1

GEORGE HERMAN: Mr. Klein, you are President Nixon's Director of Communications, voluntary or involuntary, and the administration has had considerable communication lately with columnist Jack Anderson, who published the secret papers on the Indo-Pakistan war. Have you found out who did this particular bit of communicating?

MR. KLEIN: First, I'd have to say that's involuntary. Second, the answer is we have not -- I'm not aware of what the source of his information may be. I'd like to know.

ANNOUNCER: From CBS Washington, FACE THE NATION, a spontaneous and unrehearsed news interview with President Nixon's Director of Communications for the Executive Branch, Herbert G. Klein. Mr. Klein will be questioned by CBS News Correspondent David Schoumacher, Don Oberdorfer of the Washington Post, and CBS News Correspondent George Herman.

HERMAN: Mr. Klein, all the reports and indications that we've seen so far are that your search for the man who communicated, or persons who communicated these documents to Jack Anderson, has not been nearly so intensive as your search for those who communicated the papers to Mr. Ellsberg. The Ellsberg papers had to do with a long time ago; the new papers have to do with comparatively modern doings. Why is there less emphasis on this one?

MR. KLEIN: Mr. Herman, I'm not familiar with the FBI efforts in either case as to the intensity or the exact aspects of the investigation. As you know, my area really is more in terms of information and public information and how we get it out. Whatever comes

2

from the effort to determine the source would be a matter for the
Justice Department.

OBERDORFER: Well, on the substantive side, one of the disclosures in the Anderson papers was that the President said we want to tilt toward India --

MR. KLEIN: Toward Pakistan.

OBERDORFER: Toward Pakistan, excuse me. Why did Mr. Nixon want to tilt the policy of the United States toward Pakistan?

MR. KLEIN: I think the first thing that we ought to make clear is that the efforts which were being made in terms of discouraging India from entering into East Pakistan were ones which were public as well as private. The efforts being made by the President were to do all possible to preserve peace in that area, and the entire movement in that direction was one of a professional President seeking every method possible to, first, avoid a war, and second, once there was a war, to cool it down as rapidly as possible.

SCHOUMACHER: Mr. Klein, it's been suggested that a possible alternative reason may have been to curry favor with mainland China, the as / route that Henry Kissinger had used to get into China of course was the Pakistan in the first instance. Was China on the President's mind?

MR. KLEIN: Well, China has been on the President's mind, as you know, for a long time, but China policy was not related to the efforts we were making in terms of keeping peace in that area of the world. The thing most on the President's mind, as you know, is how to build a generation of peace, and in doing that you've got to be aware of the very delicate situations in each part of the world,

3

and that was the motivation; it had nothing to do with his forthcoming
visit to China, which would take place either way.

SCHOUMACHER: But why didn't these papers indicate any concern,
serious concern for the deaths that had occurred and were occurring
then in the Bangladesh area?

are ones which
MR. KLEIN: The papers that you are referring to/were examining
meetings taking place at the time that the Indians were going forward.
As a matter of fact, this was one of the concerns which was expressed
as to whether or not the Bangladesh invasion might turn into a blood-
bath. There is one other thing I'd like to say, and I think this is
key to the whole point of discussion. I've
/read a number of interpretations of the papers which imply that there is a variance in public
policy. I have also read what I consider to be libels against Dr.
Henry Kissinger, accusing him of lying. I think anyone who looks
carefully at these papers will know, first of all, that he was explaining the policy, and I would say it was the same publicly as
privately; secondly, I'd like to say that I think that it's time that
we have more recognition of the fact that Dr. Kissinger is one of the
outstanding people we have in this government who renders a great
public service, and if the press really felt that he was distorting
things, they wouldn't use him as the principal source of trying to
get additional information on any major policy.

OBERDORFER: Well, now wait a minute --

SCHOUMACHER: Mr. Oberdorfer has already quoted this one line,
that the President wants to tilt in favor of Pakistan, and yet
publicly Dr. Kissinger said on December 7 that there have been
comments that the administration is anti-Indian, this is totally

4

inaccurate. Isn't this a kind of a conflict between what's being
said in public versus what's being said in private that brings up
this whole question of confidence in government?

MR. KLEIN: It's been brought up in that way in terms of how it
has been interpreted in the news. I think that what you have to
look at is the fact that with many of our allies we may disagree on
a specific policy. That doesn't make us anti that nation. We just
completed some meetings with Japan, for example, and we've had some
disagreements over the last months on trade policy and others, but
certainly we're not anti-Japan, we're pro-Japan. And the same way
would be true of Canada; we've just come through with some disagree-
ments over the surcharge, but that doesn't make us anti-Canadian,
and I think that's where the misinterpretation has come in.

HERMAN: But how about where Mr. Kissinger said the President
doesn't want the Indian ambassador received at too high a level,
and things of that sort which seem to sound very anti-Indian?

MR. KLEIN: Well, I think it again reflects maybe some American
innocence on how do you work policy and you don't go up and smile each
time when you're disagreeing. I think that you, in terms of policy
at a given moment, why we were publicly not in favor of the Indian
nation invading Pakistan. We were also concerned as to what might
happen as the result of such an invasion, and I think that you're
looking at a tactic. If you want to look in terms of total policy,
Mrs. Gandhi had received a very warm welcome when she was here just
prior to that time and I'm sure that you'll find that our relation-
ships with India will continue at a very high level and a very good
level.

5

HERMAN: Is it your argument, then, that this entire thing results from either a misinterpretation or malice on the part of the press?

MR. KLEIN: It's my interpretation that I believe that Henry Kissinger has been libeled when he's been accused of lying or distorting the facts. I don't say that this is deliberate. I don't look at people's motives in this way. I don't believe it was deliberate. I just say that I think the people are getting the wrong impression.

OBERDORFER: Well, do you think the American public has benefited from the revelations of how our policy was made in this India and Pakistan dispute, by knowing what happened in those White House meetings?

MR. KLEIN: I've noted reports that there was no reason for -- to stamp a secret on these particular papers. I think for the American public to know that we have a debate within an administration on any issue is valuable, and we've said that before. I don't think that they learned anything from these papers which justifies the conclusion that we ought to therefore release all working papers for the President. How can you have two sides trying to resolve an issue if they have to feel that everything they say at one time or another is going to become public. It would be the same way if when you are debating something on the editorial board of the Washington Post if you then printed we had a vote of four to three and these are the people on each side.

OBERDORFER: Well, to turn the question around a little bit -- do you think there is any strong justification for stamping these

6

papers secret?

MR. KLEIN: I think that there's strong justification; I think it is based on the fact that you have to have working meetings in which you get at the problem. I'm not getting into whether or not national security was violated or not; that will have to be determined by someone else. But I do think that there is a need if you are going to have a working government for people to express a variety of views to have some protection of those, and I think that whoever leaked these papers did a disservice.

HERMAN: Well, let me put it back on the same footing that I did before. Is this not -- these were confidential or classified papers, they were leaked to the press -- is this not the same kind of case as the Ellsberg Pentagon papers? Do you see a difference in them so that one should be investigated by the FBI and the other not, simply an inquiry inside the administration?

MR. KLEIN: Well, first, there is an investigation in both parts. I think it gets into the content of the papers, and there is a difference between the content of those things I've seen thus far and the total volumes which were portrayed in the Pentagon papers, some of which were not published.

SCHOUMACHER: Now underlying all this, Mr. Klein, of course is this question of confidence in the administration, what we used to call the credibility gap. There is a recent Harris poll that President Nixon was asked about by our colleague Dan Rather at the White House last Sunday night, which indicated that about half the people that were polled say that the President fails to inspire confidence or faith. The President in answer to that question said that his

7

strong point had always been his performance; he thought his performance has been good. I would suppose then that the implication of that answer is that as a Director of Communications you are failing in your job of selling the President to the people and his performance. What's going wrong? Still today after all this conversation, are you looking for work?

MR. KLEIN: I'm happily employed in working for the President and I don't look to my job as selling, I look at my job as trying to provide more information for the American public. I think that I have to be frank in saying that I had hoped that by this time in this administration there would be greater confidence in overall government and less of a credibility gap. I think that we've made gains. I think that the fact is that despite the disputes which become very public, that the press has greater access to information now than it had when we took office, and that will continue to be my effort to do that. But I would say one other thing, and that is that credibility we look at just too much in terms of government. One of the problems that I've run into in looking at this in greater detail is that in this particular day and age, there is a credibility gap which involves not only government but involves all aspects of life today. People question whether or not business is good for America. People question schools, families, churches, and, yes, even television.

(MORE)

8

SCHOUMACHER: Well, there certainly is an issue. The polls indicate it, the Democrats, all of the candidates I asked picked it up--confidence in government. How do you think President Nixon will do against the current front runner among the Democrats, Senator Muskie, who seems to be scoring somewhat better in the public mind on this question of confidence?

MR. KLEIN: I think that the record is such, and all you have to do is look at 1971, and look at the reviews which were written at the end of the year, the commentary on your own network. In fact, there's--there's a good record of performance in 1971. Our effort will be to produce perhaps a better look at that record and the record as it develops in 1972, and I think that this is the kind of factor which will build confidence. It's the kind of factor which will enable Mr. Nixon to win reelection. I'm predicting that he will win regardless of who the nominee is.

