SOME ENCOUNTERS WITH THE CULTURALLY FREE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300210024-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 24, 2005
• Sequence Number: 24
• Publication Date: August 1, 1967
• Content Type: MAGAZINE

New Left Review
July - August 1967
Approved For Release 2005/09/28 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300210024-6
scanner
Some Encounters with t, e
Culturally Free
Conor. Cruise O'Brien
In 1963, Encounter issued a commemorative anthology entitled En-
count2r., to mark its tenth year of publication. I reviewed this in the New
Statesman. My review may be found in my book, Writers and Politics. In
the review I questioned certain rash assertions made by Sir Denis
Brogan in his preface to this anthology, in which he claimed that
Encounter, `from its foundation, has been a journal de combat, an organ of
protest against the trahison des cleres'. I pointed out that the political side
of Encounter was consistently designed to support the policy of the
United States Government: `One of the basic things about Encounter is
supposed to be its love of liberty; it was love of liberty that brought
together, we are told, the people who, in the Congress of Cultural
Freedom, sponsored Encounter. Love of whose liberty? This is con-
ditioned-as it would be for a communist, but in reverse-by the
overall political conflict. Great vigilance is shown about oppression in
the communist world; apathy and inconsequence largely prevail where
the oppression is non-communist or anti-communist. This generaliza-
tion needs to be qualified. Silence about oppression has been, if
possible, total where the oppressors were believed to be identified with
the interests of the United States. Thus the sufferings of Cubans under
Batista evoked no comment at the time from the organ of those lovers
of liberty, well informed though they undoubtedly are. For Nicaragua,
Guatemala, South Vietnam and South Korea the same held good. The
Negro problem-that is, the problem of the oppression of Negroes in
large areas of the United States today-was consistently played down
until quite recently, when the news made it impossible to play it down
in the old way.'
At the time I wrote this review, I knew nothing of any connection
between the CIA and Encounter. This is significant at the present stage,
because the present line of defence of the Congress for Cultural Free-
dom and Encounter is that, though indeed-as they now admit-they
Approved For Release 2005/09/28 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300210024-6
 Approved For Release 2005/09/28 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300210024-6
were taking money from the CIA this did not affect their policy which
remained entirely independent and exactly what it purported to be. It is
interesting therefore that a critic, analysing the content of Encounter, and
not concerned with the sources of its finance, should have reached the
conclusion that its policy was to support the American side in the cold
war. That is to say, that even if we grant that the policy was inde-
pendently formed, it was none the less exactly what the czn must be
presumed to have wanted it to be. This happy coincidence could, of
course, come about without any pressure whatever on the editor, if the
editor responsible for the political side of the magazine had been
originally hand-picked by the CIA. Mr Braden has told us that in fact'
one of the editors of Encounter was `an agent' of the era.
On April z7th, 1966, the New York Dives, in the course of its series of
articles on the Central Intelligence Agency, stated that the CIA 'has
supported anti-communist but liberal organizations, such as the Con-
gress for Cultural Freedom and some of their newspapers and maga-
zines. Encounter magazine was for a long time, though it is not now, one
of the indirect beneficiaries of era funds.'
There followed a letter, signed by four people, including Arthur
Schlesinger, Jr., paying tribute to the `independence' of the Congress
for Cultural Freedom and implying, without explicitly saying so, that
it was highly improbable that this paragon of independence could have
been supported by the era. Mr Schlesinger has subsequently admitted,
in the course of a television debate with me on April 3oth, that he
knew when he was in the Government that the era was subsidizing the
Congress. The letter which he signed, following the New York Times
story, was designed to give the contrary impression and to mislead the
public. Messrs. Stephen Spender, Irving Kristol and Melvyn Lasky
also wrote to the Nev York Times declaring that they had no knowledge
of any indirect benefactions. Mr Lasky has recently been quoted as
admitting that he knew of these benefactions in 1963. It follows that in
signing this letter he, like Mr Schlesinger, was seeking to mislead the
public.
The New York Times did not withdraw its original statement, but said
that it had implied no reflection on the independence, etc, of those
concerned.
In my Homer Watt lecture to the alumni of New York University on
May 19th, 1966, on the subject of The Writer and the Power Structure, I
mentioned the Nov York Times revelations and made some further
comments on Encounter, including the following: `In a skilfully-
executed politico-cultural operation of the Encounter type, the writing
specifically required by the power structure was done by people who,
as writers, were of the third or fourth rank but who were, as the
Belgians used to say about Moise Tshombe, comprehensifs, that is, they
could take a hint. But the beauty of the operation, in every sense, was
that writers of the first rank, who had no interest at all in serving the
power structure, were induced to do so unwittingly. Over the years the
magazine, shrewdly edited, adequately financed and efficiently dis-
tributed, attracted many writers who hardly noticed, or did not think it
61
Approved For Release 2005/09/28 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300210024-6
 Approved For Release 2005/09/28 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300210024-6
important, that this forum was not quite an open forum, that its
political accoustics were a little odd, that the sonorities at the eastern
end were of a quite different character from the western ones. Thus
writers of high achievement and complete integrity were led un-
consciously to validate, through their collaboration, the more pur-
poseful activities of lesser writers who in turn were engaged in a
sustained and consistent political activity in the interests-and as it now
appears at the expense-of the power structure in Washington.'
Excerpts from this lecture, including the passages about Encounter,
were published in Book Week, copies of which were distributed to the
delegates to the PEN Congress in July. In this way delegates from
countries where the New York Times does not normally circulate, were
made aware for the first time of what the New York Times said.
In the following month, Encounter published in their Column section
signed `R', an attack on my character and writing. This was linked to
quotations from my Homer Watt lecture and the article sought to con-
vey the impression that the charge that Encounter had been indirectly
financed by the CIA was so ludicrous as only to be understandable as an
obsessive delusion of a much-flawed personality. The article stated,
quite faiwlyr, that I hid dc6vibed t my own activities in tan as thou
of `a Machiavelli of peace'. From his mis-statement about what I
was alleged to have said, the writer then made some rapid deductions
about my character, concluding that I regarded myself as theoretically
licensed to engage in all forms of mendacity, duplicity, betrayal and bad
faith. By a notable exercise in Freudian projection, he also charged me
with being `a politico-cultural Joe McCarthy'. .
The New Statesman offered me space to reply to this attack and I sub-
mitted my draft reply to them. At this stage one of the editors of
Encounter telephoned the New Statesman to say that if they published a
reply by me and if that reply contained (as in fact it did) a quotation of
the New York Times statement about Encounter and the CIA, then
Encounter would sue the New Statesman. The New Statesman therefore,
quite naturally, hesitated about publishing my reply. I then consulted
my own lawyers in Dublin, who advised me that the Encounter article
itself was in fact `very libellous'. It was open to me to sue either in
Dublin-where I had a residence-or in England. I had some reason
to fear that members of a British jury might be prejudiced against me.
I therefore proceeded in Dublin.
The first step in the proceedings was a' demand on my part, through my
lawyers, for an apology for the libel they had published. In refusing
this apology, Encounter's lawyers-invoking the defence of `qualified
privilege'-stated that I had given currency to the `false assertion' made
about them in the Nov York Times-i.e. the statement that they had
been in receipt of indirect benefactions by the CIA. The lawyers must be
presumed to have acted on the instruction of their clients. According to
his own subsequent admission, one of, the principals, Melvyn' Lasky,
already knew that the assertion which his lawyers stigmatized as false
was completely true.
The case was set for hearing in Dublin in February 1967. As this date
Approved For Release 2005/09/28 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300210024-6
 Approved For Release 2005/09/28 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300210024-6
came nearer, Encounter began to make the first tentative overtures for a
settlement. In refusing any settlement not based on a full apology by
them, I indicated that I could not possibly back down even if I wished
to-which I did not-without appearing to confirm that I had reason
to fear an appearance in court. They then offered, instead of a straight
apology, a kind of joint statement in which I would say that I intended
no aspersions on their integrity and they would say that they intended
none on mine. I refused this.
At this stage they entered no defence in Dublin, letting it be known
that they did not regard themselves as bound to defend outside Great
Britain. Judgment was accordingly awarded against them by default in
the High Court in Dublin on February 74th and a hearing before a
jury to determine the amount of damages was set for May 3rd. At this
stage it looked as though, while heavy damages would probably be
awarded in my favour, there would be no way either of collecting these
or my own costs as Encounter had little or no assets within the juris-
diction and-for reasons indicated above-it would be hazardous to
pursue them in England. However, by a timely stroke of fortune, it was
during this period that-following the disclosures in Ramparts maga-
zinc-the whole ramifications of the CIA politico-cultural operation
involving the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Encounter surfaced in
the United tizte? 13ie?? go illt3iougl ly that cI nial? were no lone;
possible. In these circumstances, and as far as their original adumbrated
defence had been based on stigmatizing as a `false assertion' something
that was now known to be true, I felt that it would no longer be
hazardous for me to proceed against them if necessary in Britain.
Accordingly I informed people whom I knew to be in touch with them
that if they did not honour whatever award a Dublin jury would make
in my favour, I would immediately institute proceedings against them
in Britain. At this point they briefed counsel in Dublin and on May 3rd
their counsel read out the following statement in the High Court:
`An article was published in the August issue of Encounter concerning
the standards which Dr Conor Cruise O'Brien employs as a writer and a
critic and his actions as an official of the United Nations in the Congo.
We acknowledge that this article contained imputations against the
character and integrity of Dr O'Brien which were unwarranted and we
wish unreservedly to withdraw them and to apologize to Dr O'Brien
for having made them. We further acknowledge that Dr O'Brien, as a
writer and critic and whilst serving the United Nations, has always
maintained the highest standards of personal integrity and we regret
that the article we published should have made charges against his
integrity which were without justification.
The joint editors have agreed to publish their apology in the next issue
of Encounter and have agreed to indemnify Dr O'Brien in respect of his
costs and expenses in relation to these proceedings and to pay an
appropriate sum to a charity to be nominated by him.'
Subsequent events, including the resignations of Messrs Spender and
Kermode-who had not been privy to the CIA connection-and the
retention in office of Melvyn J. Lasky, who had been privy to it-are
well known.
Approved For Release 2005/09/28 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300210024-6
 Approved For Release 2005109128=:: P1A-fj?f70B00338R000300210024-6
by LBJ last
follc~,, e CI:.revelations will
cart to the sident L .I on now 11.0tho?
C s
nan0::]( e.. C;vc seas nC: .ijcs Of private U.S.
G.:i)S t:ch s the Nat i o::,., nude :t Association.
The CO::...,iitce is rcuei i cl g ..e; al agreement
oil
oovcfil-
..lel]t-SL'iil)Gi' CCi, ii";CicPc;I:('?; c:t,'YC:]S' council to
su iy :C C ee ed to s4'1,
Clent, labor
cultur a But it hasn't 't l%CCll
a c to agree on li':e scone O1 the inundate that
~..OU1 given e r O1i05.:d council, SOnle
n'lainly ed cato s, Walt the
: taCu
council O on l:L resnorsibility including
selection and Uneration or 7'1
' . cu.~ual exchanges,
Fulbright scholarships and similar government
programs. Administration , o :'clans on the com-
mittee argue that fcr now at least it will have all
it can do adminlistering subsidies.
Approved For Release 2005/09/28 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300210024-6