FREEDOM HOUSE

20TH ANNIVERSARY 1941-1961/ 20 WEST 40TH STREET. NEW YORK 18. N.Y.
LONG ACRE 5-3344

November 6, 1961

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Center for International Affairs
Harvard University
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

I reviewed the first draft of the edited manuscript of the Freedom Assembly report over the weekend, and was particularly attentive to the section which was quoted from your contribution. I did as much of an editing job on this text as seemed necessary, especially in view of the fact that we will clearly state that this text is reproduced from the transcript of your extemporaneous remarks.

We are about ready to turn the manuscript over to the printer, but the omission of your introductory remarks for the political discussion would leave such an apparent hole as to make it impossible for us to publish any portion of the document without it.

With the work that has already been done to cut and edit your remarks for our report and with a clear statement above this text that it was taken from an extemporaneous discussion, do you now feel that much of your time would be involved for any deletions or corrections which you would wish to make before we print the text? I hope you will bear with us and give us the benefit of any doubts so that we may be able to serve the purpose for which the Freedom Assembly was arranged.

I look forward to seeing you at the Chris Emmet dinner Thursday night. If the enclosed copy has had your eye before then, I hope we can have an understanding about it which will meet our mutual requirements.

Again, thanks and regards,

GF/gd

Encl.

Board of Trustees

JAMES J. WADSWORTH*
Chairman

HARRY D. GIDEONSE*
President

LEO CHERNE*
Chairman,
Exec. Committee

RALPH J. BUNCHE
HARRY J. CARMAN*
GEORGE B. FORD
Honorary Chairmen

REX STOUT*
Treasurer

MRS. HENRY GALE*
Assistant Treasurer

GEORGE FIELD*
Executive Secretary

Herbert Agar
Norman Cousins
Christopher Emmet
Arthur J. Goldsmith
Nathaniel L. Goldstein
Helen Hayes
Henry W. Hobson
Paul G. Hoffman
Mrs. Andrew Jackson
Jacob K. Javits
J. M. Kaplan
Maxwell A. Kriendler
John V. Lindsay
Goodhue Livingston, Jr.
Francis Pickens Miller
Edgar Ansel Mowrer
Dwayne Orton*
Mrs. Bonaro Overstreet
John G. Palfrey
James A. Pike
Rudolph Rathaus
Whitelaw Reid
Elizabeth M. Riley
Francis E. Rivers*
Mrs. Kermit Roosevelt
Elmo Roper
Whitney North Seymour
George N. Shuster
Mrs. Caroline K. Simon
Nathaniel Singer
Spyros P. Skouras
J. Waties Waring
William L. White
Roy Wilkins
Chester S. Williams

*Executive Committee

November 14, 1961
(Dictated November 10, 1961)

Mr. George Field
Executive Secretary
Freedom House
20 West 40th Street
New York 18, New York

Dear Mr. Field:

I am glad we had an opportunity to talk
at the dinner for Christopher Emmet and to clear
up the confusion about the transcript you sent me.
However, I did want to let you know that I am going
away for a week and will not be able to get to the
transcript until my return on the 20th or 21st.

Perhaps I did not mention when we spoke
that when I agreed with Leo Charné to do the Freedom
House speech, I pointed out that Wawas not very eager
to have it published.

In any case, I hope to be able to look
at it upon my return.

All good wishes.

Dictated by Mr. Kissinger but signed in his absence.

FREEDOM HOUSE

20TH ANNIVERSARY 1941-1961/ 20 WEST 40TH STREET. NEW YORK 18, N.Y.
LONG ACRE 5-3344

November 14, 1961

Board of Trustees

JAMES J. WADSWORTH*
Chairman

HARRY D. GIDEONSE*
President

REX STOUT*
Treasurer

*Executive Committee

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Harvard University
Center for International Studies
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

You re-stated so well some of your ideas at the dinner for Chris Emmet and I wonder whether there is a text of those remarks, or at least the latter part which dealt with the same subject on which you spoke at our Freedom Assembly.

We are planning to turn out a fairly comprehensive summary of the proceedings in pamphlet form for distribution to our own membership, to our special list of opinion makers, and to schools and libraries to the extent that our funds will permit.

It is not necessary for us to stick to the text of your remarks which was recently mailed to you, although they are not of a length which would require much time for further editing. With your permission, we could use any other phrasing of some of those same ideas which may exist in manuscript form as the basis for the report in our pamphlet.

I am sorry we permitted the oversight of omitting Leo Cherne's name as the identification of some of those remarks we originally mailed to you. I hope you can just spare the short time needed to give us something that we can work with to be identified as extemporaneous remarks, if you prefer that we do so, or for direct quotation if you feel that the text meets your standard.

Thanks for letting me hear from you at your earliest convenience.

GF/gd

FREEDOM HOUSE

20TH ANNIVERSARY 1941-1961

November 27, 1961

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Since my last letter, we have engaged Jerry Korn (on the writing staff of Life magazine) to complete the editing job on our report of the Freedom Assembly which we will publish as a pamphlet. His experience in doing just that kind of editing and writing at Life magazine should enable us to produce a pamphlet which would justify the time and effort you and the rest of us have put into this particular project.

Mr. Korn does not seem to feel there is any difficulty about that portion of the transcript which quotes from your remarks. His format for this pamphlet will clearly state that this is an edited version of an extemporaneous discussion and he along with Jerry Steibel of the Free Europe Committee, as the editors, will have a considerable responsibility for the contents of this pamphlet.

It would be most helpful if you were to indicate what could be done to make the present transcript a satisfactory basis for the final editing job for which we will be responsible, or send on to us a couple of pages of alternative text, such as your remarks at the Chris Emmet dinner which parallelled in some respects what you discussed at our Freedom Assembly.

I am to be out of the country for the month of December and have left my assistant, Guy Davis, the task of seeing this thing through during my absence. Please let us hear from you before long about this matter, and if you will send any text to us for our purpose, Mr. Davis will see that it gets into the hands of Jerry Korn at Life magazine.

With kindest regards,

Board of Trustees

JAMES J. WADSWORTH*
Chairman

HARRY D. GIDEONSE*
President

REX STOUT*
Treasurer

*Executive Committee

GF/gd

C O P Y

FREEDOM HOUSE

20 West 40th Street, New York City 18
Longacre 5-3344

November 27, 1961

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Since my last letter, we have engaged Jerry Korn (on
the writing staff of Life magazine) to complete the editing
job on our report of the Freedom Assembly which we will
publish as a pamphlet. His experience in doing just that
kind of editing and writing at Life magazine should enable
us to produce a pamphlet which would justify the time and
effort you and the rest of us have put into this particu-
lar project.

Mr. Korn does not seem to feel there is any difficulty
about that portion of the transcript which quotes from your
remarks. His format for this pamphlet will clearly state
that this is an edited version of an extemporaneous dis-
cussion and he along with Jerry Steibel of the Free Europe
Committee, as the editors, will have a considerable respon-
sibility for the contents of this pamphlet.

It would be most helpful if you were to indicate what
could be done to make the present transcript a satisfactory
basis for the final editing job for which we will be respon-
sible, or send on to us a couple of pages of alternative
text, such as your remarks at the Chris Emmet dinner which
parallelled in some respects what you discussed at our
Freedom Assembly.

With kindest regards,

FREEDOM HOUSE
20 WEST 40TH STREET, NEW YORK 18, N.Y.

THE 1961 BALANCE SHEET OF FREEDOM

Freedom House is following its annual custom of summarizing the major events affecting freedom on both the national and international levels.

The international developments in 1961 were even more critical and attention-compelling than in other years. They are therefore given greater emphasis in this evaluation which once again, as before, registers a net loss for the cause of freedom. Domestic developments, however, proved more favorable on balance.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

**In Berlin:** The greatest single setback for the free world in 1961 was the erecting of the wall around West Berlin by the East German Communists at the bidding of the Soviet Union, without adequate counter-measures by the West. By this decisive act West Berlin was virtually isolated, the physical division of the city was dramatized, the United States and its allies were forced into an essentially defensive position, the flight of refugees from East Germany was effectively halted, and the suzerainty of the USSR over all the captive peoples behind the Iron Curtain was strongly reasserted.

The Western allies were united in their announced determination to resist further Communist encroachment, but disagreement arose over the tactics to be pursued. The stand taken by the French Government against negotiating until the Soviets relaxed their restrictions in Berlin and withdrew their ultimatum, contrasted with Britain's desire for the earliest possible negotiations in which we seemed to concur. The West Germans, despite repeated official denials, continued to manifest fears that any negotiations at this time would compromise the rights of the Federal Republic and the German people. Off-the-cuff suggestions for possible concessions to the Soviets made by American spokesmen in and out of the government helped to foster these fears.

In addition, the question raised in the West as to whether it is worth risking war over Berlin and the Germans, playing upon painful memories of World War II, further tended to blur the sharpness of the real issues at stake in Berlin.

President Kennedy reacted to Soviet pressures by sending General Lucius Clay as his personal representative to the beleaguered city and the U. S. began to reassert its rights in Berlin with a show of force. This resulted in a brief, tense confrontation of armed Soviet and American tanks. Any settlement which can now come from negotiations among the four occupying powers in Berlin can only postpone the day of reckoning and for the short run the prospects do not appear to favor the free world.

