He described a complex system involving:
- coordination with subordinates in State, and in other executive branch departments which have substantive interests in the programs of international agencies -- a lot of decisions are made at this level
- the roles of the Assistant Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and Secretary (a significant responsibility was keeping issues contained so as not to require their attention)
- budget negotiations with the Office of Management and Budget
- participation of National Security Council staff and others in the White House in major policy decisions
- discussions with Congressional staffers
- inputs from the public, including officials of civil society organizations
I came away with the perception that many, perhaps the vast majority of issues were handled at a technical level, while a few issues are seen as "political".
He identified a key function of the State Department, which includes the U.S. contributions to international organizations in its budget, as monitoring the efficiency of the organizations in utilizing their budgets to implement their missions.
He stressed the importance of mid level State Department officers who follow the agencies for extended periods of time, developing both expertise and contacts.
He stressed the importance to diplomats of selection of the top officials in these agencies.
I was taken by his description of the functioning of the governing bodies of these agencies as high theater, a theater which seems invariably to draw in American diplomats; they wind up really caring about "wining" in the parliamentary votes and decisions.
He also mentioned the similarity of the parliamentary dynamics of the international organization governing bodies to those of the U.S. Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment