Philip Lader
President

June 18, 1984

Dr. Henry Kissinger
1800 K Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Secretary Kissinger:

Last year, as you will recall, I invited you to join a diverse group of friends -- from business, government, the media, science, education, sports, religion, and the arts -- who ushered in New Year '84 at Hilton Head Island. We hope that, this year, your family can participate in this informal "Renaissance Weekend" house party, December 28th through January 1st.

As the enclosed articles relate, our Renaissance Weekend is not a conference, nor a public forum, nor a promotion:

* Over meals, golf and tennis, or beach walks, 100 families make and renew acquaintance, exchange thoughts about current issues, and relax -- a "Southern Bohemian Grove....for families," some call it.

* For example, Arthur Schlesinger, Pete DuPont, Diane Sawyer, Hodding Carter, Roger Mudd, John Jakes, Lamar Alexander, Tim Wirth, Si Bunting, Richard Viguerie, David Gergen, Rodman Rockefeller, Terry Sanford, Peter Hart, Stan Smith, Eugene Patterson, and Fritz Hollings are among those who joined us to share some leisure time and thoughts.

We would love to have you and your family as our guests at Sea Pines Plantation. Transportation arrangements would be left to you. Children are _very_ welcome!

Last year, many requested that invitations be sent earlier, so I now merely ask you to consider this occasion with your family. Please let me know if we should send you more detailed information this fall.

We would be honored to have you with us for our 1985 New Year's Renaissance Weekend!

JUN 21 1984

Rock Hill, South Carolina 29733
(803) 323-2225

[L]

SEA PINES

Renaissance
Weekend

A brain trust of “Renaissance” men and women? A Southern Bohemian Grove? A network of emerging national leaders? This, and more, was the second annual Renaissance weekend, convened at Sea Pines Plantation over the New Year’s holiday.

Some 100 families shared conversation, meals, and recreation informally and “off the record.” From Rodman Rockefeller (president of International Basic Economies Company and son of Nelson Rockefeller) and Senator (and Presidential contender) Ernest F. Hollings to Olympic figure skater and surgeon Tenley Albright and Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander, every participant sported name tags, and no one’s comments were immune to challenge.

The purposes of Renaissance Weekend, according to Philip Lader, Sea Pines Company president and receiver of the program, is “to bring together a group of diverse, innovative people who can share opinions and touch each other’s lives.”

"Because we know the importance of sharing experiences, families, spouses and children are fully included," Lader noted, "and youngsters were, indeed, much in evidence-tossing footballs, playing video games, and sitting intensely in panels discussing philanthropy, international relations, and environmental protection."

Lader noted that there are two criteria for participants: “innovative leadership in their respective field, and people one would enjoy having as house guests for the holidays.”

Amidst a warm camaraderie, the panel discussions over meals and afternoon snacks were electric. Episcopal Bishop FitzSimons Allison exclaimed that he was tired of clergy who have uncertainty about all the certainties and certainty about all the uncertainties. Georgetown University endocrinologist Estell Ramey lamented that researchers are close to raising the average human life span to 100 years, except that there is no federal funding to continue this work. She won nodding approval from the group when she observed that the greatest contribution to stress is the inability to control one's own life.

Washington attorney Cathleen Douglas, widow of Justice William O. Douglas, exchanged incisive opinions about national priorities with Ron Daniel, the managing partner of McKinsey & Company, international management consultants. A panel on "Investment Perspectives on 1983" included Merrill Lynch's chief financial officer; Dean Witter Reynolds' managing director; J.C. Bradford & Company's managing partner, and the heads of several regional investment banking firms. Cautiously optimistic, the group agreed that the United States had come as close to a financial "melt-down" in 1982 as at any time since the Depression.

Perhaps the liveliest discussion concerned "The Southern Mystique." Author John Jakes (Bicentennial series, *North and South*) moderated with little-known facts about the Civil War and Reconstruction, while homemaker Becky Fraser portrayed the traditional southern woman's perspective without intimidation. Especially touching was

the personal thank-you offered by Ervin Duggan, *Washingtonian* magazine's national editor, to Rodman Rockefeller for the many contributions his family made to this region.

Duggan's lyrical comments mesmerized the group as he observed that "The south has the potential to give capitalism a heart and to give the Republic an ideal of leadership to which to strive." Anniston (Alabama) Star publisher and syndicated columnist Brandt Ayers lamented the face of downtown Atlanta as "fingers of finance pointing impotently toward heaven" and cried for preservation of the character and face of the traditional south.

Although politicians were in abundance, no particular reverence was shown them. Jack Watson, President Carter's chief of staff and defeated gubernatorial candidate in Georgia, inspired speculation about the prospects of an urbane national figure's prospects in a southern constituency.

As any people with busy schedules, the Renaissance Weekend participants came and went freely. Joan Barone left early to produce that Sunday's "Face the Nation." Federal Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg firmly reserved the afternoons for horseback riding with her family.

As one participant observed, "New Year's is typically such an awkward holiday, but Renaissance Weekend makes it purposeful. Where else can a diverse group of national leaders, accustomed to immediate recognition and flattery, come together to learn how little they know about other fields and how important someone else's work is to the country?"

[L.C.]

CELSO LAFER

São Paulo, October 23, 1984

MR. HENRY A. KISSINGER
Suite 1021
1800 K Street, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
U S A

OCT 30 1984

Dear Mr. Kissinger,

Thank you ever so much for your letter of
October 9. It was a great pleasure to have had the
opportunity to be with you at the FIESP-CIESP meeting in São
Paulo and also in Rio at Israel's home.