**In Cuba:** The dismal failure of the invasion of Cuba by anti-Castro exiles, with the blessing of our government, was a serious setback for the United States in Latin America. Post-mortems pointed to U. S. mistakes in this undertaking: the alienation of important groups in the anti-Castro resistance, lack of air power to counter Castro's jets, poor coordination, and misjudgment of the internal situation in Cuba. It is clear that in this situation the United States was obligated either to provide whatever was needed to bring freedom to the Cuban people or to refrain completely from intervention.

2

BALANCE SHEET OF FREEDOM

Flushed with victory, the Castro government continued its communization program and Cuba's voting record at the U. N. confirmed her adherence to the Soviet bloc. The spread of pro-Castro sentiment throughout Latin America and the rise of pro-Castro cadres in many countries seem too obvious to be overlooked and too ominous to be disregarded.

Within this country, an offsetting factor has been the Administration's assistance to approximately 100,000 Cuban refugees through the appropriation of funds to provide education for Cuban students and help to others so that they may become self-supporting.

**In Latin America:** The recurrence of internal disorders in the various Latin American countries during 1961 indicated that the peace and stability needed for the consolidation of freedom and technological progress were still to be achieved. In Brazil, the petulant resignation of newly-elected President Quadros and the succession of Vice President Goulart under restrictions imposed by military force and a new constitution, disrupted the comparative tranquility that had marked Brazilian governments in recent years. The sadly familiar pattern of riots and revolts continued to erupt, notably in Bolivia, Argentina, Haiti and in Ecuador where a new government seized power. In British Guiana, a leftist was elected President. The violent death of Dictator Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, while unlamented by the friends of freedom, created a dangerous power vacuum which President Balaguer is endeavoring to fill. In this situation the nearness of Castro's Cuba is no comfort.

On the affirmative side of U. S.-Latin American relations, the "Alliance for Progress" proclaimed by the Kennedy Administration met with the enthusiastic approval of all countries except Cuba. This new emphasis by American spokesmen augurs well for improved relations with our neighbors to the south. The restoration of a more friendly relationship between the U. S. and Panama and a firmer anti-Communist attitude by the Mexican Government are signs of this progress.

**In Southeast Asia:** The further deterioration of the SEATO alliance and the weakening of the will to resist in Southeast Asia is a direct result of the continuing crisis in Laos. Communist infiltration into South Viet-Nam from Laos has created a serious problem which threatens the very existence of the pro-Western Diem government. Whether the recommendations by Gen. Maxwell Taylor, as a result of his special fact-finding mission for President Kennedy, will provide a plan for the ultimate defeat of Communist guerrillas in South Viet-Nam, without direct intervention by U. S. troops, remains to be seen. Although the crisis in Southeast Asia is largely inherited, the persistence of the threat of Communist domination of this key area raises the likelihood of further set-backs for the free world.

**The Congo and the U. N.:** The Congo crisis, the most severe test to which the U. N. has yet been subjected, continues to reveal an unstable, unclear and serious situation.

Some degree of stabilization of the central government may have been achieved by the appointment of Adoula as Premier, but the inclusion of Gizenga and his leftist faction created doubts about the establishment of a genuinely neutral government. At latest reports, even this brief rapprochement has been destroyed by new outbreaks of violence involving the mutiny of troops loyal to Gizenga. The U. N. thus faces ominous strains which it can ill afford in the seemingly hopeless task of creating a stable and unified government in the Congo.

The imprisonment of Tshombe by the central government earlier in the year in an effort to end the secession of Katanga province resulted only in a deepening of the rift between that province and the rest of the Congo. The agreement wrung from Tshombe to effect his release was quickly denounced by him on his return to Elizabethville. Amid innumerable charges and counter-charges, rumors, half-truths and outright distortions, the role of the U. N. forces in the Katanga secession crisis remains obscure. The only discernible gain in the development of the Congo situation has been the failure of the Communists to achieve their objective of taking over the heartland of sub-Saharan Africa.

**The United Nations:** The tragic death of Dag Hammarskjold, the courageous Secretary-General of the U. N., while on a mission in the Congo, was a serious blow to the cause of freedom and one of the most severe set-backs the United Nations has suffered since its founding. The compromise by which neutralist U Thant of Burma was selected to fill the unexpired term and the agreement reached to let him choose the number and type of assistants he requires, while avoiding the extreme proposals of the Soviets, has nevertheless provided Khrushchev with an opening wedge for a further drive to reduce the authority of the Secretariat.

The continuing financial crisis of the U. N., largely caused by the refusal of the Soviet bloc, France, South Africa and Belgium to pay their Congo assessments, threatens the world organization with bankruptcy or the drastic curtailment of operations in the Congo.

**In France:** Developments in France during 1961, and the pivotal Algerian situation, while still providing a source of anxiety, registered some gains for the free world. Although the rift between De Gaulle and the Assembly has widened, his government was able to thwart right-wing efforts at a coup and the General himself survived an assassination attempt, which spared the nation the chaos that would have inevitably followed. In fact, General De Gaulle's bold leadership, which defeated the revolt of the generals in Algiers, eliminated the threat of civil war. There is little doubt, even among De Gaulle's most outspoken enemies, that he still commands the loyalty of an overwhelming majority of the French people, with whom he has managed to maintain close contact through continued tours and personal appearances. Furthermore, there is some hope that negotiations for a settlement of the Algerian revolt will be resumed shortly, and this in turn could brighten the

BALANCE SHEET OF FREEDOM

3

prospects for an ultimate solution of this cancerous issue.

In another area, the outbreak of open hostilities between France and Tunisia over the status of the French base at Bizerte, resulting in an overwhelming vote of censure of France by the U. N. General Assembly, has proved to be less of a blow to French-African relations and the prestige of the West than it seemed at first.

**In Great Britain:** A definite gain for the free world has been scored by the historic decision of Great Britain to abandon her traditional isolation from continental affairs and join the movement toward European unity by entering the European Common Market. This should bring about a vital expansion of its scope, hopefully involving the other nations of the seven-member European Free Trade Association. Britain, Denmark and Norway will probably be full members while Portugal, Austria, Sweden, and Switzerland will seek association in some form. The economic resources of about 300,000,000 people will thus be united, creating a new source of strength and stability for the free world.

The same circumstances that have led Great Britain into the European Common Market have prompted President Kennedy to propose American participation in a free world trading system with the goal of rapidly increasing productivity within the Atlantic Community. This could leave Khrushchev, with his flamboyant schemes, far behind in the race for economic supremacy.

**The Space Race:** The orbiting of the first and second manned satellites and the successful recovery of vehicle and passenger in both instances was not only an important scientific achievement by the USSR but a great propaganda victory as well, one which the Soviets lost no time in exploiting. The subsequent successes of the U. S. in manned, non-orbital space flights, while significant and manifesting a U. S. determination to close the gap, were certainly overshadowed. Other developments of advantage to the U. S. and the free world were the successful tests of the intercontinental Titan missile, adding a more sophisticated delivery system to the already operational Atlas, plus the demonstrated accuracy of the Polaris. These and other advances suggest that the frontiers of the space age will not indefinitely be dominated by the Soviet empire.

**Nuclear Testing:** In the closely-related field of nuclear testing, according to reliable scientific opinion, the fact that the Soviet Union has had a full year of preparation for the current major series of nuclear tests in the atmosphere has probably narrowed the gap between the respective positions of the Communist and the free world. This gain has by no means been offset by the propaganda disadvantage the Soviet Union has suffered in its callous defiance of world-wide pleas and protests against these tests, particularly the explosion of a fifty-megaton bomb which alone increased radioactive fallout in the atmosphere by more than 30%. In balancing the impact of naked power on the actions of other nations against the negative propaganda effects, Khrushchev

has probably gained a net advantage. This view was dramatically confirmed by the cautious behavior of the uncommitted countries at the Belgrade Conference.

**The Belgrade Conference:** The failure of the "neutralist" leaders openly to condemn the Soviet Union for unilaterally resuming atmospheric nuclear tests, and the tendency to equate the subsequent U. S. underground tests with the Soviet action, created considerable concern and criticism among the Western powers. The further action of the Conference in strongly condemning Western colonialism while refusing even to consider the Soviet subjugation of the captive peoples of Eastern Europe, including the East Berliners behind the new barbaric wall, intensified the disappointment of the West.

The Belgrade Conference has once more demonstrated what we should have known: that power commands respect. Khrushchev's latest pressures on Finland are re-emphasizing that fact. The new nations, lacking in stability and experience, with the opportunism characteristic of the weak, often bow to Soviet manifestations of raw power.

