-2

3)

The Plan will facilitate effective address to the

issues of public diplomacy in an international environment which has changed markedly since the inception of these programs in the late '40s and early '50s. I refer here to the President's references to the need for effective, government-wide coordination

of our international information and exchanges programs.

Subject to the will of Congress, the President has set

two goals for the Agency for International Communication.

The first of these is to convey to the world an understanding

of our society and policies. I am happy to support this, because I believe that our interests require that others know where we stand. Our great presence in the world leads others quite spontaneously, and in their own interest, to want to know.

The second goal to inform ourselves about the world

-

reflects the great need in a democratic society for the facts about, and understanding of, the international environment in which policies are being made in its behalf. We have been so greatly enriched by the gathering in of others that we are in fact ourselves

a dialogue. We know it works. We know the power of listening.

I believe we should extend its realm.

- 3

We in USIA regard the President's two goals for the

new Agency as equally important, and mutually supporting.

that the

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions

Committee may have:

Chairman RIBICOFF. Senator Fulbright, we certainly welcome you here. It is always a privilege to hear from you. No man in the Congress has been so deeply involved in these problems of issues as you. Your name has been synonimous with the problems that we are discussing today, so we consider your testimony valuable, and we are delighted to have you.

TESTIMONY OF HON. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Senator FULBRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate being invited. It is the first time I have been invited since I left the Senate.

Chairman RIBICOFF. I think the country has missed your help and advice, and I am glad you are going to give it to us today.

Senator FULBRIGHT. As you properly state, I speak representing no organization; I speak for myself and because I have had a long interest in this particular activity. I really am concerned only about the exchange program. The other problems have been before this committee and I don't feel I have any particular qualifications to discuss them, so it is only a small part of it that concerns me.

When I say "small," I mean relative to all of these other activities, it is about one-tenth of what USIA's appropriation is, and about onethird of, say, the Radio Liberty, or Radio Free Europe. It is in that sense small.

It is difficult to be precise, but less than $20 million is attributable to educational exchange of persons.

The rest of the program is traditional. The other activities I have no objection to their being reorganized. This exchange is the first time our Government on any major scale has undertaken this kind of activity on a mutual basis in cooperation with other governments.

Under the 44 existing executive agreements, it is truly mutual. I supported AID in the old days, but I don't think of this as an AID program, it is a mutual assistance program in which presently a number of governments-two I know of—are giving more than we are for the support of the program.

Mr. Chairman, I heard of this meeting only Sunday, and I do not have a prepared statement which I regret. If you wish I would be willing to supply one later. There are some other materials I would like to submit for the record later if I may.1

Chairman RIBICOFF. Without objection, whenever you are ready with this material, you submit them and they will go in the record at the end of your testimony.

Senator FULBRIGHT. There is a list of the contributions, the 21 cost sharing arrangements, which I think would be appropriate for the committee, showing what I believe to be a unique quality about this program. I shall be brief. There are approximately 120,000 academic graduate participants, of this program, and I consider this a very great asset to this country. These are people who have an awareness of the culture of other countries that one can get in no other way-by living and studying there-and in the reverse. These are people who

1 See p. 82.

have an understanding of this country that I don't think they would get in any other way.

I keep thinking, as I hear this testimony, about what it will tell the world about us. I am for telling the world about us, but there is a big difference between telling about us and having them come and see themselves. To me, there is a great difference in the impression it makes, the credibility and the empathy it creates.

All countries have their propaganda agencies. All countries tell others through information and propaganda about themselves. They all tell the best they can. It is natural, and I make no criticism about that. But that is not the purpose of the exchange program. Its purpose is over the long term to provide for international understanding through the experience of scholars and students, living, studying, and teaching in other cultures and countries.

What I am very concerned about is merging this very small program-we will call it educational-cultural exchange-with a big program 10 times larger than it is and engaged, it seems to me, in quite a different activity.

I think there is some misapprehension. They have said we ought to unify these activities here because they are unified abroad. I think there is quite a serious misunderstanding of the way this works.

