HENRY A. KISSINGER

December 16, 2002

Dear President McAleese:

I am writing to invite you to be the keynote speaker at the closing lunch for the Eisenhower Fellowships Global Conference to be held in Philadelphia on Saturday October 4, 2003. The Conference will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the establishment of Eisenhower Fellowships in 1953.

Eisenhower Fellowships promotes international understanding and co-operation through the exchange of information, ideas, and perspectives among emerging leaders throughout the world.

Speakers who have confirmed their participation in the Conference include former President George Bush - to whom I will be presenting the Eisenhower Medal -- and Historian David Eisenhower, the late President's grandson.

The Conference will explore timely issues and collaborative possibilities, including:

* Challenges to Government in a World of Inequality and Strife (working with government to foster the economic growth and effective policies and practices necessary to support prosperous and just societies);

* Developing Civil Societies (enhancing the well-being of society through respect for law, improved education, public health, community development, advancement of women, and environmental preservation);

* Business and the Challenges of Globalization (ensuring growth, productivity, distribution of benefits, social development, and sound ethics).

The Irish network of Fellows drawn from the North and the South continue to play a very important role in our global organization and it would be particularly appropriate if one of Ireland's outstanding leaders was able to participate in this special event.

TWENTY-SIXTH FLOOR · 350 PARK AVENUE · NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 · (212) 759-7919
FACSIMILE (212) 759-0042

Letter to Senator McCain

11/1 3 0 2003

Jessee Incao

From: CCarpenter@mtr.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 5:25 PM
To: jincao@kmaglobal.com
Subject: Letter to Senator McCain

Jesse,

As a follow up to our conversation last week, I am attaching a proposed letter for Dr. Kissinger to send to Senator McCain inviting him to be a speaker at the Musuem of Television & Radio Media Center virtually anytime he might be willing. Because of Senator McCain's chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee, his views on a host of communications issues are of tremendous interest to our membership. As I mentioned, our chairman Frank Bennack, thought an invitation from Dr. Kissinger would be the most effective way for us to get the Senator. We would be extremely grateful if Dr. Kissinger were willing to extend such an invitation. I would be prepared to follow up by phone with the appropriate person on the Senator's staff. My name will be new to Dr. Kissinger since I have just assumed leadership of the Media Center in the last month.

Thanks very much for your help and please let me know if you have any questions. My contact information
appears below.

Best,
Christy

Christy Carpenter
Vice President & Executive Director
Media Center
Museum of Television & Radio

25 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10022
212-621-6820 ifax: 212-621-6621

ccarpenter@mtr.org

<<Draft letter for Dr. Kissinger.doc>>

7/29/2003

Draft letter

August __, 2003

Dear John:

On behalf of the The Museum of Television & Radio's Media Center, of which I am co-chair, I would like to invite you to address its membership in New York at a breakfast meeting.

The MT&R Media Center's membership is comprised of chief executive officers and other leaders in the global media industry. This forum offers a private, off-the-record setting where prominent guest speakers can share their observations and insights on issues impacting this rapidly evolving industry. Your views would be of tremendous interest to our members. The Roundtable Breakfast Series is held at Museum in mid-town New York. Your remarks of 15-20 minutes would be followed by a question-and-answer session.

This series has featured industry and government leaders such as Michael Powell, Bob Wright, and Andrew Grove. We would be honored to add your name to this illustrious group. The Museum is flexible in the timing of this event and would be delighted to accommodate your schedule.

Attached for your staff's review are some background materials on the Media Center. Ms. Christy Carpenter, Executive Director of the MT&R Media Center, will follow up with your office shortly. We hope you will be able to join us at the Museum in the near future. Schedules permitting, it would be my great pleasure to introduce you to our membership.

Enclosures

Draft letter

August ___, 2003

Dear John:

Ms. Ann Fudge

July 9, 2003

Page 2

Thursday, August 22, 2002

from Rebecca

Re: Rush McCloy

McCloy thanks you for sending supporting letter on his behalf to CFR.

McCloy also writes that he has joined Navy Reserves and has applied
for officer position in Naval Intelligence. Application package to
Navy Intelligence Board also requires supporting letter.

McCloy would like to see you to discuss his goals as you consider
writing a letter on his behalf.

Go ahead and schedule but do not crowd ✓
Other ____

CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESIDENCY

Sven has asked me to say a few words today about our old friend
and valued counselor, Fritz Kraemer.

HONORARY CHAIRMEN:

GEORGE H.W. BUSH

JIMMY CARTER

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

GERALD R. FORD

RONALD W. REAGAN

Each of us here will remember Fritz in a very special and
personal way. Indeed, we have already heard deeply moving
tributes to Fritz from some highly distinguished Americans
at the chapel.

