Number Four
43 Upper Berkeley Street
London W1
Telephone 01-402 0399

16th November 1977.

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

Your letter of 27th October gave me considerable
satisfaction as, to read that your period of office
gave you the opportunity of learning that the creativity
of the business community can make a valuable contribution
to the international effort for economic progress, confirms
a view that we have been endeavouring to convey to all
involved in the creation of public opinion in our Seminars
and teaching at the Oxford Centre for Management Studies.

Having read with considerable interest and pleasure
your paper on The Future of Business to the Georgetown
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, I was
interested to hear that you had encouraged the Centre to
set up the International Council, the objectives for which
should provide an excellent starting point. Your concept
of what the International Council represents and should
provide has considerable appeal to me, and I am consequently
delighted to accept your invitation to join you. I will
look forward to hearing from you as to when you propose
holding your first meeting and to meeting you.

Clifford H. Barclay.

HENRY A. KISSINGER

Dear Mr. Barclay:

I am delighted that you have agreed to join me in the
important work of the Future of Business Program's
International Council. You should shortly have a let-
ter and background materials related to our work from
Dr. Amos A. Jordan, who is the Executive Director at
the Georgetown Center responsible for the project.

As of the date of this letter, we have acceptances from
18 Councillors, names attached, including yourself. I
suggest that we hold our first meeting in Washington
next September, either on the 7th and 8th or on the 8th
and 9th. We are currently thinking of a dinner the
first evening, followed by a full day's discussion.
Please let me know your availability for both pairs of
dates. I will then be in touch with you about both the
final date and agenda suggestions.

Again, let me express my appreciation for your willingness to join in the work of the International Councillors, and I look forward to being in touch with you again in the near future.

Mr. Clifford Henry Barclay
Chairman
Beau Brummel, Ltd.
42 Upper Berkeley Street
London W1
England

[N]

FUTURE OF BUSINESS

International Councillors

<table><tr><td>ARMSTRONG, Anne<br>Former Ambassador<br>United Kingdom</td><td>MURPHY, Thomas A.<br>Chairman<br>General Motors Corporation</td></tr><tr><td>BARCLAY, Clifford<br>Chairman<br>Beau Brummel, Ltd.</td><td>OLAYAN, Suleiman<br>Chairman<br>General Contracting Company</td></tr><tr><td>CARTER, J.E.<br>Chairman and CEO<br>International Nickel Co.<br>of Canada, Ltd.</td><td>PFEIFFER, Ralph A., Jr.<br>Chairman<br>IBM World Trade Americas/Far<br>East Corporation</td></tr><tr><td>DE BENEDETTI, Carlo<br>President<br>Concerie Italiane Riunite<br>Societa per Azioni</td><td>PHILIPS, Frederik Jacques<br>Chairman<br>N.V. Philips' Gloeilampen-<br>fabrieken</td></tr><tr><td>GEORGE, W.H. Krome<br>Chairman<br>Aluminum Company of<br>America</td><td>SAMUELS, Nathaniel<br>Chairman<br>Louis Dreyfus Holding<br>Company Inc.</td></tr><tr><td>GISCARD d'ESTAING, Olivier<br>President<br>European Centre for Inter-<br>national Cooperation</td><td>SHAPIRO, Irving S.<br>Chairman<br>E.I. du Pont de Nemours</td></tr><tr><td>GREENBERG, Maurice R.<br>President<br>American International<br>Group, Inc.</td><td>SHEPHERD, Mark, Jr.<br>Chairman<br>Texas Instruments, Inc.</td></tr><tr><td>HANSEN, Kurt<br>Chairman<br>Bayer A.G.</td><td>SOHL, Hans-Gunther<br>President<br>August Thyssen-Hutte AG</td></tr><tr><td>KLABIN, Israel<br>Board Member<br>Klabin Irmaos and CIA</td><td>TUNG, C.Y.<br>Chief Executive Officer<br>C.Y. Tung Shipping Company</td></tr></table>

The EAST-WEST CENTER

EAST-WEST COMMUNICATION INSTITUTE

1777 EAST-WEST ROAD
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96822

CABLE: EASWESCEN

January 19, 1977

Mr. Henry Kissinger
Department of State
Washington, D. C.

Dear Henry:

I am addressing you as Mr. Kissinger instead of Mr. Secretary, since by the time this reaches you, you will have left the State Department.

The reason for my note is a simple one. I simply want to say, as I am sure many others are saying to you, that the country owes you a tremendous debt for the way you have guided and managed our foreign policy over recent years, during one of the most tumultuous periods in our republic's history. I agree with a recent editorial in the London Times which emphasized how much you were a symbol of dedicated purpose and strength as the United States experienced one crisis after another. I am sure that history will judge your performance as Secretary as extraordinary, and we all owe you a real debt.

I am sure that you will continue making an enormous contribution to the problems we face in the period ahead in our foreign policy. Because of my own special interest in U.S.-China relations, I personally hope that you will continue making a contribution to the task, which you helped start, of building a reasonable relationship between Washington and Peking. The United States will have to make some tough decisions about China and Taiwan in the next year or so, in my view, and I hope that you will find a way to help the country make some sensible decisions.

ADB:ag

CENTER FOR CULTURAL AND TECHNICAL INTERCHANGE BETWEEN EAST AND WEST

A national educational institution established by the United States Congress and incorporated by the State of Hawaii —An Equal Opportunity Employer

NATIONAL STRATEGY INFORMATION CENTER, INC.

111 EAST 58TH STREET

NEW YORK, N. Y. 10022

AREA CODE 212 838-2912

OFFICERS

FRANK R. BARNETT*
President

DR. FRANK N. TRAGER
Director of Studies

(Director
National Security Education Program

New York University)

ROBERT G. BURKE*
Secretary and General Counsel
(Burke and Cerutti)

PAUL E. FEFFER*
International Vice President
(President
Feffer and Simons)

REAR ADMIRAL WILLIAM C. MOTT, USN (Ret)*
Vice President
(General Counsel
National Legal Center for the Public Interest)

DOROTHY E. NICOLOSI
Treasurer, Assistant Secretary,
and Executive Administrator

DIRECTORS

KARL R. BENDETSEN
Director and Retired Chairman
Champion International Corporation

D. TENNANT BRYAN
Chairman of the Board
Media General, Inc.

RICHARD C. HAM
Attorney at Law

MORRIS I. LEIBMAN
Sidley and Austin

JOHN G. MCKAY, JR.
Bradford, Williams, McKay,
Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings, P.A.

JOHN O. MARSH, JR.
Mays, Valentine, Davenport & Moore

COLONEL JOHN C. NEFF, USAR (Ret)

ROBERT H. PARSLEY
Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook and Knapp

DR. EUGENE V. ROSTOW
Sterling Professor of Law
Yale University

FRANK SHAKESPEARE
President
RKO General, Inc.

JAMES L. WINOKUR
Chairman of the Board
Air Tool Parts and Service Company

MAJOR GENERAL RICHARD A. YUDKIN, USAF (Ret)
Senior Vice President
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation

WASHINGTON OFFICE
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 296-6406

SVEN KRAEMER
Program Director

DR. ROY GODSON
Research Associate
(Associate Professor of Government
Director, International Labor Program
Georgetown University)

*Also Directors

2 September 1977

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
The Center for Strategic and
International Studies
Georgetown University
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Henry:

In re: Frivolity & High Purpose

First, the Frivolity ---

I need your help in writing my memoirs -- to be entitled, *Slightly Off-Broadway in the Theater of National Security Affairs.*

Chapters may include:

1. How a retired Cpl. of Infantry persuaded the Czar of Vicks Vapo-Rub to give a future Secretary of State his first foundation grant for a Harvard Summer Seminar.

(North Carolina *affluence* as support for Nato *Confluence*, etc., etc.)

2. How an assistant professor of Elizabethan Drama from Wabash College introduced a Chicago liberal lawyer to the Military-Diplomatic Elite -- and thus unleashed "Leibmanism" on hapless Washington policy circles.

3. How that selfsame Maurice Ignatius Leibman -- otherwise, the Elf of Naval Operations -- and Frank Barnett persuaded Allen Dulles to make anti-Communist lectures AFTER he had retired from CIA and discovered the problem of public opinion and national will.

4. How, in 1973, I played tennis at Wimbledon with Secretary of the Army "Bo" Callaway -- and tried vainly to persuade him to get the Department of Agriculture to mount a "joint venture" with the U.S. Army in Ethiopia -- in order to turn that nation into a breadbasket for all north Africa and thus preserve a Red Sea base for the U.S. ("Bo's" generals told him the State Department would never tolerate such innovation.)

If I can find three graduate assistants to complete the research on this fascinating "Always a bit off-stage" approach to History, naturally I'd like to have you write the Preface.

page two

Now the High Purpose ---

A dozen friends of mine in Europe -- France, Italy, Britain and Spain -- have taken the trouble to specify that your recent superb critique of "Eurocommunism" elevated the morale of the moderate center throughout the Nato area. (As you know, the European press "retails" the ideological debate in this country -- so your Intervention gave hope to allies, whereas the "hints" from the WH, NSC and State about "accepting" the new trend brought despair.)

Obviously, no ideological contest is won with _one_ salvo; we are locked in an extended struggle. Hence, I wonder if you'd be willing to have lunch or dinner with Morrie Leibman, myself, and perhaps 2-3 others, to discuss how one can mount a _protracted_ public opinion battle against "Eurocommunism's" tolerance by the New Left cadres which now permeate the 3d and 4th echelons of principalities you used to govern.

Although you and I have not always agreed on SALT tactics, surely now is the time to form a "mini-coalition" to preserve the West.

I can bring myself to "forgive" you for not having possessed the wisdom to make me Assistant Secretary of State for Transnational Public Affairs (to cope with the psywar gambits of Suslov and Arbatov), provided you can forgive me for suggesting there _are_ alternatives to "detente" -- as the Soviets define it -- other than nuclear war. (Since I'm asking you to join a common effort, candor prompts me to enclose my 1976 "gnat's attack" on your armor-plated Mercedes.)

I'm off to conferences in Brussels, Paris and London in September -- with pro-Nato groups in Europe that desperately seek U.S. private sector support -- and will telephone your office in early October, in the hope of seeing you shortly thereafter at your convenience.

With best regards, I am

Enc. (1) "Alternatives to Detente"

cc: the Honorable Morrie Leibman
Vice-Marshal, League to Save Carthage

Since this is a Republican club in a political town
in an election year, I should offer fair warning
that my remarks may seem antipolitical. However, I
hope to be evenhanded in my polemics—pleasing no-
body, infuriating everyone. Just for the record, I am
by origin a Robert Taft Republican from Peoria, Illi-
nois. But the text for my critique today is not from
the works of Herbert Hoover. Rather, I preach the
gospel according to “Hippy,” wherein it is written,
“Let it all hang out.”

My topic is, *Alternatives to Detente*.

Let me begin by setting forth Frank Barnett's
“heresies.” These heresies relate to national will and
weaponry. Unless they are adequate, all criticism of
detente is academic.

*Heresy Number One*. Many of the ways in which
Americans are saluting the Bicentennial are theatri-
cally shallow or commercially obscene. (Thank heaven
a few programs, such as the *Adams Chronicles* on
ETV, are ennobling.) Now, it is by no means amiss to
celebrate the “way we were,” *provided* we take equal
pains to safeguard the road ahead. In the political
inventions of the Founding Fathers, we were richly
endowed; and we can take fresh resolve from our
heritage.

1

[LCS]

But the urgent task is not to eulogize the past. Our real job is to initiate present action to insure that our great-grandchildren may be able to enjoy a *Tricentennial* with the social, legal, and economic freedoms of American society still viable.

When we hear the firecrackers, this coming Fourth of July, we might remember that fireworks are just for a day. The American Revolution wasn't won in a day, or even a year, 1776. It wasn't until seven years later, in 1783, that our independence was finally codified in the Treaty of Paris. Today, we will need *at least* seven years to pay even the first installment on an insurance premium for the *Tricentennial*.

*Heresy Number Two.* The Presidential election this Fall could make a decisive difference in the means we use to solve domestic problems—land use, energy, employment, busing, welfare. But when it comes to foreign and defense policies, the differences among the leading candidates are not really so wide as campaign rhetoric sometimes makes them appear. President Ford, a former naval person, is scarcely "soft on defense." He has battled Congress to get a higher budget for American arms.

On the other hand, Governor Reagan, Senator Jackson, or Governor Carter, if nominated and elected on their defense platforms, would each have the same difficulty in managing national policies. Whoever is elected will have to deal with the military expansion of the Soviet empire, the "anti-Pentagon cult" among some *staffs* on Capitol Hill, the doubt about our nerve among allies, and the "cultural death-wish" of various intellectuals who see nothing of value in America.

In an open society, a President or Prime Minister can lead, but he cannot run counter to the passions and priorities of the people. In the 1930s, as the Nazi shadow fell over Europe, even so elegant a man as Winston Churchill was unable to rally Englishmen to adequate defense until *after* the brutal shock of Dunkirk. And, in our own case, almost 50 percent of the

2

American people were isolationists until the day *after* Pearl Harbor. So, whoever sits in the White House next year, America will need a Citizens Lobby for National Security that must reach from liberals like Eugene Rostow, John Roche, and Pat Moynihan to conservatives like Bill Buckley, Joe Coors, and John Connally, similar perhaps to the 1940 William Allen White Committee, made up of Republicans and Democrats who gave public opinion battle to the isolationists prior to World War II.

Americans didn't win the Revolution with a one-shot performance at the Concord Bridge, or even by enduring the entire Winter at Valley Forge. And we are not going to cope with Soviet naval power, Arab oil weapons, and Cuban commandos simply by electing a particular President, *unless* a broad coalition of Republicans and Democrats gives our President persistent public opinion support.

