I

ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
SPECIAL STUDIES PROJECT

PURPOSE

1. TO SEEK TO DEFINE THE PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY FACE OVER THE NEXT 10 TO 15 YEARS.

2. TO REVIEW OUR NATIONAL PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES IN TERMS OF THESE PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES.

3. TO DEVELOP A FRAMEWORK OF CONCEPTS AND CONSIDERATIONS ON WHICH POLICIES AND DECISIONS TO IMPLEMENT OUR PURPOSE MIGHT BE BASED.

IMPLEMENT OUR PURPOSE WOULD BE BARED.

EVALUATIONS ON WHICH POLICIES AND DECISIONS TO

3. TO DEVELOP A FRAMEWORK OF CONCEPTS AND CONSIST-

TO 12 YEARS.

1. TO SEEK TO DELINE THE PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY FACE OVER THE NEXT 10

PURPOSE

SPECIAL STUDIES PROJECT

ROCKETTER BROTHERS LUND

I

[5]

October 10, 1956

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER

SUBJECT: Initial meeting of the Overall Panel, Special Studies Project

At our meeting this afternoon it is proposed to discuss with you the selection of Chairmen for the Subpanels which are to consider the various papers prepared for the Special Studies Project, as well as to obtain your approval for the type of presentation which is to be given at the initial meeting of the Overall Panel. Accordingly, you will find attached:

(a) A new list of Subpanel members, revised to reflect the response to your invitation;

(b) A proposed agenda for the initial meeting of the Overall Panel;

(c) A schedule of operations outlining the steps which should be taken prior to this meeting; and

(d) A synopsis of major issues to be presented for discussion at the initial meeting of the Overall Panel.

This draft synopsis is presented simply to give you an idea as to the type of paper which we propose to send to all members of the Overall Panel and which, should you agree, would form a basis for discussion at the initial meeting of the Overall Panel. You will note that it consists of seven parts: a General Section and six Subpanel Sections, each of which may be considered separately by the appropriate Subpanel. The General Section consists of a brief discussion of the relationship of national purpose to national policy and a series of broad questions. This is illustrative only. If you approve of this approach, we will prepare similar integrating statements for each Subpanel Section, setting out its conceptual framework and relating the problems considered by the Subpanel to the remainder of the project. At present, we are showing in each Subpanel Section only the problems we are proposing to submit for discussion at the initial meeting.

If you agree with the above, we shall complete the draft and submit it for your further consideration.

cc: Mr. Dana Creel
Mr. Oscar Roeffhausen
Mr. Frank Jamieson

Henry A. Kissinger

LUNAR 1/2

JIC: HAK 10/10/56

# MAJOR ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PANEL

## THE FRAMEWORK OF NATIONAL PURPOSE:

There can be little doubt that we are living through a revolutionary period. On the physical plane, the power of modern weapons is out of balance with the objectives for which they might be employed; as a result, at a moment of unparalleled strength we find ourselves parel yzed by the implications of our own weapons technology. On the political plane, many of the newly independent Powers continue to inject into their international policies the revolutionary fervor that gained them independence. On the ideological plane, the contemporary ferment is fed by the newly awakened hopes and expectations of hitherto inarticulate peoples and by the rapidity with which ideas can be communicated. And the Soviet bloc, eager to exploit all dissatisfactions for its own ends, has given the present situation its revolutionary urgency.

Although the problems and opportunities of the next ten to fifteen years will present themselves as a series of individual cases, they cannot be solved in those terms. For the world situation is revolutionary precisely because old values no longer seem to fit new conditions and millions are groping for a new definition of themselves. It is distinguished by its dissatisfactions which join in a protest against the existing order but can propose no clear substitute. A revolution in short cannot be mastered by understanding alone; it requires a readiness to give a sense of direction to its hopes and its resentments.

