60. Airgram From the Embassy in the Soviet Union to the Department of State1
SUBJECT
- CU Country Plan
REF
[Page 159]PART 1. Rationale
The relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, the foremost military, political, and economic powers in the world, continues to be the top concern of U.S. foreign policy. Educational and cultural programs can contribute to reducing the potential for conflict by fostering a better comprehension on both sides. We do not as yet fully understand motives and patterns of Soviet actions such as sudden switches in domestic leadership and changes in foreign policies toward other countries. Soviet perceptions of American actions and their philosophical and pragmatic bases are likewise imperfect. The accuracy of such perceptions is a critical factor in our bilateral relations.4
Educational and cultural contacts and exchanges can play a vital role in helping to insure that these perceptions are first-hand and from credible sources. Exchange activities offer opportunities for direct observation of the two societies and their institutions, and for direct dialogue between American and Soviet counterparts in opinion-molding circles. They also provide the framework within which in-depth studies of the culture within which domestic and foreign policies are made can be carried out. All these are consonant with the guiding principles of CU-sponsored programs (Reference A) and contribute to the environment necessary for achieving the goals expressed in the Embassy’s Assessment Report of April 2, 1977 (Reference B). During periods of correct but not cordial relations, such as have prevailed during much of the past year, the cultural channels have remained open and educational exchanges continue.
U.S.–U.S.S.R. academic exchanges enlarge the circle of those able to serve as influential interpreters between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Exchanges of junior scholars for ten-month periods provide the basis for dialogue by developing a corps of highly-qualified scholars who go on to participate actively in other exchanges. They continue to conduct research, publish on the other country, and, most importantly, provide the subsequent generations of students in both countries with their basic knowledge of the other society. These exchanges, administered on the Soviet side by the Ministry of Higher and Specialized Secondary Education and on the U.S. side by the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), have come a long way in their twenty-year history. Nevertheless, there remains much to be done to assist scholars in their efforts to contribute to the important dialogue between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
[Page 160]These programs also stimulate institutional development in ways which favorably influence mutual comprehension and confidence in that past participants frequently play active and decisive roles in the establishment of new programs and contacts. For example, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the U.S.S.R., an early participant in the academic exchange program, was a prime moving force in the establishment last year of a Soviet-American exchange of young agricultural specialists.
Under the active leadership of its Rector who spent a year as an exchange scholar at Stanford University, Moscow State University has in the past year entered into two direct exchange agreements with American universities. Returned grantees established the American Studies Council at MGU and more recently the American Seminar which meets informally each month at Leningrad State University. Important research groups such as the USA Institute and the Institute of World Economics and International Relations also have former exchangees in key positions on their staffs.
Visits by exchange lecturers and American Specialists contribute to the exchange of information with such institutions and also open new doors, especially in Kiev, where the Advance Party for the Consulate-General has utilized them extensively to establish active contacts with local educational institutions and cultural organizations. Exchanges of such specialists have become more frequent during the past year and have moved into new areas with the strengthened link between the American Council of Learned Societies and the Academy of Sciences, which is administered by the International Research and Exchanges (IREX). The International Visitor, Multi-Regional and American Specialist programs extend into areas of bilateral interest beyond education and culture, and involve the Political, Economic and Science sections of the Embassy. Their integration into the nomination process for IV and Multi-Regional Programs and into the programming of American Specialists and Voluntary Speakers provides opportunities for strengthening and expanding Embassy contacts in these fields while providing current information on U.S. institutions and policies to specialized Soviet participants. These activities are vital in helping to reduce impediments to intercultural exchanges of ideas and information.
It must be recognized that there are advantages for the Soviet Union in conducting mutual educational and cultural programs and exchanges. The Soviets can acquire scientific and technological knowledge in areas where they recognize weakness. They too can learn about U.S. society in order to better assess our positions and policies. By citing numbers of exchanges, they can show in the international propaganda arena how they contribute to “peaceful co-existence” and implementation of CSCE accords.5 They can also expand teaching of [Page 161] the Russian language and Soviet culture and have stages for presenting performances by their best artists and companies.
The Soviets run certain risks as well, and these may be seen as impeding cooperation and full achievement of American goals. Through exchanges, young Soviets are exposed to influences other than those ideologically approved by the Soviet leadership. Officials are therefore reluctant to send qualified young participants—especially intellectuals, scientists, and artists—on exchanges and delegations and multi-regional programs. Instead they propose more mature, reliable scientists, scholars and artists, or none at all. This is most critical in the exchange with the Ministry of Culture of young graduate students in the performing arts. Qualified American participants have been accepted in Moscow and Leningrad conservatories but Soviet candidates to date have been in areas peripheral to the performing arts. The Embassy will continue to maintain its quota and urge the Ministry of Culture to take full advantage of its opportunity by proposing increased numbers of qualified candidates.
The ACYPL–CYO exchange of young political leaders differs somewhat from this same reluctance to send young people on exchanges.6 Nevertheless, this exchange is flourishing at a quickened pace. Potential leaders from each country have the opportunity to size each other up and exchange views during joint travel and seminar sessions, thus gaining valuable first-hand knowledge about the people, country and culture of the other side.
Exchanges of mayors and U.S. Governors with Soviet Republic Council Chairmen continues more haltingly. Progress on IV invitations for political leaders is so far limited to assurances that they are under consideration. New proposals such as that from the Council of State Legislatures will continue to be presented in the hope that improved bilateral relations will facilitate the travel of these influential leaders.
Cultural Presentations of music, drama, and dance continue to convey to broad Soviet audiences the message of diversity and dynamism in American culture. Increasingly they also provide additional avenues for contact through off-stage activities involving American artists and their Soviet counterparts. The recent visit to the Soviet Union by a group of American theater directors which resulted in concrete proposals for several co-productions grew out of the 1976 program of the American Conservatory Theater in the Soviet Union. Philosophical as well as esthetic values are transmitted in these activities which strengthen transnational linkages and networks of groups, communities and [Page 162] organizations which are capable of affecting the quality and quantity of dialogue.
Difficulties with the Cultural Presentations Program stem from problems with Soviet handling of administrative arrangements and reluctance to program the more innovative American musical and dance groups and plays. Contracts are signed only after long negotiating sessions and logistical problems plague Embassy and escort officers. The Embassy is attempting, nevertheless, to meet the numerical exchange of ten groups from each side set for the 1977–79 program of the General Agreement7 and also to increase their impact by utilizing small groups which will perform and work with Soviet counterparts for periods of one to two months.
The special natures of conditions imposed on Embassy activities by the Soviet Government favors the use of CU resources to benefit all elements. Cultural Presentations allow other agencies to enhance relations with their Soviet professional counterparts. American Specialists and lecturers in the Educational Exchanges provide opportunities for dialogue in fields of interest to military, scientific, information, economic and political officers.
Private sector involvement is incorporated into some projects listed under CU/EE goals and the Embassy wholeheartedly endorses CU/EE’s continuing efforts to encourage private funding for direct institutional exchanges related to Embassy and CU objectives. Seed money and sustaining funds for maintaining the international aspect of objective-related exchanges are often the minor contributions essential for successful administration of these programs.
The Soviet Union, for reasons of its own, contributes the major financial portion of many programs by underwriting international travel for Soviet participants and in-country costs of American participants. The general rule of “sending side pays international travel”, established for exchanges under the General Agreement, also applies to International Visitor grantees and participants in Multi-Regional Projects.
PART II—Attached
Cost estimates for grants-in-aid are not included because such expenditures are well documented in CU/EE.
- Source: University of Arkansas Libraries, Special Collections Division, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Historical Collection (CU), MC 468, Group I: CU Organization and Administration, Series 2: Country Program Plans, Box 13, CU/EE FY 78 CPPs Unclassified, folder 22. Unclassified. Sent for information to the Consulate in Leningrad and USIA. Sent via pouch to CU/EE, EUR/SOV, Leningrad, and USIA/IEU. Drafted in P&C; cleared in P& C, ECON, SCI, and POL; approved by Matlock. A stamped notation on the airgram indicates that it was received in the Department on June 15 at 8:55 a.m.↩
- Not found attached.↩
- In telegram 4443 from Moscow, April 2, the Embassy transmitted part I of the 1977 Embassy PARM. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770114–0534)↩
- An unknown hand placed two vertical, parallel lines in the left-hand margin next to this paragraph.↩
- See footnote 6, Document 8.↩
- See Document 7.↩
- Reference is to the General Agreement on Contacts, Exchanges and Cooperation, signed on June 19, 1973, at the Washington Summit.↩