May I ask you if you could send me a
copy of the speech you were scheduled to deliver in Washington
during the IMF meeting, about the debt and world order? For
me your text would be an excellent opportunity to follow up
the lines of the most stimulating discussion you prompted
here in São Paulo.

CELSO LAFER

Rua Bráulio de Mendonça Filho nº 75

01450 São Paulo

Brazil

OFFICE OF
HENRY A. KISSINGER

July 26, 1984

Dear Mr. Laingen:

Because Dr. Kissinger is out of town, he asked me to get word to you that he will do his best to combine a visit to the National Defense University with one of his trips to Washington. If someone on your staff could call me at 872-0300 I will try to coordinate it.

It is only fair to mention that the fall looks very dismal and that Dr. Kissinger is not here nearly as much as he once was. Next winter or spring would seem to be the best bet. However, I will be sure to raise it when we expect him to be here as I know he would like to do it if he can.

Suzanne S. McFarlane
Executive Assistant

Mr. L. Bruce Laingen
Vice President
National Defense University
Washington, DC 20319

3. <u>National Defense University</u> DC open

Bruce Laingen renews his invitation to speak to the combined student body of the National War College and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

Tell him I'll try ✓ Explain I am rarely in DC
per HUK via Diana

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20319

July 16, 1984

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:

Office of the Vice President

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

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We want to renew our invitation to come to the National Defense
University to speak to the combined student bodies and faculties of
our two colleges, the National War College and the Industrial College
of the Armed Forces.

We well understand the many demands on your time and energy in
the many requests of this kind that you receive. Nonetheless we would
somewhat selfishly suggest that we think our students, representing as
they do the future military leadership of the country, have a special
reason to benefit from the background and counsel in the national
security arena that you can give them.

There is an added reason in the fact that one-fourth of our
students come from civilian sectors of government, the bulk of them
from the Department of State. We like to think that they too represent
future leadership of some consequence to our national security purposes.

As you know, we are right here in the city in our little shangri-la
at Fort McNair and thus easily reached. We hope you will consider driving
over some time during the academic year that begins in August. Our
preference at the moment would be for some Wednesday morning in October
or later this year. But we will do our best to adjust our schedule to
meet yours, and if this fall is not feasible, some time after the turn
of the year would also be fine with us.

With warm personal regards.

JUL 20 1984

MELVIN R. LAIRD

Suite 212
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036

JAN 17 1984

January 16, 1984

PERSONAL

Dear Henry:

One of our mutual friends and an admirer of yours relayed to me some
very depressing and disturbing observations concerning my follow through
on your requests regarding the Sy Hersh book.

First, at your request, I did not agree to an interview with the writer
of the book.

Second, when your office called and asked me to contact the New York
Times Bureau as well as Anthony Lewis about the Lewis column reviewing
the Hersh Book -- it was immediately done. Both were informed that I
recommended and supported the Cambodia bombing and my only disagreement
was over keeping it secret. With 60,000 people involved, it was impos-
sible to keep it secret.

Third, Admiral Tom Moorer, with my concurrence, sent a letter to the
New York Times stating clearly that no operational authority was ever
issued to any Commander in South East Asia without it being signed or
initialed by me. He further stated that no target was approved outside
of the procedures set up by my office.

Fourth, the only direct contact you had with me on this issue after the
publication date of the book was a telephone call from you to me in
Daytona Beach, Florida. You will recall that you reached me at an
automobile race. I told you if you weren't satisfied with the above
actions, to have your office send a draft of the kind of letter you
wanted to my Washington office. No draft was ever received.

Personally Henry, I think you've done more to sell Sy Hersh's book than
anyone else. Your criticism of me is just not understood.

Congratulations on your Central America Committee Report -- you did a
great job. There is no problem in the Senate, but there is a very
serious problem in the House. There are 57 votes to target -- the

THE NICK THIMMESCH COLUMN

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Dist. 1/11/84)

THE OFFICIAL WHO EXPLAINED THE 'KISSINGER COMMISSION REPORT
By Nick Thimmesch

(c) 1984, Los Angeles Times Syndicate

WASHINGTON -- The "commission official" who was briefing a small gathering of journalists on the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America Report spoke with a German accent in a deep, rumbling voice. He was obviously quite skillful in conducting such sessions. Central America, until his appointment to the commission, was not one of his loves, but after four months on the job, he showed a professional's command of the issues.

The "Central American situation," meaning trouble and conflict in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, is not uppermost in the mind of the American public. But it is important, and if Lebanon ever calms down, Americans could be fired up to take political positions on U.S. policy in Central America.

Therefore, President Reagan, whose government is Hawkish in the region, appointed a 12-member commission representing a variety of viewpoints, and chaired by Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, born in Furth, Germany, but enormously famous in America, indeed, around the world.

The commission was charged to study the Central America situation, and then advise the president on what "long-term" U.S. policies would best meet the challenges of social, economic and democratic development in the region, as well as "internal and external threats to its security and stability."

That's quite an assignment for any gang of distinguished Americans, even if led by the incomparable Dr. Kissinger. His return to public life was received with mixed reviews. Those on the Far Right were suspicious. Establishment folk offered praise. Those cynical about the mess in Central America guffawed and predicted a meaningless report.

The briefer with the German accent didn't think the report was meaningless at all. He told the journalists seated around the large table in one of the National Security Council's "situation" rooms (one of three wall clocks showed Beirut time) that the analysis and recommendations displayed consensus on major issues. Thus he saw a restoration of a sense of bipartisanship in American foreign policy -- a hopeful phenomenon.