*Third and Last Heresy.* Without national will, we are sounding brass. But national will is not something manufactured by a few philosopher kings or manipulated by Madison Avenue. National will is a construct linked to our deepest values, and we all help to strengthen it or weaken it. Recently, national will has been eroded just as surely by some Republicans as by Democrats, and by conservative businessmen as well as liberal journalists.

We complain that youth trashes cities, mugs our elderly, and wears the American flag on the seat of its blue jeans. But who banished religious education and the study of civic virtue from the school systems? Not youth. Adults let it happen.

Who imposes on the nerve-endings of youth a continuous bombardment of messages coded in pornography and violence? Why, the lords of capitalist TV and filmdom—and amoral, avaricious advertising executives. Certain of the white knights of the mass media also purvey political slander and government secrets, chiefly to boost circulation—meanwhile pontificating that while a free society can

3

criticize the Church, the White House, and the
Supreme Court, the noble press must be a law unto
itself. (In Britain, which also reveres freedom, an
Official Secrets Act obliges journalists to join the
ranks of responsible citizens.)

Some of our leading businessmen and bankers,
whose salaries are well over $100,000 per year, flock
to Moscow as if they were penurious Polish peasants
beseeching the Czar for economic favors. It was
George Meany and the American labor movement,
not America's businessmen and lawyers, or the Re-
publican White House, who gave Alexander Solzhe-
nitsyn a forum for freedom in this country.

While the Russians were making Angela Davis
into a Communist Joan of Arc with their unceasing
propaganda, Professor Kissinger allegedly advised
President Ford not to "offend" Moscow by support-
ing the US tradition of dissent against tyranny by
honoring Solzhenitsyn. (More recently, one of Kissin-
ger's deputies intellectually "reburied" the masses of
Eastern Europe when he said that America might aid
Russia in keeping "organic control" of restive non-
Communist peoples.)

With a few exceptions, American business leaders
have been too busy, or too indifferent to the moral
issue, to listen to Solzhenitsyn, a genuine hero of
our times, not some plastic troubadour from a syn-
thetic Camelot. But many American businessmen
and bankers have been naively gratified to be asked
to dinners in honor of Georgi Arbatov. (Arbatov is
the Cardinal Richelieu of Soviet disinformation
operations, a master of political warfare who poses
as a "scholar' in charge of a Soviet "think-tank" on
American affairs.) Arbatov whispers sly promises of
peace and profit into eager capitalist ears, while
Soviet marshals and admirals perfect their war-win-
ning tools of conflict.

If we are going to revive American national will,
Americans will have to be tougher, smarter, and more
principled than we have been so far in the 1970s. All

4

[L.C]

of us—outside of government as well as inside—
Republicans and Democrats alike.

After Angola, the United States may learn to take
Brezhnev seriously when he openly proclaims that
“peaceful coexistence” means solid support by Rus-
sia for wars of national liberation in the Third World.
That’s not just rhetoric for the Russian homefront.
Ideological struggle to the Leninist mind is not an
empty abstraction. It means Soviet money, arms, airl-
lift, subversion, and the latest refinement, a foreign
legion of Cubans. As Lenin might have put it:
“One step backward in Egypt; two steps forward in
mineral-rich South Africa; three steps forward with
Soviet bases in Libya, Somalia, and Iraq!”

Secretary of State Kissinger's historical dream of
detente seems to have been that Washington, Mos-
cow, and perhaps Peking could forge a 20th-century
equivalent of the Holy Alliance to manage arms re-
duction, prevent nuclear war, and cement diplomatic
ties with trade and technology. Now, "detente-shock"
has led to sharp attacks on Secretary Kissinger, espe-
cially by Presidential candidates.

The Secretary has responded with a question.
“What practical alternatives to detente do you pro-
pose? What level of confrontation would you actually
sustain?” Secretary Kissinger’s question is legitimate.
It should open a much-needed debate. But the subject
is too important to be treated in slogans either by
Secretary Kissinger or by his critics.

First of all, let us be clear that there are two quite
different views of detente. To Americans, detente is
an end in itself, a "live-and-let-live" philosophy. To
Moscow, detente is a means to gather advanced tech-
nology from the West, plus a strategy-through-time
by which the Soviets hope to change the correlation
of world forces. Is this speculation? Not at all. Some
years ago, the American Bar Association commis-
sioned a group of scholars to read through 10,000
pages of Soviet literature—Party journals, resolutions
at Party Congresses, speeches by Politburo leaders.

5

From the 10,000 pages, the scholars were asked to abstract the Russian definition of "peaceful coexistence" as used in Communist "in-house memoranda."

Peaceful coexistence (in other words, "detente") means to the Soviet Union: restraints to avoid nuclear war between the superpowers, but also, a continuation of ideological war, class war, economic war, and propaganda war as usual. And, very specifically, Moscow-style detente includes support for "anti-imperialist wars of liberation."

To advance detente, it was argued by many in Washington that the United States had to offer "incentives without strings" to induce the USSR to behave peacefully. The premise was that, if America was openhanded, we could expect reciprocal favors from Brezhnev.

Let me recite briefly what favors Moscow has actually delivered. *One*. With masses of Soviet weaponry, the North Vietnamese finally realized Ho Chi Minh's ambitions by marching into Saigon in 1975, burying peace with honor, weakening US credibility throughout Asia, and (one would suppose) somewhat dimming the luster of Henry Kissinger's Nobel Peace Prize.

*Two*. In the Fall of 1973, Brezhnev ignored his promise to cooperate with the United States in managing the Middle East crisis. Some of the 2,000 Russian technicians in Egypt knew perfectly well that the Yom Kippur War was coming. But no word was sent by Moscow to Secretary Kissinger. When the Egyptians and Syrians launched their surprise attack, Moscow radio exhorted other Arab states to join in and press for victory. Moscow also incited Arab leaders to intensify the oil embargo. Detente was nowhere to be seen in the oil politics and desert battles of the Middle East.

*Three*. In Angola, the new Czars in Moscow brushed off Secretary Kissinger's pleas and threats, and skillfully projected raw Russian and Cuban

6

power into Africa. Brezhnev now boasts the 20th-century equivalent of Queen Victoria's navy. With that four-ocean navy and his Cuban "Gurkhas," Brezhnev can indulge himself openly in salt water imperialism, even though we are told that ours is the era of "negotiation."

*Four.* We almost lost Portugal, a NATO ally, when the Russians provided an estimated $50 million to pay the wages of Communist cadres who organized leftist trade unions, peasant cooperatives, and street commandos. While Congress tied the hands of the CIA, fortunately West European Socialists helped the non-Communists in Lisbon to recover. But the "class war" continues. That's Russian-style detente.

Secretary Kissinger has occasionally implied that if detente evaporates, nuclear war cannot be far behind. But surely this is a simplistic and misleading dichotomy, fit more for a politico than a Harvard professor. We have survived many more years of Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union than years of detente. And the Cold War, after all, never turned nuclear. Surely there is a middle ground between shipping grain on credit (plus turning our back on Solzhenitsyn) and shooting missiles.

