FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT: BURDENSOME, COSTLY, MUCH USED

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 44
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 22, 2001
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: July 26, 1976
• Content Type: NSPR

'Approved For Relea'te 2001/08/08 t CIA-RDP77.00432R000100397a4-1'
? CONFIDENTIAL
INTERNAL USE ONLY.
This publication contains clippings from the
domestic and foreign press for YOUR
BACKGROUND INFORMATION. Further use
of selected items would rarely be advisable.
NO. 14
6. AUGUST 1976
PAGE
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
1
GENERAL
23
EASTERN EUROPE
?31
WEST EUROPE
34
NEAR EAST
36
AFRICA
EAST ASIA ?
38
LATIN AMERICA
?41
DESTROY AFTER BACKGROUNDER HAS
SERVED ITS PURPOSE OR WITHIN .60 DAYS
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Aj3proved For Release 2001/08/08: CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1-''' _
Sunday, Italy 25,1976
Tab 'WASHINGTON POST
Tree
14 e some,
?
; . First of a series
? . By -George Lardner f
Washington Poet Staff Writer V
Ten years . ago on Independence Day,
1966, President Johnson signed' the Free-
?dont of Information Act with a ringing
...statement about the importance Of open-
ness in government. vs.
3 The new statute went into effect a
'.year later under Justice Departnient
guidelines asserting that disclosure of
,government documents was to be "the
, general rule, not the exception.?
"If government is to be truly of,by,
and for the people, the 'people must
, know in detail the activities of govern-
..rnent," Attorney General Ramsey Clark
? said at the time. "Nothing so diminishes
. democracy as secrecy."
"-,- The trouble was that the law didn't?
',work. It contained no deadlines for. com-
pliahce and no penalties for violatien.
?With few exceptions, the federal bu-
reaucracy responded with stalling tactics,
excessive fees for copying and docu-
ment searches and ether dodges. Some
critics 'began calling it a "freedom from
information" law.
Congress tried again in 1974 with ? a
string of amendments designed to close
the biggest loopholes. The potential im-
epact of the changes on bureaucracy's
customary ways was reflected in the -ade
verse reaction from the White House.
His promises of an "open" adminis-
? tration notwithstanding, President Ford
vetoed the bilL He maintained that it
would be unworkable and even "uncon,
stitutional"?too much of e burden on
government agencies and too much of
ean encroachment on executive authority. ,
z The amended Freedom of Information
Act was passed again over his veto, S
Partly because of the Watergate scandal ;
and other government misdeeds tnat -
:had been kept .from the public .and
partly because of the 'stubborn, pro-
tracted resistance that frustrated thee
iptent of the original law. The amend-
ed law became effective Feb. 19, 1975.,
Discomfiture over the Freedom of In-
? formationi Act (FOIA) has become evi-
dent in almost every corner, of the fed-
? eral bureaucracy.
.."A -special ,body of secret law at the
.
e ? Federal Trade. Commission, Alger Hiss'
It is burdensome. It is costlier than
me Categories
iseiosure Exemptions
' The Freedom of Information
? Act of 1966 and the amendments
. that became law last year contain
'?ine exemptions, to -'disclosure.
This means that material in ,the
nine categories. may not be made
public under an 'FOr request filed
with a federal department , or
agency. ' , ? _
?
Because a document is exempt,
however, does not mean that ,it :
e must be kept secret. Government- .
agencies are, as a general rule,'
. , free to disclose, exempt docu-
ments. , They must disclose non-?
,.?exempti documents.
Also exempted, thong h. not
listed among the nine categories,
is' Congress. The Freedom of In- ?
formation Act cannot be cited by
persons -seeking documents from
? Capitol Hill. ? ?
? These are the nine categories of material e x emp t e.d from the
amended act:
? ? National defense or foreign
A . .
polies* information that is proper-
ly classified.
? ? Information' that. is related
solely to internal personnel rules
and practices of an agency or de-
? partment
? Data specifically exempted
from disclosure by another fed-
- eral statute. ,
0. Trade secrets and -commer-
cial or financial information the
government has obtained that is
privileged or confidential. . ? .
* Information that would be
Considered privileged in a civil
suit. ,
O Personnel, medical. or* other
files that, if disclosed, would be
'considered an unwarranted inva-
sion of personal privacy.
? Investigatory files, but only
to the extent- that- one or more of
six specified forms of harm would
result.- ,. ?
* Certain bank records.
? Data on oil wells. ,
???
e.
meaning. and1 the Justice. Department.
is struggling _Ws weaken the FOIA's
most pointed provisions. :'
'For the first time, federal officials
arcii Supposed to respond, within fixed
deadlines, to requests from "any person"
for government documents. For the first ?
time, officials face disciplinary action .
for any arbitrary 'or ,capricious with-
holdings_
Thus armed, the new -law has led to'
the uncovering of thousands of hitherto
secret documents on historic events and
present-day controversies, from the Ro-
senberg spy case to the maneuvering
behind India's 1974 atomic explosion.
expected.. .And it is working far more
effectively than anyone imagined when
Congress enaeted it despite Mr. Ford's
veto.
ssassinations at home and abroad?all
"Pumpkin Papers," long-classified Na-
tional Security Council directives, Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency records about
Compliance with the law is still far
; these and more have been dredged up
from a sefeled fact of government rote, e
tine. Some officials act as though they .1 by freedom-of-information lawsuits. e
' never heard of it. Others- complain ateei The requests come in ell shapes and'
the very mention of it. Congressional ' i sizes. The General Services Administrae ,
? investigators say that at 'one agency, - '
'1. tion was asked how much toilet paper it '
? there have been reports that requests i :
each year for the supersecret Na- e
"trashed,'
under the law have been simply r
I ' tional Security Agency.. The CIA has
!
?
' There are some 590 lawsuits cur'
4 -,been repeatedly importuned for every-
thing it has about Amelia Earhart (the -
rens
:rently pending over its tepPlicationeendee
official response is "nothing").
? Tens of thousands of freedorn-of-infor-
. mation inquiries?there is no complete
count?have -poured into federal agen-
cies in the past 17 months, Perhaps the
? best measure of its unexpected popular-
ity lies in the costs attributed to .it,
though these, too, are incomplete.
_Using the old law as its gauge, the
House Committee on Government Opera-
tions had estimated?before their adop-
. ? tion?that the changes in the Freedom
' of Information Act would cost no more
than $100,000 a year for the entire fed-
eral establishment. ' .
The Defense Department say S its ex- --
penditures alone in complying with the
, law for most of 1975 suggested a pro-
jeeted annual cost of $5.9 million.
The FBI says It spent $1,6 million
last year and maintains it wilt need
$3.4 million for FOIA and related
Privacy. Net requests in the coming,'
fiscal year. The Treasury Department
Puts its expenses last year at S3.3 -
million, and Health, Education and
Welfare said its costs were . 92.36
million. The CIA calculated that it
spent $1.39 millions on salaries atone --
of employees. coping with FOIA _-
requests.. ? , ?
Preliminary -contpilations from the
annual -reports to , Congress that the
new legislation required show costt
close to $20 million, without counting
1
Approved For Releese'2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release-20011- 08/08 : CIA-R-DP77-00432R000100390004-1
is a number of Cabinet-level departmentan'
7, and federal agencies that didn't bother ,
?to' make the calculations.
To suggestions that the law is CoSten.
.ing.too much, its advocates reply- that
the government spends far more on
e public relations puffery. With freedom- '
? of-information requests, says chief
counsel Thomas Susman of the Senate e
? Subcommittee on Administrative Prac-
tice, "You know someone wanted the
?einformation enough to write in and ?
ask for it. s '
We don't _know that about thee.
movies, 'the !booklets, the recordings, t
-the cassettes and the 'pamphlets the e
? 'government puts out by the billions
and which cost far more than the Free-
dom of Information Act." ' ;
;?. House Government Information
committee staffer Ted Jacobs predicted.
,the costs will go' down once the back-
: log of requests is out of the way. He
said of the claimed expenditures, many,:1
',of which were attributed to the time et
is Spent by high-priced officials in re- t
t viewing requested documents: "I think,,..
f, frankly, that these agenciei have want- e
ed to-show how expensive Freedom of
:Information could be. But anyway,-,i
there are so many worthless tasks be-
ing done by the government. Here's a
^ worthwhile one." .
i The top official in charge of the
FOIA" at the Justice Department, Dep.- e'
uty Attorney General Harold R. Tyler .
; Jr, says he feels "there are valuable
and important societal benefits cm-
'
bodied in the Freedom of Informationl
? .
But, he adds, "I ant loath, to believe.-
, that the tremendous diversion of re-
sources . to . this area of operations,
within 'the Department of Justice'
alone, is a reasonable price for our:
f society to pay for' the actual benefits:a
being achieved or which can be '
? realistically anticipated in the , fore-,
seeable- future."
By contrast, the Defense Depart-
etnent,d which has. a much heavier
freeclom-of-inforination workload, re-
ports no such ,misgivings. Officials ?
there agree that the freedom-of-infore
matron law imposes heavy demands,-
especially on high-level officials whose
j expertise is needed to determine t,
whether previously classified docu-
ments can be safely, released. But they
think .it worth the effort. '.
"We'i-e determined to make it work,"
, Pentagon freedom - of -information di-"..
rector Charles W. Hinkle says of the.
Last February, for instanae; former ,
, Defense Department- executive Morton '
s Halperin asked for copies of 'what
-various -Secretaries of; Defense Pad '
said in, their classified annual state-. t
ments about -Soviet and Chinese stra-
:tegic .forces. .
It cost an estimated $16,688 in staff
time for specialists who reviewed
: what was still sensitive and what could
tbe made public, according to a Penta-
gon spokesman. ? ? .
?Because of past abuses, the new ...
FOIA doet not permit the government
fair trial. The old law had' exempted
:---such files from disclosure.
..A -so-called "national security" ex- ".
emption for classified documents was
also trimmed back in response to a'
1973 Supreme Court decision holding
?"?: that not, even" federal judges could
-emestioneethes wisdom' of, the "top
esecret," and "confidential"'
e labels on :classified documents. In 1974
Congresi passed freedom-of-informa-
tion 'amendments authorizing judicial
review to determine whether such
documents 'are, in fact, properly cies-
.L; sified. - ?
, _ - ?
Another key provision Of the 1974 ?
1 -amendments called for disclosure of
whatever documents and portions of-.
documents that were- "reasonably se-
:gregable" from otherwise secret rec-
ords. Pages, paragraphs, even sentences
must be made public, according to an
updated set of Justice Department
f- guidelines,--if they are "at all intern-
,- gible." ?
Is The new rules produced a surge of
demands throughout the government
,and proved especially unsettling at
1' places like the FBI and the CIA, agen-
cies that had been able in iarge,mea- '
P'
4 sure to ignore the old law. -
t,.. "We hit the peak in July of last,.
4 year," says Gene Wilson, .the CIA's
1, Freedom of Information Act and Pri-
vacy Act coordinator. ,The report of''
the'
the Rockefeller Commission on the :
CIA's domestic spying and harassment
-.of American citizens had just come .
t.Out: Congressional investigations were
;: multiplying.. 4 I.:. ,
The-'backlog a requests waiting to ,
be answered at the CIA reached 2,400- .
the new law's deadlines of 10
working days for the government's de-
cision on whether to comply with, a !
request and 40 working days for final
't.administrative action on any. appeals. ,
Wilson estimated that the CIA 'haS
= the equivalent of 100 persons working
full time on information requests, but
_
'.he said it still takes one month to six
weeks :to-respond to a, routine ? re-
qtresta ?
At the CIA, he said, "often the
right hand doesn't know what the left
i ?
, hand is doing. You can't go to a corn-
:* puter and just push a button. You
have, to go off in four or -five direc-
tions." -
;
The CIA logged 6,609 Freedom-of-,
, Information-Act requests last year and (
to charge for review time. Officials 'a ,
Can charge for the expenses of finding ?
a and copying requested documents, but -
these, too, can, be waived when dis-
. 'closure is deemed to be "in the public ?
,einterest." 'Halperin got his bundle of
cleared material, free. - ? ? :
.The new law requires 'disclosure of
' investigatory , files unless it , would ,
cause one or more of six speci has-
i
amis. such as depriving someone of
another '552 under the Privacy Acte
which went into effect last September.
',It gives 'citizens a right to see' and
correct their own files (by and large;
they .already had a right to see them
under the FOIA).. The backlog has
been cut down by now to -about 1,000
cases, but Wilson said, "we'll never be
current." He added that the ? agency ;
has allocated what it thinks is a suf-
ficient* amount of money to the task
and said it probably will not spend I
more to do it faster. ? i
Under the new FOIA guidelines pro-
mulgated in February, 19'75, Attorney
General Edward H. Levi declared:
"Needless to say, 'burden is no excuse
for intentionally disregarding or slight- ,
ing the requirements of the la', and,
where necessary, additional resoinces.
should be sought or provided to
achieve full compliance."
The Justice Department, however,
2
- Approved For Release 2004-108/08: CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
appears to be taking that advice With
a grain of salt...Instead of more money
and manpower, Deputy Attorney Gen-
eral Harold R. Tyler spoke?in the de-
partment's first annual report on the
new law?in terms of changing it
Tyler said "reformulation" of the,
law was necessary to, -permit .a sub-
stantial portion of the personnel now
working in this area to return to the
, traditional substantive missions of the
Department of Justice, while continu-
ing to meet the principal goals of the
Freedom of Information Act." ,
Tyler did not 'spell out all th
changes he thought were needed, but
he made clear that .he felt an easing
of the deadlines?at least for compli
cated requests?was essential.
The Justice Department received
some zo,000 disclosure requests in
1975 under' the Freedom of Informa
tion and Privacy Acts, a number, Tyler
said, "far in excess of what anyone
anticipated." Of that total, 14,478 were
addressed to the FBI. The pace, this
year?has not subsided.
. The bureau says it has nee' rly 200
persons,. including 25 special agents,
. working full time on public requests
for its documents. "That's larger than
56 of our field offices," says POIA
t.Privacy Section Chief James' Powers;
,Despite its large FOIA staff, the
bureau is just now getting requests
made last October and November. The',
? Mammoth logjam is getting worse
rattle than better. What was reported
as a seven-month backlog in May is
? now approaching a nine-month back-
log.
Nine members of the Nouse with
FBI oversight duties, led by .Rep_
Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.). have ,
asked the General Accounting Office.
? Congress' investigatory arm, to probe
"the FBI's difficulty in meeting its
. statutory requirement for timely
processing." Rep. Bella S. Abzug (D-
'N.Y.), chairman Of the, House Govern-
ment' Information Subcommittee,
s asked the GAO to determine whether
the FBI has engaged' in. "delaying
tactics."
Assistant FBI Director John J. Mc-
' Derm'ott Says, "We're not out to evade
the lati, but we have to prioritize our
work." He maintained at a recent court
hearing that the best solution would
be a bill sponsored by Rep. Andrew J.
Maguire .(D-N.Y.) with drafting help
from the Justice Department. It would
permit slower reading at the FBI and
any other agency devoted to "criminal
investigation"?sat the rate of 60 days
for the first 200 pages of requested
records and 30 days for every 200 pages
after that
"I can visualize that that would take
10 to 20 years for some cases." U.S.
District Court Judge June Green re-
torted. "I like to move my cases a lit-
tle faster than that. I think that would
be a great relief to the FBI but as far
as any other source is concerped. I
don't think that would be any relief
at all."
? The Maguire bill would also accord
? blanket secrecy to any records of in-
vestigations "which are currently ac-
tive or. which have been active within
the preceding two years."
Defense Department officials say
_
-Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
:4:they-Were Able tti Probe-SS-44,403 tree-,
:idom-of-information requests without
. any great crises. And unlike the FBI's -
.1i statistics, ? the DOD 'total does not in- e
e elude the far, more numerous requests
-efor personal' recordsunder the Privaey
eT'Act. = ;
r 'Durieg the last threemontlis :of .-
f-,1975, for instance, the Army received
4'approximately 3,400:freedom-of4nfor-e
'nation requests, another_ :13,000
quests for access to records under the
Privacy Act, and another 10.000 in- -
quiries under the Privacy- Act about_
he' existence of pertinent records-e--:.
.;?'-:More than the, FBI got all.year. ?
1- -.pentagon FOIA Director Hinkle
said, "We have no backlog" 1 of? rel.'
_
, -2-equesesee eeeeeeeteee ,
'14 The policy at the Pentagon lsto err
;-.4on the side of disclosure, Hinkel add-
-F. ede The policyi is to release even a
record exempt from the law if no sige-
nificant and legitimate government
e:porpose is, served by keeping it secret.
As a result; the Defense Department,
the place with the most secrets, has
the" best reputation in the federal gov-
ernment among ,?freedom-of-informa-
t,
tion advocates.
Officials at the-FBI?or in the upper
echelons -of. the, Justice Department
say they have no intention of allocat-
ing- much more.money for the job.
--Critics .of the FBI's performance sug-
gest that mdrels_needed thab eimply
HE WASHINGTON POST Monday, Ji4ii 26,1
? -
0
bigger IPProPriation4iiiivay. ,
'"The FBI has instituted a system
that guarantees, frustration and de-
lay," charges Consumer advocate Ralph :
'Nader. He said. the ,bureau's freedom--
I of-information section, despite its size,
_ .
does not have the authority to declas-
sify sensitive documents. For this. sev.-
eral levels of review are required, in- ?
eluding approval by.. FBI Director, -
Clarence M. Kelley's office. : ,?
The basic trouble, U.S. District
Court Judge William B. Jones has ob--
served, is that the FB.t and 'Various
' other agencies "don't like the Freedom
of Information Act." ?
Next: Open. government imet the. Justice -
, .
.
Department .,. ? -.
rs
Second of a series ,
By George Lardner,
. Woshington Post Staff Writer ,?
When' former antiwar Activist Tom
!'Hayden' took -the FBI to court "this
'year for all RS files about'.him; the
? bureau replied that it Would take ?"ap?-
PrOximately-faur years" to process his:
,request. . '? !?'. ?
.''.!?ITS. District Court Judge William B.
Bryant Strenuously rejected the FBI's
'"extraordinary" bid for a stay. He said
jt, was':"completely out of line" with
thel.goals. of the Freedom of Informa-
tion t Act,. which Hayden had invoked
and which requires federal officials
to answer requests' from "any person"
for .government documents.. ?
Although the-law ,provides ,for' some
delay in unusual ? cirumstan,ces, Bry-
?antjuleci several weeks ago, it "was
? riot intended to .convert the federal
'courthouse into a refuge from the time
:pressures of the act, where stringent
legal requirements are ? finally sub-
Prdinated to administrative conveni-
ence." . , ?
What the judge called "administra-
: live convenience" may still win out.
Ruling in another case early this
,month, the U.S. Circuit Court of A'p-
**peals here dealt a:serious blow to the
deadlines Congress approved in 1974
in order to give muscle to freedom-
'of-information requests. ,? ?
?:: ? Enacted to counter what the House
Government.' Operations Committee
.had, criticized as ?,'`years of foot-drag-
ting, by. the federal bureaucracy." the
new law laid down a 10-day deadline
for the government to make an initial
determination of FOI requests and 20
days to resolve any appeals. Under
-"unusual circumstances." such as a re-
quest for a -voluminous amount of
records, either period may be extended
for a rombined total of 10 days at most.'
?
?FIll officials say it is now taking
-them as much as nine-months to handle
even routine requests. They say they
are saddled with such 'an exceedingly
iicarg- volume" that it is impossible
to avOld substantial delays although
some other agencies such as the Pen-
tagon report no such problems.
? The Court of Appeals majority held
:that, the FBI was Working diligently to.
"
the:7y-
---omplwi:ti:: law. Under the "ex-
__ _...._
ceptional --circumstances" facing the
? bureau, the court ruled, the rigorous
;
deadlines set by Congress "become not
?
?
_mandatory. but directory."
.".:.:TheecaseAnvolved a request by
? group ;'of George Washington Univer-
e... sityf:law students Called ."Open. Amer-
., -ica.'teThe students asked the FBI last.
October 'for copies of all documents
and files relating to' former FBI- Di-
. rector- L. Patrick' Gray's role in the '7
. _
-"Watergate affair." When the bureau
-replied - that- -the ? inquiry would be
stacked up behind thousands of others,
Open America filed suit under provi-
sions of the, Freedom of Information
; Act making- government failure to -
comply with the deadlines equivalent
.? to denla
, ..? ?. ?
- Circuit Court. Judge Malcoltn Wilkey
dismissed the- notion that Congress
meant to give priority to those who
take their freedom-of-information cases -
'to court:- He -held . that individuals
should be required :to show "excep-
tional need or urgency" before getting
? to. the head of the line: ? '
? Circuit Court Judge Harold Leven-
'that wrote a separate concurring opin-
ion contending that the court should .
have simply given the FBI more tirrie:"
He complained that the majority
nil-
ing "Wins the 'burden of proof man-
- dated. by Congress .upside down."
.? -"No longer:. ?must the government
makeout a case of exceptional circum-
stances,"-Leventhal protested. -In-
-stead:the- plaintiff will be required to
show -a genuine need and reason for
urgency." ? -
' He said that Congress did intend to
give priority to those who file lawsuits
under the Freedom of Information Act
and to grarit that priority without any
test of their motives or need, "... (1):
debt is not paid when due, the creditor
who goes to court will receive priority
over a creditor who watts, for whatever
reason,7,..Lercnthal observed. e ? ? .
Justice Department 'lawyers were de-
lighted with the Wilkey opinion and
vowed to apply it to all other applicable
cases,. including Tom Hayden's. (Hay-
den's lawyers said he filed suit only
after discovering that the FBI had quiet-.
3
ly abandoned work on his request last
November after reviewing 900 pages of
documents?out of 18,000.)
,
. "We will be letting the courts knoiv
-,..[About the decision] 'as Soon as we can
get it Xeroxed," Jeffrey' F. ..Axelrad,
. chief 'attorney' in ,the Justice Depart-
. :nient's information and: privacy section,
'said shortly after the ruling.
. He said the lawyers in his section
? would renew their opposition, to court-
-imposed deadlines in freedom-of-infor-
mation cases wherever those deadlines
. do not 'give what the government con-'?
-siders enough time to permit "orderly
processing or requests."
Freedom-of-information advocates- ac-
knowledged the circuit court ruling was
a serious .setback.
? "It's going to cause a lot of prob-
lems," said Mark Lynch, director of the
Freedom of Information Clearinghouse,
which was established in 1972 as a part ?
of Ralph Nader's Center for the Study
of Responsive- Law. Lynch said a major ?
problem with the Open America ease
was the lack of any' evidence about
shortcomings of the FBI's methods.
"They've got a system that's guaran-
teed not to work within the time lim-
its," Lynch contends. "They've got a
never-ending succession of review .
We've got to get a case_ where we can
depose all those [FBI]. guys- and lay it?
all out."
Axelrad's section, which has nine law-
,yers. represents most government agen-
cies in freedom-of-information litigat ion..
He estimated that there arc aPProxi-
mately 45n suits pending filptig with an-. ,
other .50 'reverse FOIA" cases where
outside interests arc suing the govern-
ment. to prevent the release of informs-,
,tion.
"Only 20 per cent 'of on; POI eases
arc for the FBI, hut the bureau is still
our largest single client," Axelrad says.
"Next, I would guess, is the CIA."
Proponents of the new freedom-of-.
information law, which vent into effect
in February, 1975, say the new dead- ?
lines were one of the keys to shaking
the government out of its long lethargy.
? Another' key, they said, was the
"sanctions provision" calling for dis-
ciplinarY proceedings by the Civil
Service Commission whenever a judge
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
IApproved ForRele. se 2001/08/Q8 : CIA-RDP77-00432R00010030004-1*
Issued a written finding ' suggest-
1iig that governm,ent bureaucrats may
':-.have acted "arbitrarily or capriciously
with respect, to the withholding."
? :"It's the -fear that does it," says Lynch.
lobbyist for the legislation in 1974,
. he credits Nader with pressing for the
? provision and selling Sen.. Edward M.
' Kennedy (D-Mass.) on it Kennedy
. steered the-bill through' the Senate as
chairman of the Administrative Practice
and Procedure Subcommittee. -
"I don't know of any other provision
Ralph was so determined about," Lynch
recalls of the sanctions measure. "Torn
Susman [Kennedy's chief .counseIl said,
; 'Well, it'd be nice, but it could sink tee
? whole bill.' Ralph tallied to Kennedy
about it and convinced him . . . Then
Kennedy argued for it for'thrce days in
conference [with the House] . Fen7
nedy knew the arguments. And he won."
Only one case has arisen SG far ii
which the courts have recommended a-
' Civil Service Commission inquity. Jus-
tice Department lawyers are trying to
? 'prevent it from teking place. ?
-"
The dispute involves a State De-
partment official, Norman Holly, who
was 'returning from the Far East On
Dec. 29, 1974, when he landed at Seat-
tle International Airport and was hus-
tled off to an interrogation room hy
'Customs 'agents.
e, According to Holly; he was forced to
leave'his baggage behind him where.it
could have been stolen, and then he
was subjected to "degrading and
abusive" interrogation about a minor
.. discrepancy involving some articles he
had bought overseas: He said one
;Customs agent .confiscated 'his drivel's
license and automobile registration.
Holly demanded an investigation in
a letter.to Custoins Commissioner Ver-
non Acme and then, in May of 1973;
asked for the records of the inquiry:
. Customs officials, denied him the
documents, saying it was "not our poi-
- icy" to provide 'them. Holly kept press-
ing, capping the effort with an appeal
7 to Acree last September stating, "1
,believe that your office has behaved in
an arbitrary and capricions manner."
The Customs Service did not sup-
ply .the records he sought until last
January, about a month after he filed
suit in U.S. District Court. Then they
. were turned aver to him "subject to
certain deletions." Among the dele-
tions were the names of the Customs
agents, which were withheld on the
_grounds that "their disclosure would
, endanger the life or. physical safety of
:
law enforcement personneL":.
? Holly's suit was assigned to Judge
Bryant, who found no justification for
these or several other deletions. In a
ruling March. 29, he also held that "the
circumstances surrounding the with-
'holding of this information raise ques-
tions as- to whether agency personnel
.acted .arbitrarily or .capricicesly with
respect to the withholding of the , re-
juested informatien."
Accordingly, he ordered the' U.S.
marshal hue to serve a copy of his
findings on the chairman 'of the Civil
Service Commission "so that he might
promptly -initiate 1 proceeding to de-
termine whether disciplinary action is '
warranted against those primarily re-
sponsible for the , illegal withhold-
ing . . .7
. U.S. Atiornee Sari Silbert and twp -
assistants ame back a few days later
with an elaborate eequest for a modifi-
cation of rh-yant's order. They main-
tained that: customs bad exercised.
"utmost diligence" after .receiving
ly's appeal and held "many inter-office
meetings and exchanges of memoranda
on the merits of the case. . ." ?
' Holly said Oh.e. government's "plaint"
was full of errors. :fudge Bryant de-
enteernment petition for re-
consideration this month. Justice-law-
yers are expected ? to appeal and ask
the court to stay .the Civil Service in- ?
quiry. ? ? - ?
At the -sarne tirne clepertment offi- ?
cials deny any antipathy toward the
spirit of freedom of information and
openness in government, but gadflies
such as Nader maintain that their an-
tagonism toward the law is plain.
The Justice Department, Nader
charged recently in a speeeh to the
Federal Bar Association, is "dedicated
to undermining rather than imple-
menting" the act. He said the depart-
ment often pursued litigation in de- ?
fense of secrecy "when in many cases
? there really are no ground's for a legit-
imate defense.".
"The charge is as 'Valid as the source,"
replies Quinlan Shea Jr., head of the
Justice Department's Freedom of Infor-
mation ? Appeals Unit. "I consider it an
invalid charge . . He [Nader] is just
shooting off his mouth."
Shea maintained that the Justice 'De-
partment, including the FBI, was doing
its best to comply with the law in the
midst of a sea of sensitive documents.
"I'm not saying we're perfect." Shea ?
said. "I'm not trying te be perfect. I'm
not Mary Popeins." But he said there
' Tuesday, July 27,1976 THE. :WASHINGTON-POST.
?
Third in a series
By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post. S:aCn Writer
. Food and Drug Commis-
sioner Alexander M.
Schmidt is unhappy over
'the way the freedom of in-
formation law has worked at
his agency. ?
"About 90. per. cent of the
requests for disclosure of
-documents, according to
Schmidt, support what he
calls "industrial espionage?
companies seeking informa-
tion about their competitors
?and not the public's right
to know."
L.)
The charge that corporate
America has commandeered
the freedom of information
law for its own purposes has
become a comireen theme
since the adoption of amend-
ments in 1974 promised
quicker and fuller access to
government files.
"Open Files: Letthig
Exxon In," intoned a head-
line in The Washington
Monthly. "Why Many Bush
ncss Secrets Arc Now In
Danger," proclaimed one In
e're "very few" withholdings for Out:
sake of withholding in the Justice De=
partment. ?
. He acknowledged, however, that they
does sometimes make frivo-
lous, claims on behalf of secrecy and
that the Justice Department does'
sometimes carry them into court On:
behalf of other agencies: with 'a -
straight face. For instance, he :said
in an interview, he would not try'.
to justify the National Security
Council's insistence that not a line. of-
its lone-secret directives _could safely be.
released.
Shea suggested that Justice Depart-
ment, support of wrong decisions is often::
inescapable.
"Everybody in government ? is con-
stantly trying to get Congress to let his.
agency represent itself," he said. "Jus-;
tice opposes that . . . What's a poor
Civil Division lawyer [at Justice] sup-
posed to do? He's not an expert on clas-
sification. Sure they [the NSC] were
stonewalling. It's incredibly stupid..
Sometimes we defend legal positions we
wouldn't take for the [Justice] Depart-
meat. But if you won't defend your
client and you won't let your client de='
? fend himself, you've just got a lot of,--
angry clients." . _
? Only' once, it seems, has the Justied"
Department used its clout on freedom-,
of-information issues and refused to rep-
resent a federal agency that- persisted
in withholding information.
? According to a government -lawyer
'familiar with the details, the refusal oc-
curred seve: al years ago when the Agri=
culture Department refused to make: ?
'public some statistics from tests on the:
. fat content of hot dogs-Lon the grounds
that the tests were investigative records.
Justice Department lawyers told offi-
cials at Agriculture to make the infor-
mation public or take the risk of going
to court without a lawyer. Agriculture
ignored the warning and suit was filed.
"Counsel was withheld," the government ?
lawyer said, "and Agriculture had to
. give in."
Axelrad, however, apparently does not
consider it his job to override the deci-
sions of other agencies. He told the Fed-.
eral Bar Association that he and his
section simply did not have the. person-
nel to make a complete review of the
merits of every case that .cornes their:,
way.
"The agencies are responsible for ad-
ministering the act," he said. "We have-
no inonopoly on knowledge at the .Jus-.
lice Department.".
NEXT: Who vses the Freedom -of .-.,
Information. Act! ?11
71% ,
c - %. ; ?
(70
zfl' 7,7)
1
?
:he oration's Business.
There is no question that
American businesses and
the Washington law firms
they hire have been using
the law extensively. But so
has the general public, his-
torians, scientists and ublle
interest groups. The biggest
abstainers, officials say.
have been members of the
press, apparently bemuse
the law is often too sluggish
'or them.
0
et
"I haven't had a newsman
fighting a deadline ask a
question yet," says Quinlan
Shea, head of the Justice
Department's freedom-of-in-
formation appeals unit.
Defenders of the Freedom
of Information Act (FOTA)
say businessmen are as enti-
tled as anyone to use it. And
they're more likely to march
into court to sue for the
files they want if the gov-
ernment turtle them down.
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For.lerease-2601-/-08/08 : elA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
-
,
e'i ? -
.
they were Were ible to ProbeS-S:44;403 fee quests., , -
, t
:tdom-of-information requests without 7 - '':: :' The policy at the Pentagon Is to err '
; . any great crises And unlike the Fsrs _.- -
;:::on. the side of disclosure, Hinkel add.
?f?tZ statistics, the DOD total does not in ;1,:.'
-1, ed; ;- The , policy.; is to release even a
,,:.. elude the far more numerous requests . 1.1-.. record exempt from the law if no sig.:- i
-efor personal records under the Privacy S'-':?. -.,?-i
.7-- !.:.:,-Act. -. ' , -1?-__;"? ,- ), -, ... . --e.-nuicant and legitimate government 1
,--1
f1975, for instance, the Army received .
' . ---- .:-. :e:. purpose is served by keeping it secret. :
A& a-result; the Defense Department,
I i -4 . During the last three ;months - of -
'..
1 lt`i-- approximately ; 3,400 . freedom-of-infor-:?.. !, the best reputation in the federal gov-
:;, the place with the most secrets, has :
1 , .;,ination requests, another_ .13,000 re- --i- ernment among,. freedom-of-informa-
:- I
quests for access to records under the * .i tion advocates ... ,...:,.. , i.,:e..?.?, =.. Le. ,
_
-.I i.. Privacy Act, and another 10.000 in-
, -' 'Officials at the-FBI-or in the upper
,! _ quiries under the Privacy Act about,
. . .
echelons of the Justice Department
,. . ii.the' existence of pertinent records ----. . . .
;More than the FBI get .all.year. -... ? - :- ,:: say they have no intention of allocat-
- -s-: - 2- int much more money for the job,
: I' _Pentagon FOIA -Director Hinkle 2...---Critics,of the FBI's performance sug-
? said, We have no backlog 'n of re:.-' -%geStethat-morels_needed thao,simply
THE WASHINGTON POST -Monday, Ii426,1176 1-
. .
1
C
a' bigger liPriroPriation '
"The FBI has instituted a system
that guarantees frustration and de-
lay," charges Consumer advocate Ralph
'Nader. He said the ,bureau's _freedom--
of-information section, despite its size,
does not have the authority to declas-
sify sensitive documents. For this. sev.-
eral levels of review are required, in-
cluding approval by . FBI Director;
Clarence M. Kelley's office.
The basic trouble U.S. District
Court Judge William B. Jones has oh-
served, is that the F13f and Various
other agencies "don't like the Freedom ?
of Information Act."
Next: Open government and the. Jusace:
Deportment , ?
, ?
v L:
or
S.
16.
L- -
? ?
,
? c?,;,
1.1
4.?"
j Second of g series ,
-T.e.j.3y George Lardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
I ?
-cl'When ' former antiwar activist Tom--
.!'Hayrden ' took the FBI to court:this
year for" all its files about '.hirn, the.
bureau replied that it Would take ."ap--
proximately-feur years" to process his: --e
,reqoest. . ' ?
District Court Judge' William B. __
'Bryant Strenuously rejected the FBI's
""extraordinary" bid for a stay. He said
iias':"eompletely. out of line" with r'
the-Aoals. of the Freedom of Informa-
tion - Act,. which Hayden had invoked I
ant1;.- which requires federal officials !
to answer requests-front "any person"
isfor 'government documents.. ?? - ,
Although the ? law. provides .for some '
delay in, unusual eirurnstan.ces, Bry-
.ant,ruled several weeks ago, it "was
. not ;;.intended to .convert the federal'.
courthouse
'courthouse into a refuge from the time
.pressures of the act, where stringent
legal requirements are finally sub-
Ordinated to administrative conveni-
ence." . , ?
What the judge called "administra-
'live convenience" may still win . out.
Ruling in . another case early this
,month, the U.S. Circuit Court of 4- ?
peals here dealt a 'serious blow to the'
deadlines Congress approved in 1974
in Order to give muscle to freedom- !.
:of-information requests. e ?
? Enacted to counter what the Hciuse
Government- --Operations Committee
? had,, criticized as ."years of foot-drag-
'ging. by. the federal bureaucracy." the
new law laid down a 10-day deadline
for the government to make an initial
determination of FOI requests and 20
days to resolve any appeals. Under
?'.'unusual circumstances." such as a re-
quest for a .voluminous amount of
records, either period may be extended
for a combined total of 10 days at most:.
enll officials say It is now taking
Ahem as much as nine?months to handle
even routine requests. They say they
are saddled with such "an exceedingly .
iteavy. volume" that it is impossible .
to avoid substantial delays although
some other agencies such as the Pen- ,
,tagon report no such problems.
The Court of Appeals majority held i
? that. the FBI was Working diligently to.
, comply with -the -law. Under the 'ex-
, ceptional -circumstances" facing the
t. bureau, the court' ruled, the rigorous
deadlines.set by Congress -"become not
?mandatory, but directory." -.
'L.:TheecaseAnvolved a request by ..a
group of ..George Washington Univer-
. 7
st yt? aw students called"Open, Amer.
'lea." The students asked the FBI last
October -for copies of all' documents
and- files relating to former FBI Di-
rector- L. Patrick' Gray's -role in the
. . . _ .
-"Watergate affair." When the bureau
'replied- that-the ? inquiry would be
stacked up behind thousands of others,
Open America filed suit under provi-
sions of the. Freedom of Information
Act making ? government failure to
comply with the deadlines equivalent
to denial. ? ?
