Four senators say State Department reorganization runs counter to U.S. policy (04/25/99)

Four senators say State Department reorganization runs counter to U.S. policy

WASHINGTON - In a letter to Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Sen. William V. Roth Jr. (R-Del.) and three colleagues called on the State Department to restructure its bureaus to reflect the longstanding U.S. objective of creating a "Europe, whole and free."

The letter criticizes the State Department's current reorganization plan, which divides responsibilities for interests in Central Europe between the Bureau for European Affairs (EUR) and a proposed Bureau of East European and Eurasian Affairs defined by the geographic boundaries of the former Soviet Union. Sens. Roth, Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), Michael DeWine (R-Ohio) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) want responsibilities for Europe centralized in the European bureau.

The four senators wrote:

"The Department of State should centralize the management of U.S. interests in Europe, including those pertaining to Ukraine and Moldova, into one bureau, the EUR Bureau. That would strongly underscore and most effectively support U.S. policy objectives in Europe - particularly the consolidation of an undivided Europe. ...

"It has been nearly a decade since the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union's domination of Central Europe, including Ukraine and Moldova. The time is long overdue to move beyond the language and bureaucratic structures that define the former captive nations by their former hegemon. Our national security institutions, particularly our lead diplomatic agency, must be structured in a manner ... that maximizes our institutional ability to ensure that Europe is never again divided."

The full text of the senators' letter to Secretary of State Albright follows.

* * *

Dear Madam Secretary:

Having reviewed the Department of State's budget request for FY 2000, we write to express our unequivocal opposition to the division of responsibilities for U.S. interests in Central Europe between the Bureau of European Affairs (EUR) and a proposed Bureau of East European and Eurasian Affairs (EE) covering the "12 newly independent states of the former Soviet Union." This organizational proposal directly contradicts a cornerstone of U.S. policy, the creation of a "Europe, whole and free."

According to the budget request, the EE bureau will cover such Central European countries as Ukraine and Moldova, despite the fact that they are distinctly European in geography, history and culture. Their inclusion is not justified according to any criterion other than the fact they were once dominated by the former Soviet Union.

The Department of State should centralize the management of U.S. interests in Europe, including those pertaining to Ukraine and Moldova, into one bureau, the EUR Bureau. That would strongly underscore and most effectively support U.S. policy objectives in Europe - particularly the consolidation of an undivided Europe.

A comparison of the EUR and EE bureaus' mission statements underscores the importance of centralizing our European interests within EUR. It is quite striking and revealing that the goals and priorities of EUR include objectives that are geopolitical and visionary, while those articulated for the EE are far more technical in nature and scope. For example, an explicit and laudable EUR objective is the integration of Central European countries into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions. Another priority is to develop a "Euro-Atlantic Partnership for the 21st Century." In contrast, the mission statement for the EE Bureau is devoid of any such language.

What message would the implementation of this plan for the EUR and EE bureaus send abroad? It would send an unmistakable signal to Russia that the realm of the former Soviet Union falls legitimately within a Russian sphere of interest. It is disturbing to find that the EE Bureau's "Overview Statement" describes it as responsible for the conduct of relations with "Western Slavic" states of the former Soviet Union, presumably Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. That statement could be interpreted as tacit support for those who advocate the establishment of a Slavic union. (Moreover, one might note that Moldova is not a Slavic country!)

If the EUR Bureau will handle responsibilities for Central European states such as Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia, there is no rationale for it not to encompass Ukraine and Moldova which define themselves as Central European states and participate in Central European regional activities and institutions. By not including these countries in EUR, the Department of State would communicate that the United States rejects their aspirations to be fully part of Europe.

This division of Central Europe within the Department of State not only unnecessarily disperses resources that should be centralized and focused on the effort to build a "Europe, whole and free," it would also promote a bureaucratic culture contrary to that effort. Policies of organizations are very much a product of their structure and charter. The proposed EE bureau would contribute to a bureaucratic culture that does not regard countries such as Ukraine and Moldova as European. The fact that Russia is by far the largest and geopolitically significant state in the proposed EE Bureau would practically guarantee that all regional issues in its domain would be considered through a primarily Russian optic.

It would be truly ironic to have the Department of State, which played such an important role in the effort against the Soviet Union, among the last institutions to sustain the legacy of division in Europe wrought by that empire.

It has been nearly a decade since the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union's domination of Central Europe, including Ukraine and Moldova. The time is long overdue to move beyond language and bureaucratic structures that define former captive nations by their former hegemon. Our national security institutions, particularly our lead diplomatic agency, must be structured in a manner that strongly reflects our support for a "Europe, whole and free," and that maximizes our institutional ability to ensure that Europe is never again divided.

Bill Roth
Orrin Hatch
Sam Brownback
Mike DeWine

| Home Page |