Senator JACKSON. They should be equipped to deal with those special situations if there are special situations, should they not? Ambassador MATTHEWS. That is true, unless it is a highly specialized field. Say, some scientific developments.

Senator JACKSON. Some unusual development that was not foreseeable at the time, possibly of a technical nature. I am really talking about general policy problems.

Ambassador MATTHEWS. I agree with you, certainly there is too much of it.

Senator JACKSON. In your statement you observe that the country team concept does not work too smoothly at the Washington end, or did not when you were familiar with it. I wonder if you would care to develop this point and indicate some of the difficulties as you observed them?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. I had no real experience of that when I was in the field. I know that often we would get word privately that there were important differences of viewpoint as to what should be done about this or that problem between Washington agencies, say State and Defense perhaps, or Agriculture and State. That would have a delaying effect on our getting the required directive as to what they wanted us to do.

Senator JACKSON. Yes, that is looking at it as a person in the field heading the country team or part of it.

Ambassador MATTHEWS. Yes, sir.

Senator JACKSON. I wonder if you could indicate from your own experience in the Department as Deputy Under Secretary of State, the situation at the Washington end and what could be done to improve this and make it work more smoothly.

Ambassador MATTHEWS. That is a very tough problem, I realize. So many people feel they have a vested interest in almost any subject that comes up and want to get into the act, and often they do have a very real interest. But the more people and the more proliferation of committees there are to deal with a problem, the more difficult it is, it seems to me, to come up with a decision. I think that is very well pointed out in your basic issues paper, Senator. What do you do about it is a difficult problem to find the answer to.

Senator JACKSON. It requires some tough action on the part of the Secretary of State or his immediate representatives.

Ambassador MATTHEWS. I agree thoroughly with Professor Neustadt's desire to build up the authority of the Secretary of State for coordination purposes.

Senator JACKSON. I want to ask you about the problem that the . Ambassador has in the administration of the embassy-the problem of making certain that he is in fact in charge of the country team. A letter was sent by the President, in 1961, stating in unequivocal terms that the Ambassador heads the country team. I believe instructions along the same general line were sent out by President Eisenhower. Ambassador MATTHEWS. That is right.

Senator JACKSON. Sending out instructions is one thing, the followthrough and the recognition of those instructions so as to really do what is contained in the instructions is something else. Do you have the impression that this job has been fairly well done now? you feel that the Ambassador is recognized in most areas as the head of the

country team and the person responsible for the coordination of policy?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. I certainly feel from my experience it has done the job. I have not had problems of that type. I think the fact that the letter is not only known to the Ambassador but is also known to the other agency representatives-the other agencies represented in the field—has had a very important effect. On the other hand I should say that I have not served as ambassador in a post where there were huge AID programs still pending or over large MAAG's to work with. Those are two of the larger elements. So perhaps I have been more fortunate than some others in that respect. I never had any difficulty in getting my authority respected by the other agencies.

Senator JACKSON. Would you say that in order for the directive to be meaningful the Ambassador must implement it? It is not a self-executing operation.

Ambassador MATTHEWS. Certainly.

Senator JACKSON. In the last analysis an ambassador armed with this authority who will assert himself, can give meaning to the instructions?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. Exactly. As I said earlier in my statement, I feel that an ambassador now has the necessary authority and if he can't make his authority effective, it must be due either to a lack of leadership or a personality problem or he has very difficult people to deal with.

Senator JACKSON. In order to have a true country team operation, shouldn't the Ambassador have something to say on efficiency reports of the people outside of the State Department? How are you going to really have an effective team if the loyalties and duties and responsibilities in the last analysis are determined by another department?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. If the other department will recognize in the light of the Presidential letter that the Ambassador is in authority the representatives of that department in the field will be more amenable to his leadership.

Senator JACKSON. Again this gets back to coordination at the secretarial level?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. That is right.

