TRANSLATION OF QUESTIONS TO DR. KISSINGER

President Johnson's speeches, pointing out the decadence of the distinction between civil war and war between nations in the modern world--do they not contradict the lecturer's opinion, according to which the intervention in the Dominican Republic was the fruit of an isolated act, based on bad information? Was not that intervention, in truth, the result of a doctrine? Salomao Sapoznik, SP 19

For what reason do the United States not propose free and direct elections in the whole territory of Viet Nam? Ricardo Goulart Jahn RS 12

How does the North American government view the economic and sometimes indeed political interference of certain private companies in Latin American countries; a specific case would be United Fruit? Ignacio Silva Telles SP 10

On what does the United States base itself when it calls itself the defender of peace and of human rights when it is the only country which makes war in countries that wish to free themselves from oppression and from underdevelopment? Icleiber PE 4

How do you interpret President Johnson's sentence, "I will not stay sitting in a rocking chair watching Communism dominate the world." Does he think that the North American politic-economic system, transported to underdeveloped countries, will solve their problems? Why does he not understand that reactionary governments of Latin America accuse an oppressed people, without opportunities, of being Communists in order to defend their privileged position (now with the possibility of a greater defense if the new "Holy Alliance" comes into being, that is, a permanent Interamerican force). Roberto S. Costa SP

Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of the OAS speak of the right of self-determination, non-intervention, etc. Having said this, we ask: Is the OAS valid for the American government only when it serves its (that government's) interests? Ruy Albergaria MG 10

How can one (believe) understand that a nation which spends half of its budget on armaments provided by corporations which are not under state control, is not influenced in its foreign policy by the interests of these industries? Paulo Siqueira PE 9

PROFESSOR KISSINGER
"FOREIGN POLICY OF THE U.S.

THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1965, EVENING

Ladies and gentlemen. Whenever I am introduced I think of a rather painful experience I had to undergo a few weeks ago when I had to introduce somebody here at Harvard and I told my secretary to take the background of this man out of Who Is Who, and I got up and made a very eloquent introduction. When I was through, the speaker arose and he said, "Thank you very much. My brother is a very remarkable man."

Now, the topic that has been assigned to me, The Foreign Policy of the United States, is not an excessively restricted one. And I will try to talk to you about it from the aspects that I have thought about as a professor and what I have seen of the conduct of foreign policy in Washington. I have to apologize incidentally to the interpreter that my sentences keep rolling on. It is not bad interpretation. It's a sentence structure which is reminiscent of a comment which Anatole Frost made about Cant, in which he said he couldn't really say that he had read Cant. He had read nine volumes, but the verb was in the tenth. Now I will speak about the foreign policy of the United States in two categories. One, I will speak briefly about the way it is made and then I will make a few general observations about some of the main trends,

make a few general observations about some of the main trends,
I will address briefly about the way it is made and then I will
foreign policy of the United States in two categories. One,
and the end was in the tend. Now I will address about the
result said that he had read Count. He had read nine volumes,
Unstole Front made about Count, in which he said he couldn't
a sentence structure which is reminiscent of a comment which
sentences keep rolling on. It is not bad interpretation. It's
I have to paraphrase incidentally to the interpreter that we
I have seen of the conduct of foreign policy in Washington.
the aspects that I have thought about as a professor and what
attributed one. And I will try to tell you about it from
Foreign Policy of the United States, is not an excessively re-
Now, the topic that has been assigned to us, The
very much. If you prefer it is a very remarkable man.

When I was through, the abeater arose and he said, "Thank you. Who is who", and I not up and made a very element introduction.
I told my secretary to take the background of this man out of
weeks. So when I had to introduce somebody here at Harvard and
think of a further helpful experience I had to undergo a few
lines and sentences. Whenever I an introduced I

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1963, P.M. WARNING

"FOREIGN POLICY OF THE N. B."
PROFESSOR RICHTER

PROFESSOR RICHTER

KISSINGER-2

or some main problems as I see them, and I will not in my presentation, go into very many specific issues. I will, however, be happy to answer any questions you will put before me and as far as I am concerned, there's no question can be offensive, but some answers may be.

Now, let me say something about how foreign policy is made. When I was a graduate student here at Harvard, I wrote my thesis on diplomatic history of the early nineteenth century. I studied the documents and I tried to find very profound reasons for everything that was done, and I treated all the government as monolithic entities well aware of their self interest, conducting policy on the basis of long range considerations, and drew conclusions which seemed to me at the time to be extraordinarily profound. I have since seen governments operate at the highest levels and I think from what I have seen, any interpretation that assumes that governments operate on the basis of long term, monolithic class, with a profound awareness of their self interest, and an overall conception of the world, is almost invariably wrong. I can say this with assurance about the United States Government, but I have seen several other governments in action and I am rather persuaded that this generalization would be true of all of them.

You have to consider that every day some three thousand cables arrive in Washington. All of them require some kind of an answer. Most of the cables deal with some situations that to the local representatives of the United States are, demand

KISSINGER - 3

some immediate action. This means that problems usually come
to the attention of Washington when they have reached a point
of crisis, and when the capacity for creative action is there-
fore relatively limited. At the same time, so many problems
require immediate attention that there is an enormous reluctance
to take on problems that are not yet acute. Before 1961, many
of my colleagues and I were writing eloquent articles about
the fact that the difficulties of Washington, when they were
not traceable to the fact that Harvard professors were not
called down in sufficient numbers, were due to the fact that
there was an absence of long range planning and of national
purpose. In fact, there were a number of commissions studying
the question of national purpose at the time.

In 1961, several of my colleagues, full time, and I
part time, went to Washington, fully convinced that the problems
would now be solved in short order, and some of us were even
wondering what we might be doing in the last two years of the
Kennedy administration, when there would be no longer any
problems. Well, it hasn't turned out this way. You could still
make many of the criticisms that were made in 1960 and I would
say that the reason is structural. It isn't that the policy
makers in Washington, or the present policy makers do not
recognize the theoretical need of long range planning. It is
that they are so pre-occupied with day to day pressures, that
all their instincts are rebel against taking on any problems
that do not have to be faced immediately. And I would argue

KISSINGER - 4

that this condition of a bureaucratization of foreign policy,
which is a very worrisome one, of the concern with the immediate
and the tactical, at the expensive of the long range and purposeful
is a difficulty which is not peculiar to the United States, but
is true of almost every big government.

In almost every big government the requirements of
operating the administrative machine tend to predominate over,
sometimes to predominate over the purposes which the adminis-
trative machine was supposed to perform. If one studies the
difficulties communist governments have in adapting their
policy to changing conditions, one sees many of the same phenomena.

Now, foreign policy in the United States, the conduct
of foreign policy has, however, some features which are peculiar
to the United States. One is that in many of our leading
positions, the legal profession has a dominant influence. And
the legal profession tends to reinforce the reluctance to take
on the hypotehtical cases which are inherent in long term planning.

The skill of the legal profession is in the analysis of
individual cases and therefore in the American government, from
what I have seen of it, there is a greater ability to analyze
individual casea as they come up then to relate the various
instances of international affairs to each other. And therefore
in 1961 you get the decision to neutralize Laos and to send troops
to Vietnam within the space of a three month period, even though
one would argue that both policies could not possibly be right.
Either troops had to be sent to both Laos and Vietnam or both
countries had to be neutralized. But countries that were

KISSINGER - 5

contiguous had been part of the same general area open to the
same general influences, could not be artificially treated as
separate cases, and yet the tendency was to look at each event
in terms of the immediate situation of the year 1961.

Another difficulty which seems to me peculiarly
American, is that many of our key personnel, or of our top
personnel, reach high office without having had a primarily
political training. And for that matter, without very much
acquaintance with each other. For example, President Kennedy
had never met any member of his cabinet dealing with foreign
policy before he appointed them to their key positions in the
foreign policy field. And I don't believe that they had ever
met each other. The situation is therefore quite different
from, for example, Great Britain, where the cabinet will have
served together for many years in the House of Commons, know
each other's strengths and weaknesses and above all, know how
they, what intangibles of expressions in discussions mean.

Now, people that reach high office without much political
training, sometimes have a tendency to be overly theoretical in
their approach and not necessarily to understand the historical,
psychological and sociological conditions which form the
peculiarities of other societies.

Thirdly, the American governmental process operates
best, operates primarily through a series of what our lawyers
would call adversary proceedings. Each department, and within
each department very often each sub-department, considers itself

KISSINGER - 6

primarily responsible for its own sphere of responsibility. There
is no such thing from my acquaintance with the American govern-
ment. For better or for worse. There is no such thing as a
Master Plan, according to which American foreign policy is
conducted. There are only a series of more or less pragmatic
decisions which are often made in the light, or almost invariably
made in the light of the circumstances which arise, and they are
made by various departments proposing a point of view and arguing
it out in an organization called The National Security Council
in which meets at the pleasure of the President, and under the
chairmanship of the President. A great deal depends(?) at these
meetings about who is most persuasive on that particular
occasion.

I do not recall a single instance when I was working
in the White House where a crisis arose, and where people said,
Let us now look at the documents of the policy planning staff
of the state department, to see what, whether they have predicted
this event, and what they have recommended. And I have therefore
always believed that if we turned over most of our secret
documents to the Russians, it would probably be a good thing,
because they'd be so busy studying them that they couldn't address
themselves to important problems, and they would get no clue to
what we were actually going to do.

If you want to understand, particularly say decisions
like the Dominican Republic, there are many criticisms you can
make and many criticisms that I would make. But the one thing

KISSINGER - 7

you cannot say is that there was a Master Plan to accomplish
a certain objective in a certain way.

The interesting question is, What information was
suddenly produced that seemed so overwhelming that an immediate
@cision had to be taken. That too is a worrisome question, and
one which requires study. But the key aspect of our foreign
policy making on the whole is that most issues are taken more
or less pragmatically in the light of the conditions which exist
at a particular moment and therefore the accident of personality
plays an enormous role, unhistorical as this may be.

Now, one question that in my previous meeting with this
group, one of the questions that was always asked of me and that
I might as well answer now, is how about big industry. To what
extent does big industry influence American foreign policy?

And I can only give an answer from what I have observed
in the fields with which I have been particularly concerned,
which are European policy, military policy and disarmament
policy, and therefore it may not be true in other areas. But
in those fields I have to give you an answer which in the past
have not found favor with this group, but which nevertheless
reflect my observation. And I have to give it in two parts.

I have to say first of all, that most American in-
dustrialists whom I have had occasion to meet would not know
how to influence long term foreign policy if they knew what
long term policy is, which they also don't know.

KISSINGER - 8

Most American industrialists with whom I'm familiar, have utterly no understanding of long term foreign policy considerations. They do have an understanding of what kind of an airplane they would like to sell to the Defense Department. And when there is a specific question like which airplane the Air Force should buy, there you get tremendous pressure from the industry. When you have an issue like whether more troops should be sent to Vietnam or that the troops should be sent to Europe during the Berlin crisis of 1961, I never encountered the point of view of industry as such and I do not believe that you could, if you analyze what they think, that you would find a coherent point of view. You would find that Eastern industry is on the whole internationalist and if they were an active foreign policy that you would find I believe that with the mid-western industry, represented by, for example, the Adenhour secretariat of the Treasury, Humphrey, would hold the view that the United States is over extended internationalists and should pull out from all places. A significant segment of industrialists that I have encountered are more or less isolationists and another significant segment is more or less interested in what is called an internationalist ban, but on the specifics of foreign policy, on most issues, unless they immediately affect today's business operations, I have not encountered this. Now in Latin America this may be different, because there American economic interest may be more directly related to the day to day contact of foreign policy, and therefore I would not generalize.

KISSINGER - 9

But insofar as one can speak of peak philosophically, this
would be true. Now in this apparatus, in which advisory
proceedings play such a great role, the role of the president
and of his immediate advisors is absolutely decisive. The
personality of the president dominates everything that is being
done in Washington. This in fact is one of the distorting
elements in the conduct of foreign policy. Because once it
is known what general direction the president wants to under-
take, the human temptation is to try to give it to him. I
have often reflected about the question whether intelligence
guides national policy or follows national policy; whether the
national intelligence estimates tells the president more or
less what he likes to hear or whether they tell him what he
ought to be thinking about. You couldn't make a case for
either proposition. The fact is that if you are an official
if
disagreeing with the President and if you consider that you
don't get to be President of the United States unless you have
a very strong will, it is a very risky business to tell the
President of the United States that he is wrong. It is risky
because he may come to the conclusion that he's wrong but that
you are stupid. And in that case you will not hold your job.
for very long. It is therefore very dangerous, it is therefore
a risky business for the President to let his subordinates know
to well what is basic direction is because from that moment on
the whole apparatus of the government operates to make it possible.

