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

156. Memorandum From Secretary of State Rusk to President Johnson¹

Washington, July 10, 1967

SUBJECT

• Committee on Overseas Voluntary Activities (COVA)

This is a preliminary report on the work of the Committee you appointed to consider the Katzenbach-Helms-Gardner recommendation “that the Government should promptly develop and establish a public-private mechanism to provide public funds openly for overseas activities of organizations which are adjudged deserving, in the national interest, of public support.” Our work to date includes—

—two meetings of the full Committee² (see attendance list attached)³

—three other meetings of panels of the Committee⁴

—consultations with 90 knowledgeable individuals, representatives of voluntary organizations, and Government officials by members of the Committee and staff.

The full Committee has not yet definitively expressed its views. But on the basis of discussions to date, my assessment of what may emerge as recommendations to you is summarized below.

1. We believe that the Committee’s concern should not be limited to the so-called CIA orphans.⁵ We have examined the work of the three dozen voluntary organizations formerly funded by CIA (annual cost of about $15 million) and found some excellent work which deserved support. We have also become aware of a much larger number (100–150) of private voluntary organizations doing similar worthy work overseas.

2. The most interesting activities of voluntary organizations involve institution building—helping to build overseas the kind of local communities and private groups necessary to free and economically successful societies. Private organizations have played an important, and perhaps underestimated, role in our own national development. They can be even more important in a number of developing countries. The kinds of private organizations we are thinking about include: rural cooperatives; adult literacy and family planning groups; labor groups; youth and student organizations; credit unions and locally-run savings and loan associations; businessmen’s organizations; and women’s organizations.

Since U.S. private organizations can work directly with like-minded groups in other countries without having to go through official government channels, they can often run experimental projects which deal with sensitive activities—like fostering political literacy and birth control, changing outmoded economic practices, and developing civic attitudes. A few agencies, primarily AID and State, already contract with some private organizations for specific projects programmed by the agencies. However, it appears that we lose a great deal by not supporting work which the organizations themselves initiate through their own channels.

3. Our examination indicates that the private organizations can make small grants go a long way (most CIA grants were less than $250,000). Thus, a reasonable annual program might run $20–30 million.

4. While we cannot be definitive at this point (only Congressman Mahon of the eight congressional members has taken an active part in the Committee’s work), we believe that there could be significant political and congressional support for the kind of initiative that reaches people and private groups in other countries through U.S. private organizations, many of which have large and influential memberships.

5. Organizationally, there would be substantial advantage to separating such grant-making from existing agencies and foreign policy considerations and placing it in a bipartisan Commission of distinguished private citizens. This would emphasize the private nature of the activities and permit support of more sensitive and experimental activities. We envision a Commission whose members and chairman would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with a staff of about 300. It would derive most of its funds by appropriation and some from private donations, although the latter would probably not be large.

6. We are also exploring transfer to such a commission of certain existing academic and cultural exchange programs. Senator Fulbright believes that such a shift would benefit the exchange programs. This alternative would involve transfer of about $60 million from existing agency budgets (primarily State), in addition to the $20–30 million of new funds for “institution building.”

I would be happy to discuss the matter with you if you believe it would be helpful, and I will in any event keep you informed of further developments in the Committee. We are proceeding to develop a final report to you and a draft bill to embody our recommendations.

Dean Rusk

1. Source: Johnson Library, White House Central Files, Confidential File, Oversized Attachments, Box 192 [1 of 2], Oversized Attachment 12/2/68, Packet #1 [Cater 2/67–10/67 Material re U.S. Government and Private Voluntary Organizations Committee on Voluntary Overseas Activities (COVA), also the Rusk Committee]. Limited Official Use. Cater sent the memorandum to Johnson under a July 11 note in which Cater stated: “Rusk indicates that the Committee is seriously considering a recommendation for a new semi-private Commission to assist voluntary organizations which are doing important work abroad.” Cater explained that Rusk had suggested that Johnson meet with Rusk before a third meeting of the Committee. Cater, at the conclusion of the note, wrote: “See Rusk?” Johnson approved the recommendation and added: “get Walt [Rostow] to put on agenda for regular Tuesday lunch. L.” No record of a discussion of this issue at a regular Tuesday White House lunch was found.
2. A meeting of the Committee on Public Funding of Overseas Activities of American Voluntary Organizations took place on May 6, but it is unclear if this was the first or second such meeting. The agenda and minutes of the May 6 meeting are in the National Archives, RG 59, Executive Secretariat, Records of Nicholas Katzenbach, Lot 74D271, Box 3, CIA-Rusk Committee.
3. Attached but not printed is an undated list entitled “Membership of Committee on Overseas Voluntary Activities.”
4. No record of any of the three meetings was found.
5. Reference is to what Time, in its May 19 issue, called “the orphans”. “In current capital usage, the orphans are the nearly 100 private agencies that had been getting CIA money and were left high and dry by the White House order that all such undercover support must cease—preferably by year’s end.” (“How to Care for the CIA Orphans,” Time, May 19, 1967, pp. 42–43)