Overview
The Secretary of State is scheduled to attend a ‘PC’ to review how to move forward with North Korea. Like all PC meetings, this one will take place in the White House Situation Room and include appropriate PC members, for example the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense, etc. They will each have a notetaker but, under most circumstances, only the Principals will have a speaking role. Their notetakers will do just that, take notes, as well as perhaps pass notes or whisper in the ear of their Principal to help them during the meeting.
For this assignment, your role is the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
Review the materials for module four and your notes on those materials, with particular emphasis on the Garlauskas USIP paper of February 9, 2021 and the Brewer-Terry Foreign Affairs article of March 25, 2021.
Write a Briefing Memorandum for the Secretary that will – concisely – outline the options you believe available.
Include:
- Your recommendations as to which option is best
- A brief note of the likely views of the Secretary's PC colleagues on those options
- The reasons behind the views that you believe his PC colleagues might take
This memo should be in the format of the example briefing memorandum but without talking points.
Since this is a memo for the Secretary of State from his Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, the 'to' line should read 'The Secretary' and the 'from' line should read 'EAP - Your Name (for example: James R. Jones).
The 'drafting and clearing' page can be a confusing issue, especially since it's difficult to apply the model to each week's individual assignment, since the subject matter and therefore the drafting and clearing information changes.
For this week, since the memo is from the Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and it's about North Korea, it would be drafted by one of the Korean desk officers (EAP/K) and cleared by the Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for Korea (EAP) as well as the Country Director for Korea (EAP/K). Since it concerns nuclear arms control issues, it would be cleared by the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance's Office of Nuclear Strategic Policy (AVC/NSP) and the Bureau of International Security and Non-Proliferation (ISN). If the memo addresses human rights issues in North Korea, you would seek the clearance of the Asia office in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL/EAP). Because so much of North Korea policy concerns sanctions, you would likely want the clearance of the Sanctions Policy Office in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB/TFS/SPI). Finally, depending on whether you think the subject matter concerned their interests, you might want the clearance of the Bureau of Congressional Affairs (H), the Bureau of International Organization Affairs (IO), and the Legal Advisor (L).
That's in addition to the 'standard' clearances on all memos: S, D, P and S/P.
You will note that there are only State Department officials that are reflected in this process. While officials in other agencies might be consulted when drafting this memo, since this is an internal State Department document, their names and offices will not be reflected on this clearance page. They could, however, be cited in the body of the memo, if that makes the case more compelling or provides useful information.
Do I/did I expect you to know all of this information and alphabet soup? Absolutely not.
But I do think it's useful to be aware of how this process works, since it's a key ingredient in crafting the best possible briefing material for the Secretary. It gives every concerned party an opportunity to provide their input and it helps to prevent errors. On the other hand, it slows down the process and it tends to sift out originality and creativity. Debates about how this process works have been ongoing for decades and will certainly continue.
Very Important: This memo is to be dated March 30, 2021 for a meeting scheduled to take place on April 2, 2021. You have the benefit of hindsight in your recommendations, but you are making them based on material available in March 2021. This meeting, like the others we are considering, takes place near the beginning of the Administration, when it is setting out policy to guide its work over the long term.