316 Burke Avenue
Harvey, North Dakota 58341

June 17, 1972

Mr. Henry Kissinger
Advisor to the President
The White House
Washington, District of Columbia 20510

Dear Mr. Kissinger;

As a United State's history teacher, the most difficult question I am asked is "Why do we have to study history?" For two years I have given my reasons why we should study history and some of my students have accepted these reasons; some have not. Perhaps what I need is some fresh testimonial support. How would you answer the question: "Why should all students in the United States study its history?"

Any assistance you can give me in answering this question for my students will be greatly appreciated. You have our thanks in advance.

November 7, 1972

Henry Kissinger
c/o The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

Just one question, and please the whole truth and nothing but
the truth-- Is it really you, I mean all of you.

P.S. I would appreciate receiving a answer,
we just can't believe it.

AMERICAN AUTHORS TODAY

A State-by-State Series of Fifty Volumes Covering the Authors of the United States

Hon. General Editor: Geoffrey Handley-Taylor, Ph.D., F.R.S.L.,

2 Greycoat Place, London SW1P 1SB, England

Following upon the successful publication of County Authors Today (a series of twenty volumes covering the whole of the United Kingdom) the Directors and Editors of Eddison Press Ltd., of London, England, have decided to launch, in 1972, a far more ambitious programme, AMERICAN AUTHORS TODAY, a series of fifty volumes - one for each State (or Commonwealth) of the United States of America. Eddison Press specialises in reference books about authors.

You, of course, qualify for inclusion in one or more volumes of AMERICAN AUTHORS TODAY and you are asked, when returning the questionnaire overleaf, kindly to indicate in the panel on the back page the State in which you (a) were born; (b) are now residing; and (c) are now working. By so doing you will enable the Editors to include your listing in the appropriate volume(s) of this essential reference series.

Each title in this Series will include the name of the State concerned, e.g. DELAWARE AUTHORS TODAY - American Authors Today Series. Each volume will be divided into four sections: (a) authors born in the State concerned and still residing there; (b) authors born in the State concerned but now residing or working elsewhere in the United States of America; (c) authors born in the State concerned and now residing abroad; (d) authors residing or working in the State concerned who were born elsewhere. Birthplaces are indicated along with dates of birth, major occupations, honours awarded, academic or other qualifications, pseudonyms (with appropriate cross-references), major works, etc., and full postal addresses.

Thus, an author born in Delaware, residing in Connecticut, and working in New York would be listed in three separate titles. Such cross-listing will prove extremely helpful to librarians, newspaper staffs, literary agents, publishers, etc.

This reference series, which we hope to make the most comprehensive ever published, will be issued in fine gilt-lettered cloth bindings at the modest price of US$15 per copy (with a special pre-publication offer of only US$10 per copy, postage and packing included, for authors detailed in the text).

Should you wish to take advantage of this pre-publication concession, will you kindly complete the Order Form on the back page, noting carefully which volume(s) you require? In any event, I will be most grateful if you will kindly let me have your completed questionnaire within twenty-one days of receipt in order that your entry can be processed. It will be particularly helpful, in completing the questionnaire, if you will mark the 'coding' list which appears at the top of Page 3.

It is intended that each volume of AMERICAN AUTHORS TODAY will be dedicated to the Governor of the State concerned and, after editorial use, Questionnaires and other documents will be placed in State Archives where they will remain for all time.

Yours very truly,

Hon. General Editor.

Final date for receipt of your questionnaire:

5 JUL 1972

By the same Editor:

John Masefield Bibliography; C. Day Lewis Bibliography, Winifred Holtby Bibliography; Bibliography of Iran; Bibliography of Monaco; Book of the Private Press; Literary, Debating and Dialect Societies of Great Britain, Ireland and France; Selected Letters of Winifred Holtby and Vera Brittain (1920-1935) (Academic Reprints); County Authors Today Series, etc.

Author questionnaire

In order to assist the Hon. General Editor in preparing your entry it
will be much appreciated if you will kindly complete the following questionnaire
and return it to the publishers as soon as possible. If you wish to add any
further appropriate notes on a separate sheet of paper such notes will be
welcomed. It will be helpful if you type or write your answers clearly.

SURNAME:

OTHER NAMES:

PLACE OF BIRTH: (please state name of city, town, or village, plus State or country outside the U.S.A.):

DATE OF BIRTH:

MAIN PROFESSION:

PSEUDONYMS (where applicable):

HONOURS, PRIZES, etc., awarded to you (with dates of awards(s))

ACADEMIC OR OTHER QUALIFICATIONS:

[L]

## Code numbering

Please tick any of the publications noted below which contain your biographical note or special mention of your literary activities. The information will be coded at the end of your published entry.

1. Who's Who in America
2. Dictionary of International Biography

3. Who's Who of American Women

4. Who's Who in the East

5. Who's Who in the West

6. Who's Who in the South and Southwest

7. Who's Who in the Midwest

8. Author's & Writer's Who's Who

9. Writers Directory

10. Contemporary Authors

11. International Who's Who in Poetry

12. International Who's Who

Please list below any other biographical reference works in which you are included:

Memberships of literary societies (with any offices held):

Major books published (with dates):

Your official address (for publication):

Signature ...................

It may not prove practical to include ALL the information given in answer to this questionnaire in the published work, but in all cases, information not immediately used will be of great value to the archives.

Pre-Publication
Order Form

TO: American Authors Today,
2 Greycoat Place,
London SW1P 1SB,
England.

Please supply immediately upon
publication ...... copy/copies
of the volumes in AMERICAN
AUTHORS TODAY numbered ........
in which I am listed.

(a) I enclose remittance for
US$10 *per copy* at the special
pre-publication subscription
price, with postage and
packing fully included;

or

(b) When the volumes of the American Authors Today Series (containing my own biography) are published, bill me and I will remit the sum of $15 *per copy*, entitling me to receive these volumes with the special concession of postage and careful packing fully paid.

Name and Address to which the
volume(s) are to be despatched:-

NAME:

ADDRESS:

As an entrant you are also
entitled to special concessionary
rates for volumes in which you
are not listed, details of which
will be given on request.

Date ........................

State Register

YOUR BIOGRAPHY WILL BE INCLUDED IN EACH OF
THE APPROPRIATE VOLUMES

<table><thead><tr><th>State No.</th><th>Name</th><th>I was born in</th><th>I now reside in</th><th>I now work in</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Alabama</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Alaska</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Arizona</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Arkansas</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>California</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Colorado</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Connecticut</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Delaware</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Florida</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Georgia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Hawaii</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Idaho</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Illinois</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Indiana</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Iowa</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Kansas</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Kentucky</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Louisiana</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Maine</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Maryland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Massachusetts</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Michigan</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Minnesota</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Mississippi</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Missouri</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Montana</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Nebraska</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Nevada</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>New Hampshire</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>New Jersey</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>New Mexico</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>New York</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>North Carolina</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>North Dakota</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>Ohio</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Oklahoma</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>Oregon</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>Pennsylvania</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>Rhode Island</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>South Carolina</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>South Dakota</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Tennessee</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>Texas</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>Utah</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Vermont</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Virginia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>Washington</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>West Virginia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Wisconsin</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>Wyoming</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="2">IF YOU WERE BORN, NOW RESIDE IN OR NOW WORK IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AN AMERICAN TERRITORY OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY, PLEASE INDICATE ALONGSIDE.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tfoot></table>

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

November 8, 1973

Dear Henry:

As you may have recently learned, I
have decided to return to private life
and effective November 11, I am assuming
a position with Marriott Corporation.

I wanted to write you a couple of lines
to thank you for our association and
express my conviction that the Nation's
best interests are being served by this
Administration.

I have received great personal satisfaction from this experience and will never forget the high caliber of men and women who have worked together for honorable goals.

It has been an honor to work with you in
serving our country and its President.

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

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

November 2, 1972

PETER:

I've spared you as much of this kind of work as
possible. I just don't know what is to be done
with these letters and wires regarding the
Harvard Lampoon and, toward the back of this
package, one letter on the Ashman book.

At the very back is something from Hugh
Morrow, the disposition of which I leave
to your discretion. I think it shouldn't go
anywhere in its present form, but where it
should go and how is up to you.

Thank you.

Julie

104456

[10]

Peter

The White House

Washington

1972

OCT 15

AM 9 37

RECEIVED
KISSINGER'S OFFICE

WHD025 WAD044(1537)(1-007728A289003)PD 10/15/72 1533

ICS IPMTBXH MTWN

ZCZC 02922 A 6173545150 NL PD 8 EXTRA TDMT CAMBRIDGE MASS 15

PMS HENRY KISSINGER, DLR REPORT DELIVERY

1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WASHINGTON DC

DEAR HANK, HAVE JUST RECEIVED OUR FIRST COPIES OF COSMOPOLITAN, YOU
LOOK GREAT/ THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATION AT PHOTO SESSION. HOPE
YOU CAN ATTEND PRESS DEBUTE AND PARTY THIS AFTERNOON. REGARDING
CONTRACT DISPUTE, STOP BY FOR NEGOTIATIONS AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
HEARD THE GOOD NEWS FROM HOLLYWOOD, BEST OF LUCK ON YOUR NEW
CAREER.
ERIC RAYMAN PRESIDENT HARVARD LAMPOON 44 BOW ST CAMBRIDGE MASS

44

FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. S. A.

44

ERIC RAYMAN PRESIDENT HARVARD LAMPOON 44 BOW 21 CAMBRIDGE MA22
CAREER.

HEARD THE GOOD NEWS FROM HOLLYWOOD. BEST OF LUCK ON YOUR NEW
CONTRACT DISPUTE. STOP BY FOR NEGOTIATIONS AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
YOU CAN ATTEND PRESS DEBATE AND PARTY THIS AFTERNOON. REGARDLESS
LOOK GREAT! THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATION AT PHOTO SESSION. HOPE
DEAR HANK, HAVE JUST RECEIVED OUR FIRST COPIES OF COSMOPODITAN. YOU
1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WASHINGTON DC
PMS HENRY KISSINGER, DLB REPORT DELIVERY
SCSC OSASS A 6133242120 NL PO 8 EXTRA TOMT CAMBRIDGE MA22 12
102 1PMTBXH MIWN
WH005P WAD044(1231)(1-00158A89003)PO 1072715 1233

HARRIS A. MAAS • 110-21-73RD ROAD, FOREST HILLS, N. Y. 11375 • BOULEVARD 8-1346

October 24th, 1972.

Dr. Henry Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

I am hailing from "Bayreuth" (Oberfranken) and
I am following with great respect and admiration
the admirable job you are doing for our President
and for our country and I wish to congratulate you
for your untiring and ceaseless efforts in our behalf.

