Attachment
Letter From the Under Secretary of State
(Katzenbach) to
President Johnson3
Washington, March 24, 1967
Dear Mr. President:
The committee which you appointed on February 15, 1967 has sought,
pursuant to your request:
—To review relationships between government agencies, notably the
Central Intelligence Agency, and educational and private voluntary
organizations which operate abroad; and
—To recommend means to help assure that such organizations can play
their proper and vital role abroad.
The committee has held a number of meetings, interviewed dozens of
individuals in and out of government, and reviewed thousands of
pages of reports. We have surveyed the relevant activities of a
number of federal agencies. And we have reviewed in particular and
specific detail the relationship between CIA and each relevant organization.
Our report,4 supplemented with
supporting classified documents,5
follows.
In summary, the committee offers two basic recommendations:
1. It should be the policy of the United States
Government that no federal agency shall provide any covert
financial assistance or support, direct or indirect, to any of
the nation’s educational or private voluntary
organizations.
2. The Government should promptly develop and
establish a public-private mechanism to provide public funds
openly for overseas activities of organizations which are
adjudged deserving, in the national interest, of public
support.
1: A NEW POLICY
The years immediately after World War II saw a surge of communist
activity in organizations throughout the world. Students,
scientists, veterans, women and professional groups were organized
into interna
[Page 446]
tional bodies
which spoke in the cadences, advocated the policies, and furthered
the interests of the communist bloc. Much of this activity was
organized, directed, and financed covertly by communist
governments.
American organizations reacted from the first. The young men and
women who founded the United States National Student Association,
for example, did so precisely to give American youth the capacity to
hold their own in the international arena. But the importance of
students as a force in international events had yet to become widely
understood and NSA found it
difficult to attract private support for its international
activities. Accordingly, the United States Government, acting
through the Central Intelligence Agency, provided support for this
overseas work.
We have taken NSA as an example.
While no useful purpose would be served by detailing any other
CIA programs of assistance to
private American voluntary organizations, one fundamental point
should be clearly stated: such assistance was given pursuant to
National Security Council policies beginning in October, 1951 and
with the subsequent concurrence of high-level senior
interdepartmental review committees in the last four
Administrations. In December, 1960, in a classified report submitted
after a year of study, a public-private Presidential Committee on
Information Activities Abroad specifically endorsed both overt and
covert programs, including those assisted by CIA.6
Our study, undertaken at a later time, discloses new developments
which suggest that we should now re-examine these policies. The
American public, for example, has become increasingly aware of the
importance of the complex forms of international competition between
free societies and communist states. As this awareness has grown, so
have potential sources of support for the overseas work of private
organizations.
There is no precise index to these sources, but their increase is
suggested by the growth in the number of private foundations from
2,220 in 1955 to 18,000 in 1967. Hence it is increasingly possible
for organizations like NSA to seek
support for overseas activities from open sources.
Just as sources of support have increased, so has the number of
American groups engaged in overseas work. According to the Agency
for International Development, there has been a nine-fold increase just among voluntary organizations
which participate in technical assistance abroad, rising from 24 in
1951 to 220 in 1965. The total of all private
American voluntary groups now working overseas may well exceed a
thousand.
[Page 447]
The number of such organizations which has been assisted covertly is
a small fraction of the total. The vast preponderance have had no
relationship with the government or have accepted only open
government funds—which greatly exceed funds supplied covertly.
The work of private American organizations, in a host of fields, has
been of great benefit to scores of countries. That benefit must not
be impaired by foreign doubts about the independence of these
organizations. The committee believes it is
essential for the United States to underscore that independence
immediately and decisively.
For these reasons, the committee recommends the following:
Statement of Policy7
No federal agency shall provide any covert financial
assistance or support, direct or indirect, to any of the
nation’s educational or private voluntary organizations. This
policy specifically applies to all foreign activities of such
organizations and it reaffirms present policy with respect to
their domestic activities.
