86. Memorandum From Richard T.
Kennedy and Peter W.
Rodman of the National Security Council Staff to the
President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger)1
SUBJECT
- Frank Shakespeare’s
Observations about State Department Africanists
Frank Shakespeare has sent you a
memorandum (Tab C) recording his observations at a recent Chiefs of Mission
meeting in Africa and the results of his own research into the ages and
educational backgrounds of State Department officials dealing with
Africa.
You might find his conclusions worth reading. He notes that:
—a preponderant majority of State Department Africanists come from Harvard,
Yale, and Princeton. (He assures you in a cover note that he has nothing
against Harvard!)2
—the Chiefs of Mission meeting was dominated by the uniformity of outlook of
the career people, and the Administration viewpoint was
under-represented.
—we send Ambassadors whose average age is 53 to a continent ruled by young
leaders, many of whom are in their 30’s.
He recommends that we try to:
—recruit people of more diverse backgrounds into the career service,
disassemble the “African Club” that seems to have come into being, and get
younger men into higher career positions.
—insure that top-level officials attend Chiefs of Mission meetings, to listen
to the Ambassadors and to impress the Administration view on the
gathering.
A reply to Mr. Shakespeare is at Tab
A for your signature.3
[Page 213]
At Tab B is a memorandum to you from Roger
Morris, commenting on the points Shakespeare raises. He blames the Foreign Service, rather
than the eastern universities.
Recommendation
That you sign the memorandum to Mr. Shakespeare at Tab A.
Tab B
Memorandum From Roger
Morris of the National Security Council Staff to the
President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger)4
SUBJECT
Peter Rodman has asked me for my
comments on Frank Shakespeare’s
memo.
1. Shakespeare is right, of
course, about the “sameness of view” in our African corps, but for the
wrong reasons. Harvard and Princeton are not to blame for bias, lack of
imagination, and differences of view from the Administration’s policy.
Rather:
—The Foreign Service, as a bureaucratic career system, is a stodgy guild,
punishing innovation and dissent and rewarding conformity. With almost
no exception, those who rise to the top (and the African Embassies
scarcely get the cream) are suitably stagnant products of this
system.
—Intellectually, the policy views that worry Shakespeare are not the offspring of Eastern
universities (which, in fact, give almost no attention to Africa). This
set of mind was born in the fit of conversion which the Foreign Service
experienced when it discovered decolonization during the late 1950s.
Like all late converts who are deeply ridden with the guilt of past sins
(in this case, having been hoodwinked by colonial foreign offices), our
new African “specialists” swallowed whole the then fashionable
“realities.” To wit, that the tide of African nationalism was rolling
inexorably south; development proceeded by certain truths; if we don’t
“win” Africa, the Soviets will; the Africans unlike most governments
mean what they say, nation-states created
[Page 214]
in Paris and London are immutable, etc. I am not
so worried that these views are contrary to a particular
Administration’s policy. The point is that they are demonstrably wrong.
And our obsession with them seriously detracts from our ability to cope
with Africa in the 70s, especially if the Continent should by some
chance become important to us.
—As for geographical spread in recruiting for the Foreign Service, the
Establishment has been trying to accomplish just that over the past few
years. For reasons outlined above this has had no appreciable effect on
either bureaucratic mentality or creativity.
2. I quite agree that bureaucracy will run with the ball whenever an
Administration fails to make itself felt with the presence of senior
officers. But what Shakespeare
witnessed was, after all, the result of several African appointments during the Nixon administration. We have only
ourselves to blame for giving State its head in assembling the
predictable collection of super-annuated mediocrities on the eve of
retirement, for whom Africa is a natural pasture. Ultimately, of course,
there is only one answer to reestablishing the authority of the
Administration in the bureaucracy, and that is to appoint an Assistant
Secretary whose views and loyalty leave no doubt. That is not the case at present. Of the group Shakespeare saw, only Bill Roundtree
matches those qualities with the requisite ability and experience.
3. The problem of youth, to be sure, is most critical. Even if we select
from the career service, younger men between 35 and 45 should be getting
their experience in running Missions. This would not only benefit the
Africans, but just might save a few Foreign Service officers for the
psychological and mental paralysis which overtakes them otherwise.
The ideal goal is to make Africa a major area of recruitment for young
shirt-sleeve Ambassadors from the private sector. After one has
satisfied the pretentions of the handful of Oxford or UCLA graduates who govern the host
countries, the real job is contact with and assistance to a frontier
society. What better place for young lawyers, engineers, journalists and
teachers to combine public service with personal diplomacy in the best
tradition. The Africans themselves are most susceptible to this
informality, and most repelled by the present starchiness, which conveys
nothing so much as a confirmation of the racism they suspect of
Americans in any case.
In sum, I quite agree that the African club should be disbanded. Not that
the Continent is important. But there is always the chance that it might
be some day. And in the interim, Africa can be used as an effective
training ground for a revitalization of our own diplomatic service. Not
to mention the real benefits to African development which would come
with new injection of youth and imagination in the U.S. presence.
