The Foreign Service Journal, January 2013

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JANUARY 2013 15 or most of my 28 years in the Foreign Commercial Service, the notion of FCS merging with State has been anathema. The risk- averse, policy-focused culture at State was and is seen as the antithesis of the agile, entrepreneurial culture that FCS requires to provide customized solutions to American companies. Yet today, FCS officers openly discuss the pros and cons of merging with State, asking the following questions: Would it be good for our clients? How would it affect our careers? How could it be structured to protect the entrepreneurial, field-driven culture at the heart of our success? How would we continue our tight partnership with the Commerce Department’s domestic field? Against that backdrop, and in antici- pation of larger changes as the Obama administration begins its second term, this article first looks at what has changed at State. It then offers suggestions for structuring a merger between FCS and State to more effectively create American jobs through exports and inward invest- ment. Facing the Unthinkable: Time for FCS to Merge with State? BY DAN I E L HARR I S F Daniel Harris is a 28-year veteran of the U.S. Commercial Service, with the rank of minister counselor. He served as minister counselor for commercial affairs in Paris from 2008 to 2011, deputy assistant secretary for international operations from 2005 to 2008, and consul general in Duesseldorf from 1999 to 2003, among many other Foreign Service assignments. Currently, he directs FCS operations in East Asia and the Pacific, while pursuing an executive master’s degree at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. The author thanks AFSA FCS Vice President Keith Curtis for his invaluable assistance and support in preparing this commentary. However, the views expressed in this article are those of the author only, and do not represent those of the International Trade Administration or the U.S. government. SPEAKING OUT State Warms to Commercial Work Congress created the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service in 1980 because the American business community found that the State Department did not value commercial work internally and provided grudging support to American firms overseas. The newly formed Foreign Service agency was placed inside the International Trade Administration at the U.S. Department of Commerce—a domestic department with extremely disparate functions, from weather to the census, and from statistics to patents. With the end of the Cold War, eco- nomic security became sexy, and State recognized it needed the American busi- ness community as a powerful domestic constituency. In the early 1990s, Secre- tary of State Lawrence Eagleburger sent marching orders to ambassadors that began a sea change in State’s attitude toward commercial work—one that has continued, albeit inconsistently, ever since. Two decades after the Eagleburger cable, support for American business overseas has become far more ingrained in the State culture, and perceptive ambassadors consider a strong commer- cial section as integral to accomplishing the embassy’s overarching mission. FCS and State economic officers have, for the most part, learned to contain the inevitable frictions that stem from overlapping functions. We have often developed close relationships based on mutual respect and honest communica- tion that result in a pooling of comple- mentary skills to advance our economic interests. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s reforms in the recruitment process have brought greater diversity into the department’s ranks. This, combined with a generational shift since 9/11, has led to a culture in flux—including more entrepreneurial officers who seem drawn to commercial work. Even so, busi- ness interests have taken a back seat to national security priorities in the fight against terrorism, including two wars that have reshaped the Foreign Service culture at State. “Statecraft” or “Stagecraft”? Early in 2012, citing President Barack Obama’s National Export Initiative, State launched a campaign to move rapidly into core commercial functions, even at the 72 posts where the Foreign Com- mercial Service has active sections. State’s heavy-handed and uncoordinated redrawing of functions has unsettled commercial and economic officers alike.