Foreign Relations of the United States, 1917–1972, Volume VIII, Public Diplomacy, 1969-1972

20. Minutes of an Inter-Agency Youth Committee Meeting¹

Washington, May 8, 1969

• Counselor Richard F. Pedersen, Chairman

• White House

  • Richard V. Allen

• State Department

  • Thomas H. Quimby, AF
  • Robert M. Beaudry, EUR
  • Sidney Sober, NEA
  • Richard Bernhard, ARA
  • Robert L. Walkinshaw, EA
  • Douglas N. Batson, CU
  • W. Kennedy Cromwell, AF
  • Linda Lowenstein, AF
  • Leonard Sandman, NEA
  • Wilford H. Welch, EA
  • Robert D. Cross, C/Y, Executive Secretary
  • Geraldine Sheehan

• DOD

  • James D. Dunlap, ISA

• USIA

  • Hewson A. Ryan, Deputy Director
  • Geoffrey Groff-Smith, IOP

• AID

  • Curtis Farrar, PPC
  • Robert E. Matteson, IT
  • Princeton N. Lyman, PPC/TIXD

• PEACE CORPS

  • John Curtis

The first Inter-Agency Youth Committee meeting since the change of Administration was devoted to a review of questions under consideration by the new Chairman.

The Counselor, Mr. Pedersen, who has been assigned the responsibility in the State Department for youth affairs and the chairmanship of the inter-agency group, asked for a preliminary discussion of objectives and operations in the youth effort. He urged that these questions subsequently be reviewed in the bureaus and agencies. He plans to convene another session shortly after his return from the SEATO² and CENTO³ meetings with a view to deciding on specific actions to increase emphasis on youth as a political factor.

A number of points threaded through the discussion, getting emphasis from several speakers:

—The political necessity of our understanding the attitudes and values of youth abroad;

—The need for more analytical reporting on the concerns felt by youth;

—The need to assign young officers to posts in countries where youth play a critical political role, so as to establish contacts, develop relationships and rapport, and produce the necessary reporting;

—The key role of the Ambassador in spurring an Embassy to the necessary contact and reporting work, and the need for a periodic reminder to Ambassadors of the importance Washington accords this work;

—“Influence” as a misleading and futile objective unless it is viewed as a long-run by-product of individual relationships. US policy—as others see it—was cited as surely the prime influencer.

—The desirability of “reverse influence”—the need to take into account in the formulation of policy the concerns of youth as these become known through political analysis and reporting.

Committee members generally reported that their bureaus and agencies are well aware of the political importance of youth. However, most characterized performance in the field as spotty, and dependent largely on the extent to which the Ambassador takes an interest.

Mr. Cross opened the discussion by tracing the evolution of USG objectives vis-à-vis youth, beginning with the original impetus of the cold war competition for the respect of the young elites of the Third World. What has remained constant throughout, he said, has been the attempt to keep an awareness in the foreign affairs agencies of youth as a political force in their societies. Student uprisings last year in Paris,⁴ Mexico City⁵ and elsewhere reinforced this effort, and led to a call by two bureaus for a re-evaluation of the IAYC and its program. Mr. Cross suggested that this, together with the advent of the new Administration, offered an opportunity to rethink the philosophy and the mechanism of the youth effort in order to make them adequate to the needs of modern diplomacy in the Seventies.

Mr. Pedersen raised questions about the nature of the phenomenon and its variations according to area; about U.S. objectives—whether influence or understanding, and to what end, or relationship with future leaders; about the degree of emphasis to be given contact work, and whether more reporting is needed in order to develop a better concept of what is going on in the world; whether it is sufficient for the Embassies to develop these insights or whether it is necessary for Washington to have them as well. (See attachment).⁶

Among ideas he has under consideration are a letter to new Ambassadors to call their attention to youth as a political factor; a task force to update the U.S. interest in students and youth abroad and to make recommendations to the new Administration; a training seminar for USG personnel; and the possibility of earmarking certain funds for U.S. purposes.

