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

57. Report Prepared by the USIA Goals Committee of the USIA Young Officers’ Policy Panel¹

Washington, December 5, 1969

[Omitted here is the title page.]

OBJECTIVE 1: Builds an understanding of contemporary America presenting balanced, multi-faceted views of American culture—encompassing its history, institutions, achievements, aspirations, and problems.

Agency field personnel should have an intuitive, almost instinctive grasp of this objective. And it is particularly imperative that stateside Agency employees, especially those directly involved with media output have a fine sensitivity for this objective and implement it daily.

The dramatic events and happenings of modern America are highlighted all over the world in a multitude of ways by non-USIA sources. USIA is responsible for interpreting the modern American scene so that foreign audiences can place events in proper historical and contemporary perspective. Because the United States is a major world power in the political, economic, and military spheres, American culture—its dynamism as well as its weaknesses—is felt in most areas of the world. USIA’s presentation of American society must reflect that very diversity from which the United States derives its strength. And in selecting those elements of American life to portray to foreign audiences, USIA should seek out and present the views of responsible prominent persons outside the Agency, and indeed outside the USG.

Presenting a balanced and multi-faceted view of the United States means that USIA recognizes the pride Americans take in their society’s open nature which stimulates dissent and diversity and encourages or even invites self-criticism. The essence of America’s strength is that there is no single government approved version of the United States. Striving to portray balanced views of contemporary America does not mean to suggest that everything the Agency does must reflect perfect harmony and balance on every side of an issue or that output must be weighted to the ideological ounce. On the contrary, USIA should avoid this dull bland fudge which tries to offend no one and succeeds admirably in boring everyone.

If discussion, sharp clear dialogue, and dissent are recognized as among America’s more prominent assets, then they should be presented as such in a lucid, coherent manner to foreign audiences. It must be emphasized that the above refers to a presentation of domestic American life and not to foreign posture or policy which USIA has to portray in a unified manner speaking as the official voice of the American government. Where a conflict exists between the proper portrayal of domestic American events and the expediencies of U.S. foreign policy, where there is a conflict between this goal and the goal calling for the defense of U.S. foreign policy, the approach must be left to the PAO given his understanding of the special forces coming into play in the host country. Material fulfilling both objectives should be supplied by the Agency.

OBJECTIVE 2: Encourages understanding and support by other nations of United States foreign policy objectives as enunciated by the President and the Secretary of State.

The wording of the above mission statement is designed to correspond to the realistic possibilities of USIA operations affecting foreign attitudes or actions relative to U.S. foreign policy objectives. The tone “encourages” signals modesty, modesty in that USIA probably can do little more in its present form than simply make known the U.S. Government’s position on a specific foreign policy issue. The goal implies a whole range of possibilities, from the simple presentation of information to the hope that “understanding and support”, as revealed in attitudes and actions, will result.

“Foreign policy” as stated above is taken to mean official foreign policy as specifically produced by documents and statements by the White House or the State Department and does not mean broader areas of government actions that can be interpreted as foreign policy. This makes the USIA task fairly specific and tightly defined.

“As enunciated by the President and the Secretary of State” here obviously implies that official foreign policy can be physically delivered by representatives or spokesmen at various levels, from standard news conference sessions to declarations at the mission level by Embassy officers, who themselves should be prepared to explain the considerations underlying these policies, as appropriate. Once admitted that this part of the USIA mission has very clear limits, aspects of it that involve USIA/USIS can be fairly clearly outlined at the Washington and post levels.

At the Washington level; USIA² publishes and distributes to USIS posts official U.S. Government statements and texts on foreign policy issues, offers foreign audiences the views of the President and his administration on U.S. foreign policy issues by creating media products treating administration pronouncements or actions in that field, covers foreign travel undertaken by the President or his official representatives as well as official visits of foreign dignitaries to the United States, and informs foreign audiences on proceedings of international organizations of which the United States is a member or an interested party.

At the Post level USIS acts as official American spokesman on foreign policy issues at overseas missions, makes available directly to foreign audiences, in particular news media, foreign policy statements and texts made by the President or other U.S. Government spokesmen, as well as the local missions’ declarations involving the host country and arranges for and advises on meetings of the Ambassador, members of the country team, and visiting U.S. officials with the local press and news media.

OBJECTIVE 3: Contributes to the exchange with other societies of information, skills and experience to promote development and the solution of common problems.

The foreign policy interests of nations cannot always be expected to coincide, but there are basic human concerns that do. Humanity faces common problems—violence, poverty, overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, the destruction of the environment, to name the major ones—that must be solved in common. Communication has a limited role to play in the solution of these problems and USIA a contribution to make to that communication. That contribution is the function of this agency goal.

In the past we have always regarded development as a need of the underdeveloped world, and thus have directed our “National Development” activities to those countries only. If the Agency is to continue to play a role in development, it must recognize that development is a world-wide problem, not only because the problems of the poorer nations affect the rest of the international community, but because the industrialized nations themselves have reached a new level of technology which has created a whole new set of developmental problems.

In contributing to the exchange “of information, skills and experience to promote development and the solution of common problems” USIA should serve as the intermediary between American experts and organizations and those of other countries in appropriate fields, such as health, demography, urbanology; in general, all areas of activity from the cultural to the social and physical sciences which relate to development and the improvement of the quality of life.

This is not to say that the Agency officer, in order to function properly within this goal, must be a developmental expert. It is, however, important and reasonable to assume that officials whose commodity is their country’s culture should be aware of the problems their country faces, and efforts made toward their solutions.

Besides being a point of contact between the U.S. and the other countries in these various fields—an area where our cultural exchange program must play a very important role—USIA should be a conduit for information from governmental and non-governmental sources which the PAO determines will aid the development in a realistic and workable fashion.

This demands an understanding on the part of every USIA officer of the problems of the host country, the preoccupations and aspirations of its people, and its relation to the international community and the United States in political, economic and cultural affairs; in other words, an extremely perceptive officer, and an intelligent listener able to act on what he has heard, able to pull together many resources in the country in which he works as well as his own country.

Mutuality of interest can only be achieved through genuine dialogue. Often in the past USIA has been insensitive to other countries’ needs and wishes and has patronizingly given out what it thought they should have, frequently with a shallow interest in pictoresque local customs. This superficiality has especially repelled the intellectual leaders USIA has tried to reach. A genuine sensitivity to, and appreciation of the social, scientific and cultural achievements of the host country will help foster the mutual respect so vital to any form of cross-cultural communication.

OBJECTIVE 4: Participation in foreign policy formulation by advising the President, his representatives overseas and the executive branch of public opinion and other psychological factors abroad and their implications for U.S. foreign policies.

USIA can contribute to the formulation of foreign policy by providing information and counsel on foreign public opinion and the psychological factors from which it is derived. In the past the Agency’s participation in policymaking has occasionally been noteworthy and creative, but more frequently deficient in both quality and quantity and never consistent or systematic. Nearly a decade after President Kennedy’s creation of a policy mandate for the Agency,³ this objective continues to express more closely a desired state of affairs than a current reality.

That this is the case is due to factors beyond and within the Agency’s control. Of the former, the attitudes of the President and the Department of State are the most crucial. That is, both must want the kind of counsel that USIA is capable of providing. This implies more than just a close relationship between the Agency Director and the President. Personal friendship and political ties are no guarantee of systematic policy involvement. On the inter-agency level, the Department of State has frequently either ignored or remained hostile to the consideration of psychological and public opinion factors in foreign policy decision-making. Too often, the Department’s concern with foreign public opinion has occurred only in crisis situations—when foreign emotions are high and when communications with foreign audiences are often least effective. In the last analysis each President structures the policy process to suit his own preferences, and without a clear indication that the Agency’s counsel is both a desirable and necessary part of that process, maximum realization of this objective at all levels is impossible.

But to a significant extent the existing situation is also a result of factors which are within the Agency’s control. USIA has developed a high degree of professionalism and expertise in its communications to foreign audiences; it has not done so in the area of policy formulation. Emphasis on overseas activities and on providing administrative and program support for them has resulted in a failure to develop the requisite amount of skilled personnel necessary to enable the Agency’s leadership to fulfill its counseling function. In addition, the Agency has all too often had little of relevance to contribute. In large part this has been a consequence of inadequate research. Opinion surveys which were not always analyzed in depth, a tendency to conduct surveys oriented to worldwide comparisons rather than issues pertinent to particular regions or countries, and the subordination of country and area expertise to survey research techniques have lead in the past to research findings which were frequently superficial and lacking in guidance on long-range trends in foreign public opinion.

USIA also has not consistently sought to place experienced officers in positions to offer counsel at key points and at the highest levels in other departments and agencies dealing with foreign affairs. Too frequently Agency personnel are assigned to Office of Public Information where their knowledge and sensitivity to foreign opinion have little or no impact on policy as it is being formulated. If maximum effectiveness is to be achieved, Agency officers must be strategically placed to deal with problems and issues before, rather than after, they reach communications channels.

Broadening of the Agency’s counseling role is as desirable in the field as it is in Washington. This means, in addition to a close working relationship between the Ambassador and the PAO, that a continuing dialogue be maintained between Agency officers at all levels and other members of the Embassy staff. Not only will this lead to the more effective carrying out of USIA’s own programs, but officers representing other agencies and functions can benefit if they are kept constantly aware of information opportunities, the communication channels open to them and the potential consequences of their actions on foreign public opinion.

It is a truism to state that cross cultural communication and public opinion are important components of modern diplomacy. USIA possesses a legitimate competence in these areas and this competence should be as much a part of the policy process as the more traditional military, economic and political influences. The Agency’s participation in policy formulation should be more than to act simply as a conduit for a specialized kind of intelligence. Its information and counsel on the psychological dimension of foreign policy should be an integral part of the policy formulation process at all levels both in Washington and in the field.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, Director’s Subject Files, 1968–1972, Entry A1–42, Box 15, Policy and Plans (IOP)—General 1970. No classification marking. Sent to YOPP members under a December 5 covering memorandum, which listed the members of the USIA Goals Committee. Both the report and the covering memorandum are attached to a February 6, 1970, briefing paper prepared by Matuszeski in advance of a meeting with YOPP members.
2. An unknown hand inserted “USIA” into this sentence between the words “level” and “publishes.”
3. Reference is to President Kennedy’s January 25, 1963, memorandum to Murrow, in which he stated the precepts that should guide USIA’s activities. The memorandum is printed in Foreign Relations, 1961–1963, vol. XXV, Organization of Foreign Policy; Information Policy; United Nations; Scientific Matters, Document 144. Additional information regarding the memorandum is in Foreign Relations, 1917–1972, vol. VI, Public Diplomacy, 1961–1963.