*EPF315 03/29/00
Text: Interview with Thomas Pickering on U.S. Foreign Policy-Making
(From electronic journal "U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda") (2810)

(International relations today have become increasingly more complex and "involve a wide range of issues that, in the 19th century, were never seen as major questions of foreign policy," says Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas R. Pickering. The nations of the world are growing closer together, he says, and the communications revolution and the information revolution "clearly are having an impact on international diplomacy." The following interview with Pickering, conducted by Contributing Editor Dian McDonald, is included in the March issue of the State Department electronic journal "U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda," which addresses the topic, "The Making of U.S. Foreign Policy." The Internet address for the journal is: "http://www.usinfo.state.gov/journals/journals.htm".)

THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY-MAKING
An interview with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas R. Pickering

QUESTION: Who are the most influential players in the development of U.S. foreign policy?

PICKERING: They are the President and the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and, of course, the Director of Central Intelligence, who provides the other key members of the foreign policy team with the latest information on world events.

These officials constitute the core of the National Security Council, which is the nation's highest-level foreign policy-making body. And the Secretary of State takes very seriously her primary role of being the principal advisor to the President on foreign policy issues.

Q: How do their roles overlap and complement each other in achieving U.S. foreign policy goals?

PICKERING: The President and the Secretary of State have to give the most comprehensive consideration to foreign policy issues because of their unparalleled responsibilities at the apex of the U.S. foreign policy-making apparatus. The Secretary of Defense often brings an added dimension to the review of national security questions, and the National Security Advisor to the President coordinates and integrates the activities and functions of all of the members of the foreign policy team. He of course intimately understands the President's foreign policy priorities and often initiates insightful debates about that agenda during those meetings of the foreign policy principals which the President does not attend.

This National Security Council team, from my own experience, is congenial and cooperative. But that in no way tends to diminish the sharpness of the questions or the seriousness of the debate. They have not allowed personal feelings to intrude on the national interest in the way that sometimes has happened in the past. And they have also worked very hard to maintain the element of confidentiality as they deal with issues over a long period of time.

Q: How do you work with Congress in the foreign policy area?

PICKERING: The entire foreign policy establishment takes very seriously the Congressional role on any foreign policy issue that comes up for consideration. There is always consideration of how and in what way we need to brief the Congress, get Congressional opinions, and analyze the Congressional approach.

On almost every major foreign policy issue, there are two sets of Congressional considerations. The first has to do with policy -- namely how the Congress, which is a very vocal and essential part of the American government, will react to an issue from a policy perspective. We listen to the views of individual members as well as to the Congressional leadership and the committee chairs.

Secondly, Congress has the very important duty of providing funding for government programs, both as part of the annual budget process and often on an emergency basis through supplemental appropriations. So consideration of the concerns of Congress from the point of view of funding is very important.

In addition, Congress has frequently in recent years legislated on foreign policy issues. Therefore one of the questions we always have to ask ourselves regarding a particular foreign policy initiative is: Will we expect Congressional cooperation or Congressional opposition? And, in either case, will that take the form of legislation? And if so, how would we deal with their efforts at legislation, or should we propose our own legislation? In the latter case, of course, consultations with the Congress are very important.

The President plays the leading role in consulting with Congress, but the Secretary also spends a very large portion of her time conferring with senior Members of the Congress about particular issues. And others of us who work closely with the Secretary also take on some of that responsibility from time to time, with respect to budgetary issues or foreign policy crises.

For example, I recently spent an afternoon on Capitol Hill briefing one of the committees on a particular crisis situation. I spent the evening talking to Members of Congress about Colombia. Senior Administration officials also frequently are involved in telephone discussions with Congressional leaders about foreign policy issues. These activities are a very important part of our responsibilities in the Executive Branch, because it is the necessary coordination between the two branches that makes foreign policy effective.

Q: How would you describe the most critical newly emerging influences on U.S. foreign policy-making?