Being 62, this cannot be considered any puppy-love
admiration but stemming from a deep conviction; being
fortunate enough to observe a man who has the stamina
and know-how to bring the factions together from all
nations to the good of the world.

It is therefore that I was stunned about picture
and article in the latest Cosmopolitan Magazine.
Humor is a wonderful thing but to try to ridicule
you in such a fashion is truly a disgrace. Liberty
is fine but this magazine should be prosecuted by
the government and closed. In the face of truly
earnest negotiation for the cause of peace such an
article is absolutely inexcusable, trying to dis-
credit you in the eyes of the public and statesmen.

I am truly shocked and you have my deepest sympathy.

Wishing you and yours nothing but good health and
the realization of your magnificent efforts, I beg
to remain

Respectfully,

to remain
the realization of your magnificent efforts. I beg
wishing you and yours nothing but good health and

credit you in the eyes of the public and at same time
article is absolutely inexcusable trying to dis-
earmeat negotiation for the cause of peace such an
the government and closed. In the face of truly
is fine put this magazine should be prosecuted by
you in such a fashion is truly a disgrace. I hope
Humor is a wonderful thing put to try to ridicule
and article in the latest Cosmopolitan Magazine.
It is therefore that I was at-mentioned about picture

nations to the good of the world.
and know-how to bring the factions together from all
fortunate enough to observe a man who has the stamna
admiration put stamming from a deep conviction; being
Being as, this cannot be considered any bungy-love

for your untiring and ceaseless efforts in our behalf.
and for our country and I wish to congratulate you
the admirable job you are doing for our President
I am following with great respect and admiration
I am failing from "Bayreuth" (Opentranksen) and

Dear Dr. Klaasen:

Washington,D.C.
The White House
Dr. Henry Klaasen

October 24th, 1935.

HARRIS A. MAA 110-51-73RD ROAD, FOREST HILLS, N.Y. 11332 • BOULEVAR 8-1346

Amman,
The Royal Palace,
Hahamite Kingdom of Jordan,
Crown Prince of the
Hasaan ibn Tajal
His Royal Highness

Henry V. Knausinger

Warm regards,

to have the privilege again soon.

I greatly value hearing your views and hope

niceful.

pleasant breakfast posted on our behalf particularly
trig. I found our exchange of ideas during the
welcome interlude in the midst of a lengthy and tiring
Yom Higmeas, Guest House once again provided a
Nancy and me during our latest visit to Jordan.
Royal Highness for the special consideration shown
As before, I would like to thank you and her

Your Royal Highness:

9 NOV 1974

MEMORANDUM

RITA E. HAUSER

To: Henry Kissinger

Date: January 9, 1975

Subject:

This is Leo Cherne's swan-song,
and he paid you a very stunning compliment
(see top p. 14).

The gloom is very heavy on Wall
Street, and I shudder at the prognosis
I hear at the Bank Boards on which I
sit. I'm worried.

I gave up trying to reach you
on the phone. Anyway, a lady shouldn't
pursue a man too long. Give me a call
in the country this weekend, if you can,
as I have a few items I'd like to discuss
with you.

(203) 868-7928

PRESS OF FREMONT PAYNE, INC., Phone 966-6570

35th Annual Address Before
The Sales Executives Club of New York
by
Leo Cherne
Executive Director, Research Institute of America
January 8, 1975

"CRISIS OF THE WESTERN WORLD"

Recalling Bill Buckley's introductory mayhem last year, you can imagine
with what relief I anticipated the generous presence of Dr. Howard Rusk. To go
from Buckley to Rusk is to move from the invidious to the sublime.

Many fine doctors mend broken bodies; some help repair shattered spirits.
But how many restore the reason, the will, and the ability to live when those vital
links to life are all but destroyed? And how few are the men who have in their
own lifetimes seen their pioneering work studied, emulated and multiplied throughout
the world, reaching countless numbers of the helpless and broken on every continent?

Howard, you are indeed a good and generous friend. And you have honored
me, as you have all of those whose lives have been fortunate enough to touch yours.

Now, before I briefly look back at 1974, let me tell you of an encounter between
two Princes of the Church. Long friends, these two Cardinals met each other and
one inquired of the other, "What's new?" "Well, I have some very good news and
some bad news. But let me share the good news with you first: I learned yesterday
He has returned to Earth." "Well, then, what can be bad?" "He wants us to meet
Him in Salt Lake City." Well, that's the molting kind of year 1974 was.

- 2 -

As I have done on 34 previous occasions, let me look back very quickly.

If I didn't fall on my face, Let least-sank to my knees.

First, to some of the more glaring errors. I was quite certain we would expand our energy conservation measures during '74. I anticipated rationing of gasoline at some point during the year. The most significant mistake was when I said, "As profits drop, as unemployment grows, inflation will also grow by at least 7 percent for the year." Not to have foreseen double-digit inflation is to have missed the significance of 1974.

I do however find comfort in a number of other observations. Among them are these: "The cost of oil, minerals and a score of other essentials will escalate in value, political importance ~~and attractiveness~~ to those who will conduct economic warfare against us." I said, "The most dangerous interval of all will come within months. It will come when the Arab oil-producing states lift their boycott against us. It will be so tempting to see the resumption of Arab supply as a reprieve from our troubles. It will test the resolution of a weak government. Price alone, not national resolution or Operation Independence, will produce the most massive transformation of the American economy and society."

For the American economy, I said, "This will not be a good year, and for automobiles and housing, it will be especially poor" -- and it was.

I took the long leap and said that we were at the beginning of a recession, and it appears to have begun in November 1973.

In all, there were some 40 projections. The score was the measure by which I passed too many of my high-school exams -- 65 percent.

- 3 -

All in all, I feel quite a bit like the wife who was celebrating her 35th
anniversary. In honor of the occasion, she decided to do whatever her husband
desired. Her first chance was at breakfast and she asked him, "What would you
especially like today?" Well, I'd like one fried egg and one boiled egg." That's
exactly what she prepared, only to see him terribly disturbed. "What's wrong,
dear?" "You boiled the wrong egg."

To have perceived correctly as I did that the day of cheap energy was over
and yet imagine that inflation would be held to 7 percent was to fry the right egg
but boil the wrong one.

Now, let me anticipate as best I can some aspects of these next 12 months
and then move from those details to what I believe is the awesome meaning of the
interval we're living through.

I believe that real GNP this year will drop another 2 percent, perhaps a
shade more. The average year-end to year-end rate of inflation will be about
9 percent and, in fact, for the first half of the year the monthly figures will be
double-digit and not until midyear drop below. The Consumer Price Index this
year could average a shade lower than that, simply because distress sales at
retail and sellers' margins under pressure, may produce that effect. But I
anticipate that food prices will remain on the up elevator.

Corporate after-tax profits for the year as a whole will, I think, be down by
more than
some 12 percent, but the auto and related industries will account for much of this
further decline.

I think that housing starts, stimulated by the government, will be moving up toward a still unsatisfactory level for the year of less than 1.5 million new homes.

Short-term interest rates should decline for much of the year and at some point the prime may fall as low as 8 percent, as the Federal Reserve loosens its strings to reverse the recession. Long-term rates will remain fairly stable.

How long will this recession last, how deep will it be, and how much of a chance is there that it may indeed become a depression? Whatever unattractive name we give it, it will certainly be the longest since the end of World War II. I do not believe it will be less than seven quarters long. I regrettably expect that unemployment will be approaching 9 percent at this year's peak. Since it is estimated that every percentage point of unemployment takes almost a year to reverse, even an 8 percent rate of unemployment would see us into 1978 before the unemployment level returns to a hoped-for 5 percent.

There is still another reason to watch these figures seriously. Economists have several criteria by which to test for recession. But there is no agreement at all on what constitutes a depression. This is one of the scars of the 1930s. We were so traumatized by those terrible years that we act as though if we don't define it, it may never happen again. Let me therefore suggest some measurements: I would propose that should measurable unemployment exceed 10 percent during a downturn which continues for eight consecutive quarters, we would then see a recession sufficiently deep to deserve a more ominous name. If you accept that definition, I'm ready to rule out the occurrence.

- 5 -

Now I must turn memory back to the first occasion on which this organization honored me with its invitation was the winter of 1940. I came before you on that first occasion to urge that you prepare for a world which would never again be as it was that winter, that while the United States would for a time succeed in remaining a non-belligerent, we too would find every corner of our own lives changed by the events which were imminent.

I recall that first appearance before you in 1940 not because I think events like those are about to happen again. As tragic as those were, they were clear cut. But now we face a crisis in the Western world that is infinitely more complex and does not yield clear or even visible answers.

Let me cite the conclusions of those in a position to know:

Henry Kissinger said three months ago: "We have to tell the American people what we think is needed. If they do not agree, at least they will know, ten years from now, if there is a catastrophe, what happened. And then there is a chance of restoring a sense of direction."

President Ford: "It is difficult to discuss the energy problem without lapsing into Doomsday language. The danger is clear -- it is severe." President of France, Giscard d'Estang: "All the curves are leading to catastrophe. We're in the midst of an enduring crisis involving a redistribution of the world's resources."

Talking of those oil funds, Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns says: "All the talk about recycling in my opinion is an escape from reality. The reality is that the financial problems caused by high oil prices are simply unmanageable." Arthur Burns warns that "recycling means piling debt on top of debt, or, more accurately, bad debt on top of good debt."

- 6 -

These warnings arise from a profound shift which is taking place in the world, a shift of economic resources and the power which goes with them. It is a shift in which a barrel of oil is the centerpiece on the table before us, but it is by no means the only object on that table. We have seen <u>~~</u> within the last two years the disappearance of all but a minor portion of our grain reserves.

Just a week ago, <u>the December Bulletin of the Bureau of Public Affairs</u> of the State Department estimated that malnutrition now affects some 400 million people in the developing world, and that if food reserves are not used more effectively, starvation and famine in some areas could become a recurrent disaster. The odds are large that this year will see less food harvested rather than more, and we will never know the precise number of those who will die by reason of starvation simply because the nations in which the dying occurs will not wish to admit the extent of their inability nor indeed do they have the capability to make such a grisly count.

There is no way in these remarks for me to adequately deal with the interlocking problems of food, population, and resources. But I must deal with oil, because it is oil which is at the very heart of most of the apocalyptic quotations I referred to earlier. And at this point, it is not the adequacy of oil which is the problem. In fact, right now, in part because of recession in the Western world, there is <u>flows from</u> something of a surplus. The problem <u>price</u>. At oil prices anything like those which exist today or even at a reduction of two to three dollars a barrel, the oil-producing countries will wind up with astronomical monetary reserves. The petrodollars will be more than they can spend. The debts will be more than most

oil-consuming nations can pay. The imbalance between the two threatens to be more than the world's financial and monetary institutions can deal with.

In the United States, we are less dependent than most on imported oil, and we're more able than most to pay for what we import. The Germans, too, can pay, though they are more dependent than we are. Other industrial nations, like Italy, Denmark, even England, cannot readily pay for their energy needs. And even these

nations are favored in contrast to the other nations of the world.

They don't have a ghost of a chance without an infusion of massive resources. And you probably read this morning of the European agreement on one such safety measure -- 10 billion dollars worth.

But so long as it is true of a number of nations in the world, as Arthur Burns warns, that they will be piling bad debt upon good debt, a series of dangerous actions lie in prospect -- dangerous to all of us.

First of all, bad debts result in very sloppy financial practices among governments. Debtor governments have a remarkable ability to print currencies to the extent of obligations outstanding. But to do so causes inflation, undermines international transactions, destroys confidence, and enlarges antagonism among nations.

And all of this is bad for the kind of interdependence now needed to sustain world peace. None of this is fanciful; some of it has already happened. The private European banks have taken the limit that they can take. Swiss banks have begun to charge the short-term depositors of foreign funds for the privilege of accepting their deposits, instead of paying interest for the right to use their money.

- 8 -

I'm reminded of the distinction between the optimist and the pessimist which originated in the days of the runaway German inflation in the Twentieth century when the optimist said to his friend, "I think I will have to borrow." And the pessimist replied, "Who from?"

Bear in mind we're at a time when the monetary distortions and the massive one-way flow of wealth has just barely begun. To illustrate: In 1973, OPEC, the organization of oil-producing states, had a trade surplus of 3 billion dollars. During the year just ended, our estimate is that that trade surplus will turn out to have been over 60 billion dollars. The unspent reserves by the end of this year will be an estimated 100 billion dollars, and by 1980 the OPEC reserves will be an estimated 300 billion dollars. If so, the international payments system will have collapsed before that. 300 billion dollars is more than all the liquid reserves there are in international trade, and is 50 percent more than the value of all U.S. investments anywhere outside the U.S. -- and much more than all the dollars in every bank in this country.

But now I must come to the heart of the difficulty and why, in fact, it is so serious to the United States, despite the fact that we can pay for the imported oil, there is one thing we cannot do. We cannot cut ourselves off from the economic consequences which are set into motion throughout the rest of the world. With industrial nation after nation going into increasing debt, there are protective practices which nations can take to keep that tendency under control: trade restrictions, embargoes, tariffs of various kinds, and wholesale dumping.

Faced now with mushrooming deficits, mounting debts, weakening currencies, the nations of the industrial world have on the one hand begun to see that they are in

- 9 -

the same boat and face a common destiny, while at the same time, Canada and the United States, just to mention two, are already well along the road of reprisal economics. And never lose sight of the fact that Canada happens to be our No. 1 trading partner.

The greatest danger of our being plunged into depression lies in precisely this direction: that nation after nation, seeking to protect its own commerce and the integrity of its own finances, may take steps which radiate throughout the world, as they did in 1930 when we in the United States enacted the highly protective Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

> To cut our dependence on foreign oil so that no more than 25 percent of our needs are reliant on overseas crude will require an investment of an estimated 700 billion dollars. Now that's just to reduce, not end, our dependence. There were those who urged, "Raise the price of domestic oil and that alone will enormously change the picture." Well, we have more than doubled the price of domestic oil within the last year and our domestic output is now down one-seventh below last year's level. We are now 5 percent more dependent on imported oil than we were in 1973 despite the recession. And we do face a very immediate natural gas crisis.

What, then, will be done? President Ford has been wrestling with a very painful dilemma. Many have been urging a gasoline tax on him. Such a tax would depress the use of fuel, increase our leverage against the oil producers, put pressure on their cartel-enforced price, reduce our trade deficit, make our foreign policy more credible. But all of these at a cost of deepening the recession. I don't recall a time in these 35 years when those who must make decisions are so completely torn between options that ease one problem at the expense of another.

- 10 -

But I think the die is about to be cast. One way or another, within weeks, compulsory mechanisms are likely to be applied that will have the effect of driving the price of gasoline higher. It now looks as though a substantial excise tax on imported petroleum will be used instead of a tax at the pump. They both would have a similar effect on the consumer's pocketbook. But the excise tax route more specifically penalizes the overseas oil producers while helping to stimulate domestic energy investment. Domestic oil producers, however, will likely face an excess profits tax aimed especially at that portion of their profits not invested in the search for new energy.

An excise tax on oil will burden the consumer, will burden industry which is dependent on imports and in fact add a heavy burden to those utilities which, as ours here on the Eastern seaboard, have come to rely on overseas oil. And since all of this would deepen the recession, you can count on the certainty of a retroactive tax cut for individuals, shaded more heavily toward those of lower income. Count on tax incentives for business, shaded more heavily toward stimulating the capital investment which will be so urgently required in the years ahead. And the sum total of these and other measures which will be taken to stimulate the economy will undoubtedly produce a federal budgetary deficit of massive proportions -- 40 billion dollars for fiscal '76 on top of an approximate 25 billion for this fiscal year.

It will be difficult indeed for a depression to form in the face of such stimulation. But I must ominously add, it will not be that difficult for double-digit inflation to persist as a consequence of these steps.

- 11 -

We have been very slow in moving ahead with alternate energy technologies, and come hell or high water, it is these on which our future must rest. And unless the price of oil remains assuredly high, it is not commercially feasible to assemble and invest the huge funds needed in the two directions which have been singled out as our nearer-term answer: coal and nuclear power. We deserted coal some years ago because oil was so cheap. It was also cleaner. We're sitting on the world's largest resource of coal, but before it can be unlocked, investments must be made in the mining and earth-moving equipment, in the railroad rolling stock which carry the quantities which will be required, and in the body of trained labor without which coal will remain in the ground. We have also lost time in the development of new nuclear generators. The Japanese can bring them on stream in four years. It takes us seven to do the same.

It is evident that whatever the speed we manage, there are no short-term answers. And therefore short term, an excise tax on imported oil gives assurance here that private industry's investment in alternative energy sources will not be undercut.

The next five years must, therefore, be the years of conservation. We must especially prepare for the growth in our need for energy which will accompany the end of the recession.

I must candidly say there are those who find some cheer in the things I've described. It is clear that increasingly the OPEC nations will have no alternative but to look to the United States as the repository, in one form or another, for their growing mountain of petrodollars.

These more optimistic observers say: "You have got to look at this from the

- 12 -

point of view of the oil producer. It is important to the new Colossi of the Middle East that wherever their funds are invested, there be political stability. It is argued that Saudi Arabia and Iran will have as great a vested interest in the stability of the countries in which they have deposited their funds as will the Prime Ministers and Presidents of those countries."

I agree that Iran, now that it owns a fair piece of Krupp, will not want to see political instability in Germany. Existing U.S. law makes foreign ownership impossible in broadcasting, in nuclear energy, in a dozen or so other sensitive industries in the United States. But there are industries where such ownership is possible and wherever that occurs it is important to the investor that his funds be safe. After all, their money is hostage to our discontent.

But there are three flaws in this tranquil prospect. First, there are places in the world where the oil-producing states are not likely to invest their money precisely because of their concern for safety and stability. I doubt any significant OPEC investments in Italy, or Portugal, not even Spain. And we in the West have no shelter against the contagion that is set into motion if these should prove to be failing or insolvent economies.

Then, too, we assume that the motivations of the oil-producing states will be coldly rational. That's a large assumption.

There is still another problem. The process of buying up corporate interests, real estate properties has barely begun and already in Germany there is deep discontent with the penetration of Krupp. Our corporate dollars have gone overseas; our home-based multinationals have captured products and markets and dominated geographies. Now we

- 13 -

will have to make up our minds how we feel about being increasingly owned by Kings
and Sheikhs and other assorted movers and shakers.

And we're beginning to see, perhaps more clearly than we'd like, how politics
may bend under the weight of the purse. And this, in turn, raises the question, an
awful question, of whether or not there will be another war in the Middle East, with
the additional gnawing uncertainty whether this time Pandora's nuclear box will be
opened. King Hussein's answer to that question was clear: "Both sides," he said,
"possess terrible weapons, terribly new, terribly sophisticated, terribly modern.
It would be an unheard of massacre, bigger than every expectation. Don't ask me if
the disaster can be avoided. Ask me for how long it can be postponed." The odds
are that it cannot be for the ~~short~~ duration of this year, and yet I am going to ride
against the odds on this one. It is in the best interests of Egypt and Israel that there
be no war, and in the urgent interests of the Soviet Union and the United States that
there be no risk of their involvement.

But there are some things beyond this. A study conducted by MIT came to
the conclusion that the Soviet Union's crisis in energy may be as great as ours.
It may be true that Siberia is a raft on an ocean of oil, but it is equally true that
America is a massive giant standing on a pedestal of coal. And our coal is in the
ground and their oil is in the ground. And this MIT study concludes that if the Soviet
Union is to "sustain planned economic growth, it will have to progressively increase
imports of oil and gas from the Middle East. It will have to import technology and
will have to obtain immense investment credits." I'm not sure what those new
elements do to the already difficult-to-estimate picture.

- 14 -

And therefore I heavily rely on one other fact: the existence of one of the most astonishing men that it has ever been my opportunity to know. Henry Kissinger may be an extremely difficult man. To work for him may be Washington's approximation of purgatory. He may appear to have already emptied his bag of tricks. But never make the mistake of underestimating this man of nearly infinite energy and conceptual genius. And do not discount his quietly stated warning last week. The great danger in a crisis of this magnitude is that nations going under "do not go gently into that dark night."

And now I'd like to redress past neglect. For 35 years, you have honored me and my colleagues at the Research Institute by these repeated invitations. And during that time, I've spoken of our nation, the world, the economy, the change of our values, and the engine of employment and progress that is business. But I have said nothing of the city in which we now sit, in which I was born, educated and in which I work and live. It is a troubled place, but it remains the most vital core of our thought and commerce.

There simply is no such thing, there never has been a thing called civilization which did not have its deepest roots in the city. The magnificence of the contribution which was Greek civilization owed its existence not to its Empire, nor to the military genius of Alexander. That culture owed its existence to Athens. The legions of Caesar reached the British Isles. Their power stretched from the Iberian Peninsula to the lands beyond Asia Minor. But the flowering of that extraordinary civilization owed its very existence to Rome.

- 15 -

When it was still true that the sun never set on the British Empire, the sun rose in London. And yet, when Charles Dickens wrote, London was a pest-hole; when Shakespeare wrote, London reeked of filth and corruption; when Churchill rallied his people, London was a shattered hulk.