Further, we need not abandon some forms of co-operation with the Russians, *provided* we recognize the limits of rhetoric in altering Moscow's avowed policy of ideological-war-as-usual. That means US diplomacy based on an *immediate* quid for a present quo, plus self-enforcing agreements that do not depend on Soviet good will. For example, we might trade American food and technology (what the Russians want) for Communist political restraint and genuine progress toward balanced arms and troop reductions (the things we want). Or, since the Russians have oil, gold, and chrome, which we need, why not *barter* for these goods instead of selling our grain and technology to Russia on credit? In short, we should insist on "trade-offs" rather than offering US largesse in the vague hope that Russia will be enmeshed in a web of decent behavior. "Who is en-

7

meshing whom?” is a fair question to put to Professor Kissinger.

Let's turn for a moment to the military balance, inside which context “detente” is taking place. Many Americans are aghast at the $112 billion defense budget for 1977. Perhaps, if Americans knew that the Russians were spending the equivalent of $130 billion, they would be less critical of the Pentagon. It is a paradox that during the crisis-torn days of the Cold War, the Soviets spent only nine percent of their gross national product on military power. Today, in an era of “peace and negotiation,” Moscow is spending at least 14 percent of Russia's GNP on military might.

Owing to Congressional budget cuts, inflation, and the high pay we must offer to attract men to the voluntary services, the United States has actually been disinvesting in defense for at least five years. Since Fiscal Year 1971, our real defense resources have been reduced by $45 billion, an average of $9 billion per year.

How does that translate into reality on the field of battle? Let me give you an example. In the theater of our “blue chip” alliance, NATO, the military balance is as follows: The Soviet side—that is to say, the Warsaw Pact—outguns NATO three-to-one in tanks, two-to-one in infantry, two-to-one in tactical air, four-to-one in artillery. The numbers all favor the Russian side, although—in some categories of military technology—we still have advantages.

Now admittedly, the overall military balance is complex. The Russians are ahead in total numbers of missile launchers, throw-weight, overall submarine strength, and tank production. On the other hand, the United States is still ahead in accuracy of missiles, sheer number of warheads, and aircraft carriers. Some people say we're “Number Two.” Other people say we're “second to none,” or we have “sufficiency.” What no American expert disputes is the *trend*. Our last three Secretaries of Defense—Mr. Laird, Dr.

8

LCJ

Schlesinger, Mr. Rumsfeld—have all warned us that our military power is declining vis-à-vis Soviet war-fighting preparations.

Let me give you one final set of statistics. At the strategic nuclear level, the Russians now have 1618 ICBMs, while we have 1054. The Russian advantage in launchers is partially offset by the fact that we have nearly three times as many warheads as do the Russians.

On the other hand, the Russians by 1980 will have four times the lifting power or missile "throwweight"; and since, under SALT, it is perfectly permissible for both sides to improve accuracy, by the beginning of the 1980s the Russians could well have more warheads, more megatonnage, and equal accuracy. In other words, they might then achieve a first-strike capability—that is, be capable of killing our own missiles in their silos, obliterating our bombers on the ground, and destroying perhaps a third of our submarines in port or repair docks.

Now Secretary Kissinger has posed the question, "What after all, is the meaning of strategic superiority? What do you do with it?" Well, if the Soviets clearly become "Number One" in strategic weaponry by 1980, it doesn't mean inevitable atomic war. It need not imply a sudden strike out of the blue by Moscow. But it could well mean that Moscow in the 1980s will then more effectively project its conventional power and its guerrilla forces all over the world, precisely because Russian nuclear "superiority" would paralyze the West into inaction at lower levels of defense.

Lebanon is a case history. Are there any lessons for the United States in this protracted tragedy at the eastern end of the Mediterranean? It's probably too early to tell, and there may be so many "hidden scenarios" that only future historians will reveal. So I set forth this view purely as a hypothesis, chiefly in the hope it will be refuted.

My pessimistic premise is that future historians

9

may point to Lebanon (even more than Angola) as revealing the decline of US power. Why? Turn back the clock of history to 1958. Lebanon, a friend and ally of the United States, was then threatened by left-wing insurrection. But in 1958, President Eisenhower simply sent a message to the Sixth Fleet Commander: "Save our friends." The Sixth Fleet Commander landed a task force of American Marines on the beaches near Beirut. And the coup effort stopped instantly! As a matter of fact, there were no casualties. Our Marines didn't fire a shot. Why? Behind the Marines on the beaches was the unchallengable and awesome power of the Sixth Fleet, for there was virtually no Soviet Navy in the Mediterranean in 1958. And behind the Sixth Fleet was an American nuclear advantage of about eight to one.

What has happened? The year 1976, our year of a proud Bicentennial, sees American civilization celebrating its heritage, which includes what scholars call the "Judeo-Christian tradition." Today, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, Christians are being slaughtered in the streets of Lebanon, and Israel is threatened with a possible "new front" situation. Hence, one would think that mighty Republic, the United States, revering the Judeo-Christian tradition, might pay some attention to Lebanon in 1976 as she did in 1958 when we saved it.

Now, one can argue that it's simply moral indifference, isolationism, or worry about reopening the wounds of Vietnam that keeps our politicians from saying anything about Lebanon. But isn't it interesting that politicians from both parties, who flock to prayer breakfasts on every occasion, have not even discussed this issue of a "religious war"? One of the reasons may be that the military balance has so changed. If the Sixth Fleet Commander, in 1976, tried to repeat the Eisenhower scenario of 1958, he would discover, of course, that the American Fleet in the Mediterranean is shadowed by Soviet submarines and partly vulnerable to land-based Soviet aircraft. Today, an American admiral might find that a Soviet

10

helicopter carrier would be capable of landing Rus-
sian marines on the shores of Lebanon! Finally, in-
stead of the nuclear balance being eight-to-one in our
favor, as in 1958, we are now no better off than
"parity," and possibly the balance is three-to-two
against us.

That's what you do with strategic superiority! You
neutralize the capability of an adversary to use con-
ventional force to intervene. The option that Ike had,
of using a low-cost, no-casualty weapon system, a
landing of Marines, is not in our inventory today. (At
least, it's not an "easy" option.)

So much for an audit of detente.

Are there any feasible alternatives? Yes, but they
will require that Americans stop being "sentimental"
and utopian in their thinking about world affairs.

*Number One.* Despite the firing of the oil weapon in 1973, Americans really don't want to regard United States agriculture as a "strategic" asset. But we may have to overcome our reluctance to turn a humanitarian resource to political ends if our adversaries continue to conduct a raw materials war against us.

Both the Russians and the Chinese now encourage Third World nations to mobilize "mineral and resource" weapons against the United States and our allies in Japan and Western Europe. If this irresponsible counsel is followed, we are not without recourse to protect ourselves. After all, the United States, Canada, and Argentina dominate the food export market as surely as OPEC controls the oil market.