KISSINGER - 10

This is the only way you can explain such things as the Bay
of Pigs operation, which in retrospect then looks so absurd.
And I would say that one of the great things about Kennedy, except
for the one episode that I have mentioned was the fact that
he was a very detached person who was willing to criticize even
his own views and who therefore made it possible within the
government to have a fairly objective consideration. The more
normal person who gets to be President with a less wide range
of alternatives before him, it's likely to be more dominate. So
all I'm really saying is that if one wants to understand what
American policy is likely to be, I do not believe that it is
useful to study the economic factors, which I have not
found to be dominate, but it is useful to study the bureaucratic
structure and to study the kind of person that tends to get
into key offices, the kind of arguement which they consider
reasonable and the kind of experiences which have shaped them
as they come into high office and let me, from this as a
departure make some general observation about the problems of
American foreign policy as I see them today, and I'll make these
observations deliberately general and I'll be as specific if
you want me to be in the question period.

First of all I think it is important to understand
that until 1945, the United States did not really have a foreign
policy. Until 1945 the United States outside of the western
hemisphere took the attitude that many of the so called uncommitted

k

KISSINGER - 11

nations now take to us. The United States took the view that
international affairs were the invention of short sighted,
morally inferior Europeans, that we were immune from the tempta-
tions of power politics and that we were prepared
to conduct our foreign policy on the basis of consideration
more elevated than those that had characterized the
conduct of Europeans. During much of World War II for example,
if you read statements even of President Roosevelt, and
certainly of the American press, you will find the conviction
that Britain and Russia were equal threats to the peace and that
it was the task of the United States to mediate between the Soviet
Union and Great Britain in the Post War period. Much as India
and some other countries later on have tried to mediate between
us and the Soviet Union. The United States in
the period before 1945, international affairs was characterized
either by conditions of peace in which we believed that diplomacy,
moral considerations, or commercial relations were dominate,
or periods of war in which the only thing that mattered was
military victory. We had a tendency to segment foreign policy
into cycles of either extreme hostility or extreme pacifism or
formal pacifism. And therefore because most Americans believed
that international affairs were in their nature characterized
by peace and that peace was the normal condition, there was always
the assumption that if war occured it had to be caused by the
wicked intentions of individuals and not by structural causes

KISSINGER - 12

which it was important to deal with. This is why the war against
the Germans and the Japanese became in part a crusade. This is
also why as soon as the war was won there was a conviction that
now conversion to peaceful intentions was permanent. Now I
mention this because some of these vestiges of our earlier
period of isolation can still be found in American policy in
the period after 1945. You'll find an initial period of expecta-
tions which went much too far. There was a period right after
World War II when people were talking about Stalin as Uncle
write
Joe and where Harry Hopkins could ride in his report about Yalta
'Of course we all know that Stalin is dedicated to peace, but
to have no idea what other forces might be lurking in the dark
recesses of the Kremlin.' Three years later, the opinions
had changed completely. Three years later the Soviet Union had
been moved into the position of the permanent enemy and all of
American foreign policy for the next decade was concentrated on
the question of how one could stop an aggressive design which one
feature
took to be a permanent nature of the internationalscene. This
was the period of the Dulles' foreign policy when the United
States was trying to create alliances all over the world and
then everything was subordinated to an east, west struggle
including the affairs of regions that simply did not feel part of
this east-west struggle. Now with the Kennedy period, I believe
that a more differentiated approach to the conduct of foreign
policy began and I think that this will on the whole continue
with ups and downs. With however a number of provisors.

KISSINGER - 13

First of all you have to remember that the United
States from having no experience with foreign policy now has to
conduct foreign foreign policy with about a 110 neverending soveriegn
nations on a local scale and that is...that would tax the
resources...the intellectual resources of even a very experienced
country.

Secondly, we are in a position where many of the
decisions that are plaguing in Washington for good or ill,
have permanent effects on a global *xx* scale. It is extremely
difficult for a leadership group that tends to think in
pragmatic case to case terms to confront a global situation.

Thirdly there are many crisis which are more or less
imposed on the United States and which once they exist, absorb
energies from other tasks. I would assume that at the moment
ninety percent of the time of the President, the Secretary of
State, the Special Assistant to the President and the Secretary
of Defense, ninety percent of their time is taken with Viet Nam.
Five percent maybe taken by the Dominican Republic and leaving
five percent for the rest of the world. And since decisions have
to be taken by individuals, it means that there is an unequal
development of our foreign policy as between different regions
at different times. Now if I were to mention some of the major
areas in which we have...in which we have problems right now, let
me put them into these categories.

Let's say first the relations with the Communist countries.

KISSINGER - 14

I'm not putting them in relation to importance...relations with the Communist countries, relations with Europe and relations with the developing nations.

Now I cannot possibly cover in detail all of these areas. But let me mention some of the key elements now and then as I said go into more detail in the question period.

First, with respect to the Communist world. We have... if you'll read the American views about Communism...you will find that the United States has gone through wild oscillations. In 1918, the first period of Communism, there was extreme hostility. Then in the 1920's and in particular the 1930's there was the beginning of the belief that Stalin was really primarily interesting only in the domestic developments of the Soviet Union and in the 1940's Stalin even emerged as a very benign figure. Then in the 1950's we back to extreme hostility, to be interrupted in 1955 and in 1959. In 1955 during the summit meeting at Geneva and in 1959 when Mr. Kruschev visited Washington, by attitudes in the American press and among many American policy measures, which gave the impression that it was all...that all the tensions in the world were a gigantic misunderstanding to be removed by good personal relations.

Now let me state what my views on the problem are. In my view there are many factors in the Communist world that make it possible to hold hope for an easing of international tensions. There is first of all the fact that nuclear war under

KISSINGER - 15

present conditions is suicidal and that every political leader must know that to push matters to an extreme will have or can have catastrophic consequences. There is the fact that the needs of economic development are apparent on both sides of the dividing line. There is also the fact that in forty years k now of Communist rule, the potentiality for schisms has become more and more apparent. Most...many of the <u>anger</u> energies of the Communist leaders are now involved in internal manuevering, and while this is not an unmixed blessing for the other countries it at least means that even Communist countries have to consider international affairs in a more traditional and less beligerent framework. On the other hands, there seems to me certain factors which <u>still</u> may cause difficulty. First of all this <u>persistent</u> persistence of <u>crisis</u> crisis which may not necessarily be caused by either side, but which once the two sides confront themselves, it becomes very difficult to solve. I would say that Viet Nam is such an example. In Viet Nam the issue today is no longer what it started out to be...The freedom of South Viet Nam alone...the issue is how one can reconcile the committments that all the major countries have made with a continuation of international peace.

Secondly, and I would say <u>perhaps</u> that most worries them, I have my doubts about the kind of person that reaches high office in Communist countries. I have my doubts not on ideological grounds but on sociological grounds and my doubts are focused on this question. I ask myself who decides to

KISSINGER - 16

enter the leadership career in a Communist country to begin with. If he looks over the roster of leadership group at the beginning of any decade and compares it with the roster of leadership group at the end of any decade he must come to the conclusion that job security is not the outstanding characteristic of that particular profession. I would therefore assume that only an enormous sense and desire for power can get people into high office. No Communist leader, at least in the Soviet Union, except Lenin, has ever...the reputation of no leader has ever survived his term in office. His own associates have often turned against him. In fact invariably turned against him. Now again I repeat, my concern here is not at all ideological. My concern is that people who live in a constant state of insecurity, weeds away there most intimate colleagues, are not likely to find it possible to be very trusting to the outside world and this seems to me to be compounded by another feature and this is an ideological feature of Communism ideology. And this is the following.

If I understand Communist ideology correctly it is that they believe that Marxism and Leninism are enabled to work Communists to understand the United States or any non-Communist country, better than this country understands itself. The attitude of most Communist leaders towards American leaders is very similar to that of American psychiatrists towards their patient. No matter what the American says the

KISSINGER - 17

Soviet leader believes that he understands what he is really after. Now I'm not even going to argue that the Soviet leaders are wrong. I'm simply going to say that it makes negotiation extremely difficult if whatever you say is immediately discounted and if your opposite number believes that he has a picture of what you are trying to do, that you cannot possibly understand because you are not a Marxist, but on the basis of which he has to act even though you do not understand it. Now this is one of the reasons why I think negotiations are sometimes more complicated than simply restoring individual good will.

Now let me say something about relations to Europe and here I will make only one point which I think is also of importance to the western hemisphere. If you read the official literature and the debates that are going on in our relations with Europe, the issue is usually put in terms of who controls the decision to go to nuclear war. I consider that a meaningless and spoiling debate in which the statements of political leaders are absolutely unreliable. No political leader today can possibly know what he can do when there is...when nuclear war is eminent. And even less can he know what to do when nuclear bomb tests have actually exploded. The real issue in relations with Europe seems to me to be the following:

The end of American isolationism coincided with the complete collapse of Europe's political-economic structure. At the end of the war, therefore, the United States had to assume

KISSINGER - 18

primary responsibility for the defense of Europe, the economic
development of Europe and the political structure of Europe.
Against our desires perhaps, the United States developed a
hetromonial position in our relations with Europe. As Europe
partly
recovered economically, hardly with American economic assistance
and one could say largely with American economic assistance,
traditional
its/political dynamism returned. And the question that America
has to decide now, is not who pushes the pushes in case of
nuclear war, but what is a healthier relationship in the long
run. Is it healthier for all the decisions of be made in
Washington, or is it healthier if they there are separate
centers of decisions in the western world. I personally hold
the view that it is in our selfish interest to encourage Europe
to play a more active political role. That is very difficult
to accept for people who for the last twenty years have conducted
foreign policies with very pliant European partners. I believe
however, that in the long run, it is in our own interest that
we are not in the position where every other nations is a client
and we make all the decisions, where we are the ones who make
the final choice and everybody else is a lobbyist... And therefore
irritating as some of the manifestations of European self will.
I have been in favor, I must say against many of my friends in the
state department, I've been in favor of encouraging European
economy. Incidentally I would tend to say the same thing about
our relations in the western hemisphere. I think that on the

KISSINGER - 19

whole the United States influence can be maintained only to the
degree that it asserts its influence less.

Now let me make a few observations about the other
developed countries, emerging countries, of which the term
keeps chaning every year and I always use the wrong one. But
let me make a x few observations here. First of all, it is
clear that the division of the world into have and have-not
measures is not healthy and that a great deal must be done to
bridge this gap.

Secondly, I think that the over-simplified view of
international affairs/according to this everything is assumed
in an east-west struggle is clearly wrong. Major portions of
the world are not primarily concerned with this struggle and
the struggle itself is changing its nature. Also it is obvious
that many parts of the world must first develope a sense of
their own identity in order to be able to participate in an
international system. Having said all of this I would like to
point out the two problems which seem to me to exist in many of
the emerging countries.

First of all, many countries seem to me torn by a
@rtain ambivoilence. On the one hand they would like to be
neutral; on the other they would like to judge every international
dispute. They would like to stay aloof from conflict, but they
would also like to arbitors of these conflicts. They ask the
great powers not to interfere with them, but they also like to
participate in all major negotiations. Now it is not for me to

KISSINGER - 20

judge what role other countries should play, I make enough enemies commenting on American foreign policy. But all I would like to say is that countries must make a choice. They cannot demand that they be arbitrators of international dispute and that they will be left alone. They cannot be both neutral and judges at the same time, or if they are neutrals and judges obviously countries are going to try to influence them. This is in inseperable from the position of a judge. Then it seems to me that there are some countires and I'm not saying this as a tactful way, I don't happen to mean Brazil here. (INAUDIBLE) but I say some countries did not a tactful way saying Brazil. But I mean Brazil I'll say Brazil. But there are some countries in the world which are in the curious position that for their foreign policy has become easier than domestic policies. Domestic policy is a hopeless...it may be true of Brazil too I don't know...domestic policy is a hopeless mess. If some of the leaders want to conduct domestic policy they have to prospect that in some fifty years they may raise the standard of living by some percentage which will impress economists but which will not be relevant to their life span. On the other hand if they conduct aggressive foreign policies they can immediately play a major international role and in fact very often the only way that they can gain a sense of identity is by conducting very aggressive foreign policy.

