The Foreign Service Journal, April 2013

22 April 2013 | the foreign Service journal “…to reorganize the State Department’s organizational structure so that, in their view, State can recapture a leadership in conducting the nation’s foreign affairs that it has gradually lost over the past 20 years.” – National Observer, Oct. 21, 1969. “The next President and his key advisers should read a short exercise in self-criticism by some Young Turks of the American Foreign Service Association.” –Evening Star , Oct. 22, 1969. “…a new set of proposals for reform which have come, surprisingly, from within the State Department itself. The proposals are contained in a report prepared by the American Foreign Service Association, a sort of diplomatic trade union that was taken over recently by a band of Young Turks who are determined to breathe new life into the old Foreign Service.” – New York Times , Dec. 10, 1969. twice that size. He was also right about its reticence and cau- tion. AFSA President Lucius Battle said in September 1963 that “AFSA ‘must speak up’ on issues affecting the welfare of the Foreign Service, though it should be careful to…avoid public differences with those in authority.” Signs of Life As the decade grew more turbulent, AFSA became more active. In 1964, the board established a formal liaison with the noisier, more aggressive Junior Foreign Service Officers Club and set up a Committee on Career Principles to exam- ine “the relationship of current policy and administration to the strengthening of the Foreign Service as an instrument of foreign policy [emphasis in original].” A planning committee established in 1966 urged AFSA to solicit contributions from donors, act as ombudsman for members’ grievances, and explore affiliation with the American Federation of Govern- ment Employees and the National Federation of Professional Organizations. In 1967, when AFSA Vice President Outerbridge Horsey appeared before a House subcommittee to support an admin- istration proposal to raise all federal salaries by 4.5 percent, it was, according to AFSA Board Chairman Dave McKillop, “the first time the association has testified on the Hill.” At the same time, however, AFSA in the early 1960s was poorly structured to challenge management or to engage in sustained effort of any kind. Until 1965, officers and board members served only one-year terms, and until 1969, they were elected indirectly by a college of 18 officers and staff chosen by the active membership. This body by tradition chose as the association’s president a high-ranking officer. Between 1961 and 1966, the presidents of AFSA included two serving under secretaries (Livingston Mer- chant and U. Alexis Johnson), two serving assistant secretaries