« AnteriorContinuar »
vate sector. Senator Dodd and the rest of us on the other side of the program think that we should emphasize that.
Here is something that we can get for free as far as the taxpayer is concerned if we utilize it, and which is going to operate because Americans are people who have a great amount of initiative and energy and they are going to do something over this. I would like to be sure that they are doing the right thing, some way or another tied in with the general pattern of performance that the State Department believes is proper there.
Ambassador MATTHEWS. I can only say that any ambassador in the field is very unwise if he doesn't utilize and draw upon the experience of leaders in the American community there.
I think most of them are very anxious to get their views and keep in touch, because they recognize the value to them.
Senator Mundt. Do you think it would be helpful or harmful to the Ambassador in carrying out that desire if he had Americans overseas who had some background of know-how as to what it was all about insofar as the diplomatic problems are concerned?
Ambassador MATTHEWS. I should think to set up formal machinery to bring them in would be a little complicated. Senator MUNDT. You mean at the country team level? Ambassador MATTHEWs. Yes, sir. Senator Mundt. I quite agree. So I say if you have people who are there, who have some kind of knowledge about what it is all about, it seems to be a much better position to work with them than if you had to try to surmount the problem there, because they are busy, you are busy. They might think you were a busybody if you tried to call them in. Ambassador MATTHEWS. Yes, sir. Senator MUNDT. Thank you. Senator JACKSON. Senator Pell?
Senator Pell. One further question. I was wondering what your thinking was with regard to the relationship of the State Department and USÍA. Do you think it should be closer or more separate or is it just about right as it is? Do you find that the people working under you in that area were doing their job competently or did they need more men or less men or was it about right?
Ambassador MATTHEWS. As far as the relationship here in Washington is concerned, I am not really qualified to speak, having been away for 10 years. As far as the field is concerned, my experience has been universally good.
I have had good people, just about the right number. Where there was a misfit or two, usually the public affairs officer, the top USIA representative, wanted to have him transferred and would arrange it. But I have been fortunate in having very good people in my three ambassadorial posts.
I think the relationship numerically is just about right and certainly it works very well in the field. There again I get back to Mr. Harriman's statement that there is no substitute for good people.
Senator PELL. Thank you very much. Senator MUNDT. In line with that question, do you find that the top USIA public affairs officer and the country team's public affairs officer are usually the same individual or two individuals?
Ambassador MATTHEWs. It is the same individual. On the country team the USIA representative is the top man of his agency in that particular country.
Senator MUNDT. That is one reason I think it works so well.
Senator Mundt. Yes; although I happen to be one of those who opposed the idea of splitting them up at the time. I was afraid it would not work. I believe it has worked out pretty well.
Ambassador MATTHEWS. It has certainly worked out in the field. I can't speak for the Washington end.
Senator JACKSON. Professor Engberg ?
Professor ENGBERG. Mr. Ambassador, we are working primarily in this area of security staffing and operations. The question or two I would like to ask may not be particularly new but I think it might be of some value to have it on the record.
Assuming that the Ambassador is a competent individual, and we all feel that he is, I don't suppose there is anyone in any of the countries who is better qualified to have the necessary information and the knowledge of exactly what the situation is in that particular country.
As the result of that condition I have a two-barrel type of question.
First, just what part should the Ambassador and his country team play in determining the future policy of the United States in that country? In other words, what consideration is actually given to his thinking as to future planning for our activities in that country. The second part of the question is: What consideration is given to his recommendations as to the necessary funds that will be spent in that country over the next year or 2 years in all of these related areas that he is in charge of as head of the country team?
Ambassador MATTHEWS. To answer the first part of the question, I think his views in the working out of any program of objectives in the country in which he is stationed are usually asked and usually given a considerable amount of weight.
Professor ENGBERG. Are they given weight?
Ambassador MATTHEWS. In my experience that has been the case. Plans made in Washington are usually sent over and we have been consulted and given a crack at them and if we object to something, we explain why we object, or if we think there has been an omission and we think it is important, I think usually those views have been accepted.
That has been my experience. As far as the funds and the budget is concerned, very little attention is paid to what the Ambassador has to say because as a rule it is a matter of how you slice the total pie.
Professor ENGBERG. Do you feel that the Ambassador's recommendation in regard to these rather vast expenditures should be more critically considered by State?
Ambassador MATTHEWs. The rather vast what?
Professor ENGBERG. These budgetary amounts, do you think the Ambassador's position should be given greater consideration?