Russia needs American feed-grains. Moscow's very
modest herds of cattle must be expanded if the Rus-
sian people are to get the meat they have been prom-
ised by their leaders. For the United States to hold
back on feed-grain exports would force Soviet leaders
to choose between (a) depriving restless Russian
consumers of meat, because all major Communist
resources were committed to war production; or (b)
feeding the Russian people at the cost of cutting

11

Soviet military investment and even demobilizing
Russian soldiers to work inefficient farms.

But American farmers and their Congressmen, you
will say, will buck at losing the Russian market. Well,
to insure national security, to show our serious intent
over Soviet covert aggression in Portugal, Somalia,
and Angola, the US government could buy the export
part of our crop, store it in a food bank, and sell it to
friends at fair prices, or even give it to China and
Pakistan. (Given the threat of drought and other
adverse changes in the long-term weather cycle, it is
possible that France, Britain, and other European
allies may be short of food in the near-term future.
In order that US reserves should be ample for friends,
they should not be injudiciously reduced by large
sales to the USSR, which continues to manifest its
hostility to the United States in a score of ways.)

Since we are spending $100 billion dollars on
*military* defense against the Russians, an additional
$3 billion for preclusive buying of grain, and setting
up a strategic food reserve, might be a useful addi-
tional investment, even an insurance policy. The food
lever, moreover, should not be applied only against
the Soviet Union, but—in crises—it could be used to
redress the balance with all those countries which
threaten to form raw materials cartels to pressure the
United States to alter its foreign policy, suspend aid
to Israel, and destroy our resource base.

If we don't at least plan a "food strategy" for the
resource war we did not start, we have only ourselves
to blame for the outcome. We have on the books
the Export Control Acts of 1949 and 1969. The
machinery of controlling "what goes to whom" is al-
ready there.

Hopefully, we will never be driven actually to
implement such unpleasant measures. Quite possibly,
the prospect that America *might* employ economic
warfare in her own defense could have a salutary
effect on the behavior of those who now think any

12

[L]

political attack on the United States is a "no-risk"
game to themselves.

*A second alternative to detente*—a new alliance of Free World naval powers to counter the Soviet Union's growing four-ocean navy. This would not be a mere "joint maneuver" of ships and planes, but the creation of a consortium of bases, ports, production facilities, logistic programs, and countries. The old SEATO and CENTO are dead, and even NATO is ailing. But there are new potentials. We know who our friends are in the oil-bearing lands of the East: Iran, Saudi Arabia, most of the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, Indonesia. They are as "defense-minded" as we are; and in some instances, they fear attack from the same enemies that threaten us. The oil lifeline from the Persian Gulf to the United States, the Common Market, and Japan is a $3 trillion asset that should justify a working naval alliance based on common interests all the way from Britain clear to Japan.

In the Pacific, as well as in the Middle East, a similar potential is waiting to be energized. There is an association of Southeast Asian nations—ASEAN—and the Asian and Pacific Council—ASPAC. ASEAN includes Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. ASPAC includes these five plus Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand. Altogether, this is a formidable power bloc. Not military, but with enough economic and political clout to give pause to any aggressor if properly linked to our Persian Gulf and European allies. And so, why should we not contemplate the need for a Pacific/Indian Ocean Defense Agreement, or PIODA? PIODA would be the "energy and naval alliance" for the era of energy scarcity. PIODA would aim to neutralize the Soviet-sponsored "resource war" backed by Russian sea power. (Our Atlantic allies, and perhaps China, should be "associate" members.)

*A third alternative* to present "detente" policy: Washington could increase our tilt toward mainland China. Internally, Chinese communism is no more

13

E.C.J.

savory than the Soviet brand. As a matter of fact, there are many who argue persuasively that the iron discipline and regimentation of the Chinese people are in many respects worse than in the Soviet Union. But the People's Republic of China (Peking) does not menace the United States militarily. Red China has no far-flung navy. Its army does not threaten American friends and allies in the Middle East or Africa. And so we should "tilt toward China."

Can we rely on the Chinese? Only history will tell. But the answer is, "possibly." Not because Peking likes us, but because Peking's leaders are genuinely afraid of Soviet nuclear strikes against China. Peking's leadership needs at least a demialliance with the United States to create uncertainty in Moscow about US reactions to war between China and Russia.

But what about Taiwan and our commitment to our old friends there? Peking seems in no hurry to ingest Taiwan. For now, Peking's security needs take first call. American support is far more valuable to Peking as a counter to Soviet aggression than possession of the outlying province of Taiwan. It's a safe bet that our increased leaning toward the Chinese Communists need not in any way impair our loyalty to staunch friends on Taiwan or compromise our continued protection of the Chinese Nationalists.

Indeed, why simply accept the status quo when we might promote a more lasting settlement of the "Two Chinas" problem. For this, we have not only the precedent developed by Willy Brandt for bringing the two Germanys closer together, but some of the principles both Chinas share in common. Since both Peking and Taipei agree there is but one China, why should we not invoke the Willy Brandt solution for divided Germany? That solution was, "one nation, two states."

It worked! Ten years ago, East Germany and West Germany refused absolutely to recognize each other, and traded the same sort of polemics Taiwan and mainland China now hurl at each other. Today, the

14

LCJ

two Germanys have agreed to live and let live. Why? Because of the formula "one nation, two states!" It's the kind of semantic invention that works if both parties have solid reasons for wanting it to.

Finally, let me repeat that no alternative to detente can be implemented without a regeneration of American will. This includes a moratorium on parading our guilt complexes before the entire world. We must say, "Hold!" "Enough!" to quixotic fishing expeditions into the US intelligence community, and any further Congressional dismantling of American military power.

We've investigated the CIA and the DIA and the FBI and the NSA. Isn't it perhaps time that we took a comparative look at the growing activity of the GRU and the KGB? For the KGB today is a new, much more sophisticated animal than it was under Stalin. (And the GRU is an efficient "acquisitive" animal, scrounging everywhere for technical and industrial data.) If Congress is reluctant to inquire into the GRU and KGB, why not create a Blue Ribbon Citizens Committee to investigate the activities of Soviet intelligence here and in Western Europe, Japan, and Latin America? Hearings might be held in London, Paris, Tokyo, and Rio over the next 18 months. A stream of Soviet defectors could detail the bizarre and macabre tale of Soviet espionage, dirty tricks, and murderous felonies. Alexander Solzhenitsyn could be asked to testify. Western experts like Robert Conquest and John Baron, who have authored excellent books in the field, might add their evidence. Literally hundreds of Russian and East European exiles are well acquainted with KGB operations against human freedom. (Their case histories of KGB activities would also give the American press something to wring its hands over other than Watergate.)

Let me, in this context, speak a word for CIA and the principle of "covert operations." Covert operations, after all, are a low-cost, low-casualty weapon

15

CLC

system. If you persuade by propaganda, you may not have to use napalm. Now, even if we preserve the strategic balance, the President of the United States certainly needs options between landing the Marines (which might risk escalation) and letting Soviet proxies commit unopposed aggression, as in Angola. Covert actions in the arena of propaganda, political warfare, and counterguerrilla war have been branded as "immoral and un-American." Well, is it moral to stand aside and let one's allies be shot and imprisoned? Is it un-American to placate a dictator and his henchmen today, and then be forced to bomb a whole people next year, when formal war is declared? Covert operations directed against a handful of Communist bosses is far more moral than waging an 11th-hour war against a captive people forced into battle by the ruling tribal Politburo.

