DOE has an interest in the Soviet fast breeder reactor program and in the area of reactor safety. As a result of the Joint Committee meeting in August 1986, exploratory talks will begin in these two areas to see if topics of mutual interest can be identified. The DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will work together in developing possible cooperation in reactor safety.

The Soviets seem to be positive on the exchanges. The trust and confidence in the exchanges seems to be on the upswing on the part of both the U.S. and Soviet participants. In FPM, the Soviets are continuing near the same level as in the past to send scientists to visit and work in the U.S. In fusion, the Soviets are now sending their best scientists to the U.S. and are allowing long-term exchanges to take place.

Preference for Future Directions

The Joint Committee in August 1986, agreed to explore some additional areas which would lead to a limited, modest expansion of activities. In fusion, the Joint Committee requested the Joint Fusion Power Coordinating Committee to begin a process which may result in some joint planning of work in order to accelerate progress in the future. In FPM, the Joint Committee commended the JCCFPM to be ready to consider possible new areas for cooperation. As noted above, exploratory talks will begin in the areas of fast breeder reactors and reactor safety to identify topics of mutual interest. In general, the U.S. approach is cautionary, and will proceed on a step-by-step basis to increase activities where justified based upon mutual benefit and scientific merit.

APPENDIX 3A(12)

President's United States - Soviet

Exchange Initiative

Office of the Coordinator

September 5, 1986

Dear Congressman Hamilton:

Thank you for your letter of June 30, 1986, to Charles Z. Wick, Director, United States Information Agency, concerning the General Exchanges Agreement signed by the President in Geneva last November.

In a discussion with your staff members Christopher Kojm and Michael Van Dusen, on August 11, 1986, we agreed a three-part document would be produced, rather than a response to the inquiry which is really designed for organizations which run only one exchange program. This response includes:

I.

SOVIET-AMERICAN CULTURAL EXCHANGES:

1945 TO THE PRESENT Soviet-American cultural relations since World War II can be divided into roughly four distinct periods: Pre-Agreement (1945-1958); Early years of Cultural Agreements (1959-late 1960's); Detente (1970-1979); Post-Afghanistan (1980-1985). 1945-1958: During this period there were very few cultural contacts. In the mid-eighties a few Soviet performing artists did in fact appear on American stages, most notably the late Soviet pianist Emil Gilels. Also an agreement to exchange America magazine and Soviet Life was signed separately in 1956. The Soviets signaled their interest in expanding contacts and the way was opened for the eventual signing of the first agreement (Lacey-Zarubin) which provided for a broad series of exchanges.

1959-late 1960's: The programs which have become traditional Soviet-American exchanges all took shape during this period. The famous Nixon-Khrushchev kitchen debate occurred at the first American national exhibit, which presaged the regular traveling exhibits. Exchanges of graduate students/faculty began in the same year under the predecessor to IREX. These programs, together with delegation visits in a number of fields, began modestly, but by the late 1960's had become well established.

1970-1979: With the improvement of relations between the countries and the signing of a number of inter-governmental agreements, the range and size of the exchange programs under the cultural agreement grew rapidly. An exchange of faculty lecturers under the Fulbright program was agreed to and began in 1974. Direct university-to-university agreements (SUNY-MGU, Lowell-Tbilisi, MUNCIA-MGU, etc.) were concluded and many others were in the process of negotiation. The ACLS set up a joint commission with the Soviet Academy of Sciences to undertake joint projects in a wide variety of fields in the social sciences and humanities. By the end of the seventies these commissions sponsored nearly 200 scholars traveling annually to each other's country. The National Academy of Sciences had also signed an agreement for the exchange of individual scientists and joint working groups. Perhaps more important, the momentum for the creation of a large number of private contacts was well under way.

A regular exchange of performing arts groups brought first rank performers to each country. In the 1970's, we sent major symphony orchestras and solo performers, dance companies, popular entertainers, etc. The Soviets sent the Bolshoi opera and ballet companies, the Moiseyev dancers, the Moscow circus and a host of lesser groups.

The flow of related programming, including a substantial number of Amparts and private visitors who were scheduled by the Embassy, increased dramatically.

