The Foreign Service Journal, May 2010

and immigration, and the nexus of transnational threats (terrorism, nar- cotics, international crime). Most of these units would be headed by assistant secretaries, al- though some, such as economic de- velopment, might report to an under secretary or even a Deputy Secretary of State. They would function as substantive, mission-focused “agen- cies” responsible for policy develop- ment in their areas of competence, as well as capability providers to the operational chain of command. The objective is an omnibus, big-tent type of depart- ment — one with a greater range of substantive programs than, for instance, the Department of Defense but less than the Department of Homeland Security. Construct- ing this department will require thoughtful analysis and lengthy negotiations about whom to include and leave out. The most obvious and pressing area for consolidation, currently under active consideration in Washington, is that of overseas economic development. At the moment, five institutions — the Department of Defense, State Department, U.S. Agency for International Develop- ment, Millennium Challenge Corporation and Presi- dent’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief — manage the bulk of foreign assistance, but without the benefit of a clear division of labor based on comparative advantage. In a 2007 report, the Helping to Enhance the Liveli- hood of People around the Globe (HELP) Commission endorsed an integrated approach to U.S. government-run development assistance programs, to replace piecemeal fixes administered by multiple agencies. It also argued that development should be elevated to equal status with defense and diplomacy, which would require dramatic changes to the existing U.S. foreign affairs structure. Al- though the commission took varying views on what form that structure should take, the majority of commissioners opted for the merger of all development agencies into the Department of State, so that the Secretary of State could manage all aspects of U.S foreign policy and foreign as- sistance. Another aspect of this question is the need for a more effective structure for State to partner with DOD in man- aging our crisis response capability, given the relationship between economic development and crisis response or post-conflict reconstruction. There is an obvious operational continuum ranging from classic foreign aid proj- ects to contemporary crisis response and post-conflict reconstruction. So it makes sense to consolidate USAID with State’s Office of the Coordina- tor for Reconstruction and Stabiliza- tion and with the Millennium Chall- enge Corporation, forming a “Devel- opment and Crisis Response Organ- ization.” Other departments and agencies would participate in the new department various means. A formal and exten- sive personnel exchange system, modeled on the present State-DOD exchange agreement, should be concluded with a wide range of departments and agencies. (Strong on-site representation from the U.S. Special Operations Command and the Director of National Intelligence will be particularly desirable.) Recruitment for all positions, including the most senior, would be across the entire fed- eral government. The New Organizational Structure Consolidation of the Next-Generation Department of State would focus on four primary elements: • An “Office of the Secretary” with department-wide authority, designated functions and sufficient staff. • A family of subordinate units ranging in status from bureaus to sub-Cabinet agencies, each responsible for a distinct subject such as development assistance. • A coherent operational chain of command from the Secretary through regional assistant secretaries to chiefs of mission to provide integrated management of all field op- erations. Each level would operate under authority anal- ogous to what chiefs of mission currently enjoy, but leading a networked, interbureau, interagency team. • An expanded “foreign affairs” culture fostered by a three-pronged approach: expanding the current Foreign Service of the United States to cover all personnel who pursue international careers in the new State Department regardless of substantive discipline; a comprehensive pro- fessional educational program; and an extensive program of cross-functional and interagency assignments. The Secretary of State would be the primary executive official responsible for managing the full range of pro- grams assigned to the department. This is, in fact, a tra- The objective is an omnibus, big-tent type of department — one with a greater range of substantive programs. M A Y 2 0 1 0 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 31 F O C U S