145. Memorandum From the Chairman of the NSC Under Secretaries Committee (Irwin) to President Nixon1
SUBJECT
- Study of International Exchange
In response to your directive as conveyed in Dr. Kissinger’s memorandum of November 13, 1970,2 this report3 (a) reviews U.S. exchange programs and, (b) analyzes ways to maximize:
(1) the effectiveness of programs in building broad continuing relationships, both public and private, with leadership structures in other countries, and
(2) the contributions of these programs to leadership development.
The study was based on the review of about 300 programs and projects carried out by eighteen U.S. Government agencies; the activities of five categories of private exchange; and a survey of two multinational corporations. A data bank containing the characteristics of 55,000 persons exchanged in fiscal years 1968 and 1970 was established.
[Page 374]That portion of the study dealing with foreign student programs in the U.S. has been undertaken separately by the Interagency Youth Committee.4
There follows a summary of the report and recommendations:
I. REVIEW OF PRESENT PROGRAMS
A. There is presently no overall consideration of our exchange programs. These 300 exchange programs and projects are conceived and managed separately by eighteen agencies.
B. Total annual cost of Government exchange programs (including AID, State, Defense, Peace Corps, HEW, National Science Foundation, Department of Agriculture, AEC and others) is about $500 million.
C. Country emphasis varies with little or no relationship to overall foreign relations criteria.
D. Country exchange programs vary widely in the professional groups they engage, and give minimal attention to political consequences.
E. Follow-up activities with exchanges are generally inadequate. Most agencies suffer from some lack of information about past program participants.
F. There is some duplication among programs. There is also omission and underrepresentation of some significant groups in the total U.S. exchange effort.
G. Private sector programs (e.g. voluntary organizations, educational institutions and corporations) constitute a large proportion of total U.S. exchange activity. Public and private sector programs would mutually benefit from even a modest degree of increased cooperation and even a rudimentary system for the exchange of information.
II. REVIEW OF LEADERSHIP DIMENSION
A. Current exchange activity is programmed to achieve specific agency objectives. Concern for a leadership dimension is most evident in the programs of Defense and State.
B. U.S. missions are capable of identifying and ranking the major groupings and institutions from which leaders come.
C. It is possible to focus programs on the institutional structures that produce and influence leaders.
D. Better coordination, planning, review and analysis in the overseas missions, supported by a Washington interdepartmental review [Page 375] mechanism, could significantly enhance the leadership dimension of many exchange programs.
III. CONCLUSIONS
A. Present U.S. Government exchange programs provide ample scope to achieve U.S. objectives, including an increase in emphasis on leadership.
B. Relatively modest additional resources may be warranted for exchanges with a high potential to influence leaders.
C. Within existing U.S. exchange objectives, and for an increased leadership dimension, the scope of present authorizing legislation appears to be basically adequate.
D. Present systems are inadequate to provide the needed degree of coordination, planning, review and analysis of U.S. exchange activity, with or without an increased leadership dimension.
E. There is a vital need for the centralized data gathering and analysis of information on U.S. programs in order to:
(1) identify and review the government-wide distribution of program resources and evaluate program results;
(2) eliminate overlap and inefficiencies in programs;
(3) reexamine and periodically review country and professional group emphasis in the context of current U.S. foreign policy interests.
F. Dissents:
(1) Department of Defense (Attached):5
The memorandum from the Deputy Secretary of Defense raises a large number of points that basically advance two notions: (1) the lack of individual treatment and analysis of Defense programs leads to erroneous and unsubstantiated conclusions and, (2) the need for a new coordination mechanism has not been established, and a proper review of Defense programs would lead to different conclusions.
Comment:
The report provides a synthesis of a substantial volume of supporting materials and studies covering the programs of 18 agencies (see pp. 51–53); brevity precludes lengthy treatment of each agency’s individual programs. Also, it was not the purpose of this study to weigh the relative merits of the various programs.
To eliminate Government-wide overlaps and inefficiencies, the supporting studies evidence a need for improved coordination (i) between Washington and the field, and (ii) between the agencies themselves. Only a central entity can effectively respond to the need for [Page 376] organized and standardized periodic program planning, review and analysis.
The study recommends only increased and centralized coordination, planning, review, and analysis. What is suggested is intended to complement—not interfere with—individual agency responsibilities.
In particular, the relationship of military assistance training to the national security of the United States requires that decisions such as which countries receive training in what amounts, the types of training required and priorities for such training continue to be made by the Departments of State and Defense acting together for the total political/military interests of the United States. However, coordination of military assistance training with other Government-wide exchange programs is needed for general information, advice, evaluation and planning purposes.
(2) Agency for International Development (Attached):6
The reply from the Deputy Administrator of AID expresses concern about (1) the scope of the leadership definition in relation to his Agency’s program, (2) the misleading inferences that arise from the use of statistical data and (3) his belief that the coordination function can best be achieved by placing it outside the National Security Council decision-making system. AID, however, favors the objectives of more complete data-gathering and information analysis capacity, better programs, improved policy guidance and a means to provide these elements.