-2-

This emphasizes one of the basic problems of foreign policy: How to relate a nation's vision of itself to the vision of it as seen by others. To itself a nation is an impression of justice because people will accept laws voluntarily only if they believe them to be in the general interest. (Totalitarian states find themselves obliged to erect elaborate propaganda machines to achieve this agreement.) But the international experience of a people may be a challenge to the universality of its notion of justice because the international order depends on the reconciliation of different national purposes. If the objectives and the domestic structure of the states comprising the international order are sufficiently similar, this may not become apparent. When the national purpose is well understood and uncontested, foreign policy itself is a series of technical problems. In a revolutionary situation, however, national purposes will clash and their conflict will underlie all relationships. In such a case, technical problems are insoluble unless we can relate them to our image of ourselves and unless this image can be given a more general application. A framework of national policy therefore suggests the necessity of an attempt to define a national purpose. This raises some of the following questions:

1. What are the basic moral and philosophic beliefs which motivate the United States? Are these values sufficiently universal to be comprehended by and attractive to peoples who have been raised in non-Western religious cults and philosophical beliefs? What factors today militate against

-3-

our moral values and what challenge do these face from other competing systems?

2. Does the U. S. possess a sense of mission which can and should motivate its policies? Can U. S. interests be defined in terms of a set of values of universal application? If so, how can these values and the policy concepts derived therefrom be related to day to day actions and decisions?

3. Can the American values and institutions continue to flourish in a system of nation-states? Is a different vehicle both more desirable and more suitable for the attainment of American objectives? Specifically, should we seek truly to promote regional and international political and economic organizations in which the U. S. would be only "first among equals"?

## SECTION I - INTERNATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY:

1. What is the role of force in the nuclear age? Is force a feasible solution for international differences in the nuclear age? For what kind of differences? If not, what are the alternatives? Disarmament? World Government?

2. What are the technological trends in weapons systems over ten to fifteen years? What is the relation between these technological trends and our political-military requirements? Are military alliances likely to add to U. S. security or to impose additional demands upon our strength? Are alliances compatible with the theory or actuality of all-out nuclear war?

-4-

3. What are the implications for U. S. strategy and military policy of an era of relative nuclear parity with the Soviet Union? What is the meaning of nuclear parity? What strategy or strategies will best serve U. S. interests during this period? To what extent must we be concerned with problems of limited war? Of guerilla and civil war? What are the relations between these various strategies and the size and relative strength of the various elements of our Armed Services?

4. What problems does the new technology pose with respect to integrated strategic planning? To budgetary requirements? The organization of our military establishment?

## SECTION II - INTERNATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY:

1. What are the basic factors which determine American interests abroad and what are the natures of these interests? Do they derive largely from a desire for self-preservation? From a sense of mission? From a wish for isolation?

2. Is there an irreconcilable antagonism between the U. S. and the Communist bloc, or is a policy of accomodation both possible and feasible in terms of basic U. S. interests?

What is the meaning and future possibility of recent developments within the Soviet orbit? What is the relationship

-5-

between internal developments and foreign policy? What
changes in policy may we expect once the Soviets have
attained relative nuclear parity?

3. Considering both military and political factors, what should be the role and nature of alliances in which we engage? Can we, and to what extent should we, seek to establish with our allies common goals and objectives in foreign affairs? To what extent are alliances valuable for other than military reasons and how can this value be enhanced?

4. What are the implications for the United States of the emergence into statehood of former colonial peoples? To what extent is it in the U. S. interests to support national independence movements? Is the attainment of statehood by colonial peoples a most desirable form of self-determination? What alternatives may be developed?

5. What specific problems and opportunities may confront us in Europe? In Asia? In Africa? In Latin America? To what extent can or should the United States temper its policies in one area to accord with those in another? Can the U. S. pursue divergent regional policies and still operate successfully?

-6-

SECTION III - INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY:

1. To what extent can economic aid and trade policy be used to implement national policy? What purposes do we want to achieve both with economic aid and with our trade policy? What can be done to mobilize and coordinate both government and private resources in pursuit of economic policy? To what extent do economic and political stability abroad depend upon U. S. trade policy?

