Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 9, 2016
Document Release Date: 
June 22, 2001
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
July 26, 1976
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP77-00432R000100390004-1.pdf7.55 MB
'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 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 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 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 . .'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. ' 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,, 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 -; 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 ' 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-? 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, 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 , 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 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. -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 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 ? 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 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