(3 of 4)
As the nature of the cold war changed, secrecy became far less defensible. It distorted the aims and the democratic workings of some of the organizations; above all, it risked exposure with resulting loss of prestige and credibility. No matter how praiseworthy the CIA's aims or how minimal its influence, once the link was revealed, people who had thought themselves part of a private organization supported by their work and contributions were bound to feel duped. Considering the almost evil-eye reputation that the letters CIA have acquired (however unfairly), it was needlessly risky for the agency to support outfits that could obtain money in some other way—or that did not need money at all. It is still unclear, for instance, why the CIA apparently funneled small contributions to the National Council of Churches, which it did not seek to influence and which had ample money sources. Even the purest scholarship was called into question when it was learned that M.I.T.'s prestigious Center for International Studies had been heavily CIA-subsidized till last year.
Ironically, one reason that secrecy became increasingly useless was the fact that more and more people abroad assumed the U.S. Government to be behind various projects anyway. And at home, there are signs that the end of secrecy will greatly clear the air. Only two college groups have quit N.S.A.—but 26 others have joined.
There is always a chance that the ingenious CIA will find new ways of secret funding (some of the organizations it has been backing have not yet been named publicly). But if for most of the "orphans" secrecy is no longer required, who is to be their guardian? One possibility is a new separate Government agency. But this would be cumbersome, involved in red tape and congressional battles. A second possibility, which has been advocated in Washington, is to distribute the organizations among existing Government agencies. While a few could probably be thus absorbed, this is no solution for the majority, because they would lose their important private impact. Many of the activities involving leadership training or nation building might well be denounced as interference in other countries' internal affairs if carried on by the State Department or AID.
Recommended by Katzenbach's committee is "a public-private mechanism to provide public funds openly for overseas activities of organizations which are adjudged deserving, in the national interest, of public support." Exactly how such a mechanism should function and what its scope should be are questions so far unanswered. A plan is to be produced by yet another committee under the direction of Secretary of State Dean Rusk. The best Washington thinking now tends toward a semiautonomous foundation with some of these features: a predominantly private board of directors initially appointed by the President but self-perpetuating; a link to Congress resembling that of the Smithsonian Institution, which is subject to review but has a fairly stable budget; a resemblance to the British Council in its concern with cultural activities abroad and to the National Academy of Sciences in its ability to recruit respected names in various fields for consultation; and a strong research or think-tank component.
The True Ideology