My own introduction to Fritz came in Charlotte Weyersberg's living room when I was a 19 year old sophomore at Georgetown, and it was from Fritz that I learned the basic principles of geopolitics. There were many other friends of Fritz who contributed to these occasional discussions at Charlotte's and elsewhere, including a young professor from Harvard, then serving as a consultant to the National Security Council, and who 25 years later became America's Secretary of State.

For the next 40 years, Fritz and I had periodic conversations about the key
foreign policy issues of today, and about the looming problems of tomorrow.
Some of these discussions were over lunch with mutual friends; some of them
were alone in his tiny office in the Pentagon, where he devoured the enormous
pile of reporting cables from around the globe that stacked high in his in box
every day; and more recently in his home. The last such discussion lasted 3
hours, as he went from region to region, from issue to issue, with thoughtful
analysis and recommendations.

A few years ago, Herman Pirchner invited a group that included Fritz to a small dinner in honor of the visiting former finance minister of Russia. Naturally, I spent some hours considering which key questions to pose to our guest of honor, and eventually reduced my list to three.

Later that evening, before I could ask the former minister anything, 90
year old Fritz Kraemer had already posed all three of my questions.

Fritz Kraemer was responsible for the launching and advancement of many
subsequently famous American careers both in the military service, and in
diplomacy. He helped educate and influence thousands of people through his
remarkable speeches. No one who heard Fritz speak ever forgot him, or his
message.

He had no interest in money, beyond what he felt was necessary to support his
Spartan existence. He had no interest in publicity or advancement.
He did once remark to me: "The emperor himself trembles before the man
who wants nothing for himself." And he was highly interested in speaking
truth to power, because he cared deeply about America and never ceased to
consider how things might be managed more effectively, with an eye to the
long view. He had an immense grasp of history. He understood the supreme
importance of sheer military power as the essential ultimate underpinning
of superpower diplomacy, and he never let his friends forget that central
fact.

1020 NINETEENTH STREET, NW ☆ SUITE 250 ☆ WASHINGTON, DC 20036 ☆ 202-872-9800 ☆ FAX 202-872-9811 ☆ CENTER@THEPRESIDENCY.ORG

SENSITIVE: FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY WITHIN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Center for the Study of the Presidency

Ambassador. Richard T. McCormack
Counselor

1020 19th Street NW, Suite 250
Washington, DC 20036
202.872-9800 - Fax 202-872-9811

E Mail: Center@ThePresidency.org

June 23, 2003

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM A VISIT TO IRAN June 8-18, 2003

Richard T. McCormack

Summary

There is a growing consensus in large parts of the diverse Iranian political and economic establishment that a course correction in policy by the government is overdue. But broad subsequent changes in the overall situation in Iran seem more likely to be more evolutionary than revolutionary. The demonstrations in Iranian cities, modest in scope thus far, are an accurate reflection of disaffection by younger people toward certain aspects of the educational system as well as broader unhappiness over excessive clerical influence.

The repressive apparatus of the State, however, is fully in place, and many important observers who want change in Iran, including Adeshir Zehedi, the highly able and well informed former foreign minister to the Shah, and key parts of the British intelligence services, are convinced that too much open encouragement of the reformers and demonstrators by well intentioned foreign governments will be used effectively by opponents of reform, to portray the opposition as tools in the hands of foreigners. Kim Roosevelt's famous CIA financed rent-a-mob helped drive the nationalist Iranian leader, Mohammed Mosedegh, from power in 1953. Newsreel footage of these mobs was prominently featured on Iranian television during our visit, along with reminders of the less happy aspects of the Shah's subsequent rule, including the torture chambers of the Savak secret police.

In dealing with problematic regimes, such as that of Iran, sticks are often an essential tool of statecraft for those hoping to thwart policies such as attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. But a policy composed mainly of sticks runs the risk of encouraging key parts of the current Iranian establishment and many ordinary Iranians to rally around the embattled government to prevent a possible rerun of the events of 1953. This threat may encourage the regime under attack to deploy its repressive apparatus even more ruthlessly to contain opposition, thus delaying the positive evolutionary changes that Iran's own interests would otherwise encourage.

Years of harsh isolation only solidified the regime in Sudan. The appointment of former Senator Jack Danforth as special emissary to Sudan, however, achieved meaningful

progress on many hitherto deadlocked issues. This precedent should not be forgotten
as we consider our next steps in Iran. Meaningful carrots as well as sticks should be
considered to lessen the risks of delaying reforms in Iran. In the worst case scenario,
greater bilateral tension, absent the safety valve of a sustained, meaningful high level
dialogue, could later result in stepped up covert operations by Iranian hard-liners to
further complicate our efforts to stabilize and pacify Iraq. This, in turn, could trigger an
unwanted war, and unfortunate complications in global oil markets.

