Shifting Mandate

IS the Clinton Administration getting ready to scrap the South Asia Bureau in the State Department? Created in 1991 by legislative mandate to focus US policy more strongly on the region, the bureau has had its share of criticism from Washington thinktanks, the Administration and Congress. Some critics believe that—in hindsight—there was no reason for creating another bureau in an already top-heavy department. Supporters, however, feel that it has more than justified its existence.

The bureau arose from an act of Congress called the State Department Authorisation Bill, 1991, in which former Representative Stephen Solarz (Democrat, New York) and Sen. Patrick Moynihan (Democrat, New York) joined hands to pass a legislation mandating a separate bureau for the South Asia region to be headed by an assistant secretary. The bureau was, in fact, created by splitting it away from the former Near East and South Asia Bureau.

Since the bureau was created by legislative mandate, it caused certain problems for the State Department. The organisation of the bureau—once left to the Secretary of State—was now being decided by Congress, which could mean a fair amount of meddling and interference. It could also mean that all parts of the State Department would not be governed by the same rules.

Mike Krepon, president of The Henry L. Stimson Center, a prominent Washington thinktank, said: "This talk to get rid of the bureau may be part of a reorganisation of the State Department that was announced earlier with the United States Information Service, the Agency for International Development and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency all being brought under it. This reorganisation may also affect the number of assistant secretaries of state in the State Department, which now has more of them than the Pentagon—a much larger department."

Krepon thinks that the Administration may be trying to score points with Sen. Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina) who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has long been an advocate for shrinkage of government personnel and budgets and the reduction of US assistance for development projects overseas.

Asked if he expected a storm of protest from South Asian administrations and media as well as some American legislators if the bureau closed, Krepon responded: "You have to consider whether South Asia is better off with having its own assistant secretary. What has the experience been so far? Think about it. Did it give the region a leg up? Maybe. But has the quality of US foreign policy changed or become more focused after the South Asia Bureau was set up?" Krepon believes that the decision to scrap the bureau or to retain it will only be taken in the next three to four months. For all this talk, the State Department strongly denied that the South Asia Bureau would be

closed down. Speaking exclusively to 바카라, a spokesperson declared: "This is a mistaken piece of information. The South Asia Bureau is not going to be scrapped." Providing a detailed backgrounder, he said the bureau was created under specific legislation by Congress in "an odd sort of way". It was mandated. "Whereas, in the case of most bureaus (though not all) within the State Department it is up to the Secretary of State to decide how to run them. But here you have the case of Congress deciding how to organise or structure a bureau or whether it should exist in the first place....In the end, it is an anomaly to have these bureaus mandated by legislation when most of the other parts of the Department of State are not," he added.

When proposing the new legislation for the Authorisation Bill, the official says the Administration has "followed a course it has used in the last few years. It is trying to get Congress to remove all legislative mandates for the State Department, including the South Asia Bureau." But this does not mean that "we want the South Asia Bureau to be removed. Far from it".

What were the chances of the legislation being passed? Not very good, indicated the official, who added: "If you are asking whether the legislation is about to occur, I can tell you that it is very problematical. There have not been Authorisation Bills passed for quite some time." "Reports of our demise have been wildly exaggerated. The South Asia Bureau will be continuing in operation," said a second Administration source. "There is no hidden agenda here. What they want is no more special mandates or separate rules or busybody legislation looking over their shoulders. The South Asia Bureau will certainly stay."