KISSINGER

*** APR 17 1984

Continued from A-1

san Commission on Central America said that the turmoil in that region "was not caused originally by Marxism, but by such local sources as social injustice and inequality, causes which would have to be removed even if there had never been communism."

But, he continued, fledgling guerrilla struggles in the area have been organized and directed by Cuba and sabotage has been a major element in setting the development of several countries back a decade. "It takes a year to build a bridge," he said, "but only an hour to blow it up."

The $8 billion in aid the bipartisan commission urged the United States to send to Central America in the next five years, he said, is intended to raise the economic level of the region to where it was in 1978, before falling commodity prices, rising energy costs and sabotage became widespread. You can argue against any aid at all, he said, or for giving the substantial amount of aid the commission proposed. "But there is no argument for doing too little. And that is where we are sliding."

Kissinger blasted the "hypocritical" debate of the Nicaraguan issue in the United States. Immediately after the overthrow of Nicaraguan leader Anastasio Somoza in 1979, he said, the Sandinista government

proclaimed its policy of a revolution without frontiers. Since then it has consistently supported the guerrillas in El Salvador and provided headquarters for subversive movements in Central America. That the Sandinista government can now approach the World Court charging intervention in its internal affairs, he remarked, is nothing but "sickening hypocrisy."

When asked if the United States should trade with Cuba, he remarked, "At this moment Cuba is systematically working against American interests and values all over the world. If they bring their troops and advisers home, then we might resume trade relations."

While the protest continued outside the hotel, two hecklers inside the Hilton's Continental Ballroom shouted that Kissinger was an agent of the Soviet Union. The audience, which applauded lightly during the speech and gave Kissinger a standing ovation at the end, booed each time the hecklers began to shout.

"Few people can unify the American people like I can," Kissinger droned in imperial tones as the last heckler was escorted from the ballroom. "I have a great constituency among the nuts of the left and the right."

Kissinger concluded by admitting that prospects were not good for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which would allow naturalized citizens like himself to be elected president. "But the Constitution doesn't say they can't be emperor," he quipped.

representatives of the American people are willing to go to topple the government of Nicaragua and prop up the government in El Salvador.

It is much like the debate that preceded passage of the Tonkin Gulf resolution in 1964 authorizing President Johnson to escalate the war in Vietnam, and the stakes are just as high.

Now the critical question is whether Congress has the stomach flatly to oppose the president's policy in Central America or will try to have it both ways.

Will it be content with having passed a non-binding resolution by overwhelming margins in the House and Senate last week, expressing "the sense of Congress that no additional funds be used to mine the ports or territorial waters of Nicaragua"?

**OR WILL IT** actually cut off all funding for the covert war against that nation's leftist-Sandinista government?

Or will it work out something in between — a compromise that vents a good deal of breast-beating as well as earnest debate, but allows the deadly game to go on?

The crunch won't come until after Congress returns from its Easter week recess.

As the situation stands, Congress is on record against mining Nicaraguan harbors. The Senate has approved $21 million to continue aid to Nicaraguan rebel forces and $61.7 million for El Salvador. Leaders of the Democratic-controlled House are aiming at eliminating all funds for the Nicaraguan contras and cutting the Salvadoran money in half.

No doubt what the senators and representatives hear from the people while home this week will have

some bearing on the judge, Congress brink of refusing back. In other the president to covert war.

**AND THERE**
Congress did last week that conclusion.

Right from the start, there has been a Congress who have battled government put it in their arm the Sandinista gua.

But their resistance not erupt like a fire, came known put hand in the mine.

Prior to that, the guan harbors had boats hit mines. Bluff. Two more.

**NOR WAS IT**
the U.S.-funded made Congress decision, but as late CIA's direct inv
public knowled

ROTO-
ROOTER

SEWER-DRAIN
SERVICE

* ROTO-ROOTER is offering this
"SPRING CLEANING SPECIAL"

When was the last time you
thought about cleaning your drains **BEFORE** an
over-flow occurs? If you have us clean 3 (or
more) of your drains, you will receive a quart of
**ROTO-ROOTER** drain degreaser — **FREE —**
($12.78 value) upon presentation of this ad, at
time of service (limit to 1 quart per service
call). We give Senior Citizens discounts.

322-2366 • 968-5933 • 369-5692 • (408) 739-1778

“... away go troubles down the drain.” ♫♪

*This offer good in Los Altos, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and San Mateo County (except in Brisbane, Colma, Daly City).

OPEN
4 P.M.

ENJOY
EASTER DINNER

SPECIAL MENU

Children ½ Price

MAKE RESERVATIONS — TODAY

Radio
Shack®

SAVE NOW
TRS-80®

$60 Below Our
1984 Catalog
Price

Originally $119.95 (Interim Price Cuts Taken)

NOW ONLY
5995
26-3011

■ Learn How to Program
Our Excellent Tutorial

■ 8 Colors ■ 255 Sound

■ Produce Graphics Ch
BASIC Commands with

**** MAR 29 1984

# Kissinger sees resumption
(Russia)
of U.S.-Soviet arms talks

By Mark Simon

Times Tribune staff

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said Wednesday he believes arms negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union will resume, but perhaps not until after the American elections in November.

Kissinger told a news conference in San Jose he considered it "highly probable" that arms negotiations, broken off late last year, will begin anew, perhaps by "this time next year.

"But whether that happens in the next few weeks or months, I would be less confident.

"I hope the Soviets will not try to play around with our electoral process. They tried it in West Germany and they tried it in Britain. In both cases, it backfired."

Kissinger was in San Jose to address the annual fund-raising banquet for the Santa Clara County Dental Society.

An estimated 350 society members and supporters paid $125 a couple to hear Kissinger speak at a banquet at the San Jose Hyatt Hotel. Most of the proceeds from the dinner went to defray Kissinger's $15,000 speaking fee.

Kissinger spoke to the society two years ago when society officials decided to start a program of major speakers as a fund-raising device for the organization and to increase public interest in society programs.

Kissinger said he would not tailor his remarks to the dentists' organization and that he would give the same sort of address he would give to a group of bankers.

"I am more terrified of dentists than I am bankers," Kissinger said.

At a news conference before his address, Kissinger was asked about developments in Central America and the report of a presidential commission he headed that made recommendations to the Reagan administration about American policies in the region.

Kissinger defended the report of his commission, saying the recommendations were the result of a bipartisan consensus.

The report recommended $20 billion in economic and social aid to the region from 1985 through 1990, $8 billion to be provided by the United States.

Kissinger said the United States already is scheduled to provide $4.5 billion in "random relief-type programs" for the period. The commission's recommendation represents an increase of only $3.5 billion over five years.

"That's only $700 million a year," Kissinger said. He said the United States gives $3.5 billion in aid to some allies in a single year.

"I'm afraid this request will go through the usual attrition. What I'm afraid of is that the administration can make a proposal, and then people whittle $100 million here and $200 million there and then they say, 'How can this be a catastrophe?'"

Kissinger said it is excusable to do too much or to do nothing.

"We cannot do too little," he said.

Kissinger's appearance attracted a crowd of about 250 people protesting his role in the Reagan administration's Central American policies and his part in the foreign policy of past administrations.

The crowd circled the entryway to the banquet room, chanting slogans and carrying signs with slogans that included "Fix Teeth, Not Elections" and "Kissinger Equals Truth Decay."

to after the designation of the
special prosecutor, he will head home.

THE WHITE HOUSE has floated the idea of an acting attorney general. Thus the seat would be kept warm for Meese without any break in the confirmation

and come up with a new attorney general. There are plenty of good lawyers able to do the job with distinction, and ready to serve for the rest of this year in a way that would help the department, the administration and the country.

Los Angeles Times Syndicate

# for the soul of the Democratic Party

side Washington in these programs. These stakes or interests are at the center of the Hart-Mondale contest.

It is also interesting to recall the Chrysler debate. Mondale has rallied the United Auto Workers to his cause with the cry that Hart voted against the Chrysler bailout. Hart's answer is that it is bad economic policy to bail out industries, that the government does not bail out small, failing businesses and should not do it for a company that is so big that it can put pressure on Washington.

Further, as Sen. Paul Tsongas, D-Mass., recalled in his book, "The Road from Here," when he and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., came independently to a compromise on the Chrysler bill, which required a freeze on wage increases to get the loan, there was violent opposition by the UAW, and Tsongas had to defend against the notion that by imposing the freeze he was "anti-union."

THERE IS ALSO the issue of the oil import tax. The tax, 10 cents a gallon, was imposed by President Carter (with no objection from Mondale) by executive order because the president was aware that Congress

would not have the guts to vote for such a tax. Congress later repealed it, with Hart in favor of the tax.

If there was one success of the Carter administration, it was dealing with the reality of energy; that oil had to be priced at real world cost if there was to be conservation and a move from dependency.

Tsongas and Hart came to the notion that in an energy crisis, it is the poor who are ravaged by unemployment in recession and weak economies, and that rebate measures for the tax could be a cushion for the poor. For this, Mondale makes the case that Hart sold out to the oil interests.

THE DIFFERENCES between Hart and Mondale on military spending, on doing business with Fidel Castro, on the withdrawal of troops from Central America and the basic role of the United States in the world are also sharply different.

Mondale wisely changes the debate terms by questioning Hart's commitments to Democratic values.

But it is a good deal more than that. This debate is for the soul of the Democratic Party, and the lineups on each side know it.

Boston Globe

Kissinger's ex-maid held in theft

JERSEY CITY, N.J. — A ex-maid for former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger remained free on bail today after being charged with possession of nearly $200,000 in property stolen from Kissinger's New York apartment. ***SEP 26 1984(2)***

Elizabeth Moyano, 27, was released on $1,000 bail after appearing before Municipal Judge Edward F. Zampella on charges of possession and receipt of stolen property, Hudson County Prosecutor Harold J. Ruvoldt Jr. said.

Moyano was arrested Saturday after Kissinger's wife, Nancy, identified the stolen items at the suspect's apartment in Union City, authorities said.

*** AUG 12 1984

# Former colleague calls Kissinger
'extremely insecure, Machiavellian'

WASHINGTON (AP) — A key diplomat in the Nixon administration describes Henry A. Kissinger in a new book as an "extremely insecure" man with a penchant for "Machiavellian intrigue" and a contemptuous attitude toward the truth.

The unflattering portrait of Kissinger is outlined by U. Alexis Johnson, a career diplomat who was undersecretary of state for political affairs, the department's No. 3 post, from 1969 to 1973 while Kissinger served as President Richard M. Nixon's national security adviser.

Johnson's book, "The Right Hand of Power," is to be published by Prentice-Hall in mid-September. Excerpts of the book appear in the current issue of the Foreign Service Journal, a publication of the American Foreign Service Association, the union of career diplomats.

"Henry, like most geniuses, has spectacular talents but corresponding faults," Johnson wrote. "He was amazingly successful juggling a profusion of balls while pirouetting atop a high wire. When some of the balls dropped, however, it was obvious that devotion to the truth was not always a guiding principle."

Kissinger's office said Friday that the former secretary of state was out of the city.

Johnson is critical of Nixon as well. In May 1970, Johnson said he had a 2 a.m. phone call from Nixon after the president learned that 50 foreign service officers had signed a letter, leaked to the press, protesting his decision to send American forces into Cambodia to hunt down North Vietnamese infiltrators.

Henry Kissinger
... recalled with distaste.

Awakened from a deep sleep, "I groggily picked up the receiver," Johnson recalled. "The caller's voice blasted out: 'This is the president. I want you to make sure all those sons of ... are fired first thing in the morning!'"

Nixon later backed off that demand but won from Johnson a promise to ensure that none of the 50 was promoted or posted in Southeast Asia.

At the time of Nixon's controversial decision to mine North Vietnam's Haiphong harbor in May 1972, Johnson said, Kissinger told him he was opposed to the action. Kissinger asked Johnson to suggest to then-Secretary of State William P. Rogers that he try to dissuade Nixon from going ahead with the plan.

Rogers had a hunch that Kissinger was only pretending to op-

pose the plan — a suspicion that Johnson said was borne out years later in Kissinger's memoirs.

"I can only speculate, of course, about why Henry misled me so blatantly during two extended conversations," Johnson wrote. "Given his addiction to Machiavellian intrigue, perhaps he was trying to discredit Rogers further with the president by setting him up to attack a decision the president had already made."

He added that Rogers eluded the trap. As Kissinger noted in his memoirs, Rogers' attitude on the mining at a National Security Council meeting was "ambiguous." Johnson described the meeting as a charade because Nixon's mind already was made up.

After Nixon disclosed the mining operation in a speech, "Henry phoned me ... with his customary tirade against the department for leaks revealing the inside story of how the government made the decision. But, in fact, the department held together very well," Johnson said.

"Although Henry denied to me that he had even seen the correspondent whose story had contained the revealing details, I learned for a fact that they had lunch together before the story appeared."

Johnson said Kissinger sought relentlessly to limit Rogers' role in the administration. He said Rogers learned of Nixon's April 1972 decision to resume bombing raids of North Vietnam from a television report.

Rogers also was systematically excluded by Nixon and Kissinger from most conversations with foreign visitors, Johnson said.

Kissinger, not the terrorists,
deserves the news blackout

*** JUN 28 1985

WASHINGTON — There's no escaping Henry Kissinger these days. Early in the morning, late at night, he is all over the networks, stamping his foot like Rumpelstiltskin, crying out his message of "no deals, no negotiations, no coverage" and retaliation when it's over. And like Rumpelstiltskin, he finally stamped so hard he put his foot through the floor.

It happened the other night during a "Nightline" appearance with Ted Koppel. The former secretary of state was, as usual, berating the press for giving a platform to terrorists.

"If the Nazis had invited networks to Auschwitz to watch people marching off to gas chambers, would it be appropriate news coverage to cover that?" he asked, opening up the floor beneath his feet.

His host gave Kissinger a much-needed glimpse into the function of the press, which is to tell what is going on, because one of the premises of a democratic society is that a free people, when informed, will take action against evil.

HAD THEY HAD the chance, Koppel said, the networks "absolutely" should have shown Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

"Can you imagine what the outrage of the world would have been if it had seen live television pictures of what was going on there?" he asked.

Kissinger was only saying what he always said, although not in so many words, at the height of his glory: that you cannot trust ordinary Americans to reach the right conclusions without the guidance of someone superior — like himself, for instance.

He gave a view of how it would be in the present crisis if it were being properly run; that is, with him in charge. Ten network executives would be called in and would agree to "never show the terrorists making demands or carry anything that includes pictures of the terrorists or anything that gives the terrorists a platform."

Kissinger, who never had any faith in the country's capacity to sort out information — including, it seems, data on Nazi death camps — is particularly incensed over the hostage press conference arranged by the Shiite captors.

To him it was a "humiliation of the U.S."

ACTUALLY, THE rugby-field chaos that was shown when the Shiites brought out five of the hostages was a humiliation to all members of the world's press corps. As for Kissinger's morbid fear that the terrorists made friends here out of the event, it is not widely shared. The families of the hostages who so stiffly attested to their well-being were hardly open to arguments about Shiite grievances, which were not, in any case, aired at the session. They were watching the tense faces of their loved ones, or waiting for the mention of their names.

One man's platform is another's life raft in a hos-

tage situation.

Relatives who hear chilling talk about the "national interest" as superseding the need to save lives hope of course, that the president is paying no attention to Kissinger. It appears that Reagan has tuned out the unsolicited advice being delivered in the Gotterdam merung rumblings of the diplomatic superstar he has so stubbornly refused to employ.

INSTEAD, REAGAN is, with the approval of the country, pursuing the path of prayerful patience toward den by his predecessor, Jimmy Carter. He is also, it seems, negotiating like mad despite public denials to the contrary. Kissinger, one of the right wing's favorite targets in times past, has emerged as its spokesman, which would not accept him if he personally led a retaliatory raid on East Beirut.

The establishment's darling, in exile from power has become an "outside agitator."

He rails against television for "giving a man like Berri an American platform on which he can propagate his views at a time when he is holding American citizens."

It was pointed out to him that Nabih Berri, the "moderate" Shiite leader, was designated by the president himself as the man who is responsible for the safety of the hostages and one who could release them. He is, therefore, a legitimate object of public concern.

KISSINGER'S "Nightline" adversary, Hoddin Carter — the State Department spokesman during the Iranian hostage crisis — tried to instruct him further in the benefits of a free press in a difficult moment. "Americans will come out a lot firmer in their resolve by seeing what is being done than if they were kept in the dark like a bunch of mushrooms."

Kissinger might think of the seven other forgotten American kidnap victims, one of whom has languished in obscurity for 14 months, to consider that publicity may not be the ultimate factor in terrorism. To watch him under the lights demanding they be turned off in Beirut isn't just unconvincing, it's irrelevant.

*** JUN 28 1985

Mary
McGrory

Universal Press Syndicate

Kissinger may run aga

*** JAN 30 1986

ALBANY, N.Y. — Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger said today that he's considering running for governor of New York this year against incumbent Democrat Mario Cuomo.

"Republican leaders have urged me to run for governor," said Kissinger in a statement issued by his New York City office. "I had not previously considered standing for elective office, but I am complimented by their request and I feel I owe them a consideration of their views.*** JAN 30 1986

Chris Vick, Kissinger's executive assistant, said she did not know

which GOP leaders had asked Kissinger to run or when he might make his decision.

Earlier, a Republican source who discussed the matter only on condition he not be identified said in Washington that "Kissinger wants to do it."

Kissinger hopeful about talks
between Gorbachev, Reagan

* OCT 27 1985

2

FRESNO (AP) — Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is optimistic about next month's superpower summit, but foresees no major policy breakthroughs.

"Nothing can be negotiated in detail," Kissinger said Friday in a speech to supporters of Community Hospitals of Central California. "The best thing the two leaders can do is to agree on how they are going to proceed with their work."

Kissinger estimated President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev will have only about four hours for serious discussions during their summit in Geneva, Switzerland. The summit is set for Nov. 19 and 20.

"The most useful thing that can

happen is if the two gentlemen can define the issues they want to settle, lay out a work program and set goals," he said.

Kissinger praised Reagan's speech Thursday to the United Nations as a "useful contribution" to the summit.

"The major issue, it seemed to me, was to call attention to the fact that arms control is important, but political issues are important also," he said.

Kissinger said the Soviets could benefit from earnest talks because they are hampered by a difficult domestic economy and a leadership structure that needs realignment.

Henry Kissinger
... addresses hospital group.

Henry Kissinger
... doesn't scare Cuomo.

## But Cuomo confident of victory

# Republicans hope Kissinger will run

***JAN 9 1986***

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A possible gubernatorial election between Henry Kissinger and Gov. Mario Cuomo delights New York Republicans, but the incumbent says the matchup would put him "in the underdog position" and he'd win.

Cuomo, 53 who is in his first term, said Thursday he felt he could beat Kissinger.

Asked what he thought his winning margin might be, he said, "One vote."

Kissinger, a former secretary of state, said in a statement

Thursday, "Republican leaders have urged me to run for governor. I had not previously considered standing for elective office, but I am complimented by their request and I feel I owe them a consideration of their views."

Kissinger aide Chris Vick said she did not know if Republicans outside New York were urging him to run, or when he might decide.

State Assembly Minority Leader Clarence Rappleyea, said talks with Kissinger, 62, have been

going on since late last year.

"If he chose to run, I would be delighted," said state GOP Chairman Anthony Colavita.

"Henry Kissinger would be a formidable candidate who could win," said Senate Majority Leader Warren Anderson, the state's most powerful Republican.

Cuomo aides say national Republican leaders have been trying to find a strong candidate to oppose Cuomo in 1986 who can at least "bloody" the governor before a presidential candidacy.

Kissinger tells GOP leaders
he won't oppose Cuomo

Nation

ALBANY, N.Y. — Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has decided not to challenge Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo for the statehouse, Republican leaders and strategists said today.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, than in a gubernatorial challenge to Cuomo.

Gary Paslow, a spokesman for state Assembly Minority Leader Clarence Rappleyea said his boss got a call from Kissinger this morning FEB 3 1986

George Humphreys, an Atlanta-based GOP strategist and adviser to Kissinger, said he was called and told that the former secretary of state would not challenge Cuomo in the 1986 governor's race.

Aides to Kissinger said he would release a statement from his New York City office at 1 p.m.

"I think he (Kissinger) finally determined the time and effort needed would mean he has to stop everything else he's doing," said Humphreys. "He didn't want to do that."

There had been some speculation that Kissinger was more interested in a Senate race, perhaps against Democratic incumbent

Steer clear of Savimbi

PRESIDENT Reagan's stated desire Thursday to be "very helpful" to Angolan rebel commander Jonas Savimbi should send shudders of apprehension down the spines of Americans who rue our government's time-honored predeliction for classifying dubious formerly pro-

even some of our Savimbi's in the democratic and it ismbiot- 's re-

a re-Cuban doubt regarding a U.S.lossal replicate necessary

Savimbi is a key player in running contest over the future, the one-time United National Territory south of Angola. Africa has illegally occupies South Africa — which has massive aid to Savimbi in a bid to provide a military buffer zone sanctuary to SWAPO, the guerrilla movement — has parturition from Namibia to the Cuban troops from Angola.

Painstaking diplomatic efforts by Assistant Secretary of State Crocker to facilitate both a stable Savimbi as odd man out for the Cubans will never agree to with U.S. aid, and his prospects for the Luanda regime are hopelessly as the troops remain.

Perhaps Reagan believes and cherishes the dream of a Marxist regime being overtaken by his tenure. But Angola is not, and it is difficult to see a policy could be served by con- an escalation of the violence

Kissinger analyzes Japan trade imbalance

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said on Monday that the United States must adapt to an “acceptable level of debt” in regards to its trade relations with Japan.

"There cannot be an exact (trade) balance between the United States and Japan," Kissinger said. "Negotiations must take place soon or protectionism will become a big issue."*

Kissinger spoke to more than 1,300 people at the Fairmont Hotel in the first speech of the Ellsworth Bunker Memorial Lecture series, sponsored by The Asia Foundation.

Bunker was one of America's most respected diplomats and served seven presidents, beginning

with Harry Truman and ending with Jimmy Carter. He was ambassador to Argentina, India, Italy, Nepal, the OAS, Vietnam and was an ambassador at large.

Kissinger said a good relationship with Japan is inhibited by several things.

"There cannot be a solution to the so-called Japanese trade problem by engaging in sector-by-sector negotiations, which makes it impossible to create a consensus in Japan," he said.

"There has to be some global approach to the nature of the monetary system," Kissinger said.

Kissinger also warned that in the next 20 years, Japan's political force will equal its economic

strength around the world, and that the direction taken may not always be in the United States' best interest.

"In the next 20 years, we will see an emergence of specific Japanese purposes," he said, adding that one thing they will consider is expansion of their armed forces.

"One thing the U.S. must realize is that ... Japanese security is defined by Japan and not by the Pentagon."

About China, Kissinger said there are two dangers. First, that China will become too friendly with the Soviet Union. Second, that the Soviets will try to stifle Chinese modernization.

FEB 11 1986

Nation

Justice Beatrice Shainswit, in state Supreme Court, New York's trial-level court, on cleared the way for the magazine to hit newsstands today.

The judge scheduled a hearing on the matter for Feb. 9.

Kissinger is suing Penthouse for unspecified compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages, charging fraud, breach of oral contract and exploitation of his name and reputation without his consent.* NOV 4 1986

Kissinger charged that the magazine, famous for glossy color photographs of naked women, is making unauthorized use of an interview excerpted from a book to be published soon.

Kissinger criticizes Contra debaters

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, speaking at what he thought was a private symposium, says both sides are spouting nonsense in the debate over aid to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Kissinger also said President Reagan is not the "trivial" figure most scholars think, although "when you meet the president ... you ask yourself, 'How did it ever occur to anybody that he should be governor, much less president?' "

He made the remarks Friday to a small group of scholars at the Library of Congress.

