77. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission in West Berlin1
156755. For P and C from the Deputy Director. Repeat USIA 18505–U.2
This cable contains programs guidelines which have been issued by the Director and distributed here. They will guide your country plan program and project activities for the coming year. I hope you will see in them an important emphasis on (1) focus and (2) quality in our efforts to support U.S. policy objectives. They presume intellectual rigor applied to a commonly defined set of purposes.
These are the guidelines:
“As currently constituted, USIA has a two-fold legislative mandate: (1) to explain U.S. official policies and (2) to project American society. To ensure that this mandate is effectively interpreted and applied, the Director has established basic guidelines for Agency programming, both in the field and in Washington. He has directed that Agency managers—at all levels, in Washington and abroad—apply the guide [Page 228] lines immediately to the current country plan and ZBB reviews. These guidelines are:
“1. The purpose of USIS country programs is to support U.S. policy objectives. These objectives will be based on only two sources: issues defined in the mission PARM and worldwide priority subjects specifically approved by the Director. No other policy objectives exist for the purposes of programming. PARM objectives to which a post addresses itself are to be reworded in the country plan as public affairs objectives.
“2. Programming not addressed specifically to policy issues (‛policy explication’) will be designed to strengthen audience perceptions of significant trends, enduring strengths and values in American society. This programming, too, must be demonstrably relevant to the stated objectives of each post.
“3. A country program, and each of its constituent parts, require a clear-cut rationale, articulated in terms of (1) PARM objectives, (2) global guidance from the director and (3) an analysis of the points of communications tension between the U.S. and host country. Program rationales are subject to constant challenge by management at all levels. The question is not ‛what are we doing,’ but ‛what are we attempting to accomplish and why?’
“4. Programs and projects must be clearly relevant to the promotion of PARM-identified U.S. interests in the host country or global guidelines from the Director. Programs and projects will not be undertaken simply because they are within our capability. A related question is whether we are trying to accomplish too much, and therefore accomplishing less than we might if our resources were more highly focused.
“5. All locally produced programming will meet all of the criteria stated herein. The totality of programs will be in a balance appropriate to public affairs priorities.
“6. Country plans should continue to be based on present audience definitions.
“7. The post’s rationale and post activities presuppose an understanding of the host country influence structure.
“8. The country plan, once approved, will govern program decisions and resource commitments throughout the year. It is a ‛living’ document, not a candidate for consignment to the files, and will be the basis for all judgments on a post’s program rationale and activities.
“Area offices will be responsible for drafting, in consultation with IOP, a response to each current country plan submission. The responses will convey judgments on each country plan submission in the light of these guidelines. The message will be reviewed and signed by the Deputy Director.
“Where, in the judgment of an area Assistant Director, the current country plan submission does not reflect these guidelines, posts will [Page 229] be required to submit a new plan which will be due in Washington by cable not later than September 1.
“Allocations of FY 1978 funds in Washington and at overseas posts will be based on these submissions.” (End guidelines)
It is our intention, in the course of the next planning cycle, to meld our ZBB-country plan processes and to relate both more closely to the State Department’s PARM process. This will result in more productive programming while lightening the paper load on you and on us.
The area directors, working with IOP, are now using the guidelines as they review your country plan submission and project proposals. I shall communicate their comments and reviews to you by telegram early in August.3
In all cases, PAO’s will be asked to adjust their present country plan submission in the light of Washington comments. In some cases, PAO’s will be asked to submit a new plan, if the present submission does not adequately reflect the guidelines; the due date will be September 1.
You should read these guidelines in the context of the Director’s PAO letter of June 174 which transmitted the transcript of meetings he and I conducted with senior agency officers.
If you have questions about the guidelines, please cable them. The Director and I trust you will interpret these guidelines rigorously and will regard it as a major personal responsibility to bring purpose, focus, indispensability and creativity to all that we do.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770240–0666. Unclassified. Sent for information. Drafted by Alan Carter; cleared by Bray and Schneidman, by telephone by Ward (EUR/CE), and for information by Fraser; approved for information by Baskey (EUR/EX).↩
- Not found. The text of the guidelines, as sent in USIA 18505, is in an undated paper entitled “Guidelines for Agency Programming.” (National Archives, RG 306, Associate Directorate for Programs, Subject Files of Basic Operating Documents, 1969–1982, Entry P–100, Basic Documents—1977 [A])↩
- Not found.↩
- See Document 68.↩