Senator JACKSON. I was thinking from a practical point of view that if the Ambassador is really to have control over his country team, he must be able to do some realistic things in the personnel field. Otherwise he finds himself in a situation where he can issue the orders on paper but the people who are under him will naturally look to their own departmental desires rather than the Department of State and the ambassador.

Ambassador MATTHEWS. That is true, sir. But, I think particularly with this authority to insist upon the removal of someone who will not cooperate, while you don't have to exercise it very often, and I don't think it is exercised very often, the fact that it is in the background and the Ambassador can say I will not accept your viewpoint on this or your attitude with this or that problem and I will have to take it up in Washington will have the desired result.

Senator JACKSON. Senator Mundt.

Senator MUNDT. I like your idea of putting the ambassadors into the three categories, now that we have completed the rollcall of cate

gory three. I agree that the political appointee who is selected carefully because of his performance capabilities, experience, know-how, and demonstrated capacities in another field can on occasion render a good service. Perhaps for some of the really expensive posts you sometimes have to turn to people of that type for that kind of job. I would like to ask you what kind of training does the Ambassador in the second category, of which we concede there should be some but not too many, get for his particular job before he goes overseas?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. I believe he spends some weeks in the State Department learning the nature of the job, the nature of the problems that he will be confronted with in the country to which he is going. He pays visits to the other more important agencies which are interested in his country, such as Defense, Treasury perhaps, certainly the U.S. Information Agency, depending upon the problems. Then I think every effort is made to give him the best possible deputy chief of mission, someone with real ability and experience to guide him when he gets there. If he is a man of broad outlook and broad vision, I think it will not take him too long to get his feet wet, so to speak. Senator MUNDT. I think that is right. His training is just a matter of weeks, is that right?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. That is my impression.

Senator MUNDT. That is mine, too. I wanted you to confirm that. I quite agree if he gets the proper deputy, if he is a good front man and good salesman and diplomat, he can take that briefing and present it to the foreign government very effectively. The list of names you mentioned certainly is impressive, and it probably could be expanded somewhat. Our committee, under our able chairman, tries to pick the brains of the old pros who retire from the Foreign Service. We call you in and ask you to counsel with us. Is any use made by the State Department of the retired ambassadors who have had some 20 years of service, many of whom still live in this general area, and who have a great background of information on various areas of the world where they have been permitted to serve with some tenure? What if any use is made of these elderly counselors on foreign affairs?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. I think at times, sir, they are brought in on consultation on particular problems and sometimes put to work for various periods of time. I think as you have all read, my good friend and colleague, Livingston Merchant has recently been given an assignment to discuss this problem of a multilateral nuclear force in NATO. That is an example that occurs to me. I know other people that have been brought in from time to time.

Senator MUNDT. There is no organized group of counselors or any group that meets on occasions and discusses and consults with the State Department? Is it just depending upon some urgent problem where the Secretary of State may select out an individual?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. I think it depends somewhat on the problem that comes up and who may have the talents and experiences in that particular area, either geographic area or function. Then I think he is drawn in. I believe under existing legislation, career ambassadors are supposedly always at the call of the Government.

Senator MUNDT. I am trying to determine whether the State Department maintains a sort of panel or a group of these "elder counselors," if we may call them that, or do they just call in an individual and then

Ambassador MATTHEWS. I think they have a panel, but what the system is and when, and if they are called upon I do not know. I think it probably depends upon the knowledge of the person involved by the person that needs help on the problem.

Senator MUNDT. Would you say that the utilization of these experienced and retired State Department Foreign Service people is the general practice or the exception!

Ambassador MATTHEWS. I would say probably closer to the exception. But many of them live in other parts of the country. Many of them are out of touch.

Senator MUNDT. Most of them seem to maintain a pretty lively interest in the affairs to which they have devoted a lifetime. I don't believe that the geographical handicap would keep many of them from responding to the call if they were called; do you?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. That is right, sir. They are like old fire horses in some ways.

