er an intermediary's account of the views of the opposing side reflects reality, gullibility, or his own preference. The mere fact that an intermediary was necessary, that direct talks were rejected, reflected and fueled the prevailing distrust.

By going to Jerusalem, President Sadat cut through the mindset of a generation. He allowed the people of Israel to judge for themselves his commitment to peace; he could see for his part the trauma of a people that had never known a day without war in its national existence. Sadat was right that the heart of the problem was psychological. By grasping the essence of the issue, Sadat has done more to resolve it than all the wars and negotiations of the last three decades. Matters in the Middle East now can be reduced to a few fundamentals:

**There is no alternative to the Sadat-Begin negotiations. Geneva as a negotiating forum is dead.** This is just as well. It could only have led to a deadlock or to an imposed settlement, and in either case to an enlarged Soviet influence. Were Sadat and Begin somehow to fail to find solutions, lower-level diplomats meeting around a conference table in Switzerland later could scarcely be expected to succeed. In short, failure now would make conflict later inevitable. Israel would return to its ghetto existence; Egypt would face a war its people dread.

The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously. Major progress is therefore likely. Geneva could be useful later in ratifying what has been negotiated and to provide a forum for other parties to join the negotiating process.

**An Egyptian-Israeli agreement is not inimical to an overall settlement but the condition for it.** The choice has never been between an overall and a partial settlement, but between a partial settlement as a first step and no settlement at all. A step toward peace is better than the continuation of conflict, all the more so since both President Sadat and Premier Begin have committed themselves to an overall settlement.

**An Egyptian-Israeli agreement should involve principles applicable to the other parties.** Sadat and Begin are too wise not to base progress between Egypt and Israel on principles that have wider application. They know from history that to be lasting a peace must in time reach out to all principal parties and that those parties will support it only if they participate in making it. The day will come when Arab leaders who now denounce the Sadat initiative will be grateful that the largest of Arab nations took on its own shoulders the burden of the first and most difficult decision for peace. By solving the psychological problem, Egypt has now made it possible to overcome the other obstacles to peace everywhere in the Middle East. This is why coupling the Egyptian negotiations with the Palestinian issue is important both substantively and symbolically. At the same time, on this issue where distrust and hatred have gone so deep, it may be best to set a general course and leave details for later negotiations.

Having had the privilege of working closely with the President of Syria, I am convinced that he will not turn his back on a genuine peace. In the context of Syria's turbulent history and its internal pressures, in the light of its perception of itself as the embodiment of true Arab nationalism, President Assad has sought to keep open the option of negotiation. This attitude should be nurtured.

**The current negotiations will be a test of Soviet policy.** If the Soviet Union genuinely favors a relaxation of tensions throughout the world, it will in the Middle East allow the processes toward peace to occur and not press for formal participation in negotiations which are already under way and to which it can make no contribution. The Soviet Union has nothing to lose from a peaceful solution; indeed, a normalized Middle East should enable all countries to pursue their global policies on the basis of equality. If the Soviet Union encourages intransigence, the motive must be either hurt vanity or an attempt to foster tensions and to improve the opportunities for Soviet penetration. There is no reason to assuage the former, and it is in the interests of all nations to resist the latter.

If the process now under way succeeds—as is likely, even

The search for peace: Geneva Conference in December 1973...

...the Sinai I talks at Kilometer 101 in January 1974...

...and in 1975, Sadat and Kissinger meet in Egypt prior to Sinai II

*A barren region is once again the focal point of humanity's hopes.*

with occasional disappointments—Americans of every persuasion and party will have reason to be proud. We contributed a military balance which foreclosed a military solution. Our nation, because it was trusted by both sides, helped shape a negotiating process which culminated in the breakthrough of Sadat's historic journey. President Carter has handled the sequence of events growing out of the Sadat initiative with wisdom and delicacy, offering assistance but not intruding on the process of negotiations.

The ultimate credit should of course go to the audacious President of Egypt who dared to smash the psychological mold of a generation; to the courageous Premier of Israel who seized a unique moment of history; and to all the peoples of the Middle East whose inarticulate aspirations, prayers and sacrifices have created the prevailing climate for peace. Appropriately enough for this season, the barren region of the Middle East, which has spawned in its lonely spaces three great religions, has become once again the focal point of humanity's highest hopes.

TIME, JANUARY 2, 1978

# Tax Plans

## Carter wants cuts of $25 billion

During the campaign, Jimmy Carter described the U.S. tax system as a "disgrace to the human race" and promised "comprehensive" reforms. But with unemployment at 6.9%, inflation at 6.5% and the economy expected to weaken in the second half of 1978, he has had to shelve most of his ideas for reform. Instead, to stimulate the economy, he settled last week on a package of tax cuts totaling $25 billion—about $3 billion higher than had been expected—which he will recommend to Congress in January. Main features of his tax program:

* For individuals, tax rates would be trimmed across the board by two percentage points, reducing them to a range of 12% to 68%. The $750 personal exemption would be replaced by a $250 tax credit for each member of a taxpayer's family. As a result, Treasury Department officials estimate, the income tax paid by a typical family of four with an annual income of $10,000 would be slashed to $16, a savings of $430; a family of the same size earning $35,000 a year would pay an income tax of $6,148, a savings of only $70. Tax cuts for individuals would total about $16 billion a year.

