The Foreign Service Journal, January 2005

F oreign Service employees on overseas assignments live with the ever-present possi- bility of terrifying, completely unforeseen events. These include everything from terrorism and coups d’etat to automobile accidents. Even when the FSO did nothing wrong, auto collisions in foreign countries can generate lawsuits that dog him or her for years after leaving a post. Such events can test the bounds of the protections FSOs believe they are afforded by diplo- matic immunity, by insurance, and indeed by their own employer, the United States of America. Many thousands of miles from American shores, one might be surprised by the harsh overlap of diplomacy and the law. Take, for example, a U.S. consul general serving in eastern Russia. Like his Foreign Service colleagues around the world, he has consistently been told that he is always on duty, 24/7, and he frequently works late at night. While he is entitled to a gov- ernment automobile with a driver, an Embassy Moscow directive urges him to use his own car to save the govern- ment money. So he converts his own, newly-purchased automobile to this business use after being assured he is covered by private insurance for the first 30 days. Well within that period, after a long day at the consulate, the FSO drives his car to a gym to work out. He does so in part to keep in shape for his periodic medical fitness examination to maintain his eligibility for worldwide service. It is October, when it gets dark early in Vladivostok, and it is raining lightly. Heading home from the gym to his government-paid and protect- ed apartment, driving at a lawful speed in a country where pandemo- nium often rules the road, and not having consumed any alcohol or drugs, the FSO approaches an inter- section where he is surprised by a black, virtually invisible car appear- ing from nowhere with its headlights off. The engineering and lighting of the intersection are controlled by the political forces of the existing regime, and not maintained accord- ing to the standards of a Highway and Transportation Authority. The FSO tries desperately to avoid an accident, but a small collision occurs. The darkened automobile glances off the fender of his car, pro- pelled at high speed into a third vehicle coming from yet another direction. A second, major crash occurs, and someone in the black car is seriously injured. A suit is brought against the FSO in Russia. Political forces besmirch his good name, accusing him of drug use, drunkenness, visiting a night- club, laughing at the injury he caused, and all sorts of vicious untruths — including, incredibly, alleging that he was involved in neo- Nazi activities. The campaign is orchestrated to embarrass the United States, an expectation for which the FSO is trained. An attempt by the Russians to seek a waiver of the FSO’s diplomatic immunity fails on technical grounds. He is transferred from Russia to another overseas assignment. In an effort to deal with the adverse pub- licity being heaped on the Department of State by the Russians, a half-hearted effort is made by the department to settle the matter on behalf of its FSO. The very day the statute of limita- tions expires, suit is brought against the FSO in Pennsylvania, a place convenient only to the American attorney who has brought the action. The plaintiff is a young man, a citi- zen of Russia, who alleges that because of the automobile accident, he is paraplegic. The United States is named a co-defendant. When served with the lawsuit, the U.S. government deserts its consul gener- al: it moves to dismiss the case, but only against itself, contending that the FSO is not protected in the United States by diplomatic immu- nity, that he acted outside the scope of his employment, and that, because the accident happened in a When 24/7 Duty May Not Be: A Cautionary Tale B Y J. M ICHAEL H ANNON AND J AMES F. B ROMLEY J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 21 FS K NOW -H OW Every Foreign Service employee should be aware that the “24/7 rule” only defines the FSO’s duty to the agency — not the agency’s duty to the FSO. w