End of Summary

REPORT ON VISIT TO IRAN AND RELATED DISCUSSIONS IN MOSCOW AND EUROPE

Earlier this month, I spent ten days visiting Teheran and several other important Iranian cities, including the great Shiite religious and academic center of Qom, as part of a delegation headed by Cardinal McCarrick, and joined by Doug Coe, Rabbi Jack Bemporad, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a well regarded Egyptian American Muslim cleric, and several academics.

In Teheran we met with President Khatami, foreign minister Kharazi, Mr. Karrubi, the speaker of the parliament, the chief of the Iranian supreme court, representatives of Iran minority communities, including Christian and Jewish leaders, and many members of parliament, as well as religious and academic leaders. We also visited Isphahan, Sherraz, and other sites.

I met privately with the Swiss Ambassador, who manages U.S. affairs in Iran, and also had quiet
talks with the French Ambassador, the Spanish Ambassador, and the representative of the
Vatican. The local diplomatic community is deeply divided on strategic options for dealing with
Iran's government.

Prior to coming to Iran, I spent several days in Moscow with Bill Schneider, Chairman of the Defense Department Science Board, Dick Kerr, a former Senior U.S. official, and several others as part of a regular exchange of views with a senior Russian delegation, headed by former Russian foreign minister Bessmyrtnihk, where the subject of Iran was raised in both the large and private discussions.

Finally, after leaving Teheran, I led an American delegation at a foreign policy conference in Europe, attended by senior European political and foreign policy officials, including a recently retired Iranian expert from the British Government and the former foreign minister of the Shah, Adeshir Zahedi, who follows events in Iran closely.

There were several dramatic moments in the visit to Iran, including being present when the powerful Mr. Rafsanjani harangued a crowd of somewhere between 25 and 50 thousand people gathered for Friday religious services at Teheran University. Responding to criticism from Washington, Rafsanjani led the crowd in ritual chants of "Down with America" and "Down with Israel" as he delivered a broader series of political messages to the local and global audience. The scene incident reminded me of a Lillie Reifenstahl movie from the late 1930s in Germany, complete with flowing wall sized banners attacking the U.S. and lifting up the Palestinian cause.

I believe that the massive rally to which I was invited was to help deliver a double message: "We have powerful forces at our disposal to contain political unrest, but we are also prepared to negotiate." The full text of Rafsanjani's speech needs to be carefully studied.

The rally at the prayer service at Teheran University contrasted with the warm and friendly hospitality that our delegation encountered everywhere else during our ten day visit, both in private and open encounters with a wide spectrum of Iranians.

## Main Conclusions

1. Iran did not seem to me to be in an immediate pre-Revolutionary situation. Yes, there is widespread disappointment over the state of the economy; unemployment is off the charts; price controls are being weighed by some conservative leaders; students are angry about the limitations and unfairness of an examination system which only allows 15 percent of aspirants to enter the university, some picked for reasons of favoritism; students are also weary of the pervasive impact of clerics on their lives. There is also an active search at all levels of the political system and its support structures for reforms which can improve the running of the country without destabilizing it. There is also a fierce internal power struggle between the old guard and the forces in the current parliament. But the powers that be still appear to have a very firm grip on the levers of power, including coercion, and the willingness to shut down many newspapers that go beyond certain limits in criticizing the Islamic nature of the government. Evolutionary, not revolutionary, change seems most likely to me over a period of several years.

2. While top Iranian leaders will not tolerate direct threats to the regime, there is nonetheless a remarkable amount of open discussion of painful issues within parliament that is broadcast live and without censorship over radio throughout the country. This included outraged comments by the Speaker of the Parliament over accusations by Minister of Information Yunesi, that the U.S. had distributed hundreds of millions of dollars of bribes to key people in the country and to the leaders of student demonstrations in several of Iran's cities. The Speaker threatened to impeach the Minister if he could not produce the names of those receiving the bribes and evidence of the alleged plot.

3. Memories of the Anglo American operation led by the CIA's Kim Roosevelt, which deposed the Iranian Government of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, are still very much alive in the minds of many Iranian leaders. One evening I watched newsreel footage of the rent-a-mobs financed by Kim Roosevelt with his famous suitcase full of cash as they stormed through Teheran. While I couldn't understand the Iranian commentary, the intent of the program was clear: to warn Iranians about the past in an effort to unify people behind the current government now again facing foreign threats.