* For corporations, tax rates would be reduced to 45%, a cut of three percentage points, as of next Oct. 1, and by another percentage point on Jan. 1, 1980. The investment tax credit would stay at 10%, instead of dropping to 7% in 1980, as now scheduled. Moreover, the credit, which now applies only to new machinery and equipment, would be extended to new plant construction. Tax savings for business would total about $7 billion a year.

Carter also will recommend two minor anti-inflation measures: 1) elimination of the 4% excise tax on telephone calls, a relic of World War II levies, and 2) a cut, to .5% from .7%, in the payroll tax paid by employers to the unemployment insurance fund. Total savings: $2.3 billion a year. In a symbolic gesture, Carter will propose disallowing business tax deductions for country club fees and for half the cost of working lunches. But he abandoned his idea of taxing capital gains at the same rates as ordinary income.

Prospects are excellent for speedy passage of the Carter tax plan, though Congress may add another $5 billion or so in tax cuts. Businessmen and economists cautiously endorsed Carter's proposals as beneficial to the economy, even though the stimulus will be largely offset by new increases in Social Security taxes, which will begin taking effect in 1979. Said Jack Carlson, chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: "He has recognized that the economy is slipping away faster than he expected, and that he doesn't have time for major reform proposals."

The Presidency/Hugh Sidey

# Jimmy, Jerry, Zbig and Henry

One of the most important things that happened in 1977 may not have been in an Executive order or a law passed by Congress or an idea spoken by Jimmy Carter. It may have been the extraordinary web of civilized human relationships spun among the men and women of Washington and world power almost in spite of themselves.

Had Lyndon Johnson been around this holiday season, he would have raised his glass to his favorite Old Testament prophet, Isaiah, who urged humanity almost 3,000 years ago: "Come now, and let us reason together."

Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter reasoned together a bit last week in the very Oval Office that one had wrested from the other. They gripped, grinned, patted and chortled over their special memories, plugged the glories of America and the new Panama Canal treaty, and reserved the right to gentlemanly argument just as soon as they parted. Indeed, that night, as Jimmy jitterbugged at a White

House press party, the tuxedoed Ford in another part of town found a few things to quarrel over in the Carter record. Yet when Jerry flew off to Vail for the holidays, he complimented Carter on his graciousness and explained that political differences did not intrude in their "friendly relationship." Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower did not speak for more than eight years; Richard Nixon and John Kennedy spoke only when they had to.

Carter and Ford meeting last week in the Oval Office

The President's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who did not like the way the world was running when he went to the White House, the other day rang up Henry Kissinger, one of the fellows who had put the world in the shape it was. Zbig asked Henry out to lunch at the Sans Souci, an eloquent eatery until now shunned by the Carter people. A covenant of mutual admiration was struck just a few feet from the mahogany Venus in the middle of the restaurant. Helped along by a couple of glasses of Almaden Chablis, the two former professors were soon intently but good-naturedly debating their respective views as if they were back in the classroom.

The wonder of Menachem Begin's overnight drop-in on the White House is still being pondered for lasting significance. Such visits were never before conceived in less than months. Suddenly, Israel's Premier was at the door. Jimmy's arms were open. When the first meeting was over, Carter plunked down at his desk and rang up Anwar Sadat over in Cairo just as if he were on the phone to Plains. Carter filled in the Egyptian President on what he and Begin had discussed. Begin went off to visit his old friend Kissinger, then dropped in on the ail-ing Senator Hubert Humphrey. When Zbig rose at lunch at the Israeli embassy to toast the mutual commitment to a noble ideal, to "the birth of peace," the emotional response in the room startled almost everyone. And a little later Henry Kissinger, the enduring wit, could chortle, "We may be doomed to peace."

There is in all of this the welcome dismissal of the stultifying protocol that has kept nations and men starched and stiff and at arm's length for too long. There is a new understanding of modern tools—the jet plane, the telephone, satellites and television. There is, too, something more profound. Most of the men and women who preside over the affairs of this globe sincerely believe, despite their vast differences, that no people or nation or political party ever benefits from hatred, or ever really wins a war.

In the holiday quiet that settled on Washington's Mall, breathtakingly beautiful in the morning mist from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial, there seemed to be at the very least a moment of shared hope that rose larger than the multitude of problems that any New Year inevitably brings.

TIME, JANUARY 2, 1978

Kissinger Goes On the Record

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger talks with David Brinkley in his first news special. They are shown at Versailles, France

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger speaks out in a 90-minute NBC News Special on Friday (9:30 p.m., Channel 4).

Kissinger, the main contributor to the documentary — "Henry Kissinger: On the Record" — talks with David Brinkley, chief correspondent on the program.