**The 22nd Communist Party Congress:** While the spectacle of the 22nd Communist Party Congress in Moscow was hardly a comfort to the free world, the emergence of the apparently deepening schism between the USSR and Red China proved that the Communist world is not immune to trouble. Actually, there now appears to be a double fracture in Communist dreams of unity: (1) the continuing differences between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia; (2) Red China and tiny Albania openly at odds with the present Soviet leaders. The departure of Chou En-lai for Peiping before the end of the Congress and his failure to return as announced, as well as Khrushchev's renewed attacks on the memory of Stalin, the subsequent removal of the late dictator's body from the tomb in Red Square and the renaming of Stalingrad and other cities bearing his name, underline the seriousness of the disagreement. The denunciations of Malenkov, Molotov, Kaganovich and Voroshilov as leaders of an "anti-party group" and their expulsion from the party ranks, appear to be steps in Khushchev's steady climb to supreme power.

What the changes and shifts in the Communist hierarchy may ultimately mean is almost impossible to say, except that any disunity among the Communist nations is to be welcomed as a gain for freedom. This should not obscure the dangers inherent in the new Communist party program which combines Communist political chicanery with modern technological might.

## DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS

The over-all picture on the home front reveals a net gain for freedom. Perhaps the greatest gain has come from the progress achieved in the advancement of desegregation in the South and the greater degree of compliance with court orders. Token desegregation was peacefully launched in

4

BALANCE SHEET OF FREEDOM

such large cities as Atlanta, Dallas, and Memphis. New Orleans and Little Rock, which experienced violence previously, found the path to a peaceful beginning of desegregation this year.

The Justice Department has played an important role in accelerating this progress, which has outweighed the significance of the sporadic violence against the Freedom Riders and the sit-in demonstrations earlier in the year. The recent ruling of the I.C.C., barring racial segregation in train and bus facilities, is further evidence of the value of administrative initiative in this area.

The moderates in the South are playing a more active role than they have in the past, and there seems to be a growing awareness that desegregation is inevitable and resistance to orderly progress is futile. There is also a greater recognition of the fact that the continuation of mob rule in defiance of our desegregation laws damages the image of the United States abroad and thus plays into the hands of Communist propagandists.

In the area of labor-management relations, Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg has played a noteworthy role as an active mediator in the settlement of several disputes which might have seriously damaged the nation's well-being.

We have happily emerged this year from the economic recession. The rapid recovery, though somewhat slowed at present, augurs well for the immediate period ahead. Efforts to reduce hard-core unemployment and revitalize chronically depressed areas, such as in West Virginia, again demonstrate the Administration's positive approach to domestic economic problems.

The President's aid-to-education bill, which might have brought us at long last on the road towards a solution of our pressing educational needs, was defeated largely on the basis of side issues. This defeat can only be viewed as a loss to freedom. The growing inadequacy of teaching staffs and school plants throughout the country on all levels, but especially in the field of higher education, has been well-documented. The future of our Western civilization may well be put in jeopardy by the short-sightedness of the world's wealthiest nation withholding an adequate and timely investment in the maintenance and improvement of its educational system.

The recent mushrooming of extremist groups, such as the John Birch Society, and other rightist organizations seeking to capitalize on the anti-Communist sentiment in this country, has been a negative force even though their influence is limited. There has also been an increase of activity by

fellow-traveling organizations, abetted by well-meaning pacifists who have helped to obscure and blur the issues at stake in the cold war. The ability of these groups to command nationwide publicity and support from some reputable persons contrasts with the inadequacy of responsible citizen participation in the affairs of our nation at a critical time in our history.

## CONCLUSIONS

The foregoing analysis indicates that the past year has registered a net loss for freedom in the area of foreign affairs. However, the Kennedy Administration has initiated new efforts, such as the establishment of the Peace Corps, the expansion of the USIA, the Alliance for Progress program in Latin America, and most important, the proposal for American participation in a free world trading system based on the expanded European Common Market, which are still to bear results in the years ahead and may swing the balance decidedly in freedom's favor.

The organization of the Office of Economic Cooperation and Development is an important step in the direction of greater sharing of responsibility for aid to underdeveloped countries among prospering free nations.

The Administration has also taken steps to strengthen American forces in NATO and has expanded our conventional military capability to discourage aggressors from risking "brush-fire" wars.

An additional item on the credit side has been the growing recognition by the President of the essential role of national power in conducting diplomacy, evidenced by his stepped-up military preparations in response to the Soviet challenge in Berlin. This not only represents a significant change in the traditional American policy but also has doubtless exercised a restraining influence on Khrushchev, causing him to defer beyond the end of the year his announced deadline for a separate peace treaty with East Germany.

The awareness of the further overall weakening of our international position during the current year must be conditioned by the fact that we possess inadequate information about developments within the Communist world. Such knowledge would undoubtedly reveal unsuspected weaknesses working to redress some of our losses in freedom's ledger.

Freedom House
Public Affairs Committee
December 1, 1961

371

FREEDOM HOUSE

20TH ANNIVERSARY 1941-1961/ 20 WEST 40TH STREET. NEW YORK 18, N.Y.
LONGACRE 5-3344

December 11, 1961

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

As Mr. Field informed you in his letter of November 27th, he has asked me to follow up on the Freedom Assembly Report while he is out of the country.

We would greatly appreciate hearing from you as to your decision in this matter, so that we may proceed with the job of getting the report finished and off to the printer. I have enclosed a copy of Mr. Field's letter of November 27th, in case it did not reach you.

Thank you for your attention.

Encl.

Board of Trustees

JAMES J. WADSWORTH*
Chairman

HARRY D. GIDEONSE*
President

REX STOUT*
Treasurer

*Executive Committee

FREEDOM HOUSE

20TH ANNIVERSARY 1941-1961/

January 3, 1962

Board of Trustees

JAMES J. WADSWORTH*
Chairman

HARRY D. GIDEONSE*
President

REX STOUT*
Treasurer

*Executive Committee

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Upon my return to the office, I learned that you had planned to send us your modifications of the transcript of your remarks at the Freedom Assembly before the year was out. Unless the copy is in transit, it is evident that circumstances prevented you from mailing it to us.

We are now in the process of retyping the carefully edited report of the proceedings for publication, and if it will serve your purposes, I would be delighted to send you a copy of the entire transcript as evidence of the enormous amount of effort that went into the preparation of this document.

The editor of the text did a bit of additional work on your copy in the hope that this would save you some time and the enclosed version may be more acceptable to you for any further corrections.

I hope you will understand this persistence inasmuch as the careful and painstaking work of so many of us has been involved in this project.

With kindest regards,

GF/gd

Encl.

FREEDOM HOUSE

January 12, 1962

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

I noted an item in last Sunday's *Times* which provided a clue for our not having heard from you. Since writing to you last, we have agreed that the brief remarks by Leo Cherne which interrupt the report of your remarks should be transposed to the end of that chapter, as they have no direct relevance in our report to what you are saying.

We are proposing to use as a caption the phrase, "In Defense of the Neutrals," as a transition between the two chief points you are making in those comments which are quoted.

The entire report is being introduced with this notation: "This is a report on what they said, condensed and edited from their speeches and extemporaneous remarks." This will indicate that the readers of our report are on notice that we have taken all sorts of liberties with the text, which absolves the participants from direct responsibility for this report.

We are all set to turn this document over to the printer and I hope that you will give us the green light as soon as you return.

GF/gd

Board of Trustees

JAMES J. WADSWORTH*
Chairman

HARRY D. GIDEONSE*
President

REX STOUT*
Treasurer

*Executive Committee

FREEDOM HOUSE

January 18, 1962

Mrs. R. C. Norris, Secretary
Center for International Affairs
Harvard University
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Mrs. Norris:

I appreciate your initiative in replying to my letter of January 3rd addressed to Dr. Kissinger. As you will note from my subsequent letter of January 12th, the text of our report on the Freedom Assembly was all set for the printer, and with the additional modifications indicated in my last letter, I was obliged to turn the copy over to the printer so that the material could be set in type.

We have been receiving quite a number of inquiries about the availability of this report and the delay is proving somewhat embarrassing. I am therefore asking our printer to proceed with a copy, and when the galleys come through, I hope to have Dr. Kissinger's corrections soon after he returns early in February.

I trust that my earlier letters this month, with the corrected transcript, will simplify Dr. Kissinger's task. Thank you for calling these matters to his attention.

GF/gd

Board of Trustees

JAMES J. WADSWORTH*
Chairman

HARRY D. GIDEONSE*
President

REX STOUT*
Treasurer

*Executive Committee

FREEDOM HOUSE

WILLKIE MEMORIAL BUILDING /

20 WEST 40TH STREET. NEW YORK 18, N.Y.
LONGACRE 5-3344

October 1, 1962

Board of Trustees

ROSCOE DRUMMOND*
Chairman

HARRY D. GIDEONSE*
President

HARRY J. CARMAN
GEORGE B. FORD
Honorary Chairmen

REX STOUT*
Treasurer

Herbert Agar
Norman Cousins
Christopher Emmet
Arthur J. Goldsmith
Nathaniel L. Goldstein
Helen Hayes
Paul G. Hoffman
Mrs. Andrew Jackson
Jacob K. Javits
J. M. Kaplan
Maxwell A. Kriendler
John V. Lindsay
Goodhue Livingston, Jr.
Francis Pickens Miller
Edgar Ansel Mowrer
Dwayne Orton*
Mrs. Bonaro Overstreet
John G. Palfrey
James A. Pike
Rudolph Rathaus
Whitelaw Reid
Elizabeth M. Riley
Francis E. Rivers*
Mrs. Kermit Roosevelt
Elmo Roper
Whitney North Seymour*
Mrs. Caroline K. Simon
Nathaniel Singer
Spyros P. Skouras
Herbert Bayard Swope, Jr.
James J. Wadsworth
J. Waties Waring
William L. White
Roy Wilkins
Chester S. Williams

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Mr. Jean Monnet has been named the recipient of the 1962 Freedom Award by the Board of Directors of Freedom House. The presentation will be made at a dinner in his honor to be held in the Grand Ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City on Wednesday evening, January 23, 1963. In addition to our guest of honor, the participants will include Mr. Walter Lippmann, former Secretary of State Christian A. Herter, and Undersecretary of State George W. Ball.