Kissinger, national-security adviser and secretary of State under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, said the Reagan administration "in many ways has been personally more offensive to me ... than any others."

Kissinger, who headed Reagan's Commission on Latin America, said that either the administration's analysis of the situation in Nicaragua "is wrong or the solution is wrong. It cannot be that it is such a vital interest and it can be solved with $100 million."

* APR 20 1986

The argument of Democratic opponents that "you ought to use diplomacy and not power is also total nonsense. As it is now, both sides are stating platitudes," he said.

He expressed amazement that Reagan didn't miss a beat after virtually his entire White House staff left after his first term.

"People said (Soviet leader Mikhail) Gorbachev would eat him alive. (Jimmy) Carter you can eat alive because he wants to show off. But since Reagan doesn't go in beyond his depth, Gorbachev may think the guy is naive, tricky, he can think any number of things, but he cannot get beyond a certain point," Kissinger said. "He has a kind of instinct that I cannot explain."

Washington

He said it is "perfectly possible" that history will judge Reagan as "a most significant president."

Local teams say 'no'
chewing tobacco

de

Times Tribune

makes like a horse trader.

There are also a fair number of coaches who chew the stuff, making the "do as I say, not as I do" a common call as "out" and "safe."

We have a school policy that went into effect in all schools against smoking and it was at that point we tried to get chewing out," said Scott Laurence, the baseball coach at Palo Alto High and a part-chewer.

For the most part, it was pretty well-received," said. "Every once in a while kids who have been smoking for some time will put a dip in, but they don't of it quickly."

Laurence, who used to go through two packs of tobacco a game, has reduced his intake to just one chew a game.

I feel much better physically and it's much easier to convince the kids it's bad for them," Laurence said. "I have every article on the effects of tobacco in my office. It's worst than smoking. It's like using a burning cigarette straight into your lungs."

"Don't allow it," said Pete Harnames, seventh-year at Capuchino High School in San Bruno. "I don't want to talk to anyone with a black mouth that's spitting for every 30 seconds. I banned it before all the health risks, but that's a new and better reason."

Francis High School baseball coach Chris Brad-
sis a game-only chewer, but he has no problems
ing his players tobacco use is verboten.

It is absolutely forbidden because of health rea-
 Bradford said. "It is proven if you do it enough
s all kinds of problems. And most of the kids
handle the effects. If you're not used to it, tobac-
con make you dizzy, nauseated and give you a

Jack Camuso, the varsity baseball coach at Home-

Kissinger: Agreement is likely
this year on European missiles

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger said he believes the United States and the Soviet Union will reach an agreement this year to eliminate American and Soviet medium-range nuclear arms in Europe. **★ ★ MAR 23 1987 ★ ★**

Kissinger said such an agreement, which he opposes, would not greatly reduce the Soviet ability to attack Europe.

"I would like an agreement which we can say genuinely improves the situation rather than an agreement whose chief qualification is that it is an agreement," Kissinger said Sunday at a news conference during the annual meeting of the Trilateral Commission.

The commission is a private, non-governmental group of about 320 of the most powerful citizens

from Western Europe, North America and Japan. The group was founded by banker David Rockefeller in 1973 to promote broad-based discussion of world problems.

Kissinger said he believes some reduction of medium-range missiles in Europe is desirable, but by removing them completely, "a political and psychological inequality is created in the sense that the Soviet capacity to attack Europe will not be significantly reduced and the American capacity to retaliate from Europe will be diminished."

The plan to eliminate medium-range arms in Europe, discussed at the Geneva arms talks, was originally put forward by the United States as the "zero option."

Critics have said that such a treaty could leave the allies more vulnerable to conventional attack.

Kissinger said European countries will have to rely more upon their own forces, noting that Britain and France already have nuclear weapons and that "their availability for general European defense will now become an issue."

At the 20-minute news conference, Kissinger, who travels widely, was asked about reaction abroad to the Iran-Contra affair.

"I do not believe that Iran has raised the same concerns abroad as it has in American media," Kissinger said. "And many foreigners, in my perception, balance whatever went wrong in Iran against their desire to have a strong America that they need for their defense or their economic development."

Radio says
Waite held
by group

NICOSIA, Cyprus (AP) —
Tehran Radio said today Anglican
Church envoy Terry Waite was kid-
napped in Lebanon by the Revolu-
tionary Justice Organization.

The state-run radio, monitored in
Nicosia, said the group seized
Waite claiming he was a U.S. spy.

"It is necessary to note that Terry Waite, accused of espionage, was captured by an armed Lebanese group known as Revolutionary Justice," the radio said without elaboration.

There was no independent confirmation of the report, one of a series concerning Waite since he disappeared Jan. 20 while on a mission to free foreign hostages in Lebanon. No group has claimed to know of any such mission.

## Kissinger plans another book

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says he has signed to do a book on the meaning of diplomacy.

The former secretary of state and author of two best-sellers about his years in the White House said in an interview in Monday's New York Times that the book will draw on his experiences but will not be about his career.

Instead, the book, to be published by Simon & Schuster, will examine the per-

sonalities and diplomatic skills of such world leaders as Mao Tse-tung, Richard M. Nixon, Golda Meir, Anwar Sadat, King Faisal and Leonid I. Brezhnev.

It also will examine how each nation creates its own style of diplomacy, and probably will contain separate chapters on summit talks, including last year's super-power talks in Reykjavik, Iceland, and the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

"To understand the current period you have to understand World War I," Kissinger said. "Not one of those leaders who went into that war would have done so if they knew what the world would look like two to four years later."

Kissinger rips
French officials

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called it "disgraceful" that the French government reportedly made concessions to Iran to win the release of three hostages in Lebanon.

MAY 6 1988

Kissinger said Thursday that France's action "raises the risk for all other nationalities ... because now the Iranians will undoubtedly believe that they can make similar deals with other nations and it will be a gory extended effort to prove that they can't."

French government officials denied they paid ransom for the hostages' release but others accused the country of dealing with terrorists while 18 other foreigners remain hostage.

"I think the French action today is disgraceful," Kissinger said.

AIDS child protest

GRANITE CITY, Ill. — A 7-year-old with AIDS-related complex encountered dozens of angry parents Thursday as he joined other first-graders in class Thursday after months of isolation in a nearby trailer.

"He looked like he was ready to cry," Jason Robertson's mother, Tammie, said after she walked her son to Prather Elementary School.

Jason had been the lone student in a trailer at the school since Nov. 16 and had been tutored at home previously. On Wednesday, U.S.

A HOME OF

BERGM

2741 Middlefield Road

SHOE DEPT. MOTH

Article says Kissinger OK'd Argentine military anti-leftist campaign

OCT 23 1987

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger gave the Argentine military the go-ahead to wage the 1976-83 anti-leftist campaign in which thousands disappeared, according to an article published Thursday.

The article, by free-lance U.S. journalist Martin Edwin Andersen, appeared in the weekly news magazine *El Periodista* (The Journalist). The copyright article is to appear in English on Saturday in the U.S. magazine *The Nation*.

A 1977 memorandum by Robert Hill, then U.S. ambassador to Ar-

gentina, quoted Kissinger as asking the Argentine foreign minister how long it would take the military to end the socio-political chaos wracking the country, Andersen wrote.

Adm. Cesar Guzzetti, foreign minister at the time, told Kissinger in a June 1976 meeting in Santiago, Chile, that it would take until the end of that year to wipe out subver-

sion, said the article.

"Only three months after the generals took power in Argentina in 1976, Kissinger gave the 'green light' to continue the 'dirty war,'" Andersen wrote.

The Hill memo, written for the Carter administration, was recently declassified and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

The Lebanese president, before visiting Shultz to discuss how to respond to Israel's plan for the withdrawal, reiterated at the press club that it meant "the de facto partition" of Lebanon.

## Hersh reports on Nixon's threat to Ford

WASHINGTON (AP) — Richard Nixon threatened to publicly reveal his claim that President Ford promised a pardon in exchange for the presidency if Ford did not grant him a pardon, according to a report in The Atlantic.

Writing in the magazine's August issue, author Seymour Hersh reports that Nixon telephoned Ford with the threat on Sept. 7. 1974, the day before he was pardoned. Ford denied he received such a call and the White House logs do not show it, the article states.

Hersh wrote that "Nixon's message was blunt, according to those few White House aides who knew of the private call: if Ford did not grant him a full pardon, he, Nixon, was going to go public and claim that Ford had promised the pardon in exchange for the presidency, because Ford was so eager to get it."

Those aides were not identified. Hersh wrote that "Ford was enraged by the call."

Hersh quoted an unidentified former Ford aide as saying "He'd made his decision already and here comes the guy stirring it up. He was very very irritated; he really resented it."

The article quotes another unidentified former White House aide as saying Nixon had no "leverage" on Ford. "Going public wouldn't have done him (Nixon) any good."

Hersh also wrote that the question of whether a deal was struck between Nixon and Ford "may never be known, because the men involved have yet to give a full account."

that "I'm not political a torpid swamp filled his nose. "I'll but it will bore in Ulster, he is a My image of my-m felt some guilt at policies. Now he is Heaney read his

ted point at a public ambiguous but using English. If as having taken than accepting a readers.

Coffee Heaney conferences in which poems. He leaned by desk, tried to lean with his elbow. There was no ashtray of long experience by standing it on first lines of one that's one of the cliche and opens it not a syntactical practical difficulty?" digestive upset. I puzzle a reader, asked. "You have difficulty is part of

students. "It's like ways telling jokes the first week," said week I'm boarding. when the formal

eone had brought it was enjoyed on that touched on problems of writers, and Auden. core public reading a, 8 p.m. Sunday, 100 45th Ave., off

une

rated

93

Monday through Friday at 245 Lytton Ave.,

The Associated Press,
California Newspaper
Youth Foundation.

and

CORI
an ex
Ma

There's
planned
unique
The co
at Sta

Wadde
a free

*P

WADDE
FINANC
hand to

* How

* How

* How and it

* How

* How

Leas

KISSINGER

Continued from A-1

aid to El Salvadoran guerillas might have to be ex-
panded. But Wednesday he said problems in small
countries would not be solved by the sale of weapons
by the superpowers.

"Indigenous problems should be worked out by indigenous factors and by indigenous political processes and not by the endless introduction of more and more weapons and underground activity," Kissinger said.

He is optimistic that the United States is on the
verge of entering serious arms negotiations with the
Soviet Union, such as those initiated by former Presi-
dent Richard M. Nixon. But Kissinger warned Ameri-
cans not to be naive about the Soviet Union's or Com-
munist Party Chairman Yuri Andropov's intentions.

"If he (Andropov) turns out to be a closet dove,
then somebody in the Politburo made a terrible mis-
take when he appointed Andropov to head the KGB."

Kissinger said that Andropov's background is in So-
viet foreign, not domestic, affairs. He said he ex-
pects to see Andropov move to expand the Soviet
Union's power internationally as quickly as possible.

*** JUL 2 1 1983

Kissinger, Gorbachev

MOSCOW — Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev met with former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the official Soviet news agency Tass reported.

Kissinger was in Moscow for a meeting of the Trilateral Commission, along with former President Valery Giscard d'Estaing of France and former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone of Japan.

The commission is a private group of business, government, labor and academic leaders from North America, Europe and Japan.

Tass said without elaborating that Gorbachev and Kissinger on Tuesday discussed "some considerations on the development of Soviet-American relations, which were set forth by Kissinger on behalf of U.S. President-elect George Bush."

JAN 18 1989

Kissinger shares insight
into U.S. foreign policy

By **Carolyne Zinko**

Times Tribune staff

(U.S. foreign policy relies too heavily on a diplomacy based on the personality of foreign leaders, former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger told an audience at the Flint Center in Cupertino Thursday night. DEC 2 1988)

Instead of approaching interna-
tional problems analytically, the
United States handles foreign rela-
tions with a combination of psy-
chology and theology, treating rela-
tionships between nations as if they
were relationships between people,
Kissinger said.