Mr. Sober said he considered the various objectives suggested as all necessary and consistent with each other. We need information that will tip us off to important changes in a country. As to influence, it hangs largely on how youth abroad read U.S. policies; despite our efforts to have our aims understood, there is a fundamental difference of view about the validity of American activities. This means there is a basic problem we cannot do much about. Nevertheless, it is important to give periodic re-emphasis to the importance of contact with youth, to analysis and reporting of their concerns, and to jacking up the Ambassadors who tend to overlook its importance.

Mr. Walkinshaw suggested that it is necessary for us, relying largely on young officers in our Missions, to try to understand the young people who are against the establishment, to observe what is going on, express concern and establish rapport with them. Out of this may come a continuing dialogue. He said the State Department needs more analytical reporting on the changing attitudes and values of youth abroad.

Mr. Lyman underscored the importance of understanding youth as distinct from any attempt to influence them. We must come to know what youth is concerned about; then, what may result is an influence on our own policy. The kind of analysis and reporting that comes from the field—on attitudes and emotions, frustrations and pressures, all in the context of the particular economic changes underway in a given country—is of extreme importance. To get such reporting, it is necessary to have contacts with the youth in question. From there, Mr. Lyman suggested, we can make decisions on policy—changing ours or trying to change theirs.

The Chairman commended the existing instructions in the political affairs volume of the Foreign Affairs Manual, covering what is expected of the field in regard to youth and young leaders. However, he pointed out that they place less emphasis on gaining an insight into current attitudes than on working with future leaders with a view to the long run. Good instructions notwithstanding, it was suggested, there remains the bureaucratic problem of how to get the Ambassador and the Mission to do what they are supposed to do.

Mr. Beaudry drew a distinction between cultivating future leaders in areas such as political parties or labor movements, where so-called youth may be as old as 45 and where comers generally are known to our Embassies, and in the more amorphous student groups. The USG must consider whether youth are likely to affect the attitudes and policies of their own governments. We can have little influence on student unrest in Europe, but political reporting on students is important nonetheless. For the necessary contact work, he said, Embassies are virtually limited to their officers under 30.

Mr. Ryan said USIA has no illusions as to what is possible in the way of influencing people. That Agency’s major goal is to provide information. Reporting that shows why youth are unhappy with policies of the U.S. or of their own country is particularly helpful to USIA. We need to consider such attitudes when we make foreign policy, but to get this reporting, it is necessary to keep pressure on the Ambassador.

Mr. Pedersen asked committee members how much attention their bureaus and agencies and the Embassies give to youth and students as a political force.

AF: Mr. Quimby reported his bureau has a high degree of awareness of the problem. He suggested that we assign young officers to those countries where youth are evidently a major factor, instead of relying on youth committees.

ARA: Mr. Bernhart said that ARA officers have reason to be well aware of student problems. Nevertheless, Embassy performance has been spotty, and this is largely a reflection of the interest or lack of interest of the Ambassador. The ARA Bureau has been reorganized and a State-AID office of social and civic development has been set up to include youth. Some new and interesting programs are underway.

EA: Mr. Walkinshaw said his Bureau is definitely aware of the importance of youth, but the Embassies have an uneven record. When he reviewed EA policy assessment papers for the past two years, he found not one had mentioned youth.

EUR: Mr. Beaudry said it is necessary to remember that radical youth are a minority; he thinks the more accessible elements should be provided with USIA’s factual information to counter distortions resulting partly from hostile propaganda. The generation gap that divides those who went through World War II and those who didn’t is becoming apparent now in terms of concern about NATO and security. He feels we should support our friends among the local leaders who are under attack by youth.

NEA: Mr. Sober said the limited access that prevails in a number of countries puts the utility of a youth committee in question there. In others, it may be a good time to encourage a renewed effort, now that the bureau is changing a number of Ambassadors.

CU: Mr. Batson suggested that the best possible youth program would be an increased CU student exchange, particularly where it is operated as a bi-national program. Mr. Cross pointed out that while CU exchanges are an important resource, some of the youth who really count—in Ecuador, for example—would not come to the US on a CU grant.