Now in this respect I think there may be crisis in the developing countries that contribute to international

KISSINGER -- 21

instability and which are not caused by the shortsightedness and shortcoming of the western or eastern nations even though there is no lack of shortsightedness in either of these countries. Now I have spoken to you in general terms and I'm sure that there are very many specific issues that you will want to raise with me. I would like to make one concluding point, which it seems to me it is important to keep in mind when one analyzes foreign policy and it is this: (LAUGHTER) ... I'm funnier than I thought ... (INAUDIBLE) When we talk as academicians we have a tendency to speak in terms of certainties. When we analyze the problem as professors we can take all the time we want and we can concentrate on the issues that seems to us most significant. When you deal with foreign policy as a policy measure you're obsessed with the uncertainty of everything. The most difficult choice that...the most difficult decision that those who conduct foreign policy have to make, concerns not an issue of truth but a problem of an estimate of likely development. No one can prove today what the likely evolution in the Soviet world is going to be, or what the development in the emerging countries are, or what an automatist Europe might do and yet a decisive foreign policy has to act as if a guess were the truth and if it avoids decisions, an inaction in itself creates new problems. Now how at a time like this when bureaucracy is so pervasive and when the problem...the day to day problems...are so manifold, how at a time like this one can develope the strength, the inward strength to act on the basis of conjectures which

KISSINGER -- 22

have to be rather isolated in lonely acts, this I would say is
the deepest problem of foreign policy in all countries with
which I'm familiar and it is certainly the deepest problem in
the United States and it is a problem with which I don't even
pretend to have an answer. Thank you.

The first question is from (INAUDIBLE) No. 19. This
is the question: The speech that was made by President
Johnson pointing out the case or the casting aside of the
distinction between wars between nations and civil wars in the
present day world perhaps could be interpreted as contrary
to the opinion of the lecturer in which it was stated that the
Dominican crisis decision was based on isolated information.
Wasn't this intervention actually the result of a doctrine
already operative?

KISSINGER

I don't understand Porteugese but he was kind enough to
interprete it for me the thought. Incidentally if I should not
have understood a question correctly and answer another question
other than the one you asked, would you please tell me and then
I'll try to answer it. I may not sometimes understand it
correctly. Now if I understood this question correctly it was
and
whether President Johnson's view that civil war was an international
wars cannot be distinguished, rather whether this does not create
a doctrine for the kind of intervention that took place in the
Dominican Republic on a general basis rather than an individual

KISSINGER - 23

accident. Now if you apply the doctrine literally what you say
is correct. On the other hand my impression is that my guess
would be and I have no special information, my guess would be
that President Johnson decided to intervene in the Dominican
Republic on the basis of whatever information he had and
that afterwards the state department was looking around for
justifications for it which were then put in very general terms.
The typical pattern in American foreign policy that I have
observed and I'm not speaking of any knowledge of the Dominican
affair is that very often an action is taken very narrowly,
sometimes almost accidently and then when it is justified some
general propositions get advanced which go beyond the scope of
the original action. My own guess would be that if this
doctrine is applied literally it justifies interference all the
time. I do not believe however that this is going to be the
case. I would certainly object to it if it were. Did I answer
the question. You don't have to agree with my answer.

Second question is from (INAUDIBLE) No. 12. For what reason
did you suggest the United States suggest the holding of free direct
election throughout Viet Nam?

KISSINGER

Would you read the question again?

This is the question. Why doesn't the United States suggest
the holding of free direct elections throughout all of Viet Nam?

KISSINGER -- 24

KISSINGER

Let me...you know I am not clever enough to lie convincingly so
I have to answer: I think we don't propose it because we are
afraid that we would loose the election.

....

The next question is from (INAUDIBLE NAME) no. 10. This is his
question. How does the government of the United States look upon
the economic and even the political interference on the part of
certain private companies in of the United States in Latin American.
Sighting the specific case of the United Fruit company for instance.

KISSINGER

I've understood the question, but I can't answer it because I
don't know the details. I would assume that in some central
American countries, the influence of United Fruit exists. It
seems to me probable that the influence is greater in those
South American countries than it is in Washington
and on a big scale that is the part of foreign policy that I
have seen is foreign policy that is discussed by the National
Security Council, not what is done in every individual country.
I have not observed specific industries having specific pressure
pressures, and I really meant it sincerely, I think, I would
guess and this is a guess that the influence of the United
Fruit is greater on the government in Central America than it
is in various departments in Washington. Although
I don't exclude at all that the influence exists. But on a
fixed scale the big issues I would be...I don't think that the

KISSINGER -- 25

determining thing is United Fruit.

This following question was from (INAUDIBLE NAME) No. 4. On
what does the U.S. base its position when it considers itself
and proclaims that it's the defender of the peace and human
rights when it is the only country which rages to help those
countries which are fighting against underdevlopments and
things of that sort?

KISSINGER

I would like to see the unscreened question. I think...you
know whatever you think about the war in Viet Nam let me say
my own views on the two places where there are now American
troops. I have been opposed to the Dominican Republic
intervention. I think in Viet Nam I think the situation is
much more complicated. At least it is much more complicated
in terms of decisions that had to be taken this year. I don't
think that it is necessarily correct to say that the United States
is the only country that has troops in foreign countries. A
great deal...well it's correct to say that...in Viet Nam we
are the only ones that have foreign troops if you don't count
the North Viet Namese troops as foreign. But this is precisely
the difficulty. I think that there is no question that there
has been a massive intervention from North Viet Nam in South
Viet Nam. If you want to argue that this is not foreign inter-
vention, then you can also set a precedent by which the West Germans
can start marching troops into East Germany and also claim that

KISSINGER -- 26

this is not foreign intervention. At any rate it depends here
very much on what your definition of what foreign is. Right
now however it seems to me, I happen not to be in favor in
sending American troops in *sending* 1961 to Viet Nam. In
1965 however, I think our problem is the following, and for
which I believe there should be some *understanding*.
I think we are defending freedom in this sense that in many
parts of the world there are commitments that the United
States has made and there are governments that have acted on the
bases of these commitments. If the United States, after ten
years of solemn promises simply leaves and simply *keeps* withdraws
from its commitment, I don't believe that the American word in
any part of the world will amount to anything and this is an
issue which is a particular problem to Viet Nam. I don't apply
that at all to the Dominican Republic where we had no need to
interfere at that moment, in my judgement. But I think in
*is*
Viet Nam the issue of peace and freedom now...the major issue
of peace and freedom that is raised for me is the validity of
American commitments, undertaken for ten years and in reliance
on which foreign governments in many parts of the world on which
they have based their policies. This seems to me to be the issue
raised by Viet Nam, if that was the drift of the question.

The next question is from (INAUDIBLE NAME) no.? This is his
question: What is your interpretation of the statement made
by President Johnson "I won't sit in my rocking chair and watch
Communism dominate the world." Does he mean by this that the

KISSINGER - 27

U.S. economic system transfered to the underdevloped countries of the world would solve the problems of those countries. Why doesn't he see that the reactionary governments accuse the people of being oppressed without opportunities for Communists to operate and without possibilities of improving the system and if this new holy alliance were to be brought about again that is the next establishment of the international police force would be possible to solve the problem?

KISSINGER

First of all I ought to make clear for the peace of mind of any official Americans that might be present that I am not the ideal interpreter of what President Johnson might have meant in various pronouncements. Now I would say that if we prevent Communism from coming to power it cannot be done on a global or on any scale but a military intervention. If we are going to prevent Communism from coming to power, it must be by encouraging governments around the world which meet the desires and the aspirations of the population. Now this as I understand it had been the purpose of the alliance for progress. Whether it achieved it or not is a different problem. But as a general philosophical statement it is absolutely out of the question to prevent the victory of Communism by military means. It can only be done by encouraging governments that are based on their people. I'm And therefore not in favor of supporting what are called reactionary governments, nor am I in favor of using either American or

KISSINGER - 28

(L)

international police forces to support reactionary governments. And I would think that what I have just said reflects what most people would feel in the United States including most government officials. The difficulty arises in finding what a government is that reflects the aspirations of the people and there it is sometimes very difficult for foreigners and particularly in crisis situations there is always a great danger in getting too much identified with vested interest. But I would...well I think I've answered the question.

The next question is from (INAUDIBLE NAME) no. 10. Articles fifteen and sixteen of the Charter of the Organization of the United States states: Of self determination, non-intervention and things of that sort, as since this is the case he asks whether or not the OAS is valid for the government of the United States only when it serves the interests of the U.S. government. Is it's organization considered valid?

KISSINGER

Again if I understood it correctly already it's a preceding one. I would say that I'd have felt determination is obviously valid for all countries and should not unilaterally be interpreted by anyone. But let me make one other general observation which applies to this...it seems to me this whole complex of question... I think the relation between the United States and our Latin American neighbors are going to be very difficult if there is not some compassion on both sides for the special difficulties

KESINGER - 29

of the other side. If there is the conviction in the United
States that every reformist movement in Latin America is really
a Communist front and must be suppressed, then the situation is hope--
less. It is also hopeless if there's a conviction in Latin
America that everything the United States does reflects a
dark, sinister design to dominate everybody else. And I think
what is needed is a dialogue now between serious Latin Americans
and North Americans about what exactly one would consider a
reformist government. How one can bring about governments that
are more responsive to people rather than to engage on both sides
impostures, one of which is based on a black and white anti-
Communism and on the other side perhaps excessively
black and white anti-imperialists. I think that if we could
break through those slogans and give them...gi get some concrete
meaning to what we mean by progress and what we mean by the
kind of government one wants to encourage, then I think
our neighbors in the western hemisphere could develope in a
progressive way. All the more so, I'm personally convinced that
in the long term of what I said about Europe applies at least
as much to Latin America that it is in our own long time interest
that a more automotist structure developes in the western
hemisphere among our Latin American friends.

(INAUDIBLE) No. 9. Which is as follows: How can...he understood
that a country which spends half of its revenue in bombs and

KISSINGER - 30

a nation which is not under the control of a state not be
influenced in its foreign policy by the interest of the arms
industry themselves.

KISSINGER

I have a friend in Washington who had this disconcerting
habit of saying at the end of some sentences, but not all:
This has the added virtue of being true. How can one understand
this. I think...well I think one can take it on <u>some</u> several
levels. First of all the question is: what is the interests
of these industrial concerns. Do they have any specific foreign
<u> Policy </u> interests that they can relate to their <u> profits. </u>
Now the general interests of these concerns, in my experience
with these concerns which is limited, is that they are extremely
active in <u> selling </u> particular items of equipment that on
general issues of foreign policies they are not able to relate
a general foreign policy issue to their immediate self interest.
Now this may be a weakness in the way they work, but they
basically think in commercial and not in political terms. Now let
me make one other observation. The point of the question was
as I understood it, how industries under private ownership can
fail to exercise influence on the government in this direction.
I would like to make one proposition to you which I wish we had
more time to discuss. I think in the present period in which we
find <u> ourselves </u>, who owns industries is relatively less
important than who manages industries. I do not see the difference

KISSINGER -- 31

in psychological attitudes between the manager of an armaments
industry in the Soviet Union just because it is state owned
and the manager of a private industry just because share holders
own this. I would think that in both cases the managers of
armaments industries have a vested interested in the importance
of armaments in their strife. Most armament industries will
believe that it is important that the country be well armed and
in my experience incidently those armament industries in the
United States that are government owned like the Atomic
Energy installations have more influence on the conduct of the
government than private industry. They have more influence
because
because they have easier access, they are more closely
related and because they think more in political terms. And I
would suggest to you that if one wants to make an analyses of
who influences what in any country one looks at the burecratic
structures more than at the structure of ownership. And I think
that it is the kind of burecratic structures that develope and
the interlocking in the so-called public and sectors
which constitutes problems. How the shares are held I consider
a relatively minor aspect of this issue and...but this is a
difficult problem which we need a lot more time for discussion.
Thank you very much

AUI

INTERAMERICAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION

IN BRAZIL: Associação Universitária Interamericana

10 East 49th Street, New York 10007

September 8, 1965

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

You may or may not have been informed that your talk to the Brazilian students in July would be taped and perhaps transcribed for translation, duplication and distribution to the group later on. We experimented with this procedure last year, and the positive response from the students made us feel it was worth continuing.

I am therefore enclosing a transcript and carbon copy of your talk, including the question period. We would appreciate it if you would make corrections and edit the text as you see fit. It will then be sent to Brazil where a translator will render it into Portuguese. (The simultaneous translation during your actual delivery was taped, but it does not serve this purpose.) Copies will be mimeographed and sent to the students as soon as they are ready.

