829 



Washington for clearance by both agencies The 

 speech is then altered over the telephone. Unfortu- 

 nately, someone leaks the original to the press, and 

 the delegation looks bad as it is quoted nationwide 

 with a statement that may be contrary to US. aims. 

 The delegation complains righteously that it was 

 tricked, but the damage is done, 



A wasteful and all -too-common phenomenon is the 

 oversized delegation. The State's Office of Interna- 

 tional Conferences tries manfully to trim delegations 

 to sensible limits. The Office of International Activi- 

 ties in EPA. and similar mechanisms in other agen- 

 cies, are dedicated to paring the fat from travel bud- 

 gets. Journalists and oversight committees of 

 Congress keep a sharp eye on us. and rightfully so. 



Nevertheless, the problem is still very much with 

 us. At the London Dumping Convention last Febru- 

 ary. State, EPA. the Corps of Engineers, the Depart- 

 ment of Energy, the Navy's and Department of De- 

 fense's Legal Sections, and the National Oceanic and 

 Atmospheric Administration all showed up in Lon- 

 don for the annual meeting. Including congressional 

 observers, the United States fielded nearly a score of 

 federal employees, three or four times the size of other 

 national teams. These constituent agencies should 

 meld their different approaches in Washington and go 

 to London next year with a tlrm US, position agreed 

 upon by all. Then we should be able to keep our 



Three factors are usually to blame for such mam- 

 moth delegations. First, everyone wants to be includ- 

 ed in prestigious meetings, such as the famous 1972 

 Stockholm U.N. Conference on the Human Environ- 

 ment Dwarfing every other country's group, in some 

 cases by more than 10 to 1, the United States sent 65 

 representatives — all expenses paid, of course. Second, 

 there is the desire to travel to posh or exotic locations, 

 particularly the great capitals of Europe. Third — and 

 inexcusable— there is the aim of safeguarding the in- 

 terests of one's own agency by keeping any eye on the 

 activities of those other agencies that might steal a 

 march on yours if not watched. 



The appeal of the junket IS strong. U.S. specialized 

 agencies are still imbued with the missionary drive of 

 our turn-of-the-century forebears' desire to enlighten 

 the heathen — those, for example, who have not yet 

 discovered the mysteries of environmental steward- 

 ship. Travel is broadening, too. and it has a peculiar 

 talent for making home seem even sweeter. But these 

 are not reasons for letting our delegations become so 

 large that they hinder the accomplishment of our 

 objectives. Many hands do not lighten delegation 

 work overseas. They )ust confuse the issues, policies, 

 and interagency relationships. The result of smaller 

 delegations will be more fruitful orchestration be- 

 tween State and the domestic agencies. 



The prospect of a large delegation to an important 

 meeting also can intlame people in both State and 

 other agencies to vie for the chairmanship. This posi- 

 tion IS one plum in the State-domestic agency arena 

 that sparks the same kind of trouble as the apple in the 

 Garden of Eden, The conflict can become so intense 

 that the struggle may have to be settled by the White 

 House, as it was before the 1972 Stockholm meeting. 

 In principle. State should be free to chair any team it 



May 1984 



chooses. It IS the senior department 



and presides over all US. activities overseas short of 



war. Sometimes it even presides during war, as in 



In practice there are obsraclcs. OES has too few 

 people to chair every group. Or, the State Depart- 

 ment generalist may have trouble mastering the sub- 

 stance of a technical issue, If many scientists and 

 technicians of a domestic agency are engaged, it is 

 better management to have them serve under their 

 own leader. 



In some situations, such as in EPAs bilateral agree- 

 ments with Mexico, the Soviet Union. China, West 

 Getmany, and France, the US, coordinator needs to 

 be from EPA simply because so much of the work 

 entails year-round, intra-agency decisions and imple- 

 mentation. The design of projects, selection of EPA 

 participants, decisions on monetary and time require- 

 menrs, these are all matters that must be threshed out 

 by the program administrators. State stays in the 

 picture throughout, communicating with EPA offi- 

 cials, overseeing policy, and monitoring the agree- 

 ments with regard for overall U.S. relations with the 

 country in question. At present. State and EPA dis- 

 cuss the chairmanship question well in advance of 

 meetings and decide when and how the chair will be 

 assigned The excellent communications between the 

 two agencies at present enables sound selections to be 

 made unemotionally — a practice not always possible 



There is another, extreme form of knavery not yet 

 mentioned. If the delegates from one U.S. agency 

 disagree with the national policy or fear the delega- 

 tions chairperson is faihng to protect their interests 

 adequately, they might stoop so low as to connive 

 with the representatives of other countries. They 

 could plant their views with a friendly foreigner who 

 would introduce it as his or her own. This nightmare 

 scenario is (at least to this writer's knowledge) still 

 conjectural, bur it might actually surface just as drugs 

 do among our teenagers. The federal overseas estab- 

 lishment should be alert to stamp out such behavior 

 before it happens. 



Over the years such guerrilla warfare has been rare. 

 It contaminates the ambience of faith that is essential 

 for intramural cooperation to flourish in our govern- 

 ment. Continual vigilance by those employees who 

 participate in cooperative endeavors between the State 

 Department and domestic agencies must protect 

 from such shenanigans. 



The 14-year alliance between State and EPA boasts 

 a fine record of accomplishment. Every month 

 dreds. perhaps thousands, of useful transactions take 

 place. State and EPA together have forged a strong 

 mechanism for advancing global environmental pro- 

 tection, serving as middleman between the United 

 States and foreign countries. They have put together 

 first-class conferences, joint reports, and a healthy 

 collaboration. The daily stream of telephone calls, 

 memos, letters, cables, and people between the two 

 agencies is the lifeblood of this symbiosis. It is sur- 

 prising that these complex arrangements work at all. 

 Yet. remarkably, a combination of energy and good 

 humor in both agencies has brought forth results in 

 which tolling bureaucrats can take pride. D 



Yuriry A . Izrael and 

 Douglas M. Costle, 

 co-chairmen of the 

 Soviet and U.S. del- 

 egations to the 

 eighth joint conr 

 mictee meeting un- 

 der the U.S. - 

 U.S.S.R. 



