CULTURAL cooperation with other countries as an official government program was inaugurated by the United States in 1938. Two significant steps were taken in that year. At President Roosevelt's suggestion, the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation was organized to examine methods of cooperating with the other American Republics and prepare a program for making "closer and more efficient" the relationships between them and the United States; and a Division of Cultural Relations was created within the Department of State itself, for the purpose of "encouraging and strengthening cultural relations and intellectual cooperation between the United States and other countries."(1)

The Departmental Order of July 27, 1938 creating the Division of Cultural Relations charged it with the Department of State's official international activities of cultural intent, "embracing the exchange of professors, teachers, and students; cooperation in the field of music, art, literature and other intellectual and cultural attainments; the formulation and distribution of libraries of representative works of the United States and suitable translations thereof; the participation by this Government in international radio broadcasts; encouragement of a closer relationship between unofficial organizations of this and of foreign Governments engaged in cultural and intellectual activities; and, generally, the dissemination abroad of the representative intellectual and cultural works of the United States and the improvement and broadening of the scope of our cultural relations with other countries."

"In fulfilling its functions"---we are quoting the Departmental Order---"the Division of Cultural Relations will direct the conduct of exhaustive studies and have responsibility for the elaboration and the carrying into effect of a comprehensive and coordinated plan of activity in this country for the strengthening of international intellectual and cultural relations; it will assist in the preparation and interpretation of treaties in this field; it will supervise the formulation of regulations and procedure necessary for the fulfilment of obligations under the Convention for the Promotion of Inter-American Cultural Relations and other treaties and conventions relating to cultural relations to which the United States may have become a party; it will draft or review correspondence with foreign Governments, American Diplomatic and Consular Officers, and all other correspondence pertaining to these activities; it will collaborate with the Office of Education and other Government departments and agencies, the National Committee on Inter-American Intellectual Cooperation, other educational and cultural organizations and institutions, and Foreign Missions in Washington.

"The Division of Cultural Relations will function under the general supervision of the Under Secretary of State and in close cooperation with the geographical divisions."(2)

At its inception, and until 1942, this cultural program had three principal objectives: the administration of travel grants; the carrying out of the provisions of the Buenos Aires Convention for the Promotion of Inter-American Cultural Relations; and the organization of a system of interchange of educational motion pictures.(3) The travel grants fell into four categories: grants to leaders of thought and opinion, whether in literature, journalism, science or the arts, in the other American Republics, whose visit to the United States would help bring about increased understanding and friendship; and, reciprocally, grants to similarly influential United States citizens for travel in the sister republics; grants to professors and students coming to the United States from other American Republics, and vice versa; and grants for advisory committees. These last were to defray expenses of "the members of the committees, whose appointment was approved by the President under authority granted him by Congress, to advise the Department of State in its program of cultural relations as administered by the Division of Cultural Relations."(4)

The Buenos Aires Convention for the Promotion of Inter-American Cultural Relations, referred to above, signed by the United States and approved by the Congress in 1937, provides for the annual exchange of one professor and of two teachers or graduate students by the United States and each of the other American Republics which have ratified this instrument.(5)

With growth of the cultural program, international exchange of persons has increased in numbers and geographical scope. The Department of State facilitates "the exchange of advanced university students and industrial trainees, visiting professors and specialists. It also helps to put private organizations working in the international field in touch with comparable organizations in other countries and collects information on government or privately sponsored cultural movements needed as a background for the development of a cultural relations program." Further, to quote Ruth McMurry's statement in the News Bulletin of the Institute of International Education, May 1, 1946, it "carries on a program which facilitates and supplements the interchanges of persons undertaken by representative institutions and organizations. It also encourages and facilitates many privately sponsored interchanges. Financial aid has been forthcoming, especially for exchanges within the Western Hemisphere since the original program authorized by the Congress was one of cultural relations with the other American Republics. During the war, however, as an emergency measure, it was extended to the Near and the Far East with funds from the President's Emergency Fund. Enabling legislation to extend the program to the Eastern Hemisphere is now [1946] before the Congress.

"The Specialists and Professors Branch of the Division awards a certain number of grants to competent specialists and distinguished leaders---both American and foreign---in many fields including the arts, sciences and professions, technology and public welfare. The grants are given for research or study abroad, for professorships in appropriate institutions, for surveys or for lectureships and for consultative or advisory services in connection with projects, which from the viewpoint of the Department, will further cultural relations between the U. S. and the foreign country concerned. The services of U.S. specialists and professors traveling abroad under the program are requested by the foreign governments which often pay part of the expense involved. During the year 1945-46 the grants for such interchanges between the U. S. and the other American Republics numbered 86. There were 42 grants for or similar interchanges between the U.S. and the Far East, and 31 between the Near East and the U.S.

"In addition to the grants the Department offers other services to projects of the same type sponsored by nongovernmental agencies and to those undertaken by other governments and it has developed close relations with a large number of American institutions and agencies interested in them."

As regards motion pictures, the Department encouraged "the production and interchange of informative educational motion pictures, particularly with the American republics, through conferences with motion picture producers and distributors of non-amusement films," and facilitated and aided "the display abroad of approved United States films, and the display in the United States of approved foreign films."(6)

With the outbreak of war in 1941 the cultural program, envisaged and inaugurated for peacetime, was re-examined critically within the Department with regard to its value during the period of conflict. Consultation "led to agreement on the importance of maintaining in wartime the fundamental objectives of the cultural relations program; i.e., the development of that reciprocal understanding essential to harmonious political relationships and to the most effective cooperation in defense of common interests."(7) Explicit warning was given that "any radical reorientation of the program at this time, or any slackening of its activities, would undo much of the results gained so far, and later make it difficult to resume the program on lines successfully followed in peacetime."(8)

Some readjustment in planning was of course necessary. The drafting of young men for the armed services, for instance, checked during the war the southward current of student exchange. The bare figures show this: From 1939 to 1946, 800 students and 443 specialists from the other American Republics came to the United States for college and university courses, but only 40 United States students and 49 specialists pursued corresponding courses in institutions of learning in the other Americas. However, 133 professors from the United States taught courses in universities of the other Republics, while 25 professors from those universities taught in the United States.(9)