. ?
- Circuit Court Judge Malcoltn Wilkey
? dismissed the- notion that Congress
meant to give priority to those who
take their freedom-of-information cases
'to court- He ?held that individuals
should be required to show "excep-
tional need or urgency" before getting
to, the head of the line. . .?
Circuit Court Judge Harold Leven-
'thal wrote a separate Concurring opin-
ion contending that the court should
have simply given the FBI more time;
He complained that the majority nil-
ing "turns the -burden of proof man-
dated by Congress upside -down."
-"No longer:- must the government
-make-out a case 'of exceptional circum-
stances,"- Leventhal protested. -In-
stead the plaintiff will be required to
show ,a genuine need and reason for
urgency." -
? He said that Congress did intend to
give priority to those who file lawsuits
under the Freedom of Information Act
and to grarit that priority without any
test of their motives or need, "... (1);
debt is not paid when due, the creditor
who goes to court will receive priority
over a creditor who waits, for whatever
reason," Leventhal observed. e . ?
+
:Justice Department 'lawyers werc de-
lighted with the Wilkey opinion and
vowed to apply it to all other appll 'able
rases,. including Tom Hayden's. tHaY-
den's lawyers said he filed suit only
after discovering that the FBI had quiet.
?
?
1 ---ly -abandoned work on his request last'
November after reviewing 900 pages of
documents?out of 18,000.) ? .
,
"We will be letting the courts knoiv
-_. [about the decision] 'as 'soon as we can
get it Xeroxed," Jeffrey F: _Axelrod,
. chief attorney in .the Justice Depart-. -
Merit's information and, privacy section,
said shortly after the rulirig.
would
He
said the lawyers in his section
..
renew their opposition to court-
Imposed deadlines in freedom-of-infor-
mation cases .wherever those deadlines
do not give what the government con-.
Siders enough time to permit i "orderly
processing or requests."
.? Freedom-of-information advocates ac-
knowledged the circuit court ruling was
a serious .setback. .
"It's going to cause a lot of prob-
lems," said Mark Lynch, director of the
Freedom of Information Clearinghouse,
which was established in 1972 as a part
of Ralph Nader's Center for the Study
of Responsive' Law. Lynch said a major
problem with the Open America ease
was the lack of any evidence about
? shortcomings of the FBI's methods.
' "They've got a system that's guaran-
teed not to work within the time lim-
its," Lynch contends. "They've got a
never-ending succession of review . . ..
We've got to get a case_ where we can ,
depose all those [FBI] guys ? and lay it -
all out.' .
? Axelrod's section, which has nine law- -
;yet's. represents, most government afzen- -
cies in freedom-of-information litigatiom
He estimated that there are anortrci-
mately 45(1 suits pending alone with an-
other .50 ? "reverse FOIA" cases where -
outside interests are suing the govern-
ment to prevent the release of infornia7
tion.
"Only 20 per cent Of onr FOI cases
arc for the FBI, hut the bureau is still
our largest single client," Axelrod says. .
"Next, I would guess, is the CIA."
. Proponents of the new freedom-of-.
information law, which went into effect
in February, 1975, say the new dead- ?
lines were one of the keys to shaking
the government out of its long lethargy.
Another' key, - they said, was the
"sanctions provision" 'calling for dis-
ciplinary proceedings by the Civil
Service Commission whenever a judge
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
e
t:
? ? ?"*.
htV ? s'
, ?
'Sure; the Squeaky .FO TA 'reperts; - like to see what 14Trisfs?-
gets the oil says Washing -s "Now s we document ington has In its secret files
Sten. attorney James H. 1,1rats esesee giving them out to, on on you? . . . help you
"lace :Jr. r "Corporate-- ? use,7', ;:.,t7and it'clown.'13efore,ssiS cut - through. the bureau-
either directly Or through re, just.gave,thens _out!' ss.s.S.sss ..=?-eratic red. tape"-
,straws, represents a large '''? 'Other FDA practices gen-Ss It hasn't been easy, Mehl-
percentage of the__ use ot---- s: ex.:sate-snore business-Under - mann said in a telephone Ip
FOP' But he said that fialt-:l ' '-administrative ' 'regulations's-. terview. He offered the
ernment actions affect cor- 1.? :adopted shortly.- before'. the sissfirres Services at ? $15 for
porations more directly' and s?--new freedom-of-information - each earmarked agency,
, significantly than any other:. : amendment's took effect in .. promising customers pre-
groun. ',' .' - -ss ; es-- ss 7 ' : : '' . 5 " February, 1975, the FDA be- ..' , printed forms and follow-up
Mark tynch, an attorney -s-gan Maintaining a daily log; " -services to obtain their, files
.
at the nonprofit Freedom of -'open to the public,__of :whoss: at.any of 15 listed agencies,
Information Clearinghouse, wanted what under? the ? ,from the FBI to the U.S.
says: "The :governments ieSii: --SFOIAi--r-s7.!' -2 -1.-ssfs:-.S.SS: Sift 2,*-1 -s Civil Rights Commission. ,-
I engaged in a, ;very system's Ss__.- "I think 40 per cent of the s, ._ "Initially we thought
atm attempt to discredit :7 requests we receive- are re- : there d be 19 million people ,.
act on the groundssthat cor- s quests which have previ- ' ::out there who wanted to see
Porations are using it More . ously : appeared on the log -_ their files, but that isn't the ?
than anyone else. But to Shesi and are- generated by Lthe . s, case at all he " -said, .
'extent that corporations are _. log itself," said FDA spokes- _ _."There's a I let of paranoia -
using it to get' at secret lasses* `man Wayne Pines. ?? . - , ss? '. out there ;'People say, 'Why
secret decisions, they should? s---."ICS costing us $1 milliOn'' s should I see my file, it
'.
be no a ear and all the log isdo-
_ more subject to all hasn't hurt me.' They ask,
that than you or I The fact y
ing is increasing !?-that busi-e..
. ' ? 'Will they create a new fiie
they've got the resources to ness," he said. , _slls : on me?' They really are
fight it is wonderful i ;k? spooky about the federal
"To the extent that the}- ,,-_,?-?, The law has given birth tO-., goyernment."
tie up an agency, that is an -a?Ainy eottage induStrY ? but ? s
' . Fs" Mahlmann's- biggest prob-
abuse," says Lynch. practitioners` report .
lems, he said, have - been
- - "Sure, its unfair," Ival. ? mixed results. :7 :-.;, -.- - , , -..:-= -
- with the FBI He said he
lace agrees. - ? One of the companies that s t? has submitted hetween 500
The question of who uses 'ted up -Freedom of -In- ,
sprouted . i.and 600 requests to the
' the law most depends on, formation_ Services, Inc., ef, bu
. ? - reau_stinder the Privacy
oc es r heavily-.Act, but neither he nor his
. rat FDe.and offers sr weekly. clients have received a sin-,
sinclex listing. of FOIA, re- gle file back.
st m iled from - the
what agency is asked. At the
:Food and Drug Administra-
tion, whose jurisdiction in-
cllides 500,000-business?sen.
, terprises and $200 billion in . daily FDA log?at the spe- _ '.". (An awkwardly drafted
i' companion to the freedom-
industrial output, the pa- cial yearly rate of $280.
"We're Snaking, a _ profit" '. of-information amendments,
' tronage is overwhelmingly s,s which went
-corporate. _ - - - ' "ssisrs' 'OI- Services"generat' the Privacy Ads'
' In general, says _ FDA manager; ..William. -Conley; - into effect last- September,
. spokeswoman Mary- Carol ' ' whose firm has upwards of creates, basically, a right to
Kelly, a drug company will 200 clients. "I wouldn't call see and correct mistakes in
"write in and want to know 1 It a gold', mine, but we're . ones files in the govern-
'everything
- - ment-But many government
moderately successful"
everything. -abreUt?iino*thei . files, especially investigative
'Meanwhile, says FDA's i
- drug." FDA will then have records, can ? be exempted
freedom - of - information
to search its files, some,. Ed Costello, the 1 from Privacy Act scrutiny.
-times using 'highly paid- pro:':---1 chief, . When that happens, individ-
clients of such companies
* fessionals like raicrobiolo-' uals are supposed to be able
remain anonymous. "That's
...s... ? ' "
_,- gists to reviews the does'
?ments and distinguisliS:be7: '
tween what is a trade secret, Costello said various food files under the FOIA.) -
i ,
, .
s and thus to be withheld, and and drug consulting firms .r.: As an example of what
what bugs me," he said. to obtain copies of that.
routinely ask FDA for its
, what can be given out. - ss - , ? ?establishment inspection the 'government squirrels
t 0 , -
M., Even with what we -give , _reports," which are corn- . away about a person and ,
'-out;' that Still ghres 'them' a' piled on food distributors why it's worth demanding a
? lot It puts them one tris,". food warehouses, pharrna- , look-see, Mahlmann cites his
she said. . eeutical manufacturers and 1 Army - Intelligente file. It
The FDA estimates that it i the like. The drug compa-
was put together in 11163
s spent $12 million to admin. ;. flies also keep watch on the s when he Was in the Army
I getting a security clearance.
? ister the freedom of infor- ' log . , ?
1 ? .
?-
mation law during the last 1 If it shows, for instance, r "It said I owed 50 cents to
fiscal year while collecting that Squibb has asked for my high school for not res.
!t, fees of less than $100,000. In i.'material on Upjohn, other i_. turning my locker key,"
1975, it got 13,140 requests 11 d I I
rug companies are ike y to ? Mahlmann recalled. Tha-
t, compared with 2,644 the I , shows you the kind of stuff
F year before. "It will probe- , duplicate the request to see `
i your high school keeps. It
bly keep increasing . . ..it's i
what t s that interests said that 1 dated two or
s- growing by leaps and 1. Sq-uibb. Even s Upjohn is three times a week, but that
bounds," Kelly said. likely to ask. ? ? I was never' intimate with
Some figures would ap-
Another 'company that my dates. How did they-
pear
to be inflated. At the
s-
specializes in- FOIA requests know? It also said '
was-
Defense Department-pthe Air is headquartered 'in Crystal
: Force said it had. 65,479 in- Bay, Nev., and has the same
itial freedom-of-information name as the :first tompanY:
Freedom . Information
requests?on the theory
(previously criticized by
!. Services, Inc: *"We started
con- .
" '
gressional investigators) that 1 .? sooner, S a I d Conley, "so
'they've got a problem in
their title." ? ? ..
The, Nevada company,' ac-
cording to president .Rainer
W. -Mahlinann,. is running
every public inquiry could
be blamed on the law. The
Pentagon revised the FOIA
workload for the Air Force
and put the total at 27,000.
financially irresponsible be-
cause I owed S5 for a jay-
walking ticket to the city of
Seattle. The scope of trivia
that goes into these things
is absolutely mind-boggling?
If Privacy Act and free-
dom-of-information requests
are counted together, indivi-
dual inquiries for one's own
records apparently far out-
In similar fashion at . publicly aunched itself las
S100,000 in the red since it number those from corpora-
lt ticns or any other single
.'FDA, many documents that winter with an ad in The 4
- were routinely handed out 1 Sacramento Bee asking in source. ?
in the past are now labeled v ses ? t "We get an sissful lot from
'People doiriglitelearch," says ?
-the CIA's freedom-of-infbr-
nation coordinator, G e ri .
Wilsons "That's one of the -
problems of -FOIA. So e
-speople see it as 'a` device o
get the . government doing
:research for them. In fact,
for 'every request we get --?
from a newsman, we prob-
ably get two from academ---
ics. But the biggest bulk is..
from John Q. Public," ?
?
At the Federal trade Corn-
mission, attorney Jeffrey S.
Edelstein said companies
often file massive requests
-that not only give them
"double discovery" oppor-
tunities in FTC administra-
tive proceedings; but serve
to "harass agency complaint
counsel" who are suddenly
saddled with the chore of re-
viewing
i thousands of ex-
traneous documents.
In one case, the FTC
sued a complaint involving
s the alleged sale of millions
of dollars of worthless land.
"The company asked for all
(PTC) documents relating to
I land sales," Edelstein said. -
, "And the requester refused
to narrow the request. It in-
volves' more than 400,000
documents. The agency coun-
sel [assigned to the corn-
- plaint] had to* spend 75 per
cent of their time [review-
ing the documents] because
only they were in a knowl-
edgeable position to review ?
them."
More than two-thirds of all -1
freedom - of -information re-
quests and more than 60 per -
cent of the administrative ?
appeals at the FTC last year
were made by corporations _
or law firms representing a
corporate client. Individuals
--accounted, for 12.5 per cent
of the initial FOIA requests;
; state and local governments,
9.3 percent;--the press, 5.3
per cent, 'and public interest
group, 4.2 per cent.
Corporations as Well as -
public interest groups have
a; right to look over the 1.
shoulder of regulatory agen-
cies, says consumer advocate
Ralph Nader.
"You can't have a double
The regulatory agencies,
by contrast, get a bigger
rush from corporations; It
gives rise to ssecial prob- ?
lerns.
standard," he says,
?Anything that can wake up
the FTC at the early stages
of their, resolve is to the
good." .?
Attotney Wallace-, who ?
makes extensive use of
FOIA on behalf of corporate
. clients, points out that . it ?
also "permitted us to gain
access to secret agency law"
at the FTC.
"Until a year ago," he
said, "the FTC had a whole
body of laiv for quashing in-
vestigative subpoenas. But it
? was all secret. There were
hundreds of these decisions
with .the basis for quashing
Approved For Release 2001108/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1.
? -Other' "4etallit -*11 ',7-,1FTCrileeisidzis7* ft h. Ali
. 'out How could.. we advise', names, rof the :companies
our clients, When they get - subpoenaedrexcluded so
they, Wou1dt0tdiselose 'who'd
.been ...under ". 'investigation:
The FITQ?said,? 'we're going ?
to disclose- the names ?any-
? waYI-" : '-
Wallace said: FOIA
does pose hazards for corpo-::
rations in 'that it could lead ?
to the inadvertent disclo-
sure of business information ,
that ought to be kept confi-
: dential. A lot of the bitsiness
subpoenas, Whether they'd
stand up or, not? The
Oion, the precedents, were
all pecret. Now they're all in
' the public records 'tom."
-indeed, despite the lateen'-
: tation of FTC officials about
the la, Wallace maintaint
a!, they are often guilty_ of
-"Indecent exposure," of let-
ting out too much. On the
!' secret body of law, he said,:
-1L-Lowe were willing to take the , community's FOIA requeata
:lrednesday, July 28, 1976 THE WASHINGTON POST
Said- 'saner& the Freed-Om
of Information Clearing-
'house, are made "in the
hope' that some tidbit will
throuW
No*, the Freedom of In-
',..fOrrhation Act, alined fit cut,
tinedown the number of
,"classified" labels on. gov-
ernment documents, is, Wal-
lace reports, also causing
corporations to buy their
own rubber stamps for use
.on documents they give to';
Uncle Sam.
? Said Wallace: -
"What 'yen- dol'qs before
you supply the data, corpora-
t, 14 flag it; mark it secret.
The federal. agencies don't
have to honor 'that; but the
hope is that they will. At
least it brings ? it to their"
attention. (The practiceI has
mUshroomed since the 1974 -
'.,[701Aj amendments. They
stamp ti, 'confidential,'
!trade seerat," somethiwg
like that." '
: ?
?? NEXT: bict picietices o
Perecv-
creey
Remains
elicies Find New Ways to Block
om of Information
Fourth 'in a Series trary and capricious" denials
of 'Information.
:By George' Lardner' Jr. .
? weebieetenpeettiteri writer Although the law still per-
, rafts withholding of records 1'
Some federal agencies are
still inventing their own that fall into any of nine -
ex- ? exempt ?categories?from
cues to duck the freedom-, tional defense to, geological
.
of information law. 1 - data-LKennedy caustically
observethat "nowhere do
On March 8, the Selective. cn/ find an exemption for-ree-
.. Service System refused to ords, the releaie, of which7
make public even the an: the agency does not consid;
nual report to Congress that er 'proper.'?-
, the streamlined freedom-of Selective Service ?generilg
- information law requires.
counsel Petter T. ? Straub,:::,
"The document requested whose office had made the-
? is a statutory agency re- initial denial, finally re;
. report," Selective Service
. officials decreed in weighty
tones. "As such, it does not
, canstitute, in our opinion,
len ted May , in a terse,.
two-sentence letter saying
that the request had been,
-"re-evaluated." ' ? ' -1- ?--'-'
public information as con-;_
teznplated' by the Freedom J- The Kennedy subCommit?
of Information Act." tee's chief counsel, Thomat ?
- Susman, said the Selective1. ,
Furthermore, the Ohio Service incident was by no
University journalism Pm- means unique. Although it
-lessor who had asked for ' has been more-than a year
' the report was informed, since Congress sharply nar-
"we do not believe that re- rowed the old law's loop-
lease of such report by this holes (for so-called "nation-
a gene y would be proper. al security" and investiga-
Your request is therefore.' tive files) and provided new
.-denied." _? ?' ways of overcoming govern-
It took a scathing Senate, ment foot-dragging, Susman
:floor, speech by Edward M.'.' said "the old practices (of
Kennedy (D-Mass.) to un- secrecy] are alive and well."
plug the document, one of He said the National Sc-
approximately 90 that feder- i ence Foundation also sought
al agencies and departments 1
has submitted to Capitol to keep secret part of its
annual freedonaof-informa-
Hill. As chairman of the Sen- ., ? report: a legal opinion
. - ate Subcommittee on Ad- 1
! from general counsel:
, ministrative Practice and Charles F. Brown telling the
Procedure, Kennedy was one -National Science Board what
of the, key architects?and: ?,,,ix mioktulye;tq make pub-A?
''.1.?1a1144' 'a /titiCt 66iiierelte' 'tindhr the new la*.
of the 1974 amendments to (Brown assured board mem-
the Freedom of Information ' bers that "the bulk of the
? Act. The law is supposed information at the executive
to make disclosure of goy- session" meetings would
ernmetit documents the rule continue to be "exempt from
'rather than the exception. disclosure.")
. Kennedy said the Selec- The penchant for secrecy
tive Service episode showed is reflected at other agencies
' "so blatant a disregard of, in various ways. The Cen-
, the law" that it could well tral Intelligence Agency,
. warrant the bureaucratic critics .
y,'Invoke
--penalties tiirat the 1974 freed- the specter, of search fees
em-of-Information amend- running into the, thousands
s:aents prescribed for "era.
of dollars to discourage re-
quests. The State Depart-
ment seized on the Privacy
Act as a classification de-
vice and tried to use it to re-
strict dissemination of a list
of State Department em-
ployees who had authority
to classify documents.,
? "They maintained the list
shouldn't be released be-
cause that would somehow
violate the Privacy Act,"
said Timothy H. Ingram,
staff director of the House
Subcommittee on Govern-
ment Information and Indi-
vidual Rights. He said the
notion was absurd. "The list
deals with the duties of em?
ployees in their official ca-
pacity," Ingram said. "That's
got nothing to do with the
Privacy Act."
At the CIA, the agency
actually charged less than
$2,000' in search and copy-
ing fees during all of 1975,
but CIA freedom-of-informa-
tion coordinator Gene Wil-
son acknowledges using the
prospect Of huge bills to
trim back onerous demands.
"If no fee were involved,
it would make it impossible
to talk to a requester and
get him to narrow his re-
? ;Wilson said.
one particular request, we
established ?.that it would
cost 560,000,---?just for the
search .alone. It involved go-
ing- through mountains of
documents to find just one.
POI, without some controls,
could run away."
tat year, under Director
Wflll?Colby, the - CIA
waived many fees in accord-
ance with public interest
provisions of the law appli-
cable to disclosures that are
deemed to benefit the gen-
eral public. But fresh com-
plaints are ? building.
"The CIA seemed to be
Making a serious effort at
the start to comply?under
Colby," said Mark Lynch of
the nonprofit Freedom of
Information Clearinghouse
here. "But that's changed.
Recently, they've started to
charge search fees for every
request, even for stuff
they've already dug up for
congressional committees."
Wilson insists that the
CIA is improving 'even";
though outsiders might not
notice. "They teach you here
for 20 years how to keep in-
formation secret, how to
keep it within the walls,"
he said, "and then along
comes a law that says,
-Turn around, review what
can go out, make it public."
He said the agency is start-
ing to do that, although per-
haps not too perceptibly.
"If I were with the Amer--
ican Civil Liberties Union,"
b. Wilson allowed; 'I'd say we'
? were stonewalling."
. Critic's of the Internal '
Revenue Servine b say the -
? IRS .forces thein fo file law-
suits again and again to ob-
tain essentially, the same
kind of' documents the
courts decreed they should
have. The FBI, the National"
Security Agency and the -
Justice .Department have all
been accused of denying the
existenceof documents that
have later been unearthed
by other agencies.
For the government, the
burdens imposed- by the
Freedom of Information Act_
remain' 'considerable. Offi- ?
cials at the Office of Man-
agement and Budget ac-
knowledge that they have -
thus far been trying to make
government agencies "swal-
low the cost" of complying
with the law. But few agen-
cies seem inclined to-ask for
freedom-of-information mon-
ey' anyway, preferring in-
stead to attack the 10- and
20-day deadlines in the law
as impossible to meet.
(Despite the tight-fisted- -
ness at OMB, Congress re-
cently allocated sextra money
for 202 additional positions
at the FBI for the sake of
Approved For Release 2001/08/086. CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
euceirtiplyink With the Free
dom of Information Act and
? the Privacy Act." The bureau
'r has a nine-month backlog of
requests under the two laws,
but rathe.r? than add more
? people, it apparently plans
ito use most of the extra
money to refill the-positions it
e had raided to put together -
the POI unit it has now.)
'S "Mr. [D eputy Assistant-
? Attorney General Harold]
e Tyler has said what's al-
located now is more than a
generous allocation of -re-
.' sources," Qu in tan Sh e a,. ?
head of the? Justice Depart-
ment's Appeals Unit, said of
the department's and the
e FBI's?efforts. "That's it."
There are always som e
citizens who suspect the
? government of being out to ti
"get" them. Now some of- 1
fficials are comeilaining that -
se the Freedom of Information
..:Act-is being used to turn the
tables. e
"Certain -groups that are
()Weds of investigative' in--
terest are requesting_ their
e: members to ask for their
awn [FBI] records," Shea
f'-:said. "The plan is to put
e them al/ together, rent some
s. computer time, and figure
out who the [government]
e informers among then' are."
Shea al so mentioned a
leaflet put out by the
' Fifth Estate, an intelligence
e 'muckraking 'organization,
suggesting the construction
? of campus and neighborhood
' -f? reedom - of - information
. ? .
booths and urging massive
campaigns to sWamp the .
FBI with demands for per-
?- sopal ; ? e
'
-.. "The FBI has, admitted".
= gathering files on thousands
?of, Americans involved in -
] antiwar and civil rights! or- -
I ganizations," the lea fl et s
: state. "What is needed now
' is a mass movement of tens
of thousands of citizens re-
questing their files . . You '
? can say NO to FBI harass-
t-;..ment. You can say NO to-
e?FRI crimes .. . We can ;
make it so costly and un-
manageable for the FBI to
-maintain political Bleb that -
e,the practice may be .cur-
tailed. Write Clarence Kel-
ley today!"
? Grimacing, Shea asserted:
"It these people are trying
to impede the ability of the
FBI to do their other
? sions, they are succeeding.
They may just be playing
games, but to the extent that
they're not, .their requests 4
' ought to be put back ;under
a tee seheaule alk National Security Council
? ing about a flat filing fee." -official ?official now active in a non-
(Under the --freedom-of-in-' profit project to win declas-
.
; formation law, fees are sup- ;- sification of so-called nation-
posed to be limited to "tea- ' al security documents,
sonable standard charges for - agreed that reviewing cies-
document search and duple sified records "certainly
cation.. . .") . takes a lot of the time of se-,
The California-based ?nior people In the govern-
Church 'of Scientology has i ment." *.
also been keeping govern- But if tney didn't keep,
?ment agencies busy with so much secret ,. they
? -sweeping demands for -rec-.'wouldn't have to spend so
ords of all sortse thatmiltt much time," Halperin ad-
concern e contrOversial ded. "If they were paying
cult. The church reports . t tnor.e attention to -the de-
? that it has ,made some ?1,00 ? classification of documents
freedomf of einformatiop _re- ? right at the start, as they're
'quests and filed' more than supposed to do, they
15 lawsuits against various_ wouldn't be spending 'so
government agencies inelud- much time reviewing them
ing the Custoins-Serviceethe- when the requests are made:
Treasury Department, the ? It's only because they; don't
yobey their own regulations
that it takes so long a time."
I Halperin pointed out that
a- 1972_ executive order is-
? sited by President .Nixon
called for the?systematic de-
reau was "not responding"
. classification Of government
documents anre far more re-
to _requests from foreigners
.? ?
straint in classifying new, . as a couple of
ones ? ? as recently
- months ago. Richard Rogers,
.
The Nixon order, still .
deputy chief of the Justice'
in
effect, permitted secrecy?
Departments FOI appeals .
Unit, said one foreign cite ;
and appropriate labeling?
only for government ?docu-
zen who asked for his files
was turned down by the
' ts th t ? 1 de
?
ICIA and the FBI, Recently,
the Council. of Scientology
Ministers has -put ? out- a
booklet 'aimed at -en-
couraging ethers to join the
parade.
? Others said ,to be fotictof
f ii in g freedom-of-informa-
tion requests range from in.
of federal prisons
with time on their hands to
'those veterans of the anti- I
war and civil 'rights move: !
ments who regard a govern-
ment file on them as an lire reau last January, but Dep-
portant sYmbol of their :Mend it. ?
Under the new FOIA, the
uty Attorney General. Tyler *-
work and worth. .propriety of "national- se-
reversed peal last Thursday?half aThe action on ap-
"We.-get a lot of what I . -entity" , classificatiOns was :
call 'macho appeals," Shea :- opened Up for the first time year later?following inqui-
said, "fro people who can't to !judicial review: The ' - ries by.a reporter about such
believe they're s u ch small ? change was Accompanied by eases.
potatoes that there are no dark whispers in some gov- The head of the FBI's
files on them.". ? ernment circles about the freedom-of-information: unit,
Lynch- agrees. "It's like
fact that even foreign citi- James Powers, said he could
not making the enemi zens could makeeereedone . not recall just how long the
list," he said of some anti-
of-information requests'.The . bureau's policy of denying
war protesters he's met. i
law can be invoked by "any ' foreign requests had been in
"They are absolutely
effect, but he said it; has
crushed." person."
No one openly claims that been abandoned. ?
"- the deriver lies in d flood of ? "Initially, we felt it e was
At the highly compart- request; from the KGB; the not in the interests a the
mentalized CIA, said Wil- Soviet Secret Police. One of [freedom of information] act
son
, evee dry runs can "It costs us $150 be Halperin's Aides once asked to make information avail-
-to. find out we have nothing a ClA official if they were able to a citizen of a fore-
o somebody," he said. - really worried that the KGB len country." Powers !said.
n
'Defenders of the revital- "The. [Justice] Department
might Use the law and he. did not agree with .us: The
; reportedly r e p 1 re d "
, No
'zed freedom-of-information rule now is that it would
there's honor among
law say that its current. be made available."
thieves."
heavy play is the result Of . The FBI would still prefer
'Beyond that, said Robere
government spying and lye ' to read the law its own way,
L'. Saloschin, chairman of
ing more than anything elee.
before Making any final den-
ials. of information. In fact,
I It is often bypassed.)'. "But
any foreign entity who
' really wants to use the act
has no problem. He can get
a straw to make the request.
The official Justice De-
partment line, then, is that
requests from foreign na-
tionals should be honored
,Under the "any person" rule.
At the CIA, Wilson said,
that policy is followed. Ac-
cording to Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Pub-
lic Affairs, William D. Blair
Jr., the State Department
also has been accepting such
requests.
The FBI, by contrast,--
staked out the position that
the law "was designed to
enlighten the electorate"
and that no foreigners need
apply.
- CIA officials said that as
they understood it, the bu-
? "If these agencies "are
getting more requests than
anyone anticipated, I would
blame that not on the free-
dom-of-information law, but
. on the fact that everyone
distrusts these agencies that
have been mucking around
in their private affairs," said
Susman of the Kennedy
subcommittee.
Morton Halperin; a former
Defense Department and
though. Powers ? said he
the Justice ,DePartment's .
Fre edom of Information
wanted to leave open "the.
Committee, the fuss over option" that the policy
foreigners is simply " a lot might be "re-evaluated" and
changed again so foreign.
of whoopee-do." ?
citizens could once more
"A forceful argument be turned down.
could be made that a guy in
Timbuktu shouldn't be Able NEXT: Backstage maneuver-
to _cost thousands of dollars ing on Capitol Hill to escape
to gratify a whim," said the free do m-of-information
Saloschin. (His committee is law.
supposed to be consulted by )
other government agencies I
THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER
August 1976
0123erva1ion3
The CIA is recruiting pilots in Sweden for
? DC-3 and Hercules transport planes to ferry Nvar
material to Angola. Officially, the pilots are being
asked to fly "hot tomatoes."
_
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 :. CIA-1:7.DP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
.'TI.1.4nclaY,,Tu1; 2_9,1976 111E WASHINGTON POST-
? ? .,
By George-Lardner Jr. ? I countnes. _
Washington iost Start writer ** The French embassy pro-
The Parole Commission I., tested that the Safety-Board
. tried to ? escape under a r might be Unable to restrict-.
elgud'of numbers- The Na- snch information in A satis-
tional Transportation Safety factory manner.
Board proposeda bill that ? ? The solution originally
? Would have curtailed the I proposed to Congress, Ken-
Freedom of Information Act nedy later panted out,
- at the behest of foreign gov- would have prohibited abso-
ernments. ? ' ? lutely the disclosure of in-
Backstage attempts to 're- : formation obtained- from 'an
Store an aura of secrecy at ? investigation conducted by a
various government - agen- , foreign state. Not even the
cies have been under way courts would have been able
on Capitol Hill for months, to obtain the data, without
- So far there have been no the foreign . government's
.major legislative inroads On consent. - ?
the . disclosure rules estab- "The bill-was reported out,
lished by the 19'74 amend- of the' Senate Commerce
ments to the Freedom of-In- ' Committee May 14, giving
formation Act. - The law- the board basically every- ?
makes 'government dom. ; thing it wanted," Susman re-
? ?
ments? ayailable, at a . gen-- -
eral rule, at public request. "That would have left fon;
: But fending off changes hag eign states, the- 'Safety
? required a careful lookout Board and the airplane min-
,
on the :part of Sen. Edward ufaCturers?since they often
M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). and e participate in the investiga- '
.? his Senate, Judiciary Sub- . tions?with the informa-
. cOmmittee on' .Administra- tion," Susman said. "But not
1 five Practice and Procedure. passengers or families suing:
'The Parole COmmission. ?for damages. And not Con-'
tried to get off the hook last 'gresS." ?
year in a lengthy bill re- Dickering produced a
e. vamping federal parole pro- _ much narrower, 'tightly
Cedures. Tucked deep in the, ?drafted bill protecting only
text was a short .provision "confidential information"?
. stating that Sections 551 and then only on explicit re-
through 559 of Title 5 of the quest. of a? foreign govern-
'U.S. Code "shall not apply" ment, and for ttiro years at
to the work of the commis- smost. It passed .the Senate
sion. July 1. ..
? "That", looks innocent ? "The same thing has hap-
enough," says the Senate pened on other occasions,"
subcommittee's chief' coun- Susman says of efforts to
sel, Thomas Susman, "but wiggle out of FOI require-
section 552 happens to be ments. "I think Congress is
the Freedom of Information standing up for what it said,
Act and Section 552-A hap- ? that disclosure is to be the
pens to be the Privacy Act." rule . . . Everything we've
The ? Parole Commission caught, we've been able to
bill had gone through the satisfy ourselves, 'by amend-
Nouse with the escape ment or otherwise, that it is
'clause intact, but . Kennedy not doing injury to the basic
and his subcommittee staff principles of the Freedom of
'deleted it in the Senate. - ? ; Information Act." ? - ? .
More recently, in a brief The result, nevertheless,
Senate floor speech concern- is to keep adding to the pile
ing the Transportation of laws that the Freedom of
. Safety Board, Kennedy said Information ? Actacknowl-
,
he would continue to edges as eXempting a. wide
"oppose attempts to circum- range of government rec-
vent the Freedom of Infor- ords. Under the law, offi-
mation Act with provisions cials need not make public
vague in language, over- any records "specifically ex-
broad in scope, or unjusti- emoted from disclosure by ;
Lied by' clearly evidenced -statute."
need." More than 60 such -laws
. The Safety Board bill was were on the books last year.
? prompted by a recent inter- Each agency seems to have
national agreement on civil its favorite, according to sta-
aviation, the so-called tistics compiled for a House
"C h i-c ago Convention" Government Operations sub-
which warns against prerna- committee headed by Rep.
? ture release of certain air- Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.). ?
. craft accident information The Agriculture Depart-
garnered from investlga- meat likes to invokE a stet-
tions conducted by foreign ute prescribing confidential.
ity for Periedie-reporittfrOm- -Iles-ii-vailable to
_ -
"warehousemen, processors "I don't have any hard ev-
and common carriers of idence that this is true, but ??
corne,wheat, cotton, rice, from things I've heard peo-
L-peantits or tobacco.. .all gin- ? pie [in government] say, ?
-ners a cotton.. .all brokers get the impression that they t;
and dealers in peanuts" and may be putting less on pa--,
other such folk. per than they otherwise
would, that they may be han-
dling matters on the phone
" instead," Rhoads remarke.d. -
The CIA leans heavily on-
its power to protect
"intelligence sources and
methods from unauthorized
disclosure." ,
The Postal Service seems
fond of a law permitting se-
crecy for "the reports and
memoranda of consultants
or independent contractors,"
? among other matters.
Congressional advocates
of the information law such
as Susman contend it it
preferable- to keep building
up that body of specially tail-
ored law?when secrecy is
in order?than to stake out
new, broadly worded exemp-
tions (there are nine now,
including one for "national
security") in the law itself.
For the present, the law
is, as Susman puts it,' in "a
shakedown period."
Except for a House in-
quiry into the FBI's mam-
moth backlog, no congres-
sional hearings on how the
law is working are contem-
plated until next year. By
then, supporters of the law
hope, the initial flood of
freedom of information re-
quests prompted by the 1974
amendments will have sub-
sided.
Officials at the Justice De-,
pertinent, which favors up-
ending some of the laW's
more rigorous provisions,
are skeptical that the flood
will drop noticeably. tone record will be less
According .to Quinlan complete: .
Shea, head of the Justice
Department's Freedom of
Information Appeals Unit,
even a little publicity about
the law touches off a rush of
requests for records.
A persistent bureaucratic
_claim has been that laws
such. as the Freedom of In-
forraatipn Act would inhibit
bold decisions, put a chill on
the exchange of free and
candid advice within the
government, deter officials
from speaking up for fear
that what they say will be
made public.
Most of those conversant
with the law, including
Shea, say they have noticed
no sudden- shyness among
government officials.
But archivist of the
United States James B.
Rhoads says he's still wor-
ried that historians of the
future may wind up with
Rhoads said he wasn't
speaking of routine govern-
ment paperwork?of which
there is always too much?
but rather of documents re-
fleeting important govern-
ment decisions and actions.
"My concern is that it [the
information law] might cre-
ate a less full, informative,
rich record of what the gov-
ernment has done," Rhoads
said. "Society as a whole is'
the loser if that results." .
The archivist acknowl= .
? ? edged, however, that he was
speaking primarily from
"instinctive feeling," and ,
that it would be 15 to 20
years before his suspicions
? could be shown to be, right
? or wrong.
"Typically, ,records don't
come to us until they're-
? about 20 years old," Rhoads
said. Despite his concerns,
he said he was 'still in favor
? of the "basic philosophy un-
' denying the Freedom of In-
: formationAct.
, "Many agencies have been .
far too 'restrictive" in what
? they make public, he said. "I
think government can per-.
form in the sunshine to a
" greater degree."
An attorney With the non-
profit Freedom of Informa-
tion -Clearinghouse, Mark
Lynch, doubts that the his-
"The bureaucratic ores--
sere to get everything down,
on paper to protect oneself
is, I think, still substantially
stronger than the fear of
disclosure," he says.
For; some members of the
'press, that impulse?to ? get
everything down on paper
as a protective device?is
also one of the unintended
- drawbacks of the Freedom
of Information Act.
Some government agen-
cies are apparently begin-
ning to insist that reporters
submit even routine inquir-
ies in writing, as an FOI re-
quest.
In one recent instance, of-
ficials in the State Depart-
ment's foreige buildings
? lice refused twtrils1.2:er ques-
tions from a reporter7ennd
in-
sisted that freedom-of-infor-
mation requests be filed to .
obtain routine information
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RIDA77-00432R000100390004-1
? ;Approved For Release 2001108108,: CIA-RDP77-0092R000100390004-1.