"The feeling is that if we could show others our farms and that we have swimming pools in our back yards, that we're just like everyone else, or that good will triumph over evil, (then) things will be OK," Kissinger said.

Kissinger, 65, is currently on a
lecture tour that included an ap-
pearance at the 14th annual Celeb-

rity Forum presented by Foothill
College Community Services.

The approach to foreign policy
should be twofold, Kissinger said.

First, the United States must rec-
ognize and analyze its national in-
terests. Second, it must realize that
those interests don't change every
four years.

"The United States consistently rejects the proposition that it has a permanent national interest," Kissinger said.

In contrast, other nations such as
Britain, France, the Soviet Union
and Japan have a clear pattern and
set of principles for foreign policy,
Kissinger said.

"Nations act according to histori-
cal patterns, not the idiosyncracies
of individual foreign leaders," he
said.

"If we create the impression that our foreign policy depends on personal relationships between leaders, then we'll be forever buffeted

Please see **POLICY, A-4**

Times Tribune photo by Steve Castillo

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger offers his thoughts on U.S. foreign policy Thursday at Flint Center.

"Industry was fighting this outer-
ly," Smith said. "I think they made
a tactical decision to stop fighting
this thing and go along. It was a
question of feeling the community
pressure."

nent factors."

"The significance of opening the door to China was that he recognized conditions that made it inevitable," Kissinger said.

political situations, Kissinger said.

With a new administration about
to enter the White House, he said,
"We are in a position to shape our
future."

Parkside Living
Community by the Park

2 Bed Room 1 Bath Apt.
PALO ALTO

• All New Appliances

• Private Patio/Balcony

• Central Air

• Health Club/Weight Room

• Community Room

• 3 Pools

• Easy Access To Freeways

Call now about our
move-in Bonus Special!

(415) 856-1977 (415) 856-2227

BETTS

CHRISTMAS TREES

1795 El Camino Real, Palo Alto

Phone (415) 321-7833

(EASY TO FOLLOW DIRECTIONS)

From 280 ... Exit Page Mill Road, turn left on El Camino, continue north to 1795 El Camino ...

From Bayshore 101, Exit Oregon Expressway,
turn right on El Camino to 1795 ... North of
Fosters Freeze

PHONE 321-7833
THE PENINSULA'S LARGEST
SELECTION OF FOREST
FRESH NATURAL TREES!

All Individual beauties,
not sheared look-allikes.
1 ft. to 20 ft., natural or
custom finishing. State
code fire retarding,
painting-flocking.

• Custom wiring and
lighting

• Garlands, wreaths, holly

• We can deliver

OPEN 7 DAYS, 8 A.M. — LATE P.M.

We Accept MasterCard — Visa

Over 37
Years
1951-1988

LARGE CAPACITY
3-SPEED WASHER

SATISFACTION
GUARANTEED

$379
Great Value!

Large Capacity
3-Speed
Mini basket

LARGE CAPACITY
WASHER

MOTPOINT
SATISFACTION
GUARANTEED

2 Wash/rinse
temperature
combinations.

$299

Hotpoint

Boucher's

249 Calif

# POLICY

Continued from A-3

by circumstances."

Kissinger warned about the dangers of such a policy in a world where the balance of power is shifting away from the United States. In other nations, such as Japan, India, China and even the Soviet Union, economic and military interests are becoming synchronized and strengthened.

"With Gorbachev, we have to avoid another cycle of sentimentality," Kissinger said.

"He's not undertaking these (reforms) in favor of the United States, but to strengthen his country."

DEC 2 1988

Kissinger noted that every Soviet leader, once removed from office, has been disavowed.

"If it were true that Gorbachev alone brings significant changes, we would be in deepest trouble ... building on very shaky foundations."

United States foreign policy was strong under Nixon because he was driven to analysis of "more permanent factors."

"Nixon was certainly most untraditional. ... He never believed charm was the secret of his success," Kissinger said, drawing laughter from the audience.

China's stance toward the Soviet Union has not been swayed by the personality or "atmospheric influences" of the Soviet leader, Kissinger maintained.

"Just because you wear nice suits and your wife wears designer dresses doesn't mean you've changed," he said.

China conducts as "unsentimental" a policy with the Soviet Union as it does with the United States, Kissinger said.

"The Chinese lived happily for 2,000 years (without) America and would have continued to do so," he said.

"But they lived in fear of the Soviet Union. They brought the more distant barbarian to purvey the closer barbarian.

"It was not an emotional policy, but it's interesting it's lasted 18 years — the only relationship that has not been subject to partisan controversy (in this country)."

The key to statesmanship is understanding underlying realities of political situations, Kissinger said.

Times Tribune staff photo by Colby Devit

Paul Ratzlaff (back) and Steven Haren, both 5, gather acorns Thursday that they hope will sprout into giant trees.

## Model toxic gas ordinance

Clara County Intergovernmental Council for approval by the county's 15 cities.

The cities now have 60 days to comment on the ordinance and report back to the intergovernmental council.

The ordinance would require high-technology companies to implement improved engineering controls, such as exhaust treatment systems that are designed to neutralize accidental releases of toxic

gas. The model ordinance also addresses emergency plans, permits and inspections.

If companies don't comply, they could be fined as much as $500 a day.

The ordinance is aimed primarily at Silicon Valley companies that store such poisonous and flammable gases and irritants as arsenic, phosphine, chlorine, diborane and

Please see GAS, A-4

shares insight
foreign policy

TIMES TRIBUNE

Thursday, May 25, 1989—A-19

# 'Toast of the town' has had profound effects on world history

DAVID MORRIS

"POWER IS the ultimate aphrodisiac," Henry Kissinger once told an Italian inter-viewer. In which case Kissinger, who cele-brates his 66th birthday Saturday, must have been in a state of near ecstacy for much of the past two decades. For during these years he has influenced the destiny of millions.

MAY 2 5 1989

Henry Kissinger's foreign policy reflects a very specific world view. While secretary of state 20 years ago, he lectured Chile's foreign minister: "History has never been produced in the South. The axis of history starts in Moscow, goes to Bonn, crosses over to Washington, and then goes to Tokyo. What happens in the South is of no importance."

The South serves only to test the mettle of great powers.

In Asia, Cambodia first felt the practical application of Mr. K's theories. In early 1969, Prince Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia was engaged in a diplomatic balancing act to keep his nation neutral and insulated from the Vietnam War. Kissinger and Nixon stripped away that insulation when they initiated the secret bombing of Cambodia. In 1970, they helped Lon Nol overthrow Sihanouk. U.S. troops moved into Cambodia. By early 1972, 2 million of Cambodia's 7 million residents were displaced. Twenty percent of the nation's

property was destroyed.

BUT WORSE was to come. When Lon Nol abandoned neutrality, the North Vietnamese started massively aiding the Khmer Rouge. In 1975, the Khmer Rouge seized power and murdered a million Cambodians — a slaughter halted, ironically, only when the Vietnamese invaded in 1978.

Why did Cambodia have to suffer such pain? William Safire remembers Kissinger telling his staff in 1970, "We're trying to shock the Soviets into calling a (summit) conference, and we can't promote this by appearing to be weak."

In Latin America, Chile served as another test for Mr. K's geopolitics. On Sept. 4, 1970, Salvador Allende, an unsuccessful candidate twice before, finally won Chile's highest office. Former National Security Council staff member Roger Morris remembers: "I don't think anybody in the government understood how ideological Kissinger was about Chile. Allende was a living example of democratic social reform in Latin America. Chile scared him (Kissinger)."

Paul Koistli—Dallas Morning News

Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Seymour Hersh, in "Price of Power," quotes one senior department official: "Kissinger, in effect, became a Chilean desk officer." All aid to Chile was cut

off. The CIA spent at least $8 million to bring down Allende. In September 1973, our efforts finally bore fruit. A military coup assassinated Allende and destroyed democracy in a country that had boasted almost 150 years of democratic government. Thousands were killed. Tens of thousands were tortured. Kissinger had sent another message to Moscow.

IN AFRICA, Angola became still another pawn in Mr. K's global chess game. In April 1974, a revolution inside Portugal liberated its colonies. In Angola, rival tribal groups vied for power. As John Stockwell, then head of the CIA Angola Task Force, remembers, Kissinger "saw the Angolan conflict solely in terms of global politics."

We spent $140 million to aid the opposition. In 1975, we supported an invasion by South African troops, an invasion thwarted only by Cuban soldiers. In his book, "Endless Enemies," Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Kwitny concludes, "Fair elections might have been held in 1975 as they were later in Zimbabwe. But back in 1974, the U.S. thought it could do better by political sabotage."

This year, Angola, Cambodia and Chile are at last emerging from the devastation of Mr. K's foreign policy.

The Angolan war is ending on the same terms offered by its government in the 1970s at the cost of scores of thousands killed or maimed. Chile still suffers a military dictatorship. Elections are promised soon, but Chile's new constitution allows the military to intervene at any time. In Cambodia, the Vietnamese are withdrawing. Cambodia has offered to restore Sihanouk as chief of state. But the Khmer Rouge, heavily armed by the United States and China, threatens to again plunge that nation into civil war.

AND THE AUTHOR of all this misery? He's the toast of Washington. Although no longer exercising power directly, Mr. K has rarely been more influential. His partners and disciples at Kissinger & Associates include National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger.

Indeed, this is a historic moment for Henry Kissinger. With Gorbachev in power, the future map of Europe itself is on the bargaining table. At last, Mr. K can dispense with sending signals through insignificant intermediaries like Cambodia or Angola or Chile. Through his millions, he can go mano-a-mano with Russia itself. The excitement is almost palpable.

Knight-Ridder

A-20—TIMES TRIBUNE

Candy off
shelves after
glass found

LONDON (AP) — Importers have ordered American-made Nerds candy withdrawn from store shelves after bits of glass were found in packages of the fruit-flavored sweets.

The Importer Anglo, Bellamy and Wilkinson said it had received new reports Wednesday of glass being found in Nerds but did not specify where the candy had been bought. No one has been reported injured.

On Tuesday, it said eight packages bought in and around the northwest port city of Liverpool and in north Wales had been found to contain glass.

The candy is popular with British children and one million packets are sold each week.

"At this stage, we do not believe there is a production problem," said the importer's managing director, Chris Marshall. "We are taking every step necessary to track down the source of the contamination."

Khomeini in surgery

Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini lies in a Tehran hospital Tuesday as doctors operate to stop bleeding in the 89-year-old patriarch's digestive track in this photo made off television. Doctors say Khomeini was on his feet today and progressing satisfactorily following the operation.

Associated Press

South African white
gets death sentence

PRETORIA, South Africa (AP)

— A regional court today sentenced a white ex-policeman to hang for killing seven blacks and an Indian man in two shooting spares he took pride in and viewed as the start of a race war.

Justice Louis Harms said there were no extenuating circumstances to spare Barend Strydom, 23, from the gallows.

The killings were committed "in an unfeeling and cold-blooded manner that I have never before experienced or heard of," Harms said. "Mass murder or racial murder will not be tolerated by this court."

The case has been one of the most dramatic in South Africa, with relatives of the black victims and white extremists supportive of Strydom crowding into Pretoria Supreme Court over the past 10 days to hear detailed testimony about the defendant's racist beliefs.

After standing impassively for an hour while the judge read his ruling, Strydom gulped a glass of water when the sentence was pro-

nounced.

He had strode into the packed courtroom smiling broadly, waving to friends and shaking hands with supporters.

After the sentencing he was escorted swiftly to a police van and driven to a death row cell at Pretoria Central Prison.

The judge convicted Strydom last week of killing seven people and wounding 15 blacks in a rampage on the sidewalks of downtown Pretoria on Nov. 15.

A week before the Pretoria killings, Strydom killed a black woman and wounded another at a squatter camp in what he described as a practice attack to determine if he was ready for a larger-scale massacre.

