New Rules for USIA Films

Kim Murphy’s article “New USIA Rules Will Stamp Some Films as ‘Propaganda’ ” (Metro, Jan. 5) is an objective presentation of differing viewpoints on both sides of the lawsuit challenging USIA’s regulations for certifying educational materials under the Beirut Agreement of 1948.

However, in the interest of accuracy and fairness, a statement by the plaintiffs’ attorney suggesting that USIA engages in political censorship in its review of materials for certification must not go unchallenged.

Safeguards against political influence have protected the integrity of the program throughout its 35-year history under the U.S. Information Agency. At no time during this period has a USIA director or other political appointees ever been involved in the review process. Furthermore, only career government employees serve on the nine-member interagency Committee on Attestation, which reviews all materials ultimately denied educational certification.

The U.S. District Court’s ruling has placed USIA and the United States in somewhat of a Catch-22 situation which must be resolved. For USIA to certify propaganda materials as educational would be contrary to the international interpretation of that treaty which has prevailed for more than 35 years. Conversely, denial of certificates to propaganda material--which falls outside the treaty--would place USIA in violation of Judge A. Wallace Tashima’s order in this litigation.

USIA is seeking resolution in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In the interim, we have struggled to come up with revised regulations which comply with Judge Tashima’s ruling and which, at the same time, permit the United States to honor the terms of the Beirut Agreement.

JOSEPH D. O’CONNELL

Acting Director

Office of Public Liaison

USIA

Washington, D.C.