FOREIGN RADIO AND PRESS REACTION TO NEW YORK TIMES RELEASE OF PENTAGON STUDY ON VIETNAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 39
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 11, 2002
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: June 25, 1971
• Content Type: REPORT

For Official Use Unty
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 ~CIA-FrDP86B00269 R001400140001-0
11111111111111
FOREIGN
BROADCAST
INFORMATION
SERVICE
IIIIIIII~~~~~~IIIIII
SPECIAL MEMORANDU
FOREIGN RADIO AND PRESS REACTION
TO NEW YORK TIMES RELEASE
OF PENTAGON STUDY ON VIETNAM
For Official Use Only
25 JUNE 1971
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
WARNING
Laws relating to copyright, libel, and communications require
that dissemination of this publication be limited to persons
having an official interest in its contents. Exception can be
granted only by the issuing agency, and users are warned that
noncompliance may subject violators to personal liability.
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Releasse0?0 0? 9 O C - fgP86B0026 BR1.00 40014 000 REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
I. NONCOMMUNIST COUNTRIES
West Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Middle East and Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
II. COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
North Vietnam and the PRG . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The USSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The PRC and North Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
East Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release FOC02/CO ~O2~iAC~I QP0 g00F~9 0RL4P9l$RORlART
25 JUNE 1971
FOREIGN RADIO AND PRESS REACTION TO NEW YORK TIMES RELEASE OF
PENTAGON STUDY ON VIETNAM
SUMMARY
WEST EUROPE: The press and radio of West Europe have given
prominent news coverage to the New York TIMES release of the
Vietnam documents and subsequent developments. The volume of
direct comment has been moderate. The principal British papers,
including the TIMES of London, have voiced editorial support for
the action taken by the U.S. papers and concern over the doubts
raised about the credibility of past U.S. Government statements.
Paris' LE MONDE has indicated that it sees little new in the
documents as published so far. Scandinavian reaction is mostly
critical of the Administration's reaction to the release of the
documents .
ASIA: Editorials in the principal Japanese papers have welcomed
the decision of U.S. papers to publish the materials and
criticized the Administration's efforts to prevent publication.
The ASAHI papers have printed extensive summaries of the three
New York TIMES installments. Several Indian papers have
interpreted the documents as an indictment of U.S. Vietnam
policy. Saigon and Bangkok radio-TV programs have not been heard
to mention the documents, but the vernacular press in both
capitals has commented in a freeswinging manner. A Malaysian
newspaper is to reprint the TIMES series.
MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA: Middle East radios have reported on the
New York TIMES release of the Pentagon study with no special
prominence and in some cases belatedly. Broadcast comment is
confined to Cairo radio, and a Cairo newspaper is reprinting the
bulk of the TIMES' three installments. Damascus radio reviewed
a critical Syrian press editorial, and other press comment came
from the UAR, Lebanon, and Cyprus. The limited comment tends
to take a parochial approach, questioning U.S. motives and
attitudes with respect to such local issues as the Middle East
and Cyprus problems in light of the Vietnam disclosures. Israeli
newscasts have reported developments, but there is no available
press or-radio comment.
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2Ofl2ffVQe7 JA~Rb0026BROO11400140001RPORT
25 JUNE 1971
Algeria has provided the only monitored radio comment from North
Africa, and its papers give the story more play than does the
Moroccan and Tunisian press. No comment has been monitored from
Africa south of the Sahara.
LATIN AMERICA: News coverage of developments has been fairly
thoroughgoing, and Argentina's LA NACION is reprinting the three
New York TIMES installments. Some commentators have argued that
publication of the documents serves the purpose of confirming
the worst suspicions of U.S. policy. Papers in Argentina and
Panama have voiced concern over newspaper publication of
information essential to national security.
THE INDOCHINESE COMMUNISTS: Hanoi and South Vietnam's PRG have
reacted to publication of the Pentagon study with only a modest
volume of low-level propaganda which cites foreign sources in
reporting continuing developments and interjects little independent
comment. Hanoi radio first mentioned the subject on 16 June and
since then has broadcast items daily, in both English and
Vietnamese. The party paper NHAN DAN and the army organ QUAN DOI
NHAN DAN have carried reports of developments but there is no
known press comment.
The PRG's Liberation Radio first acknowledged the publication in a
Vietnamese-language broadcast on the 17th. But subsequent Front
attention is confined largely to rebroadcasts of Hanoi items in
Liberation Radio's English-language broadcasts. In reporting
some of the substance of the documents, Hanoi says that these
"revelations" are merely further confirmation of long-standing
Vietnamese communist charges of U.S. deception about its
"aggression" in Indochina. The media did not acknowledge that
the subject came up at the 17 June session of the Paris talks
nor that the communists gave journalists copies of a DRV White
Book on the war that Hanoi had released in July 1965.
The first known reaction from clandestine media in Laos came on
18 June when the Pathet Lao radio carried a news item on the
New York TIMES' publication of the documents. The first acknow-
ledgment from the radio of the Patriotic Neutralist Forces came
on the 21st. On the 22d the Pathet Lao radio, unlike Hanoi,
acknowledged that the DRV press spokesman in Paris had discussed
the secret documents.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B0026OR001400140001-0
 Approved For ReleassC&0Q 1R C qp8f B00269gR100 RE00140000 REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
The radio of Sihanouk's Cambodian government first mentioned
the documents in a brief item on the 19th. And the first
reaction from the clandestine news agency AKI came in a
commentary on the 23d which said that the documents refute
U.S. Presidents' assertions for a quarter of a century on
their desire for peace.
CHINA AND NORTH KOREA: Both Peking and Pyongyang have remained
silent on the Pentagon materials, but two communist clandestine
radios sponsored by them have reacted--the pro-Peking Thai
Communist Party's Voice of the People of Thailand, and the
Voice of the Revolutionary Party for Reunification of Korea.
THE USSR: Moscow has devoted extensive attention to the
controversy over publication of the Pentagon study since its
prompt acknowledgment on the 15th. Ongoing news items cover
continuing developments such as the various restraining
orders imposed on the papers, the FBI's search for the source
of the "leak," Secretary Laird's announcement of a security
review of the study, and the President's decision to turn
over the study to Congress. Moscow radio has devoted more
than two-thirds of its comment on Indochina in the past week
to the documents, and there have also been press articles by
such authoritative writers as Ratiani in PRAVDA and Matveyev
in IZVESTIYA. Soviet media have carried extracts of the
study including references to the effect of the Sino-Soviet
split on U.S. policy. And some Mandarin-language radio
commentaries use this as a peg to repeat the standard charge
that Peking's "splittist" policy harms the Vietnamese struggle.
EAST EUROPE: Reaction from Moscow's East European allies has
treated the Pentagon material as confirming that the United
States has systematically practiced deception and has been
the aggressor in Vietnam. A recurrent theme has been that
the Nixon Administration is continuing policies revealed in the
documents. Where comment by the more orthodox members of the
Soviet bloc has been uniformly hostile, Bucharest's reaction
has been relatively restrained and has avoided direct criticism
of present U.S. policy.
Yugoslav comment, which has hailed the publication of the
documents, uniquely includes the line that release of the
material might be a welcome event for the Nixon Administration
by aiding it in shedding previous U.S. commitments.
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
Tirana remained all but silent on the matter until 22 June,
when a radio commentary observed that the Albanians were not
surprised by the Pentagon material because they had been
"unmasking the U.S. aggressors" for a long time.
CUBA: Considerable Cuban comment on the "worldwide scandal"
has stressed continuities between present and past U.S. policies
on Vietnam. In characteristically vitriolic terms, Havana has
discussed the documents as showing "the treacherous and deceitful
policy which led to Yankee genocide in Vietnam."
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Relea?08?#k7~q, qftRP6B00J*0@J}@@14A0Q1-kRT
25 JUNE 1971
- 1 -
I, NONCOMMUNIST COUNTRIES
WEST EUROPE
BRITAIN The British press has given broad news coverage to the
publication by the New York TIMES and other U.S. papers
of the Vietnam documents. Editorially, the major papers support
the action of the U.S. papers and seize the occasion to argue that
Britain's Official Secrets Act has a deleterious effect on freedom
of the press in Britain. In an editorial entitled "Some Beans Need
to Be Spilt," the GUARDIAN declared that "the once-secret informa-
tion about Vietnam published by the New York TIMES does not
endanger the United States any more than the Sunday TELEGRAPH's
report on Nigeria endangered Britain." The TIMES of London said
that the New York TIMES defense of its action "is one that will be
sympathetically followed by much opinion in Britain," especially
"since revelations about the Suez crisis showed how government
could actually be conducted."