Central America's problems are managable, he explained, but would require doubling the economic assistance the United States now provides. He also made it clear that no amount of economic and social aid would succeed, until the security problem can be dealt with. That meant rebel forces must be deprived of any hope of victory, but must be given the possibility of negotiating their demands.

The commission's report included a "conditionality" clause tying U.S. aid to any troubled nation with demonstrated progress in human rights -- violated aplenty in the region by "death squads" and other thugs.

The briefing official stressed that Chairman Kissinger's "clarification" note on the conditionality clause was not authentic dissent. No, no. Dr. Kissinger and two other members who signed the note meant that they wanted Congress to understand it would be absurd, in the name of human rights, to destroy what structure there is in El Salvador and thus bring into power people with deplorable records on human rights, i.e., Marxist-Leninists.

Some journalists were a bit suspicious of the explanation, but it appeared that the briefing official prevailed.

Right-wing terrorism, the official admitted, could cause domestic support in the United States for the affected Latin nations to stop. Still, he argued, security in the region could be established at the same time such death squad terrorism was being diminished. In any case, he said, it would not be good to push Congress and the administration too far on the death squads issue.

THIMMESCH 1/11

PAGE 02

It is precisely this sort of sentiment, one which Dr. Kissinger believes in, that causes demonstrators and others to shout that Kissinger's policies bring death and destruction to innocent people. The demonstrators outside the White House last week made Kissinger their prime target. Small wonder he employs his own bodyguards who sweep ahead of him, augmented these days, by government security men.

Anyway, the commission report and Dr. Kissinger's role in it will be modestly debated in the weeks ahead. Kissinger clearly comes down on the side of the Reagan administration, which does not want to be handcuffed on the human rights issue in Central America.

Commission members agree that Kissinger was an excellent chairman, promoted discussion, refrained from imposing his own Hawkish views and laughed at himself enough to make the long sessions bearable. He succeeded in keeping two major dissenters -- AFL-CIO president Lane Kirkland and Robert Strauss, former Democratic Party chief -- in line without offending them.

Kissinger welcomed President Reagan's assignment, of course, denied he consulted with him on anything substantive during the commission's proceeding, and let it be known that he expects no more assignments and is happy to return to private life.

These days, Kissinger runs "Kissinger Associates," an international consulting firm which helped make him a very wealthy man, in fact, a multimillionaire. No doubt Kissinger would have accepted the Secretary of State's job if Reagan had proffered it in 1981. But that was an unlikely event as say, Jesse Jackson wearing a "Reagan for President" button while sitting in Nancy Reagan's lap, once occupied by Mr. "T," the TV hero.

Kissinger's reentry and exit from public life was performed in first-class fashion, and he deserves a salute for the work he did for the country which has been so good to him.

CHINA

[between the Chinese and Americans during Reagan's visit]. You may get an agreement on four-power talks at the time of the Reagan visit because of their concern. Hidden behind all this, their feeling is that the North is going to have to turn to the Soviet Union. They can't get the kind of help they need — economic and military — from China to maintain a competition position with the South.

**ON THE CHINA-U.S. RELATIONSHIP:** Good friends often have disagreements. The Chinese appreciate your being frank with them about our problems. In our good exchange with Premier Zhao Ziyang, he said: "The trouble with you is, you're treating us just like the Soviets — second class. Our relationship is not going to be a mature, long-lasting relationship if you treat us like the Soviets treat us!"

Technological exchanges is where the Chinese really have the greatest grievance now. They object to the Coordinating Committee for Export to Communist Areas outright. The COCOM hang-ups are very, very objectionable to them. These won't be abolished, but some accommodation is possible.

The Chinese are easy people to be with. They have a good sense of humour. They don't hesitate to argue. They do it fairly nicely and in an enjoyable way. They take such a very long-term view. They make you think that maybe today isn't so important.

They don't understand how our political system works. They feel our presidents take a short-term view. I explained to them, "We do live from election to election, and you talk about living from generation to generation. Our system has some drawbacks, living from election to election, but it has great benefits, too."

**ON CHINESE ARMS & TECHNOLOGY PURCHASES:** A package is being put together now in Washington. The Defence Department started working on it after [Defence Secretary] Caspar Weinberger visited China. Some technology has moved, but what they are talking about now has not been approved. There are problems with some of the items. Their "want" list is not the best from a military standpoint [because] their needs are much more basic. They have to be convinced that [a less ambitious list] is in their best long-term interest.

The Chinese have a team in Washington at the moment. There is a bit of a dispute in our government on how far the U.S. should go without getting something for it — getting a little help on Korea, for example.

Defence modernisation is important to them, but they don't expect to commit more than 18% for their national budget.

They point to the fact that since they opened China up, they believe they have incurred a $9.2 billion deficit with the U.S. They've become big buyers of American foodgrains since actual recognition in 1979. The U.S. is the third largest trading partner they have.

**ON TAIWAN AND HONG KONG:** We discussed the possibility of the Chinese moving some sophisticated aircraft down to areas near Taiwan. We pointed out that that would only escalate the demand within the U.S. to give sophisticated equipment to Taiwan. They feel that time is with them on Taiwan. They feel Taiwan can be a separate capitalist province — with an entirely different structure than any of the other Chinese provinces — and that Taiwan would not be called on to make any more contribution to the national government than the other provinces. They marvel at the industry of the Taiwan people. They recognise that the

Taiwanese are taking over control from the mainlanders.

The Chinese are confident of a British-Chinese agreement on Hongkong by this fall. They will support the present economic system in Hongkong. They support a one-China political policy and a two-China economic policy for Taiwan as well as Hongkong.