-!, iieh--61-the 'normal- '5661217n, ?int the' fledgling Coil:" i
, Department procedure for Mod* Futures Trading ;
; resubmitting construction Commission and a former
1! Contract bids. .California legislator w h o
t: In addition, these officials :'authored 'many . "sunshine",
.' reviewed each file requested -.. laws there, said he 'has been-
? by a reporter and wanted to struck by a lack of an es--
'!?charge more than $1,500 as a ? 'sential "atmosphere of open-
"search fee for records con- ness" In Washington andian_
' terning contracts with one apparent lack of interest on
t: construction firm. -. -. the part of the press in fos- -
-.?. .. The fee was substantially, ' tering such an atmosphere.
f' reduced by the freedom-of- " ? In Washington, he pro-
information office in the tested, the conventional wis- ..
State Department, and for- . , dom seems to be that any--
; eign building officials later .thing that is ? out in the
-became more cooperative in .. open must be unimportant.
h'
4- answering routine questions," ? ?The CIA's freedom-of-in-
tl
7 ?but only after several . formation coordinator, Gene
weeks of negotiations. ' : Wilson, says high-ranking of-:
"The government, histori- 't ficials sometimes find them:'
really, bosoms its records,"-' . selves loaded down with
says Shea at the Justice De-:, documents to review: in re:
partment. In his view, -the,, spouse sponse to information re: .?
)- ' information act ' should.- be:: ,. quests instead Of headier af-
-
f .
t . needed primarily as "an ex--., fairs of state. But he says he
,
, m
. r or ary reme y., nvok-; has noticed no impact ?on
';7?, ing it as a substitute for Ju-"; the- quality of official deci-
, dicial'discovery or in place,. sions. And if other. pressing
P.. of routine requests for puti;:: ? chores come up, such as a
4,:. lie information should not:-.:-., ? briefing for the White.
12,
Vbe required.. " . ? .?.. :A -House, he adds, the FOI -re, -
. Unfortunately; that: Is.75.? -quest will be shunted aside., ?
;. not the case," Shea'said.,.i . "The impact is not on the ,?
t, The routine public informa- :1i:decision-making process," _
l' tion request, even discovery'-.- Wilson. says. "The impact is..
I:procedures, do not produce :,; t on the record-keeping proc.
V information as readily as .-i. ess. The agency has a ten;
it they should, he said. . ' IIPt,'-;- dency to be a string-saver.
As one government, offi-., All of a sudden, you .Yet the
Cial sees it, the basic prob. occasion to push a ''button ;
g lem with the Freedom of .- and out comes a document :
r information Act and other, that you're embarrassed to
f; statutes calling for -"open- 'let out." ?
1, ness" in government is that ?:;.i The CIA would like -to?-;'they tend to create their.' burn many of those records._}
own ," Other agerrcies' would also I
t.- stultifying" bureau- -r- _
[erodes?which could result r like to dispose of much of
.. in more rather than less 1 the paperwork from their
"secrecy. .-past, instead Of. having , to .
William 7T . iBaaley chair' dredge it jp_.:and review it,
WASHINGTON POST
'WM
tion request.'
"In some areas [of
go m they're just
going to have to open their
files to the public and let
r. .the public do the search-
ing,", predicts, ? Susman.
Other Congressional staffers
- add that the government
must also improve its histor-
ically dismal records-mana-
. gement practices. - ?
? ; ? Washington, attorney
? James Wallace 'Predicts that
: the government' will begin
following corporate methods
? before :long, adopting
systematiic procedures
where they: don't have all
:i:-.sorts of documents lying
f: around." , 1::
'Corporations commit less
to paper and they have pro-
visions for systematic de-
struction of what they do
put on paper," Wallace says.
"A certain Class of files may
' be destroyed after one year,
-7- another after two. years and
? so on."
- It may take 'a while to
- achieve even that mundane
' reform. According to -the
alarums -of the Commission
on Federal Paperwork, gov-
ernment form-filling has
reached such propprtions
that it is costing theform
fillers $20 billion a year to
fill them out and the gov-
ernment another $20 billion
to process them.'
Meanwhile,
Meanwhile, there are
signs that a showdown may
develop next year over pro-
posed changes in the law.
"We are paying a terrible
6 A UG 27
-
ovhtDi tiontat
Said ienaced
CI A Agents
? By Murrey Marder ? .? .
Washington Post Staff Writer ?
A Soviet charge that American Central Intelli:
' gence agents threatened to kill a Russian diplo-
;. mat in Ncw York who balked when two men at-
tempted io recruit him as a double-agent :is the .
latest episode in the Washington-Moscow chill.
The accusation surfaced this week in a dramatic
cloak-and-dagger article in the Soviet publication,
Literaturnva Gazeta, or Literary Gazette.
The weekly, the official organ of the Soviet
Writers' union, in May printed widely published
; accusations that three American correspondents
based in Moscow worked for the Central Intelli-
gence Agency. Those charges were atigrily denied
, by the newsmen.
' The new'est allegation concerns ai more classic
form of intelligence work, recruiting double-
agents, nations do so, but they publicly air
it only Infrequently?and for ulterior motives.
What makes the Literary Gazette's charge un-
usual are its colorful and detailed allegations. To
the CIA, the ulterior. motive of Soviet intelligence
?
price," asserts Quinlan Shea
of the time and expense of
dminiateriiid the- FOI and
the, privacy laws as they-,'.
, stand now. would wager
_ next year's paycheck that '.?,1
you couldn't get these laws
through Congress today. I
.'think the situation is abso- ? ?
lutely ontrageous." ? "
"",Asked what change The.,
would most like to see in
the freedom of information
. law, Shea said he would ,
take a flat exemption for in-
rent cases, "ineluding the .
vestigative records On cur-
right to not necessarily ad-'.
mit
mit we have such a file." '-???"
Legislative skirmishing
Can also be exPected over
the deadlines the law sets ;
for responding to FOI re-
I quests, the "national secu-
rity" exemption, and such --
questions as whether higher -
fees should be charged for .
; corporate requests for infor-,
. , ?
, mation. .
.."Despite the -Ccimplaints
from the bureaucracy, de-:
fenders of the law say there ?
Is no sign of congressional
disenchantment : strong
, enough to repeal or even+
? . cripple it. ,
Ron Plesser, chief counser.
'of the Privacy ?Protection
' Study Commission and for-
merly an attorney at the
Freedom of Information
Clearinghouse, said Shea's
remarks "sound as if he's
laying the' groundwork for
an attempt to transform the
act?if the administration
wins the election." Plesser
said he doubted such an at-
: - tempt could muster much
.1! support.
In. this case is to piggy-back on the 'tide' Of
criticisms that has rolled over-the agency in the
United States and abroad. -
; The CIA on Tuesday declined comment on the:
Literary Gazette's accusation ? of a frustrated New
York , recruitment plot. In answer to further. ?
inquiries yesterday, a CIA spokesman said:.
"They're
"They're getting afree ride on the three
r initials (CIA); I wouldn't dignify this rubbish With
any comment." ' ? - - '
Was there any'. truth to the 'Soviet aecusation?.-
?-. After three days of inquiry, no one would say, So
outright. But neither would any agency ? of the
V.S. goVernment issue an official denial of the'
entire Soviet account.
Privately, however, informed sources in the
administration said- the CR was getting "a bum
'6 rap." Their intended implication was that the
I:1 CIA was not the agency' involved.. Officials would
say only that surveillance of Soviet diplomats in
CI this country is, under control of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, not the CIA.
:5 The FBI has referred all inquiries to the State
4
,,Department. The State Department, in turn, has
denied a portion of the Literary Gazette accusation,
but not the central point ? whether an attempt was
made to recruit a Soviet diplomat for counter-intel-,,
I haulm
Instead, the State Department acknowledged that
the Soviet Foreign Ministry last week formerly pro-
tested what it called a "provocation" against Oleg
Vasilyevich Kharchenko.
Kharchenko, ?the center of the Literary Gazette
, accusation, Was a personal assistant to the chief
,.:Soviet delegate to the United Nations, Yakov. A.
'NI lilt
tr.?. According to the Soviet publicatien, .Kharchenko
Approved For Release 2001/08/081A-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
hurriedbo left-New-York on July' '18. The' Gazette
:charged that; two. days earlier, two CIA agents,
Identified only as "Mr. Bryant" and "Bob." suggest-
ed he might never leave the Hilton Hotel, where
; they talked with him, except "through the window"
-
if he refused "to cooperate."
In the Gazette's account, Kharchenko was told by
the two alleged CIA agents that "they had 'enough
f;ways of spoiling his career.' 'Even- of breaking it,'
1"."Bob promised with a smile." - ? ' -
Their last warning words to Kharehenko, accord-
to the Gazette, were, "You have until 19, Mon-
;day July to think it over." And added: "So as you
say. in Russia, 'until Monday!' :Until Monday!'
Kharchenko reassured pim."
Kharchenko left New .York for Moscow a day
Iearlier, Sunday.' " 1 ' '''': ?1'77 '''''...1-',,,l-'71:-:
I- In response to repeated inOulries, thz State i*,::
1 partment has limited itself to saying thet "our policy,
?., is not to comment, on such. allega: ? i." except In',
1?,this case to "note- that the offieiri pa .test by the
'Soviet Foreign Ministry does not allege a threat :.
If. against' Mr. Kharchenko' as , Literary Gazette .
--- 'charged.-. . ,
On the. key issue of Whether an Intelligence re-
- 'Cruiting attempt was made by any U.S. agency, the
.. :State Department is silent. The whole episode, said
one administration official, is "a tempest in, a tea--
c-pot," and "highly dramatized" at that. : - .
f.: 2.f. `,`After all," said another, "this kind of counter-
-'. intelligence contact is not unusual, it is "legitimate":::
. -!?but of course I'm not tonfirming that it happened.",
Vedaesdat, August 4, 1976 - -The liVashington Ste
A J1scsed rum
f LS
'oath
,
. .
By Allan Prank -
- . Washington Star Staff Writer' ,
The CIA in 1953 discussed purchase
lof 10 kilograms of LSD ? enough for
t 100 million doses -- worth $240,000 for
fuse in
n its drug experimentation pro-
gram on animal and human subjects,
according to newly released agency
?-documents. ??
The documents were Made avail-
- able to reporters yesterday by John
D. Marks, director of the CIA project
at the Center for National Security
Studies, after he obtained them from
the CIA under the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act._ _
The documents show that the pur--
? echase of the '10 kilos of LSD was
recommended by CIA officials but do.
not establish whether a purchase of
:"that quantity was ever made. ?
ONE REASON for the large CIA'
purchase proposal was to preclude
other countries from controlling the
supply, the documents indicate.:
'Some unspecified quantities of LSD
were purchased from the drug's
prime manufacturer, Sandoz Labora-
tories of Basel, Switzerland, ,the
documents indicate.?
'The 59 documents display a
sketchy pattern of widespread
behavior modification experimenta-
tion on .humans through the use of
drugs, radiation and other methods
during the 1950s and 1960s by the
CIA.
? One question raised ? and- left
unanswered by the documents ? is
how many people received drugs
without their knowledge during CIA
experiments which have not been
publicly detailed.
The documents link drug experi-
ments recently disclosed by the
Army to a CIA-controlled interagen-
cy project which also "informally"
involved the FBI. the Department of
Agriculture, the 13ureau of Narcotics,
the Food and Drug Adminstration,
state and local agencies, hospitals,
universities and privately controlled
foundations.
DR. SIDNEY COHEN, professor of
psychiatrity at UCLA and a leading
expert on LSD experimentation, said
yesterday that he knew of perhaps
25,000 doses of the drug being admin-
,istered to humans since testing
began by goverment and private
agencies in the late 1940s.
Cohen and another UCLA expert, ,
Dr. Thomas Ungerleider, said an
average LSD dose was 100 micro-
grams or 10,000 doses per gram. -
Both men said that with proper stor-
age laboratory-grade LSD similar to
that purchased from a Swiss compa-
,ny by the CIA does not disintegrate
-.easily.
, Cohen, a former government drug
program officer, said he was aware
that LSD experiments had been con-
!ducted on inmates at the Vacaville,
Calif., medical prison but that he was
unaware, until told of the documents,
that the CIA has been involved in
testing. The documents also say that
testing was done on human subjects
at "such institutions as the U.S. Drug
Treatment Center in Frankfort, Ky."
The documents do not disclose
what has happened to the CIA's vast
store of LSD and other hallucinogens
derived from mushrooms and other
plants.
The documents say no CIA drug
experimentation has been conducted
since 1967 without full knowledge of
the experiment by persons being
tested.
AMONG THE 139 drugs tested by
the CIA were sodium pentathol,
sometimes called truth serum; co--
caine; marijuana; coffee; - alcohol;
insulin; and antropine, a widely used
anidote to some nerve gas weapons.
While many names have been
"sanitized" by the CIA from the
documents, it is clear that the CIA
project, first code-named "Blue-
bird," then "Artichoke," involved
many citizens who were unaware of
CIA participation or that they were
being given drugs.
During the last year, both the
Army and the CIA have disclosed
that persons died as a 'result of drug
experiments in 1953.
After unwittingly taking a dose of
LSD disguised in a glass of Coin-
treau. Frank R, Olson, a biological
warfare researcher, leaped 10 stories
to his death from a New York hotel
window.
Harold Blauer, a tennis profession-
al, also died after receiving a
mescaline-derivative as a result of
an Army-sponsored experiment at
tlic New York State _Psychiatric
Institute.-
ME DOCUMENTS released yes-::
terday show that CIA Director Allen
Dulles admonished CIA officials for '
their "poor judgment" in the Olson
case and experimentation involving.:
unsuspecting individuals. The CIA -
recently paid the. Olson family $1.25
million. ?
arks said yesterday he filed his
freedom-of-information request
June 25, 1975, just-15 days after the , ?
Rockefeller. Commission report _ on
CIA activities said, "The drug pro- ,
gram. was part of a much larger CIA'
prograth to study possible means for
controlling human behavior. Other
studies explored the effects of fladia-
lion, electric shock, psychiatry, sod-
ology and harassment substances."
Marks sought details of the various
experiments, but the documents he
received yesterday covered little
some aspects of CIA work, such as 11
radiation experimentation.
The Rockefeller report noted that
in 1973, 152 files of CIA records on
behavior modification programs
were destroyed.
The documents released yesterday
disclose that the shredding of the
files was ordered by Richard ?M.
Helms, director of central intelli-
gence shortly before his resignation,
despite the written protest of at least
one other CIA official.
CIA IFIEARS THAT Russian, North
Korean and other intelligence agen-
cies were using mind-bending drugs ?
to elicit secrets - from American
agents and others in the late 1940s
prompted the agency to begin its
behavior modification studies pro-
gram, according to the documents
and earlier references in the Rocke-
feller report. -
The documents disclose that the
CIA decided it needed the behavior -
control program after studies of
testimony at Russian-directed trials, ;
such as that of Josef Cardinal Minds-
zenty in Hungary in 1949, raised the
specter of "bizarre confessions" and
unnatural human behavior.
The testimony of Mindszenty and
memory lapses about a trip across
Manchuria by U.S. soldiers who were
Korean POWs convinced CIA offi-
cials that foreign intelligence serv-
ices were conducting behavior con-
trol experiments with numerous
techniques using drugs, electric
shock, sound waves and other meth-
ods.
The CIA wanted to develop coon-
10
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
ApProved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
? termeasures to such tactics and to
use techniques to exercise absolute
control over its own employes.
THE DOCUMENTS disclose that
CIA officials were anxious to experi-
ment with the, Korean War POWs to
determine whether the foreigners
had tampered with the minds of the
imprisoned Americans. ?
The documents mention CIA wari-
ness of possible public reaction to
such experimentation with POWs
recuperating at a military hospital in
Valley Forge, Pa. No mention is
made about whether testing was
later performed with the POWs.
Another case referred to is that of
Associated Press correspondent Wil-
liam N. Oatis, the AP bureau chief in
Prague, Czechoslovakia, who was ar-
rested in April, 1951, by Czech au- I
thorities and imprisoned for more 1
than two years on "espionage
charges."
. ?
One document said that the CIA
approached the AP for cooperation in
testing Oatis when he returned in
May of 1953 but that Oatis was being
held "practically incommunicado'
by the AP and was unavailable-for
testing because the AP was "down on
this agency."
? Another document said a discus-
sion by a CIA doctor with an un-
named AP executive gleaned "cer-
tain facts," including the information
that Oatis was in "surprisingly good
condition at the time of his release"
from the Czech prison.
?
FRANK J. STARZEL, general
manager of the Associated Press at
? the time, said yesterday, "That's
ridiculous. He wasn't being ? held
incommunicado. His being in good
health was a lot of nonsense. When he
came back, he was as foggy as they
come." Starzel said he did not recall
any CIA official visiting him about
WASHINGTON POST
5 AUG 1976
oug,
ruin
By Austin Scott
, Washington Post Staff Writer
Early _in 1953 the Central Intern:.
gence-Agency wanted to inject truth
serum into American prisoners of war
returning from 'Korea, according to
censored, previously secret CIA docu-
ments released yesterday.
Oatis.
He denied that the AP was feuding
I with the CIA at the time but said that
no reporter "liked the CIA operators
because they almost always had an
ax to grind and almost never told the
truth.
Wes Gallagher, now AP general
manager and director of personnel
for AP during the Oatis incident, said
yesterday, "I hadn't heard of a CIA
request, but it would have been
standard for us to decline a debrief-
ing of Oatis by the CIA or anybody
else."
Oatis, now an editor on the AP
World Desk in New York, said yes-
terday that at times during his trial
and imprisonment he had been
underfed, kept awake, placed under
intense sunlamps and injected with
glucose "to keep my strength up."
But Oatis said that he is "convinced"
that he was never given mind-alter-
,
lag drugs by Czech authorities.
Em loy ruth
eturning Korea
But -the Surgeon General's office
"tilled out completely". the CIA's sug7:
geStion that -sodium amythal and .pen-
tothal, commonly called truth serums',
be used on the returnees in their camp
at Valley Forge, Pa., the documents
said. ,
A CIA spokesman said there would,.
be no immediate comment.
The inch-thick stack. a 59 docu-. ?
meats; released in response to a Free-
dom of Information Act request, shed ?
more light, on the CIA's proposed be- "
havior modificiation experiments on
both "witting and unwitting" sub-
turn on the whole country," said John
D. Marks of the Center for National
Security Studies, a non-profit group
that filed the FOI request on June .30, .
1975. The center was founded in 1974.
.They show that in October 1953, the
CIA discussed buying 10 kilograms of
the hallucinogen LSD from a com-
pany whose name the agency cen-
sored from its internal memoranda.
"That's 100 million doses, enough to
.turn -on the whole country," said non-
profit group- that filed the FOI re-
quest on June 30, 1975. The center was
founded in 1974.
The documents 'do ,not indicate,
whether the.CIA ever completed the.
purchase. .
They do show that at various times
during the three programs, code-
named Bluebird, Artichoke and Mkul-
tra, the agency also discussed ways of
determining the shock effects of co-
caine, insulin, ultrasonic disorienta-
tion, radiation, toxic mushrooms and
aphrodisiacs.
ris ners
In addition, they confirm for the:I name deleted, as saying That "iri -Con: -? ?
first time that state prisoners at the nection with the testing of drugs, he
California Medical Facility in Vaca- was quite certain a number of psychi-
vile were subjects. of CIA experi- atrists all over the. United States
meats. Anti-CIA groups have charged would be willing to test new drugs, es- '
for years that prison inmates were pecially drugs that affect the mind ...
given mind-changing drugs. All present agreed that the wider the
Bluebird, Artichoke and Mkultra ' testing the better the. chances of sue- ?
were begun, the documents claim, in cess,
response to fears that the Soviet Un- The report cites a discussion of Ar-
tichoke's effort to experiment on re-
turning Korean POWs. .
"All hands agreed that the 'hard
'core' group and those who had been
successfully indoctrinated were excel-
lent subjects for Artichoke work," it
says, adding:
"But it was the general opinion of
those present that owing to publicity
and poor handling, the Artichoke
techniques could not probably be
brought to bear:'
A report on 'a May .21, 1953, Arti-
choke conference noted:
"Mr. [name deleted] stated that ex-
treme pressure of public opinion both. ?
on the military services and on Con- "!
gress had interfered with a well
worked out program in connection
?
ion had ". . . made provision for large-
scale production of uncommon drugs
known for their speech-producing ef-
fects." . ?
A Feb. 10, 1951,-document notes that "
the Soviet Union's abilities to gather '
? , intelligence ".. . Other than by con-
ventional psychological methods ap-
..
? pear to have been developed to the ex- ;
tent that the United States will be un-
able to compete in this important
field unless a well organized, coordi-
nated program is established ..."
Bluebird was started in May, 1951,
? and was renamed .Artichoke the fol- .
lowing August. ?? .
An undated CIA' document lists as
i? one "directly related" activity experi-
.? ments the Navy began at Bethesda in
1947 into "the isolation and synthesis
of pure drugs for use in effecting psy-
? chologieal entry and control of the in-
dividual." .
The documents include. reports on
Artichoke conferences, One/ dated ?
April 16, 1953, says:
report
" . All hands agreed that . . . it
was essential to find an area where ?
? large numbers of bodies would be
used for research and experimenta-
tion."
The describes a doctor,. his
with the POWs . although there had,
been some discussion as to possible
use of sodium amythal and pentothal, ?
this had been ruled out completely by ,
the Surgeon General's Office . . ."
The use of at least one other drug ,
was ruled out, the report said, be-
cause all the POWs were being held
in one ward and there would be a
"long and obvious period of hangover.
"Mr. [name deleted] stated that
there was little chance of using the'.
Artichoke techniques on the return-
ees . ." ? - .
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : Cl/ORDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08: CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
A report on a June 18, 1953, Arti-
choke ? conference noted that
"arrangements had been made for the
collection, cultivation, propagation and
testing of certain poisonous and nar-
cotic mushrooms by different agen-
cies, both governmental and private."
It added that "Mr. "named deleted]
? discussed the Valley Forge poyv ques-
tion and stated that nothing of Arti-
choke value had turned Up at Valley
Forge.": ?
The purchase of LSD was discussed
in a conference report dated Oct. 22,
1953. It referred to an "alleged offer
of the [named deleted] Company" to
. sell 10 kilograms at a price "estimated
to be $240,000 or less."
The conferees agreed the drug
should be purchased "if possible," the
report said, but the documents do not
reveal Whether such a purchase ? was
actually made.
One month later, in November, 1953,
Dr. Frank Olson, a civilian biochemist
at Fort Detrick, Md., committed sui-
cide in New York after drinking an af-
ter-dinner 'cordial which the 'CIA,
without his knowledge, had laced with
LSD.
In a "Memorandum for the Record"
dated Jan. 17, 1975; a CIA official
, whose name was deleted described
the Mkultra program as "a group of
projeCts most of which dealt with
drug or counter-drug research and de-
TIE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN
28 July 1976 ? ?
a
velopment."
Most of the research and develop-
ment was contracted out to other gov-
ernment and private agencies, includ-
ing academic and industrial institu-
tions, the memorandum said.
Another document said the final
phase of MKULTRA testing involved
"application to unwitting subjects in
normal situations commencing in 1955
under an informal arrangement with
individuals in the Bureau of Narcote
ies, under which two of its employees
on the West Coast conducted tests. A
similar arrangement was made for the
East Coast in 1961."
That document does not say where -
the tests were conducted.
- "In a number of instances the test
subject became ill for hours or days,
including hospitalization in at least
, one case," it notes.
A third document says: "Testing
was . . . often carried out at such fa-
cilities as the U.S. Drug Treatment
Center in Frankfort, Ky., and the Cali-
fornia State Prison in Vacaville. In all
cases that I am aware of, testing was
done using volunteer inmates who
were witting of the nature of the test
program but not the ultimate sponsor-
ing organization."
? The program wound down "as the
, Soviet drug use scare (and the amount
of significant progress in the Mkultra
V.' Program) decreases," the mernoran-
4eseentaismisiimaruae
. -
dum notes.
All Mkultra records and files were
destroyed Jan. 31, 1973, at the instruc-
?tions of a' Sidney Gottlieb, former
chief of t -r.A branch having juris-
diction over the project.
A memorandum addressed to the
CIA Inspector General says that all
CIA experimentation with drugs to in-
fluence behavior ended in? 1967 and
that the agency's indirect involvement
with such programs ended in August,
1973.
A July 26, 1963, report to then CIA
director John A. McCone said, "The
concepts involved in manipulating hu-
man behavior are found by many peo-
ple both within and outside the
agency to be distasteful and
unethical . . ."
? An Aug. 14, 1963, "report of inspec-
? tion of Mkultra" says Mkultra's final ?
testing phase also "... places the
: rights and interests of U.S. citizens in
jeopardy."
It said even though Mkultra worked
with "an inventory of discrediting,.
disabling and lethal substances," in-
spection of the program was ham-
pered by a lack of records. Only two
unnamed, "highly skilled"? individuals
"have full substantive knowledge of
.the program and most of that knowl-
edge is unrecorded," it said..
CIA (INVESTMENTS)
'-SOUTHERN Capital '? and-
Management is What is
known in the irutelligence
trade as a " proprietary " ?
a wholly owned and operated
subsidiary of the US Central
Inteligente Agency..
S ) far as is -known, South-
ern Capital is the CIA's .
lar-
gest remaining Proprietary.
Its work in manag,ing the
CIA's $30 million investment
"portf?olio is so secret that the
agency persuaded ? the
Senate intelligence corn-
Inittee "not to press for the
company's actual name,
. instead calling it "the
insurance complex."
For more than' 20. years,
the CIA has made extensive
use of proprietaries, like
Southern capital, to hide
operations under the mantle
of private enterprise. To
incorporate and - run this
"business" empire, the
agency has relied on lawyers
.who perform secret services
for the agency's.overlapping,
interlocking network of front
companies. ?
Southern Capital takes the
CL.. straight to Wall Street.
It is the investment arm of
an assortment of proprietary
financial companies, located
mainly in tax havens, such
as the "Bahamas, Bermuda,
the Cayman Islands, and
r ',enema. .
Southern Capital was
-created in .1062 as a front
, insurance company to pro.
- vide coverage for agents and
equipment involved in covert
operations ? particularly
:those connected with CIA=
owned airlines. "The
insurance complex" then
brandhed . out into other
entrepreneurial ventures. It
received money from CIA
%insurance premiums, . from
'!deductions taken from secret
;agents' pay and ? at least
once in the past 10 years,
according to a CIA budget -
specialist ?, from hands left
;over from the agency's con-
gressional appropriation.
By the late 1960s, Southern
,Capital had on hand between
$25 million and $30 million
which it invested in a mix
of stocks, bonds, and other
"securities ? both foreign and
domestic. During the early
years, investment decisions
were made largely by a
larokerage firm. ? ?
But in either'1969 or 1970,
,an internal CIA study con-
eluded that the agency would
receive a higher profit if CIA
experts decided what to buy
and sell. A special CIA board
:of directors, chaired by the
_then general counsel, Mr
:Lawrence Houston, took over
:the selection of securities for
-Southern Capital.
On this committee ?
-which ? was called the MH
Mutual Group ? say the
?CIA's chief of budgeting, the
director of finance, and the
head of the office of economic
research.
This last member was par-
ticularly important, according
to an inside CIA source,
i because he erablecl Southern
Capital to "draw on the
; advice of the (CIA's) econo-
mic research people. Any
stockbroker would like 300
trained experts giving advice.
If it was not a conflict of
ze ye!
interest, it, at -least should
have been offered to the
public." .
The proprietary's ? best
earner was Eurodollar. depo-
sits made through the
Morgan Guaranty Bank's
Brussels. office with a return
of 13 per cent at one point;
a former employee recalls.
After the mutual committee
took over, Southern Capital
branched ? out from its'
normal blue chip purchases
to More speculative fields,
including . short-term buys
' of Swiss francs and several
hundred thousand dollars
in Mexican pesos. "
Another source reports
that during the early 1970s,
when the CIA was working
secretly with ITT to keep
President Allende from
power in Chile, Southern
Capital owned some ITT
-
stock. Mutual's.chairman told
the Senate committee :
Well, a couple of times our
investment adviser recom-
mended a stock which I knew
? we had big contracts with,
and 1 told the board no, this
involvers a conflict of
interest. We won't touch it."
The net profit on Southern
Capital's portfolio in 1074
was more than $1.5 millions,
' according to toe Senate
eeoort. Most of that money
never found its may on to
Southern's balance sheets,
enr,vever, because it legally
belonged to proprietary
insurance and financial cuan-
pa,nieS-in tag- havens:' South- -
ern Capital did submit US.
tax returns, but was under
n.o obligation . to list the
'money it made for its sister
proprietaries,
??? The company kept three or
four lawyers busy full time, .
a ionmer Southern employee
recalls: "Mr Evans, .was a.
stickler on legality."
"Mr Evans" is Mr. Marvin
Evans,. who ran Soutaeni.
Capital for the CIA until his
retirement in 1973, Mr Evans
extends the proprietary trail.
to Africa, among other
places, and his stewardship
illustrates ,how difficult it
becomes to sort out the pri-
vate interests of the Proprie-
tary ? managers from the
"official" interests of the
CLA.
?
Mr Evans apParently not
only managed 'the CIA's port=
folio, but also ran an in-house
investment club foe people
working in the office.
One of his private law
clients, a Miami. man, named
Mr Thomas Green,- rums a
string of air companies in
Florida, Africa and the Carib-
bean. Minimax, Mr Grreen's
holding company, is
apparently not an outright
proprietary, but it has done
considerable business for the
CIA.
Mr F,vaiis now owns 15 per
cent of Africair Mr Green .
served on the hoard of
directors of Soutiern Capital, ?
One of Afriewit's.lareest sub-
sidiaries is Pan African Air-
? Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-F677-00432R000100390004-1
. Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R0001003'90004-.1
tines, based in Lagos, ?
Nigeria. According to Civil
Aeronautics Board records,
this company makes 80 Per
cent a its revenue from a 1,
single US Government cont- I
tact for air service ?to 'remote
? outposts In West- Africa. The
CIA is a major participant
fn that contract, according to
a :State Department. official,
who: puts its value for the
Year at $575,000. Informed
CIA sources report that Pan
African was set tip in .1962
? in close 'cooperation with
with the agency and is con-
Sidered inside the CIA to be
a covert "asset."
In Africalr sought
'CAS approval to merge with ?
South-East Airlines, which
flies in'Floride and the Carib-
bean. In that -filing. Africair
noted its- companies were
making a profit from their
African. interests at rates
"more than 'adequte to
coVer", the losses it expected
from Southeast. Africair
received CAS approval,
and thus the ? profit
- received in large part from
unpublicieed CIA business
was used to subsidise an. air ?
service in Florida.
. Neither Mr Green nor Mr
Evans would return- a
reporter's repeated telephone
calls; requesting information
about the various interwined
relationships.
? The 'CIA has used its pro-
prietaries ,to establish
? influence over many of .the
world's airlines, especially in
the Third World. To see how
this is done, it is necessary
only to follow men- connected ?
with Southern Capital Two
Of its directors have also ,
served on the board of e
related proprietary. known as '?
United "Business Associates.
During' the mid-1960s, LTA
had Washington offices, with
at least two ether CIA fronts
on the same floor.--
A former IJBA officer
recalls that one of the com-
pany's biggest operations was
a deal to finance a national
airline fer?Libya, then a king-
dom "Our interest was ni
lend' money for the purpose
of controlling the airline," he
says. "It was to- offset the
Communists from , moving
M."
The money' --- reportedly
several million dollars ? was
to come from other CIA prd-
prietaries, according to the
ex-officer, and ,UBA had a
plan ? to 'win over the Libyan
Gove rn in ent.
The why we set it up was
like this: we had to offer
them control over 20 per cent
of the stock of the corpora-
tion and we would lend them
the money. Then we would
have to 'put one ,of their
natives alongside every
American in a similar posi-
tion. Talking about kick-
backs, that's the name of the
trade over there. That's hoiv
we covered the men Of the
Cabinet . . . and if we ever
'called that note,' they would
have taken the franchise
away."
UBA did not win the frare
chise, but neither did TWA
which was in at least indirect
competition with the agency's
UBA, having prepared a fea-
sibility study. .
Why this great intelligence
interest in airlines? Mr Orvis :
Nelson, an aviation veteran
who worked with the CIA to I
set up Iran Air in the early
I..
NEW YORK TIMES
27 JUL 1916
Inquiry Is Said to Oppose 1
Prosecuting C.I.A. Aides
By JOIN M. CREWDSON
Special to The New York Time! _
WASHINGTON, July 26?i edge" of the C.I.A. operation,
Justice Department lawyers in-1 code-named HT Lingual, which
1
vestigating the Central Intern- between 1953 and 1973 resulted
gence Agency's 20-year pro- in the opening of nearly 250,-
gram of openirg mail betweeni 000 letters passing thrbugh
the United States and Commu-' postal facilities in New York
nist countries have recommend- City, San' Francisco and else-'
ed against the criminal prose- where. . ? - .:. '
cution of agency officials! The Senate Select Committee'
involved in the project, a Gov- on?Intelligence, which issued a
emment official familiar with l long report On domestic mail
the investigaton said today. , openings in April, said that it
The official said that the law- had found no documentary evi-
i yers' recommendation, which dence that any President in the
has been forwarded to Attorney two decades in question had
General Edward H. Levi for a ever authorized the C.I.A. to,
final decision, was based on the open letters and photograph
conclusion that "a continuum their contents.
of Presidential authority" had The only President who might
rendered the mail openings 'conceivably have been in-
legal, despite -Federal statutes formed of such an effort, the
that prohibit tampering with ,committee said, is Lyndon B.
first-class mail inside the Unit- 'Johnson, but it added that it
ed States. had been unable to find any
The Justice Department, the conclusive record that he had
official said, has in its year- ever been advised of the
long examination "found evi- project.
dence of Presidential knowl- Richard M, Nixon, the only
Approved For Release 2001/08/08
1950s, explains: "If I -were i
sitting in a posit= where I !
was curious about what was ,
going on in troubled areas,
there are two, things I would
be damned well interested in. `
The first is information. The
Second is transportation ?to
get in and out, to get any.
information and, perhaps, to
do sonic other air activities.
You have mobility. You know
who and what are going in
and out. You know who
people's associates are. You
are in a position to move
your: people about"
Mr Nelson, now 69, has set
ep 16 airlines in his time'
and has run his own supple-
mental carrier. Sometimes he
has cooperated with' the CIA.
? but vehemently states he
has never 'been under the
agency's central. He will not
tell which Of , his airline deals
involved the CIA. He does
say, however, that US
Government involvement in
foreign airlines is as great
as ever. ? .
? Some of America's com-
mercial airlines have worked
closely -with the CIA in -the I
past. A retired CIA official
with 20 years' 1 of field
experience recalls: " When
we wanted something from. '
Pan Aim, we went right to
Juan Tripe" (the corpora-
tion's 'ex-chief). In Panama, ?
tee former official says, the 1
agency had a deal with Pan'
Am in the mid-1950s under
.which CIA num could rum-
mage through baggage during
transit stops.' The airline'
even provided them with
mechanics overalls. .
United- Business Associates
had 'other ways of getting
informatilon from, foreign
'farmer -President now living,
'told the Senate committees in
a written response to questions
that he did not recall ever hav-
ing received information while
President that the C.I.A. or any
other Government agency was
engaged in opening mail with-
out the authority of a judicial
warrant.
' Asked how the Justice De-
partment lawyers had squared
their conclusion about the ex-
istence of continuing Presiden-
tial authority with Mr. Nixon's
denial of any such knowledge,
the official replied that the de-
partment had "looked at more
than that [the denial] in "draft-
? ing its recommendation.
He declined, however, to
characterize the additional evi-
dence examined by the lawyers.
Mr. Nixon's purported igno-
rance of the C.I.A. mail-inter-
cept program was a main point
at the Senate Committee's hear-
ings, and . the committee staff
rebuked some of Mr. Nixons'
aides for having advised him
in 1970 that such coverage had
been discontinued when it had
not.
Although Mr. Levi has not
yet decided whether to accept
the recommendation of his
criminal division lawyers not
to prosecute those who took
part in or had knowledge 'of
the mail openings, the recom-
mendation was believed to in-
crease the likelihood that no
C.I.A. employees will face
: qtVRDP77-00432R0001
countries and planting agents
in key places. An' ex-
employee remembers: "We
were miming companies all
over the world as a manage-
ment concern. We would hire
and place a manager into a
company, and he would then .
report back to us as far as
' the financial recorse . were
concerned. In turn, we would
report .back to the investor.'1 ?
The investor was the cm.
Similarly, in recent years,
the CIA has set UP manage-
ment consultant firms in the
international' energy field. An
executive at one of Wall
Street's most ',important
investment banks confirms.
that certain consultant firms, ,
with ties- to US intelligence, ,
win , governmental and pri-
vate contracts in the Middle
East as management experts
and use these positions to
gather secret economic intel-
ligence. The investment
banker reports that this data
is then passed on, at least
in part, to American com-
panies in a position' to profit
'from 'it.
