280. Letter From the Director of the United States Information Agency (Wick) to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (McFarlane)1
My staff and I have had time to reflect more fully on Professor Tumarkin’s remarks on war psychosis in the Soviet Union,2 and I am sending a somewhat fuller reply than my brief note of last week.
The Tumarkin essay was particularly informative about ordinary, everyday Soviet citizens who—all our information indicates—do not take an active interest in international politics, do not actively seek out knowledge about it, and are probably the most susceptible to Soviet [Page 989] government propaganda. While we are of course very concerned with this group, it is clear that the opinion of military, party, industrial, cultural, and scientific cadres as well as what we in this country call the “informed public” is more important to the Soviet leadership because these groups are critical to the functioning of the regime.
We can best reach these groups as well as the general Soviet population by strengthening a number of programs already in progress, by pushing for continued innovation and upgrading of the means available to reach the Soviet population, and by refining our message to them. The themes you suggested in your note—our historical restraint in using force, the defensive nature of our military modernization, our good will toward the Russian and other Soviet peoples—are all themes we invoke constantly and will continue to invoke. We should also draw upon the substantial reservoir of good will that most Soviet citizens hold toward the U.S. as part of shared experiences such as World War II. We should reassert that our extensive net of bilateral contacts with Soviet citizens and institutions, particularly in the U.S. private sector, and our efforts to conclude a comprehensive exchanges agreement are evidence that we have been and are ready to speak to one another. We should emphasize that we stand ready to expand such contacts.
We must continue to upgrade our facilities, especially VOA. We should strive to gain access to more of the people we wish to influence through exchanges, exhibits, and publications, all of which are part of the new exchanges agreement we are currently negotiating with the Soviets. We will continue to expose the cynical manipulation of their own people in which the Soviet leaders engage, and emphasize the open nature of our society where Soviet leaders at the highest levels can gain access to public media while our own Ambassador is prevented from making his traditional July 4 speech on Soviet television.3 Indeed, as our own media are being inundated with Soviet spokesmen, it would be useful to keep pointing out that Americans do not have similar opportunities to reach the Soviet people through their media.
Finally, we must be careful in our programs and products of the sensitivity of the Soviet people. It will serve our interests to explain that we share their fundamental desire for peace and cooperation to reduce international tensions, and that we appreciate the difference between Soviet leaders and the Soviet people.
As you know, we have been engaged in our own research on this subject for some time. We are planning and have under way several activities which bear on this problem as well as that of communicating with the Soviet peoples:
[Page 990]• We are discussing with NASA the possibility of coordinated direct satellite broadcasting with VOA.
• We have initiated discussions with Ford Aerospace about the development of low-cost consumer DBS antennae and other ways to broadcast to Soviet listeners how dishes can be constructed cheaply and easily. We recognize that there are diplomatic and legal problems here, but we are nonetheless proceeding on the technical front. We understand that “home-made” dishes developed by Ford’s space group are being used in India.
• We will be coming out shortly with the latest in our series of analyses of Soviet perceptions which includes information on the issue of war psychosis in the Soviet Union.
• We are keeping a close watch on Soviet media in order to track trends in the propaganda campaigns which encourage war fears.
• We will be in contact with FBIS on the importance of keeping this issue high on their watch list.
• Our media elements will be extensively covering the President’s UNGA speech and his meeting with Foreign Minister Gromyko with the goal of conveying to the Soviet people our peaceful intentions. Of course, all of the Agency’s assets, including Worldnet and VOA, will be used to transmit the President’s speech to the world.
• Soviet war psychosis will be discussed at the next IIC meeting, tentatively planned for early October.
• We are reactivating our New Directions Advisory Committee, chaired by Norman Podhoretz, to discuss these issues. In addition to Mr. Podhoretz, this group includes prominent writer and social commentator Michael Novak, the noted historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, former Executive Director of the American Political Science Association Evron Kirkpatrick, and one of the outstanding experts on democratic philosophy Robert Nisbet.
• We are working on USIA’s response to the NSDD 1304 section on communicating with closed societies, which will explore the political and technical opportunities and obstacles, particularly regarding television, for us to get our message across to the Soviet peoples.
As always, I encourage my staff to examine its work and to seek out new approaches. I can assure you that we will continue to study the challenge the Tumarkin piece raises and consult closely with the NSC and the Department on what to do about it. You will be receiving our analyses and recommendations.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
- Source: Reagan Library, Matlock Files, Chronological File 1980–1986, Matlock Chron, September 1984 (2/5). Secret.↩
- In an August 24 memorandum to McFarlane, Matlock forwarded an article by Professor Nina Tumarkin entitled “Does the Soviet Union Fear the United States?” Matlock wrote: “Tumarkin, a member of the history department at Harvard who has specialized on Soviet internal propaganda, sent me an article she wrote following a trip to the Soviet Union this summer.” The article examined “the question of Soviet fear of the U.S., and comes to the conclusion that while ordinary citizens fear our military might (as the result of regime propaganda), the Soviet rulers, on the other hand, fear our culture—while respecting our military strength.” McFarlane passed the article to President Reagan who wrote in the margin of the covering memorandum: “Bud—this is very revealing & confirms much of what I’ve been trying to say but didn’t have the knowledge or the words. RR. P.S. Maybe Charlie Wicks outfit should see this.” In a PROFs message to Kimmitt on August 30, McFarlane wrote that after reading Tumarkin’s paper, Reagan wanted to “have VOA (and putatively RFE/RL) focus on making clear our peaceful purposes to the Russian people.” (Ibid.) Matlock prepared a package, including the article, which was forwarded to Wick. (Ibid.)↩
- See footnote 2, Document 207.↩
- Documentation on NSDD 130 “US International Information Policy,” March 6, is planned for publication in Foreign Relations, 1981–1988, vol. XXXIX, Public Diplomacy.↩
- Wick signed “Charlie” above his typed signature.↩