PICKERING: There are several. Increasingly international relations have become more complex and involve a wide range of issues that, in the 19th century, were never seen as major questions of foreign policy. These include crime, terrorism, the environment, and international health. Dealing with the AIDS problem is a particular concern of the Administration at the present time because of the devastation this disease is wreaking on many economies and in many countries around the world.

These are all now front-and-center issues of foreign policy. They complement the traditional economic issues -- trade, macroeconomic reform, and development -- as well as many of the traditional political issues -- settling crises, dealing with international disputes, dealing with conflicts that have erupted, and exercising diplomacy to prevent future conflicts.

They are also complemented by a growth in multilateral diplomacy, in that many of these issues now find their way into multilateral bodies, some regional and some broadly international.

So issues are increasing in scope and technical complexity because of the fact that the nations of the world are growing closer together. We have all been profoundly affected by the communications revolution and the information revolution, which clearly are having an impact on international diplomacy.

Q: Could you elaborate on how you work with international organizations to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals?

PICKERING: All of us in the foreign affairs community are increasingly conscious of the fact that multilateral bodies -- both regional and broadly international -- play an extremely important role. In some cases, their role is legislative or quasi-legislative; they actually make the rules. In other cases, they set the international consensus for what must be done at the highest levels.

In terms of traditional problems of war and peace, the UN Security Council, of which we are a permanent member, plays a very important role. During the past 50 years or more, regional and international organizations have developed guidelines to help define and regulate activities in many spheres -- from how to conduct business to how to keep airplanes from colliding with each other to regulation of the telecommunications industry.

For all these reasons, working with our counterparts in international organizations is a primary focal point for the Department of State and the other domestic agencies that join with us in carrying out foreign affairs. Some of the domestic agencies have their own direct links with the international organizations in their field. It is the responsibility of the Department of State to make sure that they follow general American foreign policy objectives and continue to be effective in pursuing the national interest.

Q: How do the views of foreign leaders and foreign governments factor into the development of U.S. foreign policy?

PICKERING: They are always extremely important, and are, of course, especially critical when we have to deal with bilateral questions. Recently, I was involved in three long trips that afforded an opportunity to get the views of leaders in the Balkans, in Latin America, and in the Far East on principal foreign policy questions. These kinds of consultations with foreign leaders are essential because, even though the United States is a world leader in foreign policy, it cannot operate alone. We have to bring friends, allies -- and even enemies -- along in a cooperative way in order to get things done. The world does not operate on the basis of one country being able to do everything all alone.

The consideration of foreign leaders' views also is important in a multilateral context because many other countries play leading roles in multilateral forums such as the United Nations, and the way individual countries vote on particular questions is very important to the United States. We undertake a lot of lobbying -- we call it in diplomatic language "demarches" -- which means, in effect, trying to persuade others, through logic and discussion, of the value and correctness of U.S. views. We also attempt to understand the views of other countries and often try to factor their views into our own, so that we can begin to build the kind of consensus that is necessary to take international action on a particular subject.

Q: Do you believe that the media get in the way of foreign policy-making?

PICKERING: On some occasions, when diplomacy is being conducted confidentially, and confidentiality is important to its success, transparency too early in the process obviously is not helpful from the point of view of those who are conducting the diplomacy. I think that everyone who deals with diplomacy recognizes that we are in an increasingly freer age, with an increasingly freer flow of information. And most of us believe that this will lead intrinsically and essentially to the betterment of the process and of mankind.

So we are getting used to operating in a goldfish bowl. When the confidentiality of information exchanged with foreign governments is breached, this is sometimes seen as a breach of faith and tends then to color a relationship, maybe unnecessarily, in a bad way. But that is not the press's fault so much as it is the fault of the source of the information to the press.

Sometimes we believe that press commentary on foreign policy is unfair. I think that governments feel this most strongly about press stories in which they have had no opportunity to make their views known to the writer before the story is published. And from the press's point of view, it is also important for them to consider whether they have had a full opportunity to know and evaluate all points of view before writing their stories.