On August 16, 1940, by order of the Council of National Defense a Coordinator of Commercial and Cultural Relations between the American Republics (later to be known as the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs), under the Council of National Defense, had been appointed by President Roosevelt. The general range of the Coordinator's responsibility "included the area of activities of the Division of Cultural Relations, and in addition extended over other fields, such as commercial relations and 'communications,' covering the press and amusement motion pictures (Hollywood)." The Coordinator was "charged with the formulation and the execution of a program in cooperation with the State Department which, by effective use of governmental and private facilities in such fields as the arts and sciences, education and travel, the radio, the press, and the cinema will further national defense and strengthen the bonds between the nations of the Western Hemisphere."(10) The Coordinator's program in brief was to direct activities toward ends "that would be immediately effective in the world crisis," while the cultural program of the Department of State "stressed the importance of long-term results, recognizing that the building of confidence and understanding would necessarily take time. It was felt, therefore, that both phases of the work should go forward side by side, through the maintenance of close liaison and effective cooperation."(11)

From the beginning, the work of the Division of Cultural Relations had been "based upon the principle that sound and enduring international cooperation, economic as well as political, must be developed on a broad foundation of understanding between peoples."(12) The crisis of war emphasized and made urgent "the necessity of an effective solidarity . . . of mind and spirit, of aim and effort, as well as of material interests"; so that the Division of Cultural Relations, "created in peacetime to further that solidarity on a longterm basis," resolved to become "an active factor in upbuilding democratic morale in this hemisphere."(13)

For the first years of its existence, the Division's program, based largely upon an act of Congress entitled "An Act to render closer and more effective the relationship between the American republics," was carried out in the Western Hemisphere only. Extended to China in January, 1942 through an allocation from the President's Emergency Fund as a wartime measure, the program in its Far Eastern aspects consisted largely of sending out from the United States technical experts requested by the Chinese Government, exchanging professors and awarding Chinese students travel grants for study in the United States, and supplying microfilm reproductions of technical and scholarly journals requested by Chinese universities.(14)

Shortly thereafter, in July, 1943, the program was extended in part to the Near East and to Africa, with another allocation from the President's Emergency Fund. The emphasis in that area was on "strengthening American-founded schools and hospitals in carrying on extension services, especially projects in engineering, public health and agriculture. Grants-in-aid were given to American institutions in Turkey, Syria, and Liberia. Teachers were sent to Afghanistan at that Government's request. Books and other cultural materials were shipped to educational centers in these countries and in Iran, Ethiopia and Morocco." (15)

Early in the program, in August, 1941, the Department of State had created in embassies and legations of the United States in other American Republics the post of Cultural Relations Officer-the title "Cultural Relations Attaché" came into use two years later---placing upon these officers considerable responsibility "for the development and maintenance of friendly relations with cultural leaders in the countries in which they are stationed."(16) A Cultural Relations Officer's primary function was defined as assisting the head of the diplomatic mission in matters of cultural significance and keeping the Department at Washington fully informed of local developments in the cultural field.(17) The General Advisory Committee of the Department of State agreed on the following as prime qualifications for Cultural Relations Officers:

. . . they should have a suitable personality that would assure their ability to work effectively with the people of the country in which they may be located; they should have broad intellectual and cultural interests, which should be capable of understanding and appreciating matters of which they may not have specialized knowledge; they should have constructive imagination and enthusiasm; their point of view should be that of a mature, educated person, and they should have good judgment and common sense. It may be assumed that they have a fluent command of the language of the country to which they are sent, but they should be willing to endeavor to learn to use the language with distinction, as well as with readiness.(18)

By July, 1946, Cultural Relations Officers had been appointed to diplomatic missions in each of the other American Republics and also in Belgium, China, England, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey. As a group, they represent up to the present writing diverse specializations---authorship, teaching, archeology, anthropology, social economics, mathematics, journalism, publishing, library science, motion picture production, and other government service. When the post had been four years established, long enough to afford bases for evaluation, Archibald MacLeish, then Assistant Secretary of State, declared of the Cultural Relations Attachés that theirs was "an absolutely essential job," through exchange of ideas and skills and knowledge to help the peoples of the world to "get the feel of each other."(19) One of the most brilliantly successful of the Cultural Relations Attachés summarized his chief activities as liaison, administration, reporting, clerical work, and creative contacts.(20)

At the beginning of 1942 the Division of Cultural Relations had widened its scope to extend aid to those cultural centers in the other American Republics generally known as "United States cultural institutes" and to make gifts or loans of publications, pictures, music, radio transcriptions, or motion pictures to United States schools or libraries in the other Americas.

These United States cultural centers, founded jointly in other countries by a group of citizens of the country where they were established and citizens of the United States resident there, have served as meeting places for both formal and informal gatherings and as "information hubs [aiding] in the creation of an enlightened and cordial public opinion" of the United States. "During the war eight centers were in existence in major capitals; eight more were organized in 1942 and six in 1943 and 1944. During 1945 urgent requests from the field resulted in the [cultural centers] program's being expanded."(21) The chief activity of these centers is the teaching of English to nationals and of the language of the country to resident United States citizens. Classes in United States history and literature also prove popular. "Total student enrollment has increased from 12,000 in July 1943 to 17,000 in July 1944 and to 20,000 in July 1945."(22) One result of the work of the cultural centers has been publication and wide use of several language texts evolving from practical experience in field-teaching.

Closely allied to the official encouragement given cultural centers has been the aid to libraries of United States books in other countries. The first of these to be established with cooperation of the government program of cultural relations was the Benjamin Franklin Library in Mexico. As of July 1, 1946 the Department of State maintained twenty-seven cultural centers in Latin America and about seventy libraries throughout the rest of the world. "These libraries and cultural institutes [or centers] make available books, periodicals, documents, music recordings, and art reproductions to foreign officials, students, organizations and others interested in American developments and thought. The demand for these books and periodicals is hard to exaggerate. In one month, 17,000 persons visited the library in Paris; 4,500 in Sidney; almost 10,000 in Bombay; and over 5,000 in Mexico City. The cultural institutes in the American Republics have had a longer history, and they, too, show the keen interest other peoples have in learning more about this country. In 1945, registered members in all cultural institutes totaled 10,000; students enrolled for classes in English numbered 24,500; and attendance of all types of functions ran up to over 45,000."(23)

The "American schools" in the other American Republics, established by citizens of the United States, have proved "valuable instruments for teaching English and for arousing interest in the United States and its educational institutions.

