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

71. Airgram From the Embassy in the United Kingdom to the Department of State¹

A–309

London, February 17, 1970

SUBJECT

• Plans for U.S. Bicentennial Exposition, 1976. Ref: Department’s CA–6381.² FOR STATE (P/MS—Hurd); COMMERCE (Expositions Staff—Nelson).

Without checking directly with the British, it is, of course, not possible to give a precise prediction of possible British participation in the 1976 Exposition. This participation would also naturally depend very much on the form, content and approach which is finally determined by our own national commission. Within these limitations, the following comments can be made:

1. In view of the “special relationship,” at least in the cultural field, as well as of Britain’s somewhat special role in the origins of American independence, we believe Britain would have no choice but to be present in a major way in any form of celebration of our bicentennial.

2. As Britain has consistently played a major role in the BIE, they will certainly wish to have any participation of an exposition nature be in a BIE-sanctioned event. At the same time, for the reasons above, they would have a difficult time not participating on strictly BIE grounds, and in the event of a non-BIE sanctioned event would probably try hard to find a way out of the dilemma. In order to avoid the dilemma, however, the chances are that they will give their support in the BIE to any proposals the US may make provided that we on our side are willing to abide by the essential rules.

3. In order to improve the British image in this connection, we assume that (financial considerations allowing) the British would prefer to have a national-type pavilion in any exposition if national pavilions were allowed. If pavilions of a “subject” nature were the rule, we assume that the British would want to have a clearly identified and significant role in them.

4. The site or sites selected are unlikely to have any effect on British participation, though they might perhaps prefer a site not too closely associated with a major British defeat (e.g. Yorktown).³

5. It is quite possible that the scale of British participation might be enhanced if there were a chance of maintaining some sort of permanent exposition which would contribute in a lasting way to US–UK relations. On the other hand, cost factors might militate against this.

6. Recognizing that BIE rules forbid commercial exhibits, it is nevertheless important to realize that the scale of British participation would be enhanced if they could associate it in some way with the promotion of British exports, which is a major national objective.

7. The United Kingdom already has a good system of performing arts in the U.S. It is anticipated that this would be expanded to take advantage of the facilities offered at an exhibition for the display of British skills, arts, and culture.

Annenberg⁴

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, CUL 8. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Cleveland (E/MIN) and W. Hall (E/C); cleared by Weld; approved by Cleveland. A stamped notation indicates that it was received in the Department on February 28 at 11:33 a.m.
2. See footnote 5, Document 44.
3. Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, October 19, 1781.
4. An unknown hand, presumably Annenberg’s, initialed below Annenberg’s typed signature.