COMMENTS ON POINTS RAISED BY SENATOR J. W. FULBRIGHT IN HIS LETTER OF 31 MARCH 1966 CONCERNING THE GEORGE CARVER ARTICLE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS MAGAZINE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80R01720R000500030054-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 12, 2004
• Sequence Number: 54
• Publication Date: January 1, 1966
• Content Type: REPORT

Comments on Points Raised by Senator J. W. Fulbright in his
Letter of 31 March 1966 Concerning the George Carver Article
in FOREIGN AFFAIRS Magazine.
PREFACE:
Dr. George Carver met the editor of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Hamilton
Fish Armstrong) socially in the fall of 1964 through mutual friends. During
a dinner table discussion fr. Carver developed some personal views on the
social and political situation in Vietnam which Mr. Armstrong asked him to
write up as an article for publication in the April 1965 issue of FOREIGN
AFFAIRS. This article was published under the title "The Real Revolution
in South Vietnam. " In accordance with standard Agency practicer. Carver's
article was reviewed for classified information and released by the Agency before
it was submitted to FOREIGN AFFAIRS for publication. Such reviews are
conducted to insure that an article does not compromise oat divulge intelligence
sources and methods which by law the Director of Central Intelligence is
responsible for protecting.
In December 1965 Mr. Armstrong again contacted Pr. Carver saying
that FOREIGN AFFAIRS as a public service wanted to run an objective, factual,/
historical analysis of the Vietcong movement in the April 1966 issue,.;, Again
in this case. Lr. Carver submitted his article to the Agency for the required
security releasel,which was given.
Agency re'gzlations permit y employees to contribute articles for
7 publication subject to y-security review. Over the years, a number of our
employees rticl AA n the academic field, we have found
p y 'ro i eiease 1604/08 36 : CIA-RDP80RO172OR000500030054-1
 __-_ APPiPv or. lea .. 2QQ414.8L3.Q:__aIA,RDP8
that skilled and scholarly analysts of the type so vital to Agency work find it
important to preserve their credentials as acholars by writing and publishing
in the field of their specialty. dE_n-ce
axxcl- f
QUESTIONS
1. "There was no indication of the fact of Carver's CIA employment in
the magazine and it would be logical for the reader to assume, therefore, that
Mr. Carver was writing for himself and not for the Administration. "
COMMENT:
P
. Carver wrote both articles in his private capacity and any assumption
to this effect that a reader might make would be correct. r. Carver's
association with the Agency is overt in nature and was known to some members
of the press following the publication of his first article in April 1965. The
same biographical data onr. Carver was used in both articles and caused
no concern to those members of the press who were aware of his employment
at the time of the 1965 publication. In the case of the article at issue no attempt
was made on inquiry to withhold or deny the fact of his employment which was
mentioned in at least one newspaper article commenting on his paper. This
Agency was queried by the author of that article and,pr. Carver's employment
was acknowledged.
2. ... was Mr. Carver encouraged by the Agency to write this article? "
Approved For Release 2004/08/30 : CIA-RDP80R01720R000500030054-1
 ApproveG6For Release 2004/08/30 : GJA-RDP8013'1120.RDDII5Q0030054-1
This question is not directly relevant since the impetus for writing
both articles came directly from FOREIGN AFFAIRSwhose editor on his own
initiative asked-Pr. Carver -- as one of the leading scholars in the United States
on Vietnam, not as a Government official -- to write them. In both cases the
Agency took the prudent and legally required step of insuring that the articles
contained no classified information.
t-e-=wi-teapt-~rticl uer-aalced-fie Agency i#-i -hacl-ar~3~ olajert;~? an the
Ag ~~ el-I._can teal-yaurrothing-farther x~il-p-have seen }~o ,~
' r
3. "Did Mr. Carver use information available to him only by reason
of his employment?"
COMMENT:
A scholar employed by the Agency writing privately for publication
obviously can and does use information gained from his employment as background
and guidance for other purposes. There is no acceptable way of erasing from
a healthy mind what it has learned except by the mind's own forgetfulness. If
the classified information gained by the employee is important -- and unique his mind will be all the more tenacious in retaining it for further use, if only
in consultation with himself. Going to the immediate question, 31r. Carver
in various official capacities, has been concerned with Vietnam since the summer
of 1957. It is obviously impossible to determine exactly what part of his total
Approved For Release 2004/08/30 : CIA-RDP80RO172OR000500030054-1
 __..~ ~ Annrny~~ 1~,$~J,~ ~QQ4LQ$/30__CI~`~,BA~$OROQ~000500030~4-1
background knowledge is attributable solely to his official duties. However,
,ar. Carver cited no classified or privileged information in his writing and
a preponderance of the material used by him would be available to any serious
scholar with YPr. Carver's background and the will to spend an extended period
of time in Vietnam. As noted in the earlier portion of this paragraph, it is
impossible toVd ee the classified information in the mind from
affecting judgments expressed and to this extent it is probable that some of the
5
material in the- t- article may have resulted solely by reason of the nature
ofyr. Carver's employment.
4. "Did the Agency approve the article?"