In each of these 44 countries, the executive agreements, set up binational commissions, consisting of 50 percent local people, usually members of the Ministry of Education, prominent educators, or the cultural representatives from their foreign office. I was just in Germany. They just celebrated the 25th anniversary of the program last Friday and the Under Secretary of State came last Friday, and the President-what we would call the Speaker of the Bundestag gave the principal speech.

I have never seen a comparable official do this in this country. The Germans contribute $1,800,000 to this program this year. The Americans contributed $525,000. That is how well they think of it.

A little country like Austria contributes more than we do. I say that only to illustrate the way they view exchange and it is not same as information.

What bothers me-I come to this point specifically because this was raised by Mr. Muller of the German foreign office, is what is their position in participating on a cost-sharing basis, if this now becomes generally regarded as an information program. They have to have approval of their laender and of their national government of the contribution to a program which will appear to all concerned as an information program not a cultural program. Their relations in the past have been with the State Department. It is now, but if you change it, they will have to reexamine their commitment and get a reauthorization to do business with an information program, so my primary concern is the way the foreign countries view it, and these are important countries-all of the Western European countries, Japan, and others. There are no executive agreements with the smaller countries that came in later. With them we do have ad hoc exchanges. We are authorized to make grants to them but with the principal countries it is a mutual program and these people believe it is their program as well as ours. They set the program for each country in the binational ceremony. The USIA man in England or in Germany does not pro

vide the program for those countries. It is the Binational Commission-the Executive Secretary of the Binational Commission is the principal officer who is concerned with what kind of a program each country has, and each country has a different program. They have their own ideas about what to stress, what area to study, et cetera. So I think it is quite a misunderstanding to think this operation is already merged in the field. It is not.

The Binational Commission's report to the State Department and to the BFS is regarded by our foreign partners in this program as an information program, it could destroy it. It does not disturb me too much what goes on here in Washington. It does disturb me what our foreign partners think-I would hate to discourage the participation of the people in these foreign countries in what they now consider a mutual approach.

Chairman RIBICOFF. Senator Fulbright, the thrust of what concerns you, as I understand it, is that the interpretation abroad will be that these men and women will be propagandists for a point of a few instead of scholars and educators trying to learn from one another?

Senator FULBRIGHT. Well, I don't think that the appointments will be of people who are qualified as scholars in the best sense of the word. It is the participation of the foreign governments and the Binational Commissions that concerns me.

Senator JAVITS. Bill, what do you want us to do?

Senator FULBRIGHT. I would like exchange left in the State Department. This is what I have advocated. A mutual friend arranged a lunch for me with Mr. Wellford and I told him I would like to see this left as it is.

As far as I know, there has never been even an allegation of any kind of criticism of this program, of malfeasance or of corruption. One of the troubles with it is that it is not newsworthy, it has operated very well, very satisfactorily for 30 years, so well that there have been no scandals, nothing that the press considers newsworthy to write about. Consequently nobody has focused on it. There has rarely been a news article in Washington, but there have been many in Europe. Last year they had the 30th anniversary of this program in Washington and there were 3 days in which very distinguished people from all over the world were in Washington and there was very little in the newspapers about it because there is nothing scandalous or bizarre about it. Nothing outrageous has happened to make it newsworthy, and I would like to see it left where it is. If you think it should be changed, let us study it for a year, consider alternatives and in the meantime arrange to find out how foreign people feel about it?

I realize it is unusual to ask advice of any foreign government, but the way this has worked is unique, especially in the cost-sharing agreements; we are really partners as of now. Foreign governments are contributing almost as much as we are, in Western Europe. I think it runs around something like $3 million to our $4 million. The Germans alone, $1.8 million. Austria gives more than we do. Twenty-one countries contribute.

I just visited last week with the Minister of Education of Sweden. He intends to increase their contribution. He was very optimistic. There are very prominent people in the governments of all of these countries who have had the advantage of this program, and they understand and appreciate it.

99-708 O-78-6