STAFF STUDY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-05597A000100030050-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 3, 1998
• Sequence Number: 50
• Publication Date: February 23, 1973
• Content Type: STUDY

Approved For Release 2001/0 97A000100030050-8
Stanley S. Tlzawley
23 February 1973
STAT'I' STL7DY
Status of OBC~I -State Department Relations
The overall impressions gained froze a study of the OBGI-State
relationship are that it works effectively and serves a useful function
far both. agencies. There are certain problems in the relationship,
but usually these have stemmed from budgetary stringencies --
BALPA and OPI-LED in particular -- rather than from some impracti-
cal arrangement, inherent clash of personalities, or bad blood at the
working levels. I would like to present, then, a short summary of
these problems and my conclusions, based on my rather brief study
of the situation, followed by a more detailed narrative describing the
current state of the relationship.
Ma ~ Library
The problem is a vital one: State's inclination to greatly reduce
its sul~~..ort for the Geographic Attache map procurement program. The
only solution, if State persists on this course, is to continue to develop
altern_~.t~c~ means of collecting maps abroad. MLD already is utilizing
compct.c~nt OBGI officers for TDY collection trips. Steps to cover fur-
ther contingencies are set forth in the FY 1975 Program Call.
Producing analysts in the DDI and in Commerce (Census) have
reaffirrxied the high va.Iue they place on Embassy review {and, to a
lesser extent, on Departmental review) of their NIS draft manuscripts,
The major problem lies in the uneven quality of this review. The NIS
is assigned a low priority in the overall division of labor within State,
and a given analyst's workload at the tune he is asked to review a section
can play as much of a role in its quality as the degree of expertise he may
have in a country or particular discipline. For the most part, however,
the State review, and especially that of the Mission, is conscientiously
done and is an invaluable aid to th~~-contributors, who would greatly regret
any cutback in it.
CLASS. CHARGED a
IIEX7 REVIEW DA7Et
e-u~`Na ~s3~ DE D'59
~r+a~~___------~ ~'_
Approved For Release 2001/07/30
t~?15003~`0 Y1~t1'X7ET Cy $y p1964I
 Approved For Release 2001/07/30 :CIA-RDP78-05597A000100030050-8
MISSING PAGE
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MISSING PAGE(S):
Approved For Release 2001/07/30 :CIA-RDP78-05597A000100030050-8
 Approved For Release 2001/07/0 : CIA-RDP78-05597A000100030050-8
The procurement program. directly supports State (as well.
as the other members of the Interagency Ma.p and Publications Acquisi-
tion Committee) by making available, through the reference service,
the maps acquired. The program provides indirect support through
the maps produced, in Cartography Division of OBGI and elsewhere, on
the basis of mapping data acquired by the Geographic Attaches. Thus
the. entire map procurement and servicing operations of OBGI and the
State Department are thoroughly interrelated.
The only problem in the relationship, and it is a formidable
anal vital one, is the aforementioned reluctance on the part of rn.anage-
ment in State to continue providing funds and positions for the map
procurement program, despite the fact that the Department and the
Foreign Service constitute the second largest user of map materials,
based on the number of requests levied on the Map Library Division.
,steps proposed as solutions to cover various contingencies are set forth
in OBGI's submission for the FY 1975 Program CaII. It seems to me
na }:~z-acticable alternatives exist.
B. NIS Division
The State Department assists the NIS program by reviewing, both
iz-~ tPif3 Field and at the Desk level, certain of the NIS manuscripts. At
otzt~ time State/INR analysts (funded by CIA.) actually wrote some 40%
of the NIS sections, but in 1961 State divested itself of this function,
while at the same time agreeing to provide a review of all political, ?
sociological, and economic sections. As a result of cutbacks stemming
froze BALPA, on the one hand, and in the overall NIS program on the
other, the scope of State's review has been reduced somewhat over the
pest. 5 years.
State now receives the draft manuscripts of all Society, Govern-
ment and Politics, Economy, and Science sections of the General Survey.
Copies of each of these :drafts are automatically given to the appropriate
INR, and Desk officers for review and comments, but in the case- of Field
review a selective process is followed. The Country Director determines,
on the basis of certain criteria such as the current workload of the relevant
Mission and the availability of information adequate for effective review
in Washington, whether or not to send out a particular draft. In addition,
if a draft section is to be sent to the Field, the Country Director decides
-5-
Approved For Release 2001/07/30 :CIA-RD[P78-05597A000100030050-8
 Approved For Release 2001/0'~RDP78-05597A000100030050-8
whether the Mission is to be instructed to undertake an overall,
"broadbrush" review or to comment on the manuscript if and as it
sees fit ("optional" review). The Mission usually is given 4-6 weeks
to report its comments liack to the Department.