Strydom had acknowledged that he smiled as he shot his victims, telling the court, "I'm a friendly person."

The judge gave Strydom eight death sentences plus 30 years in prison for 16 counts of attempted murder. No execution date was set.

Thursday, May 25, 1989

THE PENINSULA TIMES TRIBUNE

Anthony Lewis

# Henry Kissinger never understood the power of American ideas

AUG 24 1989

NEW YORK — Anyone still interested in the views of Henry Kissinger, who once exercised much power in this country, should look at a recent article of his in The Los Angeles Times.

The subject was China, but the more interesting subtext was the mind of the author: his attitude on issues of authority and freedom.

Kissinger bitterly denounced the U.S. House and Senate for voting to impose economic sanctions on China after the massacre in Tiananmen Square.

"China remains too important for America's national security," he wrote, "to risk the relationship on the emotions of the moment."

The massacre was entirely a domestic matter, Kissinger said.

"Its brutality was shocking." But "no government in the world would have tolerated having the main square of its capital occupied for eight weeks by tens of thousands of demonstrators."

Moreover, a "demonstration of impotence" in Beijing would have encouraged regionalism in China. So "a crackdown was inevitable."

Americans who observed the events in Beijing — reporters, China scholars — agreed that a crackdown was precisely not inevitable. The protest could have been settled early on by modest official concessions.

At the end, the demonstrators were so exhausted and reduced in rank that they could easily have been dispersed without the use of guns and tanks.

CHINESE LEADERS, Kissinger said, if left to themselves, will learn someday that "economic reform is impossible without the educated groups" that demonstrated for democracy in Beijing, and the workers who supported them.

"As so often in Chinese history, the rhythm of Chinese life and of Chinese common sense is likely to produce some practical solution."

But the whole thrust of recent Chinese history is to the contrary, tragically so. Generation after generation of the scientists and teachers and writers so desperately needed to bring that huge country into the stream of modern life has been slaughtered.

Does the United States help China if it sees that pattern of repression and terror repeated, and does no more than murmur tut-tut?

The Chinese who are the hope of their country, the brave campaigners for democracy, do not think so. The very foundations of their thinking are the ideals of American freedom, and they want the U.S. government to speak out for those ideals.

In the world we have, it is necessary to deal with governments that we do not like.

THE UNITED STATES only injured itself — and helped to involve itself in terrible wars — by pretending for decades that the People's Republic of China was not there.

But it does not follow that the United States must close its eyes to horrors going on in countries with which it maintains relations.

That view runs counter to the movement of history that has made human rights an important force in U.S. diplomacy — and a concern for people and governments around the world.

In office, Kissinger never was an enthusiast for public American expressions on human rights. He resented and resisted congressional

TAYLOR JONES — L.A. TIMES SYNDICATE

Henry Kissinger

action on the subject.

He liked to deal with the holders of power — with Leonid Brezhnev, say — and not risk ruffling them by calling attention to their brutalities.

Deng Xiaoping similarly now. In his China article, Kissinger said "the caricature of Deng ... as a tyrant despoiling Chinese youth is unfair."

It will take some explaining to the families of those killed in Tiananmen Square, or those executed since, as to why that is unfair. It will take even more explaining if Deng's performance leads, as seems increasingly likely, to military rule in China.

Kissinger objected to U.S. sanctions against any "major country" for "events entirely within its domestic jurisdiction."

This terrible century has shown us the price that "domestic" savagery may exact, and not just from the offending government's own citizens.

That is one reason why the human rights movement has gained such strength.

WHEN AMERICA SPEAKS for human rights, it matters. President Carter helped Andrei Sakharov, and the consequences are still being felt in the Soviet Union.

Henry Kissinger has never understood the power of American ideas.

At the end in Vietnam he bewailed the loss of American influence, but that influence has in fact grown since we gave up a wrongful use of force.

N.Y. TIMES NEWS SERVICE

Special Section

# A Plan to Reshape NATO

By HENRY KISSINGER

After 35 years of preserving peace in Western Europe, the Atlantic Alliance confronts new military, political and social realities. In this article, a former Secretary of State proposes dramatic—and in his view, vital—steps to help the alliance meet the challenges ahead. Among them: NATO's Supreme Allied Commander should be a European, not an American, as is now the case; Europe should have a decisive voice in certain nuclear arms-control talks and greater responsibility for its ground defense. If Europe refuses to accept that responsibility, the U.S. should withdraw up to half of its ground forces from Europe.

Lebanon and the Soviet succession have preoccupied us in recent weeks, but the Atlantic Alliance must remain the pivot of American policy. On its unity depends the security of free peoples. From its cohesion will flow whatever hopes the Soviet succession offers for a new dialogue. Unfortunately, just as storms recur in nature, crises recur in the Atlantic Alliance. Nearly every Administration for a generation has been involved in them. However, the present controversies in NATO are both unprecedented and unsettling.

In West Germany, Scandinavia, the Low Countries and even in Britain (though to a lesser extent), "peace" movements have been pulling governments in the general direction of their policies, even though those governments disagree with their premises. In addition, the main opposition parties in West Germany and Great Britain—which, in the nature of democratic politics, can be expected to get into office eventually—are advocating policies that amount to unilateral nuclear disarmament for their countries. Because these groups hold sway over key segments of public opinion, too many European leaders—even conservative ones—have yielded to the temptation to demonstrate their peaceful intentions the easy way, by pretending to be reining in a bellicose and insensitive U.S. through their ministrations. As a result, among those who shape public attitudes—and thereby set what become the limits of the politically possible—there is less intellectual or philosophical agreement than in any previous period.

This creates an exceedingly dangerous situation. An alliance cannot live by arms alone. To endure it requires some basic agreement on political aims that justify and give direction to the common defense. If military arrangements provide its only bond, it will sooner or later stagnate. It will surely prove unable to take advantage of diplomatic opportunities for an easing of tensions. That is the central issue before the Atlantic Alliance today. It requires a remedy that is fundamental, even radical—in the literal sense of going to the root.

Four problems in particular are gnawing at the alliance:

1) *Lack of an agreed, credible strategy.* The gap between NATO's formal strategy and what the public will support has widened dangerously. The so-called flexible response devised in the 1960s remains NATO's official doctrine. It contemplates a defense of Europe that begins with conventional weapons and then goes up the ladder of nuclear escalation—until it reaches whatever level is necessary to halt Soviet aggression. In today's circumstances this doctrine has a fatal weakness: neither existing nor projected NATO conventional ground forces are adequate to

repeal a major Soviet conventional attack. Therefore, the doctrine would require a nuclear response at an early stage. Yet strategic nuclear parity deprives the threat of strategic nuclear war of much of its credibility; mutual suicide cannot be made to appear as a rational option. And no alternative nuclear strategy has been developed. Partly for this reason, public opinion, essentially unopposed by most NATO governments, is moving powerfully against *any* reliance on nuclear weapons—even tactical ones.

The alliance is thereby trapped in a precarious combination of (a) inadequate conventional forces, leading to (b) reliance on nuclear weapons in (c) a strategic environment that makes the threat of their use, and therefore their deterrent value, less and less credible, and (d) a public climate of growing nuclear pacifism that undermines what credibility remains. Lack of a coherent defense policy leaves the alliance, possessing a huge stockpile of enormously destructive weapons, disarming itself psychologically.

2) *Intermediate-range weapons and arms control.* The arrival of the new U.S. intermediate-range weapons in Europe late last year was properly hailed as a major success. For if public demonstrations and Soviet pressure had succeeded in blocking that deployment, the Soviet Union would in effect have achieved a veto over NATO's military dispositions. But unless the alliance clarifies the purpose of these missiles, the accomplishment is likely to be transitory, since the basic European attitude toward the missiles is that of a host toward a now unwanted guest whose invitation to dinner it would be too awkward to withdraw. Some prominent Europeans purport to see in the missiles' presence a hidden American design to confine a nuclear war to Europe. Others treat them as one of those peculiar American aberrations that periodically upset the alliance's equilibrium. Too few recognize, and even fewer are willing to admit, that in fact the missiles link the strategic nuclear defense of Europe and the U.S. Weapons capable of reaching Soviet territory stake the American homeland to the defense of Europe; they do not enable America to remain immune.

European ambivalence makes it excruciatingly difficult to define "progress" toward arms control, while the nearly desperate eagerness with which progress is pursued makes its attainment less likely. The Soviets have refused even to discuss any proposal balancing U.S. intermediate-range missiles in Europe against the Soviet arsenal at a lower level. They insist on total withdrawal of American missiles while retaining a large number of their own. The goal of leaving Europe vulnerable to Soviet nuclear blackmail is obvious. Yet significant segments of European opinion persist in blaming the U.S. for the deadlock. In Europe

Illustrations for TIME by David Suter

TIME, MARCH 5, 1984

## Nation

PROVIDENCE JOURNAL/PICTURE GROUP

The six defendants listening to Judge Young quiz prospective jurors

# The Crime That Tarnished a Town

*New Bedford's notorious gang-rape case goes to trial*

"I turned, and I saw a man standing there. He had beady eyes. He was grubby looking. He was grabbing the back of my coat. I looked at him and said, 'What the hell do you think you're doing?' and proceeded forward... I started kicking and screaming, I lost my shoe... They dragged me over the pool table... I was screaming, begging for help. He got on top of me—the first guy—and had intercourse."

The slight, dark-haired woman, wearing a brick-red dress, spoke in the broad, flat tones of southeastern Massachusetts, recounting with almost clinical detachment her recollections of being gang-raped on a tavern pool table in New Bedford a year earlier. Her testimony last week came on the second day in the trial of her six accused attackers, all charged with aggravated rape, a crime that carries a possible life sentence. It was the first time the 22-year-old woman, whose identity has been protected at the urging of Superior Court Judge William G. Young, had spoken in public about her ordeal, which drew nationwide attention as a singularly ugly example of the growing problem of sexual violence.

The young woman testified that she had spent much of last March 6 celebrating her older daughter's third birthday, leaving home shortly after 9 p.m. to buy a pack of cigarettes. Finding two stores closed, she headed for Big Dan's Tavern, a neighborhood drinking joint in New Bedford's North End that has since gone out of business. Big Dan's had a reputation for attracting rowdies. After buying her cigarettes, she struck up a conversation over a drink with the only other woman in the bar. That woman then left, said the victim, and she was getting ready to do the same when she was grabbed from behind.

The attack lasted an hour and a half.

All six of the defendants are resident aliens of Portuguese descent. Some speak English only haltingly, and they wear earphones to hear a Portuguese translation of the proceedings. Their background has tugged hard at the seams of ethnic tranquillity in New Bedford, a onetime whaling capital and mill town that in recent years had fallen on difficult times. Portuguese Americans, who make up more than half of the population of 98,000, have played a major part in rejuvenating the local fishing industry. But following the attack, anti-Portuguese slurs popped up on local radio call-in shows, as well as in countless private conversations.

Portuguese neighborhood leaders were quick to point out that not only the defendants but also the victim, the chief investigator and the district attorney in the case share a Portuguese background. But the damage was undeniable. "It's some kind of prejudice, which isn't on the surface, but it's there," says Manuel Ferreira, editor of the weekly *Portuguese Times*.

In an unusual legal maneuver, the state is trying the six defendants in two groups, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Reason: pretrial statements made by some of the defendants could not legally be used as evidence against them if all were tried together. Prosecutors have also substantially revised original reports that numerous bar patrons witnessed and even encouraged the rape with whoops and cheers. They say that aside from the six defendants and the victim, only three people were in the bar, and that the bartender and a customer sought to call the police, but were prevented from doing so by one of the six. Despite the bystanders' efforts, said Prosecutor Raymond Veary, "this is a story without heroes." ■

# Border Bungle

*A boy is mistakenly deported*

When a team of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service agents roared into a grocery-store parking lot in Santa Ana, Calif., dozens of Mexican workers scattered, but Mario Moreno-Lopez just stood there. "Run! Run!" shouted a friend. "No," said Mario. "I have papers." Mario, who is 14 but looks much older, does have a green card showing that he is in the U.S. legally. But his father Juan Moreno-Garcia, who was granted U.S. residency rights in 1981, was holding the card for safekeeping. As a result, father and son both became victims of a classic bureaucratic bungle.

