ENHANCING AMERICAN INFLUENCE ABROAD:

INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGES IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST

A Statement of the
International Educational Exchange Liaison Group
May 1981

The following statement on the critical importance of international educational
exchange to the security and competence of the United States in world affairs
has been prepared by the chief executive officers of an ad hoc coalition of

major U.S. exchange organizations who form the INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EX~
CHANGE LIAISON GROUP.
The International Educational Exchange Liaison Group finds that:
* international educational exchange programs are of critical importance
to the security and competence of the United States in world affairs,

* support of such programs evidences a national willingness to invest in
the future,

Pr

these programs encourage a clearer view of America and its ideals in
the minds of men and women throughout the world,

* the official U.S. Government effort to influence the perceptions of
America in other nations is centered in the International Communication
Agency,

* the funding for these programs of international educational exchange
has been in severe decline for the past decade,

* the Soviets are now spending many times the U.S. investment in this
area annually,

* the U.S. Government enjoys the significant multiplier effect of the
private sector of its society in support of these goals, unlike the
Soviet Union,

* in an age of complex global negotiations, change, instant communications
and nuclear confrontation, America needs every means available to it to
build a secure future.

In view of these findings, the International Educational Exchange Liaison Group
believes that significantly increased appropriations must be urged for these
two critical federal programs:

* The International Communication Agency, especially the educational and
cultural affairs sector, and, .

* The training program of the Agency for International Development which
prepares foreign technicians, managers and educators.

Furthermore those other federally supported programs containing important
exchange and citizen education elements should be encouraged and sustained
with the objective of creating the conditions of international understanding
on which peace ultimately depends.
A National Instrument for Peace and Security

Few Americans today are untouched by events beyond the official borders of the
United States. While from its birth this nation has played increasingly impor-
tant roles in international commerce and politics, the degree to which America's
destiny is now being shaped by external forces has never been greater. Conse-
quently, Americans want to improve U.S. political and economic effectiveness
abroad and enhance their national security.

One of the most cost-effective, proven instruments of such influence~-interna~
tional educational exchanges--directly serves America's national interests, and
serves them well. To realize the vision of an America respected in the world,
the new Administration could take no more practical, substantive step than to
reverse the serious decline in recent years in federal support for international
educational exchanges. Support of these programs symbolizes a national willing-
ness to reinvest in the future. In a world of threatening forces and issues,
those in government service, business, the news media as well as the general
citizenry urgently need direct and personal international contacts and compe-
tencies possessed by far too few Americans.

The capacity of Americans to understand events in the world, to work and nego-
tiate with people from other cultures and to achieve the necessary professional
and job skills relevant to foreign trade and commerce depends largely on appro-
priate education and experience. Today one in six Americans has a job thanks
to international trade, and one of three acres produces for export. Given the
twin challenges of reindustrialization and getting America back to work, knowl-
edge about and access to international markets now constitute a major national
opportunity, if not imperative. Where will business and industry recruit the
cosmopolitan managers its international operations require if not from among
those Americans and foreign nationals educated for their managerial tasks
through study and experience abroad?

x
The members of the International Educational Exchange Liaison Group believe
all the weapons in our arsenal will be insufficient if we continue to under-
invest in the non-military aspects of our defense-~-political, economic, educa-
tional and cultural--which correct distorted images of America in the minds of
men and women throughout much of the world. We will assure our place in a
more manageable, more stable world through the exchange of information, knowl-
edge and know-how and, ultimately, help develop common social, economic and
cultural aspirations. With such a commitment, we can shape rather than merely
respond to international events. Of the resources employed in the pursuit of
U.S. foreign policy objectives, few have been as quietly effective as the edu-
cational and cultural affairs components of American diplomacy.

The International Communication Agency: A Second Line of Defense

The major official U.S. Government efforts to influence the perception of
America in other nations are centered in the International Communication Agency
(USICA), an agency created in 1978 by combining the U.S. Information Agency and
the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the State Department. USICA's
programs vary widely, ranging from the short-term, quick response capability of
Voice of America broadcasts to the longer-term investment in educating the suc-
cessor generations of other nations. The Fulbright Program, a major vehicle for
the exchange of students, professors and researchers between the United States
and the rest of the world, has, since 1946, sent 45,000 Americans to foreign
countries and brought 85,000 foreign students, teachers and scholars to the
United States.

A recent international crisis offers an example of the utility of federal
support for exchanges. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Washington
sought the guidance of those with first-hand knowledge of the area. Almost
without exception the Americans with any direct experience in South Middle
Asia were alumni of federally funded exchange programs. Yet the numbers of
exchanges which build such expertise have been in decline for more than a
decade so that, in real terms, the U.S. exchange program today is operating
at only 60 percent of the 1965 level. Other federal programs containing sub-
Stantial educational exchange components, have also declined in recent years
in relation to growing needs. Among these are the international education
research and exchanges activities of the Department of Education, the Peace
Corps, the Agency for International Development, the National Science Founda-
tion and the National Endowments.