4. The current leadership of Iran is not uniformly the thuggish operation led by primitive medieval clerics that I had expected to encounter. They range from rather decent, if frustrated, people like President Khatami, through powerful, manipulative types like Rafsanjani, to the upper levels of the Shiite clergy which contain some remarkably sophisticated and pro democratic elements. It is the view of Ambassador Guildiman of Switzerland, who manages our affairs in Iran, that this diverse political structure would respond more quickly and more favorably to a sustained and high level effort at dialogue than it would to efforts to bludgeon Iran into submission. The Spanish Ambassador, on the other hand, favors a tougher US/EU approach, and has written off President Khatami as an ineffective has been. However, getting a broader EU consensus on this approach seems very unlikely to me, given the strongly held contrary views of several other European governments.

5. Roosevelt told me personally in the mid 1970s that his success in Iran proved to be a disaster to his later career, when he was sent again and again to problematic regimes with suitcases full of cash, but was never again able to accomplish missions of this kind. Similarly, we made many, many efforts to destabilize the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, using everything we could imagine to throw against his regime. In the end, we had to send the American Army to do the job. On a smaller scale, the same was true of Panama during the time of the corrupt ruler, Noriega. If we allow our relations with Iran to worsen and worsen, tensions will mount, the regime seems likely to intensify its repression, people will be asked to choose between their government and the foreign threats, and some spark, perhaps over suspected support of unrest in Iraq, could trigger another regional conflict involving U.S. armed forces.

6. Iran is surrounded by 15 countries, including Russia and the region now called Pakistan, both of whom are nuclear armed, and with whom Iran has fought wars and power struggles in the past. Until recently, its hated enemy, Saddam Hussein, lurked in the west, licking his wounds from invasion-triggered wars that cost Iran and Iraq half a million casualties each. Iran's support of the Palestinians raises fear in some minds of Israeli nuclear retaliation under some possible circumstances. It seems very probable to me that years ago, the Iranians began efforts to develop a nuclear weapons program - although as a private citizen I have no direct evidence to back this suspicion.

7. Some Russian leaders say privately that they will press Iran to clean up any suspicions of a nuclear weapons program, but they insist that it must be seen to be an internationally supported and supervised inspection system. This accounted, they say, for the mixed signals that came from the Russian Government after Blair reported Putin's concurrence prior to a bill of particulars from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Uncertainties after the Iraq war make it unlikely that a unilateral accusation backed by classified information and sources will alone suffice to produce broad support for more than diplomatic measures against Iran at this point. Still, the international environment facing Iran is different now than was the case a year ago. One enemy gone in Afghanistan - Saddam Hussein is no longer ruling Baghdad - and the American army is on Iran's border. With measured diplomacy we should be able to make progress combating any covert nuclear weapons' program in Iran.

8. Iran's support of the Palestinians is another matter. Not only does the Palestinian issue serve as a useful distraction from domestic problems, but to many, it is a religious obligation, deeply felt by many of the Islamic leaders to support what they refer to as "Muslims living under tyranny". That is why it is so important that the President's road map to peace be successful. Calming the tensions emanating from this conflict would also immensely help America's relationship with the rest of the global Islamic community.

9. Nuclear technology to build weapons of mass destruction now exists in the Islamic world with the large and growing Pakistani program. Some scientists engaged in this program in Pakistan are potential sources of information and nuclear materials to others. Israel's growing military sales relationship with India is potentially adding to ill will toward Israel, and potentially encouraging more radical parts of Pakistan's establishment to consider active anti-Israeli efforts. Should the present government of Pakistan fall and be replaced by a more militant regime, covert cooperation with Israel's enemies could intensify on many fronts, including the nuclear one. Iran's nuclear program could be one beneficiary, absent an improvement in relations among countries in the region.

10. Members of the foreign diplomatic community in Teheran are inclined to discount active cooperation between the Iranian Government and al Qaeda, except for corrupt elements sharing the profits from the drug smuggling that comes from Afghanistan through Iran, to other places, and which is reported to be partly the means by which al Qaeda finances itself. Thousands of Iranian soldiers have been killed in efforts to curb the drug smuggling along Iran's long, sparsely settled border with Afghanistan. It is said by some that full disclosure of the information obtained by interrogation of al Qaeda suspects will come when it is fully clear that the United States will not support terrorism against Iran's government by exile groups. If my memory serves me correctly, President Reagan agreed not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs in the Algiers Agreement settling certain bilateral issues after the Embassy captives were released. But that was a long time ago, and my memory may not be correct on this point.