Comment:
While we believe that the definition of leadership used in this study provides a reasonable analytical tool, the matter of the scope of the definition of leadership should be an early agenda item for any coordinating body. The point raised about the use of data would be valid if this were the only method of analysis used to develop study material. However, it would have required too extensive a volume to have dealt with the material developed in over 300 interviews. A statistical presentation was the most reasonable way to present the complex material in a succinct manner. A coordinating group with a supporting staff would have the capacity to develop the individual program issues and make decisions in a more finite manner. The concern about the relationship of sensitive exchange programs to the National Security System is also the concern of HEW, Peace Corps, and OST for the science community, and leads all of them to choose Option D which would place authority for coordination in the Secretary of State, rather than in an Interagency Group.
[Page 377]IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1:
To achieve maximum benefit to the United States from its exchange programs, steps should be taken to assure more effective coordination, planning, review, and analysis of the total effort.7
Recommendation 2:
The United States should place selective increased emphasis on influencing foreign leadership through the use of exchange programs.
Recommendation 3:
The study report also concludes that State’s academic exchange program and the educational training programs of AID need further analysis, sharper definition and perhaps joint management. The Department of State in conjunction with the Agency for International Development will undertake this review which will be completed by January 1, 1972.
Recommendation 4:
The responsibility for coordination, planning, review and analysis of U.S. exchange programs can be assigned to:
(A) each agency individually; or
(B) an existing coordinating organization; or
(C) a full or part-time Special Assistant to the President; or
(D) the Secretary of State; or
(E) a new coordinating organization, an NSC Inter-departmental Exchange Group reporting to the Under Secretaries Committee
(Analysis of options pp. 37–42)
The difficulty with option A is that no single agency has sufficient information or point of view to carry out its programs in reasonable relationship to those of the eighteen other agencies. There is no present interagency body with sufficient scope or relationship to a decision-making system to make option B a practical alternative. A Special Assistant to the President as suggested in option C adds an additional organizational layer which will tend to confuse regular lines of agency authority and is best reserved for those Governmental functions that do not fit within present agency structures. With respect to the recommended options D and E, the agencies differ on the degree to which their exchangees would be sensitive to any political overtones in a coordinating and planning mechanism. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Agency for International Development, the [Page 378] Office of Science and Technology for the science agencies, and the Peace Corps (now ACTION) would favor placing the authorities in the Secretary of State where they believe such overtones would be less than in the NSC system: The Department of State favors option E because the coordinating mechanism would be related to a regular decision-making process. Further, not all agencies need be members of a coordinating body and the most directly concerned agencies—State, Defense, AID, and USIA—are members of the Under Secretaries Committee. All eighteen agencies should, of course, be required to furnish data and provide reports to the coordinating body.
To achieve better coordination, planning, review and analysis of U.S. Government exchange programs:
(a) Place the required authority in the Secretary of State,
OR
(b) establish a new Inter-departmental Exchange Group (IG) reporting to the Under Secretaries Committee
Recommendation 5:
To achieve a better relationship between U.S. Government programs and those of private organizations and to benefit from any established U.S. Government coordinating mechanism, a private International Exchange Council should be formed as a catalyst between the two sectors. The Council should be composed of seven members from private life and the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the Agency for International Development.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Subject Files of Assistant Secretary John Richardson, 1968–1976, Lots 76D186 and 78D184, Entry P–242, Reorganization 1971. Secret. Another copy is ibid., RG 306, Director’s Subject Files, 1968–1972, Entry A1–42, Box 28, 1972 OGA—State/CU (Jan.–June) Secret. Richardson transmitted a copy of the memorandum to the President and a copy of the international exchanges study to Irwin under a July 21 action memorandum, in which he summarized the principal findings and recommendations of the study. Richardson recommended that Irwin approve, as the Department of State’s position, option E of the report, which would establish an Inter-Departmental Exchange Group, adding: “I select this alternative because it offers the most authoritative means for reconciling agency views sufficiently to permit progress toward working out a Government-wide approach to the better utilization of U.S. Government exchange resources.” According to a stamped date below his handwritten initials, Irwin approved this recommendation on August 13. (Ibid., RG 59, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Subject Files of Assistant Secretary John Richardson, 1968–1976, Lots 76D186 and 78D184, Entry P–242, Box 1, Reorganization 1971)↩
- See the first attachment to Document 120.↩
- Not attached; see footnote 3, Document 141. In a May 21 memorandum to Loomis, White indicated that Hartman had requested USIA comments on a draft memorandum from the Under Secretaries Committee to Nixon, designed to transmit the report’s findings. White enclosed a draft memorandum from Loomis to Hartman for Loomis’ signature. The draft, prepared by Bunce, Joyce, and White, acknowledged USIA agreement with the conclusion contained within the May 10 report, specifically “that there is need of more central planning, coordination, review and analysis of U.S. international exchange programs.” (National Archives, RG 306, Director’s Subject Files, 1968–1972, Entry A1–42, Box 20, OGA—CU State 1971 January thru June)↩
- Printed as Document 141.↩
- Attached but not printed is a June 16 memorandum from Packard to Richardson.↩
- Attached but not printed is a June 28 memorandum from Williams to Hartman.↩
- The President did not approve or disapprove any of the recommendations. For his decision regarding the report, see Document 154.↩