And, above all, there is the Jerusalem to which King and Sultan came in search of conquest, while wise men shaped so much of the world's religious thought -- Hebrew, and Christian, and Muhammadan. Yes, the energy of the city is the vital force of the civilization it fuels.

Where but in this city -- with its banks, insurance companies and securities markets -- is there the possibility of handling even a fraction of those accumulating petrodollars? In fact, what stock exchange in the entire world holds a candle to the institution on Wall Street? In fact, just the name Wall Street is synonymous with the world's economic force and its financial reach.

Now, not everybody likes the frenetic, sometimes cold and certainly material values which are part of the city. But it is truly the exceptional man who can nourish his own genius in quiet places like Thomas Jefferson at Monticello, or Henry Thoreau at Walden Pond. Tom Paine and Sam Adams needed a Boston; Franklin & Philadelphia. And Alan Greenspan, James Schlesinger and Henry Kissinger needed a New York City to sharpen their extraordinary and very different talents. Just look at that aggregation of brains: Schlesinger educated at the Ethical Culture School; Alan Greenspan and Henry Kissinger at George Washington High School. How much more is needed to make it evident that not only our commerce and finance but our ideas as well thrive in cities and nowhere more so than in New York.

- 16 -

This city is now the fashion center of the entire world; not too many years ago Paris was. It is the publishing center. It is the center in which the culinary arts are without equal. There is no opera which holds a candle to the Metropolitan. Here there are more ballet companies than in any other city in any other country in the entire world. The very finest of this country's symphony orchestras use New York as their showcase, as do all of the greatest conductors. Just a few years ago, it would have been difficult to say which was the jewelry center of the world. It is now New York. The diamond center was Amsterdam. It is now New York. But here, too, are concentrated furs and hardware, theatre and T.V., law and architecture, computer software and revolutionary movements, flowers, foundations, fish, insurance and airlines. Here, in these five boroughs, is the very heart of an economy, which in this recession year will generate a GNP totaling 1 trillion, 500 billion dollars.

And all of this creative energy and industrial vitality were never more necessary than they are today. Nine months ago, Professor George Cabot Lodge of the Harvard School of Business, said the following: "The United States is in the midst of one of the great transformations of Western civilization. What is happening is that the old ideas and assumptions which once made our great institutions legitimate, authoritative and confident are fast eroding. They are slipping away in the face of a changing reality and are being replaced by different ideas and different assumptions which are as yet ill-formed, contradictory and shocking. This transition is neither good nor bad. There is the possibility of plenty of both. The point is simply that it is taking place."

Well, it is in the city and particularly in this one that the changing ideas and assumptions Professor Lodge talks about will be forged into the means by which the crisis will be bridged.

- 17 -

We have a rough two or three years before the price and availability of oil
assume a more rational place in our interdependent economies. I wish for you
health, energy, the wisdom and patience adequate to the task before us.

MIT economist, Robert Solow, said: "I'm not sure it isn't correct to compare
economists to the drunk who lost his key and kept looking for it under the street
light because at least he could see there." Well, for 35 years, I've searched for
the key under your very bright and generous light.

Law Offices of
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN
61 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10006

Memorandum re:

Date November 26, 1974

To: Henry A. Kissinger

From: Rita E. Hauser

First of all, congratulations on the SALT breakthrough. It was stunning, and heartening to read in a period of otherwise very gloomy news.

* * *

In my conversations with a wide spectrum of people in New York and elsewhere, I see for the first time a genuine break in basic support for continued U.S. participation in the United Nations. The U.N.'s actions of the last weeks, particularly South Africa's suspension from the General Assembly, has caused alarm as to the further acts of an unprincipled and undisciplined majority, and, obviously, immediate fear that Israel will be the next suspendee in 1975.

I know the official position of the U.S. delegation on the matter. But the failure to highlight it, in a dramatic way, with adequate press coverage, is dismaying. We should document publically the illegality of the General Assembly's action under the U.N. Charter and we should have moved to request the World Court to give an Advisory Opinion - whether we could get a majority to back us on this or not. We should be laying the groundwork, by appropriate high-level speeches and statements, as to the utter lack of precedential value of the South Africa suspension vote.

All this is necessary to head off a growing movement in the Congress to cut off funds for the U.N. Once the heretofore supportive elements in our country mobilize opposition in Congress to the U.N. - which movement is already under way with a joint

[lc]

Henry A. Kissinger

November 26, 1974

Page Two.

organizational meeting scheduled for December 6 in New York - you will find yourself, despite your disdain for the U.N., in the position of wasting credits and energy to assure continued Congressional support. I do not believe the United States, at this point in time, can simply walk away from the U.N. This policy would risk too great a loss in the Third World for us.

What is needed, in my view, is immediate, strong, no-nonsense articulation of American beliefs and interests in the various U.N. fora. We may lose on the votes, but at least we will clearly denominate our stands on vital issues and thus make the U.N. our sounding board too. And I think it is high time that our U.N. Representative say it the way it is - no more pap about "man's last hope", but the hard truth that the organization today is one where rational discourse and the pursuit of enlightened self-interest has been abandoned in the face of an attack on these principles by the least civilized elements of the world.

I intend to elaborate this scheme next week at the University of Chicago Divinity School where I have been asked to critique Hans Morgenthau's paper on the occasion of the Reinhold Niebuhr Award to Andrei Sakharov. I believe it is time to state the truth about the U.N. in open discourse if we are not to lose all credibility with the American people on this subject.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan

61 Broadway
New York, New York 10006

TELEPHONE (212) 425-5200
TELEX STROOCK 620367
CABLE ADDRESS "PLASTROOCK"

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
1100 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.
TELEPHONE (202) 293-1990
CABLE ADDRESS
PLASTROOCK-WASHINGTON, D.C.

PARIS 8e, FRANCE
18-20 PLACE DE LA MADELEINE
TELEPHONE 742-23-33
CABLE ADDRESS
PLASTROOCK-PARIS

November 8, 1974

Dear Henry:

A few items to note:

1. During your absence, the Latin American report came out and was well received in the press (L.A. Times, Miami Herald, and enclosed editorial in today's New York Times). Some of us on the Commission worked very hard, and we do hope you'll attend a dinner or lunch with us in the near future to review your responses to the Report and to give it a further "push".

2. The anti-PLO demonstration was held in New York City last week, and was extraordinary. Every politician got the usual applause (tho Ramsey Clark was booed, I'm pleased to say), but the real hero to the very large crowd was Sen. Jackson. The response to him was thundering. I think this is because the Jewish community, reflecting Israel's own fears, feels isolated and without real friends in high places. I was invited to a VIP reception after, and I cannot tell you how many people asked about your intentions, the fate of Israel in the UN in the event of another war, possible expulsion of Israel from the UN, etc.

I believe that real prospects for your moving the Palestinian question in the direction you seek will require active and continued attention to the American Jewish constituencies. This is especially so in light of the elections on Tuesday. The new Congress will be more amenable than ever to lobbying operations, and the leadership will not be able to control the votes, even on a foreign policy issue, as was amply demonstrated on the Turkish aid cut-off.

I think I can help here. You know my particular
interest, as does Rumsfeld. I've told Don, as have others,
that unless Ford brings in new faces, of moderate disposition
and real intellectual abilities, we will simply be mired
down the next two years and float into a major defeat in
1976. Our wing of the GOP - the centrist internationalists -
is almost flat out. Nelson is our only hope for regroupement,
and his fate is now 50-50.

3. I've talked to Nelson about the urgency of regrouping the moderates in the State and the Nation. He must take a real lead in this and, alas, he is "frozen" until his confirmation is settled. It's unclear if it will go over to the new Congress.

These are not good times on many fronts, and
it's hard to keep enthusiasm. Yet, I know there are good
people wanting and willing to assist Party and Nation. I
hope the President understands the imperative need to
tap them for service and develop them for political leadership.

Do give me a call when you get a free moment.

Best

Hon. Henry A. Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D.C.

-2-

The most
ordinary novels to
long in our time”*

"Reed is a man to whom satire comes as naturally as breathing... He has a shrewd eye, a mean ear, a nasty tongue... We may be horrified or amused—or both. But we are too fascinated to go away."

—Robert Scholes, N.Y. Times Book Review

rigue and high-speed travel... Thoroughly disarming. to the novel is not unlike a Dixieland band's approach. American diversity that adds up to a unified style—essly fresh."

—R. Z. Sheppard, Time

itality... a very important novelist." —Kirkus Reviews

le that keeps the mind on its toes."

—Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, New York Times

mystery, satire and social commentary... a brilliant simply beats all... a classy whodunit that is just as —Western Letter

"I's hands is a mighty weapon."

—New Republic

th Club Alternate
bookstore

RANDOM HOUSE

ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE

11/8/74

SCIENTIFIC SALVATION
The Theory of
Ultimate Survival
By R. Shumen

Think about it! Is it within the realm of man's evolutionary potential to achieve immortality, evolve the "Christ," and effect the resurrection of the dead?

Consider the evidence for yourself.
Only $2.95 • Order from:
Meridian Publishing Co.
13 Belmont Avenue
Paterson, N.J. 07522

CROSSWORD PUZZLE

Edited by WILL WENG

ACROSS

52 Fashion

23 Sluggish

53 Satiety

1 2/3

PARIS 8°, FRANCE
18-20 PLACE DE LA MADELEINE
TELEPHONE 742-23-33
CABLE ADDRESS
PLASTROOCK-PARIS

August 17, 1975

Hon. Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State
Department of State
Washington, D.C.

Dear Henry:

I'm worried about you - as I told Larry E. It will be rough going for awhile, and only a detached stance will help you survive the heat. I'm doing my best for you in every forum.

I opened and chaired the Plenary Session of the Convention of the U.N. Association this morning (1000 delegates). Even there, the feeling was strongly against current Administration stands in South East Asia and in the Middle East.

On another subject: What plans are afoot for the U.S. delegation to the Conference in Mexico City (19 June - 2 July) on The International Year of the Woman. From the preparatory talks I've sat in on at the U.N., it seems clear to me this again will be a confrontation situation between the U.S. and the Third World - with issues far beyond the subject of women *per se*. You will need a tough and experienced chairperson, lest the Conference conclude, as is possible, that the U.S. is responsible for all the wrongs still inflicted on women.

