Mr. Ungar's article would have been an appropriate and fitting tribute to one of Africa's distinguished ambassadors accredited to this country had its coverage been confined to the contributions of Ambassador Tau.

Sadly, however, the article suggests comparison of Ambassador Tau's modus operandi and achievements in the United States with those of her African colleagues, who were characterized as being nothing else but unsuccessful envoys. It is this naive comparison that has given rise to concern within the ranks of members of the African diplomatic corps, who consider the author's conclusion to be totally uncalled for, ill-conceived and grossly offensive to all members of the corps.

Furthermore, to prove that the author of this scandalous article was out to malign not only members of the African diplomatic corps but other parties as well, he alleged that the departing ambassador was leaving Washington without having been treated to the usual valedictories. Nothing would be farther from the truth.

For the author's own information, Ambassador Tau, together with other departing African envoys, was treated to a good number of receptions.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the article was the fact that The Post, a newspaper of international repute and one that most ambassadors subscribe to, published Mr. Ungar's malicious article without checking the facts. Are we to infer that The Post and Mr. Ungar are in cahoots?

In conclusion, as dean of the African diplomatic corps, I would like to admit that African ambassadors accredited to Washington do seem to experience the same difficulties as all other envoys in adjusting to the local scene but do not sink to the abysmal level portrayed in Mr. Ungar's article.