' From the ? CIA's point of
view, of course, the principal
value of the proprietaries'
penetration. of 'international
business comes from the
knowledge and consequent
leverage flowing bark to the
agency. It has gathered volu-
minous information, on both
Americans, and foreigners ?
information which is pre-
served in orange ,cardboard
folders, known as "201 files."
The 201 file on the interna-
tional stock manipulator, Mr
Robert Vesco, for instance, is
more than six inches thick.
? Washington Post. -
John Marks
Criminal Charge's as a result of
the various investigations of the
agency's activities. ?
The criminal division, headed
by Assistant Attorney .General
Richard L. Thornburgh, has
been sifting evidence of C.I.A.
wrongdoing assembled by
President Ford's commission
set up last year to look into
the agency's domestic opera-
tions and material assembled
by the Senate intelligence com-
mittee on some of its foreign
activities.
Mr. Thornburgh has previ-I
ously recommmended to Mr.
Levi that no indictments be,
sought in the C.I.A.'s various
plots in the' early 1960's against
the life of Prime Minister Fidel
Castro of Cuba and of the late
Congolese leader, Patrice
Lumumba.
' A third major aspect of the
Justice Department's investiga-
tion has been the 1973 Senate
testimony of Richard Helms,
the former Director of Central
Intelligence, that his agency had
not ,tried to pass money secret-
ly to opponents of Salvador Air
lende Gossens, the late Chilean
President, and had not been in-
volved in tracking domestic ore-
ponents of the Vietnam War.
Later Inquiries Cited
Subsequent investigations o
the C.I.A. established, however,
that the agency had financed
some of Mr. Allende's Chilean
opponents before his death in
1973, an& that the agency's
00390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Operation- Chios had led Witt!
compilation o 10,000 files relat-
ing to antiwar protesters in this
Country. .
But the Government official;
said that the Justice Depart-
ment lawyers had eneounteredi
difficulty in establishing that!
-Mr. Helms,' in testifying before!
the Senate Foreign Relationsi
NEW YORK TIMES
4 .A.U.r; 1976 .
House Committee Votes
On Certain C.I.A. Pensions
WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 (UPI)
-7--The House Rules Committee
approved today an amendment
to the Central . Intelligence
? Agency retirement law improv-
? ing pensions for agents work-
ing abroad in situations "haz-
ardous to life or health."
The amendment, approved
earlier by the ?House Armed
Services Committee, now goes
to the floor for a full vote.
? Besides the regular Civil
Service retirement for the ma-
jority of C.I.A. employees there
is a plan for a secret smaller
group "whose duties either
were in support of agency
activies abroad, hazardous to
life or health, or so specialized
as to be clearly distinguishable
from normal Government ern-
iloyment." Details are secret.
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
. 29 July 1976
Committee On his appointment!
as Ambassador to Iran, a posti
he still holds, had knowingly'
perjured himself.
Mr. Helms had told the ciarn.-!
rnittee, and other Congressional}
panels, different things at dif-
ferent times, the official said, ?
adding that the odds that Mr.
Helms would ever be confront-
ed with a perjury charge were
now "sixty-forty against"
The Justice. Department is
also investigating the C.I.A.'s
involvement in some scattered
instances of electronic eaves-
dropping in antiwar demonstra-
tions here in May 1971.
But the official- described the
C.I.A.'s role in those surveil-
3L01 Ziftlgettig Thurs., July 29, 1976
4111tA.d,'
lances, indicating that the
agency had done no more than
to supply eavesdropping equip-
m to various law-enforce-
r-m.1i, agencies. He added that
it was no yet clear that the
surveillances were illegal and
suggested that the probability
of any indictments arising from
them were dim. . ?
after, ond le riefing
y CI ffia is on World Affairs
BY RENNETH REICH -
Times Political Wrap'
PLAINS, Ga.--Several Central Intelligence
Agency officials, headed by Director George
Bush, conducted an intelligence briefing On
world affairs here Wednesday for Jimmy Car-
ter and Walter F. Mondale, the Democratic
presidential and vice presidential nominees.
After the party arrived at the grass airstrip
here in two Army helicopters, Bush said he.
had orders from President Ford to give Carter
and Mondale "a full briefing, not holding back
on any item of intelligence." .
. ?
Carter said he was particularly interested in
'intelligence information on the situations in Le-
..barion and the Middle East, Rhodesia, South
Africa and South Korea, as well as relationi
among the United States, the Soviet Union and
China. He has emphasized that he has reserved
the right to criticize Administration foreign
policies after the briefings.
'Carter had asked Ford for briefings from CIA.
rather than State Department officials, because.
he said he considers the State Department to
be part of the policy-making arm of the Ford,.
Administration but that he sees the CIA as
nonpolitical.
None of the participants in Wednesday's
meeting would comment on specifics of the
briefing?one of the series of discussions on
issues that Carter and Mondale have been hav-
ing here this week.
-. .. . By JEROME CAHILL . ? .
? ? - Plains; Ga-:, July 28?CIA Director' George .Bush and a team of top U. S.in-
' te114..,:ence experts flew here today on two-Army helicopters to give a ton-secret briefing% j*
I Ork.national security matters to Democratic presidential nominee Jimmy Carter and his i
,
i running mate, Sen, Walter F. Mondale-?of..Minnesota.
I. -...7, i 1- : be to select someone of stature
"
Me ? to- give: a _full_ briefinge? not i . - . "A Tough Business"?
!I. unuestioned integrity and recog--;
- The President hae; instructed r,
. 1 nized enalytical ability.. But hs?
holding back -on. any items .? of. i 'Intelligence is a tough busl-h
, said that did not mean- that?the?
intelligence, and that's the way it ness, and it's just better, to. have!' director had to be- with the- CIAi
will be," Bush said after his heli-;. our top people fully Informed," for 25 years.. .
.00pter deposited,. him, on-a. gra-asy ?.....
Bush said. He said that the brief-,
airstrip three miles outside - of jag would be "very detailedi
sticking, on the main issues that l
he (Carter) is interested in."
i The briefing took place atl
Carter home on. the outskirts or
Plains, rather than at the Pencil
House; a cottage-in-the' pine-for-
est several.miles- outside of town,.
1 where Carter and Mondale have
ectived other.-. briefings - ? this
week on defense issues and the
;.economy. ? Carter aides said that
? the shift had . been made at the
. retiest of the CIA because _Cart-
er's home . was easier to safe-
guard from electronic eavesdrop-
pers... ? --
In discussing. the briefing hot
night with reporters, Carter-said
, that he-- asked the CIA to deal
. only- with secret-information and
areas. ' i to exclude. any material that was
-? Quoting' Yogi .Berra's remark. already part of the public record.
about having once made "the I Asked whether as President lie
wrong. mistake," Bush said-that I would appoint ? a professional
the more information .1 presclen- intelligence expert or a politician ,
tial candidate has on Intelligence j ! to the top CIA post, Carter
. matters "the better it Is." ' ; i replied that his inclination would,
?
? Plains shortly before the session
began this afternoon.,
? At Carter's request, the brief-
ing concentrated on the strategic
balance ,of power between the
. United. States:. and-- the. Soviet-
Union: Also covered were secnri-?
ty issues relating to- China, Leba-
non, Rhodesia,- the- Middle?East
and South Korea. It: will be. fol-'
lowed by a second, more detailed
briefing here,..in, the, second week
of August. - . .
? Government intelligence brief-
ing of presidential ? candidates
have become a. fixture -of
presidential- campaigns ? in the
postwar era and are designed to
help non-incumbents lacking ac-
cess to regular Intelligence data
from blundering into sensitive
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
29 July 1976
Carler undecided
on CA choice
By the Associated Press
? - ? Plains, Georgia
Jimmy Carter says he has not decided
whether he would replace George Bush as
CIA director if he is elected president. ?
-Mr. Bush was in Plains Wednesday to
brief the Democratic presidential nominee
and Sen. Waiter Mondale. Carter's run-
ning mate, on national security matters.
Although Mr. Bush previously has been
invelved in Republican politics, he has
? "brought the CIA a good background as
former United Nations ambassador and
U.S. representative to China," Mr. Carter
? said.
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-Ii6P77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
WASHINGTON POST
30. JULY 1976
? ;No Of!
Plot to Kill Anderson
-
: The Senate intelligence
-committee has found "no eve
jd erne, ef e plan te .asaessh
nate" - syndicated columnist
Jack Anderson. according to
a supplementary report on
foreign and military intelli-
gence released by the com-
? mittee. - ?
?
"The report -said;- howeVer, .
'Alta the committee did dis-
coVer air effcirtin early 1972:"
by: the iNixon White House.
;Ire conaultation with aa for-
? mer CL.1 physician to ex-
plore means Of drugging An
derson to discredit him by
rendering him incoherent
before a public appearance"
'orrradicaor television. ,
:This finding Conforms to.
? statements made by former .
-White House aide E:
ard Hunt Jr. following a re-
port last year. that Hunt had
been 'ordered to assassinate he called me ? in, sort of talk-
Anderson. ? " g t d rifling
After a? report on the al-
leged assassination plan in
The Washington Post- on.
Sept. 21, 1975, Hunt said he
, was planning to drtig Ander-
son not to kill him. - ?
"It Was just another wild
Idea that never got beyond
the proposal stage, h .Hunt,
? said after ' thee article ' ?'
peered.
Hunt said then, and later
testified to 'the Senate com-
mittee, thatathe proposal to
drug Anderson ? came from
harmer White House special
? counsel Charles W. Colson.
Testifying about a meet-
ing with Colson- in late 1971
or early 1972, Hunt said of
the drugging assignment:
"Colson was normally a
highly controlled individual
? . . . He was agitated when ?
through paper on his desk.
which was very much unlike
"And the inference I drew
? from that was that he had
just had a conversation with
the President. So when I ac-
? cepted the assignment I as-
'sumed' as I usually do with
Colson that he was either
reflecting the desires of the
chief.:executive or else that
? he, as a prescient staff offi-
cer,
cer, was attempting to find
a solution to a problem that
was troubling his chief."
According to the Senate
report,-Colson testified that
he "never heard anyone dis-
cuss any plan to kill Jack An-
derson." Colson said he
could, =? not,, however,
:"discount the possibility of
.?
?
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
29 July 1976
Mirror of opinion
CIA burglaries abroad
Because of repeated revelations of burglar-
les 'and illegal spying by intelligence agencies,
Americans may not be surprised to learn that
1. the Central Intelligence Agency has bugged
and burglarized' the homes and offices of
Americans abroad. Yet the latest disclosure
adds to a shocking pile of evidence ? of the
abuse of power and abuse of the Constitution.
Tha Socialist Workers Party, which is suing
the CIA for damages for alleged illegal harass-
ment; managed to obtain an affidavit as part of
the suit from CIA Director George A. Bush. In
it, Mr. Bush conceded the burglaries and elec-
tronic espionage.against Americans in foreign
countries, but _gave no details, did not .say
whether the activities were continuing and con-
. tendedein a legal memorandum, that a sepa-
.
WASHINGTON POST
30 JULY 1976
Intelligence
Agencies Yield
Files in Suit\
NEW YORK, July 29
(AP)?The Central Intelli-
gence Agency and the
FBI have turned.. over.
31,800 pages from, their
files to the Socialist
Workers Party in the pre--
trial phase of a $37. mil-
lion . damage suit, the
government, said. today.,
However, U.S. District
,C tett r t ,Judge Thomas
Griesa renewed his .ob-
rate classified statement contained state se-
crets that were exempt from disclosure.
This is another use of the argument for na-
tional security to hide illegal governmental ac-
tions. And the actions were illegal The Con-
stitution follows -Americans abroad as far as
operations of their own Government are con-
cerned, and if domestic laws against burglary
do not, then it must be noted that foreign court-
tries .also have laws against burglary, and their
laws were broken. They will not be impressed
by the CIA's cleini of American security..
Americans themselves ought to be distressed
that they have net been safe from such tactics
by. their own Government, at home, or abroad
- St, Louis Post-Dispatch
jection? that the CIA was:.
censoring .some, of ? ita
data on the party on the
;rounds of national secura
ity.? He repeated his, re- i
quest to examine unex-
purgated CIA files in 'pri-
vate. ?
"The question cannot be
easily resolved, it needs
time,"- replied Assistant:
U.S. attorney John Sif-
fert.The CIA has admitted
bugging SWP leaders dur-
ing their trips abroad and
making "surreptitious en-
tries" into premises .the
travelers occupied.
NEW YORK TIMES
1 29 JULY 1976
Notes : on People
In Miami.. E. Howard Hunt '
. filed a $2-5 million lawsuit:;
,
- yesterday against. the New.'
York publisher and the au-
? thors- of a 1973' book, that
allegedly- suggests he- mas-
terminded the aesassination.
. of President John' F. Ken-
nedy. Named in "the Federal
, District Court suit are Mi-
chael Canfield of Silver
Springs,. Md_ and Alan Web-
eaman? of New :York_ au-
times of "Coup. d'Etat in
? America," and Joseph Op-
kerne president of Third
Press. 444 Central Park West..
' Mr. Hunt, a former C.I.A. -
? agent, was convicted in con- !
nection with the Watergate ,
haling said ---.;? icnnething -An-
_
-jest-7. : ..
. In 'additiOra-Colion testi-
fied that he was asked
"many times" . by President
Nixon to try to discredit An-
derson. - .
. .
The-Senate document reit-
? crated earlier reports that a '
former CIA physician, Dr.
? Edward M.. Gunn. met with a
Hunt in 1972 tosee if - a h
mind-altering drug could.be -;
obtained:. ea- aa?.' ?Z`? a.- a.- -..e.
They discussed - various a
means of adminstering the ,
drug, for example by paint- e
ing the steering wheel of .a a
car so the drug would be ab- ,
sorbed through the skin. ac-::
cording to the report. -
This resembles the proce-
dure in which one source -
for the Post story described
the., ealleged assassination I
plan. The Plan,. according toe
. the source, was to, makei .
, sure the- drug' took -effect!
when Andereonawae, driving
, ?
? to his -suburbanaMarYlandl
j
? home. a4 :,,,:aaea...e.:,-,'
. Arideron his said that th
story of. drugging hiin..does
- not make' sense. "That's ridi-I
eulouse-eF:4,--eAll : ray' redid
and myerir-,ashows foratha '
matter' 1--'taped . , ineaad
vaneeeeiti,ifea'vouldn:te have
, ? worked;lahesaid. -,a. - fee ?-:,:...-44
! The ...a.Watergate : Special
1 Prosecutor's.:Off ice ' haseine
I ? vestigated the .alleged assess!
Isinationeplan fore nearly a..4
I
year,.. and: aria offieial atherel
I, said-the?matter has not beeni
: closed, though.there was lit-l ?
?. tie or no prospect . of .anei
. criminal ; e ? charges' : beingi
' ? brought- from. the investigae:
. tion_, - a es ," - ah h.:ha:a-4-717.4)
, -
burglary. He is imprisoned at ?
the Federal Detention Cen-
ter Fla. -
His Miami lawyer, Ellis
Rubin, said yesterday he
hoped to subpoena some un-
released Warren. Commission
documents to rebut state-
ments in which, he- said, "the-
book erred"-- that his client .
was in Dallas on the- day
President Kennedy was shot
and that Mr. Hunt had head- .
ed a CIA: plot to kill him.
In New York, Mr. Opkapu
denied that the hook con-
tained such allegations. "Any
publisher with any sense of
the lee/ would be crazy at
say that," he said.
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : Cl/1-SIDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
THE TULSA WORLD (OKLAHOMA)
15 July 1976
. .4. ;`?
Gunter-5
Trouble
? REIV10113E11:-i.Couititii-Sey;.t,-the
magazine blamed, in part for 'the
murder of',..?a,' :central. T? Intelligence
Agency 'officig.in. Greece-last Dea?
cember? ,Here's, some good
The magazine's staff ? has,been?
SPlit. apart. 'ancr disorganized: .by
biekering;:.
? COUNTER-SPY first came to public
attention after publishing:the names
of pemas it claimed were ??CIA
agents. One rrian so ,listed WRS _
RICHARD S, WELCH, top. CA execu-
tive in Greece, who: was,'subse-
quently murdered br terrorists,
:possibly inspired by: Seeing,
name in. print. ? ;
Editors laughed off the - WELCH
:murder and defended their expo-?
ki.re of U.S. intelligence operations
on ideological grounds. Now the
magazine- may,'..hopefully, be pub
-rotit of business by this sarrie kind
aVquest' for ideological purity.
FOur': of COUNTER-SPY'S seven
staff members have quit_ and its
= oftice.hai been closed in 'a;clispute
Over Staff .organization and. other
matters: _ ? --- -
"Some people believed that a col-
lective' (staff . organization) was
still viable;" a former employe ex-
plained. "But other people.. .wanted
to abandon the Collective process!
and go into a more traditional, less
democratic' organization."
Another- member, according to
the :WASHINGTON; POST, reportedly
Ocetised other members of being
police agents, antiCornmunists; sex-
ists and liberals.
It couldn't happen to nicer folicSi
. NEW YORK TIMES
30 JULY 1976
EDITOR & PUBLISHER
24 July 1976
Influencing the news
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Bush,
told representatives or the National News Council .Tune 24
that no newsman affiliated in any way with an American
news organization would be hired for any purpose by that
agency. This applied to full-time employes,?foreign nationals
Working for a U.S. news agency, stringers,, and free lance
writers. Any affiliate falling into these categories has been.
.or'would_be teprninated as a CIA employe, he said.
Furthermore, CIA .will not use news reporting or jour-
- nalism aS,a. "cover" for any of its operatives. .
We welcome this assurance after many months of state-
ments from CIA director Bush that be "wouldn't" hire full-
time or part-time correspondents and then a Senate Select
Committee report that it was still being done. E&P on May 1
? demanded CIA cut out the "double-talk."
:Now, we wait and see if it "sticks."
This proclivity of CIA to Use journalists and a newsman's
"covet"' to cloak the work of its agents probably already has
had a disastrous effect on the reputation of U.S. news ser-
vices and their representatives abroad. It is partly respon-
sible, undoubtedly, for the. fin-illation of a new propaganda
network of official government press agencies just- or-
ganized at a meeting in New Delhi.
It must be remembered, also, that the 58 deveroping coun-
tries that formed the pool of government press agencies, "to
liberate their information and mass .media from the colonial
legacy," believe that only their own definition of "news" is
correct and legitimate.
If this arrangement is adopted, as it probably will.be, at a
meeting of the heads of state of these third-world nations
next month, it will inaugurate an era of rapid deterioration
of what was once proudly called "world freedom of informa-
tion." The authenticity of news from those nations will be
greatly suspect. The "news" will be only the official version.
Independent newsmen and news agencies will be restricted;
and probably denied- access to those countries.
The New Delhi proposal is right in line with that being
considered at a UNESCO- meeting in Costa Rica this week
for establishment of a Latin American news agency com-
posed of official government information (or propaganda)
agencies.
Most of those nations involved in the New Delhi and the
Costa Rica proposals have already suppressed the free press
within their borders. Their people will be spoon-fed the 'offi-
cial version of the news and their ruling parties, cliques, or
juntas, will perpetuate themselves in power because of it.
Government f L'Aws?
. _High Government . officials are, often afflicted with
? strange advice, but one of the most bizarre submissions
to a Cabinet officer in recent years must be the recom-
mendation from Justice Department -lawyers- to Attorney
.General Levi that the Government.. not prosecute .the
?Central. Intelligence Agency officials , responsible for
"Operation HT Lingual." To those ,unfamiliar with the
agency's .secret lingo, "HT Lingual" is' the code name for
? the 20-year program of opening mail in transit
between the United, States.. and Communist countries.
I UnderFederal law, tampering with first-class mail' in this
?country is- a criminal. offense; but under a theory .con-
cocted by Justice Department lawyers,?"a.continuum of
Presidential authority" gave legality to the program, no
matter what the law said.?
This notion amounts to the assertion that Presidential
knowledge of a crime is sufficient to revoke the opera?
tion- of the law, or in other words, a crime is a crime
ekcept when a number of Presidents wink at it.
Not even Richard Nixon in extremis went that far.
When the Supreme Court ruled that his claim of execu-
tive privilege was subordinate to the requirements of
the criminal processes of the United States, he turned
over tapes that he had clearly been advised would sink
him. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any President making
the power-grab that Justice Department lawyers are now
upholding: that the Chief Executive had the authority
to exercise secretly a power that has no basis in the
Constitution or the law and that he would not have dared
.to claim publicly. Thus to place the President above
the law is. an unacceptable extension of the American
constitutional system.
?
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIMRDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved. Foy Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1.
~?-,
WASHINGTON OBSERVAR
NEWSLETTER
-It doesn't take a majority to make a rebellion; it takes only a few
determined leaders and a sound cause." ?II. L. NIENCKEN
NUNIBER 222
JULY 15, 1976
CIA
Has the controversial Central In-
telligence Agency?the CIA?been
PHOENIX reformed after the scandalous ex-
? posure hi Congress of the cloak-
and-dagger agency's illegal and often criminal
activities? Not at all. Those unsavory activities
are going on as usual, and include assassinations
of political opponents.
_
The 'Main locale of those assassinations cur-
.rently is Argentina and the victims are, More
often than not, the die-hard supporters of Maria
Estela (Isabellita) ,Peron, the constitutionally
-elected President of Argentina.. Mrs. Peron suc-
ceeded to the Presidency after the death of her
husband, President Juan Domingo Peron. She had
been elected Vice-President of Argentina on her
husband's ticket.
Currently- she. is being held prisoner by the
CIA-sponsored military junta in Buenos Aires, -
-headed by General Jorge Videla, a CIA pet. The
assassinations of the Latin politicoes which are
now going on at -a fast clip are carried out by
the Videla regime, which the U.S. Government
, ..is financing-with your tax money. -
Most recent information to. WO is that the
CIA-sponsored military dictatorships. of Argen-
tina, Chile and Uruguay are cooperating in a CIA-
instigated terror campaign against political re-
fugees, Argentine dissidents and some 20,000
? exiles who have sought. shelter in Argentina while
that country will still ruled by Presidents Juan
Domingo and Maria Estela Peron.
? Now, those refugees have nowhere to go, ex-
cept to the bleak Falkland Lianas off Argentine
Patagonia, becan.ce the military regimes in con-
tiguous Brazil, Bolivia and Peru are also under
the CIA aegis. This kind of information, dramatic
as it may be, of the current plight of the hot-
headed Latin politicos, who have committed no
crime and are being exterminated by goons bank-
rolled with your tax dollars, you will not find in the
?gresponsible" news media. However, newspapers
from Madrid, T.ondon and Stockholm often con-
tain facts regarding what is going on iii our own
backyard.
- "The sight ? was -far from unusual in today's
Argentina," reads a dispatch from its Holmberg, -
.the South American correspondent of Dagens
Nybeter of -Stockholm (Monday, May '24, 1976):
Four bodies in a car parked in the center of Buenos
Aires, all of them with their hands tied behind their
?back and riddled with bullets. .. William Whitelaw
and his wife Rosario Barred', Whitelaw. from Uru-
guay, and two Uruguayan senators, Zeirnar Miche)ini ?
and Hector Guttierez Ruiz had been kidnapped in
Buenos Aires by armed men who showed official
documents indicating they were Government police ?
officers. The four people were taken away in broad
daylight and amid a wild uproar, with street crowds ,
watching as the three men shouted in protest. Senora
Whitelaw cried for help and . her three children-4-
year old Gabriela, 16 months old Maria Victoria and
2 months old Maximo?just cried. The public ap- ?
parently knew it was a Government operation and
did not intervene as the four adults and the three
infants were Abducted. The authorities waited for
two days before acknowledging the discovery, of the. -
four adultahduCtees.... The official note was mum
about the abduction of the three Whitelaw children
?and about their fate. Military sources privately
indicate that the four weredoneaway by special naval
"commandos"?Arg,entine Navy personnel who have
been especially selected by the regime of General
Jorge Videla to liquidate political opponents and -
their most dangerous supporters. . . .?
WO readers should not mistakenly ,conclude
that CIA projects have anything- whatsoever to
do with the national interest or, whether their tar-
gets are communist, non-communist, anti-corn-
?.
inunist, right-wing, left-wing, conservative, social-
1st, monarchist or whatever. The aim of the CIA
is' Simply and consistently to do what is in The
best interests of the international banks and
multi-national corporations?with particular rcL.
ference to the securing of the oil and mineral re-?.
sources of the world.
Take the situation- in Argentina, for example.
The issue there is primarily the vast oil deposits
lying off the coast. The Peronist regime did not
want to turn the exploitation of this national re-
source over to Bockefeller.
Shortly after the accession to power of the
Videla regime, it was quietly announced that
? Exxon?the flagship of the multinational Rocke-
feller operations?would he permitted to re-
turn to Argentina from whence it was thrown
b-
out by General Peron in 1974. And the regime also
announced that the multinational oil companies -
will shortly be invited to explore the vast oil de-
posits off the Argentina continental shelf.
According to a U.S. Geological Survey report, .
there are 200 billion barrels of oil in these off-.
share deposits, more than the reserves in Saudi
Arabia. This does not include the oil in continental
Argentina or the possibly even larger deposits
around the Falkland Islands.
Approved Fcir Release 2001/08/08 : CIAIRDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved fotRelease 2001108/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
WASHINGTON STAR
--
4 2 7 JUL 1976_
Leaking From a to th H to re Times
United Press International
? A former researcher for
the House Intelligence
Committee says she copied
a sensitive CIA memo and
, passed it on to the panel al-
though she was warned not
to mention names.
Sandra A. Zeune, re-
searcher for the defunct
'House intelligence panel,
:testified yesterday before
the House Ethics Commit-
: tee which is investigating
the leak of a secret intelli-
gence report to CBS corre-
spondent Daniel Schorr.
While being questioned,
she brought up what is
known as the "Jackson
She said she made an al- expected to be called by a whither committee with a
most verbatim handwritten' Senate Foreign Relations more', benign view. of CIA
copy, memorized the names subcommittee which was activities. -
and turned it over to the questioning ?the,. Interns- After the story was
Intelligence- Committee' tional Telephone and Tele- leaked and published by
staff which, she said, was graph Co. about alleged The New York Times,
trying to develop evidence links with the agency in Jackson denied suggestions, -
of congressional protection South America.. he was trying to cover up
of the CIA. ' Jackson, according to the for the CIA. All he did, he
The memo, purportedly, memo, advised the CIA to said, was give official ad-
written t4,-a 'CIA.official, protect itself by having in- vice on "procedural mat-
described a Feb. 3, 1973, quiries transferred sto ters."
meeting with Jackson. ,
THE CIA at the time-
feared exposure of its cov-
ert activities in Chile and
; WASHINGTON STAR
L .3 0 JUL 1976, I
memo." Id the CIA
MISS ZEUNE said she by
. chance came across the
' 1973 memo, which concern-
ed advice Sen. Henry A.
- Jackson, D-Wash., gave to
' the agency, while going -
1 through classified docu-
ments at-the CIA's Langley
headquarters.
WASHINGTON POST
8 JUL 1976
-
LIA
emeg- ,
ak to Sehori
Associated Pie-as :%
The CIA did not leak a
copy of the House Intelh- ?
gence Committee report to
CBS-reporter Daniel"
Schorr, CIA counsel Mit- -;
chell Rogovin testified yes-
terday. ? " '
.A careful examination of
the corniniteeeports:giy
..en to the CIA and the ver-
sion of the report furnished
by Schorr for publication in
The Village Voice showed
"significant -differences,"
Rogovin told the House
. 'ethics committee investigat-.
ing the leak.
Rogovin said- he and 0th--,
,er-,CIA persons had 'been
given a 'copy of a Jan. 19
draft of the report -by the -
kcommittee staff but the.,
',same staff refused him a
'copy of the filial".
, draft report. He later got a
copy from a committee
-member, Rep. Les Aspin (D-
Leak Report
?
To Schorr?
United Press International
Rep. James Stanton, D-
, Ohio, has testified that
Daniel Schorr told him he
t got his copy of a secret
House intelligence report
from the CIA.
The intelligence agency
immediately denied it
_leaked the report to Schorr,
the CBS reporter who gave
the document to a news-
paper.
- Appearing under oath
yesterday at House Ethics
Committee hearings, Stan-
ton was the first witness to
offer testimony, in public,
on who -might have given
Schorr the House Intelli-
gence Committee report.
He said he could not tell
whether Schorr was joking.
-"HE SAID trE received it
' from the CIA," Stanton
testified. "Whether he was
serious or not, I don't know.
He said that if it was re-
ported he would deny it. I
didn't give it much cre-
Aence.'.'
?
4- --TASHI NGI-ION STAR
2 3 JUL 1976
e?House
x Wfth
&peat
Unauthorized Access
Rampant, Hill Aide Says-:
United Press Internatienct
The staff director of the House
18
Approved For Release 2001108/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
' After Stanton's testi-
mony, a CIA spokesman
' told UPI: "the CIA denies it
and will continue to deny
it."
Schorr has refused to say
' where or how he got the re-
port.
The Ethics Committee is
in the final phases of a
fourth-month, $150,000
investigation into the
source of Schorr's leak. The
House voted earlier this
year to suppress the contro-
versial intelligence report
until President Ford could
censor it.
- Schorr got a copy from a
source he refuses to identify
and passed it to the Village
Voice newspaper of New
York, which published
much of it verbatim.
? OTHER WITNESSES
have testified they suspect-;
ed the CIA gave Schorr the
report in an effort to dis-
credit the Intelligence
Committee's work, but
Stanton was the first to re-
port information attributed
to Schorr himself.
Under questioning by
Ethics Committee counsel
John Marshall, he said
Schorr raised the subject
himself during a casual
conversation in the House
Speaker's Lobby sometime
in February.
"He indicated on that
Intelligence Committee has testified
that unauthorized White House per-
sonnel, among many others, had ac-
cess to the supposedly secret intelli-
gence report that eventually leaked
to the press.
"I know of friends in the White
House who had absolutely nothing to
do with intelligence who saw it," A.
Searle Field told House investigators
yesterday. The Ethics Committee'
investigators are trying to determine
who leaked the report to CBS report-
er Daniel Schorr.
"Who were they?" counsel John
Marshal asked Field.
"I'LL TELL YOU in executive
(closed) session," Field replied.
Field, who ran the staff of the now
defunct intelligence panel, was the
occasion he had received
the report from the CIA,
and he volunteered this,"
Stanton said. "I was sur-
prised."
He said Schorr did not
say who in the CIA alleged-
ly gave him the report. The
congressman said he did
not ask and never again
discussed the matter with
Schorr.
LATER, REPORTERS
asked Stanton whether he
thought Schorr was being
serious when he volunteer-
ed to disclose the source of
the leak ? a secret that has
rankled Congress and i.
fueled Washington gossip
for months.
"I never know when he's
serious," Stanton replied.
Another witness, former
Intelligence Committee ;
counsel Aaron Donner, said
it was "unfair" to keep
staff members of the now-
defunct intelligence panel
under suspicion when the
committee could ask Schorr
himself who the sonrce of
the leak was.
Ethics committee inves-
tigators have said, how-
ever, that the reporter's
lawyers advised them
Schorr will not identify his
source even if subpoenaed
and questioned under oath.
11th witneSs to testify in the final
phase of the four-months-long, $150.-
000 Ethics Committee probe. He
denied he leaked the report and said
he does not know who did.
The Intelligence Committee earli-
er this year completed its probe of
CIA covert activities with a report
filled with classified information and
severely critical of U.S. spy opera-
tions. The House voted to keep the
report secret until President Ford
could censor it.
Schorr got a copy from a source he
refuses to identify and gave it to the
New York newspaper Village Voice.
which published much of it verbatim.
Field made his comment about
White House personnel to illustrate
his claim ? supported by several
Approved For Release 2001/08108.: CIA,RDP77-00432R000100390004-1.
,previous witnesses ? that copies of
?the report circulated throughout
Washington and could have reached
Schorr in many ways.
FIELD SUSPECTS the leak came
from someone in the executive
branch and possibly the CIA itself, he
said.
Marshal asked Field to describe
the exterior of the Washington house
he occupied during the intelligence
investigations. After Field, looking
puzzled, did so, Marshal asked:
"Did Miss Susan Parker come to
your residence Feb. 6?"
"I never heard the name," Field
replied.
Asked whether he gave a draft of
, the report to Miss Parker, Field said,
THE NATION
JULY' - AUGUST 7, 1976
EDDITORIAIS .
63.71tellIgence9 IForevi*
The ?unpleasant .likelihood that the famous., "leak". of
'the suppressed ? House Select Conunittee on Intelligence
report came from the executive, rather than the legisla-
tive,?branch of our government has been vastly strength-
ened in recent days. The theory that this might :be so is
not new. As I.F. Stone and others, including this maga-.
zinc, have observed, the leak perfectly served the ends
the CIA. .
There has been so much leaking, counter-leaking,
obfuscation, incompetence and plain lying about this af-
fair that it is worth rehearsing the bare facts of the case
before making a judgment on the latest. developments: It
will .be recalled, shat, in Watergate's wake, :Congress
blossomed with righteous indignation at the abuses of the
"intelligence 'community" which peeped out from under
all the attempted Cover-ups. The Congressional pose was
that it never knew about all these scandalous activities by
the imperial spies, even though ?several members of both
houses had all the access to the essential .information.
that they needed?all they lacked was the:Will' to do
something about it. ? .
There came a proliferation of . committees to probe
and pry and tell all. One of them was. the House Select
Committee on. Intelligence, headed by Rep. Otis Pike
(D., N.Y.). The Pike committee spent months on the
job, not to mention $1 initlici?, and finally came up with,
a. report. This committee was more free-swinging and less
"statesmanlike" than its sober-sided Senate equivalent,
headed by Sen. Frank Church (D., Idaho). In its rather
brawling way, it. poked into darker corners of the spy
world, thars.,411sac herch .group felt comfortable doing.
Whereas Chtirehandhis colleagues worked hand in glove
with the executive departments to produce a "respon-
sible" reformist report (shocking as even that was), the
Pike 'committee :took an adversary stanee almost from
"Absolutely not. I did not provide a
copy of the report to anybody." ,
David Bowers, the Ethics Commit-
tee's director of investigation, had
identified Miss Parker on Monday as
secretary to 'Clay Felker, editor-in
chief of the Village Voice. Bowers
said Felker sent Miss Parker to
Washington on Feb. 6 to get the
Schorr copy.
"She ?went to an unrecalled ad-
dress where she picked up a package
from a maid and returned to New..
York by shuttle flight. . . aware the-
package contained a copy of the Se-
lect Cornmmittee report,"? Bowers
had said Monday.
DURING the afternoon ?sessionl
the start...?
Bit by bit, it Managed to extract-nuggets of informa-
tion on the blacker arts of spying, domestic and foreign,
as practiced by the CIA and the FBI; among other
agencies of the United States. The agencies dragged their
feet, of course, resisting with all their considerable might
the quite reasonable requests for enlightenment that came
from the Pike committee. At last the committee produced
a report, or rather several versions of a report, based
on the scraps of inforrnation it had been able to wheedle
and force out of the ;Ty agencies.
From the CIA's standpoint, after all the battles over
classification were done, the worst thing about the Pike
report was the picture of bumbling ineffectiveness which
emerged. The illegalities' and ,outrageous subversions of
constitutional government that were writ large in it they
yesterday, Field took exception to an
Ethics Committee investigator's re-
port that the intelligence panel had
lax security standards.
"We had better security than the
CIA and FBI," he said. "I was not
impressed by the FBI and CIA staff-
ers who we worked with. They were
incredibly sloppy."
He said agents would walk up to
him in the House corridors, ask
someone to identify him and "give
me a bunch of classified documents."
He said his staff handled 75,000
classified documents and evey one
was accounted for and returned to
the CIA and other agencies that sup-
plied them.
The Ethics Committee adjourned
its probe until Monday morning.
could live with. They could 'not bear to be .portrayed as
gmateurs, and grossly incompetent ones a:t that.
And so the central Intelligente ?Agency conspired (not
too strong a word) with the rest of the executive branch.
and ?with its friends in Congress to have the Pike corn-
:mittee report suppressed.. All this, of course,' was in' the
interests of "national security" and of an "eft:sc.
sponsible intelligence system." It was .the ultirnate cover-
up. 'Incredibly, the .House went along with it: The full. .
House voted to overrule the Pike committee. decision .to
make 'the report public_ Naturally, that did -not work,
Too many petiole knew what was in the report. Too many
copies of the various versions of it were floating around
Washington like confetti. There was. too much 'curiosity
about it and to many people with motives for telling- all- ?