Architect of the European Common Market and Europe's foremost advocate of unity within the Atlantic Community, Mr. Monnet will be honored for conceiving and advancing a concept which promises to provide the free world with its strongest weapon against Communist expansion. The following inscription will be engraved on the specially designed bronze plaque:

A Statesman of Vision
Who Widened the Horizons
Of Free World Unity

It is the desire of our chairman, Mr. Roscoe Drummond, and the directors of our organization, that this testimonial to Mr. Monnet shall have the sponsorship of the responsible leaders in our community. We cordially invite you to serve as one of the sponsors of this presentation.

The enclosed brochure describes our organization and lists the previous recipients of the Freedom Award. We would appreciate your reply no later than November 1st so that your name may be listed on our invitations and other announcements of this event.

GF/gd

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Center for International Affairs
Harvard University
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Mass.

*Executive Committee

FREEDOM HOUSE

WILLKIE MEMORIAL BUILDING
20 WEST 40TH STREET, NEW YORK 18, N.Y.
LONGACRE 5-3344

March 26, 1964

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

You are cordially invited to join with other public affairs leaders as our guest for a weekend conference at The Greyston Conference Center of Teachers College, Columbia University, May 22nd - 24th. We plan to review some of the major problems affecting freedom which have tended to divide those who in the past have had common goals.

We are deeply involved in a survey of current attitudes on domestic and foreign affairs, emphasizing the problem areas which most concern us. A questionnaire has been circulated among 1100 opinion leaders throughout the country and 2800 contributing Freedom House members. The replies are being carefully tabulated and qualifying comments will be summarized.

This limited poll of opinion is being supplemented by interviews-in-depth under the direction of a skilled journalist with the aid of several university students at the graduate level. The conference participants will receive an advance preliminary report of their findings together with the results of our poll as the basis for the agenda. The work is proceeding under the guidance of Leo Cherne and Elmo Roper as representatives of our Board of Trustees.

In an atmosphere free from distracting influences some twenty-five authorities in the fields of our study will evaluate our preliminary findings, engage in a frank exchange of views and search for a measure of consensus as a guide to future activities.

The Greyston Conference Center is easily accessible. Limousine service will be available leaving promptly at 5 P.M. from Freedom House on Friday May 22nd to arrive in time for dinner. For those planning to leave at other times or in their own cars, the map and directions in the enclosed brochure will be helpful.

You will not be overburdened or pressured during these sessions; there will be no public disclosure of the names of the individual participants or any identification with our report unless we obtain your specific consent.

Transportation and accommodations will be covered by Freedom House. Because of the limited facilities, it is essential that we learn as early as possible whether you plan to attend all or any part of the sessions. The enclosed card will facilitate your reply. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

HDG:tm
enc.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Whitney North Seymour, Chairman • Harry D. Gideonse, President • Leo Cherne, Chairman, Executive Committee • Roscoe Drummond, Chairman, Public Affairs Committee • Harry J. Carman, George B. Ford, Hon. Chairmen • Rex Stout, Treasurer • Mrs. Andrew Jackson, Asst. Treasurer, George Field, Executive Director • William Agar • Irving Brown • Ernest Cuneo • Christopher Emmet • Arthur J. Goldsmith • Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Paul G. Hoffman • Jacob K. Javits • J. M. Kaplan • Maxwell A. Kriendler • John V. Lindsay • Francis Pickens Miller • Edgar Ansel Mowrer, Dwayne Orton • Mrs. Bonaro Overstreet • Rudolf Rathaus • Whitlaw Reid • John Richardson, Jr. • Stewart Richardson • Elizabeth M. Riley, Francis E. Rivers • Mrs. Kermit Roosevelt • Elmo Roper • Eric Sevareid • Mrs. Caroline K. Simon • Gerald L. Steibel • Herbert Bayard Swope, Jr., William L. White • Roy Wilkins • Emeritus: Herbert Agar • Helen Hayes • James A. Pike • Spyros P. Skouras

371

GREYSTON,

the former home of Mr. and Mrs. Cleveland E. Dodge, was given by Mr. Dodge to Teachers College in 1961. The house has been altered and renovated to adapt it for use as a conference center. The three-story fieldstone structure is located at 247th Street in Riverdale, seven miles north of Teachers College. Greyston is readily accessible by car from New York City, New Jersey and Connecticut via the 246th Street exit of the Henry Hudson Parkway. A large open porch on the north and west sides of the house affords a pleasant view of the Hudson River and the New Jersey Palisades.

## FACILITIES

Greyston's facilities include conference areas, a large dining room, and overnight accommodations for groups. There are several conference rooms of various sizes, the largest of which has a capacity of sixty. Provisions have been made for the convenient use of a variety of audio-visual equipment. Greyston's overnight capacity of thirty is augmented by the facilities of several new motels within ten minutes driving distance. There are parking facilities for thirty automobiles and two buses on the two and one-half acre grounds. The dining room and dining terrace accommodate about one hundred persons, with additional dining space available if needed. Greyston is managed by Treadway Inns.

## CONFERENCE WORKROOM

A specially equipped headquarters room is available for persons in charge of a conference. This workroom is equipped with desks, typewriters, countertop and table workspace, duplicating equipment, and appropriate supplies, such as mimeograph paper and stencils, poster, sign, and display materials, chalk, marking crayons, blackboards, slide and film projectors, screens, record players, and tape recorders.

Additional audio-visual equipment can be secured from the main Teachers College campus to meet special requirements.

## ACCOMMODATIONS AND CHARGES

Greyston Conference Center is a non-profit operation of Teachers College. The atmosphere is gracious, the rooms pleasant, well-kept and comfortable. There is no elevator service, no bellboys, no room service and no tipping. There are a few single rooms; most are twin-bed doubles and triples. To help defray expenses of the Center, the following American Plan* charges are in effect as of May 6, 1963:

For multiple occupancy
Per person per day $16.00

For single room
Per person per day $18.50

The guest day is the customary 24-hour period beginning and ending at 3:00 P.M.

The above costs apply to a minimum of 25 persons. A smaller number of persons, but no fewer than 10, may be accommodated for an additional room charge of $2.50 per person per day. A 10% service charge is added to room and food bills. Gratuities are not permitted.

*Special rates are available for one day conferences.

## PRINCIPAL ROUTES TO GREYSTON

### BY CAR

Greyston is seven miles north of Teachers College in Riverdale, (Bronx), N. Y. Principal highway routes leading to Greyston are shown on the map.

### BY LIMOUSINE

The Fieldston Limousine Service (Telephone [212] Kingsbridge 6-8282) provides transportation between Riverdale and 34th Street in Manhattan. Stops are also made at Teachers College. The cost is $1.00 per person.

### BY SUBWAY AND BUS

IRT Broadway Line (231st Street-Broadway stop). Bus (number 10) at 230th Street to 246th Street and Henry Hudson Parkway. Short walk to Greyston.

### BY TAXI (approximate rates)

<table><tr><td>To Greyston from:</td><td>242nd St. Broadway Stop, IRT Subway</td><td>$.65</td></tr><tr><td>Teachers College</td><td></td><td>3.50</td></tr><tr><td>Manhattan East Side or West Side</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Airline Terminal</td><td></td><td>4.50</td></tr><tr><td>Idlewild Airport</td><td></td><td>9.00</td></tr><tr><td>LaGuardia Airport</td><td></td><td>5.00</td></tr></table>

FREEDOM HOUSE

November 15, 1965

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

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

The enclosed statement on Vietnam is the result of several
private meetings which involved, among others: William
vanden Heuvel, President of the International Rescue Com-
mittee; Leo Cherne, Chairman of the Executive Committee
of Freedom House; Frank Barnett, President of the National
Strategy Information Center; John Richardson, Jr., President
of the Free Europe Committee; and Dr. Frank N. Trager,
Treasurer of the American Friends of Vietnam.

This statement is self-explanatory and the urgent need for
collective effort on behalf of the program outlined is
self-evident.

We have agreed that it should be released by Freedom House
with the co-sponsorship of representative leaders in the
academic, civic, labor, business, church and community
organizations of this country, _signing in their individual capacities_.

We hope you will agree to sign this statement and that we
may hear from you promptly so that it can be released
without delay.

