66. Letter From the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration (Crockett) to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (Gordon)1
Dear Kermit:
I would like to explore with you plans for implementing the Secretary’s agreement to cooperate with the Bureau of the Budget in controlling the overseas activities of the U.S. government agencies. We have given this subject considerable thought during the past few weeks and have reached the following tentative conclusions which might serve as a basis for future discussion:
1. Need for a control mechanism--One of the most critical problems confronting us is the absence of an effective mechanism for controlling the activities of U.S. agencies conducted abroad. This gap is apparent both with respect to the approval of new activities and the systematic review of existing activities.
While it is true that we usually hear about the establishment of new offices overseas, there is no formal requirement for review and approval of the initiation of an activity or the establishment of an office. Our involvement ordinarily arises from such things as conferring diplomatic rank and privileges, furnishing office space, or arranging for passports and visas. This is not a satisfactory situation from a control standpoint because we seldom learn of a proposal until it is too far down the line for us to do much about it.
The situation in the case of the on-going activities is even more difficult. It is true the President’s letter of May 29, 1961 to the Chiefs of Missions states that all agencies are expected to keep the Chief of Mission informed of their activities. The letter also indicates that the President has instructed all heads of departments and agencies of this responsibility. However, neither of these instructions has been fully implemented. The Ambassador’s review of the activities of the major foreign affairs agencies takes the form of approving their annual programming and budget documents. Information concerning the activities of other agencies is much too sporadic and inconsistent to be useful for control purposes.
The situation in Washington is even more difficult. To my knowledge there is no instruction requiring agencies to keep the Department [Page 125] regularly informed of their overseas activities. The situation in the field is such that we see little profit in attempting to get the Ambassador to furnish us with this kind of information on a systematic basis.
Thus far, we have been considering merely the availability of pertinent data upon which to base a control mechanism. There is also the question of the authority for controlling the actions of other agencies. I am not sure that this authority exists short of the President-that is, I doubt if the Secretary could either prevent another agency head from undertaking an activity or control the level at which such an activity is to be carried on. Furthermore, my interpretation of the President’s letter does not grant the Ambassador final authority to veto proposed activities or to set levels for existing activities.
All of this convinces us that meaningful control of overseas activities will necessitate either an elaboration of existing rules and regulations or the promulgation of new regulations. On balance, we favor the first alternative and believe that some elaboration of the President’s legislative and budget procedures could best provide the necessary handles for controlling the overseas activities of the various departments and agencies.
2. Nature of State participation—We have experienced considerable difficulty in the past in determining the criteria by which we can judge the propriety of agencies’ proposals for establishing programs and offices overseas. Attitudes within the Department vary from those like former Ambassador Briggs, who believe that overseas representation should be limited to employees of the State Department, to those who for purely parochial reasons actually join with other agencies in promoting requests for new offices and programs. We are now attempting to develop a consistent policy. One thing is clear-our ability to make meaningful judgments varies with the type and purpose of the program or project we are called upon to review. A case that recently came to our attention, and upon which I will communicate with you further in the near future, illustrates the point. In this case, our Ambassador to Lebanon reports that he was visited by representative of the Navy Department with a view to establishing a management group composed of three GS 18’s, whose mission would be to investigate the capabilities of the Lebanese to conduct unspecified research for the Navy. Ambassador Meyer in his cable to us makes three points: (a) visiting Congressmen have been critical of the number of Americans in Lebanon; (b) the Congressmen have threatened to block construction of proposed new Embassy building until the number of Americans is substantially reduced; and (c) Meyer has no problem (other then a and b) with the activity proposed by the Navy. This is the kind of a case which is most difficult for us to resolve. First, it is apparent that additional U.S. [Page 126] presence is not inimical to our interests in Lebanon and may actually be advantageous in terms of US-Lebanese relations. Second, we have no expertise in evaluating the desirability of the research activities involved. Third, the type of activity is obviously beyond State’s ability to perform. As a result, unless we adopt the Briggs’ philosophy, which I personally believe to be completely untenable in today’s world, or unless we are to hide behind the balance of payments argument, which I really think is more in your arena than ours, we have no basis for taking a position.
I could also cite other examples such as the authorization of a Secret Service employee in Paris to assist Interpol in investigating counterfeiting, and the celebrated case of the FAA European regional office, which I believe illustrate the same point—namely, the difficulty this Department has in making appropriate value judgments on programs that are essentially outside of the stream of foreign affairs.
We can, of course, make much more meaningful evaluations of the need for those activities which contribute directly to the achievement of our foreign policy objectives. But even here the relationships that have been established between the State Department and the various agencies charged with carrying out those programs—AID, CIA, USIA, the Department of Defense, ACDA, the Peace Corps—make it difficult for us to actually control the level or composition of annual operating programs.
3. Proposed budget circular on international activities—We have reviewed the October 16, 1961 draft circular2 in accordance with your request. With some minor reservations, I believe it would fill the need outlined in the foregoing paragraphs. I would be pleased to have members of my staff join in discussions with your people in an effort to resolve our reservations.
4. Actions in connection with the 1965 budget—We will be happy to participate in any way we can in reviewing agency estimates for overseas activities. The nature and scope of our participation will of course depend upon the information and data made available to us. If you believe, as I do, that the draft circular reflects the right approach in the long run, I would suggest that to the extent possible we use it as the basis for our effort this year. In any event, we would like to get information on any programs or activities that you would like us to comment on in sufficient time to permit our obtaining field comments.
Once again, let me emphasize the Secretary’s interest and concern with the increasing complexity of U.S. operations abroad. I believe the course of action outlined above would go a long way toward resolving [Page 127] what up until now has been an exceedingly chaotic situation. I will be pleased to discuss this matter further with you or with members of your staff at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
- Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Management Staff Files: Lot 69 D 434, Miscellaneous Subject Files, Interagency Relationship, Bureau of Budget Circular. No classification marking. A copy was sent to Ralph Roberts.↩
- Not printed. (Ibid.)↩
- Printed from a copy that indicates that Crockett signed the original.↩