2. To what extent is economic, as distinct from military, aid required to achieve U. S. policy objectives? What can and cannot economic aid be expected to achieve? To what extent and under what circumstances can private capital or government loans be substituted for economic assistance?

3. What interests does the United States have in the maintenance or improvement of living conditions in foreign countries? To what extent do such improvements increase or decrease the chances for political stability? For resistance against Communism? For mutually profitable trade with the United States?

4. What problems do the under-developed countries face in attempting to improve their standard of living? To what extent are these problems affected by increases in population? By the rate of growth of agriculture? By the utilization or depletion of other resources?

-8-

4. What specific problems confront us with regard to farm policy? Uneven industrial growth? Utilities development? What concepts should govern the relative roles of government and private enterprise in these fields? What is the relationship between our policy and expenditures in these fields and our foreign policy? Our international economic objectives? The resources available for national security purposes?

## SECTION V - UNITED STATES UTILIZATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES

1. What problems do we face with regard to the utilization of available manpower? What barriers exist to the full utilization of manpower? How can they be surmounted? Specifically, what is the relationship between education (particularly education of high talent manpower) and increased utilization? What problems of education does our growing society face? How can we gear our educational system to inculcate knowledge needed by citizens of a democracy without detecting from scientific and technical schooling required?

2. What are the population trends in the United States? What are likely to be the sociological and political impacts resulting from these trends? To what extent do these trends indicate our ability to support our security objectives? Our domestic economic objectives? Our political objectives?

IMPLEMENT OUR PURPOSE MIGHT BE BARED.

ERVATIONS ON WHICH POLICIES AND DECISIONS TO

TO 18 YEARS.

PURPOSE

SPECIAL STUDIES PROJECT
ROCKETTER BROTHERS FUND

1

September 25, 1956

SPECIAL STUDIES PROJECT OF THE ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND, INC.

PURPOSE
---

The purpose of the special studies project of the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund is:

1. To seek to define the problems and opportunities that the United
States may face over the next ten to fifteen years.

2. To review our national purposes and objectives in terms of these problems and opportunities.

3. To develop a framework of concepts and considerations on which policies and decisions to implement our purpose might be based.

PROCEDURE
---

The Special Studies Project proposes to proceed in four stages:

1. The commissioning of experts to do papers (such as those listed on pages 5 - 11) outlining the trends in their special fields of competence and the alternative measures for dealing with them. These papers, a number of which are already in progress, are conceived as analyses which can form the nucleus of subsequent discussion.

2. The formation of a panel of outstanding Americans who can bring their experience and imagination to bear on the implications of the papers prepared by the experts and who can develop an integrated approach to the challenges of the next decade. In view of the scope of the study it is proposed that at its initial meeting the overall panel form a number of sub-panels.

3. The presentation of the papers to these subpanels, which are to be composed of members of the overall panel, authors and specialists, as described on page 4. It is proposed that each subpanel, in the light of the discussion of the basic papers and of related topics, submit a report covering its field.

4. The preparation and publication of a report based on the de-
liberations of both the subpanels and the overall panel.

- 2 -

# ORGANIZATION OF STUDIES

## The Overall Panel

The overall panel will be composed of leaders experienced in education, business, labor, law, science, publishing and government. The aims of the panel would include:

1. Outlining the nature of the problems and opportunities which, in its judgment, will confront the American people over the next decade.

2. Analyzing American purposes and objectives in relation to these problems and opportunities.

3. Developing the considerations on which policies and decisions designed to secure these values and to attain these objectives might be based.

The panel would undertake this by guiding the work of the subpanels and by considering a report designed to integrate the deliberations of the subpanels into an overall conceptual framework.

Because our sense of national purpose is inseparable from our attitude toward the moral and philosophical challenge of our time, the Special Studies Project has established a close relationship with the Institute of Religious and Social Studies. This is an interdenominational group of theologians and philosophers whose members last year included Louis Finkelstein, F.E. Johnson, John La Farge, I.I. Rabi, Lyman Bryson, Robert M. MacIver, Ernest Nagel and Dorothy Lee. During the coming months it is hoped that this group will consider the topic, "The Problem of the Relation of Moral Insights to the Survival and Growth of Democracy". The group is prepared to meet from time to time with members of the overall panel and to discuss with them its conclusions or its views on problems raised by members of the overall panel.

