LETTER TO WILLIAM J. CASEY FROM FRANK C. CONAHAN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 19
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 3, 2008
• Sequence Number: 24
• Publication Date: February 16, 1984
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
Office of Legislative Liaison
Routing Slip
Action Officer:
Mary Brown
Joyce 2/16/84
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
4. liaison
 Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION
UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON; D.C. 20548
The Honorable William J. Casey
Director, Central Intelligence..
Agency
FEB 16 1984
Attention:- Office of Legislative Counsel
Dear. Mr. Casey:
Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of our
classified draft report, U.S. and.Soviet Bloc Training Offered
to Latin American and Caribbean Students: Factors for Consider-
ation in Developing Future U.S. Programs. (GAO assignment code
472019).
It is requested that your comments be provided within,
30 days of the date of this letter. 31 U.S.C.718 (b) limits the
period of time for comment on this report to 30 days from the
date of this letter unless the Comptroller General grants an
extension after the head of the agency shows (1.) that a longer
period is necessary and (2) that an extension is likely to
result in._improvement in the accuracy of the report. Written or
oral comments are acceptable.
Please advise Mr. John O'Carroll (632-0602) or Mr. Joseph
Hobbs (275-5790) within 15 days of the date of this letter
whether written comments will be provided. if you prefer, a
meeting can be arranged to obtain oral continents by the end of
the 30-day period. Your designee should speak officially for
the Agency.
This draft report is also being sent to the Secretaries of
State and Defense, and the Director of the U.S. Information
Agency, and the Administrator, Agency for International
Development.
BE'COMM?n `. `' FILE i UPON
REM61.1,?" ' NTQ2
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
 Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
The draft report is currently undergoing a security review
by the Department of State to determine its appropriate security
classification level. In the interim, we have designated
sections of the report as SECRET as a precautionary measure.
We call your attention to the notice stamped on the cover of the
draft report, regarding limitations on the use of the draft
report and the need for safeguards to prevent its premature or
unauthorized use.
Sincerely yours,
Frank C. Conahan
Director
BEICOMMES C,.OLA S'EEED UPON
REMOVAL ;' '~.1 NTS
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
 .LvAME: digest CR)P: U1 .1 . I t!~~'u(Il,
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE U.S. AND SOVIET BLOC TRAINING
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS OF LATIN AMERICAN AND
CARIBBEAN STUDENTS: FACTORS
FOR CONSIDERATION IN DEVELOP-
ING FUTURE U.S. PROGRAMS
The federal government has provided education
and training for foreign students in the
United States for decades. Thousands of Latin
American and Caribbean students have come to
U.S. universities and other institutions for
academic and technical training through pro-
grams administered by the Departments of State
and Defense, United States Information Agency,
Agency for International Development, and
others. These federally funded programs are
intended to foster socioeconomic development
and strengthen political, military, and social
ties with other countries. They complement
private sector exchanges, which represent
about 95 percent of U.S. international
exchange activity.
The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Cuba
(Soviet bloc) have also recruited foreign
students for training in their respective
countries. While such recruiting
GAD/C-NSIAD-84-14
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6
 " roved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6
COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S REPORT TO THE CONGRESS
U.S. AND SOVIET BLOC TRAINING OF
LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STUDENTS:
FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION IN DEVELOPING
FUTURE U.S. PROGRAMS
The growth in educational scholarships offered to Latin American
students by the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Cuba (Soviet
bloc) has prompted the United States to consider expanding its
educational assistance to the region. Public and private sector
officials both in the United States and four Caribbean Basin
countries expressed a wide range of views on the impact that
students returning from training in the Soviet bloc may have on
developing country and U.S. interests. Because such recruiting
coupled with other Soviet bloc activities in some countries
could pose future adverse implications, GAO believes the
situation should be carefully monitored.
More reliable data on students being trained in the Soviet bloc
and the United States is needed to better frame the dimension of
the issues and design an effective response. Any new and
expanded U.S. educational assistance in the region should be
considered not in isolation from but in concert with other
types of U.S. economic and development assistance.
