only has he served the embassy and the Economic Cooperation Administration mission, in addition to the Treasury Department, in matters of finance, but in some cases because of his special qualifications as an economist he has been called upon to perform tasks which would not otherwise fall within the sphere of his operations. Treasury representation is limited to the most important financial capitals and the situation has varied somewhat from post to post where such representatives are stationed.

The effectiveness of the Treasury attachés may be attributed to several factors. Each is of necessity a specialist because the particular area in which he operates is highly complex. For this reason he is well grounded and experienced before his overseas tour of duty. It is claimed that the degree of specialization required is such that it would be difficult to obtain any considerable number of similarly qualified persons from other sources. Posts to which attachés are assigned are of sufficient importance and interest to be attractive to qualified individuals.

The Treasury arrangement has demonstrated the advantage of providing a staff of specialists with experience in both domestic and international monetary and financial problems that can be used interchangeably in Washington and overseas. Being a member of the permanent staff of the Treasury Department, the individual officer has the opportunity to establish and maintain informal contacts with the departmental staff in Washington. From the viewpoint of the Department of State, the present arrangement is not entirely satisfactory, but it seems to have worked reasonably well from the point of view of the embassies and the Economic Cooperation Administration, as well as of the Treasury Department. The existence of the arrangement raises the question of whether similar arrangements might be maintained by other departments of the Government as was the case prior to the establishment of the unified Foreign Service. The Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, and Labor are not entirely satisfied with the manner in which the Department of State is administering the Foreign Service Act of 1946, but they appear to be disposed at present to seek changes in the administration of the act rather than new legislation. Some progress in reaching agreement with the Department of State has apparently occurred.

Information program relationships.-The information activities for which the Department of State is responsible are carried out overseas by the diplomatic missions in a unit usually called the United States Information Service. At the same time the Economic Cooperation Administration, which by law is obliged to publicize the Marshall Plan, usually maintains an information division in its country mission. At first the objectives of the United States Information Service and the Economic Cooperation Administration in the information

field were clearly distinct, at least on paper. The focus of Economic Cooperation Administration information activities, particularly in Europe, has in recent months shifted from efforts to set forth the purposes and achievements of the European recovery program to efforts to encompass the whole field of information activities.

With respect to Economic Cooperation Administration and Department of State information activities, an agreement of September 20, 1948, recognized the responsibility of the Department of State as defined in the Smith-Mundt Act to give "the fullest possible publicity to ECA programs and widest possible dissemination of ECA information abroad." It also recognized that the Economic Cooperation Administration "has primary responsibility for originating information regarding the purposes of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948 and programs conducted by ECA in furtherance of these purposes." The Economic Cooperation Administration undertook to utilize the information facilities of the United States Information Service abroad and to avoid duplication. An information officer with staff was to be established in the Office of the United States Special Representative in Europe, located in Paris, in which publicity materials would originate for European distribution. Similarly, there might be an information officer in each country mission. To avoid duplication they would utilize all existing United States Information Service offices, furnishing them with advance copies of releases and other materials. These provisions were put into effect. As the two programs have in recent months become more similar, efforts have been made in the field to coordinate them. Insofar as possible the Economic Cooperation Administration undertakes to justify, in terms of its own responsibility, embassy projects so that counterpart funds can be used to finance them. But despite the attempts to rationalize a situation that finds two United States agencies conducting information programs abroad that are similar and extensive, there remains inevitably some degree of duplication and confusion.

Control of communications and other facilities

Through control of civilian cryptographic materials and the diplomatic pouch service, the Department of State and the diplomatic missions are in a position to control in large measure confidential communications between overseas representatives of civilian agencies and their Washington headquarters; and at the same time to keep informed on developments pertaining to agency policies, programs and operations. Such control has from time to time been the subject of discussion by various agencies with the Department of State and the diplomatic missions. Security of cryptographic systems, which

is an overriding consideration from the Department of State-Foreign Service point of view, is an important factor. Such security is a direct responsibility of the Department of State.

During the Second World War, when difficulties arose between the Department of State and the Board of Economic Warfare, the President directed as follows:

All communications to and from persons or missions sent abroad shall be through the facilities of the Department of State and diplomatic missions, unless other means are agreed upon between the Board and the Department of State. The Department will do its utmost to provide expeditious means for such com

munications.

At a later date an agreement between the Foreign Economic Administration, the successor of the Board of Economic Warfare, and the Department of State contained the following provision with reference to communications:

All FEA cables will be transmitted through the State Department cable facilities unless otherwise determined, e. g., as in the case of a theater of military operations. The State Department will provide adequate staff and facilities in order to insure prompt transmission and delivery of cables. In the event that the State Department or its principal representative withholds transmission of a cable, FEA will be notified immediately of the reason. Mutually satisfactory arrangements will be made for quick clearance by the State Department or the principal representative of its foreign mission of FEA cables involving policy questions. Cables which are confined to routine technical administrative questions will be cleared automatically by State or its foreign representatives. FEA and its representatives will designate the priority. The State Department and its representatives will observe FEA priority designation insofar as competing pressures on cables facilities permit. Copies of all official communications dispatched or received by FEA personnel abroad shall be made available to the principal State Department representative in the country or area and to the State Department in Washington.