- 3 -

## The Subpanels

In order to facilitate consideration, problems have been grouped into six categories, each covered by a separate subpanel as follows:

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I. International Security Objectives and Strategy</td><td>Within the framework established by the overall panel this subpanel will consider the implications of modern weapons systems for our strategic planning, our budgetary policy and our diplomacy.</td></tr><tr><td>II. International Political Objectives and Strategy</td><td>Within the framework established by the overall panel this subpanel will attempt to discuss the trends in various areas over a 10 to 15 year period, the long term objectives the U.S. can reasonably hope to achieve, and what instruments are available to achieve them.</td></tr><tr><td>III. International Economic Objectives and Strategy</td><td>Within the framework established by the overall panel this subpanel will consider the relationship between economic and political stability and the considerations that might underlie our aid policy, as well as our international trade policy, over the next 10 to 15 years.</td></tr><tr><td>IV. U.S. Economic and Social Policy</td><td>Within the framework established by the overall panel this subpanel will consider the relation between domestic and international objectives and policies, with particular reference to governmental responsibility for economic growth and stability and for individual and social welfare. Such topics as taxation policy, farm policy, utilities policy and the problem of natural resources will be covered insofar as they relate to the above.</td></tr><tr><td>V. U.S. Utilization of Human Resources</td><td>Within the framework established by the overall panel this subpanel will consider the problem of our utilization of manpower over the longer term, with particular attention to the determination of critical fields, adequacy of existing incentives for channeling manpower into these fields, and the problem of creating and training the leadership groups required for the various fields.</td></tr><tr><td>VI. U.S. Problems of Leadership and Organization</td><td>Within the framework established by the overall panel this subpanel will consider those strengths and weaknesses of our democratic system which significantly affect the ability of the U.S. to carry out its role in world affairs. Particular emphasis will be given to the problem of arriving at and implementing long-range policy decisions and to the relationships among the Departments and between the Executive and Congress.</td></tr></tbody></table>

- 4 -

The subpanels will be composed of three categories of participants:

1. Some of the authors who have prepared the papers which will be on the initial agenda of the subpanel.

2. Specialists in the field with which the subpanel deals.

3. Those members of the overall panel who desire to participate in the work of the subpanel. (Members of the overall panel will have the option of joining the subpanel of their choice.)

The Chairman of the subpanel will be in every case a member of the overall panel. A Subpanel Secretary will prepare for the overall panel an analytical report growing out of the discussions of the subpanel.

Summaries of pertinent documents will be made for the convenience of panel participants and the full text will be made available upon request. To keep all members of the overall panel informed of the progress of the various subpanels a monthly status report will be circulated.

## Schedule of Meetings

It is anticipated that the overall panel will meet four times between October 15 and April 15.

East subpanel probably will meet between three and five times during this same period.

Thus, those members of the overall panel who join a subpanel will, on the average, only attend about one meeting a month.

## PARTIAL LIST OF PAPERS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE SUBPANELS

The papers are 30-50 page analyses outlining the author's assessment of trends over the longer term in his field, the objectives which we might set ourselves, and the alternative ways of thinking about the problems. Where appropriate, they include recommendations concerning the basic concepts that should underlie our policies in the area.