We have made no corrections at all on the transcript. You may therefore find proper names and some technical terms misspelled. You may edit as much or as little as you choose. We will probably call attention to major changes or additions, for the students' information.

For the question-answer period, we have translated the original written questions directly, rather than taking them off the tape. Feel free to edit or add to your answers as you see fit.

We would like to make a further request of you, if you can meet it easily: Are there books related to your topic which you think students should know about? Classics or new studies, even an outstanding periodical article, would be appropriate. Language need not be considered. We are not looking for a long list. Your own works should certainly be included.

We will send a corrected transcript of your talk to Brazil early in October. We would therefore appreciate your returning the original to us by September 30. This will give us time to transfer corrections to our extra copy for the files. The enclosed carbon copy is for you, if you would like to keep it.

Please let me know if there is anything we can do to help. And thank you very much for your time and trouble. We appreciate it, and so will the Brazilians.

WW:gc
enc.-transcript & copy

Henry V. Kissinger

Sincerely yours,

Warm regards.

will the VUI recognize my professorship?
This seems to be my usual fate. When
is listed as Professor and I as a Doctor.
the meeting, I notice that Milton Katz
In looking over the minutes of

September 16th.

Thank you for your letter of

Dear Elizabeth:

New York, New York 10017
10 East 49th Street
Interamerican University Foundation
Coordinator
Mrs. Wadsworth Washburne

September 23, 1962

1965

NEW ADDRESS:

10 EAST 49 STREET

NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017

AUI

INTERAMERICAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION • 17 EAST 48 STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y. • 10017

ASSOCIAÇÃO UNIVERSITÁRIA INTERAMERICANA • CAIXA POSTAL 6188, SÃO PAULO, BRASIL

"If I rightly understand the objectives of the Association, I think they were attained, if not completely, in large measure. The view I had of American society, even though rapid, served to give me a new dimension in understanding world problems. I learned much and gained new points for reflection and study. Our solutions become more difficult, but more mature. Individual growth was great, and above all we learned to look at our points of view within wider horizons."

"When we look from far off at countries, civilizations, societies, we have the tendency to consider things too coldly. Until recently, the United States was for me the country of pragmatic and technical culture, presided over by the Texan Johnson, involved in a senseless war in Viet Nam, etc. Now, besides these notions (which are also a bit modified), I know that the United States is the country where Dwain and Carol Smith live, and their little girl, Alison, and certainly many others like them, very human beings. This is very important. I left friends, and departure was very difficult."

"Finally, as more personal conclusions: However paradoxical it may appear, in the country of technology I discovered art. I learned to choose values, to have my own taste, and I saw that I need to learn much still. I felt how necessary it is to know both points of view before establishing a judgment."

"I believe in the profitability and usefulness of seminars like this one. I consider that they are of great value also within Brazilian reality, and that which was achieved in the U.S.A. in this month of July, 1965, at Harvard should have continuation in Brazil, for a greater profit from all that was put into it."

"No one of open spirit, seeing what was seen and hearing and learning what was taught could but proceed to a critical reformulation about the United States, its people, its manner of being. Which doesn't imply loss of independence or sacrifice of certain valid criticisms with relation to these points. The important thing is, however, that elements were given us with honesty which make us capable of giving up "slogans" when judging American values and their interrelation in the modern world. Let us get to work, therefore, when we are called to the common struggle for a world of peace, less unequal and more joyful."

From five of the individual reports written by Brazilian University students who took the AUI trip in July, 1965.

In July, 1965, the Associacao Universitaria Interamericana brought its fourth group of Brazilian university student leaders to the United States for a month's trip. The 97 young men and women were selected from more than 3000 applicants and represented universities in eight major Brazilian cities.

The program for the month was similar to that in previous years. The students spent several days with American families, two weeks in a seminar at Harvard University, and then made visits to Washington, D. C., and New York.

AUI recognizes that university students are Brazil's future leaders. They in turn consider the United States to be a major influence on their country. Yet their knowledge of the U.S. is inevitably limited, and their views therefore very often do not fit the facts.

The immediate aim of the AUI trip is to give outstanding Brazilian students a chance to learn about the United States through direct experience. Its longer run purpose is to establish bases for better communication and improved relations between the two countries.

## THE STUDENTS

In 1965, as in former years, AUI sought students who showed leadership in university or community activities, social awareness, intelligence, vitality and emotional equilibrium. English was not a requirement, though it weighed positively for a candidate. Students were chosen on the basis of a curriculum vitae, questionnaire, projective test and personal interview. (Details of selection process, Appendix - 2).

The group of candidates finally selected represented a cross section of the professional fields, backgrounds and attitudes found in Brazilian universities. One hundred were accepted in December, 1964, with five substitutes. Ninety-seven finally made the trip. Of these, seventy-seven were men, twenty were women. They were second and third-year students from such faculties as law, engineering, economics, business administration, medicine, and philosophy. Their average was twenty-two. Regional group size ranged from seven in Curitiba to twenty-one in Sao Paulo. (Appendix - 1).

For the 1965 trip, AUI shifted the selection process forward from February-May to September-December, allowing students more time to prepare for the trip. The new schedule was an improvement, and is being followed for 1966.

Brazilian students want to know their U.S. counterparts, and because this is difficult to arrange successfully in free time, AUI continued last year's innovation and selected six Portuguese-speaking American students to join the group at Harvard. Five continued through New York. (Appendix - 1).

AUI 1965

PROGRAM

Preparation - In February, 1965, AUI and professors from each region met in Sao Paulo to plan a course (Appendix - 2) and a bibliography for all the candidates. They also discussed teaching methods to be used in preparing the students for lectures, seminars and discussion at Harvard.

The preparatory course was given by professors in each region under the supervision of a local professor-coordinator. AUI alumni helped in orienting the new group.

This year the course was extended to fifty-six or more hours, with lectures and discussion about U.S. history and other background material for topics to be covered at Harvard. It also acquainted students with their local colleagues and the AUI program. As a result, the students were surer of themselves when they arrived in the United States and readier to benefit from the varied experiences of the month abroad.

This year, besides the course, students were required to study English. Some set up their own classes, while others attended special classes arranged for them in local Brazil-U.S. bi-national centers. Nevertheless, a majority of the students felt their English was inadequate for the trip. In the United States lectures were usually given in English, and even though they were simultaneously translated, students felt they missed a good deal. And they especially regretted missed opportunities for casual talk with Americans outside the program. As alumni, they will help AUI convey the need for English to next year's group.

To prepare the American students for the program, they were given a bibliography in advance. In addition, they met with AUI's Brazilian professors for two days at Harvard while the Brazilian students were visiting American families. The professors presented a concentrated survey of contemporary Brazil, with special emphasis on higher education, the economy and recent political history.

Family Visits - First stop for the Brazilian students was with American families in five towns around Boston. This year, as in all years, the visits made a strong, favorable impression.

A majority of the families had children young enough to be living at home, which pleased the students. Where possible, local committees matched students' and their hosts' interests, with good results. About half the American families were of Portuguese descent, an obvious advantage for those students who spoke no English, or very little.

Local volunteer committees recruited and selected families and planned group programs to give students contact with economic, social, political and cultural life in smaller cities. However, major emphasis was on their chance to take part in daily living with their hosts. (Appendix - 3 for sample program.)

Many were initially apprehensive at the idea of spending several days alone with unknown people in unknown surroundings. These feelings disappeared rapidly, as did their commonly held opinion that Americans are cold and have little family life. They appreciated also the personal contact which brought alive what they learned in the preparatory course, and at Harvard. By comparing notes with each other, they got a varied sampling of information about how Americans live and are.

AUI 1965

-3

**Harvard** - This year's Harvard seminar was the most successful yet. For the first time, many members of the group cited these two weeks as the high point of the trip.

Several factors contributed to these good results. First, the program was demanding. On a typical day, students attended a lecture from 9 to 12:30, a seminar from 4 to 6:00--with the students in small groups, and an evening lecture from 7:30-10. (Lectures were mostly in English, with simultaneous translation. Seminars were in Portuguese.) There was considerable outside reading, and the students were required to prepare an essay related to one of the lectures. They seemed to find these demands a compliment, not an imposition, and their very busy-ness was an antidote to strangeness and "culture shock."

A second important factor was a more coherent over-all plan for the lectures and seminars. In the first week, topics were related to the contemporary American scene --political, social, educational. For the second, economic development was the general topic, with a coordinated set of lectures and study materials ranging from general theory to specific cases. (Schedule, Appendix - 4.)

A third factor was unquestionably the esprit de corps which developed within the group. Students welcomed the challenge of what they considered a hard program. They accepted the discipline necessary to live up to it with a minimum of complaint. Professors and other staff members joined equally in the work of planning and carrying on the busy schedule.

A successful innovation was one day devoted to special visits of professional interest. The Brazilians visited Harvard or Massachusetts Institute of Technology departments of economics, engineering, medicine, law, and so on, with a chance to discuss current questions in professional education and research, often with emphasis on Brazil.

Students were lodged in Eliot House. They ate with the rest of the Summer School in the Harvard Union where, during meals, they could talk with American students.

Because of the intensive academic schedule, there were few planned outside activities, although Harvard Summer School events were open to the AUI visitors. The Pan American Society of New England arranged sightseeing and shopping information as well as organizing some extra-curricular trips. A high point was the all-day excursion to the Berkshire Music Festival one Saturday.

**Washington, D.C.** - Following the Harvard program, the group flew directly to Washington for a look at the capital and the Federal Government. The five-day program included talks by government officials, cultural visits, sightseeing and lunch with the Brazilian ambassador. (Appendix - 5.)

Outstanding to the students in this year's Washington program was the day spent at the State Department. Though they expressed disagreement with much that they were told, they liked being able to ask questions of responsible people about Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Cuba and other aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Students were moved by the USIA film on John F. Kennedy.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Agriculture programs were both on in one day, which proved tiring. In future, AUI will schedule such multi-speaker events for only half a day, combining them with special interest visits for individuals or small groups.

AUI 1965

Several top government officials who were to have talked with the Brazilians could not do so at the last minute. This meant that Washington lacked a high point for the group, though the Kennedy film came close to filling this emotional gap.

*New York* - From Washington, the group flew to New York. There the students found an outlet for the energy which tight schedules in Harvard and Washington had stored up. Formal program was at a minimum which left time for museums, sightseeing, entertainment and the inevitable shopping. (Appendix - 7.)

A new feature of the New York stay was a day spent with businessmen. In the morning, the students met at the Stock Exchange with men who run some of the leading financial firms. After lunch, the president of Pepsi-Cola talked informally with the group and answered questions. Unhappily, the best of this program--the chance for direct contact with businessmen--got lost in the delay of consecutive translation. However, both the Council for Latin America, which helped AUI plan the day, and the students believe that with this difficulty overcome a "business day" can be valuable and should be included.

To meet the students' professional interests, AUI planned a series of visits to appropriate New York institutions. End-of-trip pressure caused many students to skip these, but those who did go expressed satisfaction.

*Reports* - In 1963, AUI initiated the practice of requiring an individual report from each student near the end of the trip. The purpose of the reports was twofold: to encourage the students to become aware of their impressions of the United States and of the trip and to make the students' impressions and suggestions available to AUI.

Reports this year were handed in in New York. Professors and Assistants read them and then led the students in small-group discussions whose aim was to let students hear each other's reactions, with resulting gains in information and objectivity.

Students wrote their final papers under the pressure of crowded days. Some reports, indeed, were perfunctory. Most were necessarily superficial. Yet a majority show a serious intention, sincerity and effort. These qualities, more than their words of praise, testify to the trip's positive impact.

*Miami* - This year, because of delayed plane schedules, the Brazilian group got a postscript stay of from one to three days in Miami. This impromptu and unprogrammed visit was a blessing for the students and a revelation to AUI.

In former years, AUI had recognized that the students were exhausted when they came to the end of the program. In general they returned to Brazil in a poor state to plunge, as they immediately had to, into the start of a new term, return to jobs and reintegration into family and university life.

After just one day of sleep, sun and swimming in Miami, this year's group was transformed. The tension of New York was behind them, and a mellow mood took over. Those who stayed on for two more days had time for relaxed talk with one another and with staff members. A meeting for regional representatives was enthusiastically attended by several extra unofficial members, with a harvest of specific plans about recruiting and preparation for 1966.

Mayor Elliot Roosevelt presented keys to the city one morning, but there was no other official program.