COMMENT:
fes" NYC
This question in essence has already been answered. The Agency
tLi&
-pD
aai-se publication of the article from a security standpoint after determining
that it contained no classified information. The Agency did not approve or
officially endorse either of'[r. Carver's articles from the standpoint of content.
Neither article was necessarily an expression of Agency views nor did either
necessarily represent a consensus of Agency experts in this field.
5. "Would the Agency have approved the article if it had been critical
of Administration policy? "
COMMENT:
This is atdifficult question for any executive Agency of the Government
and answers would have to be modified as we move through the spectrum of
Approved For Release 2004/08/30 : CIA-RDP80R01720R000500030054-1
 i
Approve IvFor Release 2004/08/30: CIA-RDP80 1720R000500030054-1
subject matter from straight scientific experimentation to pure political
articles. Each article considered would have to be judged on its own merits,
using a basic juideline of avoiding discredit to the Agency by laying it open
to the accusation of waging political warfare over issues of United States
policy. In the -case at issue, the article was considered to be essentially
a factual, historical analysis. Any historical article may have political
overtones but the main thrust of this one appears~to be historical. Certainly
a pure political article which explicitly supports or criticizes Administration
policy would be discouraged. Any Agency of the Executive Branch would probably
make some sort of remonstrance with one of its employee 1 identified as such,
who wrote such an article entirely on his own.
6. " Would Mr. Carver have been free to write a critical article for
publication? "
COMMENT:
This question has been answered in the comment to question 5.
7. "Why was Mr. Carver's official connection with the Government not
made public?"
COMMENT:
The question of whether or not to publish the official connection with the
G-e_ nt or-an_Agency poses a dilemma which has often been consideredi
Approved For Release 2004/08/30 : CIA-RDP80R01720R000500030054-1
 ,-- -------ApprovedoFor1 Ieese 2004708/30 -GCA-R[ P80 720R000500030054-1
G Cticge~>ec^.`?. ytt~7~ rQ~tcr
.th.e.-Ag ''y in the past. If =r do nnr >h~~a t G-G* n, there is always
a-
the danger of creating-ti= furor which may result from subsequent identification.
If the employee is identified) there is equal danger it hpite of any caveats which
may be stated in the article that the Agency,- using this means to, publicly
promote its own views o1T those of the Administration. There is an additional
danger that readers may believe, despite any caveatslthat the author has had
access to information not generally available and that therefore the article should
carry more weight than would otherwise be given it. In a poll of those few
Agency employees who write for publication, approximately 50 per cent had
no preference as to whether they be identified as Agency employees. Of the
remainderabout 15 per cent would prefer identification and the remaining
35 per cent were very much opposed. Those opposed based their position
on the fact that they must travel to various parts of the world to engage in
basic research. Although in most instances their connection with the Agency
is known to host governments who have no objection to their presence, wide
publication of their employment would lay them open to attack by local Communist
parties and the left press. Ouch attacks would make their work
extremely difficult and in many instances impossible. After considering the
alternatives the Agency 4s-arrived at the position of asking t employees
not to advertise the fact of their employment)but in the case of overt employees
(such asjAr. Carver) to confirm their employment if specifically queried on
this point.
Approved For Release 2004/08/30 : CIA-RDP80RO172OR000500030054-1
 Approv For Release 2004/08/30: CIA-RDP80 17201 OOc030054-1
8. "How many other Agency employees have written articles in their
field of interest for publication in the U. S. without attribution?"
COMMENT:
In the 18-month period prior to March 1966 Agency employees gave
31 speeches related to Agency work, wrote 84 articles and four books. However,
these figures are misleading in arriving at the number of employees engaged
cn' rah--,
eople who writeun446-crs
same
th
ll
p
e
y
in these activities as it is genera
0robably fewer than fifty
Agency employees have been engaged in writing or speaking. Subject matter
ranges. from articles and books on scientific and technical matters to economics
and history.
9. "How is this kind of activity related to the role of the Agency as an
information gathering institution?"
COMMENT:
While the Agency does have collection responsibilities, its primary
statutory duty is to correlate and evaluate intelligence relating to the national'
security and provide for the appropriate dissemination of such intelligence within
the Government. Certainly the question of the distinction between an historical
treatment of a subject and a foreign policy statement or position which takes
into consideration historical developments is subject to different determination
by different individuals. We have heretofore found nothing inconsistent with
Approved For Release 2004/08/30 : CIA-RDP80RO172OR000500030054-1
 Appebve rn I Ie-ase-2004=131r: ft.- P80 _
the Agency's information ,gathering function and publication of personal articles
by Agency: employees having stature in their professional fields, even though
at least a portion of the information involved might be acquired in some
manner related to their work.
We', have felt that if we are to continue to attract and retain able,
intelligence officers who are essential to the work of this Agency, we must
give them within the bounds of security limitations -- the same opportunities
accorded other persons in private and Government life to publish articles
related to their particular fields of professional competence. It is for this
same reason that we have endeavored to distinguish between their official
and personal views by not attaching to their personal publications the
imprimatur of their official Agency relationship.
Approved For Release 2004/08/30 : CIA-RDP80RO172OR000500030054-1