[Page 215]
Tab C
Memorandum From the Director of the United States
Information Agency (Shakespeare) to the President’s Assistant for
National Security Affairs (Kissinger)5
Washington, March 23, 1970
While attending the Chiefs of Mission meeting in Africa, I became aware
of a depressing sameness of view . . . a lack of
ideas clashing, of concepts challenged and argued. It was the same type
of thing I used to notice in the CBS
newsrooms . . . the sanctification of certain ideas, the importance of
peer group acceptance. In searching for the reasons, I came upon two
factors:
I. Excessive Commonality of Background.
There are 27 U.S. Missions to African countries headed by Ambassadors who
are careerists. Fifteen of these men went to Harvard, Yale or Princeton
. . . eleven went to Harvard.
Of the Washington based officers supervising African operations, here is
their educational background . . .
Deputy Assistant Secretary |
State |
Harvard |
Director, African Affairs |
State |
Yale |
Legal Advisor, Africa |
State |
Harvard |
Intelligence, Africa |
State |
Harvard |
Director, Africa |
Peace Corps |
Harvard |
Director, Africa |
CIA |
Harvard |
Deputy Ass’t. Sec.,
Africa |
Defense |
Harvard |
Dir., Intl. Commerce, Africa |
Commerce |
Princeton |
In addition, the U.S. Mission Chief (less than Ambassadorial rank) in
Algeria, Angola, Gambia, Rhodesia and Swaziland went to Harvard (3),
Yale or Princeton.
II. Absence of Nixon
administration Officials.
Of the approximately 160 people attending this four-day conference,
planned to coordinate foreign policy toward an entire continent, I was
the only Nixon administration official present. The Secretary
[Page 216]
of State attended for one day
as part of his African tour.6 The entire conference was run, directed and
consisted of career officers. There was no Nixon administration
voice.
The two Ambassadors who are political appointees . . . Tom Melady of Burundi and Tony Marshall of Malagasy . . . each
tried once to inject new ideas. Tom
Melady suggested that as the Spanish Government, in
recent years, has moved more toward a centrist position, it has
moderated its African policy. He suggested Portugal may act similarly if
it moves to the center in the post-Salazar7 period. This comment was greeted with
polite silence. Tony Marshall
proposed that a very quiet and low key encouragement of trade between
black African countries and the Union of South Africa might develop
relationships and contacts that could have a beneficial effect on both
sides. This proposal met with sharp and negative response, except for
Bill Rountree, our
Ambassador to South Africa, who pointed out that this is exactly what
the French Ambassadors to the former French black-African countries are
doing.
Charles Runyon, State’s Legal
Advisor for Africa, gave an emotional talk on Civil Rights in South
Africa, during which he said that Bar Associations and lawyers’ groups
in that country are “mounting the barricades” against the government. He
left the clear impression that the wish was the father to the thought.
Mr. Runyon was the Assistant Dean
of the Yale Law School, 1957–1963.
My suggestions are these:
1. A determined effort should be made by the State Department to recruit
young officers of diversified geographical and educational backgrounds
so the diverse viewpoints of the entire American people are more
thoroughly reflected in the Department.
2. I do not know if the African situation regarding the commonality of
educational background among Ambassadors is atypical. If so, an “African
Club” may have come into being, whether inadvertently or otherwise, and
should be gradually disassembled.
3. The heads of the foreign policy related agencies should personally
attend Chief of Mission meetings whenever possible. These are:
[Page 217]
John Hanna8 |
AID |
Joe Blatchford |
Peace Corps |
Gerard Smith |
Disarmament |
Frank
Shakespeare |
USIA |
These men, being political appointees, tend to be more directly in touch
with Administration thinking on foreign policy and by virtue of their
positions able to have some influence on the Ambassadors.
Furthermore, one top Nixon
official directly responsible for foreign policy . . . the Secretary of
State, the Under Secretary or you . . . should always attend, both to
listen to the views of the Ambassadors and to make clear the views of
the Government.
The Chiefs of Mission meeting for Latin America, by the way, went better.
Elliot Richardson attended
and the Assistant Secretary (Meyer) of course is a political appointee, as are
several of the Ambassadors. John
Lodge of Argentina and Fife Symington of Trinidad and
Tobago spoke up strongly from time to time.
4. There are some outstanding men among our Ambassadors to Africa.
Without going into detail, the following impressed me:
Dean Brown |
Senegal |
Bill Rountree |
South Africa |
Bill Hall |
Ethiopia |
Sheldon Vance |
Congo |
5. The average age of our African Ambassadors is 53. Only four are under
50. African national leaders are young. Mobutu of the Congo, who has more or less ruled for ten
years, is forty. The Prime Minister of Morocco is 38.9 The former Foreign Minister of
Dahomey is 35. And so on. It seems to me that, on merit alone, we should
have some young careerist ambassadors. Africa, where responsibilities
are not always major, would be a good place to assign some. Almost every
major American business corporation today has some vice presidents in
their late thirties or early forties. Many of the key aides surrounding
President Nixon are young. Is the
State Department that much tougher?