AUI 1965

Although such a stay means adding to the cost of the trip--this year Braniff paid the bill--AUI feels that two final days of open time in recreational surroundings are a must for the future. This would probably be the best time for the group to evaluate the program and to plan ahead for their future activities with AUI.

## CONDUCTING THE PROGRAM

Mutual confidence is the necessary keynote of relations between and among students and AUI staff during the trip. The program's most important benefits depend on the establishment of such a climate.

AUI has learned that students react most maturely when they are dealt with openly and in an adult manner. The more clearly they understand what the aims of the programs are, the better they react to it and the greater tolerance they show for its demands on them and its occasional weaknesses. Many come with prejudices, defensive feelings and a fear of being manipulated. When they find that the American scene is presented to them with objectivity, they become readier to be objective themselves.

**Administration** - This year, based on accumulated experience, it was possible for AUI to codify most of the trip's mechanical aspects and for the trip managers to delegate responsibility widely. Wherever possible and appropriate, the students received written instructions, with the chance to raise questions and make suggestions as they wished. They could then assume responsibility for their own conduct in the program. Staff members received written assignments, met to plan and make policy and were otherwise encouraged to assume leadership. The results were apparent throughout the trip in smooth functioning and cooperation.

Students were divided into "sub-groups," of ten or eleven. The groups had students from each region, a variety of professions, social backgrounds and political preferences. Room assignments throughout the trip were based on sub-groups, and each group met daily at Harvard for the seminar. Each elected its own coordinator.

**Staff** - The staff included five Brazilian professors, six alumni assistants and a secretary. The AUI consultant in selection and methods, a doctor and the organization's president and coordinator completed the group. (Appendix - 10.)

In 1965, as in 1964, the Brazilian professors who accompanied the trip had been regional coordinators for the preparatory course. Two had accompanied the trip in 1964. Although their main responsibility was to the academic program at Harvard, they also took charge of trips and other activities.

Five of the assistants came from different regions in Brazil, and one was from Washington, D.C. The Brazilians were alumni leaders from the 1963 trip, active in AUI recruiting, training and local programs.

**Publicity** - AUI's program requires only local publicity in the United States. Committees in Gloucester and New Bedford take care of newspaper and other coverage of the student visits to American families.

In Brazil, recruitment and, to a lesser degree, financial support are partially dependent on public information. In 1965 AUI sent routine news photographs of the students for distribution in their cities and a feature picture story for use in a national circulation magazine. A Harvard undergraduate was for the second year AUI's staff photographer. An observer on the trip, Paul Brocchini of the Uniao Cultural (bi-national center) in Sao Paulo, sent regular news stories and wrote other needed copy for Brazil.

AUI 1965

-6

THE OUTCOME

The immediate effects of the 1965 AUI trip, judged by the students' reports and discussion with staff members, were similar to those in other years. First, a change in their attitudes toward the United States; second, a fresh appraisal of Brazil's needs and their possible contribution to meeting these, and, third, a variety of individual changes which the students subsumed under the word "maturing."

The most evident change in attitudes toward the United States was a lessening of hostility, with a decrease in stereotyped ideas. Mostly, the students appeared to find this change a relief--America was not a monster after all. They spoke of a sense of friendship which left them free to appreciate the U.S. for its good qualities without feeling they had to ignore what they did not approve. Judging by past experience, a few students will be disturbed by the change in their view of the U.S. and its implications for them. They may withdraw from many former activities and experience a crisis period of up to several months.

Students were often shocked by contrasts between the United States and Brazil, in material wealth, cultural and educational opportunities. In some cases, the shock was discouraging. In many more it became a spur for their determination to help bring about Brazil's development and to prepare themselves to give this help. Many spoke of plans to study and learn more. (English figured in many of these plans.)

The students spoke of changes in themselves. Some spoke of prejudices dropped, others of balance acquired. Some found themselves seeing problems in more realistic terms. Some had acquired a more complex view of economic and social problems, and a new modesty in suggesting solutions.

To the students, one of the most valuable assets of the trip was the chance to know their own countrymen better. They compared it with a Brazilian national student meeting relieved of political pressure. Students made friends from other parts of Brazil. They learned to talk with each other even when they disagreed. They learned that they could cooperate in the service of something they all wanted--whether it was a discussion or a field trip or a party. (Students said this was one of AUI's real achievements.) Often they shocked each other. Sometimes they disliked what they saw in each other. But for all of them "Brazilian student" and "future leaders" gained new meanings.

The students' positive feeling for AUI was shown by their conduct during the trip and their expressed desire to help with future programs. (As this report is written, AUI has already received letters from students who are recruiting for 1966. They report on talks they and their colleagues have given about the trip and about the U.S. as they saw it.) As mentioned above, most students made constructive suggestions for the improvement of the trip itself. Some were already concerned about AUI's further development in Brazil.

**Alumni Activities** - Since 1964, AUI alumni have elected regional representatives. New ones are chosen each year before the trip ends, so that each "class" has its own local representative. Representatives are responsible for keeping in touch with their colleagues, coordinating alumni participation in recruiting, selection and preparation of candidates, and otherwise acting as liaison between the alumni and AUI.

AUI 1965

-7

AUI communicates regularly with all alumni by mail. At interview and other times when staff and directors travel, alumni hold meetings in each region, besides acting as guides and making necessary contact for AUI with their universities, local officials and others who may help with the program. Many students travel to or through Sao Paulo, where they visit AUI headquarters.

In the past two years, eight alumni have accompanied the AUI group as assistants. They contribute to the organization not only their practical help during the trip, which has become essential, but their continued interest in AUI.

A questionnaire sent to 1962 and 1963 alumni showed that most of those who responded hope to take post-graduate studies in the United States. Three have come already-- one for a master's degree in tax law, another for a five year residency in psychiatry. More are scheduled to arrive in 1965 and 1966. The lawyer stated that without the AUI trip he would certainly have gone to Europe for his graduate work. His experience bears out what many other students have said: Brazilians generally have little knowledge of American universities and no idea of their quality.

In view of AUI's selection criteria, it is not surprising that many alumni have reported their involvement in community projects, hold government positions, have been elected to student offices. There has been a tendency for moderates among AUI alumni to become more active in student politics, while many with more radical views have withdrawn temporarily.

A majority of alumni continue some kind of contact with the United States. Many study English and report their regular reading of American books and periodicals. Some, as mentioned above, will return for professional training. In 1965 two alumni organized cultural-professional tours to the United States, for their colleagues--one group of fifty engineers and the other of 110 doctors. Many Brazilian students keep in regular contact with their American hosts. At least one student who will return for graduate studies will live with his "family" when he does so. Gloucester and Recife have become sister cities because of AUI.

Gloucester has sent an ambulance and medical supplies to Recife, as well as financial support for children otherwise unable to attend school. Gloucester receives a growing number of Brazilian visitors.

AUI and alumni have held two national meetings in Brazil and have begun to develop plans for AUI's regional and national organization. Both the meetings and the concern for organization have grown from the shared belief that what starts on the trip should not simply stop with the trip itself. For the 1966 national meeting, students will submit studies on the theme "A Project for AUI in the University Field." At the meeting itself, students and AUI staff and directors will discuss the feasibility of such projects and will vote on a previously submitted national plan for AUI local organization.

## WHAT'S AHEAD

It is clear that AUI has made a lasting impression on a considerable number of young Brazilians. Yet the trip is necessarily limited in its effects. So far, for lack of resources and personnel, AUI has been able to give only token encouragement to students' subsequent moves in directions suggested by the experience.

AUI 1965

At the same time, AUI and the students are increasingly aware that in Brazil's
development they have a common interest. As the students' future depends on it,
so do the long run good relations between Brazil and the United States. Both AUI
and the students see Brazilian universities as central institutions in the develop-
ment process.

In a large majority of cases, these universities are not preparing students ade-
quately to meet the technical, economic and social needs of their country. It is
common knowledge that the universities are plagued by outmoded programs, inflexible
administration, lack of trained professors, lack of libraries and laboratories and
a general lack of funds to make changes. Part time is the rule, both for students
and professors.

Obviously, it is not AUI's job to correct these deficiencies. Yet it is increas-
ingly apparent that there are possibilities for the organization to do valuable
supplementary work in this field.

As a result of the AUI trip, a large number of alumni are now thinking about post-
graduate study in the United States. To achieve this goal, most of them need
financial help, orientation and probably special preparation before applying.

Many students have expressed the wish that they could meet locally, with some
guidance, to continue the kinds of study and discussion they had at Harvard.
Alumni have urged AUI to set up regional centers for this kind of program. Others
express a desire to help develop AUI as a national organization encouraging educa-
tional projects, with a regular publication open to serious undergraduate work.
Still others wish that AUI would help in setting up community service projects
for students.

An obvious field for further development is with American students. If young
Brazilians can profit by exposure to the U.S., their American counterparts can
profit equally from a chance to know Brazil--for the benefit of both countries.

Started as a short program with long-range results, AUI's trip has become an
established factor in the Brazilian University scene. AUI welcomes now the grow-
ing recognition that what has gone before can be the foundation for longer-term
commitments.

Appendix - 1
Students

Brazilian University Students in AUI 1965 Program

Total number - 97

Men - 77

Women - 20

Ages from 19 to 29, with a quarter of the students 22 and 90 percent between 20 and 24.

Faculties in which students were enrolled:

29 Law 9 students were enrolled in two faculties, law and/or philosophy being the most common combining faculties. (Thus figures at left add up to 106.)
19 Philosophy (includes languages, teaching, social and natural sciences)
15 Engineering
10 Economics
6 Medicine
5 Administration
5 Architecture
5 Sociology and Politics
4 Social Service
2 Psychology
1 Agronomy
1 Journalism
1 Odontology
1 Pharmacy
1 Seminary
1 Veterinary Medicine

**Women students**
8 Philosophy (letters, teaching)
4 Social Service
3 Law
3 Sociology and Politics
2 Psychology
1 Architecture

| No. | M | F | Law | Eng | Phil | Econ | Med | Adm | Arch | Polit | Serv | Soc | Soc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **BAHIA** | 14 | 11 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | | | |
| **CEARA** | 9 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | | 1 | 1 | Veterinary Medicine |
| **GUANABARA** | 4 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | | 1 | | | 1 |
| **MINAS GERAIS** | 10 | 7 | 3 | 5 | | 2 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 | 1 |
| **PARANA** | 7 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | | | | | | | | |
| **PERNAMBUCO** | 13 | 11 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | | | | 1 | 1 |
| **RIO GRANDE DO SUL** | 14 | 12 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 1 | | | 1 | | | 1 |
| **SAO PAULO** | 21 | 17 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | | 1 |

(3 in two faculties)

U.S. University Students in AUI 1965 Program

Total Number - 6 Men - 3 Women - 3 Ages ranged from 21 to 28.
Students came from Georgetown University (1), Tulane University (1), University of Texas (2), University of Florida (1), Yale University (1).

Appendix - 2
Program

**Recruitment in Brazil** - Since 1963, alumni have undertaken to publicize the AUI trip locally. They arrange newspaper, radio and television coverage. More important, they go from class to class in their faculties telling eligible students about the program and how to apply. There is a high correlation between careful publicity by the alumni and the appearance of well-qualified applicants. The students are much better placed than any AUI staff member or director to do this work, as they themselves increasingly recognize.

**Selection in Brazil** - Applicants for the AUI program submit a curriculum vitae covering education, activities, interests and questions they would like to have answered on the trip. Form is left up to the applicant giving AUI thereby a measure of what the student considers important, how well he can organize his thoughts, etc. First elimination is based on these applications.

AUI then sends out a questionnaire for standard information on candidates' family background, educational records, language proficiency, etc. Most of those who receive questionnaires will be interviewed.

Personal interviews take place in each region. AUI directors or staff and occasional observers make up the interview group, generally numbering five to seven. Interviews last from ten minutes to a half hour, and are aimed at bringing out the candidates' qualities of mind and personality. In general, one interviewer talks with the student, while the rest of the group observes. All discuss the grade each candidate receives directly after the interview. Chief interviewer in 1965 was Dr. Achim H. Fuerstenthal, AUI's psychologist consultant who designed the selection procedure in 1962 and has supervised its development ever since. Other interviewers were Dr. Cezar Antonio Elias, with AUI since 1962, and professors in each region.

For final selection, interview grades and all other information about the candidate are considered. The aim is to choose the best qualified students, with some attention to such factors as variety within the group, size of regional groups, number of women or positions held by students.

In selecting for 1966 AUI will call on alumni of the previous two years to make objective reports on candidates in their regions whom they know. AUI will distribute forms for this purpose and will consider them as a factor in final selection. The forms elicit graded information on candidates' leadership, capacity, personal attractiveness, dependability and so on.