On the content of the documents themselves, the TIMES, GUARDIAN,
and TELEGRAPH have all stressed the doubts raised about the
credibility of past U.S. Government statements. A TIMES editorial
on the 17th asserted that the deception practiced in 1961+ seems
"to have been such that no democratic system can accept without
protest. All governments find that they have to be less than
frank, and all governments are deluded by their own hopes, but to
go to war on a lie is a different matter."
On the 21st, another TIMES editorial, arguing that Washington
should withdraw its objections to publishing the materials,
declared that "the full truth will do less harm than the partial
truth and will help to restore belief in the processes of American
government."
FRANCE The scant available French comment is highlighted by an
editorial in LE MONDE on the 17th which expressed
surprise that the U.S. electorate should be astonished by the
content of the published documents. The editorialist claimed that
"many of the facts reported by the New York TIMES were known,"
having been disclosed by Indochinese communists and independent
observers as well. An article in the communist L'HUMANITE
portrayed the release as a serious "political scandal": "Clearly
panic reigns in Washington, and Nixon is above all concerned to
find the leak."
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Releas @1 /DY LCIA RD]f B0026M01 J~I ORT
25 JUNE 1971
WEST GERMANY The West German press has published extensive
factual reports on the release of the documents,
but available comment is scarce. FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG
said editorially on the 18th that the American nation, torn apart
by the Vietnam war, will now be further divided, while the
FRANKFURTER RUNDSCHAU declared on the 17th that the TIMES' decision
to print this "incriminating material" demonstrates it still has
confidence in U.S. democracy. The Cologne tabloid EXPRESS, under
the headline "Johnson's Deceit Unmasked," argued that a government
has no right to withhold information that its citizens should know
before going to war on that government's orders.
OTHER COUNTRIES Elsewhere in West Europe, there is scant
available comment although news coverage seems
to have been fairly prominent. Vienna papers are divided, with
some sharply critical of U.S. Vietnam policy ("Only the withdrawal
of its forces can restore America's good name in the world"--
ARBEITER-ZEITUNG, 17 June) while others give the previous
administrations credit for having acted with good intentions.
A Vienna TV commentator argued on the 19th that the New York
TIMES publication had done "immensely grave" damage: "What
other government will any longer conclude secret arrangements
with the Americans when everything may be uncovered in one or
two years?"
Available Scandinavian reaction is mostly critical of Administration
reaction to the TIMES release. The Swedish paper DAGENS NYHETER,
recalling Woodrow Wilson's maxim of "open convenants openly arrived
at," asserted that President Johnson would not have been able to
pursue his Vietnam policy had he respected this maxim. Now that
the American people have seen the "double-dealing and hush-hush"
that went on in the White House, they can be expected to exercise
a different type of control to prevent the cynical abuse of power,
the paper said. EXPRESSEN claimed that the New York TIMES articles
"should be a warning to a government that is responsible for the
invasions of Cambodia and Laos and the continued terror bombing,
and the remarkable strategy known as Vietnamization of the war."
The Finnish paper HELSINGIN SANOMAT on 18 June deplored the
censorship of the TIMES, claiming that it well illustrates the
truth of the old saying that "truth is the first casualty of war
The SUOMEN SOSIALIDIMOKRAATI, after noting the U.S. Government's
argument that publication of the documents may cause irreparable
harm to the United States, said that "in the view of an outsider
it appears that it is precisely the measures of the U.S.
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
authorities to suppress freedom of speech that are really
causing damage to the United States." The paper concluded
with the hope that present events may contribute to "demolishing
the political line pursued by the U.S. Government and the
military leadership and lead to the immediate, total, and
unconditional withdrawal of the United States from Vietnam."
ASIA
JAPAN Despite preoccupation in recent days with the
reversion of Okinawa, Japanese news media have devoted
considerable attention to the release of the Vietnam documents.
Tokyo radio and television have prominently featured news
reports on the subject in their major newscasts, and the Tokyo
press, both Japanese- and English-language editions, has daily
accorded front-page prominence to the latest developments. In
addition, the ASAHI newspapers announced on 17 June that they
would withhold publication of a daily feature and a regular
column for one week in order to publish the gist and an
analysis of the three TIMES installments already published.
On 23 June the communist AKAHATA began carrying highlights of
the Pentagon documents as a separate feature.
No official government statement has been monitored, and the
only ruling party pronouncement occurred during a political party
forum program on television in which Zentaro Kosaka of the
Liberal-Democratic Party was asked by a JCP member whether the
LDP had repented its support of U.S. policies in Vietnam in light
of the press disclosures. Kosaka replied that personally he
highly evaluated the New York TIMES release; he pointed out that
in a democratic country it is possible for a newspaper to attack
the government and that such a practice can serve as a safeguard
for peace.
Editorial reaction in the Tokyo press has been overwhelmingly
favorable to the newspapers' decision to publish the disclosures
and critical of the Nixon Administration for its attempts to
prevent publication. The MAINICHI newspapers in both their
Japanese and English editions said editorially: "There is no
doubt that the New York TIMES, in deciding to publish the
documents, was convinced that clarification of the truth would
eventually serve the true interests of the country. By offering
evidence of the errors of succeeding governments, it had hoped
to arouse public opinion both at home and abroad for an early
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971.
-l -
settlement of this 'war without a convincing cause.' We believe
the paper was right in its judgment."
The ASAHI newspapers in their editorials called the documents a
"grim balance sheet" of U.S. involvement in Indochina. Saying
the documents have proved that the Vietnam conflict has not
been a "correct" war, the English- and Japanese-language editorials
stated: "We want the Nixon Administration rather to make this
the starting point for a decision to end the war."
The Japanese-language YOMIURI said editorially: "We can fully
understand the stand of the New York TIMES. What the TIMES
has done to show to the whole world that freedom of the press
does exist in the United States today will help the country
restore its honor, which has been impaired by its war in
Vietnam."
The Japanese-language SANKEI editorial contributed the following:
"If the Administration does not intend to learn from the failures
of preceding administrations, but tries to suppress the people's
criticism of its Vietnam policy in order to 'protect secrets,'
it will commit more serious errors. There has been too much
shadiness in the U.S. Government policy toward Vietnam. This
has caused popular mistrust of the Administration. From this
viewpoint, the courage with which the TIMES has printed the
documents is of mammoth significance."
The JAPAN TIMES, alone among the Tokyo dailies which have
commented editorially, took a neutral stance. After reviewing
the details of the litigation so far, the newspaper quoted
Judge Gurfein's decision and supported Senator Muskie's proposal
for the establishment of a committee to decide what documents
and information should be declassified. The editorial concluded
innocuously by saying that in the United States and in other
democratic countries, "There is a need to ponder upon the
relationship between the freedom of the press and the require-
ments of any nation's security."
In a press interview, the director of the JCP secretariat Tetsuzo
Fuwa used the disclosures as a pretext to attack the Sato
Government, whose policies, he charged, have resulted in Japan
becoming an accomplice in the "aggressive war" in Indochina.
The JCP organ AKAHATA referred editorially to the release in
casting doubt upon the Okinawa reversion agreement and advocating
the abrogation of U.S.-Japan security arrangements.
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE" ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
INDIA The New Delhi radio provided prompt news coverage of
the New York TIMES release and subsequent developments.
India's English-language press relied heavily on Western news
reports, but a few of the leading dailies carried their own
correspondents' dispatches from Washington. TIMES OF INDIA
correspondent Kamath said in his dispatch of 16 June that the
extensive reports made public by the TIMES have caused "a
major rumpus, if not a scandal." The correspondent called
the Pentagon study a "damning indictment" of the previous
administration.
TIMES OF INDIA commentator Sham Lal termed the Pentagon study
"a sordid story," adding that the U.S. Government, which can
hardly have its nervous system intact after all the death and
desolation it has brought to the people of Vietnam, must be
"writhing in pain." He observed: "So far as India is concerned,
the Pentagon story is one more reminder of the need for a little
more realism in assessing the U.S. role in Asia, in Bengla Desh
in particular."