The Economic Cooperation Act of 1948 provides that the chief of the Economic Cooperation Administration country mission shall receive his instructions from the Administrator and report to him. Arrangements were made for the Department of State and the diplomatic missions to serve as transmitting agents for Economic Cooperation Administration messages; it was also arranged that copies of communications considered of mutual interest, both at Washington and overseas, should be exchanged. At the present time the Economic Cooperation Administration sends to the Department of State copies of all its messages. In some instances messages, particularly policy messages, are sent in each direction as joint messages.

The Treasury's financial representatives report directly to the Treasury Department, facilities therefor being provided by the Department of State. The Treasury Department considers it very important that such representatives have the right to present their views in full to it, with any divergence of views being simultaneously

reported by the ambassador. It is customary for the ambassador or counselor of embassy to see before transmission the Treasury attaché's reports which deal with policy matters. As indicated earlier, specific instructions on policy matters from the Treasury Department pass through the Secretary of State.

In the case of the overseas representatives of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, agreement was reached with the Department of State that there should be direct communication between the Administrator and his representatives overseas, copies of communications in each direction being furnished to the Foreign Service establishment concerned. Similar arrangements have been made in other cases. Labor attachés, who are officers of the Foreign Service, report both to the Department of Labor and to the Department of State.

In general, representatives of the armed services maintain their own separate channels of communication with Washington for reporting intelligence and for other purposes including correspondence relating to collateral and subsidiary aspects of foreign policies and programs, including the mutual defense assistance program. In general, they recognize primacy of the Department of State-Foreign Service channels in regard to broad program and policy matters. In occupied Germany and Austria, where the United States High Commissioner is the United States supreme authority, policy communications are handled through Department of State-Foreign Service channels. But in Japan and Trieste where the military commander is the United States supreme authority, policy communications are handled through military channels.

It is understood to be the general practice for service attachés to show copies of reports to the chief of the diplomatic mission on subjects in regard to which he has expressed an interest and to keep him informed of the tenor of their instructions. A similar practice is followed in general by the heads of other military organizations, such as the MAAGs and training missions.

Interagency relationships at the country level involve not only the matter of the control of communications but also other aspects of administrative support by the diplomatic mission. These may include provision of living quarters, office space and equipment; language, transport, stenographic and other operational services; and commissary facilities. Conditions vary at different posts. There has been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and possibly misunderstanding as between other agencies and the Foreign Service establishments on such matters, resulting in part from the fact that the Department of State is frequently unable to meet emergency and new demands at posts abroad from the resources available to it.

MAIN ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES

Today, activities of the United States Government in foreign countries embrace not only traditional diplomatic and consular activities and military operations (Korea), but also activities connected with the several aid programs, military, economic, technical, and educational; with humanitarian, informational, cultural, and scientific programs; and with research and intelligence, the operation of military bases, and the administration of occupied areas. These varied activities require the presence overseas of extensive civilian personnel, only a part of which has been integrated into the Foreign Service.

It is clear that at present the major organizational problem at the country level has to do with the extent to which the various Washington agencies other than the Department of State shall send their own representatives abroad, and the relationship which such representatives shall have to the chief of the diplomatic mission. In essence, it is the question of the extent of the authority and responsibility which the chief of the diplomatic mission shall have with respect to the representative of each agency. More broadly, it is a question of centralization versus decentralization, a question, on the one hand, of the extent to which the tasks of policy formulation and implementation shall be divided and corresponding segments of each allocated to agencies in Washington, with appropriate reassignment thereof to agency representatives abroad; and, on the other hand, of the extent to which the task of policy formulation shall be separated from that of policy implementation or program execution.

The first issue that demands consideration, then, has to do with the arrangements that should be made for the representation of the United States Government and agencies thereof in foreign countries. The organizational structure created will constitute the platform on which all the business of the United States in a given country will be conducted; consequently, the importance of a structure organizationally sound. A second issue pertains to the relations that should exist among United States Government officials in a given country, in particular the extent to which the staffs of the several departments and agencies should be subject to supervision and control by the chief of the diplomatic mission. A third issue of significance relates to official communications moving in each direction between Washington agencies and their representatives abroad, in particular the extent to which such communications should be subject to control by the Department of State in Wasihngton and the chiefs of the diplomatic missions.

Issue 1: Arrangements for representation abroad

What arrangements should be made for the representation of the United States Government and agencies thereof in foreign countries?