Prior to 1941 relatively little thought and no aid had been given them by agencies of [the United States] Government . . . . Such schools are desired especially by parents whose children are preparing for study in colleges and universities of the United States."(24) By July, 1946, approximately three hundred "American schools" were operating in other American Republics; "and, with funds obtained by the Department of State, a special office . . . set up in the office of the American Council on Education has given grants . . . in the past year to about 45 American schools and has provided material advice and assistance to about two hundred other American schools in Latin America. Those schools enroll at the present time [1946] over 50,000 nationals of those various countries."(25)

The relatively high price of books published in the United States, together with the language factor, has hindered their distribution abroad. "In mid-1942 the United States Government decided to make better known the writings of its citizens. The Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs extended a grant-in-aid of $140,000 to the American Library Association for the distribution of books in English to representative libraries in the other American republics. This project [was] . . . extended by an additional grant from the Department of State . . . . The American Library Association laid down some basic principles for distribution: first, that all books must be chosen by the foreign libraries [as a preliminary step, the Association compiled a selected list of five hundred such libraries in the other American Republics] and not by the United States Government; second, that all books distributed must be written by United States citizens and printed in English . . . . By the close of 1943 many thousands of books had been shipped to Central and South America."

"In 1939, when the Director of the National Library at Bogotá, Colombia, was notified of his assignment to the Colombian Embassy in Washington, he sought to discover in his library a history of the United States in Spanish which would, provide his wife with some information on this country. The only book available dealt with the seventeenth century."(26) In 1941, after an official inspection tour of federal activities of the United States in South and Central America, the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives made the following comment:

There is undoubtedly a manifest desire on the part of the citizens of Latin America to know more about the United States, and it behooves us to put our best foot forward in supplying them this information through authoritative and carefully selected sources. One example should serve to indicate the lack of facilities descriptive of American life . . . . Up until the calendar year 1940 there was not a single history book of the United States printed in Portuguese in any public library in the entire nation of Brazil. Here was a situation of a country containing approximately 44,000,000 citizens (nearly half the total population of South America) without one single book descriptive of our history translated into their language and available through public library facilities. It is not difficult to see, therefore, why, in the past, there has been so little understanding between ourselves and the countries to the south of us. The committee is definitely impressed with the need for having translations made of many of our important works of biography, history, science, literature, etc., as it is through these media we will be able to achieve the respect and appreciation, one nation for the other, for which we hope so fervently.(27)

In 1941 the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, through the American Council of Learned Societies, "began to stimulate the translation of United States books into Spanish and Portuguese and the translation of books from those languages into English. When this project was transferred to the Department of State in July 1943, the Council had written contracts for 116 books. By the close of 1943, 57 of these books had been published and others were coming off the press each month. Government assistance is usually confined to a payment for translation rights or the purchase of a certain number of copies of each book in lieu of a translation fee. The books are then brought out by recognized publishers and distributed through commercial bookstores without Government responsibility for profit or loss. The books already translated or being translated into Spanish for publication in Mexico, Argentina, and Chile include American literary classics such as the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, standard technical volumes . . . and interpretative works . . . . Several outstanding successes have been reported by publishers. The standard agricultural textbook, Methods of Plant Breeding, by Hayes and Immer, sold more copies in Spanish during the first month after publication in Argentina than did the original English edition during an equal period after its publication in New York."(28)

The report already cited on the inspection tour of the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations noted especially the small number of short-wave broadcasts from the United States in 1941 as compared with those from other countries: "In the field of radio it would appear that we have been considerably remiss in keeping up with the pace set by other countries in acquainting citizens of Latin America with our national plans, procedures, purposes, culture, background and related facts. In a large metropolitan city of one country visited by the committee, the Free French and the Japanese have more time on the air per week than we do. The Germans broadcast on the radio in the same city an average of 2-1/2 hours per day. We consume 1/2 hour of radio time per week."(29) After Pearl Harbor the Department of State cooperated with the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs and with the newly created Office of War Information to improve the number and quality of United States short-wave broadcasts. By Departmental Order 1218 of January 15, 1944, the Motion Picture and Radio Division was created in the Department of State, with responsibility for: "(a) liaison between the Department and other departments and agencies, particularly the Office of War Information, the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, War Department, and Office of Censorship, in matters involved in the dissemination abroad, through the media of motion pictures and radio, of information regarding the war effort; and (b) the development and execution of cultural programs through these media." By Departmental Regulation 130.10 of December 31, 1945, the International Broadcasting Division was established in the Department's newly created Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs, and was made responsible "for the initial formulation of operational policy with respect to, and for the conduct of, the participation of the Department in the international dissemination of information through the media of radio broadcasting." The International Motion Picture Division was created by the same order.

In 1943, the art and music activities of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs were taken over by the Department of State, as was the book and translation program, and these were incorporated with the work of the Division of Cultural Relations, the name of which was changed the following year to Science, Education, and Art Division.(30) By means of a grant-in-aid, the Department set up an Inter-American Office in the National Gallery of Art to develop and handle the exchange of art exhibits and materials. A similar grant-in-aid to the Library of Congress provided for distribution and exchange of music materials in the other American Republics. Beyond this, and in addition to filling specific official requests for music scores, records, art exhibits, and related information in the field of the arts, the Department "has not only encouraged initiatives of individual and private organizations in these fields, but has assisted them with information and advice by furthering contacts in this and other countries."(31)

In 1944, by another Departmental Order, the Science, Education, and Art Division became the Division of Cultural Cooperation,(32) and was assigned specifically "responsibility for formulating policy and for initiating, coordinating and putting into effect programs of the Department of State designed to encourage and strengthen cultural contact, interchange, and mutual understanding between the peoples of the United States and those of other nations."(33) Three basic principles were enunciated as guidance in operation of the cultural program:

1) This program is conducted, as far as possible, by the American people. It is a people-to-people relationship. The Government's role is to supplement and facilitate. Wherever Government funds must be used, the Department of State tries to find a private, non-profit organization to carry on the work. Advisory committees which include representatives of many national organizations meet frequently to advise the Secretary of State on the operation of this program.