The leftwing PATRIOT of New Delhi said in an editorial: "The
Vietnam war was begun by the U.S. Government in deliberate
betrayal of international obligations and filthy deceit of its
own people. It is grinding down in a heroin-drugged coma, in a
vast convulsion of corruption and exposures of cruelty and crime
that should make every decent American hang his head in shame."
Arguing that no one will believe President Nixon, the editorial'
said in conclusion: "The American establishment, which has been
corrupted for decades by fascist organizations like the CIA and
the FBI, whose heads are among the President's most important
advisers, has been losing credibility both at home and abroad
for years now. The TIMES exposure makes it look as black a
quantity as Hitler's."
The HINDUSTAN TIMES editorial on 18 June observed: "What is
frightening is the conclusion that the Indochina war and its
escalation acquired an autonomous status of its own, more
related to U.S. prestige than to assisting South Vietnam."
SOUTH VIETNAM Monitored Saigon radio and television broadcasts
have not mentioned the publication of the Pentagon
report. Saigon newspapers have carried a number of commentaries,
mostly with vague references to "plots" or "conspiracies" of one
sort or another. THACH DO on the 19th argued that the TIMES
articles have "exposed the U.S. leaders' plot to create the
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
-6-
Vietnam war." TIENG VAN on 22 June suggested that some elements
in the U.S. Administration might have been part of a plot to
release the documents: "One wonders whether the CIA itself
released the secret documents because the CIA intends to hold
other people responsible for the war now that it sees the
unreasonable war must be concluded."
On the 23d, THOI DAI MOI concluded that "the American people are
using every means" to compel an early withdrawal of American
forces, and thus it behooves "the various political parties in
South Vietnam to heighten their vigilance and, together with
the entire people, be ready to cope with the new situation left
to us by our allies." A second THACH DO commentary expressed
the view that some "Vietnamese personalities" might find them-
selves in difficulty as a result of the publication: "It will
be an irremediable scandal for them if, prior to the elections,
they are accused of having given a hand to the Americans and of
having soaked their hands in blood on U.S. orders." DUOC NHA. NAM
said the revelations about U.S. involvement in Vietnam as early
as 1945 may have come as a surprise to Americans, but not to the
Vietnamese, "because the latter know a lot more than the Americans
THAILAND Bangkok radio and television broadcasts have not been
heard to mention the publication. The Bangkok
vernacular press has provided full news accounts based on Western
press agency reports as well as editorial observations. SIAM RATH
in a 17 June article said the action of the TIMES in publishing
the documents is "definitely not an action that constitutes a
danger to national stability, because it is the direct duty of
newspapers to inform the people of . . . the truth on matters that
concern them. Is catching the government telling lies an action
constituting subversion? Will the American Department of Justice
dare to molest the press?"
THAI RATH in a series of editorials on 18, 19, and 20 June
observed that the document signifies utter humiliation for former
President Johnson and has caused even more discontent among U.S.
opposition politicians, who accuse the government of leading the
people into war through stealth and of deluding Congress and the
people. A 19 June editorial in the DAILY NEWS said the case is
still another dispute between the Government and the press in the
United States. It praised the TIMES "for its policy of informing
the people on a matter they should and must know about."
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Releaw20021MO1 WBFMR8raB0021391 O44001400O1WORT
25 JUNE 1971
Coverage by the English-language papers BANGKOK POST and BANGKOK
WORLD was prompt and complete, but these papers relied solely on
Western agency reports and refrained from original comment. The
only official response came from Deputy Foreign Minister Sanga
Kittikachorn at a news conference on 21 June. When asked for his
views regarding possible repercussions for Thailand, he stated:
"Don't let us interfere in a matter that concerns their internal
affairs. Their action shows their on stupidity. Americans are
a strange people. It is wiser for us not to make any comments at
all as to whether it has repercussions for us or not." This
remark was not reported, however, by the radio or local press,
although several papers reported on other statements made by
Sanga at the same news conference.
OTHER COUNTRIES No comment has been monitored from Nationalist
China and South Korea media; news coverage has
been modest in volume. The Cambodian radio has not been heard to
mention developments.
The Kuala Lumpur, Djakarta, and Karachi radios have provided scanty
news coverage, without comment, in monitored broadcasts. The
STRAITS TIMES, published in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, announced
to its readers that the New York TIMES series would. be published
exclusively in the SUNDAY MAIL, an associated English-language-
paper, starting 20 June. In an editorial, the STRAITS TIMES
said that the disclosures by the New York TIMES do not directly
endanger national security, nor put American troops at risk,
but it questioned whether this was the "right time" to publish
these documents. The paper added: "Ironically, this honesty
has rebounded, recoiling not against the Administration whose
conspiracy is denounced, but its successors who are engaged in
withdrawal."
MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA
THE UAR A Cairo domestic service commentary on the 16th
asserted that the documents prove that President
Johnson deceived the people by giving them false information "to
draw the United States into the Vietnam war," and it wondered
when his "real role" in the Middle East would be exposed. The
commentary referred to "talk at the time" about U.S.-Israeli
collusion in 1967 and recalled that efforts to conceal the
"tripartite collusion" in 1956 proved futile. Another Cairo
commentary, on the 20th, said the documents show that despite
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For ReleasFA00
or, ~71/OQ?A~C f1~~L"B00269 Q 91' IRRPORT
25 JUNE 1971
the United States' colossal power it is unable to suppress the
Vietnamese revolutionary will, and it asked if the United States
would abandon its "secret measures in the Far East to support an
outcast minority and in the Middle East to support a racial
entity foreign to the area." A Voice of the Arabs commentary on
the 21st mentioned the issue in passing, claiming "it is certain
there are many confidential documents between Washington and
Tel Aviv" on the same pattern as those revealed. in the New York
TIMES in connection with U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war.
AL-AHRAM on 17 June began serializing "most of the secret study
and many of the appended documents," having obtained "the right
to publish these documents under an agreement" with the TIMES.
The paper provided a frontpage introduction and has continued
the series, with photographs and maps on inside pages, on 19,
20, and 21 June. AL-JUMHURIYAH in two commentaries stressed
President Johnson's "duplicity" and linked this aspect to
alleged U.S. secret involvement in the 1967 Middle East war.
SYRIA The only public reference to the issue by a Middle
East leader comes from Syrian President Hafiz al-Asad
in his 23 June address at the opening of an Afro-Asian Solidarity
Organization meeting in Damascus. In line with the general tenor
of the limited Arab comment, al-Asad stated that the day would
come when "the facts about the imperialist role in the aggression
against the Arab people will be exposed, just as the American
press has uncovered the plotting of the U.S. ruling establishment
against the Vietnamese people and their deceiving the American
people."
While Damascus radio has not originated any comment, the broadcast
press review on the 21st reported an AL-BA'TH editorial as
declaring that "the lie" the United States used as an excuse to
invade Indochina "is the same lie the United States always used
as justification for countering liberation movements" and for
its "support of world Zionism and its aggression against the
Arab people."
LEBANON Beirut radio, which has not commented, includes in
its routine news coverage reports on the court
proceedings against the New York TIMES and the Washington POST.
AL-MUHARRIR on 17 June began serializing the documents which it
said "Cairo's AL-ARRAN obtained." According to AL-ANWAR on the 19th,
the American people now know that their government lied to them
about the air raids on Hanoi, and will soon know that their govern-
ment took from them "billions of dollars to send to Israel to be used.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Releasep3RO le?j :LC DOPAF00269 01 C1, 901 1APORT
25 JUNE 1971
for the expulsion of a people from their homeland." The paper
claimed that the U.S. system is no longer capable of serving
the American people but rather serves an "imperialist policy
from which only Israel and a few agent governments" benefit.
AN-NAHAR commented on the 17th that a chain of presidential
decisions "taken for God only knows what reason" led to U.S.
intervention in Vietnam and Indochina which culminated ":in a
conspiracy based on falsifications, lies, and deception."
ISRAEL No Israeli radio comment has been monitored, and
broadcast press reviews have carried no press
comment on the Pentagon study. News broadcasts, beginning on
the 15th, have reported developments almost daily, touching
on the reaction of several Senators and the legal actions
halting further press publication of the materials. The Tel
Aviv Forces Radio has not been heard to mention the subject.
CYPRUS KHABAVYI, organ of the Cypriot communist party, said
on the 17th that the sole conclusion to be drawn from
the published documents has been summed up by leading U.S.
figures, and cited Senator Humphrey, among others, as saying the
documents proved that the Johnson Administration involved the
United States in the war through deceit. The paper concluded
that despite the "gagging of the New York TIMES," the American
people's opposition to the war in Indochina will be intensified.
