S/S–NSC (Miscellaneous) files, lot 66 D 95, “NSC Admin., 1950–54”
Memorandum by the Counselor (Bohlen) to the Under Secretary of State (Smith)1
Mr. Nitze has sent me a copy of his memorandum to you of February 12 regarding the Policy Planning Staff because it contains certain comments and recommendations concerning State’s representation on the NSC Senior Staff which in the past was handled by this office.
My only comment on S/P organization is to endorse most heartedly the importance of its continuance with possibly some further clarification as to its functions and responsibilities.
Before proceeding to the recommendations as to the future organization of NSC work in the Department, I think it should be stated that under the past procedures I do not think from my experience that the difficulties in this work arose from the fact “that the responsibility of the Policy Planning Staff, which has been intimately involved in the preparation of the papers, cuts off at the point that the papers are submitted to the Council and it does not participate in the work of the Senior Staff or the NSC Staff Assistants.”
The chief problem in the NSC work has not been the discussions in the Senior Staff or the absence of participation therein by members of S/P. In the first place, it is standard practice for the Counselor or his deputy to take with him the officers who have in the first instance worked on the preparation of the papers, which has by no means always been the Policy Planning Staff.
The chief deficiency of the previous arrangement was rather the difficulty in obtaining expeditiously a State Department position for discussion in the Senior Staff. Once that was done there were no special difficulties that I recall in working the matter out with the other Departments represented on the Senior Staff which would have been materially eased by the participation of S/P in the work of the Senior Staff or the NSC Staff Assistants. It is for this reason I am not convinced that if the representation on the Senior Staff is left to the Counselor’s office that the Counselor’s alternate on the Senior Staff and his representatives on the Senior Staff Assistants be members of the Policy Planning Staff. In fact, I believe this would set up a system of dual authority which would be a complicating factor. The Counselor’s assistants in the NSC [Page 243] work would at the same time be under the direction of the Director of the Policy Planning Staff and the Counselor.
It seems to me that the issue is clear. If the argument is made, which indeed has merit, that a division of responsibility is desirable in the NSC work, then I would think the past procedures and organizational relationships could be maintained with very little change.
I think there are powerful arguments in logic and good administration for centering the entire NSC work in the Policy Planning Staff. Under this setup:
- (1)
- The Senior State Member would be the Director of S/P;
- (2)
- S/P would have primary responsibility for the preparation of all NSC papers in consultation with the geographic and other offices of the Department, and in certain problems relating only to one geographic area or one functional office the initial drafting could be assigned by S/P to that office;
- (3)
- The Director of S/P or his deputy would represent the Department in regard to any papers where the original drafting was to be by an interdepartmental committee;
- (4)
- An NSC Policy Group might be set up under the chairmanship of the Deputy Under Secretary of State, with the participation of the Director of S/P, the Counselor and such Assistant Secretaries as may be appropriate for the subject, in order to ensure that a paper, before it went to the Senior Staff, represents, in general, the position of the Department of State as a whole and not just one section thereof, i.e., S/P.
- (5)
- This same group, with the addition of the Under Secretary and such other officers as he might designate, would be a body to advise the Secretary prior to final action by the National Security Council itself. It is believed that this mechanism would greatly expedite the preparation of papers in the Department of State and would ensure continuity between preparation and handling in the Senior Staff and that any papers going to the Senior Staff represented, in effect, Departmental positions.
The only drawback is the one mentioned in Mr. Nitze’s memorandum that the Senior Staff meetings are extremely time consuming, but perhaps greater use could be made in these meetings of the Deputy Director of S/P to sit for State—a procedure which Mr. Nash in Defense has very frequently used in connection with Senior Staff meetings.
The foregoing suggestions concerning a possibly improved organization of State’s representation and handling of NSC matters is obviously based upon the present functions of the National Security Council itself. Should the National Security Council be reorganized in any material sense, this would, of course, affect the entire problem of State representation.
- Copies to Matthews and Nitze.↩