11. One hears complaints from Iranian leaders about radio programs broadcast from Los Angeles based Iranian émigrés, which, they say, call for a mass uprising against the regime. Many Iranians assume these broadcasts are U.S. policy. Someone might monitor these broadcasts carefully for a few weeks to determine what exactly they are transmitting. Years ago, similar broadcasts in 1956 urged the Hungarians to revolt. When they did, Eisenhower did not believe that the risk of a nuclear war was worth running, and the rebellion which we encouraged failed utterly, with thousands of human tragedies. The same was true of the Shiite rebellion in Iraq in 1991, when another set of risks were weighed. It is sometimes easier to destabilize a situation than to restabilize it in our interest after the event. We need to approach the political situation in Iran with great care and deliberation. Facts, not wishful thinking, need to be our guide.

12. I have spent most of my life in the foreign policy arena, beginning with the Vietnam conflict in 1967. I have learned that there are some situations that only a resolute posture by the American Government and President can constructively confront. President Reagan proved this during his first administration, when he set the stage for his later constructive engagement with Soviet leaders. Without offering an olive branch to the Soviet Government late in his period in office, and without a similar posture by his successor, reactionary elements in the Soviet Union could have turned the collapse of the empire into a blood bath, in desperate efforts to save the Soviet Union.

Iran faces a similar situation in some ways. 70 percent of the population is under the age of 30, and unemployment is massive throughout the country. The place desperately needs privatization, foreign investment, foreign technology on a large scale, and full integration into the global economy. However, the personal representative of the Japanese prime minister visited Teheran during my visit and remarked that he was surprised to find that Iran seemed on the surface to be a normal country. Other veterans of third world countries have made similar observations after recent visits to Iran.

There is obviously a lot of intellectual ferment going on now in Iran. The most sophisticated of the Shiite clergy realize that they cannot run the economy efficiently and that change is urgently needed. But there seems to be a bizarre alliance between the most benighted of the clergy and some of the more cynical figures who are personally profiting from the status quo. Both are using current American political rhetoric, including Senator Brownback's recent proposed bill to finance destabilization efforts in Iran as justification for hard line measures to protect the regime from a rerun of 1953.

Former Iranian Foreign Minister, Zahedi, begged me to return to Washington, and ask my
friends to cool off the rhetoric on Iran in the Senate and elsewhere, which he says is playing into
the hands of the hard line element. He is very much in contact with the current scene in Iran
through well placed friends. He could be contacted directly for additional details on his views by
appropriate U.S. officials.

An approach by the U.S. Government, which includes a direct, sustained, high level dialogue seems more likely to serve our interests than a purely confrontational approach. There is a role for the "good cop" as well as the "bad cop" in this situation. This also would lessen the risk that Iran's intelligence service might respond to any future suspected U.S. efforts to destabilize the regime by launching a covert campaign to complicate our already difficult situation in Iraq.

The British are developing small scale, bilateral programs of cooperation as part of a bridge
building operation. Most other countries are actively trading with Iran, making our economic
sanctions less meaningful and effective.

I recommend that the President appoint a high level individual of Senator Danforth's stature to
mount an effort similar to his earlier missions to Sudan to explore ways and means by which
Iran and the United States might improve the quality and effectiveness of our dialogue. The
dialogue needs to be conducted at a sufficiently high level so that the inevitable snags in the
process can be directly appealed to the highest political level in Iran as well as in the United
States.

More constructive public diplomacy could also improve the prospect for evolutionary change in
Iran. In this context, some of the more neuralgic issues might find mitigations. People will listen
to well intentioned friends far more attentively than they do to purely confrontational enemies.
By contrast, Iran's establishment seems likely to rally around its current leadership to confront
any real or imagined foreign efforts to replicate the events of 1953.

DATE MAR 0 6 2003

CORR. FILE McDermott, Keith

ACTION: Alan Stape Dennis

SUBJ. FILE

Jessee Theresa

CROSS REF.

Don Elizabeth Suzanne

COMMENTS:

Just file - form request

DC OFFICE:
Christie / Jody / Lisa

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED ✓

"LESSONS FROM OUR FATHERS"

530 Spring Valley Road
Atlanta, GA 30318

March 1, 2003

MAR 0 6 2003

Dr. Henry Kissinger
350 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10022

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

This letter is an introduction to a new book being developed about father and son relationships. It will be titled "Lessons From Our Fathers" and will be comprised of stories, anecdotes and advices that men and women have received from their fathers. The participants include people from all walks of life both famous and relatively unknown. However, they are people who have achieved success and have thrived in their respective fields. We have received responses from politicians (although this is a decidedly apolitical collection), religious leaders, entertainers, athletes and coaches, business leaders and others with inspirational stories.

