well..."

No. 48

2

4/17/74

"Role for Europe: Representing U.S."

Left-center Frankfurter Rundschau today said the relationship of the industrial-
ized to the developing nations was "one of the world's most important problems."
It continued:

"If Washington wants to be the leader in projects undertaken by the U.S. and its European allies in relations with the underdeveloped world, Europeans must accept as their role that of spokesman for and representative of the U.S.-approved line in dealings with the third world and particularly with the raw materials exporting countries.

"Precisely in this area, Bonn could develop its own concepts and gradually urge them on its partners, but within the framework of Europe, even if at the moment Europe has lost its tongue..."

Paris: "Matched Preaching With Proposals"

Independent-left Le Monde of Paris today carried byliner Philippe Simonnot's
analysis of the "logic underlying the speech Mr. Kissinger made to the UNGA
on Monday:

"We are willing to give you something, but only on condition that you not force our hand or question the existing international order."

But, Simonnot continued, "since the oil-producing countries in recent months have demonstrated that forcible means yield more than the charity conventionally called 'development aid,' the U.S. Secretary of State added that the producer blocs suggested by the Algerian Chief of State might run into 'counter-blocs' of 'victims' and no one will gain anything from that.

"Mr. Kissinger thus dared to say aloud what many representa-
tives of industrial countries--including to a certain extent Mr.
Jobert--were thinking to themselves...

No. 48

3

4/17/74

"Moreover, Mr. Kissinger did more than just sermonize. He matched his preaching with proposals which are undoubtedly among the most numerous and most concrete heard from the U. N. rostrum in recent days, and he made at the same time a display of American power, implying: 'See what we can do, what we alone are able to do--at least, if you don't gang up on us.'

## "U. S. Intends to Keep Leadership"

Yesterday, financial *Les Echos* of Paris speculated on the response of America's partners to what it called Mr. Kissinger's "carrot and stick speech," and inferred from it that "in the field of raw materials also, the U. S. intends to maintain its leadership."

Middle-of-the-road *Figaro* carried an extensive summary of the speech and stressed his "statement that the U. S. is ready to make a major effort to help the developing countries."

## "Blocked Raw Materials Producers"

Center-opposition *Aurore* asserted that "in the U. N., Kissinger blocked the demands of the 77."

Communist *Humanite* of Paris headed its story, "'Don't Touch Our Businessmen's Privileges,' Kissinger Says."

## London Headlines

British papers yesterday reported the speech under these headlines:

"DR. KISSINGER PLEDGES U. S. HELP FOR POOR NATIONS
BUT WARNS U. N. OF DANGERS OF CONFRONTATION"

(*Times* of London)

"KISSINGER WARNS THE HAVE-NOTS"

(Manchester *Guardian*)

No. 48

4

4/17/74

"KISSINGER WARNS OIL PRODUCERS"

(Financial Times)

"KISSINGER WARNS OIL STATES OF DANGER OF GREED"

(Daily Telegraph)

U. N. correspondent Peter Stafford remarked in the independent *Times* that Mr. Kissinger's speech "appeared to be a direct response to the more militant speeches made so far, among them the opening statement by President Boumedienne."

The liberal *Guardian*'s U. N. correspondent, Jane Rosen, observed: "There was applause at the end of the speech, but it was hardly enthusiastic. Several third world delegates said they felt America was not taking their problems seriously enough."

Zurich: "Impressive... but Congress Must Say Yes"

Switzerland's prestigious *Neue Zuercher Zeitung* today front-paged a U. N. correspondent's observation that "while every public appearance of Secretary Kissinger is presumed in advance to be a 'happening'...his 35-minute speech was a factual but nonetheless impressive appeal to the other member countries to become conscious of their common interest in a new, more stable global economic pattern....

"Kissinger's peroration to his own country's Congress to approve preferential tariffs, intended as they are to aid developing nations particularly, was a reminder--that not all of the points of Kissinger's program can be realized unless the Congress says yes."

Italy: Wide Coverage

Italian media gave the Secretary's UNGA speech wide coverage, but no comment was reported.

Dublin: "A Product of Detente Logic"

The *Irish Times* of Dublin prominently played Mr. Kissinger's speech and praised it highly. The paper observed that President Nixon's "instinct for detente has been most beneficial."

"Anybody who denies as much would do well to think again. Dr. Kissinger's U. N. speech yesterday is a product of that logic."

No. 48

5

4/17/74

Tokyo: "Clearly Aimed at Arabs"

Japanese media gave moderate coverage to the address.

Publicly financed NHK-TV and commercial Fuji-TV reported that the Secretary emphasized international cooperation to solve the natural resources problem.

Leading liberal Asahi of Tokyo said Secretary Kissinger stressed the need for "dialogue and cooperation" between the industrially advanced countries and the developing countries and warned that a "policy of threat" could lead to "mutual destruction." It added:

> "It is clear that Kissinger's warning was aimed at the Arab oil strategy which was invoked during last fall's Middle East war."

Singapore: "Fertilizer Proposal Sounds Useful"

The English-language New Nation of Singapore said today that Secretary Kissinger "made what sounds like a useful proposal" when he "suggested the building of fertilizer plants in oil-producing countries using raw materials and capital they already possess. The U.S., he pledged, would give every assistance to their construction."

> "There is merit in this because one of the main reasons for the food shortage is the price of fertilizer, which has soared beyond the reach of many of the world's farmers, particularly those in the poorest nations where the problem has become critical."