Tn the 4 1/2 years since BALPA I, approximately seven of every
eight drafts received by State have been forwarded to the Field -- 40%
for "broadbruslz" review and b0% for "optional". Some 70% of those
sent under the "optional" category have indeed been reviewed and com-
mented o.n. Furthermore, the percentage of manuscripts not sent to the
Field has steadily declined (from over 25% in the last half of 1968 to just
over 10% in 1972), Attachment C gives a yearly breakdown of statistics
on Field review.
The Field- review is generally considered by the producing analysts
to be the most valuable appraisal the NIS drafts receive. The Mission
frequently provides relevant, previously unreported information, filling
in gaps and sometimes correcting faulty. interpretations which had been
arrived at partly because of such reporting deficiencies. The INR review
is also valued -- but not as highly as that of the Mission, as it is generally
felt that the analysts in INR are basing their judgments on the same intelli-
gence documents that are available to the original author. As for the
Desl: review, -its special virtue is that it insures safeguarding of the
official policy position of the U. S. Government on foreign issues. OER
analysts tend to assign a lower value to Departmental review of the.
Economy drafts, as they. feel that since many of the officers in INR and
on the Desk are oriented politically and may have had little training in
economics, their review often is skimpy and at times useless.
The major problem in the NIS-State relationship lies in the uneven,
varied treatment which an individual NIS draft receives in State. In INR;,
for example, there have recently been sizable reductions in the number
of slots, with the result that greater burdens are placed on the remaining
officers. When an NI5 draft comes in, it is given to the appropriate
analyst with the understanding that he is to work on it if and when he can.
Thus the relatively low priority assigned to the NTS in the division of labor
means widely varying results in the reviewing process -- depending among
other things on the degree of expertise an analyst has in a given country
(he may be responsible for a half dozen or so) and on the amount of time
he feels he is able to devote to the manuscript. Occasionally the INR or
Desk analyst will make no comment, citing as an excuse the pressure of
ether work, and will defer to the judgment of the Ibl.ission. To sum up,
-b-
Approved For Release 2001/07/30 :CIA-R{D~Pj78-05597A0.00100030050-8
k~~~~
 Approved For Release 2001/07/30 :CIA-RDP78-05597A000100030050-8
very few analysts in. -State are against the NIS per se, and all want to
see a basic intelligence document be as correct as possible when p~.b~
l.ished, but the aforementioned variables of workload and expertise
necessarily result in uneven quality of review overall.
Another problem, though more minor than the preceding, is the
fact that a given Mission occasionally will return its comments after the
date requested by the Department, thus causing a delay in OBGI's
processing of that section. This delay becomes particularly troublesome
in those instances when a draft has been sent out for optional review, as
the NIS editors and the producing analysts have no way of knowing whether
the Mission is indeed going to exercise its option. There have been
instances where optional comments have arrived after the survey has
been Xeroxed for final review by the participat ing offices. A simple
rexr~edy for this inconvenience, but one which would be of great benefit
to all concerned, would be for State to add a sentence to .its telegram of
instructions (accaxnpanying drafts being sent for optional review) asking
each Mission to notify the Department if it does not plan to comment.
The Office of The Geographer at State furnishes data on land area,
length of land boundaries, and limits of territorial waters to the NIS
I~i.vision far incorporation in the Basic Intelligence Factbook. Missions
in the field may, if they wish, send comments and suggestions concerning
tla~ published Factbook to the NIS Coordinator in INR, who forwards them.
to NIS Division. These comments, which are sent to the Department in
4aie form of airgrams, operation memorandums, and informal letters,
arc+ generally useful and constructive, and in some cases update not only
the Factbook but the analyst's files as well. Thus, most of the feedback
(some 25 separate communications every 6 months, or from about 10%
of the total nuxrxber of Missions receiving Factbooks) serves as an effec-
tive review of Factbook content.
An even more effective review, of course, would be for each
Mission to be given the option of reviewing a draft page dealing with its
particular country, prior to publication. This might be construed as an
extra burden on reduced Mission staffs. Nevertheless, I feel the idea
should be explored with State.
Approved For Release 2001/07/30 ? ~~DjjP78-05597A000100030050-8
~U~~~~