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

69. Letter From Secretary of State Rogers to Secretary of Commerce Stans¹

Washington, January 30, 1970

Dear Maury:

My staff continues to enjoy working with your representatives on the President’s Bicentennial Commission. Although recommendations are not due until July 4, we recognize that a decision on the international exposition aspect of the Bicentennial should be made before the spring meeting of the Bureau of International Expositions (BIE) in Paris.

At the request of your Department, a questionnaire on likely foreign interest in participating in a 1976 Bicentennial exposition was circulated to all country desk officers here and to selected foreign posts.² The response with respect to about 90 countries is tabulated in the enclosure.

I hope this summary will prove useful in connection with the evaluation your United States Expositions Staff is preparing on the exposition plans already advanced by various U.S. cities. As you know, we have continued to reserve 1976 with the BIE and now need to let them know of site, theme and dates, if there is to be an exposition.

Let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

With best personal regards,

Sincerely,

William P. Rogers³

Enclosure

Summary Prepared in the Department of State⁴

Washington, January 1970

SUMMARY

U.S. 1976 BICENTENNIAL EXPOSITION

HIGHLIGHTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE

(Based on 90 Replies)

I. Participation: Almost 60 countries already seem interested in participating.⁵

II. If approved by the Bureau of International Expositions (BIE), the options of participation received the following comment:

A. National pavilion: Only about 15 countries, mostly BIE member nations, now seem to have the resources to mount an independent national pavilion.

B. National exhibit: The use of covered space to mount an exhibit is favored by about 30 smaller nations.

C. Joint exhibit: This alternative is almost equally favored by a group of Scandinavian, Central American, various African regional and S.E. Asian countries.

D. Performing arts: There is a wide indication of interest. However, U.S. funding would be required in a number of cases.

E. Special Demonstration project: Only a half-dozen countries now show a capacity to contribute in this manner (Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, Israel, Libya, India). Funds are definitely a factor.

F. People-to-people: Same as II(d).

III. Foreign response if the event is organized outside of BIE jurisdiction? BIE approval is not a critical factor to many of the smaller countries since only 34 (mainly European) nations belong to BIE. The response of immediate neighbors is often more compelling; but this is bound to be influenced by actions of the major powers, most of which belong to BIE. Also, lack of BIE sanction might bring participation by non-member nations at minimum levels. On the other hand, if the celebration were negotiated as a project beyond BIE jurisdiction, there should probably be no restraint to participation even by BIE member nations.

A. Special demonstration project:

B. Cultural/artistic program:

C. People-to-people:

The response is generally similar to that given under II (d, e, & f.)

IV. Determining factors in participation: The most-frequently noted incentive to participation is promotion of trade, tourism and investment. Also cited are prestige, displays of amity and friendship, and a concern for the state of political relations with the U.S. during the next 5 years.⁶

V. Importance of site: In almost all, except special interest cases, the particular metropolitan site is not considered a factor that would seriously affect participation. Apparently this reflects some confidence in the site-selection process being undertaken by the U.S. Government.

A. Competition between cities: The reaction to a competition between cities was generally negative.

[Omitted here is the undated, 9-page table entitled “U.S. 1976 Bicentennial Exposition.”]

B. Multi-site possibilities: Most foreign countries regard the multi-city concept with misgiving. They believe multi-city proposals will result in an increase in administrative/financial burdens, rivalry between sites and a diffusion in total impact. They will probably respond favorably to a multi-site-in-one-city location if they are provided the necessary, organizational assurances by the expo management.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, CUL 8. No classification marking. Notations in an unknown hand in the bottom margin of the first page of the letter indicate that Hurd drafted the letter, which was retyped in S/S–S by Levitsky. Collins sent a copy of the letter to Rogers under a January 23 action memorandum, in which Collins indicated that the survey of desk officers and selected posts regarding foreign participation in a possible 1976 exposition had been completed and was “ready for transmission” to Stans. Collins requested that Rogers sign the attached letter enclosing the evaluation. (Ibid.)
2. See footnote 5, Document 44.
3. Rogers signed “Bill” above this typed signature.
4. No classification marking. No drafting information appears on the summary.
5. See footnote, page 3. [Footnote is in the original. The footnote on page 3 reads: “*Foreign Policy Footnote There is undoubtedly some correlation between the interest of many foreign governments in participating in a 1976 Bicentennial exposition (I) and the reason most frequently given for such participation—the promotion of trade, tourism and investment abroad (IV). This suggests that the role of foreign governments (and international organizations) at even the non-commercial type of exposition sponsored by the BIE will have many long-term implications for at least the economic sector of U.S. foreign policy.”]
6. Ibid.