Ambassador KOHLER. I am sure that that is the case, Mr. Chairman. And not just that I personally do, but I was conscious in the State Department, for many years, when I was handling this area, of the opinions, the advice, the suggestions, and the comments of the ambassadors in Moscow. They are very highly rated, and in many cases decisive in determining policy lines.

Senator JACKSON. Do you have any suggestions as to what could be done, if possible, to improve the role of the American ambassador in Moscow ?

Ambassador KOHLER. Well, I think one can always make improvements, though I think it would be correct to say that the Moscow embassy has a closer working relationship with the Bureau of European Affairs and with the research people for Eastern Europe than embassies generally have, so that many of the complaints that I might have in another post I think do not really apply to this one.

It is such a well regulated, long established division of labor between the two. We have these frequent consultations. We work together on planning far in advance, even the personnel rotation in the embassy in Moscow.

In fact, except for improving your working procedures constantly, structurally, I do not think there is any change that would improve

matters.

Senator MILLER. Have you noticed any diminution in the amount of propaganda against the United States?

Ambassador KOHLER. Oh, yes. Of course, we are still

Senator MILLER. I mean within the Soviet Union.

Ambassador KOHLER. Within the Soviet Union. That is right. We are still "the head of the imperialist camp." There are still a lot of attacks made on our "imperialist policies." However, essentially, the more acrimonious comment these days has been directed toward the Chinese Communists, and this has caused a letup in the amount of attack on us.

In the past couple of years, in fact, there has been a certain tendency to publish more top American statements and speeches, the American University speech of President Kennedy being published in full, a number of the speeches of President Johnson when he took over being published in full.

I think there has indeed been a diminution in the amount of antiAmerican publicity. And I should add to this that jamming of our radio program has been stopped for the better part of a year, now, and the Voice of America is heard quite clearly throughout the Soviet Union without jamming today.

This means that the information that the Soviet peoples are getting about us is tremendously greater than it ever was before, and this in itself, I think, influences the willingness of the Soviet radio and press people to publish more and somewhat more favorable material about the United States.

This does not mean that we are still not attacked for policies here and there, and that there are not articles about the race problem in the United States, but certainly the Soviet people are getting a much more objective picture today, with the combination of the cessation of jamming of our radio programs and a diminution in just propaganda attacks on the United States.

52-721 0-6537

Senator MILLER. That is encouraging.

Is there still an official line, though, to the people that the United States is hell-bent on war, and the Soviet Union is trying to establish peace?

Ambassador KOHLER. Well, I think the role of principal warmonger has now been assigned to Peking, so that you get much less of this about the United States.

You do get a lot of articles, usually exempting the President and the political leadership, but saying the generals in the Pentagon are plotting war behind the back even of the President. But this has gone down.

Senator MILLER. On the cultural exchange program: Is this pretty much on a one-for-one basis?

Ambassador KOHLER. Yes, it is on a reciprocal basis.

I might illustrate. I think I have the figures here.

This was hammered out on a reciprocal basis, and the projects are roughly one for one.

Usually, we tend to send delegations that are slightly larger than any sent over here, so that we will have more personnel participating, probably, but in the last half of the year 1963, we had 77 U.S. projects delegations, exhibits, and so forth-with 396 visitors. In this particular period, the U.S.S.R. had 86 coming our way, with 454.

But for the full year 1963, we had 140 projects each, roughly, with nearly 600 people on each side.

Senator MILLER. One step further along that line: What about the number of performances? Is that also about one for one? Or qualitatively, as far as the exposure to the people is concerned, is it pretty much on balance?

The reason I ask this: I can understand how we might have about the same number of projects and about the same number of people, but if they, for example, play in Chicago, and we are confined to a small village, it would not be quite on balance.

Ambassador KOHLER. No. We try to make this reciprocal, and generally speaking, I think it works out about that way.

We have just had, for example, the Oberlin College choir, that has been there, and they have played in a great number of cities that were not previously open to performing arts projects.

In the negotiation of agreements, 46 days, we were really hammering out to try to get a basic balance.

Senator MILLER. What about the televising of American produc

tions?

Ambassador KOHLER. This has not been

Well, now, perhaps we ought to define your question a little more closely.

You mean the exchange of television programs?

Senator MILLER. I do not know whether we have an exchange of such programs. Do we have a substantial amount of televising of American activities in Moscow, such as, for example, a symphony or an athletic program or an American documentary?

Ambassador KOHLER. Well, first, to deal with the televising of American performing arts or athletics or other sports groups there, I think I could say that I know of no occasion when they did not televise at least once every group we have had there, and sporting events, like

the track and field meet last July, are televised throughout the Soviet Union.

On the exchange of television films, this has been a little more difficult. They have used a number of documentaries, including some official ones of Presidential press conferences and so forth. They have also broadcast some cultural programs that we have done, American performing artists and that sort of thing.

But this has been not the easiest part of the exchange program. They will use a reasonable number of programs, and in return they want theirs broadcast here.

Since our broadcasting is in private hands, it creates some problems, and we have not ruled out the possibility of their having direct exchanges with the major broadcasting systems, and we do on a reciprocal basis take documentary programs they give us in return for documentaries we give them, and place them on the educational radio and TV outlets in the United States to a very considerable extent.

It more or less balances, but it is a little complicated, because of the different systems that prevail.

Senator JACKSON. I think it would be helpful, as an annex to the Ambassador's testimony, to have an up-to-date statement on the cultural exchange program-in a form appropriate to make public.

Senator MILLER. May I ask that we include in that information regarding the reciprocity of television programs, the potential-the recommendations you have for stepping them up?

Senator JACKSON. Yes. And why not follow through on the principle of reciprocity generally, throughout the cultural exchange program-not only with respect to TV but also with respect to other programs?