Bangkok: Thailand "Ready to Form Rice Cartel"

A report that Thailand was prepared to help form a rice cartel had appeared Saturday in the English-language Bangkok Post. It said the cartel would be organized with other rice-producing countries "to relate the price of the world-short commodity to the price fluctuations of oil."

The paper expected the cartel to be set up at the special UNGA session in New York. It quoted Thailand's deputy foreign minister as stating:

> "We would like to stabilize rice prices throughout the world but we cannot afford to do so if OPEC maintains high prices for oil. If they want to get rice at low prices, they should make oil available at low prices to the rice-exporting countries."

No. 48

6

4/17/74

Tehran: "Kissinger's Hollow Threat"

Leading Kayhan International and the Tehran Journal of Tehran reported that a Foreign Office spokesman had said Mr. Kissinger made a "gross misrepresentation of the oil price issue" in his speech, and that his "warning that a cartel could be formed against OPEC was a hollow threat."

The spokesman said that the high price of oil in the industrialized nations was due to the high taxes imposed by the governments of those countries and by the "exorbitant profits" realized by the oil companies.

Replying to a question whether there were any "positive aspects" to Secretary Kissinger's address, the spokesman reportedly said Mr. Kissinger's pledge of increased financial and technological assistance to agriculture in the underdeveloped countries was "welcome" and that the announcement that the U.S. planned to invest two billion dollars in developing alternative sources of energy to oil was "also positive and constructive."

Lima: Negative Headlines on Wire Stories

Independent Correo of Lima headlined an Agence France-Presse story, "U.S. Counters with Threats; Wants to Put Conditions on Third World."

Conservative La Prensa of Lima headlined an AP dispatch, "U.S. Adopts Position Unfavorable to Third-world Countries..."

Far-left, pro-Government Expreso of Lima headlined its story, "Kissinger Threatens Third World... Opposes Union of Poor Countries."

Brazilian Headlines

These were Brazilian headlines:

"U.S. PROPOSES TO REDUCE WORLD'S INEQUITIES"
(Independent Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro)

"UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES TO HAVE GREATER U.S. SUPPORT"
(Pro-Government Diario de Brasilia)

No. 48

7

4/17/74

A front-page headline in prestigious _O Estado de Sao Paulo_ declared yesterday, "Kissinger Alerts Developing Nations." An inside-page report said Brazil was playing the role "of an attentive observer discreetly noting the statements of the other nations...

"Having adopted the policy of bilateral negotiations with the Arab oil producers, the Government of Brazil has no interest in a doctrinaire discussion of a subject that is more practical than philosophical in its application."

## Caracas: President Perez Comments

Papers today front-paged comments on the speech by President Carlos Andres Perez at an improvised news conference.

Tabloid _Ultimas Noticias_ headlined: "Carlos Andres Tells Kissinger: We Do Not Want Rich Countries to Administer Poverty of Poor."

The President reportedly said in part:

"We do not advocate blocs, which would mean favoring hegemonies in another form, but we do demand rights which are the rights of Latin America, the African and Asian countries--the developing countries. We specifically ask the developed world to show comprehension and understanding for countries that have been paying for the development of the great nations."

## Mexico: "Opposes Third-world Aspirations"

Mexican papers bannered Mr. Kissinger's warning that blocs of raw material producers would lead to counter-blocs of buyers. This was interpreted in headlines as "Kissinger Opposes Third-world Aspirations."

Stories in the Mexican press also stressed the Kissinger viewpoint that the great question of development cannot be dealt with on terms of a confrontation between rich and poor countries and his appeal for global efforts to fight poverty and hunger.

No. 48

8

4/17/74

## Moscow: "Kissinger Attacks" Developing Countries

A brief Moscow TASS dispatch datelined New York, Monday, reported that "U.S. Secretary of State Kissinger emphatically made the point that the successful solution of problems related to raw materials and economic progress was possible only in conditions of peace and relaxation of international tension."

It said that at the same time, however, Mr. Kissinger loosed a "barrage of attacks" on developing countries "for their striving toward unity for the sake of protecting the prices of some individual types of raw materials they produce."

## Peking: "Threatened Third World"

A Peking NCNA report yesterday said that "Kissinger advocated the necessity of 'interdependence' between the developing countries and imperialism, namely, the continued maintenance of the relationship between the exploiters and the exploited.... He threatened third-world countries by saying: 'If the weak resort to pressure, they will do so at the risk of world prosperity and thus provoke despair.'"

No. 48

9

4/17/74

Kennedy Losing
Some Support on
Health Aid Bill

By William Hines

Chicago Sun-Times

A developing rift between Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and some of his staunchest supporters in the health field became an open breach yesterday after the Committee for National Health Insurance reaffirmed principles abandoned in a new bill Kennedy co-sponsored.

The committee's executive committee and an allied organization, the Health Security Action Council, voted at a joint meeting to reject Kennedy's request for their support of the new bill. Kennedy and Rep. Wilbur D. Mills (D-Ark.) are sponsoring the legislation.

"We have evaluated these (the Kennedy-Mills) proposals against the principles we have long endorsed and actively support in any national health insurance plan," the groups said after a 2½-hour meeting at CNHI headquarters here.

"We state unequivocally that the health security bill is the only proposal before the Congress which meets there principles."

The health security bill is the cradle-to-grave program of medical care that bore Kennedy's name for three years until the Kennedy-Mills bill. It has been criticized by the Nixon administration as costing $75 billion or more in "new tax" money.

Rep. James C. Corman (D-

Calif.) urged the two organizations to back Kennedy-Mills as a realistic compromise on what could be enacted this year. This was Kennedy's own plea in earlier informal talks with committee members.

