Foreign Relations of the United States, 1917–1972, Volume VII, Public Diplomacy, 1964–1968

106. Minutes of a Meeting of the President’s General Advisory Committee on Foreign Assistance Programs¹

GAC Meeting No. 6.2

Washington, September 12, 1966

SUBJECT

• USIA

PRESENT

• Members of the Committee

  • Dr. James A. Perkins, Chairman
  • Mr. Dwayne O. Andreas
  • Mr. Eugene R. Black
  • Mrs. Everett N. Case
  • Dr. J. George Harrar
  • Mr. David E. Bell
  • Mr. William R. Hewlett
  • Professor Edward S. Mason
  • Mr. David Rockefeller
  • Mr. Arthur K. Watson
  • Mr. William J. Zellerbach

• USIA

  • Mr. Leonard H. Marks, Director, USIA
  • Mr. Hewson A. Ryan, Deputy Director, Office of Policy and Research, USIA

• AID

  • Mr. William S. Gaud, Administrator
  • Mr. C. Tyler Wood, Special Assistant to the Administrator
  • Mr. George P. Scurria, Staff Officer

Dr. Perkins welcomed Mr. Marks and asked him to proceed with any statements he had for the Committee. Mr. Marks said that he would like first to give some background on USIA, so that the Committee might appreciate USIA’s problems in trying to carry out the mission assigned to it.

He said that he had been Director of USIA since September 1, 1965. In the past, he said, USIA had been buffeted at times by Congress due to a lack of appreciation and a misunderstanding of its function. On the appropriations side, he said he found a particularly difficult situation. In the past there have been peaks, when there was need for expansion and large amounts of money were appropriated and strenuous recruiting activities undertaken; these periods have been followed by valleys in the appropriations, necessitating letting people go. It has been difficult to maintain an organization with the kind of adjustments which such circumstances called for. In September, 1965 the House Appropriations Committee appropriated $150,241,000 for USIA. This level would maintain the agency’s operations at substantially the same level as the previous two years, despite the growth of its activities around the world. However, there is a tendency in the Senate to reduce the USIA program in Western Europe on the theory that Western Europe is an area where everybody knows what is going on in the United States. The Senate Appropriations Committee, accordingly, proposed to cut the portion of the agency’s appropriation for Europe from $8 million to $4 million. He said that he interceded with those members of the Senate Appropriations Committee he knew and asked them not to make any cuts at least until he, as the new Director, could determine the agency’s status, and assured them that if he felt savings could be made, they would be made. In the end, the Senate Appropriations Committee rounded off the appropriations at $150 million, saying that $241,000 should be taken from Western Europe.

USIA staffs embassies in 105 countries with information specialists trained in the various communications media of the world. They advise ambassadors and other members of the Country Team on how best to present the information side of United States programs. USIA has a minimum complement of 12,000 people, which had been considerably greater in some previous years. It operates in 218 localities in 106 countries. Roughly, one-third of the 12,000 personnel works in the U.S. Local employees overseas account for about 60% of total employment. The job of USIA is not to make foreign policy nor to establish the principles on which the AID programs are based, but rather to explain and interpret the operations of the United States overseas.

Information programs can be carried out in two different ways: the story can be told by giving the bare facts or an attempt can be made to explain and persuade. USIA does both. When the President or any of his leading officers makes a statement in connection with United States programs, USIA disseminates that statement as the first part of its function. This dissemination takes place in a variety of ways. Every day USIA sends to each of the American Embassies a minimum of 10,000 words and in some cases as much as 15,000 words reporting on what takes place in the United States affecting their operations. Separate reports are sent to Latin America, the Far East, Africa, and other areas of the world. This is known as the wireless file and is an essential element in keeping Ambassadors informed. Mr. Marks said many Ambassadors had told him that it is the only reliable, authoritative link which they have with Washington other than the official cables which go back and forth. The information officer rewrites the wireless file material in the language of his particular country or in a form which may be more useable, and then takes it to editors, radio stations, and television stations for distribution. This is the basis, we hope, on which that country will find out about what the United States is doing. As countries become more sophisticated, it takes greater ingenuity to have them use this material. In the great majority of cases, however, this is not true. The newspapers in most countries are hardly papers of general circulation and vary greatly in quality.

Probably the most publicized of various USIA media is the Voice of America. The VOA has a responsibility to inform its listeners and to keep their interest. This cannot be done just by having news hour after hour, and expecting to hold an audience in competition with other broadcasters of the world. Therefore, it is necessary to have music, drama, and a diversified program schedule which will keep the listeners tuned in, so that they will hear the news and the commentary as well. The commentary and the news suddenly have become recognized in the United States as authoritative and reliable. In the past, there had been much criticism (some of it from people who had never heard a VOA program), but, Mr. Marks said, he felt the Voice of America has always been a credible medium, ever since it was created in 1948. It tells the bad as well as the good and it hopes to put in perspective what happens in the United States—that we are not a perfect society, but we strive for perfection; that we do have riots in some places today, but at the same time tremendous progress has been made in the civil rights field.