## Preparatory Course in Brazil, Outline

<table><thead><tr><td>Hours</td><td>Topic</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>8</td><td>History of the United States</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Political Institutions of the United States</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>U.S. Foreign Policy (emphasis on U.S.-Brazil relations)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Education in the U.S. (emphasis on higher education)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Labor in the United States</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>American Society</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Economics</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Summary and Examination</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Book Report</td></tr></tbody></table>

Classes were generally held twice a week, two hours per class. One hour was devoted to exposition, the second to questions and discussion.

Appendix - 3
Program

**Recruitment of U.S. Students** - For 1965, AUI sent personal letters with posting notices to about twenty professors, connected with institutes for Latin American studies in U.S. universities. Most of the professors already knew about the program. Telephone follow-up extended the contact. Nevertheless, there were few applicants for the program, although there were repeats from all the centers from which students came in 1964.

Chief problems seem to be that (1) American college or graduate students need their summers either to make money or get credits, or both; (2) there are an increasing number of special summer programs for U.S. students studying Portuguese, including some with travel to Brazil.

It remains to be seen whether a more active recruitment policy can overcome these handicaps. If not, some change will be necessary in the program, since it is clear that if U.S. students are to be included there must be a group of adequate size. Probably the most attractive change would be to take the Americans to Brazil for a month, following the Brazilian's trip. AUI professors and alumni would welcome the chance to create such a counterpart program in Brazil.

GLOUCESTER PROGRAM

<table><tbody><tr><td>WED., JULY 7</td><td>2:00 p.m.</td><td>ARRIVAL-Gloucester High School parking lot. Off Centennial Ave. PLEASE WEAR NAME TAGS.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>8:00-12:00 pm</td><td>DANCE-Sacred Heart Parish Hall, 60 School St., Manchester. Brazilians free. Admission $1.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>10:00 pm</td><td>For guest list see Mrs. Frank Magoun 526-1661. Greetings by Mayor & Other Cape Ann officials.</td></tr><tr><td>THU., JULY 8</td><td></td><td>Factory Tours (see below)</td></tr><tr><td>FRI., JULY 9</td><td></td><td>Hospital or Cour tours (see below)</td></tr><tr><td>SAT., JULY 10</td><td>3:30 pm</td><td>Winthrop Beach Party-Brazilian & 1 member of each family fed; others welcome but bring own food.</td></tr><tr><td>SUN., JULY 11</td><td>4:30 pm</td><td>Departure by bus for Harvard--Gloucester High School</td></tr><tr><td>SUN., JULY 18</td><td>10:30 am</td><td>Brazilians return for day. Meet at Gloucester High School.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>8:00 pm</td><td>Gloucester High School--bus to Harvard</td></tr><tr><td>FRI., JULY 23</td><td>8:00 pm</td><td>Carnival-Eliot House, Harvard University (given by students for their "families")</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>Empire Fish Co., Gloucester<br>Mr. Wilbur Cross, Mgr.</td><td>Any time--Fish processed from boat to freezer early (morning more interesting)</td></tr><tr><td>Tadco Mfg. Inc., Gloucester</td><td>11:00 a.m. & 3:00 p.m. ONLY; Call Mr. Arthur Shaw first.</td></tr><tr><td>Sylvania Elec. Corp., Peabody</td><td>10:30 ONLY; Call Mr. John Donelan</td></tr><tr><td>A.C.Lawrence Leather Co.,<br>Peabody</td><td>9:30 a.m. ONLY; Call Mrs. Kalinvk for apt. with Mr. Harold Battles. (Mostly discussion of labor relations, unions, visits to labs)</td></tr><tr><td>Hotwatt, Inc., Danvers<br>Mr. William Lee</td><td>Prefer a.m. hours--Small electronics factory</td></tr></tbody></table>

Appendix - 4
Program

Beverly Hospital, Miss Hanley FRI., JULY 9, 9:00 am ONLY (operations can be seen)
or Dr. Alt

Addison Gilbert Hospital FRI., JULY 9, 2:00 pm ONLY
Mr. Tucker Vye

Veterans & State Hospitals Can be arranged thru Mrs. John Reigeluth, 927-0453

Salem Superior Court FRI., JULY 9, 10:00 a.m. ONLY
Judge Ed. Morley

HARVARD SEMINAR SCHEDULE

First Week

Monday, July 12

9:00 am General meeting

9:30 am Joseph E. Leininger, Director of the Academic Program:
Welcome and Preview of the Course
Thomas E. Crooks, Director of the Harvard Summer School: Welcome
Professor Seymour M. Lipset: "Approaches to Understanding United
States Society: An Overview"

4:00 pm Discussion groups in assigned seminar rooms

7:30 pm Professor Samuel P. Huntington: "Government and the Political
Process in the United States"

Tuesday, July 13

9:00 am General meeting

9:30 am Mr. Saville R. Davis: "Information Media; and the Shaping of Public
Opinion in the United States"

4:00 pm Discussion groups

7:30 pm Mr. Lawrence N. Spitz: "The Labor Movement in the United States"

Wednesday, July 14

9:00 am General meeting

9:30 am Professor Mark de Wolfe Howe: "The Legal Framework of the Civil
Rights Struggle in the United States"
Canon James Breeden: "The Position of the Negro in United States
Society"

2:00 pm Discussion groups

Thursday, July 15

9:00 am General meeting

9:30 am Dean Theodore R. Sizer: "Challenges to Education in the United States"

4:00 pm Discussion groups

7:30 pm Professor Henry A. Kissinger: "How We View the World: The Shaping
of United States Foreign Policy"

Friday, July 16

9:00 am General meeting

10:00 am Special departmental programs in Law, Medicine, Engineering and
Science, Education, Architecture, Economics and Social Relations.
Details to be announced.

2:00 pm Discussion groups

Appendix - 6
Program

Washington Schedule (continued)

Monday, July 26

9:15 am Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Visit arranged by Wilbur J. Cohen, Under Secretary, assisted by Philip Des Marais, Acting Assistant Secretary
Distribution of literature packets and selection by individuals of other HEW literature.
9:30 am Call to order--Auditorium, First Floor
Welcome and discussion of major HEW issues. Wilbert J. Cohen and Philip Des Marais.
10:15 am The Role of the Federal Government in Education. Francis Keppel, Commissioner of Education
11:15 am Three sessions; choose one (address - questions - discussion)
(1) HEALTH - The Federal Government's Program on Heart, Stroke and Cancer by Dr. Edward Dempsey, Special Assistant to the Secretary (Health and Medical Affairs).
(2) WELFARE - Public Welfare Programs in the United States by Dr. Ellen Winston, Commissioner of Welfare.
(3) SOCIAL SECURITY - The Medical Care Programs under U.S. Social Security by Robert Ball, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
12:15 pm Lunch--Cafeteria (South Building)
1:45 pm Department of Agriculture Orientation Program. Visit arranged by Kenneth Birkhead, Assistant to the Secretary and W. E. Harvey, Director Foreign Training Division.
Call to order--Auditorium, First floor
Welcome--Mrs. Cannon C. Hearne, Assistant to the Administrator, IADS (Chairman)
1:50 pm Discussion of major agricultural issues. Mrs. Dorothy Jacobson, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.
2:25 pm The Role of the Department of Agriculture in Science and Education. Dr. Nyle C. Brady, Director of Science and Education, USDA.
3:00 pm Three Group Sessions--choose one
(1) INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS - Dr. Matthew Drosdoff, Administrator International Agricultural Development Service.
(2) MARKETING AND CONSUMER SERVICES - Dr. Nathan Koenig, Assistant to the Administrator, Consumer and Marketing Service, USDA
(3) RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION - Robert G. Lewis, Administrator, Rural Community Development Service.
3:45 pm Film on The American Farmer.
7:30 pm Night City Tour--will include a thirty-minute stop at East side of the U.S. Capitol Building for Marine Band Concert, a visit to the Library of Congress followed by riding tour to include Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial.

Tuesday, July 27

9:00 am White House, Special Sightseeing Tour.
10:00 am Transfer to the Capitol for tour.
12:00 Noon Attend Opening of the Senate
12:30 pm Group I - Girls--A bus will load for transfer of girls and Mrs. Henry Sage for lunch at home of Mrs. Robert S. McNamara.
1:00 pm Group II - Boys--Buses will load for transfer to Goddard Space Center
2:00 pm Arrival Goddard Space Center - Tour arranged by Mrs. Alberta C. Moran, Office of the Director
4:00 pm Return to Burlington Hotel
8:30 pm Optional--Sylvan Theatre out-of-doors Near Washington Monument - Free "Merry Wives of Windsor" - Shakespeare

Appendix - 7
Program

Wednesday, July 28

9:30 am State Department Briefing Session. Arranged by Jack Kubish, Director, Office of Brazilian Affairs.
9:30 am Jack H. Vaughn, Assistant Secretary for Latin American Affairs
9:45 am Economic Affairs: The Alliance for Progress. William D. Rogers
10:30 am Political Affairs: John L. Topping, Division of Labor
    American Political Affairs
    Richard E. Lippincott, Division of Caribbean Affairs
    John H. Crimmins, Division of L.A. Political Affairs.
11:30 am Interval (Coffee break)
12:00 noon Dr. Walt W. Rostow, Consultant to the Department of State, Chief of the Policy Planning Commission, Representative of the United States on The Interamerican Committee for the Alliance for Progress
1:00 pm Keith Adamson, Acting Director of the Voice of America
1:30 pm Lunch, Cafeteria of the Department of State
2:30 pm Film - "Years of Lightening; Day of Drums - The Life and Death of John F. Kennedy," West Auditorium.
3:30 pm Pan American Union, Organization of American States. Special Briefing Session. Council of the Organization of American States, Council Chamber.
7:30 pm "University student political organization in the United States," meeting with leaders of the Young Republicans and Young Democrats, ballroom of The Hotel Burlington.

NEW YORK SCHEDULE

Thursday, July 29

12:00 Noon Arrive at Carman Hall, Columbia University
*1:30 pm General Meeting
*2:30 pm Bus Tour of New York City

Friday, July 30

*8:00 am Buses depart for meetings with businessmen arranged by the Council for Latin America. The program will include morning, lunch and early afternoon.

Saturday, July 31

8:15 am Buses depart for New York World's Fair. The visit will last all day and as late into the evening as students wish. Return will be independent, by subway. (See World's Fair Information.)

Sunday, August 1

*9:30 am General meeting
10:30 am Free for rest of the day.
    St. Patrick's Cathedral, Fifth Avenue and 50th Street, last Mass at 12:30 pm
12:00 Noon Meet at Metropolitan Museum of Art for lunch and to visit the Museum's collections.
4:30 pm Groups leave the Museum for Radio City Music Hall.
5:30 pm Meet at Radio City Music Hall, entrance on 51st Street, to see film and Radio City Music Hall stage show.

*Required attendance.

Appendix - 8
Program

New York Schedule (continued)

Monday, August 2

*9:30 am Visit to United Nations. Visit will include a guided tour and a lecture and question-answer period with a member of the Secretariat of the United Nations.
12:30 pm Free for lunch
Afternoon Field trips of professional interest.

Tuesday, August 3

*9:00 am General Meeting. Trip Evaluation. Field trips of professional interest.

Wednesday, August 4

*9:00 am General Meeting - AUI business and election of Representatives and Alternates.
*5:00 pm At Carman Hall, packed and prepared to leave.

*Required attendance.

Appendix - 9
Finance

EXPENSES FOR 1965 TRIP

In the United States (to September 30, 1964)

| | |
|:---|---:|
| Program | $16,779.85 |
| Transportation | 4,670.73 |
| Rooms | 12,981.96 |
| Meals | 3,842.58 |
| Per Diem Allowances | 15,844.00 |
| Administrative Expenses | 12,716.64 |
| **Total in U. S.** | **$66,835.76** |

In Brazil (approximate)

| | |
|:---|---:|
| Round trip for student/leader group | $56,000.00 |
| Selection | 3,000.00 |
| Preparatory Course (including planning staff and materials) | 3,000.00 |
| Alumni Activities (including national meeting) | 6,000.00 |
| Staff | 6,000.00 |
| Rent and Office Expenses | 3,000.00 |
| Staff Travel | 3,000.00 |
| **Total in Brazil** | **$80,000.00** |

FINANCING THE AUI PROGRAM

AUI was started with most of its money coming from American businesses in Brazil. The Bureau of Cultural Affairs of the State Department underwrote the Harvard program in the first year, with all other expenses met from private sources.

