The Foreign Service Journal, February 2010

6 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 0 Language and Innovation In his December letter, retired FSO Frank Huffman characterized Kurt Amend’s recommendations in “The Diplomat as Counterinsurgent” (September FSJ ) as “pie-in-the-sky.” In Huffman’s opinion, it is “doubtful that anyone, even at the ambassadorial level, would have the clout to whip the various agencies into line to support his strategic goals, and it is certain that he/she would not succeed without flu- ency in the local language.” While I agree with him on the im- portance of knowing the local language and customs of your post of assign- ment, I take issue with the view that it is the only way one can succeed. “Does such a diplomat exist in the De- partment of State?” he asks. I think that thousands of such diplomats exist, and would offer my own experience as an example. When I was assigned as chief of mission in Phnom Penh in 2002, I spoke Vietnamese and Thai, but only a word or two of Khmer, and only rudi- mentary French. My preparation for the tour did not provide time for lan- guage training or area studies, so I ef- fectively parachuted into relatively un- known territory. At the time, we were facing two sig- nificant problems in Cambodia: a lack of military-to-military relations and pervasive human trafficking (especially sex trafficking of minors). To deal with them required obtaining interagency concurrence back in Washington and agreement to an action plan in Phnom Penh. Despite not being able to speak the local language, I set about convincing agencies in Washington to change our defense policy vis-à-vis the Cambodian military (successfully) and persuading the local government to take strong ac- tion against human traffickers (again, successfully, though not as much as I would have liked). Let’s see, what else did I achieve without knowing how to speak the local language? Well, we at the em- bassy were able to convince the Cam- bodians to destroy their entire in- ventory of air-to-surface missiles, and we got their cooperation in returning American pedophiles to the U.S. for trial, despite the absence of an extradi- tion treaty. My view is that we have many su- perb diplomats. We merely have to recognize and nurture the culture of innovation, initiative and risk-taking that is the foundation of success in any organization or career. If we take the view that it is impos- sible, we will be, as my grandmother was fond of saying, as right as rain on a summer day. Charles A. Ray Ambassador Embassy Harare The Class System I would like to thank AFSA State VPDaniel Hirsch for his column in the December issue of the Foreign Service Journal . He said what I have been say- ing for years. To the best of my memory (going back to 1971), this is the first time that anyone in AFSA has addressed the issue of the existing class systemwithin the Foreign Service or the State De- partment in general. It goes right to the heart of the matter: While all members of a mission contribute to its success, only one group normally gets the credit, respect or even recognition. The roots of the problem are pres- ent in each A-100 class, when new FSOs are told that they are the best and the brightest. So if you are not an FSO, then you must be a lesser being. Mr. Hirsch is right in saying that not all members of the mission can be on a diplomatic list because of the Vienna Convention rules. But certainly the department and the ambassador can try to make sure that the same rules apply to the host country’s diplomats in the U.S. Additionally, Mr. Hirsch makes a number of excellent comments re- garding grades, promotions and hous- ing. I would like to see the State Department study them and come up with some possible improvements in the lives and careers of employees who are not generalists. However, given my L ETTERS