The VOA broadcasts regularly in 38 languages, 845 hours per week. That is not the greatest amount of broadcasting done in the competitive broadcasting field. Russia broadcasts about 1100 hours, Radio Peking about the same, and the United Arab Republic about 800 hours. However, VOA has one device that none of its competitors can match. It makes tape recordings of news, commentary, and programs which will explain U.S. objectives and U.S. activities, and then takes them to the managers of radio stations in foreign countries for broadcasting on their networks. Thus, when a listener in a foreign country tunes in his local radio station, he is liable to hear a VOA program just as he hears his local commentator. USIA places weekly 15,000 hours of radio programs on the local stations of the world. Approximately 11,000 of the 15,000 hours are placed in Latin American countries. In addition, when there is a major event, such as a space shot, hundreds of radio stations in Latin America will take the VOA program intact from short wave and play it over their domestic systems.

A third medium, which is developing rapidly, is television. It ranges from 85 to 90% circulation in Japan to 800 sets in Ghana, for example, but every nation in the world today either has television or is getting television facilities. It is easier to list the approximately 18 countries which do not have it than it is to list the nearly 100 who do have television facilities.

USIA makes films² which it takes to the television stations for showing to local audiences. USIA programs are being shown today in approximately 68 countries on a regular basis. As with the VOA tapes, these films deal in many instances with the AID program. They relate to accomplishments in space, assistance to underdeveloped countries, programs describing American schools, and efforts being made to rehabilitate the economy and people of Vietnam. In short, films are used in the same way as the other media to tell the story. Last year, 2,082 television stations in 94 countries used USIA films, and the same films also are used in theaters. Based on surveys, these USIA films have a regular audience of 350 million people in 120 countries. Statistically, this figure includes news releases which also are made by USIA and provided to local theaters and television.

Mr. Marks said he wished to discuss the propaganda effort of USIA. He said it is necessary to define the word “propaganda” because no matter how sophisticated people are, the word “propaganda” has sinister overtones. There is an attitude, even among some members of the Congress, that USIA is a propaganda medium and that its product somehow or other doesn’t ring true. He said that he had done a great deal of research to determine a consistent definition of propaganda and has concluded that each author has his own concept which he tailors for the end result he wants to achieve. He said the day he took office as Director he stated that his philosophy was that USIA would be a propaganda agency, but truth would be its propaganda. USIA tells the truth because in the American society there is nothing to conceal. There is a great deal of which to be proud, and furthermore the U.S. has no colonial aspirations and is not trying to subjugate any people. If the truth can simply be known, it will be adequate propaganda for the U.S.

Another area of USIA activity is the production of pamphlets. USIA puts out millions of pamphlets each year on topics germane to the United States; AID projects provide a great deal of the material used in this way. These pamphlets are available in the USIS field offices overseas, are distributed to schools, and in some cases are used as teaching materials in universities and colleges.

USIA maintains 223 libraries overseas. These have gained notoriety from the numerous incidents which have taken place at them. He noted, however, that those protests are usually well organized by the communist groups. In eastern European countries, it was noted recently that the cameras arrived 30 minutes before the rioters and that the police stood by until the demonstration had taken place, and then they broke it up. This is not a protest against anything which USIA is doing as much as it is a government to government activity where there is resentment and a feeling that the other government has to make world headlines by protesting.

Textbooks also are a valuable tool. AID prints textbooks and distributes them throughout the world. USIA uses them in some fields, teaching English through binational centers in Latin America and through regular courses in other parts of the world. The concept of the binational center is a very sound one; Mr. Marks said that he was most anxious to increase the number of them. The binational center is a corporation, run by a board of directors consisting of an equal number of Americans and locals. These men form a society for the purpose of teaching English and charge a fee for enrollment. The teaching of English is to the advantage of the U.S. because when a person becomes exposed to the English language he can read USIA publications, he can understand its films, can listen to the VOA and becomes one who will more readily accept U.S. ideas than if he had a remote language and no knowledge of English.

