Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXX, Public Diplomacy

76. Report of the United States Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs¹

Washington, June 30, 1977

[Omitted here are Marks’ transmittal letter to Congress, the Table of Contents, and Section I: Summary and Recommendations.]

II. Introduction

Regular readers of the annual reports of the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs will have detected over the years a similarity of theme in their introductions. In one way or another, with degrees of intensity ranging from mild observation to indignant accusation, they have pointed out that the importance of international educational and cultural exchange to our foreign policy has never been adequately recognized—particularly in terms of appropriations.

The successive Commissions have had their “up” moments and their “down” moments on this subject. Thus the Commission’s first report, issued in April 1963, was appropriately entitled A Beacon of Hope; its sixth report, however, issued in 1969, was plaintively titled Is Anyone Listening; and the title of its eleventh, A Necessary and a Noble Task, issued in 1975, managed to convey at one and the same time hope and despair.² Though the titles and the tones of the reports have changed, the underlying theme has almost always been that the beacon of hope represented by international exchange has not penetrated the surrounding darkness as deeply as it should have.

The three reports with which members of the present Commission have been associated reflect the up-and-down spirits of their predecessors. Our Eleventh Report, noting with satisfaction the steady rise in appropriations for the State Department’s programs (from $31,425,000 in 1969 to $54,300,000 in 1975) and the growing acceptance of the reality of an interdependent world, stated optimistically:

As acceptance of this reality has grown, so too has recognition of the role international educational and cultural exchange can play in reconstituting the human community . . . The climate is more conducive than it has been for the development of effective exchange programs.

A year later we were less sanguine about the growing acceptance of the reality of an interdependent world; and we were downright concerned about the State Department’s exchange budget. On the first point, our Twelfth Report said:

There were during the year a good many developments in our relations with other countries to suggest that perhaps the growing interdependence of the world, on which we insisted so strongly in our Eleventh Report, had fallen victim to renascent nationalisms . . .

On the second point it noted with alarm that the 1976 appropriation for the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (CU) of the State Department of $55 million meant in practical terms, because of increasing costs, a substantial reduction in the size of the exchange program. We estimated that an appropriation of $90 million would be required to sustain a program at the 1966 level—and by implication recommended funding in at least that amount.

Now, one year later, we still feel that the CU budget is too small and have stated our belief that it should be increased. The Chairman spoke for the Commission when he testified as follows on February 28, 1977, before the House Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations:

My purpose in appearing here today is to support the appropriation request of the Department of State for the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in the amount of $70,500,000 for the next fiscal year. It is my considered opinion that the work of this Bureau is of vital importance to the resolution of some of the complex political problems which the United States faces in its relations with other countries. My experience as Director of the United States Information Agency [1965–69], and my relations with the Department of State during the past several years as Chairman of the Advisory Commission have convinced me that cultural and educational exchange is an indispensable aid to the achievement of our foreign policy objectives.

Our first recommendation in this Thirteenth Report is that the Congress appropriate as a minimum for the exchange program the $70.5 million which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has authorized the Department to request.

But once again we feel encouraged to believe that the importance of “public diplomacy,” of which international exchange is an important part, is gaining the recognition it deserves in our foreign policy. We do not believe that this is a partisan development attributable solely to a change in Administrations; and yet it is true that the new Administration appears ready to breathe new life into the exchange program. Here are the main reasons why we are once more optimistic.

• The appropriation situation is promising. The House has authorized an appropriation of $75.5 million, the Senate $80.5 million. The House Appropriations Committee has, disappointingly, reported out a recommendation for only $66.5 million; but the Senate Appropriations Committee has not yet been heard from. When these disparities are ironed out, we trust that the Department will receive, as we have recommended, all (or more than) it has requested.

• Organizational problems which have hampered the operation of our international cultural programs appear on the way to resolution. The Commission called attention to these in March 1975 in a report which it instigated, International Information, Education and Cultural Relations: Recommendations for the Future. Three months later, the Murphy Commission focused attention on them in its report, Organization of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign Affairs,³ noting:

The ability of this country to make its views prevail and its policies succeed will derive less from its wealth and power, and more from such respect and support as the rest of the world accords to its values and purposes; however, neither foreign policy advocacy nor the building of long-range understanding between the United States and other nations is now being handled with full effectiveness.