P.S. Please forgive this form letter. While I would much
prefer individual letters, this seems the only economically
feasible way to reach a considerable number of people in a
short time.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Roscoe Drummond, Chairman • George B. Ford, Whitney North Seymour, Hon. Chairmen • Harry D. Gideonse, President • Leo Cherne, Chairman, Executive Committee • George Field, Secretary • Rex Stout, Treasurer • Mrs. Andrew Jackson, Asst. Treasurer • William Agar • Christopher Emmet • Nathaniel L. Goldstein • David L. Guyer • Arthur L. Harekham • Paul G. Hoffman • Sidney Hook • Jacob K. Javits • J. M. Kaplan • Maxwell A. Kriendler • Orin Lehman • John V. Lindsay • Francis Pickens Miller • Edgar Ansel Mowrer • Dwayne Orton • Mrs. Bonaro Overstreet • Rudolf Rathaus • Whitelaw Reid • John Richardson, Jr. • Stewart Richardson • Elizabeth M. Riley • Francis E. Rivers • Mrs. Kermit Roosevelt • Elmo Roper • Eric Sevareid • Mrs. Caroline K. Simon • Gerald L. Steibel • Herbert Bayard Swope, Jr. • William L. White • Roy Wilkins • Jacques D. Wimpfheimer — Hartley E. Howe, Associate Director

371

Joan Blanchard
Secretary

Sincerely yours,

at that time.
and I will bring it to his attention
office around the middle of December
He is expected to return to the
November 12th.

writing to acknowledge your letter of
In Dr. Kieainger's absence I am

Dear Mr. Gideonse:

New York 13, New York
20 West 40th Street
Willkie Memorial Building
Freedom House
President
Mr. Harry D. Gideonse

November 23, 1962

Signing of the Constitution after final drafting (1787). Picture by Howard Chandler Christy; photo by George F. Mobley for National Geographic, courtesy of U. S. Capitol Historical Society.

THE men who framed the United States Constitution in 1787 had diverse interests and backgrounds: they represented large states and small; they were farmers, landholders, businessmen and professionals; some favored a strong central government and some feared it. Differences were blended in the process of compromise which George Washington called “a miracle.” A free society was shaped out of debates which reflected ideas from the “right” and the “left” of that day. The hallmark of American society for nearly 200 years has been the democratic center.

In our time of difficult decision at home and abroad, the focus of the democratic center has been blurred and its effectiveness diminished by highly vocal extremists of the left and the right. Today, our free society urgently needs an informed, vocal, non-governmental advocate of the democratic center.

Is it in the nature of free institutions that they must be overthrown because of the very freedoms they sustain? This is a key question for our times. It lies at the heart of our contemporary democratic predicament. It should be given top priority in the thinking of scholars, statesmen, publicists, commentators and social analysts.

Because of the rapidity with which modern communications technology can spread—indeed, create—new attitudes, the advocates of freedom must find new ways to maintain and extend democratic institutions, now under assault from without and within. New forms of political pressure and new styles of public utterance have serious impact on the traditional premises of American democracy.

Those premises assumed that the wisest form of human society is one that rests on the will of the people, made known

4

through representative institutions and furthered through procedures that assure both stability and flexibility in the achievement of social goals. In a pluralist community rival social groups accept each other's right to exist, acknowledge a common morality as the sine qua non of confrontation, and permit society to move in vectors determined by the balance struck among the divergent forces. In practical terms this means that the majority rules—except that even a majority may not attenuate the right of the minority to use non-violent, non-conspiratorial methods in the effort to become the majority.

Out of these assumptions came such classical statements as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' belief "in the free trade of ideas—that the test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." But now, in the second half of the twentieth century, this pragmatic view has been thrown into doubt. Have the conditions of the market place so changed that such a free trade of ideas is no longer desirable?

Some current literature states or implies that this is so. It makes its point by erasing distinctions, viewing totalitarian states as being merely another "form" of democracy. For example, the co-author of a widely sold political novel, whose analytic essays are published as the fruit of academic research, writes:

> Participational democracy is the only really distinctive contribution we have made to politics and we seem fearful of admitting its failure. When we state the basis of our opposition to Communism, it is that Communism does not provide for democracy as we have understood it and therefore it is not a "true" democracy. But the democracy we foist on others is one we ourselves no longer have.

Harvey Wheeler, *The Rise and Fall of Liberal Democracy*

5

Another example of how distinctions are erased appears in an article published in the book section of a leading daily newspaper:

> When the United States defines the Soviet spheres as "totalitarian" and the West as "free," it becomes difficult for Americans to see totalitarian elements in our society, and liberal elements in Soviet society. Moralizing in this way, we can condemn the Russians in Hungary and absolve ourselves in Vietnam.

Howard Zinn, *Speaking of Books*, Book Review, *New York Times*, September 25, 1966

One can readily infer from these examples that Soviet totalitarianism is not totalitarian because there are liberal elements in Soviet society, and that the United States is not free because there are totalitarian elements in our society, and that the two can therefore be equated. To maintain that new mathematics of discourse would require the perversion of language and the subversion of social values.

Few developments in human history, however novel, are without precedent. During the 1930's, a similar effort was made by a considerable number of intellectuals to prove that Stalin's regime was a higher form of democracy than that attained in any Western state, and that indeed the United States was not a democracy. The later revelations by Khrushchev of the executions and the imprisonment of millions under Stalin should have completed that record on the relative degrees of freedom in the Soviet Union and the United States. Three decades later, we are re-living the cycle of confusion, but under different circumstances. We are now involved in efforts to prevent aggressive Communism from expanding into the emergent nations by infiltration or overt attack in the form of "people's wars."

If the intellectuals were disoriented in the 1930's, it was

6

partly because of serious social disorders at home and abroad. Large-scale unemployment threw doubts on the nation's economic premises; on the international scene, the rise of Nazi totalitarianism projected the inevitability of world war. Today, we have problems at home in the need to make room for the poor and the minority groups, primarily Negroes and Puerto Ricans, in the nation's prospering economy. Legislative goals alone cannot assure full participation of the Negro in our free society. The basic problem, a failure in human relations, requires the altering of fundamental attitudes through improved communication—between the races, between various civil rights groups, between individual citizens and government, between ethnic minorities and American society as a whole.

We are also going through today a series of dramatic social changes occasioned by the technological revolution, the population explosion, and the urban crisis. In the best of circumstances, these changes would create new predicaments for democratic institutions that were originally conceived in an agricultural and pioneering era. If democracy is to prevail it must keep pace with the changing environment.

Our institutions, being the products of history and men, are not infallible. The avenues of innovation must be kept open. This requires the exploration of the weaknesses in our institutions, the areas in which injustice persists, in which freedom is flouted, and equal opportunity is denied.

One difficulty we confront in the process of correction and growth is that investigations of our weaknesses may be carried out for different purposes. The engineer studies the defects of a bridge to reinforce and preserve it; a demolition squad seeks the same faults in order to blow it up. In contemporary America, the engineer and the demolition squad

7

are in a race that will determine the course of freedom for
years to come.

A refusal to acknowledge that flaws exist in our institu-
tions can help only those who seek to destroy these institu-
tions. To leave social criticism in the hands of freedom's
enemies is to abandon freedom. Every effort must be made
to analyze the deficiencies of democratic society, to propose
constructive solutions, and to press vigorously for their im-
plementation. The task demands the fullest energy of open
minds operating within an open society, honest criticism that
spurns semantic deceptions, and a passionate conviction that
truth is the handmaiden of freedom. It calls for resistance to
the propagandist disguised as a scholar, the manipulator of
public opinion disguised as an analyst, the sleight-of-hand
schemer who conceals his ultimate purpose by loudly direct-
ing attention to issues in which he has no real interest.

It is imperative, then, that an organized effort be made to
face the realities of the democratic predicament, to defend
what is sound, to strengthen what is weak and to correct what
is injurious. Today, the opponents of freedom are organized
in groups that seek to preempt the word democracy while
their efforts are directed towards weakening the social fabric
of democracy. One of the presuppositions of democracy, as
Sidney Hook has pointed out, is that

in the free market of ideas . . . the competition will be hon-
estly and openly conducted. For unless there are certain
rules, so to speak, of honest competition, analogous to those
which hold in other domains of testing and inquiry, freedom
of choice is an illusion. If the market is rigged by money,
power or fraud, what gets accepted is anything but the truth.
If ability to withstand honest competition is not a sufficient
condition of truth it is at least a necessary one.

Sidney Hook, *Naturalism and the Human Spirit*

8

If the field is not to be left to the blind defenders of the status quo and the equally blind opponents of all existing institutions, if the future is not to be delivered into the hands of the arrogant chauvinist or the irresolute capitulator, then those who believe in the preservation of the free market in ideas must engage the apologists of totalitarianism, of whatever denomination, in vigorous argument.

A research center is needed now to help clarify our democratic goals and procedures. Its function would be to study the weaknesses and the vices of our society and to suggest remedies, in order that our democracy may be strengthened. Among its tasks would be the examination of the forces that undermine freedom in the modern world — the impersonal forces that arise out of history in the form of social, economic and political problems; the forces that are motivated by personal needs, the hunger for power, neurotic discontent or hypnotic loyalty to dogmas; and the forces that have been and are being created by the technological revolution.