SCHOUMACHER: But would you not have a particular problem with someone like Senator Muskie, who seems to be doing this well in the polls on this question of confidence?

MR. KLEIN: I think Senator Muskie has yet to be really examined, either by his Democratic opponents or by this administration. I noticed that Senator McCarthy raised a question just the other day as to his credibility on the Viet Nam issue, where he changed his mind several times. I think when you look at the various Democratic candidates, and look what they said about Senator Goldwater in 1964, just before their party enlarged the war--

SCHOUMACHER: Changing--changing one's mind isn't going to be an issue, though, in this campaign, is it? I would think that the Presi-

9

dent would have some difficulties on that score.

MR. KLEIN: Well, I think people change their mind and the President should have flexibility, and the candidates should. I'm just saying that credibility runs both ways, and I think you can find some gaps among the Democrats.

HERMAN: Let ask you about this. In the course of the previous--
the first answer you gave on this score--you said, as you have said
before on this program, that there is also an occasional credibility
gap for the media, specifically for television news and so forth. In
the papers on the Indo-Pakistan talks, Assistant Secretary Nutter is
quoted as saying, it goes without saying that the entire press is
slanting coverage of this war to place the entire blame on the Paki-
stanis, and to show that they attacked India. And Mr. Kissinger is
quoted as saying, this has been a well-done political campaign for
which we will pay. Do you believe that there was a concerted press
campaign to blame the entire war on the Pakistanis, and that this is
a political campaign for which the administration is going to pay?

MR. KLEIN: I don't believe that there was a conspiracy. I think
that the fact is that most of the reporting was done from India. Re-
porters were not allowed in East Pakistan. And I think if you look at
the results, why the stories would come out more favorable toward
India than they did to Pakistan.

HERMAN: Which is the opposite of what they're saying here in
this--in this statement that they're quoted as saying.

MR. KLEIN: No, I think what they're saying is that the stories
are pro-India, and I think that they were.

HERMAN: No, sir, it goes without saying that the entire press

10

is--yes, quite right, pro-India, and you think that's because there
were more reporters in India than there were in Pakistan.

MR. KLEIN: I think that's true, and I think that India over a
long time has attracted a great favorable press in this country. It
is a great democracy, and I don't object to that at all.

SCHOUMACHER: Did you put any pressure on Pakistan to allow free-
dom of movement for American reporters?

MR. KLEIN: No, I did not, and it's not my duty to put pressure
on other countries as to how they handle that type of thing.

HERMAN: I think the other part of my question, though, is do
you think that among Mr. Kissinger and Secretary Nutter, there is a
feeling that the press has a political campaign in action against them?

MR. KLEIN: I haven't discussed that question with either one of
them. I think that they, in looking at the facts as they saw them,
and looked--as they saw someone reported, they must have had some very
real questions; and that occurs frequently.

OBERDORFER: On the subject of the campaign, which we were dis-
cussing a moment ago, how well do you think Congressman Ashbrook and
Congressman McCloskey will do against the President in New Hampshire?

MR. KLEIN: I think it'd be too early to look in terms of per-
centages. I think you start first with the conclusion that they're
not going to defeat the President in New Hampshire, and I note that
they say about the same thing. In any election, there's opposition to
the leading candidate. In 1968, for example, Mr. Nixon received--I
think it was 69 or 71 per cent of the vote in New Hampshire.

OBERDORFER: Do you think he'll do that well again this year?

MR. KLEIN: I think he'll do that well.

11

SCHOUMACHER: After hearing a--what the President said a week ago about not breaking up a winning team, and based on what you're able to feel out about the coming campaign, would you expect Vice President Agnew to be on the ticket again?

MR. KLEIN: My personal opinion is that he will be. It's been my view that he's come on stronger as the term has gone along in terms of the--his ability to work as a member of the team. In 1971, for example, he was the leading man we had in working with the states and local communities on--convincing them on the necessity of revenue sharing and welfare reform. I think that was one of many factors, but it was a key factor in what we see now as a growing pressure on Congress to bring about some of these programs which the President has been advocating all year. So I think that his work in the past, and as I see it, ahead, will justify his renomination by the Republican Party.

OBERDORFER: Well, when you say it's your personal feeling that he will be, do you think that what the President said on television to Mr. Rather is inconclusive in that respect? Do you think that there's any substantial chance that Agnew will not be on the ticket?

MR. KLEIN: I think there's no substantial chance.

HERMAN: In that same broadcast, the President made some remarks about the end of the war in Viet Nam being tied to a pullout date and the release of the prisoners of war. Since then the administration has twice had to issue--I won't say correctives, but expansions of that statement, which have changed its meaning substantially. Do you think the President misspoke himself, or was he widely misinterpreted?

MR. KLEIN: I--I think it's--one of the things we forget is that every time that the President has gone on the air in any of these, he

12

has done it live. He's the first President who that. He's done live
press conferences, as did some of the other Presidents. But in these
interviews on the networks, they have been done live. I think, there-
fore, while he stated the issues clearly--and I find no inconsistency--
any time you're talking as I'm doing now, you may have one or two words
in a different way that you want. But the U. S. position, in terms of
withdrawal, in terms of protection of the government of South Viet Nam,
in terms of our desire for the release of the POWs, has been clear,
I guess
and so, it would get down to--I would label it as some misinterpret-
tion or a question of further inquiry to be certain that they under-
stood what the President's intentions were, and that was done.

SCHOUMACHER: There's something that bothers me about the current
debate between the Democrats and the Republicans over whether Viet Nam
will be an issue this time. The Democrats say it will; the Republicans--
many of the Democrats say it will--the Republicans say it won't. Am
I correct in assuming that what the President is saying--that as long
as there are fewer American casualties it will not be an issue, because
Americans are willing to accept whatever we might be doing to others?

MR. KLEIN: Well, I think it gets down to what do you interpret
as an issue. I, for example, hold the opinion that it'll be a positive
issue, one of achievement by President Nixon.

It's one that he's dramatically reversed our policy, and while
many of our critics have said Vietnamization would not work, or that
the moves he made--which were, I think, very strong and bold there to
move us toward peace--would not work, the fact is that they have. And
so my answer would be that I think it's a positive issue for us; I
think the Democrats will have difficulty in attacking the President in

13

what he's done in winding down the war.

SCHOUMACHER: Even if he is continuing the bombing of most of
Indochina--or much of Indochina?

MR. KLEIN: I think if it's demonstrated to the American people
that's essential to that process, that would be true. I would look
for a decreased bombing, however.

OBERDORFER: On that same program, the President said that in
1972, up until the time at least of the Republican Convention, he plans
to engage in no public partisan activities. Why did he put it that
way--no public partisan activities? Is he not planning, and actually
engaging in a large number of political activites in private, and why
does he make this distinction?

MR. KLEIN: Well, I think, as you know from your coverage of a
lot of campaigns, Mr. Oberdorfer, that what--basically what he said
was that he'll concentrate on the job of the President. And in his
professional way, he'll do that. I think that it would be disillusion-
ing to the American people--we didn't say that he would meet with his
campaign leaders on some occasions, that he would meet with campaign
workers on some occasions, and there's a difference between that kind
of a conference and going out and--

OBERDORFER: Well, why--.

MR. KLEIN: --campaigning publicly.

OBERDORFER: Why does he keep those secret, then?

MR. KLEIN: I don't think everyone that walks in that office
becomes a matter of public record. And the fact is, you've seen him
meet with some political leaders, so I don't see that that's a secret.

OBERDORFER: Oftentimes they haven't been announced, and we've had

14

to find out later that he has had a meeting with Senator Buckley, for example, or that people called the Friends of Richard Nixon have been meeting in the White House, and we were not told about it. Why are those things secret?

MR. KLEIN: Well, I think he also meets with some of the Democratic leaders and--and that's not announced. I don't look at that as a great secret. And--no, there's no question that there've been meetings, and there will be. But he said he'll concentrate on the job of the President. When you look at the things which are developing, I think, moving forward for the great progress of this country, both domestically in terms of things which we hope to get through this Congress, in terms of the international trips, it's obvious that the greatest thing he can do toward the completion of this four years is to move ahead on those tests, and that's what he said.

SCHOUMACHER: Mr. Klein, if you had a similar job with the Democratic Party, and you considered the play that the President's conversation on CBS has gotten in the past week, and the television exposure through the various at home with the Nixon programs that networks have run, wouldn't you feel that the networks should be required to give equal time--something like at home with the Muskies on Valentine's Day, something like that?

MR. KLEIN: Well, would you feel, as someone who earns his living on this network, that you have enough time to give away to cover all the Democratic candidates?

SCHOUMACHER: This is a kind of a political policy decision that fortunately I don't have to answer. I'm just asking the question of you.