In what seemed a direct rebuff of this point of view, the groups' statement said:

"We are not unmindful that compromise among divergent interests is frequently advisable. The basic issues to which we take exception . . . are such, however, that compromise may well thwart the objectives of the programs.

"For these reasons, we reaffirm our support for health security and urge its enactment by the congress."

Shortly after the Kennedy-Mills bill was introduced, CNHI's executive director, Max W. Fine, told the Chicago Sun-Times that the committee's strategy for the rest of this year would be to try to block any health legislation until a "veto-proof congress" could be elected, supposedly this September.

"Any thing this congress would pass that Nixon would sign wouldn't be worth having," Fine said at the time. United Auto Workers president Leonard Woodcock, head of CNHI, indicated that he agreed with Fine.

READY WEDNESDAY

FABRICS

MANUFACTURER'S CLOSEOUT!

ASSORTED
DRESS FABRICS

Marvelous selection of fashion fabrics in a variety of spring and summerweight blends. 36" to 45" wide.

2 $1 yds.

SAVE 22%

VOILE PRINTS

Sheer, peek-a-boo, voile for your warm weather fashions. Choose from a charming selection of designer prints in machine washable polyester/cotton. 45" wide.

Reg. 99c yd.

77¢ yd.

SAVE 21%

NO-IRON
CHAMBRAY

Reg. 1.49 yd.

A most versatile fabric for fashions for the entire family. Machine washable polyester/cotton; solid colors. 45" wide.

SAVE 22%

ANTIQUE
SATIN

Reg. 99c yd.

Rich, acetate antique satin drapery fabric. 45" wide.

SAVE 34%

POLYESTER
DOUBLEKNITS

Reg. 2.99 yd.

1.97 yd.
Yarn, dyes, jacquards, fancies and solid colors. Machine washable. 54"-58" wide.

S.KLEIN

WHILE QUANTITIES LAST

GREENBELT, MD. - Beltway Plaza ALEXANDRIA, VA. - Virginia Plaza

THE WASHINGTON POST, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17

Joseph Alsop

# Is Sadat Ready To Drop Egypt's Ties to Russia?

An Egyptian "reversal of alliances" —as the old-fashioned diplomats used to call it—is now a dramatic possibility. For President Anwar Al-Sadat, this would mean boldly abandoning all remaining attachments to the Soviet Union. And it would also mean quite new, far closer links with the United States.

The fact that President Sadat is plainly giving serious thought to such a dramatic step is now the key that unlocks many a current mystery. For example, it is usual for General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev to give at least one impersonation of the terrible-tempered Mr. Bang when meeting Americans on a high level. But the record Brezhnev explosion occurred during Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger's last visit to Moscow; and the topic was the Mideast.

In Damascus, again, the Soviets are using all their local resources, which are considerable, to counter Dr. Kissinger's policy in Syria in two different ways. They are strongly encouraging the Syrians to continue their local attacks on the Israelis. And they are even more strongly discouraging the Syrians from going along with Dr. Kissinger's ideas about an adjusted ceasefire with the Israelis.

Syrian President Hafez Assad, in fact, owes his red carpet welcome in Moscow to Moscow's lively awareness that President Sadat is greatly tempted to cut the remaining painter that still ties Egypt to the Soviets. Furthermore, President Sadat probably cannot follow his known inclination, unless the Syrians agree to go at least halfway down the road the Egyptians have already taken.

In other words, the reversal of alliances will probably

long as President Sadat can be charged with "betraying the Arab cause" by "abandoning the Syrian brothers." There can be no charges of betrayal, however, if President Hafez Assad agrees to the same sort of adjusted ceasefire that the Egyptians have already accepted.

Thus an adjusted ceasefire on the Syrian front is likely to be the necessary pre-condition of any Egyptian reversal of alliances. Since it is always well to begin at the beginning, the real situation in Syria is therefore the place to start assessing the chances of this development in Egypt that may change the whole face of the Mideast.

On the one hand, too much attention can easily be paid to the headlines about Egyptians and Syrians throwing bombs and shells at one another. In the Yom Kippur war, the Israelis siezed the critical heights of Mt. Hermon. Cold forced the Israeli troops to go to lower ground this winter. The Syrians then tried to grab the heights across the October ceasefire line. They have now failed.

Under Soviet pressure, the Syrians may go on to probe another soft locking spot elsewhere along the crazy existing ceasefire line. Yet the Syrians must already feel—if they have any sense at all—that the Israelis have been showing remarkable forebearance. They are within heavy artillery range of Damascus, in fact. Thus, they can begin shelling the suburbs whenever they want, with Soviet ultra-long range guns Israel conveniently captured before the October ceasefire.

On the other hand, too much attention cannot possibly be paid to the problem of the adjusted ceasefire on the Syrian front. While General Secretary Brezhnev was angrily warning

President Hafez Assad against anything of the sort, Secretary of State Kissinger was exploring the possibilities with President Assad's emissary to Washington, General Hikmat Chehabi.

The results of the Kissinger-Chehabi talks were decidedly mixed. In other words, General Chehabi took a most moderate tone. But he did not recede very far from the extreme Syrian demands for ceasefire-adjustment that were made when Dr. Kissinger was last in Damascus. For example, some positions directly on the Golan Heights were still demanded, 'though not so many as before.

Dr. Kissinger's aim, meanwhile, is to get an adjusted ceasefire on the Syrian front exactly parallelling that on the Egyptian front—in other words, Israeli

withdrawal from the whole Yom Kippur war salient, and behind the long-occupied town of Kuneitra; plus the inter-position of a UN force between the Syrians and Israelis. It is virtually sure that he can get this much from Israel.