2) This program represents the entire United States Government, not merely the Department of State. Much of its operation is conducted by other Government agencies, to which the Department of State transfers the necessary funds. All Government agencies participating in the program are members of the Interdepartmental Committee for Scientific and Cultural Cooperation. This Committee was formed at the request of Congress in 1939 to present a consolidated budget for the entire cooperation program. The agencies on this Committee participate jointly in the planning of the program, and review each other's work at the end of the year. An Assistant Secretary of State sits as Chairman of the Committee.

3) Wherever feasible, the cost of each project is shared in some degree by the other Governments involved and, if possible, by American private agencies. This is done, not primarily to reduce costs to this Government, though it accomplishes that purpose too; it is rather done because the program is one of cooperation, not a unilateral American projection of itself upon others. The Department does not believe that the United States should perform any part of this work where it is not wanted; and the best evidence that it is wanted is the willingness of the other Government to put something into it.(34)

The Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation (a name given it in 1944) was created in 1938 as the Interdepartmental Committee on Cooperation with the American Republics. Its scope is indicated by the act of August 9, 1939 providing that "in order to render closer and more effective the relationship between the American republics the President of the United States is hereby authorized, subject to such appropriations as are made available for the purpose, to utilize the services of the departments, agencies and independent establishments of the Government in carrying out the reciprocal undertakings and cooperative purposes enunciated in the treaties, resolutions, declarations, and recommendations signed by all of the twenty-one republics at the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace held at Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1936, and at the Eighth International Conference of American States held at Lima, Peru, in 1938." In December, 1944 the secretariat of the Committee was placed in the Division of Cultural Cooperation, the Committee's twenty-eight members representing twenty agencies of the Government.(35)

Many government agencies have carried out mutually beneficial cooperative international projects, some of them involving the exchange service of government officials. The following such cooperative projects were among those successfully operated in 1946 with aid from the Interdepartmental Committee: agricultural experiment stations in Guatemala and Peru "where research was being done by Department of Agriculture scientists on fibers, insecticides, medicinals, and other tropical products which are not grown in the United States"; research on rubber cultivation in Colombia; radisonde weather stations in the Caribbean area which serve as hurricane warning stations; and medical projects in many countries helping in control of epidemics of disease.(36)

Public Law 584, the "Fulbright Bill," originally introduced by Senator Fulbright and passed by the Seventy-Ninth Congress, "authorizes the use as scholarships, of part of the foreign exchange made available from the sale of surplus property. Recent lend-lease settlements have included clauses which would permit payment for surplus war property into educational funds . . . . Public Law 584 makes it possible for the United States to accept credits in the currencies of foreign countries which can then be used within those countries to finance the study of American students abroad, to send specialists abroad, and to send visiting professors . . . . That bill states that we may receive a maximum of $20,000,000 per country and that we may not spend more than a million dollars a year in these various activities." (The quotation is from the Harris Memorial Foundation Lecture delivered by Kenneth Holland of the Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs in July, 1946.)

By Executive Order of August 31, 1945 President Truman abolished the Office of Inter-American Affairs (formerly the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs) and the Office of War Information which for more than three years had "directed a program of psychological warfare against the enemy and at the same time sought to tell both allies and neutrals about America's war efforts and its war aims."(37) In a statement accompanying the order, the President, declaring that "the nature of present day foreign relations makes it essential for the United States to maintain informational activities abroad as an integral part of the conduct of our foreign affairs," consolidated until January 1, 1946 the functions of those two war agencies "which are performed abroad or which consist of or are concerned with informing the people of other nations about any matter in which the United States has an interest."

During the prescribed transition period of four months, the inherited information functions of the Interim Information Service were "drastically reduced and reshaped to suit peacetime needs. The former OWl's cable and wireless service of news, features, and background materials to outposts overseas was cut, for instance, to one-sixth of its wartime wordage. The production of booklets for overseas distribution was slowed down, and the translating and printing of American books for sale overseas was halted. Radio activities of the former OWl and OIAA in New York and San Francisco were merged and reduced. Several magazines distributed abroad were discontinued . . . . Personnel was reduced accordingly . . . . At the close of business on December 31, 1945 the Interim Information Service was abolished and its remaining functions were absorbed by a new organization within the State Department, designed to integrate all cultural and informational activities of the Government abroad: the Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs (OIC)."(38)

That entity by departmental regulation grouped under "one office and director . . . a number of previously scattered cultural and informational activities of the Government abroad."(39) These included, besides OWl and OIAA, those functions of the Special Assistant to the Secretary for Press Relations relating to the preparation and issuance of a daily radio bulletin for Foreign Service officers; the Division of International Information of the Office of Public Affairs; the Division of Cultural Cooperation of Office of Public Affairs; and the Secretariat of the Interdepartmental Committee.

The Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs (OIC) was assigned the following responsibilities:

"The promotion among foreign peoples of a better understanding of the aims, policies and institutions of the United States.

"The coordination of policy and action for programs of the United States in the field of international information and cultural affairs.

"The dissemination abroad of information about the United States through all appropriate media.

"The promotion of freedom of information among peoples.

"The furtherance of the international exchange of persons, knowledge and skills.

"The integration with over-all United States foreign policy of the programs and activities of other federal agencies, involving international interchange of persons, knowledge, and skills." (40)

The new Office was composed of five Area Divisions: Europe, Near East and Africa, Far East, American Republics, and Occupied Areas; and five Operational Divisions: Libraries and Institutes, Exchange of Persons, Press and Publications, Radio, and Motion Pictures.

"The work of OIC can be reduced . . . to the simplest terms in something like these words. The task is to provide an instrument to aid foreign peoples in understanding America, in understanding our foreign policy and the background of our foreign policy, in understanding American aims and objectives, and to extend mutual understanding by furthering contact between peoples. The problems of OIC becoming more and more apparent are those created by the artificial barriers largely imposed by Governments to prevent free exchange of ideas. For even 'freedom of information,' a term or slogan which we frequently use, is still unknown to millions of people, perhaps half the population of this globe, who are still illiterate. It is also unknown, I fear, in many other parts of the world where freedom of speech and expression are blocked by man-made rules and barriers. . . . The central basic problem with which we have been attempting to deal during these past few months [1946] is the problem which revolves around removing the obstacles to freedom of speech and expression, and of reaching the minds of men." (41)