The Greek-language TA NEA on the 17th linked the issue with the
Cyprus question, remarking in an editorial that the practice of
deceit "proves how careful people must be when they are given
assurances not followed up by substantial measures--as is the
case with the U.S. approach to the Cyprus question."
IRAN Teheran radio on the 18th discussed the essence of the
Pentagon study, the actions against the New York TIMES,
and the effect of the disclosure on U.S. politics in light of
next year's elections. The radio observed that while the documents
reflect mainly against the Democrats, criticism will also be
aimed at U.S. institutions and laws, including "the extensive
powers of the U.S. President," and it saw a second issue in the
threat to freedom of the press.
The Persian-language communist clandestine Radio Iran Courier, in
a commentary on the 21st, asserted that publication of the
Pentagon study posed the question of whether or not existing
Iranian-U.S. agreements could be regarded as valid. It asked
if there might be a danger of repetition of "such sham incidents"
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
as that in the Tonkin Gulf occurring near Iranian shores, and
if the "U.S. military advisers in the Iranian armed forces could
not plunge our country into a bloody involvement similar to that
of Vietnam."
TURKEY Ankara radio, which carried its first monitored report
on the Pentagon study on the 19th, gives scanty
attention to the story and little coverage to the documents.
Brief news items have followed legal developments in the court
action to halt publication and noted that the President would
submit the secret documents to Congress.
The Turkish-language communist clandestine "Our Radio" asserted
on the 23d that the "fascist Erim government" took a step "even
beyond its Washington masters" and banned publication of the
documents in Turkish papers, as well as the broadcast of news
items on the subject over Turkish radios. Commentaries by "Our
Radio" have stressed the "duplicity" of U.S. leaders without
relating the Pentagon study issue to any Turkish or Middle East
questions.
NORTH AFRICA Of the Maghreb press, Algerian papers have
given more prominent coverage to the publication
of the Pentagon study than those of Morocco and Tunisia. All
three draw on news agencies for material on the documents and
reaction abroad. There is no available comment from Libyan
media. The only monitored broadcast comment comes from Algiers
radio, which on 17 June claimed that the "violent reaction" of
the Nixon Administration to publication of the documents was
dictated by concern over the next presidential election. The
choice before the Administration, the radio said, is to decide
in favor of peace by giving a precise date for withdrawal from
Vietnam or to continue the war, "in which case it cannot count
on public opinion, which prefers peace." The commentary
concluded that the silent majority on which Nixon thought he
could depend "has now considerably diminished."
AFRICA No comment has been monitored from Africa south of
the Sahara. News coverage by local radios has
been modest in volume and factual in content.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Releasyo 0OgQ
(J q C SQERRY86B00269RO0140014000REPORT
LATIN AMERICA
ARGENTINA The principal Buenos Aires dailies gave the New
York TIMES release extensive news coverage, and
LA NACION commenced on the 18th to reprint the series of TIMES
articles. On the same day LA PRENSA published a commentary by
its New York correspondent, who said the developments will
serve to inflame hawk-dove and Republican-Democratic battles.
He reported that the U.S. press is divided over the issue of
freedom of the press to publish anything it sees fit, since
"it can also be said that without national security freedom
of the press is also in danger."
BRAZIL The Brazilian press and radio provided extensive
news coverage, but there was no comment. The
Brasilia radio in a feature "congressional report" program
quoted an opposition deputy's remark to the effect that the
U.S. Government's resort to the courts shows its respect
for freedom of the press and the rights of the press; the
Brazilian Government should adopt a similar attitude
toward the press, he implied.
CHILE Initial press reaction was mostly :Limited to
reprinting of wire service news items.
LA TERCERA DE LA HORA carried an editorial applauding
the TIMES for its action and concluding that there is
"nothing more enlightening for democracies than this
trial taking place in the United States."
COLOMBIA The Bogota dailies provided fairly broad news
coverage, mostly from UPI. EL SIGLO reviewed
developments in a brief editorial on the 16th, concluding
that ultimately "positive results" in regard to "strengthening
and purifying" the U.S. system of government will ensue. A
column in the 17 June EL ESPECTADOR stated that, since the
TIMES has often evidenced its sense of responsibility, it
is "almost certain that the true reason for preventing
publication" of the Vietnam documents is to "avoid further
discredit of the war and the Administration." An editorial
in the same paper asserted that the documents "merely
confirm what world political opinion" has suspected or
known for a long time--that the "Vietnam venture constitutes
one of the biggest mistakes of U.S. foreign policy." In
a later editorial on 19 June, EL ESPECTADOR stated that
what has been published is sufficient to judge that the
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
"failings of this war come from far back, from political errors,
poor military calculations, and sometimes pure bad luck, and in
any case from having tried to force solutions where there was no
way out but the political way."
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC There was considerable radio reportage
but little comment. One radio commentator
on the 18th said that the matter of the court injunction "will
put on trial the integrity, solvency, and the reliability of
the U.S. juridical institutions and will set a very important
precedent, not only for U.S. political democracy but also for
other nations within the U.S. area of influence where copying
the U.S. way of life is common." In a radio interview on the
20th, Juan Bosch, former Dominican president, declared: "The
publication of these documents bares before the American
people and the world the fact that the so-called U.S.
democracy is not the democracy that they have tried to make
the people believe."
PAN/MA The Panamanian radio and press gave
full news coverage. A columnist in
EL MATUTINO on 18 June observed that publication of the
documents has produced "a crisis of nerves" in Washington
since the information is so delicate that it could cause
serious difficulties with foreign governments and undermine
confidence in the U.S. Government. The columnist said that
President Nixon is no censor and has the highest respect
for freedom of the press; since the nation and its foreign
policy is being affected, the President's efforts through
legal means to halt publication of the documents cannot be
construed as obstructing press freedom.
LA ESTRELLA DE PANM'IA in a 21 June editorial stated that
although freedom of the press has been "zealously
maintained and respected in the United States," in
certain cases U.S. publications have indulged in "evident
indiscretions" and one must not forget that rights have
"precise limits which cannot be surpassed without hurting
other people or institutions." The paper argued that it
cannot be denied that the U.S. authorities have the right
to "consider unwise and even dangerous for national security"
the publication of secret documents; what has already been
published has given "the communists material for propaganda
which they will try to exploit to the utmost."
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Relea J2O C]AERCM B002 601WOT4LV0 '0RT
25 JUNE 1971
- 13 -
H. COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
NORTH VIETNAM AND THE PRG
The initial Hanoi broadcast on 16 June told the North Vietnamese
audience that the New York TIMES on the 13th carried excerpts from a
Defense Department "secret report" which had been requested by
former Defense Secretary McNamara. The broadcast said that the
report of "40 volumes" contained evidence that the United States
had begun to be involved in Indochina before the French
withdrawal and that plans to bomb the North had been prepared
about five months before the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It went
on to report Senator McGovern's charge that the Pentagon study
contains "proof" that President Johnson had deceived the
American people and Congress, and to observe that the report
has caused the Nixon Government "extreme embarrassment." It
noted in conclusion that the Justice Department had asked the
New York TIMES to stop publishing the report and return it to
the Defense Department but that the newspaper rejected the
request "in the interests of the American people."
A later Hanoi broadcast on the same day--in English to U.S.
servicemen--reported that the TIMES had published the second
installment of the article on the 14th. It said that "shocked
by the disclosure," Senator Symington had called for a "full
congressional investigation" into the war.
A Hanoi domestic service broadcast on the 17th noted some
details of the report, observing that the United States had
been waging a "secret war" against the DRV, and that 10 weeks
before the Tonkin Gulf incident the Administration drafted a
resolution for Congress to adopt "that would have authorized
it to take any necessary measures, including the use of armed
forces in South Vietnam." It also referred to the carrying
out of commando raids in North Vietnam. Noting that the third
part of the TIMES' series dealt with the introduction of
"massive" U.S. troops into South Vietnam, the broadcast said
that on 1 April 1965 the President decided to use U.S. troops
in South Vietnam "because the U.S. Administration realized
that bombings in North Vietnam could not prevent defeat in
South Vietnam but the President ordered that this fact be kept
secret."
