The Foreign Service Journal, December 2008

tions with a key role to play in addressing these global issues. If nec- essary, we must create more effective multilateral mechanisms that are “purpose built” and more effective than traditional models. A fresh look at the organization of our own national security and foreign affairs bureaucracy is required, as well. The tangle of ill-conceived executive orders, dysfunctional de- partment reorganizations, and the shuffling and downgrading of key functions has left much of our foreign affairs structure bereft of direction, clear lines of authority and account- ability. The U.S. development assistance mess requires a unified development agency using the core USAID profes- sional staff and bringing a host of mini-fiefdoms, such as the Millen- nium Challenge Corporation, under unified direction. Needless to say, the Rube Goldberg type of intelli- gence reorganization needs fine-tun- ing and simplification. The same is true of public diplomacy. On the international level, institu- tions such as UNEP, IAEA, WHO, the World Food Program/FAO, NATO, IEA, etc., need strengthening and freedom from a bureaucratic and resource-poor straightjacket. Some measure of central coordination and responsibility is needed. Many of these challenges have been with us for a long time and will take decades to resolve. Others have clear solutions but require adequate funding and effective leadership. There are few “silver bullets,” yet almost all have clear paths towards amelioration. There is no more important action that the new president could take than to create a new, powerful entity to examine emerging trends and threats, as well as new opportunities on a global level. That office should apply strategic foresight to assess 8 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 8 L E T T E R S