CHAPTER VII

REPRESENTATION IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In this chapter consideration will be given to United States representation abroad for the conduct of relations with individual foreign countries. The organizational structures at the country level through which the European recovery program and the mutual defense assistance program are being implemented will be noted, as well as the organizational structure of diplomatic missions and consular offices. In the past, overseas activities have usually centered in the United States diplomatic mission in the given country acting primarily as an arm of the Department of State. This had been evidenced by the incorporation in July 1939 of the Foreign Commerce Service and Foreign Agricultural Service into the Foreign Service of the United States, functioning under the Department of State. The Foreign Service itself had been established as a legal entity in 1924 by the amalgamation of the previously separate diplomatic and consular services, both of which had operated unuder the Department of State since their establishment.

Under the emergency pressures of the war and postwar period, the monopoly of the diplomatic mission was seriously breached. Activities overseas are at present carried on by the representatives of many Government agencies. The relationship of these representatives to the diplomatic mission varies considerably. The variety of responsibilities for overseas work is indicated by the foreign affairs programs and activities in which the agencies are engaged:

(1) Diplomatic and consular activities of the Department of State and Foreign Service, including political and economic intelligence; (2) The intelligence agencies activities (Army, Navy, Air Force. Central Intelligence Agency);

(3) The economic aid program in Europe, including the occupied areas, and in the Philippines, Korea, and "the general area of China" (Economic Cooperation Administration);

(4) The mutual defense assistance program (Departments of State and Defense and the Economic Cooperation Administration);

(5) The educational exchange and technical cooperation programs (nearly every country in the world and some dozen different agencies);

(6) The information programs (Department of State, the Department of the Army, and the Economic Cooperation Administration);

(7) The complex occupied areas programs, additional to the economic and information programs, in Germany, Japan, Austria, Trieste (Department of State and Department of the Army);

(8) The displaced persons program (Displaced Persons Commission).

In addition, a great variety of miscellaneous activities, mostly of a technical nature, are being carried on abroad by individual departments and agencies.

As of September 30, 1950, some 43 Government departments, agencies or units were engaged in activities overseas, employing a total civilian personnel, comprising both Americans and nationals of the various countries, of 74,879.

The doctrinal concept, widely but not invariably accepted in the past, which accords to the chief of the diplomatic mission authority and responsibility for the conduct of all Government business within. the given country, has not been adhered to in the war and postwar periods. The absence of a recognized central authority to direct and coordinate the various programs and activities at the country level has given rise at times to a state of confusion and disharmony in the conduct of foreign relations at that level. It is the purpose of this chapter to seek a solution to the problem that has resulted.

The problem is to determine the manner in which the United States should be represented in foreign countries, and the relationships of United States officials in each country to the chief of the diplomatic mission in that country.

BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The effectiveness with which United States foreign policy objectives are pursued in a given country depends in large measure upon agreement as to what constitutes representation, comprehension of organizational relationships, teamwork, understanding of over-all policy objectives and of individual program objectives, and approximate equality of status and treatment of personnel of the same level of responsibility. Deficiencies in regard to any or all of these factors tend to limit success.

The multiplicity of agencies, objectives, and programs, and the variety in the relationship of agency representatives to the chief of the diplomatic mission have all tended to create a situation in which these favorable factors have often been absent.

Nature and growth of overseas staffs

Nature of representation.-Representation of the United States in a foreign country has recently assumed a dual nature. In the historic sense of the term only the chief of the diplomatic mission, or members of his staff authorized by him to do so, may represent or speak on behalf of the United States. This arrangement, which is still generally favored by international practice, enables the receiving government to know definitely from an authoritative source the position of the appointing government on a given matter. It also has the advantage, from the point of view of the appointing government, of concentrating authority and responsibility in one official.

In the looser sense in which representation of the United States is currently arranged, representation is effected not only at the intergovernmental level but also at the level of departments or agencies. Not only the chief of the United States diplomatic mission but also the overseas representatives of certain governmental agencies may represent or speak for the United States or attempt to do so. On occasion such representatives may be specifically authorized by legislation, executive orders, or agency directive to speak on behalf of the United States Government or an agency thereof.

Basically it is these different conceptions of what constitutes representation, of where authority and responsibility at the country level reside, that give rise to most major difficulties between United States agencies in regard to both substantive and administrative matters. Hence the importance of solving problems of agency authority and responsibility in Washington.

By tradition and practice the Department of State has generally, but not always, held the lead in the international field under the President. But whenever the area of government activity has been extended and new agencies have been created, or old agencies expanded, to engage at home and abroad in activities connected with the formulation and implementation of new policies affecting other countries, conflicting fields of jurisdiction have automatically been created and problems of interagency relationships at the country level have presented themselves.