The only available substantial account of Hanoi press attention
to the Pentagon study is in a Hanoi English-language broadcast
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Releas00(9/9_Sf?B002f0t%M4(hQPUBT
25 JUNE 1971
- 14 -
to Southeast Asia on the 17th. It reported that NHAN DAN that
day, "quoting the gist" of the Pentagon study, noted that the
"truth expressed" in the document "shed more light on the U.S.
imperialist policy of aggression and . . . exposed the truth
on the futile allegations used by the U.S. authorities to white-
wash the war." The paper said that "these odious actions"
committed by the U.S. imperialists have been denounced long
since by the Vietnamese people and that the publication of the
study "helped the Americans and others in the world to see
more clearly the U.S. imperialists' policy of barbaric
aggression and its futile tricks concerning the Vietnam
problem." The paper also reportedly said that U.S. public
opinion. "has been aroused to hot discussions" about the
study. The VNA press reviews noted on five occasions that
NHAN DAN and QUAN DOI NHAN DAN were carrying reports of the
publication controversy--on 20 and 22 June and 18, 23 and
24 June respectively. But no details of these reports have
been broadcast.
A Hanoi domestic service broadcast on the 18th observed that
Congress had "reacted vigorously" to the Justice Department's
attempts to prohibit the TIMES from continuing to publish the
document. It noted that 62 Congressmen, mostly Democrats,
had sent a letter of protest to Secretaries Mitchell and
Laird and that they demanded that the Defense Department make
copies of the classified document available to Congress.
Another domestic broadcast on the 18th said that U.S. rulers
"are bewildered and confused" by the publishing of the
document and that according to the U.S. press FBI agents had
begun an investigation on "why and where copies" of the
documents were given to the New York TIMES. And it also
noted "strong criticism" of the decision to force the TIMES
to temporarily cease publication of the report, quoting such
Senators as Church, McGovern, Mansfield and Kennedy in this
regard.
Hanoi broadcasts on the 21st and 22d also cited congressional
reaction, including Senator Fulbright's comment that the
document's publication was in the national interest. Senator
Muskie was quoted as saying that the Administration's
prohibition on publishing the documents exemplifies the
"serious credibility crisis" of 1971, and that "it is necessary
to call former President Johnson to testify" before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee.
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FI3IS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
A Hanoi Vietnamese-language broadcast to the South on the 20th
reported that on the 18th, the Washington POST had carried
the first of a series of articles on the study. And a domestic
broadcast on the same day acknowledged some of the substance
of the POST article on U.S. attempts to prevent general
elections in Vietnam in 1954. It also reported that the POST
on the 19th printed documents which disclosed that the Johnson
Administration's decision to temporarily stop the bombings
of the DRV "was not aimed at having peaceful talks, but was
aimed at appeasing public opinion and justifying the U.S. war
escalation in Vietnam."
On the 22d, Hanoi said that, according to foreign sources,
despite the fact that the "Nixon Administration has strangled
the freedom of the press and banned the New York TIMES from
continuing to publish" further Pentagon documents, "many
papers in Washington and other cities have endeavored to
exploit the excerpts of the reports published" in the TIMES.
It added that "these papers have advanced new facts to lay
bare the systematic U.S. policy of aggression while disclosing
some facts in the last part of the report, which were banned
from publication by the Nixon Administration, in order to
expose Nixon's role" in the U.S. "aggression" in Indochina.
Liberation Radio's initial acknowledgment of the publication
came in a Vietnamese-language broadcast on the 17th. Subsequently,
the radio publicized the controversy mostly in its English-
language broadcasts. However, a Vietnamese-language broadcast
on the 22d noted that the U.S. press had continued to publish the
Pentagon study despite the Administration's efforts to ban
publication and noted that the Boston GLOBE was the third paper
to publish portions of the document. Also on the 22d, Liberation
Radio and LPA, in their reportage of the second Conference of the
International Commission to Investigate U.S. War Crimes
which opened in Oslo on the 20th, noted that the general
secretary of the commission, Hans Goran Frank, claimed that
the recent disclosure of the Pentagon's secret documents
"had denounced in part the U.S. acts of war in Indochina."
Vietnamese communist media do not report references to the
Pentagon study at the 17 June session of the Paris talks. PRG
Foreign Minister Mme. Nguyen Thi Binh brought up the New York
TIMES articles in the rebuttal period, but, consistent with
standard practice, the VNA account does not report the details:
VNA at the end of its account says cryptically that in the
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
- 16 -
rebuttal period Mme. Binh and Xuan Thuy "gave concrete evidences
showing that the United States is the aggressor, and that the
Nixon Administration is pursuing and expanding its war of
aggression."
Also consistent with standard practice, Hanoi media do not
publicize the post-session briefing at which PRG spokesman
Duong Dinh Thao read Mme. Binh's additional remarks claiming
that the secret Pentagon study published by the New York
TIMES confirms an "obvious truth which we have pointed out
at this conference--that the United States, in the scheme of
establishing its neocolonialist domination in South Vietnam,
has had plans to gradually provoke and widen the war of
aggression."
DRV press spokesman Nguyen Thanh Le at his press briefing on
the session indicated that some passages in Xuan Thuy's
prepared statement apparently had been intended as an allusion
to the controversy over the Pentagon study. Le reported that
after Ambassador Bruce made his "additional remarks"---in which
he responded to Mme. Binh's remarks on the New York TIMES
publications by saying that there was no profit in debating
the origins of the war--Xuan Thuy reread passages in his
prepared statement that "from the beginning of this conference
we have pointed out that the U.S. aggression over the past
decades was the root and immediate cause of the present
serious situation in Vietnam and Indochina . . ." and that
"the Nixon Administration has done its best to deceive public
opinion . . . ." (These passages were'not included in the
VNA account of the session, however.)
When Le was asked whether he thought the Pentagon report as
published by the New York TIMES proved U.S. violation of the
Geneva agreements, he responded by observing that the
delegation had copies for the reporters of a DRV White Book
issued in 1965. In detailing the "stages" of U.S. intervention,
Le said the fifth stage began with President Nixon's assumption
of office; Le said that "Nixon has prolonged the aggression"
and that in attempting to stop the New York TIMES from publishing
the rest of the Pentagon report "he tried to conceal the fact
that he has directly participated in and stepped up the war
of aggression in Vietnam during the last decades."
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
THE USSR
Since the 15 June TASS item acknowledging the publication of
the Pentagon papers, Soviet media have kept up a barrage of
propaganda. TASS' editorialized reports charge that the govern-
ment has "clamped down" on the press and that the pressure has
aroused public "indignation," as shown by statements by antiwar
leaders and Congressmen. In this connection, commentators
ridicule the "free press," U.S. Constitutional guarantees,
and the .American political system in general. They claim
that the "myth" of democracy and of freedom of expression
in America is "breaking down." Writing in IZVESTIYA on the
19th, Matveyev compared the New York TIMES to the youthful
antiwar demonstrators when he says that the U.S. Government,
in enjoining publication of the documents, is now attacking
"well.-to-do respectable America" as well as the young people
for opposing the war. He says that in recent years a number
of "eminent U.S. figures who at first supported" the inter-
vention now oppose it, and the "sobering process" has now even
affected the New York TIMES, "a big bourgeois press organ."
Both radio and press commentators link the publication of the
documents to a top-level political struggle in Washington--a line
first advanced in a domestic service commentary by Zorin on the
15th. Panelists in Moscow radio's roundtable program on the
20th discussed whether the publication was inspired by the
Republicans or the Democrats. One participant noted that the
documents appeared in the New York TIMES, a paper which
"usually reflects the mood of the Democratic Party." Another
panelist speculated that the publication was "secretly
inspired" by the present Administration to discredit its
predecessor, and another cited Pierre Salinger as having
said that publication of the documents could only help Nixon.
One of the panelists said that Ellsberg, suspected of leaking
the documents, "is very close to the Nixon entourage." But
he went on to cite still another line of speculation to the
effect that the publication was directed by "powerful
financial circles" who do not wish to protract the war
because it is becoming burdensome to the U.S. economy.
Commenting on the difficulty in determining whether it was
a supporter of -the Democrats or of the Republicans who leaked
the documents, a panelist pointed out that members of the
Johnson Administration have refused to comment on the publica-
tion of the Pentagon report. He noted that former President
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
Johnson said he has not commented on anything since his
retirement, that former Secretary Rusk also refused comment,
and that former Secretary McNamara avoided answering, falling
back on the "excuse" that he is now an international civil
servant.
A Borovik article in KOMSOMOLSK.4YA PRAVDA on the 19th also
cited Pierre Salinger's remark regarding the documents
helping Nixon, as well as New York TIMES' publisher
Sulzberger's comment that he did not see what harm the
publication could do to the present Administration.
NIXON POLICY Soviet commentators argue that the Nixon
Administration cannot dissociate itself
from the "deceits" revealed in the secret documents. In a
PRAVDA article on the 19th, Ratiani says that history has
continued along the same path since 1968; he said that
while the incursions into Cambodia and Laos were new actions,
there is "evidence" in the press that these operations were
prepared by the previous Administration and "passed on."
He also said that the present policy of Vietnamization, which
is being passed off as an "innovation," is merely a repeat of
a policy implemented several years ago which suffered "total
failure," as indicated in Secretary McNamara's 21 December 1963
report to the President on the situation in South Vietnam.
Ratiani added that for the forthcoming election campaign the
Republicans are already resorting to the same tactics used
by the Democrats in 1964, trying to "delude" the voters into
believing that their main aim is peace while at the same
time refusing to discuss a troop withdrawal deadline and
threatening to resume massive raids on the DRV and otherwise
escalate the war.
Matveyev in IZVESTIYA, also on the 19th, said that "those
politicians in Washington who took over the baton of the
dirty war in Indochina" are now uncomfortable and embarrassed
by the revelation of the Pentagon documents because although
the "propaganda flourishes" of this Administration differ
from those of its predecessor, the essence of policy is the
same--the maintenance of U.S. military force in South
Vietnam. But Matveyev added that the situation in the
country has changed and that where before the propagandists
managed to "get away with it" they are now receiving a
"mass rebuff."
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 90WPj/fAFI DE 0026 g~1~( W0ON1 REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
Dmitriy Volskiy in a NEW TIMES article summarized by the
Moscow domestic service on 21 June similarly argued that
the documents show that Republicans and Democrats change
places, but that policy remains unchanged. The true holder
of power in the United States, he said, is the "military-
industrial complex" which is the force responsible for the
Vietnam adventure. Declaring that the Nixon Administration
is trying to imply that it has only an "unhappy legacy,"
Volskiy said that this is a "poor attempt to put a good face
on things. The myth of the Republicans' innocence has now
been dissipated."
Documenting their charges that Democrats and Republicans
alike have followed the same policy in Indochina, many
commentators cite Senator Goldwater's statement that during
the 1964 campaign he knew about the secret escalation plans
but kept silent. Thus, say the commentators, both parties
conspired in deceiving the electorate.
Pointing to the Administration's efforts to dissociate
itself from the policies revealed in the documents, a
panelist in the 20 June domestic service roundtable said that
in his press conference on the 15th Secretary Rogers refused
to discuss the documents, remarking that one should leave it
to the historians to decide and expressing the hope that the
present Administration would go down in history as the one which
led the United States out of the war. The panelist called this
a "verbal maneuver," charging that under the cover of
Vietnamization the present Administration continues and steps
up aggression in Southeast Asia.
ATTACKS ON Moscow's reports of extracts of the Pentagon
PRC POLICY documents include references to the Sino-Soviet
split. For example, there is passing reference
to General Taylor's 22 January 1964 memorandum which said that
"economic and agricultural disappointments suffered by Communist
China, plus the current rift with the Soviets, could cause
the communists to think twice about undertaking a large-scale
military adventure in Southeast Asia." Moscow's extracts
also include President Johnson's assertion, in his 20 March
1964 telegram to Ambassador Lodge, that he expected "a
showdown between the Chinese and Soviet communist parties
soon" and that it would be better to adopt action against
the DRV after this rather than before.
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
Ratiani In his 19 June PRAVDA article cited President Johnson's
telegram in commenting that it showed how Washington
strategists were "particularly interested in Peking's policy
aimed at exacerbating Soviet-Chinese relations." And several
Mandarin-language broadcasts over Radio Moscow and Radio
Peace and Progress cite the documents in the course of routine
attacks on Peking's refusal to join in united action to aid
the Vietnamese. The broadcasts charge once again that the
United States took the Chinese anti-Soviet attacks into
account when planning its escalation of the war.
A Radio Peace and Progress commentary on the 18th atypically
resurrected explicit charges that Peking has obstructed Soviet
aid to Vietnam. (Aside from a Radio Peace and Progress
broadcast in Mandarin on 5 June on the PRG anniversary which
briefly said that the Chinese policy of "vilifying" the
Soviet stand on Indochina had caused the people of Southeast
Asia to "fail to receive Soviet assistance," the subject
has not been raised in available propaganda for nearly a
year.) The current broadcast charged that there were "many
instances" in which Peking detained and stole Soviet arms
and other goods being sent through China to Vietnam, and
that it refused to allow a GDR plane loaded with medicine
to pass through Chinese airspace. (The episode with the
GDR plane had been reported by East Berlin on 12 September
1968, and mentioned by Moscow radio the next day.) The
commentary concluded with the assertion that "it is
difficult to imagine that the Chinese leaders are unaware
of the burden to the Soviet Union and the other socialist
countries of transporting these goods to the Vietnamese
people by sea." The "burdens" of sending aid by sea have
not been mentioned in Moscow propaganda in years, although
in early 1967 there were scattered references to the
"vulnerability" of the sea route in the face of the U.S.
"sea blockade" of North Vietnam. In 1968 and 1969 Moscow
propaganda occasionally referred to Chinese obstruction of
Soviet ships carrying aid to Vietnam.
A broadcast in Radio Moscow's regular Mandarin-language
service on the 22d sought to make use of the documents to
discredit recent U.S. initiatives toward the PRC as well as
to press the charge that Peking's divisive policies have
abetted U.S. escalation in Indochina. Claiming that the
United States follows the imperialist policy of "divide and
rule" in Asia, the broadcast cited from the Pentagon study a
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY F:BIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
message from the United States to the PRC embassy in Warsaw
assuring the Chinese that their territory would not be
violated. The broadcast quoted the study as saying this
message was sent to forestall Chinese intervention triggered
by the bombing of the DRV.
U.S. FOREIGN Some Moscow comment reported foreign
RELATIONS governments' concern over the revelations
in the Pentagon docuunents. TASS' initial
account of Secretary Rogers' 15 June press conference cited
his remark that the publication of the documents "would give
a lot of trouble to the United States," but did not explain
that he was speaking of relations with foreign governments.
However, a Moscow radio broadcast in English to the United
Kingdom on the 16th did note that Rogers "admitted" that the
publication would "damage U.S. relations with its allies, since
an obvious credibility gap is arising." Another broadcast to
the same audience later that day cited Rogers' "admission"
that "complaints have already been received from a number of
countries." A Radio Peace and Progress broadcast in English
to Asia on the 17th asserted that the U.S. Government had
received "inquiries from certain foreign countries" and added
that the State Department expects "a flood of d.emarches."
A PRAVDA article on the 20th said that the significance of
the documents goes beyond U.S. aggression in Southeast Asia,
and added that "many people in Europe, Asia, Africa, and
Latin America are now asking how far the U.S. leaders' words
can be trusted." It asked if there is not perhaps another
volume of documents formulating plans for "unprovoked military
intervention in the affairs of Europe or other parts of the
world." In this context it cited "U.S. propaganda's" efforts
to deny American involvement in the coup in Greece and in a
planned rightist coup in Italy in 1964. The article pointed
out that the "Western press" is stressing that the publication
of the documents is undermining trust in Washington's leaders
and policies on the part of "the NATO allies and other countries
friendly toward the United States."
An Arabic-language Moscow broadcast on the 23d said that the
Pentagon documents expose more clearly the role of American
imperialism in the war and asks rhetorically under what cover
the "treacherous policy" of the United States will appear next,
suggesting that the essence of U.S. actions on Vietnam are also
applicable to the Middle East.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
Some comment strives to implicate U.S. allies in the "policy
of deceit." One of the English-language broadcasts to the
United Kingdom on the 16th said that the label of "deceit"
can also be applied to the British Government since it was,
and is, the only big power officially supporting American
policy in Indochina. The commentary alleged that the British
leaders were informed in confidence that the air raids were
being prepared and that they thus must have known that the
Tonkin Gulf incident was a "false pretext." TASS on the 17th
reported that the Australian Government has begun an
investigation into the dispatch of its troops to South Vietnam.