One of the charges that is made constantly, is that we get outmaneuvered, and that we let "reciprocity" become a one-way street in their favor.

Senator MILLER. That is right. The reason why I was emphasizing television is that I had heard that this was a pretty restricted activity, but that it had terrific potential if we ever got moving.

Senator JACKSON. I suggest inclusion of the text of the new cultural exchange agreement together with a statement on how exchanges have been implemented in the past and how you expect this agreement to be implemented.

(The material referred to appears in the appendix beginning at p. 511.)

Senator MILLER. Mr. Ambassador, how many consulates do we have in the Soviet Union?

Ambassador KOHLER. None.

Senator MILLER. How many are in contemplation during the next few years?

Ambassador KOHLER. If we conclude the consular convention, as I think we will within the next month or so, there is no commitment for the establishment of consulates, but I think there is a sort of understanding that we would move first on our side in asking for a consulate general in Leningrad, which is the main port of entry, and where most Americans arrive in the Soviet Union.

They in turn would probably ask for reestablishment of a consulate general in New York.

Senator MILLER. What do our people do when they come to one of these major Russian cities for services which normally would be provided by one of our consuls?

Ambassador KOHLER. Well, most of the people who are simply travelers in the Soviet Union do come through Moscow, and we have alerted them through the passport booklet already that when they do so they would be well advised to register with us, and some thousands a year do.

Most of the tourists, of course, are in the hands of the official travel agency, Intourist, and in cases where people are not registered, not directly known to us, if there is a problem, I must say in all fairness Intourist tends to get in touch with us about it, and we then get in touch with the traveler and do what we can for him.

Senator MILLER. I was somewhat surprised, when you indicated that we needed to expand our staff or our program with respect to the consular, cultural, and political areas, that you did not also include the scientific and trade.

Ambassador KOHLER. I would like to comment on this.

Yes, I think we could use a lot more people in the Soviet Union, if housing and security conditions permitted, and in general. The immediate needs, the immediately pressing needs, are the ones I mentioned.

On the scientific side, we have now a scientific officer. But this in itself is an expansion as of last year. It is the first time we had a scientific officer. And it has been very helpful, and in due course we may want to increase this function, too.

On the trade side, if trade really developed, we would have to increase the staff.

As I mentioned, we have four economic officers at the present time, but at the moment, trade itself is at a very low level, and until there is some further development, it is not an immediately pressing need.

Senator MILLER. But you would, I suppose, place emphasis on scientific aid if we could find accommodations for these people and obtain the proper approval from the Soviet Union to step up our scientific

area.

Ambassador KOHLER. I think this is true, and indeed, in the past year, with the addition of our science officer, we have already vastly increased our activity in this respect.

This science officer, then, plays his role in accompanying the many, many scientific delegations that have come to the Soviet Union, and in guiding and counseling them.

Senator MILLER. In other words, in lieu of a permanent staff of scientists, we are getting along as well as we can by bringing in the scientific delegations of various kinds. Is that the idea?

Ambassador KOHLER. That is right, aided now by our own science officer, who has established contacts with all the Soviet scientific institutions and is very helpful to the people, the scientists, who come, and, I would say, contributes very much to the effectiveness of their visit and their work.

Senator MILLER. Are you satisfied with the cooperation we are receiving from the Soviet officials as far as bringing in these scientific delegations is concerned?

Ambassador KOHLER. The answer I think is "Yes," to that, and generally, our scientific delegations receive a very fine reception. There is great curiosity on the part of Soviet scientists to exchange opinions and views and information with them.

Most of these visits lead them to follow up in terms of exchanges of studies, both ways. There has been great development in this field. Senator MILLER. Thank you.

Senator JACKSON. Senator Brewster?

Senator BREWSTER. I will be very brief, Mr. Ambassador.

We appreciate the time you are spending with us.

You have indicated that we have certain contacts with the missions of other countries in Moscow. Do we have contacts or responsibilities with other countries behind the Iron Curtain, Eastern European countries?

Ambassador KOHLER. Oh, yes. We see a lot of these representatives. We talk with them frequently. I entertain them frequently.

Not only have I personally served in Eastern Europe and then handled Eastern European affairs in the State Departmentso I already have established contacts but in our political_section we have one or two people who have also served in Eastern Europe, and we maintain a very good relationship in Moscow with the Eastern European missions.

Senator BREWSTER. Do you have personnel with actually assigned responsibilities to other missions in Moscow ?

Ambassador KOHLER. Yes; we tend to specialize inside the political section, and usually in relationship to the officer's previous experience. Senator BREWSTER. Do we have any contact-you may want to go off the record on this-with the missions of countries that we do not recognize, such as Red China or East Germany?

Ambassador KOHLER. Senator, we have none.

Senator JAVITS. May I just interrupt to say how glad I was to see you here today, Mr. Ambassador. Unfortunately I shall have to leave at this point for another meeting.

Senator BREWSTER. On another subject, now: Are your communications with Washington adequate, and if so, are you kept promptly informed?

For example, at the time of Cuba, did you know from hour to hour the situation in the crisis?

Ambassador KOHLER. Well, the short answer to this question, Senator, is that our communications are not adequate, and that the Cuba crisis was one of the proofs of this.

We are dependent on commercial channels for our communications, for our normal communications, and these are sometimes rather slow. We have been dealing with the Soviet authorities now for several years, to try to get a direct leased line into Western Europe from the Embassy, which then connects with the State Department system, so that we could get quicker and our own control over our communications. I believe that we will get this in the latter part of this

year.

And this I think is the first step to improve our communications. Beyond that, we have suggested to the Soviets, since the Congress passed legislation a little over a year ago that permits on a basis of reciprocity the establishment of direct wireless communications