The growth of Communism in Italy, France, Spain and Portugal in Western Europe is a direct challenge to the security of the United States and not just to Europe itself argues the former Secretary of State. Through his eyes, the documentary analyzes the origins of Communism in Western Europe, the reasons for its increase, its effect on American foreign policy and NATO, and its relationship with Moscow. Kissinger has characterized the situation as a watershed in Europe's post-war history.

The former Secretary of State also discusses the Middle East, the recent sharp increase of terrorism in Europe and other topics of foreign policy.

In preparing the program, Kissinger and Brinkley visited several European countries, including France, Italy and Spain. This is Kissinger's first venture into the documentary field. He en-

tered into a long-term agreement with the National Broadcasting Company in July, 1977, to serve as special consultant for world affairs and to appear in at least one major news documentary each year.

Other contributors, all of whom

NATO Chief Gen. Alexander Haig, left, with Kissinger

have been deeply involved in Europe's recent problems, include Willy Brandt, former West German Chancellor, General Alexander Haig, Commander-in-Chief of NATO forces in Europe, and political scientist Raymond Aron, an elder statesman of French journalism. European Communist leaders interviewed include Santiago Carillo of Spain, Alvaro Cunhal of Portugal and Georges Marchais of France.

They examine the expansion of Euro-Communism, in which Communists have taken control of many city administrations, and, for the first time in Communist history, are using the electoral process to seek control in Western European countries.

Stuart Schulberg, executive producer of the program, said that the special takes a hard look at terrorism. "We will examine the possibility that ultra-left terrorism attracts those who have moved beyond Communism because it is too tame or boring."

The news special, produced by Thomas Tomizawa, was filmed in France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Germany, with Kissinger working with NBC News in planning the program.

—Katherine Conger Kane—

TV Channels/The Washington Post/January 8, 1978

The Explosive Kissinger File

This is in praise of two quite different journalists—William Safire and Nat Hentoff.

Press critic Alex Cockburn recently complained that "the Safire cult" is going too far. I guess the printed

By Garry Wills

evidence for that charge comes from two recent articles on Mr. Safire—one by Richard Reeves in *Esquire* and another by me in *New York*. But neither of us agrees with Mr. Safire. We just admire his skill. That is not cultism. It is connoisseurship.

Mr. Safire had to earn any admiration he gets. He came into journalism soiled by his connection with the Watergate regime. He was an unashamed Nixon apologist. He remains

one to this day. That just makes him work harder at the stories he has helped expose and analyze—many of them centered on Henry Kissinger's duplicity.

Nat Hentoff, on the other hand, is the traditional civil libertarian, a kind of social worker with his typewriter, who never tires of the unglamorous "case work" that vocation entails. He is part Jewish mother to the oppressed and part hired scold of the oppressors. His record and power belie the apparently limited audience of his regular column in the *Village Voice*.

It is a matter of some interest when these two talented men, one on the right and one on the left, team up on a job. The job is wresting Henry Kissinger's telephone transcripts from him. These could do for Dr. Kissinger

what the White House tapes did for President Nixon; so Kissinger is understandably resisting all efforts to read what he heard, his secretary overheard, and his caller did not know was being taken down in short-hand.

What Mr. Safire calls "the Dead Key Scrolls" (copied while the secretary had the phone's dead-hold key down) come to 33,000 pages of conversations recorded by public servants working on public time with public equipment.

Mr. Kissinger first took this mass of documents to Nelson Rockefeller's estate and locked it in a vault. Alerted by Mr. Safire's columns, the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press threatened to sue Mr. Kissinger, who then tried to "donate" the papers to the Library of Congress,

under terms that gave him complete control over their use—he would not even let the archivist of the United States look at the documents to enter a proper description of them into the library record.

Last February, a group of journalists, including Mr. Hentoff, sued for release of the material. Last month the judge on the case decided that Mr. Kissinger had "wrongfully removed" the papers from the State Department, and must return them to an agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The case is being appealed, but Mr. Hentoff's arguments in the *Village Voice* make it hard to see how anyone can doubt that the government owns these transcripts.

In the first place, State Department rules forbid the recording of

phone calls unless this act "is absolutely essential to the conduct of business." Thus Mr. Kissinger's only defense for making the records in the first place proclaims that this was a matter of vital public business connected with his office: That makes it impossible for him to plead with any credibility that the mountain of papers involved merely personal and private messages.

Flip the matter over. Grant, for a moment, that these were private notes of private calls. Then why was government time and money used in their transcription, typing, and duplication? What, for that matter, was Mr. Kissinger doing conducting so much private business on his public time? The taxpayers should no more be charged for taking Mr. Kissinger's private notes than it should be asked

to decorate Nixon's private home.

Either way, Mr. Kissinger is in trouble. The version of history he creates in his forthcoming autobiography will depend, in great measure, on the amount of surviving documents against which his story can be checked. The clever diplomat, telling different things to each side in negotiation, would like to tell a fresh and entirely exonerating tale in his memoirs.

But certain embarrassing papers stand in the way; and Mr. Safire and Mr. Hentoff, among others, stand guard over those papers, in the name of history. Good for them. Henry thought Rabin and Sadat could be difficult in the old days of shuttle diplomacy. He may end up thinking those guys soft next to Safire and Hentoff.

