The Foreign Service Journal, April 2017

12 APRIL 2017 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Dissenting from the Current Trend Of all the presentations and lec- tures in the A-100 course, the one that remains the sharpest for me even now, some 14 years later, is the one delivered by retired Ambassadors Tom Boyatt and Edward Peck on dissent in the Foreign Service. They spoke about proud traditions, cel- ebrated awards and professional integrity in terms that were compelling, even to a room full of rookies who could not fully appreciate their gravity. Now, nearing the expiration date of my third diplomatic passport, and in an increasingly contentious political envi- ronment where it seems State is fighting for relevance and her loyal servants for credibility, those words have even more resonance. The Dissent Channel has been used historically to great effect as a private, internal instrument. If you have not yet had an opportunity, I encourage you to watch the video of the dissent discus- sion that AFSA hosted on Feb. 17, with AFSA Awards Committee Chair Annie Pforzheimer and Ambassador Charles Rivkin, both of whom articulately argue for its continued use in that manner. I would like to echo their comments, speaking not as the chair of the awards committee or an experienced ambassa- dor, but as one of you: a mid-level officer who joined State in the smoldering ashes of 9/11, intent on getting involved and making a difference. While I applaud the courage and integrity of my colleagues—of you—for speaking up when it matters, I worry that misusing the Dissent Channel, this unique tool we have to challenge policy, threatens to weaken its power and undermine our institution. As diplomats, we need to be able to dis- tinguish between policies we disagree with personally and those we disagree with pro- fessionally . If you are not the officer being asked to implement a given policy, any dis- agreement you have with it is personal, not professional; and your dissent, however well meaning, undercuts the officer who is tasked with carrying it out. Real dissent, requiring the timely response of the Secretary of State, should be the prerogative of the most proximate implementer, not of any of us who happen to have an opinion. The current trend—toward group dissents, aired in public—takes the pre- cious and rare ability we have to provide unfettered guidance based on reason, empirical evidence and the expertise we have cultivated during careers of service and sacrifice, and reduces it to a Facebook post and a competition for “likes.” The fleeting fame that accompanies authoring a public dissent does not outweigh the damage that our institution will suffer when that dissent is dismissed —rightly or wrongly—as the amateurish rant of disloyal bureaucrats, and we find ourselves increasingly marginalized and ignored by this or any future administra- tion. Our institution understands that individual dissent takes courage; that is why it is protected. Group dissents, leaked to the media, belie our confidence in that protection and reek of risk-free self- aggrandizement, not of an honest attempt to shift policy. We work in an underappreciated and often misunderstood business. We generally make headlines in only three instances—incredible successes, spec- tacular failures and tragic deaths—all of which ignore the hard work we do day in and day out to advance U.S. interests and hopefully create a more secure and prosperous world. I encourage you to dissent when you are the person best placed to give voice to a break from policy, and when all of your other options are exhausted. If those conditions are not met, I encourage you to look again at whether your disagreement with policy is personal or professional. State might be the oldest Cabinet agency, but the height of our seat at the table is adjustable. It is incumbent on all of us to refrain fromweakening our posi- tion through well-meaning, but poorly executed, dissent. Jonathan Peccia Political Counselor U.S. Embassy Tunis Shame on the Journal Shame on the Journal for publishing TJ Lunardi’s Jan. 19 letter of resignation, a letter which degrades the adminis- tration and leadership for which the Foreign Service presumably works. This act of publication can only provoke further suspicion of the exis- tence of a shadow political opposition (the so-called “Deep State”) bent on undermining the U.S. government from within. The letter’s content even hints at this—“Some may counter that the threat posed by Mr. Trump calls for people of conscience to remain in the depart- ment...to resist his agenda.” Mr. Lunardi, of course, has every right to express feelings and views directed against the president. But their featured appearance in the FSJ — a journal about diplomacy, and one entrusted with guarding the interests of the Foreign Service—will be taken as an AFSA endorsement and will encourage the chorus calling for a top-to-bottom house-cleaning at State. n Richard W. Hoover FSO, retired Front Royal, Virginia