Cultural and informational programs of USICA total less than 0.05 percent of

the U.S. federal budget. Should we really be surprised, then, when other nations
fail to get the essential message about the U.S. purpose and posture? As Ameri-
cans, we seem persistently unwilling to foot the bill for international under-
standing. Procter and Gamble's annual advertising budget is larger than USICA's
information activities and yet we somehow expect the Agency to achieve results

on a worldwide scale in "telling America's story" and enlightening our citizens
at home through scholarly and cultural visits.

If the erosion of U.S. influence and power internationally is serious enough to
necessitate a $33 billion increase in defense spending, is not an equally sub-
stantial increased investment called for to provide an American “arsenal of ideas"

United States: Uncompetitive in Exchanges

A 1979 survey of international communication, cultural and educational programs
of the United States and six other countries, by thet General Accounting Office,
concluded: “by comparison with allies and adversaries, the U.S. Government in-
vestment in this field is low. In absolute terms, the United States is out-
spent by France and the Soviet Union and is nearly equalled by West Germany...
In proportion to GNP, the comparison becomes even more striking." Both our
allies and our adversaries seem fully mindful of the political and economic
advantages that accrue when Third World leaders are educated in their coun-
tries, are trained to utilize their technologies, and are participants in

their social, political and cultural life. France and the Federal Republic

of Germany commit 1 percent of their national budgets to educational, cultural
and informational activities; the U.S. Government less than 0.1 percent. Hel-
mut Schmidt has defined politics, commerce and cultural diplomacy as the "three
pillars" of German policy. The Government of France asserts that "cultural
relations are as important as politics and trade and perhaps more important"

to key French interests. Japan and Britain officially sponsor more students

to go abroad on grants than does the U.S., while Britain also brings in more
foreign grantees than the U.S.

Soviet information/cultural expenditures are estimated to total some $2 billion
annually--at least four times U.S. investments in this area overall. Cuban
teachers and advisers continue to inundate selected Third World nations, yet

in 1977 one-third fewer opportunities were granted to young Africans to pursue

9
their studies in the United States than were available to them in 1968. We
sent only seven doctoral candidates to Africa last year, three to Nigeria.
In that year, only 1,800 Africans studied in the United States under U.S.
sponsorship. The Soviet figure was 24,000. In Latin America, the U.S.S.R.
offered 4,650 study and training exchanges in 1978 while the United States
Government offered far fewer than one-tenth that number in a hemisphere so
close, so troubled, and so important to our socio-economic goals and stra-~
tegic thinking.

Clearly, we are not offering scholarships to poor and middle class students

on a scale even marginally comparable to that of the Soviet Bloc. As a 1977
report of the House Committee on International Relations concluded: "Signi-
ficantly, in Soviet-Third World cultural relations the Soviet leadership
appears to have placed its greatest hopes for ultimate success in the academic
exchange programs."

American ambassadors continue to oppose the nearly 50 percent decline over the

past decade in invitations to emerging world leaders and affirm the importance

of the international visitor program to U.S. foreign relations. These as well

as other exchanges assure that we have a "second line of defense," that despite
the freezes and thaws of official foreign policy, America can communicate with

others and serve its own and international interests effectively.

Federal Funding as a Catalyst for the Private Sector

 

The monies needed to rebuild the educational and cultural exchange programs of
the U.S. Government are not excessive, nor are advocates unmindful of the need
to reduce costs, streamline programs and assure increased counterpart funds.
In fact, federally sponsored exchanges stimulate and channel enormous private
sector and foreign contributions in the overall service of America's foreign
policy. There is a significant "multiplier effect" as revealed by the follow-
ing examples chosen from a much larger sample:

* The International Research and Exchanges Board which administers U.S.-
U.S.S.R. and Eastern Bloc exchanges received+39 percent of its support
from the private sector in 1979-80 in support of over 600 months of
exchangee participation. Similarly, another regionally specific orga-
nization, AMIDEAST, generated 28 percent of its support from non-U.S.
government sources. AMIDEAST Cairo activities are sponsored by Mrs.
Jihan Sadat and in Jordan the organization administers King Hussein's
Royal Palace Scholarships for U.S. study.

* The Institute of International Education, which has managed over
225,000 exchanges since 1919, assisted close to 6,700 exchanges in
1980 through over 200 programs sponsored by 125 governments, founda-
tions, corporations, universities, binational agencies and organiza-
tions. An additional 2,000 foreign leaders and specialists were also
assisted by IIE regional offices in Denver and Houston in their capac-
ity as international host agencies. Less than one-fourth of the In-
stitute's funds come from USICA.

* The Latin American Scholarship Program of American Universities
(LASPAU) has trained over 2,500 Latin American and Caribbean professors
in U.S. graduate programs since 1966. Roughly half the cost of these
exchanges has been covered from non-U.S. government sources.
* The exchange activities of the Experiment in International Living,
which include international language and technical studies in addition
to well known homestay programs, touched the lives of nearly a million
people in 40 nations in 1980. It was able through modest ICA support
to launch significant new cooperative ventures with the General Fed-
eration of Women's Clubs, United Nations Association, Girl Scouts,
Camp Fire, and Boy Scouts of America involving hundreds of thousands
of dollars of contributed voluntary time and resources.