It is therefore proposed that the *Freedom House Public Affairs Institute* be established to serve as a national research and publication center. From the evidence now available to us, it is clear that the motivation and commitment described in this proposal are not at the core of any existing privately financed institute engaged in studies of matters that relate to the future of democracy.

9

FREEDOM HOUSE, for more than twenty-six years, has been concerned with many aspects of the problem, and has already created some instruments that can now be refined and expanded under the aegis of such an institute. We cite three examples:

1. *The Annual Balance Sheet of Freedom.* Since 1952, Freedom House has issued a year-end "Balance Sheet of Freedom" that assesses the gains and losses sustained by free institutions throughout the world. Newspapers have devoted considerable attention to it in news columns and editorials. The work done in preparing the Balance Sheet should be a year-round study, based on weighted criteria and prepared in accordance with the most up-to-date methodology available to the social sciences. The experience of sixteen years in using this instrument provides an excellent springboard for developing a completely scientific approach.

10

## 2. A Permanent "Conference on Freedom's Needs."

From time to time, Freedom House has convened America's outstanding experts on contemporary problems for off-the-record discussions. The proceedings have been published in edited form without attribution of the views to the individuals whose anonymity has assured the freest exchange of ideas. The Balance Sheet referred to above was originated by such a conference held in 1952 at the Hotel Plaza in New York. In 1958, a similar three-day conference at Columbia University's Arden House in Harrison, New York, produced a published report entitled *One Nation Indivisible—An American Dialogue on Race Relations and the Law*, a seminal document that, in retrospect, can be seen to have influenced the course of civil rights activities in the United States. Again, in 1963, Latin-American specialists were convened at New York University's Gould House, in Ardsley-on-Hudson, New York, to review the Cuban situation and to suggest a future course of policy. The following year, a meeting at the Greyston Conference Center of Teachers College, Columbia University, produced a report entitled *A Survey on the Problem Areas Affecting Freedom*.

It is now proposed that the Freedom House Public Affairs Institute undertake to conduct such gatherings of experts on a regular basis, as a continuing *National Long-Term Planning Conference on Freedom's Needs*.

3. **The Public Interest.** With the sponsorship of Freedom House, a national quarterly, *The Public Interest*, was launched in 1965 under the editorship of Daniel Bell and Irving Kristol. As a journal of learning and depth, it has already attracted widespread attention in intellectual circles and is addressing itself to the objective described in the editors' prospectus: "The Public Interest is not some kind of pre-existing platonic idea; rather, it emerges out of differences of opinion, reasonably propounded." Its contribution could be greatly enhanced if it were able to draw on such a reservoir of research as is contemplated in the *Freedom House Public Affairs Institute*. The published articles would be reprinted for the widest possible circulation among opinion leaders and scholars throughout the country.

12

Contemporary Problems

The breadth and depth of the research now needed in the trouble zones of American democracy can be illustrated by a brief exposition of some major problem categories. Other issues of similar magnitude would be examined by the institute. While many of the suggested areas overlap, each of those listed below warrants separate and continuing investigation.

1. The Impact of the Mass Media. A democratic society requires a facile flow of information so that an intelligent constituency may make sound decisions. The progress in communications technology would, at first glance, suggest that the mere existence of mass media is a source of strength. Spokesmen for rival points of view can gain quick access to millions, and quicker, better-informed decision-making should be the result. There is much to be said for this conclusion, but the

13

fact is that there are many disadvantages in the way our mass
media operate. The effort to build mass audiences, to make
such media economically profitable, distorts the content that
is transmitted. In the interest of sensationalism and audience-
building, insignificant minorities are momentarily blown up
into mass movements and given an image that does not corre-
spond to reality. The effect is to pollute the streams of
information.

The treatment accorded the Black Muslims is a case in
point. One writer who has studied the record reports:

The Muslims first had been given national publicity on a
Mike Wallace TV show in 1959. A barrage of newspaper and
wire-service stories followed, some of them singularly sensa-
tional in tone. The Muslim organization, for example, was
reported to have 100,000 to 250,000 members . . . ; It was
said to be so well-heeled financially that an announced multi-
million dollar "Islamic Center" soon would be built in
Chicago; and attendance at rallies in major auditoriums in
large cities was reported to be as high as 10,000—and in no
case a flop. There also were ominous reports of groups alleg-
edly drilling and arming themselves for violence.

... however, we discovered the facts to be remarkably at
variance with published reports. First, local and federal law
enforcement agencies, some of which had infiltrated the
Muslims and all of which kept close watch on them, put
the Muslims' membership at a maximum of 7,000 persons.
No more than 50,000 others, we were told, might be regarded
even as close and consistent sympathizers. New York City,
instead of having the 7,000 members frequently attributed
to it, was thought to have fewer than 1,000; Detroit, instead
of a reported 15,000 members, had 400; Chicago had some
600 members; Los Angeles, fewer than 400; and Atlanta,
described in one published report as "the fastest-growing
Black Muslim center in the South," had a mere fifty mem-
bers. Anyone who doubted these figures need only have
observed the modest numbers of persons straggling to Black

14

Muslim "mosques" for temple services—which, under the sect's strict behavior code, were mandatory.

Alfred Balk, *The Racial News Gap, Saturday Review*, August 13, 1966

Similarly, a campus group that numbers less than 5,000 members, out of a total national student body of 5,000,000, receives so disproportionate an amount of space in the press and time on radio and television that they exercise an influence far beyond their numbers. A democratic society, which must not curtail the right of minorities to be heard, cannot on the other hand afford to be misled about the real nature of popular feeling.

The problem is a difficult one and is therefore suggested as an appropriate subject for study. As recently as two decades ago, minorities could legitimately protest that they were denied the right to be heard because they could not pay the enormous costs involved in mass communication. Today, however, sensation-seeking journalism and television programs frequently dwell on the aberrant. Overnight, millions of people learn about a phenomenon like LSD. Such information, of course, should not be censored in a society that wants to retain a free market in ideas, but the free market is distorted if the unrepresentative and sensational are assured easier access to the public eye and ear than the representative—and are presented as increasingly representative.

It is precisely because artificial restrictions must not be imposed on the flow of ideas that democracy now faces a novel problem in handling the sensationalism and exaggerations of the powerful mass media.

¶ Another problem in this connection is the growing awareness on the part of the mass media that they can exercise enormous power, and the temptation to use it. There is

15

considerable evidence to show an increasing trend on the part of newspapers to weaken the distinction between the editorial page and the personal columns, on one hand, and the news columns on the other. The effort to make the news story objective, uncolored by the publisher's personal opinions or policies, has always been difficult. But when publications, as a matter of considered policy, abandon the principle of objectivity in the news columns in the interests of a well-in-tentioned interpretive function, there is reason for concern. Again, it is precisely because any kind of censorship is abhorrent that the question must be examined.

¶ Still another form in which the problem arises is the matter of rendering justice in the criminal courts while at the same time preserving the freedom of the press to report on judicial proceedings. Recent court decisions have raised the question of a conflict between the right to a fair trial and the right of the press to publish. This has already led to a confrontation between the American Bar Association and the newspaper publishers in a controversy that requires fresh thinking.

¶ The exploitation of the mass media by those seeking power poses the question of the ethics of partisanship in a democratic society. The awareness that in our times political mistakes can be fatal to millions has brought about an intensification of feeling in the presence of policy differences. The effect, in many instances, is to make men less scrupulous about the methods they use in advancing their views.

Thus, propaganda takes on new and less recognizable forms. What purports to be objective scholarship is studded with propagandistic characterizations—like “democracy of the gallows” to describe American policy. To be sure, such propaganda is permissible in a democratic society, but “truth in packaging” is at least as vital in the market place of ideas as

16

in the market place of commodities. When the purveying of
propaganda is conducted in the name of scholarship and is
financed through tax-exempt foundations, an ethical question
of prime importance is raised.

Not enough attention has been given to the ethics of
political partisanship. For a brief time, the issue was projected
on the American scene by the immorality of McCarthyism
which acknowledged no fidelity to truth as a limiting factor
on behavior in public debate. All of the cults that accept the
doctrine of ends justifying means, whether they be on the
right or the left, pollute the wells of public discussion. But
here democracy confronts one of its dilemmas: it requires an
honest interchange of conflicting opinion but it must not
create any authority to determine what or who is honest.

At this moment, the question haunts the forums of de-
mocracy. The power of the big lie has been multiplied by the
power of the mass media. A society that rests on an acceptance
of social change cannot be oblivious to the processes by which
change is to be accomplished. The exposure of public officials
to constant public criticism is fundamental to change, and the
practice of criticism must not be hobbled by the authority of
the state, which in the last analysis consists of those very of-
ficials who are frequently the targets of criticism. It is there-
fore necessary to distinguish between genuine legislative in-
quiry and the use of investigating committees for the purpose
of stifling criticism.

It is also necessary to give full attention to the propagan-
dist's corruption of free inquiry by the deliberate falsification
of data and the demagogue's exploitation of popular anxieties.
As a viable market in goods requires the presence of both law
and morality, so too a viable market place in ideas requires
some postulates of discipline and ethics. But how to achieve

17

the latter without surrendering freedom—including the freedom to err — is the unanswered, but possibly answerable, question.