By Neil Hickey

Henry Kissinger, smiling, strode into the elegant, high-ceilinged library of the American Embassy in Paris, trailed by his wife Nancy. They greeted a visitor, and the former Secretary of State descended to an antique armchair. Mrs. Kissinger proffered refreshments, chatted briefly and then withdrew, claiming the press of other business. Later in the afternoon, Mr. Kissinger said, he would depart the Embassy (a

> '[Eurocommunism] is crucial at this time because it is the fundamental problem of Western societies.'

stately chateau on Paris's Rue Fauborg Ste. Honore, where he was, for the moment, a guest of the U.S. Ambassador) and drive a dozen miles to Versailles, where he would rendezvous with an NBC News team to film a conversation with David Brinkley on the subject of "Eurocommunism"—the burgeoning, indigenous Communist parties of Spain, Portugal, France and Italy.

He accepted tea from a white-jacketed attendant and settled back, tanned and dapper in a vested, blue pin-stripe suit. His mission in Europe? Twofold, said Kissinger: to attend a meeting in Bonn of the Trilateral Commission and to make a news documentary for NBC. He's an adviser-consultant to the network, and under the terms of his five-year contract—unique in TV-news history—he gives its newsmen the benefit of his experience in foreign affairs; he also makes one prime-time news special each year—the first of which, called "Henry Kissinger: On the Record," can be seen this Friday night at 9:30 P.M. (ET).

Eurocommunism is a subject, Kissinger agreed, scarcely calculated to make TV watchers forget Charlie's Angels forever. And yet, he is convinced, it's one of central importance to Western societies. In an age of un-

predicted affluence in many Western European countries, more and more voters are turning leftward (e.g.: the Communist Party of Italy got 34 per cent of the vote in national elections last year and holds a virtual veto over government programs; in France's presidential elections in 1974, a coalition of communists and socialists—since disbanded—came within two percentage points of beating President Valery Giscard D'Estaing).

Kissinger gestured with a grasping motion of his right hand. "I look at this problem not only as an issue of communism but as one of the modern industrial society. And we have it in the United States as well, although not in the form of a Communist party. It involves the alienation of the individual from a machinery that seems to him more and more impersonal; and the difficulty of young people in finding moral or psychological fulfillment in societies that are aimed primarily at economic goals. That's the problem we want to deal with in this program."

But why is that subject worth a TV documentary at this time?

"The subject is crucial at this time because it is the fundamental problem of Western societies," Kissinger said. "We have no foreign-policy problems with Europe as such. What we have is the possible transformation of these societies in the direction that will make cooperation between ourselves and countries having similar heritage more and more difficult. And perhaps that is a forerunner of problems we will face domestically 10 years down the road." In addition, he cannot believe, said Kissinger, "that the present defense arrangement between Europe and the United States can survive a major role of communists in European government."

The documentary will "try to explain to Americans that 30 years after the war, in economies that are more prosperous than anybody could even imagine in 1945, there is now developing a fundamental challenge to these societ-

4

ties that is as serious internally as the threat from the outside was in 1945. Our close relationship with these countries is essential for both our security and prosperity; the advent of communism to major influence would threaten both. This is something Americans ought to understand." The United States and Western Europe "have become so obsessed with economics," he added, "that perhaps there has been a spiritual undernourishment, and we should see that as a problem that goes beyond communism. It can attack different societies in totally different ways. I have no solution. But it is a condition I would like to call to the attention of the American people."

Not everybody agrees with these views, Kissinger is aware. Indeed, many expert observers are sure he's dead wrong; that his outlook on Communism is little more than 1950s' Cold War rhetoric; that the Western European Communist parties are (as they claim to be) autonomous, home-grown entities that reject Soviet domination and espouse many traditional democratic values; and that their accession to a share of power in European cabinets and parliaments might be worse news for Moscow than for the West— as Secretary of State Cyrus Vance has suggested. (A bitter debate, in fact, is going on in the Soviet Union about how to cope with these heretical, Titoesque movements.)

All of which raises the question: will Friday's NBC documentary be merely a conduit for Kissinger's unchallenged opinions on this controversial matter of public importance, or (in the spirit of broadcasting's Fairness Doctrine) will opposing voices be heard? Kissinger hoisted his teacup, and said: "Whatever value there is for NBC in my connection with them relates to my judgment. NBC has every right to run different judgments when it wants to. I will welcome having other points of view represented on any program I do that is controversial. When I'm inter-

viewed, I'll express my view. But if my view cannot get itself heard alongside the views of others, then it isn't worth having. And I think if NBC does its job—and it is doing its job—it must hear others. I urged them to interview people of other persuasions."

Conferring unwarranted respectability on European Communist parties is "a form of suicide" for the West, said Kissinger, but "it's a point of view that ought to be heard in a television special dealing with European Communism. NBC has interviews with a number of Communist leaders to put their case. I support that."