What will the Russians say if we follow Moscow's own lead—if we borrow Brezhnev's operational code—and agree to wage ideological warfare as usual, in tune with the Soviet definition of detente? Well, of course, at first Moscow will snarl and bluster and call us "Fascist beasts." Later, once the Soviets see we are really serious people, they may agree to two-sided "arms control" of propaganda and covert operations. But restraint should be two-sided! If we suspend our political warfare and covert operations, we should get a genuine *quid pro quo* from Moscow.

If not—the fourth alternative. The Soviet empire still has political weaknesses. Its East European populations are potential insurgents who have risen three times in the last 30 years. The Chinese Communists pose a threat to Moscow in the Far East, and require a million-man Russian army to guard against them. The Ukraine is potentially Russia's "Ireland." And there are Armenian, Mongol, Muslim, and Christian minorities, as well as Jewish, inside the belly of Mother Russia. Russia uses "detente" policy to provide some safeguards against her internal instability. Through treaties, Russia has eroded the West's former movement toward all-European free-

16

[Lc]

dom. If there were any lingering hopes for liberty in Poland, Hungary, and Russia's Baltic colonies, they were dashed last year when 35 nations met in Helsinki to "confer legitimacy" on the Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe. In effect, the West guaranteed the status quo for Soviet *gauleiters* over people who attest the Russians. But as Brezhnev explained, both before and after Helsinki, the solidarity of Moscow's Socialists with their "revolutionary brothers in the outside world" was in no way impaired by Helsinki verbiage.

In short, America must not support freedom for Czechoslovakia, but Moscow and her Cuban men-cenaries can help "liberate" Puerto Rico and the Panama Canal from capitalist chains! That's one-sided detente.

There are a wide range of psychological operations available to us because of these built-in weaknesses of the Soviet system. For all her military might, and despite Moscow's strict control of internal Russian media, the USSR has instabilities. To wit:

*One*. The heresies of Titoism and Maoism; Great Russian chauvinism; and now a "Protestant revolt" among West European Communists.

*Two*. The still-extant nationalisms throughout Eastern Europe, the Ukraine, the Baltic states, Armenia, Uzbekistan, and Mongolia.

*Three*. Intellectual revolt as typified by Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov, and those brave dissidents who publish *Samizdat*—the Russian peoples' underground press.

*Four*. The struggle for power among the Communist Party, the Soviet military, and the technocratic and other elites in the Soviet command structure.

*Five*. The latent potential for defection that has always resided within the Red Army, and which emerged so dramatically in World War II.

These vulnerabilities of Russia are open to American and Western propaganda. Radio Free Europe and

17

[lc]

Radio Liberation are still in place and could operate more forcefully, which is why Moscow wants to close them down. American labor unions have done yeoman work against Communist-backed labor unions in Europe, Latin America, and Africa. American labor unions could be asked to do this same task again.

May I say, however, that "psychological operations" are not a weapon that can be deployed in a vacuum. For the propaganda of freedom to work, American and allied military power must remain strong and viable. Our will to *act*, when necessary, must be credible; and economic pressures must run in tandem with diplomacy and a strong defense posture.

And now, one word in conclusion. If present trends continue, we will clearly be "Number Two" by 1980. So what will *you* do to avert the Gulag Ice Age? Isn't it time to call off the masochist trip called "drowning the national psyche in Watergate"? For some of the Eastern media—chiefly the *Washington Post*, the Public Broadcasting System, the *New York Times*, the *New Yorker*, and other provincial house organs sold in Cambridge, Manhattan, and Georgetown—Watergate has been the media event of the past half-century. At Park Avenue cocktail parties, trendy and guilt-ridden citizens postulate that Watergate ranks as a crime against humanity, on a par with Dachau or Katyn Forest.

Actually, Watergate revealed that 50-some Americans did underhanded, amoral, and illegal things in order to practice, or "cover up," political dirty tricks—tricks, by the way, that belong to the same genre of nasty games played by many low-brow and big league American politicians of both parties in this century. (We all know, for example, that the recount of some close elections has been rendered moot by the astonishing disappearance of the ballot boxes.)

Watergate proved to the world that, for what the French and Germans (or even the British) might have considered a "venial" sin by the Executive, an American President could be turned out of office, and two

18

score of his aides jailed for burglary, tapping phones, and concealing evidence. (The "mortal sin"—misusing the CIA and IRS and FBI for domestic political purposes—was attributable to Kennedy and Johnson as much as to Nixon.) The sheer "wonder" of Watergate—especially since America is alleged to be so "violence-prone"—was that no violence disfigured the orderly transition. For all fantasies of the American left about right-wing military coups, no tanks surrounded the presses of the *Washington Post*. No pro-Nixon loyalists rioted in the streets. And a crisis that would have brought down a European government—if, in fact, the dirty business had ever been allowed to surface—was, in America, easily transcended. The Republic survived in serenity, with nearly everyone feeling virtuous, while the young reporters who unraveled the scandal were enriched, both monetarily and with the Pulitzer Prize.

Yet, two years later we are still subjected to "instant guilt replay," via movies and pseudodocuments on public television that show Watergate as a conglomerate of the Dreyfus Affair and burning of the Reichstag. (Nixon's crimes loom even larger than the herding of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans into concentration camps by the liberals of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration.) Only the other day, a senior civil servant said he didn't see how America could cope with the Russian threat until we got our own moral house in order, since Watergate had exposed such an Achilles Heel.

In the long view of history, Watergate will have vastly less significance for our future than (a) the achievement by the USSR of "parity-plus" at the strategic level, and (b) the ability of Moscow to use its four-ocean navy and Cuban foreign legion to back guerrilla war on all continents. Most of our European friends wish we would cease "brooding" about Watergate as if the norms of political conduct had been established by Nancy Drew and Huck Finn. Out there, in the big world beyond Cinderella and Father Flanagan, there are other "norms" of behavior estab-

19

SLCJ

lished by chaps like Brezhnev and Beria, Gromyko and von Ribbentrop, Mao and Molotov, Suslov and Goebbels.

The 50 "penny-ante" crooks, misguided partisans, and "apprentice Rasputins" of the Watergate affair didn't loot large sums of money or use plastique explosives; and they didn't kidnap anybody. Meanwhile, inside Mother Russia, 500,000 members of the KGB —over a period of three decades—imprisoned, killed, and worked to death five million of their fellow Russian citizens. They acted *officially*; KGB bosses got medals from Stalin. The writer who used "investigative journalism" to expose the Gulag Archipeligo didn't get any Lenin Prize from Stalin's trainee, Brezhnev; and, to date, the Soviet film industry has not released a movie called *All the Commissar's Men*. But somehow, a large segment of the self-elected intelligentsia in New York City equate Watergate with the Gulag Ice Age, and act as if a country so depraved as America doesn't "deserve" to survive.

