88. Editorial Note
In a joint press statement issued on September 1, 1977, Director of the United States Information Agency John Reinhardt and Acting Secretary of State Warren Christopher announced the reorganization of U.S. public diplomacy activities, following President Jimmy Carter’s approval of consolidating the Department of State’s educational and cultural exchange activities and the United States Information Agency’s information and cultural activities in a “new organizational entity” (see Document 85). The statement outlined the procedures for establishing a new agency, discussed the process by which the President had reached his decision, and specified a time table for submitting the reorganization plan to Congress. It also specified the goals of the new agency:
“—Reflect accurately to other peoples and governments the values of our society;
“—Convey the diversity of thought and cultural vitality of the United States;
“—Insure that other countries know where this country stands and why;
“—Assist Americans to understand the intellectual and cultural wealth and diversity of other countries;
“—Forge relationships between Americans and others that can contribute to mutual understanding and the capacity to cooperate in solving common problems;
“—Provide the President and Secretary of State with accurate assessments of foreign opinion on important issues; and
“—Seek to reduce barriers to the international exchange of ideas and information.”
(Department of State Bulletin, October 24, 1977, page 572)
In USIA 24205 to all principal USIS posts, September 1, the United States Information Agency transmitted the text of the September 1 joint statement. The telegram also instructed posts to make the text of the joint statement available to the Executive Secretaries of the Fulbright Commission, within the respective countries, and “clarify that the President’s plan will guarantee the integrity of the functions of the Board of Foreign Scholarships and of our cultural and educational exchange programs with all countries.” (National Archives, RG 306, USIA Records, Historical Collection, Subject Files, 1953–2000, Entry A–1 1066, Box 43, USICA, Reorganization, 1974–1978)
In telegram 210289 to multiple diplomatic and consular posts, September 2, the Department transmitted excerpts from the September [Page 255] 1, 1977, Department of State daily briefing, during which Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs and Department of State Spokesperson Hodding Carter III discussed the joint statement and indicated that he would answer any questions about the proposed reorganization. Carter stated he did not “think there are any great surprises” in the joint statement and then took questions:
“Q. As I understand it, at least technically the Secretary of State will be in charge of the Voice of America. However, you have formed VOA into a new agency and pulled that agency into the State Department.
“A. Yes.
“Q. And I wondered how that would guarantee independent news broadcasts, since VOA now, since I understand it, isn’t answerable to any policy-makers outside the VOA.
“A. Well, the relationship, of course, has always been that we have given advice on policy matters.
“Q. The State Department has always given advice?
“A. Yes, the State Department gives advice on policy matters in any case to the VOA. I do not think that it substantially changes in its structural form that relationship.
“Q. Well, has that advice ever gone to the point of telling them what to broadcast and what not to broadcast?
“A. I don’t think that the question of prior censorship comes up.
“Q. What about post censorship? How about post recriminations?
“A. What am I going to tell you?
“Q. Garbled.
“A. What I am going to tell you is very obvious. There have been times where there have been questions raised in the past about VOA. I mean, that is a matter of record in fact.
“Q. But at least, if you will accept that there are murmurings within VOA that there will now be some interference from the State Department that didn’t exist in the past.
“A. I would find that to be not in keeping with what is intended in this, that there will be some new level of interference. In fact, it seems to me that Mr. Reinhardt has made it very clear that the VOA, within the general fact that it operates under USIA is going to be allowed to use independence, free from outside interference.
“Q. What makes it more independent?
“A. Wait a minute. I am not suggesting that it is more independent beyond what—by this reorganization—beyond what Mr. Reinhardt himself has already put out in the Agency.
“Let me say that insofar as the total details of this reorganization plan are concerned, that is going to be included in the broader reorgani[Page 256]zation proposal which the President is going to be forwarding, and I am just not prepared to go into great specificity on it because of that, but insofar as the major concern of the debate that I have seen in the past, i.e., the Stanton Report and others, clearly the VOA is not being spun out, it is being retained.
“Q. What I am asking you is somewhat different. If it is to have a relationship similar to ACDA’s relationship to the State Department, I am unaware that ACDA has an independent policy relationship to the State Department. Therefore I do not see how the Voice of America can have an independent policy relationship.
“A. Well, the budget and the personnel system are independent. The form of our participation is clearly going to be on the policy line in trying to make sure that policy is understood. It has nothing to do with those handling the news. It has to do however, with the accurate transmittal of U.S. policy. That has been the way it has been. I mean, that clear[ly] is an interest. It is a U.S. agency in that respect.”
After answering additional questions concerning the Voice of America, Carter responded to a question regarding the Stanton Report and support for its recommendations:
“I can’t speak officially as to how much support it had. It is not my understanding that it had a great deal of backing in the deliberations that went on in intergovernmental—it was certainly considered very carefully, however. It and the Murphy Report (see footnote 6, Document 30) and a number of others, GAO reports (see Document 50), and individual reports of agencies concerned.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770319–0362)