15

MR. KLEIN: I think that you have to look at the man as President, and there's a great public interest in what the President's done. We've been talking about secrecy and things in public, and I think that regardless of who's in office, and the same has been true when the Democrats have held office, there's been a great interest in--in the man, in the leadership, in his programs; and I think when you have someone who asks tough questions, such as Dan Rather, there's an opportunity to answer some things which will come out in favor of the Democrats possibly even.

(MORE)

16

SCHOUMACHER: When you consider all of this, the advantages of the Presidency which accrue to Democrats of course as well as Republicans when they are in office, but when you add the additional financial advantage that the Republican Party seems to have in this coming election, isn't there some real danger to the democratic process of selecting our leadership?

MR. KLEIN: I don't believe so when you look at the fact that the Democrats have been able to field enough money to control the Congress each time. I think that some of these things that indicate that they don't have any money don't really ring true when you look at the campaign expenses.

SCHOUMACHER: You think maybe they've got access to more money than they're admitting?

MR. KLEIN: I think that they will be well-financed in their campaign which would mean they have access to more money than they are admitting at this time.

OBERDORFER: Mr. Klein, there's a report from Moscow that Soviet Premier Kosygin used the hot line between Moscow and Washington to communicate with Mr. Nixon during the recent bombing of North Viet Nam. Has the hot line been used in this administration?

MR. KLEIN: It's been used. I don't know the specific occasions and I don't know the specific answer to that question.

OBERDORFER: Has it been used recently?

MR. KLEIN: I don't know that.

OBERDORFER: We were told earlier that it had not been used, except in 1967 which of course was before the President came into office.

17

MR. KLEIN: I just don't really know the answer to the use of
the hot line, it's not --

OBERDORFER: Are you sure that it has been used?

MR. KLEIN: I'm not sure either way.

HERMAN: Let me get you off the hook -- that saves an answer.
You talked about Vietnamination. The usual aim that's given for the
success of Vietnamization is that the South Korean -- the South
Vietnamese, excuse me, government will have a good fighting chance to
succeed. That's not a very sanguine goal -- a good fighting chance.
Supposing in the next few months the North Vietnamese continue the
offensive which has already done so well in Cambodia and Laos, and
continue to push, and the South Vietnamese with our troops moving out
rapidly show some signs of losing that good fighting chance -- what
would we do then? Can the President afford to let Southeast Asia
go down the drain before his election?

MR. KLEIN: I think you are asking an iffy question. I don't
expect that to occur. One of the things which I would, I think, look
at and warn against is that in the attacks that the North Vietnamese
are making now and the Viet Cong are, they are concentrating in some
areas which I think they feel they have a better chance to capture
American headlines, and the key areas really are in the Delta, and
you've been out there, and I know that Mr. Oberdorfer has, and you
know that the Delta area is one of the areas which we are succeeding
in securing, so that I think that what you have to look at is the
fact that they'll have some flashy battles here and there, but I
think any real observer will say that as the President had predicted,
Vietnamization is working, the fighting ability of the South Vietnamese

18

has increased, and American casualties are by the record are going
down and will continue to do so.

SCHOUMACHER: Mr. Klein, did you bring along with you the job
offer for Dan Schorr?

MR. KLEIN: No, I didn't, and I think that the handling of that
wasn't probably the best thing. I can only tell you that I was away
but I feel sure that two things -- one is that there was not an in-
vestigation and motive of intimidation. Secondly, that Dan Schorr
and no newsman I know has been intimidated. Dan Schorr is speaking
his mind now, as he should, and I hope always will.

SCHOUMACHER: And the likelihood is there never was a job?

MR. KLEIN: I think there was a job.

OBERDORFER: Why have you -- has the administration decided to
invoke executive privilege to keep you and some other White House
staff members from testifying on this question?

MR. KLEIN: The request for me to testify was on the whole matter
of freedom of information and I think that -- two things -- one is
executive privilege isn't invoked just on that. It's in terms of
Presidential aides traditionally have not testified before Congress
on the basis that it inhibits your ability to advise the President.
Secondly, my views, I think, are well known to the committee on all
aspects, and only when there would be news, a ruling by the FTC
in which they are now urging that there be equal time with -- on
terms of advertising. I'm opposed to that recommendation, so I've
added one more piece for the record.

HERMAN: Do you think, in the 15 seconds or so that we have left,

19

that the job for Dan Schorr will ever be announced, as Ron Ziegler
said it would be in due time?

MR. KLEIN: I think that in due time, but in 15 seconds I won't
explore the whole question.

HERMAN: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Klein, for being with
us today on Face the Nation.

ANNOUNCER: Today on FACE THE NATION, Herbert G. Klein, Director
of Communications for the Executive Branch, was interviewed by CBS
News Correspondent David Schoumacher, Don Oberdorfer of the Washington
Post, and CBS News Correspondent George Herman. Next week, former
Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, who has announced he will run
in Democratic Presidential primaries in 1972, will FACE THE NATION.

News of the Day

MONDAY, JAN. 10, 1972

Compiled from the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Times Washington Post News Service and major wire and supplementary news agencies.

THE WORLD

Ship Lost in Pacific; 42 Missing

Rescue aircraft said the freighter Dona Anita apparently sank in heavy Pacific seas 120 miles from Vancouver Island, but there was no sign of its 41 Filipino crewmen and the wife of the captain. The vessel broadcast a distress signal, saying the engine room was flooded and that the crew was abar doning ship. Debris was spotted by a rescue ship, but there was no sign of survivors in the 20-foot waves clung by 35 m.p.h. winds. Canadian coast guard and weather ships joined the search. The 7,840-ton vessel, registered in the Somali Republic, sailed from Vancouver Friday for Japan with a cargo of potash.

Sheik Mujibur Rahman landed in New Delhi for a triumphal stopover on his way home to a hero's welcome in Bangladesh, the new nation that calls him its father. (Part 1, Page 1.)

Herbert Klein presidential communications director, accused some news reporters of libeling Henry A. Kissinger, the President's adviser on national security affairs, in accounts of Kissinger's role in secret strategy sessions on the India-Pakistan war. Klein, referring to newspaper reports quoting Kissinger as saying that Mr. Nixon wanted a "tilt in favor of Pakistan," said the conclusion that Kissinger "was lying or distorting the facts" was mistaken. Speaking at the television program Face the Nation, Klein said the United States might disagree on specific policies with any nation, "but that doesn't make us anti that nation."

President Nixon will, within a few month, offer a specific date for total withdrawal of all U.S. forces from South Vietnam and an end to air activity over both Vietnams in exchange for release of American prisoners by Hanoi, Newsweek magazine said. "And although Washington does not expect Hanoi to accept the proposal because of its failure to include the abandonment of the Thieu regime, the announcement, it is anticipated, will defuse the war as an election issue," the magazine

shot down last month over North Vietnam. The speaker identified himself as 1st Lt. Kenneth Rothwells, 24. His personal message was addressed to his wife Candy in Kent, Wash. The broadcast promised that messages from other recently captured U.S. pilots "will be on the air soon."

More than 1,500 Vietnamese war refugees have been airlifted from northernmost Quang Tri province to Phnom Penh province southeast of Saigon in the start of a planned massive resettlement program. The Saigon regime reportedly hopes to relocate up to 250,000 villagers living in refugee camps, but success of the plan depends on the government's ability to persuade them to move.

U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim said he was ready to play a personal role in Middle East peace-making and to visit both Cairo and Jerusalem if that would be useful. On the television program Meet the Press, Waldheim said, "... I think that through personal knowledge and through personal contacts with the governments concerned, I can do something ... to solve these problems."

London police provided heavy protection for Menahem Begin, an Israeli parliament opposition leader who led the extremist Irgun Zvai Leumi guerrillas during the years that Britain administered Palestine. He commanded the Irgun when it reportedly hanged two British army sergeants and blew up British headquarters in Jerusalem in the mid-1940s. The Arabs also accuse him of massacre Arab civilians in 1948.

Prisoners staged a brief uprising in Belfast's Crumlin Road jail after guards thwarted an escape attempt by suspected members of the Irish Republican Army. Two platoons of British army troops were rushed to patrol the walls when inmates broke through a cordon of guards into the jail's exercise yard. The inmates then were restored to their cells without violence, an army spokesman said.

The Newsmakers.

President Nixon, David and John F. Kennedy,

President's Birthday
Present Rates a Kiss

—Pat Nixon was welcomed with the strains of "God Bless America" and a kiss from her husband as she returned to Washington Sunday from a week-long visit to three African countries. President Nixon said her safe homecoming was the best present he could have received on his 50th birthday. Also on hand to welcome the First Lady on a chilly, rainy night was a crowd of more than 1,500 persons, including her daughter, Tricia and Julie, Mr. Nixon told the crowd that his wife had demonstrated the "personal friendship" the United States has with the African continent. The President then returned to the White House with his family for a quiet birthday dinner.

—If you were in downtown Seattle and the wind brought you good luck, Alice Dougherty says, it was an ill wind for her and she hopes you will defy human nature and give it back. Mrs. Dougherty cashed her husband's much-needed $150 disability

THE NATION

Teachers in Chicago

a New York City person," said the probers would study the superagencies and other city governmental structures with an eye to decentralization.

— Sam Roberts

### Klein: Kissinger Libeled

Washington, Jan. 9 (UPI) — Herbert G. Klein, White House communications director, said today that he believes the now media libeled Henry A. Kissinger by accusing the national security adviser of lying and distorting the facts" during the India-Pakistan war. Klein added that whoever leaked secret documents to columnist Jack Anderson on discussions of White House and state department policy during the 14-day war "did a disservice." Klein appeared on the Issues and Answers TV program.

## RELIGIOUS

For the HELP you need... turn to Our Lady of Victory

### Our Lady of Victory

She can help with sickness, marriage, employment, old age, any problems.

To receive free OLV medal blessed at her Basilica And Our Lady of Victory prayer booklet, send coupon below.

## OUR LADY OF VICTORY

720 Ridge Road, Lackawanna, New York 14215

Dear Father,

Send me free OLV medal and prayer booklet, dn

My Name

Address

City

State

Zip

MACY'S REDUCEDS LOW SALE PRICES EVEN FURTHER

## Sale! Imported warm-up pants

For men, originally $16 to $22... SALE 12.99

For women, originally $16 to $22... SALE 12.99

For children, originally $15 to $17 SALE 11.99

* Select solid shades or contrast stripe styles, all with 2-way outer zipper
* Water repellent nylon with polyester fiberfill
* Great for skiing, skating, anywhere you go

* in the snow
* Fine assortment of colors
* Men's in S-M-L-XL
* Women's in S-M-L
* Children's in S-M-L-XL

Sorry, no mail or phone orders. Ski Center, Fifth Floor, Macy's Herald Square and at the Macy's near you. (Warm-up pants and children's clothing not in Parkchester, Jamaica or Flatbush.

ALL MACY'S STORES OPEN LATE MONDAY NIGHTS

Macy's

munist
zhnev.
dered a
India
Paki-
it pre-
ments.
has
transit
dan be-
dan.

motor
Soviet
Uzbeki-
and into
on peo-

ef that
among
influence
sh, Mr.
is been
Earlier
public
oscow's
and the
forces
1950-week

ian's de-
lin in Ra-
al end to
contact
Bangla-
ign Min-

Pakistani
he plane
London
will not
ial.
People's
signs
dmit the
broken

ad
ce

1 delega-
arried
tend the
des Soli-
ference
friends
of some

oup were
of last
il war to
stan and
rs but are
a chance
The four-
ay.

Ahmed,
on, said in
our first
ation and
our pres-

## Leaving Karachi jail

UPI

The body of one of three prisoners slain late last Friday during a jailbreak, is removed from the Central Jail in Karachi, Pakistan. About 150 to 200 prisoners escaped alive.

## Klein says newsmen libeled Kissinger

Washington (AP)—President Nixon's communications director, Herbert G. Klein, yesterday accused some newsman of libeling Henry Kissinger in their accounts of his role in strategy sessions on the India-Pakistan war.

Mr. Klein said he has read some news reports which "I consider to be libels against Dr. Henry Kissinger, accusing him of lying." He did not name the publications.

### Anderson column

Mr. Klien was asked to comment on a report by one columnist, Jack Anderson, quoting secret papers said to be minutes of White House strategy session on the war.

The papers quoted Dr. Kissinger, the President's national security adviser, as saying at one point that Mr. Nixon wanted

policy was not related to the
President's efforts" in that situ-
ation.

He said he believes news accounts of Indo-Pakistan combat were slanted to favor India, but "I don't think it was deliberate." He cited newsmen's difficulties in moving into East Pakistan while they were allowed greater freedom in India.

## India achieves rice sufficiency

New Delhi (AP)—For the first time since independence, India has achieved sufficiency in rice production, reaching an all-time record of 42.45 million tons in 1970-1971, a Food Ministry spokesman said yesterday.

"We can even meet the re-
quirements of Bangladesh in
the matter of rice," the spokesman said.

## slay 3 guerrillas

By the Associated Press

An Israeli army patrol killed three Arab guerrillas yesterday after a rocket attack on the Galilean resort town of Safad, the Israeli command reported.

A spokesman said the patrol intercepted a guerrilla band just after the Arabs crossed into Israeli territory near the

## Indian Ocean build-up laid to the U.S.

Tokyo (AP)—Communist China accused the United States today of planning to reinforce its military power in the Indian Ocean following "the invasion" of East Pakistan by India with the support of the Soviet Union.

The Official New China News Agency said there are indications that the "two overlords—the United States and the Soviet Union—are stepping up their maneuvers in a scramble for the subcontinent and the Indian Ocean.

"The Soviet revisionists began to send their fleets to the Indian Ocean in 1965 and have been stationing them there since 1971."

When the Indian reactionaries launched "the war of aggression against Pakistan," the United States regarded it as a major challenge to its interests and sent its warships to show the flag in the Bay of Bengal, the news agency maintained.

Not to be outdone, the agency said, "the Soviet revisionists...also dispatched ships of its Pacific fleet and, after India's occupation of East Pakistan, fervently courted the Bangladesh puppet clique with a view to expanding its sphere of influence."

## Mujib greeted warmly in India

### DELHI, from Al

their great leader and the father of the nation."

Some people already have taken positions at vantage points along the route from the airport to the race course.

The Bangladesh and Indian Governments last night charged that "only those who wish to

settlement of Yiron along the
Lebanese-Israeli border.

Shortly before the fight, in which no Israeli casualties were reported, several rocket rounds were fired at the centuries-old hilltop town of Safad, the command reported. But the rockets fell harmlessly 2 miles off target.

The attack was the first on Safad since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The town of 13,000 lies 9 miles from the border with Lebanon.

A military spokesman said that elsewhere an Arab guerrilla forged the Jordan River onto the Israeli-held west bank and gave himself up to the Israelis rather than face Jordanian soldiers he said were hunting him down.

The guerrilla told interrogators that King Hussein's legionaires had been searching for him since last July, when the King sent his Army to reassert government control over the guerrilla groups.

### Visit cut short

In London, a right-wing Israeli politician, Menachem Begin, threatened to cut short a visit after anonymous bomb threats forced cancellation of a dinner in his honor.

Mr. Begin, chairman of the nationalist Herut party in Israel, headed a Jewish terrorist organization that helped force the British out of Palestine in 1948.

His arrival in London yesterday began his first visit to Britain.

The hotel where he checked in received a telephoned bomb threat and called off a dinner scheduled for him tonight. At the same time, the Central Hall in Westminster canceled a speech he was to make tomorrow night, also citing a bomb threat.

Meanwhile, Israel's ambassador to the United States, Yitzhak Rabin, said on leaving Tel Aviv for Washington that Israel's defense minister, Moshe Dayan, will visit the United States in February.

### Defense cuts

General Dayan originally was to have made a round of fundraising appearances last December for the United Jewish Appeal.

The Israeli newspaper Maarit
said General Dayan's defense

more independently. The jurisdic-
trike that's usually confined to Mr.
office—disputes over which union
represent, say, seamen or bus drivers
be more likely to burst into the open
did be harder to quell.

Some ways, however, labor might close
Mr. Meany's retirement could speed the
outgoing Auto Workers and Team-
the AFL-CIO; he isn't going out of his
ring them back in. And the federation
obviously give his affiliates more help on
ing and organizing efforts. Recruiting
collar workers might get fresh empha-

ugh labor's ties to the Democrats
main as strong as ever, Republicans
probably see a fresh chance to seek
or support, and so they would woo the
CIO chief. If the GOP controlled the
ouse, its strategists would stress the
the Teamsters derive from their fairly
ent political line; these include easy
the White House and appointments to
nt advisory posts.

CIO emphasis on foreign policy
tainly be reduced and there would be
of sorts from Mr. Meany's hawkish,
anti-communist position. Unless lots of
clearly at stake, the AFL-CIO might
a vigorously for military projects like
allistic missile, which it backed last

## Other Possibilities

ation about the post-Meany era is
cause so much hangs on the timing of
ment. He already has outlasted a
"potential successors" since taking
1955. A 1963 analysis in The Wall
rnal listed four leading candidates:
is dead, two have retired as presi-
d their unions and the fourth has slipped
anks of front-runners.

low, a realistic roster of possible re-
els must go well beyond Messrs. Kirk-
El and Lyons. Other oft-mentioned
are Joseph Beirne, the peppery, 60-
president of the Communications
and Paul Hall, the 57-year-old presi-
d Seafarers International Union. Still
't be dismissed: S. Frank Raftery of
ers Union, Peter Bommarito of the
bber Workers and Charles Pillard of
national Brotherhood of Electrical

st lists, however, Mr. Kirkland ranks
op. He has close ties to Mr. Meany.
Mr. Kirkland has no dominant union
of power (he hails from the tiny Mas-
s and Pilots Union), he has the ad-
not being too closely identified with
old AFL-building trades or the old
rial unions—arms that are still occa-
sional of each other.

Mr. Kirkland's calm demeanor
constant use of a cigaret holder) "he
man," asserts one labor insider. Mr.
first won the respect of some AFL-
s through his hardnosed but fair ef-
fect through a new procedure for solv-
utional disputes. That was in 1961,
is executive assistant to Mr. Meany.
Mr. Kirkland is sometimes critical of
electicals, he's viewed by some union
the Turn to Page 12, Column 3

deemers were ordered to pay the
union's pension fund $11.5 million in
damages for conspiring to misuse the
fund's money. The UW and a bank it
controls will appeal; two individuals'
plans couldn't be determined.

(Story on Page 5)

British coal miners struck, closing
all of the National Coal Board's 289
mines. Retail deliveries were re-
stricted, but extensive stocks mean
users aren't expected to feel a pinch
for about a month.

(Story on Page 5)

Aerospace unions plan to press a
lawsuit opposing the Pay Board's
rejection of the industry's wage con-
tract. The aim is to embarrass both the
panel and the Nixon administration for
alleged hypocrisy in disapproving that
pact while accepting bigger ones with
a more acute strike risk.

(Story on Page 7)

Local dock talks are to resume
today in most North Atlantic ports, fol-
lowing Thursday's tentative agree-
ment on a "master" contract. Employ-
ers said they are optimistic about
reaching settlements, but required
Pay Board approval isn't certain.

(Story on Page 6)

Chile's debt would be partially re-
scheduled if current talks work out
with representatives of 41 U.S. banks
to which the nation owes over $200 mil-
lion. That could be the basis of a settle-
ment with European and U.S. agen-
cies, relieving debt repayment pres-
sures hampering Chile's socialist re-
structuring.

(Story on Page 12)

Japanese curbs on agricultural im-
ports aren't expected to be eased much
despite a new U.S. drive for liberaliza-
tion. Although Treasury Secretary
Connally said he thought a trade
agreement could come this week, ob-
servers predicted that only slight
changes are likely in Japanese food-
import restrictions because of intense
political pressure.

(Stories on Pages 16 and 17)

## Markets—

Stocks — Volume Friday 17,140,000 shares.
Dow Jones industrials 910.37, up 1.88; transpor-
tation 245.63, off 0.10; utilities 119.31, up 0.22.

Bonds—Dow Jones 40 bonds 73.77, off 0.07.

Commodities — Dow Jones futures index
147.20, off 0.53; spot index 146.90, up 0.60.

## TODAY'S INDEX

<table><tr><td>Bond Markets</td><td>15</td><td>Foreign Markets</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities</td><td>16</td><td>Foreign Securities</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Dividend News</td><td>12</td><td>Money Rates</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Earnings Digest</td><td>14</td><td>Securities Mks.</td><td>17-22</td></tr><tr><td>Editorials</td><td>8</td><td>Tax-Exempts</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Financing Bus.</td><td>15</td><td>Who's News</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign Exchange</td><td>20</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

the head of the Interior Department's "Atlantic
Environmental Study Task Force" met with a
Commerce agency aide to discuss the study.
And on Dec. 27, the Interior Department sent
the Commerce Department an 18-page list of
topics for detailed analysis.

The AEC has ceased "wet-nursing" the pri-
vate nuclear-power industry, AEC Chairman
James R. Schlesinger said. From now on, he
added in an interview, "industry should be
picking up responsibility for selling its wares"
without any further promotional activity from
the AEC. This policy, he said, applies not only
to nuclear-power projects but also to commer-
cial exploitation of the AEC Flowshare pro-
gram. Schlesinger also warned that if the nu-
clear industry doesn't show "meticulous adher-
ence to (environmental) codes and standards"
there "may be . . . tougher regulations."

The Hughes' autobiography is a fraud and "a totally fantastic fiction," a man introduced as Howard Hughes has told reporters by telephone. The telephone news conference was called by a public relations representative for Hughes Tool Co., owned by the elusive industrialist. "I only wish I were still in the movie business. . . . This episode is just so fantastic that it taxes your imagination to believe a thing like this could happen," the man said. McGraw-Hill is to publish the "autobiography" March 27; Life Magazine plans to serialize it. Both have insisted Hughes was the author.

Reporters libeled Kissinger in accusing the White House national security adviser of lying and distorting the facts" regarding U.S. policy toward India—during the Indo-Pakistani war for Herbert-Klein, the White House communications director, said.

Fire gutted the Queen Elizabeth I as the once-great passenger liner lay at anchorage in Hong Kong harbor. At least 10 persons were injured, two seriously, as flames, fed by diesel fuel and welding gas, roared through the 1,031-foot vessel. The Queen was to have sailed Jan. 26 for Japan to be refitted as a "floating campus" for Chapman College, Orange, Calif.

The privacy of safe-deposit boxes will prevent banks from stopping radical activists from planting delayed-action bombs in safe-deposit vaults, bankers said. Such devices were found and defused in eight banks in New York, Chicago and San Francisco Friday.

A freighter carrying 42 persons was believed lost with all hands in the north Pacific Ocean 120 miles west of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. A life ring with the ship's name was retrieved from wreckage in oily waters. Planes and ships criss-crossing the area didn't find any survivors, and officials said hurricane-force winds were racking the area.

Died: Ted Shawn, 80, often called the father of modern dance in America, in an Orlando, Fla., hospital after a long bout with emphysema. . . . Kenneth Patchen, 60, the poet, of a heart attack at his Palo Alto home. . . . Services for John Berryman, 56, the Pulitzer Prize-winning poet will be this afternoon in Minneapolis. He committed suicide Friday.

Fails to Escape Soviets

Reuter

NEW YORK, Jan. 10. — A 36-year-old Russian exchange student being driven to Kennedy Airport leaped from the vehicle and slashed his throat and wrists last night, police said.

Police had little information about the student, identified as Kurashvile Merab, because a Russian diplomat and a physician checked Merab out of a hospital against doctor's wishes before his neck could be sewn up and before he could be questioned by authorities.

Police said Merab was on his way to Kennedy to board an Aeroflot flight for Moscow when he leaped from a van containing five other Russians. He then slit his neck and both wrists with a razor blade.

The occupants of the van picked him up and took him to Kennedy, where his wounds were spotted and airport police were called in. Police took Merab to Jamaica Hospital where doctors worked for more than two hours to close his wounds.

An unidentified Soviet diplomat and a physician identified by police only as Dr. Unid, who said he was with the Soviet U.N. mission, soon arrived and checked Merab out.

The two reportedly denied a doctor's request to finish closing the severed blood vessels. Hospital sources said Merab left quickly.

Police said a State Department official had looked into

the matter, but police had received no information as to where Merab lived or attended school.

An FBI official said his office "is aware of the matter" but would make no comment.

Klein Attacks
Kissinger 'Libel'

Herbert G. Klein, a White House communications director, said yesterday he believes Dr. Henry A. Kissinger was libeled in the news media when he was accused "of lying and distorting the facts" during the recent India-Pakistan conflict.

Klein added that whoever leaked top secret documents to columnist Jack Anderson on discussions of White House and State Department policy during the 14-day war "did a disservice."

Anderson and other columnists have inferred that remarks attributed to White House national security adviser Kissinger indicated the administration was anti-India although it professed to be neutral.

Klein made the statement in a television interview "Face the Nation" (CBS, WTOP).

Under $2,000 again!

MONTGOMERY COUNTY CARS, INC.
700 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET

ROCKVILLE, MD.
POPLAR 2-1300

Lost Weight?

Don't
Throw Away
Old Suits
We Can Recut
To Your
Individual
Measurement
Fitted
TO YOUR SIZE

CONSULT ALEX
THE TAILOR SPECIALIST

You Can See The Big Difference
in Alex's Workmanship

Alex

TAILOR SHOP
SPECIALIST

*Tailors' Alterations
*Reweaving

521 11th St., N.W., 2d Floor
3 Doors from 11th & P
783-0438

MANAGER
CUSTOMER SERVICE
DIVISION

Exceptional opportunity for right man. Must supervise operations of automotive repair shop.

cal parties and non-party fund-raising groups, said the staff study. The reasons are these:

* Most candidates do not formally announce far in advance of filing deadlines, for various political reasons and for the financial reason that by doing so they lose their right to free television time, under the equal time rule.

* Many non-party fund-raising groups solicit donations over a two-year period to be channeled to the candidates of their choice during campaigns. This includes the DSG, National Committee for an Effective Congress, labor's Committee on Political Education, as well as many business and conservative groups. The requirement that they solicit tax-deductible contributions only for announced candidates would severely restrict their fund-raising ability in off years when there are no announced candidates.

Republican and Democratic congressional campaign com-

Possible Loophole

Various groups have already urged the Treasury Department to write regulations to permit soliciting tax deductible contributions in advance, provided the money ultimately goes to bona fide candidates. The department has not acted.

Another question is whether tickets to fund-raising dinners, a major source of political money, are newly tax deductible. The 1971 law did not specifically repeal existing law prohibiting such deductions.

The DSG study also raises questions about the definition of an announced candidate. Does it require a statement to a news conference, or passin the word to a couple of friends?

The study says the provision as worded could provide a loophole that would in no off millions in tax dollars without putting any of it into legiti-

ANNUAL
MID-WINTER

Sale
SAVE 30% on
CUSTOM-TAILORED

FALL, TROPICAL AND
YEAR 'ROUND WEIGHTS

SUITS
Reg. $95
$135.....

SLACKS ...... from $25

We offer you a complete range of woolens from Britain and from the finest mills throughout the world. Hundreds of shades and patterns to select from. Have your clothes Custom Tailored in any style you may desire, from traditional to contemporary at reasonable prices.

Your garments are individually cut by hand and tailored by expert Craftsmen and Designers in our own factory where we have successfully been producing custom made clothes since 1920.

DELIVERY IN 3 WEEKS

Grafton News Ltd.

Klein Denies
That Kissinger
Lied on India

(Continued from Page 1)

sions, revealed by Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kissinger is often quoted as pressing the other officials to take actions designed to show U.S. anger with Indian policy— to “tilt” American policy toward Pakistan.

Mr. Klein said that the secret papers referred to meetings taking place "at the time that the Indians were going forward." Heavy fighting broke out on Dec. 3, and the secret meetings were on Dec. 3, 4, and 6.

"I've read a number of interpretations of the papers which imply that there is a variance in public policy. I have also read what I consider to be libels against Dr. Henry Kissinger, accusing him of lying. I think anyone who looks carefully at these papers will know, first of all, that he was explaining the policy, and I would say it was the same publicly as privately," Mr. Klein said.

"Secondly, I'd like to say that I think that it's time that we have more recognition of the fact that Dr. Kissinger is one of the outstanding people we have in this government who renders a great public service, and if the press really felt that he was distorting things, they wouldn't use him as the principal source of trying to get additional information on any major policy," he said.

up overcome them."

He listed these other issues in the campaign after the need to end the war: getting people back to work, generating respect for law and justice to fight crime, attacking drug abuse, raising farm income, cleaning up the cities, (Continued on Page 2, Col. 3)

suggest NATO
or Base on Malta

d D. Nossiter

however, believe that losing the base would have damaging political and psychological effects on the Western position in the Middle East and in North Africa.

Moreover, the Americans, more than the British, fear that Mr. Mintoff might rent the base to the Soviet Union, indirectly through Moscow's Libyan friends or, possibly, even directly.

The amounts of money involved are small by military spending (Continued on Page 2, Col. 2)

surprising that, even before the Surgeon-General's report was made public, spokesmen for various groups were offering contradictory interpretations and accusing the broadcast industry of packing the panel with psychologists who would favor their view. In fairness, the most reasonable position at present is that media impact analysis is an infant science and much more study is needed before any concrete policy can be planned on its findings.

Much more understandable is the problem of advertising during children's programs. At present broadcasters may legally include 16 minutes of commercial announcement per hour during the hours of children's programs, as opposed to 9.5 minutes during prime time. Since daytime television is far less expensive to produce,

this overbalance is unconscionable. Feeling the effects of publicity and threatened regulation, the National Association of Broadcasters is wrestling with a plan to reduce the advertising tonnage to 12 minutes an hour by January of 1973. Of course, the networks are not eager to implement the plans.

The review of advertising practices on daytime television will also include a reconsideration of appeals to children to exert pressure on parents to use only a certain product and reject the competitor. Strict regulation of ads for medical products during these hours is only reasonable. If the broadcast industry is unwilling to take these responsibilities upon itself, outside agencies stand fully ready and even eager to assume the burden for them.

WASHINGTON FRONT

## Abashed, But Unrepentant

As the preparations for the Peking trip go forward amid much interest and excitement, the Administration is suffering serious embarrassments about its misadventures in another part of the Far East, specifically the dispute between India and Pakistan.

The revelations of the Anderson Papers, which were devoured with delight or dismay in the Capitol, depending on one's loyalties, make the pro-Pakistan "tilt" of the President no more comprehensible. They only make it plain that the policy-planners, like their antecedents of the Pentagon Papers, proceeded with a minimum concern for the human consequences of their deliberations.

What remains unfathomed is why the President was so out of phase with the realities of the situation.

The time for moral indignation, it seemed to most observers, was last March, when the military dictator of Pakistan, General Yahya Khan, put to the sword a million dissident residents of Bangladesh. But the President continued to ship arms to the general, and made no comment on the fact that 10 million refugees had crossed the border into India, which had no hope of feeding or housing more than a fraction of them.

But Richard Nixon reserved all moral judgments until India invaded Pakistan. He found this aggression a matter for intense indignation and saw it as the culmination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi's deep plot to dismember Pakistan and arrange for the creation of a more congenial neighbor.

Whatever his view of it, the time for *Realpolitik*, the justification offered for many of our foreign policy adventures, seemed to have come. The most shallowly informed of his fellow-citizens knew that India, with her superior armies, and with the acquiescence of the invaded country, would win.

But the President whistled up the *Enterprise*, his game-planners toyed with the idea of shipping arms to General Khan surreptitiously from the

Middle East, and nobody seems to have questioned the wisdom of the policy, which was later to be described by official spokesmen as "strictly neutral."

The papers do not disclose the decision-making process itself. It is likely that there was no consultation, and that the President, anxious that nothing disturb China, Pakistan's ally and his future host, made it alone.

The question most being asked is what role was played by Henry Kissinger. Was he leader or follower? A former Harvard colleague thought the affair showed "that Henry is still trying to apply 19th-century European balance-of-power concepts to 20th-century Asia, where they are not applicable."

If he simply accepted the President's conclusion and was in disagreement, as has been suggested by his champions, then he has less influence than had been imagined.

Either way, he has been diminished, probably not with the President, who regards him as indispensable for the great China journey, but with the general public, which thinks that foreign policy need not be entirely bereft of common sense.

MARY MC GRORY

America / January 29, 1972

81

JANUARY 22, 1972

13

Administration's spending level averaged $500 million yearly, though Congress had approved an average of $750 million. In fiscal 1973, however, UMTA spending is expected to hit the $1-billion mark. If that does not satisfy the critics, it is because highways have had such a head start. An increase in mass transit funding, they say, should be accompanied by a decrease in highway funding, and the best way to accomplish that, according to HAC's co-director, John Kramer, is to use highway funds for "any valid ground transportation."

The Highway Action Coalition has already had one victory over the highwaymen. It beat down the "liquor for highways" provision that has been tacked onto the administration's economic stabilization tax bill. That provision would have taken about $350 million in revenue generated by federal excise taxes on liquor and put it in the highway account. It was dropped by the Senate-House Conference Committee. Working out of the Washington offices of Environmental Action, HAC is providing general and legal information to citizen groups, which now number about 500. A well designed newsletter, *The Concrete Opposition*, will carry a detailed analysis of the administration's transportation needs study, due this spring.

The highway lobby is alert to the new opposition, and it can still muster considerable strength. It includes not only auto and oil interests, but those in the construction, trucking and motorcoach businesses. Every congressman and senator is well aware of its power, if only because he is reminded of it every now and then by the American Association of State Highway officials, which tells him that 15 percent of the US labor force is engaged one way or another in highway transportation. The lobby also makes use of campaign contributions. It has an efficient public relations operation. For instance, the Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility circulate canned editorials, as well as a bulletin called "Editor's Resource." The Road Information Program (TRIP) has scheduled a spot radio campaign (13 weeks, 19,000 messages) designed to sell a post-interstate program.

Nevertheless, the lobby has been weakened by defections from within. Mobil Oil and Gulf Oil have come out for a balanced transportation system. In Massachusetts, a Gulf executive endorsed allowing state highway funds to be used for mass transit. Two weeks ago, Henry Ford II announced, somewhat cautiously, that he favors using federal highway funds for public transportation.

The whole idea of trust-fund financing has long been opposed by public-finance experts. They dislike the earmarking of certain taxes, such as that on gas, for specific uses, i.e., roadbuilding. Growth in revenue they point out, leads to unchecked spending; projects are dreamed up to utilize the funds that are rolling in. Simply taking trust-fund money and applying it to purposes other than roadbuilding does not take care of that criticism, for it leaves the basic trust mech-

anism intact. There is also the question whether highway-minded people should make the spending decisions on mass transit projects financed out of highway funds. And finally, there is the problem of determining an equitable matching-fund formula: under current programs, states pay only 10 percent of highway costs, but they pay from one-third to one-half of the mass transit projects that are funded jointly with federal agencies. How should these differing formulas be equalized in distributing highway money for non-highway purposes?

What is needed is a plan to equalize not only the amounts of money available, but also the federal formula for spending it. This could be done by gradually returning trust-fund tax revenues to the Treasury. With no special earmarking provisions, all transportation needs could then be determined on merit, not simply because ready funds are available.

John K. Higgins

MR. HIGGINS is a journalist in Washington, DC, who specializes in transportation problems.

## The Nixon Watch

### Shooting at Henry

The worst possible judge of the need for secrecy in government and of the ethics of officials who break the rules of secrecy is a working reporter such as myself. I do what I can to penetrate the official fog and I'd welcome a lot more collaboration in that endeavor than I get at the Nixon White House. It is with difficulty, therefore, that I state at the outset of this note on a recent breach of government secrecy that in my opinion the official who must have been responsible for the breach is a rat who should be dug out of his hole and fired.

The occasion for this observation is the theft from classified government files of documents that were given to columnist Jack Anderson in early December and have been publicized by him in fragments and in text since then. "Theft" is the proper word, although the responsible official looted his own files and gave facsimiles to Anderson. Jack Anderson inherited the "Washington Merry-Go-Round" newspaper column when its founder and his employer, Drew Pearson, died in 1969. Pearson was and Anderson is a master seeker and purveyor of secrets. Conducted as it is in the Anderson column, the traffic in secrets is a business that makes the columnist the instrument of sources who may be trying to use him for the noblest

14

THE NEW REPUBLIC

or the most vicious ends. My infrequent reading of "Merry-Go-Round" indicates to me that Anderson does his best to conduct it in a decent way. He appears to be more careful than Pearson was to deny the column and its outlets in some 700 newspapers to self-servers and back-stabbers. It is believable that Anderson believed, as he says he did, that the initial source of the documents in question made them available because he was convinced that the Nixon policy toward India and Pakistan was disastrously mistaken and ought to be exposed and discredited. It is also believable that Jack Anderson was had. The difficulty with the explanation that he says he accepted is that the policy was already known and discredited. Another columnist, Joseph Kraft, presented a more credible explanation of the original act of disclosure when he wrote that "most of the evidence suggests that the true cause is a vulgar bureaucratic row aimed at getting the President's chief assistant for national security affairs, Henry Kissinger."

Only five of the many documents that Anderson says he garnered in his December haul and later are alluded to here. Four of them are official and verbatim accounts of meetings of the Washington Special Action Group, the action arm of the National Security Council, on December 3, 4 and 6. The fifth document is the paraphrased text of a cable that former Republican Senator Kenneth Keating, the US ambassador in New Delhi, sent the State Department on December 8. I deduce from Anderson's cautious account of how he obtained the documents that the WSAG texts came from a single source who first offered him a dozen or so classified items and subsequently, under pressure from the columnist, let him take his pick from "a whole massive file of documents." Anderson says that the stuff came from "plural" sources and implies that their rank is such that public identification of them would embarrass the Nixon administration. The nature and variety of the documents on which Anderson has drawn in successive columns indicate that this is true of the total haul. The WSAG texts are special. Their content suggests to me, as it did to Joe Kraft, that the official who gave them to Anderson was shooting at Henry Kissinger and only incidentally, if at all, at the Indo-Pakistan and perhaps other policies with which Kissinger is associated. It is this official whom I take to be a high-ranking rat.

Kissinger brought the publication of three of the four WSAG texts, and extensive printed quotations from the fourth, upon himself with his remark that previous references to him in Anderson columns were "out of context." Anderson, angered, gave the texts to *The Washington Post*, *The New York Times* and several other newspapers in order to prove that his Kissinger references were accurate understatements. The texts are fascinating documents. They illumine a part of the Nixon-Kissinger policy operation as it has never

before been exposed. But it is important to distinguish between the parts of the policy process that the WSAG texts do and do not illumine. They do not, as one commentator thought they did, show how "the decisional process" actually works. The Special Action Group deals with policy after it has been laid down. Kissinger's job when he functions as WSAG chairman is to see that the military services, State, Defense, CIA and other agencies involved in foreign policy understand exactly what the President has decided and implement the decided policy exactly as he wants it to be implemented. The Anderson texts show that Kissinger performs this task with a certitude, an arrogance, a display of proxied presidential authority that smothers any tendency toward dissent that there may be in the WSAG forum. A reader may gather from the published texts that Kissinger dominates subordinate NSC bodies where preliminary policy options are discussed in the same way with the same effect. But the WSAG texts do not prove that this is the case. They make it difficult but not impossible to believe, as I have been told at the White House and elsewhere for three years, that Kissinger in these formative sessions and in the course of directing preliminary policy studies for the NSC and for the President not only welcomes but demands a variety of views and passes them to the President without distortion or dilution.

The texts show beyond doubt what no intelligent reader of an adequate newspaper could have doubted by the time Anderson's columns appeared and the Anderson texts were published. Nobody had to be told by then that the Nixon policy of supporting Pakistan and opposing India in their December conflict was instituted and pursued with ferocious intensity. A widely quoted passage in one of the WSAG texts has Kissinger saying, "I am getting hell every half hour from the President that we are not being tough enough on India. He does not believe we are carrying out his wishes. He wants to tilt in favor of Pakistan. He feels everything we do comes out otherwise." It was said in Kissinger's behalf that this was just a typical piece of humorous Kissinger hyperbole. The remark was nothing of the kind: on the day Kissinger made it, Nixon's press secretary was saying in Florida that the President was in frequent touch with Kissinger by telephone, telling him what to do about convening the UN Security Council to put the heat on India. Another passage, in the report of a Defense observer at a WSAG meeting, has Kissinger replying as follows to a timid suggestion that a statement to be presented to the UN Security Council take equal note of Indian and Pakistani bellicosity: "The President says either the bureaucracy should put out the right statement on this, or the White House will do it." Only two passages in the texts add anything to general and prior knowledge of the policy and of the biases that conditioned it. One of these passages, obscene when the President's refusal since March of 1971 to let anyone

JANUARY 22, 1972

15

in the administration say a word in denunciation of the Pakistan army's atrocities in East Bengal is considered, has Kissinger wondering whether propaganda capital could be made of the plight of the threatened Bihari minority after the Indians won. The other passage, not in itself surprising, has Kissinger asking whether US arms might be slipped to West Pakistan from third countries, in violation of the belated US embargo, and suggesting that Nixon might want to go even further in defense of West Pakistan if it was invaded by India.

The leaked texts give the lie to the assertions by Kissinger and others, made in the President's behalf and at his direction, that the published impression that the US was "anti-India" was "totally inaccurate." But the administration lie was never an effective lie. Events in the subcontinent, the President's own statements, the statements and actions of Kissinger and other Nixon subordinates disproved the administration claim of "absolute neutrality" well before the WSAG texts were published. A week before they appeared, for example, a lead editorial comment adding up the evidence and consequences of Nixon bias toward the Yahya regime in Pakistan was derived from previously published reports and printed in this journal's issue of January 1-8. A quotation from Ambassador Keating's December 8 cable, all but calling the administration version a lie, appeared in *The Washington Post* on December 19. So we come back to the conclusion that somebody was shooting at Henry. Henry will survive.

John Osborne

## Uncommon Cop

### Chief Gain

*Oakland, California*

Police Chief Charles R. Gain is in the unique position of having the admiration of the black community, which a few years ago was described in a US Government report as the biggest tinder box in the nation, and a "no confidence" vote from his men who say he's running a "social welfare agency," not a police department. By secret ballot, 375 of the 719 members of the Oakland Police Officers Association demanded that Gain step down from the post he has held since Sept. 28, 1967. Only 110 members backed the chief and the rest did not vote. As tension has decreased in Oakland's black ghetto, easing the policeman's lot, unhappiness in what not long ago was an all-white police department has increased. There are now 48 black policemen in Oakland, three times as many as when

Gain became chief, no slight accomplishment in a city with a long entrenched ultraconservative white element and some of the most militant blacks in the nation, including the Black Panthers, who are headquartered here. Gain has carried his recruitment appeal beyond the ghetto to predominantly black California colleges.

The tall, ramrod-straight chief views the controversy with his men as a clash between "the sanctity of the law versus law and order at any cost [which] can be the undoing of a democratic society." "The problems in policing today," he says, "are in the heterogeneous core cities, where people have different value systems, different cultural outlooks. When it comes to misdemeanors, family quarrels, drunkenness and tenant-landlord disputes, the object of the police should be to maintain the peace, not to make an arrest. If you make an arrest, you are not really solving the problem." He dismisses as "nonsense, simplistic... the argument that the rights of the individual are less important than the rights of society. Once you take individual right away, the rights of society will disappear too. I define this as reasonable. Some of my men say this is 'too liberal.' But if this is 'too liberal,' I ask you to consider the alternative - unleash the police?"

Of Oakland's 400,000 residents, 124,710 are black. Through most of the 1960s, the black population increased at the rate of 6000 a year. For years Oakland has been dominated by a chamber of commerce mentality, symbolized by former US Senator William F. Knowland, who exerts tremendous influence personally and through his newspaper, the *Oakland Tribune*. The mayor and the city council have been extremely partial to business interests. Thousands of core-city dwelling units have been leveled, to be replaced by acres of half-empty parking lots. The level areas of Oakland - a ten-mile-long corridor known as the flatlands - house blacks, most of the 30,000 Mexican-Americans and other minority groups (numbering approximately 20,000), while the hills or the fashionable sections house whites and a few wealthy blacks. Police logistics used to be relatively simple: one-half the city was protected from the other half.

Oakland was ready to explode when Gain became police chief. A confidential US report said communication between blacks and police had "completely broken down." Blacks called Oakland "Birmingham by the Bay," as distinguished from nearby San Francisco, called "Baghdad by the Bay." A black judge had accused Gain's predecessor (who died in office) of being "naive, stupid or insincere."