Inevitably, the report .got into the hands of journalist;.'
including Daniel Schorr of CBS News, and they quia-kly
reported the substance of it. These revelations bro.ight on
a storm Of protest from :he executive- branch,
ttxred itself as unable to conduct the business of this coun- ?
try abroad if an -"irresponsible" Congress could not be
trusted with the secrets necessary to our survival as a
nation. And so on. At last Schorr found himself apparent-
ly in ?sole possession of a copy of this hot potato. Rather
than burn or bury it, or. hide it in his chimney, Schorr ?
took on himself the responsibility to decide, contrary to
the cowardly vote in the House, that the document should ?
be made .public, and it was (improbably, in New York's
Village Voice). ? . -
The House, offended and made to look ridiculous,
decided to do something about this ultimate leak. It has
spent four months. and SIAM.? trying to find out .where
Schorr got his -copy. Quite properly, Schorr and the
other reporters who at. one time or another had the docu-
ment in their bands are refusing to .reveal their sourcrs
(and CBS', which has suspended Schorr from all report-
ing, is supporting him in that position). It seems 'in-
creasingly doubtful that the House investigating com-
mittee will ever solve the mystery.. ?
We now come full circle back to the question of who
had a motive for letting the report out and thus tarnish-
ing Congress with the reputation. for being a bunch of
blabbermouths who can't be trusted with the nation's .
secrets, Along comes Rep. Les Aspin (D., Wis.) with
the revelation, or admission, that he gave a copy of the
final Pike committee report to the CIA. Aspin says that,
after all, the information in the report came Iron; the in-
telligence agencies, and he adds the curious, but probably
accurate, statement that what he did "was not done with
authority (from Congress) and it was rot done without
authority."
We are left with the mystery almost intact. We now
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 CIA-R1077-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
know where the CIA's copy of the final report came
from. We can speculate all we want on the'de,vions moti-
vations of this agency, which had every reason to dis-
credit Congress for trying to uncover its operations at
home and abroad. We may never know what actually
happened. ?
The one clear conclusion, and it has been evident from
the start, is that the executive branch, led by a succese
WASHINGTON STAR
2 3 JUL 1976
Ne
f Nati
sion of Presidents, has used the power of the information
which it alone controls to enhance Presidential power.
The best way to do that i_ discredit the only part of
our government:which, if it had, the intelligence, will and ?
nerve to do it, could bring an overwhelming Presidency
back into a proper balance with the legislature in our
i system of government. The recent developments in the
Schorr case give little reason for optimism. ?
le rawn on
nal Securi
By David Pike ?
Washington Star Staff Writer ?
A second historic battle has been
? drawn between the Congress and the
President over "national security''
documents ? this time over a sub-
? poena by the House Commerce over-
sight subcommittee to the American
Telephone & Telegraph Co. for
records of so-called national security
wiretaps it has conducted for the
government.
The June 22 subpoena orders
AT&T to turn over the documents to
the subcommittee this morning. But
late yesterday Justice Department
attorneys, at the personal behest of
President Ford, persuaded U.S. Dis-
trict Judge Oliver Gasch to issue a
:temporary order blocking the sub-
poena pending a full hearing
Wendesday.
? However, the subcommittee's
counsel, Michael Lemov, told Gasch
? -
that the order "will not affect Con-
gress."- ,
LEMOV ASSERTED that AT&T
representatives still must appear be.
fore the subcommittee today, add-
ing: "The (order) will not bind Con-
gress in exercising its legislative
powers under Article I of the Consti-
tution. It is up to the committee to
decide what to do next."
The 11th-hour restraining order
was requested by Rex E. Lee, an as-
sistant attorney general in charge of
the Justice Department's Civil Divi-
sion, at the request of Ford, who is
, invoking "executive privilege"
1 against any release of - the docu-
1 meats.
Ford is contending that to do so
would "risk disclosure of extremely
. sensitive foreign intelligence and
counterintelligence information that
would be damaging to the national
security."
Lee told Gasch that this was a
"rare case, only the second time in
history where the president has as-
serted executive privilege in the sub-
poena of documents by the Con-
gress."
The first instance, he noted later,
was the battle by Senate and House
committees investigating the Water-
gate scandal to obtain President
Richard Nixon's White House tapes.
.THE CURRENT court action fol-
lows weeks of unsuccessful negotii-
: tions between the White House and
, the subcommittee chairman, Rep.
-John E. Moss, D-Calif., in an effort
to resolve ?the problem. Moss had
noted that only two days after the
subpoena was issued, he was visited
by two of Ford's closest advisers ?
Philip W. Buchen, counsel to ceptable risks"' to- national
the President and John 0. security.
He presented as an alter-
native a plan under which
I the FBI would separate
documents held by AT&T
relating to domestic tele-
phone surveillance from
those dealing with foreign
intelligence surveillance
, and provide the former to
the subcommittee.'
Under Ford's offer, for-
eign intelligence documents
from any two years also
could be obtained by the
_
subcommittee, but they
would be "edited" to 'delete
"names, addresses, line or
telephone numbers and
other information which
would disclose targets of
the surveillances, sources
of information about the
targets, and methods of
surveillance." The docu-
ments would disclose, how-
ever, whether the targets
were U.S. citizens.
LEE ARGUED before
Gasch that if the unedited
letters were sent to the sub-
committee, the surveillance.
targets would become
known.
Lee contended in papers
filed with the court that
such disclosures "would
terminate various intelli-
gence and counterintelli-
gence . programs._ would
iSCI Mire
cuments
Marsh Jr., counselor to the
President '?and by Lee.
Moss agreed to discuss
? ways of eliminating "genu-
ine" national security prob-
lems, but no resolution Was'
reached. The purpose of the
investigation is to deter-
mine the extent of illegal
wiretapping done by tele-
phone companies at the
request of law enforcement
and intelligence agencies.
The subcommittee wants
to find out how wiretapping
, may be violating provisions
of a federal law designed to
guarantee privaey. in all
communications, whether
by wire or radio.
THE SUBPOENA to
AT&T seeks the govern-
ment "request letters': sent
to the company for special
Lines, letters that list the
addresses and telephone
numbers of the surveillance
' targets and the location of
the FBI field offices where
calls are monitored.
Ford, in a letter sent yes-
terday to Moss, said, "I
fully understand your de-
sire for some procedure by
which you can obtain infor-
mation relevant to your in-
quiry," but that the
subpoena presented "%mac-
NEW YORK TIMES
3C JUL 1976
US. Cites
?.
- By RICHARD HALLORAN delltial court documenw.
spew to Thq New Yark The officials asserted that
' WASHINGTON, July 29 ? they had lost a contact in Ha-
Senior United State S officials, noi, that the Canadian Govern-
cited three specific instances merit had expr?.-ssed concern ment's plea to halt further p..15
of what they characterized as and that the Primo Minister of lication of the secret hiswrY
harm to the nation's security
in 1971 caused by the publica-
tion of the Pentagon .Papers,
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP7-00432R000100390004-1
identify and endanger in-
formants and double agents
currently supplying intelli-
gence and counterintelli-
gence information to the
United States, would reveal
the technical capabilities of
the United States in obtain-
ing such intelligence
information, would elimi-
nate valuable sources of
information important to
the national defense and
national security and would
severely hamper the con-
duct of our relations with
? foreign powers."
' The Justice Department
official argued that the Su-
preme Court in the Nixon
tapes case noted the special
need to defer to executive
privilege in national securi-
ty matters, especially
where alternative methods
of obtaining the information
were available.
HE ADDED that this
case was unique .because
the documents sought were
in the possession of a pri-
vate company and not the
government.
"The government must
rely on private industry for
many needs, such as de-
fense equipment, since it
does not have the capability
to provide the material it-
self.% ?
arm' of Pentagon Papers
according to previously corill- public by the Justice Depart-
ment-in response to cletrisr.n.i
submitted under the Freed:al
of Information ? Act, indicItt
that the balance of the Govern.
Atistralia had found . the dis-
closures "appalling." ?
? The. court documents, inade
the Vietnam war was based on
speculation over paten.
rather than actual. damage-
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R00010039.0004-1.
? A brief written by 'Erwin
Griswold, who was the Solici-
tor General in 1971, contended
that continued publication of
the papers "could have the ef-
fect Of causing immediate and
irreparable harm to the security
t?Iff the United States."
Gesell Hearing Involved
? The New York Times started
publishing the secret history onj
June 13. 1971, and was re-
strained from publication by a
tenli(ine 15 by the Federal Dis-
trict
injunction 'imposed
Court in New York. The
Washington Post began publi-
cation of the papers on June 18
and was restrained that same
da!The documents just ?released
pertain to a secret meeting be-
fore Judge 'Gerhard Gesell on
whether the Washington Post
injunction should be permanent.
.PuPre.1.11g
WASHINGTON POST
? 2.9 JUL 1976
Cour ruled against? restraining
publication of the papers. ?
In the private hearing Dennis
S. Doolin, then a Deputy As-
tistant Secretary of Defense
concerned With American pris-
oners in North Vietnam, testi-
fied that publication of the
papers had hurt his efforts on
the prisoners' behalf.
Mr. Donlin said, addressing
the judge: ?
"I can say, sit, that I have
lost the.one contact that I per-
sonally -had in Ha:noi. It dried
up last Week." Mr. Doolin did
not identify the contact, even
by nationality, but said that "I
had a private relationship with
him, and he does not feel with
certain items that have been
in the press that he can talk
to me any longer." ' .
Concern in .Canada.
Williani B. Macombe, r tbe
_
Denuty Undersecretary of State
for Administration, testified in
an affidavit that Canadian offi-
cials had called in the. Arnert-;
:can Ambasador. The officials,
he said, "expressed concerni
over impresions created in Can-
ada" that the Ottawa. Govern-
ment was. "either a rogue or a:
,fool" for helping the United;
States to search for peace int
1Vietnam.
Mr. Macomber :also testifiedi
personally that the.1971 Prime
Minister of Australia, William
MacMahon Whom Mr. Ma-
comber did not name had let
the United States know private-
ly that he found the disclosures
"appalling." ;
Mr. Macomber's affidavit,
however, quoted' a telegram
from the American Ernbassyln
Canberra that said that Aus-
tralian officials. Tha.ve -not said
so, but . expect .?for jom
'time to corm they' will be more,
-than normally cautious in dis-
,cussions with U. ?S. officials.?
1 State Dept. Asked Feelers
! The State Department. had
sent a telegrain to all embas-
sies asking for reactions frein
;host governments and the bide-
pendent ?assessment of Ameri-
can ambassadors. In his .gra-.
davit, Mr.!. Macomber quoted
from several," contending that
continued publication of the'
papers could ? ? jeopardize ? 'na-
tional security. ?
But -in later testimony before
the judge Mr. Macomber
acknowledged, that other 'tele-
grams, not mentioned ..rt
affidavit, had said that:"it was
too early to -telL".?
"Occasionally,": he went on,
"some would Say We will get
along all right". There was.*
spectrum of them.",
ecused in Irea
? By Warren Brown
- Washington Post Staff Writer
? The Justice Department is
Investigating charges that a
'paid FBI informer burglar-
, ized Socialist Workers Party
? offices in Denver on July 7 t
in connection with his as-
signment to spy on the left-
wing organization.
Assistant -Attorney Gen-
eral J. Stanley Pottinger
said yesterday that the de-
partment's Civil Rights Divi-
sion is looking into the alle-
gations "as part of an on-
going investigation" into
charges that bureau agents
.conducted illegal break-ins
during the last five years,
long after the FBI said such
burglaries had ended.
In an action related to the
case, U.S. District Court
Judge 'Thomas P. Griesa
ruled yesterday that SWP
lawyers could go to Denver
with a subpoena demanding
that the reported informer,
Timothy ? J. Redfearn, give
a? deposition Friday on his
alleged role in the burglary.
The Socialist Workers
Party, has . also asked that
Theodore Rosack, the FBI
agent...in charge in Denver,
give a deposition in the ease.
The SWP has filed a $37
million civil damage suit
against the federal govern-
ment alleging that the FBI,
CIA and other intelligence
agencies' sought to harass
the party through . break-ins,
electronic surveillance and
infiltration by informers.
In another action yester-
day regarding the suit, filed
in New York City, Judge
Griesa asked the CIA to
turn over to him all unex-
purgated documents relat-
ing to overseas surveillance
of the party's members.
CIA Director George
Bush said in a sworn state-
ment made public nearly
two weeks ago that the CIA
had overseas surveillance
files on SWP members.
However, Bush said the
agency could not provide
BAKFRSFIFLD, CAL.
CALIFORNIAN
311 8 19761
the court with complete
files because of national se-
curity considerations.
? Griesa said yesterday that
the documents given to him
by the CIA were, in some
cases, "90 per cent deleted,"
making it "very hard to deal
intelligently" with the issues
in the SWIP suit.
FBI officials in Denver
and at the agency's national
headquarters in the District
of Columbia refused to com-
? ment on the charges involv-
ing Redfearn. Redfearn, 'in
-a telephone conversation
Tuesday declined to discuss
the SWP burglary. '
According to Denver par-
ty coordinator Ruth Getts,
, Redfearn admitted to her
and several other party
members that he received ?
about $400 monthly for sev-
en months to !spy on the
Denver branch of the Young
Socialist Alliance, the par-
ty's youth arm. Getts said
Redfearn made the admis-
sion following the appear-
ance of Denver media stor-
ies identifying him as the
suspected burglar of the
SWP headquarters.
Denver Police Chief Ar-
thur Dill said yesterday that
Redfearn was linked to the
SWP burglary?in which the
party's membership, phone
and meeting Lii e s were
taken?after being arrested
July 14 in connection with
another burglary that occur-
red in late June.
Dill said Redfearn was
picked up on a warrant July
14 after returning to Den-
ver from Texas. "He [Red-
Learn) signed a sear ch
waiver and we went to his
place and found a couple of
items from the first bur-
glary," Dill said.
Dill said the FBI called
the Denver police later that
day to'say that the bureau
believed Redfearn also pos-
sessed items taken in the
SWP burglary.,
The police chief said he
"didn't get into" the ques-
tion of why the FBI believed
Redfearn had materials
stolen from the SWP. He
said Denver police made a
second search of Redfearn's
apartment building where,
Dill said, the SWP files were
found in several cartons in
a storage area.
Probers omitted vital facts
.The Justice Department's investigation of
.the FBI's "black bag- capers. Which went on,
long after they were supposedly stopped.
raises 'further questions about the nation's
chief law enforcement agency. That is had
enough, on top of all the disclosures about
the workings of the'intelligence apparatus.
But there is more. In yet another report
? the Senate Intelligence Committee brinw.us
? further cause for concern. We are told t.'at
? steer-eV-MY from anything but the Oswald-
alone-did-it scenario for the John F. Kennedy
assassination. ?
That scenario may- be the correct one.
Even the Senate committee, while spotlight-.
ing 'flaws in the investigative process. ac-
knowledges not having found evidence "suffi-
cient to justify a conclusion that there was a
'1 conspiracy to assassinate'President Kenne-
Ndy."
both CIA and FBI agents were ?Mein ly ? \I) Bu84eacitAi
cemarding
Approved For Release 200/138/ 8 : I - 0 hail:610004-i
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
the FBI: "Almost immediately after the'
? assassination, Director Hoover. the Justice
Department and the White House 'exerted
pressure' on senior bureau Officials to com-
plete their investigation and iss.ue a factual
report supporting the conclusion that Oswald.
was the lone assassin." This statement is
bolstered by supportive data.
? The Senate panel also elaborates on the
apparent fact that the Warren Commission
- was not told of CIA plotting to kill Cuban
NEW YORK TIMES
3 AUG 1275
Now That
-The Mighty
Hath Fallen
By Tom Wicker
.Not even the Central Intelligence
Agency in all its travail has undergone
.a more precipitous drop in- public re-
pute than the once untouchable Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation. Merely
to summarize the bureau's various
troubles is becoming difficult:
- 9Intemally, investigations are going
forward of allegations concerning mis-
use of the agents' recreation fund,
malfeasance in the purchase of sup-
plies and equipment, misappropriation
of bureau equipment, misuse of a confi-
dential fund to pay informers, and
improprieties in the management of an
$18 million annual insurance program
covering agents and ex-agents.
41A suit by the Socialist Workers'
Party has resulted in continuing dis-
closures of Hiegel F.B.I. burglaries and
other crimes; knowledge of the more
recent of these was withheld from
Clarence M. Kelley, the current F.B.I.
director," and when Mr. Kelley did be-
come aware of those burglaries, the
information for some reason was not
-transmitted to the Senate Intelligence
Committee, which was then investigat-
ing the bureau.
9Richard G. Held, just appointed by
Mr. Kelley as his top deputy, has had
to acknowledge a responsibility for a
program of disruptive tactics against
political dissidents when he headed the
Minneapolis F.B.I. office in the late
1960's and early 1970's?part of the
I.
Premier Fidel CaalZ7-The report says sen-
ior officials of both the CIA and FBI "direct-
ed their Subordinates to yr,-.1r1lict an investi- ;
gation withouttelling thert. of these vital
fats" (about the attempts on Castro's life.
?
hich may have brought a Cuban counterac-
tion). :
The committee sent its files to the new
permanent Senate Intelligence Committee
and urged a further probe. This should be
undertaken without delay.
'Merely to
summarize the
, F.B.I.'s troubles
is becoming
difficult.'
much wider Cointel program recently
detailed by Congressional investi-
gators.
All of this has followed the forced
resignation of L. Patrick Gray 3d as
Bureau director, for complicity, in the
Watergate cover-up, and further Con-,
gressional disclosures concerning the
F.B.I.'s campaign to discredit Dr. Mar-
tin Luther King Jr., its inadequate in-
vestigation of President Kennedy's
assassination, and its frequent use for
secret political purposes by Presidents
going back to Franklin Roosevelt.
Various investigations are going for-
ward within the Justice Department,
and apparently are being pushed with
more zeal than ' is Usually the case
when one bureaucracy investigates an-
other. But even without such inquiries,
at least three reasons why. the F.B.I.
accumulated so much dirty linen over
its "untouchable" years can be dis-
cerned.
The. first, of course, is the long
tenure and the sanctified status at-
tained by J. Edgar Hoover in his un-
paralleled half a century as F.B:I. di-
rector?owing as much to his bureau-
cratic and public relations mastery
as to his control of the F.B.I. files
of secret and personal information.
This prime fact led directly to a
second?that in the Hoover years there
was literally no Congressional over-
sight of the F.B.I. Its budget requests
at one time were not even subjected
to line-by-line analysis, but simply ap-
proved without question.
The .F.B.I., moreover, has semi-.
?
autonomous status. Technically. it is
an arm of the Justice Department and
subordinated to the Attorney General,
but in practice the latter official can-
not conceivably control or even moni-
tor all F.B.I. activities. One inevitable
result is that a direct line of authority
runs informally from any President to
the F.B.I. director, opening up?as
Watergate showed?all sorts of du-
bious possibilities.
To some extent, these problems have
been dealt with by exposure of past
excesses, by the law requiring a nomi-
nee for the director's job to be con-
firmed by the Senate, and by new
Congressional arrangements that theo-
retically subject the bureau to more
stringent oversight, both as to its
_budget and its operations. A single,
fixed term of eight years or less for
a director was recommended by the
Intelligence Committee; and whoever
appoints Mr. Kelley's successor prob-
ably would do well to nominate a total
outsider with authority, enough to
dominate the bureau's old-boy net-
work and Hoover traditionalists.
Administrative responsibility for the
F.B.I. seems more troublesome. Giving
greater authority over the bureau to
the Department of Justice, as recom-
mended by the Intelligence Committee,
may be sufficient in the bureau's
present shattered condition, and with
an attorney general of Edward Levi's
stature in- the Ford Administration.
1 In other administrations and with a
I more pliable attorney general, how-
ever, that course could give a Presi-
dent even greater ability to make the
F.B.I. his political instrument. Circum-
stances are easily imaginable, in fact,
where the F.B.I. ought to be free to
investigate the Justice Department or
the President himself without admin-
istrative inhibition.
What may really be needed is less,
not more Presidential control?which
can too easily become political direc-
tion?over the Government's most
powerful investigative arm. But if so,
V:here is administrative responsibility
for the F.B.I. to be lodged?
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RYP77-00432R000100390004-1
'Approved For. Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
..01EPIERAL
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Aug. 9, 1976
SPECIAL REPORT In Next Decade
EA UP
OF COMMUNIST WORLD?
Steady disintegration lies ahead for the international
Communist movement, already fractured by the split
between Russia and China. That split will persist,
whoever comes to power in Peking and Moscow.
Western Europe's Communist parties, in or out of
government, will hold Moscow more and more at arm's
length and support NATO for self-protection. Uneasy
Soviet domination of Eastern Europe will? be main-
tained through the 1980s only by the continued pres-
ence of a big army of occupation.
That is the picture that emerges from a sweeping
three-hour briefing by senior Government analysts for
editors of U.S. News & World Report?an authoritative
look at the world in which the U.S. must operate
during the next decade.
Among other key conclusions:
A new global order. It will come after five to 10
years of "great uncertainty," with this country still
capable of restraining Soviet ambitions and limiting
international conflict
Spread of nuclear weapons. As many as 20 nations
may join the "nuclear club," but odds are that these
weapons will not be used in this century, except
possibly by a terrorist gang bent on blackmail.
Soviet-American d?nte. A major change will
take place in Russian leadership, but the aims of
Kremlin foreign policy will remain the same through
the 1980s: co-operation with the U.S. to gain economic,
political and military advantages, combined with con-
trolled rivalry to expand Moscow's influence.
Third world. It will be the weakness, not the
strength, of developing countries that will worry Wash-
ington. These nations, dependent on the US. for food,
technology and peace, will have little success in an
attempt to blackmail America with commodity cartels
or embargoes.
What follows are details given by the panel of
analysts who specialize in political, economic and
strategic affairs.
RUSSIA vs. CHINA: An Unending Conflict
. A continuing struggle is foreseen' between _Russia and
China?one that the U.S. will be able to exploit to gain
leverage with both Communist powers. Some improvement
in relations between Moscow and Peking is anticipated after
Mao Tse-tung passes from the scene. But:
"We see the conflict as a problem that is really not going tc
be solved. There are too many things separating these
countries, too many elements working at cross-purposes. I
don't think they will ever get back to where they were in the
'50s when they had a Sino-Soviet friendship treaty, thousands
of Soviet technicians in China and other close ties like that."
The analysts note this suprising feature of the Sino-Soviet
c, millet: China is "an extremely underde,eloped country
with modest power, and that is not going to change in the
near future." Yet, the Russians, with all their power, are
more apprehensive about China than vice versa.
In fact, a "grand paranoia" is noted in Moscow concerning
the Chinese and the 4,500-mile border that separates the two
countries. One specialist puts it this way: "The Soviets don't
understand the Chinese. They don't know what they're up
to. They just can't fit them in. The old-time Soviet leaders
are worried about the Chinese constantly."
Another expert expresses the view that, "on an emotional
level, China is probably a far greater concern to Soviet
leaders than the fear of an American nuclear attack against
the Soviet Union."
The meaning of all this for the U.S.? From a specialist in
international politics: -The mutual fear and distrust that the
Soviet Union and China harbor toward each other will keep -
them sufficiently apart so that the U.S. can operate as a kind
of catalytic element between the two."
In short, American planners reckon that the triangular
Moscow-Peking-Washington relationship that is a corner-
stone of U.S. foreign policy will continue for the foreseeable
future with no real reconciliation between the two Commu-
nist powers.
EURO-COMMUNISM: How Dangerous for West?
The analysts are in sharp disagreement with Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger over the rise of Euro-Communism.
Mr. Kissinger has warned that the participation of Com-
munists in the government of a major Western European
country would be disastrous for the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
Not so, according to the panel of official experts. They say ?
that if Communists gain a role in the Italian Government, for
? example, they will want to preserve the Alliance for their
own self-protection, no matter what headaches they create
for their non-Communist allies. In the words of the panel's
political specialist:
"National interest will dominate, whether there are Corn-
munists in the Government or not. I don't see any disintegra-
tion of NATO, not to the extent that it can be exploited by ?
the Warsaw Pact. I'm inclined to think that the Communists
in Western Europe say, in an Italian Government?will
want some sort of pact with the West, with the U.S. in
particular, as a deterrent to any Soviet threat to overrun
their country."
The breakup of a Communist world under Soviet domina-
tion will be accelerated by the rise of national Communism
in Western Europe. Thus: "If the Communists do come into
power in Western Europe, you will have a different brand of
Communism than you have in the Soviet Union, just as you
already have a different brand in China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam
and North Korea. I don't think the Soviets will dominate the
Italian or French Communists in office any more than they -
dominate them now."
In fact, the case is made that the Russians will be happy to
maintain the status quo in Europe. They are doing well in
their dealings with the existing non-Communist govern-
ments in Italy and France and don't necessarily see any
immediate advantage in having Communists share power in
these countries, especially Communists that they do not
completely control.
A Soviet foreign-policy specialist goes further: "The Rus-
sians have no particular desire to break up NATO. Because of
paranoia among the leaders about the dangers of a reunited
Germany, they regard NATO as a highly desirable organism
for the Soviet *Union."
Growing Western European Communist defiance of the
Kremlin raises questions about Russia's future hold over
Eastern Europe. Recent riots in Poland dramatized the
dangerous pressures that can boil up in these countries. The
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP/Z-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08: CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
experts say that the Soviet leaders can maintain their grip
over Eastern Europe during the decade ahead only with the
presence of a strong army of occupation. That force current-
ly numbers 31 divisions.
RUSSIA vs. U.S.: Return to Cold War?
Looking ahead into the 1980s, no change is foreseen in
current Soviet policy that would reignite the cold war.
Rivalry between the superpowers will continue. Both will
engage in probing operations. And there is always the
danger of miscalculation in a crisis involving "client states."
But, on balance, the experts are reasonably confident that
Soviet-American d?nte will remain a central feature of the
international landscape well into the future.
From a specialist on Soviet foreign policy: "Over all, I see
nothing that makes me fear that the Soviet Union is going to
change course and take a different direction in relations with
the U.S. I think the Russian leadership considers that things
are going pretty much their way now. Despite temporary
setbacks, such as their harvest failure, they see a fair number
of successes in the world and, as they view it, 'the correlation
of forces' seems to be moving in their favor."
The crucial question: Can Moscow get political mileage out
of its growing military power? A strategic expert says that
there is a widespread perception that Soviet military power
is greater than America's. And, in his view, that perception is
at least partly accurate: "The good old days of 10 years ago
when we clearly were on top are over. The parity or
superiority question is iffy, depending on the subject or the
area you want to pick. But it's no longer so clear-cut."
The U.S. retains an indisputable lead in technology, and
doubts are strong that the Russians will be able to match the
West in this field. Reason: "Their system doesn't seem to
? provide the necessary incentive for innovation and initiative
to develop advanced technology."
However, two factors are cited which offset this Russian
handicap. One is the fact that the "United States is fairly
compliant in providing advanced technology" to Moscow.
The other is the battlefield reliability of Russian weapons in
comparison with the performance of America's more techno-
logically advanced equipment.
Russia's rulers may be counting on a third advantage?
confused U.S, leadership and an unwillingness to compete in
a continuing contest for global influence. They will be intent
on "preventing us from gaining the upper hand anywhere
and will be alert to targets of opportunity." A direct Soviet
challenge to U.S. power in areas of vital interest is discount-
ed: But America still will face more tests in peripheral
areas?"more Angolas"?where the Kremlin may feel it can
make gains without provoking a reaction from Washington.
The experts maintain that the Russians, in attempting to
expand their influence to distant regions, will expect to use
native populations to promote their influence rather than
intervene directly with their own military forces. A Soviet-
affairs analyst says the Russians "don't have a long-range-
intervention capability, and there is no sign that they are
building significant forces that would enable them to inter-
vene at long distance in a conflict situation."
How will Soviet foreign policy be affected by the demise of
Communist Party leader Leonid Brezhnev and the rise to
power of a new generation in the Kremlin? Not much if at
all, in the opinion of the analysts. Their judgment: "The
people corning up don't seem to be all that different from
? the people who already are there."
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: Can It Be Checked?
The spread of nuclear weapons to more and more nations
is inevitable and unstoppable in the decade ahead.
In the words of the panel's scientific specialist: "To suggest
that there really is any feasible way of halting the spread of
nuclear weapons is just a forlorn hope. We must face up to
the fact that in five to 10 years there will be a significantly
larger number of nations than now with some kind of
capability to detonate a nuclear device."
He adds that such nuclear devices "won't necessarily be
what we call 'weaponized'?not something in the front end
of a sophisticated missile. But it will be something that will
go 'bang' and at first probably will be used for prestige
purposes."
A significant- spread of nuclear weapons is considered
inevitable "because there are too many different actors
getting on the stage - vvbo are able to. offer the necessary
technology needed to pro a weapon -or an explosive
As for the scale of nuclear proliferation, here is the picture:.
In addition to the six present members of the nuclear club?
the U.S., Russia, Britain, China, France and India?there are.
at least 15 "near members." By the end of the century, an
estimated 40 countries will have nuclear reactors. The ability
of these countries to "go nuclear" will depend on whether
they can be prevented from extracting plutonium produced
in their reactors. With that, they can manufacture nuclear
devices or weapons "the size of an automobile trunk, and
fairly easily."
With nuclear reactors spreading on such a vast scale, what
are the risks of an accident? The judgment of one expert:
"The likelihood of a serious reactor accident which would kill
or severely affect large numbers of people is very low."
NUCLEAR WAR: The Ultimate Nightmare
Despite the "inevitable" spread of nuclear weapons, the
danger of nuclear war in the next quarter century is rated as
a minor risk, especially as far as the U.S. is concerned. One
view: "The likelihood of a nuclear war between the great
powers is small for the next 10 years and, I'd say, pretty small
for the next 25 years. If anything, nuclear weapons have
created an atmosphere of stability."
From a Soviet-affairs expert: "I would have to go down on
the side of the optimists?on the basis of everything we know
about the attitude of the Soviet Union toward nudear war."
As for a nuclear conflict initiated by other countries
besides the superpowers, a third expert gives this assessment:
"If you rule out irrationality, I would say that for the next 10
years or more the odds are 1 in 100,000--even 1 in a
million?that a nuclear weapon will be used by one nation
against another deliberately."
Neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union is likely to allow a
client state to drag it into a nuclear conflict. The mutual
interests of the superpowers on this issue supersede any
interest they may have in a client. The Russians are de-
scribed as even more reluctant than the U.S. when it comes
to transferring to other countries nuclear technology that
might be used for developing weapons. This was a major
factor behind the bust-up between Peking and Moscow.
Further deterring smaller states from using nuclear weap-
ons against a neighbor is the knowledge that, in the end, they
probably would gain nothing since the two superpowers?"if
they get angry enough"?can control the political outcome
of any such conflict.
What about a state, such as Israel, that might feel its very
survival threatened and contemplate the use of nuclear
weapons in desperation? It's the consensus of the analysts '
that "the Soviet Union and the US. in most cases can see that
these situations don't play out in a way that would drive a
, country to such an act of desperation."
The conclusion of the panel's strategic specialist in sizing
up the danger of nuclear war in the decade ahead: "The ,
consequences of nuclear war are so horrendous that it's
something we think about constantly. But I think we're off
on the wrong track in speculating on this possibility. I don't
see nuclear weapons as being particularly viable as some-
thing that nations actually would use to resolve conflicts."
NUCLEAR TERRORISM: The Real Danger
While the threat of nuclear war through the 1980s is
discounted, nuclear terrorism is viewed as a growing threat_
An intensive study of the problem by Government analysts.
points up this conclusion: It is the- ''psychotic, anarchical
groups," whose behavior is entirely unpredictable, that pose -
the real danger when it comes to nuclear blackmail.
The more established, better organized terrorist groups
that seek defined political objectives?such as the Palestine
Liberation Organization?will be deterred from going this
route. The reason: They would realize that it would prove
counterproductive in view of the inevitably adverse world-
wide reaction that would be set off by the explosion of a
24
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved F.orRelease 2001/08/08.: clA,RDP77700432R000100396004-1
nuclear weapon.
A nuclear-arms specialist on the panel makes the point:
"The only thing that gives you some feeling of serenity is that
it is still not all that easy to acquire a nuclear weapon, move
it secretly and use it. And the groups that have the greatest
ability to do it are precisely the ones that have the least
? motive to do it."
More likely than a nuclear explosion detonated by terror-
ists is the seizure of a nuclear power facility and the threat to
pollute a city with radioactive material.
? The panel's scientific expert sees a different threat from.
terrorists and criminals: "If your aim is to blackmail a
government or to establish the seriousness of your purpose,
it's a lot easier to use chemical and biological contaminants.
These are easier for terrorists to acquire, easier to move
secretly and easier to use in a controlled way than nuclear
weapons."
The over-all danger of a nuclear weapon being detonated
in the years ahead by a terrorist or criminal gang is summed
up by the panel's arms analyst: "It's like Russian.roulette. But
instead of six chambers in the gun, there are perhaps 100
chambers. So maybe we can get by.''
FOOD POWER: An Uncertain Asset
The U.S. today stands out as the breadbasket for the world,
one ? of the' few remaining areas' that produces big food
surpluses. But it would be easy to exaggerate the amount of
global political influence that this country can derive from its
agripower. The experts stress this point: A distinction must
be drawn between power and leverage.
There's no doubt, they say, that America's "relative pow: .
?
em" will increase in coming years in view of the enormous
growth in world population, the inability, of many poorer
countries to expand their agriculture production adequately
and hence their dependence on U.S. food surpluses to avert
hunger -and even famine from time to time. "But whether
we will be able to use this power effectively for political or
diplomatic purposes is more questionable."
Why not? The panel's international specialist says that
some nations may become more resentful toward the U.S.
because of their dependence on American food. In some
countries, Washington, through the use of food, may gain
influence but only at the cost of antagonizing others.
In fact, the experts emphasize the agonizing dilemmas
that will confront Washington: '"It's going to be a very great
burden deciding who is to get American food and who is not,
whether to sell it to nations that have money or to give it to
countries with greater need but no money."
The analysts even question whether this country can get
any political mileage out of the fact that Russia has become a
major importer of American grains. To quote a Soviet-affairs
specialist: "It gives us certain power, but I'm not so sure that
it gives us all that much leverage in our dealings with the
Soviet Union. They may find it a little easier to buy from us, a
little more efficient. But, if necessary, they could get the
grain elsewhere?in Canada or Australia."
Washington's ability to use the nation's food surpluses to -
gain political leverage is severely inhibited by domestic
factors, too. A political expert spells out the problem: "Sure,
you can write a position paper on how it should be done. But
given the social-political-economic realities that dictate the
way this country functions, the simple truth is that no one is
going to give the President or the Secretary of State the kind
of authority that it would take to use our food as a political
weapon in bargaining with the Russians or anyone else." -
NORTH vs. SOUTH: Strength Through Weakness
There is a popular theory that the U.S. and its industrial
allies in the decade ahead will face the threat of blackmail
from a whole string of new OPEC's?corn,
modity cartels organized by developing
countries.
That, in the opinion of official Washing-
ton analysts, is almost 100 per cent wrong.
The real danger of international instability
stems from the weakness of the developing
countries rather than from the danger of
embargoes by the producers of zinc, cop-
per or bauxite.
In the words of the panel's international-
economic specialist: "Over the next 10
years, there may be a few occasions when
for a period of six months or so we will face
the discomfort of adjusting to a cartel or
embargo. But taking the over-all picture,
it's going to be the weakness of third-world
countries which is going to concern us and
not their ability to turn any kind of screw."
Though the U.S. will become increasing-
' ly dependent on imported raw materials in
the future, the developing countries' de-
pendence on the U.S. for food, technology
. and peace will be greater than America's'
dependence on them for raw materials.
Result: The Western industrialized nations
will retain access to these raw materials on
terms that are reasonable but not as favor-
able as those that prevailed in the 1950s and 1960s. "We will
have the strong cards in North-South negotiations," says an
economic expert.
America's bargaining position, the Government analysts
say, is strengthened further by "our ability to adapt and to
develop substitutes to meet our needs. So in a ,test of
economic strength we can outlast the third-world countries."
, Oil is a special case?at least for a time. In the.absence of
eConomic pressures that would force the U.S. to develop
alternative sources of energy, this country has failed to take a
political decision to pursue that course. But specialists on the
official panel maintain that "in the long run, the oil problem
can be solved in a number of ways?by .adaptation and by
' change."
The oil embargo in 1973 and early 1974 gave developing
countries a "false sense of power." But .now, to quote an
international economic specialist: "You can see a growing
awareness of where power really lies over the long term. The
1 heady feeling that the poorer, countries had in '73 and '74 is
' receding. Rhetorically, they will make noises about forcing
us to accept a new international order on their terms. But
when it gets down to hard bargaining, they know that we
have the power."
In dealing with the third world over all in the decade
ahead, the analysts warn that Americans face this paradox:
"There is a very large element of power that the third world
has, and that is its actual powerlessness. Despite their eco-
nomic, political and military weakness, these countries have
the great strength that stems from appealing to the moral
and ethical conscience of the powerful West."
' The official forecast: "In ongoing negotiations, the U.S. will
make generous concessions to the developing nations, not
because of the fear of economic blackmail," but in an effort
to build a stable and more secure international system.