Mario and other Mexicans were ordered into a bus by the INS agents and taken to a detention center in Los Angeles, 30 miles from Santa Ana. Mario was shown a form, written in Spanish, telling him he had a right to get an attorney. Mario, who did not know an attorney, said he did not understand the form. He was told he could talk to officials at the Mexican consulate. Mario assumed that it was in Mexico. The agents kept asking him and the others to sign a paper waiving their right to oppose deportation. "They threw one man on the floor and against a wall," Mario says. "After that, everybody started signing." So did Mario.

Mario was then taken with others in an INS bus to the border at Tijuana. He met another young deportee, who had $10, and the two used it for food. After a day of wandering, they crawled into the U.S. through a hole in the border fence. INS agents caught them, detained them overnight and deported them again. They sneaked back into the U.S. An elderly friend of the other youth let them sleep in his backyard in San Diego. Mario's father, meanwhile, borrowed $60 from friends, took a bus to the border and spent four days showing pic-

tures of his son to people in the streets of Tijuana. Finally, a San Diego couple who had seen Mario's photo on TV saw him near the waterfront and took him to the San Diego police station. His ordeal was over.

Moreno-Lopez

Top INS officials began an investigation into whether their agents had violated agency and court orders on handling minors. Last week a federal judge temporarily halted all deportations of unaccompanied minors, filling detention centers with some 200 youngsters. Juan Moreno-Garcia said he had learned one thing from the painful experience: "From now on, I will let Mario carry his own papers." Mario's lesson was different. A truant officer in Santa Ana told him that until he is 16 he must attend school rather than work full time. ■

TIME, MARCH 5, 1984

and in the U.S., this attitude must in time erode the public support needed not only for missile deployment but also for coherent arms control.

3) *East-West relations.* Behind the sharp differences over defense strategy and arms control lies a parallel dispute over the alliance's posture toward the Soviet Union. Too many Europeans accept the caricature of a U.S. run by trigger-happy cowboys whose belligerence has provoked Soviet intransigence. Many Americans, on the other hand,

consider such European notions naive and believe that together with the pacifist and neutralist demonstrations, they reflect a trend toward appeasement that encourages Soviet intransigence.

4) *Relations with the Third World.* Most European leaders believe that they have a special opportunity to establish prefer-ential relationships with Third World countries. In the flash points of the Middle East, Africa and Central America, they see U.S. approaches as hopelessly tainted by an obsession with Sovi-et ambitions; some hope to win favor in the Third World by an ostentatious dissociation from the U.S. More than a few Ameri-cans view such behavior as a free ride paid for by U.S. sacrifices or as a positive incitement to Third World radicalism.

These differences could be healthy if they led to compatible and constructive policies for the 1980s and '90s. So far this has not happened. Mutual recriminations have created opportunities for Soviet political warfare even during this period of stagnation in the Kremlin leadership. The Politburo is obviously convinced that the West has become so paralyzed concerning nuclear weap-ons that there is no urgency about nuclear arms control; the Sovi-ets can simply wait for a while to harvest the fruits of Western anxieties. By contrast, there may be concern in Moscow that NATO will move to close the gap in conventional forces; hence the willingness to resume the talks, moribund for ten years, about limiting conventional arms. Does this reflect a genuine interest in arms control, or is it a means to thwart the desperately needed Western conventional buildup by creating the same conditions by which public opinion was mobilized on the missile question? And what is one to make of the almost deferential pleas by all major NATO countries for the resumption of a dialogue that the Soviets have interrupted? Or of the upgrading of all major European dele-gations except the French to the Andropov funeral, compared with the Brezhnev rites 15 months ago—especially as Andropov's rule was marked by the flagrant attempt to influence the German election, the walkout from arms-control talks and the shooting down of the Korean airliner, not to speak of Andropov's 15-year stewardship of the KGB?

Will the Soviets see Western pleas for dialogue as a demon-stration of good will, or will they learn from the compulsion to demonstrate good intentions after months of harassment that in-transigence pays because the West has weak nerves? Will we fail to relax tensions because the Soviets conclude that atmospherics can substitute for dealing with the real causes dividing the world? Europe is not moderating the U.S., and the U.S. is not stiffening Europe's spine, as the folklore on each side would have it. More likely, each is in danger of paralyzing and demoralizing the other. Western disunity is perhaps the principal obstacle to progress in East-West negotiations.

This state of affairs has deeper causes than particular poli-cies on either side. The present NATO structure is simply not working, either in defining the threat or in finding methods to meet it.

Existing arrangements are unbal-anced. When one country dominates the alliance on all major issues—when that one country chooses weapons and decides deployments, conducts the arms-control negotiations, sets the tone for East-West diplomacy and creates the framework for relations with the Third World—little incentive remains

> A European officer should take the traditionally American place as Supreme Allied Commander Europe, probably with a U.S. deputy.

> Europe should take over those arms-control negotiations that deal with weapons stationed on European soil.

for a serious joint effort to redefine the requirements of security or to coordinate foreign policies. Such joint efforts entail sacrifices and carry political costs. Leaders are not likely to make the sacrifice or pay the cost unless they feel responsible for the results.

An imbalance such as the one now existing cannot be corrected by "consultation," however meticulous. In the long run, consultation works only when those being consulted have a capacity for independent action. Then each side

takes the other seriously; then each side knows that the other's consent has to be won. Otherwise consultation becomes "briefing." Agreement reflects not conviction but acquiescence for want of an alternative.

The present imbalance is not new. It has existed ever since World War II. But military dependence on another nation has a cumulative impact. When dependence no longer results from wartime destruction but from a policy choice, made under conditions of relative prosperity, it can breed guilt, self-hatred and a compulsion to display *independence* of the U.S. wherever doing so is safe, especially with regard to some Third World issues and certain aspects of East-West relations.

The problem has become even more acute because the generation of leaders that built NATO has virtually disappeared. Those who governed Europe during the early postwar years were still psychologically of the era when Europe bestrode the world. Global thinking came naturally. European leaders assumed responsibility for their own security policies and gave it up only reluctantly because of special circumstances. But nearly 40 years have passed since the end of World War II. The new leaders were reared in an era when the U.S. was pre-eminent; they find it politically convenient to delegate Europe's military defense to us. Too many seek to position themselves somewhere between the superpowers—the first step toward psychological neutralism. Thus Europe's schizophrenia: a fear that the U.S. might not be prepared to risk its own population on a nuclear defense of Europe, coupled with the anxiety that America might drag Europe into an unwanted conflict by clumsy handling of Third World issues or East-West relations.

The rush to condemn our actions in Grenada by so many of our European allies is a case in point. What could have been in the minds of their leaders? Even making allowance—especially in the case of Britain—for totally inadequate consultation, they could hardly have wanted us to fail. That would surely have affected our willingness to run risks in defense of other areas, ultimately including even Europe. Rather, they must have assumed that their actions were irrelevant and costless: that we would not be deterred, that we would exact no penalty and that therefore it was safe to use the incident to score points with "progressives" at home and with Third World radicals abroad.

The change in the nature of European leadership has been paralleled in the U.S. Our new elites do not reject NATO any more than do their European counterparts. But for them, too, the alliance is more a practical than an emotional necessity, more a military arrangement than a set of common political purposes.

On both sides of the Atlantic, we find ourselves threatened by the dominance of domestic politics over global political strat-

egy. In Europe this leads in too many countries to a faintly disguised neutralism. In the U.S. it accelerates our already strong tendency toward unilat-eralism and isolationism.

U.S. leaders have too often adjusted foreign policies to political pressures, bureaucratic infighting or changing intellectual fashions. The history of the American attitude toward intermediate-range missiles in Europe is an example. These were proposed to the Europeans in 1957-58, in-

TIME, MARCH 5, 1984

21

Special Section

stalled in Britain, Italy and Turkey by 1960 and withdrawn in 1963. They reappeared later in 1963 as part of a NATO multilateral force, and were abandoned once again by 1965. They were put before NATO for the third time in 1978 and accepted once again in 1979. Not surprisingly, Europeans organizing to stop the current deployment are encouraged by the knowledge that previous American decisions have not proved immutable.

Similarly, our allies have had to adjust from passionate U.S. advocacy of SALT II to its rejection, and then to the fact that we have chosen to observe a treaty we refuse to ratify; from a strategic doctrine of massive retaliation to one of flexible response; from a policy of détente to one of confrontation and back to reconciliation, not to speak of the gyrations in our Middle East policy—all in addition to the reassessments that occur whenever a new Administration comes into office. Each change of course leaves victims among European leaders who have staked their domestic positions on policies that the U.S. later abandons. Each lurch encourages a kind of neutralism, as Europeans seek to avoid being made hostage to sudden swings in American policy.

A continuation of existing trends is bound to lead to the de-
moralization of the Western alliance. An explicit act of states-
manship is needed to give new meaning to Western unity and a
new vitality to NATO. In my view such an effort must have three
components: (a) a more significant role for Europe within NATO,
(b) a reform of the NATO organization and (c)
a reassessment of current NATO deployment.

A NEW ROLE FOR EUROPE

During the entire post-World War II period it has been an axiom of American policy that for all the temporary irritation it might cause us, a strong, united Europe was an essential component of the Atlantic partnership. We have applied that principle with dedication and imagination, insofar as it depended on American actions, in all areas except security. With respect to defense, the U.S. has been indifferent at best—at least since the failure of the European Defense Community—to any sort of Europeanization. Many in this country seemed to fear that a militarily unified Europe might give less emphasis to transatlantic relations or might botch its defense effort and thus weaken the common security. The opposite is almost certainly the case.

In the economic field, integration was bound to lead to trans-
atlantic competition, even to some discrimination. What defines
a Common Market, after all, is that its external barriers are high-
er than its internal ones. In the field of defense, by contrast, in-
creased European responsibility and unity would promote closer
cooperation with the U.S. A Europe analyzing its security needs
in a responsible manner would be bound to find association with
the U.S. essential. Greater unity in defense would also help to
overcome the logistical nightmare caused by the attempt of every
European nation to stretch already inadequate defense efforts
across the whole panoply of weapons. For example, there are at
least five kinds of battle tanks within NATO, different types of ar-
tillery and different standards for calculating the rate of consum-
ing ammunition. In a major conflict it would be nearly impossible
to keep this hodgepodge of forces supplied.

Thus the paradox: the vitality of the Atlantic Alliance re-
quires Europe to develop greater identity and coherence in the
field of defense. I am not talking about traditional "burden shar-
ing," paying more for the existing effort. I have in mind some-
thing more structural—a more rational balance of responsibil-
ities. The present allocation of responsibilities fails to bring the
allies to reflect naturally about either security or political objec-
tives. Everyone has been afraid to take the initiative in changing
the present arrangement, lest doing so unravel the whole enter-
prise. But since drift will surely lead to unraveling—if more im-
perceptibly—statesmanship impels a new approach.

STRUCTURAL REFORM

Structural reform cannot substitute for a sense of purpose and clear doctrine. But if pursued with care and sensitivity, it can help catalyze the development of shared political purposes. These common objectives require that European judgments on security, East-West diplomacy and other matters emerge from Europe's own analysis. Mere acquiescence in American decisions, briefings and pressures provides a façade of unity; shared purposes require a deeper sense of participation. Specifically:

1) By 1990 Europe should assume the major responsibility for conventional ground defense. This is well within the capability of a group of countries with nearly one and one-half times the population and twice the G.N.P. of the Soviet Union. The Soviets, moreover, have to divide their forces on at least two fronts.

