The Foreign Service Journal, February 2011

26 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 1 ing and analysis are useful measure- ments of their effectiveness. It is also the case that commer- cial officers spend their entire ca- reers in this cone, whereas econo- mic officers may have broader expe- rience through consular, manage- ment or other assignments. Many of my FCS and ECON colleagues concur that personalities play an outsized role in determining the effectiveness of the two sections’ interactions. Without doubt, a smooth, collaborative relationship between section chiefs and agency heads and their staffs goes a long way. A strong and supportive front office further facilitates the process by laying out clear expectations, demanding coordination on key matters, and actively monitoring the process to manage the conflicts that will occasionally arise. In many of my posts, I have gauged the teamwork quo- tient by a simple measure: the number of phone calls and face-to-face meetings in a given week that advise, assist and augment a given set of issues. Previously, ECON and FCS could somewhat simplisti- cally draw bright lines between policy analysis and busi- ness development. However, the growing speed of international commerce has increasingly blurred this dis- tinction, requiring thoughtful leadership from post man- agement and solid communication and execution from country team members. Economic officers’ work with host-government officials can provide broad context and policy intent with implica- tions for U.S. policy and American private-sector market positions. At the same time, FCS contacts with key busi- ness leaders can provide “ground truth” to test the some- times flowery policy rhetoric that often graces govern- mental meetings. To put it bluntly, foreign governments will frequently tell us what we want to hear, but informed business opinion can provide a reality check on our poli- cymaking. As a rule, FCS should be the embassy’s primary inter- locutor with U.S. and host-country businesses and trade associations, given its mission and expertise, and its U.S. and overseas network. ECON should lead on policy mat- ters, reporting and analysis, given its strengths: institutional focus and mission. But these are not hard-and-fast bound- aries, for the day-to-day work of commercial diplomacy and business development requires adaptive, flexible approaches to se- cure policy goals and best serve American companies. For example, when engaging the host government on a market entry barrier, a good FCS officer ensures the economic section has input into the process to determine where best to influence the issue at hand. Likewise, ECON’s specialized ex- pertise in macroeconomics, intel- lectual property rights and energy policy often has direct value to American firms. Strong working relationships between ECON and FCS and an engaged front office will ensure that relevant country team members are “firing on all cylinders” to provide valuable information and analysis. Economic Policy Goals vs. Business Practicality The nexus of policy imperative and business practical- ity requires strong collaboration among post leadership, ECON, FCS and theWashington interagency community. While overarching U.S. foreign economic and trade policy objectives such as macroeconomic coordination, free and fair trade, and transparency are broadly in sync with the goals of U.S. business overseas, a careful balance must be maintained to ensure that both long-termU.S. policy goals and business interests are factored into the policymaking process. This is increasingly important given the cutthroat competition seen on major projects around the world, and the emergence of new Asian business competitors who move quickly and adroitly. A case in point I saw firsthand back in the 1990s was U.S. energy transportation policy in the former Soviet Union. Washington expended an enormous amount of po- litical capital in support of a visionary, well-executed “mul- tiple pipeline” strategy throughout Central Asia and the Caucasus. The region’s energy sources and multiple trans- portation options supported these newly independent states’ economic development, while new resources aug- mented the security of supply — especially important given the huge spike in hydrocarbon demand in the early part of the 21st century. Given the United States government’s unique leverage and its network of high-level relationships across the re- F O C U S The DNA of economic and commercial officers differs significantly, but they can achieve synergy by working together to advance U.S. policy objectives.