Over all, the panel of official analysts who briefed the
magazine's editors sees ahead a period of five to 10 years of
floundering and uncertainty as a new world order is formed.
In the view of the experts, the extent of instability and
conflict involved in this process and the ultimate shape of the
new world order will depend largely on the role that
, America chooses to play.
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDPg-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
TIME, AUGUST 9.1916
EAST-WEST
Taking the Measure of Helsinki
? Amid glowing pledges to promote
"better relations among nations," 35
? heads of government* gathered in the
capital of Finland one year ago this week
? to sign a document that a small army
? of negotiators had taken two years to
. prepare. Today the . vaunted Helsinki
. agreement remains what it was from the
start: more ceremony than substance.
There has been so little improvement
in Fast-West relations that can be cred-
.f ited to the accord that the spirit of
Hel-
sinki has become increasingly dispirited.
1
The anniversary is being observed
enthusiastically enough in the Soviet
;* Union, which is celebrating the occa-
? sion with special television programs,
endless newspaper articles and the pub-
lication of a book. After all, the Rus-
sians were the original sponsors of Hel-
sinki, and their dominance of Eastern
Europe and the Baltic states, a fact for
more than a generation, was legitimized
by the accord. This kind of quasi-jurid-
ical sanction had long been a major goal
of Kremlin foreign policy.
Unfounded Fears. In the West,
and most notably the U.S., where Pres-
ident Ford has banned the word detente
from his political year lexicon, the an-
niversary is being all but ignored. One
reason is that some of NATO's initial hes-
itations have been justified: the gains of
? Communists in Southern Europe are
partly attributable to the post-Helsinki
mood, in which the threat of interna-
tional Communism has appeared to be
further diminished. Yet the West's main
' fear, that a Helsinki-inspired euphoria
I Would lead to sharp cutbacks in defense
; spending by NATO nations, seems so far
1 to have been unfounded.
In return for the West's ratification
of Soviet post-1945 territorial gains,
*Representing every European state (except Al-
bania), as well as the U.S. and Canada.
Moscow and its allies had to pledge,
among other things, increased East-
West cultural and human contacts. Cul-
tural exchanges have indeed burgeoned,
as measured by the rising -East-West
traffic in groups involved in sports, art
and other fields, and tourism within the
Soviet Union is being expanded. But
Western scorekeepers fault the Soviets
in other areas, notably human rights, in-
cluding the treatment of political dis-
sidents and would-be emigrants. Al-
though the Kremlin has cut the price of
emigration visas by one-fourth, to 300
rubles ($405), and allowed some dissi-
dents and relatives of those outside to
emigrate, people who apply for the vi-
sas are usually penalized immediately by
a loss of their jobs.
After a period of petulance over crit-
icism of its record on human rights, Mos-
cow early this year switched to a policy
of visible compliance with Helsinld
through what are known in diplomatic
parlance as "small steps," such as eased
travel restrictions on foreign newsmen
and inviting Western observers to So-
viet military exercises. More recently,
the Soviets have been marking time on
new Helsinki initiatives of their own,
while rapping Radio Liberty and Ra-
dio Free Europe, which broadcast into
Russia and Eastern Europe, and Wash-
ington's public opposition to Communist
participation in Western European gov-
ernments, as violations of the Helsinki
pledge of noninterference in other coun-
tries' affairs. Another complaint: the dif-
ficulty European Communists have in
visiting the U.S. Concedes one U.S. of-
ficial: "Our self-righteous position is not
as credible as we'd like to think."
That reflects what many regard as
the Helsinki accord's main value: as a
yardstick for measuring East-West re-
lations, and thus part of the process of re-
DAILY TELEGRAPH, London
1 12 July 1976
_. -- - . ???, --7. - - _ ..::::::..--,,,,, i7sr,:i7,---.77!,--,.,,,,,,,,,',.:',:2f-,...,?: 7,-;71.7,7,??..!? !,.....7-1,,:,.7.--7,,,,,,
ster ::...,, !..
-?.,,,,
...?,
?
'. rli if .., rig-.
sawf
tok-P.
ff
-yriJD,11 a!)
Vi.q 4 .1 A
errant ;
r Zocsl!glib
j ?,Wola
, 7?,:11; :r1 ti:
I .rn.q 07..1% whorr3ia.,
T!yr1,)Ay..11,),.FLOYD,fcg.trunonta Affairs Corrpondn
-ESTERN"' econornibaid is a MalibF fa'ctar'. eirabling;
-
the Soviet :19atiers OE
Russia's military strength, ?according
econoinistnow ur.nritain.

Dr, Alexander , WolYnski ..The -paradox f the situation;
Dr Wolynski says; js that ". those.
reaches this conclusion in' - a
countries., which --are ?-the prime;
, technolofficar,Sulisidisers of. the
Soviet -Union have ..also -the .largli
est military '' budgets; nece.ssarY?
solely" due. to presum4
threat from ? Russia." ? ?
By financing , -arm'
Ments they increase the ..neoes.?
sity to spend- more-on their own
' defence, Nvitich, some of them
claim they -.-cannotiaffbre'Ll
study, of the effects of trade with
Russia ; 'and' the . countries- of
Easteim, Europe published Inday
by the'Institule for the ,Study of
Conflict. ? . ?
Trade with the Soviet bloc;
financed r? by ',massive Western
credits.'is of " direct military signs
nificarce,he says. ; ? ?
? "It is true that this economic
aid is insufficient to produce,'
major ? breakthrough in ? Soviet
economic-development. but
an essential contributioa to its
military effort. . ? ?. i
???
. ? ) Net res ui
Ite'Con tinned : " The net finan-
'dal 'transfer from the West to
the 'Warsaw Pact countries last
. Dr'-'Welytiskit layS wit is
.! suicidal for' the- West to shb2
? sidise, the ussihif"eamOnlY
long as it sryes oniY m
co;
pensatC for 'the' di'ain on, re-)
sources_causel by, millOry ex-
penditure ". ? . '
, thrt
Ct A F.. By Al.ntotro.rt Wet', evs.d.
yetir was equal to that year's th.t L.t.olv, or Lotatittztt, 11 North,
n4
British defence expenditure." ? toerland At cooe, Louop. JVC.21'
26
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
fining them. The accord's clearest fail-
ing has been its inability to bring East
and West any closer to reducing or lim-
iting their levels of armaments. The
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, for ex-
ample, have been almost completely
deadlocked since President Gerald Ford
and Soviet Party Boss Leonid Brezhnev
met at Vladivostock in November 1974.
There also has been little progress in
the three-year-old Mutual and Balanced
Force Reductions (stunt) talks in Vi-
enna between the twelve NATO nations
and the seven Warsaw Pact states. It
has been the dual aim of the NATO ne-
gotiators to reduce the number of trpops
based in Central Europe and crate par-
ity between East and West in that re-
gion. But even as the MBFR talks have
been in session, there has been a build-
up of armed forces in that area?almost
all by the Soviets..
In what some observers view as a
sign of progress, Moscow for the first
time revealed the pact's force levels in
Central Europe: 965,000, v. 977,000 for
NATO. This means that parity already
exists. NATO experts, however, question
the Soviet figures and reckon that the
pact really stations some 1,125,000
troops in that region. Until both sides
agree on how large the pact's forces are,
there may be little progress with MBFR.
Moscow may be tempted to make
some concessions soon, in order to show
progress in arms limitation in time for
next June's Belgrade conference, at
which the first two years' experience of
the Helsinki accord is to be assessed.
Unless there is progress on SALT or MBFR
and an improvement in Soviet treatment
of human-rights cases, it is likely, as a
West German official predicts, that the
"tone of the Belgrade meeting is not go-
ing to be very upbeat."
WASHINGTON POST
5 AUG 1976
Rowland Evans and-Robert Novak
Russia: Anot
rok n $11Pr
On the fourth of July, the Soviet Un-
ion exploded a little firecracker in
honor of Uncle Sam's 200th birthday:
an underground explosion well over
the limits agreed to by the U.S. and the
U.S.S.R. in their Much publicized new
treaty. .
It was no accident: An even larger So-
viet underground explosion was deto-
nated July 29, just a week after the
treaty was submitted to the U.S. Senate
for ratification. Those two blasts infuri-
ated U.S. scientists and military offi-
cers who understood the Russians had
agreed to obey the initialed treaty even
before U.S. ratification would formal-
ize it.
As usual, there has been no an-
nouncement or comment on the explo.
sions except in classified documents.
On the contrary, addressing Republl-
er
ise
1
Akroved for Release 2001/0810.8.: CIA-RDP77700432R0001003.90604-1
can delegates in Jackson, Miss., July SO;
President Ford praised Soviet compli-
ance with past arms control agree-
ments. Clearly, neither Mr. Ford nor
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
wants any unpleasantness about Soviet
treaty violations to interfere with their
forthcoming big push for a new Strate-
gic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT)
agreement.
An honest division of opinion exists
Inside the administration over how se-
rious the Kremlin's bad faith really
was, particularly since chances of early
Senate ratification are poor. Some
hard-liners believe that Soviet fudging
on this relatively minor, unratified
treaty does not compare with flagrant
cheating on the major, ratified SALT I
Treaty (a violation again stubbornly de-
nied by Mr. Ford in Mississippi July 30).
Nevertheless, serious government
scientists closest to the program are in-
furiated. They say both the U.S. and the
Soviet Union agreed to follow the 150
kiloton ceiling on peaceful nuclear ex-
plosions set forth in the treaty initialed
? by Mr. Ford and Chairman Leonid
Brezhnev May 28. The U.S., in fact,
obeyed that limit in its one explosion
since then and will do so in the future.
Not so the Soviet July 4 blast. While
publicly ignoring the explosion.. the
ing ii Even secret documents circu-
lated inside the government listed the
blast vaguely as 100 kilotons-plus, in
contrast to the past practice of precise
estimates.
Such imprecision seems more the
product of diplomatic subtlety than sci-
entific caution. US scientists, as famil-
iar with the geologic formations of the
Soviet Underground testing areas as
they are with the backs of their own
hands, are confident the explosion eas-
ily exceeded 200 kilotons. '
Ignoring this excess, Mr. Ford on
July n sent to the Senate for ratifica-
tion two treaties: the peaceful Nuclear
Explosion Treaty he had initialed in,
May and the Weapons Test Ban Treaty,
also setting a 150 kiloton limit, that was
initialed by Brezhnev and President
Nixon July 3, 1974.
One week later Came the July 29
blast, also exceeding 200 kilotons but at
first confused by seismic experts with
an actual earthquake near the Caspian
Sea. Skeptical U.S. scientists believe the
Soviets took advantage of the earth-
quake to detonate their device in hopes
it would not be noticed, but knowledga-
ble officials here scoff at this notion as
(-carrying the conspiracy theory too far.
These officials, including some who
f have never been called soft-boiled, be.
U.S. government was privately finess, lieve the-.Senate's_ disinterest in ratify
WASHINGTON POST
1. AUG. 1476
Leonard H. Marks
Ing the treaties any time soon justified
the Soviet action, even if it led the Rus-
sians into breaking an informal prom-
ise.. .?
But. even that does not explain the
obvious intent of the administration to
, keep the underground explosions cov-
ered up. On the morning of July 30, Mr. ,
Ford attended a National Security
Council meeting dealing with arms.con-
trol measures and presumably was
filled in on the Soviet explosions. Yet, -
that afternoon in Mississippi, he deliv-
ered his euphoric delaration of faith in
Soviet promises. .
Having praised the peaceful Nuclear
Explosion Treaty as_a diplomatic break-
through out of all proportion to its ap-
parent worth, Mr. Ford was not about._
to record publicly that only the U.S.,.
not the Soviet Union, is abiding by it.
Official U.S. reticence over publiciz-
ing Moscow's July 4 firecracker ac-
tually shrouds an intent going well be-
yond the question of limiting nuclear
. explosions, which is at best only a sec- ?
' ondary aspect of overall arms control.
With Dr. Kissinger, pressing for a Salt II.
agreement following the Republican
National Convention,. Mr. Ford has an
. obvious political stake in concealing an- '
other broken Russian promise. ? .
C1918, Field Enterprises, Inc.
The Unfulfilled Promise of Helsinki
It is revealing to see what has hap-
pened to the "Basket HI" provisions for
human contact and informational and
cultural exchanges in the "Final Act"
of the Conference on Security and Co-
operation in Europe, signed in Helsinki
' a year ago today.
The results are, in a word, disappoint-
ing. Soviet policy has been marked by
tactics designed to minimize Russian
compliance with these proposals. Even
' The writer is chairman of the U.S.
Advisory Commission on International
Educational and Cultural Affairs.
more discouraging, the West has been
reluctant to develop strong initiatives
to capitalize on Basket III.
As chairman of the U.S. Advisory
Commission on International Educa-
tional and Cultural Affairs, I travelled
to the Soviet Union and East Europe
after Helsinki and returned with no il-
lusions that there would be a dramatic
increase in contacts. The Soviet Union
had resisted the inclusion of specific,
binding language. I doubted that the
agreement's expression of good .inten-
tions would cause the U.S.S.R. to alter
basic policies. Nevertheless, I felt that
'the agreement offered opportunities
for positive action in this field. I made
this point, together with specific rec-
ommendations, upon my return.
Since then, many of the fears about
Soviet intentions have been realized.
Soviet officials moved to muffle the re-
verberation of Basket III at home. They
trotted out the old arguments against
?"ideological relaxation." A get-tough
policy has just been instituted against
dissidents or other Soviet citizens who
had hoped that contacts with the West
might be eased. For example, require-
ments for exit visas were changed; a So-
viet citizen must now give up his apart-
ment before applying to emigrate. So
15 Soviet Jews wrote U.N. Secretary
General Kurt Waldheim: "If a visa is de-
nied, which is the usual procedure of
the Soviet government, the applying
family is left. .. without shelter from
the elements."
The Soviet government instituted a
very selective policy of "compliance"
with Basket III proposals. For example:
Travel restrictions on foreign journal-
ists were somewhat relaxed; they now
have about as much freedom as diplo-
mats?which is not excessive. (This, in-
cidentally, is one Basket DI issue on
which the U.S. government has made
strong, effective representations.) Cop-
ies of more Western newspapers have
been put on sale at Moscow newsstands;
this is a practice that predates Helsinki,
but is now.trumpeted abroad by Tass as
a gesture "in the spirit of Helsinki."
At the same time, the Soviet Union
has mounted a heavy propaganda cam-
paign accusing the United States and
other Western nations of violating the
Basket III agreements. The campaign
has included charges that we restrict.
circulation 4:1 Soviet films and books.
And Soviet commentators have said.
with straight faces that U.S. shortwave
news broadcasts beamed toward the
U.S.S.R. are i: violation.
Congress rac ted to this situation sev-
eral months ago. It established a-15- ?
member commission to monitor the
Helsinki accord: six congressmen, six
senators, and three officials of the ex-
ecutive branch. Although the President
signed the bill on July 3, the executive
branch was clearly unenthusiastic.
While the congressional move is im-
portant, the basic initiative in this field
must come from the executive branch.
What can be done?
First, we should make clear that the
United States gives the subject the very,
highest priority.
Second, we should put forward spe-
cific proposals for implementing Bas-
ket III. These proposals should be publi-
cized widely in this country, in Europe,
and to audiences in Communist coun-
tries. Our proposals should be more ?
pragmatic, realizable, designed to at-
tract the support of influential young
professionals in Communist lands who
want more "windows on the West."
What proposals?
?Expanded cultural and educa-
tional exchange. Perhaps the clearest
impression that I received in talks with
Communist officials was their willing-
ness to step up academic and other pro-
fessional contacts. During the past ,
year, however, there have been no pro-
posals to expand significantly the State
Department's exchanges with Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union. The ad-
ministration pleads a tight budget and
other priorities?and indeed knocked
$5 million from the appropriation for
the department's Bureau of Educa-
tional and Cultural Affairs.
?Encouraging the flaw of inform-
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77200432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08': CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
tion. There is a tremendous demand for
Western publications, films and other
media in Communist countries. During
the 1960s the U.S. Information Agency
operated an innovative program
known as the Informational Media
Guarantee Program, which allowed
some Eastern European countries to
. purchase American media materials
' with their own currencies, and at little
'or no cost to the United States. I rec-
ommended that this program be rein-
stituted. Subsequently, the proposal
was endorsed by the Government Advi-
sory Committee on International Book
and Library Programs. But no imple-
mentation has been started.
?Increased circulation of "Ameri-
ca" magazine. This publication, put
out by USIA, has been an effective in-
terpreter of American ideas and events
to the Soviet Union for over 30 years.
? Demand for copies far exceeds the sup-
ply we are allowed to sell (60,000 per
month). It would seem logical to press
the Soviets to allow, "in the spirit of
Helsinki,"an increase in circulation.
?A "Western" book store in Moscow:
When I raised this possibility with the
U.S.S.R.'s Minister of Culture, he dis?:
armingly replied that the U.S. could re-
, quest permission to open a book store
at any time, "but, of course, the Soviet,
government would control the selec-
tion of books." Perhaps the time is ripe
WASHINGTON POST
I AUG 1975
to remind him that no censorship is lm-
posed on Soviet books imported to the
U.S. and that the Helsinki signatories
specifically agreed "to promote wider ?
dissemination of books." ;
.?Pressing on the human rights is-
sue. The Helsinki accord stressed the
need for free movement of people, as
well as of informational materials, -
across national boundaries. Despite
clear and copious documentation of So-
viet violations of this part of the agree-
ment, we have never insisted in the
United Nations or other international
forums that the Soviet Union be asked
to explain its divergence from the prin-
ciples of the Helsinki agreement. _
?Coordination with our allies. In the
negotiations leading up to the Helsinki ?
agreement, our European allies took.'
strong positions in support of more hu-
man and informational contacts. Taken
together, their contributions to the im-
plementation of Basket III can be
greater than ours. There has been little
effort during the year to coordinate na-
tional initiatives designed to take ad-.
vantage of the agreement's provisions.
?Mobilizing private resources. The
State Department has, I believe, done
almost nothing during the past year to
bring together representatives of
American industry, public-service.
groups, labor unions, universities and
other institutions to examine ways. in
Law Lets Radio Resist Pressures . .
Voice of
By Richard M. Weintraub
Washington Post Staff Writer
, Almost unnoticed, Con-
gress has 'Put into law a
?Voice of America charter,
giving independence to writ-
ers and editors of the offi-
cial United States overseas
radio system in their selec-
tion and play of news.
President Ford signed the
Foreign Relations Authori-
zation Act on July 12, but.a
White House press release
did not mention that the
measure gave legal sanction
for the first time to the
VOA charter, which previ-
ously lacked the backing of
law.
Many Voice of America
employees now say that for
the first time they have a le-
gal basis to resist pressures
from the State Department
or VOA's parent organiza-
tion, the U.S. Information
Agency, to soften or omit
news items.
The new charter requires
VOA:
* to be a "consistently re-
liable , and authoritative
source of news" that is
"accurate, objective and
comprehensive."
e to "represent America,
not any single segment of
it," and to present a
"balanced and comprehen-
sive projection of significant
eri
_
American thought and insti-
tutions."
? to present the "policies
of the United States clearly
. and effectively" and also to
"present responsible discus:.-
sion and opinion on these
policies." ,
? Officials of USIA say that
the change in the VOA char-
ter's status makes no differ-
ence in day-to-day opera-
tions. 'VOA's director disa-
grees, however.
'We will always have
bitzers and suggested guid-
ance, and we, don't object to
t'that as long as it is enlight-
fened. Now we have some
thing to measure it against,"
Kenneth R. Giddens, assist-
ant USIA director in
charge of VOA, said in an
interview.
.; "I think it is-an immense
step forward,". he said. 'We
knew our general direction,,_
but it never had the force of .
law.. . so we :would be Pro-,
tected."
t Reporters and editors at
VOA have chafed for years
under what they view as un-
warranted interference in
the reporting of the news, to
the detriment of VOA's
credibility among its listen-
ers overseas.
Sen. Charles H. Percy (R-
IM) charged during hear-
ings last year, for example,
that VOA was in violation
of Its charter by suppressing ,
which they can contribute to programs,
or collaborate on activities, that might
lead toward Basket III goals. : ?
, There a-e. of course, many other ,
ways we implement Basket III. ,
There is now some urgency to our ac-
tions. Next year there will be a follow-
up conference in Belgrade to review'
steps taken by all signatory countries to
carry forward the recommendations
made at Helsinki. A preparatory meet-
ing to organize the follow-up confer-
ence is scheduled for June 15, 1977. The
Soviet Union can be expected to pre-
sent a well-documented case to demon- :
strate its "achievements" in complying
.with Basket III, and an equally shrill
one on our alleged violations of it.,Wee
must be prepared to respond. .
What we need is a, positive policy;
backed up by concrete action, to chal-
lenge the U.S.S.A. on the real issue, the
opening of all borders to more human
and informational contacts, which are
central to the development of peaceful
relations. Our purpose should not be
simply to rack up a good score in the
Basket III League. It should be to prove_
that we have put the Helsinki princi-
ples high on the agenda of East-West
relations, not simply as a diplomatic ex-
ercise but as a part of our historic com-
mitment to the free movement of men
and ideas.
news during the last days of
U.S. involvement in the Viet-
nam war. The charter, which
was drawn up in 1959, had
not then been enacted into
law, although the language
was the same. ?
USIA officials said yak
editors and writers were
limited to official state-
ments because the radio was
'listened to in Saigon 'and
other reports could have
caused violence _ and
bloodshed. Critics countered
that everything that VOA
was suppressing was being
reported regularly by other
news agencies and radios.
By design or by coinci-
dence, Democratic presiden-
tial candidate Jimmy Car-
ter's campaign issued a posi-
tion paper on the issue of in-
ternational broadcasting as
! the 'charter' was being
turned into law.
"The Voice of America ...
has been entangled in a web
of political restrictions im-
posed by the Department of
State, which seriously limit's
; its effectiveness," the Carter
; paper says.
Carter criticized the Ford
administration for its "in-
ability . . to appreciate
the importance of pn open
foreign policy and a free
flow of Information and
Ideas through mass commu-
nication."
A -Senate aide said that
'the Foreign Relations Au- .
thorization Act gives Con-
gress a stronger hand in
I. dealing with situations such
as the one Percy brought up
, in May 1975; Percy spon-
sored the new measure in
the Senate while Rep. Bella
Abzug (D-N.Y.) introduced it:
in the_ilouse.,
"There are two natural
but conflicting tendencies in',
the VOA?standard ? news -
judgment and, a desire to
? conform reporting to the .
policy positions of the V.S.
government,":. the Senate ?
aide said. . ?
"The purpose of putting
the charter into law is to,
strengthen the tendency to-
ward standard news judg-
ment. 'When incidents do ar-
ise, when news might be
slanted, this will give a
chance to place what has
been done against a legal
standard."
USIA policy officials say,'
however, that nothing is
changed by making the
VOA charter law. ' ?
"I'm not aware of any pro-
cedural difference it has
made," said agency spokes-
man Alan Carter. "Nobody
has ever gone into what
'fair, accurate and balanced'
i means. Most disputes are in-
terpretive.
The agency sPokesmanf'
, said that no policy direc-
tives have been issued as a
result of the charter's
change In status. USIA Di-
rector James Keogh was not'
available for questions on
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RI3P'77-00432R000100390004-1
APproved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
the issue. ". ? ?
R. Kenneth Towery, USIA
deputy director and head of
the agency's office of policy
and plans, said, "Things
? have gone on as they always
have. We didn't have any
: problems before and we
didn't oppose" the change in
. status for-the. charter_
? Towery said that policy
:officials responsible for
monitoring VOA will call a
matter to the attention: of
'VOA officials if "they see
things that are in error, if
it's an area that we have
been cautioned is sensitive
or if they see something
that goes too far or could
cause trouble."
Towery said that if there
are differences of opinion
between the policy officials
j and VOA personnel,_ the
' matter is brought to him for
settlement. ?
Giddens said, however,
that making the VOA char-
ter law adds a new element.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
4 AUG 107S
"When you have editorial
judgment, frequently there
is more than one point of
view. People' other than
Voice personnel have had
things to say," he said. "Now
we have a point of measure-
ment. Now we can My, 'This
Is the way we see it and we
are obligated to say it the
way we see it.'"
? Two major study commis-
sions recommended last
year that the USIA be split
I Ain, with its Ctiltural affairs
..
Operations being merged
Into the State Department
and with the VOA being set
up as an independent opera-
tion similar to the British
Broadcasting Corp. The
BBC enjoys a reputation for
accuracy and completeness
In its news broadcasts
among a large listening au-
dience around the world.
The State Department is
understood to have objected
to any changes at that time
for VOA, however..
Law of the Sea: no U.S. rudder
The importance Of the Conference on the
- Law of the Sea, which reconvened on Monday
for its fifth session since 1973, does not seem to
be widely understood. Yet through it some 150
nations are negotiating to create a new regime ._
for 70 percent of the earth's surface.
The need to do so arises out of changed con-
ditions: many new coastal states, growing de-
, mend for resources and food, and new tech-
nologies for exploiting the ocean. A new sys-
tem is essential .to prevent conflict and vio-
lence in the years ahead over fishing, offshore
oil and gas, deep-sea mining, and pollution as
well as navigation and research. It is espe-
cially vital for the United States which has the
largest stake in the ocean, with the most ad-
.vanced technology and with critical security
needs for use by its strategic submarines and
Navy.
With so many participants and such complex
issues, the conference has inevitably moved
slowly, but it has made progress toward re-
solving many of the thorny issues._ Those still
remaining, especially deep-sea mining, will
; take persistence, hard work, and goodwill in
order to complete a treaty within another year
or more. Clearly the negotiations are now in
the critical stage which will determine their
success or failure.
' Accirdingly, one would expect that the U.S.
would be entering this phase well organized
, And prepared to provide constructive lead-
ership. If so, one would be quite mistaken. Wil-
liars Clements Jr., Deputy Defense Secretary,
calls the U.S. situation "a first-class mess."
1:According to him. U.S. policymaking "hasn't
had the direction and management that it
:should have had." And John N. Moore, former
By Robert R. Bowle
chairman of the National Security Council task
force for the conference and deputy head of
the delegation, who resigned in March over
policy issues, concurs. Indeed the facts speak
for themselves.
? For well over a year, the U.S. has not had
effective leadership for the negotiations. For
many months the top post in the delegation-
was vacant and _then was filled in December
with a business executive who had no ex-
perience with the oceans, foreign affairs, inter-
national negotiations, or law. Aside from two
speeches, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
has given minimum attention to the subject.
? Worse yet, in April the U.S. undercut the
conference by legislation unilaterally extending
its fishing jurisdiction to 200 miles effective in -
March, 1977, in violation of its treaty, obliga-
tion. Yielding to pressures from fishing inter-
ests, the administration did not exert itself to
head off the bill in Congress or to push other
remedies for Japanese and Soviet overfishing
which would be compatible with inter-
national law., Unilateral action by the US. in-
vites similar claims by others harmful to its
security and other interests, complicates the
negotiations, and jeopardizes broader coopera-
tion.
? Finally, the administration has apparently
not kept the Congress adequately abreast of
the negotiations. As a result, Moore fears that
the Senate might reject the ultimate treaty.
Secretary Kissinger will attend the current
-conference session, and will doubtless make a
well-written speech. But that is no substitute
for adequate policymaking.
The case of the oceans is riot unique. They,
are merely one example of the manifold global *
problems which must be regulated or managed
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL,
Monday, Aug. 2, 1976 1:
'?""
A Nuclear Cop t?
President Ford has just an-
nounced a full-scale White House
'review of nuclear export policy, and
we hope the President and his aides
:recognize the full importance of :
their own review. They confront not
some kind of public relations prob-
lem; 'but a vastly important policy
oUt of control.
This review will go far toward
'determining how many 'additional :
''nations will acquire nuclear weep-
,ons over the next decade, or two.
'Nuclear power reactors have now;
spread to some 45 nations. More
importantly, we have just witned?
,the first purchases of reprocessing
' technology, which extracts pinto-.
niurn 'from spent power-reactor
'use
the plutonium ostensibly is for
. use as further reactor fuel but can
r be converted almost at a moment's'
' notice into nuclear bombs. Thus un-
less a decision is made almost fin-
mediately, we will lose our last
thence to erect meaningful barriers
to the spread of nuclear weapons:
A decision will, be easy to post-
pane, since even the most important
matters of 15 years hence tend to
got,b0st in the rush of government,
jointly. Cooperative means for this purpose are
required for energy, food, resources, trade
and money, nuclear proliferation, pollution,
and North-South relations generally. These are
the substance of "world-order politics" to
which Jimmy Carter would assign much higher
priority. -
For these issues one-man diplomacy is ir-
relevant, and indeed a serious obstacle to con-
structive action. Rjeads to substituting rheto-
ric for policymaking. Over the last year, the
Secretary of State has made speeches on many
of these issues of interdependence. However
well they may read, they have seldom been re-:
fleeted in active policy. That would require an
entirely different system of policymaking.
Effective solutions of such problems can
only be worked out by reconciling or com-
promising conflicting interests and approaches
both in domestic polities and internationally.
That can only be achieved by patient and per-
sistent effort at many levels as well as lead-
ership and direction from the top. When Secre-
tary George Marshall made his famous speech
at Harvard in 1947, for example, it set in mo-
tion a major organized effort in the executive
branch. and Congrea,s- t?copvert the idea into
practical policy antCon.. ?
Very little of that kind of coordinated work
has been done in any of these fields. The
truth is, the United States does not now have
practical policies to back up much of the rheto-
ric. And it cannot have them without radical
changes in the methods of making policy.
Dr. Bowie is a member of the Harvard
Center for International Affairs and of the
_-
Harvard faculty.
not to" the rush- of a presiir
.dential campaign. Then too, U.S.
? !companies have not been allowed to
sell reprocessing technology; the
immediate problems are sales by
West Germany to Brazil and by
France to Pakistan. A school of
thought, further, would solve the
problem by internationalizing it, ob-
livious to the fact that the. Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency ap-
proved "safeguards- for the
Paki-
tat' plant even though it makes
. sense only as an eventual bomb fac-
tory.' There are endless temptations -
for the White House to cop out.
? Yet in fact the U.S. has been in-
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP/1-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08: CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
strumental in creating the interna-
tional atmosphere that leads our al-
lies to play such dangerous games
for fleeting commercial advantages,
and encourages the feebleness at
the IAEA. For the U.S. has never
really been serious about prolifera-
tion dangers in nuclear exports, and
if the leading nuclear nation is not
serious, why should the others be?
Consider the case of India, which
actually did build a nuclear bomb
with materials and technologies
supplied for peaceful purposes. It
happened that the Indians used a
Canadian reactor to make pluto-
nium for its bomb, but the reactor
employed U.S. heavy water, like
nuclear fuel a 'special nuclear ma-
terial" limited by treaty to peaceful
uses. Indian compliance with this
provision consisted of labeling their
nuclear explosion a "peaceful" one.
he eanadian reaction was to
halt work on two power reactors in
India, demand tough new safe-
guards, and when these were not
.forthcoming to halt all sales and
shipments of nuclear materials for.,
? India. The U.S. State Department's
reaction has been to make excuses
C for the Indians.
? The U.S. did announce that ship-
ments to India would be suspended
pending -agreement that henceforth
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
3 AUG 1976
-Arms out
;'peaceful uses" would not include .
explosions. In fact, even this wrist-
?slap was not carried through; a ,
shipment of nuclear fuel for Ameri-
can-built reactors in India went out'
a
a month after the explosion. Then
State asked the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to expedite licensing of
new shipments to India on the
grounds that the American-built re-
actors were ?running out of fuel.,
, Persistent questioning determined
that the reactors had a two-year
fuel supply on hand.
State even accepted the Indian
argument that its reactor leaked
heavy water at the rate of 10% a
year, and that since the U.S. heavy
water had been supplied more than
_ 10 years ?ago it was not actually
used. The 10% leakage is almost
certainly a lie to begin with, but
even if it were true it would not
have exhausted the U.S. heavy wa-
ter?unless, as one witness put it,
"the heavy water molecules in an
Indian reactor do not follow the
laws of physics but a caste system
? under which only American-sup-
plied molecules are allowed to leak.
The NRC has granted one of two
pending licenses for exports to In- ,
dia, under State Department warn- ,
-iings that, as it and presumably the
Indians read the treaty, interrupt-
in fuel supplies would be a U.S. vi-
olation freeing the Indians to use all
the spent fual for bombs. Under
pressure from the NRC and others.
State hE agreed to approach the
Indians about returning the spent
fuel to the U.S. These negotiations
ill probably be handled the way
past ones have been.
With leadership like this, little
wonder the State Department has
had little success in persuading the
West Germans and French to limit
their own nuclear sales. It will be
quite a different matter if the new
White House review comes 'up with
a pkilicy concentrating on a few fun- .
damentals: That the U:S. will con-
trol .any reprocessing of spent fuel ?
from American-built reacthrs; that
in any event reprocessing remains
economically dubious at this stage;
that the U.S. will not supply nuclear
materials to any nation that holds.
open the option of a weapons pro-
gram; that the first step in imple-
mentation must be following the
Canadian example on India.
*Making anti-proliferation policy
truly effective will of course require
.similar policies from other export-
ers. But such agreement will be far
easier to achieve if the U.S. refuses
to cop out, if it comes up with a se-
rious policy befitting a serious na-
tion.
- ? ?
' It is encouraging that public attention has
begun to focus on the spiraling of American
'arms sales abroad. Congress, for one, is
watching this development like a hawk. But
the fact remains that there is yet no serious ef-
fort within the government to look at what is
being sold all over the world and to evolve a
sensible policy for bringing arms sales under
control. The new administration will have to
give this matter the highest priority.
'It should be no source of pride to the United
States that it has become the largest arms
seller in the world. Government-to-government
-exports totaled about $1.5 billion annually a de-
cade ago; the level is now a staggering $9 bil-
lion to $10 billion a yeart?Moreover, the U.S. is
no longer peddling hand-me-downs but the new-
est and highly advanced weapon systems, such
' as supersonic planes, submarines, and antiship
'missiles.
Ironically, the United States may be defeat-
ing its own goal of enhancing security through-
-out the world. Not only does this massive out-
pouring of arms fuel possibilities for regional
conflict. As military and diplomatic experts
are beginning to realize, and with some alarm,
it will become increasingly difficult for the
U.S. ? or the Soviet Union ? to play the role of
peacemaker. The ability of the superpowers to
maintain world stability is thus being eroded.
Iran is an illustration of .the dangers of un: -
restrained arms selling. A just-released study
by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
notes that the Iranians do not even have the
skills to operate the sophisticated U.S. weap-
onry they now have and would be totally de-
pendent on U.S. personnel if they decided to go
to war. By 1980, the report estimates, there
could he as many as 50,000 Americans in Iran
involved mostly in arms programs.
It is doubly disturbing that there has been no
close scrutiny of this program because of a se-
cret, decision by President Nixon in 1972 to sell
Iran all the modern conventional arms it
wanted. When one considers the volatility of
the Kiddie East and the potential for wars and
oil embargoes in the region, it is astonishing
the U.S. has such an open-ended commitment.
Other arms programs are equally question-
able. The Saudi Arabians are asking for as
many as 2,000 Sidewinder interceptor missiles
for their F-5s, when experts agree such a num-
ber is excessive for the country's defense. For-
tunately, as a result of public outcry, the ad-
ministration will probably scale down its arms
request to Congress. ?
Nor is the Persian Gulf the only turbulent
area where arms are accumulating at fast
rate. An arms race is under way in black Al-
i: rica, where the United States is eager to bol-
ster its allies and counter . the Soviet arms
buildup in Somalia, Uganda, and Angola. And
many "third-world" countries are acquiring
submarines and missile-armed patrol boats
that could be used to impede shipping.
This is not to suggest a criticism of legiti-
mate arms programs. It makes sense for the
U.S. to help friendly countries build up their
forces so they can defend themselves. There
is merit in fostering regional defense systems.
Arms agreements often. serve valid security
objectives ? perhaps they do in most cases.
But to accept the present government view
of "the more the better" (and the Pentagon,
especially, argues that arms sales help the bal-
ance of trade and keep unit costs down) is to
head down a potentially dangerous path. Some
hard thought ought to be given to the nature Of
the weapons supplied. Are the most lethal
arms going to unreliable clients? To .what ex-
tent are they truly defensive? If they can be
used As offensive weapons, what quantity can
be justified as needed?
Arms Are like shiny toys these days. Every-
one wants them. But, as the major supplier in
the world, the United States ought to take the
lead in showing that it daes not intend to turn
the world into an arsenal of weapons that could
have disastrous consequences.
30
Approved For Release 2001/08/08: CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
? NEW YORK TIMES
25 July 1976
?
Undiplomatic Furor in Belgrac1?
