United States Institute of Peace • www.usip.org • Tel. 202.457.1700 • Fax. 202.429.6063

UNITED STates institute of peace

© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

“As one envoy put it: ‘In 

the State Department, there 

are so many things that have 

to be dealt with that it is difficult for officers at high levels 

to give appropriate attention 

to some very important issues. 

The special envoy process 

takes care of that problem.’”

August 15, 2011

U.S. Special Envoys: A Flexible Tool

Summary

•	 While the U.S. government has long employed special envoys for occasional diplomatic missions, the Obama administration’s 24 special envoys represent an unprecedented expansion of 

this mechanism after the Bush administration, which generally did not use them. 

•	 Use of the special envoys permitted more effort, focus and attention to be placed on a given 

issue than would have been the case had the position not existed, according to interviews 

with nine special envoys currently serving and three former special envoys. 

•	 The envoys interviewed observed that their senior, but sometimes ambiguous positions in the 

government structure often afforded them greater access to senior foreign officials and news 

media than were enjoyed by regular officials below the level of cabinet secretary.

•	 None of the nine envoys who are currently serving cited policy conflicts between themselves 

and potential bureaucratic rivals such as assistant secretaries of state. Several former envoys, 

whether due to different experiences or greater candor in retirement, cited such tensions. 

•	 The recent proliferation of special envoys is a product of the operating styles of President 

Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton who appear to have found this 

mechanism to be an effective tool for addressing select foreign policy issues.

Effort, Focus and Attention

The State Department’s website lists 24 special envoys, special representatives, special advisors, or 

special coordinators (hereafter referred to as “special envoys”) as of July 2011. At least 11 are said to 

report directly to Secretary of State Clinton. Outside of the few who fill congressionally-mandated 

positions, none require Senate confirmation. These numbers reflect an expansion of the use of 

special envoys under the Obama Administration compared to the previous administration, which 

began with Secretary of State Colin Powell purposefully eliminating most of such positions. On a 

parallel track, the Obama White House has more than a dozen domestic policy “czars” (as dubbed 

by the news media) who focus on particular high-profile domestic issues.

To examine this new reliance on the special envoy mechanism, the U.S. Institute of Peace commissioned an oral history project in which nine current and three former U.S. special envoys were 

interviewed between October 2010 and March 2011 by the Association for Diplomatic Studies and 

Training (ADST). To encourage candor, interviewees were promised anonymity. The project’s scope 

did not include interviews with State Department regional or functional bureau officers, National 

Security Council staffers, nor others with whom special envoys interact. Thus, this report focuses on 

how the special envoys view their own duties, challenges and value added.

John K. Naland

E-mail: executivedirector@adst.org

Phone: 703.302.6990

peaceBrieF102
© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

U.S. Special Envoys: A Flexible Tool

page 2 • PB 102 • August 15, 2011

The special envoys interviewed for this analysis who are currently serving vary widely in terms 

of their missions and the organizations in which they operate. Their staffs range in size from one 

to 30. Their mandates range from coordinating strictly inside the State Department to having 

the acknowledged lead for U.S. government policy on an issue. Some previously held Senateconfirmed positions such as assistant secretary of state or ambassador while others are new to 

high-level positions. Their differing titles—envoy, representative, adviser and coordinator—offer 

no clear indication of the scope or nature of their duties. 

What these positions do have in common is that they permit more effort, focus and attention to 

be placed on a given issue than would be the case if the position and its support staff did not exist. 

In interviews, numerous special envoys stressed that progress on their issue would be significantly 

slowed had action rested on a busy assistant secretary or deputy assistant secretary of state who 

was concurrently handling other priority issues. As one envoy put it: “In the State Department, 

there are so many things that have to be dealt with that it is difficult for officers at high levels to 

give appropriate attention to some very important issues. The special envoy process takes care 

of that problem. . . It can be used if there are very specific issues that are of high importance that 

need to be addressed over a relatively short period—maybe the term of a president—where 

without somebody giving the focus to those issues, they may not be adequately addressed just 

because of the press of what needs to be done by the regional and functional bureaus.” On the 

other hand, another envoy said: “If it is a problem that will be easy to solve, then you do not need a 

special envoy.”

Not only does appointing a special envoy allow more effort and focus to be applied to an issue, 

it can also elevate the profile of the issue. Several envoys, particularly those who held previous 

high-level positions, said that they were able to secure meetings with senior foreign officials—for 

example, a head of state, the U.N. secretary-general, or a foreign minister—who would normally 

meet only with the secretary of state or perhaps a deputy secretary of state. Said one envoy: “I 

think the advantage of being a special envoy is that I can get meetings in governments where the 

Assistant Secretary generally cannot.” One envoy said he calls on foreign ministers, for example, 

and finds that access very useful. “My standing is a little ambiguous and I think that ambiguity in 

most cases operates to our benefit,” he said.

The high profile of special envoys allows them to attract news media coverage—domestic and 

or foreign—when they judge that it will advance their issue. “It turned out that the skillful use of 

the news media was one of the most important tools that I had,” said one. Several interviewees 

stressed that when speaking publicly, they made sure to quote the president’s or secretary of 

state’s comments on the issue. Envoys who met on occasion with the president or secretary of 

state were able to quote statements made in those in-person meetings. Envoys who seldom or 

never met with the president or secretary said that they quoted the principals’ speeches or written 

statements to demonstrate high-level involvement in the issue.

