115. Editorial Note
On November 28, 1966, United States Information Agency (USIA) Director Leonard Marks sent a memorandum to all USIA Assistant Area Directors with a request for answers to the following questions for 1967 planning purposes:
“1. Which countries in your area are likely to be the principal focus of U.S. attention in 1967?
2. Which issues in your area will cause the greatest concern for USIS during the coming year?
3. Based upon the foregoing, do you feel that you have adequate staff to meet these problems?” (National Archives, RG 306, Director’s Subject Files, 1963–1967, Entry UD WW 101, Box 2, Field—Africa—1966)
In response to Mark’s memorandum, Area Directors weighed in with their key priorities and concerns.
According to a December 29 response from Assistant Director, Europe, William Weld, Jr., “the greatest concern” for IAE in the coming year and “for USIS in Western Europe will be maintaining European confidence in U.S. leadership.” Weld stressed that although IAE had enough American positions, “we do not have enough qualified people to fill the positions.” He also noted: “Experience has shown us that not all USIS officers who have been highly successful in other areas of the world find the European climate congenial.” (Ibid.)
[Page 355]Assistant Director, Africa, Mark B. Lewis, highlighted IAA’s greatest concerns in a memorandum to Marks on December 28, stating that: “U.S. (and Western) credibility on such questions as decolonization, self-determination and race emerging from the problems of Southern Africa and extending—emotionally—throughout the continent. All of this—decolonization, self-determination and race—gets mixed up and confused with communism and anti-communism. How the U.S. stands, votes, acts and looks on these issues in the southern sixth of Africa will be a matter of great concern to USIS.” Another issue, Lewis wrote, was “continuing public explanation and interpretation of the Shift of Emphasis of U.S. Assistance Programs in Africa e.g. bilateral assistance will be completed in many countries and there will be a shift toward concentrating aid in a few countries.” (Ibid.)
In a December 12 memorandum, Assistant Director, Latin America, Kermit Brown, stated that two of the key issues IAL identified as “looming largest on the horizon for 1967” were:
“a. Negotiations with Panama over the Canal and military bases.
“b. The Summit Meeting and follow-up.
“c. Inter-American Meetings on (1) revision of the OAS Charter and (2) annual review of the Alliance for Progress by the OAS.
“d. Perennial political instability of Latin American governments.”
IAL further emphasized that the main problem regarding personnel issues was “the gradual deterioration of quality of our personnel caused mainly by the Viet Nam drain.” (Ibid.)
Assistant Director, East Asia and Pacific, Daniel Oleksiw, noted in a December 7 memorandum that IAF saw “no major shifts in the East Asia and Pacific area which would change the current focus of U.S. concern.” According to Oleksiw, the “war in Viet-Nam is expected to continue through 1967 in no less an intensive manner than at present” and the “major issue of concern will continue to be combating communist insurgency in Viet-Nam, Thailand and Laos and making the dangers of ‘wars of national liberation’ known to other countries of the area, especially Japan.” (Ibid.)
Assistant Director, Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, R.T. Davies noted in his December 6 memorandum to Marks: “For obvious reasons, the USSR will continue to be the principal focus of U.S. attention in 1967,” but IAS “may also become involved in a good deal of additional activity regarding Poland.” “Beyond that,” he stated, “our principal concerns will revolve around maintaining our activities in Eastern Europe at their present level and, if possible, expanding them in Poland and by small increments elsewhere.” (Ibid.)
Finally, Assistant Director, Middle East, Alan Carter, listed as his “probable” issues of greatest concern: “food aid and population explosion,” “polarization of Arab World,” “military assistance and arms aid [Page 356] (particularly in the Middle East),” “Vietnam war,” “disengagement from overly close association with U.S. policies (particularly Turkey and Iran),” “mixed economy versus socialism in terms of development,” and “industrialization versus agricultural development.” (Ibid.)