- 5 -

SUBPANEL I - INTERNATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY

Within the framework established by the overall panel this subpanel will consider the implications of modern weapons systems for our strategic planning, our budgetary policy and our diplomacy. Papers commissioned for it include:

<table><thead><tr><td>TITLE OR SUBJECT OF PAPER</td><td>AUTHOR</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Problems of integrated strategic planning (weapons & missions)</td><td>General James McCormack, Assistant to the President Massachusetts Institute of Technology</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of technological trends on political requirements</td><td>Ellis A. Johnson Director, Operations Research Office Johns Hopkins University</td></tr><tr><td>Problems of protracted or limited war</td><td>William R. Kintner Operations Research Office Johns Hopkins University</td></tr><tr><td>Problems of guerrilla and civil war</td><td>James Cross Center for International Studies Massachusetts Institute of Technology</td></tr><tr><td>Budgetary implications of various levels of defense projected over a 10 - 15 year period.</td><td>Roswell Gilpatric Cravath, Swaine & Moore (Former Undersecretary of the Air Force)</td></tr><tr><td>Naval strategy</td><td>Willard Bascom National Research Council National Academy of Sciences</td></tr><tr><td>Non-military defense</td><td>N.E. Halaby (Formerly Director, Office of Military Assistance Programs, Department of Defense)</td></tr><tr><td>Theory of Alliances</td><td>Roger Hilsman Chief, Foreign Affairs Division, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress</td></tr></tbody></table>

SUBPANEL II (Continued)

| TITLE OR SUBJECT OF PAPER | AUTHOR |
|---|---|
| **Southeast Asia** | |
| Trends & US policy toward Southeast Asia | Edwin F. Stanton<br>Former Ambassador to Thailand |
| **Soviet Orbit** | |
| Trends in Soviet Orbit | Philip E. Mosely<br>Director of Research<br>Council on Foreign Relations<br>(Formerly Director of the Russian Institute, Columbia University) |
| Impact of internal trends on Soviet foreign policy, etc. | Frederick C. Barghoorn, Professor<br>Yale University |
| Extent to which US policy can affect Soviet development | Merle Fainsod, Professor<br>Harvard University |

Papers are also being prepared
on Latin America, Africa and
the Middle East.

-9-

SUBPANEL IV - UNITED STATES ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY

Within the framework established by the overall panel this sub-panel will consider the relation between domestic and international objectives and policies, with particular reference to governmental responsibility for economic growth and stability and for individual and social welfare. Such topics as taxation policy, farm policy, utilities policy and the problem of natural resources will be covered insofar as they relate to the above.

TITLE OR SUBJECT OF PAPER

The nature of growth, its consistency with stability, and the role of monetary compared to fiscal policy

Trends in American economy
(changing technology and energy
requirements)

Taxation policy

Effect of taxation policy
on economic growth and
stability at various levels

Farm problem

Farm policy

Relationship to world food
problems

Utilities and power:

Trends and concepts for power
development, including nu-
clear

Individual and Social Welfare

Political implications of social welfare

Relation between industrial-
ization and social welfare

AUTHOR

Dexter M. Keezer, Vice President
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company

Grover W. Ensley, Staff Director of
Research, Joint Economic Committee,
Congress

William J. Fellner, Professor,
Yale University

Richard A. Musgrave, Professor,
University of Michigan

Theodore W. Schultz, Professor,
University of Chicago

J. Norman Efferson, Dean,
Louisiana Agricultural and Mechanical
College

Edward Morehouse, Vice-President,
General Public Utilities,
New York City

Robert A. Dahl, Professor,
Yale University

Lester B. Granger
National Urban League

- 11 -

SUBPANEL VI - UNITED STATES PROBLEMS OF LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION

Within the framework established by the overall panel this subpanel will consider those strengths and weaknesses of our democratic system which significantly affect the ability of the U.S. to carry out its role in world affairs. Particular emphasis will be given to the problem of arriving at and implementing long-range policy decisions and to the relationships among the Departments and between the Executive and Congress. Papers commissioned for it include:

