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

82. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs (Richardson) to the Assistant for International Affairs to the President’s Science Advisor, White House Office of Science and Technology (Neureiter)¹

Washington, May 1, 1970

SUBJECT

• Your Phone Call of April 23

Your inquiry goes to the heart of an issue I have for many years considered central to the successful conduct of our foreign relations.

No organized effort has ever been made to collect and analyze the data with respect to the whole gamut of exchanges (government, private, planned, unplanned, etc.), although there is far more knowledge about these relationships with some countries than with others.

Therefore, the entire CU research budget request for FY 1971 ($100,000) was designed to begin to fill this vacuum by developing systems to make possible intelligent estimates of the extent and impact of existing leadership exchanges between the U.S. and the rest of the world.

My impression is that there is considerable though insufficient, largely unfocused and uncoordinated effort now going into leadership development in the Third World. Some AID, CU, DOD and other government programs make important contributions. So do some foundation supported, business, educational and professional activities.

Present managements of both AID and CU are working to make their own programs more productive in this regard. CU is now strengthening its organizational capacity both to coordinate governmental efforts and to stimulate and guide private programs. Of course the U.S. International Development Institute, if and when established, should provide major new capabilities.

In my opinion, based on prior personal study as well as what I have learned from the experience of CU, democratic leadership development through properly focused exchanges and other organizational techniques is a highly economical method both of influencing the political process in other countries and of improving the context comprised of relationships and attitudes within which our political, military and economic relations with those countries are conducted. By strengthening moderate social and political trends, these methods can (at minor cost) be expected over time to reduce significantly the probability of extreme and dangerous behavior by other states, developed as well as undeveloped. In addition, they can significantly affect the predispositions of opinion-makers and decision-makers in positions of direct importance to our national security and other interests.

Your inquiry suggests to me the possibility of a new world-wide priority in the focusing of official, as well as other, exchanges. The results of one previous effort may be indicative: the success of the post-war emphasis on bringing leaders and professionals from Germany, to acquaint them with our democratic institutions and to develop new leadership for Germany’s democratic growth. The “foreign leader” program of CU was the mechanism utilized to carry out this purpose. In 1952, 61 percent of all our leader grantees came from Germany alone. Between 1949 and 1962, a total of 5,351 German leaders and specialists were brought to the U.S. under the CU program. Testimony to the success of this effort has been received within the week from Embassy Bonn (Minister Fressenden), following a visit by Daniel P. Moynihan (Annex A).²

Each year this Bureau is asked by the House Appropriations Subcommittee to provide a table listing “exchange programs” conducted by nine governmental agencies. Their annual grant programs aggregate more than $400 million. The stated purposes include the following:

—“Improve and strengthen the international relations of the U.S.”

—Assist “peoples of the world in their efforts toward economic development.”

—Strengthen U.S. capabilities in the health sciences through cooperation with other countries.

—“Provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth’s atmosphere . . .”

—“Help the peoples of interested countries and areas in meeting their needs for skilled manpower.”

—Improve U.S. capabilities in foreign language and area studies through activities with other countries.

—“Promote progress and scholarship in the humanities and arts in the United States” through activities with other countries.

Without doubt, many present efforts could be enormously energized and made more effective by focusing concurrently on the priority goal: strengthening democratic leadership potentials.

HIGHLIGHTS OF CERTAIN U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES

Although some 26 agencies have international programs in educational, scientific, and cultural affairs, only a few are listed below for their apparent relevance to your inquiry. AID holds a special place in leadership development, both by the extent and nature of its programs.

Agency for International Development

—6860 U.S. technicians to developing countries (on assignment as of 6/30/69)

—11,000+ foreign participant trainees programmed to U.S. (during fiscal year ended 6/30/69)

—International Executive Service Corps, founded in 1964, receives partial funding from AID to enable U.S. business executives to transfer know-how directly to enterprises in developing countries

—the proposed U.S. International Development Institute (Peterson Report)³ contemplates an increasing proportion of the work of AID being “carried out largely through private channels—universities, scientific organizations, business firms, voluntary agencies, and special-purpose organizations in people-to-people and institution-to-institution programs. The program should rely heavily on scientific and professional experts from private institutions from specific assignments, rather than on permanent employees. This would permit the United States to draw on a broad range of talent around the country.” The above projected Institute follows Congressional authorization for the Inter-American Social Development Institute (ISDI), proposed by Congressman Fascell.