**ON CHINA'S DEVELOPMENT PLANS:** They have had several 5-year development plans. The latest 5-year plan will be completed this year. Two years ahead of time. They are very proud of this. They say the four principal objectives in the most recent plan have been, first, to open China to the World; political reform is second; economic reform is third; and fourth is the development and improvement of their educational system. The Chinese are pleased with improvements resulting from their opening up. They are very proud of their international favourable monetary balances. They like to say: "You people from the U.S. must understand that we are not only the largest developing country but the only developing country with a balance. We have time. We are accelerating our development program, but we're not accelerating to the point where we're going to be a big debtor."

**ON CHINA & VIETNAM:** I asked them: "Were you satisfied with your military operations in Vietnam?" They defended it absolutely: it was a limited operation, they knew how many men they were going to use; it was an exercise of proper power and was very successful. I went back to the Vietnam War years and asked them: "Do you have any regrets about helping to put all that Soviet equipment in there?" But they didn't express regrets. They shake their heads and say: "We understand."

We also discussed the Soviet presence in Cam Ranh Bay at some length. The Soviet carrier [Novorossiysk] was there when we were meeting. They were concerned about the movement of the Soviet Navy to this very capable naval base. It gives the Soviets a tremendous port with a greater capability than anybody else has in the area. You get the sense that they have a feeling of being surrounded by the Soviets on all fronts.

**ON CHINA & AFGHANISTAN:** The discussion leaders wanted to know why the U.S. couldn't give more support to the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. We discussed what Pakistan was doing and how the Soviet Union was exerting tremendous pressure on Pakistan. They went into the help they were giving the 3 million refugees in Pakistan. They discussed the 500,000 refugees they have just north of the Vietnam border. They didn't want to talk about any help they were giving to the "Afghan freedom fighters."

**ON AMERICA'S WEST ASIA POLICY:** They are very critical of our Middle East Policy, probably more critical of us in the Middle East than in any other place in the world. First, they think we are handing the Soviet Union an opportunity for expansion in that area at a very low cost. Here again they have no understanding of our domestic political problems.

**ON THE REAGAN VISIT:** It will be a significant visit. The Chinese are going to be very critical of the fact that in some trade categories we still list them as a hostile country. In the past eighteen months 33 Chinese products have been placed under restriction that are not under restriction from South Korea or Taiwan. This will be on the front burner during President Reagan's visit in April.

ASIAWEEK, APRIL 6, 1984

17

MELVIN R. LAIRD

August 13, 1984

Dear Henry:

I do not have a copy of Seymour Hersh's book anywhere in my office. I was going to go out and buy a copy of the book but thought differently when I saw what the price was.

I have been meaning to respond to your telephone call asking me about the bombing order received from the President at the time of the Jordanian crises. I believe Mr. Hersh must have this confused with the bombing order which was received from the President at the time of the airline hijacking a year earlier. You, I believe, are familiar with that fiasco and the manner in which I handled it.

Personally Henry, I think you are a bit paranoid about that Seymour Hersh book. Earlier I got Tom Moorer to write a letter to the editor, and at the request of your office, I called Tony Lewis. If I were to contact you on all of the quotes of your subordinates on which they insisted that you referred to me regularly as a crook, I would not only have lost what little hair I have left, but it would have turned gray!

If you really insist that I purchase a copy of the book so that I can give you page numbers and so forth, I will be glad to do so, but I don't think that that is very important.

With best wishes and kindest personal regards, I am

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

P.S.: The interview which I supposedly had with Seymour Hersh which you referred to over the telephone was not a very well structured affair. I was riding on the Eastern Shuttle and he bounced down in the seat next to me. That must have been at least two years ago. I don't think too much substance was discussed. As a matter of fact, Seymour did all the talking.

AUG 14 1984

Dear Mel:

I wasn't entirely wrong in making the inquiry, I just wanted to find out what the facts were. The reason being was I had to give a deposition responding to Hersh's veracity in Desai's libel suit. If you want, I will, in those words of our erstwhile leader, state flatly that you are not a crook--no matter what my associates may say.

Seriously, whatever comments I make about you are done with affection and respect.

The Honorable
Melvin Laird

The London Summit: June 1984. Some thoughts on matters which
might arise

The "sherpas" who prepare the Summits will now be looking for
topics for the "Summiteers"; and will probably follow the
established pattern of preparing an economic path and,
separately, a security or foreign policy path.

Among the economic issues will be (again) European and Japanese
concern with the US budget deficit and high interest rates:
this concern reflects a difference, or a misunderstanding, with
the United States. The Summit should try to remove this
difference since, if ignored, it will militate against any
attempt to work together in other economic fields, for example,
improving the developing countries' trade and payments.

Such economic issues cannot, however, be successfully treated
on their own merits outside the foreign policy context. The
Summit brings together eight world leaders essentially to
discuss the relationships among seven countries and the
European Community, and between these eight and the rest of the
World: these are all external relationships and hence matters
of foreign policy. If this context were accepted, the leaders
would be better placed to discuss how far security interests
should influence economic policy: for example, they might
consider (as I hope they will) whether the political volcano in
the Middle East might again erupt and threaten oil supplies and
the smooth flow of trade.

If the Summit goes on from this subject to concern itself with
the geo-politics of Western energy supply, they will know that
there is no understanding among them that a dialogue with
producers is superior to bilateral deals concluded under
duress; or that diplomacy without force will suffice during any
future oil supply crisis. There is increasing emphasis on the
use of military means to solve political problems, an

insistence that international issues must be treated as part of
the superpower confrontation, and particularly in Washington by
the present US Government, perception everywhere of a threat
from "international communism". Such an approach does away
with any need to think about greater subtleties in policy
formulation and execution.