The binational centers in Latin America really have become little universities. For example, in Lima, 11,000 students are studying English at the binational center. In addition, there are seminars and libraries and films. In Mexico City, there are 8,000 students at the binational center. The binational foundation is an institution that is rapidly spreading throughout Latin America. In many cases they are operating at a breakeven point, with the instructor and the materials supplied by USIA. Many of them on the other hand have realized substantial income and own their own buildings. Mr. Marks said that he is trying to persuade the Congress to recognize that the institution of binational centers is one of the most valuable things that the U.S. has in its information and education programs because it is not peculiarly or particularly a U.S. institution. It has great favor because prominent businessmen and industrialists of the host country are on the board and it becomes a local institution which carries out the mutual objectives of the two countries. USIA has asked for $1 million in its FY 67 appropriation to assist in helping binational centers improve their physical facilities.³

Dr. Perkins said in this connection that it has now become increasingly clear overseas that the chances of having a major modern university turn almost directly on having courses in an international language, of which English is now the preferred one because of American mastery of technology. University people throughout the world are increasingly concerned that their students have English as a second language because only in this way can they attract English-speaking faculty, and only in this way can they really have any chance of modernizing themselves. For example, the Dutch are now thinking of setting up a graduate school in which all courses would be taught in English. The Japanese universities are moving to a point where they are becoming bilingual, not because they particularly like English, but because this is their only way of attracting English-speaking faculty, without whom they feel they don’t have a chance of becoming modern universities. To a lesser extent, one could settle for French because he could then go to some of the major French universities, but for the next foreseeable period of time, the only chance that universities around the world, outside of Russia and China, can become really modernized, depends upon how quickly their students learn English as their second language. Thus, a very direct causal connection can be made between the mastery of English as a second language and the chances of ever training indigenous personnel in modern technology.

Mr. Marks said that he had been gratified to receive a report recently that the University of Leyden, outside of Amsterdam, is starting a course in American studies, staffed with American professors. The USIS cultural affairs officer in Holland had been very active in creating this interest through the cultural program of the State Department, which brought an outstanding Dutch historian to this country for several months who, upon his return, wrote a textbook which is a major one in its field now. USIA assisted by providing photographs and research materials for the book.

At the risk of over-simplification he would say that USIA has two weapons at its disposal that no other country in the competitive broadcasting field has. The U.S. has a food surplus for the time being, and the English language. The English language is the key because it opens up doors to scientists, social workers, and other people who have a curiosity about what is going on in advanced societies. This has been recognized by Russia which is distributing books throughout Latin America and other parts of the world, books in English. There are very few courses in Russian which are sponsored by the Russian cultural institutions throughout the world. They tried it and it didn’t work. For example, a very ambitious program was undertaken in the UAR, but it failed. He said he is anxious, therefore, that the program of English language teaching and textbook distribution be strengthened because these are invaluable devices for carrying out the rest of the U.S. objectives.

Dr. Perkins said that there are tides running against what Mr. Marks had been talking about which should be kept in mind. Rising nationalism is something the United States has found very advantageous in dealing with countries in the perimeters around China and Russia. However, one of its consequences is an interest in promoting local language differences; for example, there is strong pressure in India now for the development of various Indian languages as opposed to English. This tendency appears even in advanced countries; for example, in Belgium, the universities which had been French and Flemish are now abolishing French. Everything has to be in Flemish now, which means that 75% of the faculty will have to leave in a year. In the Philippines, one cannot help but view with alarm the increasing interest in Tagalog as a means of communication as opposed to Spanish or English. Thus, in addition to pointing out the positive advantages of English teaching, one ought to mention also that it is increasingly important because nationalistic tides cut right across everything else the U.S. is trying to do.

Mr. Marks said that when Mrs. Ghandi occupied the post of Minister of Information and Broadcasting in India, prior to becoming Prime Minister, she asked him if there were some way USIA could help remedy the decline of English in India. This has been accelerated by the withdrawal by the British of their principal officers. He said that perhaps after the elections in India, in February 1967, there will be an opportunity to help with this.

With respect to the relationship between USIA and AID, Mr. Marks said that it is necessary to distinguish among the areas of the world where AID operates. For example, in Africa and parts of Asia, the literacy rates range as low as 5% to 15% of the population. Higher literacy rates generally prevail in Latin America. With minimum literacy, it is not possible to use the tools of books or pamphlets. One must rely more on films, television, and radio.

In Latin America, USIA has found that it could dramatize the work the United States is doing as a good neighbor under the Alliance for Progress most effectively through films.⁴ For example, USIA sponsored a series of 26 half-hour programs which it produced in Mexico in Spanish to tell the story of the Alliance for Progress. The program is called Nuestro Barrio, set in a typical working class neighborhood of a large unnamed Latin American city. Its format consists of a series of dramatic episodes involving various people whose lives are in some way affected by the barrio. In the barrio are poor but honest workers, and displaced campesinos⁵ bewildered by the big city and its ways. The stories depict good and bad persons, young doctors, teachers, students, and trade unionists, and within this framework the characters face and solve a wide range of socio-economic problems, each of which illustrates some goal of the Alliance for Progress. By applying the principles of the Alliance, the people of the barrio learn the value of self-help, the need to educate illiterates, the benefits of free labor unions, etc.⁶ The program has acquired a remarkably faithful audience throughout the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America.

