89. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Bundy) to Secretary of State Rusk1

SUBJECT

  • Travel of Scholars and Representatives of Humanitarian Organizations

Discussion:

The time appears to be at hand to broaden somewhat the categories of Americans entitled to travel to Communist China. I believe we should [Page 175] broaden the categories to include scholars and graduate students with a legitimate professional requirement to visit the area.

We have an unusual opportunity here to put the Chinese Communists on the defensive and to nullify domestic criticism of both the right and the left. Given our stand in Viet-Nam, our critics on the right can hardly accuse us of going soft on Communist China. Since the Chinese Communists will probably not permit any increase in travel at this time, we can demonstrate that we are acting out of boldness, not timidity, and that it is the Chinese Communists rather than ourselves who fear the exchange of ideas. On the other hand, there are few gestures which would better serve both to further our own policy interests and to reassure the academic community that we are interested in the flow of information to and from Communist China.

Even if the Chinese in the future should allow some scholars to enter China, we do not believe there is a significant chance of adverse incidents or ill-treatment of these Americans. We would continue to warn of the inability of the government to provide protection, and to make clear that we are removing restrictions on, rather than promoting, such travel.

Further, a relaxation of certain travel restrictions will show that the Department is exercising the authority, upheld in the Zemel case, in a reasonable and responsible manner.

We have had recommendations for increased efforts at contact from various quarters, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Zablocki subcommittee. You may recall that the proposal to authorize scholars’ travel to Communist China was made formally to us by the Joint Committee on Contemporary China and was seriously considered in 1962, but was laid aside in favor of the decision to press for a more general relaxation of our travel rules. A proposal for a general relaxation was made to the White House in January 1963, but was not acted upon at that time. We do not believe that the present situation justifies the resurrection of the more general proposal, but to act now on scholars has many advantages, among which is the circumstance that the scholarly community has been largely mollified by the awareness that we were sympathetically considering their interest in a revision of the rules, but this situation cannot be indefinitely extended if we do not take action.

If after such consultation with the White House as you deem appropriate you decide to authorize such a broadening, it might be worthwhile at the same time to consider whether the President might take advantage of this move, and make the idea of “improved communication” one of the themes for his forthcoming UN commemorative speech in San Francisco. If authorized, FE, SCA and L will draw up and issue appropriate Department regulations and notification of the change. In addition, in announcing the change, we might note the existence of the “national interest” category, which we now use, and [Page 176] explain the terms whereby persons might be eligible to travel in Communist China on the grounds that such travel would be in the national interest. I would propose to cite representatives of bona fide humanitarian, cultural and educational organizations as potential examples of persons entitled to be considered under “national interest” considerations.

Recommendations:2

1.
That you authorize the broadening of the categories of Americans eligible to travel in Communist China, as above.
2.
That you authorize FE to pursue with IO the possibility of writing the theme of “improve communication” into the President’s forthcoming San Francisco speech, calling for a greater exchange of visits between the Communist countries and the free world.
  1. Source: Department of State, EA/ACA Files: Lot 72 D 175, Travel Controls (Gen), June–July 1965. Confidential.
  2. Rusk initialed his disapproval of both recommendations on June 24.