* More than three decades ago, in the absence of any national procedure
for admitting, advising and assisting foreign students coming to the
United States, university faculty and administrators began to band
together voluntarily to develop professional know how in this new
field. Today 4,000 academic institutional and individual professionals
serving foreign students are members of the National Association for
Foreign Student Affairs.

* The Prime Minister of Japan announced in May of 1981 a commitment to
Youth For Understanding for $250,000 per year in scholarships for 100
U.S. high school students selected annually under the sponsorship of
U.S. Senators for summer homestays in Japan. The Japanese government
contribution to Youth For Understanding (which exchanges 7,000 students
annually between the U.S. and 25 other countries) is about twice as
large as the U.S. government contribution through USICA.

* The Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE) and its mem-
ber universities and organizations send more than 5,000 students to
study abroad each year, with more than 90 percent of the funding from
other than federal sources. Minimal federal assistance would enable
the U.S. to increase these basic programs tenfold.

* The African-American Institute has brought over 1,600 African students
to the United States since 1963 for master's and doctoral programs
under the African Graduate Fellowship Progwam (AFGRAD). This program
exemplifies the partnership aspect of international educational exchange
as approximately one-third of the cost of this program has been met by
the African governments and American universities which provide round-
trip transportation and tuition awards, respectively, to the AFGRAD
fellows.

Despite this heavy private sector and foreign support (approaching $100 million),
more generous government funding is essential to assure:
* that the most essential strategic and scholarly exchanges are supported;
* that a national standard for the conduct of exchanges is set;

* that national coordination and leadership is provided for program
planning and development;

that the level of exchanges increases in line with the national interest.

Conclusion: Exporting American Ideas

 

The erosion of government support for exchange opportunities and our inability
to build upon earlier long-standing and effective investments in exchanges is
decidedly not in the national interest of the United States. The neglect of
exchanges reinforces the view abroad that America wants to obtain the natural
resources of others and consume them with abandon, without sharing one of its
own natural resources--its educational system~-with other peoples eager to
learn and to improve the lot of their often beleaguered countries. In an age
of complex global negotiations, instant communication and nuclear confrontation,
America needs every means available to it to build a secure future. USICA's
programs and related international educational efforts have never been more
vital to the national interest, in assuring "brainpower" as well as firepower.
These programs represent vital instrumentalities with which to create a world
more amenable to American values and national security.

Concretely, the International Educational Exchange Liaison Group urges signi-
ficantly increased appropriation for these critical federal programs:

* The International Communication Agency, especially the educational
and cultural affairs sector.

* The training program of the Agency for International Development
which prepares foreign technicians, managers and educators.

In addition other federally supported programs contain important exchange and
citizen education elements: Title VI of the Higher Education Act administered

by the Department of Education and various international programs of the National
Science Foundation and the Arts and Humanities Endowment. These programs should
be sustained so that they assist and encourage private sector efforts. The ulti-
mate objective of U.S. policies in the world--military, economic, cultural and
political--are increased freedom, security and peace. Well conceived, funded

and conducted educational and cultural exchanges will not assure these goals,

but they can do much to create the conditions of understanding on which they
depend. Exchanges reduce miscalculations by others as to our purposes and
improve the accuracy of U.S. perceptions of reality abroad.

By increasing its modest investment in educational and cultural exchange, the
U.S. can reverse the decline of American influence abroad and extend American
competence in world affairs. We must invest our energies, talents and resources
to assure a level of influence and measure of respect commensurate with our
actual power. This is the path of responsibility as well as prudence. Americans
have always met such a challenge.
The International Educational Exchange Liaison Group hopes this statement will
be useful to those who set government policy and programs in international
affairs, the media, the higher education community and to the increasing num-
ber vf Americans concerned with strengthening the effectiveness of the United
States internationally.

The members of the Group are:

Halsey L. Beemer, Jr., Committee on Scholarly Communication
with the People's Republic of China

J. Douglas Conner, Executive Director, American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers

Arthur P. Dudden, Executive Director, Fulbright Alumni Association
Donald Easum, President, African-American Institute
Wallace B. Edgerton, President, Institute of International Education

Jack Egle, Executive Director, Council on International Educational
Exchange

Rose Hayden, Executive Director, National Council for Foreign
‘Language and International Studies

Sanford C. Jameson, Director, Office of International Education,
College Entrance Examination Board

Alan H. Kassof, Executive Director, International Research and
Exchanges Board

ey

Charles F. MacCormack, President, Experiment in International
Living

Orin D. Parker, President, AMIDEAST
Michael J. Pelezar, Jr., President, Council of Graduate Schools
Jack W. Peltason, President, American Council on Education

John F. Reichard, Executive Vice President, National Association
for Foreign Student Affairs

John Richardson, Jr., President, Youth For Understanding
Barry Schuman, Executive Director, Latin American Scholarship

Program of American Universities

Additional copies of this statement are available from:

IEELG, 1860 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20009. (202) 462-4811