This illustrates the point that USIA uses all of the tools available; in cases of highly illiterate populations the drama of film is employed, whereas for college students pamphlets, seminars, and books are used. The cartoon book, the picture story, is a very effective tool, particularly in Latin America where, since 1961, USIA has printed about 15 million comic books which are distributed throughout this area.

In response to a question by Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Marks said that since the beginning of the book program in 1950, USIA has published 122 million copies of 13,000 book titles. This runs at the rate of about 5 to 6 million copies a year. Mr. Rockefeller asked if this included Vietnam, which, he learned during a recent visit to Saigon, was receiving approximately 14 million copies a year. Mr. Marks said that the book publication program in Vietnam is run by AID, not USIA. The two agencies work closely together, but there is no real overlap.

Dr. Perkins asked Mr. Marks to deal with the role USIA plays with respect to other U.S. Government agencies. Mr. Marks said that a number of years ago, in order to avoid duplication of effort, USIA was given the role of information officer for all foreign service activities for all government agencies dealing in overseas work. With the single exception of the military, USIA is the information arm of the entire U.S. Government overseas. If the Department of Agriculture or AID has a particular publication or program which it wishes to publicize abroad, it provides the material to USIA which tells the story. In some countries, where the AID program is substantial, USIA has full-time officers devoted to nothing but AID work. The best illustration of cooperation comes in Vietnam where AID, State Department, Department of Defense and USIA work together in a Joint United States Public Affairs Office. Through a coordinated effort, all of the information work is being carried on by that office. USIA has 100 Americans assigned to Vietnam.

Dr. Perkins asked Mr. Marks to describe how USIA will work with the new educational officers from HEW, and also how it works with the activities of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in the State Department and with the educational activities of AID. Mr. Marks said that this coordination is somewhat baffling. The International Education Act⁷ provides for the establishment of education officers in American Embassies overseas, whose role will be to work with the universities in counselling students and to work with the university administrations in creating curricula. This will be essentially at the university level, although in some countries it may involve the secondary school level as well. The educational officer will be an employee of the Department of State and will work for and report to the Ambassador; he will cooperate with the cultural affairs officer who is a USIA employee. He will work with the information officer, who also is a USIA employee. His role will not be to disseminate information and to deal with the public; he will deal primarily with the university element. He will have the normal liaison with all education activities, but will be on the payroll of the State Department and report to the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Mr. Ryan noted that this proposal is still in the planning stage. It provides for recruitment of these officers by HEW and placement as State Department reserve officers. They are supposed to have a coordinating function for all educational activities, including AID, USIA, and the State Department, and they also will have a coordinating relationship with the science attache at the Embassy. It will not be an operating program, but will be an advisory type of activity.

The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in the State Department arranges for private U.S. citizens to travel abroad as representatives of the U.S., sponsored by the Department of State. When they arrive in a foreign country, they are taken over by USIA which schedules and sets up the program for them in that country. This is an arrangement that has been underway since 1953 on a cooperative basis.

With respect to AID, USIA handles all of the information for publicizing AID projects. It receives the information from AID and publicizes it through the various media. Dr. Perkins asked how USIA handles the distribution of textbooks, which he noted seems to go somewhat beyond the dissemination of information. Mr. Ryan explained that USIA distributes and publishes textbooks in many countries on behalf of AID. In some countries, where there is a surplus of local currency, USIA handles the production and distribution of textbooks largely because it was the only U.S. agency involved in those countries when the original agreements were signed. In other countries, where there is no AID program, but where there is a textbook program, USIA also is the operating agency. In general, however, textbook programs in support of developmental projects are funded through AID and are part of the related AID project. That is why USIA is not involved, except in India and two or three other places, in the textbook program below the university level. In other countries, USIA is in the textbook business for university textbooks in the ideological field in support of changing attitudes toward political development, which is a USIA function.

Mr. Zellerbach asked how the activities of AID were publicized within the United States. Mr. Marks said that AID itself handles any public information in the United States because the USIA is restricted by legislation to overseas activities.⁸ This reflects, he said, part of the concept that USIA is primarily a propaganda agency and that people in the United States do not need to know what it is doing. Mr. Gaud said that AID has only a relatively few people who work on public information; there are less than 40 people in its central information staff and about 10 to 15 on separate staffs set up for the Alliance for Progress and Vietnam. He noted that until several years ago, the legislation governing administration of the foreign assistance program included the Dworshak Amendment, which prohibited the expenditure of funds in the United States to publicize the activities of the AID program.⁹ This amendment no longer applies, but AID has gone very gingerly in this direction. There are those who feel AID should build up a larger organization for publicizing what it does, he said, but it has not done this as a matter of policy. Dr. Perkins noted that this is a reflection of the fact that AID is an agency with no domestic roots; if the Department of Agriculture, for example, wished to go into this area, it could do so without inhibition because it supposedly is part of the domestic interest of the United States. However, if AID were to undertake something similar it would be regarded as propagandizing.