We would appreciate the opportunity to speak with you personally and conduct a short interview. This is the optimal situation but we understand because of your hectic and busy schedule, this may be difficult. If there is a story that you could relay through an assistant, publicist or other intermediary this would be sufficient as well. Additionally we would like to include a picture with you and your father of your choosing. Of course, you will be given ultimate and complete approval rights for anything that is printed and published about you and your father. We want you to be happy and proud of the way your relationship and story is portrayed.

You must receive dozens of requests from fans, business people with ideas, and charitable institutions all of whom want a moment of your time. We appreciate your consideration. Hopefully you will see this book as a way to provide inspiration to others and as a tribute to your father. The vast majority of the responses we have received have been overwhelmingly positive and we hope that you will be able to contribute to the project.

A SASE is included for your response. If you have any questions please call me at (404) 307-3004. Any additional correspondence can be sent to:

Keith J. McDermott
"Lessons From Our Fathers"
530 Spring Valley Road
Atlanta, GA 30318

Thank you for the consideration.

Keith McDermott

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK

33 LIBERTY STREET
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10045-0001
TELEPHONE 212 720-6180
FACSIMILE 212 720-8681

IAM J. McDONOUGH
PRESIDENT

January 16, 2003

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Kissinger Associates, Inc.
350 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10022

JAN 21 2003

Dear Henry:

Earlier today I announced my plans to retire from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as of July 21, 2003. I wanted to let you know personally how much I have appreciated the opportunities we have had to work together over the ten years I have served as president. My association with you and others that I have been privileged to come into contact with has made my job easier, more interesting and certainly more rewarding.

I hope that sometime in the next few months I will have a chance to see you in person, but I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your friendship and support. Also, I intend to remain actively involved in public policy and international issues through my role as vice chair of the Council on Foreign Relations and my various board memberships and other affiliations.

I look forward to our being in touch in the future.

WILLIAM J. McDONOUGH
PRESIDENT

January 16, 2003

Dear Henry:

JAN 21 2003

33 LIBERTY STREET
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10045-0001
TELEPHONE 212 720-8180
FACSIMILE 212 720-8681

May 30, 2003

The Honorable Henry Kissinger
The Honorable Lawrence Summers
Co-Chairs
Council on Foreign Relations
58 East 68th Street
New York, NY 10021

Dear Henry and Larry:

Because of my new position as Chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, I will not be able to attend the remaining sessions of the Council on Foreign Relations. Task Force you gentlemen chair. Therefore, I must most reluctantly remove myself from membership.

I have read with great interest the notes on the first meeting. It seems to me that we must do everything possible to save the Atlantic relationship which has been the keystone of American foreign policy. I do not share the notion that Europe, especially the key members of the Alliance, will have the capacity to be major players on the world scene if they are separated from their linkage with the United States. The major countries on the continent, Germany, Italy and France, have serious structural economic problems, rapidly aging populations and strong political obstacles to the structural reform they need. Even if their political coming-together works perfectly, which I doubt, this economic weakness could well reduce their relative power over time, not transform them into a new and strong participant in a world balance of power. Rather, the area could become increasingly irrelevant. They need the relationship with the United States.

I believe that it is clearly in the U.S. national interest to exert ourselves to preserve the alliance. Since I know both of you agree with that, I sincerely hope that the conclusion the task force reaches will be clearly in that direction.

JUN 3 0 2003

BONNIE MCELVEEN-HUNTER

AMBASSADOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Helsinki, Finland

June 25, 2003

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

We are all awaiting your arrival with great enthusiasm and anticipation. I will proudly introduce you to the President of Finland Tarja Halonen as well as the "new" Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (my good friend, the Prime Minister of 60 days, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, just resigned in disgrace over "Iraq-gate.") Will give you the gory details later).

Please let me know regarding any transportation issues so that we might start investigating and facilitating the options. I am also hoping that you and Nancy will be here for two days. Of course, you are welcome to spend a month if you would like. We would like to try to confirm a date so that these appointments can be placed on the appropriate calendars and not overlap with EU Summits which appear to happen weekly.

I will await your response. Can't wait to roll out "our very best" red carpet for your arrival as well as the caviar and champagne (even on our limited representational budget) ... I will definitely spring for the best for you!

See you in September!