The most immediate necessity facing the Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs for its first year, 1946, was that of integrating its various elements into its long-term program. That program was charted by Assistant Secretary of State William Benton, from the beginning, along eight channels: the exchange of persons, with extension from the Western Hemisphere to the rest of the world of exchange projects involving "students, teachers, scholars, scientists, and other experts with special knowledge and skills"; the maintenance and servicing of American libraries of information in sixty countries abroad; continuance and expansion of the daily radio bulletin for United States diplomatic missions; a mail service of textual, documentary and related background material for the information of foreign service officers and outside distribution when desired; preparation of photo exhibits and film strips depicting the way of life of the United States, its manners, ideas, and accomplishment; continued distribution in the Soviet Union of the Russian-language periodical, Amerika, highly popular there; acquiring from private sources and when necessary editing and scoring in foreign languages newsreels and documentary films about the United States for showing abroad; and operation of a practically world-wide service of short-wave broadcasting.(42)

For carrying out the cultural relations outlined in this chapter, the Department of State's expenditures have been moderate in comparison with those of other countries for similar purposes, as shown elsewhere in these pages, and with those allotted to cultural and informational programs by war agencies of the United States. Total funds available for the Department's cultural relations program during the first four years of functioning are shown by the following table:(43)

Until the end of 1943 the Congress had made appropriations to the Department of State "only for the program with the other American republics,"(44) all the Department's cultural activities outside the hemisphere being financed from the Emergency Fund for the President. With incorporation of cultural and informational programs into the Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs, an increased budget became necessary. "Functions inherited by OIC from the Interim International Information Service were financed through June 30, 1946 by funds allocated for this purpose from OWl and OIAA balances. Functions inherited by OIC from established State Department components were financed through the same period by funds regularly allocated to those components for fiscal 1946 from the State Department budget."(45)The amount granted by the Seventy-ninth Congress for the 1947 program of the Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs is $19,000,000. The $19,000,000---while far greater than former appropriations for the Department of State's cultural relations program---is "in contrast to the $61,748,912 expended by the Government during its 12 months of peak war activity in the informational and cultural affairs field."(46)

Basic legislation for a peacetime information and cultural relations office was proposed in 1946 in a bill (HR 4982) introduced by Congressman Bloom and unanimously endorsed by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. This so-called "cultural relations bill" provided for the sending abroad of information about the United States; the interchange of students, professors, specialists, and other leaders of thought; the interchange of government personnel and the working out of cooperative scientific and technical projects; aid to American schools abroad; and aid in translating, adapting, and distributing American books and educational materials abroad.

Although passed by the House and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the bill failed to come up for a final vote because of the pressure of other legislation in the closing days of the session. A similar bill was presented again in 1947.

In discussing the need for a "Cultural Relations Bill," Assistant Secretary of State William Benton told a Philadelphia audience on the last day of September, 1946: "If there is any hope for the world it is that the peoples of the world, all of whom want peace, will understand each other and will be willing to tolerate differences because they understand them . . . . The time has gone when we as a nation could afford to be indifferent to our scientific, educational and cultural exports."(47)

AFTER the First World War, French authorities, as we have seen, in considering the future of their program of cultural relations abroad, raised the question as to "whether, when blood has ceased to flow, the struggle between nations is over; whether their influence, their respective cultures, their commerce, their language, their thought do not remain formidable weapons which in the future may decide the conflict."

As the end of the Second World War again brought this question to the fore, most nations of the world were in little doubt as to the answer. They had learned what powerful weapons their influence, their thought, their respective cultures might be either for making war or for keeping the peace. They had also learned that in order to work together in rebuilding a devastated world they must develop means better to understand one another's purpose.

With this end in view, not only were the bilateral cultural relations programs such as those described in the preceding chapters continued, but the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, a multilateral organization, was formally established in November, 1946.

Since this volume is devoted to a study of the development of bilateral programs, no full account of UNESCO and its activities belongs here, although its great importance is fully recognized. It is interesting to note, however, that the demand for such a central organization to deal with educational and cultural matters in the international field began to make itself felt early in the war. A number of groups concerned with education, both in the United States and abroad, turned their attention to the development of an international educational and cultural organization of much wider scope than the Institute of Intellectual Cooperation of the League of Nations. The desire for such a central organization stemmed from recognition of the valuable work done by the Institute of Intellectual Cooperation as well as from the successful activities of numerous international educational and cultural associations, private or semi-private in character. It also reflected the need felt by the United Nations to move from the narrowly national into international fields where the future peace of the world might be furthered through over-all international organizations.

One of the groups which furthered the development of an international educational and cultural organization was the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education, organized in 1942 by the British Council and the British Board of Education. The Conference included the Ministers of Education, or their representatives, of nine Allied Governments which had taken refuge in the United Kingdom during the German occupation of Europe: Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, and France (through the French National Committee of Liberation) and Great Britain. Regular meetings in London were held to plan for the educational rehabilitation of the European countries after the war. Although invited to become members, the United States and the U.S.S.R. limited their participation during the first years to the sending of observers to the meetings.

The Department of State, interested in the program of the Conference of Allied Ministers, sent a United States delegation to London in April, 1944, to participate in the development of "an international program for the rebuilding of essential educational and cultural facilities of the war-torn countries in the period immediately following hostilities." It was during the meetings held in London at this time that a preliminary charter for an international organization for educational and cultural reconstruction was drafted. The U.S.S.R., however, continued to stand aloof from any active part in this international program.

In the meantime, in the United States, several private groups had been actively engaged in promoting plans for an international organization for education and cultural development. The Liaison Committee for International Education, composed of some thirty educational organizations with special interest in international education began a comprehensive study of post-war problems and organized three International Education Assemblies in which representatives of the Allied countries participated in furthering plans for an over-all international organization.

Another group was the American Association for an International Office for Education, which worked actively to develop interest in such an organization and to mobilize all available forces behind it.

In May, 1945 the Congress of the United States gave full support to United States participation in such an international organization by approving in the House a resolution introduced by Congressman Karl E. Mundt, endorsing American aid for an agency to promote both educational and cultural relations with the other nations of the world, while the Senate passed a comparable resolution introduced by Senators Fulbright and Taft.

The inclusion, among the major objectives of the United Nations as promulgated in San Francisco, of "cultural and educational cooperation" did much to assure the development of an international educational and cultural organization. In November, 1945 a conference was held in London in which the constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization was framed by forty-four nations present there. Finally, in November, 1946, in Paris, after the constitution had been ratified by the Governments of more than twenty nations, UNESCO was established as one of the specialized agencies brought into relationship with the United Nations through the negotiation of an agreement. Paris was chosen as its seat.