By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
. %natal to-The New York Times ,
BELGRADE, Yugoslavia, July
25---The case of a United States
citizen who was jailed by Yugo-
slavia . for nearly, a year has
drawn attention to divisions
ong American policy-makers
? - and especially to
? Ambassador Lau-
News rence H. Silber-
Analysis man. By enunciat-
ing a viewpoint'
? that has beer.
growing among Americans, as
Yugoslav policies have turned
increasingly against the United
States, the Ambassador has
angered . both the authorities
here and the Eastern European
section of the State Depart-
ment. ,
Mr. Silberman's viewpoint' is
that the anti-Americanism
should be resisted. As a result,
he appears to have annoyed
Yugoslav Government and Com-
munist Party officials more
than any other American.
Belgrade officials have at-
tacked him particularly for the
support he gave Laszlo Toth,
the . Yugoslav-born American
who was 'released here Friday
after having been jailed on
unconvincing. spy charges. By
[vigorously supporting Mr. Toth,
the Ambassador collided -direct-
ay with Yugoslavia's supreme
leadership; its judicial system
and its police establishment.
, Mr. Silbermare a 40-year-old
lawyer and fonner Assistant
Attorney General, was appoint-
ed to his post partly because of
his Republican Party' connec-
tions., He is not a career diplo-
mat
Pushed Trade Ties
. He -has sought to promote
American trade with this coun-
try, and, during his tenure,
Yugoslavia has had the biggest
single injection of American
capital in in its history.
BuriVIr. Silberman has alsce
striven to blunt Yugoslav dip-,
lomatic offensives against the
United States, and has resisted
Yugoslavia pressures toward
forcing American cooperation
in areas that conflict with
American. principles.
The quarrel in the Toth case
came :to public light in the
Yugoslay. resort town of Bled
on June 7, where ? Ambassador
Silberman had- egreed to 'ad-
dress a joint meeting of the
American-Yugoslav . Economic
Councils?the equivalent of a
two-nation -Chamber of Corn-
merce. , ?
Despite rePeated statements. Mr. Silberman be formally
by Yugoslav ' officials that Mr.. censured. ? ,
Toth would be released, the But other Americans strongly
weeks passed and nothing hip- 'sided with the Ambassador.
pened. Mr. Silbermandecided to -Some particularly called for in-
raise the case in his business icreased public American oPPO-
speech. Isition to . Yugoslav ideology,
Mr. Silberman wanted the as- while simultaneously, support-
sembled businessmen that al- lag Yugoslavia's military neu-
though commercial activity was treality.
not governmental in nature, ? "Speaking of pressure," one
trade was inevitably affected. said, "Yugoslavia complains of
by diplomatic relations. any little push her way, while
He startled his listeners' by they themselves are one of the
'refening to Mr. Toth?"a nat- biggest bullies on the ? block.
uralized U.S. citizen [who) for God help the world if they
no apparently justifiable reason were ever a big power. A little
of their own medicine fed back
to them won't hurt a bit."
There -is general agreement,
;however,- that -Yugoslavia is
'indispensable as an element.in
lUnited States European policy,
!serving as a buffer by which
;Soviet tanks are kept distant
from the Italian border and the
,Soviet fleet from the Adriatic
toast.
The traditional wisdom 'In
United States dealings with
Yugbslavia has been that Presi-
dent Titp and his Government
should be handled, with the ut-
most deference, thereby pre-
sumably reducing any possible
temptaion to rejoin the Soviet
bloc.
United States." ?
Belgrade had not heard such
talk from an American Am-
bassador in many years,. and
reacted angrily.
A protest was lodged with
Washington that "undue pres-
sure" was being applied to
Yugoslavia in .a most un-
diplomatic way.
The Eastern Europe Desk of
the State Department, to which
Ambassador Silberman is tech-
nically responsible, evidently
agreed. It recommended that
is given a severe prison sen-
tence and is not allowed to be
visited by American Embassy
officials." , ?
The Ambassador said the
Toth case had been "a severe
burden on our relations."
He added: "Many aspects of
Yugoslav policy, around the
World clash with the interests
and values of the United States
?and this fact invariably col-
ors our relations. This is un-
fortunately trua on some irq
portant economic questions. Lt
us hope that talk in Belgrade
and Bled of economic coopera-
tion in Yugoslavia, involving
U. S. multinational- firms is
matched by positive and con-
structive debate about these
kinds of firms in the halls of
the United Nations. -
, "We hope that Yugoslavia's
perception and analysis of its
own -interests includes atten-
tion and regard to those of the
Thus, American-Yugoslav re-
lations have remained super-
ficially unruffled over the
years. Until' recently, Washing-
ton avoided any, show of pub-
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Wednesday, July 28, 1976 :
Diplomacy and the Human Factor
U.S. Ambassador Laurence Sil-
berman has been widely praised for
helping to win the release of Laszlo
Toth, a naturalized American citi-
zen .who was imprisoned in Yugo-
slavia' on trumped up charges of
being an industrial spy. 'Ambassa-
dor Silberm'an objected to the entire
charade, plus the fact that .U.S.
Embassy personnel were not al-
lowed to visit Toth in prison. After
months of fruitless meetings be-
tween officials of the two countries,
-and expelle-d-from the country.
In contrast to Mr. Silberman's ,
glittering performance was the dis-
mal performance of the Eastern
European Desk of the State Depart-
ment, nominally Mr. Silbermari's
I' boss, which recommended that he
be censured for undiplomatic be-
' havior. In turn, he accused Foggy
Bottom of not caring about Ameri-
can citizens. abroad, even to the
point of not being willing to fight for
? the release from prison of an Irmo-
the ambassador finally began niak- cent man. It is a credit to Secretary
ing public protests and eventually 'of State Kissinger that he supported
Mr. Toth was 'released from prison. the ambassador
? Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
lic.diaigreement with Belgradd
and Yugoslavia has remained
militarily. independent of th0
Soviet Union,'' ? ' '
But elsewhere in the World,
Yugoslavia hasincreaaingly
aligned itself with the most
active, adversaries ce declared
enemies of the United States,
and',hat -displayed keen cliplce.
matic skill in defeating many
American objectives.
In the recent past, Yugo;
slavia facilitated a Soviet air-
lift of -arms to the Arab side
in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.
!Throughout their long war-with
.:the United States, Cambodlian
,and Vietnamese' Communist.
forces received material andl
political help from Belgrade.
Most recently, Yugoslavia gave
.its backing to Soviet and Cuban
intetvention? in the Angolan
civil-war:
" At the United Nations, 'Yugn-1
,slavia not.only normally votes
against American initiatives,
but spearheads diplomatic as-
saults by. the "nonaligned'
group of nations against Wash=
ington.
' Belgrade's declarations regu-
larly ? associate ? Washington's
policies with ."neocolonialism,"
"imperialiim" or worse. ?
The United ? States is - even
purported to represent a
miii-
-tary threat to Yugoslavia. Joint
maneuvers by Italian and Amer-
ican naval ships in the Adriatic
have sometimes been con-
demned . ? as direct threats
against Yugoslavia.
Some American officials,
apart from Yugoslavia's thorni-
ness toward the United States,
have become increasingly dis-
trustful of friendship with a
nation whose internal political'
system, they say, is becomingj
more repressive by the year. ,
They say the Marxist-Leninist
official philosophy of Yugo-
slavia is as Much committed to'
the destruction of American-
economic and political values
;as are the tenets of Moscow,
'Peking or any other Communist
lcountry. I
,
We doubt if the issue is quite that
black or white. No doubt State was
concerned in its own way about the
fate of citizen Toth, and quiet diplo-
.macy is still generally preferable to
rocking the boat. Moreover, not
even the U.S., which puts a higher
premium on individual initiative
than most nations, can afford to
have individual ambassadors deter-
mining foreign policy. But quiet di-
plomacy has its limits, boat rocking
has its- advantages, and too often
the State Department appears not
to know the difference.
In the case of Yugoslavia, Wash-
ington . has time and again over-
looked hostile behavior on the us-
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
sumption that it must suffer silently
in order to keep' it from again align-
ing itself with the Soviet Union. So
far Yugoslavia's own national inter-
ests have served to keep it outside
the Russian orbit, though its repres-
sive internal policies are not all that
dissimilar from Moscow's, at- least
during those periodic crackdowns
on critics and dissidents. But Amer-
ican sufferance has scarcely ad-
vanced U.S. foreign policy, since
Belgrade has gone out of its way to
provoke the U.S. in the UN and in
Third World confabs.
One of the most diffiCalt tasks of
U.S. foreign policy is dealing with
nations like Yugoslavia, trying to
THE NEW YORK TIMES, SATURDAY, JULY 24, 7976
etiploit mutual interests without
sacrificing the U.S. position on
many conflicting interests. So it's
encour .ng to have Ambassador
Silberman demonstrate agai.d that
such nations do respond to diplo-
matic pressure when the U.S. feels
it has a legitimate case.
Text of Comments by U.S. Ambassador'
Soedat to The New York Times
BELGRADE, Yugoslavia,
July 23?Following is the text
of remarks made today by
Laurence H. Silberman, Unit-
ed States Ambassador to
Yugoslavia, on the release of
Laszlo Toth, an American
citizen who had been jailed
in that country. The remarks
were transcribed py The New
? York Times.
. He is no more a spy of
any kind than my Aunt Ma-
tilda or my 10-year-old
daughter. As far as I'm con-
cerned, I have always felt,
and my conviction is doubled
after talking with him, that
he's as innocent as the driv-
en snow.
. Now let me say a couple.
? more things.
.. As is no secret, I have had
, my disputes with -the Eastern
_ European Section of the State ?
Department concerning this
case. I have always felt?and
incidentally after talking
. with him feel it even mete
, strongly?that the United
NEW YORK TIMES
1 AUG 1976
States Government owes
complete support to its citi-
zens in situations like this.
I know the President and
the Secretary feel ? the same
way.
Whe we get to the point'
where we don't care about an
American citizen innocently
imprisoned, then . we're not
much of a country any more.
'Difficult to -Convince'
It was, always difficult to
get people in this country to
understand why we cared so
much about Laszlo Toth, Oft-
en I was asked, well, how
can you care that much about
this man?
And I must say it was dif-
ficult:, sometimes, to convince
the Eastern European Section
of the State Department of
the same thing. And it was;
On occasion, -mentioned that
. he was only a recent citizen.
He only became a citizen in
1973. ` ? .
Well, to people who ask
that question; I refer them ta
Henry Grunwald's piece in?
Time magazine on the Bicen-.
tenniel,--on loving America.
As far as rm concerned, the
fact that he became a citizen
in 1973, immigrated to the
United States in 1967, doesn't
make him one wit less pre-
cious than any other Amer-
ican.
And after talking with him,
I'm damn proud to be an
American. ?
Criticism of Envoy
Now, I was criticized by
the Eastern European Section
for being too zealous in this
case. It said I was undiplo-?
matic for pressing the case
as hard as I did.
To these people diplomacy.
apparently is the passive pur-
suit of American interest.
And I. don't accept that.
I was criticized for per- I
mitting the press to have in; '
-formation on this case 'as' -
per my discussions at your -
[correspondents'] request last
December. '
I was criticized for refer-
ring to it in a speech at Bled,
in an address to the joint
Yugoslav-American Chamber
of Commerce?by our own I?
people in the Eastern Euro- .
pean Section of the State %
Department. And as I've in-
dicated, the Eastern Euro-
pean Section asked that I be
reprimanded for undiplomatic
conduct, but the Secretary
turned down that recommen-
dation and supported me.
As far as I'm concerned
the release of Toth by the
Yugoslav Government is a
recognition on their part that
we do care deeply about the
capricious imprisonment of
an American. ?
And I think . that's- all to
the good, in terms of build-
ing and solidifying our rela-
tionship with Yugoslavia.
They must understand
what's in our vital interest.
And the well-being of Ameri-:-
can. citizens is our vital in--
terest. ? I think they -.under-'.
stand it now. . ?
So I feel that with the re-
lease of Toth, the relation-
ships..with this countfy are
better and, indeed,. I would
say that the relationships
with this country are based
on certain fundamental, long-
term; common interests.
_ _ .
"However," the Yugoslav cessions reportedly Were un-'.
7
Tito A ttacks U U.S.,S E
leader continued, "this cannot acceptable in terms of the Unit-
nvoy
For 'Pressure Campaign'
succeed, it can have no effect.
These pressures are anyway
not coining from she, people,
but only from certain circles.
As far. ai Yugoslavia is con-
By mALcom W. BROWN E cerned, it will continue to pur-
.
SPechil to The New York Times
BELGRADE, July 31?Presi-
dent- Tito has harshly de-
nounced the United States 'Am-
bassador to Yugoslavia as hav-
ing initiated a "campaign"
against Yugoslavia, according
to remarks made public today.
- Marshal Tito's direct verbal
_attack on Ambassador Laurence
H. Silberman was the first time
,
,in memory that the Yugoslav
'head of state had singled out
any foreign diplomat by name'
ifor such criticism. I
As a consequence, there is
now speculation that Yugo-
slavia might be considering de-
tclaring Mr. Silberman persona
,non grata; Mr. Silberman him-
self was away from Belgrade
today and could not be reached
for comment.
- The President's remarks were
part of an interview he gave
several days ago to the Yugo-
slav national news agency
.Tanjug and released today.
Marshal Tito said: "Practi-
? sue its policy just the same as
cally all the nonaligned coun- fefore."
1tries are exposed to very strong Tension between Ambassador
-pressures. You are aware of the Silberman and his staff on the' further- soured by. innumerable
ed States Constitution, how-
ever. The United States Em-'
bassy continued tq insist that
Mr. Toth be freed uncondition-
ally, but Yugoslavia refused,
'any cooperation. ?
I Came to a Head "
I' Relations between the Unit-
ed States and Yugoslavia were
pressure now being exerted on
Yugoslavia,
,`For example, the 'United
States Ambassador in Belgrade,
Silberman, has initiated a cam-i
paign against us in the Unitedl
States. Just look how he is be-
having.
"He is saying that it pays to
exert, pressure on Yugoslavia
and criticize those who think
otherwise. He is giving lessons
about our internal and foreign
policy and interfering in our
affairs.
.?
"This is also a part of the
attempts in some way to com-
promise our country among the
nonaligned nadons, pending thel
Colombo Conference. He was;
referring to a conference of'
chiefs of state of "nonaligned"
nations scheduled to begin Aug.!
15,
one hand and the Yugoslav
Government on the other has
been growing during the past
year, partly because of Yugos-
lavia's imprisonment of Laszlo
Toth, an American citizen.
Mr. Toth was arrested one
year ago for allegedly having
photographed a Yugoslavian
sugar refinery where he had
emigrating to America. He was
instances of Yugoslav opposi-
tion to. American Policy objec-
tives in the United Nations and
elsewhere. Belgrade is current-
ly on ,extremely close political
terms with virtually all of
America's adversarieis through-
out the world, and Belgrade
supports them materially and'
diplomatically.
Matters came to a head in',
bertnan publicly- warned a
.American business-
I
,charged -with spying, convicted
group of. at a secret trial, and sentenced men visiti
ng some Yugoslav
Ito seven years,in jail. counterparts that a danger ex-
Ambassador Silberman sought
isted of capricious arrest and
Consular access to Mr. Toth
and repeatedly asked Yugos-
lavia to free him. The United
long imprisonment in this coun-
try, even for American citizens.
In his speech, Mr. Silberman
?States mission, here has re- also touched on Yugoslavia's
peatedlv affirmed that Mr. Toth growing political hostility to-
was entirely innocent, ward the United States and its
, Yugoslav authorities hinted
at one point that . they mig
' possible effects on business.
lit
.1 SI I d in
he
be willing to free Mr. Toth in ious comment from high return for for certain concessions
slay officials, who, reportedly
by the United States. Such con- asked Washington to recall Mr.
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-144,77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release2001/08/Q8 CIA-IRDP77-00432R000100390004-1 '
. 'Silberman foe* '"undiplomatic
. ;conduct." Mr. ? Silberman said
lister that the. Eastern Europe
I.Desit at the State Department
d recommended he be repri-
manded. ?
Mr. Toth was finally released'
a week ago, several months
after Belgrade had told various
?tanking American officials, that
THE BALTIMORE SUN
26 July 1976
'Fora. letter
to oscow- and Mr. Brezhnev."He declined
he 'Voilldr-be freed: 'diming' `port and later Made a briefl ificials ?aria? With the" Easterd
those to Wheni the Yugoslav statement to newsmen. !Europe Desk of the State De-
had given such an assurancer - ?
The statement ?asserted,
. aMO h 1 partment regarding- his -hand,
was Treasury Secretary
Wil-,I American policy objective was' ling of the Toth case..,
ham
liam E. Simon,' who agreed to,? more important than the free- . But he said he had been
visit here only on condition ing of an innocent American supported both by Secretary of
that lie receive such an as-. citizen held abroad. He said' State Kissinger and President
nuance.. ' , the had been involved in argulFord. Subsequently, the State
Mr Toth .off at Belgrade Air 1 --Wi ? ? g Silberman did "an excellent
Ambassador Silberman merits ?th both Yu oslav of- ,Department asserted that Mr.
'job" in handling the Toth case.
;levels, and "there has been
I communication ? correspond-
. lence?betvieen the President
v
-reveale.
-,....-
;- Washington (AP) ? Presi-
dent Ford sent a personal ap-
peal to Leonid L Brezhnev urg-
ing that the Soviet Union cur-
tail its- microwave bombard-
ment of the United States Em-
bassy in Moscow, according to
Senator Robert Dole (R, Kan).
' Senator Dole said he was
told of the President's letter
during a closed-door briefing on
the Moscow radiation problem.
by Helmut Sonnenfeldt, one of
the closest associates of Henry
A. Kissinger, the Secretary of
State.
: Following the Ford letter=
and U.S. diplomatic efforts to
Iprotest the radiation, as well as an embassy staff meeting that
led to widespread publicity, the
Russians reduced the micro-
wave-power levels. However,
they have refused to cease the
bombardment completely. ?
A White House spokesman,
John G. Carlson, said there
have been U.S.-Soviet contacts
on the radiation issue at various
to give further details_
? The radiation problem has
caused concern among current.
and former American person-
nel at the Moscow Embassy
that long-term exposure to the
low-level microwaves might
suit in adverse health or behav-
ioral effects. -- - ? --
Senator Dole, who had criti-
cized U.S. handling- of the
crowave affair, said in an inter-
view that Mr. Sonnenfeldt ap-
parently ,mentioned the Ford
letter?dispatched about seven
months ago?to impress upon
the senator that "we weren't
taking this lightly." ,
He said he was not told the-
specific wording of the letter or
what,?if any, response there
was from Mr. Brezhnev. -
1 Disclosure of the Ford-
Brezhnev letter marks the first
confirmation that the embassy
radiation question has been
qconsidered serious enough -to
.require personal attention at
the highest level of U.&-Soviet
relations. .
An aide to Senator Dole who
was present during the sena-
tor's closed-door briefing with
Mr. Sonnenfeldt said the Ford re v was up y
letter to Mr. Bre.z. hnev evident-
ly had been sent in December,
1975or January of this year.
The aide, Claude Alexander,,
said Mr. Sonnenfeldt explained
that President Ford "had writ-
ten a personal letter to Brezh-
nev to make a personal appeal
that these [U.S. Embassy per-
sonnel being irradiated in
Moscow} are our employees?in
effect, 'What the hell are you
trying to do?' " - ? ?
According to a classified-7.
State Department' document
made available to the Associat-
ed Press, U.S. concern over the I
Soviet microwaves?first de-
tected in the early 1960's?in-
creased in October,.1975, when
the radiation began focusing on,
the embassy from two different
directions.
From October through Janu-
ary, - the document', said, the
United States was "Making rep-
resentations" to the Soviet gov-
ernment while preparing to in-
stall protective screens on. the
building's windows. Embassy
employees were finally briefed
about the radiation in early-
February.
The Sonnenfeldt briefing and
theIWIgie House spokesman's
comments left unclear whether
Mr. Ford's initial letter to -Mr.
B zhne followed b
'
. WASHINGTON POST :
3 AUG 1976
07'Tlia' Yugoslav Forelin?iiiffititry?intileated that it
.:-would like the United States to send a new arnbassa-
'dor to .Belgrade in place of Laurefiee H. Silberman,'
who. was strongly criticized rover'? the weekend by-
President Tito for his Comments about the case. of I
an -American -recentlY-freed from I spy sentence .In
?
;1-A Yug9?14Y:A4..!::::.2.,-i,:.
ITEW YORK TIMES
28? JUL 1975
:TESTS RUN IN 1960'S
ON SOVIET RADIATION
WASHINGTON, July 26 (AP)
.?Special tests to detect genet-
ic damage were run by the
State Department on employees
i'returning from Moscow during
the 1960s because of concern
over possible effects of mi-
crowave radiation being
beamed at ? the United States
Embassy there, according to
physicians familiar with the
study. ?
However, the purpose of the
tests was kept secret from the
employees, the medical sources
further high-level exchange's.
The State Department has
denied that any U.S. cone
sions were made in return for
reducing of the radiation by th
Soviet Union. "There is no ques
tion of a concession," a depart-
ment spokesman, Robert Fun-
seth, told reporters earlier this
month.
Knowledgable U.S. sources
say the searchlight-like Soviet
microwave beams are intended
to foil _Aniertcan?electronic
snooping devices on the roof of -
the 10-story embassy.
Over the 15-year history Of
the radiation problem?while
its existence was a tightly held
secret?the issue reportedly
was raised by staff officials
during the 1967 Glassboro
(N.J.) summit meeting between
President Lyndon B. Johnson
and Soviet Premier Alexei N.
Kosygin.
During recent months, the
State Department has said the
microwave situation figured in
discussions between Mr. Kissin- -
ger and Anatoly A. Dobrynin,
Soviet ambassador to Washing-
ton.
said. American Foreign Service
officers and other embassy per-
sonnel reportedly were told
only that they were being
checked for a kind of abnormal
bacteria, the sources said.
The existence of the genetic
testing program, conducted
during 18 months in 1967-68,
was confirmed by Dr. Cecil B.
Jacobson, who oversaw the
analysis of the State Depart-
ment test samples by a labora-
tory at George Washington
University.
"Things were never really
conclusive," Dr. Jacobson said
about results of the tests.
Approved For Release 2001/q8/08_: CIADP77-00432R000100390004-1
t7F
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
BALT IMRE SUN
30 truly 1976
Legislator claims U.S. spy posts
in Britain steal co mercial secrets
London (AP)?The U.S. Na-
tional Security Agency is steal-
ing British commercial secrets
"on a colossal scale" by eaves-
dropping on corporate commu-
nications from bases in Britain,
a left-wing lawmaker claimed
yesterday.
Tom Littericle who repre-
sents a district in the industrial
city of Birmingham, said he
will ask the foreign secretary,
Anthony Crosland, to raise the
matter urgently with the U.S.
Secretary of State, Henry A.
Kissinger.
"They are using four British
military installations, at Edzell
in Scotland, Chicksands, Chel-
tenham and one in Hampshire
to monitor the communications
of British commercial organi-
zations," Mr. Litterick told re-
porters.
He said he obtained his in-
formation "from a former em-
ployee of the NSA who, in the
course of his duties, noticed
that commercial information
was being decoded and trans-
mitted to the United States and
made available to American
firms.
. "This is nothing short of
commercial espionage by an
! BALTIMORE SUNTh
! 1 August 1976
American state agency using
facilities provided by the Bri-
tish," Mr. Litterick charged.
The ? lawmaker also raised
the issue in the House of Com-
mons Monday, and Roy Hatter-
sley, minister of state in the
Foreign Office, replied:
"It is a long established
practice of the House that the
government does not comment
on matters of this kind."
A, spokeswoman at the
American Embassy said it
would have no comment on the
Litterick claims. She said com-
ment should come from the De-
fense Department in Washing-
ton.
- Mr. Litterick said U.S.
eavesdropping "equipment is
immense. Each one of these in-
stallations has a British com-
mander, but in each case ? the
rank of the British commander
is junior to that of the resident
senior American officer.
"Large British companies
with subsidiaries abroad use
radio communications to keep
in touch," the lawmaker contin-
ued. "These communications
are sent in code but the fellows
Who man these communications
'
installations break the codes,.
'deodorize' the information so
that no one can recognize the
source and then transmit it to
America.
"The technical capabilities
of the Americans are over-
whelmingly huge. There is no
code that is safe from . the
Americans?they can decode
anything.
"We know the Americans
are ruthlessly capable Of filch-
ing any secret on behalf of
American citizens," Mr. Litter-
ick said. "When it comes to
money the Americans do not
recognize anybody as their
friends.
!British technical skill and
commercial knowledge and
know-how," the lawmaker said,
"are simply being filched and
drained away for the benefit of
American firms who are in
competition with us."
Mr. Litterick is one of the
more outspoken members of
the Labor party's left wing and
has said on previous occasions
that members of the U.S. Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency oper-
ate from the American Embas-
sy in London and should be ex-
pelled.
A c nspiracy Hen s
ag inst conef their IW
The British, French, German, and
, American Governments put up their
several smokescreens in an attempt
; to blur the meaning of Chancellor
(Helmut! Schmidt's statement that
they had agreed at the Puerto Rico
' Summit to give no aid to Italy if a
Communist joined the Italian Govern-
ment. Herr Schmidt?it was said var-
iously in London, Paris, and Bonn?
had been misquoted. Or he had been
misunderstood. Or he had been wrong
: to say that the Italian issue was the
most important one discussed at
Puerto Rico. Or nothing important
had happened beyond a chat about aid
. to Italy between four old friends.
What emerges from the fog is a
pair of rather unseemly facts. The
?first is that Presidents Ford and Gis-
card d'Estaing, Chancellor Schmidt,
and Mr. Callaghan did indeed discuss
-Italy's future privately and without
' telling the Italian Government what
they were doing. The second is that
,Herr Schmidt said, correctly or other-
wise, in Washington that they had
agreed to deny aid to Italy if the new
Italian Government included a Com-
munist. Italy is an ally to all of them
and to three of them an EEC partner.
They ought not to have discussed Ita-
ly behind Italy's back.
Nor should they have preset the
sort of terms?if that is what they did
?that Herr Schmidt was talking '
about. Italy is a democratic country
which has just elected a new parlia-
ment. The complexion of the new
Italian government is a matter for
the Italians. The gist of Herr
Schmidt's message to Signor Andreot-
ti was that his cabinet must not in-
clude ministers who do not enjoy the
confidence of the British, French,
German and American Governments.
This amounts to blatant interior-
)- ence in the domestic affairs of anoth-
er democracy, and Signor Berlingeur,
' the Italian Communist leader, was
NEW YORK TIMES
5 AUG 1975
U.S. Now 'Concedes
It Discussed a Ban
On Loans to Italians
,
WASHINGTON, 'Aug. 4 (Reu-
ters)?The United States con-
sulted its European allies about
cutting off economic aid to
Italy if Communists were ad-
mitted to the Italian Cabinet,
It was disclosed in a White
' House letter released today.
The letter said United Staten
officials had discussed the mat-
ter with French, West German
and British officials at the eco-
nomic conference in June in
Puerto Rico, but reached no
agreement.
It was the first time the
White House admitted publicly
that it had discussed withhold-
ing aid toa n Italian Govern-
anent that included Commu-
nists. The government later
formed by the newly elected
Christian Democrats did not in-
clude Communists.
The letter was written by
tient. Gen. Brent Scowcroft,
head of the National Security
Council, to the House Interna-
tional Relations Committee.
He sent the letter in reponse
to a resolution being considered
by the panel, urging the White
House to turn over material
? about an alleged agreement to
refuse loans to an Italian gov-
ernment that included Commu-
nists.
. General Scowcroft's letter
timid in part:
"Contrary to the impression
conveyed by some press re-
ports, there was no agreement
entered into by the United
States with France, West Ger-
many and Great Britain, or any
other country on the question
of assistance to Italy if the
communists entered the Italian
Government, although the
general issue was discussed at
'the- economic summit meeting
In Puerto Rico in June." ?
quite right to say so. He could also
have said that at least two of the four
governments involved are happy
enough to grant large sums in aid or
cheap credits to countries whose cabi-
nets are wholly Communist. Britian
. has given the Soviet Union a credit
line of 950 millions. West Germany
has offered even larger credits to
countries in the Eastern bloc and to
Yugoslavia. Why should Italian Com-
munists be less deserving of aid than
Russian ones?
, In cynical terms, of course, the *1
cases are not the same. There is no
way in which the West can use money
to influence the composition of the ,
Soviet Government. So there is no
point in inhibiting trade by withhold-
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP771140432R0001003900047.1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77:00432R000100396004-1
Ing credits. In Italy, on the other
:hand, the richer Western govern-
ments are in a position to push a poor-
' er one around.
What Mr. Callaghan, President
+ Ford, President Giscard d'Estaing,
? and Chancellor Schmidt seem to have
forgotten is that Signor Andreotti is
supposed to be one of their own com-
pany, a brother, a fellow-democrat,
and entitled to be consulted. For the
North European big three?whose ac-
tivities have already alarmed the
smaller members of the EEC?and
the United States to have tried to in-
fluence the Italian conclusion is not .;
THE. ECONOMIST JULY 24, 1976
merely unwise but contrary to the UN.'
Charter. All peoples, the charter says,
have the right to choose their own
governments.
The above is reprinted from the
? Manchester Guardian Weekly.
No help for the suspect
Giulio Andreotti may wish Helmut Schmidt hadn't said it out
loud, but it suits his purposes fine
The well practised vocal cords of Helmut Schmidt
?were for once being used to no purpose when the
West German chancellor loudly revealed last weekend
that Italy's friends would be reluctant to give economic
help to an Italian government with Mr Berlinguer's
Communists in it: for the simiile reason that no such
government is in prospect at the moment.
Mr Andreotti, for the Christian Democrats, is work-
ing to construct a government without the Communists.
The Socialists, whose agreement the Christian Demo-
Fats will need, have just had a ?palace revolution
which puts them under the leadership of a man who
will probably give that agreement. The Communists -
themselves seem resigned to not being in the govern-
ment this year, and perhaps not in the lifetime of the
parliament elected last month. The chief remaining
question is the terms on which the Christian Democrats
and their allies Can buy the relatively loyal opposition
of the Communists, and wage restraint by the
Communist-led trade unions.
Few countries can nowadays sail through life without
some degree of external influence on their affairs. To
be a member of the European community, or of the
Nato alliance, or of the International Monetary Fund
when you need international cash, is to recognise the
limitations the real world imposes on that perfect
sovereignty of the theory. books. So the outrage of
some west Europeans about Mr Schmidt's remarks
has been humbug. The governments of Italy's main
western friends have decided, on two very practical
grounds, that they would prefer not to see the Italian
Communist party come into the government just yet.
First, the policies the Communists advocated in last
month's election were so deliberately moderate that it
will be hard for Mr Berlinguer to threaten to oppose
the Christian Democrats root and branch. If the
Christian Democrats offer something tangible in return
for wage restraint by the unions?one idea is a freeze
on salaries over 8m lire a year (a bit over. ?5000),
which implies a substantial redistribution of incomes?
the Communists are unlikely to come out into . the
streets against it. The whole recent strategy of the
Communists has been to persuade the nervous centre
of Italian politics that it has nothing to fear from
them. They destroy their own strategy if they now
swing over to a policy of ay-out opposition, including
economy-busting strikes.
- The distance they have to go
Second, the aim of trying to exclude the Communists
from Italy's next government is to give the social
democrats among them more time to trim down the
party's Leninist element: 'The nettle of the Italian
Communists will, it is true, have to be grasped some
time. The decisive test of a democracy is the ability
to transfer power from one major party tq another,
'[aid Italy will not have passed that test so long as
its biggest opposition party is considered outside the ;
government-forming pale. But for all Mr Berlinguer's
professions of belief in democracy, his Communists are
still two parties in one, a large outer layer of people,
who *are really social democrats wrapped around a
hard core of still unconverted Leninist authoritarians.
They will be safer for democracy when they reduce
that hard core still further, or spit it out.
Italy's Communists claim to have abandoned the
dictatorship of the proletariat, that code-phrase for
the one-party system of the orthodox communist state.
But they still believe in the ".hegemony of the working ?
class," 'which could be a back door to something not
very different from the dictatorship of the proletariat. '
They still practise democratic centralism, the system
of tight internal discipline which, in most other boin-
munist parties, goes with a denial of multi-party
pluralism. They maintain a series of institutional links
with the Soviet world that consorts oddly with the
assertion that they belong, in their hearts, to the
pluralist world. One more parliament's life spent in
critical but not destructive opposition'would help the
I; evolution of Italy's Communists. They might by then
have .become the reliable partner -in the democratic
system which Mr Berlinguer already claims them to be.
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIMIDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
WASHINGTON POST
2 AUG 1976 ?
Trace
By Don Oberdorfer
, WasWagtonNIASUMWriter
A secret ? decision by President
Nixon during a May, 1972, stopover in
Tehran led to uncontrolled sales of so-
phisticated U.S. armaments to Iran
and deep American involvement in its
military affairs, a Senate Foreign Re-
lations Committee study reported yes-
terday.
his trip to a joint session of CongrPss.
According to the committee report'
by staff member Robert Mantel and
consultant Geoffrey Kemp, the Ira-
,
. nian arms purchase program includes:
I ? Four Spruance Class destroyers
Ithat will be even more sophisticated
, ? than those being built for the U.S.
I Navy. . ?
O 80 highly complex F-14 Grumman
Tomcat warplanes equipped with ra-
dar and computer guided Phoenix niis-
siles.
- The staff study made public by the
4
-
erate within the next five to 10 years .?
a large proportion of the sophisticated
military systems purchased from the
U.S. unless increasing numbers of
Americans go to Iran iri a support ca.
pacity," the committee report said. -
In case of war during that 5- to 10-
year period, there is general agree-
ment among U.S. personnel involved
with the Iranian program that "U.S.
support on a day-to-day basis" would
be essential for operation of the so-
phisticated-weapons, the report added. a*
. committee said Nixon's decision to
sell Iran the most modern U.S. air-
craft "and in general to let Iran buy
e anything it wanted" effectively pre-
empted State and Defense Depart-
ment review of the sales to that coun-
- try: The study said this continued to
be so even after a quadrupling -of
Iran's oil revenues in 1973 created a
"honeypot" of weapons sales.
The result was "a bonanza" for U.S.
?
weapons makers, fierce interservice
?,
competition for orders, and sales to-
taling $10.4 billion over the past five
? years, according to the report.
U.S. arms sales to Iran are the larg-
est of any country both in dollar vol-
nine and the number of Americans in-
volved in implementation abroad.
Nixon's decision to sell Iran virtu-
ally any weapons system ? the shah
wanted was "unprecedented for a non-
)
industrial country" and evidently was
- not preceded by the major inter-
, agency review that would be expected
. in such a far-reaching determination,
? the report said.
A committee source said the deci-
c sion was later transmitted in writing
e to the State and Defense departments
by Henry A. Kissinger, then White
; House assistant for national security.
"It caught the bureaucracy completely
1. by surprise" but was never seriously
'challenged because of its authorita-
t,tive nature, and it remains in force to-
day, the source said.
Nixon's decision was not publicly
disclosed during or after his overnight
'? Tehran visit on the way home from
concluding the 1972 Strategic Arms
, Limitation Talks (SALT) agreement
in Moscow.
The 'joint communique reporting
the meetings of Nixon and the shan
t said only that "the President con-
firmed that the United States would, .?
as in the past, continue to cooperate
' with Iran in strengthening its de- ,
' fenses." Nixon made n? reference to
his Iran arms decision in reporting on
?
I
?')
Approved For Rel
* A 37-battery "improved Hawk"
air-defense system, ' including 1,800
missiles and 1,000 buildings at 50. .
locations.
it 528 late-model helicopters, 398
Self-propelled howitzers, and more
than 10,000 TOW (tube-launched, optic-
ally tracked, wire-guided) antitank mis-
siles to equip a ground army expected
to be at least twice as large as Britain's -
in manpower, aviation and armor by
1978.
In addition, the report said Iran is
considering the purchase of 250 to 300
F-16 or F-18 fighter planes, plus a
number of sophisticated airborne
warning and control aircraft,
"Hawkeye" electronic planes and
long-range search and rescue helicop-
ters.
Discussions have been taking plaee -
with independent U.S. petroleum
firms and weapons conglomerates on
a deal to "barter" long-term supplies
of Iranian oil for sonic of the weapons
now on order or on the shah's "wish"
list. The State Department confirmed
it has been informed of such discus-
sions
There Were .24,000 Americans in
Iran as of January, With a large 'per-
centage reportedly involved in -mili-
tary programs. The report: saidAte
number of Americans in :Iran e,i4d
easily reach 50,000 to 60,000 by 1980.
Any 'attempt to deny the U.S. equip-
ment and support. if they .were or-
dered used counter to U.S: policy
interest--for example, on the Arab-
side against Israel, or in a ? new Ina-
Pakistan war?would create a show-
down with Iran and could raake:tle
U.S. personnel "hostages" in extre4ie
cases, the report said..- ? .
eiee
The vast arms sale has so entwined
the two. countries that "the U.S. :c..11-
not abandon, substantially thrninisir
even redirect its arms programs with-
out precipitating a major '7crisitIn ?