The Washington Post

SATURDAY, APRIL 5, 1975

AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER

Rita E. Hauser

Mideast: An End to Cat-and-Mouse

The foreboding sensed in Israel and among American Jews in the wake of the failed Kissinger negotiation effort over disengagement in the Sinai is unwarranted. The collapse of the Secretary's recent efforts may yet prove to be a blessing in disguise, a discarding of a mini-resolution in favor of a bold diplomacy in which the interests of the United States and Israel should be coincidental and not, as doomsayers now predict, divergent or, worse, antagonistic. If Israel is to relinquish real property, it should be in exchange for what has been lacking up to now: normaliza-

The writer is a New York lawyer active in Mideast affairs and a former U.S. representative to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

tion of a conflict through a peace conference in which all parties, not the victor alone, abandon ancient claims in favor of a new reality.

Whether the forum be Geneva or discussions prior to the conference itself, the time is here for Israel to unmask its whole package for settlement of the conflict—not the minimum it might do, but the maximum it can do. Cat-and-mousing will lead nowhere, for only through a clearly defined package of negotiating chips can Israel place the real decision for peace where it must lie: on the Arab side.

That package is easy to discern, give or take final nuances. It encompasses: full withdrawal from the Sinai in set time frames, with demilitarized zones preceding each staged retreat; demilitarization of the Golan Heights with return of sovereignty to Syria after the passage of, perhaps, a 20-year period; "Vaticanization" of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem with an Arab sector of the city placed under local Arab

administration; a referendum under United Nations auspices to determine the wishes of the residents of the West Bank and the Palestinian refugees, looking to federation within Jordan or an independent entity separated from Israel by anotherdemilitarized zone.

In exchange, Israel would expect explicit recognition by the Arab powers involved, renunciation of force and economic warfare against her, passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal and other such routine commercial patterns. Each Israeli withdrawal must be followed by demilitarization of the retreat area, with U.N. forces stationed for a lengthy period and subject to recall only upon the consent of both sides.

This package, if it is in exchange for an Arab overall settlement, I firmly believe, would be supported by the vast majority of the Israeli people. The United States would view it as just and equitable, in full satisfaction of the terms of Resolution 242 of the Security Council. It is imperative, then, that America encourage a forthright Israeli peace proposal, not by threats to cut off aid, but by a shared understanding based on our unequivocal support of Israel's right to exist. Further, we must make clear to the Arabs that this package settlement enjoys our full support. It will then be up to them alone to make the choice between a fair overall resolution which Israel, by her own prior announcement, is prepared to accept or a return to Russian arms and political dominance. If the Arabs were to choose the Soviet option, then America must make plainly clear we shall back Israel to the maximum in her ongoing defense efforts and in the event of open hostilities.

The Israelis can no longer avoid the hard questions, such as the Palestinian problem, and they must forego a niggardly approach. Twenty-five years af-

ter the first armistice, the moment may actually be here for a true peace conference. It is Israel which must lay out all the terms of settlement, painful as some may be, and it is the Arabs who must decide finally to accept realities or forsake independence from the Soviet Union and healthy domestic development from which almost all their energies until now have been diverted. The United States need not press on either side once the bargaining terms are defined. The solution has always resided with the belligerents and not with the United States or the Soviet Union. Our role would be to support the terms of peace, hopefully with the full backing of Western Europe, and maybe, once the will to peace has been clearly defined, with the support of the Russians as well.

The Kissinger step-by-step approach, seen in retrospect, could not succeed because it excused the hostile parties from facing up to ultimate decisions. Consequently, each side, not sensing the end of the game, felt it was giving up too much for too little in exchange. If the Secretary's efforts, in the final analysis, turn out to have been the necessary failure which is a prelude to success—often the case in complex negotiations—his efforts will have been most worthwhile.

# I. INTRODUCTION

This is a summary of an all-day meeting of thirty persons on March 14, 1975 at the Ford Foundation to discuss American policy toward Israel and her neighbors and the implications of developments in the Middle East for Americans, particularly American Jews. The meeting was one of several the Foundation's Committee on Public Policy and Social Organization has sponsored on important current topics. Those invited came from the worlds of business, the academy, journalism and the voluntary sector. The invitation list was developed by Foundation officers to whom suggestions from Bert Gold of the American Jewish Committee and Henry Owen of the Brookings Institution were particularly helpful. Although some of those who came are connected with organizations which are concerned in one way or another with the subject, all were encouraged to participate as individuals.

The letter of invitation articulated the purpose of the meeting as twofold: to help the Foundation think about analysis and research that may be aided by philanthropic support; and to help the participants through an exchange of thoughts on hard questions. McGeorge Bundy, who chaired the meeting, emphasized in his opening remarks that the discussions were not aimed at finding answers to the complex problems in the Middle East itself, but at exchanging views on these problems and their implications at home in an effort to minimize misunderstandings and open the way to more opportunities for constructive action. The selection of invitees reflected this objective. It was, as the letter of invitation said, a meeting

-2-

of people with "varying views on specific issues" but in agreement that these issues
should be addressed in ways which respect America's "best traditions of tolerance
and mutual understanding."

The meeting was structured to deal with the issues in the Middle East first,
and then to move on to problems arising from that situation in the American polity.
Discussion on each problem area was initiated by two fifteen-minute presentations:
Henry Owen of the Brookings Institution and Theordore Draper, an historian and writer,
reviewed the Middle East situation and the United States' role in it; and Joseph
Califano, an attorney from Washington, and Bertram Gold of the American Jewish
Committee, presented their perceptions of current American attitudes and, within
this context, of special Jewish concerns.

-3-

## II. THE ISSUES ON THE SCENE AND THE U.S. ROLE

Henry Owen thought that if Secretary Kissinger's March shuttle diplomacy should fail to bring an interim Egyptian-Israeli agreement, it would not necessarily entail early hostilities, because Egypt still needs some time to develop her military capabilities. But failure to reach an interim agreement, he thought, would worsen the outlook for full-scale negotiations in Geneva, since it would be seen by the Arabs as the failure of President Sadat's moderate approach and might strengthen the positions of more hard-line leaders.

Assuming that full-scale negotiations still get underway, Owen saw each side entering them with three major objectives. Israel's goals are security, peaceful relations with her neighbors, and open borders. The Arab countries are concerned with Palestinian identity, the restoration of territory (frontiers), and Jerusalem.

Owen defined Israel's interest in security and a genuine peace as the quest for survival. He thought Americans had difficulty understanding this Israeli position, because U.S. existence has never been at stake in the same way, and security thus has a different meaning in America. To meet legitimate Israeli security concerns, he suggested the need not only for a peace treaty and diplomatic recognition, but also for cessation of political and economic warfare and for open frontiers. If the Arabs were not prepared to pay this price, negotiations were unlikely to succeed.

As to the Arabs, Owen saw the Palestinian question as central, with a requirement for some type of separate political identity, and the West Bank as the only place to establish it. He thought that in a free election Palestinians would not be likely to opt for Yassir Arafat and the PLO -- a feeling shared by some who recently returned

-4-

from visits to the area. Owen thought that the most likely result of an election
would be a "government of (local) notables." Owen saw the risk of irredentism
in a West Bank state (aimed at both Israel and Jordan) but did not think such a
course of events was inevitable.

Owen thought some limited adjustments would have to be made in the pre-1967 frontiers to meet Israeli security concerns and saw the Golan problem as one of the thorniest. The Soviet role may be crucial here, because of Syria's dependence on Moscow.

In Jerusalem, Owen saw the range of alternatives from maintenance of the status quo with guaranteed free access to the holy sites under Israeli sovereignty, which is not acceptable to the Arabs, to internationalization or a divided city, which are not acceptable to Israel. The solution might have to be sought among various forms of autonomy for different sectors of the city, within the framework of a united city.

If the negotiating process gets underway and operates reasonably well, Owen thought it would probably be long and drawn out (like the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty-Year War and took eighteen years to complete). The process of implementing an agreement would probably also be lengthy. At best, therefore, the issues would be with us for a long time.

If negotiations do not come about, Owen saw stepped-up Arab terrorism and Israeli reprisals; a continuing Arab military buildup, with pressures for a pre-emptive strike by Israel; and renewed Arab attempts to use oil as a political weapon. The Soviet role would be an active one, since Moscow would not be indifferent to requests for support from her Arab allies, and thus there would be the potential for a big power confrontation. For the United States, the situation would focus attention on

-5-

the risks of war, decisions about military and economic help to Israel, and future
relations with the Arab countries and Moscow.

What is the Quid pro Quo?

In the discussion that followed, attention focused initially on what would
be the Arab quid for the Israeli territorial quo? Owen had defined it as the end
of the state of war, peaceful relations and open frontiers, but several participants
felt that there were other ways for the Arabs to demonstrate peaceful
intentions, such as moderation of anti-Israel propaganda. Still, the
tough problem was that Israeli concessions, being territorial and concrete,
would be final, while Arab concessions, at least in the present stage
of discussions, are private and retractable. Steps toward compromise by the
Arabs had to be made public, because Israel could not afford to let Henry Kissinger
carry them around in his head.

The Arabs' problem is that they see the act of sitting down across the
table from the Israelis to discuss frontiers as giving away their main negotiating
asset -- recognition of Israel. But, the Arabs would have to bring themselves to
this point and make the distinction between the _existence_ of Israel and the _size_ of
Israel.

Furthermore, the importance of a peace treaty as the ultimate objective
should not be underestimated. The major conflicts of the postwar period have
broken out where there were provisional frontiers or armistice lines: Korea,
Viet Nam, the Middle East. Recognizing that formal peace with Israel represents
not merely a major political but theological problem for the Arabs, one should

-6-

nevertheless press forward toward peace rather than another modus vivendi.

There was considerable emphasis on process and time as factors in bringing about substantive change. As pieces of territory are traded for steps toward peace, and as the delivery of each piece takes place, the political and psychological climate will be affected, and the next phase of negotiation and compromise can be approached with more promise. The initial objectives might be to "normalize" the conflict (for example, by ending the Arab boycotts or drawing troops back on both sides), and to institutionalize the negotiations.

All this assumes that the Arabs are moving toward accommodation, but some participants wondered whether they were doing anything but pursuing the objective of eliminating the state of Israel. Arab interest in still another ceasefire rather than an ultimate settlement might be just a way to gain time for the renewal of war.

The role of the Soviet Union as ally and arms supplier of militant Arab states, but also formally committed to the existence of Israel as a sovereign state, came in for some detailed discussion. Is the Soviet role fundamentally benign? One discussant saw Moscow as neither benign nor malignant, but as a great power responding to circumstances. The United States has to help create circumstances in the Middle East in which Moscow finds it advantageous to act responsibly. Two existing factors would help the United States pursue this objective: (1) the Soviet Union wants to avoid a major explosion in the Middle East and a big power confrontation;

-7-

and (2) the Arabs she is backing and supplying, with the probable exception of Iraq, are uneasy as Soviet clients.

