•V. * * ■* “ Study shows effort to discredit U. S. Soviets step up forgeries by DONALD LAMBRO United Press International WASHINGTON — A little-noticed CIA report on the Soviet Union’s propaganda war reveals how the Russians have increased covert activities against the United States and its allies. The study, quietly released by the House Intelligence Committee earlier this year, deals in part with how Soviet forgeries have been increasingly used as part of a coordinated campaign to discredit the United States. The report — all but ignored by the news media — provides one of the most revealing public assessments of Soviet covert activities published in recent years. It comes as Anjerican media attention continues to be more concerned with the CIA than with Soviets’ KGB. The report says Soviet forgeries fell sharply during 1972-1976. But by late 1976, after President Carter’s election, “several new series of forgeries of U.S. govern ment documents and communiques began appearing. “They have continued to appear since then at the rate of four to five per year,” the CIA said, adding, “We believe these new forgeries were produced by the KGB or one or more of the East European intelligence ser vices under Soviet control.” Their aim: “... to damage U.S. foreign and defense policies, often in very specific ways.” In a series of forgeries aimed at NATO, for example, a bogus State Department airgram was circulated among Western European officials. It suggested using informa tion to blackmail European officials and to develop plans for “hindering or eliminating foreign trade competi tion.” Three of seven forgeries in this series sought “to compromise U.S. foreign and defense policy in Western Europe by playing on the continuing difficulties in U. S. - Greek and Greek-Turkish relations. ” One of them, a fabricated speech attributed to Carter, made “demeaning references to the Greek government in the context of its NATO role. ” In another, a phony set of Defense Department intel ligence “collection requirements ... instructs its reci pients to spy on a large number of Greek political parties and organizations.” Earlier this year, the CIA said, the KGB “exploited its access to official U.S. Government stationery in fabricat ing bogus letters.” One of them, written on a U.S. Air Force letterhead, suggested the United States and NATO allies cooper ated with China to suppress disturbances in Zaire (which had been incited by Soviet-aided rebel forces in neighboring Angola). Another, on U.S. Embassy stationery in Rome, “pur ported to confirm rumors being circulated by Soviet agents in Italy to the effect that the United States stores chemical and biological warfare weapons at a NATO base near Naples.” In yet another, the KGB forged the signature of the NATO secretary general to a letter on NATO stationery that informed the U.S. ambassador to NATO that a list of journalists opposed to deployment of the neutron bomb in Europe had been compiled, implying the U.S. plan ned to punish them. Another series of forgeries aimed at Egyptian Presi dent Anwar Sadat suggested the United States did not trust him and wanted to oust him. One of them, a falsified interview purportedly given by Vice President Walter Mondale, made derogatory remarks about Sadat. Others carried the forged signature of the former U.S. ambassador to Egypt on correspondence (one of which appeared in the Oct. 1, 1979, edition of a Syrian news paper) saying that if Sadat refused to advance U.S. poli cy interests in the Middle East, “then we must repudi ate him and get rid of him without hesitation. ” The CIA believes the increased forgeries reflect “a Soviet perception that a new phase of harder bargaining and sharper ideological conflict in U.S.-Soviet relations requires new tactics. “We presume that, taken together, the concern for Soviet propaganda effectiveness, disenchantment with the fruits of detente and a perception of new opportuni ties swung the Soviet leadership consensus in favor of a tougher propaganda line and of reinstituting the use of forgeries,” the CIA said. The CIA believes that while some forgeries fail, many are given wide distribution and substantial credence in official foreign circles and in the foreign press, some times unwittingly. Air bags do have a future: use them as power source for autos by DICK WEST United Press International WASHINGTON — Apostles of air power were dealt a severe blow last week when General Motors decided against replacing seat belts with air bags in its 1982 cars. Well, then, GM, how about replacing the gas tanks with air bags? The idea of an air-powered auto might seem a bit utopian the first time it whizzes by. But I recently saw a car built to run on air, and it works. At about the time General Motors was announcing its air bag decision, Terry Miller, a Crestline, Kan., inven tor, was in the Capital demonstrating his Air Car One. Some demonstration! Dressed for the occasion in mustard-colored cover alls, Miller arrived by truck and unloaded the three wheeled experimental vehicle amid the tour buses and vendors’ vans at the foot of Capitol Hill. Almost immediately, a squad car pulled up. Miller couldn’t legally drive that contraption here unless he had it