FOREWORD Under the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent to appointments of Ambassadors. Probably not one American in ten could name the American Ambassadors to France, Germany, Russia, and Japan, let alone our Ambassadors to Cyprus, the Congo, and Malaysia, to pick a few contemporary trouble spots. But our Ambassadors-though the news stories seldom mention their names- -are our representatives on the front lines of history, where a misstep may mean a costly setback or even a crisis endangering peace. As Congress recognizes, there is no substitute for the broadlyexperienced Ambassador who exercises leadership of American government activities in his area, who makes a positive contribution to policy plans and operations, and who has reserves of judgment, nerve, and know-how to call upon in a pinch. From the start of its nonpartisan study of the administration of national security, the Subcommittee on National Security Staffing and Operations has given major attention to the role of the modern American Ambassador in the conduct of our relations with other countries, and the support given him in Washington. The Subcommittee has received the counsel of ranking authorities in this country and in U.S. missions and military establishments abroad. It has released testimony on the office of Chief of Mission by Secretary of State Rusk, Under Secretary of State Harriman, and Deputy Under Secretary of State Crockett. A series of published hearings and memoranda constitute a unique symposium of retired and active American Ambassadors Ellis O. Briggs, H. Freeman Matthews, Edwin O. Reischauer, David K. E. Bruce, Samuel D. Berger, George F. Kennan, Lincoln Gordon, Livingston T. Merchant, Edmund A. Gullion, and Foy D. Kohler. The Subcommittee has also published an historical study, The Ambassador and the Problem of Coordination, prepared by the Historical Studies Division of the Department of State. This Subcommittee staff report-companion to one issued earlier this year entitled The Secretary of State-makes certain findings about the role of the Ambassador in assisting the President and the Secretary of State in developing and executing national security policy. JUNE 15, 1964. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security Staffing and Operations. ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY THE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR I. The Ambassador's Problem I am sorry to know nothing more of the subject than that letter after letter has been written to you thereon, and that the office is in possession of nothing more than acknolegements of your receipt of some of them so long ago as Aug. 1786. and still to add that your letter of Jan. 24. 1791. is the only one received of later date than May 6. 1789. You certainly will not wonder if the receipt of but one letter in two years & an half inspires a considerable degree of impatience. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Carmichael, Secretary Jefferson's "impatience" with Mr. Carmichael is not likely to be echoed in 1964. Today the daily volume of telegraphic traffic alone between the State Department and the embassies is more than 400,000 words. The jet plane and electronic communications, on the one hand, and America's world involvements, on the other, have combined to complicate enormously and in part transform the role of American Ambassador. The traditional functions-negotiation, representation, and reporting-have changed because issues can be referred rapidly to Washington, or handled by officers coming from Washington, or decided in Washington in talks with visiting heads of state, prime ministers, foreign ministers, or other high officials. If all roads once led to Rome, all airways now lead to Washington. With respect to negotiation, the role of the modern Ambassador is much reduced-often he is but one part of a negotiating team in a complex diplomatic operation. If an issue is of some importance, the matter will probably be handled directly between the Department of State and the Foreign Office, with the Ambassador playing an intermediary or supporting role. When the Ambassador conducts negotiations, he will receive detailed instructions. To be sure, the modern Ambassador is not a mere onlooker-his advice will be sought. Particularly men in remote posts, off diplomacy's beaten tracks, or assigned to countries not at the top level of Washington concern, have some scope in practicing the art of negotiation. Even so the cables run hot and heavy, and it is a far cry from the day when an Ambassador had to operate alone for long periods, guided by his own wisdom and wit, with very general instructions. With respect to representation, it used to be that an Ambassador represented his sovereign at the court of the other sovereign. Now things are different. An Ambassador still has the tedious round of official parties and entertainment. He must still participate in the pomp and ceremony of official life. But he must also hold the hands |