A few critics of Kissinger's arrangements with NBC claim to see peril in it —that he might at some future time use this lucrative NBC connection as a platform to criticize an administration, or that his very authoritative voice on NBC's air might (wittingly or unwittingly) muddy the waters of some delicate diplomatic negotiation. He stiffened almost imperceptibly at the suggestion. "First of all," he said, "my attitude is that foreign policy should be nonpartisan. I have supported many administration initiatives because, as a former Secretary of State, I know the complexity of decision-making, and my concern is to

"[The United States and Western Europe] have become so obsessed with economics that perhaps there has been a spiritual undernourishment... [It's] a problem that goes beyond communism.'

support a strong and successful foreign policy. The special on NBC deals, in fact, with a subject on which the Administration has not taken a strong stand one way or the other."

If he wanted to propagandize for a particular point of view, suggested Kissinger, he didn't need the NBC contract to do it, since his opinions are regularly sought by newspaper, maga- →

TV GUIDE JANUARY 7, 1978

5

continued

zine and television journalists. He was,
even then, being besieged in Europe
by requests for interviews, only one of
which he granted.

"If, for example, I wanted to criticize
the Administration, I would not general-
ly do it first on NBC. I would give a
public speech available to everybody.
Then, if NBC wanted to interview me
about it, I might do that. But my role
now is not to nag an administration.
I'm not guaranteeing I'll never criticize
them. But I don't need this forum to
do it."

'I don't mind opening doors [for
NBC] when it's something that
should be heard by Americans . . .
But I'm not a television
performer . . . '

Kissinger has set a number of fairly
strict ground rules for his on-camera
work with NBC. He will never, for ex-
ample, act the role of interviewer, but
only of interviewee. Besides his annual
documentary, he's obliged under his
contract to grant at least eight inter-
views a year for use on the *Today* show
and the *NBC Nightly News*. Kissinger
said he was particularly unwilling to
interview foreign dignitaries who are
his "personal acquaintances" because
"they remember me as a colleague
and as a statesman" and to do so
"just doesn't look right, doesn't feel
right to me." Thus, Brinkley and
others have done all the actual inter-
viewing for the documentary.

Neither will he ever appear as a
commentator, facing the camera and
delivering opinions on current news.
"I cannot now foresee a commentary
format," he said, "unless it's on some
historical event. We've been playing
with the idea of doing maybe one pro-
gram on, perhaps, the Treaty of Ver-
sailles or the settlements after World
War II. There I would feel no hesita-
tion to speak."

In short, he will not be anything
vaguely resembling a TV journalist, but
rather an eminence to whom NBC's
newsmen can appeal (off-camera as
well as on) for background and inter-
pretations of foreign affairs. "I don't
mind opening doors [for NBC] when
it's something that should be heard by
Americans. That, I think, is appropriate.
But I'm *not* a television performer and
I don't intend to conduct television
interviews. On this trip, as you must
have observed, I've carefully stayed
away from what they're doing."

Henry Kissinger had, in fact, main-
tained a discreet interval between him-
self and the day-to-day efforts of the
NBC crew, presided over by executive
producer Stuart Schulberg and David
Brinkley. He met privately with Presi-
dent Valery Giscard D'Estaing of France,
Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of West
Germany and Prime Minister Giulio
Andreotti of Italy (as well as platoons
of foreign ministers and lesser digni-
taries) as part of a whirlwind 10-day
tour of the Continent strewn with din-
ers, receptions and cocktail parties in
his honor. (In Rome, the Pope was
busy preparing beatification ceremonies
for two candidates for sainthood.
"Kissinger and who else?" asked an
NBC wag.)

Schulberg and Brinkley, meanwhile,
were crisscrossing Europe, filming
"standuppers" and interviews in Paris,
Berlin, Cologne, Bonn and Rome—all
amid one of the biggest terrorist inci-
dents in post-war Europe: the kidnaping
and murder of West German industrial-
ist Hanns-Martin Schleyer and the re-
sultant massive manhunt for members
of the Baader-Meinhof gang, the sus-
pected perpetrators.

That atmosphere of terrorism (with
its tighter security and travel restric-
tions) was making the NBC crew's job
tougher than usual. (Stuart Schulberg:
"It's like trying to make a documentary
on Vietnamese Buddhism in the middle
of the Tet offensive.") And Kissinger
and Schulberg were weaving the sub- →

6

TV GUIDE JANUARY 7, 1978

continued

ject of political terrorism into the fabric of their documentary on Eurocommunism, declaring them both symptoms of the same alienation with modern industrial society.

In the Embassy library, Henry Kissinger leaned forward momentarily, elbows on knees. In the broad gravel courtyard beneath the Embassy's library window, a black armored Cadillac stood before the building's main door, and nearby strolled members of the private security force that Kissinger maintains at his own expense. David Brinkley paced slowly, patiently, beside the automobile. No, said Henry Kissinger, he had not felt especially endangered in Europe, nor was his mobility impeded in the current tense atmosphere caused by the kidnapings and skyjackings, although (as had been pointed out to him) he might be the object of terrorists' attention. Getting around was for him "more complicated than for an ordinary private citizen," he admitted. In Germany, for example, the authorities "had a car in front of me and a car behind me and at every traffic light people with machine guns jumped out."

