The Foreign Service Journal, December 2007

two functions: observe and report. Accordingly, ambas- sadors needed few formal authorities in their dealings with non-State Department officials. The Cold War generated a plethora of proactive pro- grams: political and economic reporting, development assistance, cultural relations, military cooperation, intelli- gence collection and analysis, etc. It soon became evi- dent that one agency could be busily working toward goals that ran counter to what another agency in the same country was trying to accomplish. This was partly the result of the organizational problems mentioned above, compounded by the lack of clear instructions as to who was in charge of what, and to what extent. In an effort to improve the coordination of implemen- tation, President Dwight Eisenhower initiated the cur- rent practice of giving each ambassador direct, written authority over the activities of all in-country executive- branch personnel, except for those under an area military commander. (Formerly known as commanders in chief, or CINCs, those leaders are now referred to as combat- ant commanders, or CoComs.) Ever since the passage of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, the letter has been addressed to chiefs of mission rather than ambassadors (see the next paragraph), but with the same clear objective: to inject a level of com- mand and control at the implementation end of foreign policy that is difficult to maintain at the formulation stage. Each president has used slightly different word- ing, but the basic delegation of authority for the conduct of relations remains unambiguous. It may be useful to clarify the distinction between ambassadors and chiefs of mission. Individuals formally representing their nation abroad have an internationally recognized diplomatic title: ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary. From an operational perspective, an AEP’s functions are concentrated on dealing with the host government. By contrast, American chiefs of mis- sion are also charged with responsibility for the manage- ment of all internal operations. The two titles are required for two reasons. First, the leader of a U.S. delegation to an international conference, for example, may be given a temporary title as ambas- sador, but is neither an AEP nor a COM. Because of this situation, both the president’s letter and the law refer only to the responsibilities and authorities of COMs; neither document explicitly mentions ambassadors. Second, and of perhaps greater significance: While all AEPs are also chiefs of mission, some COMs are not AEPs — but they are given precisely the same managerial authorities. The COM’s Mandate Extracts from pertinent portions of the president’s let- ter are compelling. “As chief of mission, you have full responsibility for the direction, coordination and supervi- sion of all United States government executive-branch employees. ... You have the right to see all communica- tions to or from mission elements, however transmitted … As chief of mission, you are not only my personal rep- resentative, but that of our country.” This is an extraordinary mandate. The letter goes to some length to insure inclusion of all personnel, in all func- tions and locations. The import of the last phrase cited above is unambiguous: Chiefs of mission work directly for the president, because the president says they do. In the Foreign Service Act, the section on COM authorities and responsibilities uses language identical to that in the president’s letter. Of even greater potential significance, the sentence introducing that section of the law begins: “Under the direction of the president ...” (emphasis added). Note that it does not say “under the direction of the Secretary of State.” There is solid, indisputable logic behind the establish- ment of a direct link to the president. If chiefs of mission worked for the Secretary of State, they would be on the same organizational level as their overseas counterparts from other agencies, who also report to their respective Cabinet secretaries. Despite being the most senior Cabinet member, the Secretary of State lacks any author- ity over his or her colleagues. The Secretary of State’s Role To establish the COM-Secretary of State relationship, the president’s letter says, “Please report to me through the Secretary of State. Under my direction, the Secretary of State is, to the fullest extent provided by the law, responsible for the overall coordination and supervision of U.S government activities and operations abroad.” This sentence is the key to the entire exercise. If proper- ly employed, it gives the Secretary, and therefore the department, an unparalleled mechanism for affecting the full range of our actions abroad. The Secretary cannot be placed between the presi- dent and the COM on an organization chart, nor pre- sented as occupying such a position. To do so would not F O C U S 30 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 7