As the program was developed, with its increasing numbers and increasingly professional
operation, costs have naturally gone up. In 1965, the balance between private and
government funds was tipped toward the government. Given recent economic conditions
in Brazil, this could not have been otherwise. AUI has made a start at raising money
from private industry in the United States, but this remains a small percent of the
budget. As yet, no private U.S. foundation money has been forthcoming.

Any significant steps to develop the AUI program beyond its present scope will require additional funds. Even such simple extensions as local discussion groups would require money for staff time and honoraria for leaders. More ambitious programs, such as a publication or travel for U.S. students, would obviously be more costly.

In the meantime, merely to carry on the program in its present form implies some rising
costs. Transportation, room and board for the trip are examples of regularly increasing
items. The simple addition of each year's group of alumni naturally makes demands on
the budget. As was stated in 1964, AUI continues to count on volunteers for many
phases of its program, but, for the organization's quality, stability and continuity,
basic responsibilities must increasingly be undertaken by paid professional staff.

Appendix - 10

AUI-IUF

Associacao Universitaria Interamericana
Caixa Postal 6188 -- Sao Paulo - Brasil

Honorary President: Dr. Roberto Campos, Minister of Planning

Chairman: Mrs. Mildred D. Sage

Coordinator: Mrs. Elizabeth W. Washburne

Councilors:

Mr. David Beaty, III
Dr. Gilberto Freire
Dr. Freitas Marcondes
Mr. Peri Igel
Mr. Humberto Monteiro
Mr. Rafael Noschese
Mr. Jose Julio Azevedo de Sa
Dr. Luis Antonio de Gama e Silva

AUI Trip Staff 1965

Consultant: Dr. Achim H. Fuerstenthal

Doctor: Dr. Cezar Antonio Elias

Professors: Ivo Sefton de Azevedo, Assistant Professor, School of Economics, Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul; Instructor, Law School, University of Rio Grande do Sul.
Wando Pereira Borges, Assistant Professor, School of Economics, University of Minas Gerais.
Eduardo Carvalho, Instructor, School of Economics, University of Sao Paulo.
Leopoldo Cesar Fontenele, Professor, School of Administration of Cera.
Marcos Vinicius Vilaca, Assistant Professor, School of Law and School of Philosophy, University of Recife.

Assistants: Dulce Calmon de Almeida, graduate in letters, Rio Grande do Sul
Francisco Luis dos Santos Ferraz, graduate in law, Rio Grande do Sul
Roberto da Silveira Figueiredo, graduate in law, Pernambuco
Alfredo Flandoli, graduate in law, Sao Paulo
Tarcisio Baptista Nepomucena, graduate in law, Minas Gerais
Joan Alice Tibbs, graduate of Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
Secretary: Margit Logar, Sao Paulo

Interamerican University Foundation
10 East 49th Street, New York 10017

Officers

Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker, Honorary President and Trustee
Mrs. Henry M. Sage, Jr., President and Trustee
Mrs. Elizabeth W. Washburne, Coordinator and Trustee
Mr. John Katz, Assistant Secretary
Mrs. Margaret B. Kellner, Assistant Treasurer

Appendix - 11

AUI-IUF

Trustees

Mr. Richard S. Aldrich
Professor Milton Katz
Professor Henry A. Kissinger
Mr. William Myrick
Mr. Hickman Price, Jr.
Mr. Rodman C. Rockefeller
Mr. William D. Rogers

Program Directors

Mrs. Richard S. Aldrich, New Bedford Area
Mrs. Shelton Brooks, New York City
Dr. and Mrs. Marcio Bueno, New Bedford Area
Mrs. Thomas Hale, Gloucester-Manchester Area
Mrs. Hickman Price, Washington, D.C.

Harvard Seminar, 1965

Academic Director

Joseph E. Leininger, Secretary, International Legal Studies, Harvard Law School

Lecturers

Morris Asimow, Professor of Engineering, University of California in Los Angeles.

Werner Baer, Associate Professor of Economics, Vanderbilt University

Canon James P. Breeden, St. James Church Roxbury, Roxbury, Mass.

Thomas E. Crooks, Dean of the Summer School, Harvard University

Savile Rogers Davis, Editor in Chief of the Washington Bureau, Christian Science Monitor.

Mrs. Beverly C. Dunn, First Vice-President of the League of Women Voters of Mass.

Joseph Grunwald, Director of Economic and Social Studies, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

Mark de Wolfe Howe, Professor of Law, Law School, Harvard University

Samuel P. Huntington, Professor of Government, Harvard University

Henry A. Kissinger, Professor of Government, Harvard University

Seymour M. Lipset, Professor of Sociology, University of California at Berkeley

Daniel Murrow, Associate Director, Commonwealth Service Corps of the State of Mass.

Paul A. Samuelson, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Kalman H. Silvert, Professor of Government, Dartmouth College

Theodore Ryland Sizer, Dean of the School of Education, Harvard University

Lawrence N. Spitz, Sub-District Director, United Steelworkers of America

Discussion Leaders

Warren Dean, Assistant Professor of History, University of Texas

Douglas H. Graham, Doctoral Candidate in Economics, Harvard University

Lawrence S. Graham, Doctoral Candidate in Political Science and Interamerican Studies, University of Florida.

Nathaniel H. Leff, Research Fellow, Center for Studies in Education and Development and Center for International Affairs, Harvard University

Gordon W. Smith, Doctoral Candidate in Economics and Instructor in Economics, Harvard University

MINUTES OF THE SECOND ANNUAL
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE INTERAMERICAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION

DEC 7 1966

The Second Annual Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Interamerican
University Foundation was held at the Cosmopolitan Club at 122 East 66th Street
in New York City on Wednesday, the 11th day of September, 1966, pursuant to written
notice to all of the Trustees.

The following Trustees, constituting a quorum, were present:

MRS. MILDRED D. SAGE

MRS. ELIZABETH W. WASHBURNE

MR. WILLIAM RODGERS

Also present, by invitation of the Board, were the following:

MRS. THOMAS R. HALE, Director for Home Visits

MR. JOE LEININGER, Harvard Academic Director

MRS. SHELTON A. BROOKS, Program Director for New York

MRS. EUGENE KELLNER, Assistant Treasurer

MR. JOHN KATZ, Assistant Secretary

MRS. LITTLEJOHN REEVES, U. S. Coordinator

Mrs. Sage acted as Chairman of the meeting and presided. Mr. Katz acted
as Secretary of the meeting and kept the minutes thereof.

The minutes of the First Annual Meeting of the Board of Trustees were pre-
sented to the meeting and duly accepted thereby. The Secretary was ordered to
place a copy thereof in the minute book of the Foundation.

Mrs. Sage asked for the Treasurer's report. The Assistant Treasurer then
submitted to the meeting a financial report for the fiscal year of the Foundation
ending September 30, 1966. After consideration and upon motion duly made, seconded
and adopted, it was

RESOLVED, that the said financial report of the Foundation is hereby
approved as the financial report of the Foundation as of September 30,
1966, and that a copy of said report be attached to the minutes of
this meeting.

The meeting then addressed itself to the election of a Trustee. Mrs. Sage nominated Dr. Francis Keppel to be a Trustee of the Foundation. After discussion and Mrs. Sage's motion having been duly adopted and seconded, it was

RESOLVED, that Dr. Francis Keppel be and he hereby is elected a
Trustee of the Foundation for a term of three (3) years and until
a successor has been duly elected and qualified.

Mr. Leininger then addressed the meeting in connection with the program for
the students held at Harvard. He said that the 1966 program had been very success-
ful. The program contained nine new lectures about half of which were quite satis-
factory, at least two of said group having been extremely well received. He in-
dicated that the lectures were generally well attended and that the students were
better prepared and asked more penetrating questions than in prior years.

Mr. Leininger stated that Peace Corps trainees had participated in the Harvard program for the first time. The said individuals were being trained for teaching in Brazilian universities. He indicated that the trainees and the Brazilians had some trouble communicating initially--because of the language barrier, but by the end of the two weeks, this had been compensated for by their joint efforts and good will. Both groups reported that the contact was both a pleasure and of great benefit.

Mr. Leininger indicated that, for the first time, essays had been written by the students. The essays were written voluntarily and were generally quite good.

Mr. Leininger made various observations about the Harvard program. First, he suggested that before coming to the United States the students be given an analysis of the lectures to be delivered to them at Harvard. Such an analysis would be designed to familiarize the students with the American approach to topics of interest and enable them to get more from the lectures. Difficulties in comprehension were evident and were in large measure due to the unstructured style of the American lectures in contrast to the more formal style of the Brazilian universities.

Second, Mr. Leininger stated that the second week of the program, that part pertaining to economic development, needed improvement. He suggested that the said week, actually consisting of four days, be turned over to a particular individual to be constructed and directed by him. Another needed improvement is to relate the development lectures more closely to the problems of the particular South American countries involved. He found that the program was somewhat weak in that regard.

Third, he stated that it was his impression that the lecture summaries prepared for the students were often inaccurate and thus of little value. He said that the summaries were generally short but needed to be done with much greater care. He suggested that perhaps all summaries but those in certain specific areas should be discontinued.

The meeting then addressed itself to a general discussion of the progress of the Foundation's work and activities. A large part of the conversation pertained to Mr. Leininger's comments on the second week of the Harvard program. It was generally agreed that the idea of inviting a qualified individual to direct that part of the program was worth exploring.

Mrs. Washburne then addressed the meeting and stated that she was temporarily retiring from her post as Coordinator of the Foundation to take a Master's degree. She indicated that Mrs. Reeves would serve as U. S. Coordinator in her absence. The ensemble wished her well. It was pointed out that she would definitely be called on for help from time to time. There being no further business to come before the meeting, upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, it was adjourned.

John Katz, Secretary

-2-

FROM THE PRESIDENT:

Each July since 1962, university student leaders from many parts of Brazil have spent a month in the United States under the auspices of AUI*. In five years, the AUI program has grown from a tentative proposal to "do something about Brazil—U.S. relations" to an established part of the university scene in Brazil, an opportunity sought each year by some two thousand second- and third-year students, of whom one hundred annually are chosen to make the trip.

The 1966 Report highlights the aims and some of the achievements of the AUI program this past year, including some innovations and future plans which are discussed in the next section. A fuller evaluation of the program's effects since 1962 will be the goal of a special survey to be undertaken in Brazil in 1967.

The trip itself has changed very little in its general outline since 1962. It still comprises short visits with American families, participation in a two-week seminar at Harvard and visits to Washington and New York. Greatest change has been in the pace and scope of the Harvard seminar, which now includes a week devoted to studying economic development as well as a survey of contemporary life in the United States. The family visits emphasize private and small-city life in America. Washington adds a view of the Federal Government and a national shrine, and New York contributes a taste of complex metropolitan life.

More visibly dramatic have been developments in the AUI program in Brazil. The required fifty-hour preparatory course in the social sciences, the spread of the program from four centers in 1962 to eight in 1966, and the development of national alumni activity have changed an experiment in cross-cultural dialogue into an established educational organization.

*For a brief general description of AUI, see "AUI at Work," a pamphlet issued in 1966. Copies are available from either the New York or São Paulo office.

1

Since 1962, some 440 students from universities in eight major cities have taken part in the AUI program. (Because many students attend universities away from their home town, AUI alumni actually represent a dozen states and at least 40 cities in Brazil.)

For these young men and women, some benefits are obvious, such as the opportunity to see another country and its people. Students learn about the complexity of modern social, economic and political problems confronting both Brazil and the United States. They learn to distrust "simple" solutions. At the same time, the trip widens their personal and professional horizons and exposes them to their own countrymen in a common, intense experience. It also shows them more effective ways to play their self-assumed roles in shaping Brazil's future.

The AUI program aims to be demanding. It calls for intellectual, psychological and emotional dedication—and considerable physical stamina. Students face a variety of social, cultural and political challenges, from each other as well as from their exposure to Americans and American life. Every part of the trip can contribute its share to a student's development: formal lectures, midnight talk sessions, planned visits to museums or a walk around Boston, a State Department official or a factory worker or "the intelligent lady who lives next door to my American family."

The preparatory course in Brazil has helped overcome some of the limitations imposed by the short duration of the trip. For the rest, experience supports the ideas which lay behind planning for the first trip. Dollar for dollar, a month's program can reach many more students than a year-long program could. Also, most students in the AUI program would not come for much more than a month since they would lose valuable time from their professional training. Among their university colleagues, a prolonged absence would mean giving up their place as leaders, perhaps for good.