In dealing with the Syrians, Dr. Kissinger also has some unexpected assets. For obvious reasons, he will have most energetic support from the Egyptians. But it appears that the "radical Arab" front will also be broken, and that the Algerians will urge the Syrians to take what Dr. Kissinger offers. In sum, Dr. Kissinger is playing an immense and fascinating game for the highest stakes, deserving a second report in this space.

© 1974, Los Angeles Times

Kissinger U.N. Talk Asks Cooperation

Wash Post 4-16-74

Ambassador John Scali and Kissinger listen to a speech at the United Nations.

Associated Press

From News Dispatches

UNITED NATIONS, N.Y., April 15—Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger called today for world cooperation in developing natural resources, and warned the oil-producing nations against pursuing prices that could threaten the world's prosperity.

Pointing to the oil crisis, the shortage of food grains and increasing global inflation, Kissinger said at a special session of the U.N. General Assembly that solutions can come only through international efforts.

"The great issues of development can no longer be realistically perceived in terms of confrontation between the haves and the have-nots," he declared.

Speaking at the special session on raw materials, Kissinger proposed a possible solution to the two problems—rising oil prices and resultant fertilizer shortages—that have threatened food production in many developing countries.

He said the United States would help the oil producers to diversify their economies, to industrialize and to take a greater role in international financial organizations.

The United States, Kissinger said, would offer its technological skills to develop new fertilizer industries in oil-producing countries, "using

See KISSINGER, A13, Col 1.

Kissinger Speech Asks Cooperation

KISSINGER, From A1

the raw materials and capital
they uniquely possess."

Building fertilizer plants in
oil-producing countries could
lower the cost of fertilizer as
well as giving the producers a
supplementary source of in-
come.

Kissinger began his call for
world cooperation by saying
that neither the rich nor the
poor nations could hope to im-
pose their views on the world.

"If the strong attempt to impose their views, they will do so at the cost of justice and thus provoke upheaval," he said.

"If the weak resort to pressure, they will do so at the risk of world prosperity and thus provoke despair....

"No nation or group of nations can gain by pushing its claims beyond the limits that sustain world economic growth."

In an apparent reference to
Chinese charges that the
United States and Soviet Un-
ion were collaborating to dom-
inate the the rest of the world,
Kissinger—who dined here
Sunday night with Chinese
Vice Premier Teng Hsiao-ping
—declared: "The United
States will never seek stability
at the expense of others. It
strives for the peace of coop-
eration, not the illusory tran-
quility of condominimum"

In introducing a six-point
program, the secretary also
underlined his belief that the
United Nations should avoid
grandiose declaration of prin-
ciples and aim for hard work
instead.

"Our goal," he said, "cannot
be reached by resolutions
alone or prescribed by rheto-
ric. It must remain the subject

of constant, unremitting ef-
forts over the years and dec-
ades ahead.

The six points:

* Action must be taken to insure a more equitable supply of oil and other energy products while keeping an inflationary price spiral from occurring.

* There must be an end to the cycle of raw material surplus and shortage. But a cartel of raw material producers aimed at forcing up prices "would have serious consequences for all countries," Kissinger said. The United States proposes a cooperative effort to include "urgent inter-

national consideration of re-
strictions on incentives for the
trade in commodities." This
means, the secretary said, that
there must be equitable access
to supplies of resources as
well as access to markets by
the producers.

* There must be a better bal-
ance between food production

and population growth. The
United States will share its ag-
ricultural technology, includ-
ing a raise from $258 million
to $675 million this year to aid
in boosting farming technol-
ogy. Kissinger also renewed
his call for a World Food Con-
ference.

A major objective, he went
on, will be the rebuilding of
food surpluses so the world
can alleviate famines and
other emergency shortages.

* Steps must be taken to keep the poorer nations from being destroyed by dramatic shifts in the supplies and prices of such raw materials as oil.

The United Nations as well
as the other industrialized na-
tions must continue an aid
program to the underdevel-
oped world "despite the pro-
spect of unprecedented pay-
ments deficits," Kissinger
stated.

* Science must beshared and put to greater use to meet "the developing nations two most fundamental problems—unemployment and hunger," the secretary said. And, Kissinger went on, "the technology of birth control should be improved."

To meet the possibility of a
major weather change in most
of the world, he proposed ex-
isting international organiza-
tions "urgently investigate
this problem and offer guide-
lines for immediate interna-
tional action."

* There must be a new com-
mitment by rich and poorer
nations alike to development
of an open trading system, a
reformed monetary system
"and a positive climate for the
free flow of resources, both
public and private."

United Press International

Nancy Maginnes Kissinger listens to her husband address the United Nations.

v. You get a
account or
ent account.
Providence.

<table><thead><tr><th>COLUMN II</th><th>COLUMN III</th><th>COLUMN IV</th></tr><tr><td>1,000 to $4,999</td><td>$5,000 OR MORE</td><td>$50 SUBSEQUENT DEPOSIT</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>FREE</td><td>FREE</td><td>$ 3.75</td></tr><tr><td>FREE</td><td>FREE</td><td>3.75</td></tr><tr><td>FREE</td><td>FREE</td><td>3.75</td></tr><tr><td>FREE</td><td>FREE</td><td>6.00</td></tr><tr><td>$ 4.00</td><td>FREE</td><td>$ 9.00</td></tr><tr><td>5.00</td><td>FREE</td><td>10.00</td></tr><tr><td>5.00</td><td>FREE</td><td>10.00</td></tr><tr><td>6.00</td><td>FREE</td><td>11.00</td></tr><tr><td>6.00</td><td>FREE</td><td>11.00</td></tr><tr><td>6.00</td><td>FREE</td><td>11.00</td></tr><tr><td>$11.00</td><td>$ 6.00</td><td>$16.00</td></tr><tr><td>13.00</td><td>8.00</td><td>18.00</td></tr><tr><td>13.00</td><td>8.00</td><td>18.00</td></tr><tr><td>15.00</td><td>10.00</td><td>20.00</td></tr><tr><td>15.00</td><td>10.00</td><td>20.00</td></tr><tr><td>17.00</td><td>12.00</td><td>22.00</td></tr></tbody></table>

THE CALVERT WINE SHOP

GALLON 11.19

$4.47 per Fifth.
86 proof

Save 80c on each
and every bottle!