Operations, Support and Limitations

Many of the special envoys interviewed felt their personal background was a key contributor to 

their effectiveness. Yet, they came from a variety of backgrounds. For example, one pointed to his 

personal ties with key players developed over his decades in the State Department while another 

envoy saw as beneficial his decades of experience outside of the executive branch. While no one 

particular background appears to have been the most useful, it is clear that each envoy brought 

key assets to the position. As one envoy explained it, “Obviously, so many of these ‘specials’—

special envoys, special representatives, etc.— are a function of individual personalities and talents. 
© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

U.S. Special Envoys: A Flexible Tool

page 3 • PB 102 • August 15, 2011

Presumably, the Secretary thought that I had some value added. . . So it really depends on who the 

individuals are and the priorities that the Secretary gives to particular functions.” 

Most interviewees expressed satisfaction with their office staffing and budgets. However, several 

envoys noted that their staffs were mostly people who happened to be available on short notice 

(for example, presidential management fellows) rather than seasoned foreign service officers 

(FSOs) whose assignments are typically set six to nine months in advance. Said one envoy, “The 

State Department [personnel] system is not designed to staff special envoy offices with foreign 

service officers. . . The biggest structural problem for an envoy’s office is getting FSOs assigned. 

You need them because they have overseas experience.” That said, several of the highest-profile 

envoys indicated that the State Department personnel system did provide them with sufficient 

numbers of experienced foreign service officers. 

Several interviewees said that being outside of the standard State Department organizational 

chart made it more difficult for them to move policy decision papers through the national security 

bureaucracy to obtain high-level approval. Other envoys indicated that they managed to develop 

ad hoc mechanisms and channels to secure needed interagency or National Security Council 

concurrence. Several envoys found it unhelpful that State Department principals were not actively 

engaged in the issue. 

 Most current envoys described their role as centering on coalition building rather than trying to 

dictate policy. Said one envoy: “If you approach this as an effort to try to build coalitions that will 

get things done and bring people into the process and get agreement on how to move forward, 

then I think you’ll make progress.” Another envoy stressed the importance of working within 

existing procedures. “I’m a believer that you accept the business systems with their limitations. . . 

You work the system the way it is instead of trying to invent a new one. You get a lot more done 

that way,” he said.

Bureaucratic Rivals

None of the current envoys who were interviewed cited policy conflicts between themselves and 

potential bureaucratic rivals such as assistant secretaries of state or National Security Council staffers. That said, several who were not operating under a formal written mandate from the president 

or secretary of state said that such explicit authority would have been valuable. “In an ideal world, 

I think it would be good to have a more specific mandate so that it will be clear that the person in 

this position really was in charge of the issue,” said one envoy.

In contrast, several former envoys, whether due to their different experiences or greater candor 

in retirement, did cite tensions between themselves and regular government offices. One former 

envoy explained that while he had a mission statement, the State Department regional bureau 

disputed his duties. “We debated it for three to four weeks; [my duties were] rewritten three times,” 

the envoy said. “It is dependent on personalities to some degree. If the assistant secretary, whether 

they are a career officer or political appointee, doesn’t want you doing the job or they want to do 

the job, you can write all the mission statements you want, but what are you going to do? You 

don’t have any enforcement authority. . . So I think the biggest problem was the intra-State 

Department tensions,” he said.

Such tensions can arise from the concern that appointing “outsiders” as special envoys removes 

opportunities for career officers to do important and career-enhancing work, relegating them to 

doing frustrating routine jobs. Interestingly, more than half of the Obama administration’s current 

special envoys are not “outsiders” but rather active duty or retired career State Department officers. 
© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

USIP provides the analysis, training and 

tools that prevent and end conflicts, 

promotes stability and professionalizes 

the field of peacebuilding.

For media inquiries, contact the office 

of Public Affairs and Communications, 

202.429.4725

2301 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20037

About This Brief

This report is based on interviews 

with nine current and three former 

U.S. special envoys, conducted 

between October 2010 and March 

2011. It’s part of a U.S. Institute of 

Peace special oral history project 

supported by the Association for 

Diplomatic Studies and Training 

(ADST). The report author, John K. 

Naland, is the executive director 

of ASDT and served in a variety 

of foreign and domestic positions 

during 25 years as a foreign service officer with the State Department. The views expressed in this 

report are those of the author, and 

do not necessarily reflect those of 

the U.S. Department of State or 

the U.S. government. In addition, 

this report does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. 

Institute of Peace, which does not 

advocate specific policy positions. 

Conclusion 

The recent proliferation of special envoys is a product of the operating styles of President Obama 

and Secretary of State Clinton who apparently have found this mechanism to be an effective tool 

for addressing select foreign policy issues. As one envoy summarized it:

“I think for this administration, for this secretary, it’s been an effective approach. I think a new 

secretary should start from a zero base and make a decision on these ‘specials’. . . These special 

roles can be an asset to the department and to the secretary, but it depends on the priorities of 

the secretary and it depends on the individuals. . . It’s all sui generis. The roles differ from individual 

to individual, from portfolio to portfolio. It should be a very flexible tool that the secretary has to 

advance her or his objectives. And it should be personality-driven in the sense that, if you can’t find 

the right person for the job, then don’t fill the job.”

U.S. Special Envoys: A Flexible Tool

page 4 • PB 102 • August 15, 2011