It added that the London TIMES has published material proving
that the Australian Government, too, misinformed the public
about the circumstances linked with the escalation of the
Indochina war, sending troops at the "demand" of Ambassador
Lodge who visited Canberra in April 1965, rather than at the
request of the South Vietnamese Government, as alleged by
former Prime Minister Menzies. Moscow English-language
broadcasts to Australia, New Zealand, and Oceania on the 19th
and 23d similarly said that Australian troops, like the
American, moved into Vietnam in accordance with a preplanned
program of unprovoked aggression. They assert that Australia
was pressured to supply "cannonfodder" by the Americans, and
that the Australian soldiers, like the Americans, have "died
in vain."
A Korean-language Moscow broadcast on the 23d, noting Seoul's
failure to comment on the publication of the Pentagon documents,
said that the South Korean leaders who have sent 55,000 South
Korean soldiers to South Vietnam are "blinded by gold" and do
not want a political settlement in Vietnam. The commentator
asserted that they remain silent because they fear that if
U.S. objectives in South Vietnam and the purpose of Seoul's
participation became known to the world, "there might be
another popular uprising against the government."
Moscow first acknowledged the fact that the Pentagon report
revealed that Canadian ICC representative Seaborn delivered
messages from the United States to the DRV in PRAVDA on the
17th. Extracts of the documents printed in the paper that
day noted without comment that immediately after Congress
adopted the Tonkin Gulf resolution, the Administration sent
Seaborn to Hanoi to warn the North Vietnamese that they
would "suffer the consequences" if they continued to attempt
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
to "develop subversive activities and strive to subjugate South
Vietnam and Laos." The only available comment thus far came in
a Moscow broadcast in English to North America on the 23d which
charged that the White House used "deceit" to draw other
countries into its war ventures. Among others, it cited the
example of the "complicity" of the former Canadian government
led by Lester Pearson, and quoted the Toronto GLOBE, commenting
on Seaborn's trips to Hanoi, as concluding that this secret
activity was "not compatible with neutrality," and would not
have been approved of by the Canadian people had they been
aware of the facts.
Moscow also briefly reported, without comment, that the documents
revealed that the United States had devoted attention to the
possible reaction of the USSR to the beginning of the bombing.
Both PRAVDA on the 18th and Radio Peace and Progress on the 21st,
in publicizing extracts of the documents, reported that a White
House telegram to Ambassador Taylor on 13 February 1965
expressed determination to continue actions against the DRV
regardless of UN Security Council deliberations, but at the same
time considered a Security Council initiative after another
strike to be essential "if we are to avoid being faced with
really damaging initiatives by the USSR or perhaps by such powers
as India, France, or even the United Nations." PRAVDA also cited
National Security Council Memorandum 328 of 6 April 1965 which,
among other things, pointed to the need to consider "complications"
with regard to the Soviet Union if North Vietnamese ports were
mined.
THE PRC AND NORTH KOREA
As of 11+00 GMT 21 June, both Peking and Pyongyang have remained
silent on the publication of the Pentagon materials. It is
not unusual for Peking to take its time in examining a develop-
ment before reacting, and this tendency may have been reinforced
by the possibility of the release of additional material after
the case has been adjudicated. It is also conceivable that
Peking may be embarrassed by the support lent by portions of the
documents to Moscow's charge that Chinese refusal to put up a
united front contributed to escalation of hostilities in
Vietnam. As for Pyongyang, which has moved notably closer to
Peking in the past year or so, it may have deferred reacting
to publication of the documents until Peking makes the first
move.
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
25 JUNE 1971
- 24 -
There has been reaction from two communist clandestine radios
sponsored by Peking and Pyongyang. The pro-Peking Thai
Communist Partyts Voice of the People of Thailand in a
broadcast on 22 June said the documents show how "deceitful
and distorted" U.S. official statements on Indochina have
been. The broadcast noted that publication of the documents
has created a quarrel between the government and its
opponents in the United States. A broadcast to South Korea
on the 19th by the Voice of the Revolutionary Party for
Reunification said the documents indicate that the United
States has been the aggressor in Vietnam and the source of the
war's escalation.
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Releasf0~0$?.(Q16Q1?ALW sE B002 ~0~%MT PORT
25 JUNE 1971
EAST EUROPE
POLAND Warsaw has covered the publication of the documents
chiefly in reportage from Polish news agency
correspondents in the United States. The most authoritative
among the few Warsaw commentaries is an article in the party
daily TRYBUNA LUDU on the 19th stating that the documents
provide a picture of "colossal political frauds" by successive
administrations designed to mask "the brutal intervention" in
Indochina by the use of lofty slogans about freedom and
democracy. An article in GROS PRACY on the 17th claimed that
the greatest shock caused by the documents was not the
disclosure that successive U.S. administrations "planned
aggressive war against Vietnam," but that the American
leaders "systematically deceived" both the Congress and
the American people. The paper found it noteworthy that
the "aggressive acts" against Vietnam were carried out in
defiance of the advice of the intelligence community and
concluded that the Pentagon put such pressure on the
Administration that it not only agreed to "the adventures
but also gave its protective shield to them."
EAST GERMANY East German media having been mainly
preoccupied with coverage of the SED
Congress, comment from the GDR on the Pentagon documents
has been sparse but characteristically hostile, playing
the theme that the documents constitute an indictment of
current Administration policy on Vietnam. An article in
the party organ NEUES DEUTSCHLAND on the 20th charged
that U.S. Presidents from Kennedy to Nixon are guilty
of the very same thing for which the Hitler regime was
convicted at Nuernberg: "the long-term preparation of
a war of aggression and the simultaneous deception of
an entire people." The East Berlin radio's Albert Reisz
on the 16th perceived a "diabolical continuity" in U.S.
foreign policy from Truman to Nixon--"a policy of the
imperialist lust for power." Another East Berlin radio
commentator on the 17th likened the Tonkin Gulf incident
to the Nazi attack on the Gleiwitz transmitter, which
Hitler used as a pretext to invade Poland. He then briefly
reviewed the alleged duplicity of both the Johnson and
Nixon administrations regarding Vietnam and concluded that
"the Johnsons and the Nixons are liars of the same caliber."
On 18 June the same commentator explained the court, battle
over publication as an effort by the U.S. Government to
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Releas$c 0 '$ AZC1 3RIDP B0026 U001AM1R(IPORT
25 JUNE 1971
halt publication in "a desperate attempt to continue 'operation
big deception' and to bring under control the profound crisis
of confidence that is shaking the entire American people."
CZECHOSLOVAKIA Extensive reportage and hostile comment from
Czechoslovakia, reflecting the present
conservative tenor of Prague propaganda, has made use of
the Vietnam study to discredit U.S. political institutions
and the Nixon Administration's policy on Indochina. A Prague
radio commentary on 16 June argued that the Administration's
objections to the publication of the documents stem from a
fear that they will show that there is little difference
between President Nixon's and President Johnson's policy, for
"both have been engaged in a war in violation of the
Constitution and are guilty of deceit." Similarly, Radio
Prague's aomestic service on the 17th claimed that the
Nixon Administration's reaction to publication of the
documents proves that some aspects of Johnson's policy
were fully adopted by the present Republican Administration."
The party daily RUDE PRAVO argued on the 17th that "one
shockingly true fact" can be deduced from the documents:
"The honeyed words pronounced in defense of democracy, of
the free world and the like" that characterize all
presidential speeches on Indochina are aimed at "covering
up the blood stains on the American policy in Indochina."
The same paper commented on the next day that the primary
issue now is freedom of the press, since censorship in
this case may prevent similar disclosures by the press in
the future.
HUNGARY Budapest's comment links the documents to
current U.S. policy in Vietnam as well as
to the U.S. presidential elections. An article in the party
organ NEPSZABADSAG on the 20th interpreted the Nixon
Administration's response to the publication of the papers
as "new proof" that it has not only inherited the Vietnam
policy but also adopted it. In the same vein, a Budapest
radio commentator on the 15th suggested that the U.S.
Government is attempting to halt publication because the
documents would show that there is "a perfect continuity
in the policies of the Johnson and Nixon Administrations,"
adding that "a couple of years ago Mr. Johnson of the
Democratic Party made a reality of what was demanded by
Mr. Goldwater of the Republican Party, and now the Republican
Nixon government makes use of the whole apparatus of power
in defense of those who pushed the United States into a war
in Vietnam."