$7.99 is Calvert's regular low price!

J. W. DANT OLDE
BOURBON

HALF
GALLON

7.29

Equivalent to
$2.91 per Fifth.
86 proof

Save 70c on each
and every bottle.

$8.99 is Calvert's regular low price!

SEAGRAM'S
7-CROWN

HALF
GALLON

8.39

Equivalent to
$3.35 per Fifth.
86 proof

Save 60c on each
and every bottle!

$8.29 is Calvert's regular low price!

CANADIAN
MIST

HALF
GALLON

7.25

Equivalent to
$2.90 per Fifth.
80 proof

Save $1.04 on each
and every bottle!

HALF
GALLON

6.99

Equivalent to
$2.79 per Fifth.
90 proof, 100% GNS.

$6.99 is Calvert's regular low price!

SCHENLEY
VODKA

HALF
GALLON

5.99

Equivalent to
$2.39 per Fifth.
80 proof

Save $1.00 on each
and every bottle!

INVERHOUSE
SCOTCH

HALF
GALLON

7.79

Equivalent to
$3.11 per fifth.
80 proof

Save $1.20 on each
and every bottle!

$13.49 is Calvert's regular low price!

DEWAR'S "White
Label" SCOTCH

HALF
GALLON

12.59

Equivalent to
$5.03 per Fifth.
86.8 proof

Save 90c on each
and every bottle!

Calvert's after-Easter IMPORTED WINE SALE!

Bottles in Stock!

Dramatic savings on these fine wines

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Regular Price</th><th>SALE PRICE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>( 56 ) CHATEAU LES MONTYS 1972, Muscadet</td><td>3.19</td><td>2.27</td></tr><tr><td>( 62 ) CHATEAU DE TRINQUEVEDEL 1972, Tavel</td><td>3.79</td><td>2.97</td></tr><tr><td>( 72 ) BEAUJOLAIS VILLAGES 1972, Lupe Cholet</td><td>3.99</td><td>2.97</td></tr><tr><td>( 48 ) KALLSTADTER KOBNERT SILVANER SPATLESE, 1971</td><td>3.69</td><td>2.77</td></tr><tr><td>( 78 ) WACHENHEIMER MANDELGARTEN 1971, H. Sichel</td><td>3.49</td><td>2.47</td></tr><tr><td>( 93 ) COTE DE NUITS VILLAGES 1969, Lupe Cholet</td><td>5.99</td><td>4.97</td></tr><tr><td>(114) CHATEAU TOUTIGEAC 1972, Entre-deux-mers</td><td>2.49</td><td>1.47</td></tr><tr><td>(117) ABYMES 1972, Vin de Savoie</td><td>2.49</td><td>1.67</td></tr><tr><td>( 74 ) COTE DE BEAUNE VILLAGES 1969, Jean Lamy</td><td>4.99</td><td>3.97</td></tr><tr><td>( 64 ) SANTENAY 1967, Lupe Cholet</td><td>4.99</td><td>3.97</td></tr><tr><td>(129) ELBA BIANCO 1968, P. Antinori</td><td>2.49</td><td>97c</td></tr><tr><td>( 70 ) HERMITAGE BLANC 1970, Frank Schoonmaker</td><td>4.69</td><td>3.47</td></tr></tbody></table>

PLEASE NOTE! This sale extends thru Saturday, April 20, 1974. We reserve the right to limit quantities. Imported wines subject to prior sale. Cash & carry on advertised items.

THE
Calvert

2312-20 Wisconsin Ave.

FREE PARKING • FE. 7-7777 • OPEN 10 a.m. to 7 p.m.

WINE and CHEESE SHOP

TEES

LOW LOW PRICES

BELIEVE!

MIAMI BEACH FOR TWO.
STAY AT THE NAUTILUS
TO FREEPORT, BAHAMAS
THE DAY SHOPPING SPREE.

gation.

000 Minim. 4 Yrs.
1/2 %
dividend penalty is
early withdrawal on cer-
ents.

Phone 494-7146

Syria and Israel Firm on Golan Plans

Continued From Page 1, Col. 6

the Golan Heights than Syria has proposed up to now, the diplomats said. Mr. Kissinger, who has remained in close contact not only with Mr. Fahmy but with President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt, hopes that Cairo can bring such moderate influence to bear on Damascus.

Secondly, Mr. Kissinger was reportedly heartened by the strong wish expressed to him by both Israel and Syria that he make another stab at "shuttle diplomacy" between Jerusalem and Damascus.

Mr. Kissinger has told aides that if the two sides—particularly the Syrians — were not interested in a disengagement accord, they would probably have stalled in extending the invitation.

### Envoy Given Plan

The formal Israeli plan for disengagement was presented to Mr. Kissinger by Defense Minister Moshe Dayan on March 30 at the State Department.

