WILLIAM GEIMER

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88B00443R001904440067-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 7, 2011
• Sequence Number: 67
• Publication Date: May 12, 1986
• Content Type: MEMO

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/10: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01904440067-0
EXECUTIVE SECRL . ARIAT
ROlTING SLIP
STAT
STAT
TO:
ACTION
INFO
DATE
INITIAL
1
CI
X
2
DDCI
3
EXDIR
4
D/ICS
5
DDI
6
DDA
7
DDO
X
8
DDS&T
9
Chm/NIC
10
GC
11
IG
12
Compt
13
D/OLL
14
D/PAO
15
D/PERS
16
VC/NIC
t
x
18
19
20
21
22
13 May 86
Date
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/10: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01904440067-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/10: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01904440067-0
I.% %I t1 . t~]-I .I1 14
PHL 5:: F"-.
ft, .;.lrn sIou N 1"'I -,%I wN
?Otl NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE N TE,ET ..
WASHINGTON. D C 20009 AHNF, .F+
12 May 1986
MEMORANDUM FORT
FROM:
SUBJECT: William Geimer
Attached letter is FYI.
William J. Casey
Attachment:
Copy of letter
dtd 29 April 1986
to Mr. Tom Mangold
from Mr. William Geimer
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/10: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01904440067-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/10: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01904440067-0
t- Ge.?r+er. P-cs,der.t
8.3 a a D Aoaott. V,ce P-es,cent
v.ce . res:eert
Grr R S?-a ca,. SPcreta-y
BOARD OF ADVISORS:
Hon R.crard V. Allen
Hon. Les Aso~n
Dr. R..+a-d Be-endzen
Dr. Zz-,--ew B?zez:ns..i
Hpn _~. Cl+eney
.. j.Jc D.-ter
Rcttrt A Georg,ne
Dono'i F B. Jameson
line Toni Lantos
M's. ls.~c Don Lev,ne
Hon Sam Nunn
hon Donald Rumsfeld
Dr. Vlad+mer N. Sakharov
Arkai N.Shevchenko
Hon Ma:com Wallop
Lt Gen James A. W:l ams (Ret.)
F lit..-K Wyatt
Hcn Clayton Yeutter
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
C:? ?. ,..: 7 C::.7?.s,tz. Cha,rnian
C, ^ c^ ! Smu'Wan
E. T.mrnons
R ,.... s Wcx?-sey
April 29, 1986
Mr. Tom Mangold
Panorama
British Broadcasting Corporation
Lime Grove Studios
London, England W12 7RJ
II 2' MAY 1980
I found your letter puzzling in many ways, but
apparently clear on the question of responsibility.
You say that the reporter and the producer gather
the material and that the producer and editor are
responsible for the editorial selection of material,
in other words the final shape of the show. It
would seem then that I should be writing to Lorraine
and Dickinson, rather than to you. But since you
undertook to defend the program, you are the
beneficiary of my further comment. When I use the
word "you" in this letter, I'm addressing whomever
is responsible for the "editorial thrust" of the
show. (Incidentally, doesn't it strike you as odd
to speak of the "editorial thrust" of an "objective
look"? Perhaps weuse the words differently over
here.)
I have gone over the film again, and find that
my earlier listing of errors and distortions was a
bit off the mark. In addition to the 29 mistakes
which I sent to you previously, I have found,
coincidentally, 29 more. I should have been more
careful.
You'll be glad to know that I am not going to
detail the more recently-found errors. The exercise
is tedious and somewhat depressing. However I will
send you a list if you like. You should also be
glad to know that, although tempted, I am not going
to engage in a point-by-point refutation of your
letter. Instead I will set forth for your
consideration a few facts about the film. I will
also try to explain what the Jamestown Foundation
is.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/10: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01904440067-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/10: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904440067-0
You accused me of a selective memory which focused
unduly on Sorokun, Nicholae, and Ushakov. Okay, lets
take a look at the Shevchenko piece. Concerning
Shevchenko, you said in the film:
"In 1973 Shevchenko was working with the Soviet
Mission to the United Nations in New York as
Undersecretary General for Political and Security
Affairs. He was also Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei
Gromyko's personal political advisor. When Brezhnev and
Gromyko visited the United Nations that year it was
Shevchenko who sat by the side of Secretary General Kurt
Waldheim for the most intimate discussions. Ironically
he was already planning to defect, an act that was to
leave him permanently scarred."