U.S.-Iranian relations'," the reakt
said. ?? ?
.? -0.
Asked for comment on the rationale
of Nixon's 1972 decision, Kissinges
press spokesman, Robert L. Funseth,,
replied that Nixon "believed it wain
U.S. national interest to have ..tr4n
turn to the U.S. as the. principal
Source of its military purchases."
Funseth recalled that' in :Guant,f,n
1969 Nixon stated that the United
States would expect -regional cowl-
tries to assume greater responsibIMY
for area defense and that the UrritRd
States would work closely with them.
When Britain decided to withdrai?Cfts
forces from the Persian Gulf, -tile
United States was not in a positicaio
replace British power, he added.
"We concluded .that only the 'le-
gional countries, particularly Iran and
Saudi Arabia; could take on the -
sponsibilities for regional security and
that their perception -of the threat
they face and their judgment of Mist
they needed to do the job must ir.e
given serious weight in responding .ro
"Most informed observers feel that ? their arms requests. That was the con-
Iran will not be able to absorb and i3. text of our decision," Funseth said.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
3 Alin IT'S
EIRMS did
1 6a
alwaskan
9
? By Harry R. Ellis
? Staff correspondent of
The Christian Science Monitor
Washington's deepening military in- 1
? Volvement with Iran ? to the tune of $10 billion I
ease 2001/A08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Washington
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1 -
. worth of arms sales to the Shah's kingdom
since 1972 ? carries with it "devastating" eco-
nomic implications for Americans, says a high
U.S. Government official.
Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, the official
? said, virtually "caused" the 400 percent boost
= in world oil prices decreed by the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries and, when
! opEc meets in Vienna Aug. 5, Iran may press
. for a further price hike.
? Yet, said an informed source, the White.
? House ? under Richard M. Nixon and now un- ?
der President Ford ? consistently has refused
to exert. pressure on the Shah to bring oil
prices down.
These views coincide with publication of a
Senate report alleging that, since a secret 1972
deal between then-President .Nixon and the
= Shah, U.S. arms sales to Iran have been "out '
of controL"
Mr. Nixon, says the report, agreed appar-
ently with the backing of Henry A. Kissinger,
then White House national-security adviser ?
that Iran could buy all the conventional U.S.
, weapons it wanted, without customary policy
? reviews by State and Defense Departments:
As Iran's oil revenues ballooned, so did its
purchases of American weapons. Today Iran is
the No. 1 arms customer of the United States,
WASHINGTON POST
- Iran and the Arms Trade
and according to the Senate study, "50,000 to mier Mohammed Mossadegir and restored the
60,000"- Americans may be in Iran by 1980 to Shah to his throne, U.S. policymakers have
'service arms contracts. . ? sought to strengthen Iran as an anti-Commu-
At least 24,000 Americans, the study says, nist heifer between the Soviet Union and the
now are in Iran and ? should Iran become in- Persian Gulf. -
Volved in war ? they either would have to With Americans buying increasingly more oil
maintain, and possibly operate, weapons sys- from Persian Gulf powers; this policy has
tems or become hostage to the Shah, if they gained in importance. It includes a parallel ef-
refused to do so. fort to strengthen Saudi Arabia, largest oil pro-
-There is in all this," said a well-placed ducer in the Middle East.
source, "a missing ingredient." What impelled Richard M. Helms, Director of the CIA un-
Mr. Nixon and Dr. Kissinger to authorizeun- der President Nixon., now is U.S. Ambassador
limited arms sales to Iran, without con-. to Iran.
ventkonal policy checks? Meanwhile, Mr. Simon continues to press for
Since that time, as OPEC raised .oil prices I a changed U.S. policy. toward OPEC. He-favors
and Iran bought more and more arms, Dr. Kis- closer U.S. ' relations with South Arabia and
singer as Secretary of State reportedly has op- stronger American pressure on Iran.
posed putting pressure on the Shah to halt the Saudi Arabia ? with a relatively small popu-
price climb. , lation and enormous oil revenues ? argues
. Treasury Secretary William E. Simon, by within OPEC against higher oil prices which
contrast, argued vainly in White House coun- might hamper world economic recovery 'and
ells that all possible leverage should be used reduce demand for oil..
Iran, with a large and rapidly growing popu-
lation, has a different perspective ? a need for
still more money to finance economic devel-
opment and to satisfy the Shah's vast, appetite
. for arms.
America now sells about $3 billion worth of
Consistently, since 1953, when the CIA sup- military equipment yearly to 'Iran and a
ported a coup d'etat that overthrew leftist pre- roughly equal amount to Saudi Arabia.
.. ? .
against the Shah, as principal author of the
OPEC price rise.
Dr. Kissinger, in these same White House
discussions, stressed the importance to the'
United States of intelligence installations, in-
, or ran.
5 AUG 1976
'
D RESIDENT NIXON'S DECISION to arm Iran was
characteristic of much of his diplomacy. It was se-
cretive. Its dismaying applications were never debated
within the administration, let alone in public. It has
now left the Country with an implicit commitment that
Americans cannot accept?and yet cannot easily reject
Condemning this kind of high-handed and irresponsi-
ble statecraft is simple enough. But working out a rem-
edy is going to be as difficult as it is urgent
The dimensions of this dilemma are becoming pain-
fulli? clear. Iran is now this country's biggest customer
for arms, buying inordinate amounts of the most ad-
vanced and complex weaponry. Iran, as a nation and a
people, does not have the technological base for this
kind,, of an armory. Keeping it in operation requires
? Americans, in large and conspicuous numbers, on the
airfield and in the maintenance shops.
If the Shah were to use this equipment in war, the
United States would be faced with a fearful choice. To
leave the American technicians and experts in place
would make this country an active participant in the
Shah's purposes. But suddenly to withdraw technical
support and resupply would risk the destruction of all
US, relations with Iran with obvious consequences for
the flow of Persian Gulf oil on which this country is in- ?
creasingly dependent . .
The time to consider this unpleasant prospect is be-
fore, not after, the Shah begins to use this expensive
equipment that the United States has sold him. But.
there is no indication that the Ford administration has
-thought about it much, or has any policy at all. Perhaps
the peocess of looking for an answer will be accelerated
by the publication last Monday of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee's staff report on the military sales
? to Iran. The rising danger to American interests has
been apparent, in general terms, for some time. But
this report lays out the case with a wealth of detail dif-
ficult to ignore. ?
An example: The report notes that this country has
sold Iran weapons that include the new F-14 Tomcat
fighter and the Spruance class destroyer. "The F-14 sys-
tem is so complicated that the United Stet
having major chitiPerSivikihSf tRifiteln
'
Spruance class destroyer will be even more sophisti-
cated than those being procured by the U.S. Navy," this
report observes. It then adds: "There is general agree-
ment among U.S. personnel involved with the Iranian
program that it is unlikely that Iran could go to 'war in
the next five to 10 years with its current and prospec-
tive inventory ... without US. support on a day-to-day
basis." Can Iran count on that support? The Shah is en-
titled to an answer. So are American voters.
After a venture in personal diplomacy. in Teheran in
early 1972, Mr. Nixon told his subordinates that the
Shah was to be permitted to buy virtually any weapon
short of nuclear, Warheads. >Because of the sweeping
and explicit nature of this order, all of the normal proc-
esses of review and analysis were abrogated. The only
limiting factor was Iran's -ability to pay. But then came
the oil revolution. Iran's oil revenues in the year of Mr.
Nixon's visit were a little over $2 billion; by 1974, they
were up to $17.4 billion, and American arms sales to
Iran were up to nearly $4 billion a year. But by then the -
Nixon administration, sunk deep in the Watergate
- scandals, had no attention to spare for marginal mat-
ters like arms policy: The lower ranks of officialdom
here in Washington let the sales rush forward, mind-
lessly and automatically. ?
' Iran is at the center of a notoriously instable region
In which national enmities are sharp and national am
-
? bitions, nourished by a new economiepower, run high.
The Foreign Relations Committee's report notes that
the Shah is developing close military relations with
Pakistan, which, of course, is more or less continuously
embroiled with India. India has nuclear weapons. Lean,
by the way, is negotiating for American reactors?for
peaceful purposes, everyone says. .
By coincidence, Secretary of State Henry A. Kissin-
ger arrives tonight in Teheran for two days of conver-
sations. There is no subject before'mlie two govern-
ments so pressing as this arms spiral. Mr. Kissinger
needs to discuss with the Shah the means to limit and
reduce the flow of weapons. Above all, he has an obli-
gation to tell both the Shah and the American public
eRter, cIO-tr IA get American
?are used m com at. 37 ?
?
I
'Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
IfE C1-12tSTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Monday. July 26, 1976 ?-
Time for nw Americ
- By Edwin 0. Reischauer
n olicy on Kore
Today marks the 23rd anniversary of the end
of the Korean war., but the Korean peninsula is
still one of the powder keg areas of the world,
with the United States sitting on top of the keg.
? North and South Korea, each big enough to:
rank v as a middle-sized country of the World,
are squared off against each tither in bitter
.hostility. They are armed to the teeth, with
about a million men together under arms and,-
another 2 million as trained reserves. Shooting
? incidents occur from time to time along the ?
border, and not far away is stationed an Amer-
ican division, so placed as inevitably to involve -
the United States, should war break out again.
Around Korea are grouped in close proxi- ?
mity three other of the largest nations in the.
world.? China, the Soviet Union, and Japan ?
.all;of which have fought over Korea in the past'
v
? - and distrust one another today. The situation is
.not reassuring. It is high time to take stock of ,
vtiat has happened in Korea and what its' fa- v:
ture:.may 'hold in store for the U.S. and for the
wild. ?
First, however, 'America should get rid of
some mistaken notions. South Korea is no,l
South Vietnam. Its people are solidly? unified
? against the Communist North, still remember-
ing its ruthlessness and cruelty when it over-
ra inost of the South during the Korean war.
They have a larger military establishment than
thg 'North and are in the process of gaining
equality in the air, their one area of relative:.
. weakness. They have twice the population of
the North and a more vigorous economy. South ?
Kprea most certainly Will not crumple, no mat-
ter iiciw hard the North Korean dictator, Kim'
? IlAttng, may huff and puff.
.,ALso, neither of the two Koreas is much like ,
first other developing countries. They share -
many of the characteristics that account for 4
the, ,extraordinary, though contrasting, sue- ?
ces,ses. of Japan and China in recent years.
Tier people are hard-working, disciplined, and
skilled organizers. They have a passion for:
education and have all but wiped out illiteracy. v
Arith these traits the North has made itself
hito ;the most tightly and repressively orga-
nized of all the communist states. The South :
has followed the trail blazed by Japan as an in
dustrial fast-grower, although, starting later
than Japan and from lower levels of tech:.
nological modernization, its success is less as-',
suked, particularly in the face of the recent
vast rise in prices for the energy resources
f- and raw materials that both must import. -
:v. The South's attempt to follow the open pat- ?
t tern of democratic politics and freedom of ex- ?
pressior that has worked so well in Japan has i
met with even less success. The movement in ?
recent years has been away- from these free-
doms toward growing repression and authox(-
itarian controls. V? ?
South Korea nonetheless has sufficiently
high educational and economic levels to make .
a free society and democratic political in-
stitutions workable or, if these are not
achieved, to operate a reasonably efficient
, even if cruel dictatorship of the right.
?. The immediate problem in Korea is not Its
Approved For Release 2001/08/08
backwardness or the danger that the South
might disintegrate. The problem for the United
. States is the embarrassment of having served
as godfather to a rightist dictatorship 'and
being committed to its defense, even though
t the American people obviously would repudiate
this commitment if war : actually broke out.
This is a very, dangerous situation to be in.
To South Koreans the past 31 years since
World War U have been their American pc-
nod, now comparable in length to the preced-
ing Japanese period of 35 years of colonial
rule, when-Japan blighted Korean national as-
pirations and bred a lasting hatred for Japan,
but at the- same time did lay_ the foundation
and give specific shape to much of Korea's
modern development. The Japanese also
molded Korea to the pattern-they willed for it.
In contrast, the United States has advocated
one thing for Korea and produced another.'
Much in modern Korean society has been in- ?
fluenced by the U.S., and some of this the
I: American people can take pride in. It was
v? Christians, largely the converts of American
missionaries, who once stood out as champions ,
of independence against the Japanese, just. as. v -
they are today the most fearless advocates of
democracy and freedom of speech against na-
tive military rule.
Other borrowings from the United States,
however, have been less desirable. The arm of
government most repressive of the freedoms
of Koreans both at home and abroad is the Ko-
rean Central Intelligence Agency, named for
its American counterpart. Generous American'
aid has bred widespread corruption. And in any
?ncase the present dictatorial Korean Govern-
ment is not at all what any American would
wish to see in Korea.
The spotty American record is the product
of both inattention and a desirable modesty in
American aims. The U.S. does not feel that it
should try to mastermind the future for any
other people. It is ready to aid but not to dic-
tate. Unfortunately this half-way position
breeds confusion. U.S. aid often seems to 0th-
em like Control. Korean liberals are dispirited.
to see the United States increasing its military
support of a regime that has destroyed their'
freedoms and the beginnings of Korean democ-
racy:
, Vlihat should the U.S. do now to correct this
situation and reduce the dangers to itself and
the world? Clearly the first step is to withdraw
its troops and its nuclear weapons from South
Korea. If it does not do this it will be contin-
uing to give unconditional support to a regime
that it does not believe in and will remain in
danger of becoming embroiled, in a war there
against the. wishes of the American people and
the best judgment of their government.
The U.S. withdrawal, however, must be ac-
complished in such a way as not to increase
the chances of w 1r in Korea. It doe not want
a repetition of 1950, when an American pullout
helped spark the invasion from the North. The
withdrawal should be gradual and clearly an-
nounced in advance, so no shocks occur. The
present commitment to South Korea's defense
'
: CIA-RDM7-00432R000100390004-1
,--Appmveci For Releksg,..20,0119,8/08,: cIA7RpID.77,-09,p2R00010039a004-1
should be replaced by a more general corn-:
-mitrnent to the peace of the. area.
The same 'sort of commitment should apply
- to Taiwan when the United States evehtually
does recognize Peking and consequently must
. give up its specific defense treaty with the Na-
tionalist regime. China has clearly indicated
that it is not considering military action to re-
gain Taiwan at this time, and neither it nor the ?
Soviet Union has the least desire to go to war
over Korea.
The possibility, however vague, of American
- military reprisal would be a- further deterrent
to Chinese or Soviet military action, and North ,1
Korea would not on its own embark on a mili-
tary adventure against a larger and probably
. stronger South, especially if there is even a ?
small possibility of an American military re-
sponse.
? The U.S. withdrawal from Korea also should:
be accompanied by other more positive moves.
R is the close involvement of China, the Soviet
Union, Japan, and the United States. in Korea.
that makes it a 'much greater danger to world
peace than are even less stable areas in South-
east Asia or the other developing regions of the
? world. The U.S. should take advantage of its
withdrawal to work for a four-power agree-
ment on the neutralization'of Korea from other"
,world tensions, leaving the two ? Korean re-
gimes to work on their problem of unification -
without fear of external pressures. . ?
Since the American defense position in ,
Korea often has been described as being basi-
-cally in behalf of its Japanese. ally, withdrawal
from Korea also should be accompanied by
clear reaffirmations of its commitment to Ja-
pan's defense and cooperation with Japan in all
fields - a position that spokesmen of both the
political parties in the U.S. have recently made.
clear is an accepted, supra-partisan American
_stand.
Finally, the withdrawal would permit the
U.S. to be more selective in its cooperation
with, and aid to, South Korea, so that Amer-
ican influence would be more likely to favor
-..the development of the sort of free and domes-
tic society that most South Koreans hope for
- and that Americans believe would best contrih- ;
? ute to a healthy and stable Korea.
Edwin 0. Heischauer, former U.S. Am-
bassador to Japan, is University Professor
at Harvard and a specialist in East Asian
studies.
THE WASHINGTON POST
Wednesday. August 4, 1976. ? .
Sea
e
dal Hints
?Vein
WASHINGTON POST ;
? 29 JUL 1976 .
,
Tokyo Paper Sees
Lockheed Fund Tie
To Japan Election
By Andrew Horvat
Special to The Washington POO
TOKYO, ? July 28?The compahied Clutter on' set-
mass circulation newspaper era! ? trips to' Kodima's ?
Mainichi charged in a story ?/ house.
today that money from the Mainichi's sources said
Fukuda was only aware that
Lockheed delivered these
funds, usually in $35,000 to
? 370,000 amounts, to Kodama.
The paper speculates "that .
the funds were passed on to
politicians preparing for the
1972 general elections.
Mainichi quotes unnamed
sources as saying Fukuda
told of translating demands
Two former executives of by Kodama for money to be
All Nippon Airways?former given to Japanese politicians
president Tokuji Wakasa "including not only Tanaka
and former director Ryoichi but also opposition members
Fujiwara?were indicted to- of Parliament.
day on charges of foreign
exchange violations in re-,
ceiving money from Lock-
heed. The two were among
,?16 persons arrested earlier.
'Lockheed Corp. apparently
'was used to finance the Jap-
anese parliamentary elec-
tions of December 1972.
The allegation came two
. days after the unexpected
arrest of former Prime Min-
ister Kakuei Tanaka on
'charges arising out of the
Lockheed scandal here. ?
' Mainichi said money from
Lockheed was delivered per-.
sonally by John W. Clutter,
resident of Lockheed Asia
Ltd., to power-broker Yoshio
Kodarna in several install-
ments and usually at the lat.
...ter's request. Kodama has -
-been identified in U.S. con- .
? gressional testimony, as the.
recipient of $7 million in
Lockheed funds:
, The newspaper said "the-
Tokyo district prosecutor's
office is fairly certain that
the former prime minister
, received money not only
through the Marubenl Corp.
[Lockheed's agent] but also
from power-broker Yoshio
? Kodama."
? Kodama, reportedly still
t recovering from a stroke
suffered at the beginning of
the Lockheed investigation,.
Is refusing to answer ques-
tions related to this matter.:
, ?
The paper alleges that
Taro Fukuda, translator and
go-between to Lockheed and
Kodama, told prosecutors
before his death, that hp ac-
,
"It is not known whether
Kodama actually delivered?
the money to Tanaka, llut
inasmuch as the period in
question was directly prior-
to the December 1972 lower
house elections, there isathe
distinct possibility that at
least some of the money
went to finance the election
costs of Japanese politi-
cians," the paper said.
A. Carl Kotchian, former.
vice chairman of Lockheed,
told a? U.S. Senate commit-
-tee in February that during
the latter part of 1972 espe-
cially large sums of Money
moved frequently to Japan. '
Kotchian said that in Octo-
ber 1972 Lockheed sent $1.3
million and in November $2 -
million to Japan.
? The second half of /972 ,
was an important period for
Lockheed. In September, Ja-
pan announced its All Nip-
pon Airways would pur-
chase six Lockheed Tristars.
In October, the National De- .
fense Council, headed by Ta-
-naka, scrapped domestic ?
production of antisubmarine
patrol planes, paving the ?
way for Japan to buy. the
P 3-C Orion made by Lock-
heed.
se Corr n
By Mark Murray_ __. .
. tion among this ?nation's public off I-
' ? ? London Observer : ' , ,. cials. . .
TOKYO?Japan's far-reaching Lock- ; : Almost no area ? of governnient -* '
. heed bribery scandal, which hag led seems untainted. Even Japan's highly '
- to the arrest of former Pime Minister I respected police force has been rocked .. '
Kakuei Tanaka and threatens to top- ' by a series of petty scandals involv- ?
ale the government, may be only a Ing bribe-taking and Involvement with
, small part, of the widespread corrum ; gangsters. . ? . . _L i ,i, ? ered 463 individual _bribery cases--171
Approved For Release 2001/08/66-t?dA4ZDP73900432R000100390004-1?.. ,..
-
The National Police Agency has re--; r
leased a report showing that bribery -
cases in the first six months of this
year-were the largest in the country's
history.
Only five of Japan's 47 prefectures
came out clean. The agency uncov-
Approved. FOr Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432k006100390004-1 ?
more than in the same period last
year?involving sums- amounting to
about a million dollars.
- ? Most of the cases involved local goy-
? erament civil engineering construc-
tion projects. A total of 178 local and
central government officials were ar-
& rested for accepting kickbacks in cash
z ? or services.
, Police are disturbed that the meth-
ods of bribery are becoming harder
" to uncover: For this .reason officials
suspect the totals are only Tartial.
? In an effort to root out corruption, re-
gional police bureaus are being asked
-- to probe thoroughly the activities of
all local government officials. One of
.the most common methods of giving
bribes is to list the wife or mistress
of the government official on the pay- .
roll company giving the bribe. An- -
other is for the briber to invest in a '
firm operated by a relative or person .
closely connected with the official, or
pay part of the cost when the official
builds a house or takes a trf (Wirt'
seas.
? All Nippon Airways, whose top of-
ficials have been arrested and charged
,with perjury in the Lockheed scandal, ,
is a typical case.
It appears, the airline was deter-
mined at any cost to overtake Japan
Airlines as the nation's number one.
In an attempt to win parliamentary
approval for planned, expansion both
on domestic and international routes,
ANA issued free tickets to politicians,
along with cash during the traditional"
midsummer and year-end gift giving.
Transport Ministry officials alleged-
ly were offered a.range of gifts from
expense-paid golf excursions to boxes
of candy for their children. Ranguetg
at the best restaurants and drinking
parties in expensive Ginza bars also .
were used to influence officials, ac-
cording to government prosecutors.
Officials would run up large bar bills
that would be paid later by ANA.
NEW YORK TIMES -
2 8 JUL 19764
Shockwavesi
,n,Japan
.
The arrest of Japan's former Prime Minister, Kakuei
? Tanaka, is the most dramatic indication yet of the
? heights to which the rot of corporate bribery may have
-spread in world trade. No wonder the ruling Liberal
Democrats of Japan were so nervous about the unfolding
:disclosures of Lockheed Aircraft's multimillion-dollar ci
payoffs, a nervousness shared by United States Govern-
? ment' investigators who presumably were aware of a -
possible Tanaka link to-the web of corruption..
The internal POlitical struggle in Japan, less than five:
months away from an election, is bound to be inflamed
by this development-though the impact could go either
way. It was a Liberal Democratic Government that pur-
sued the Lockheed investigation to Mr. Tanaka's front
door yesterday morning. The former leader, moreover,
had headed an oppositicn group inside the. party 'to. -;
challenge' Prime Minister M,iki's lackluster leadership. In
- a stroke, a possibly formidable opponent would seem to
have been neutralized, though the cynicism in Japan :1
runs so deep that already there are charges that Mr.
:'Tanaka has simply been set up by his party rivals as a
politically convenient scapegoat. -
The immediate lesson to be drawn is' similar to that ."
of the American Watergate experience: The political
system has not been so hopelessly corrupted that official ?
wrongdoing?if that is what 'Oc6urred?can be Indefi-
nitely covered up. And considering the frailty of. democ-
racy in - Japan, the Mild Government, whatever- its ' -
immediate motives, has to be commended .for. Its bold...
action.
-
The Tanaka arrest also has meaning for this country,
, a timely counterbalance to a disturbing attitude that has 3
been making inroads in government and business circles;
?the belief that bribery and shady payoffs are such an -4
entrenched part of international commerce that only the
naive expect any real imprtivement in corporate ethics.
This attitude was epitomized in the degrading statement
by the head of a leading managerial consultants firm, as
quoted recently in The Wall Street Journal; the current
anti-bribery drive in Congress and elsewhere, he report-
edly stated, Is nothing but "a bunch of pipsqueak
moralists running around trying to apply U.S. puritanical
standards to other countries." .4
Fortunately, for themselves and the nation as a whole, ?
many of the most influential business executives do not *4
share this contemptuous view. In Japan as as the
United States, enforcement of allegedly "puritanical"
standards makes ultimately for decent business and
politiCal relationships alike. p " ,
Approved For Release 2001/08/08: CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
'Those inclined to gamble were invited
to mahjong parties, and the airline
allegedly ?ensured that their guests
won.
Efforts to L.?over the extent of the.
corruption in Japanese national life
have been hampered by revelations
that even public prosecutors and po-
lice are not. immune from "Lockheed
disease." .
In Hyogo Prefecture, a senior police
chief has been accused of accepting
gifts from gangsters, and dozens of
police of various ranks are under
/investigation for accepting bribes to
overlook offenses involving motor.
vehicles. ? *.
In recent months at least six other
documented cases of police corruption
have surfaced in various parts of the
country. .
In the port of Kobe, the district .
prosecutor's office is accused of de-
,manding membership at an exclusive
golf club operated by Eitaro Itoyama,
a politician the office was investigat- ?
ing for election law violations.
Revelations of police corruption
have become so common that Japanese .
charged with minor infringements of
the law are demanding to be let off,
in effect telling police: "Put your own
house in order before you start pick-
ing on us."
Declaring that Japan's- era of high
economic growth has led to the un-
healthy development of "money pow-
er," a newspaper editorial recently
commented: "Monetary gifts, treating
for drinks and meals, invitations to
pleasure trips and golf, are all easily
included in the business round and
they have become to be regarded as
. common social customs. ,
"But such economic crimes as ,cor-
ruption, tax 'evasion and embezzle-
; ment can be considered much worse
than roberry or murder, because they
: can. lead to ,the ruin of this country."
Approved For Release 200.11-(1819a:. cIA-RDP77-00432R090100390004:1
.
THE READER'S DIGEST
August 1976
Kremlin strategists have converted Cuba into
an increasingly potent launching pad for anti-Western
subversion throughout the world
THE MOSCOW-HAVANA
CONNECTION
By Moons R. Limn '
'
YEAR AGO, cooing sounds of
A Tapprochement with Cuba
?were heard. U.S. Senators
and journalists had flocked to Ha-
vana and returned with glowing
reports of a new moderation. With? '
American concurrence, the Organi-
zation of American States' a r-year-
? old trade and diplomatic embargo,
imposed in retaliation for Castro
subversion, was quietly ended. It
seemed likely that Washington and
Havana would soon resume the dip-
lomatic relations broken in 196r.
Then, beginning last August,
14,000 Cuban combat troops, utiliz-
ing the latest weaponry, invaded
Angola to crush the non-communist
opposition and install a Marxist
?. regime. The military power of the
' Soviet Union?combined with a
1 growing neo-isolationist attitude in
1
Congress?had emboldened Krem-
a? lin leaders to throw down a chal-
lenge beyond daring a few years ago.
Nothing reveals this new aggres-
siveness like the Moscow-Havana
connection. In brazen defiance of the
Monroe Doctrine, the Soviets have
converted Cuba into a military base
and springboard for anti-Western
subversion and strategic thrusts
all over-the globe. Some examples:
? Last spring, Soviet transports
ferried 650 Cuban troops, pilots and
technicians into the giant Soviet
military complex at Berbera, Soma-
lia, where they work with z5oo Rus-
? sian troops. Cubans fly jet fighters,
man missiles and coach guerrilla
movements in Yemen and Somalia,
_ preparing "wars of liberation"
. against Ethiopia, Djibouti and
' Oman at the Red Sea and Persian
Gulf entrances?oil lifelines for West
Europe and Japan.
0 Thirty members of the Cuban
secret police?Direccion Gcneral
de Inieligencia (DGO ?who were
:rained in the Soviet Union, staff a -
Havana institute that prepares Eng-
lish-speaking Cubans for infiltration
into the United States as illegal espi-
onage and terrorist agents.
1
_
? The Cuban government main-
tains a Havana headquarters for a
minuscule Marxist-Leninist party
that encourages Puerto Rican vio-
lence. The Soviet and Cuban delega-
tions have pushed a United Nations
resolution endorsing independence
for this island commonwealth,
where only .6 percent favored inde-
pendence in a 1967 referendum.
This U.N. charade has a single pur-
pose: to incite and support the Cu-
ban-trained terrorists whose bombs
have rocked Washington, New York
and Chicago. _
* In Havana, Manuel Piiieiro
"Redbeard" Losada, chief of the
Soviet-backed "Department of
America," oversees some 400 agents
in stirring up trouble throughout the
hemisphere. Twice in the last three
years Cuban-trained exiles have
landed secretly in the Dominican
Republic in abortive efforts to or-
ganize guerrilla violence.
To? understand the dynamics of
the Moscow-Havana relationihip,
examine its evolution over the past
decade. In 1967, Castro. sustained a
desolate defeat of his grand strategy -I
of violent revolution when Ernesto
"Che" Gi!evara failed in Bolivia
to show that Cuba could create ;
"many Vietnams" in South America. -
Castro's incendiarism was so coun-
terproductive, and his own economic
mess such a mounting $500 million-
a-year burden to the Soviets, that
they decided to tether him. Oil de-
liveries to Cuba mysteriously began
? to fall behind_ Sugar mills, factories,
highway traffic sputtered. "We have
trouble on the docks in Baku," Mos-
cow explained. By mid-/968, Castro
capitulated. He placed the DCI under
a Soviet KGB general, who sits in an
office next to the DM chief in Ha-
vana. The general and his KGB sub-
ordinates approve the operational
plans of all DCI divisions. Other KG3
officers, sons of Spanish communists
; who fled to the Soviet Union after
the Spanish Civil War, have become
"Cubans" in the DC/.
The Soviets also imposed a "de-
ridelization" of the Cuban govertv! ?
ment and economy. Today, j000.
Russians sit in Cuban ministries.and
enterprises. The Cuban communist
party has been remade in the Soviet
image with a constitution modeled
on the Soviet Union's 1936 Stalinist
charter.
. Castro's abject surrender. was
revealed at last year's Havana con-
- ference of 2.4 Latin American corn-
numist parties. Henceforth, the
Castroites announced, all Cuban
help would be given only through
the Moscow-approved parties. Rev-
olutionaries must discipline than- '
selves, form a united front, abandon
free-lance activity and resort', to
violence only under tutelage of the
local Kremlin subsidiary.
Soviet control of the Cuban opera-
tions is virtually complete. In Cuba
itself, Czech and Soviet instructors
assist Castro's terrorists. Cuban ex-
perts joined the Palestinian training
camps ia Syria, tutoring terrorists
from Japan, Germany and Iran as -
well as Arabs. The graduates depart
to wreak glnbal havoc.
Middle East. For months, Cuban-
supported terrorists in Iran have ?
'waged a war of assassination -and
kidnapping. One killed in a shoot-
out last May was found to have been
trained in Cuba itself. Victims in- .
elude Iranians and three U.S. Army
officers in Tehran. In February,
during his visit to Moscow, Castro
promised support to exiled leaders
of the Ianian communist party.
They are now coordinating Cuban-
trained insurgents fighting Iranian
forces in Oman.
Lath America. In 197o, two Cas-
? tro-schooled terrorists proclaimed a
"People's Revolutionary Army" in
Argentina to bring down the gov-
ernment. More recently, other
Argentines have taken terrorist in- ?
struction inside Russia -itself. They
have waged a murder-and-kidnap
campaign against police, the mili-
tary, and Argentine- and foreign-
owned businesses. Corporate giants
have been forced to pay upward of
$83 million to ransom executives or
buy off murder campaigns.
Western Europe. Three ? Cuban
diplomats were expelled by France
for collusion with a Venezuelan-
born Moscow-trained terrorist who
murdered two French policemen
and an Arab informer. The Venezu-
dan fugitive, code named "Carlos"
la
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
Approved 'For ReleaSe 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1
?real name Bich (for Lenin) ?Ra-
J
mirez Srichez?is a go-between for
German, Japanese and Arab terror-
ists who have seized embassies, kid-
napped political figures and mur-
dered people in Germany, Sweden;
Holland, France and Austria. "Car-
los" fled to Libya after staging the
sensational kidnap of the ix oil min-
isters in Vienna last December.
? United States.. Since 1969, more
than 2400 young American radicals
' have visited Cuba as members of
the so-called Venceremos Brigades.
? They spend weeks cutting cane,
building schools, undergoing indoc-
trination and being evaluated by the
KGB and DGI as future illegal intel-
ligence agents or supporters for ter-
rorists whose bombs have hit the
Capitol, Pentagon, State Depart-
ment and other targets from coast to
coast.
Angola. In January 1975, the Por-
tuguese government and the three
Angolan liberation groups agreed on
a- peaceful transition to independ-
ence. By March, the Moscow-
spawned Popular Movement for the
Liberation of Angola (manA) was
receiving huge supplies of Soviet
arms.* By April, Cuban advisers
- were in Luanda instructing MPLA
,e-treops. By May, a high-ranking Red
la-Army delegation had. arrived in
--Havana to arrange the massive dis.:
patch of Cuban combat troops to
Angolaaa _
Those troops began arriving in
' August Their mission: to operate
the sophisticated Soviet weaponry
for MPLA attack columns and to con-
trol newly conquered areas while the
thinly stretched MPLA. forces finished
their sweep. By early December,
5000 Cubans were engaged in com-
bat; behind the lines the Soviets had
an estimated aroo advisers..
Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger publicly warned
the Soviets that they were risking
&tente by their blatant intervention.
For two weeks, the Kremlin and
Havana appeared to hesitate, but
DGI'S intelligence analysts advised
Castro and Moscow that the United
States, traumatized by the South-
east Asia collapse and Watergate,
would be unable to respond.
It proved prophetic advice. On
December 19, the U.S. Senate, by a
54-22 vote, amended a foreign-aid
bill to forbid any spending for ciA
aid to Angola.
. Six days later, on December 25,
the Soviet airlift resumed. Within a
month, the Cuban troop strength
zoomed to 12,000. In January, the
anti-Marxist forces still controlled
*Sec "Angoles Made-in-Moscow War,"'
The Reader's Digest. June 76.
about 70 percent of Angola's terri-
tory and population. But. within
weeks, Angola had fallen to the
communists. In February, when
Castro addressed the 25th SoViet
Communist Party Congress in Mos-
cow, he and the assembled comrades
were triurnphant. ,
What Next? This kind of Marxist -
intoxication in the Kremlin ? poses
the greatest danger to world peace.
The very day the US. Senate passed
its no-aid-to-Angola amendment,
top Soviet strategist Mikhail Suslov
uttered this portentous threat at the
Communist Party Congress in Ha-
vana: "The revolutionary-liberation
movement, now aa never before, is
, linked into a unified global whole.
The Cuban revolution has placed an
indelible imprint on the develop-
ment of the whole liberation process
id Latin America. Prospects for the
second liberation of the continent
. are becoming increasingly real."
Coming fl-cm a man who pro-
aimed. the "liberation" of Budapest,
Prague and Saigon, these are dan-
gerous words which require irr_unc-
diate and long-term U.S. responses:
1. We must stop the destructive
assaults on our intelligence agencies,
which alone can provide the detailed
evidence of Russian and Cuban ter-
rorist assaults against the United
States, its allies and neutral states.
These attacks have vastly hampered
the collection and analysis of intelli-
gence on Soviet-Cuban intervention
, in Angola and KGB-Dm-orchestrated
terrorist campaigns against the Unit-
ed States and other nations.
2. We must reinstitute the eco-
nomic and political embargo against
Cuba. Such sanctions will not topple
the totalitarian regime, but they will
diminish Castro's capacity for mis-
chief, terror, subversion and armed
aggression. And the sanctions must
be supported by all our allies, includ-
ing NATO nations and Japan. They
are all now targets of the terroristic
regime they are helping to strength-
en Via trade. Trade should promote
peace?not aggression.
For the eune reasons, we should
not hesitate to use economic sanc-
tions against the Kremlin's aggres-
sions. Even as the Angolan invasion
mounted, U.S. representatives in
Moscow continued to negotiate a
pact, announced October 20, under
which the Soviets are buying mil-
lions of tons of American grain to
support their faltering collectivized
agriculture. The pact also envisioned
our supplying the Russians with
much-needed American oil-well
technology that will boost their pro-
duction within 18 months by 700,000
barrels daily.
3. We must arrive at a _national
resolve to counter the Kremlin's poli-
tical warfare and Cuban aggressions.
The Cuban invasion of Angola oc-
curred only because of the corn-
munist conviction that the United
States was in such internal disarray
that it lacked the will to resist.
We desperately need a Congress
and a White House that are united '
in this resolve. Says Brookings In-.
stitution defense analyst Barry
Blechman: "Only by demonstrating
a willingness to make major issues
? of single events which, in isolation,
sometimes appear relatively insignif-
? icant can the United States bring the
Soviet Union to understand that the
' process of normalizing our mutual
relations requires concessions on
both sides."
4. We must convince the Krem-
lin that we recognize dearly that
they are ultimately responsible for
Cuban depredations.
Our entire relationship with the
, Soviet Union, including trade and
the strategic-arms-limitation nego-
tiations, is at stake and must be care-
fully and realistically reappraised. -
? We must stop passively swallowing
MOSCOW'S baited proxy challenges at
the time, place and manner of their
choosing?and make our responses
where, when and as we choose.
42
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1