Diplomatic Missions

Diplomatic Missions in the United States

Bureau of International Organization Affairs (IO) Diplomatic Missions

IO and its diplomatic missions in New York, Geneva, Vienna, Rome, Paris, Montreal, and Nairobi, actively promote those interests, in part by advocating for more effective, transparent, accountable, and efficient international organizations.

U.S. Mission to the United Nations – New York

The U.S. Mission to the United Nations (USUN) serves as the United States’ delegation to the United Nations. USUN is responsible for carrying out the nation’s participation in the world body. In 1947 the United States Mission was created by an act of Congress to assist the President and the Department of State in conducting United States policy at the United Nations. Since that time, USUN has served a vital role as the Department of State’s UN branch. Today, USUN has approximately 150 people on staff who serve to represent the United States’ political, economic and social, legal, military, public diplomacy, and management interests at the United Nations. The United States Mission to the United Nations is located at 799 United Nations Plaza (between E. 44th and E. 45th on First Ave) across the street from United Nations Headquarters.

U.S. Mission to the United Nations – Geneva

The U.S. Mission to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva works with a host of agencies and organizations to advance U.S. national interests. There are more than 100 countries that also maintain permanent missions to the UN in Geneva, and among the many international organizations headquartered in Geneva are the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. Geneva is also the seat of the UN Human Rights Council. U.S. mission staff, together with delegates from Washington, are involved in some 300 Geneva-based conferences a year, promoting U.S. policy and representing U.S. interests.

U.S. Mission to the United Nations – Vienna

The United States Mission to International Organizations in Vienna (UNVIE) works with seven major organizations of the United Nations system based in Vienna: the International Atomic Energy Agency; the UN Office on Drugs and Crime; the Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization; the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs; the Wassenaar Arrangement; the UN Commission on International Trade Law; and the UN Industrial Development Organization, of which the U.S. is not a member. UNVIE also covers the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria. UNVIE’s mission is to conduct effective multilateral diplomacy with International Organizations in Vienna to advance President Obama’s commitment to design and implement global approaches to reduce global threats and seize global opportunities.

U.S. Mission to the United Nations – Rome

Rome, as headquarters of the three principal organizations dedicated to food and agriculture, is at the center of international efforts to promote sustainable development and combat world hunger. The U.S. mission in Rome serves as a link between the Rome-based international organizations and the United States Government. With staff representing the Department of State, Agriculture, Agency for International Development, the U.S. Mission works to advance UN efforts in the areas of emergency food aid, food safety standards, agriculture, fisheries, forests, and financing for rural development.

U.S. Mission to the United Nations – Paris

The U.S. Mission to UNESCO is proud to be a part of the President’s vision to advance human rights, tolerance and learning throughout the world. We are working to meet these challenges and are putting forward our best diplomatic efforts to advance the President’s priorities and to help create a brighter and better future for people around the world. Ambassador David T. Killion was named by President Barack Obama as Permanent Representative of the United States to the UNESCO and holds the rank of Ambassador and Permanent Delegate. He was sworn in on August 12, 2009.

U.S. Mission to the United Nations – Montreal

The U.S. Mission to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) works closely with the organization to reduce the number of international civil aviation accidents and fatalities through implementation of ICAO safety standards and recommended practices; increase transparency among member states by promoting the sharing of security audit results; seek to increase the number of member states using machine-readable passports and biometric passports to meet April 2010 deadline; and develop an environmental auditing and reporting process to achieve standardization of environmental protection among member state aircraft fleets. Headquartered in Montreal, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a UN specialized agency which promotes and develops standards and recommended practices for the safety, security and environmental sustainability of international civil aviation. Founded in 1947 under the Chicago Convention, ICAO works in cooperation with its 190 Member States, including the United States.

U.S. Mission to the United Nations – Nairobi

The United States Permanent Mission to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) works with the secretariats of these two organizations and with the representatives of other member states in Nairobi to cooperatively advance the U.S. objective of protecting the environment while reducing poverty and promoting sustainable economic growth; as well as helping find sustainable solutions to the phenomenon of rapid urbanization. The Mission carries out this work through participation in the Committees of Permanent Representatives of UNEP and HABITAT, through informal consultation, and by serving as a link between these two Nairobi-based UN programs and the various parts of the U.S. Government that engage with them. In addition, the Mission also contributes to the U.S. Government’s efforts to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the UN through these two programs.