Mr. Linowitz said that it was his impression that the USIA responsibility consists not only of explaining and trying to get support for U.S. policy overseas, but also reporting back to the President and senior government officials on the implications of foreign opinion with respect to U.S. policies and programs. He noted that this has become increasingly important with respect to Vietnam, and asked how this portion of USIA’s responsibility is carried out. Mr. Marks said that he sits as a member of the National Security Council and has the responsibility to report whenever the Council considers projects involving any aspects of foreign opinion. He said he operates according to the principle that the U.S. should do what is best for the United States, not what is best for foreign opinion. Foreign opinion is taken into consideration, but the decision must be what is in the true interest of the United States. Consistent with that responsibility, he said, USIA analyzes the foreign press comment and reports from field officers on communist activities. They take into account the local mores and the sensitivities of populations to particular activities of the United States. This advisory function also is carried on through direct relationships with the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Agriculture. The USIA Research Service constantly studies developments taking place in individual countries; when there is something relevant to agriculture, defense, or any other government agency dealing in the given country, it is reported to the agency concerned.

Mr. Linowitz referred to the recent uprisings at universities in Argentina¹⁰ and asked if USIA personnel had appraised this situation and notified the State Department and other concerned agencies of how it interpreted these events in terms of what U.S. policies might be. Mr. Marks said that this is exactly what takes place constantly. The representatives of the interested agencies meet regularly at the desk officer level on developments in any individual country. Then on the regional level, the Assistant Secretaries of the interested departments will work together on a particular policy. Beyond that, the Secretary of State and they might meet, or the problem might be taken up in the Senior Interdepartmental Group,¹¹ of which Mr. Gaud also is a member.¹² The Senior Interdepartmental Group discusses problems affecting overseas activities and eventually may refer certain matters to the National Security Council. Mr. Gaud pointed out that the daily contact between the representatives of the two agencies was even more frequent in field operations.

Dr. Perkins asked whether or not aid to a country might not be modified or reduced if it is learned that nothing about it is going to be publicized. Mr. Marks said this decision is made by the Administrator of AID; he said it is his job to inform the Administrator of the facts and let him take them into consideration in reaching his overall judgment. It would be the decision of the Administrator as to whether economic aid has a greater value in terms of relationships between the U.S. and the given country than the particular parochial problems with which USIA might be concerned.

Mr. Linowitz noted that the USIA statute requires that CIA be kept advised of its activities; he asked if USIA knows what CIA is doing? Mr. Marks replied that USIA receives reports on intelligence matters from CIA and that both agencies sit on the National Security Council. Estimates made by CIA are made available to him, he said, although USIA does not work with CIA on any operational matters.

Professor Mason said that the Committee had been discussing the justification for the AID program, and asked what line USIA takes in dealing with this question. Mr. Marks said that there is no general line established—that each particular AID project must be tailormade. The project must be related to the country’s economy and to its development. He said it would not be very useful to talk in Latin America about the overall U.S. aid objectives in Southeast Asia. Thus, USIA does not attempt in a general way to explain an AID philosophy, but it does deal with this question country by country and project by project.

Mr. Marks thanked Mr. Zellerbach for the report he had written on his trip to Brazil¹³ and said that he agreed with his recommendation that the communications program there be increased. He said that he intended to stress before the Congressional Appropriations Committee the importance of Latin America in the overall USIA program. That is one area where USIA must strengthen its resources. The Alliance for Progress is probably one of the single most important programs that AID has, and as far as Brazil is concerned, he said he intends to make a detailed study now that he has Mr. Zellerbach’s report in hand. He said he plans to increase the overall information program, particularly binational centers and the placement of films for television in Latin America. There is no need at present for increasing the VOA which has been tremendously successful in Latin America.

Mr. Black asked what connection USIA has with Franklin Publications. Mr. Ryan explained that USIA had a contract with this firm in the Middle East and also has worked closely with it in getting books for India. In Latin America, Franklin Publications operated without any funding from USIA. Franklin Publications is an independent non-profit corporation which has underwritten the publication of low cost American books in many of the developing areas. The corporation has received money from AID and USIA to provide incentives for local translations and circulation of low priced books on a subsidized basis.

