The Foreign Service Journal, March 2005

I nternational understanding is a two-way street. Ever since the 9/11 attacks, we have become more aware of the importance of the U.S. image in the world. In particu- lar, there has been a pronounced focus on how to better present our country and our foreign policy to the world. As part of that effort, there is no question that we need more and bet- ter public diplomacy. This is broadly acknowledged. But we also need more and better analytical reporting. Yet this is not even discussed. If our public diplomacy and foreign policy are to be effective, we need to under- stand other countries better. We could spend far more money on pub- lic diplomacy and outreach, but if we misjudge our audience, those resources would be wasted. And if we misjudge other nations, our policy could be ineffective or worse. Thus, I present a plea that the Foreign Service acknowledge the continued importance of reporting. I see the impact of our reporting from my current embassy all of the time. Cables that we send circle back to us in the form of instructions, requests, program proposals and pol- icy decisions. Offices and agencies on the receiving end tell us — and tell us often — how useful our report- ing has been in their work. This was intensely evident during the recent political events in Ukraine, when the embassy was providing 24/7 updates from officers stationed in parliament, the Supreme Court, the Central Election Commission, candidates’ campaign headquarters, the streets and the regions of Ukraine. Unclassified reporting was sent to the home e-mail addresses of top U.S. officials. We have a folder full of feedback from the White House, the Seventh Floor and top officials con- firming that embassy reporting and policy recommendations were in con- stant demand as officials shaped their responses to unfolding events. Reporting Under Siege Over the last 10 to 15 years, the focus on reporting in the Foreign Service has been progressively under- mined by a combination of factors. In addition to the effects of globalization (which began to accelerate as never before), the shortfalls in funding and staffing of the 1990s, and the damage that the “do more with less” ethic did to morale and effectiveness, are all well documented. After four years of the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative, we are basically just breaking even — and that is not counting the new demands of staffing Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Our need to track more issues in more places than ever before is ratch- eting up the pressure on even the most obscure, remote posts to report more frequently on a greater range of topics, some of them highly technical. Complicating matters further, there has been rapid growth in the number of federal agencies repre- sented overseas to deal with the rising demand for U.S. government services in a globalized world. While many of those agencies carry out specialized reporting responsibilities, much of the burden still falls on the State Department. Each day in any embassy, even the most remote, brings an influx of e-mail, faxes, let- ters and phone calls, all demanding information and assistance. The number of visitors, official and unof- ficial, continues to grow. Foreign Service personnel could easily spend the bulk of their time just answering the mail and providing what I call constituent services. I certainly do not discount the importance of those services; provid- ing them is a vital part of our job. But resources that posts might otherwise have devoted to reporting are being shifted to manage programs, respond to requests for support and coordi- nate among the various agencies rep- resented there. More than Cables The reduction in reporting caused by all these demands on limited resources has been exacerbated by There is no question that we need more and better public diplomacy. But we also need more and better analytical reporting. In Defense of Foreign Service Reporting B Y N ECIA Q UAST M A R C H 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 13 S PEAKING O UT w