The Syrian proposals, which like the Israeli ones were accompanied by a detailed map, were given to him by Brig. Gen. Hikmat Kahalil al-Shihabi during his visit to Washington last week.

The Syrian plan was turned over to Ambassador Simcha Dinitz of Israel yesterday before Mr. Kissinger flew to New York to address the special General Assembly today.

Although the Syrian and Israeli proposals did not provide the basis for any optimism in themselves, Mr. Kissinger in his comments to the press has stressed the positive.

On Saturday, for instance, after completing his talks with General Shihabi, Mr. Kissinger said he was "moderately up-beat" about the negotiations.

He said that the Syrian proposal was a "constructive attempt" to define a solution. Mr. Kissinger made similar comments after meeting with Mr. Dayan last month.

Mr. Dinitz, after a two-hour session with Mr. Kissinger yesterday, said the Syrian plan provided "room for give and take," but made it clear that he did not want to suggest that a major breakthrough had been achieved.

### What the 2 Sides Want

Well-placed sources described the two sides' positions in the following way:

The Israelis, who seized substantial parts of the Golan Heights from Syria in the June, 1967, war and last October, have offered to withdraw from most of the land taken last fall provided a United Nations emergency force is stationed between the two front lines and there is a "thinning out" of heavy armaments permitted at the fronts.

This plan was based largely

on the disengagement accord achieved through Mr. Kissinger's efforts between Israel and Egypt in January.

The Syrians have proposed that Israel not only give up all the land taken in October, but also about half of the territory seized in 1967. The Syrians have also not accepted the presence of United Nations' emergency forces in the buffer zone, but have proposed a no-man's land, with some observers stationed there.

According to these sources, the Egyptians have put the stress on the return of El Quneitra, the former Syrian provincial headquarters in the Golan area, which was taken by the Israelis in 1967. The Egyptians have also said that they will support the principle of the United Nations forces stationed in the area.

### Kissinger's Plans

Mr. Kissinger plans to leave for the Middle East, on his fifth trip to the area since November, on April 25 or 26.

Mr. Fahmy, in a chat with newsmen today, said that he expected Mr. Kissinger to stop first in Cairo on his way to Damascus and Jerusalem. American officials said that they were not sure of the schedule but that Cairo would certainly be visited and probably also Kuwait, a place not visited previously by Mr. Kissinger.

Syria and Israel Firm,
But Kissinger Is Hopeful

NYTimes

4-16-74

By BERNARD GWERTZMAN

Special to The New York Times

UNITED NATIONS, N. Y., April 15—Syria and Israel remain far apart in their proposals for separating their forces in the Golan Heights, but well-placed diplomats said today that Secretary of State Kissinger believes he can narrow the gap on his coming Middle East trip.

The diplomats, as well as some Kissinger aides, said that the Secretary of State had reported to Israel and Syria that there was no substantial change in the positions of either side. He has decided, however, to make another Middle East trip later this month because of certain factors that lead him to believe that progress can be made toward a disengagement accord, the officials said.

A primary element in Mr. Kissinger's thinking, the diplomats said, was the approach made to him in recent days by Foreign Minister Ismail Fahmy of Egypt, whose comments and suggestions on disengagement were more moderate than those of the Syrians so far.

The Egyptians, for instance, have talked of less substantial withdrawals by Israeli forces in

Continued on Page 3, Column 1

herents in recent years...and we believe
of the finest in fit and appearance. Tail-
s Brothers craftsmen, these lightweight
Terylene polyester and worsted blend in
plaid on grey ground, hairlines on med-
d solid navy. Coat and trousers. $180

818

Brothers
ING

Hats & Shoes

NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017

YORK, N.Y. 10006

ARSDALE, N.Y. 10583

Discover the
**new**

King of the Sea
where the menu
reads like the
good old days and
so do our prices!

A Gloomy
Kissinger

N.Y. Times

4-16-74

The world has grown accustomed to the flying diplomatic coups of Henry Kissinger. But the Secretary of State conceded last week that the pace of success is likely to slow in the months ahead.

In public and private sessions with
Congressmen and reporters he made
these points:

"A permanent agreement this year" with the Soviet Union on strategic arms limitations is doubtful. "Progress" was made on the nuclear arms issues during Mr. Kissinger's Moscow visit last month, but the Soviet position remains unacceptable to the Administration.

Washington's relations with Europe are likely to remain difficult at least until France gets a new President in May.

Moving when

ed her note
s head, and
start again

welfare in
cracy that
erence than
fer an end-
lives; and
are women

almost $85-
ughly equal
one million
oad was re-
, when the
responsibil-
aid because

 figures, with
 Aid to De-
 ne responsi-
s, the major
 Administra-
cember the
s from the

Administrator James R. Dumpson six years as former Mayor R. R. fare Commissioner.

Easing the Burden

Dumpson hopes to ease so
fare clients bear by shortening
Income Maintenance (welfare
more Spanish-speaking work-
centers while at the same tim-
ing many of the management
made by the previous admin-

One of those efforts took
H.R.A. began to "stagger"
checks instead of sending the
monthly "check days." The

For Once,

If last year's statistics are
trend, the era of steady inc-
welfare rolls has ended and
period of leveling off and de-

COLUMBIA, S.C. STATE
18 March 1974 (17 Apr)

# The World's Equilibrium

WHILE MANY may think of the results of the October crisis in the Middle East in terms of the economic impact of the Arab oil embargo, Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger views it in a different context.

Presenting the Defense Department's annual "posture" statement to the Congress on March 4, the Secretary said the Middle East crisis was the basis for the Pentagon's argument for full funding of its defense requests.