Mr. Hewlett noted that as the AID program moves more toward self-help, it involves putting pressure on the recipient government to make certain changes. This results sometimes in resentment against the United States; what is the USIA mechanism for countering this? Mr. Marks said there is no magic answer, but it requires a detailed, painstaking effort on the part of individual officers. He cited two examples to make this point. The Public Affairs Officer (PAO) in London received an inquiry from the editor of the East Anglican Daily Times. In an editorial, the editor had said, “Red China has frequently advocated the use of force to extend Communist ideology”. This statement was challenged by a prominent local Communist, and the editor wrote to the PAO requesting assistance in responding to the letter. The PAO supplied him with material and a few weeks later received a letter from the editor saying, “You can mark off one more disillusioned Communist in Suffolk.”

The second example concerned a man who became a regular library user in Africa and participated in seminars organized there. Eventually, USIA received a letter from him saying that before he first entered the USIA library he was a member of the Communist party, but with a curiosity about the other way of life. Over a period of time, after he had read books taken from the USIA library, he had changed his mind. Mr. Marks said this was particularly important since this man was a member of his country’s parliament. Thus, in answer to Mr. Hewlett’s question, this problem can be met only on a person to person basis with editors, opinion makers, and those who are vocal in articulating opposing viewpoints.

Professor Mason said he would like to place Mr. Hewlett’s question in a specific context. As a result of pressures from the United States and the World Bank, the Government of India has undertaken some important economic policy changes in the previous 6 or 7 months. This has resulted in tremendous political reaction in many quarters in India. He asked if this problem was subject to systematic consideration by USIA in India. Mr. Marks said that it definitely was, that the USIA personnel meet regularly on a Country Team basis with AID and Embassy personnel to plan strategy. This is the idea behind the concept of the Country Team. This type of problem must be handled on the basis of person to person relationships locally. In many cases, the Ambassador has to be the agent for carrying out Country Team strategy, advised and assisted by the local USIA representatives.

Dr. Perkins asked if there were any sign that the recipients of public information programs around the world are tiring of the overload of information and just do not wish to receive any more, as sometimes happens when an information system becomes too intense. Mr. Marks said he had seen no sign of this, though in individual instances there might be some. He said he recently felt the U.S. was doing too much on Vietnam in certain areas of the world. In general, however, there is no feeling that the U.S. is doing too much in the information field.

Dr. Perkins asked what reader indices USIA receives which it feels it can rely upon. Mr. Marks said USIA takes surveys of those who listen to its programs and read its publications, using professional polling organizations around the world. In some areas of the world this is meaningless because the responses cannot be equated with those received in highly developed societies. This type of information is also transmitted through reports from field officers who have day to day relationships with important audiences. Finally, it is obtained by analyzing mail; the VOA receives approximately 400,000 letters a year. When somebody takes the trouble to write a letter, and to post it, which in some countries is a major undertaking, it is an indication that they are gaining some benefit or want some information.

Mr. Linowitz asked Mr. Marks to suppose that the U.S. information program were starting from scratch today. Assuming that any governmental effort to present truth is subject to scepticism, simply because it has the stamp of government, would it be better to put all of the information programs under private auspices subsidized by government funds? Mr. Marks said absolutely not because a government operation must be completely overt. When USIA speaks, it is the Voice of America. It must be a government operation because that is the most impressive way to demonstrate what the government position is. When a news agency reports that the United States believes such and such, it doesn’t have the same effect; what is reported may or may not be true. However, when the government itself puts out a publication or says something, that is official and it has to be official.

Mr. Zellerbach asked if USIA could compete with the professionals to properly staff its needs. Mr. Marks said that it undoubtedly could. During the recent strike of the New York Herald Tribune, some of its leading writers came to USIA for jobs, and were delighted to find that their colleagues there were men of equal, if not higher, professional standing. These men do not come simply from Madison Avenue, but come from all over the United States. For example, some of the films produced by USIA are examples of professionalism at its greatest; he cited the film on President Kennedy, “Years of Lightning, Day of Drums,”¹⁴ in this connection.

In reply to a question by Mr. Hewlett, Mr. Marks said that USIA personnel are Foreign Service employees. He said some of them have left jobs earning $75,000 to $100,000 annually in commercial fields to work for 1/5 or ¼ of that. He cited, in this regard, John Chancellor, the head of the Voice of America.

In reply to a question by Mr. Linowitz, Mr. Marks said that USIA has no relationship with Radio Free Europe. Radio Free Europe is privately supported, and USIA knows what it does. Its efforts are directed to parts of the world in which USIA operates, but in a different way; it tells the people of Eastern Europe what is going on in their countries that they cannot learn from their own news sources. USIA tells them, instead, what is going on in the United States and in the rest of the world as it affects U.S. objectives. Thus, they complement one another, but do not have any direct association.

