August 9, 1973

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

Dear Henry:

Earnest Hooton was my primary mentor while I was both an undergraduate and a graduate student. Dr. Hooton taught facts. In between times, for some few of us who were lucky enough, he suggested ideas.

Once, upon reading a review of one of his works by Ashley Montegu, Hooton said to me: "Charles, that man criticised my words properly - but he didn't know what I was trying to say."

When I wrote you, some seven or eight months ago, to send my support to your efforts at the Paris meetings, things were more clear cut than they now are. (And let me say that your taking the time to pen a few words of thanks to me was very much appreciated.)

At this moment, as I read about the charges and counter-charges, as I read about the momentous chain of investigations, as I read about the frightening abyss opening beneath so many good men - and perhaps so many bad men - Dr. Hooton's words jump back at me:

"... but he didn't know what I was trying to say."

How terrifying that one may be judged not by misunderstood words, but by having spoken at all in the presence of those whom the world presumes to judge - for good or ill.

How can I wish you well in such a way that it will hold your mind; what words have I to get your attention just long enough to make you feel what many Americans must feel, and want to say?

You have worked for this country, Henry. And you have succeeded wher others have fallen on their faces.

A lot of Americans, like me, know it.

Pity more don't say it.

5955 Westmore Drive
Jackson, Mississippi 39206

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

May 9, 1974

Dear Paul:

The Secretary was pleased to receive your letter. Unfortunately his busy schedule and trip to the Middle East made it impossible for him to answer you personally.

Your desire to become an ambassador is a very noble ambition, Paul. Since many, but not all, of our Ambassadors are chosen from the Foreign Service you may want to consider joining the Foreign Service when you graduate from college. The State Department could send you any information you need should you decide to do so.

Mr. Kissinger prefers to wear a tie and jacket when he meets with people because it is the most appropriate dress for the occasion.

Thank you for your inquiry, Paul, and good luck in your future career.

Mr. Paul Shafer
307 Windermere
Asbury Park
Interlaken, New Jersey 02712

RECEIVED
MAY 15 1974

CENTRAL FILES

ON THE RIGHT ... by William F. Buckley, Jr.

For Release Tuesday, February 17, 1970, or thereafter.

GREEK TALK

I remember Mr. Robert Murphy telling me about having been sent to the Dominican Republic by President Kennedy to investigate various charges that had settled down around Trujillo after the dynasty was finally overthrown. He was taken to one large castle-type villa outside the city. "Here," his guide said, "is where a colonel or a general or a politician suspected of disloyalty would be invited to dinner by young Ramfis Trujillo. He would be royally wined, fed, and flattered," --the guide walked Mr. Murphy around the spacious dining room--" and then he would be led down these--watch your step!!--steep narrow stairs to (clank clank) this chamber--"the guide opened a huge door into a deep freeze storage room girded with meat hooks--"and then two men would materialize, grab the dinner guest, and suspend him alive on the meathooks. Ramfis would close the door, and go back upstairs for a cigar and brandy."

"Great God!" I gasped, "is that true?" "No," said Mr. Murphy. "Not one solitary word of it turned out to be true. It was all made up by Trujillo's enemies."

Libre Belgique is the most influential daily newspaper in Brussels. A few weeks ago, it dispatched an enterprising reporter with instructions to get through to Nicolas Vardikos, former head of the Greek electricians' union, and a supporter of the late George Papandreou. The ordeal of Nicolas Vardikos was high in the register of complaints posted by Amnesty International to the Council of Europe which resulted in the expulsion of Greece. According to the report, Vardikos was arrested April 23, 1967, the day after the colonels' coup, beaten brutally, wounded in the head by being thrown against a wall; had two teeth broken; was beaten all over the body with iron rods and for hours on the soles of the feet; had his head squeezed in a vise; was covered with wounds.