Against this background, one view was that Washington should stop trying to keep the Soviet Union out of the negotiations and in fact take the initiative in pressing Moscow to help implement a constructive policy. In fact, some thought Moscow could not only be instrumental, but was the key to a solution.

A sharply contrasting view was that Soviet involvement in the negotiations holds the danger of Soviet-American disagreement escalating into confrontation.

## The United States Role

The formal presentation on this subject was by Theodore Draper. His thesis was that the United States has "interposed" itself too much between the Arabs and the Israelis and has lent itself to a policy inconsistent with the terms of Resolution 242 of November, 1967, as reaffirmed in Resolution 338.

Resolution 242 called for termination of belligerency, and Resolution 338 called for negotiations between the parties concerned. The big change in U.S. policy, as Draper saw it, came when Kissinger and Brezhnev made a "deal" to press for an immediate ceasefire in the October war and when the United States threatened to use its own forces to relieve Egypt's Third Corps in the Sinai.

In Draper's view, this American intervention on behalf of the Third Corps caused the Egyptians to look to the United States to get from Israel what neither the Arabs nor the Soviets could get from her. The U.S. "interposition" thus led

-8-

to a fundamental reformulation in the Middle East: instead of the Arabs and the
Israelis having to come to terms with each other, each seeks to come to terms with
America. Instead of the Arabs and Israelis arriving at a compromise with each
other, the Israelis are now expected to give up the most, the Arabs are expected
to give up the least, and the United States is expected to make up the difference to
Israel (as in the case of Abu Rodeis with oil or a one-sided territorial settlement
with a so-called guarantee). Yet Draper saw a guarantee as dangerous. "If taken
seriously," he said, "it could mean another Viet Nam war in Israel." Draper deplored
the tendency for the United States to become a surrogate for the Arabs. There is
no substitute, in Draper's view, for compromise arrived at directly between Arabs
and Israelis, with neither party getting everything it wants. Peace in the Middle
Ease hinges far more on Arab-Israeli relations than on U.S.-Israeli or U.S.-Arab relations.

Discussion of the Draper thesis led to an important clarification: Draper
did not advocate withdrawal of the United States from the scene, but rather from
its "interposed" role. He did want Washington to use its leverage to promote
direct Arab-Israeli negotiations and help bring about a compromise between them.

Extensive discussion centered on an alternative suggestion to the "meliorative"
approach, designed to "make the Arabs face reality." Israel would put all her
cards on the table: total withdrawal from Sinai, establishment of a large no-
man's land area on the Golan Heights, a free election on the West Bank and
"Vaticanization" of Jerusalem. The United States would not only guarantee Israeli
adherence but also back Israel to the hilt if the Arabs did not accept them. Thus,

-9-

the Arabs would be confronted with the choice of serious negotiation or more
conflict and increased dependence on the Soviet Union.

The suggestion raised objections on several grounds: (1) it leaves little room for movement; (2) it comes down to being an imposed settlement; (3) the United States cannot and should not support everything Israel wants (e.g. it could not support a solution which bars Syrian settlers from the Golan Heights or keeps Israeli sovereignty undiluted throughout Jerusalem); and (4) it would downgrade or obviate the negotiating process which itself is important to a lasting settlement.

And what about an American guarantee? First of all, every indication on Capitol Hill and in polls of American opinion is that such a commitment would not gain the approval of Congress. But even if it could be squeezed through, what would a guarantee be for? It would have to be for final frontiers between Israel and her Arab neighbors. But if these frontiers are not arrived at through Arab-Israeli negotiations, the guarantee would paper over a fundamental conflict and might have to be invoked. In such a case, only a guarantee that is automatic is effective. But the U.S., in this view, may not be in a position to make good on such a guarantee in the Middle East, which points up the need for direct negotiations: if the frontiers are agreed on by the parties concerned, no guarantee is needed.

Other drawbacks of a U.S. guarantee are that by its very nature and purpose it tends to polarize American-Soviet relations; and because Israel is bound to have doubts about its credibility, a guarantee would have internally disruptive effects in that country.

-10-

The consensus was that a unilateral American guarantee as a *substitute* for a settlement negotiated by the parties themselves would not be helpful and might well be counterproductive. On the other hand, many believed a multilateral guarantee as a *supplement* to a negotiated agreement might enhance the chances of a lasting peace.

The real guarantee for Israel all along has been the lifeline of military and economic aid from the United States to Tel Aviv. It is the product of a fundamental relationship and a policy which seemed to be accepted as a given by many Americans. Yet, some participants wondered just what the relationship is. Earlier in the meeting, the point had been made that American-Arab relations were in the process of change, that Arabs have become respectable as a result of the Yom Kippur war and the United States -- through Kissinger -- has been treating them accordingly. In the mind of some participants, this changed context pointed up the need to ask just what is the nature of American interest in Israel. The answer to this question was seen as equally important to the United States and to Israel and its discussion was a critical element in the second half of the day's deliberations.

-11-

### III. AMERICAN ATTITUDES AND JEWISH-AMERICAN CONCERNS

The rationale for American support of Israel usually is defined in terms of two components: security and moral commitment. But do United States security interests really require a sovereign Israel, and how credible is that part of the rationale? As for the moral commitment, the holocaust memory is fading, and with it perhaps the strength of that commitment.

There were counter-arguments on both scores: One view was that United States security requires Israel's survival as long as the United States and the Soviet Union are rivals, because Israel is America's only reliable Middle Eastern ally not susceptible to Soviet pressure.

Others saw the case in moral terms: Israel is not just another country, and the holocaust cannot be forgotten. What is more, Israel and America share national values, expressed in democratic institutions, civil liberties and other basic characteristics of free societies. Another discussant (Jewish) said that America simply could not tolerate the extinction of Israel because America is a Christian country and "there is a piece of the Jew in every Christian." But, it was countered (by a Christian), there is also a piece of anti-semitism in almost every Christian. And then there was the view that America's commitment to Israel's existence had to be assumed by this gathering and discussion should proceed from there.

But the skeptics remained unconvinced. The presentations of Joseph Califano and Bertram Gold provided evidence that there was cause to review assumptions

-12-

and to treat apprehension with respect.

Joseph Califano reviewed the situation from the Washington vantage point. He saw Americans preoccupied with the recession and sharing a "pervasive desire for political introspection." He cited polls showing sharply reduced concern for Communist takeovers even in West European countries, such as Italy and Portugal, and the cut in the House of Representatives of foreign aid funds from $6 to $3.5 billion. So far, there has been strong support for Israel, but as Califano put it, "Americans have not had to face any real crunch." This may come in two ways: a proposal for a U.S. guarantee, including a commitment of troops, and in the form of multi-billion dollar amounts of aid. He saw no chance for a guarantee to clear Congress, and increasing difficulty for large aid allocations. Consequently, Califano said, Israel's friends and those who see Israel's security as a moral commitment and as an element of American security "must be prepared to make an increasingly persuasive case...and to multilaterize support and aid for Israel."

Polls show that the American public is obsessed with the economy. What has changed among Americans at large is not the attitude toward Israel as such, but the context in which Israel and other foreign problems are perceived. On the other hand, opinion leaders, with the exception of legislators, generally appear less preoccupied than the general public with the economy and ready to make commitments abroad, including to Israel. The problem is that there is an element of wishful thinking in this attitude which may be at odds with political realities.

-13-

In other words, it may not be possible to deliver on the commitments these leadership groups assume as givens -- as attitude that holds the danger of miscalculation.

Bertram Gold's presentation focused on Jewish concerns. He began by citing poll data, the latest of which were based on January, 1975, surveys, showing strong support for Israel. (Fifty-two per cent of the American public supports Israel, 7% the Arabs, up from 42 and 7% in November, 1973. And 74% of the American public say the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state is important to the United States.) Still, Gold said, there is mounting apprehension in the American Jewish community. Why? Since the late sixties, tensions and intergroup conflicts have developed on the domestic scene (over community control, quotas, affirmative action), the plight of Soviet Jews has surfaced, Arab power has increased, and Israel has become increasingly isolated in the world.

More than any other single issue, it is Israel that is making American Jews feel vulnerable. For "Israel represents a triumph over the holocaust...her destruction would represent an intense psychic trauma for all Jews....American Jews know that without continuing U.S. aid Israel cannot withstand the forces that oppose her."

Beyond this, American Jews are concerned that their efforts on behalf of Israel may affect their status in America. There are suspicions of "dual loyalty" among Jews and criticism of "Jewish power." American Jews resent the phrase "dual loyalty," said Gold, for they have no question where their allegiance lies -- to America -- even as they, like most other Americans, have many

-14-

loyalties -- to family, friends, and different institutions or concerns. Finally, there is "irritation / among many Americans" that people as civilized and intelligent as the Jews should cling to 'tribalistic' ties," which leads to "talk of Jewish power and influence as though there were something illegitimate in buttonholing Congressmen and Senators."

Still, Gold expects American Jews to persist in their efforts to help assure the survival of Israel. And if they are more pessimistic than most other Americans, he concluded, "perhaps it is because they feel they have more at stake."

One reaction to these presentations among the participants was that the mood of the country may not allow American Jews the luxury of worrying about long-term guarantees, but require them to attend to a very critical short-range problem: guaranteeing the lifeline of military and economic aid. It may lead American Jews to say to Israel: things are not going your way, so cash in your negotiating chips now before changes in American moods and priorities make things worse for Israel.

Israel's problems in America were further underscored by references to the increased exposure of Americans to the Arab world and Arab views. Increased tourism, trade and more reporting of Arab attitudes and concerns in American media are adding a new dimension to the way in which Americans see the Middle East. One view was that this was salutary, and that a lot of copy reflecting the Arab point of view would have to be published before the Arabs "catch up" (presumably with pro-Israeli news).

-15-

But, the question was asked, how can one speak of "catching up" when the contestants are so unequal: Israel has "its life on the line," while no Arab nation's existence is in jeopardy. Also, there was felt to be a basic "asymmetry" in the attitudes of the two sides toward each other, which influences news reporting from the area -- namely that it is possible to be pro-Israeli without being anti-Arab, but not to be pro-Arab without being anti-Israeli.

Beyond these specific problems, there was the broader question Gold had raised: do American Jews face a "backlash" as they continue their support of Israel? The answers reflected the experience of the participants:

> Yes, it is possible, since support of Israel may be shallow and tepid among many people who answer positively when they are polled.

> Yes and no: there is increasing interest among Americans in the Arab world and some rise in criticism of Israel, but this is a far cry from a "backlash" of anti-semitism.

The Arab boycott had made an impact in the business and academic communities, e.g. a recent international academic conference had dropped Jews when faced with an Arab boycott; and some thirty American businessmen turned down invitations to testify in Congress in support of legislation to deal with boycotts or blacklists.