(l-r) Henry Kissinger exchanges views with Max Jakobsson; Björn Wahlroos, CEO of Sampo; and Jorma Ollila, CEO of Nokia.
from page 15

the world. It is not a political program in America. What we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan was done because of what was done to America. We had accepted several attacks and been silent. We had this reaction after we had been directly attacked and some 3000 people were killed. When we entered Iraq, there was a belief that we could turn Iraq into a democracy." On the claims that the oil industry conducted American foreign policy, Kissinger's view was succinct: "I've never seen an oil executive who has the power to control U.S. foreign policy."

Trans-Atlantic relations have changed in recent years and Dr. Kissinger had some explanations for that. "There is a new genera-

(l-r) Dr. Kissinger, former President of Finland Mauno Koivisto and Antti Aarnio-
Wihuri, Chairman of Board, Wihuri Group.

tion in power which does not have the same ideas as the immedi-
ate post war generation, the generation which took trans-Atlantic
relations for granted. There is a difference also in communication.
Our current President was brought up in Texas and has had prob-
lems in communicating with Europe, whereas his father grew up
in Connecticut and did not have the same problems. I am in favor
of European unity: that is not a problem for us."

Kissinger concluded his speech with some views on China and emphasized the importance of good contacts with the Chinese, as their role in business and world politics is growing. • Riitta Kuosmanen

Photos: Heikki Savolainen, ABC-Studiot Oy Ltd.

Ambassador Bonnie McElveen-Hunter (standing) hosted a dinner in honor of Dr. Henry Kissinger (to her left).

16 Headlines 3/2003

Finnish-American Business Forum:

# Challenges for Finnish Companies in U.S. Market

Bengt Westerholm, CEO of Oy Beweship Ab.

The Finnish-American Chamber of Commerce - Helsinki (FACC-Helsinki) held its second annual Finnish-American Business Forum on September 18th at the Marina Congress Center. The Keynote Speaker of the day was Dr. Henry A. Kissinger. The event gathered some 200 business people to listen to the presentations by trade experts.

The second annual FABF was opened by the FACC-Helsinki Chairman Matti Sundberg and he introduced Bengt Westerholm, CEO, Oy Beweship Ab, and Steen Sanderhoff, President of Leman USA Inc who made a joint presentation giving an example of successful cooperation in enhancing U.S.-Finland trade. The Finnish Ambassador to the U.S. Jukka Valtasaari concluded the Business Forum with his overview on challenges for Finnish companies establishing themselves in the U.S. market. He pointed out that the U.S. side has lawyers, whereas

Finland has engineers. Legislation, standards and testing take time in the U.S. "The trade and especially transatlantic investments have increased considerably in recent years. However, the current global security environment, investments in domestic and global security issues are out of production," Valtasaari said.

## Beweship - Leman Cooperation

Westerholm began by noting that freight forwarders are today like stockbrokers, coordinating and supporting the function of foreign trade. "We do not only handle physical transport of goods but logistics are also an important part of our work today," he said. "The most important thing in our business is how you handle information and to realize when clients need the information. Secondly, you must have the right attitude if you want to succeed." The forwarding business has developed towards globalization and polarization and there are already big multinational companies in the field, yet Westerholm is confident that there will always be a need for strong local players.

Beweship started cooperation with Leman a year ago when it was forced to find a new partner in the U.S. at very short notice. "Last summer our previous partner in the U.S. terminated our contract and we had only one month to put the pieces together. The contract with Leman USA Inc. was signed a little over a year ago. After that it was time to sell and secure business by contacting our clients as quickly as possible at both ends."

After the first twelve months the number of shipments dropped by 16.5%, gross profit declined by 30% and tonnage went down by 36%. "The result, however, was reasonably good since we originated a loss of 50%. Our plan is to be back to 100% within a year from now," Westerholm pledged.

According to Steen Sanderhoff of Leman, creating cooperation with Beweship was easy

since both companies are approximately the same size and share the same mentality, with a focus on the same activities: "The management of the two companies understand each other and the staffs are compatible. That is important, since people make the difference."

Leman started at zero point in the U.S. in 1971 and it took seven years to successfully establish the company in the U.S. market. Today Leman offers a total supply chain of air, ocean and distribution services as well as warehousing and administration services to its clients. "The U.S. market is extremely interesting and competitive, but not easy to penetrate," says Sanderhoff. "We offer foreign companies administration services for their subsidiaries in the United States. We are able to care for all official aspects with regard to the local and federal regulations with a complete set of administrative services, from order processing and credit checks to invoicing, accounts receivables, payables, commissions and general ledger, to payroll and inventory control." • Riitta Kuosmanen

Steen Sanderhoff, President, Leman USA Inc.