To the astonishment of the Belgian correspondent, Vardikos told him: "None of it is true. I was never arrested, never mistreated, never tortured." (Libre Belgique reproduces this sentence handwritten and signed, dated Nov. 12, 1969.) Vardikos then told in detail the story of his relation to the regime and the events since his exile. He explained how Greek emigres in Britain had tricked him into signing what he understood was an appeal for a general amnesty but turned out to be a statement that he had been tortured.

ON THE RIGHT by Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. -2-

He told also how in Sweden, Andreas Papandreou had tried to get him to join a Communist-controlled trade union and to deliver speeches making accusations he knew to be false against the colonels. "Why have you given us this information?" Libre Belgique finally asked. Vardikos answered: "Because this whole struggle against Greece is being directed by the Communists. Also because I saw at first hand the corruption of the Greek politicians who have gone abroad."

Strange, how little publicity this statement has received. I have seen it only in the National Review Bulletin. Certainly it has not appeared on the cover of Look Magazine, which practically serializes Greek torture stories. On the other hand, let's face it, it is more exciting to read about tortures committed than tortures uncommitted.

To say that the Greek colonels are not guilty of systematic torture is not, of course, to say that therefore the Greek colonels' regime is justified. Mr. C. L. Sulzberger writes, as ever intelligently, in the current Foreign Affairs that he does not "believe that torture is official policy" in Greece, "although gendarmes and especially Ioannidis' military police have sometimes been ruthlessly brutal." And he puts the Greek situation in historical focus. "The current fashion," he writes, "is to decry the military coup as a rape of democracy. Indeed it was; but democracy in Greece is no virgin. There had already been eight military revolutions or coups d'état since World War I." And two civil wars.

"Democracy" was invented in Greece all right, and is a Greek word. But one should not forget, Mr. Sulzberger reminds us, that so are the words "anarchy," "tyranny," "despotism" and -- above all -- "chaos." Colonel Papadopoulous emerges more and more clearly as an old-fashioned military despot--who is in absolutely no rush at all to implement his much-vaunted Constitution. But it helps a little bit to know that he is not taking his guests down to the deep freeze at night.

- END -

A. B. M. SHAMSUDDOULAH

DIP. LIB. (CAL), M. A. (CAL)

M.A. (DAC), M.L.S. (HAWAII)

P.O.Box 351
Dacca 2, East Pakistan

14 January 1971

Dr Henry A. Kissinger
National Security Adviser
White House
Washington, D.C.
U.S.A.

Dear Dr Kissinger:

Last evening I heard on Voice of America programme
about an attempt by some people, including some Pakistani
students, to kidnap you. Thanks to God that nothing could
be done by them. I pray to God for your longevity and
successful continuance of your genius.

It is really sad that some people even in your country
do not understand the real values of your policies. I
am confident that the time will come when the people will
understand what is right and what is wrong. Now I am the
librarian of the State Bank of Pakistan and information
handling is the profession of librarianship. Right handling
of information materials and the right promotion of the good
published materials can really fortify communication among
the mass and this can lead to understanding and peace. But
it is surprising that even the U.S. public fund for library
and research now is tremendously curtailed. I hope the
guardians of your society will be giving thoughts to it.

We could not see each other since 1967 Harvard International
Seminar. I stayed at Washington, D.C., a few months, on my way
back to Pakistan from Honolulu, in 1969. May be, if I am
fortunate, we would meet again. By the way, I would like to
request you to publish a comprehensive monograph detailing
your experience in Nixon government. You know well that this
part of the world needs more of your attention today than
ever.

With very good wishes.

SHANLEY & FISHER

COUNSELORS AT LAW
570 BROAD STREET
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07102

1 FARRAGUT SQUARE SO.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

282 MAIN STREET
ORANGE, N.J. 07050

WE TAKE PLEASURE IN ANNOUNCING THAT

GERALD W. HULL, JR.