GAO/C-NSIAD-84-14
^ Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6
 Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
 GAM.Form 70* Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE ~1~:~,1 jk
(Rev. 3J9) u w t
INTRAOFFICE TRANSMITTAL SLIP
STAT
Issues was our primary CIA contact on this assi ment
P.S. This is the case that
STAT
and I discussed this week.
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
Subject:
Date-1/2,;/84
A t t a c h e d for your advance review are the D; aest and GAP p ge-ci from a
is the only direct reference to CIA. Soviet bloc data included
chart is primarily from CIA reports. The data on military training is a com-
posite of data provided by CIA and DIA.
 Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
 via muk as WE ONE
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO137OR000200350024-6
SEEP ^.. .^
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE U.S.AND SOVIET BLOC TRAINING
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS OFFERED TO LATIN AMERICAN AND
CARIBBEAN STUDENTS: FACTORS
FOR CONSIDERATION IN DEVELOP-
ING FUTURE U.S. PROGRAMS
The federal government has provided education
and training for foreign students in the
.United States for decades. Thousands of Latin
American and Caribbean students have come to
U.S. universities and other institutions for
academic and technical training through pro-
grams administered by the Departments of State
and Defense, United States Information Agency,
Agency for International Development ; and
others. These federally funded programs are
intended to foster socio economic development
and strengthen political, military, and social
ties with other countries. They complement
private sector exchanges, which represent
about 95 percent, of U.S. international
exchange activity.
The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Cuba
(Soviet bloc) have also recruited foreign
students for training in their respective
countries. While such recruiting
DRAFT
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
 Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6 M , TT.
uRHr
.
F,
is not a recent occurrence, increased levels
of Soviet bloc activity in Latin America and
the Caribbean over the last 5 years have led
to concerns over the large number of
all-expense-paid Soviet bloc scholarships
offered to students from the region.
Questions over-the level and significance of
these activities led GAO to undertake this
study to address issues concerning:
--Past and present trends in
the level of U.S. and Soviet bloc scholar-
ship and training activities in the region.
--U.S. and Soviet bloc approaches to providing
training opportunities in terms of kinds of
training offered, types of individuals
targeted and methods of recruiting students.
In examining these issues, GAO collected
information and solicited views from knowl-
edgeable officials within government and the
private sector both in the United States and
in four Caribbean Basin countries reportedly
experiencing high levels of Soviet bloc
recruiting.
DRAFT
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
 fly. Ri M -
Approved For Release 2008/12/03_CIA_RDP90BO 137OR000200350024-6 ?r.~
f PROFILE OF U.S. AND SOVIET BLOC RECRUITING
IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
0
Over the past two decades Soviet bloc coun-
tries have increased their recruiting efforts,
outpacing the United States in scholarship
offers to developing country students. An
examination of U.S. and Soviet bloc activities
in the region shows that:
--In 1982 the Soviet Union and East European
countries financially sponsored 16,200
students, compared with 2,145 sponsored
under major U.S. training programs.
--From 1977 through 1982 Soviet bloc countries
collectively increased their scholarship
offers by 125 percent. Significant Cuban
recruiting in Nicaragua and Soviet
recruiting in selected Caribbean Basin
countries contributed to the increase.
--During this same period, U.S.-sponsored
training opportunities declined 18 percent
because of reduced AID-sponsored training in
South and Central America.
Although the Soviet bloc leads the United
States in numbers of government-sponsored stu-
dents, cultural factors, such as favorable
perceptions of the U.S. educational system,
familiarity with the English language, and
in~laene~
+radi-;eno,k -i4es +o 4e UP,iecQ 5+a{cs~ ealt~~n~e. 40
{ar mace. ,4uAe#v4S +e ~riv,4 y -AnAnee. ,}fte,r s4uc?y
Ltn;+t4 Sta{cs. ZN ~qBL uaeriii 2yo,060 oteveloi,n
DRAFT
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
 Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6 Fi ,
100,000 in Soviet bloc academic and technical
country students were enrolled in U.S. col-
leges and universities compared with about
programs.
