« AnteriorContinuar »
ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1963
STAFFING AND OPERATIONS,
Washington, D.O. [This hearing was held in ex utive session and subsequently ordered made public by the chairman of the committee.]
The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 3112, Now Senate Office Building, Senator Henry M. Jackson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Jackson, Pell, and Miller.
Staff members present: Dorothy Fosdick, staff director; Richard S. Pagę, research assistant; Judith J. Spahr, chief clerk; and Laurel A. Engberg, minority consultant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN
Senator JACKSON. The committee will come to order.
The subcommittee continues today its hearings on the role of our ambassadors and the missions they head in countries abroad. This subject constitutes one part of the subcommittee's nonpartisan study into questions of national security administration.
Recent events, particularly in South Vietnam, have underlined the growing complexity of coordination of U.S. policies at home and in the field, as the instruments of national policy have multiplied.
Our witness today has had a long and quite extraordinary experience in the development of U.S. foreign policy both in Washington and abroad. We are indeed fortunate to have with us the Honorable David K. E. Bruce, Ambassador of the United States to Great Britain.
His record of public service goes back more than three decades when he became vice consul in the U.S. Foreign Service in Rome. Ambassador Bruce has served in the U.S. Army in World War I and World War II performing notable work with the Office of Strategic Services from 1941 to 1945. He has been awarded military decorations by the United States and by six other countries.
His national service has included not only distinguished work abroad, but important duty at the top level of the State Department. He was Chief of the Economic Cooperation Administration to France, 1948-49; Ambassador to France, 1949–52; Under Secretary of State, 1952–53; American representative to the European High Authority for Coal and Steel, 1953–54; and Ambassador to the Federal Republic
of Germany, 1957–59. He was appointed Ambassador to Great Britain in 1961.
In addition to his outstanding public service he was in private business for more than 12 years in banking and in commercial activities.
It is a real honor to have Ambassador Bruce with us this morning.
Mr. Ambassador, I know you have a prepared statement and if there is no objection we shall include it in the record at this point.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID K. E. BRUCE, AMBASSADOR TO GREAT
Ambassador BRUCE. A wide range of U.S. Government agencies have representatives in Great Britain. The State Department has its own units—the Embassy in London and eight consulates in other cities. Attached to and forming integral parts of the Embassy, but at the same time responsible to their own departments, are representatives of the U.S. Information Service, the Agency for International Development, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce (including the Maritime Administration and the U.S. Travel Service), the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department (and Coast Guard), the National Institutes of Health, the Public Health Service, the Federal Aviation Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the three military services, and other branches or commands under the Department of Defense. Many of these have subunits which carry out_activities apart from and not directly related to the work of the Embassy, though the Embassy renders them administrative support.
In addition to the above, there are a score or more other units, variously located and carrying out activities, under their separate instructions from other headquarters, which may have little to do with the Embassy. Many of them are military. Their activities cover a disparate range of matters, such as standardization of military equipment, allocation of radio frequencies, or exchange of scientific research information. Some of their work is regional, i.e., outside as well as within Great Britain.
Finally, there the military commands: CINCNELM CINCNĂVEUR, Third Air Force, and Seventh Air Division. Their headquarters are in or near London. The Navy has several base and communications facilities and the Air Force has some twenty operating base and supporting facilities; these are located throughout the country.
This is a variegated official U.S. oversea representation. It employs a large number of people. At the present time, these total, roughly. as follows:
Dependents of these employees total about twice the same numbers again.
The activities of most of these representatives are in some degree related to U.S. national security. The military commands and their subordinate units of course have their defined responsibilities and authority under their own higher headquarters. For the remainder, the primacy of the Ambassador and his responsibility to coordinate, supervise, and support all U.S. Government activities in Great Britain are recognized. This recognition exists on the part of both the U.S. representatives and the British or other people with whom they deal. I believe it can be fairly said that, so far as the conduct of a satisfactory overall relationship with the British Government and nation is concerned, this multifarious U.S. Government representation has not been detrimental.
It could not be correctly said, however, that all U.S. representatives here form a close-knit country team, functioning under the close direction of the Ambassador. I would limit the definition of the country team to units, indicated in the first paragraph above, which are substantively integrated in to the Embassy. This includes the Military Assistance Advisory Group and certain special security detachments. Effectively, this team comprises my whole staff and carries out the Embassy's work under the direction of myself and my assistants. Supervision and coordination of the total effort is accomplished by continuous contact of the members concerned with the work and by participation in general staff meetings, rather than by formal organization of a smaller "country team.” Ad hoc working groups may be set up as required for specific projects.
At the same time, of course, the members of the team who are assigned by and receive direct instructions from agencies other than the State Department have their responsibilities and loyalties to those agencies. They are dependent upon those agencies for support, not the least of which is budgetary. Obviously, this fact imposes some limitations on the Ambassador's freedom to direct their activities and creates possibilities for working at cross purposes. Obvious cases in point are the MAAG, which is established by and receives orders from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the line of command running through commander in chief, Europe; or the Army, Navy, and Air Force attachés, with, in Great Britain, their large staffs and manifold activities under Service orders.
I believe, nevertheless, that this team has functioned effectively and, from my point of view, satisfactorily. It has assisted me in the discharge of my responsibilities, and I have not considered myself hampered by conflicts or any lack of authority. I would not suggest that any more closely integrated organization be attempted at the mission, unless it were to follow from closer integration of decision making and instruction issuing in Washington. That, of course, is a different and undoubtedly difficult problem, outside the scope of this statement. In existing circumstances the Embassy in London seems to me to be reasonably well equipped and organized to enable the Ambassador to direct the overall conduct of the U.S. Government's business in Great Britain, in accordance with his instructions.
I can only speak well, also, of the way in which the military commands have endeavored to coordinate their actions with those of the
Embassy, in the interest of overall relations between the United States and Great Britain. Cases in point are various base-rights negotiation and management, handling of base closures, or conduct of good-community-relations programs. Again, when there have been possibilities of actions which might adversely affect overall relations, these have been created primarily by lack of coordination of instructions issued by higher headquarters.
Whether all of the work of all of the U.S. Government agencies in Great Britain is profitable would be for others to judge.
I think it might be interesting to list the categories of official U.S. representatives in the United Kingdom, with especial attention to those receiving administrative support from the Embassy.
The Embassy is composed as follows:
In London, but not part of the Embassy, are two U.S. military commands: CINCNELM/CINCUSNAVEÜR, with 649 American and 278 British personnel, and Third Air Force Headquarters, with 2,419 American and 1.069 local personnel. Additionally, there are some 300 American and 30 local personnel assigned to Department of Defense units in the London area which are not part of the aforementioned Navy and Air Force headquarters and are not administratively connected with the Embassy.
In the United Kingdom outside London the Air Force has some 27,500 American and 4,400 local personnel; the Army some 50 American personnel; the Navy some 700 American and 225 local personnel ; and a U.S. civilian agency about 50 American and 50 local employees.
All in all, therefore, the U.S. Government has in the United Kingdom more than 32,000 American and 6,500 local personnel, most of whom work for the Department of Defense. All figures exclude dependents.
Senator Jackson. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Ambassador. Possibly you may have some additional comments that you would like to make in connection with our study, before we start the questions.
Ambassador BruCE. Thank you, Senator. I have read most of the transcripts of hearings which you have conducted in this study. I think in the case of the United Kingdom that we are rather free of any problem of a country team nature. Coordination there for one