Henry Kissinger shifted in his antique armchair, recrossed his legs and pon-

TV news is better in bringing quick news than in bringing an understanding of its meaning. And if I can make a contribution to understanding long-range foreign policy, I think I'm helping all administrations."

His deal with NBC includes the televising of his memoirs, which he is now writing. They'll be broadcast, he said, in a series of three or four documentaries in the 1979-80 television season, as part of the five-year contract with the network that is earning him an estimated $1 million. Meanwhile, "what I try to do is contribute to the understanding of foreign policy on the part of the network by bringing in people of diverse points of view" to meet with NBC's corporate bosses, news executives and reporters. (Recently, for example, he arranged separate luncheons at NBC's New York headquarters with Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan and former Egyptian foreign minister Ismail Fahmy.)

Not everybody at NBC News, as it happens, favored Kissinger's being hired by the network. The deal was initiated by NBC's corporate management (not the News division) and a few newsmen wondered about the propriety of adding to its (supposedly objective) news organization so tendentious and controversial an advocate. Other journalists (within, and outside, NBC) saw the Kissinger connection as an expensive grandstand play to improve the network's position vis-a-vis front-running CBS News; and suggested the money might better have been spent upgrading NBC's documentary schedule, which was (and is) at low ebb.

Later in the afternoon, Henry Kissinger took a final sip of tea, rose from the armchair and walked through the Embassy's baronial hallways to a broad marble staircase leading down to the main entrance. At the front door he greeted David Brinkley. ("Am I late? They won't start without me."), then climbed into the limousine with the →

dered a question about the effectiveness of TV news. "Well, I think one problem with the news is that it is very hard to cover all significant events in half an hour," he said. "And it's even harder to give an analysis of what it means in half an hour. In a way, one of the things that intrigued me about this NBC arrangement is that we need public support for foreign policy —not for any one foreign policy but for an understanding of foreign policy.

8

TV GUIDE JANUARY 7, 1978

continued

newscaster and was driven across the broad swath of gravel to the chateau's main gate and thence out onto the Rue Fauborg Ste. Honore. Blocked by traffic momentarily, and being without a police escort, Kissinger joked: "At such times, I miss being Secretary of State." But soon the limousine was wheeling out into the Place de la Concorde, and then into the main current of the Champs Elysees with the Arc de Triomphe rising from a gray mist ahead.

Asked why the afternoon's filming was being done on the grounds at Versailles—the egregiously elaborate estate of Louis XIV—Kissinger smiled and said, "It has something to do with my ego." He was pleased to hear that his first TV documentary was already sold out to advertisers, even though it was then far from completion. He fell to wondering about how prices for such commercial TV time are arrived at, and listened attentively to a discussion of the subject.

The conversation turned to the difficulties of TV commentating, and Kissinger wagged his finger and said to a passenger, "Do you know that when David Brinkley was doing TV commentary he never mentioned my name once in all the years I was in Government?" The Brinkley face writhed into a grin, and he responded, "Oh, Henry, of course I did." (Brinkley and Kissinger have been friends from the time Kissinger was an obscure college professor at Harvard, and they socialize regularly in Washington.) Delivering TV commentary was a rough task, the two men agreed, and mused about Eric Sevareid's longevity as CBS's house pundit, and who might replace him.

The word "Eurocommunism," it suddenly occurred to Kissinger, was not very "sexys" as a working title for a documentary and he hoped the network would find a better one. [The title was subsequently changed.—Ed.] Brinkley agreed. Kissinger grinned and said, "Maybe we have a whole new weekly

prime-time series here."

Minutes later, the car wheeled into the Grand Trianon gardens, a secluded quarter of the Versailles compound where Stuart Schulberg and his crew were waiting to film the Kissinger-Brinkley conversation that would be the documentary's centerpiece. The two principals took their places before the cameras, strolling the manicured landscape for the long, "establishing" shots, then pausing to converse in close-ups on the politics of Europe. Kissinger's unrehearsed responses were well-shaped and lucid, and usually required only one "take." Schulberg whispered to a bystander: "He speaks in sentences that parse, with all the semicolons in place."

As the afternoon wore on and it was clear the shooting was going well, a jovial atmosphere pervaded the proceedings. "When do I get to do my somersault?" Kissinger inquired during a pause. And later: "This is a lot of work. If somebody had told me what a TV special was like, I would have renegotiated my contract." A soundman adjusted a hidden microphone in David Brinkley's jacket, then smoothed the lapels. With mock indignation, Kissinger said to the man, "How about me. I'm very sensitive." And holding out his own lapels: "You don't like the material?"

As the afternoon light began to fade, producer Schulberg announced he had all the film he needed, and pronounced the day a success. While the cameras were being dismantled, Kissinger told Brinkley: "I'd like to do the next special with a girl. I didn't know we were going to spend so much time together. Does NBC have a girl?"

"We used to," said a technician.