2) This requires that planning for Europe's defense become a more explicitly European task. Heretofore, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) has been American. In the new arrangement a European officer should take that traditionally American place, probably with a U.S. deputy. Such a change is also likely to give a new perspective to allied strategic planning. The U.S. has generally achieved its military successes by the weight of the equipment that our vast industrial potential has made available. This has tended to tempt our military leaders to equate strategy with logistics. European nations have rarely

enjoyed such a material margin; rather, they have had to rely on superior leadership, training, initiative and tactics—precisely what NATO needs in an age of nuclear parity and renewed emphasis on conventional defense.

3) Since the beginning of NATO, the Secretary-General, who is responsible for running the alliance's political machinery, has been European. In the new structure, with its greater emphasis on political coordination, it would make more sense for this official to be American—whenever the new Secretary-General, Lord Carrington, decides to retire. Meantime, no Western leader is better qualified for guiding NATO's transition than the wise and thoughtful Carrington.

4) Europe should take over those arms-
control negotiations that deal with weapons
stationed on European soil. The INF negoti-
ations with the Soviets (for intermediate-
range missiles) and the MBFR negotiations

(on conventional forces) have heretofore been conducted by American delegations. Both of these negotiations should be "Europeanized" as quickly as possible, with a European chairman, an American deputy and a mixed, though predominantly European, delegation.

The structure that I am proposing would enable Europeans to confront—on their own initiative and in their own context—issues that have been evaded for at least two decades: the precise definition of an adequate conventional defense; the nature of the so-called nuclear threshold—the point where there is no choice except conventional defeat or nuclear escalation; the relationship between strategy and arms control. Since nuclear weapons would presumably be used only if conventional defense failed, Europe would be responsible for setting the nuclear threshold by its own efforts; it could relieve its nuclear anxieties by the simple expedient of augmenting its conventional defenses.

By the same token, European leadership in the MBFR and INF negotiations would place final responsibility for both conventional force levels and intermediate-range missile deployment in Europe with the leaders whose countries will have to bear the brunt—for good or ill—of the outcome of these negotiations. This is especially important with respect to the American intermediate-range missiles in Europe. That deployment makes sense only if the allies genuinely believe that the prospect of a nuclear blow from Europe

TIME, MARCH 5, 1984

on Soviet territory will help deter a Soviet conventional attack or nuclear black-mail. If our principal allies do not share this conviction, the psychological basis for the deployment will evaporate.

European chairmanship of the INF talks would oblige Europe's leaders to face the issue head-on; their domestic critics would no longer be able to argue (as they do now) that U.S. intransigence is the principal obstacle to arms control.

As for the U.S., it would of course participate in these deliberations—in a less dominant position— through its continued membership in the integrated command, its responsibility for nuclear defense, and its ground, naval and air forces in Europe.

> "If nuclear weapons remain the ultimate deterrent to even conventional attack, a gradual withdrawal of up to half of our ground forces would be logical."

## REDEPLOYMENT

The issue of redeploying American forces touches raw European nerves like no other. The slightest hint of altering present arrangements jangles sensibilities; it evokes fears of American withdrawal and prospects of European neutralism. But if present trends continue, it is certain to become a central issue in the alliance relationship. Before dealing with it in the context of a program of NATO reform, a few facts must be noted:

1) The present NATO deployment of five American divisions and supporting air and naval forces evolved in the 1950s, when NATO's doctrine was massive retaliation—to react to aggression with an immediate and overwhelming nuclear blow against Soviet territory. Massive retaliation paradoxically required that the total forces on the Continent be kept below the level required for conventional defense. NATO did not wish to tempt Soviet conventional aggression by doing anything to suggest that a Western response would be limited to nonnuclear means. Hence the American conventional deployment in Europe reflected political, not military, criteria: it was intended to give us no choice about nuclear retaliation and to leave the Soviets no doubt that this would be the consequence of even a conventional war. European conventional forces represented a similar political decision: they too were conceived as a trip wire for our nuclear riposte. From the birth of NATO a full conventional defense has been part neither of its strategy nor of its efforts.

2) This situation became anomalous when the growth of Soviet strategic forces deprived general nuclear war of much of its credibility. Yet NATO deployment has been essentially unaffected by the change. NATO has improved its conventional defenses but has not closed the gap in such forces. As the current NATO commander made clear recently, even counting the five American divisions that have remained in Europe, the alliance is still unprepared to withstand a major Soviet ground attack for more than a few days. European ambivalence continues 35 years after NATO's creation. Our allies remain unwilling to develop forces strong enough to provide an alternative to nuclear weapons—and yet much of their public opinion shies away from even thinking about nuclear deterrence.

3) Were we to start all over again, we would therefore hardly repeat the decision of the '50s in today's circumstances. Let us assume a group of wise men and women from both sides of the Atlantic came together to plan a global strategy unconstrained by the past. Assume further that it started from the premise that ultimately the defense of the West is indivisible and that Europe—an security should be viewed under the aspect of the defense of the West in Europe—as a thoughtful French observer, Francois de Rose, put it. Such a group would almost surely conclude that the sensible division of responsibilities would be for Europe, with economic resources and manpower exceeding those of the Soviet Union, to concentrate on the conventional defense of the Continent. To maintain the global balance of power—by definition as essential for Europe as for

America—the U.S. would emphasize highly mobile conventional forces capable of backing up Europe and contributing to the defense of, for example, the Middle East, Asia or the Western Hemisphere.

Such a division of responsibilities would also enable our military establishment to shift some of its intellectual energies and scientific research from a hypothetical esoteric war in an area where we have major allies to the defense of regions where conflict is much

more likely. In such regions our allies are less prone to see their interests immediately engaged, and the countries being threatened are in a worse position to assist in the defense effort.

Even if we were to start all over again, an irrefutable case would exist for maintaining considerable American ground forces in Europe. This would be essential to keep our allies from feeling abandoned and to eliminate any Soviet misunderstanding that the defense of Europe no longer reflects a vital American interest. In a new division of responsibilities we should also preserve and preferably strengthen existing U.S. land-based airpower on the Continent. And we should continue our responsibility for both strategic and tactical nuclear defense, assuming that we and the Europeans could agree on a strategy for the latter. American intermediate-range missiles should remain in Europe to “couple” the nuclear defenses of both sides of the Atlantic so long as European leaders desired them. No change in naval deployments would be involved.

Why then is such a division of responsibilities not realized? The principal obstacle is psychological. For all their criticisms of American policy, Europeans dread a return to isolationism in the U.S. Americans fear that any tinkering with deployment would drive Europe into explicit neutralism. And some in the Pentagon would rather maintain our troops in Europe in a less than rational deployment than return a portion to the U.S., where they are more exposed to congressional budget cutters.

In my view, persisting in a deployment that is losing its rationale accelerates these attitudes. Pacifism and neutralism are on the march in Europe even under the present setup; isolationism in America is not yet so vocal but is being powerfully encouraged by endless allied disputes. An alliance that cannot agree on its political premises cannot sustain itself by clinging to military arrangements decided a generation ago in totally different circumstances. With current trends the issue of the rationale for the NATO deployment will become unavoidable. If it arises not as an integral component in a comprehensive design but as a single question of whether to continue stationing American troops in Europe, unilateral changes will be arbitrarily imposed by the potentially most destructive means—the American budgetary process. Then indeed we might see in America a psychological wrench away from Europe and in Europe a panicky resentment against the U.S. A change in deployment without a positive political and strategic purpose, withdrawal for its own sake, might shock our allies into neutralism; it could mislead our adversary and tempt aggression.

There is an urgent need for a serious and rapid re-examination of NATO doctrine, deployment and policies, conducted by men and women known for their dedication to Western unity. The group— to be formed immediately after our elections—must begin with one of the most divisive issues before the alliance: an agreement

on the nature and scope of the threat. The group must avoid the tendency of previous such efforts, which set unrealistic goals and thereby magnified the problem. A deadline for completion should be set—certainly no longer than two years.

Theoretically, such a study could lead to one of three outcomes: 1) The group could come to the same conclusions about the optimum division of responsibilities in an agreed global strategy outlined above. Given the dis-

> "We must not let our future pass by default to the neutralists, pacifists and neoisolationists who systematically seek to undermine all joint efforts."

TIME, MARCH 5, 1984

23

## Spotlight Stays on Kissinger, 'Shadow Secretary of State'

First of two articles

By Murrey Marder

Washington Post Staff Writer

When he boarded an Eastern Airlines plane in New York followed by a bodyguard one day last October, his name was on the passenger list as "J. Hanson."

That fleeting anonymity for one of the world's most recognizable men was wiped out at Miami airport by a welcoming phalanx of roaring police motorcycles.

"I didn't expect this," said Henry A. Kissinger, grinning like a schoolboy, as he shook hands with the escort assigned to speed him through traffic to his hotel.

He was mildly surprised, not astonished. Although two administrations have been in office since he

was secretary of state, Kissinger still circles the globe with the fanfare reserved for Hollywood superstars or world leaders at their peak.

A squad of security agents is on his payroll, divided into advance men who scout the terrain he will visit and armed guards who travel with him. When the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America that he heads visited that region, his own agents were along as well as official security men, doubly underscoring that it was the Kissinger Commission.

An aide explained, "He feels comfortable with his own people around him."

With the commission soon to report to President Reagan, its findings

See KISSINGER, A2, Col. 1

JAN 2 1984

their vigor greatly diminished.
Even Yale's president, A. Bartlett

semester, the essential activity of
people talking to people in class-

"The place is in a state of hiberna-

life. But I'm not about to ask someone

Medical School and Nursing School

# News Summary

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1984

## International

A U.S. ship drifted into Cuban waters, prompting officials to order the aircraft carrier Nimitz to the area so quickly that 1,000 crewmen were left behind, Pentagon officials said. The ship, chartered by the Navy, had broken down before it started to drift. It was rescued by a Coast Guard cutter. [Page 1, Column 5.]

A peace plan for El Salvador was offered to the Government by rebel representatives. The plan, to be worked out in three stages, calls for the eventual formation of a new government, a new constitution and reorganization of the armed forces. [3:4.]

A new effort by the Atlantic alliance was called for by President Reagan and Chancellor Helmut Kohl of West Germany to strenghten conventional forces in Western Europe to reduce the need for nuclear weapons. [4:3.]

A head-on collision in Poland killed two senior police officers investigating the slaying of a pro-Solidarity priest, the Rev. Jerzy Popieluszko, Polish reporters were told. [4:3.]

## National

Federal cuts in Medicaid and housing assistance, in addition to a freeze on Federal salaries and on cost-of-living adjustments for all pension programs except Social Security, have tentatively been decided on by President Reagan in preparations for a new budget, officials said. [1:6.]

The merger of nine Protestant sects in the future was prepared for by the leaders of the denominations with a vote of approval for a set of accords that would provide the theological for the merger. [1:3.]

taxes of New York residents at much higher under the

Treasury Department's tax proposals than they are now, according to an accountant's preliminary analysis. It says that a family living in New York City on an annual income of $25,000 and taking advantage of typical deductions would owe 23 percent more in taxes under the Treasury plan announced Tuesday, [1:4.]

William J. Schroeder's heart was temporarily switched to a much lighter power source than the 323-pound machine that was being used. The smaller source, called the Heimes portable driver, powered Mr. Schroeder's artificial heart for 22 minutes before the doctors switched back to the larger unit. The experi-

ment could pave the way for a reasonably comfortable life for recipients of artificial hearts. [1:1.]

## Metropolitan

A Weather Underground fugitive who is a suspect in the $1.6 million Brink's robbery was arrested in New Jersey. The fugitive was identified as Susan Lisa Rosenberg, 29 years old. The police said she and a companion had stopped their car to unload 740 pounds of dynamite and weapons into a rented roadside storage locker. [1:2.]

The Lincoln West site is to be sold to Donald Trump, the developer. Francisco Macri and Abraham Hirschfeld, the owners of the 76-acre site along the Hudson River from 59th to 72d Street on which a housing and office development had been planned, said they have agreed to sell it to Mr. Trump for $95 million. [1:1.]

## EDITORS' NOTE

Under this heading, The Times accomplishes articles or rectifies what the editors consider significant lapses of fairness, balance or perspective.

