The Foreign Service Journal, February 2013

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | FEBRUARY 2013 7 growing buzz is under way about how to strengthen the Foreign Service and “fix” the Department of State to conduct diplomacy in an increasingly complex, fast-paced and competi- tive world. This renewed attention to a perennial challenge partly reflects AFSA’s own advocacy, which has centered on enhancing professional education and training. It also stems from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Quad- rennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which was aimed at making State and the U.S. Agency for International Development more effective, account- able and efficient institutions. The steps taken so far are salutary but not sufficient. In a strategic sense, strengthening the Foreign Service, and State and USAID as institutions, requires more thorough reform and restructuring. My October column pointed to the diminishing presence of the career For- eign Service in top leadership positions at State, as demonstrated by data avail- able on the Office of the Historian’s Web site. It is apparent that the top leadership positions within the department and the bulk of ambassadorial assignments to important countries have become politi- cal appointments—a trend that is spread- ing beyond the top echelons. Regardless of adminis- trations, this practice has serious, systemic conse- quences for the profes- sional diplomatic service and its work. By definition, political appointees are short-term, partisan and personality-ori- ented, with little investment in, or com- mitment to, the institution. As such, they cannot provide an objective, institutional view on matters of policy. Besides weak- ening professionalism within the de- partment, this engenders opportunism. In the field, the large number of am- bassadorial appointments going to per- sons with little exposure to the environ- ment and practices of international diplomacy deprives diplomatic missions of strong leadership. Instead of merit and competence, these appointments are of- ten rewards for campaign contributions. There are, of course, always persons of outstanding quality and experience who prove to be assets to U.S. diplomacy, but they are not the rule. So we must ask two questions. Can we build a strong Foreign Service and Department of State with such heavy politicization? And if not, is there any appetite for change? Besides political appointees, we face a related challenge. The Department of State and USAID are home to two major personnel systems: the General Schedule (Civil Service) and the “excepted” Foreign Service. Historically, there have been a series of unsuccessful attempts to merge these two divergent systems. Only the Foreign Service can bring to the conduct of diplomacy the agil- ity, flexibility and suitability that come from worldwide availability, rotation and rank in person. Foreign Service officers are subject to a variety of disciplines and requirements that correspond to the needs of diplomatic practice and the international environment. (Let me emphasize that Foreign Service spe- cialists are a critical professional and technical component in support of the diplomatic mission.) However qualified they may be, Civil Service employees are not subject to those requirements. The other elephant in the room is intrinsic to the current structure of the Foreign Service. The cone system contin- ues to channel FSOs into narrow tracks which detract from playing the role and developing the perspective required of a diplomat, especially at senior levels. Such an approach also fragments the Service and militates against its cohesion, iden- tity and strength. We need to find a fresh approach designed to build a strong diplomatic service, and to strengthen the Depart- ment of State as the premier institution responsible for the formulation and implementation of American foreign policy. After all, a diplomat should be a skilled facilitator with broad perspec- tive and experience—qualities that are also important for those responsible for leading the institution and inspiring the diplomatic service. These may appear to be provocative thoughts. But we have only to look at the diplomatic services of other major coun- tries, some of which punch well above their weight, to appreciate the relevance of these issues. n Institutional Restructuring and Reform: A Strategic Perspective BY SUSAN R . JOHNSON PRESIDENT’S VIEWS Susan R. Johnson is the president of the American Foreign Service Association. A