Twilight was settling on the Grand Trianon palace when Henry Kissinger crossed the gardens to his waiting limousine, accepted the salute of a French policeman, and drove off in the direction of Paris. (END)

10

TV GUIDE JANUARY 7, 1978

Out of Office
Isn't
Out of Power

Washington Post

MAGAZINE 1/8/78

# Citizen Kissinger
By Bob Reiss

By Ann Treasurer

THE PASSION for secrecy is still legendary, the parade of supplicants as impressive as it is endless. If power in this capital city is to be measured by access and by knowledge, Henry Kissinger still wields both with the instinctive touch of a master.

At 8 a.m. on this raw November morning, the familiar blue Mercedes tunnels out of the mist and glides to a halt before the House of Representatives. A private bodyguard gets out and opens a door, then Henry Kissinger emerges into the grey dampness, breath frosting, hands in the pockets of his dark coat. A second guard has driven him here along one of four possible routes chosen for security reasons.

For the former Secretary of State, now 54, today will be typical in the respect that it will be unlike any other, beginning as usual with a

working breakfast, in this case at the invitation of Representative Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) for the House Subcommittee on Europe and the Mideast. "It's the first in three years I've been on the committee that we've had a member of the private community to a breakfast." says Representative Stephen Solarz (D-N.Y.).

Kissinger is in full form this morning. The ready wit, deft fielding of questions, elegant and eloquent command of English all add power to his presence. After the eggs are downed, the sausages, the orange juice, the subcommittee begins shooting questions at Kissinger. Most concern the Mideast. Cyprus and Rhodesia are briefly discussed. Kissinger seems generally pleased by Sadat's visit to Israel and says the trip may have been prompted by Egyptian fear of Soviet sabotage at the Geneva peace conference.

The talk is spotted with anecdotes, one of which explains a reason Kissinger feels Sadat genuinely

desires peace. When Kissinger was in Egypt during his tenure as Secretary of State, he says, he used to take his meals at Sadat's home. The entire Egyptian first family kept stressing how much they wanted peace. "You can't program a family to say things like that," Kissinger says.

Another anecdote is used to illustrate differences between Syrian and Egyptian attitudes towards Israel. Arriving in Damascus one day, Kissinger noticed newspaper stories indicating he had just come from occupied territory. Occupied territory meant Tel Aviv.

Kissinger's appearances on the Hill are not always this informal. On another occasion the scene might be the Senate Caucus room, TV lights ablaze, members of the Foreign Relations Committee leaning forward under the glittering chandeliers, concentrating on the rolling German accent as Kissinger describes his feelings on the proposed Panama Canal Treaty. President Carter has

asked him to back the treaty. White House and State Department officials consult him regularly, say spokesmen. "They're scared to death of him," says one Washington columnist, a Kissinger friend. "I've never seen anything like it. It's hilarious."

Says Representative Donald J. Pease (D-Ohio) "He could be a very powerful man in a negative way if he chose to speak out publicly."

Today, however, Kissinger is in Carter's corner. Failure to ratify the treaty will lead to a deterioration of U. S./Latin American relations, he says, and will provide a rallying point for anti-American forces. A warning, perhaps from experience. "I don't think the public necessarily forgives leaders for consequences even if the consequences were what they thought they wanted at the time."

"I'm going to New York to have lunch with Dayan," Kissinger says one day as we board an elevator at the Library of Congress.

Bob Reiss is a frequent contributor.

The Washington Post Magazine January 8, 1978

interview appearances from time to time and aiding in one major news documentary a year. This year's show will be aired on January 13 and will deal with Eurocommunism. David Brinkley will be host, Kissinger a consultant. Brinkley says Kissinger helped arrange interviews with officials including West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt for the special.

In addition, Kissinger delivers speeches, acts as consultant for the

Aspen Institute's New York office and for the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and teaches a seminar at Georgetown University.

"We honestly don't view Kissinger as a foreign policy expert. We simply see him as a war criminal," says Gay Seidman, editor of the Harvard Criminologist, who recently picketed a Kissinger speech in Boston to 200 Nieman Fellows. Inside, amid a sea of respect-

ful or even fawning questions someone asked Kissinger how he could "face his children." Kissinger's son sat nearby.

Kissinger claims that demonstrators like those at the Nieman speech don't anger him. Vietnam is a "painful" memory, "not made any easier by people who had not the slightest responsibility or strategy, just pretended that there was one group that had a monopoly on concern for human

life. But that's in the past now..." Later he says calmly, as an afterthought, "I did more to end the war than any of them did. And there's a lot of support for the policy we pursued."

He's reluctant to reminisce, saving that for the memoirs. To those who have criticized his famous ego, he says, "It was my obligation to conduct foreign policy in a period in which executive authority was under assault, and I had to act with confidence and assurance. I have strong views on the subject. I think it is the role of people in leadership positions to inspire those who work with them, to make them do things they didn't know they could do and for this you have to have a strong personality."

Although Kissinger has been known to say he'd like to be remembered for having started a sequence of events that others carried on, he's reluctant to criticize the Carter administration even when new policies seem to be the opposite of his own. "When a performer is taking careful and complicated steps on a high wire," he said in a recent speech, "it is profoundly inappropriate, not to say dangerous, for a spectator in a seat far below to shout at him that he is putting his toe in the wrong place."