Senator MUNDT. I have one other question. What use did you make or do you think should be made of people in the private sector, Americans in the private sector, overseas? Let me give a little background to the question. It seems to me inevitably as we shift the burden of the AID program from the backs of the taxpayers to the entrepreneurs who have a chance to make a profit by engaging in economic activity overseas, and we enhance the profit opportunity by our protective legislation and our insurance programs and our guarantees against insurrection and expropriation, that increasingly we will find in the average foreign country there will be more Americans representing the United States and working for private employers than those working for the Government. The foreign citizen is not going to be too discriminating as to which is really representing U.S. aid. Every American overseas reflects the American posture and position. So I have a two edged question. The first is what use are we making of the people in the private sector? What use do you think we should make? And do you think it is desirable to have the whole private sector operating under the American flag overseas without any benefit of any training or know-how as to our foreign policy positions?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. Senator, I think in most communities— and I am speaking now of Europe and Latin America, the only areas in which I have served that the opinions and views of private Americans who have spent many years in the country, operating there in business or in some other field, are valued.

Usually the embassy and the Ambassador would like to consult and ask their views about these problems. If they themselves have problems they usually come to us and discuss them, seeking the best solution that could be worked out. This is largely on an informal basis. I think there are very close ties in most places between the private American community and the American embassy.

Senator MUNDT. Is there any way they could be auxiliary members of the country team and could have a little bit more of a feeling that they were part of the operation than at present?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. That might present some difficulties, I suppose.

Senator MUNDT. It presents some difficulties when they have no connection with the embassies. We are dealing with a reality, they are there.

52-721 0-65 --17

Ambassador MATTHEWS. You mean their wisdom is not being utilized.

Senator MUNDT. I have found in my own experience overseas (and I make it a habit wherever I can to break away from the entertainment circuit of the poor, hard-pressed foreign officer who thinks he has to entertain a Senator, and the recipient country officials who think they have to entertain a Senator frequently to the disappointment of all concerned, because they both would rather be doing something else and they would rather be saving their shekels) that Americans wish to help.

I try to get acquainted with Americans overseas and talk to them. We have to assume their purposes are good. I have raised these points with them. Many, many times they have expressed disappointment in that they don't feel their talents and their positions and enterprises are being utilized in the overall American thrust.

This may not be a universal thing. I have not been everywhere and talked to everyone. But I have talked to some. I have heard it a great many times. It made me wonder whether or not we could do something to utilize them.

In talking with them I know they are doing things which if I were the ambassador I would rather they would not be doing. But they are free and they have a right to do it and you can't stop them.

I think a little guidance and a little background training would make them part of the team and eliminate more problems than an attempt to utilize them might create.

Ambassador MATTHEWS. I think the effort is made in many places to work closely with the leaders of the private American community. For instance, there is usually a local American chamber of commerce. Senator MUNDT. You mentioned your service in Latin America. I know our binational houses have moved in that direction and I believe constructively; would you agree?

Ambassador MATTHEWS. Yes.

Senator MUNDT. I do think quite frankly that this is one of the places where we tend to mute the effort of Americans overseas because the fellow living there is just as much impressed by what a junior officer of a corporation-maybe General Electric has to say and how he acts and what he does, as a fellow with equally high rank in the Foreign Service.

These are Americans as far as they are concerned. Unhappily, they even think some tourists represent American policy when they are there. Frequently they have lived there much longer than the Ambassador.

Frequently they will stay a long time after the Ambassador has left. They belong to an operation which is expanding because the American economic family is growing in these countries, and we are trying to use them and give employment to people and upgrade their standards of living.

Very frankly, I am disenchanted with the whole State Department approach to this area. We have been working in a little different field from what Senator Pell has been working in in connection with the freedom academy approach and so forth, and one of the great places where we fall out with the State Department is its insistent desire that we minimize any training program or any attempt to utilize the pri