Dr. Perkins said that as a result of a series on the Central Intelligence Agency by the New York Times this summer,¹⁵ the question had arisen as to what government or private activities might in fact be receiving financing from the CIA. He asked if this had become a problem. Mr. Marks said the question had not come to him directly, but that the criticism of CIA hurts to the extent that there is an undermining of confidence in any governmental agency. However, he said the question of how far the CIA might be a financial source behind a variety of governmental and private activities has not hurt USIA. Professor Mason said that when he was in India the previous June, part of the opposition to the proposed Indo-American Binational Foundation stemmed from a fear that the CIA would infiltrate through the Foundation.¹⁶ In fact, it was even suggested at that time that the Peace Corps may be infiltrated by the CIA, which reflects a general suspicion. Mr. Marks said this is simply a part of the battle which the Communists wage; indigenous Communist organizations in a country will always seize upon CIA to help defeat a project they do not like. Ambassador Bowles had received the assurances of every important Minister of the Government of India that the Binational Foundation would be welcome, and the Government of India has been satisfied with the activities of the Ford Foundation in India. However, because of the political climate and because of the opposition of the Communists, a decision on the Binational Foundation could not be taken. Dr. Perkins said that he did not wish to imply that his information was very accurate by suggesting that the Communist opposition had torpedoed one proposal or another; however, Mr. Marks agreed that it helped to stimulate general opposition.

Dr. Perkins said he was impressed by Mr. Marks’ statement that U.S. propaganda, or rather the best propaganda, is to speak the truth. However, the problem of deciding which truth to select for dissemination must be relevant at some point and he asked if some specific cases could be cited to show how the directions to be taken in certain countries had been decided within the U.S. Government. Mr. Marks said that the head of the operations of the United States Government in any country is the Ambassador. He is head of the Country Team; everybody works for and receives his general direction from the Ambassador. The Country Team develops a Country Plan on what the United States’ objectives are in that country; this plan is not a rigid blueprint, but rather is flexible enough to change as U.S. interests require. The Ambassador, with the assistance of the Country Team, determines what U.S. objectives are in consultation with the Department of State and other agencies as required. However, policy for that country is carried out by the Ambassador on a day to day basis. The Ambassador is responsible for deciding what is important to the United States, which he does after consultation with his economic, political, military and information advisors. In Brazil, for example, there was a recent inquiry as to the ownership by non-Brazilian interests, of media such as Time, Life, and Readers’ Digest. Therefore, explaining to the Brazilian people that the participation of American business interests is vital and important and beneficial to them becomes an objective of the Country Plan. Once the objectives are determined, the Ambassador decides how to go about attaining them. This requires determination as to who the audience is and what might be the best vehicle for reaching that audience—AID, USIA, etc.

Mr. Marks said that he wishes to do more to create a climate where business can operate, where people of the individual countries realize that foreign investment has made a beneficial contribution to the development of their country, and that much can be achieved through cooperation in telling this story. It is not only a government effort, but wherever possible USIA tries to see that it is a private enterprise effort, working in tandem with the government. Mr. Rockefeller said that these efforts have been most helpful in Latin America and have worked very well. Mr. Marks said there are many things the government cannot do as well as private business, and vice versa, so it is determined who can do a certain thing best and that is how the program evolves.

Mr. Linowitz asked whether a problem was created by people trying to decide when they were being told the facts and when they were being influenced. Mr. Marks said this is not a major problem since all of life is a matter of marshalling facts to sell a product. Not all of the truth can be told, however, because in the whole complex of facts there is too much. Therefore, it is necessary to select the facts which are germane to the subject. In the process, many facts which are unfavorable will be told, because confidence cannot be gained if the material is not credible. He said that in his own practice of law, he would readily admit to the court any fact which is adverse to his client and then argue against it; that is what USIA does to the world. It tells the peoples of Latin America what the United States is doing, admits that there is a large financial investment by American business there, and then goes on to point out, however, that this is to the advantage of the people. He said that the selection of the facts presented in order to make sure that the impression is the one desired does not depreciate the full impact of being an agency which tells the whole truth.

Another example, also in Brazil, Mr. Marks continued, might involve AID assistance for the development of natural resources. USIA would take the facts showing how this would result in greater prosperity and a higher standard of living. This also would be directed toward an objective of the Country Plan, viz., to point out that the assistance being rendered by AID is in the national interest of Brazil. That then would become a major project of the USIA information program in Brazil which would be implemented through all of its media resources. These resources are selected individually, having in mind the audience which it is desired to persuade.