The confrontation between the United States and the Soviets during the Yom Kippur War, he said, demonstrated "Soviet willingness to take risks with world peace ... (showing) that détente is not the only, and in certain circumstances not the primary, policy interest of the U.S.S.R."

He added with candor that the confrontation also showed "the readiness and level of modernization of our forces were not totally adequate."

We agree with Secretary Schlesinger's assessment. The United States should have learned a valuable lesson: the diplomacy of détente is a fragile thing. Our military capability is of supreme importance in maintaining the world's equilibrium.

WALL STREET JOURNAL
17 April 1974

Syria joined Russia in opposing "partial" solutions in the Mideast and in calling for participation by Moscow in Mideast negotiations. A joint statement following Syrian President Assad's visit to Moscow promised further aid to Syria. Beirut newspapers reported the aid would include advanced MIG25 fighter planes.

Cairo newspapers carried threats that Egypt would resume fighting if Israel didn't change its "aggressive policies." The semi-official Al Ahram added that Egypt had certain modern weapons it didn't use in last October's fighting.

Jacques Chaban-Delmas said that if elected French president he will block attempts to hold high-level negotiations with Washington before the Common Market makes important decisions. The question has sparked a U.S.-French feud.

A civil servant can be fired for public statements that damage the reputation or efficiency of the federal agency that employs him, the high court ruled. It found that the law permitting such dismissal wasn't too broad and provided employees enough opportunity to state their case. The suit involved a man dismissed by an OEO office for accusing its chief of bribery.

SAN DIEGO UNION
9 April 1974 (17)

# Arms Guidelines Vital

While the world has been nervously watching the Israeli-Arab conflict as a continuing threat to world peace, another volatile source of conflict has been developing in the nearby Persian Gulf.

Former Defense Secretary Melvin Laird warns that an "awesome arsenal of armaments" built up by such states as Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia has created a tboxerbox situation that needs to be defused. Last week's announcement that the United States of America plans to discuss selling war material to Saudi Arabia provides fresh and meaningful emphasis to that warning.

The basic issue, of course, is oil, compounded by high multiples of national self-interest by Third World nations, border disputes and international military power equations.

Iran is the most powerful non-Arab nation on the Persian Gulf. Quarreling with Soviet-supplied Iraq, she has a sophisticated and large arsenal of aircraft, tanks and naval ships.

The U.S. policy has been to provide the military hardware cautiously to protect Western interests and to receive much-needed Iranian and Persian Gulf oil. Each day, some 20 million barrels of crude are shipped through the narrow Strait of Hormuz

at the foot of the Persian Gulf to ports around the world.

The long-standing hostility among Iran and such oil-rich states as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait has a potential for provoking major conflicts, particularly if the possession of sophisticated aircraft, missiles and other weaponry leads one or another potential belligerent to think aggression might better settle disputes than diplomacy. Not much escalation of a Persian Gulf war would be needed to involve neighboring Pakistan, Afghanistan or India. The U.S., the Soviet Union and Communist Chinese would be hard put to stand aloof.

The U. S. policy of providing massive military help to Persian Gulf nations has been necessary for them to defend themselves against neighbors armed by the Soviet Union and to prevent them from falling into the Soviet orbit. However, prudence dictates that well-defined guidelines be established on further sales of modern, effective offensive-style equipment to the potentially combative gulf nations, most of whom are oriented to the West.

Certainly there is a need for a more forceful diplomatic effort to allay the major gulf powers' mutual—and indeed quite genuine—fears of one another.

KANSAS CITY STAR 3 April 1974 (17)

# Vietnam Veterans Slighted on Aid

A scandalous foul-up of benefit checks for Vietnam veterans has received some past public notice and now it is to be made a high-priority item for corrective action. In making this announcement President Nixon also has ordered a management team to investigate other complaints about snarls and failures of services to which the nation's latest generation of war veterans is entitled.

Apparently the checks that are not being delivered on time are failing to reach GI students in some parts of the country because of a breakdown in bureaucratic operations, at least in part. Surely, the delays that can be traced to government mishandling can be soon straightened out. But there is the even more important question of whether Vietnam veterans are receiving enough in those checks. A strong case can be made that they are not.

Studies by two separate nongovernmental groups have established that GI educational benefits are inadequate and are actually less in value than what the post-World War II generation of veterans received. Currently the administration is opposing any increase in GI educational benefits above 8 per cent even though that figure would not cover the inflationary increase

for the period since the last time adjustment was made in 1972 and the start of the next fall school term.

In pending legislation both Senate and House bills would raise the payment for full-time students from $220 to $250 a month. But the Senate version also would provide up to $600 annually to supplement tuition and other costs. That would be more in line with the benefits after World War II when tuition, books and fees were paid for by the government. Tens of thousands of eligible veterans no doubt would enroll for schooling or job training if they knew they would be more adequately compensated.

Certainly the principle should be that of parity for Vietnam veterans with those who served in World War II. There has been discrimination, perhaps because Vietnam was not a popular war. But Congress can end the unequal treatment and should do so this year. Mr. Nixon wants the GI students to get their payments on time and that is certainly important. The next move should be for Congress and the administration to make sure that all Vietnam veterans who want to complete their readjustment to civilian life with schooling or work training are financially able to do so.

4-E

NEW YORK POST 16 April 1974 (17)

Kissinger on 'the Global Economy' ...

Raw materials, resource development, capital markets and trade policy were among the related topics considered by Secretary of State Kissinger as he discussed the "global economy." That enterprise is every nation's business; its success heavily depends on enlightened profit sharing.

