119. Memorandum From the General Counsel of the United States Information Agency (Plesent) to the Director (Murrow)1
SUBJECT
- Fascell Subcommittee hearings
Mr. Herbert C.L. Merillat testified Tuesday, April 2 before the Fascell Subcommittee investigating the “ideological conflict”.2
Mr. Merillat had no prepared statement. His extemporaneous remarks were primarily of a philosophical character pertaining to the role of education in the cold war. In essence, his thesis was that we are basically ignorant of the culture, institutions, mores, and religions [Page 314] of the rest of the world, and that effectiveness of our communication with other peoples depends upon our understanding them. He stated that the United States has made a start toward the study of various foreign cultures and societies but that much more is needed. He also emphasized the importance of foreign students in the United States in terms of long range benefits.
Mr. Merillat engaged in a colloquy with Chairman Fascell as to whether our efforts are aimed too much at the elite rather than the masses. Mr. Merillat suggested that the only practicable approach was to reach the people through the intellectual elite, while Chairman Fascell suggested the need to get to the people to influence their leaders.
The role, if any, of Government in organizing and consolidating our educational exchange efforts was debated with the conclusion that Government can help coordinate but should not direct the educational efforts of our pluralistic society.
A final point by Mr. Merillat was that foreign military officers receiving technical training in the United States present an ideological opportunity which is not presently being grasped.3
A copy of the Chairman’s opening remarks is attached.4
- Source: National Archives, RG 306, DIRCTR Sub Files, 1963–69, Bx 6–29 63–69: Acc: #72A5121, Entry UD WW 257, Box 7, Congressional Relations (IGC) General 1963. No classification marking. Drafted by E.J. Skora (IGC). In the upper right-hand corner of the memorandum, Murrow signed his initials “ERM.” Above Murrow’s initials, Harris wrote his initials, “RH,” and the date, “4/9.”↩
- Merillat was an author,
journalist, and international law expert. On April 2, he addressed
Fascell’s subcommittee in
his capacity as the Executive Director of the American Society of
International Law. For the full text of his statement and testimony, see
Winning the Cold War: The U.S. Ideological
Offensive: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on International
Organizations and Movements of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Eighty-Eighth Congress, First Session,
Part I, March 28, 29, April 2 and 3, 1963 (Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 72–90.
In addition to Merillat, several officials from the U.S. Information Agency, including Murrow, also appeared as witnesses on March 28. In his statement, Murrow stated: “In the worldwide ideological conflict, which this committee is now studying, there is much that the U.S. Information Agency can do and is doing to further the cause of freedom and our national interests. There is also much the USIA cannot do, and it is well for us to understand its limitations as well as its potential if we are realistically to appraise its role.” According to Murrow: “Ten years ago the Jackson Committee established to study our worldwide information program, stated that—‘any program supported by Government funds can only be justified to the extent that it assists in the achievement of national objectives.’ I agree—and that is the purpose, the sole purpose of USIA today: to further the achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives as enunciated by the President and the State Department.” Murrow stressed that “[w]e seek to influence people’s thinking through the various means of communication—personal contact, radio broadcasting, libraries, book publication and distribution, the press, motion pictures, television, exhibits, English-language instruction, and others.” (Ibid., p. 2)
Murrow continued by noting: “This is not to say that American policymakers decide what to do or what to say on the basis of which way the winds of thought are blowing; foreign affairs cannot, should not, and are not conducted on the basis of a popularity contest. But it does mean that, in this age of swift communication and swift reaction, our Government tries to present its policies and programs in as understandable and palatable form as possible—understandable and palatable to those millions abroad, friend, foe, and neutral, whose lives and fortunes are affected by what we do.” (Ibid., p. 3)
↩ - An unknown hand wrote “!!” at the end of the sentence.↩
- Attached but not printed. For Fascell’s opening statement, see Winning the Cold War: The Ideological Offensive, p. 71.↩
- Plesent signed “Stan” above his typed signature.↩