Valley Forge was won by the grit and stamina of ordinary soldiers, as well as the genius of Washington. We are not required, as they were, to stand with bare feet in the snow and face British artillery. But cannot we expect more Americans to face the "arrows of intellectual fashion," and tell it like it is? If our business leaders cannot be expected to pledge their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in defense of free enterprise, could they at least sacrifice one tenth of their stock options to avoid transferring technology to the heirs of Genghis Khan?

For if America should, by 1980, be pressed into a corner by a combination of Soviet nuclear blackmail and psychological warfare, if we then should be isolated from our allies and divided against ourselves, the epitaph on America's tombstone might read as follows:

> Here lies the only civilization that perished at the peak of its power with its power unused.

> Here lies a decent people who wanted love, not

20

empire, and got neither; who tried to trade power
for popularity, and lost both.

Here lies a nation of advertisers, who knew how
to change consumer tastes in cigarettes, but were
themselves manipulated on the issues that really
mattered to their salvation.

Here died a sort of Lancelot in the Court of
Nations who, granting all his grievous flaws, was
still perhaps the noblest knight of all—except this
Lancelot, crippled with an undeserved guilt com-
plex, let his weapons and ideals fall unused, and so
condemned all mankind to the thousand-year
prison of the Russian Bear.

Now personally, I hope America's page in history
will be written in a much nobler vein. But whether
that epitaph is written or not will depend not exclu-
sively on decisions made in the White House, or the
Pentagon, or the Department of State, but on the
courage and sheer civic commitment of America's
private citizens.

21

[LC]

EMBASSY OF ISRAEL
WASHINGTON, D.C.

שגרירות ישראל
רשינگשון

PERSONAL

18 January 1977

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Even though it might not be entirely according
to protocol, I hope that you will forgive me if I
take the liberty of expressing to you my very deep
appreciation of the opportunity which I had during
the past year to work with you. The many meetings
in your office which I attended were an intellectual
stimulus not easily forgotten.

The breadth of your vision of the world and your
deep concern for the wellbeing of Israel were a privi-
lege for me to experience.

I would venture to hope that our paths may still
cross in a future which, I am afraid, will still stand
in dire need of the concepts which you have tried to
apply to a world always in need to be reborn.

With the warmest wishes,

The Honorable
Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Baron

I hope you know how very much I regret
having had to withdraw from speaking
at the SAFTO/SENBANK Economic Seminar
luncheon on June 21st. The circumstances
that led to it were outside my control,
but I appreciate, nevertheless, the in
difficulty awkward position this has
placed you and Congressman Halpern. I
wish it could have been otherwise.

I can see by the advance copy of the
program that you have put together a
most interesting and diversified meeting,
and I deeply regret that I cannot be
there.

Best regards,

## OPENING REMARKS

Mr. Leslie Lulof
Chairman, South African Foreign Trade Organization

## WHY IS SOUTH AFRICA IMPORTANT?

Mr. E. F. Andrews
Vice President, Allegheny Ludlum Industries

## FINANCIAL POLICIES

Dr. Gerhard de Kock
Senior Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of South Africa

Moderator

Dr. Chris J. van Wyk
General Manager, Senbank

## LABOR RELATIONS AND RESOURCES

Mr. J. Arthur Grobbelaar
Secretary General, Trade Union Council of South Africa

Moderator

Mr. Martin C. Spring
Former Editor, Financial Gazette, Johannesburg

## LUNCHEON ADDRESS

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger

## WHAT A BLACK SOUTH AFRICAN WANTS FOR HIS PEOPLE AND COUNTRY

Honorable Lennox L. W. Sebe

Chief Minister of the Ciskei

Moderator

Mr. Richard J. P. Maponya

Soweto Business Leader

## STRATEGIES FOR ENDURING INVESTMENT

Honorable L. E. S. de Villiers

Deputy Secretary, Department of Information

Moderator

Mr. Donald E. deKieffer
Attorney, Washington, D. C.

## FILM PRESENTATION

## COCKTAIL RECEPTION

South African Airways

PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICES OF

SYDNEY S. BARON & COMPANY, INC.

540 MADISON AVENUE, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10022

212-751-7100

April 20, 1977

Honorable Henry Kissinger
Suite 520
1800 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Since leaving the Congress, I have been associated with the
above organization representing several national and multi-national
corporations. We also represent certain interests of South Africa.

In the latter regard, there are two events coming up which
could conceivably be of interest to you.

The first is a conference sponsored by the Foreign Affairs
Association of South Africa to be held in Cape Town on May 24 through
May 26. The subject of the seminar is Inter-Group Accommodation in
a Plural Society. I have been asked by the Association to extend
an invitation to you to be the guest speaker at the event.

The Association has assured me that it is prepared to pay
whatever your honorarium may be for such participation, as well as
all expenses.

The second occasion is right here in New York State - at the
Rye Hilton in Rye, Westchester County, on June 20 through June 21.
It is a two-day economic seminar sponsored by Senbank and the South
Africa Foreign Trade Organization. Here again, I have been
authorized to invite you to be the principal speaker at the event.
The subject of the conference is Trade and Investment in South Africa.
It will be an unpublicized, private meeting attended by approximately
250-300 decision-makers of U.S. corporations. Your topic would be
of your own choosing. For this event a fee of $10,000 has been
suggested plus, of course, all expenses.

CABLE ADDRESS: SYDBARON, NEW YORK

MANAGEMENT CONSULTING OFFICES OF
SYDNEY S. BARON & COMPANY, INC.

212-751-7100

May 10, 1977

Ms. Suzanne S. McFarlane
Personal Assistant
Office of Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Suite 520
1800 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006

Dear Ms. McFarlane:

Thank you for your letter of May 4th confirming
Dr. Kissinger's acceptance of our invitation to be the luncheon
speaker at the Senbank/Safto seminar on Tuesday, June 21, at the
Rye Town Hilton Inn.

This will affirm our agreement to pay Dr. Kissinger an
honorarium of $10,000, plus any travel or additional expenses he
may incur in connection with his trip from Washington to New York.

We have reserved the presidential suite at the Rye Town
Hilton for Dr. Kissinger's use, in the event he wishes to spend
the previous evening there. It is very beautiful and has an additional
bedroom for his security people as well. You may wish to inform Dr.
Kissinger that Foreign Minister Botha will be the speaker at the dinner
on June 20th and I needn't tell you how honored everyone would feel if
he could be present with us for that occasion as well.

Needless to say, we will accommodate ourselves to Dr. Kissinger's
convenience and, as we now see the program, he should be at the West-
chester Airport ready for his departure for Denver at about 2:30 in the
afternoon of the 21st.

Thank you for your gracious cooperation and consistent
courtesy. As one who is supposed to be expert in the field of communi-
cations, I must say, Ms. McFarlane, you are the best.

