« AnteriorContinuar »
COORDINATION AT THE WASHINGTON LEVEL
(Comment submitted by Secretary Rusk) The Department's standing orders require that requests to field posts for reports from the Foreign Service, whether they originate in the Department or elsewhere, be channeled through or cleared with designated units.
The bulk of the Foreign Service's reporting for other agencies concerns eco$ nomic or economic-related data. Requests for such reports (as well as simi
lar requests from within the Department) must be submitted to the foreign reporting staff in the Bureau of Economic Affairs. This staff screens, coordinates, and schedules requirements on the field. Through scrupulous examination and subsequent interagency negotiations the schedule for recurring reports has been rigorously limited to the most fundamental needs of Washington agencies. The staff is now attempting to apply the same degree of professional scrutiny to day-to-day unscheduled requests.
Requests to posts for administrative reports are cleared in advance with the regional bureau or bureaus concerned. Recurring and scheduled administrative reports are also cleared in advance with the regulations and procedures staff in the Bureau of Administration; requests for one-time reports are post-audited by the regulations and procedures staff. The need for all administrative requests are evaluated against detailed, prescribed criteria copering purpose, essentiality, frequency, coverage, simplicity, and post-workload.
Requests for political reporting by the Foreign Service generally originate within the regional bureaus, or in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. All requests are screened by the regional bureaus routinely at the desk officer and office director level, or at a higher level if the situation warrants. The basic problem in political reporting is not one of coordination. Rather it concerns the nature of the political reporting function as it affects both Washington and field posts, and of the interrelationship of certain specialized reporting activities—areas which have been under study by the Department and which have been recognized by the subcommittee in its basic issues study.
In addition to requirements on the Foreign Service, which are controlled as previously described, some requests are made directly by departments and agencies to such separate staffs as they may be authorized to maintain overseas. Agencies with important operating programs overseas, such as AID or USIA, send a continual flow of requests to their own oversea employees. Where subjectmatter coordination is required, Washington clearances are obtained from State regional bureaus, generally at the desk officer or office director level. This is not, however, a screening process in terms of workload; such agencies are assumed to have exercised their responsibility for tailoring their requirements to the capacities of their own oversea staff. Active efforts are being made, how. ever, in both the economic and administrative areas to gear more closely requirements placed through State on the Foreign Service with those made by other agencies on their own oversea staffs.
In the larger framework of interagency policy and program coordination the Department has taken a number of steps. For example, regional interdepartmental policy committees have been established for Latin America and Africa; these are chaired by the appropriate Assistant Secretary of State with representation from other agencies and the White House at approximately the same
level. In the field of international aviation, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs chairs an interagency Committee on International Aviation Policy, and a Coordinator of International Aviation has been appointed to direct develop ment and coordination of international aviation policy for the U.S. Government. In the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Political Affairs, the Department has, for a number of years, had an effective focus where specific political and military matters could be looked at in terms of their interrelationships and within the totality of foreign policy. The Department is now developing organi: zational changes to strengthen relationships with other agencies on matters of administration; including review by the Department (at the request of the Bureau of the Budget) of other agencies' budget proposals for separate over sea staffs.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DETAILS TO OTHER AGENCIES
(Statement prepared by the Department) Fifteen years ago when a Foreign Service officer returned to the Department of State after an oversea tour, he could normally expect an assignment as a country desk officer. Today, a Foreign Service officer might still be assigned to the Austrian or the Panamanian desk, but he might just as well be detailed to the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, or even to the Department of the Interior. In these departments or any one of a number of other agencies, such as NASA, ACDA, or USIA, Foreign Service officers work as completely integrated members of the host organization, with the same operational and command responsibilities they would have in the State Department. The traditional diplomatist might be astonished at the idea of a Foreign Service officer standing a night watch in the Defense Department. But then the world has changed since the Congress of Vienna and the "new diplomacy" meets the needs of the world today.
The traditional diplomatic functions of reporting, analyzing, negotiation, and representation are as important as ever. The "new diplomacy" reaches far beyond these traditional functions and places new responsibilities on the State Department in its role in coordinating foreign policy and the conduct of our business with other nations. A growing number of other agencies have legitimate and important interests in the foreign affairs field and State in its own work requires the specialized and expert knowledge of those agencies. One way of securing such cooperation and an understanding of each other's problems is to have Foreign Service officers working as an integral part of these other agencies.
In order for the detail program to be fully effective the officer on detail must be an active participant in the work of the agency to which he is temporarily assigned. Consequently, we carefully examine each detail proposal to determine that the officer concerned will have the opportunity to perform a real job and not just an exercise. For example, we are currently establishing an exchange project with the Department of Defense which provides for detailing five Foreign Service officers to the National Military Command Center and a reciprocal detail of five Defense officers to State's Operations Center. These men will not be observers; they will be actual watch officers with responsibilities and authority commensurate with their rank.
The detail must also be of sufficient duration to enable the Foreign Service officer, after learning his new job, to make an effective contribution to the work of the other agency. In most cases a 2-year tour is the rule, but in some instances Foreign Service officers are detailed for longer periods.
The history of the detail program is an interesting sidelight on the growth of U.S. interests since World War II. It began with the Foreign Service Act of 1946 which provided statutory authority for details to other agencies. At first this authority was used somewhat sparingly and was primarily confined to those agencies which had an obvious and close relationship with State. For example, as late as 1958, 52 of a total of 67 details were to Commerce and ICA (now AID); the other 15 were split among Defense, USIA, Labor, and the Operations Coordination Board. These details demonstrated not so much a new direction as a change of emphasis. Commerce and labor affairs, for instance, had been major interests of the Foreign Service for years. Foreign aid, of course, was a new development but its close relationship with foreign policy was so obvious that the use of Foreign Service officers in its implementation was natural and easy.
In the following 3 years numbers changed very little but direction began to change as the growing complexity and scale of diplomacy was recognized. Thus, in 1962, although the total number of details dropped to 61, 5 agencies were added to our list: The White House, Peace Corps, Export-Import Bank, InterAmerican Development Bank, and Treasury.
In the same year the Herter committee report lent its support to the philosopby
underlying much which
an expanded program of details. The report's recommendation with respect to a closely knit family of foreign services and unity of effort in foreign affairs reemphasized the value of details in achieving these aims. In 1963 details more than doubled for a total of 146 which for the first time included the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. The increase has continued to the point that at present 130 officers are detailed in Washington to 10 agencies as follows:
ACDA (26), AID (23), Commerce (31), Defense (18), HEW (1), Labor (2), NASA (2), Peace Corps (10), USIA (5), White House (5), Office of the Vice President (1), and Treasury (6). An additional 30 officers are detailed overseas to USIA (8), AID (20), U.S. Army Map Service (1), and Peace Corps (1). Arrangements are now being made for details to the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of the Budget, Social Security, and the Civil Aeronautics Board.
The present momentum of the detail program and the negotiations at present underway make it evident that the future will witness the continued growth and diversification of the program. As the program expands, however, we will have to begin to weigh the benefits of additional details against the strain on the Department's personnel resources represented by the temporary loss of expe rienced, qualified officers.
In sum, State Department details to other agencies have increased in number and variety in keeping with the growing complexity and scale of our foreign relations. The detail program has proven itself a capable and beneficial tool for providing more effective cooperation of the State Department with the other departments and agencies having important foreign affairs interests.