According to the UNESCO constitution, "the purpose of the Organization is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations."

The importance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization was made clear in the constitution, the preamble of which included the following essential reasons for its establishment:

. . . that since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed; . . . 

. . . that ignorance of each other's ways and lives has been a common cause, throughout the history of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust among the peoples of the world through which their differences have all too often broken into war; . . . 

. . . that this wide diffusion of culture, and the education of humanity for justice and liberty and peace are indispensable to the dignity of man and constitute a sacred duty which all the nations must fulfill in a spirit of mutual assistance and concern; . . . 

. . . that a peace based exclusively upon the political and economic arrangements of governments would not be a peace which could secure the unanimous, lasting and sincere support of the peoples of the world, and that the peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.

A United States National Commission for UNESCO composed of one hundred members widely representative of American educational, scientific, and cultural interests and organizations held a meeting in September, 1946 to advise the United States Government on its participation in UNESCO. In transmitting to Secretary of State Byrnes the final report of the Commission, Assistant Secretary Benton stated:

The Commission received with appreciation your message urging UNESCO to help clear away the barriers of suspicion and mistrust which divide the peoples. The Commission called upon President Truman who told them that the Commission could make the 'greatest contribution in the history of the world to the welfare of the world as a whole, if it really goes at it in the spirit in which it is intended . . . .'

Mr. Benton went on to state that the Commission, in addition to advising the Government on UNESCO, had a second important role to play. "This is to act as liaison with the thousands of organizations in this country, and their millions of individual members, in carrying out the UNESCO program in the United States," he said, and added: "If UNESCO is to be in fact 'the spearhead of the United Nations,' as the Ambassador from France told the members of the Commission . . . then this grass-root activity, sponsored and promoted by the 100 members authorized for the National Commission, will help the American people achieve specialized agencies, and the aims of American foreign policy."

As of the present writing not all of the United Nations have joined UNESCO. The following nations had become members by the middle of December, 1946: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ecuador, France, Greece, Haiti, India, Lebanon, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Philippine Islands, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the Union of South Africa, the United States, and Venezuela. At this time, the Soviet Union was the only one of the Great Powers which had taken no part in the development of UNESCO.

It must be borne clearly in mind, however, that the Governments of the United Nations, while increasingly supporting UNESCO, are not therefore slackening but, on the contrary, are intensifying their bilateral programs. In other words, these governments seem to feel that the success of the general multilateral program of educational, scientific, and cultural relationships will be furthered by the confluent tributary streams of the several programs of national interpretation, and that these in turn will be deepened and enriched by the comprehensive program of the United Nations as such.

During the Second World War there was another development which had an effect on the bilateral cultural programs described in the preceding chapters. Ministries or Offices of Information were established by most of the Allied Nations to carry on wartime propaganda programs. In these war agencies the primary emphasis was laid on the presentation of current or "hot" news both for home and for foreign consumption, and on all informational activities related to winning the war, including the use of psychological warfare. As has been stated previously, no detailed description of these information programs is given in this volume. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Axis powers had long been giving strong support to propaganda programs and had developed them to a high point of efficiency. The German Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, for example, was established in 1933 and carried on a powerful program of National Socialist propaganda until the defeat of Germany. One of the tasks of both the cultural relations and the information programs furthered by the Allies was to counteract this propaganda.

When, after the cessation of hostilities, the development of peaceful relations became paramount, many Governments reviewed their cultural relations activities abroad as well as their information programs and made plans to adjust them to post-war needs. In most cases the Ministries of Information were abolished. Their work, however, had made the various Governments aware not only of the importance of information services abroad but of the need to continue them in peacetime. The problem of overlapping in the informational and cultural programs, however, especially in the use of such media as books and periodicals, the radio and the cinema, had long been a matter of concern. It was generally agreed that there was need of better coordination of the cultural and information services carried on abroad by government agencies.

The United States attempted to solve the problem by establishing in the Department of State an Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs which was responsible for the cultural and informational services of the United States abroad. Like the Office of Public Affairs, which was responsible in the United States for information services concerning international relations, the Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs was placed under the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. Certain of the activities of the OWl, of the Office of Strategic Services and of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs were transferred to the Department at the time of the reorganization of the informational and cultural program which took place at the end of June, 1946, and these war agencies were disbanded.

The British decided to continue the work of the British Council under its Royal Charter for at least five years, but in order to avoid overlapping with the other services, restricted its scope to purely educational and cultural activities. The British Ministry of Information was abolished in March, 1946, and the overseas information services were centered in the Foreign Office. Among the departments concerned with overseas information created in the Foreign Office at this time was a Cultural Relations Department to deal with educational and cultural problems, to work with the British Council in matters of policy and expenditures, and to act in a liaison capacity between the British Council and the Foreign Office. This Department also furthered relations with UNESCO. Finally, for the production and procurement of materials for all ministries, a Central Office of Information was established.

Another important development of the early post-war period has been the increasing participation of several of the Ministries or Offices of Education in the cultural relations programs abroad. A recent project in which the British Ministry of Education and the United States Office of Education took an active part, for example, was the exchange of 74 British and 74 American teachers for the school year 1946-47. This exchange program also enlisted the close cooperation of the British Foreign Office and of the more important teachers associations and educational organizations in Great Britain, while in the United States the Department of State and a number of equally representative teachers associations and educational organizations interested in international relations helped sponsor the project.

As the foregoing studies show, most nations of the world have come to the conclusion that they cannot afford to do without programs of cultural relations with other countries, since it is in the national interest to make their peoples known and understood by other peoples. "To foster that interchange in the interests of peaceful and happy international relations is rightly to be regarded as a function of the prudent state," said the report of the British Council for 1940-41. This viewpoint is held by small countries as well as large. It would be difficult to mention a land with a national consciousness which does not have a program of cultural relations abroad. Let us mention in passing some of the most interesting which have not been considered in detail in these pages.

