vised the arrangements for the further preparation made on territorial problems until completion of their consideration by that Committee during 1944. Responsibility for substantive preparation on these latter problems was vested in the Directors of the four geographic Offices, Mr. Dunn being the senior among them.

It was the economic research staff that was most fully absorbed into Departmental operations by the reorganization. The Division of Economic Studies was abolished, and most of its personnel were transferred either to the new Office of Economic Affairs and its several divisions, the new Office of Transportation and Communications, or to the divisions of the Office of Wartime Economic Affairs, where such further research as was required was geared to current or developing operations. These Offices were organized on the basis of the same distinction between long-run and short-run problems that had determined the structure for the previous economic preparation both in the Committees and the research. The remaining personnel of the economic staff were placed in the Division of Territorial Studies, which now undertook combined political and economic research.

Certain former joint services developed by the research staff as essential to its work and not provided elsewhere in the Department between 1942 and 1944 became the nucleus of new divisions and offices created for wider Departmental use or were absorbed in expanding established lines of work. Some of the committee service and documentary work was transferred to the secretariat of the Post-War Programs Committee. Transfer of the biographic analysis work concerned with foreign groups began, but was not concluded at this time. Remaining services were continued in the Office of Special Political Affairs.

These structural changes in regard to the research staff that had served the Advisory Committee and the Department in the initial years of the preparation were but a part of the reorganization, which as a whole constituted a Department-wide adjustment to new conditions and was necessitated by the expanding scope of foreign policy and the increasing participation of the United States in world affairs. The establishment of such Divisions as, for example, those on Labor Relations, Liberated Areas, and Supply and Resources indicated the effects by the start of 1944 of this broad development. Two further organizational adjustments in the early months of 1944 were of particular significance to the preparation. The first concerned interdepartmental structures in the economic field; the second involved a new process of arriving at integrated recommendation within the adjusted structure for final preparation.

:)

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC FOREIGN POLICY AFTER THE Departmental reorganization of January 15, 1944, recommendations from the twelve special interdepartmental economic committees came before the new Policy and Post-War Programs Committees for a period of approximately four months. Simultaneously, a proposal for a superior permanent interdepartmental economic ✓ committee was being considered by both Committees. This consideration, it will be recalled, had been begun the previous autumn in the economic coordination committee headed by Myron C. Taylor. The specific proposal from which action resulted took the form of a draft letter for the President's approval and signature, to be addressed by him to the Secretary of State.

This draft was circulated in the Post-War Programs Committee on February 4, and the proposal it advanced, after several revisions and refinement through consultations within the Government, was approved by the President. The following letter was then sent to Secretary Hull under the date of April 5, 1944, similar letters being sent to the heads of the other Departments and agencies of the Government named therein:

"MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY:

"As the final military victory of the United Nations draws closer, the United States is increasingly faced with difficult and complex problems in the foreign economic field. In day to day operations we are of necessity making decisions which importantly affect future foreign relations. We should, therefore, be formulating adequate policies for the period ahead in order that our daily decisions may be consistent with long range objectives.

"The principal responsibility in the Executive branch for the determination of policy in relation to international problems devolves, of course, upon the Department of State. Yet the subject matter of specific policies is frequently of proper concern to other Departments as they administer laws in their respective fields. Moreover, many departmental policies although conceived in terms of domestic needs inevitably affect our foreign relations. Consequently, economic foreign policy should be developed with the assistance of other departments.

"Much interdepartmental work is already being carried on in certain areas of economic foreign policy but it seems to me that it is desirable to have an interdepartmental committee properly to relate the many segments.

"I am therefore asking the following agencies to designate a member for an Executive Committee on Economic Foreign Policy: the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Labor, the United States Tariff Commission, and the Foreign Economic Administration. The Chairman will be appointed by the Secretary of State. From time to time representatives of other departments and agencies should be invited to participate on the Committee, or its subcommittees when matters of special interest

to them are under consideration. The members should be in a position to ascertain and express the views of their respective departments and agencies and they should be able to give adequate attention to this important work.

"The function of the Executive Committee on Economic Foreign Policy will be to examine problems and developments affecting the economic foreign policy of the United States and to formulate recommendations in regard thereto for the consideration of the Secretary of State, and, in appropriate cases, of the President.

"It is my expectation that major interdepartmental committees concerned with foreign economic affairs including those established in the Department of State will be appropriately geared into this Committee.

"I attach the utmost importance to this committee and I trust that you will forthwith call its members together in order that its work may begin without delay.

"Sincerely yours,

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT"

The new committee convened on April 18, 1944, and still functions. With its establishment, the work in the economic field of the Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy, which had been instituted on February 12, 1942, was merged into regular operations. An extraordinary mechanism in this field thus became a continuing structure within the Government.