Future plans include the extension of the AUI program into other Latin American countries. Already arranged is a pilot plan to include twenty Venezuelan students in the 1967 group, participating jointly with the Brazilians in the Harvard seminar and afterwards pursuing their special interests as a separate group. Thanks to the Council for Latin America, contact was established between AUI and Venezuelan busi-

2

ness and political leaders. A local Caracas organization assumed responsibility for selection of students and raising funds for the trip, under the supervision of AUI which will arrange the U. S. program.

With the further assistance of the Council for Latin America, exploratory talks with citizens of Argentina, Chile, Mexico and Peru may lead to the establishment of AUI-type programs in these countries. This will depend on the willingness and ability of local committees to accept the necessary financial and administrative responsibilities.

Along with AUI's anticipated expansion into other countries will come, we believe, a further broadening of the base of support, both in the U.S. and in Latin America. U.S. business firms operating in these countries may be expected to add their support to that offered by local industry and individuals. The more AUI can free itself from the need to raise annual budgets, the more time and manpower it can devote to developing and extending the program.

We hope the future will see the amount of government aid decreasing in proportion to growing support from the private sector. AUI's private status will continue to be the key to its effectiveness.

On behalf of the Trustees, I should like to thank those individuals and organizations whose contributions have enabled us to develop our program over this five-year span. Our gratitude, also, goes to those devoted volunteers and staff members in Brazil and the United States for the imagination and dedication which mark their efforts.

Mildred D. Sage

3

REPORT ON 1966 PROGRAM

From July 6 to August 6, 1966, ninety-four Brazilian university students took part in the annual AUI trip to the United States. The month included five days with American families, two weeks in a special academic program at Harvard, and visits to Washington and New York.

The students, selected from some two thousand applicants, came from universities in eight Brazilian cities: Belo Horizonte, Curitiba, Fortaleza, Porto Alegre, Recife, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador and São Paulo. They were undergraduates in schools of law, engineering, medicine, liberal arts and science. (See Appendix I for details.)

Although applications, examinations and personal interviews began a year in advance, formal preparation for the trip started in March 1966. Selected students from each region attended a required fifty-hour course, planned by their universities in cooperation with AUI. (For course outline, see Appendix II.) Besides the course, students were required to read certain books and to study English.

THE TRIP

The trip program followed the pattern of former years. Students went first to families, many of whom spoke Portuguese, in five Massachusetts towns: Fall River, Gloucester, Manchester, New Bedford and Taunton.

Next, the students spent twelve days at Harvard where they were joined by thirty-six Peace Corps trainees en route to Brazil. The seminar consisted of lectures to the whole group (translated simultaneously), alternating with small

4

group discussions covering the contemporary United States
and aspects of economic development, especially of Brazil.

Five days in Washington brought interviews with govern-
ment officials, sightseeing and cultural visits. In New York,
students toured the United Nations, industrial plants, mu-
seums, theaters and stores.

On the way home, the group stopped over for two free
days in Miami, providing an opportunity to rest and reflect
on the program before returning to Brazil. (See Appendix III
for full schedule, including Harvard program and lecturers.)

HIGHLIGHTS IN 1966

The following sections cover a few aspects of the AUI
program in which significant changes or innovations took
place in 1966, some suggested by students of former years.

Group Interviews for Selection

The customary personal interview for each finalist was
replaced this year by a group interview of twenty candidates
at a time. Each gave a short talk and then answered questions
from his colleagues with AUI representatives in attendance.

The group interview presented students with seminar con-
ditions similar to those they would encounter at Harvard.
Those who were unusually active in group discussion, as well
as those who were not, showed up as they would not have
done in a personal interview. However, AUI lost some oppor-
tunity to gain information about students' attitudes and re-
sponse under more challenging questioning. For 1967, both
group and personal interviews will be employed.

Peace Corps Participation

Thirty-six Peace Corps volunteers joined the AUI group for the Harvard seminar as part of their training program for teaching assignments in Brazilian universities.

They took part together in the program of daily lectures
and discussion plus the informal cultural and extra-curricular
events arranged for the Brazilians. In addition, the Peace
Corps representatives had daily instruction in Portuguese.

AUI's aim was to offer the Brazilians a chance to be with
American colleagues as fellow students, companions and
interpreters. For the Peace Corps, AUI felt the value would

5

be in first-hand contact with Brazilian students and in the
chance to experience, before leaving the United States, some
of the cultural barriers and "shock points" between Ameri-
cans and Brazilians.

Despite the very real language handicap on both sides, the
Brazilians and Americans made friends and learned about
each other. The former rated the Peace Corps association as
one of the very positive aspects of the AUI program, and
several said it was their first understanding of the Peace Corps
and the value of volunteer service. The report from the
Americans was equally enthusiastic.

Several factors help explain the success of this experiment. Both the Brazilians and Americans were friendly, outgoing, curious and ready for new experiences. Both were young people from many parts of their respective countries with a variety of backgrounds, who had undergone a rigorous selection process. The Brazilians were chosen for leadership and social concern, qualities also to be expected in Peace Corps trainees. Furthermore, living arrangements which obliged the groups to mix helped greatly in the integration.

In the future, each should have more opportunity to learn
about the other prior to the joint seminar. If possible, added
language instruction would be most desirable. Nevertheless,
the first year's experience with the Peace Corps showed each
group to have a willingness and ability to work together.

Cultural Program

Concerts, theater and museum visits have always been part
of the AUI program in the United States, but the arts have
not been included in the formal curriculum. In 1966, in re-
sponse to suggestions by students of former years, the
Harvard seminar included a lecture on U.S. cultural history
and development. It was a good addition in itself and helped
to balance the social science emphasis of the rest of the
seminar.

Slides of American paintings and a viewer were available
to the students in their dormitory common room, along with
a large variety of paperback books chosen to show what
young Americans are reading and to introduce a number of
American writers unknown in Brazil. The Pan American
Society of New England, which arranged extra-curricular

6

activities during the seminar, gave a reception in Harvard's
Fogg Art Museum with graduate art students acting as guides.

Besides furnishing information about museums and cultural
events in Boston, New York and Washington, AUI provides
tickets, wherever possible, and assigns staff members to join
students on these voluntary excursions. This encourages the
unsure or only mildly interested student who might not other-
wise make these visits.

Small Groups and Special Interests

In 1966, as before, the AUI group was large and diverse.
As always, AUI's task was to make the most of this size and
variety while guarding against any tendency toward too
impersonal administration or a too-general program. This
year, AUI emphasized small groups and special interest ac-
tivities with the aim of making the program more flexible.

The value of small group programs was well illustrated by
the day at the Department of State. Lincoln Gordon, Assistant
Secretary for Inter-American Affairs, opened with some
general remarks on the United States and Brazil, answering
a few questions from the whole group. The visitors then had
two or more hours with area experts to delve as deeply as
they wished into subjects of interest to them and to those to
whom they would report on their return to Brazil.

Students chose the region or topic which most interested
them, ranging from southeast Asia and Vietnam to the ide-
ology underlying U. S. foreign policy.

For the first time, they were unanimously favorable to this
visit to the State Department, in spite of the fact that a ma-
jority disapproved of some U. S. foreign policies. Agreement
was evidently less important to them than the sense that they
had both heard and been heard by experts who cared about
what they thought.

Alumni Opportunities

A.I.D. Scholarships. In 1966, the Agency for International
Development offered AUI alumni one-year scholarships for
graduate study in the United States. These are applicable in
almost any field and may, if the student wishes and shows
the ability, be extended to eighteen months or longer. Re-
quirements for the scholarships include an acceptable scho-

7

lastic record and AUI's recommendation. Although the
scholarships were announced late in March, with only a few
weeks for application, a dozen alumni are now on their way
to U.S. universities and more will be coming every semester.

The AUI program has always aimed to broaden the stu-
dents' intellectual and professional horizons, often at the risk
of arousing dissatisfaction with the offerings of their own
universities. In 1964, a questionnaire showed that most alumni
wanted graduate study, with a majority hoping to go to the
United States. The A.I.D. scholarships enable AUI now to
follow through with its alumni by helping them to get the
training they have learned to want.

**Community Project.** Twenty alumni submitted studies in late 1965 in a competition to solicit projects for possible AUI support in the university field. At the national meeting held in January 1966, in Ouro Preto, alumni voted to join with AUI in attempting to carry out the winning project. They elected six representatives to a planning commission which has since met with AUI directors and professors in São Paulo to work out details for execution of the project.

The project calls for a group of ten to fifteen students from various fields to join in promoting the economic development of a small community in northeast Brazil through research, planning and action. Their task will be to collect data, get to know the community and its people, perhaps begin some pilot activities and, after drawing up a development plan, try to interest competent private and/or government organizations to carry it out.

The Popular Community Program, as it was named, was undertaken as a joint activity of AUI and its alumni. The financing is to be entirely independent of AUI, as is the planning commission itself. The hope is that this program, if carried through, will be an example for other university students to serve their own professional training and the needs of their country through such practical work in communities throughout Brazil.

Evaluation

Previous reports on the annual AUI trip have devoted
several paragraphs to results. They have cited ways in which
students have changed their attitudes and opinions toward

10

the United States, as well as changes in professional goals
due to the month's broadening experience. Results have
included shifts in political activity, English study by AUI
alumni, initiation of voluntary community services, develop-
ment of regional and national alumni activities, and con-
tinued contact with American acquaintances.

For two reasons, these results will not be covered again in
this year's report: first, to avoid repetition and, second, be-
cause AUI is now in a position to investigate on a broader
scale the effects of the students' experience.

In 1967, AUI plans to collect information and opinions
during the trip from students, from alumni and from other
Brazilian university students and graduates. AUI's objective
is to find answers to such questions as:

1. What happens to students during the program and after-
wards as shown by subsequent actions or interests?

2. What aspects of the program have the greatest immediate or long-term impact?

3. How valid are the psychological, sociological and educa-
tional assumptions of the program?

4. What contributions have been made through the AUI
program to improved relations between the United States
and Brazil?

11

Appendix III

U. S. Schedule — 1966

Harvard

Morning and evening lectures interspersed with question periods and group discussion:

U.S. Society: The Changing Milieu
Prof. David Riesman

Political Power and the Process of Change
Prof. H. Douglas Price

The News Media in the Shaping of Opinion and Policy
Saville R. Davis

Foreign Affairs: Responding to World Change
Dean Edmund A. Gullion

Organized Labor: Pressure and the Public Trust
Prof. Derek Bok

Civil Rights: The Negro's Quest for Equality
Rev. James Breeden

Human Resources for the Future: The Challenge to Educators
Dean Theodore R. Sizer

Arts, Letters and the Popular Culture: The Varying Definitions of Excellence
Dr. Neil Harris

The United States and Brazilian Economic Development:
Cooperation and Conflict
Prof. Thomas E. Skidmore

The Economists' View of Development
Prof. Hollis B. Chenery

Non-Economic Factors in Development
Prof. Frank Bonilla

Brazilian Development: The View from the North
Dr. Reynold E. Carlson

The North American Economic Base
Prof. William G. Bowen

Private Investment in Development
Dr. Frank Brandenburg

The Politics and Diplomacy of Aid
William D. Rogers

One day the students divided into groups according to their professional specialties and spent several hours in graduate schools and departments discussing their fields of interest.

15

**Washington, D. C.**

Meetings with Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, Senators Jacob Javits and Robert Kennedy, Congressman Donald Irwin.

Talks by Assistant Secretary of State Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker.

Visits to Departments of State, Justice, Health, Education, and Welfare, Organization of American States, Capitol Building, White House, FBI, Goddard Space Center, Arlington Cemetery, Mount Vernon.

Luncheon with Brazilian ambassador, band concert at Capitol, evening with Peace Corps trainees at Georgetown University.

Bus tour of city.

**New York, N. Y.**

Bus tour of city.

Visits to Lincoln Center, United Nations, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Radio City, Avon Products, Merck & Co.

Evening program at Museum of Modern Art, including jazz concert and film showings.

Theater: "Man of La Mancha"

Discussion of AUI alumni activities and election of regional representatives from 1966 group.

**Miami, Fla.**

Two-day rest period and informal meetings of regional representatives.

16

Henry A. Klaander

Sincerely yours,

Best regards,

Report. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
for sending me a copy of the AUI Annual
This is just a note to thank you

Dear Mildred:

New York, N. Y. 10017
10 East 49th Street
Intersamuel University Foundation
Chairman
Mrs. Mildred D. Sade

March 3, 1967