SP CIncreased Soviet bloc recruiting. in Caribbean
Basin countries has recently led the United
States to focus on this sub-region in provid-
ing additional scholarship opportunities.
(See pp.
THE UNITED STATES AND SOVIET BLOC
DIFFER IN APPROACH
The United States and Soviet bloc countries
differ in their approaches to providing
training opportunities to developing
countries. These differences affect the types
of individuals selected for their respective
programs.
The United States emphasizes graduate level
academic training and therefore seeks academ-
ically well-qualified individuals, preferably
those proficient in English. Participants in
U.S. programs are primarily from middle to
upper social classes, are often influential in
their home countries, and are selected based
on their teaching or leadership potential.
Soviet bloc countries take a different
approach. They emphasize technically-oriented
undergraduate programs and therefore can
DRAFT
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6
 r~ r% an tea
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
select less qualified candidates. Often these
individuals would prefer to study in the
United States but are financially unable or
not qualified for U.S. programs. Soviet bloc
programs provide language training and prepar-
atory courses to compensate for the short-
comings of less-prepared students.
VIEWS ON THE IMPLICATIONS
OF SOVIET BLOC RECRUITING
U.S. authorities as well as those in Latin
America and the Caribbean perceive a wide
range of possible implications stemming from
Soviet bloc recruiting in developing coun-
tries. Some see no need for additional U.S.
programs to counter Soviet bloc activities.
Others see these activities as a serious
threat to U.S. interests in promoting democra-
tic processes in the region and urge extensive
U.S. program increases and changes. While
many of those who spoke to us were lukewarm on
the seriousness of this matter, they neverthe-
less expressed suspicion about possible
motives behind Soviet bloc activities and a
need for better monitoring of the situation.
DRAFT
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
 Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6 ,
The major concerns expressed to GAO were that:
--Stepped-up Soviet bloc recruiting efforts
have led to a growing disparity between num-
bers of U.S. and Soviet bloc-sponsored
students.
--Large numbers of individuals trained in the
Soviet bloc are entering government service
.where they could influence future policies.
--Students returning from ideological training
could bolster the efforts of Communist
elements aleady present in some sectors of
society.
--U.S. training opportunities may not offer
real alternatives to Soviet bloc scholarship
offers.
--The improving quality of Soviet bloc train-
ing may make these opportunities acceptable
to more students as an alternative to
Western educational offerings.
--Existing data on U.S. and Soviet bloc
training efforts may be inadequate to assess
the need for additional U.S. assistance.
r;r:4r, fl P vi
tc!I
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6
 Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6
CONCLUSIONS
GAO's study did not yield conclusive evidence
to suggest to what degree the United States
should respond to Soviet bloc recruiting
activities in Latin America. To at?ess the
need for additional educational assistance,
U.S. officials need a fuller understanding of
the extent, objectives, and nature of Soviet
bloc recruiting efforts in individual coun-
tries as well-94as the interrelationship of
U.S. public and private sector training
efforts.
Consideration of increased educational assis-
tance should be undertaken in concert with
consideration of other types of U.S. -w-it
'''e a ien s ether tomes e9 U.,s-. economic
and security assistance. In formulating
appropriate actions Congress and the execu-
tive branch should weigh U.S. security con-
cerns against the cost of significantly
increasing educational assistance to the
region. GAO believes that the Congress and
the administration should consider the follow-
ing matters in their deliberations over
expanded training opportunities to the region.
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6
 Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
VRbkT 0
--Should the United States alter the mix of
its programs to reach a- differentrangc of
students?
--Can increased support. for traditional U.S.
training programs remain an effective
response to changing needs?
--Should more emphasis be placed on-in-country-
educational assistance?
--Can the United States employ more cost-
effective methods in providing educational
assistance?
