711.52/4–753
The Ambassador in France (Dillon) to the Under Secretary of State (Smith)
personal
Dear General: Herewith a short summary of the first visit to Paris by Cohn and Schine. They arrived Saturday noon and left Sunday afternoon. They could not see a number of people they had planned on seeing because of the Easter Holidays, so they cut short their visit and went on to Bonn. They will be coming back here later to finish up. We had no problems with them in carrying out the directives in your 5098.1 They did not ask for anything out of personnel files or for any confidential policy directives.
They saw Draper,2 his Security Officer, his Public Affairs Officer, and the second man in REGPA which works out of Draper’s office. In the Embassy, they saw Moffly who is our Acting Public Affairs Officer; the Cultural Officer, Morris; and our Security Officer.
They seemed interested primarily in checking up further on subjects on which they already had definite ideas rather than on looking for new things. They asked Moffly, who had been in Vienna, about the VOA antenna there, and he told them that the British had objected to the original planned height of the antenna as being a dangerous obstruction in the flight path of the airport. They were interested in our Cultural Officer, Morris, because he had been in Washington with IIA and had had something to do with choosing the books that went in the USIS libraries. Incidentally, we offered to show them the USIS library in Paris, but they declined and said that they did not have the time. Maybe, they will look at it when they come back.
Their main points of interest fell in two categories. First was criticism of the duplication of information activities in Paris. On arrival, they were under the impression that there were four separate American information services operating in Paris; namely (1) USIS, (2) MSA, (3) REGPA, (4) SRE information. We convinced them pretty thoroughly that USIS and MSA were now in fact one, but that still leaves three agencies operating here in Paris. That obviously is a weak point, and I assume is one of the first things that any reorganization of SRE will aim to correct. However, I am afraid that you can expect that Senator McCarthy may be the one first to “discover” publicly that such duplication exists. They asked for information regarding the number of people employed by our Embassy USIS/MSA information program and the total overall [Page 1442] costs of the program. When we told them that such information would not be accurate because we were in the midst of a drastic curtailment, they asked for last year’s figures and our estimates of how many people we will employ after the cuts are complete, and how much the program will cost at that time. We are preparing some information for them along this line and will give it to them on their return unless you feel this would be unwise. My own feeling is that it is all information they can get from other sources in Washington and that we should give it to them. We will, of course, send you a copy of whatever we give them. They are asking for similar information from REGPA and SRE information plus some sort of memorandum showing how they work with each other and with the USIS sections in the various Embassies in Europe.
Their second main point of interest was to promote attacks on IIA in Washington. They spoke very disparagingly of IIA because of its lack of helpfulness to the field. In particular, they objected to the lack of clear and concise instructions and policy directives from Washington to the field. As an example, they cited the recent order regarding removing books by Communists or fellow-travellers from the USIS libraries. They were fully familiar with the details of the order and stated that they had seen its text. They seemed to think that Washington should have sent out a complete list of authors whose works should be removed, rather than leaving it up to the local public affairs officer within very general policy limits.
They also objected to the fact that there was no IIA directive stating that the fundamental and primary purpose of all information activities must be to fight Communism. In talking of IIA, they frequently criticized by name [here follows a brief report of comments made by Cohn and Schine concerning Brad Connors and two other individuals].
Their interviews with SRE and Embassy Security Officers were very short. They were interested in how employees were checked for security and seemed satisfied when told that all American citizens were cleared by Washington, and that local employees were only hired after CIA and FBI checks. They did not ask for any specific information.
On their return, they wish particularly to see General Norstad because of some word from Senator Symington. They also wish to see Charles Thomson, the head of the American Delegation to UNESCO, and a Mr. Taylor, an American citizen who is Acting Director General of UNESCO. I am told by my staff that there is a situation among UNESCO employees similar to that that was developed regarding the UN in New York. A number of UNESCO employees who are American citizens have, I am told, refused to answer loyalty questionnaires and are still working for UNESCO. [Page 1443] These are supposed to include some fairly senior employees. If this turns out to be accurate, you can probably expect an exposé of UNESCO personnel of American citizenship and an attack on the slowness of the Department in acting to clear up this situation.
This about completes the story as we know it. They may have seen other people Saturday night, of whom we know nothing. I will send you another letter after their next visit.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,