Commerce

—Office of International Business Travel, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, operates virtually “a businessman’s leader program,” and is highly experienced in international business contacts.

Labor

—Various exchange activities, e.g. assistance to CU in administering International Visitor grants.

Peace Corps

—10,000 American citizens “in service” (as of 6/30/69).

State (Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs)

—exchanges: 4,937 to the U.S., 1,613 from the U.S. (in year ending 6/30/69).

—academic exchanges: graduate students, research scholars, university lecturers, teachers.

—non-academic exchanges include: leaders and specialists (a recent survey of ambassadors puts the values of the “leader” program above all other exchanges in achieving foreign policy objectives—they were universally regarded as prime instruments for reaching influential persons in all fields); also, multiarea journalism projects (at Indiana University and Syracuse University), to share our communications developments with communicators, present and prospective, in other countries, including the Third World; other multi-area exchanges (e.g., Youth Leaders and Social Workers), including representatives of Third World Countries.

—Conferences, e.g. biennial U.S.-Japan Conferences on Cultural and Educational Interchange, with Third World implications.

—East-West Center (Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East and West in Honolulu)—orienting its programs to projects or problems including the basic human needs (food, health, etc.) of populations in the Third World of East Asia and the South Pacific. (CU presents the budget for the Center and has asked $5.47 million for FY ’71, as against $5.26 million appropriated for this year.)

United States Information Agency

—Binational Centers with seminar, library, joint study and other relevant programs included.

—English Language Teaching

—Libraries

—Book programs, periodicals, exhibits, etc.

—Educational Support Branch (ICS) program to use voluntary visitors overseas as speakers and lecturers.

U.S. PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES

This sector is so large and diverse that only a representative sample, to illustrate various types of approach and organization, will be attempted.

American Council of Learned Societies—fellowships for Americans to go abroad. A point of emphasis: American Studies (history, literature, institutions, etc.)

Asia Foundation—support to numerous cross-cultural efforts, many in Third World countries; emphasis on institution building, with special efforts directed to educational and other high leverage leadership development. For Fiscal Year 1971, CU and AID have requested $4,750,000 in direct support.

Council for Latin America—an effort supported by many American corporations to (among other purposes) “work with local groups to form a solid base for democratic institutions” and to promote “community development projects and student exchanges.”

Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, Inc.—a business-assisted program in which some 40 mid-career government and private professional persons have six-month visits, largely profession-related, in the U.S. (CU has been serving as the point-of-contact for these visits, including half-day Departmental briefings in which representatives of the geographical areas discuss problems of those areas (including Third World) with Eisenhower Fellows⁴ from them.)

Ford Foundation—extensive activities, including training fellowships.

IAESTE–AIESEC—acronyms for groups of students in economic and commercial fields (IAESTE) and in technical fields (AIESEC), these organizations provide exchange and traineeship experiences. They reach a large number of countries, e.g. IAESTE currently has some 40 member countries.

Institute of International Education (IIE)—This is the largest private organization engaged in managing student exchanges. Its 50th anniversary commemoration program (1969) put a special emphasis on the opportunity for exchange programs—including private programs administered by IIE—to help meet basic human problems, e.g. hunger, over-population, environmental control, etc. The total budget, largely supported by U.S. Government and foundations, is around $22.3 million.

International Development Foundation, Inc.—Pioneering private effort, supported by AID contracts and by foundations, in leadership development programs in Latin America.

P.E.N.—a world association of writers, with 80 centers in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and the Americas.

Rockefeller Foundation—extensive activities, including the International Rice Institute in the Philippines.

World Peace Through Law Center—a worldwide effort to associate judges and lawyers in worthwhile projects (developed) by Charles Rhyne⁵).

CORPORATIONS

In the increasingly international or multinational form of so many American corporations, they are undertaking more and more participation in communities where they have business operations. Their growing “sense of community” leads both to financial assistance to education, welfare, youth and other activities; it also leads to making executives and staff experts stationed in those countries available to groups of interested nationals. Large numbers of potential leaders become acquainted with management know-how, marketing techniques, etc., and also with the modern business spirit of cooperation and community-relatedness. Unused capabilities are probably vast.

UNIVERSITIES

In numerous programs and projects, including overseas campuses, many American universities are in fact functioning as a vital international force. Examples are literally too numerous to mention. One that is rarely cited, but relevant: a number have sent their presidents or other principal administrators and professors overseas to meet with alumni and, in some instances, their invited guests. Columbia University has been a bellwether in this; others include the University of Michigan, the University of California (Berkeley), Louisiana State University, etc. The follow-up activities of some institutions have included the sending of the alumni magazine to overseas alumni.

INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Again, this sector is too large and diverse to do more than suggest illustrative examples. It is an important sector, however, because important national purposes can be achieved through multinational means.

UNESCO, WHO, FAO and, on a regional basis, OAS and Southeast Asia Ministers of Education Secretariat (SEAMES), all engage in “exchange” and “institution building” programs with important primary or secondary leadership development effects.

INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

There are international professional and common interest associations in almost all fields; a directory of international organizations runs to 1200 pages.

Their existence presents a challenge to assure the highest possible level of U.S. representation and an opportunity to devise means for stimulation and guidance toward relevance to the leadership development-communication concept.

The following place-names of conference centers suggest the utility of another useful communication technique: Bilderberg, Ditchley, Villa Serbelloni (Rockefeller Foundation), etc. in Europe; Airlie, Arden House⁶, Aspen Dartmouth, Gould House, Wingspread, in the United States. More leadership people from the Third World could obviously be brought into such meetings and more such meetings could be organized.

SOME CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS TO BE INCLUDED

In thinking of directions of effort your inquiry suggests, I would recommend special attention to professionals and other problem-solving categories, among them those in:

—urban planning

—environment (pollution control)

—population planning

—food technology

—communication systems development

—educational modernization and reform

—utilization of marine resources

—social work

—business management

—public administration

—education

—engineering

—journalism

—law

—public health

—scientists

The success of efforts, involving such categories as those above will depend in part on volunteerism. I would hope for a growing reliance on selected volunteers able and willing to undertake public or private visits overseas, in the context of cooperation and partnership, along lines of common interest.

Also, the capacity to communicate. This is not intended to suggest a premium on fluency, or glibness; but, rather, on the inherent ability of some individuals to communicate their sense of the importance of a professional field, of the environment it needs in which to flourish, and of the interrelatedness and interdependence of people in such a field—regardless of the stages of economic growth of their countries. This capacity to communicate is of course a priceless ingredient in international relations, and essential, I believe, to the success of the concept suggested in your inquiry.

I would be happy to pursue further any aspect of this question which you might consider useful.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, Office of the Director, Office of Public Information, Records Relating to a Study of International Exchange Programs, 1970–1975, Entry A1–37, Box 1, Educational and Cultural Exchange EDX 21 Leader Project (1970). Secret.
2. Attached but not printed as Annex A is an April 21 letter from Fessenden to Moynihan, under which Fessenden transmitted an undated paper outlining the “great value” of exchange programs to the U.S.–FRG relationship.
3. Reference is to U.S. Foreign Assistance in the 1970s: A New Approach—Report to the President From the Task Force on International Development, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970. In his May 28, 1969, special message to Congress on the foreign aid program for FY 1970, Nixon indicated that he would establish a task force, charged with reviewing the range of U.S. aid activities and developing recommendations regarding U.S. policy toward developing nations. An amendment to the 1968 Foreign Assistance Act (P.L. 90–544) required the President to initiate such a review. For the text of the message, see Public Papers: Nixon, 1969, pp. 411–417. On September 24, 1969, Nixon appointed Rudolph Peterson as chair of the Presidential Task Force on International Development. (Congress and The Nation, vol. III, 1969–1972, p. 871) In a March 5, 1970, memorandum to multiple addressees, the President stated that he regarded the report “as an extremely creative and exciting document” noting that it “provides a sound foundation on which to base a new U.S. foreign assistance program, which I expect to be one of our major foreign policy initiatives in the years ahead.” The memorandum is printed in Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, vol. IV, Foreign Assistance, International Development, Trade Policies, 1969–1972, Document 128. See also ibid., Documents 129–137.
4. Fellowship program for international mid-career professionals established in 1953 to honor President Eisenhower.
5. Rhyne, a Washington, D.C. lawyer and a past President of the American Bar Association (ABA), founded the Center and served as its President.
6. Regional meetings of the American Assembly are often held in other countries as continuations of the original meetings at Arden House, Harriman, New York. [Footnote is in the original. While President of Columbia University (1948–1953), Eisenhower established the American Assembly, a public policy institute. Arden House is the estate owned by E.H. Harriman. Harriman’s sons later deeded the property to Columbia University.]