CLARIFICATION

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Your report of my speech at the Ford Hall Forum is a disheartening experience. In the limited space available to me, let me mention three points in which your correspondent completely misunderstood what I said:

(A) Summit Meetings. I do not oppose summit meetings as such. Indeed, I have always believed that we should not permit ourselves to be placed in the position of opposing a conference at any level, including the summit. My major point was that a summit conference is useless unless we know what we wish to discuss there. I do believe that the manner in which we have prepared for the coming meeting has not been too responsible.

(B) The Question of Compromise. I am not opposed to compromise. It does seem to me, however, that if we announce in advance of any negotiation or any crisis that compromise is an end in itself we will reward extreme positions. This point was really an elaboration of the previous one. It was a criticism of a formalistic approach to negotiations which confuses negotiating techniques with purpose. My argument was that we should stop using slogans like compromise, flexibility or rigidity and debate the substance of the program to which they refer.

(C) Underdeveloped Nations. I did not say that foreign aid is not important in shaping the future of these countries. On the contrary, I argued for a very greatly expanded program (at least twice the present effort). What I did say pertained to the motivation which should animate us in three respects:

(1) We should not expect military or political alliances in return. (I suppose that is what your correspondent meant when he wrote that I did not think foreign assistance would shape loyalties.

(2) We should not justify it on the basis of anti-Communism but on the basis of what we believe in. For this reason, we should feel under no compulsion to match every Soviet economic program but rather carry out those programs which seem dictated by our values and our purposes.

(3) Our impact on the uncommitted depends not only on the level of our economic aid but equally importantly on the dynamism and conviction of our domestic performance. It is with respect to the latter that I said that the present pedantry in the West is not likely to prove very appealing to the new nations. The whole point of my remarks, however, was that the United States could easily double its economic aid program, that Western Europe could participate at our present level and that this should be a joint effort.

Although these corrections will probably not undo your story, I would appreciate it if you made them as soon as possible. Henry A. Kissinger.