HAS TODAY BECOME A MEMBER OF THE FIRM
AND THAT

JOHN R. MURRAY

HAS TODAY BECOME OF COUNSEL TO THE FIRM

BERNARD M. SHANLEY

HAROLD H. FISHER

WM. HOWE DAVIS

HARRY L. FITZPATRICK

FRANK L. BATE

J. WILLIAM BARBA

L. BRUCE PUFFER, JR.

WILLIAM G. BECKER, JR.

HERMAN F. SCHEURER, JR.

JOHN KANDRAVY

RAYMOND M. TIERNEY, JR.

ARTHUR R. SCHMAUDER

THOMAS F. CAMPION

JOHN J. FRANCIS, JR.

JANUARY 1, 1972

RECEIVED

MAR 14 1972

CENTRAL FL-

OF COUNSEL
JOHN E. FARRELL

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

February 1, 1974

Dear Miss Shanus and Miss Sterman:

I have before me your letter to Dr. Kissinger requesting information on his background for a school report. Unfortunately, we do not keep a file of the numerous articles and books which have been written about Dr. Kissinger since he assumed office. However, the Reader's Guide at your public library would have this information as well as the back issues of the periodicals for you to peruse.

I am enclosing for your use a biographical data sheet containing pertinent information on Dr. Kissinger which may be of some help to you.

Thank you for your inquiry and best of luck on your report.

Miss Susan Shanus
Miss Susan Sterman
6 Salem Drive
Scarsdale, New York 10583

RECEIVED

FEB 4 1974

CENTRAL FILES

Watch
on the
Danube

The Czech Crisis
and East West
Bridge-Building

by Robert Sharlet

THE CZECH crisis of August, 1968, has cast a pall over the Soviet-American detente. Although the invasion of Communist Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union and her Warsaw Pact allies was accomplished in a matter of hours, the adverse effect on East-West relations may be felt for many months. It is now apparent that the United States policy of building political, economic, and cultural "bridges" to the USSR and Communist East Europe has suffered at least a temporary setback, and the advent of Richard Nixon to the White House may produce a new layer of Cold War frost.

During the past decade, the United States and the Soviet Union have made steady progress towards a relaxation of East-West tensions. Both sides have been motivated by their common interest in avoiding nuclear war. Beginning in 1958 with an agreement to "exchange" several scholars, films, orchestras, and ballet companies, the two super-powers have been gradually building, span by span, the bridges of East-West reconciliation. A few of the more notable examples:

1958 - First Soviet-American Cultural Exchange Agreement

1959 - Khrushchev visits the United States

- Treaty on the peaceful exploration of Antarctica

1960 - "Most Favored Nation" trade status extended to Poland

1961 - Preliminary agreement for a Soviet-American civil air link

1962 - "Hot Line" set up between Washington and Moscow

- Academic exchanges begin with Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria

1963 - Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

1964 - American wheat sold to the Soviet Union

These East-West relationships have been established and maintained in spite of major crises precipitated by both sides. In 1958, the Soviet Union's ultimatum touched off a Berlin crisis. Two years later, on the eve of an East-West summit

meeting, the United States sent a U-2 spy plane over Russia, with well-known and unhappy consequences. In 1961, the two sides traded provocations - first the Bay of Pigs invasion, and then the erection of the Berlin Wall. A year later, the two super-powers stood "eyeball to eyeball" in the Cuban missile crisis. Nevertheless, both continued to hail the "spirit of Camp David" as the norm throughout this dangerous period, regarding such frictions as merely temporary interruptions of the growing cordiality. Just a year after their confrontation in the Caribbean, the US and USSR took the "first step" of the long journey to a stable peace by agreeing to stop all nuclear testing in the atmosphere.

Even the Vietnam war has so far failed to put any serious crimp in the efforts to achieve some measure of Soviet-American accommodation. Following the American escalation of the war in 1965, the Soviet Union imposed a "freeze" on pending East-West bridge-building. No new agreements of any consequence were concluded that year. Although Soviet military aid to North Vietnam was increased, the USSR did not allow the war to sour Soviet-American relations in any major way, confining herself to propaganda broadsides, diplomatic protests, and occasional gestures such as cancelling the Moscow performance of the American musical *Hello Dolly*. In turn, the United States redoubled efforts to enlarge the detente.

The Administration took several steps to indicate its desire to resume bridge-building. The White House asked the Congress to pass an East-West trade bill, which would make it possible to expand trade with the Soviet Union and East Europe, and President Johnson removed export restrictions on over 400 items, mak-

ROBERT SHARLET, Assistant Professor of Political Science, came to Union in 1967. A specialist in East European and Soviet international relations, he was a student at the University of Moscow. He is a graduate of Brandeis with a Ph.D. from Indiana.

9

ing them available for East-West trade. Further, the State Department lifted its ban on travel in Albania, Cuba, Communist China, North Korea, and North Vietnam.

These gestures, however, were more symbol than substance. The Administration's East-West Trade Expansion Bill of 1966 died in the Congress without even the benefit of public hearings. Many of the items certified as non-strategic and released for East-West trade — among them bathtub stoppers, salad dressings, fireman's hats, and windmill towers—understandably excited little interest in Communist trade circles. And the liberalization of travel was carefully hedged, being limited to journalists, scholars, scientists, and other special groups.

Nevertheless, these goodwill gestures probably had some influence on the subsequent Soviet decision to move forward again. After a year of little or no progress in East-West relations, the USSR began to indicate through diplomatic channels that she was prepared to isolate the war in Vietnam from other relationships. As a result, the detente has been substantially broadened since 1966 by a number of measures, including the addition of the consular convention, the first bilateral treaty in the history of Soviet-American relations. During the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, the two super-powers supported different sides but tacitly agreed not to get directly embroiled in the desert conflict. In less inflammatory areas a number of other steps were taken:

1966

* US-USSR Civil Air Accord signed.

* US raises relations with Hungary and Bulgaria to embassy level.

* US-USSR begin weather data exchange.

1967

* Senate ratifies US-USSR Consular Convention.

* Treaty banning nuclear weapons from outer space signed.

* Johnson-Kosygin meet at Glassboro State Teachers College.

Wide World

Czech courage and Russian guns: Prague 8/21/68

* Soviet-American fishing pact signed.

* "Food for Peace" sold to Yugoslavia.

From the outset, it looked like 1968 would be an exceptionally productive year for East-West bridge-building. In January, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed on a draft treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. At the end of the month, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe opened the first hearings on the issue of expanding East-West trade. In late March, President Johnson dramatically reduced the bombing of North Vietnam, took himself out of the presidential race, and renewed

his call for peace negotiations. North Vietnam responded and the Paris negotiations were soon underway. In the late spring, the US and USSR signed a treaty providing for the rescue of astronauts landing on foreign soil, the Soviet Union ratified the consular convention, and the US Senate passed a resolution favoring liberalization of East-West trade. By summer, the pace of accommodation had accelerated. The war clouds over Vietnam still hung low on the eastern horizon, but elsewhere there were clear skies. In a period of little over two months, bear and eagle made an unprecedented number of peaceful overtures:

June 4 - Senate Hearings on East-West trade open.

10

June 12 - UN General Assembly approves Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

June 13 - Proclamation of US-USSR Consular Convention in Washington.

June 19 - UN Committee on Outer Space approves Astronaut Rescue Treaty.

June 21 - Civil Aeronautics Board awards Moscow-NYC route to Aeroflot.

June 27 - Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko calls for disarmament talks.

July 1 - US and USSR sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  - US and USSR agree to hold talks on limiting anti-ballistic missiles.

  - US academic exchanges with the USSR and East Europe consolidated.

July 9 - LBJ sends Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the Senate.

July 10 - Senate immediately opens hearings on the treaty.

July 13 - US-USSR Consular Convention goes in force.

July 15 - First direct Moscow-NYC Aeroflot flight lands at Kennedy Airport.

  - US and USSR sign 6th biennial Cultural Exchange Agreement.

  - LBJ sends Astronaut Rescue Treaty to the Senate.

  - Discussions begin on resumption of US-USSR exchanges in the field of the peaceful uses of atomic energy.

July 16 - First direct NYC-Moscow Pan American flight lands in Moscow.

July 17 - Senate completes hearings on Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Aug. 14 - UN Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space opens in Vienna.

Aug. 20 - Late afternoon: White House schedules a "special briefing" for the press for 9:30 a.m. the next morning for the purpose of disclosing that another Johnson-Kosygin summit meeting would be held to initiate Soviet-American talks on avoiding the construction of anti-ballistic missile systems.

In the midst of these hopeful East-West developments, the Soviet Union, in company with Poland, East Germany, Hungary, and Bulgaria, invaded the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the night of Aug. 20. Official Washington reacted but with calculated restraint. The President warned the Soviet Union against unleashing "dogs of war." The Secretary of State asserted that the invasion would "damage East-West relations [and] get in the way of possible moves to more detente." The scheduled joint Soviet and American announcement of another Johnson-Kosygin summit was cancelled by the White House "in view of the invasion." The State Department placed the entire cultural exchange "under review," cancelled several forthcoming exchanges with the USSR, Poland and Bulgaria, and

requested Aeroflot to postpone its second promotional flight to New York. Simultaneously, the International Longshoreman's Association announced that its members would refuse to unload cargoes from any of the countries invading Czechoslovakia, a step likely to bring to a halt East-West trade.

Although the Administration's reaction has been largely rhetorical and much like the low-keyed Soviet response to American "aggression" in Vietnam, congressional reaction to the Czech crisis has been considerably sharper and more substantive. Delay in the ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty received Richard Nixon's campaign blessing, the attempt to block construction of an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system has been undermined, and the prospects for East-West trade expansion have been weakened.

During the summer, prior to the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the prospects for Senate ratification of the non-proliferation treaty had been considered excellent. By the time the Congress reconvened in September, however, the treaty had become entangled in the partisan controversy

Soviet war memorial: Karlovy Vary, 8/21/68

Wide World

of an election year. After much maneuvering to obtain a quorum, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted by a margin of 13-3 to report the treaty, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield reluctantly decided to postpone floor action until the opening of the 91st Congress. Remembering that twenty-eight senators had voted against ratifying the US-USSR Consular Convention in 1967, the Democratic leadership in the Senate chose not to risk a defeat on this crucial issue in the heat of a presidential campaign.

Similarly, Senate opponents of an ABM system had mustered 34 votes against a defense appropriation for anti-ballistic missiles in early August. They had hoped, when the Congress met in the fall, to delay the appropriation in order to give the anticipated Soviet-American ABM talks a greater chance of success. The Czech crisis, by causing the White House to cancel the ABM talks, undermined the Senate opposition to the project and has almost assured that the United States will begin building at least a "thin" ABM system.

Finally, the Administration and congressional supporters of East-West trade expansion were reasonably hopeful before the Czech crisis that the time for a more liberal trade policy towards the European Communist states was at hand. Both the House and Senate held informational hearings on the issue during 1968, the House in January and February and the Senate in June and July. These hearings were designed to air the issue and present it in the most favorable light before the 1969 expiration of the trade restrictions in the Export Control Act.

Nevertheless, conservative members of Congress were still expected to balk because of opposition to "trading with the enemy" during a war. Even before August, this opposition was being encouraged by such right-wing groups as the Liberty Lobby and CEASE (the "Committee to End Assistance to the Soviet Enemy"). Now, in the wake of the Czech crisis, Secretary Rusk said

in August that the State Department considers the prospects for early congressional action on East-West trade expansion very unlikely. Once again, this important issue, first raised in 1966, will have to be deferred until a more auspicious political atmosphere prevails.

The 90th Congress adjourned in mid-October, leaving in abeyance the next major steps towards East-West reconciliation — the limitation of anti-ballistic missiles, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the expansion of peaceful trade with the USSR and East Europe. Coming on top of the war in Vietnam and in the midst of a presidential election campaign, the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union and her allies has effectively arrested further progress towards a detente. Now that the elections are over, the question is: how long will the Czech crisis cast a shadow over East-West relations? The answer depends on President-elect Nixon's policy towards the USSR and East Europe, the progress of the Paris negotiations, the political temper of the new congress, and, of course, future Soviet policy towards East Europe, especially with regard to Rumania and Yugoslavia.

Even assuming the most unfavorable combination of these factors in 1969, however, the East-West bridges built over the last decade will probably continue to stand. They have survived the far more dangerous Soviet-American military confrontations over Berlin and Cuba in the past and will most likely prove sufficiently durable to weather the Czech crisis of 1968. As Philip Mosely, a distinguished student of East-West relations, has observed, "the urge to seek detente expresses a deepest yearning to move beyond coexistence, or the mere avoidance of nuclear war, and to attempt to define some firmer basis for a dangerously unstable international equilibrium." Though the shifting tides of politics may have effect on specific elements in the detente, that shared desire for accommodation should prove in the end to be the more compelling force.

The accomplished fact: Prague, 8/26/68

Wide World

12

UNION COLLEGE

SYMPOSIUM

Sent without charge to alumni, parents of students, and friends of Union College, SYMPOSIUM is published quarterly. The articles reflect the College's continuing interest in the exchange of ideas, but the opinions expressed therein are those of the contributors and do not represent the views of the institution. All the contributors are connected with Union College in some way. Copyright 1968 by Union College.

WINTER • 1968/69

Editor:

BERNARD R. CARMAN

2 LAW AS HISTORY by Neal W. Allen, Jr.
Newly inaugurated as the John Bigelow Professor of History—Bigelow, Class of 1835, was a lawyer and sometime historian—a scholar speculates on the uses of law as raw material for both history and education.

Assistant:

JANET PEARCE

9 WATCH ON THE DANUBE by Robert Sharlet
Among many effects of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, not the least was its impact on efforts to promote a lessening of Cold War tensions. A political scientist and specialist in Russian affairs summarizes the specifics.

Editorial Advisors:

JOSEPH FINKELSTEIN
HAROLD A. LARRABEE
CARL A. NIEMEYER

13 REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT, 1967-68 by Harold C. Martin

23 REPORT OF THE TREASURER, 1967-68 by Louis D. Miltimore '29

29 RHYMES ABOUT SPORT by Harold A. Larrabee '60H
Athletic anapaests by a long-time fan of the muscular arts.

31 COEDUCATION?
REPORT TO THE FACULTY BY THE COMMITTEE ON COEDUCATION
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE COEDUCATIONAL QUESTION

41 CORRESPONDENCE

PRINTED BY ARGUS-GREENWOOD, INC.
ALBANY, NEW YORK

**INSIDE COVER:** Muddy moment of triumph for the 1968 Union football team was the Hamilton contest, where a 22-13 win capped the best season since 1949. Halfback Steve Ciesinski '70 was a key performer.— Photo by Dick Daniel '70.

UNION COLLEGE SYMPOSIUM, Winter, 1968/69, Vol. 7, No. 4. Office of Publication: Union College, Schenectady, N. Y. Published quarterly by Union College, Schenectady, New York. Second Class postage paid at Schenectady, N. Y. Postmaster: Send Form 3579 to Lamont House, Union College, Schenectady, N. Y. 12308.

CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP OF SECOND CLASS PUBLICATION
Date of filing: October 1968. Title of Publication: Union College Symposium. Frequency of Issue: Quarterly. Location of Known Office of Publication: Union College, Schenectady, Schenectady Co., N. Y. 12308. Location of headquarters of publisher: Union College, Schenectady, N. Y. 12308. Editor: Bernard R. Carman. Owner: Union College, Schenectady, N. Y. 12308. Bondholders: None.

1

After an etching by Hogarth

IN JULY, 1841, a young man not yet twenty-four years old had the pleasure of seeing in print the results of his first modest foray into the world of letters. He was a lawyer who had been admitted to the bar three years earlier. Clients had come in slowly, — four years later he was still complaining that lawyers wasted precious time waiting for business — and he turned to writing and politics, as briefless barristers have often done. But that first essay, a long, serious and not very original review article of the kind favored by the journals of the age, was doubtless suggested by his legal training. He called his piece (not very gracefully) "The Profession of Law at Rome before the Empire," and it was, as far as I can determine, one of John Bigelow's very few attempts to deal with a subject in legal history. Even the brief quotation that follows suggests that this was not to be his métier. "There is something intensely interesting and instructive to the professional man in the diary of the downsittings and uprisings of his professional ancestors," wrote Bigelow; "to the lawyer, in the private histories of those whose sympathies and necessities he will be called upon most frequently to live over."

We can agree, I think, that serious legal history in America lost no Maitland when John Bigelow turned to more congenial subjects, and entered on the full tide of

his busy and many-sided career. He continued during all of his long life to write, but the law as a major object of historical and philosophical study did not engage his rather prodigious energies. For Bigelow the law was never a passion, only a business and profession. Success in practice meant for him an opportunity to move into other, apparently more congenial, areas of literary and public life.

I have dwelt long enough on our benefactor. It would be pleasant and appropriate if I could make him the central figure of this inaugural essay. He himself has made it impossible, however; it is a part he did not seek, and therefore one he cannot be asked to take. But I hope that I have not strained too hard in giving him at least an introductory role.

It has become something of a commonplace to bewail the difficulties and inadequacies of legal history. Lawyers have had neither the time nor (very often) the inclination to engage in the serious scholarly study of the history of their profession. We can of course except from this last statement some great professors of law, certain notable judges, and a scattering of members of the bar. By and large, however, lawyers have not shown much sustained, scholarly interest in legal history; even more strikingly, historians have been equally reluctant to approach the

2

GENERAL

SP3-102

KISSINGER, HENRY A./S

*

OCT 28 1970

Dear Bob:

Many thanks for your letter of October 11. Your observations are very interesting and very acute. I was interested to see your article in the New Yorker and appreciated the additional notes you sent to me. I would love to see you and have a chance to talk.

Your mention of Danielle Hunebelle was intriguing. She is, for your information, somewhat an albatross, but not an altogether unpleasant one I suppose.

It was good to hear from you. Please give my office a call when you are planning to be in Washington and have some time to spare.

Mr. Robert M. Shaplen
c/o United States Consulate
Hong Kong

jlp:10/20/70

Paris, October 11

Dear Henry -

I thought I would just give you a quick reaction to what I think the reaction is here to the Nixon speech, and where I think we might go from here. You will perhaps have read the New Yorker piece coming out this next Thursday -- or will if this reaches you first. Issue that should be dated the 17th, I think. Anyway, that has some of my ideas in it, but I want to add a few.

It was a good speech, I thought, altho the idea of an IC conference is indeed premature, and, while I imagine we have made some private assurances to Lon Nol, a cease fire for him at this point is obviously disadvantageous. Obviously we must be assuming that the other side will not grab at this offer overnight and that a long negotiatory haul is ahead, so there will be time enough to help Cambodia anyway.