Civilian Interagency Capacity for Missions Abroad

In this American legal encyclopedia:

  • Authorities vs. Reality (see about this topic)
  • Building Civilian Interagency Capacity for Missions Abroad: Key Proposals and Issues for Congress (Looking Ahead) (see about this topic)
  • Building Civilian Interagency Capacity for Missions Abroad: Key Proposals and Issues for Congress Background (see about this topic)
  • Building Civilian Interagency Capacity for Missions Abroad: Key Proposals and Issues for Congress Introduction (see about this topic)
  • Building Civilian Interagency Capacity for Missions Abroad: Key Proposals and Issues for Congress Summary (see about this topic)
  • Bureaucracy and Reform (see about this topic)
  • Can Interagency Reform Produce Cost Savings? (see about this topic)
  • Congressional Reform accompanying other National Security Reform Measures (see about this topic)
  • Create a National Security Appropriations Subcommittee (see about this topic)
  • Create Interagency Personnel Policies and Mechanisms? (see about this topic)
  • Create New Select Committees (see about this topic)
  • Enhancement of Authority and/or Capacity of U.S. Ambassadors (see about this topic)
  • Future Conflict Environment and Missions (see about this topic)
  • George W. Bush Administration Initiatives (see about this topic)
  • Impediments to Institutional Change (see about this topic)
  • Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy (see about this topic)
  • Implications of a Department of Defense State-Building Role for the U.S. Military (see about this topic)
  • Improve Strategy-making, Planning, and Budgeting? (see about this topic)
  • Improvement of Civilian Institutional Authorities and Structures for Coordination and Collaboration (see about this topic)
  • Interagency Problems in Iraq (see about this topic)
  • Interagency Reform for Missions Abroad (see about this topic)
  • Manifestations in U.S. Interagency Cooperation (see about this topic)
  • Modify Current Practices and Procedures (see about this topic)
  • Overview of Reform Proposals (see about this topic)
  • Perceptions of Interagency Requirements Post 9/11 (see about this topic)
  • Perceptions of Interagency Requirements Post 9/12 Terminology (see about this topic)
  • Prioritize and Improve George W. Bush Administration Initiatives (see about this topic)
  • Prioritize by Effect on International Cooperation (see about this topic)
  • Prioritize by System Weaknesses (see about this topic)
  • Prioritize by the Ease and Cost of Implementation (see about this topic)
  • Proposals with the Highest Priority (see about this topic)
  • Short-term Trade-offs (see about this topic)
  • Should Congressional Reform Accompany Other National Security Reform Measures? (see about this topic)
  • The Obama Administration and Interagency Reform (see about this topic)
  • The U.S. Military Provide Needed State-Building Capabilities (see about this topic)
  • To What Extent Should the U.S. Military Provide Needed State-Building Capabilities? (see about this topic)
  • Utility of State-building Missions (see about this topic)
  • Which Proposals Are Highest Priority? (see about this topic)

