The Foreign Service Journal, October 2015

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2015 45 Russia’s pavilion at the Milan expo. Each participating country celebrates a national day during the fair, which usually consists of a high-ranking visit, flag ceremony, tour of the national pavilion, cultural program and parade. The author’s visit to Milan coincided with the Russian national day event, at which Russian President Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi spoke. COURTESYOFMATTHEWASADA In 1928, countries founded the Bureau of International Expositions to administer the organization and certification of fairs. Since 1996, the bureau has authorized a major international exposition, otherwise known as a “registered” world’s fair, to be held every five years. Smaller, minor expositions—or “recognized” fairs—are held in intervening years. According to the BIE, a world expo is meant to showcase “the social, economic, cultural and technology achievements of human beings.” The United States has hosted 20 major and minor fairs, the first in 1853 in New York City. Several U.S. cities have expressed inter- est in hosting future fairs; however, these cities may have to wait for some time, since BIE member states are given priority. Though the United States was a founding member, Secretary of State Colin Powell officially withdrew U.S. membership in 2001 after Congress failed to authorize and appropriate BIE dues. Until the 1990s, responsibility for requesting and administering congressional appropriations for U.S. participation in world’s fairs had been the purview of the United States Information Agency. Congress Limits U.S. Participation Following the end of the Cold War, members of Congress began to question the need for world’s fairs. Notwithstanding efforts by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to secure funding for U.S. participation in the 1992 World’s Fair in Seville, Democrats objected and only appropriated $18 million of the $45 million requested. The reduction forced USIA to drasti- cally revise its plans for the pavilion, and the United States had to make do with an underwhelming pavilion consisting of two geodesic domes—veterans of the European exhibitions circuit— that were dug out of storage. That year, by comparison, the United Kingdom spent $40 million on its pavilion. In light of the experience in Seville and bipartisan interest in balancing the budget, Congress prohibited federal expenditures on a U.S. pavilion without express congressional authorization and appropriation in 1994. Despite this ban, Tony Coelho, U.S. commissioner general for the 1998 World Expo in Portugal, secured $6.7 million in federal funds from other agencies that covered more than 80 percent of the costs for the U.S. pavilion in Lisbon. In 2000, Congress loosened restrictions to allow federal funding of administrative expenses for U.S. participation in Expo Hannover 2000, but upheld the State Department ban on construction and operating costs. Congress viewed the U.S. pavilion as a private- sector responsibility, ignoring the public diplomacy angle and the prevailing practice of other governments providing public financ- ing. Private companies preferred to be thought of as “international”