Two deeply rooted and widespread programs examined by the authors of the present volume but not included because of considerations of space, the Italian and the Spanish, have been interestingly differentiated in orientation though similar to all others in method. The Italian cultural relations program abroad functioned largely through Dante Alighieri Societies, which, serving the double purpose of stressing Italy's traditional culture and the nationalist spirit among Italian emigrants and their descendants, finally came under Mussolini to the frank assertion, "Culture is Fascism." The Spanish cultural relations program has been aimed not so much toward individuals as toward peoples of Hispanic blood and has centered about two dates, the anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America and the Cervantes Anniversary: October 12, the Columbus Day, or as Spanish-speaking people call it, the Day of the Race; and April 21, Cervantes Day, or the Day of the Language. And those two concepts, the historical and the creative contributions of Spain, are the foundation of the strongly integrated and financially well-supported Spanish cultural program.

A very recent program, but one that has already made itself felt abroad has been developed by Sweden to bridge the gap between that country, as one of the neutral nations, and the rest of the world. The statutes of Svenska Institutet, the Swedish Institute of Cultural Exchange with Foreign Countries, which were approved by the Swedish Government in January, 1945, state that its aim is "to support and coordinate propaganda about Sweden already being spread in foreign countries for the promotion of Sweden's cultural, social and economic relations abroad and also, when necessary and appropriate, to open up new branches of activity in the field of cultural exchange." From the beginning the Institute has been financed by both government and private funds. The Swedish-American News Agency in New York is given strong support and the program is being extended to the other American Republics and to the rest of the world.

One of the oldest and most outstanding of all cultural relations programs is that developed between China and other countries. As a result of the efforts of the early American missionaries in China, a Chinese Educational Mission, composed of thirty young scholars, was first sent to the United States by the Chinese Government in 1872. For three more years thirty students were sent each year, until the officials at the Court of Peking, fearing that the students might be too much influenced by republican ideals, withdrew the Mission. Many Chinese students were also sent to Germany, England, and Japan.

In 1908 the Congress of the United States authorized the return to China of the surplus of the Boxer Indemnity Funds which amounted to over $10,000,000 in United States currency. The Chinese Government took the occasion of the remission of the American share of the 1901 Indemnity to announce its purpose of sending one hundred students annually to the United States for four years and fifty students yearly thereafter for the period covered by the indemnity payments. In 1909 the first group of scholarship students came to the United States. After the First World War the relationships between the two countries became even closer. In addition to the students sent through the Boxer Indemnity Funds, many others came. Dr. Meng, Director of the China Institute, stated in 1945 that about ten thousand Chinese men and women had studied and done research in the United States since 1872. With the end of the war, the Chinese Government has again begun its program of exchange of students with the United States.

China has also continued to further a program of cultural relations with other countries. It should be noted here that the British, French, and Belgian Governments also devoted part of their indemnity funds to strengthening cultural relations with China.

It has long been recognized that the exchange of persons is one of the most effective means of furthering international understanding. The students who attend foreign universities, and the professors and specialists who teach or carry on research in a foreign country, have an unusual opportunity to gain the deeper understanding of a foreign people that comes only from living and working with them, from long-term relationships with them in their homeland. At the same time, each student, professor, or specialist working abroad is a representative of his own culture and interprets it to his foreign associates. While the printed word, the moving picture, and the radio are valuable media for making the life and thought of a people known and understood abroad, nothing has been found to take the place of the face-to-face relationships made possible through the exchange of persons. It is not surprising, therefore, that Governments, in developing long-term cultural relations programs, consider such exchanges extremely productive.

Although seriously curtailed during the war, the programs of "exchange of persons" were re-established immediately after the cessation of hostilities by most Governments, as one of the most important of their activities.

The Europeans, especially, after liberation from National Socialist control, were determined to break away from all things German, and began to seek new cultural alignments. Recognizing the importance of cultural dependence among nations, Great Britain moved immediately, sending lecturers, specialists in scientific fields, musicians, and artists to the liberated countries of Europe, and bringing outstanding leaders as well as students from these countries to the United Kingdom for direct contact with British life. The Soviet Union likewise, using its cultural development to further relations with its neighbors, directed a constant flow of the best Soviet scientists, technologists, musicians, and artists to the eastern and northern European countries, with a view to winning sympathizers to the Soviet cause. Chosen representatives, largely from eastern Europe, were also welcomed to the U.S.S.R.

It should be noted that while the Soviet program abroad places much emphasis on the powers and achievements of the U.S.S.R., it is ideological rather than nationalistic in character and in its foreign propaganda is not limited by national concepts.

In spite of the interest of many other countries, including the United States, in developments within the U.S.S.R., and the effort to encourage reciprocal exchanges with that great country, it should be noted that only a relatively few persons, and those largely specialists in scientific fields, were granted visas to visit the Soviet Union during the first year and a half after the end of the war in Europe. In fact, the chief obstacle to better understanding of the U.S.S.R. by the nations of the West has been the apparent unwillingness of the Soviet Government to permit anything like free cultural and intellectual interchange with the Western World.(f)

As the many programs develop, the problem of competition in the cultural field becomes increasingly serious. The French, Germans, and Italians have always competed with each other to a certain extent, especially in the Near East and in Latin America. While the British Council was set up in the first instance to combat the propaganda activities of Germany and Italy, the French program was not entirely excluded from such consideration. The fact that Great Britain recognized another need, that of making British life and thought known and appreciated abroad, did not eliminate the competitive aspect of many of the cultural activities developed. The French Provisional Government is well aware of the inroads that the cultural activities of other nations have made in areas where the influence of France was strong before her defeat, and is trying to recover her losses by very extensive activities. Russia is greatly increasing her activity in the cultural field. Spain's recent budget allows for a wide expansion in her cultural program abroad. Sweden has decided to enter the field with the Swedish Institute. The Latin American countries have instituted programs. The report of the British Council for 1944-45 rightly recognized the fact that all this activity might easily lead to "international competition in the cultural field." As the report stated, no Government can look upon the prospect of this kind of activity with equanimity. The awareness of this danger, and there are indications that the authorities of other countries as well as Great Britain are aware of it, may have some effect on their programs.

The conviction that better cultural relations lead to better economic relations is held by most countries engaged in cultural activities abroad. The rapporteur for the budget of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in 1900: "If commerce follows the flag, it follows for even better reasons the national language." The Times of London stated in its first article on the Council that many countries which attached importance to their own language, traditions, and culture and to the good political and commercial relations which followed from these, had been actively engaged in programs of cultural relations with other countries for many years past. While the emphasis in the regular reports of the Council is on cultural activities, in such journals as the War Time Bulletin published in 1944, the British Council Survey makes it clear that the Council is an organization "whose world-wide activities are promoting good will for Britain and paving the way for British overseas trade in the postwar era."

Governments which have long engaged in furthering cultural activities abroad believe that good cultural relations lead to better political relations. Each program of "national interpretation" projects the political point of view of the nation concerned. The understanding of the political as well as of the social, religious, and economic life and thought of each people is essential if friendly relations are to be established among nations. The emphasis on the political, however, varies greatly in the different programs. The French, for example, while desirous of interpreting abroad the "true France, the France of the French Revolution," continue to devote most of their attention to the intellectual and cultural aspects of their life and thought. The British have stated that it is the non-political relations, the "popular" relations, that they wish to further in their program. The dominance of the political aspects of national life in the U.S.S.R. is strongly reflected in the Soviet program of "national interpretation" abroad. While in the development of a cultural program with the Latin American countries the Soviet Union has seemed to subordinate the political to the cultural, in certain other countries, especially those of eastern Europe, although both the political and cultural interests of the U.S.S.R. have been fostered, the final aim has clearly been the propagation of Communist ideology abroad.

The question is often raised as to the use of propaganda in cultural relations programs. Long before the First World War the French called their activities abroad "intellectual propaganda," employing the term in the original sense, "propagation of the faith," that is, faith in French thought and in French institutions. The use of propaganda by all nations during the war, and the development thereafter of Axis propaganda, gave the word a very different connotation. The Axis Powers gave fanatical devotion to a doctrine of world supremacy which they attempted to force upon the other nations first through their powerful propaganda machine and then through armed force. The U.S.S.R., operating within an ideological framework, has sought to win sympathizers to the Soviet cause through an intensive propaganda program. The French and several other peoples, however, have continued to use the word "propaganda," meaning as they said, "moral and intellectual influence"; while the British sometimes refer to the work of the British Council as "cultural propaganda," they dislike the word "propaganda" used in this connection. Sir Malcolm Robertson, Chairman of the British Council until July, 1945, stated that the work of the Council was not propaganda in the usually accepted sense of the word. For regular propaganda the Ministry of Information was set up during the war. The viewpoint of many of the British was well expressed in The Scotsman of July, 1945, on occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Council's work. "Like any other body, the British Council has made its mistakes, but the public can rest assured that the Council has accomplished its high mission with scrupulous fidelity to its mandate, and has proved that dissemination of truth is in the upshot the most effective form of propaganda."

A certain portion of the work of all the successful programs of cultural relations with foreign countries is undoubtedly propaganda, but, the writers wish to repeat, propaganda in its original sense of "propagation of the faith." The love which the French, the British, the Spanish, the Italians, the Russians, the Brazilians and all the other peoples have for their homeland, their faith in their own institutions and in their own life and thought, find expression in their cultural activities abroad. To Great Britain, war-torn and weary, the desire to develop a "basis of sensible relations between civilized peoples" by promoting the "ordinary as distinct from the political relations between the peoples of Great Britain and their neighbors" was very natural. It was characteristic of France, seriously weakened after the First World War, to decide on an intensive and effective program of intellectual expansion abroad, not only in order to spread her influence throughout Europe and the rest of the world, but also to re-establish her material prosperity, stating: "Of all our products for exportation, the finest product and that best fitted to make French genius known, admired and loved abroad is French thought."

The attitude of the recently liberated countries of Europe toward propaganda may have a definite effect on the future development of cultural relations programs. After the years of Nazi domination and the complete lack of contact with the outside world they are extremely anxious to renew their relations with foreign countries. They state clearly, however, that they want no political propaganda, which they have learned to fear and detest. What they want and need is straightforward, reliable information about recent scientific and technological advances, since the re-establishment of their economy depends on a knowledge of such developments. They also wish to learn what has happened in such fields as the social and political sciences, art, music, and literature. For at the same time, in order to regain the national prestige lost during German occupation, they are concerned as much with making their cultural heritage known and understood by others as catching up where they have fallen behind in the advancement of knowledge.

It is possible that one of the important tasks of UNESCO, in its close relationship with the United Nations, will be to prepare safeguards against the development of cultural relations programs which pave the way for political domination or territorial expansion, while furthering in every way possible the development of peaceful and cooperative cultural relations among peoples. "The imaginative and skillful development of such relations by any nation, can make a sure contribution toward world peace," stated the report of the British Council for 1945.

The months following the Second World War did not bring peace to the peoples of a war-torn world. While the progress of the United Nations and of UNESCO in developing world organizations to meet the pressing post-war needs was heartening during the autumn of 1946, the world was still filled with international mistrust and fear.

"If suspicion and fear as between the peoples of the world have become immediate and present dangers, it follows that international trust and confidence are no longer ideal goals to be realized in some utopian future, but present and urgent and inescapable necessities to be realized at once and by every available means. One such means is by a direct attempt to remove the ignorance and prejudice upon which fear and suspicion feed and to replace them with the knowledge and understanding which give rise to a sense of common humanity and therefore of common interests and therefore of a common life," stated Archibald MacLeish, then Chairman of the United States Delegation, and at the present writing, Representative of the United States on the UNESCO Executive Board, in his report to the Secretary of State on the Conference for the Establishment of a United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, held in London in November, 1945.

In summary, we may say that the peoples throughout the world seem agreed upon the importance of mobilizing those forces which give promise of building trust and confidence among all nation. In a world torn by diverse and conflicting political and social philosophies, it is difficult to find a middle ground. Admittedly government programs of cultural relations abroad have been used as instruments of aggression. Such programs are dangerous to the freedom-loving peoples of the world, unless they are understood and unless adequate measures are taken to offset them. On the other hand, they have been used by some countries as measures for creating a better atmosphere of mutually beneficial cooperation among nations. Recent experience in the United Nations has apparently indicated that, while differences cannot be entirely reconciled, the fullest possible understanding of the problems involved is of vital importance to the growth of peaceful relationships.

If these bilateral programs of "national interpretation" abroad are based on the truth and on the presentation of facts, and if they are directed by the best minds of the several countries, they give promise of making a valuable contribution to lasting peace.

Finally, there is hope that the United Nations and UNESCO, through their initiation of plans for furthering international activities, will move toward world understanding in the widest sense.