Ambassador MATTHEWS. There again you get back to the problem of localitis. Each man thinks his country and problems are more
important than the other fellow's and he needs more money. They have to divide it up.
Professor ENGBERG. It is difficult for me to see how the recommendations of the Ambassador in these areas can be totally separated from the amount of money that is going to be spent to implement the program that he is approving or disapproving?
Ambassador MATTHEWS. That is quite true. But if you added up what each Ambassador considers minimum needs you would find the total around the world would considerably exceed the funds available.
Professor ENGBERG. I have another question in a different area. I have been talking with various people and I have been told that it is customary for communications that come from various members of a country mission, people who represent the different departments, to be channeled, as you have indicated in your testimony, through your office and then to State.
Frequently they then are in communication with their own agency, Agriculture or the like, and the type of communication they send to the agency that they are directly representing is frequently at considerable variance with what comes up to State.
In other words, the analysis, the explanation, the reasons why are considerably different from the formal report. What is your reaction to that type of thing? What effect does it have upon a total program? Why should it take place ?
Ambassador MATTHEWS. I think it can have a harmful effect on the total program. I think most of the direct channels from the particular agency's representative in the field to his home agency are in the form of private letters rather than official communications. The Ambassador should see all official communications on policy.
The difficulty is that it is sometimes hard to stop people from writing private and personal letters. But if it emerges that it is the attache for this or that department or agency who is sending in private suggestions which are contrary to the policy with regard to that country, the Ambassador has a very justifiable complaint and should either stop him or get rid of him.
Professor ENGBERG. It can certainly cause confusion here in Washington.
Ambassador MATTHEWS. Yes; it does. I had no great problem in that respect in my posts but I do know it exists.
Senator Jackson. I have just one other question, Ambassador
Senator JACKSON. Would you have a comment to make regarding the importance of close coordination between State and Defense and any suggestions to improve the operations in this area?
Ambassador MATTHEWS. I don't think you can exaggerate the importance of close cooperation between State and Defense. Of course, that was particularly emphasized during the Korean war period where I represented the State Department with Defense and with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We met at least twice a week during that period and sometimes three or four times a day depending upon the urgency and the problem that was up.
We had very good, close-working relationships. I assume that relations today are just as close or even closer. I might say that in the early weeks of the Korean war there was no real liaison permitted between the two. When there was a change in the Secretary of Defense that situation was remedied immediately.
Senator Jackson. Are you speaking of the change when Mr. Lovett became Secretary!
Ambassador MATTHEWS. No; before Mr. Lovett, when General Marshall was brought in as Secretary of Defense.
Senator JacksON. And followed by Mr. Lovett?
Ambassador MATTHEWS. And followed by Mr. Lovett and continued through Mr. Lovett. It is hard to exaggerate the importance of those close relationships.
Senator Jackson. Thank you very much, Ambassador Matthews. We are most appreciative to you for coming before the committee this morning to give us your most helpful testimony. We are very grateful
I know what you have said will be of great importance to the committee in its deliberations. The committee will continue its hearings, with testimony from other career ambassadors and from ambassadorial appointees temporarily in Government posts.
Our next hearings will be announced at a later date. So we will stand adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.
(Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.)
STATISTICS ON CHIEFS OF MISSION (CAREER AND NONCAREEB AMBASSADORS)
AS OF MAY 1963
(Compiled by the State Department) Chief of Mission Posts:
109 Special missions' (USRO, Thomas K. Finletter, (NC); OECD, John
Leddy, (NC); USEC, John W. Tuthill, (FSO-CM); USUN, Adlai E.
6 Chief of Mission Positions (See Attachment A): Number of positions-
67 37 3
Vacant posts: Hungary, CAR, and Yemen.
No diplomatic relations with Cuba, Red China, or Albania.
67 Average age of Chiefs of Mission (See Attachment C): Average age of career Chiefs of Mission.-
52. 1 Average age of noncareer Chiefs of Mission.--
51.7 Average age of all Chiefs of Mission -
52 Miscellaneous Statistics: Number of female Chiefs of Mission..
2 Number of Negro Chiefs of Mission
3 Youngest Chief of Mission...
37 Oldest Chief of Mission ---
69 1 These Ambassadors are not included in the following statistics on Chiefs of Mission.
The number of positions varies from the number of posts due to certain instances where one Chief of Mission is accredited to two or more countries, 1.e., Mauritania-Senegal and Saudi Arabia-Kuwait.