The Foreign Service Journal, April 2006

Lesser Posts? One inescapable and perverse con- sequence of Henry Ensher’s clanging defense of promotion priority for those serving in posts linked to “the time and attention an issue gets from our political masters” (January Letters, “Iraq Is More Important”) is that the next master class will, in turn, inherit the right to call the tune on career pro- motions, and so on into the future. I served in Accra, Athens, Brussels and Khartoum, but never thought of any of them as one of Ensher’s “lesser posts.” Alan D. Berlind Senior FSO, retired Bordeaux, France Concerned FSOs The September FSJ highlighted the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s impressive performance protecting American lives and diplomatic proper- ty and investigating criminal cases overseas, as well as serious problems in investigation and adjudication of security clearance suspension or revo- cation cases. My 18 years of experi- ence as a DS special agent indicates both points are true. I have worked with some very fine DS officers, who do outstanding work. As a member of the group Concerned Foreign Service Officers, I have also had the opportunity to see first-hand numerous examples of malfeasance or incompetence in secu- rity clearance cases. DS’s laudable successes do not negate the need to correct these failures. The protection of national security does not justify the use of coercive interview techniques, false statements, suppression of evi- dence, improper seizure of personal property, misrepresentation of regula- tions or other improprieties by those entrusted to protect us. If DS has to resort to such means to justify the sus- pension or revocation of security clear- ances, then something is badly in need of repair. It is not just our careers that hang in the balance. When trained and experienced FSOs are suddenly cur- tailed, sidelined for years or forced out of the agency, operations are inter- rupted, efficiency is reduced and the ability of the department to perform its core mission is seriously eroded. Concerned Foreign Service Officers is a coalition of current and former Foreign Service officers concerned about these issues. Additional infor- mation can be found on our Web site, www.worldcrafters.com . William Savich DS Special Agent Concerned Foreign Service Officers member Herndon, Va. Dialogue with Iran Bravo for printing the article by Bruce Laingen, “25 Years Later, Time for Dialogue with Iran,” in your January issue. I thought readers may be interested in the following note I sent Ambassador Laingen on the topic: “It was with great interest and admiration for your professional uprightness and integrity that I read your article. You will recall that I made the same suggestion in messages to the Academy of Diplomacy some months ago. Coming from you, the plea is more meaningful and perhaps also more acceptable to policy-makers. “Among the bilateral issues that need to be addressed by the American and Iranian authorities, you list ‘claims by Iran that the U.S. is illegally holding assets frozen by President Carter at the start of the hostage period ... .’ I would like to suggest that those inter- ested in that issue consult the docu- ments I donated to the U.S. National Archives (partially available to the public through the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library) that include spe- cific reference to the blocked funds. In a message from Secretary of State Cyrus Vance dated Jan. 19, 1980, I had the honor to transmit to Chairman Arafat in Beirut a communication regarding the return to Iran of the assets removed by the shah from Tehran. Arafat offered to have the issue referred to the International Court of Justice of The Hague for an advisory opinion. The implication is clearly that in the American view, the blocking of funds in the U.S. is a polit- ical act and must be solved by the two countries directly involved and not by an international organization. “The Iranian Foreign Minister at the time, Sadeg Ghotbzadeh, consid- ered the assets to belong to the Iran- ian people. The U.S. government believed at the time that ‘it will not be possible for the U.N. Security Council to recognize the legitimacy of Iran’s claim … as to the return of assets removed by him from Iran. Questions such as recovery of assets are subject to the sovereignty and law of individ- ual nations involved and must be pur- L ETTERS 6 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / A P R I L 2 0 0 6