The increasing willingness to countenance the use of force
short of all out war is consequently evolving without an agreed
policy for the promotion and protection of Western petroleum
supply interests, bearing in mind that petroleum is the most
importantly strategic commodity in international trade and the
most politically divisive.

Petroleum Supply

The Western world's principal store of energy still lies under
the Arabian Desert. While the non-OPEC producers in the World
outside the Communist Areas (WOCA) are working to capacity,
which cannot be increased, with known recoverable reserves of
around 70 billion barrels, the OPEC countries have known
recoverable reserves of over 500 billion barrels with current
production of around 60% of capacity. Seventy-five per cent of
these reserves are in Arabia, Iran, Iraq and the Gulf States
which currently, during a recession, provide 25% of WOCA's
crude oil requirements. In "pre-recession" years up to 45% was
provided; and who can say that such a demand will not recur?
Prudent policy-making would demand that the consumers plan for
such dependence. For example, the growth rate of an average of
1.3% per annum in WOCA oil consumption during the past ten
years (four years of recession notwithstanding) would bring
this consumption back to the 1979 peak of 51.585 million
barrels a day by 1991. A cautionary word might also be said
about basing oil demand on the recent and short-term phenomenon
that energy demand does not match economic growth on a 1:1

-2-

basis: it might well do so again when the world comes out of
its current recession. Any additional oil required by WOCA has
to come essentially from the Gulf area and this oil has to pass
through the Straits of Hormuz: currently 57% of OPEC oil
exports do so, 87% of oil exports from the Gulf States.

The Western world as a whole adds less year by year to its
proven reserves of oil. In the 1960's, 360 billion barrels
were added; in the 1970's 270 billion barrels; a further
substantial decline is expected for the 1980's. Since the
early 1970's the world's annual production of crude oil has
exceeded discoveries, resulting in a reduction of proven
reserves. In a study presented to the World Petroleum Congress
in London in September 1983, the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) assessed recoverable world reserves of
conventional crude oil at 1718 billion barrels. If 1982 world
production of crude oil of 20.516 billion barrels set the
annual production level and no new reserves were found, the
World has a notional oil supply for 85 years. These estimates
are on the high side when compared with the "published proved"
reserves of 677 billion barrels quoted in BP's Statistical
Review of World Energy 1982, which, when set against world oil
production in 1982 suggests sufficient oil to meet world
requirements for 33 years. The lastest estimates (as at
31 December 1983) published in the Oil and Gas Journal of
27 December 1983, are lower. World estimated proved reserves
are quoted at 669 billion barrels, WOCA reserves at 584 billion
barrels of which 448 billion are in OPEC countries and
396 billion in OAPEC countries, giving OPEC 76% of WOCA
reserves and the OAPEC countries of Arabia and the Gulf 68%.
If the WOCA were denied access to OPEC oil, the non-OPEC
reserves would last for 7 years.

I come now to an assertion of United States policy to which
NATO and the Summit might pay attention. In the United States
National Energy Policy Plan, presented to Congress in October
1983, the following statement is made:

- 3 -

"the overriding concern of our allies to reduce their dependence on imported oil has led to growing reliance on natural gas from the Soviet Union, a new source of vulnerability and concern to our collective energy security and to fundamental US national security interests. Accordingly, a principal concern of this Administration's international energy policy involves national security interests and the importance of cooperative efforts to find secure and economic alternatives to increased Western (European) reliance on insecure and prospectively uneconomic Soviet supplies."

Now what does this mean? My interpretation starts with the explicit assumption by the USG elsewhere in its National Energy Policy Plan that its energy security will not be seriously impaired by an interruption in crude oil supplies from Arabia and the Gulf but that of Japan and its Western European allies will be. The US Government sees this problem in East-West terms and its first objective is to stop Western Europe insuring with the Soviet Government against the possibility of interruptions or reductions in crude oil supplies from the Middle East. It may also be concerned, but has never clearly articulated this concern, that the Soviet Government might reach a level in its supply of gas to Western Europe which would permit it to hold Western Europe hostage for the good behaviour of the US Government (in some superpower confrontation) by threatening to cut off the gas supply if the Western European Governments did not use their best efforts to persuade the USG to see (Soviet) reason.

If the USG is successful in containing Soviet supplies of gas to Western Europe, the latter will in time be able to supplement these supplies with Norwegian gas, but only to a point beyond which it continues to be reliant upon the major store of energy in the Middle East. It therefore becomes necessary for the USG to ensure that this store is always open

- 4 -

to its allies. As President Reagan said on 20 December 1983 when defending his policy of sending US Marines to Lebanon, "The Middle East area is important for our Allies".

The US Government has therefore assumed an onerous responsibility; is it pursuing the correct policy for discharging it?

This question can best be discussed confidentially in NATO and at the Summit. Disappointingly, at the Ministerial level, Nato has paid little attention to energy security. The appointment of Lord Carrington as Secretary-General of NATO provides an ideal opportunity to promote NATO consideration of Western energy supply in the context of the geo-political considerations which were once and only recently regarded as falling outside the NATO area. The creation by some NATO members of Rapid Deployment Forces for action outside the treaty area has made urgent the consideration by the Alliance and at the Summit of the effect upon their members' economic and industrial fortunes of an interruption in energy supplies from the Gulf consequent upon the employment of those Forces in that region. Put another way, it is urgently necessary for the Alliance to consider, formulate and execute policies that will secure energy supply without resort to military force.

