61. Letter From Secretary of Commerce Hodges to Secretary of State Rusk1
Dear Dean:
As you know, we have submitted for consideration by State and the Budget Bureau legislation for a separate commercial service. I am advised that your Department is wholly opposed to the separation of the services,2 but I think it desirable to set before you the reasons why we think such a move is required.
[Page 113]- First, so long as there is rotation among various functional assignments for Foreign Service Officers, the kind of competence and familiarity with problems, procedures, and people that is required in commercial work cannot be developed.
- Second, the present institutional arrangements at foreign posts place the commercial officer under an economic officer who frequently has no appreciation of the requirements of the Department of Commerce and, worse, sometimes has an antipathy towards commercial work. I have actual illustrations from personal experience.
- Third, the fact that commercial officers know who keep their personnel files and who acts on their promotion makes them cautious in initiating actions which would more actively represent American business overseas.
- Fourth, the fact that funds for commercial work must compete not only with all other activities in State but also area by area (since each bureau in State I understand sets its own priorities) and the fact that changes in work assignments may be made at the posts without our notification, much less permission, means that we do not know what resources are in fact available to us and we cannot move quickly to meet changing commercial situations. For example, we have been unable even to get into the field to explain our present programs and needs and the working of the State-Commerce Agreement because of State’s unwillingness to allocate funds for commercial officers conferences during calendar 1962.
- Fifth, serious problems have arisen in London, Frankfurt, and Tokyo concerning the authority over the Trade Centers we have established there. The lack of preparation of many commercial officers for this type of work makes undesirable an arrangement whereby they are overseers or in authority over the Centers.
- Sixth, partly for lack of funds in the FY 1963 budget but also for continued lack of interest within the State Department, there have been few personnel added who can make market and industrial analyses and do promotional work. Nor is there an adequate training and retraining program for existing officers and locals.
As you know, there are times when radical change is necessary and I believe that this is one of those times. The low standing of commercial work in the Foreign Service is too ingrained and the present personnel are too unfamiliar with the type of actions needed to permit an evolutionary process to succeed in the short time available.
While I recognize that such a move as we propose appears to run counter to the Herter report, there was recognition in the report that special conditions merit separate treatment. I would agree that in no [Page 114] event should the Ambassador’s responsibility be reduced. He must of necessity control activities at his post.
I am sending copies of this letter to Kermit Gordon and Myer Feldman for their information and consideration.
Sincerely,
- Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, ORG 4–COMM. No classification marking.↩
- See Document 59.↩