Gain had had only a high school education, but he pursued an interest in sociology through extension courses at the University of California at Berkeley. He was impressed by the findings of the Kerner and Eisenhower crime commissions ("It's pretty well documented now," he said, "what the people feel about police conduct; they feel that the police do not conduct themselves desirably"). He was disturbed about in-

16

THE NEW REPUBLIC

justices he had witnessed during his four years as dep-
uty police chief. "I wouldn't begin to say all my police-
men are socially aware or sensitive to the nuances of
life in Oakland," he said after taking office. "My job
as administrator is to educate them, to bring changes
about."

This reeducation rankled veteran policemen ac-
customed to thinking white-makes-right. (When a
black man picketed the *Oakland Tribune* for discrim-
inatory hiring policies in 1966, he was promptly
jailed.) With the help of a federal grant, Gain
switched the emphasis of recruit training from law en-
forcement to social issues. Of the 625 hours of instruc-
tion in the training school, 150 hours - the largest
single block - is now devoted to studying Oakland's
racial and ethnic groups and cultural differences, in-
cluding the police culture. Gain set up an experiment
to reduce crime in the flatlands, but also "to befriend"
the residents. The chief went into ghetto schools to
say, "It's very bad when this city, which has 40 per-
cent minorities, does not have significant numbers of
blacks and other minorities on the police force." They
believed him.

What has irritated "law-and-order" advocates the most was Gain's imposition of strict restraints on policemen in their dealings with citizens, particularly minority citizens, and in their use of firearms. Black militants had clamored for a civilian review board, and possibly Gain leaned toward it too, though he never came right out and said so. He said, "The police are a service-type organization, and they should always be open to criticism and change." The city council shut off debate by twice voting overwhelmingly against a review board. So Gain revamped the department's internal affairs section, which under previous chiefs had winked at complaints. He brought in policemen sympathetic to minorities, and he went into the ghetto and invited complaints against policemen, thus further annoying the mayor and of course white cops. Then he fired or suspended a number of policemen for brutality. When two drunken cops shot up the Black Panthers' headquarters in Oakland, Gain fired them the same day and signed a felony warrant against them. He also publicly apologized to the Panthers. Not long after, in testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, he challenged the view espoused by other police chiefs and subcommittee members that there was a national revolutionary plot to kill policemen. He called that notion "pure blindness."

In the summer of 1968, two black youths were
killed by police as they were running away from dif-
ferent burglaries. The deaths occurred within a week
and raised the temperature of flatlands' residents to
the boiling point. Gain reacted by ordering his officers
to refrain from firing at fleeing burglars or at car
thieves, citing as authority a statement by the Ameri-
can Civil Liberties Union "that the taking of life by a

police officer in the absence of an immediate threat to
another life is a violation of constitutional rights."
Many white Oaklanders demanded the chief's head,
but Gain did not back down: "There is absolutely no
way it can be shown that gun restrictions cause an in-
crease in crime. But it can be shown that the citizenry
is safer because of the restrictions." (In September of
that year, Gain joined a guest lecturer list at Berkeley
that included the Black Panthers' Eldridge Cleaver.
Gain had previously condemned the Panthers as "a
threat to every decent, law-abiding citizen, black and
white.")

The Panthers have been on the decline in the city where they were founded, their activities limited to propaganda and providing breakfast to needy schoolchildren. The old fervor is missing. A black leader, defending Gain against his policemen, says the chief "may have prevented another Watts in this city." All 48 black policemen, organized as the Black Officers Association of Oakland, have voted full confidence in Gain. Officer Calvin Young, the president, says up to 80 percent of all police work is "socially oriented and not related to crimes. If an officer does not consider his work as being social, then we suggest that he has chosen the wrong endeavor."

Part of Gain's problem with his men, suggests a
veteran white reporter whose beat is the Oakland Hall
of Justice, is that he seldom shares his thinking with
command personnel and never with the men on the
beat. If a policeman is hurt on duty, Gain doesn't make
the perfunctory trip to the hospital to reassure the
man. Yet he has "leaned over backwards," the news-
man says, "relating to blacks." Gain concedes that he
is deficient in what he terms public relations, and he is
making an effort now to mend fences. But he is ad-
amant about the direction of his department: it will con-
tinue to be away from "those many segments in our
society," he says, "who are prone to let the police do
anything they want."

Gain has the complete backing of City Manager
Jerome Keithley, who is the city's chief executive of-
ficer and appoints the police chief. All signs point to
continued progress in Oakland's police-minority rela-
tions - a paradox to many residents of the San Fran-
cisco Bay Area who consider Oakland backward. The
older order is passing. Two of Knowland's closest al-
lies, State Assemblyman Don Mulford and Alameda
County District Attorney J. Frank Coakley, who sym-
bolized white intransigence to reforms, have left the
scene. Knowland, however, remains. He has cemented
over the large plate windows in his newspaper plant,
in case of an attack, and his editorials repeatedly re-
mind the police that their job is "to protect us from
those who would prey upon us."

Norman Melnick

MR. MELNICK is a reporter for the San Francisco
Examiner.

SPECTRUM
Varying shades of personal opinion on current issues

PETER

JOHN P. ROCHE
CBS RADIO NETWORK

JANUARY 1, 1972

This is Spectrum on the CBS Radio Network. I'm John P. Roche with my personal viewpoint on government by backgrounder. After this message.

It's time to end the nonsense of government by backgrounder. For the benefit of the uninitiated, it is common practice for high government officials to call in newspapermen and fill them in on some current crisis on a background basis. This means no attribution except to high White House officials, well-informed White House sources, or those familiar with the President's position. These ghostly presences then turn up regularly on page one of the newspaper -- with no names attached. If you want to find out the exact identity of the source, you have to go to the Press Club bar -- or, if that's too far to walk, presumably the Soviet Embassy could help out.

The backgrounder issue has been simmering for some time. I recall back in January 1968, the late Senator Robert Kennedy created some consternation by holding first a backgrounder on his presidential intentions, and then a deep backgrounder to straighten out the ambiguities that emerged from the backgrounder. Now the issue has come to a boil due to the energetic backgrounding of Dr. Henry Kissinger. In the course of an interview, Kissinger really dumped on the Indians in his anonymous role as a White House official. Senator Barry Goldwater decided that the people of the United States had the right to know that the White House janitor was not handling the matter so he put the full text of Kissinger's remarks in the Congressional Record. Good for him -- we've had enough of these children's games.

I speak as a reformed -- and obviously retired -- well-informed White House source, and I confess I hated every minute of it. It was so damn silly. One morning, sitting in my office, President Johnson called me, infuriated by a news story which gave a high White House source as authority for his thinking on some subject or other. He asked me to call the reporter and straighten him out. I did. "This [I said] is a higher White House source telling you that the highest White House source considers your White House source a cretin." Regrettably he couldn't run that one by the managing editor.

But more important is the principle involved. Either the White House staff is invisible or it isn't. It can't be visible for some purposes, and disappear on other occasions. If Henry Kissinger can talk to the press in great detail about the President's innermost thoughts on foreign policy, he should not be allowed to hide from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When I want to find out what our policy is towards, say, the Middle East, I see no reason why I should pick it up from sources close to the President. If Kissinger is in fact at least the equal of Secretary of State Rogers, then by God he should be available to talk to the elected representatives of the American people.

This is John P. Roche, speaking "off the record" for Spectrum.

The diverse opinions expressed on SPECTRUM are those of the commentators themselves and should not be attributed to CBS or any of its affiliates.
Produced under the supervision of CBS News, 504 West 57 Street, New York New York 10019 (212) 765-4321

Nixon papers are in the Channel Islands, where reservoirs are very expensive because of the shortage of land.

The stewards made clear that tion and inquirers were told that a dispute was in progress at the factory.

# Nixon papers are leaked

Continued from page one

available, and the mode and delivery of this equipment. . . Mr Sisco went on to say that as the Paks increasingly feel the heat we will be getting emergency requests from them.

"Dr Kissinger said the President may want to honour those requests."

Mr Anderson has declined to explain how he got the documents but it is fairly clear that his source occupies a high position in the Administration for all the documents bear the imprint "secret—sensitive" at the top and bottom of each page.

The Pentagon today confirmed that the aircraft-carrier Enterprise and other units of the 7th Fleet were still in the Bay of Bengal. Documents not yet released by Anderson allegedly show that the major purpose of the 7th Fleet mission was not, as Administration officials had suggested, in case they were needed to rescue American citizens from Dacca, but rather to put military pressure on India to accept a ceasefire.

● The Secretary of State, Mr Rogers, said today the US would look hard before renewing aid to India.

nearby, offer concert to raise a "As a miner redundancy fund" is a personal planning to soon. All we are given four weeks.

The Welsh today received advice from stewards, who have been in at the Pleasance, Dulverton, Eddie McLain, Green, who to oppose Scottish facades in a talk in Cardiff in the Allis-Chapman.

More reports from Manchester announced of the engine city have been put on during February to meet rising spread. About 500 affected.

Boy

New, easiest ever leave