## Oy Beweship Ab

Founded in 1957, Oy Beweship Ab is an independent privately-owned freight forwarding and transportation company headquartered in Helsinki with offices in Tampere, Turku, Seinäjoki, Jyväkylä, Vaalimaa and at Helsinki-Vantaa airport. The subsidiaries in Estonia, Latvia and Poland handle cargo to and from the Baltic region. A staff of 250 offers services ranging from air, sea, road and rail transport, customs clearance, warehousing, distribution and international removals. www.beweship.com

## Leman USA Inc.

Leman USA Inc., founded in 1971, is a part of the Danish company Leman International Transport System A/S. Leman USA offers air and sea freight, warehousing, distribution and administration services across the U.S. with headquarters in Racine, Wisconsin. Other branch offices are located in Hartford Connecticut; New York City; Chicago, Illinois; Atlanta, Georgia; and Los Angeles, California. In 1976, the Leman organization joined the Ziegler Group of companies, headquartered in Brussels, Belgium with more than 52 companies and nearly 5500 employees. www.lemanusa.com

Headlines 3/2003 17

14/10 '03 T1

12:25 FAX 358 9 608713

EVA

132085046

001

"EVA Day" on Friday 10 October 2003
Special message by Max Jakobson

Estonia, Finland, Sweden - three nations so close to each other geographically, yet so far apart historically. The fifty years from the beginning of the second world war to the collapse of the Soviet Union have hardly left any happy memories about the relationship between the three nations. I am old enough to remember how bitterly disappointed we were in 1939 when we realised that Sweden would not join us in resisting the Soviet invasion. But would we have helped Swedes to defend themselves against Germany had Hitler decided to attack them - a threat Sweden could not ignore? The answer is clear: of course not. Did either Sweden or Finland do anything to save Estonia from Soviet occupation? A number of individuals did what they could to help their Estonian friends to survive, but the governments turned their back on the Baltic countries and remained sceptical in the late eighties when the Baltic peoples started an unarmed struggle for independence. The history of our three nations can be summed up in one phrase: each for himself.

All that is in the past. Today, at last, our three nations are bound together in unity. As members of the European Union - Estonia will join in six months time - relations between us will be closer than ever before. The Gulf of Finland that for decades separated Finland from Estonia is almost clogged with traffic. Open borders attract both tourists and business. Unfortunately sometimes also unwelcome guests.

EU membership does not prevent differences between the member states. Finland has adopted the euro. Sweden has just recently rejected it, Estonia has not yet had an opportunity to adopt it. In economic and social matters, Estonia challenges Finland and Sweden by its neoliberal or thatcherite ideology. Taxation is the instrument by which Estonians seek advantages for their economy.

Another difference between our three countries concerns NATO: Estonia has joined, Sweden and Finland stay outside. This brings me to the fundamental issue of security.

10/14/2003 TUE 07:52

[TX/RX NO 8472]

003

14/10/2003 14:31

14-10-03 11:30

14/10 '03 T1 12:28

FAX 358 9 008713

EVA

NU. 253

W04

002

2

Security and defence policy is now subject to intense debate within the Inter-Governmental Conference. We cannot yet tell what exactly will emerge, but no doubt some form of defence co-operation can be expected. Its significance for our three countries will have to be judged in the context of the future of the European Union as a whole.

"Ever closer union" was a slogan of the founding fathers of the European Community, and it is still repeated by loyal federalists. Yet reality today is ever larger union. The ten new member states which will join the Union in May next year will not be the last. Bulgaria and Romania are waiting at the gate. In the Balkans five states hope to be accepted as candidates for membership. Turkey is already a candidate, though with little prospect of being admitted. On the Western side, the Norwegian government is trying to persuade its citizens to vote in favour of joining the Union, and if Norway joins, Iceland is likely to follow. Only Switzerland remains in splendid isolation.

What this means is that the Union will begin to look like a mini-UN. In principle, all member states will continue to be equal, but some already consider themselves to be more equal than others. The bigger member states insist on having an equivalent of a security council as the leading organ. This role will be assigned to the European Council which consists of the presidents or prime ministers if the member states. The Council elects a permanent chairman who will act as the president of the Union, and it will make its decisions unanimously or by consensus. The European Commission will be reduced to a secondary role. Its task will be to carry out what the Council decides, and in the Council the bigger countries will dominate.

Within the enlarged Union there are bound to be differences on security and defence - differences shaped by geography and history. They do not arise primarily from internal issues within the European Union, but reflect rather different views regarding the United States and Russia.

Seen from Western Europe Russia has withdrawn beyond Poland and the Baltic states, beyond the military horizon; for West-European countries Russia's present role is to supply oil and gas. As a result, Western Europeans no longer feel dependent on American protection.

10/14/2003 TUE 07:52

[TX/RX NO 8472]

004