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

116. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs (Frankel) to the President’s Special Assistant (Cater)¹

Washington, November 30, 1966

SUBJECT

• Letter from a USIA Foreign Service Career Reserve Officer

The anonymous letter from the USIA officer² which you sent me raises a number of important issues. I have been intending to give you my own thoughts on long-range reorganization matters independently of this. But let me respond to each of his recommendations first.

1. A transfer of the purely academic elements in the exchange programs from State to the new Center for Educational Cooperation, HEW.

This is in principle a desirable move, which I have already explored quietly with Secretaries Rusk, Gardner and Niller, and which has received a sympathetic hearing from them. It requires, however, careful coordination by State, since the overseas administration of the exchange program, which is handled mainly by binational commissions, requires careful diplomatic liaison. CU in State should remain in charge of this overseas representational job, since there can be only one Secretary of State. In principle, appropriations could go to the new Center, and that part of the appropriation to be spent by binational commissions abroad could be reallocated to State acting as the overseas agent. Such a procedure is workable, and would be superior to the present arrangement educationally, financially and politically. I have already laid the groundwork for such an eventual move by beginning a reorganization in my own Bureau, but must naturally move slowly until such an arrangement is financially approved.

2. A shift of the overseas administration of the “non-academic” programs for foreign leaders and for cultural presentations to USIA.

This, to my mind, would be undesirable. The exchange of foreign leaders, even when it has political purposes as it often does and should, should not be overtly a public relations operation. Its context and atmosphere should be long-range, and should be geared to the broad goals of better mutual understanding rather than to the immediate informational objectives. Cultural Affairs Officers are better able to manage such operations than Information Officers, and, in any case, decisions about foreign leaders are normally made by the entire “country team” in an embassy under the leadership of the Ambassador.

With regard to cultural presentations, the present situation is not a good one, but USIA, in view of the various Congressional pressures upon it, and also in view of its own outlook and primary mission is not the agency to handle cultural presentations. The ideal arrangement, to my mind, would be to create a council which brings together State, the National Council on the Arts,³ the Smithsonian and the Humanities Endowment.⁴ Overseas operations are, at present, handled by USIA Cultural Affairs Officers. In the future, the CAO could handle these as part of a coordinated educational and cultural program overseas. Precisely because Information Officers have, as the writer says, “an overtly political function”, they should not be in charge overseas of cultural presentations.

The above reorganization would help greatly to insulate cultural presentations from the pressures which now prevent this program from being as important as it should be. It would, in the American style, approximate the advantages gained by the British Council.⁵ Once again, I have explored these matters with Messrs. Ripley, Stevens and Keaney, and I now have in my shop a Special Assistant already working on the coordination of the resources in the federal “arts community” so that we can put our best foot forward overseas using all available operations.

3. Elimination of CAO slots from USIA, conversion of CAOs to HEW employees, and broadening the base of recruitment.

The writer is absolutely correct in his view that the present situation of the CAO within USIA, and under a PAO, is extremely bad. Based on my own interviews and talks with CAOs, I believe he speaks for the overwhelming majority of CAOs in the field. The CAO should be an independent officer in embassies, and not under the PAO from USIA.

I do not agree, however, that the CAO should be an “HEW employee.” If he is to be effective, he must be a full member of the Embassy team, and this means he should be a Department of State officer. However, I do think it desirable that the pattern we have established with regard to Education Officers be followed with CAOs—namely, that recruitment be a joint State-HEW venture, that criteria for selection be jointly established, and that the CAO have an opportunity to work in HEW (particularly in the Center for Educational Cooperation) on appropriate occasions when he is on duty in the United States. It may also be desirable that funds for the CAO be provided from HEW budgets, but this is something that I do not think BOB is likely to accept, and does not seem to me fundamental.

4. Maintenance of AID technical assistance and vocational programs under USOM chiefs.

From a purely administrative point of view, this is probably necessary and desirable. However, it is not the case that “AID technical assistance and vocational programs” can be insulated from other educational activities, or that they do not in themselves involve fundamental problems of cultural relations and cultural understanding. The difficulties now encountered by these programs are due in large part to the narrow conception that underlies them and to the comparatively narrow and limited outlook and background of the Americans overseas responsible for them. For this reason, an officer is needed in embassies who can coordinate these programs with other educational and exchange activities within the embassy, who can reach the powerful people at the top of the educational pyramid in the host country, and who can develop guidelines that all the agencies with an educational mission can follow. This is the primary and indispensable function of our proposed Education Officer.

Similarly in Washington an instrument of coordination is needed to develop such broad guidelines for our foreign activities. With back-stopping from the new Center for Educational Cooperation, this should be the primary function of CU in State. We have already begun to operate in this manner, but much more needs to be done. The proposed reorganization within CU would carry us farther down the road. So would the proposed Executive Order⁶ which has been prepared, and which has been approved not only by State but by all other agencies (AID, USIA, Peace Corps, HEW, etc.) that are now members of the federal Interagency Council on International Educational and Cultural Affairs. However, at the moment, BOB seems disinclined to issue this order despite the universal support for it.

5. Retention of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in State, etc.

I believe my answers to the above questions indicate my view of the role of CU. It includes what the writer says, but also the very important functions of diplomatic representation overseas, management of the exchange programs, and coordination.

This, I believe, covers most of the items raised in the letter. I would add only that I do not view the projected Education Officer position as replaceable across the board by a CAO, even if the CAO, as is desirable, becomes a full State Department officer reporting through the Ambassador. Assuming that international education is to be a primary thrust in our foreign policy, and assuming that administrative responsibilities for it will be shared among various agencies, someone is needed on the spot to orchestrate the operation. The CAO will have special and important duties of his own, and could not also perform this coordinating function where our educational operations are large and varied. However, if there were a change in the CAO’s status, we would probably need Education Officers only in our largest missions—at a guess 30. In the smaller missions the CAO could well perform both functions.

The views I have described above, and particularly those related to the CAO, have been discussed with the Secretary of State, who supports them. There is also considerable support, indeed pressure, from people like Ambassador Bruce, George Allen, and others. This, as you know, is a sensitive bureaucratic matter, but I think the time has come to take some action with regard to it. I shall discuss this with you.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Files, Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs Subject Files, 1965–1966, Lot 69D260, Entry UD UP 175, 1966—U.S. Government: White House. Personal and Confidential. “No distribution” is written in an unknown hand at the top of the first page of the memorandum. Printed from an uninitialed and unsigned copy.
2. A copy of the anonymous letter that Cater sent to Frankel under a November 28 covering note is in the National Archives, RG 59, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Files, Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs Subject Files, 1965–1966, Lot 69D260, Entry UD UP 175, 1966—U.S. Government: White House. For information on USIA Foreign Reserve Officers, see Document 30 and footnote 2 thereto.
3. The National Arts and Cultural Development Act of 1964 established the National Council on the Arts. It advises the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts on agency policies and programs.
4. Congress established the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1965 as an independent agency of the Federal government.
5. The British Council was founded in 1934 as an executive non-department public body that receives United Kingdom Government grants, but does not operate on behalf of the government. According to its founding charter, its mission is “promoting abroad a wider appreciation of British culture and civilization.”
6. Not found.