In all my private conversations, including some I had before I saw you here and some after, I have the increasing feeling that Hanoi and the Front do want to talk, how seriously we don't know, but they do want to talk. I saw Le Thanh Khoi, for example, an economist working with Au Truong Thanh here, who is the son of Le Thanh Nghi, the chief economic roverboy for Hanoi and a Politburo member of alternate. Khoi has just been to Vietnam (North) for the first time he in 23 years, he told me, as part of the group of 25 that recently went there from here. He told me that Hanoi wants to talk, and also, incidentally, that the rating in the Politburo now, he thinks, is Duan, Dong, Giap, Chinh, Tho etc. This confirms what I have heard about Giap's rise. In a long talk I had with Nguyen Van Tien, who really runs the Front show here (Madame Binh is not that bright and just takes orders and Tien is clued into Hanoi -- he's still the PRG Ambassador assigned there)-- I had the definite feeling that they want to talk too, in fact they said so, but then of course we run into the Thieu-Ky-Khiem issue. I may have been wrong in my assumption that Thieu's name was purposely left out of the Nixon speech, but it seemed to me significant, and I thought it was right. We should, as I wrote, get ready to open the Presidential sweepstakes, and if Big Minh is elected, as I think he will be assuming the 1971 election schedule is operative, then the other side will want to wait to deal with him. It therefore, it seems to me, behooves us more carefully than ever to take advantage of the remaining months, the next few, that is, to move Thieu away from the negotiatory dialogue as much as we can. Of course we can't get rid of him, even if we wanted to, but we can help Cheshire-cat him. If it is true that this question of dealing with TKK is a matter of face for the other side, and that undoubtedly is part of the equation, then we must try to make TKK palatable while at the same time reducing their impact. They are not the only part of the administration in Saigon, which the other side admits. In so far as the other side can be convinced that the other elements in the administration, including peace elements, are the paramount factor -- or rather to the degree we can do that -- then our chances of making a deal will be better, a deal whereby the PRG and Saigon will talk to each other, not to us alone. In this

2

connection, I had a long good talk yesterday afternoon with my friend Senator Dang Van Sung, who has been here recuperating from a serious operation (Habib saw him at lunch) and is now returning to Saigon to take a fresh look at the Senate bloc situation, work with Senator Huyen (just re-elected but, like Sung, now more disaffected from Thieu), and others, including Vu Van Mau, who wants to see him (Sung). My advice to Sung was: inject the Assembly more into the negotiator picture, including peace elements like Mau, and let the Assembly perhaps be the spearhead for broadening the negotiator base in such a way that the other side will find it difficult not to talk with revamped delegation or commission or whatever you want to call it. They may thus be able to save face vis-a-vis TKK and still swallow the bitter tea, to mix a metaphor somewhat. Anyway, when I get back to Saigon in three weeks (I'll be in HK, by the way, from the 13th of October until about the 28th, in case you want to reach me via the Consulate, and then in Saigon for about five weeks, and Phnom Penh and Vientiane), I will see what headway Sung and others have made on this score. Do not underestimate the increasing independence of Sung, and Huyen (who will probably run with Minh for President, as VP, that is). This is something we should capitalize on. If we want to avoid a sell-out, it seems to me we must move to outflank Thieu before Minh is elected. I don't know if that makes sense to you, but it does to me. Which may put me in the Quiet American role Jim Thompson put me in his tormented review of the new book (did you see it, page 3 of the Sunday Times Book Section of October 4th?), but so be it.

I guess that's it for now. Incidentally, on a more personal note, I met a delightful friend of yours at a party Bob Levine, USIS man here and son of Isaac Don Levine, gave for me -- Danielle Hunebelle. I had lunch with her a couple of days later. She told me about having done a film with and about you, which sounded far more fascinating than the one "Sixty Minutes" is working on. Anyway, I had the impression that she was hurt that she hadn't heard from you when you were passing through Paris, even though I told her how busy you were. We obviously shared a friendship and fondness for you, and you took up at least half the luncheon conversation, which as far as I'm concerned was half too much! But she did seem hurt, so for whatever it's worth, I pass it on to you. She is a delightful woman, and every now and then I begin to think better of the French . . .

all the best,