Mr. Zellerbach mentioned that in northeast Brazil there is only 20% literacy. How does USIA reach the vast majority of the people who live in the slums? Mr. Marks said that first USIA must decide whether it is important to reach these people; that is, the first job is to decide who USIA wishes to reach through its programs. In many countries, particularly in Africa, USIA may wish to reach only 5% of the population because public opinion in those countries means very little. The leaders themselves determine policy and so it is necessary to reach the leaders. He said that, nevertheless, a vast literacy program in northeast Brazil includes thousands of people, which will make them an audience for USIA tomorrow. Mr. Zellerbach asked how USIA reaches the group which will be important five years from now. Mr. Ryan said that in northeast Brazil USIA has put out 17 different cartoon books in Portuguese designed for the neo-literates. This is a great problem in all areas where literacy training programs are underway. It is easy to train people to read, but then there is not always reading material available for them. The cartoon book ties in the visual image in rather simple language so that they can keep up their reading skills. This is a general program throughout Latin America for the neo-literates.

At 12:25 the meeting was recessed for luncheon.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, Director’s Subject Files, 1963–1967, Entry UD WW 101, Box 1, Advisory Groups—General 1966. Limited Official Use. The meeting took place at the Department of State. There is no indication as to the time of the meeting. No drafting information appears on the minutes. The President’s General Advisory Committee on Foreign Assistance Programs (GAC) was established by Presidential Directive under authority granted by Public Law 88–206, dated December 16, 1963, to advise the President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, the Administrator of the Agency for International Development and other departments and agencies on issues of policy and on the implementation of foreign assistance programs. The GAC was convened for the first time on March 26, 1965. For additional information about the Advisory Committee, see Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, vol. IX, International Development and Economic Defense Policy; Commodities, Document 32.
2. See, for example, U.S.A. 1967, Appendix A.3.
3. On October 20, 1966, the Congress voted an appropriation of $169,328,000 for USIA for FY 67. This amount included $300,000 to assist binational foundations improve their facilities. [Footnote is in the original.]
4. See footnote 2, Document 68.
5. Campesinos is a Spanish term used to describe a farmer or rural resident from Latin America.
6. See Monthly Newsletter No. 15 dated September 1, 1966. [Footnote is in the original.]
7. See footnote 3, Document 89.
8. Reference is to the Smith-Mundt Act. See footnote 9, Document 32.
9. Reference is to the Mutual Security Act of 1951 (P.L. 165; 65 Stat. 373). For information, see Foreign Relations, 1951, vol. I, National Security Affairs; Foreign Economic Policy, Document 106. The Dworshak amendment, proposed by Senator Henry Dworshak (R-Idaho), was adopted as part of the Mutual Security Act of 1952 (P.L. 400; 66 Stat. 141). (See Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, vol. I, part 1, General: Economic and Political Matters, Document 147)
10. In September demonstrations and strikes by students erupted throughout Argentina in protest of the takeover of Argentina’s national universities by the administration of Lt. Gen. Juan Carlos Ongania. (“Students Strike In Argentina,” Washington Post, September 8, 1966, p. A3)
11. See Monthly Newsletter No. 12 dated June 1, 1966. [Footnote is in the original.]
12. The Senior Interdepartmental Group was established by NSAM 341. For text of NSAM 341, see Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, vol. XXXIII, Organization and Management of Foreign Policy; United Nations, Document 56.
13. See Memorandum to Committee Members No. 71, dated July 1, 1966. [Footnote is in the original.]
14. See footnote 4, Document 30.
15. Presumably a reference to a five-part series of articles about the CIA that appeared in the New York Times between April 25 and 29: Tom Wicker, John W. Finney, Max Frankel, and E. W. Kenworthy, “C.I.A.: Maker of Policy, or Tool?” April 25, 1966, p. 1; “How the C.I.A. Put ‘Instant Air Force’ Into Congo,” April 26, 1966, p. 1; “Electronic Prying Grows,” April 27, 1966, p. 1; “C.I.A. Operations: A Plot Scuttled,” April 28, 1966, p. 1; and “The C.I.A.: Qualities of Director Viewed as Chief Rein on Agency,” April 29, 1966, p. 1. During the same time period, the New York Times also published several articles discussing the issue of CIA funding to American universities in exchange for the universities providing cover for CIA activities overseas, specifically the case of Michigan State University providing such support to the CIA in Vietnam between 1955 and 1959. (Max Frankel, “University Project Cloaked C.I.A. Role In Saigon, 1955–59,” April 14, 1966, p. 1; “University Aides Explain C.I.A. Tie,” April 15, 1966, p. 11; Fred M. Hechinger, “Education: Lessons of the M.S.U. Affair,” April 24, 1966, p. E9)
16. See J. Anthony Lukas, “C.I.A. Disclosures May Damage Project for India Foundation,” New York Times, May 7, 1966, p. 5.