Up to 1939 the work of a diplomatic mission or consular office usually consisted of performing a variety of assignments such as representation, involving protection and furtherance of United States interests and exposition of United States foreign policy; negotiation; the preparation for the Secretary of State of reports containing political, economic, and commercial information, evaluation, and policy recommendations; the conclusion of agreements on the taxation of American nationals; the extension of appropriate courtesies to resident or visiting United States nationals; and the issuance of passports and

visas. The work of other segments of United States representation in the country may have been related to the acquisition of information on economic and commercial matters, developments in aeronautics, ship construction, or the military sciences.

The Second World War and postwar developments have resulted in the formulation of new foreign policy objectives and the adoption of new overseas programs. Diplomatic or consular offices have been called upon to arrange for the evacuation of American nationals from danger zones; to maintain contact with a fugitive host government within battle areas; and to protect the interests and nationals of another state. In other instances new agencies have been created for program execution. Such programs have involved obtaining strategic information, strengthening the war potential of the United States and its allies, informing foreign nations regarding United States policies and objectives, or effecting economic recovery and development. Just as these new programs have often created overlapping responsibilities in Washington, there has likewise been overlap at the country level.

Growth of staffs.-The diplomatic and consular services, both operating under the Department of State, were for a long time the only foreign services of the United States Government.

Later the War and Navy Departments began to select officers for designation by the Secretary of State as military or naval attachés at important diplomatic missions. These officers perform a limited representation function, acquire and report military and other intelligence, and serve as advisers to the chief of the diplomatic mission. The Departments of the Treasury and Commerce likewise began to send officers abroad, the latter in order to promote American trade, and the former in order to perform investigative work designed to prevent circumvention of the customs laws and regulations and in order to enforce certain quarantine and other health regulations. The Department of Agriculture sent representatives abroad to report on markets, farm management, and agricultural economics and to engage in agricultural research.

Thus, by 1919, when Representative Rogers introduced the first of a series of bills which culminated in the Rogers Act of 1924, merging the diplomatic and consular services into the Foreign Service, a number of Government agencies had representatives stationed abroad. The purposes of the merger were to increase the salary of officers engaged in diplomatic work in order to open a career to persons lacking private means, and to make easier the transfer of officers between diplomatic and consular work in the interest of a general improvement in the conduct of foreign affairs abroad. The status of the overseas representatives of other agencies was not affected by this merger.

About the time of the passage of the Rogers Act, overseas civilian personnel strength, American and alien, was approximately 3,804 persons, of which 3,447 were in the foreign service and the remainder under the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce and Treasury, including the Public Health Service.

In the period from 1924 to the outbreak of the Second World War the major developments affecting overseas representation were (1) creation by act of Congress of a separate Foreign Commerce Service in 1927 and a separate Foreign Agricultural Service in 1930, and their amalgamation into the Foreign Service in July 1939 by the President's Reorganization Plan No. II;1 and (2) formal congressional authorization in 1930 for the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint "Treasury Attachés for duty in foreign countries." Such attachés were to be members of the Customs Service, which as indicated above, had already been represented abroad for some years.

1

Six months after the amalgamation, in December 1939, total civilian personnel overseas, American and alien, was 5,080. Of this number, 4,236 were with the Department of State, 500 with the War and Navy Departments, and the remaining 344 were scattered among such agencies as the Treasury (90), the American Battle Monuments Commission (78), the Department of Labor (61), the Public Health Service (53), the Bureau of Public Roads (26), specialized services of the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and Post Office, and the Maritime Commission and National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. As indicated previously, the outbreak of war in Europe in the fall of 1939 and the subsequent involvement of the United States resulted in the creation of numerous agencies in Washington which carried on overseas operations. Most of these agencies were engaged in activities broadly classified as economic, information, intelligence, or relief. During this period also the Treasury Department began to assign financial representatives abroad; they were attached to diplomatic missions in countries of major importance and usually designated as Treasury attaché or financial attaché.

With the new responsibilities developing out of the war situation, the personnel strength of the Foreign Service was inadequate in numbers, and many of its individual members were not qualified by experience or training, to assume responsibility for execution of the new overseas programs. While this was largely due to the relatively restricted nature of prewar Foreign Service responsibilities, it was also in part due to the fact that provision had not been made for quick expansion of the service to cope with wartime contingencies.

1 The President stated at the time that the plan consolidated "the foreign services into one Foreign Service in the Department of State, where it ought to be, with the resulting advantages of economy, efficiency, better functional grouping, elimination of overlapping and duplication of effort, and greater service to our commercial and agricultural interests."

953820-51- -18