With kind regards,

SSB/j

International
House

500 Riverside Drive
New York, N.Y. 10027
(212) 678-5000
Cable: ALLNATIONSNYK

FOUNDED 1924

OFFICERS AND TRUSTEES

Honorary Chairman of the Board
John J. McCloy

Chairman of the Board
The Honorable
Henry A. Kissinger

Chairman, Executive Committee
John I. Howell
J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp.

President
Howard A. Cook

Vice President
Robert F. Maas

Secretary
John French
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle

Treasurer
John R.H. Blum
Richards & O'Neill

Gerald E. Barsdorf
Dubars International, Inc.

Walther Casper
Metallgesellschaft

Hays Clark
Ambassador Shelby Cullom Davis
Shelby Cullom Davis & Co.

Mrs. Daniel Davison

Christopher F. Edley
United Negro College Fund

John Elliott, Jr.
Ogilvy & Mather Inc.

James D. Farley
Citibank, N.A.

George S. Franklin
Triilateral Commission

Mrs. Haebler Frantz

Sigurdur O. Helgason
Icelandic Airlines, Inc.

Mrs. Amory Houghton, Jr.

Gilbert E. Jones
Leonard Linton
Central Resources Corp.

Mrs. Donald B. Marron

Jonathan Mason
The Japan Fund

Lawrence C. McQuade
W.R. Grade & Co.

Edmond J. Nouri
New England Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Mrs. George D. O'Neill

Harvey Picker
Columbia University

Robert W. Purcell
Rockefeller Family and Associates

*Mary Lise Rheault

Kent Rhodes
Reader's Digest Association, Inc.

Herman Rottenberg
Performing Arts Foundation

Stanley M. Rumbough, Jr.

Walter B. Shaw
Turner Construction Co.

James S. Smith
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.

*Mohammad Soleymani

Stephen Stamas
Exxon Corp.

Norton Stevens
Norlin Corp.

Robert G. Stone, Jr.
West India Shipping Co., Inc.

William M. Weaver, Jr.
Alexander Brown & Sons

Frank Wyman
Private Investor

*Student Trustees

December 15, 1977

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Chairman of the Board
International House
Suite 520
1800 K Street N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Re: Marshall Visitor Program

The Program Committee is currently seeking a Marshall
Visitor for the 1978 Academic Spring Term.

At the September meeting of the Board of Trustees you
indicated that you would like to be kept informed on this
subject and that you might be of possible assistance.

Our efforts to get Mr. Walter Cronkite have failed. I am
enclosing copies of that correspondence since it gives all
relevant information concerning the Marshall Visitor.

We are now focusing on former Vice-President Nelson A.
Rockefeller. Earlier this year right after leaving office
Mr. Rockefeller declined the invitation made by our trustee
Mr. Robert Purcell stating that various previous commitments
prevented him from accepting at that time. However, in a
private conversation with Abby O'Neill at our last board
meeting she hinted that Mr. Rockefeller is less busy now
and would most likely accept if properly invited by our
Chairman. Could we prevail upon your good offices to
make this request?

HK

House

FOUNDED 1924

OFFICERS AND TRUSTEES

Chairman of the Board
Henry A. Kissinger

President
Howard A. Cook

Vice President
Robert F. Maas

Hays Clark
Shelby Cullom Davis
Shelby Cullom Davis & Co.

Mrs. Daniel P. Davison

Christopher F. Eley
United Negro College Fund

James D. Farley
Citibank, N.A

George S. Franklin
Trilateral Commission

Mrs. Haebler Frantz

Mrs. Amory Houghton, Jr.

Mrs. Donald B. Marron

Jonathan Mason
The Japan Fund

Lawrence C. McQuade
W.R. Grace & Co.

Mrs. George D. O'Neill

Stanley M. Rumbough, Jr.

Norton Stevens
Norlin Corp.

Frank Wyman
Private Investor

*Student Trustees

November 3, 1977

Dear Mr. Cronkite,

On behalf of the Program Committee of the Board of Trustees of International House, I have the pleasure to invite you to be the Marshall Visitor for the academic year 1977-78, and to visit International House for a day or two during the period December 9 through 16, 1977.

The Marshall Visitor Program was established in 1959 to honor the memory of General George C. Marshall, who served as Chairman of the Board from 1949 to 1953, and as Honorary Chairman until his death. Each year the House invites a distinguished American to visit for part of one or two days to meet informally with students and to speak at a major function. The program aims to broaden opportunities for foreign graduate students to meet and hear creative and challenging spokesmen from various disciplines in American life and culture. Previous Marshall Visitors have included Dean Acheson, James Reston, Aaron Copland, McGeorge Bundy, Shirley Chisholm and Buckminster Fuller.

International House is a residence for 500 graduate students from thirty institutions throughout the New York area, about two-thirds of whom study at Columbia University, principally in the fields of international affairs, business, law and journalism. About 40% of our residents are American, the other 60% coming from more than 70 countries throughout the world. Our current residents have expressed particular interest in inviting you, whom they regard as dean of broadcast journalism, to talk about the impact of your profession on the conduct of foreign affairs.

Ideally, our Marshall Visitor arrives in the afternoon, meets informally with students before dinner, dines with a

The
GEORGE C. MARSHALL
VISITOR PROGRAM
of International House • New York

General George C. Marshall served as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of International House from March 1949 until July 1953, when he became Honorary Chairman, a position he held until his death in October 1959.

To International House, he brought more than the prestige of a distinguished name. He brought wisdom, insight, and understanding of the needs of young people in a changing world. In his own person he brought the outward and visible evidence that simplicity of spirit, modesty of bearing and humility of soul are the marks of true greatness. In the memories of the Trustees and members of International House, their contacts with General Marshall will live as a richly rewarding experience.

To honor General Marshall's memory and to assure that future generations of International House residents might know of his contribution to International House, the Board of Trustees in their annual meeting on November 20, 1959, voted to establish "THE GEORGE C. MARSHALL VISITOR PROGRAM".

Under this program, a Committee of the Board of Trustees will invite, once or twice a year, a distinguished scholar, author, artist, business leader or public servant to "visit" International House for one or two days. During such a stay the "Marshall Visitor" will meet informally with graduate students in his field of competence and will also speak at a major event for all 800 resident and non-resident members.

This program has been chosen in order to broaden opportunities for foreign graduate students to meet and hear creative and challenging spokesmen from various disciplines in American life and culture.

An endowment fund has been established to enable International House to defray the costs of an appropriate honorarium. All those desiring to contribute to this program in honor of General Marshall may do so by sending contributions to International House, addressed to the General Marshall Visitor Program.

INTERNATIONAL HOUSE • 500 Riverside Drive, New York 27, N.Y.

DEWEY BARTLETT
OKLAHOMA

United States Senate

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

October 5, 1977

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Center for Strategic International
Studies
1800 K Street, Northwest, Suite 520
Washington, D. C. 20006

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

On September 27, Mr. Lengacher of the Rotary Club of Tulsa extended an invitation to you to speak on November 16 or November 17 in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

I would simply like to add my personal request that this invitation be given the highest consideration. You can be sure that you will be warmly welcomed by all Oklahomans.

Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of this request.

DFB/db