Resources

Further Reading

  • Heritage 2005—Heritage Foundation, Winning the Peace: Principles for Post-Conflict Operations, by James Carafano and Dana Dillon, June 13, 2005.
  • Heritage 2008—Heritage Foundation, Managing Mayhem: The Future of Interagency, by James Carafano, March 1, 2008.
  • Lamb/Marks 2009—Lamb, Christopher J. and Edward Marks,), Chief of Mission Authority as a Model for National Security Integration, Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), October 2009.
  • SIGIR 2010—Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. Applying Iraq’s Hard Lessons to the Reform of Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations, Arlington, VA, February 2010.
  • Smith 2010—Dane F. Smith, Jr., Organizing American Peace-Building Operations, Praeger (in cooperation with the Center for Strategic and International Studies), Santa Barbara, CA, 2010.
  • ACTD 2007—U.S. State Department Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy, Final Report of the State Department in 2025 Working Group, 2007.
  • Brookings/Center for Strategic and International Studies 2010—Brookings Institution and Center for Strategic and International Studies. Capacity for Change: Reforming U.S. Assistance Efforts in Poor and Fragile Countries, by Norm Unger and Margaret L. Taylor, with Frederick Barton, April 2010.
  • Buchanan/Davis/Wight 2009—Buchanan, Jeffrey, Maxie Y. Davis, and Lee T. Wight, “Death of the Combatant Command? Toward a Joint Interagency Approach,” Joint Force Quarterly, no. 52 (1st quarter 2009).
  • PNSR 2010—Project on National Security Reform, The Power of People, 2010.
  • QDR 2006—U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 6, 2006.
  • CGD 2004—Center for Global Development Commission on Weak States and U.S. National Security. On the Brink: Weak States and U.S. National Security, May 2004.
  • CGD 2007—Center for Global Development. The Pentagon and Global Development: Making Sense of the DoD’s Expanding Role, November 2007.
  • Center for Strategic and International Studies/Association of the U.S. Army 2003—Center for Strategic and International Studies and Association of the U.S. Army, Play to Win: Final Report of the bi-partisan Commission on Post-Conflict Reconstruction, January 2003.
  • QDRIP 2010—Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, The Quadrennial Defense Review in Perspective: Meeting America’s National Security Needs in the 21st Century, The Final Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review Panel (Report mandated by Section 1031(f) P.L. 109-364, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007, as amended by Section 1061, P.L. 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010), 2010.
  • RAND 2009—RAND, Improving Capacity for Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations, by Nora Bensahel, Olga Oliker, Heather Peterson, Sponsored by the Department of Defense, Santa Monica CA, 2009.
  • CWC 2011—Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Transforming Wartime Contracting: Controlling costs, reducing risks, Final Report to Congress, August 2011.
  • DSB 2004—Defense Science Board, Summer Study on Transition to and from Hostilities, December 2004.
  • Flournoy/Brimley 2006—Flournoy, Michele A. and Shawn W. Brimley, Strategic Planning for National Security: A New Project Solarium, Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 41, 2nd quarter, 2006.
  • Schnake/Berkowitz 2005—Schnake, Kori and Bruce Berkowitz, National Security: A Better Approach, Hoover Digest, No. 4, 2005.
  • SFRC 2007—U.S. Congress, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Embassies Grapple to Guide Foreign Aid, 2007.
  • NDU 2004—National Defense University, Transforming for Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations, 2004.
    Pope 2010—Pope, Robert S., Lt. Col., USAF, “U.S. Interagency Regional Foreign Policy Implementation: A Survey of Current Practice and an Analysis of Options for Improvement”, (A Research Report Submitted to the Air Force Fellows Program, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, April 2010), belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/Files/Pope_10_AFF_Reearch_Paper_FINAL-2022.pdf.
  • PNSR 2008—Project on National Security Reform, Forging a New Shield (Report mandated by Section 1049, P.L. 110-181, National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009), November 2008.
  • PNSR 2009—Project on National Security Reform, Turning Ideas Into Action, September 2009.
  • Stimson/American Academy of Diplomacy 2011—The Henry L. Stimson Center and The American Academy of Diplomacy, Forging a 21st-Century Diplomatic Service for the United States though Professional Education and Training, February 2011.
    U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (known as the Hart/Rudman Commission), Phase III Report, Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, February 15, 2001.
  • Williams/Adams 2008—Williams, Cindy and Gordon Adams, Strengthening Statecraft and Security: Reforming U.S. Planning and Resource Allocation, MIT Security Studies Program, Occasional Paper, June 2008.
  • Cerami 2007—Cerami, Joseph R. “What is to be Done? Aligning and Integrating the Interagency Process in Support and Stability Operations, in The Interagency and Counterinsurgency Warfare: Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction Roles, edited by Joseph R. Cerami and Jay W. Boggs, U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA, December 2007.
    Council on Foreign Relations 2005—Council on Foreign Relations, In the Wake of War: Improving U.S. Post-Conflict Capabilities, Report of an Independent Task Force, Task Force Report No. 55, September 2005.
  • Council on Foreign Relations 2009—Council on Foreign Relations, Enhancing U.S. Preventive Action, Council Special Report No. 48, October 2009.
  • QDR 2010—U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 1, 2010.
  • QDDR 2010—U.S. State Department and United States Agency for International Development, The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, Washington, DC, December 2010.
  • Center for Strategic and International Studies 2004—Center for Strategic and International Studies, Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Phase I, 2004.
  • Center for Strategic and International Studies 2005—Center for Strategic and International Studies, Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Phase II, 2005.
  • Center for Strategic and International Studies 2007—Center for Strategic and International Studies, Integrating 21st Century Development and Security Assistance, 2007.
  • RAND/American Academy of Diplomacy 2008—RAND and the American Academy of Diplomacy, Integrating Instruments of Power and Influence: Lessons Learned and Best Practices, Report of a Panel of Senior Practitioners, 2008.
  • RAND/American Academy of Diplomacy 2006—RAND and the American Academy of Diplomacy, Integrating Instruments of Power and Influence in National Security: Starting the Dialogue, Conference Proceedings, 2006.


Posted

in

,

by