It is a responsibility of the press to take into account all points of view and analyze them. One-sided stories, not checked or thoroughly researched, provide a disadvantageous optic for foreign affairs, because in the long run, foreign policy succeeds if it has the support of national publics, which are very much influenced by the media. Nobody expects the media to be the mouthpiece for the government, but we expect that the media at least will know and understand what government views are and be fair in conveying them.

Q: How can the media facilitate foreign policy-making?

PICKERING: I think the media does so in many ways. But in order for them to convey fair and balanced stories, it is important that they hear what we have to say. We don't expect the media to be totally uncritical; that probably would mean they weren't doing their job. On the other hand, we expect there to be a reasonable, factual basis for criticism that doesn't pretend to ignore the considerations that governments bring to bear in developing policy.

In our government, we are fortunate that the President and the Secretary of State, the chief articulators of U.S. foreign policy, have frequent opportunities to convey their views to the media. There is also a regular briefing process involving spokesmen at the State Department, the White House, and the Defense Department that enables us to convey our views on particular subjects to the media, so we in no way feel that our hands are tied. In many ways, the media is a remarkably important instrument. Not that the government manipulates the media, but they perform an essential function by treating as news what the government is saying about a particular foreign policy issue.

Q: Why do you believe bipartisanship is essential in U.S. foreign policy-making?

PICKERING: It is my belief that when we have a vital national interest at stake -- one that might affect American lives and war and peace, for example -- that the controversy ought to stop at the water's edge. That means that any President must be open, in his formulation of foreign policy, to considering, on a bipartisan basis, the views of others inside the country. But once that is done, and the President has made his best judgment about what is in the national interest on an issue of vital importance to the nation, the debate may be continued at home, but it should not be carried abroad. We think the line is crossed when people travel abroad and use their travel status as a platform for trying to change decisions on policy made at home.

Overseas, foreigners should see an America united on central propositions of our foreign policy and the critical ways they are carried out. There must be a national perspective, even if there remain some internal differences.

Q: What is the role of U.S. diplomatic missions abroad in developing U.S. foreign policy?

PICKERING: U.S. diplomatic missions abroad have a serious and important role in the development of foreign policy. This plays out in several ways. One is in their ability to ask all of the questions that are critical to American foreign policy-making and to provide not only the best factual information, but also -- and perhaps more importantly -- competent analyses of the factors they believe are significant in motivating foreign countries and impelling their host governments' decisions.

American missions and ambassadors abroad also have a primary responsibility for advising the Secretary and the President about foreign policy, both as to when initiatives should be undertaken and when changes need to be made, as well as what should be, from their vantage point, any new U.S. foreign policy in a particular country or region within their purview. The Assistant Secretaries of State in Washington are always prepared to take their views into account, and need to be the integrating point at which what comes in from overseas, as well as what is developed in Washington, are put together.

Q: What experiences have best prepared you for the pivotal role that you play in U.S. foreign policy-making?

PICKERING: The Foreign Service is essentially a learning career, and I have found this to be most significant for me. If a Foreign Service officer doesn't learn a lot new every day, I don't think he or she is making the best use of his or her career.

The jobs that have been most beneficial to me have been the numerous positions that I have held overseas and the appointments to policy-making functions in Washington. I have had a career in which each job, in my view, has contributed to my being more effective in the next job. So I think it is this combination of constantly educating oneself and constantly knowing that you have the responsibility as a decision-maker to be on top of the issues to the greatest extent that you can be, and to give the best advice that you can, that has best prepared me for my current role.

For all policy-makers, the ability -- as the Secretary often says -- to think "out of the box" is critical. To try to get to new dimensions of a solution to a problem is often one of the most interesting and important challenges. We all learn, in our experience in foreign affairs, how to weigh the various factors and decide which ones to take into account.

When working in Washington, one of the things one learns is to be alert to and aware of the domestic factors that play a role in foreign policy-making. The Secretary has primary responsibility for that, but she expects her advisors to understand domestic factors, which are less easily seen from a position abroad, and know how to take them into account.

Those are the factors and influences that have been most important to me in trying to provide the best advice I can to the Secretary.

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: www.usinfo.state.gov.)
NNNN