assistance in all target countries. The social and economic development of these countries directly affects many U.S. foreign policy objectives, including (1) promoting global and regional stability, (2) supporting U.S. private sector investments abroad, (3) ensuring U.S. access to important energy and other natural resources, and (4) countering the spread of terrorist groups. The Department of State has increasingly taken on management responsibilities for operational programs in the developing countries, and particularly the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The Department of State plays a lead role in determining the purposes and levels of U.S. contributions to international organizations that have many programs in developing countries.

Of special relevance to this study are the interests of the Department of State’s Office of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES). The office is, of course, interested in USAID’s activities that provide new channels for international cooperation and communication but has not shown comparable interest in the development of S&T capacity in developing countries. OES has limited program funds that it has used on occasion for environmental and other activities in the developing countries. The office has for many years developed strategic plans for addressing S&T-related issues throughout the world, and these plans inevitably overlap with the interests of USAID when addressing developing countries.1 The level of coordination among OES, the department’s science and environmental officers in U.S. embassies in developing countries, and USAID program officers is inconsistent, and depends largely on the breadth of experience and interests of the officials involved. Of course, communication among all parties on issues of mutual concern should be strongly encouraged, but attempts to strengthen coordination of USAID’s program interests with the interests of OES through new bureaucratic requirements should be undertaken with great care lest such efforts complicate rather than improve the effectiveness of USAID’s programs and OES’s policies.

We saw a highly visible example of interagency coordination reflected in Figure 1-1: the many streams of U.S. financing of programs to combat HIV/AIDS worldwide, including indirect financing through international organizations. The PEPFAR program, in particular, has provided considerable stimulus for improved coordination of U.S. activities abroad. U.S. ambassadors are explicitly charged by the administration to personally lead the coordination. In some countries the ambassadors have extended this coordination to encompass all U.S.-financed health programs.

1  

See, for example, NRC. Goals, strategies, and objectives in the program plan of the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. In The Pervasive Role of Science, Technology, and Health in Foreign Policy, Imperatives for the Department of State, pp. 106-111. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement