14. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs (Battle) to the President’s Special Assistant (Dungan)1
In your memorandum of April 6,2 you asked for some rough measures of the size of CU programs in Europe compared with other regions of the world.
I share your concern for the need to give emphasis to the underdeveloped and emerging areas. Ever since I came into this job I have periodically exhorted my people to plan with a critical eye toward regional priorities. Looking back at the program over the past several years I think one would have to conclude that it has in fact been responsive to shifts in regional importance. There is a very clear trend of diminishing emphasis on Western Europe and of increasing size of programs for Eastern Europe, Africa and Latin America, as you will see from the attached data. For example, ten years ago some 62 percent of our total exchange of persons funds were devoted to Europe—today only 21 percent.
What one could have differing opinions about, of course, is whether this trend is progressing fast enough, and I look forward to discussing this with you and Don Wilson.3 I must caution you, however, that the full story is not in the figures alone. If it were just a question of juggling the budget around to a better “profile”, the answer would be relatively simple. But in truth, there are several other factors involved in the case for maintaining Western Europe at about the present level. Among these—and not necessarily in the order of their importance—are:
1. The presence of very large numbers of foreign students in Western Europe, many of them from key African and other underdeveloped countries;
2. The fact that we have a foreign currency requirement to meet in the program and these currencies are largely available in Europe—practically none are available in Africa and few in Latin America;
3. Domestic political considerations which cannot be ignored—Senator Fulbright and other key Congressional figures are reluctant to see Western Europe cut, though they want larger programs for the other areas;
[Page 37]4. The existence of Fulbright agreements with most Western European countries which embody commitments to certain levels of programs;
5. The fairly good chance of working out cost-sharing arrangements with Western European countries;
6. The intellectual ferment existing in Western Europe at the present time;
7. The recommendation in the report to Congress last year by the Advisory Commission on Educational and Cultural Affairs4—a group careful not to toss its opinions around lightly—against reducing the European program.
You can see that this is not an easy problem and that it is necessary to go beyond the surface statistics in any serious discussion of it. I hope the attached materials will be helpful to you and to Don Wilson to whom I am sending a copy. They include:
Tab A. Distribution of funds and grants for Exchange of Persons activities by geographic regions, for fiscal years 1962 through 1965 proposed program.5
Tab B. A statement with respect to the Exchange of Persons program in Europe.6
Tab C. A statement with respect to the Exchange of Persons program in Latin America.7
Tab D. A comparison under our Cultural Presentations program of the numbers, types and estimated cost of the various groups being sent to Europe and Latin America in fiscal years 1961 through 1965 proposed.8
- Source: National Archives, RG 306, DIRCTR Subj. Files, 1963–69, Bx 6–29 63–69: Acc: #72A5121, Entry UD WW 257, Box 16, Government Agencies—State. No classification marking. A copy was sent to Wilson, which is the copy printed here. Wilson initialed the memorandum indicating he saw it.↩
- Not found.↩
- Wilson underlined “you and Don Wilson.”↩
- The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, commonly known as the Fulbright-Hays Act (P.L. 87–256), established the U.S. Advisory Commission, which advised the Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and was responsible for improving and strengthening U.S. international relations through educational and cultural exchange. In 1977, the Commission merged with the U.S. Advisory Commission on Information to form the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.↩
- Attached but not printed is an undated report, entitled “Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Activities,” which was presumably prepared in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.↩
- Attached but not printed is an undated report, entitled “Exchange of Persons Program in Western Europe,” which was presumably prepared in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.↩
- Attached but not printed is an undated report, entitled “Exchange of Persons Program in Latin America,” which was presumably prepared in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.↩
- Attached but not printed is an undated report, entitled “Cultural Presentations Program, Western Europe—Latin America, Fiscal Years 1961–1966, By Type of Attraction,” which was presumably prepared in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.↩
- Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