<table><thead><tr><th>TITLE OR SUBJECT OF PAPER</th><th>AUTHOR</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><u>Analysis of Democratic Structure</u></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Organizational inconsistencies and their correction (Synopsis)</td><td>William Y. Elliott, Professor of Government and Director of the International Seminar, Harvard University</td></tr><tr><td><u>Role of Executive</u></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Relationship of Congress and the Executive in the formulation of policy decisions</td><td>Stephen K. Bailey, Dean Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University</td></tr><tr><td>Role of budgetary process in national policy</td><td>Arthur Smithies, Professor, Harvard University</td></tr><tr><td><u>Department of Defense</u></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fitness of our governmental apparatus to produce long range strategic decisions</td><td>General C. H. Bonesteel (Formerly Director, Office of National Security Council Affairs, Department of Defense)</td></tr><tr><td>Problems of strategic planning</td><td>N. E. Halaby (Formerly Director, Office of Military Assistance Programs, Department of Defense)</td></tr><tr><td><u>Department of State</u></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Wallace S. Sayre, Professor, Columbia University</td></tr></tbody></table>

September 4, 1956

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. Dana S. Creel
Mr. Francis A. Jamieson
Mr. John E. Lockwood
Mr. Stacy May
Mr. Oscar Reubhausen

FROM: Dr. J. I. Coffey

It is understood that one purpose of the scheduled meeting is to obtain your suggestions concerning possible members of the overall panel for the Special Studies Project.

Attached for your information are:

a. A list of nominees for the overall panel of the Special Studies Project.

b. A list of possible alternates for the panel.

c. A list of possible second alternates for the panel.

d. An analysis of the panel based upon the assumption that all of the desired nominees accept.

- 2 -

(3) Each subpanel will prepare a report designed to indicate the problems, the trends, and the long-range policy concepts for its area of concern, bearing in mind not only the context of the discussions but also the work being done by other groups.

(4) Ultimately, an overall panel (from which the Chairmen and other distinguished representatives on the subpanels are to come) is to consider a final report based on the work done in the subpanels.

## 2. Selection of Overall Panel

### a. Need for care.

It is obvious that the caliber of the work done in the subpanels, the acceptability of the final report, and the public support given to this report will in large measure depend on the careful selection of members of the overall panel, and especially of those who are to chair the subpanels. This is true not only with respect to the individuals sitting on the overall panel but also with regard to the composition of the panel.

### b. Criteria for nomination.

(1) Should be capable, intelligent and interested people who are sufficiently cooperative to function in a group.

(2) Should have position and stature, preferably national, but at least regional or in field of activity.

(3) Should be available or with fair chance of being made available.

(4) Should not individually represent extremes of political, social or economic philosophies, and should not cause group to appear obviously biased or unbalanced.

(5) Should not appear to be handpicked by, or closely associated with, Rockefeller interests. (This criterion has in practice proven difficult and has led to rejection of some individuals and grave questions concerning others)

-3-

3. Purpose of Meeting

a. To acquaint you with persons whom we propose that Nelson Rockefeller invite to participate on overall panel.

b. To discuss with you selections for Chairmen of subpanels.

c. To obtain your recommendations for:

(1) Other panel members or alternates.

(2) People who, though not of panel stature, might make valuable contributions through membership on subpanels.

d. You have been given:

(1) List of nominees.

(2) Lists of first and second alternates.

(3) Analysis of overall panel.

e. I should like to go over with you our nominees for the overall panel and our selections for Chairmen as shown on these lists.

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

September 1, 1956

Memorandum for Dr. Kissinger

Subject: Evaluation of possible Members for Overall Panel

1. The following paragraphs attempt to summarize comments which were made and discussions which took place during our meeting of 30 August. The information contained herein is to be used for background only and your attention is invited to the classification given the memorandum.

2. Tentative schedule for Special Studies Project:

a. Selection and initial meeting of Overall Panel: October, 1956.

b. Initial meetings of Subpanel: Mid-November, 1956.

c. Completion of Subpanel studies: End, January, 1957.

The Members of the Overall Panel are to be encouraged but not required to sit on Subpanels; however, a Chairman for each Subpanel (and, if possible, a Deputy Chairman) from Overall Panel is essential. Subpanels will be filled out by selected authors and/or experts in field.

3. In nominating persons to serve on panels, consider following:

a. Want people of ideas who can work well with one another; position and prestige desirable but less important.

b. Within limits of above, it is needful to select well-rounded group, avoid overloading with persons of any one area, political persuasion or bent. In particular, should not have undue number of people from or connected with RBF, since public may misunderstand.

c. Members of subpanels should be able and willing to work and write since bulk of development will be done there.

d. Must carefully consider whether those not selected for Overall Panel will be soothed or hurt by position on Subpanel.

4. Specific comments on nominees:

Luce - already committed; interested in military field.

Cowles - already committed; well-rounded individual who will add to panel.

Pulitzer - excellent reputation; not known personally.

Graham - second to Pulitzer largely because of anti-administration trend in paper.

- 2 -

Lippmann - too difficult in group work.

Heckscher - not of sufficient stature.

Harris - unknown.

Herter - already committed; excellent man; interested in military field.

Bowles - good man; full of ideas.

Meyner - apparently not too aware in foreign affairs; 3rd alternate.

Leader - unknown except by public reputation; 2nd alternate.

Clark - able politician, very interested in welfare work, civic betterment, etc; preferred choice.

Kennedy - excellent reputation; 1st alternate to Clark only because of desire to avoid another Massachusetts man.

Dickey - outstanding; already committed.

Hesburgh - writing paper; good for balance and injection religious factor.

Taylor - rather difficult, not high choice among educators.

Johnson - excellent chairman or group leader; not brilliant but sound and cooperative. (Subsequent to meeting, suggested as Chairman, Subpanel VI). Alternate to Rusk if only one from Foundation.

Haskins - extremely able; good man.

Rusk - brilliant, although difficult; would be admirable as leader of Subpanel II.

Berle - idea man; good philosophy but not good in group work.

Ruml - same as above; inclined to be bullish.

Bronk - excellent in field; only drawback is position with Rockefeller Institute.

Folsom - admirably suited both by position and by insight; check with NAR on use of man in government.

Killian - excellent either on military or human resources panel.

Conant - will write paper but not available for panel.

Bush - too trite and dogmatic.

Harrison - longtime associate of NAR; latter may add but must bear in mind risk of appearing to load panel with friends.

-3-

Lockwood - longtime associate of NAR; good man but not of national stature; same point as above.

Ball - one of Stevenson's associates with possibility of position in State Department; not known personally nor nationally.

Dewey - added for stature in both law, politics; judgment.

Hoffman - not an idea man, may be overrated; may have to ask in view of previous discussions with HAK.

Greenewalt - good man; 1st alternate to Reed.

Holman - 2nd alternate to Reed; concerned because of popular association with Rockefeller (Standard Oil).

Percy - young and coming; good by reputation; has added interest in education. (As alternate choice Mr. Lindsay suggested Dick Stewart or other young businessman).

Reed - good and cooperative worker; sound in concepts.

Whitney - not well thought of.

Anderson, R.B. - already committed; excellent reputation; will sit on but not write for military panel.

Gruenther - ideal choice for military representative.

Lovett - broad politics - military background; excellent.

Carney - probably best available among top rank retired career officers; better than Admiral Davids or General Ridgway; 2nd alternate to Gruenther.

Smith, W.B. - 1st alternate to Gruenther, if not used in own right for Government organization.

Draper - not of stature of others; good intermediate level man.

Meany - already committed; sound man.

Potofsky - too excitable; need only one representative of labor.

Granger - sound man, good in welfare or human resources field; negro.

Bunche - spread too thin, too widely used already, somewhat difficult.

Anderson, Eugenie - excellent reputation; left-wing Democrat; did outstanding job as Ambassadress to Denmark.

- 4 -

Hickey - leave to NAR choice among women,
including Hickey, Lord, Blanding,
Strauss, et al. NAR inclines to Hobby.

Smith, - excellent if no objection to Senators.
Margaret

Roosevelt, - herself excellent but handicapped by
association of name. Hold until later.

Ford, - added for future consideration.
Henry

Stanton, - added for future consideration.
Frank

5. Please let me know if there are any errors or omissions in this memorandum. After final selection of panel, please destroy.