PC: Mr. Curtis said the Peace Corps sees communication and influence as a two-way process rather than a means to direct behavior. What is important is the mechanism that permits communication to go on.

The Chairman asked whether the unequaled insights into attitudes acquired by Volunteers abroad were funneled back to USG policy makers so that they might have an impact on this government. Mr. Curtis explained that the departing Volunteer is debriefed abroad by two PC staffers whose report is sent to the Peace Corps in Washington. The Chairman, upon learning that these reports are not shared with the State Department, suggested this was an area that might be examined. Mr. Curtis and Mr. Quimby warned that this might be mistaken for intelligence work and imperil Peace Corps operations and recruitment. Mr. Pedersen said the question is one of getting better guidelines for U.S. policies; he thought the Volunteers might well want to have such an influence on government policy.

USIA: Mr. Ryan said USIA has always looked on youth as a major target. In Latin America, where there are nineteen student affairs grantees, programs are extensive. Elsewhere, the Voice of America has just developed a Saturday night “rock” music program for Poland; exchanges in Eastern Europe and the American Cultural Center in Paris focus on youth. A good deal of the agency’s research is directed at youth. But the world-wide operation has been affected by the BALPA cutbacks in young officers.⁷

AID: Mr. Farrar said AID programs bring that agency into contact with a wide variety of youth. However, AID has no money or programs for youth as such, and country assistance plans normally do not specify youth as a category for attention. He said AID people often have been irritated by repeated appeals in the name of the youth program for AID money to do something for which CU lacks funds.

A/IT: Mr. Matteson called AID’s international training program one of the big missed bets in U.S. foreign policy. Half of the several thousand participants brought here annually under the program are under 30 or 35. In attempting to influence their attitudes toward change and modernization, we indirectly affect their attitude toward the U.S.

DOD: Mr. Dunlap said that DOD has a generally good awareness of the political importance of youth, if “youth” can be said to encompass something more than those under 30. Awareness is good also throughout the military system. The Defense Department has come a long way since 1964: The $42 million-a-year program to train foreign military is now augmented by a $3-to-4 million “information program” that grew out of an effort by the IAYC five years ago. The information program carries a wide range of objectives and brings foreign trainees into touch with American labor leaders, press, the racial situation, etc. Mr. Dunlap said he intends to shift more money to these efforts in coming months and years. He finds the key to success lies with the Ambassador: If he is enthusiastic, then the whole process is focused on bringing potential future leaders rather than just on training in firing a gun or giving a trip to a friend.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, Office of Policy and Plans, IOP/C Cultural and Youth Subject Files, 1955–1971, Entry UD–90, Box 4, CUL 3 Interdepartmental Committee on Children and Youth. Confidential. No drafting information appears on the minutes; presumably drafted by Geraldine Sheehan (C/Y). An unknown hand wrote “1. Youth Panel” and “2. file IAYC” in the top right-hand corner of the minutes. Below this, an unknown hand wrote “Dec 19 ‛69” and the names: “WHW [Weathersby]” “WK Bunce” “GS [Groff-Smith]” “[Peter] Cecere” “[unintelligible]” “Loomis” “Art Bardos” “John Reinhardt” “A[lbert] Hemsing” “DPOlek [Daniel Oleksiw]” “R[obert] Amerson” “A[lan] Carter” and “[Kempton] Jenkins.”
2. See footnote 4, Document 17.
3. The CENTO meeting was scheduled to take place in Tehran May 26–28.
4. May–June 1968.
5. Summer and fall of 1968, culminating right before the Summer Olympics held in Mexico City.
6. Attached but not printed is the 2-page meeting agenda.
7. In an attempt to deal with the overseas balance of payments problem, in 1968 President Johnson directed the reduction of the number of U.S. personnel overseas under the jurisdiction of U.S. diplomatic mission (with the exception of Vietnam) by 10 percent.