107. Memorandum From the Chairman of the Psychological-Political Working Group (Jorden) to the Members of the Working Group1

SUBJECT

  • The Care and Feeding of Little Friends

One of our problems in dealing with other countries is in a very real sense a psychological one. It concerns the way we treat some of our friends who are not great powers and not the source of regular [Page 280] trouble. Even more important, perhaps, than the way we treat them is the way in which they think we regard them.

There is considerable justification, I think, for the strong feeling in such countries that we take them for granted. They tend to believe that we pay attention to them only when they cause trouble or when we need their support, in votes at the U.N., for example. We focus our attention—in statements, in actions, even in our choice of travel—on the big countries, the economically strong countries, or the troublesome countries.

We all know, of course, that we cannot pay equal attention to all countries or governments. It is only natural that we concentrate on major forces in the world and on those areas or countries likely to be the source of important difficulties. I am wondering, however, whether we might not be able to strike something of a better balance.

To cite a few examples:

Compare the number of times that Japan has been mentioned in major statements of U.S. policy during the past year with the mentions of Korea, the Philippines or the Republic of China. How many leading Americans have visited Japan in the past year compared with the number that spent some time conveying our thoughts and our friendship to the other Asian states?

The Pakistanis long have thought we were slighting them, despite their alliance with us and their public identification with our policies. How much of the present trouble in that area is based on their deep feeling that we really have always considered India far more important?

About 98 per cent of our time, attention, and statements in the European area are centered on Britain, France and Germany. Belgium gets into the act when there is a Congo crisis. But when did we last give the Turks an approving pat on the back? When was the last time a public figure visited Norway? Or the Netherlands? Or Austria (except to meet Khrushchev)?

Cuba excepted, how much of our concentration on Latin American affairs has centered on big, admittedly important, troublesome Brazil? What about Chile? Or Costa Rica? Or Colombia?

There are any number of ways in which we might do better in dealing with small and usually untroublesome countries. We might even find that doing so would tend to lessen their proclivity to make trouble, who knows? We might, for example, go out of our way—in a Presidential or Secretarial news conference—to praise something positive done by this country or that. We might encourage our leading officials to visit one or another of the countries that rarely receive such attention. We might deliberately raise the level of attention given distinguished visitors from such countries. We might seek to open a [Page 281] dialogue outside normal channels with a man like Sihanouk, or Hussein, or Youlou.

I think this is something we might give some attention. If we devoted thought to this, I daresay we would produce half a dozen useful ideas in each area. By the end of 1963, we should be able to point to some positive efforts by way of praising and promoting our smaller but not unimportant friends.

  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files, 511.00/1–1563. Confidential. Drafted by Jorden. For information on the Psychological-Political Working Group, see Documents 51 and 59.