On the broader question of anti-semitism or discrimination, one view was that it is "inconceivable that the first ten amendments to the Constitution should

-16-

not be applicable to Jews." The response was that the issue is not one of civil
liberties or the right to demonstrate, but of policy and practice in American
institutions. It is a matter of board memberships, business relations and the
"irritant" represented by Jews who carry all that "baggage of Israel on their
backs."

-17-

IV. CONCLUSIONS

McGeorge Bundy singled out two changes in perception as emerging from
the day's discussions:

1. We assume the existence of a deep common interest and a solid under-
lying mutual sympathy that connects the United States inescapably, and correctly,
with the survival of Israel. But this proposition will be tested, and in the light
of the day's discussions, it may require more study and analysis to provide a
more coherent and convincing answer to the question: what is the full nature of
the American interest in Israel's existence as a Jewish state?

2. The concerns of American Jews about anti-semitism present a more complex and troubling problem. These Jewish concerns may indeed be justified in terms that are not readily perceived by non-Jews. Are there ways of addressing questions of policy and practice -- of unstated quotas and restrictions against Jews? The tensions of the next two to three years will make this a live issue, yet the right answers to it are beyond appeal in terms of the Constitution of this country. A low profile on this issue may be both unwise and dangerous.

What can private groups and organizations do? Some ideas emerged at
the meeting, but more were invited by Bundy as a follow-up to it.

One suggestion was for more meetings like the one just held, in which
people who agree on fundamentals let issues and concerns surface and discuss
differences on policy. But there is need for careful preparation and thoughtful
leadership lest public debate yield counterproductive effects.

-18-

Private groups could do research and analysis that might be helpful in
developing new approaches to the conflict as well as in aiding the American
public to assess Middle East realities and the nature of United States commitments
and interests in the area.

One participant urged non-Jews to play a leading role, particularly those
who have the power to make an impact on decisions. "If you don't help to deal
with the problem," he said, "you become part of the problem."

In the view of another participant, Israel and American Jews must make
their case in positive, non-divisive terms. The emphasis must be on what Israel
can and will do -- not on what she will refuse to do.

THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS CLUB

DENIS HEALEY, M.P.
Chairman

HUGH CORBET
Secretary

PROFESSOR H. C. ALLEN
GEORGE CUNNINGHAM, M.P.
ROBIN DAY
SIR ALEC DOUGLAS-HOME, M.P.
LIONEL GELBER
PATRICK GORDON WALKER, M.P.
SIR ROY HARROD
DRREK INGRAM
PROFESSOR HARRY G. JOHNSON

KEITH KYLE
ALFRED LATHAM-KOENIG
JOHN MACKINTOSH, M.P.
SIR FRANK ROBERTS
THE EARL OF SELKIRK, Q.C.
GEOFFREY SMITH
THE LORD TWEEDSMUIR
SIR ROBIN WILLIAMS

6, Buckingham Street,

London, WC2N 6BX

TELEPHONE: 01-930 1617

6th August, 1973

My dear Henry,

Back in the early days of the Nixon Administration you very kindly agreed in principle to address our members during one of your visits to London. I know how difficult it is to plan these things in advance. It occurred to us though that you might be in Europe before or with the President when you might like to use the club as a platform for a statement on American - European relations.

You could expect an articulate and well informed audience of around two hundred in number drawn largely from business, journalism, the universities and government. Brief details about the club are enclosed together with a list of past speakers.

Our procedure is to have the address before dinner and then after the meal there is discussion, questions and answers for an hour or so.

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger,
White House,
Washington, D.C.

THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS CLUB was founded in 1965, under the chairmanship of Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, in an effort to broaden public discussion in the United Kingdom of foreign and Commonwealth affairs. Mr. Gordon Walker had been Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and earlier, in the Attlee Government, had been Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. He was subsequently Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home, the former Prime Minister, became the second chairman of the club. He subsequently became Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs having also previously been Foreign Secretary and Commonwealth Secretary.

The present chairman is Mr. Denis Healey, who was Secretary of State for Defence from 1964 to 1970, and the secretary is Mr. Hugh Corbet, Director of the Trade Policy Research Centre, London. Set out below is the committee of the club.

DENIS HEALEY, M.P.
Chairman

HUGH CORBET
Secretary

PROFESSOR H. C. ALLEN KEITH KYLE
GEORGE CUNNINGHAM, M.P. ALFRED LATHAM-KOENIG
ROBIN DAY JOHN MACKINTOSH, M.P.
SIR ALEC DOUGLAS-HOME, M.P. SIR FRANK ROBERTS
LIONEL GELBER THE EARL OF SELKIRK, Q.C.
PATRICK GORDON WALKER, M.P. GEOFFREY SMITH
SIR ROY HARROD THE LORD TWEEDSMUIR
DEREK INGRAM SIR ROBIN WILLIAMS, BT.
PROFESSOR HARRY G. JOHNSON

The club dines at roughly monthly intervals to discuss major underlying issues—economic, political and strategic—which shape the policies abroad of Her Majesty's and other governments.

The club is particularly concerned to hear and discuss information and opinions that may not be in accord with the fashion of the moment or which, while freely available in other countries, are nonetheless neglected in the United Kingdom.

Membership, by invitation of the committee, is largely drawn from journalism, the universities, government and business. Members are permitted to invite to each dinner guests who are interested in taking part in the discussion and perhaps in joining the club.

Unless otherwise stated by the chairman, or his deputy, the guest speaker's address is not for attribution. In all circumstances answers to questions are off the record and so, too, are comments from members and guests.

A subscription of £5.00 is payable yearly on October 31. Members pay £2.50 in advance for each dinner booked. All extras are paid for as desired. The club is administered from 6 Buckingham Street, London, WC2N 6BX (Telephone 01-930 1617).

By the spring of 1972 the club had been addressed by the following speakers:

1. General PIERRE GALLOIS, formerly Special Assistant to the Supreme Commander of NATO, on *French Defence Policy* (November 9, 1965).

2. Mr. GEOFFREY HUDSON, Director of the Centre for Far East Studies, St. Anthony's College, Oxford, on *The Three Chinas* (December 15, 1965).

3. Sir MICHAEL WRIGHT, formerly UK Delegate to the Geneva Disarmament Conference, on the *Need for a New Atlantic Trade Initiative* (January 12, 1966).

4. H.E. Mr. ARNOLD SMITH, Commonwealth Secretary-General, on *The Commonwealth* (February 23, 1966).

46. Monsieur MAURICE COUVE DE MURVILLE, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of France, on *Problems of European Policy* (April 13, 1970).

47. Professor ZBIGNIEW BREZEZINSKI, Director of the Research Institute of Communist Affairs at Columbia University, New York, on *Soviet-American Relations* (April 22, 1970).

48. Professor Sir ARTHUR LEWIS, Professor of Political Economy at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, on the *Problems of International Development* (May 4, 1970).

49. Dr. THEODORE GEIGER, Director of International Studies at the National Planning Association, Washington, on *Trans-Atlantic Relations in the 1970s* (June 30, 1970).

50. Rt. Hon. MALCOM MACDONALD, formerly British Representative in Africa, on *Britain's Role in Africa and Asia* (July 8, 1970).

51. Rt. Hon. ROBERT STANFIELD, Q.C., Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament of Canada, on *Canada and Continentalism* (July 27, 1970).

52. Professor MILTON FRIEDMAN, Paul Snowden Russell Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, on *The Domestic and International Implications of Inflation* (September 17, 1970).

53. Mr. LAURENCE GANDAR, Editor-in-Chief of the *Rand Daily Mail*, Johannesburg, on *South Africa's "Outward-Looking" Policies* (November 10, 1970).

54. Professor JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH, Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, on *Foreign Policy: The Plain Lessons of a Bad Decade* (November 23, 1970).

55. Professor ALI MAZRUI, Professor of Political Science at Makerere University, Kampala, on *The Different Political and Economic Systems in East Africa* (February 16, 1971).

56. Dr. LUDWIG ERHARD, former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, on *The EEC and EFTA in the World Economy* (March 15, 1971).

57. Dr. T. B. MILLAR, Director of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Canberra, on *Britain, Australia and the Indian Ocean* (March 24, 1971).

58. Professor GERARD CURZON, Professor of International Economics, Graduate Institute of Studies, University of Geneva, on *Trade War: Can it be Avoided?* (June 24, 1971).

59. Dr. HARALD B. MALMGREN, then Senior Fellow, Overseas Development Council, on *The United States, the European Community and the International Trading System* (July 15, 1971).

60. Rt. Hon. Sir ALEC DOUGLAS-HOME, M.P., Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on *East-West Relations* (October 19, 1971).

61. Mr. LEE KUAN YEW, Prime Minister of Singapore, on *The Situation in South-East Asia* (November 1, 1971).

62. Sir JOHN COULSON, Secretary-General of the European Free Trade Association, on *European Integration and the Future of EFTA* (November 22, 1971).

63. Monsieur OLIVIER LONG, Director-General of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, on *Towards Better Trade Relations in the 70s* (January 24, 1972).

64. Dr. KURT WALDHEIM, Secretary-General of the United Nations, on *The Role of the United Nations in the 1970s* (April 11, 1972).

PRINTED BY DITCHLING PRESS LIMITED, DITCHLING, HASSOCKS, SUSSEX

DEC 18 1970

Dear Mr. Healy:

Thank you for sending me your article on
Jeannine Cusson. I share your high estima-
tion of her and appreciate your thoughtfulness.

Mr. Paul Healy
The News
1272 National Press Building
Washington, D. C. 20004

jlp:12/17/70

HAWTHORN BOOKS, INC. PUBLISHERS

260 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK, N. Y. 10016 • (212) 725-7740

December 18, 1972

Mr. Henry Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

The purpose of this letter is to ask you if you might possibly be interested
in writing and having published your autobiography. You occupy a very unique
position in the tableau of national and international affairs and your tre-
mendously eventful life cannot but help to be of extreme interest to the general
public as well as to people in high government circles, the academic scene,
political sciences and students of government.

I realize that you have been tremendously busy for the last several months in
your preoccupation with the negotiations in Paris and in bringing an end to
hostilities in Viet Nam, and it is an endeavor that every American is watching
with a great deal of interest and sincere hope.

For your information, Hawthorn Books is a prominent New York book publisher
issuing books across a broad spectrum of subjects including politics, history,
foreign affairs, health, education, psychology, psychiatry, mental health,
biography, autobiography, memoirs, cookbooks, antiques, collectibles, sports
and juveniles.

