THE US VS. THE WORLD

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP99-00498R000100030148-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 12, 2007
• Sequence Number: 148
• Publication Date: May 1, 1976
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2007/06/14: CIA-RDP99-00498R000100030148-8
Ti-IE [ll'A;''i.=:: To1'llf.?
VS.=
Where Are We, How Did We
Get Into This, and What Will
We Do After Henry Is Gone?
By Tad Szulc
STAT
to
is
d
1
return to the Cold war, something that the
President clearly doesn't propose. Thus
semantics become a substitute for policy.
On the Democratic side, the picture is
just as uninspiring. The app:irent liquida-
tion ofthe party's liberal wing in the spring
primaries has left only the centrist contin-
vent: Jimmy Carter, Jackson, and, very
possibly, Hubert Humphrey. Front-
running Carter's foreign policy ideas, to
the extent that they are clear to anyone, are
conventional: He is for a strong defense
establishment. against US interventionist
adventures (although he defended Ford's
Indochina policy almost up to the day
Saigon fella year ago), and in favor ener-
ally of improving relations with one and all
in the world. Jackson emphasizes a strong
stand toward the Soviet Union and a
clearly pro-Israeli policy. Humphrey's
views have not markedly changed since
1968: He takes all the right liberal posi-
tions, but brings no noticeable leadership
at this time. On foreign policy alone, then,
one would be hard put to choose ammong the
Presidential candidates.
n
olic as xi
n forei
g
p
Sucl1 debate o
is characterized by personality conflicts, President Ford, never strong in foreign
irrelevance, politicking. and misinforma- policy, leans on Secretary of State Kis-
tion (the latter being compounded by the singer, btrt the latter bas contrived totnake.
Administration's devotion to secrecy and his own controversial personality into an
its penchant to mislead). The Congress, election issue, thus increasingly becoming
frequently at odds with the White House a liability to the President. Once sac-
over much of the policy, rarely adds to the rosanct, Kissinger has managed to an-
quality of the debate. Great foreign policy tagonize both the conservatives and the
debates seem to be a thing of the past. liberals-for reasons ranging from detente.
The paralysis in foreign policy has to his stance on Angola and Cuba---and is
reached the point where the Ford Admims- no longer a major force in policy-making.
tration does little beyond responding to Rather than pulling together his disinte-
criticisms. A whole implausible argument grating foreign policy establishment, Kis-
has developed among President Ford. singer has been barnstorming the country
Ronald Reagan, and Senator Henry with speeches that range from expressions
Jackson over whether the United States of deep pessimism about the fate of the
retains military superiority over the Soviet West to mysterious threats as to what the
Union. Reagan and Jackson improbably United States might do about the uppity
accuse the President of weakening our de- Cubans-only to take his words back
fense posture; Ford responds that under his when challenged by the Senate. An exam-
Administration the United States is and ple of the Washington feelings about Kis-
will remain "Number One." This is a singer was a recent dinner-speech remark
non-issue inasmuch as Ford obviously by Senator"Stuart Symington: "We spent
does not favor an American inferiority and the morning listening to Kissinger explain-
there is little that Reagan or Jackson could ing his explanations.... -
Approved For Release 2007/06/14: CIA-RDP99-00498R000100030148-8
ism. We improvise rather than lead.
The state of American foreign policy
in this Bicentennial and election year
is, to put it mildly, not satisfactory.
In fact, for reasons ranging from the
avoidable to the inevitable, our foreign
policy in 1976 seems to be in more disarray
than at any time since the immediate post-
war period when, because of our wealth
and short-lived nuclear monopoly, we.
undertook world leadership.
Today one finds here a sense of help-
lessness that is as startling as it is blown all
out of proportion. Still, the reality is that
policies that looked relatively clear-if not
always entirely wise-even three years
ago have now lost cohesion and direction.
Or so it appears to many of those observing
the torturous conduct of our foreign af-
fairs. Thus the United States is confused
about detente with the Soviet Union, ner-
vous about Western Europe, uncertain
over the new turmoil in China, upset over
Angola and Southern Africa, and divided
over Israel.
In this pessimistic and moody city, we
are again concerned about our adversaries,
unsure of our allies, and perplexed by the
emergence of the new and powerful al-
liance that we call the Third World. Most
of the time we are on the defensive, often
in petulant ways unbecoming a r real re-
public. We oscillate between threats of
intervention and unnecessary isolation-