Nato and the Summit might also consider Arab and Soviet reaction to US/Allied military intervention in the Middle East/Gulf.

If the US Government were to give assurances of support to Iraq, the confusion surrounding US policy in the Middle East would not only be worse confounded but would also further reduce the political cohesion of the Arab States. Syria, already engaged in Lebanon in support of Muslim and Druze factions and helping Iran in its war with Iraq, would receive confirmation of US hostility towards it.

- 5 -

Egypt, the USA's Arab ally, placed in an impossible position by the US-Israeli accord of November 1983, which has finally destroyed the Camp David "peace process" to which Egypt had committed itself in isolation and estrangement from the Arab world, would view with horror the prospect of providing bases for American attacks on Syria. Saudi Arabia, while not an ally of the USA, has come to depend on the USA for military support (eg AWACS) and encouragement, in exchange for which the Saudi Government has tried to play a moderating role in OPEC whilst also expecting some USG recognition of the wider role Saudi Arabia would like, and has tried, to play in the Middle East despite the slowness, hesitancy and apparent failure of Saudi diplomacy. The equation of wealth with power does not apply in the Arab world where wealth brings influence but not power: this comes more from the resources of manpower and materiel: Saudi Arabia does not have the men or the firepower. Iran has these essential resources, Iraq did and could have them again in the Arab context, once its war with Iran is over; and so do Egypt and Syria. Outside these four - Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria - the other Arab States do not have individual power or influence; but they would be unable to stand aside from the conflict. They could support Syria (as would Libya, which, unfortunately for the containment of any conflict, the United States Government would like to cut down to size) or Iraq (to whose side might rally the Gulf and Maghreb countries, more frightened of Iranian Shia fundamentalism that the Baath revolution preached from Baghdad), or they could try to stop the conflict by use of the oil weapon and a trade boycott against the USA and its Allies.

An oil and trade embargo by the OAPEC (Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries) and GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) countries, who signed a cooperation agreement on 26 December 1983 and who now become major players on the Middle East stage, would seriously harm the Western economies, except for the USA: a partial palliative to oil supply problems would

- 6 -

be the sharing arrangements devised by the International Energy Agency (IEA) but the damage to visible and invisible trade would be absolute. The OAPEC/GCC countries could then act in the way the US Government has feared the Soviet Union might act over gas supplies to Western Europe: they might hold Western Europe hostage for the good behaviour of the United States Government by withholding supplies of oil until the US Government's allies have persuaded their principal partner to withdraw from the Middle East. It would be at this juncture of events that the Soviet Union could make the most effective use, in its interests, of its gas trade relationship with Western Europe: if, at that time, it attached more importance to its relations with the Arabs than with the West Europeans, it could support the Arab oil embargo by threatening a gas embargo; or, if Western Europe were uppermost in Soviet thoughts, it could assure a relieved Western Europe that its gas supply would be at least maintained and that supplies of oil would also be available. Such Soviet concern for Europe's well-being would make little difference to the energy supply situation; but to present itself as an economic friend of Western Europe at a time when the latter was faced by economic disruption could bring it political kudos and might even divide the Alliance. In the Middle East, the Soviet Union would have the pleasure of seeing the USA and its allies embroiled in limited, but pointless, military success but unable to restore the full and free flow of oil out of Arabia, Iran, Iraq and the Gulf without Soviet cooperation. One must assume that, given its geographical and therefore logistical advantage, the Soviet Union would exploit the situation politically to secure its participation in super-power diplomacy in the Middle East.

The access of Western Europe and Japan to their major long-term store of energy in Arabia and the Gulf is dictated not by their policies but by that of the United States of America. All these countries, except France, are represented in the IEA; but the charter of the IEA is virtually restricted to considerations of supply in an emergency; it has no mandate to

- 7 -

CHAIRMAN
DR. HENRY A. KISSINGER

COMMISSION MEMBERS:
MR. NICHOLAS F. BRADY
MAYOR HENRY G. CISNEROS
GOV. WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, JR.
DR. CARLOS F. DIAZ-ALEJANDRO
MR. WILSON S. JOHNSON
MR. LANE KIRKLAND
MR. RICHARD M. SCAMMON
DR. JOHN SILBER
JUSTICE POTTER STEWART
AMB. ROBERT S. STRAUSS
DR. WILLIAM B. WALSH

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AMB. HARRY W. SHLAUDEMAN

THE NATIONAL BIPARTISAN COMMISSION
ON CENTRAL AMERICA

SENIOR COUNSELLORS:
REP. MICHAEL D. BARNES
SEN. LLOYD BENTSEN
REP. WILLIAM S. BROOMFIELD
SEN. PETE V. DOMENICI
SEN. DANIEL K. INOUYE
REP. JACK F. KEMP
AMB. JEANE KIRKPATRICK
MR. WINSTON LORD
SEN. CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS
MR. WILLIAM D. ROGERS
REP. JAMES C. WRIGHT

January 27, 1984

Honorable Robert Lamb
Assistant Secretary for Administration
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Lamb:

On behalf of the members of the National Bipartisan
Commission on Central America, I want to express our appre-
ciation for the professional assistance rendered by Arthur R.
Young and Albert A. Whiting during our trips through Central
America, Mexico, and Venezuela.

Their efficient and professional handling of all
translating equipment necessary to support the Commission needs
genuinely impressed the Commission and foreign dignitaries.
Their assistance contributed greatly to the success of our
mission.

2201 C STREET NW., ROOM 1004, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20520, TEL: (202) 632-7804

DR. JUR. OTTO GRAF LAMBSDORFF
BUNDESMINISTER FÜR WIRTSCHAFT

December 23, 1983

JAN 17 1984

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger
Suite 1100,
55 East Fifty-Second Street
New York, N.Y. 10055
U.S.A.

Dear Henry:

I was deeply moved by the kind words in your letter of
December 7, 1983. A good conscience and the broad support
of all my friends and colleagues here and abroad has helped
me in my decision not to resign but to carry on.

I shall be in New York from February 24 through 28. Perhaps
we'll have the opportunity to meet; in any case I'd like to
thank you and Nancy for your kind "conditioned" invitation.

Alexandra joins me in wishing you and your wife a happy new
year.

With best regards,
Yours,

TRANSLATION - jw - 11/6/84

Bonn, 27 June 1984

Dear Henry:

You will have read that I am resigning from my post as
Economics Minister as the court is now certainly beginning
proceedings. Remembering your particularly friendly encouragement
during our breakfast in Washington, I am enclosing the statement
I submitted.

My wife joins me in sending you and Nancy warm regards. I have
one or two difficult years ahead of me, through which I will
fight my way.

[Y]

Bonn, 27 June 1984

I

My counsel has informed me that the Bonn Regional Court is permitting the charge raised against me by the Director of Public Prosecutions to go to trial. I have therefore submitted my resignation as Economics Minister to the Chancellor on Tuesday evening. The Chancellor will accept my request.

II

The charge against me is well known. It remains to be seen whether it goes unchanged before the court. I stand by my statement that I gave on 20 December 1983: this charge is not valid. It is thoroughly unfounded. I also have nothing to retract from the words I spoke back in November 1982 in my district: since assuming the post of Economics Minister, I have not received, procured nor requested a single Mark from the Flick firm. I am of clear conscience and innocent in this matter.

There will be an extensive opportunity to substantiate and support my stand in the upcoming trial before the Bonn Regional Court. I am therefore looking forward to the trial with the clear expectation that my innocence concerning the aspects of the charge will come to light.

III

I feel that continuation of my work as Minister during a trial is neither politically possible nor justifiably practical. The ministerial post and the work of the ministry entrusted to me would suffer, and my own effectiveness would be cast in doubt. As before, however, I consider it right to remain in my post until the court's decision on the start of the trial. I am now bearing the consequences of the Bonn magistrates' decision.

IV

After almost seven years, I am certainly not leaving the Economics Ministry without misgivings. All of the goals which we mutually established have not yet been attained. But the departure frees energy for work in other places in our country and also for work in my party.

My stepping down as Minister does not mean a withdrawal from politics nor a resignation. I am continuing my work as a representative in the German Bundestag, in the chairmanship of the Free Democratic Party and as Deputy Chairman of the FDP Regional Federation in Nordrhein-Westfalen. I will strive to fulfill these tasks even more intensively than before.

-2-

V

I will support my successor as Economics Minister in his
efforts towards better employment in our country, towards steady
economic growth and towards the expansion of the free-market
system to the best of my ability.

VI

I thank today all the people who helped me in the past and who
proved their confidence in me in difficult hours. You have
given me strength which I will also need in the future.

[Lc]

DR. JUR. OTTO GRAF LAMBSDORFF
BUNDESMINISTER FOR WIRTSCHAFT

Bonn, den 27. Juni 1984

Herrn
Dr. Henry Kissinger
435 East
52nd Street
New York, N.Y.

Lieber Herr,

Sie werden gelesen haben, daß ich von meinem Amt als Bundeswirtschaftsminister zurückgetreten bin, weil das Gericht nun doch das Verfahren eröffnet. Ich schicke Ihnen meine dazu abgegebene Erklärung in Erinnerung an Ihren besonders freundschaftlichen Zuspruch während unseres gemeinsamen Frühstücks in Washington.

Herzliche Grüße an Nancy und Sie, denen sich meine Frau anschließt. Ich habe ein oder zwei schwere Jahre vor mir, durch die ich mich durchkämpfen werde.

Herzliche Grüße
Ihr
Udo

[L]

DR. JUR. OTTO GRAF LAMBDORFF

BUNDESMINISTER FÜR Wirtschaft

Bonn, den 27. Juni 1984

I.

Mein Verteidiger hat mich unterrichtet, dass das Landgericht Bonn die gegen mich von der Staatsanwaltschaft erhobene Anklage zur Hauptverhandlung zulassen wird. Ich habe daraufhin Dienstag abend dem Bundeskanzler mein Rücktrittsgesuch als Bundesminister für Wirtschaft eingereicht. Der Bundeskanzler wird meinem Gesuch entsprechen.

II.

Die Anklage gegen mich ist bekannt. Ob sie unverändert vom Gericht zugelassen wird, ist abzuwarten. Ich bleibe bei meiner Erklärung, die ich am 20. Dezember 1983 angegeben habe: Diese Anklage ist nicht stichhaltig. Sie ist insgesamt unbegründet. Ich habe auch nichts von den Worten zurückzunehmen, die ich schon im November 1982 in meinem Wahlkreis ausgesprochen und dort am 14. Juni dieses Jahres wiederholt habe: Seit meinem Amtsantritt als Bundesminister für Wirtschaft habe ich keine einzige Mark von der Firma Flick erhalten, vermittelt oder angefordert. Ich bin in dieser Sache guten Gewissens und unschuldig.

In der bevorstehenden Hauptverhandlung vor dem Bonner Landgericht wird ausreichend Gelegenheit seien, dies öffentlich zu belegen und zu begründen. Ich sehe der Hauptverhandlung daher mit der sicheren Erwartung entgegen, dass sich meine Schuldlosigkeit gegenüber den Vorwürfen der Anklage herausstehen wird.

