ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1964

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

STAFFING AND OPERATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

[This hearing was held in executive session and subsequently ordered made public by the chairman of the committee.]

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 3112, New Senate Office Building, Senator Henry M. Jackson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Jackson, Pell, Brewster, Javits, and Miller.

Staff members present: Dorothy Fosdick, staff director; Richard S. Page, research assistant; Judith J. Spahr, chief clerk; and Laurel A. Engberg, minority consultant.

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Senator JACKSON. The subcommittee will come to order.

Today the subcommittee will take additional testimony on the role of American ambassadors and the relation of Washington to our diplomatic missions in the field. This subject has been a central one in our nonpartisan study of the administration of national security.

Our witness today is the Honorable Livingston T. Merchant, career ambassador, retired, who has had a long, varied, and successful experience in high posts in Washington and overseas. Today he is back on duty as Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for NATO Multilateral Force Negotiations.

A Princeton graduate, Ambassador Merchant was associated with Scudder, Stevens & Clark, investment counsel firm, from 1926 to 1942, for 12 years as partner. His period of public service dates from 1942 when he joined the Department of State.

Ambassador Merchant's posts have included Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, 1953-56; Ambassador to Canada, 1956-58; Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, 1958-59; Deputy Under Secretary of State, 1959; Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, 1959-61; and Ambassador to Canada, 1961-62.

I might observe that I think you have set somewhat of a record, Mr. Ambassador, in that you became a career ambassador after about 20 years of Federal service including service within the Department of State. I don't know of any other person who has been so honored and who has come up so fast and who has done such an outstanding job in that time.

I might venture the guess that maybe your fine experience as an investment banker has been of some help. We have noted with great interest over the years that people with investment banking experience are so often outstanding in the field of national security. The list of those people is very impressive.

We are very fortunate to have you with us, and you may wish to start out with some informal remarks before we ask you questions.

STATEMENT OF HON. LIVINGSTON T. MERCHANT, CAREER AMBASSADOR, RETIRED

Ambassador MERCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no prepared statement. I am delighted to be here. I have followed, of course, the work of this subcommittee with the greatest interest. I think I have read all of the reports that have been issued. I have only recently refamiliarized myself with two for this appearance, "The Secretary of State" and "Basic Issues" on the role of the ambassador.

I think the work being done is tremendously constructive. Everyone I know who is interested in these problems of operating successfully in the field of national security is equally impressed.

I have a few opinions and convictions on certain aspects of the phase of Government operations that I have been concerned with. Probably rather than get into them in a disconnected fashion, it might be better to let questions and answers develop discussion. If I find any point I really feel strongly about that hasn't been touched on, I will volunteer it.

Senator JACKSON. Why don't we start out this way: In your judgment, how big is the job of Ambassador today? This is a period of fast travel and quick communication and decisions have to be made on short notice. This obviously affects the job of any Ambassador.

Many of these great changes have occurred during your period of service. Would you tell us in your judgment how important is the job of Ambassador today, and what are some of the problems as you see them?

Ambassador MERCHANT. Well, I think the character of the role has greatly changed over the years. To me the role of the Ambassador is, or certainly can be, just as important as it ever was.

If you go back 150 years, the Presidential envoy to a foreign country would be 6 or 8 weeks out of communication with his Government and it was impossible to obtain prompt instructions, or amendments to his instructions. He necessarily operated as a negotiator, a representative, with a very considerable field for personal maneuver and decision.

Instant communication has obviously changed that. The complexity of the world has changed it. I think increasingly today the importance of the Ambassador really depends on the man himself. It is often overlooked, for example, that in bilateral dealings with any country, each government or each of the two governments has the choice of two channels through which to negotiate. They can negotiate and deal primarily through the resident Ambassador of the other country in Washington, or through their Ambassador in the capital of the other country. By and large most governments, I

think, follow the practice of choosing the particular channel for predominant communication with the other government which has proved the most effective and reliable and rapid.

The Ambassador today has, I think it is agreed, less opportunity and less scope for independent decisionmaking in the field. He has gained, I think, in importance in the role as adviser.

I never resented the fact that any significant decision had to go back to Washington because with the complication of the position of the United States as leader of the free world, with the multiplication of countries with whom we deal, with the development of extensive forums for multilateral diplomacy, with the march of science, with the cold war, and other complications, it is impossible that anyone not in Washington can fully relate, on any important matter, the significance of the local problem, as seen by the man on the spot, to the overall relationship.

I think, however, the Ambassador in his role of increased importance as chief adviser to the Secretary and the President can capitalize on this situation, or he can, in effect, default on it.

I think he is bound, if he is going to be a successful Ambassador, to express his views thoughtfully, and forcefully, and based on a genuine knowledge of the subject and of the country in which he is operating, including the political and other forces at work locally.

That is a long answer to a short question. I make one other point though:

I, myself, have never experienced, either traveling with any of the Secretaries of State abroad, or as the recipient of visits by Secretaries of State at my post abroad, any case where the position of the Ambassador was damaged by such a visit.

Every Secretary of State I have served with has quite properly, you might say, gone out of his way to impress on the host government the degree of confidence which the Government reposes in the Ambassador on the spot. This has been, in the long run, I think, helpful rather than destructive to the proper role of the Ambassador in the world today.

Senator JACKSON. Has the Ambassador's executive management role increased?

Ambassador MERCHANT. Oh, tremendously.

Senator JACKSON. This is one of the significant new developments, isn't it, especially since the cold war?

Ambassador MERCHANT. The increased variety and number of tools to support and reinforce our foreign policy in a particular country has not only increased, but it has opened up a number of important technical fields.

The whole field of USIA and the field of public relations and cultural impact is involved. There is the whole concept of economic aid and assistance, and military aid and assistance, just to name a few.

This means that modern ambassadors have a highly specialized and diversified organization over which they must preside. I think in large part, the measure of his success is determined by how good an executive he is, how competent he is to relate operations and decisions in one field, maybe a highly technical one, to the total objectives of the foreign policy of the United States, in the country of his residence.