Now the new Administration has made it clear that it intends to tackle the problem. The General Accounting Office has prepared for Congress a detailed analysis of the former report.⁴ The United States Information Agency (USIA) has defined its position on reorganization, and the State Department has done likewise. A proposed amendment by Senator Percy to the Department’s appropriation bill has precipitated action in the Senate; and in the House, hearings have begun on the various reorganization proposals.⁵ It is therefore reasonable to expect that by the end of this year our government will be better organized to exploit the possibilities of public diplomacy.

• Public awareness of, and support for, international exchange, have continued to mount. There is abundant evidence of this interest, none more striking than the media coverage accorded to the symposium held last May in Washington to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the “Fulbright Program.”⁶ News stories, editorials, and TV commentary praised its past and pled for its future in terms like this from a Newsweek editorial:

Now, as the Fulbright-Hays program . . . observes its thirtieth anniversary . . . the need for such continuing educational exchange is unquestioned—and imperative. Unquestioned because of its consistent success over the years; imperative because the peace and progress of mankind are now, more than ever in the past, linked to the civilizing and humanizing of relations between nations.

• Most encouraging of all, President Carter himself has, in word and deed, demonstrated a commitment to the principle and the practice of international exchange which must set the tone for his Administration. It was characteristic of him that in his inaugural speech he addressed not only his fellow Americans but also “citizens of the world,” on the theme of shaping “a world order that is more responsive to human operations.”⁷ Subsequently he gave proof that these were not idle words by, for example: his vigorous personal participation in cultural events; his clear emphasis on the place human rights will play in the formation of U.S. foreign policy; his espousal of a “Friendship Force” which would extend to thousands of Americans the people-to-people experience he himself had found so useful.⁸ Above all the Commission is encouraged by his promise to the Organization of American States (OAS), quoted later in this report, that “we plan to explore with your governments new people-to-people programs, an increase in professional and scientific exchanges, and other ways of strengthening the ties that already link us.” It is again characteristic of the President that scarcely 6 weeks after making this promise he sent Mrs. Carter to Latin America to, as he put it, “elaborate some of the new directions contained in my OAS speech and to discuss with Latin American leaders ways in which we can cooperate most effectively to advance them.”⁹

The Commission naturally welcomes the Administration’s apparent intention to accord educational and cultural exchange a more prominent role in the conduct of foreign affairs and is eager to cooperate in the ways envisaged by its enabling legislation.

The Commission’s observations and recommendations on subjects which have concerned it during the past year—and for several previous years—are summarized in Chapter 1 (Summary and Recommendations) and Chapter III (Report on Activities) of this report. In Chapter V (The Future of the Commission), it has recommended a review of the Commission’s responsibilities and appointments consistent with them.

It is our hope that this Thirteenth Report of the Commission will do more than provide a record of a year’s activity. We hope, rather, that it will suggest to the Executive Branch and the Congress new ways in which the Commission can make a real contribution to an important aspect of U.S. foreign policy—one to which the new Administration has wisely decided to give a high priority.

[Omitted here are Section III: Report on Activities; Section IV: The Commission in 1976–77; Section V: The Future of the Commission; and five Appendices.]

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, Office of Research and Assessment, Library, Archives, Office of the Archivist/Historian, Records Relating to the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, 1962–1978, Entry P–138, Box 2, U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, 13th Report, June 30, 1977. No classification marking. All brackets are in the original. As of 1977, the members of the Advisory Commission were Marks, Hauser, Brann, Burress, Leach, Milburn, Oldham, and French Smith.
2. Copies of the previous annual reports are ibid.
3. See footnote 6, Document 30.
4. See Document 50.
5. See footnote 2, Document 49; footnote 5, Document 51; Document 63; and Document 72.
6. According to an editorial published in The Washington Post on May 20, 1976, the Fulbright-Hays Board held a series of 10 regional seminars in 1976, culminating in a 3-day symposium at the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. (“Global Coping,” p. A18)
7. The text of the President’s January 20, 1977, inaugural address is printed in Public Papers: Carter, 1977, Book I, pp. 1–4. An excerpt of the inaugural address is printed in Foreign Relations, 1977–1980, vol. I, Foundations of Foreign Policy, Document 15.
8. See Document 7.
9. See footnote 2, Document 52, and Document 53.