An anecdote in the Briefing column of the Washington Talk page on Thursday described an appearance by former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger at a dinner marking the 70th anniversary of the weekly magazine New Republic.

The report said that the audience included many liberal politicians and journalists and that Mr. Kissinger, as if to demonstrate what he had in common with them, introduced himself as "a member of an extinct species, a Rockefeller Republican."

The report recalled that Mr. Kissinger, while a Harvard professor in the 1960's, was hired as a foreign affairs consultant by Nelson A. Rockefeller, and that when he accompanied Governor Rockefeller to the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, he took with him dozens of cardboard boxes full of foreign affairs position

papers. Finally, the report noted that Mr. Rockefeller lost the nomination to Richard M. Nixon and that in time, Mr. Kissinger went to work for Mr. Nixon.

In two respects, the dinner quotation lacked necessary context.

First, because The Times's notes were incomplete, it failed to recall that Mr. Kissinger, rather than having sought to reassure his audience, said at one point: "Let's face it. This is not my normal constituency. This evening has been traumatic for me. I have been photographed with so many liberals, my semi-annual visits to the White House will now be even less frequent."

Second, the report should have acknowledged that intra-party job shifts are common in politics — particularly in foreign affairs — when there is ideological common ground, as in the case of Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Nixon.

Business Digest, Page 31

## Index

### International

* Polish car crash kills 2 investigators in priest's killing

* Replacing Unesco head is reported under discussion

* South Africa's governing party fends off 3 challenges

* British crime story: $360,000 robbery on a busy expressway

* Palestinian council meeting gets mixed reviews from Arabs

* Around the World

* Tamil rebels said to kill at least 42 in Sri Lanka

* Prime Minister's party favored in Australian election today

### Government/Politics

* Bureau of Indian Affairs criticized in report

* Helms lapses out at "dishonest journalism"

* Cuomo opposes testing at Shoreham

### Washington Talk

* House's freshman class is getting an education

* Briefing

### General

* Around the Nation

* The Talk of Provo

* New York begins to sparkle with a holiday mood

* Fingerprints of 82 day-care workers show 36 with records

* Israel will allow review of documents in Sharon case

* A 68-day strike against 11 nursing homes in city ends

* First volume of Sumerian dictionary is published

### Education/Welfare

* Yale is troubled by the effects of a strike

### Arts/Entertainment

* New York City Ballet performs "Menuetto"

* The hillbillies' story, told on film at MOMA

* Author of book on Pope found in contempt

* Alvin Ailey group dances "The Still Point"

* Carl Orff's oratorio "Carmina Burana," in Brooklyn

* "Fresh Tracks," dances by young choreographers

* "The Willowbrook Wars," a book by David and Sheila Rothman

* The issues raised by the C.I.A.'s fairness complaint

### Style

* Consumer Saturday

* De Gustibus

* Men's gifts: Classics reinterpreted

### News Analysis

* Hedrick Smith on the President's budget strategy

### Obituaries

* Prince Loewenstein, historian and opponent of Hitler

* Homer Hoyt, land economist and market analyst

### Sports Pages

* Scouting: Swinging at a boxer's ego

* Gerulaitis loses in Australian Open

* George Vecsey on just another football game

* Soviet officials hint at Olympic boycott

* Army-Navy game stirs new interest

* Players: Two young backs on the run

* Manuel to return punts for Giants

* Trotter's return causes Islander shifts

### Washington Watch
Monday in Business Day
The New York Times

DOSSIER
Dispatches

ON KISSINGER

I returned to the city over the weekend and as I was looking through your August issue I found, under the heading "Kissinger Kapers," that Dr. Bill Walsh has stated "that members of the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America are grumbling" because the chairman, Henry Kissinger, is taking $20,000 for speaking engagements to spread the word of the Commission's findings, while other members are doing the same thing as an act of patriotic duty.

As a former member of that Commission, I hasten to correct the record and strongly disagree with the statements of Dr. Walsh. First, as for patriotic service, Dr. Kissinger spent at least three times as much of his time on the work of the Commission as did any other member. It's a very useful report which would not have been possible without his leadership, and I am certain almost all members of the Commission agree on this. As for fees, Dr. Kissinger has been the most sought-after speaker in America, both for fee and for free, for a number of years. He did not need the Central American Commission. My personal judgment is that the time consumed by the Commission probably prevented him from making dozens of both paid and unpaid appearances and, frankly in my judgment, Dr. Kissinger was receiving fees in excess of $20,000 for appearances long before the Commission was conceived. It will probably continue long after the Commission is forgotten.

With respect to the additional statement that there is disillusionment and despair that the committee's findings have done nothing to swing Congress toward the pres-

ident's point of view, I can only say that the findings were not made in an effort to support the president, but to arrive at the truth. It could have been useful in the Congress, in my judgment, if properly used by the Administration.

I do hope the remarks can be corrected in your next publication. It does a great disservice to Henry Kissinger with whom I had considerable disagreement during the deliberations of the Commission, but whose performance as chairman and since has been not only patriotic, but exemplary.

By the way, your publication continues to be interesting and I congratulate you for its progress.

Robert S. Strauss
Atkin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld
Washington, D.C.

I was deeply disappointed at the comments in *Dossier* in regard to Henry Kissinger which were attributed to me. The implication that any members of the Commission were more patriotic than he, because of the fact that he earns speaking fees (which after all he has been accustomed to for years) was an utter distortion....

Dr. Kissinger gave eight months of his time to that Commission without any compensation and even rented his own car during his lengthy stays in Washington. There never has been, nor is there any, resentment or concern for his capability to receive an honorarium. As I told you, his presence as chairman of the Commission brought more attention to the work of the Commission than could have been brought by anyone else. Whatever may be your feelings about Dr. Kissinger, you must remember that he has given more of his time and life to this his adopted country than anyone that I know.

William B. Walsh, M.D.
President of Project HOPE
and member of the National Bipartisan
Commission on Central America
Washington, D.C.

Editor Sonia Adler stands by the story, "Kissinger Kapers," which appeared in the August 1984 Washington Circles column.

We welcome comments, views and advice from our readers. Letters should be mailed to Dispatches, Washington Dossier, 3301 New Mexico Ave. NW, Washington, D. C. 20016. All correspondence must be signed and include an address and telephone number. We reserve the right to edit letters for reasons of space and clarity. ▲

Car
& Buckley

Dr. We said to give this to you for the files - I hope you know what

Washington, D.C.
1930

Connecticut
Avenue
Chevy Chase
Potomac
Montgomery Mall
Seven Corners
The Homestead
The Cloister®

English Gadroon
Desk Set $185
call 347-7700 for complimentary catalog

WASHINGTON DOSSIER / NOVEMBER 1984 9

A34

Sunday, October 7, 1984

THE WASHINGTON POST

# Kissinger Sees Soviets Beset, Open to Talk

By Robert C. Toth
and Doyle McManus

Los Angeles Times

NEW YORK—Faced with massive internal problems, senior leaders in the Soviet Union are moving gingerly into a "negotiating phase" with the United States in hopes of gaining a respite from East-West tensions at an acceptable diplomatic price, former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger says.

Kissinger called for a bipartisan U.S. commission to be created immediately after the Nov. 6 election to embark on a "crash program" for arms control strategies and a framework for U.S.-Soviet relations in general that would reduce the threat of nuclear holocaust and avert superpower confrontations.

The commission's aim, he said in an hour-long interview in his Manhattan office, would be conceptual approaches acceptable to both the American public and the Soviet Union.

The path toward negotiations will be "prolonged," Kissinger said, in part because the Soviet leadership has not yet decided on its precise goals for the negotiations.

Nonetheless, in the wake of Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei A. Gromyko's meeting with President Reagan, opportunities may exist for improving the long-frozen relationship between Washington and Moscow, he suggested.

"The significance of the Gromyko visit is, most importantly, that it took place," Kissinger said, although "it was the first part of an overture in what could be a three-act opera."

Predicting no further steps, such as another Gromyko meeting with Reagan or Secretary of State George P. Shultz, before the election, Kissinger said he considered such dramatic new overtures less desirable than efforts to promote serious, less visible exchanges.

Kissinger focused in the interview on the changing Soviet attitude that Gromyko's visit appeared to signal. Kissinger presented a road picture of an aging Kremlin leadership beset by internal rivalries between the Communist Party's cadres on the one hand and its defense, foreign policy and intelligence bureaucracies on the other, and facing problems with the Soviet economy and Eastern European satellites that challenge the foundations of the Soviet system.

These challenges at home chtet the Kremlin's interest in negotiating better relations with Washington—if the price is not too high, Kissinger said.

Regarding Reagan's attitude, he said, "There is no substantial difference in what the administration is now saying and what we characterized as detente" throughout the Nixon administration. Kissinger served under Nixon first as national security affairs adviser and then as secretary of state.

Kissinger said that a major obstacle to new agreements is the absence of a private channel of communication between top Soviet leaders and the United States that bypasses both sides' ponderous bureaucracies.

After the election, Kissinger advised, the administration should make "organizational changes" to end internal quarreling over proposals to make to the Soviets.

Kissinger said he believed that the Soviets opened talks with the administration because they wanted "a respite" from East-West tensions so they could concentrate on their leadership succession, domestic economy and fractious Eastern European satellites, some of which have made overtures to the West individually.

"They have realized that they are in a stalemate for a variety of reasons," he said. "Logically, they should want a respite.... And they could not be oblivious to the repeated statements of President Reagan that he wanted negotiations."

But he said the Soviets' statements suggest that they have not settled on their goals for the talks and in the short run may simply probe for concessions.

"I do not think the Soviets have yet made a decision as to where they are going to go," he said. "Indeed, what I think they are going to do in the next three to six months is take us over a number of hurdles," arguing about agendas and seeking easy U.S. concessions before settling down to serious talks.

During these maneuvers, the United States should use the time to "clarify" its own position on arms control as well as its attitude to-

Former Secretary of State Suggests
Bipartisan Panel to Set Strategies

ward agreements with the Soviets
generally, he said.

"What it [the situation] tells me
... is that it is very important that
we confront them with concrete
proposals so they have specific de-
cisions to make," he said.

Kissinger said he believed that
Reagan, who ran for president as a
critic of detente, had come to ac-
cept the necessity of reaching a ba-
sic accommodation with the Soviet
Union.

But he said he worried that some
administration officials still opposed
negotiations and that the president
had not focused on the necessity of
making specific proposals and gen-
eral assertions of good will to Mos-
cow.

"I see no substantial difference
between what the administration
now says and what we used to char-
acterize as detente," he said with a

small smile. "President Reagan has
probably learned a dimension as
president that as a campaigner he
did not have to address.

"Undoubtedly there are elements
in the bureaucracy that have con-
sistently doubted the utility of any
negotiation, and especially of arms-
control negotiation," he said in an
apparent reference to Assistant
Secretary of Defense Richard N.
Perle and other administration
hard-liners. "This in itself is not
bad. It produces a healthy debate
within the government. But at some
point there must be a focus for de-
cision....

"The bigger danger I see is not
any lack of [Reagan's] sincerity but
the danger that some people may
believe that one can achieve results
simply by an abstract psychological
exercise of reassuring the Soviets
and convincing the public that we

are sincere," he said. "That is not
enough. It has to be translated into
a concrete program."

Accordingly, Kissinger said, he is
proposing that Reagan appoint the
task force to work out a domestic
consensus on U.S. goals in its re-
lationship with the Soviets.

"I think it would be extremely
helpful if, right after the election, a
crash program were started on a
bipartisan basis on which direction
we should go," he said. "I would like
to get some consensus, at least
within the government, of what ex-
actly it is we're trying to accom-
plish that can then be conveyed to
the Soviets as a concept before you
then embody it in proposals."

At the same time, he said, the
administration should set up a "back
channel" for informal communica-
tions with Moscow—both to help
prepare the way for arms control
proposals and to defuse possible
regional confrontations between the
two countries.

"The back channel, I think, could
be set up immediately," he said. "I
think this is particularly important
in crisis management."