And so, even when he addresses himself to specific Carter policies, he soft-pedals his opinions. In a speech made this June, for instance, the former Secretary of State warned that ambiguous declarations of U. S. attitudes toward Eurocommunism can create the impression that the U.S. "considers Communist success a foregone conclusion." The speech was reported as one in which Kissinger was trying to shake the administration out of its hands-off policy towards Communists' winning power in Western Europe. Today, asked about differences between himself and Carter he says there really isn't that much of a difference at all. "The real difference is tactical. The question is whether the strategy is different. You can't tell that after only seven months."

If Norman Lear were going to create a half-hour weekly comedy show about Henry Kissinger, he might call it "I've Got a Secret." Asked about a lunch with Robert McNamara he says, "We're old friends." Pat Buchanan? Brent Scowcroft? Old friends. Old friends don't want to be quoted. Kissinger likes to snack on milk and an apple at night, one says, then wants it used only as "background information."

Here's a story. "One of Dr. Kissinger's ex-students from Japan is coming to visit," a secretary says one day.

"Why?"

"To talk about Japanese affairs."

Japanese affairs, huh? Twenty minutes later two Japanese businessmen enter the office and sit in the waiting area. The first is older,

winner

WIN $1,000 FOR GROCERIES IN THIS SWEEPSTAKES FROM DEL MONTE.®

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN SWEEPSTAKES PRIZES. 100 WINNERS OR MORE IN THE NORTHERN VIRGINIA AREA.®

*Includes the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA plus these counties: VIRGINIA: ARLINGTON, FAIRFAX, FAUQUIER, LOUDOUN, PRINCE WILLIAM.

A total of 4,575 prizes will be awarded nationwide, including:

10 First Prizes—$1,000 for groceries

15 Second Prizes—$500 for groceries

50 Third Prizes—$100 for groceries

4,500 Fourth Prizes—$10 for groceries

Enter as often as you like. Use the entry blank in this advertisement to get started. Additional entry blanks are available at participating grocers. All entries must be received by March 31, 1978.

OFFICIAL RULES—NO PURCHASE REQUIRED.

1. On an official entry form or a plain piece of 3" x 5" paper, hand print your name and address and the name and location of your favorite

grocer. Mail your entry in a hand-addressed envelope no larger than 4 5/8" x 9 1/2" (#10 envelope) to:

"Mom's A Winner" Sweepstakes P. O. Box 8350, Blair, Nebraska 68009

2. Each entry must be accompanied by three (3) labels from any size DEL MONTE product featured in this sweepstakes, OR three (3) plain pieces of paper on which you have hand printed the words "DEL MONTE" OR any combination of labels and hand printed pieces of paper totaling three (for example, 2 labels and 1 hand printed piece of paper).

3. Enter as often as you wish, but each entry must be hand addressed and mailed separately. Entries must be received by March 31, 1978.

4. Winners will be determined in random drawings conducted by the D. L. Blair Corporation, an independent judging organization whose decisions are final. At least 100 winners will be selected from each of 45 DEL MONTE marketing regions. Limit one (1) prize to a family. Taxes on any prize are the sole responsibility of the winner. No substitution of prize permitted. All prizes will be awarded by check.

5. Sweepstakes open to residents of the United States, except employees of Del Monte Corporation, its advertising and sweepstakes agencies, and the families of each. This sweepstakes is void in the state of Missouri and wherever else prohibited by law. Sweepstakes participation via entry blanks distributed through retail stores is void in Wisconsin and Maryland. All Federal, State and local laws and regulations apply.

6. For a list of winners, send a stamped, self-addressed envelope, entirely separate from your entry form, to:

"Mom's A Winner" Winners List P.O. Box 8115, Blair, Nebraska 68009

OFFICIAL ENTRY FORM

Mail to: "Mom's A Winner" Sweepstakes, P. O. Box 8350, Blair, Nebraska 68009.

Enclosed are: (check one)

3 labels from any of the featured DEL MONTE products listed below.

3 pieces of 3" x 5" paper hand printed with the words DEL MONTE

a combination of the above totaling three.

Featured DEL MONTE products:

on • Pineapple • Catsup • Peas • Green Beans • Pears
ce Drinks • Tomato Sauce • Fruit Cocktail • Raisins
low Cling Peaches • Pudding Cup® Desserts (carton)

me
(Please Print)
dress
State
Zip
favorite grocer is:
Name
Location
City

21

Kissinger Sees U.S.
Pullout If W. Europe
Brings in Communists

Reuter

LONDON, Jan. 15—Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview tonight that he did not think the United States would keep its present military force in Europe if communism gained a foothold in Western European governments.

"I consider it very unlikely that the United States will maintain its present military deployment in Europe and its present policy interest in Europe if the issue becomes one of protecting one set of Communist governments against another set of Communist governments," he said in a BBC interview taped in Chicago Jan. 5.

Commenting on the rise of communism in Italy and France, Kissinger said that, should the Communist Party enter the government in those countries, it could turn NATO into a German-American alliance.

His concern was similar to that expressed by the Carter administration last week at the prospect of the Italian Communist Party capturing greater power.