The Secretary's comments, before the special UN General Assembly session on energy and resources, were timely and often eloquent. He laid special stress on the obligation of wealthy states to help in relieving the familiar economic and social afflictions of the developing countries—the spectre of "mass starvation," uncontrolled population, unemployment and exploitation.

He undertook specifically to commit the U. S. to a greater technological aid effort and to opening of new trade markets here. American agricultural resources were pledged to production of new grain surpluses to replace those that have been exhausted. Special monetary concessions to the new nations were recommended. All of these can be positive, practical measures in generations ahead.

But they can have relevance to reality only if Secretary Kissinger's expressions are seconded at the White House and in Congress in the daily decision-making on foreign aid policy. There has been a conspicuous underdevelopment in that connection. The test of "noble rhetoric," Kissinger observed, is nobility of deed.

In recent years, Congress has hardly been lavishly expanding foreign economic aid; it has been retrenching. The Nixon Administration's proposals for such assistance have been neither notably generous nor innovative. It has not been exerting any discernibly progressive influence upon the multinational corporations. Indeed, as the Secretary was speaking, readers of the current issue of Science Magazine were able to scan—doubtless with incredulity—a report that three American companies are among the enterprising firms now engaged in marketing the idea of bottle feeding babies in the underdeveloped states.

In the Secretary's opinion, "the great issues of development can no longer be realistically perceived in terms of confrontation between the haves and have nots." It is true that confrontation can reasonably be reduced. But that cannot be fairly or finally accomplished by American decree.

Any conception of a new dollar diplomacy is not simply unrealistic, but potentially disastrous; one of the reasons there is a special Assembly session is that the smaller states are asserting themselves and rejecting some "development" plans defined by "the haves."

These are healthy indications. To the one-way street.

extent that official Washington is truly prepared to respect them, the prospects addressed no less urgently to provincial of creative development will perceptibly minds in Washington than to the rest improve. "Interdependence" is not a of the world.

... Backfire in Indochina

Despite American assistance that is generous to the point of extravagance, the most advanced technology of its kind available and a firm commitment to more of both, one impoverished area of the world is not only failing to develop but is facing wider ruin.

The area is Southeast Asia in general and Indochina in particular—lands where hundreds of billions have been spent on the financing and equipment of war, to no obvious purpose except limitless devastation of vast areas once fruitful, rich and comfortably populated.

In Cambodia today, the U. S. will spend $1.5 million. It will spend a like sum tomorrow and the day after. The

outlays are even greater for South Vietnam; there, a corrupt regime and inflation consume what is left after unbridled squandering on an army that lacks either leadership or morale. Most recently, the ARVN has again been faking reports on Communist strength in order to account for losses of territory. The tactics are manifestly intended to gain more ground in the U. S. Congress as votes on new appropriations near.

If the profligate policies of assistance to Indochina were all that were involved in foreign aid, Congress' suspicions on the subject would be justified. As it is, needy millions are being deprived of help and hope.

KANSAS CITY STAR 10 April 1974 (17)

Question of a New SALT Agreement
Or Another Arms Race

Hardening of the Soviet position on nuclear arms control was evident recently in Moscow when Henry Kissinger and the Soviet leader, Leonid Brezhnev, were unable to agree on a formula for further progress in the SALT talks. Now the official Soviet newspaper, Pravda, complains that the Pentagon is engaging in psychological warfare and arms improvements aimed at restoring U.S. nuclear superiority, contrary to the spirit of Soviet-American agreements of the last two years.

Thus, if detente is in trouble and the strategic arms negotiations are stymied, Moscow wants to identify U.S. "militarists" as being responsible. Unstated by the Russians, as might be expected, is the fact that in the latest discussions Secretary Kissinger proposed concessions by the U.S. in the form of being willing to limit the number of multiple warheads (known as MIRV) that could be fitted to land-based missiles. The Russians would accept concessions on the MIRV warheads, where the U.S. has a major technological lead, but would not match the U.S. offer with a compensating limit on payloads (i.e. the amount that can be hauled at the opposing side), where the Soviets have a major advantage.

This stalemate does not necessarily mean that the arms control talks are doomed. What it does mean is that Kissinger tried for what he called a "conceptual break-through" and was rebuffed. Since then the U.S. secretary of defense, James R. Schlesinger, has taken a hard line in response to the Kremlin's own hard line. Schlesinger has called for a larger defense budget to

improve the American bomber force and submarine-based missile systems. He also has proposed that U.S. missiles be "retargeted" toward Soviet military as well as civilian sites for the sake of a more credible deterrent strategy.

To Pravda, and thus the Soviet government, these moves mean that the U.S. is seeking "strategic superiority." What they do not say is that the first SALT agreement in 1972 gave the Soviet Union a lead in numbers of missiles—2,360 to 1,710—plus larger payloads that are twice the total U.S. throw weight. As mentioned, the U.S. is ahead on MIRV technology. But the Soviets are catching up in this respect.

In these circumstances another costly—and unnecessary—surge in the nuclear arms race is entirely possible. The second round of SALT negotiations was intended to head off such a development. Talk of "strategic superiority" by either side seems almost irrelevant when each is already armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. The goal for both should be an over-all balance involving all the strategic weapons of the two countries. Such a balance would have little practical effect but it could be reassuring to both governments.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, the quest for an acceptable formula will continue. What remains to be shown is that the Soviet Union is equally interested in preventing a resurgence of the arms rivalry that has bedeviled the only two superpowers and overburdened their economies almost since the end of World War II.

3-E