SUSPICION AND THE CIA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00001R000100300038-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 9, 1998
• Sequence Number: 38
• Publication Date: May 13, 1966
• Content Type: NSPR

Approved For Release 2001/07/26 :
SUSPICION AND THE CIA
The New York Times performed an outstanding public
service by presen`trng a "`serie's"of `lengthy articles assessing
the work of the Central Intelligence Agency. The articles
recount the usual horrors: the Bay of Pigs, the attempt to
doctor Cuban sugar destined for Russia, the U-2 inci-
dent. The vastness of CIA operations are suggested:
training anti-Communist police forces iW Latin America,
promoting anti-Communist student front groups, directly
or indirectly subsidizing American publishers, research
institutes and universities. The Times articles are reassur-
ing to the extent that they suggest that the CIA was
brought "under control" as a result of the Bay of Pigs
disaster and the replacement of Allen Dulles by John A.
McCone. Control of the agency, the Times concludes, will
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-Ft
TWVFTW
always depend far more on the character of the presiden-
tially-appointed Director than on any Congressional
"watchdog" committee which might be established.
But "control" is not the only problem CIA activities
present. A number of recent news items can only confirm
the impression that, controlled or not, many of these
activities have gone far to critically compromise the peace-
ful efforts overseas of Americans and pro-Westerners.
The placing of CIA operatives, for example, in the
Michigan State University task force which assisted Diem
in Vietnam casts doubt on the character of all university
projects in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The CIA is
reported to have attempted to infiltrate the Peace Corps,
a move cut short by the angry reaction of the Peace Corps
leadership, who knew that such an action would under-
mine Peace Corps status in every developing nation. The
Times series reports that the CIA "has poured money
into Latin American election campaigns in support of
moderate candidates and against leftist leaders. . . ."
When an April 30 Times story from Santo Domingo re-
fers to the election campaign efforts of "Joaquin Balaguer,
candidate of the moderate right and generally considered
the favorite of the United States," what is one to think?
Senator Fulbright has expressed concern over the prac-
tice of CIA analysts' presenting cases for government pol-
icy without revealing their government connections.
Fulbright referred to the April issue of Foreign Affairs
magazine which contains a lengthy article arguing that
the Vietcong is completely controlled by Hanoi. The ar-
ticle's author, George A. Carver, Jr., is a CIA employee.
Foreign Affairs, however, identifies him only as a "stu-
dent of political theory and Asian affairs, with degrees
from Yale and Oxford; former officer in the U.S. aid mis-
sion in Saigon; author of `Aesthetics and the Problem of
Meaning.' "
But the problem gets murkier yet. The February 24
issue of The Reporter carried an article on the National
Liberation Front by Douglas Pike. In many respects, Mr.
Pike's article closely parallels Carver's. The Reporter
identifies Mr. Pike as "a specialist in research on the
Vietcong for the United States Information Agency in
Saigon ... who recently spent a year at MIT preparing a
definitive study of the National Liberation Front." Now,
the MIT Center of International Studies was established
in 1951 with CIA money, is headed today by a former
CIA assistant director and only recently formally an-
nounced it was severing its relations with the intelligence
agency. Once again, what is one to think?
Just as Americans don't like Russian fishing trawlers,
Asians, Africans and Latin Americans don't like eco-
nomic aid centers and research projects which serve as
bases for intelligence operations. At home, American citi-
zens would like to know the difference between govern-
ment-supported official statements and independent schol-
arship. By blurring all the lines, the CIA is making Amer-
ica pay a high price in suspicion and distrust.