That no formula exists should not occasion despair. Democracy has demonstrated its adaptability to new conditions by developing new institutions and forms. Its educational institutions have developed intellectual attitudes compatible with solving new problems. Indeed, the justification of democracy is that it has proved to be the most useful instrument for handling new problems.

Only persistent study by those who are dedicated to the preservation of democratic institutions can unearth new concepts of free and effective public discussion.

2. *The Vulnerabilities of an Open Society.* Some communities reject the idea of an open society because it is vulnerable to certain weaknesses. We who believe in freedom are willing to pay the price for such weaknesses because of the greater strengths that freedom provides. But we must nevertheless remain alert to the weaknesses and seek ways of correcting them consistent with the maintenance of freedom.

An open society can operate because it is capable of creating a voluntary consensus. A closed society operates on the basis of a forced consensus, resting either on the propaganda power of the state or the police power, or both. The closed society has an efficiency which the open society, in the short run, cannot match. The dictator can reverse national policy overnight while democracy must move more slowly. Consider, for example, the about-face involved in the Nazi-Soviet Pact; or Khrushchev's sudden denunciation of Stalin; or

18

Mao Tse-tung's initiation and abandonment of the Great Leap Forward. A totalitarian regime can move directly toward a pre-determined goal by suppressing all opposition, as Peking is doing in its current "cultural revolution." An open pluralist society can move toward its goals only after making due allowance for the interests of various groups - for example, labor, management, consumers - and seeking to reconcile them.

A totalitarian regime can concentrate on a specific goal to the exclusion of other interests in the society. It can focus all of its forces on building capital goods industry and starve the consumer sector; it can put aside the needs of the people and pour its resources into a space program. Thus, it possesses a short-run efficiency that has proved impressive on many occasions, particularly to underdeveloped countries.

A free society, however, assumes that, in the long run, it will demonstrate greater efficiency by achieving the widest possible range of objectives.

A new urgency is now imposed by the fact that the tempo of change has been speeded up to an unprecedented pace. With rapid change, the *short run* becomes more critical than it has ever been. Can the mechanisms of representative democracy respond quickly enough to the environment to assure survival in the long run? Can we, for example, respond fast enough to an inflationary push in the economy with new tax legislation?

¶ The free society's economy places increasing financial burden on the citizen's participation in democratic processes. The high cost of running for public office limits the selection of candidates and alters the nature of election campaigning.

¶ In still another direction, the open society faces possible

19

dangers. It permits the unhampered revelation of its own
weaknesses because only thus can social improvement occur.
But in the world market place where ideas contend with each
other, does the contest become unequal if the faults of the
open society are laid bare without reservation while the enor-
mously more evil vices of the closed societies are suppressed?
The question takes practical form in the coverage of the Viet-
nam war, where the cameraman is free to record the military
action of one side while the terrorism and brutality of the
other are shielded from public observation. The problem is
important from the standpoint of domestic public opinion; it
is even more critical on the international scene where Ameri-
can-produced television coverage of U. S. troops in combat is
used to destroy all perspective on the nature of the war itself.

¶ What is the role of the expert in a democratic society?
Has democracy been rendered obsolete by the information
explosion? Is it impossible now for the average citizen to keep
abreast of political developments, to understand the problems
involved, and thus to make an intelligent decision on the issues
of citizenship? If contemporary social issues are so complex
that the average citizen cannot understand them, then govern-
ment may pass into the hands of an elite. The intricacies of
inspection involved in policing a ban on atomic experimenta-
tion in the atmosphere may be beyond the comprehension of
the voter; can he then pass upon the policies of candidates
who take positions on this subject? The remarkable advances
achieved by computer technology suggest the possibility that
only programmers and the technically trained may be quali-
fied to participate in the decisions that derive from or are
implemented by the computer. Anything that creates a gulf
between the citizen and decision-making has serious implica-
tions for the future of freedom and self-government.

20

Associated with this problem is the question of "classified information." In the past, it has been generally agreed that certain types of information may properly be withheld in the interest of the national security. During the course of the war in Vietnam this has come under increasing challenge both from those who have no concern with the national security and those who honestly believe that the national security requires little or no secrecy. The question is raised in some cases by legislators who feel that their right to participate in decision-making is being eroded; by scientists who believe that the progress of their disciplines requires full revelation of all data, no matter how closely linked with military defense; by journalists and commentators who feel thwarted in their effort to get all the news; and by partisans who believe that the issue gives them an advantage in the political arena. The problem is particularly difficult because the right to know is crucial to the exercise of the right to decide. As the departments of human knowledge grow more numerous and extensive, as technology becomes more complex, as the science of military defense advances and as the processes of diplomacy and statesmanship require subtlety and even privacy in a world of growing tensions, democracy must develop new ways of defining and providing essential information. Only a sustained effort to evolve new policies in this area can produce the answers.

Traditional responses to such questions have been based on the assumption that "the long run" would bring the right answers, and that in the interplay of ideas in the open market truth will get its hearing. This may be true today, but the advocates of democracy must explore the issue if only because the new conditions may require new actions by the open society.

21

3. *The Function and Nature of Dissent.* A major bulwark of freedom — its objective and its instrument — is the preservation of the right to dissent. American thought and practice have been enriched by distinguished dissenters whose activities have created new visions and furthered important social gains. But the safeguards placed around the right of dissent have not derived from the assumption that the dissenter is always right or even likely to be right. More often than not, the views of the dissenter are rejected by the majority, and his propositions pass into limbo.

Today, a new doctrine of dissent is being heard. It is based on the premise that dissent deserves special consideration, almost an immunity from criticism. As was observed in a recent article* by Spencer Brown, headmaster of the Fieldston School, the young activists of today "have used academic freedom as a sort of Yalu River, behind which they are immune to attack but from which they are free to sally forth and attack anything else, including their own school or college."

In a democratic society, dissent is not sacred; only the right to dissent is. The content of the dissent is as subject to public discussion and attack as any other doctrine. Nor does the right to dissent mean that society is obligated to do more than allow the dissent to be voiced. There is no duty to listen, or to accept the validity of the dissent. An inherent attitude of the free society is the right to choose and reject. And the dissenter certainly has no right to impose his view on others through the use of physical force — in the name of the freedom to dissent.

* "We Can't Appease the Younger Generation," The New York Times Magazine, November 27, 1966.

22

This new doctrine of dissent, predicated on the assumption of special privilege, refuses to recognize any duty of compliance with social decisions pending the result of the effort to change the decisions; it assumes that the dissenter may use any avenues for the expression of dissent, even if they mean the denial of majority rights. A minority, wearing the mantle of dissent, is presumed to have the right to bring normal processes to a halt in order to gain the public ear.

The concept of civil disobedience, reserved by its original formulators to matters of extreme conscience and intended to be used primarily in situations where the law itself is fundamentally lawless, is now being distorted to justify complete disregard of all legal process. In the name of freedom to dissent, self-styled dissenters are denying the civil liberties of non-dissenters. Government officials are being harassed and prevented from being heard in public forums. Adlai Stevenson was shouted down in Dallas, spat upon and even struck by right-wing dissenters. The Secretary of Defense and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on separate occasions, have been prevented from speaking by unruly groups of left-wing students.

In the tradition of American democracy, civil disobedience has played a constructive part precisely because it was associated with a philosophy of non-violence. Now the concept is being distorted to justify the use of violence by a minority, with little awareness that instead of producing social progress it will merely encourage a larger scale, repressive counter-violence.

These issues are of the utmost importance to a free society. Both the democratic rights of the majority to rule and of the minority to dissent are at stake. If the right to dissent is

23

permitted to destroy all possibility of action in accordance
with a basic social consensus, then dissent, which must aim at
making itself the ultimate consensus, becomes self-defeating.

Closely related to this problem is the role of activist
minorities which, though few in numbers, are capable of
capturing democratic movements by sheer force of energy. In
trade unions, cooperatives, student bodies, fraternal organiza-
tions, a well-organized minority can "bore from within" and
take over, against the will of a poorly organized majority.
Once such a minority has taken over, it allows no opportunities
for the majority to utilize democratic processes and is capable
of perpetuating its control.

It is essential that study be given to this problem of
minority activism that leads to seizures of power. The behavior
of minority groups must be examined with a view to protecting
the rights of the majority while preserving the right of the
dissenters to advocate change.

4. *The University and a Democratic Society.* In recent months, a consistent campaign has been conducted in some quarters to dissociate the universities from participating in research on behalf of the federal government. Originally, the question was raised in connection with university activities abroad under contract with the government, and the issues have caused substantial uneasiness in the academic community. The objectivity of scholarly inquiry and its good repute are clearly affected.

The problem, however, grows more complex when it
relates to the involvement of universities in classified scientific
research related to the national defense. Among the critics are
some who have no interest in maintaining institutions of free

24

inquiry but who are seeking other political objectives and have
been pressuring university administrations to abandon all such
activities.

Those who are genuinely concerned about government
domination over academic inquiry have raised substantial
questions in these areas: the impact of government appropria-
tions on the choice of research; the frustration of the true
object of education, namely the widest possible dissemination
of knowledge; doubts about the academic integrity of research
paid for by government.