registered and inspected like any other motor car, the cops told him. Nevertheless, he stuck around awhile, hoping a tele vision crew would show up to film his creation in action. He figured the cops wouldn’t be too hard-nosed about a technical law infraction if it served the greater glory of television. I don’t know whether the cameras ever arrived. I doubt it. Miller didn’t seem too well organized with regard to media exposure. The car, which Miller built himself, has, in addition to the three wheels noted above, two seats and a steering lever similar to a tiller found on a small sailboat. It steers from the right side in British manner. The chassis looks something like a surrey without the fringe on top. Fortunately, Miller brought along his own air — two compression tubes located on either side of the vehicle. Therefore, there was no need for jokes about running the car on hot air generated by Congress. Besides that, if Miller had been dependent on local air, he would have needed a car that runs on humidity. Miller didn’t drive the air car any while I was around, but I did get to see how it functions. At one point, he moved it about 30 feet to a new parking place, walking alongside with his hand on the tiller. “Is there any law in this town against walking a car?” he asked sardonically. I don’t think Miller had a very high opinion of Washington. Despite the welter of figures he flung at me. I’m not sure about the air car’s mileage rating — that is, how many miles per puff it gets. But I do know it has hit speeds of nearly 30 miles an hour and that it runs cheap. A dime will buy enough electricity to compress enough air to take the car about six miles. Still relatively primitive, yes, but herein perhaps lies the real future for air bags. Or maybe General Motors can invent a car that is powered by seat belts. ’Toons Viewpoint The Battalion Texas A&M University Wednesday June 11,1980 Page 2 is your page, too by DILLARD STONE Battalion Editor “Page 2 is ugly ... you need to spruce it up a little. Write some local stuff. ” That’s Bob Rogers, communications department head, speaking. And he’s right. He’s right not just because he’s my “boss,” but also because he speaks for just about anybody who has ever read a Battalion editorial page. the campus before they can begin writing their opinions. I can work on that, and I am. The second thing that must happen is the ihostimpo tant, and the one most directly concerning y reader. Page 2 is boring. It’s dry. It’s ugly. And, most damn ing of all, it contains little that is relevant to the average Texas A&M student. This is supposed to be your newspaper. Itcanil serve as your v/ewspaper. Texas A&M is loaded with intelligent students,fan ty and staff, people who are capable of analyzing an k and presenting their views to others. Most of the copy I put on page 2 is wire copy and syndicated material. It’s readable — more precisely, wadeable. You can wade through it if you’ve got the time. But mainly it’s dry and it serves only one function: to fill up page 2 each day. I don’t like laying it out any more than you like read ing it. So ... There are present and future political scientists, nomists, capitalists, communists, bankers and busks men on this campus. These people’s views are imp tant. Td like to see that change, but a couple of things need to happen before we can begin to fill an opinion page with local opinions. First, my staff needs to learn everything. Most of my staff has had no experience in day-to-day work at The Battalion. They’re bright and eager, but, oh so fresh. They need to learn the ins and outs of The Battalion and More importantly, since they’re locally generate! they’re more interesting than the syndicated copy I each day. We welcome and encourage letters to the editoraa guest columns on anything and everything. We want! know your opinion, and we want to be able to present to others. After all, the Viewpoint at the top of this page ini meant to be the sole prerogative of UPI, David BroJi or The Battalion staff. It’s yours, too. System, not the men at fan for poor presidential choki by DAVID S. BRODER LOS ANGELES — The 1980 presidential primary season has ended — at last — with a prize political paradox. On the face of it, the system worked perfectly. The two men, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, wbo were the favorites of their party’s rank-and-file, accord-, ing to the polls last January when the process began, have emerged as the victors. And yet there is more widespread dissatisfaction being expressed with the choices for the general- election than this reporter has heard in 25 years on the political beat. From the union halls to corporate board rooms and college campuses, there is a sense that something has gone terribly wrong in presidential politics this year. It is not my purpose here to argue whether the anti pathy to the Carter-Reagan choice is justified or not. What does concern me is the corollary proposition, also widely voiced, that the American Republic must be suffering from a blight of mediocrity for such men to emerge as the final choices for President. That proposition, I believe, is patently false. It leads to cynicism and pessimism about the American political