The initial membership of the Executive Committee on Economic Foreign Policy was Messrs. Acheson, Chairman, and Hawkins, Vice Chairman,12 State Department; White, Treasury Department; Wheeler, Department of Agriculture; Amos E. Taylor, Commerce Department; Oscar B. Ryder, Tariff Commission; Lauchlin Currie, Foreign Economic Administration; and A. F. Hinrichs, Labor Department. The original secretariat, provided by the State Department, included Robert M. Carr, Executive Secretary; Miss Eleanor E. Dennison, research secretary; James Q. Reber, recording secretary; and Miss Amelia D. Stone, administrative secretary.

This Committee undertook in its weekly meetings to develop subordinate machinery for its work and to establish the requisite relationships with existing committees in the economic field. In so doing, it altered or abolished certain of the special committees and converted several of the surviving ones into subcommittees of itself. The special committees on shipping, aviation, and telecommunications, however, retained for certain organizational reasons the relatively independent status that in fact they had under the Taylor Committee, maintaining liaison primarily by the exchange of documentation through their separate secretaries.

The Executive Committee on Economic Foreign Policy did not "Later succeeded by Bernard F. Haley of the Department.

directly contribute to the preparatory work for general international organization, which was continuing in the State Department during the spring and summer of 1944 and which included provision for international economic cooperation and organization. It became actively concerned in this matter, however, and particularly with specialized international economic and social organization, late in 1944 following the Dumbarton Oaks Conversations, as will be described in due course.

PROCESSES OF INTEGRATED RECOMMENDATION

THE RECOMMENDATIONS on postwar problems placed before the PostWar Programs Committee and, where appropriate, the Policy Committee and the Executive Committee on Economic Foreign Policy were produced within the framework of the Departmental and interdepartmental structure at the working level already described, supplemented by new organized relationships between the Departments of State, War, and the Navy and by new committees and groups within the State Department. The processes of arriving at integrated recommendation varied in the several fields.

Territorial Problems

In the field of territorial problems, the interdivisional country and area committees provided the mechanism through which the recommended policies or positions were formulated. The charge laid upon the Division of Territorial Studies in the reorganization-to formulate recommendations on these problems in collaboration with other divisions-placed the initiatory and drafting responsibilities upon it. Accordingly, the substantive views advanced were worked out in cooperation with the interested divisions, including the geographic and economic divisions and, in many instances, the Division of International Security and Organization. This process was accomplished chiefly through the existing interdivisional committees and others created as necessary, with additional direct consultation between the officers especially concerned on given problems. Coordination of views between committees was frequently necessary. Sometimes this involved formal requests for an opinion, but usually it was accomplished through the circulation of papers and direct consultation among the interested officers, the Post-War Programs Committee secretariat making sure that the necessary coordination was undertaken.

Such work was entirely at an expert level, and was relatively little affected by the Departmental reorganization. In the case of the Division of Territorial Studies, the reorganization had basically meant

only that the territorial branch of the former Division of Political Studies had acquired divisional status. It had retained most of its officers, and the additions to its staff came mostly from the associated former Division of Economic Studies. Similar development of branches into divisions had occurred in the related geographic and economic offices that were established.

To the existing country and area committees, there were added early in 1944 two country committees, one on Burma with Mr. Ireland as Chairman, and one on Finland with Mr. Howard as Chairman, and two area committees, on Scandinavia and on the British Commonwealth, with Robert K. Gooch serving as Chairman of both. These were followed in May by the inauguration of a Country Committee on Italy with Mr. Harris as Chairman. In September a Near East Area Committee replaced the Committee on the Arab Countries, Mr. Ireland continuing to serve as Chairman. These committees utilized ad hoc subsidiary drafting groups or subcommittees, but as a rule did not set up formal subcommittees. The principal exceptions to this rule were two: the Latin American Area Committee, which had a subcommittee on countries with Arthur Whitaker as Chairman and another on international security and organization with John M. Cabot, an officer of the Office of American Republic Affairs, as Chairman; and the older Committee on Problems of Dependent Areas, which for a time had nine subcommittees dealing with such phases of its work as regional commissions, trusteeship, a declaration of principles, and questions arising out of existing treaties. Like those established earlier, the new committees were authorized groupings of divisional experts, with their chairmen and secretaries drawn mainly from the Division of Territorial Studies and their drafting duties entrusted mainly to its experts. The frequency of meetings varied among these committees, the Far East Area Committee meeting most often: 221 times before the close of hostilities with Japan.

A report compiled in April 1944 showed that 264 papers had been cleared by the area and country committees, ranging from one submitted by the Committee on Finland to seventy submitted by the Committee on Germany. These figures reflected both the backlog of documents ready when the Post-War Programs and Policy Committees were established and the intense work entailed when these Committees were each meeting twice a week, and sometimes more often, in order to arrive at definite recommendations and decisions so far as international circumstances required or permitted. The papers produced were by no means all presented to the Post-War Programs Committee or to the Policy Committee during their period of activity. Papers not submitted were naturally those involving matters not yet urgently in need of decision, or of a background character, and repre