Among the books we have recently published or now have under contract are the
following: POLICE IN TROUBLE by James Ahern, former Police Commissioner of New
Haven, Conn.; PEACE FROM NERVOUS SUFFERING by Dr. Clare Weekes; EYEWITNESS TO
HISTORY by Isaac Don Levine; RETREAT FROM VICTORY by Drew Middleton; WHATEVER
BECAME OF SIN by Karl Menninger, M. D.; THE NEW WAY OF LIVING by Dr. Norman
Vincent Peale; AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Edward G. Robinson and Leonard Spiglegass; and
THE LODGES OF MASSACHUSETTS by Alden Hatch.

You may also be aware that Hawthorn Books is owned by W. Clement Stone, a close
friend of President Nixon for many years, whose private foundation funds many
dedicated and worthwhile projects in the area of mental health, scientific re-
search and special correctional programs in the prisons of our country.

I am enclosing herewith a copy of Hawthorn's latest catalog and a copy of our
complete list of trade publications so that you can get a fuller idea of the

American International College

Springfield, Massachusetts 01109

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

November 26, 1972

Research Department
Office of Dr. Henry Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir:

For a post-doctoral study of Disraeli: American Counterparts,
I should appreciate the assistance of your office on the following information,
which I have not been able to document accurately:

1. The time, place, and circumstance when Dr. Kissinger is said to have commented that he preferred the appellation of American Disraeli to Metternich.

2. The name of the research (speech) consultant to the President on Disraeli/and/Victorian England.

I am preparing material for a research project for 1973-74, during
my sabbatical year. Your aid in this preliminary planning stage will
be most gratefully received.

b/b

## Credentials

Master of Arts in Teaching American History, University of Massachusetts, 1961

Doctor of Philosophy: Disraeli: Satirist, University of Massachusetts, 1970
Department of English (unpublished dissertation)

[LC]

People

Want the facts? Want to learn the truth about pro
York, N.Y. 10017. Your full name will be used

Q. Is the UPI telephoto of Henry Kissinger in the nude an actual photo? It was published in the Rocky Mountain News on P. 43. How can we tolerate a man of such colorful reputation in the position he occupies? Surely a nation such as ours has produced a moral man who could serve as adviser to our President and let Mr. Kissinger take his passions to the gutter where they belong?—Mrs. Dan Knudsen, Arapahoe, Colo.

A. The photo of Henry Kissinger on a bear rug in the altogether except for his glasses is fake. The composite was put together by Ian "Sandy" Frazier and James H. Siegelman, editors of *The Harvard Lampoon*, a humor magazine. Reportedly, the head belongs to Kissinger, the body to a Boston cabdriver.

COMPOSITE PHOTO OF HENRY KISSINGER

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
WEST EUROPEAN STUDIES

5 BRYANT STREET
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138

August 27, 1973

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Henry:

My old and good friend, Georges Suffert, the editor of the influential Paris weekly, _Le Point_--it is independent but much closer to official views than _L'Express_--has asked me to ask you whether you would be willing to give an interview to _Le Point_ in order to present your case on Atlantic cooperation which Suffert, quite rightly, believes to have been misunderstood in Europe. Since his main concern is to clarify the subject in order to dispel prejudices and to enhance Franco-American cooperation, and since I consider him to be an able and responsible journalist--I have known him for more than fifteen years, I told him that I would transmit to you his request, even though I was far from sure that you would consider it. In case you do accept, he is willing to come any place any time--preferably soon, in order to meet you. Since I am leaving for Europe tomorrow, it would be best to get in touch with him directly if you felt so inclined (Georges Suffert, Le Point, 37, Avenue Pierre ler-de-Serbie, 75008 Paris, tel. 225-83-50).

RECEIVED
DEC 9 1975
CENTRAL FILES

New York University

Department of Philosophy
903 Rufus D. Smith Hall
Washington Square
New York, N.Y. 10003
Telephone: (212) 598-3262

Tel: (212) 989-3308
345 8th Avenue - Apt. 19F
New York, New York 10001
January 18, 1972

Dear Henry:

I hope you are not too busy to read this. I am writing
to make three points.

First, to express my indignation at the shabby treatment
to which you have been subjected by the press, especially those
newspapers and periodicals which, in the past, have stressed the
importance of having individuals of trained intelligence and
broad cultural outlook serve in the strategic positions of
government. A good deal of it seems to me to be motivated by
envy and the rest by the narrowest kind of political partisan-
ship. I hope to write a piece on "The Ethics of Criticism" as
a kind of response to this, and to the glorification of Ellsberg's
irresponsible behavior.

Second. I have just returned from a two month lecture trip
to Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, Korea, and
Japan. I have met many of the intellectual and political leaders
of these countries. It is not news to you -- I suspect -- that
all of them feel that they are orphans abandoned in a storm. Both
in conversation and in print, I argued that this was an unjustified
inference and was surprised to find the readiness with which my
analysis was accepted. It seems to me that like women in love,
these nations cannot be assured too often that one's sentiments
have not changed. Verba sap.

Finally, although I do not know whether this falls into your
bailiwick or not (if it does not please pass it on to the proper
executive authority), I have discovered someone in the Foreign Ser-
vice who seems to me to be absolutely first rate, and whose immense
abilities -- so it seems to me -- are not being properly utilized.
His name is Martin Herz, and he is unaware, of course, that I am
writing to you. He has a mind of the highest order, keen psycho-
logical insight, and remarkable capacities for organizing and syn-
thesizing material. I have met many ambassadors and he is head
and shoulders above all I've met. If you were looking for someone
of utmost reliability and capacity -- he would be your man. I
don't know the rules or lines of advance in the vast government
bureaucracy, but it seems to me that there ought to be some way
of locating and using exceptional talent like that of Martin Herz.

Dr. Henry Kissinger
Page Two

January 19, 1972

I am again embattled on the academic front. The most horrible things are happening in the universities, especially at Harvard. Our organization, University Centers for Rational Alternatives, is trying to beat back the tides of intolerance. The conservatives couldn't prevent Harold Laski from teaching at Harvard, and Joseph McCarthy couldn't cow Pusey into firing Communist sympathizers on the Harvard faculty, but the remnants of the SDS have succeeded in preventing Herrnstein from teaching undergraduates!

Hope to have a chance to exchange a few words with you at
the President's dinner Friday night, January 28.

August 5, 1974

Dear Bob:

I want to express my deep appreciation for
the excellence of your work during the more
than four years you were a member of my
staff and for your significant contribution to
the development of American foreign policy
in the field of international economics and
foreign assistance.

I am pleased that you have had the opportunity
for a year of research and writing under a
Council on Foreign Relations Fellowship, and
I wish you every success in the future.

Mr. Robert D. Hormats
3003 Van Ness Street, W-916
Washington, D. C. 20016

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506

December 3, 1973

Dear Mr. Secretary:

As I mentioned to you earlier, I have been awarded a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellowship. After a great deal of consideration, and in light of recent organizational changes, I have decided to take advantage of this opportunity to do a year of research and writing.

It has been a privilege to have worked on your staff during this historic period in American foreign policy and to have been able to make a small contribution to the development of the improved world order toward which your efforts have been directed.

9 NOV 1974

Dear Mr. Minister:

I want to express my great appreciation to you
for the warmth of welcome and the excellence of the
arrangements which marked my visit to Dacca. I must
also add my special thanks for the personal kindnesses
which you and your wife extended to Mrs. Kissinger
and to me.

Although my stop was brief, I was very glad to
have the opportunity to continue the discussions
which we began during your recent stay in New York.
I am convinced that through such personal encounters,
we can strengthen the relations between our countries.

It is my hope that our personal association,
now more than a decade old, will continue and grow,
and that it will demonstrate on a personal level the
closeness of the ties between our two countries.

I also want to thank you for the gifts which
you so kindly presented to me and Mrs. Kissinger.
They will be permanent reminders of our visit with you.

His Excellency
Dr. Kamal Hossain
Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Dacca.

Dacca.
Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Dr. Kamal Hoasain
His Excellency

Henry A. Klaaijder

Warm regards,

They will be permanent reminders of our visit with you.
You so kindly presented to me and Mrs. Klaaijder.
I shall want to thank you for the little which

closeness of the ties between our two countries.
and that it will demonstrate on a personal level the
now more than a decade old, will continue and grow.
It is my hope that our personal association,

It is my hope that our personal association,
we can strengthen the relations between our countries.
I am convinced that through and through encounters,
which we began during your recent stay in New York,
have the opportunity to continue the discussions
Although my stop was brief, I was very glad to
and to me.

which you and your wife extended to Mrs. Klaaijder
also add my special thanks for the personal kindnesses
arrangements which marked my visit to Dacca. I want
for the warmth of welcome and the excellence of the
I want to express my great appreciation to you

Dear Mr. Minister:

9 NOV 1974

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

535 NORTH DEARBORN STREET • CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60610 • PHONE (312) 527-1500 • TWX 910-221-0300

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

ROBERT B. HUNTER, M.D.

700 Murdock Street
Sedro Woolley, Washington 98284

March 23, 1972

Mr. Henry A. Kissenger, Chairman
National Security Council
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir:

I finished reading your three essays on American Foreign Policy as published by W. W. Norton & Co. of N.Y. I find them both fascinating and instructive in their content. As is usual with me when I am reading something intently, I find that I have "blue pencilled" most generously.

Nowhere in your dissertation have I found reference to different national attitudes toward human life, either individually or collectively. It has long been my feeling that we in the United States have predicated many of our decisions on the high value which we place on human lives and have thereby tempered the strength of our positions and oftimes have failed to take a position. This is not necessarily a Christian attitude. A female human was of no lasting value until the Jewish fathers of the past created the institution of marriage in order to give lasting significance to their daughters.

In the conduct of wars that the United States has been involved in subsequent to the Civil War, it appears to me that the concern for casualties and the care of casualties, although an excellent P.R. gesture, have acted to impede the conduct of the wars. This is far more true of the armed forces of the United States than any other nation of the world.

I would be interested in hearing from you relative to this concept if you have a moment for reply.

RBH/lew

Doris Hurst

49 West Seventy-second St.
New York, N. Y. 10023

Oct. 19, 1972

Dear Dr. Kissinger

The enclosed news-cutting was sent to me by my sister who lives in London and needless to say we are very annoyed over these remarks about you, especially so since there is no question you have a brain, you hold the position you do, your brilliant and I certainly endorse my sister's remarks that you are dishy and, best of all you are of our faith - Jewish.

Enjoy your bachelorhood but, if you ever decide to change that situation, please be sure she comes from our clan. I would hate to think a brilliant person like you would waste yourself on somebody who thinks we have horns.

Very recently I had 4 Secret Service men to my home for cocktails all with the same opinion that Jews have horns. By the time cocktails were over they still didn't know I was Jewish and also the Mezuzah on my door was never noticed by them.

My very best wishes to you for continued success and may you always be seen with only lovely ladies