III.

Ich halte die Fortsetzung der Arbeit als Bundesminister während einer gerichtlichen Hauptverhandlung weder für politisch möglich noch für sachlich vertretbar. Das Amt des Ministers und die Arbeit des mir anvertrauten Ministeriums würden Schaden leiden, meine eigene Wirksamkeit wäre infrage gestellt. Unverändert halte ich es jedoch

- 2 -

[LC]

für richtig, bis zum Gerichtsentscheid über die Eröffnung der
Hauptverhandlung in meinem Amt geblieben zu sein. Jetzt ziehe
ich meine Konsequenzen aus dem Beschluss der Bonner Richter.

IV.

Nach Fast sieben Jahren verlasse ich das Bundeswirtschaftsministerium
gewiss nicht leichten Herzens. Nicht alle Ziele, die wir uns ge-
meinsam gesetzt hatten, sind schon erreicht. Aber der Abschied
setzt Kräfte frei für die Arbeit an anderer Stelle in unserem
Staat, auch für die Arbeit in meiner Partei.

Der Rücktritt als Minister bedeutete keinen Rückzug aus der Politik
und keine Resignation. Ich behalte meine Aufgaben als Abgeordneter
im Deutschen Bundestag, im Präsidentium der Freien Demokratischen
Partei, als stellvertretender Vorsitzender des F.D.P.-Landesverbandes
Nordrhein-Westfalen. Ich werde diese Aufgaben noch intensiver
als bisher zu erfüllen versuchen.

V.

Den Nachfolger im Amt des Bundeswirtschaftsministers werde ich in
seinen Anstrengungen um bessere Beschäftigung in unserem Land, um
stetiges wirtschaftliches Wachstum um den Ausbau der marktwirt-
schaftlichen Ordnung nach bestem Wissenmögen unterstützen.

VI.

Ich danke an diesem Tage allem, who mir in den vergangenen Jahren
geholfen und mir auch in schweren Kunden ihr Vertrauen gezeigt
haben. Sie haben mir Kraft gegeben, die ich auch in Zukunft brauchen
werde.

TRANSLATION - jw - 8/7/84

23 July 1984

Dear Henry:

Many thanks for your letter of July 11th which greatly pleased
my wife and me. I am really impressed by the display of
friendship which I have experienced in recent days just from
several Americans. That is a gratifying result of my years
of work towards German-American cooperation.

I will now devote all my energy to settling the charges raised
against me. I am convinced that I will be successful;
unfortunately I cannot begin to guess how long this will take.

Whenever I come to the USA, I will be in touch.

Warm regards, also to Nancy.

Otto (Lambsdorff)

Dr. Otto Graf Lambsdorff
Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages

5300 Bonn 1, 23.7.1984
Bundeshaus
Tel. (0228) 16 76 40 / 16 77 61

Die Wahl dieser Rufnummer vermittelt den gewünschten Hausanschluß.
Kommt ein Anschluß nicht zustande, bitte
Nr. 161 (Bundeshaus-Vermittlung) anrufen.

Herrn
Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Suite 1100
55 East Fifty-Second Street
New York 10055

Lieber Henry,

vielen Dank für Ihren Brief vom 11. Juli über den meine
Frau und ich uns sehr gefreut haben. Ich bin überhaupt
sehr beeindruckt von der Bekundung der Freundschaft, die
ich gerade von vielen Amerikanern in diesen Tagen erfahren
habe. Das ist ein erfreuliches Ergebnis meiner jahrelangen
Bemühungen um die deutsch-amerikanische Zusammenarbeit.

Ich werde mich jetzt mit voller Kraft der Klärung der gegen mich erhobenen Vorwürfe widmen. Ich bin überzeugt davon, daß mir dies gelingt, nur kann ich den zeitlichen Ablauf leider sehr schwer einschätzen.

Wann immer ich nach USA komme, werde ich mich melden.

Herzliche Grüße, bitte auch an Nancy
Ihr

AUG 7 1984

ROBERT BOSCH INTERNATIONALE BETEILIGUNGEN AG

HOHLSTRASSE 186-188 · CH-8021 ZÜRICH
TELEFON (01) 44 01 33 · TELEX 5 72 34

Präsident
des Verwaltungsrats

September 3, 1984

To the
Members of the Advisory Committee
of Robert Bosch Internationale Beteiligungen AG

SEP 07 1984

Dear Sirs,

I wish to inform you of a change in the membership of the

Advisory Committee
of Robert Bosch Internationale Beteiligungen AG (RBINT).

As Dr. Marcus Bierich has taken the chair of the Board of Management of Robert Bosch GmbH he will shortly be elected as a member of the Board of Directors of Robert Bosch Internationale Beteiligungen AG. He will then cease to be a member of the Advisory Committee of the Company.

The Board of RBINT has decided to appoint Dr. jur. Otto Graf Lambsdorff as his successor on the Advisory Committee. Graf Lambsdorff, as you know, recently resigned as Minister for Economic Affairs in the German Federal Government in order to give his full attention to the defence against the charges which he is facing. His advice, being based in many years of experience especially in the field of international economic affairs, will be of great value to us. I am therefore very glad that Graf Lambsdorff has accepted my invitation to join our Committee.

TRANSLATION - jw - 10/25/84

17 October 1984

Dear Henry:

Many thanks for your note of 24 September 1984.

I was pleased by Dr. Merkle's invitation as well because it
gives us a regular opportunity to see one another again.

I look forward to it, and again my thanks for your welcoming
greetings.