condition which is wholly unjustified. And it serves as a convenient rationalization for not undertaking the rela tively simple changes that could yield — in future years — a much more broadly appealing choice. I think we are confronted with a classic bad news-good news situation. The bad news is that as long as we use the kind of presidential selection system we have used this year, this is the kind of candidates we will get. Carter and Reagan are not anomalies; they are the logic al, predictable products of this kind of nominating system. nK senators, representatives, mayors, state and local part; officials, the heads of unions, civil rights groups other organizations allied with the party — if such) group had met four years ago, unconstrained by th results of the primaries, their consensus choice, after CQupl lents who w fichool year summei nited Stati The Air 1 this The good news is that there is nothing sacred about this kind of presidential selection system. It has not been ordained by God, nor inscribed in the Constitu tion, nor legislated by the Congress, nor mandated by the courts. It is a political artifact, of recent design, which can be changed with relative ease by two of the most accessible, persuadable bodies of decision-makers in the land: the Democratic and Republican National Committees. same “insiders” pressed Mondale’s named on the actual 1976 nominee, Jimmy Carter, so strongly that Carte: took him as his running-mate to cement his own tions with the institutional leadership of the Democratit Party. Similarly, I think, if 1,000 or so leading Republicaa men and women had met, uninstructed, this year, consensus choice would have been Baker — for (lie same reasons that those people are now pressing Ronald Reagan to choose Baker as his running-mate. The selection system, in short, largely determines the kind of candidates you get. With our present system you get Carters and Reagans — men who are capable free lance campaigners of somewhat idiosyncratic ground and views, self-proclaimed outsiders, most remarkable for their dogged ambition and relentless energy, prepared to spend years of their lives seeking the presidential prize, but not viewed by their political peers — or much of the public — as unusually gifted in governmental leadership. With a different kind of selection system —- the kind, we had until the past decade — you got people with the u characteristics of the Bakers and the Mondales: people of less consuming ambition but more experience, people of moderate views, who had been tested in lesser leader ship responsibilities, were familiar with the national governmental and political processes, and equipped with the alliances and friendships that would enable them to marshal the machinery of government for the tasks at hand. If Americans have reached the point of wanting to change the kind of presidential candidates'the parties nominate, then we have to understand the revolution that has taken place in the past decade in the presiden tial selection system and the changes that would be needed to make it more likely to get Mondales and Bakers rather than Carters and Reagans in the future irograms a adets at su [Their trainii iveeks. Seventet tadets are ’trainin ifficer cand uniors and hips for cn ific originati )lulu, San :anamo Bay Ne\ vac< 2iv( In the next couple of columns, I want to look at how we got into this fix and how we can extricate ourselves. But first, let me put my cards on the table. In oversim plified terms, the whole argument turns on this ques tion: Would you feel more comfortable if the 1980 elec tion pitted a Democratic President Walter Mondale, finishing his first term, against a Sen. Howard H. Baker, Jr., of Tennessee, as his Republican challenger? I mention them for this reason. I believe that if any 1,000 leaders of the Democratic party — governors, by Scott McCuIlar The Battalion U S P S 045 360 MEMBER Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Congress Editor Dillard Stone City Editor Becky Swanson Sports Editor Richard Oliver News Editor Lynn Blanco Stalf Writers Uschi Michel-Howell, Debbie Nelson, Cathy Saathoff, Scot K. Meyer, Jon Heidtke Kurt Allen Photo Editor Lee Roy Leschper Jr. Photographer Marsha Hoehn EDITORIAL POLICY The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper operated as a community service to Texas A&M University and Bryan-College Sta tion. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editor or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M University administrators or faculty members, or of the Board ol Begents. Questions or comments concerning any editorial matter should be directed to the editor. The Battalion is published Tuesday through Thursday during Texas A&M’s summer school schedule. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. United Press International is entitled exclusively to the use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it. Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. Unit WASHI ment has a and less p; requires oi is give: instead of The vac viruses gr lures, instc present va Dr. Jen Center for la estimate alone will 1 vaccinatio: runs $325 I I The | posit |MS I MS |ms Ims % IMS | We fi Plea: $ Pro ‘ g