The facts are: In 1973 Shevchenko was not working
with the Soviet Mission. He was Undersecretary General
of the United Nations. Nor was he ever simultaneously
working at the UN and working as Gromyko's assistant.
Did Brezhnev visit the UN that year? I doubt it. But in
any case the photograph on the screen was taken in Moscow
in 1977. Was Shevchenko planning in 1973 to defect? No
he wasn't. And in what way is he permanently scarred?
As far as I can tell he's not scarred at all, unless you
consider occasional nostalgia a serious problem. He's
healthy, happy, and making a whale of a contribution to
the West - which, I should remind you, includes you.
I'll be interested in your comments on this part of the
piece.
In the beginning of the Shevchenko segment the
camera is tightly fixed on a glass containing ice cubes.
We see a clear liquid being poured over the cubes. Then
a cola drink is added. The camera then pans back to show
a hand placing a vodka bottle next to the filled glass,
alongside which is a second filled glass. Then we see
Arkady and his "new" wife (of seven years) sitting with
the vodka bottle in front of them, toasting each other,
presumably with the vodka-laced cola.
Now what I would like to know is whose hand was
pouring that vodka? Was it Arkady's? Were Arkady and
Elaine really drinking vodka and cola, as the film
claims? Or did you, the generic you, fake the film to
deceive the viewer? And if so why? Why? I would really
like you to answer this.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/10: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904440067-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/10: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01904440067-0
Arkady tells me that you brought that vodka bottle
to the filming, that you put it on the table, that you
told him that it wouldn't appear in the film, that you
were merely using it to test the light. Why? Didn't you
like the fact that he doesn't drink anymore? Was that as
inconvenient as all the positive things which he said
about his life here,:and which were omitted from your
final product in favor his description of his
circumstances seven years ago?
Now let me say a word or two about Jamestown. The
film says that we created the foundation to help resettle
defectors. This is not why we created the foundation.
We created the foundation so that the hitherto unheard
voices of people who had held significant positions in
the East could be heard in the West. Most of our time is
spent helping these people to plan and write books and
articles, and to educate policy makers. Was that clear
in your film, which was suppossed to be "devoted entirely
to the work of the Jamestown Foundation"?
If the CIA did the resettlement end of things as
well possible would there still be a need for Jamestown?
I think your viewers would say no... The answer is yes.
No one over here wants our government in the business of
producing books and articles on international topics for
domestic consumption. ?
Contrary to your assertion, I do not persist in
suggesting that the CIA has perfected their resettlement
program. I don't know whether the changes which have
been made will be sufficient. It's too soon to say.
What I do know, and I told you this on the film, is that
the leadership of the agency are trying to make the
program work better. And I hope they succeed. Life at
Jamestown would be easier if we could get rid of
resettlement problems.
The statement made by your film is: All defectors
to the United States, even the apparently successful
Shevchenko, experience difficulty. Some even redefect.
The reason for this state of affairs is that the CIA is
inept. There is, however, a little foundation which has
helped a few defectors with their resettlement problems.
But some defectors are nevertheless in bad shape. For
example, Sorokun is still washing dishes, and Nicholae is
still mired in his laundromat. (To help make this point,
Jamestown's work with these two is omitted from the
film.) The government is investigating this situation,
}.t cn f ter' t. -' - 'c Inc nn nhanoP? -
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/10: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01904440067-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/10: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904440067-0
The film we thought we were cooperating in would
have made this statement: Defectors are a source of
information vital to the West. It is important that they
be resettled properly and assisted to make their insights
available to as wide an audience as possible. In the
past, some defectors have been mishandled. However the
Yurchenko affair is forcing the government to improve its
program. Moreover there now exists a foundation which
picks up where the government resettlement program
necessarily ends. The Jamestown Foundation is
successfully assisting many defectors to write and
lecture, and those helped by the foundation can look
forward to productive careers.
Do you know why we expected such a film? Because
it's the truth. And because we trusted the BBC to tell
the truth.
Do you know why we wanted such a film? You should.
I told you often enough. We wanted it because your work
is seen in many countries by many potential defectors.
We believed that a truthful film would encourage people
of stature to defect and to bring.to the West information
which would be otherwise unobtainable. You say that the
aim of Panorama is not to induce defections. Is it your
aim to discourage them? If so, you may have succeeded
admirably.
Barbara told me that you were surpised that my
reaction to the film was negative. At first I found this
hard to believe. But evidently you either never
understood what Jamestown is, or you disagree with what
we are trying to accomplish. Or maybe you merely find it
strange that some people care less about looking good on
television than they do about larger issues.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/10: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904440067-0