1475 



generalist officers in the political officer ranks, and to a lesser extent 

 to those in the administrative, economic, and consular ranks. Those 

 specializing in technical and science policy fields receive less encourage- 

 ment to enter or opportunity to advance. The cause of this personnel 

 emphasis is suggested by a study by a panel of the United Nations 

 Association (UNA) in 1973. In this report, the general problem was 

 characterized as follows: 



The United States Government [like American society as a wholel is increasingly 

 part of an interdependent world, but its organization and procedures still reflect 

 earlier, simpler times when nation states could on most matters safely deal with 

 each other at arms length and through career foreign services. In today's world, 

 international relations are of necessity pervasive, technical, continuous, and 

 intimately involved with domestic issues, and this requires new styles and new 

 systems of governmental organization and process, which rely far more than in 

 the past on a wide range of professional participation in policymaking. 



* * :ic . :): Hf :): s|c 



Compared to the resources lavished on management improvement in a single 

 large multinational corporation, those being devoted to the far more important 

 and difficult problems of improving the organization of the government in a 

 multinational setting are pitifuL^*** 



Reflecting the earlier criticism quoted above, the UNA panel 

 found that parochial tendencies, emphasis on the work of the "regional 

 political bureaus," and "budgetary limitations" combined to cause 

 ^'the decline of the Department of State as the principal initiator and 

 coordinator of American foreign policy." 



The Foreign Service officers who staff most of the Department's key positions 

 still give undue emphasis to the traditional political, as opposed to economic, 

 military, or other specialized issues. Many of them, indeed, lack the technical 

 expertise which is increasingly necessary in order to be a competent generalist 

 in today's world. In desk and regional offices they tend to stress bilateral at the 

 expense of multilateral policy approaches, often putting undue emphasis upon the 

 maintenance of friendly relations with the country of their current responsibiUty. 

 Most officers are preponderantly involved in day-to-day operational matters at 

 the cost of longer term planning or efforts at substantive policy development and 

 guidance. While by no means universal, the Foreign Service career ideal still 

 remains the senior diplomat, the ambassador; and little in FSO diplomatic 

 training prepares them for parliamentary diplomacy in multinational forurhs.^*^ 



In short, said the panel, it was not too strong to claim that "the 

 Department of State, as currently oriented, organized, staffed, and 

 operated, represents something of an anachronism in terms of ability 

 to respond to today's global problems." What happened was that 

 ^'The new and highly complex demands of a technologically oriented 

 international societ}^, with its new set of economic interdependencies 

 and need for shared responsibility in keeping the peace, have simply 

 overtaken the Department's traditional decisionmaking structure.^*^ 

 Thus, the "failure of State to keep pace with the demands of modern 

 diplomacy" had: 



. . . contributed to dissatisfaction with its performance in recent years and to 

 lack of confidence in its policy and operational processes. This negative evaluation 

 has been an important contributing factor to the preemption of policy coordina- 

 tion and representational roles by Presidential staff. As a consequence, morale at 

 the Department has been seriously depressed, and its standing in the councils of 

 government has been significantly lowered. This in turn has exacerbated the 



2*1 United Nations Association of the United States of America, National Policy Panel, Foreign Poliey 

 Decision Making; The New Dimensions (New York: U.N. Association of the U.S.A., May 1973), pp. 101-102. 

 2" Ibid., p. 43. 

 2« Ibid., p. 48. 