FOR USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2002907/0 : IA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For ReleasfCpO(V91/ C fPEMB0029MM M4RP1R PORT
25 JUNE 1971
A commentary on the 18th viewed the publication of the documents
as a prelude to next year's presidential elections, but it went
on to argue that the Nixon Administration is following the same
policies pursued by its predecessor, showing that nothing has
been learned from "the mistakes of the Johnson policy." An
article in the daily MAGYAR NEMZET on 18 June also raised the..
election issue, speculating that former Secretary of Defense
Clark Clifford might go on trial so that the Nixon Administration
might present its program to the voters in a more favorable light.
BULGARIA Sofia's initial treatment of the Pentagon papers
relied chiefly on reports from Western and communist
news agencies while avoiding original comment.. However, on the
19th, taking its cue from Moscow, the party daily RABOTNICHESKO
DELO began publishing installments of a PRAVDA account of the
New York TIMES articles and the central press offered comment
along the line that the documents' publication unmasked the
true aims of U.S. Vietnam policy. An article in OTECHESTVEN
FRONT on the 20th said that "now the entire propaganda structure
with which the United States camouflaged the true goals of the
aggression has been crushed." It added: "Now it has become
clear that the task was to stop the progressive and free
development of the peoples of the Indochina peninsula,
transform their countries into a base for expanding the
domination of the Pacific, and create loyal neocolonialist
states which could support the reactionary police role in
that part of the world."
Similar articles in Sofia's
ZEMEDELSKO ZNAME, carried on
theme that "never has U.S. i
TRUD,
NARODNA ARMIYA,
and
the
19th, elaborated
on the
mperi
alist policy been
displayed
so nakedly as now with the publication of these documents."
The Bulgarian press has also made the point that regardless
of the outcome of the court decision on further publication
of the papers, "even the small part published is sufficient
to make Nixon's silent majority speak up and say its piece."
ROMANIA Bucharest's coverage of the documents' publication
has been largely reportorial and devoid of
editorial comment. The only monitored commentary was a
broadcast by Bucharest on the 19th which reviewed government
efforts to stop publication of the documents and added: "The
conclusions which emerge from the series of articles
published by the large American dailies are significant
not only for the way in which the U.S. Administration
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Release
FOR 200F0I/0 : IIA-RODP86B002 9R0014001400011 0 ORT
25 JUNE 1971
assumed the responsibility for preparing the military intervention
in Vietnam without taking any moral considerations or the future
consequences of their actions into account, but they also
stirred American public opinion, which was in a position to
judge the amplitude of the misinformation." Continuing in a
restrained tone, the commentator observed that "the fact has
now been established that the American Administration did not
tell the whole truth in connection with the motives and extent
of the implications of the Vietnam war." The closest the
commentator came to drawing implications from the publication
of the documents for present U.S. policy was a bland remark
that "at present, when U.S. policy in that part of the world
is so strongly contested even within the United States itself,
this event is naturally arousing special interest."
YUGOSLAVIA Yugoslav media have hailed the publication of
the Vietnam documents and some see it as an
opportunity for the Administration to disengage more rapidly
from Indochina. An article in the daily BORBA on the 19th
said the publication of the papers revealed "the biggest
deception" of the U.S. Congress and of American and world
public opinion that has come to light. Another article on
the 20th praised the New York TIMES for rendering a great
service to the cause of information by "the publication of
the facts of the widest interest and importance."
The Belgrade daily POLITIKA on the 16th observed that "in
some ways the affair is a welcome event for the Administration,
enabling it to even more clearly dissociate itself from the
period of the Democratic Administration and win the support
of the widest public for its action of shedding the American
commitments and for 'Vietnamization.'" Similarly, Zagreb's
daily VJESNIK said that the really important question now
is "how will Nixon make good the chance, no matter whether
he himself created it or others offered it to him?"
Another prominent theme in Yugoslav comment has been the
issue of freedom of the press, allegedly raised by the U.S.
Government's efforts to prevent publication of the documents
on security grounds. The more free-wheeling Yugoslav papers
clearly have used the issue for their own purposes, but the
semiofficial BORBA on the 21st cautioned that attention to
this issue could divert attention from the main topic: "the
U.S. aggression in Vietnam."
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Releas?A0Rq?R2Ai LR 6B002VM0 Q1jk QP1}QPORT
25 JUNE 1971
ALBANIA Tirana remained all but silent on the Pentagon
documents until the 22d, when the domestic radio
broadcast a commentary entitled "Washington is in Panic" which
typically depicted the United States as being in an advanced
state of crisis over publication of the study. As if to explain
Tirana's minimal attention to the affair, the commentator
pointed out that the Albanian people were "not surprised
by the scandal in Washington, because our party and people
have told the people about events in Vietnam; they have
unmasked the U.S. aggressors for a long time." The commentator
acknowledged, however, that the documents are of some interest
because they "show that this time there are Western leaders
themselves who admit the true history of the dirty war in
Vietnam." He added that the documents also show "the true
face of U.S. imperialism, which has committed horrible
crimes under the cloak of a lamb." Sounding a familiar
propaganda theme that there are no differences between
political parties in the capitalist world, the commentator
concluded that "all U.S. administrations follow a common
policy, the escalation of aggression, and the noise about
peace has been nothing but a screen to hide a global
strategy."
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
Approved For Release 2002/07/02: CIA-RDP86B00269pQW1}p1-0
CUBA
Havana reacted to the publication of the Pentagon documents and
to the ensuing eourt battles with substantial reportage and
comment on each development of what it labels a "worldwide
scandal." Stressing that the disclosures merely confirmed
long-held beliefs, the commentaries have focused on two aspects
of the "scandal"--that which is inherent in what the documents
are said to prove and that which has been brought about by the
"unprecedented" efforts of the Administration to stop the
publication of additional documents. Havana has emphasized
continuities between policies of past administrations disclosed
in the documents and the President's Vietnamization program.
The Pentagon study "contains undeniable facts," a Havana
television commentator remarked on 17 June, "that confirm
what everybody knows"--that "U.S. Government leaders, without
the consent of Congress and the people, launched an
aggression against Vietnam by using previously well-prepared
and coldly executed provocations," that they "systematically
have withheld the truth from the people and Congress," and
that they have "resorted to lies and deceit." In a similar
vein a Radio Havana international broadcast in Spanish on
the 22d contended that the documents "do not reveal anything
new" but "simply prove with concrete and irrefutable
evidence the treacherous and deceitful policy which led
to Yankee genocide in Vietnam." A commentary on the 21st
on the Cuban Armed Forces political information program
observed that publication of the documents does not
constitute "an expose" but "indisputable evidence" of
the "cynical, hypocritical, and treacherous policies of
Yankee imperialism."
Arguing that the documents reveal nothing essentially new,
Havana has derided the U.S. Government's claim of potential
damage to national security from their release. A
vitriolic commentary broadcast in Spanish to Latin
American listeners on the 22d declared that the documents
"do not reveal diplomatic secrets" but "crimes, provocations
deliberately planned, and a rapacious and adventurous
policy, covered with lies to deceive the people and the
Congress of the United States" and "the history of a group
of leaders who turned into war criminals, guilty of the
same crimes which were punished in Nuernberg by hanging."
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 Approved For Releas(F2GO2HMO2AICt1 R[ 8i6tB00269RDB14DG1400D1UPORT
25 JUNE 1971
The Administration's efforts to prevent further publication of
the documents are seen to be closely linked with the President's
current Vietnam policies. Thus a TV commentary on the 17th
observed that although the publication of the documents
"apparently affects Nixon and the Republican Party in a very
limited degree," the President 'reacted in a significant
manner which increases the magnitude of the scandal." His
reaction, according to the commentary, was responsive to the
documents' character as a "categorical and undeniable
demonstration of the treacherous and criminal characteristics
of U.S. policies--policies which are still in force in the
Nixon Administration." Following a similar line, an
internationally broadcast commentary on the 22d contended
that "the disclosures made by the documents indirectly
condemn Nixon's present policy," asking "what difference
is there" between the Gulf of Tonkin incident and "Nixon's
lies" justifying the Cambodian and Laotian "invasions,"
between "Johnson's lies to intensify the war and Nixon's
lies to extend and indefinitely prolong the war"? And a
signed article in the 22 June edition of GRANMA, the
party organ, suggested that the Administration's effort
to prevent further publication of the documents is
"intended to prevent loss of confidence in President
Richard Nixon's Administration, which is also deceiving
public opinion on the same subject."
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
 STAT Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0
Approved For Release 2002/07/02 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001400140001-0