Where such support has been given, it will be terminated as
quickly as possible without destroying valuable private
organizations before they can seek new means of support.8
We believe that, particularly in the light of recent publicity,
establishment of a clear policy of this kind is the only way for the
government to carry out two important responsibilities. One is to
avoid any implication that governmental assistance, because it is
given covertly, is used to affect the policies of private voluntary
groups. The second responsibility is to make it plain in all foreign
countries that the activities of private American groups abroad are,
in fact, private.
The committee has sought carefully to assess the impact of this
Statement of Policy on CIA. We have
reviewed each relevant program of assistance carried out by the
Agency in case-by-case detail. As a result of this scrutiny, the
committee is satisfied that application of the Statement of Policy
will not unduly handicap the Agency in the exercise of its national
security responsibilities. Indeed, it should be noted that, starting
well before the appearance of recent publicity, CIA had initiated and pursued efforts
to disengage from certain of these activities.
The committee also recommends that the implementation of this policy
be supervised by the senior interdepartmental review committee
[Page 448]
which already passes on
proposed CIA activities and which
would review and assist in the process of disengagement.9
2: NEW METHODS OF SUPPORT
While our first recommendation seeks to insure the independence of
private voluntary organizations, it does not deal with an underlying
problem—how to support the national need for, and the intrinsic
worth of, their efforts abroad.
Anyone who has the slightest familiarity with intellectual or youth
groups abroad knows that free institutions continue to be under
bitter, continuous attack, some of it carefully organized and
well-financed, all of it potentially dangerous to this nation.
It is of the greatest importance to our future and to the future of
free institutions everywhere that other nations, especially their
young people, know and understand American viewpoints. There is no
better way to meet this need than through the activity of private
American organizations.
The time has surely come for the government to help support such
activity in a mature, open manner.
Some progress toward that aim already has been made. In recent years,
a number of federal agencies have developed contracts, grants, and
other forms of open assistance to private organizations for overseas
activities. This assistance, however, does not deal with a major
aspect of the problem. A number of organizations cannot, without
hampering their effectiveness as independent bodies, accept funds
directly from government agencies.
The committee therefore recommends that the
Government should promptly develop and establish a
public-private mechanism to provide public funds openly for
overseas activities of organizations which are adjudged
deserving, in the national interest, of public support.
[Page 449]
Such a mechanism could take various forms. One promising proposal,
advanced by Mr. Eugene
Black, calls for a publicly funded but privately
administered body patterned on the British Council.10
The British Council established in 1934, operates in 80 countries,
administering approximately $30,000,000 annually for reference
libraries, exhibitions, scholarships, international conferences, and
cultural exchanges. Because 21 of its 30 members are drawn from
private life, the Council has maintained a reputation for
independence, even though 90 percent of its funds are
governmental.
According to the UNESCO Directory
of Cultural Relations Services, other nations have developed
somewhat similar institutions. The Indian Council for Cultural
Relations, for example, is entirely government-financed but operates
autonomously. The governing body of the Swedish Institute for
Cultural Relations consists of both government and private members.
This institute receives 75 percent of its funds from the government
and the remainder from private contributions.
The experience of these and other countries helps to demonstrate the
desirability of a similar body in the United States, wholly or
largely funded by the federal government. Another approach might be
the establishment of a governmental foundation, perhaps with links
to the existing Federal Inter-Agency Council on International
Education and Cultural Affairs.
Such a public-private body would not be new to the United States.
Congress established the Smithsonian Institution, for example, more
than a century ago as a private corporation, under the guardianship
of Congress, but governed by a mixed public-private Board of
Regents.
The committee began a preliminary study of what might be the best
method of meeting the present need. It is evident, however, that,
because of the great range both of existing government and private
philanthropic programs, the refinement of alternatives and selection
among them is a task of considerable complexity. Accordingly, we do
not believe that this exclusively governmental committee is an
appropriate forum for the task and we recommend, instead, the
appointment of a larger group, including individuals in private life
with extensive experience in this field.
The basic principle, in any event, is clear. Such a new institution
would involve government funds. It might well involve government
officials. But a premium must be placed on the involvement of
private citizens and the exercise of private judgments, for to be
effective, it would have to have—and be recognized to have—a high
degree of independence.