Deliberations should recognize that the pri-
vate sector has traditionally played the major
role in international exchanges. Administra-
tors should therefore seek to maximize the use
of limited federal funds by exploring mechan-
isms that bolster this large private sector
effort.9 The best U.S. response may be a
flexible one which takes into consideration
the unique characteristics of individual coun-
tries, extent of Soviet bloc recruiting in.
each country, how developed indigenous educa-
tional systems are, what U.S. programs are
best suited to identified needs and what
approaches have been effective in the past.
DRAT
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
 Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6 !.
We obtained data on Soviet bloc activities from (1) offi-
cial memorandums, reports, and cables on file at the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the
Department of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research,
(2) discussions with officials of these intelligence agencies in
Washington and other public and private sector officials'in both
the United States and case study countries including high-level
Caribbean Basin government officials, and (3) formal U.S. govern-
N
,iment analyses and conclusions drawn from official reports.
Information concerning U.S.-sponsored training programs
was drawn primarily from (1) files and records at AID's Office
of International Training and MD-- Bureau for Latin America and
the Caribbean in Washington, (2) U.S. embassies and AID missions
in the case study countries, and (3) discussions with appro-
priate officials at those locations and at the offices of major
U.S. contractors.We collected statistics on U.S.-sponsored
students from AID, USIA, and DOD and used those reported to
USIA's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Exchange by over
30 other sponsoring agencies.
The issues and views in this report often represent a
composite of statements obtained from those with whom we met.
Many of the statements could not be corroborated for. lack of
documentation. We caution the users of the report to keep in
mind that the statistical compilations and illustrations are-
prepared from data that were often incomplete and unverifiable.
a (so
Statistics on Soviet bloc training efforts areAimprecise
.i'
DRAFT
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6
 Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90B01370R000200350024-6
TEXTNAME : chp/4 (R)P: 08 UKI-r I
- . '
Recruiting through Communist political parties and friend-
ship organizations was consistently criticized more than the
scholarship programs that are often handled through government
channels. The suspicions are that much of the training
offered in this way is ideological, granted to leftist-oriented
individuals and geared toward inciting disruption rather than
transferring knowledge. Developing country officials, are part-
icularly concerned over this type of recruiting because they
have no control over either the content of the educational
program or the students who receive the training.
Specific educational programs cited as the source of their
concern included labor-related training in the Soviet Union,
undergraduate scholarships at Friendship University (formerly
Patrice Lumumba Friendship University) in Moscow and educational
programs of all types in Cuba. U.S. officials in Washington
told us that any Soviet bloc scholarship in economics or law
should also be viewed with suspicion because these subjects are
clearly taught from a Marxist viewpoint.
Some developing country officials fear ideological training
because a Communist presence is.already being felt in certain
sectors of their society, particularly at universities and in
some'labor markets. Embassy officials in one case-study country
reported-that host country officials were concerned that "were
not only is strong political indoctrination being implanted in
teh minds of young people, but that several sectors of society
are in danger of being monopolized by the aggressiveness of
Communist countries." Host country officials believe that
DRAFT
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
 - rr% Na "
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
DRAFT
Approved For Release 2008/12/03: CIA-RDP90BO1370R000200350024-6
Latin American officials expressed concern over their
inability to know which students and how many were being
recruited.in this manner. They termed it impractical, if not
impossible, to track this activity because the offers are made
outside their channels and because travel to Communist countries
is often done via a third country.
Another area of concern repeatedly voiced throughout our
reveiw was clandestine recruiting of labor personnel for short-
term ideological training in the Soviet Union. U.S. officials
in Colombia and the Dominican Republic told us that democratic
labor leaders in those countries had voiced concerns that mem-
bers of leftist unions go to the Soviet Union for training aimed
first at producing political activists and second at teaching
labor unionism.
U.S. officials in Washington said that such training is
believed to be highly political which should be closely moni-
tored. These and similar activities are reported to Washington,
but we know of no. in-depth analysis of such information by U.S.
agencies.