Page 133 - Communication Commerce and Power The Political Economy of America and the Direct Broadcast Satellite

122 Communication, Commerce and Power

and even from within the State Department itself. Throughout 1984,
for example, the NTIA consistently asserted its jurisdictional role (as
prescribed under President Carter's Executive Order 12046) 'in devel-
oping and supporting US telecommunications industry in both domes-
tic and international markets.' 56 In response to the efforts of Secretary
Shultz to increase Dougan's staff by at least thirty officials and to
upgrade the status of her Office to that of a Bureau, State and Com-
merce Department communication policy consultations were held less
and less frequently. The focus of this chilling of inter-agency rela-
57
tions was the State Department's attempt to amalgamate existing
NTIA and more general Commerce Department responsibilities,
including its proposed dominance in emerging trade issues involving
telecommunications. 58 By the end of 1984, this conflict was tempor-
arily resolved when Shultz and Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Bal-
dridge exchanged memoranda clarifying the lines of responsibility held
by their agencies: State Department responsibilities were to include the
coordination of foreign policy and foreign relations for all govern-
ment-to-government relations, and the coordination of US delegations
for all inter-governmental meetings; the Commerce Department was to
be responsible for ongoing consultations with its foreign government
counterparts and the substantive preparations of US delegates for all
inter-governmental meetings. Not only did the State-Commerce
respite also reaffirm the NTIA's continuing role as the President's
representative on issues concerning domestic telecommunications,
more significantly it marked the end of conscious efforts by any one
public sector agency to lead US foreign communication policy. 5 9
By the mid-1980s, a complex overlapping of US trade policy with
communication policy had emerged. US corporations recognized that
international telecommunications had become not only the essential
lifeblood· of their operations, but TNCs in general, regardless of their
activities, came to recognize through the concept of free trade that
their ongoing ability to conduct business and sell commodities was
dependent on expanding communication capabilities. In 1983, the US
Chamber of Commerce was followed by the International Chamber of
Commerce in endorsing the formulation of multilateral agreements
that would recognize and promote the international flow of informa-
tion. While the former explicitly recognized the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade to be the ideal institutional forum in which this free
flow ideal could be entrenched, 60 the latter - representing business
interests in approximately fifty countries - was not yet convinced to
take this step.