This period was not without its problems. Soviet society remained closed and it was often difficult for exchangees to gain the access necessary for the successful completion of their programs. The American side was often frustrated because it had little say over which Soviets would come to the U.S. Nonetheless, the exchange process was creating a number of important personal links between scholars, artists, government figures et al., which for the Soviets was an extremely important factor in creating successful programs.

1980-1985: Already in the late 1970's there were a number of storm signals on the horizon. The exchange agreement negotiations in 1979 were adjourned in November over two unresolved issues--the Soviet demand for a virtual anti-defector clause and the U.S. concern about the lack of balance in the academic exchange area. Negotitators had worked out reasonable compromises and assumed that the negotiations would resume the following year. The invasion of Afghanistan caused the American government to show its displeasure by allowing the exchange agreement as well as many other agreements to lapse. On top of this, the exile of Andrei Sakharov caused many, including the National Academy of Sciences, to suspend exchange programs.

On the Soviet side, a number of institutions, particularly the Ministry of Culture, took a position that without an agreement they would do no business with the U.S. During 1980-1985, no American performer appeared on a Soviet commercial stage (with the single exception of John Denver in July 1985), and all exchanges between museums, theaters, libraries, etc. ceased. The Ministry of Higher Education and the Soviet Academy of Sciences agreed to continue educational exchanges, but in fact these proceeded at much reduced rates.

The American Embassy, in an attempt to compensate for the virtual disappearance of American cultural groups from the Soviet scene, began to invite groups to perform at the Ambassador's residence, and then to try to program them at various Soviet institutions, such as the Composer's Union, the Friendship Society, etc. Without an agreement and in the face of official noncooperation, the results of this attempt and other collateral programming were modest.

1985--: In August 1984, negotiations were begun to renew the exchanges agreement which had lapsed in 1980. The final documents for the General Exchanges Agreement were signed on November 21, 1985 in Geneva. At the same time, President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev agreed in their Joint Statement to seek new ways to expand contacts between the two peoples. While negotiations continued, there was no substantial movement on the Soviet side to improve existing programs or plan for new ones. Only with the signing of the agreement at Geneva have Soviet institutions moved into high gear to get once-flourishing programs back on track.

In the wake of the signing, considerable interest was generated on the American side for the reestablishment and expansion of many exchange prorgams as well as the creation of new ones. While the traditional USIA offices handled much of the work of starting up programs which had lapsed, a new office, that of the Coordinator for the President's U.S.-Soviet Exchange Initiative, was created in USIA to facilitate the enormous influx of private-sector proposals.

In the following section, the scope of USIA activities in this area as well as the role of the Coordinator's Office is described.

II.

U.S.I.A. CONTACTS, EXCHANGES AND COOPERATION

IN EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL FIELDS WITH THE SOVIET UNION BUDGET FY '86

Since the signing of the Geneva Exchanges Agreement last November, USIA's official academic, cultural and performing artist exchanges with the Soviet Union have been steadily growing since we are interested and prepared to capitalize on the greatest opportunity for contacts we have had in six years. These exchanges and programs can be divided into three categories discussed below: long-term academic exchanges and the development of institutional relationships through grants for long and short-term programs; grants to professional groups for special projects; and a broad information program of television, radio and printed contacts..

It should be noted that the budget figures which are included are intended to provide a rough picture of where we have put our resources, but should not be confused with overall program costs. In some cases, such as the Fulbright lecturers' program, USIA provides all of the funding, but in others, such as the ACTR or CIEE undergraduate language programs, we provide only token support, the bulk of the funds are provided by the participating undergraduates themselves who receive college credit for their participation.

1. USIA'S LONG-TERM ACADEMIC EXCHANGES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH GRANTS FOR LONG AND SHORT-TERM PROGRAMS

USIA has increased the funding of all its education programs with the USSR. The new Exchanges Agreement endorsed the existing network of U.S.-Soviet academic exchanges, improved conditions for American grantees and their families in the USSR, and provided the basis for broader scholarly contacts from a larger spectrum of the academic communities in both countries than was previously possible.