On the other hand, a divorcement of the scholar from
government service could mean only the impoverishment of
government policy-making. The country paid dearly when
demagogues successfully urged the exclusion of the "long-hair
professors" from public influence; the consequences will be
equally serious if present-day demagogues can bring about a
self-exile of the intellectuals. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., has
responded to the latter by asking:

If intellectuals do take part in public affairs, are they to be
permitted by their fellows any role save that of intransigent
opposition? If they accept political responsibility, must they
be chastised by intellectual excommunication?

Schlesinger Sees A Role for Ideas, *The New York Times*,
October 26, 1966; opening lecture as Albert Schweitzer
Professor of Humanities, City University of New York.

Pressure on the academic community to withhold coop-
eration from government is exemplified by the campus attack
on the inequities that exist under the draft laws. Resolutions
of student groups have asked that the universities refuse to
make available grades and class standings to draft boards, and
in effect urge that universities be considered immune from the
normal claims for information that government may make on
citizens and corporate entities. Such attitudes on government-

25

university relations are being adopted because of opposition to the policies of a specific Administration; but the consequence of such action may well be to create a permanent rift between government, as the lawful arm of society, and a highly important segment of the community. If the university is above and beyond any concern with the national interest, the people will be deprived of the intellectual guidance that the academicians, individually and as an organized community, should be providing in the creation and implementation of national policies. Only obscurantism can benefit if the universities, fearful of contaminating their objectivity, refuse to carry out research for the government in economic, social and national defense problems.

This question will have even greater significance for our country because the academic community is growing dramatically in size. Estimates are that within the next five years there will be half a million teachers and 7 million students in the colleges of the United States. Any doctrine that isolates this numerically large and socially invaluable group from fully constructive participation in the life and responsibilities of the nation is inimical to the future of a free society. Yet there is considerable evidence that organized movements are attempting to alienate Academe from government and society. As Dr. Schlesinger puts it, "Unless society shows unaccustomed wisdom, the Red Guards of Berkeley will be not an aberration but a portent."

If we are to steer a safe course between government domination of the academic community and academic disclaimer of the duties of citizenship, new policies must be developed. Here, again, only careful study can help us find the *via media* that will assure to the university maximum independence and maximum service to the nation.

26

Conclusion

This memorandum proposes the creation of a research center that will be devoted to a study of the strengths and weaknesses of our society, with a view to enhancing the former and correcting the latter. *The Freedom House Public Affairs Institute* would be objective in its examination of the data, a mission that is perfectly consistent with the preservation and enlargement of our democratic freedoms.

Our times make such a research center an urgent neces-
sity. The opponents of freedom move with extraordinary vigor
on many fronts. They abuse the legitimate aspirations of those
in our society who, for historical reasons, do not yet enjoy
access to the affluence and freedoms of America. They seek
to mobilize the discontent of those who suffer the anxieties of
rapid social and economic change, and call either for a return

27

to an illusory past that never existed or for the creation of a
utopia that cannot exist. Edmund Wilson has called attention
to two groupings in our society:

To simplify, one can say that, on the one hand, you find in
the United States the people who are constantly aware . . .
that, beyond their opportunities for money-making, they
have a stake in the success of our system, that they share
the responsibility to carry on its institutions, to find expres-
sion for its new point of view, to give it dignity, to make it
work; and, on the other hand, the people who are merely
concerned with making a living or a fortune, with practicing
some profession or mastering some technical skill, as they
would in any other country, and who lack, or do not possess
to quite the same degree, the sense of America's role.

Edmund Wilson, *A Piece of My Mind*, Farrar, Straus
and Cudahy, New York, 1956, pp. 25-6.

These groups comprise the majority of Americans. But
in addition, there are those who, for a variety of reasons, some
sincere and some motivated by loyalties to angry doctrines,
would deny America's role as a force for freedom and peace
in the world. They are concerned with the injustices and
inequalities of our society, not to remedy them but to destroy
what is just and equitable. They would dwell on differences
of opinion, not to create a cohesive free society but to widen
the gaps and dismember our unity. Their purpose is to destroy
the credibility of America and thus to weaken its image in
the council of nations. They are abetted by the contemporary
devotees of Know-Nothingism, who shrink from change, who
retreat into xenophobia, who prefer the excitements of vio-
lence to the exhilarations of reason.

The turbulence of our times provides a ready atmosphere
for the extremists of the left and the right. They would, if they
had their way, reduce all debate to a combat of extremes, and

28

would destroy the political life of the vast majority of Ameri-
cans who seek an orderly road to progress. The intensity and
urgency of the new problems before the nation require imme-
diate but thorough inquiry so that a well-informed population
may make its own decisions. The exigencies of our time cannot
rest on a blind faith that the mere existence of a market place
for ideas assures the triumph of truth. There must be fair and
honest trading; falsehood must be answered with fact; truth
must fight to make itself heard above the roar of slogans. As
George F. Kennan has warned:

The truth is sometimes a poor competitor in the market place
of ideas — complicated, unsatisfying, full of dilemmas, always
vulnerable to misinterpretation and abuse. The counsels of
impatience and hatred can always be supported by the crud-
est and cheapest symbols; for the counsels of moderation,
the reasons are often intricate, rather than emotional, and
difficult to explain . . . and until people learn to spot the fan-
ning of mass emotions and the sowing of bitterness, suspicion,
and intolerance as crimes in themselves — as perhaps the
greatest disservice that can be done to popular government
— this sort of thing will continue to occur.

George F. Kennan, *American Diplomacy*, 1900-1950

To meet this challenge is one of the finest purposes to
which American scholarship and research can devote itself.
Freedom House therefore plans to establish the proposed
research and publication center for the advancement of de-
mocracy. It will enlist the cooperation and the services of
leading scholars and writers and the financial support of
foundations and individuals on a scale needed for a mean-
ingful fulfillment of this program.

29

The
Officers and Trustees
of Freedom House
cordially invite you to attend
the presentation of
the Freedom Award by
Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey
to
Roy Wilkins
at the Twenty-seventh Anniversary Dinner
Grand Ballroom, Hotel Waldorf-Astoria
Wednesday, March twenty-ninth
Nineteen hundred and sixty-seven
seven o'clock

Dress optional
R.S.V.P.

Henry V. Klaasen

Sincerely yours,

With warm regards,

this issue.

to treat the topics you mentioned. However, I am open-minded on great difficulty thinking of first-rate people after the first year or two problems put the availability of first-rate personnel. I would have is that the limiting condition turns out not to be the number of problems you have.

My only concern about creating yet another research institute problem areas of modern democracy.

memorandum. I agree almost completely with your statements of
Thank you for your letter of March 14 and the enclosed

Dear Leo:

New York, N. Y. 10017

289 Fifth Avenue

The Research Institute of America, Inc.

Executive Director

Mr. Leo Cherne

April 3, 1967

FREEDOM HOUSE

WILLKIE MEMORIAL BUILDING
20 WEST 40TH STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10018
(212) 565-3344

OCT 23 1968

October 21, 1968

Prof. Henry Kissinger
Center of International Affairs
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Professor Kissinger:

Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski has asked me to express his pleasure that you have accepted the invitation to attend the conference on The New Shape of U. S.-Soviet Relations. We shall inform you later of the transportation details.

For the moment, Professor Brzezinski asked me to invite you to prepare a two or three page paper for advance distribution to the participants. This should be circulated, together with four other papers, no later than November 1st. It is hoped that these papers will provide the informal agenda for the opening discussion on Saturday afternoon, November 9th.

Professor Brzezinski would like you to focus on developments in Western Europe and their relevance to U. S.-Soviet relations.

I look forward to greeting you on the 9th.

ac

BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Paul H. Douglas, Chairman • Roscoe Drummond, Vice Chairman • Harry D. Gideonse, President • Leo Cherne, Chairman, Executive Committee • George Field, Secretary • Rex Stout, Treasurer • Mrs. Andrew Jackson, Asst. Treasurer • George B. Ford, Whitney North Seymour, Hon. Chairmen • Anthony B. Akers • Marian Anderson • George Backer • Murray Baron • Edward W. Brooke • Zbigniew Brzezinski • Arthur F. Burns Christopher Emmet • Richard N. Gardner • Nathaniel L. Goldstein • David L. Guyer • Arthur L. Harekham • Paul G. Hoffman • Sidney Hook • Jacob K. Javits • Maxwell A. Kriendler • Aaron Levenstein • Burke Marshall • Francis Pickens Miller • John A. Morsell • Edgar Ansel Mowrer • Dwayne Orton Whitelaw Reid • John Richardson, Jr. • Stewart Richardson • Elizabeth M. Riley • Francis E. Rivers • Mrs. Kermit Roosevelt • Elmo Roper • Howland Sargeant • Mrs. Caroline K. Simon • Gerald L. Steibel • Herbert B. Swope, Jr. • Philip Van Slyck • William L. White • Eugene P. Wigner • Roy Wilkins Jacques D. Wimpfheimer — Leonard R. Sussman, Executive Director

371