The Foreign Service Journal, May 2007

S ecretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s global repositioning initia- tive will yield beneficial results if understaffed posts in China, India, the Middle East and Africa begin to achieve adequate human resource levels to carry out the important work of transformational diplomacy. With- out a doubt, Washington and Europe remain important, but the reposition- ing exercise will restore some balance to staffing worldwide. The imperfect Foreign Service assignments process has also received a much-needed overhaul that will facilitate the task of sending person- nel where they are most needed to advance U.S. foreign policy objec- tives. Director General George Staple’s initiative to conduct multiple assignment seasons is designed to enable the department to fill so-called “priority” posts before all others. Recently, for instance, the FS-2 gen- eralist “regular season” was temporar- ily delayed because “pre-season” slots at that grade remained unfilled. I can speak only for myself but, in general, these changes to the status quo seem reasonable. Within the framework of “worldwide availability,” Foreign Service personnel enjoy some level of choice over where they are assigned. So, with the exception of (relatively rare) directed assign- ments, they choose to serve at a post, based on their own criteria. Family- friendliness, safety, the job portfolio, health conditions, pay incentives and career advancement all inform the decision to varying degrees. Consequently, most effective offi- cers are happy and fulfilled in their post of assignment because they (and their family members) have used their own criteria to select it. Following career development guidelines and meeting the needs of the Service, each bidder is responsible for manag- ing his or her own professional advancement, weighing the informa- tion the system provides about the merits and disadvantages of each job on the list. A Crucial Fallacy It is in persuading bidders to con- sider the more challenging assign- ments that the department is failing. The message is that critical posts are dangerous posts, leading to the con- clusion that safe posts are not critical. Yet the importance that a diplomatic posting or mission holds for U.S. national interests is actually based on many factors: political, economic, stra- tegic, historic, cultural and geograph- ic. For one factor, “danger,” to trump all of these confuses and weakens the process. Under the current paradigm, hard- ship and danger posts are given prior- ity for assignments; thus, the impor- tance of a posting is equated with its relative danger. But Iraq, Afghani- stan, Sudan, Pakistan, Haiti and Saudi Arabia are not important countries because they are dangerous. Rather, they are strategically important and dangerous. Similarly, U.S. relations with friendly democracies like the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Germany and Australia continue to be impor- tant in their own right. So the relative safety of Paris or Berlin should not diminish appreciation for the good diplomatic work being done there. Peace, stability and development in Iraq and Afghanistan are unques- tionably top U.S. priorities — not because these countries are war zones, but because we have staked our reputation in nationbuilding on success in both countries. However, one need look no further than our consular information sheets to learn that doing any kind of business in either place poses enormous difficul- ties. Furthermore, some policy goals in critical-needs countries are not attain- able in the near term, precisely be- cause the security environment does not permit us to pursue them success- fully. Ironically, the danger makes When Importance Is Equated With Danger B Y B RIAN T. N EUBERT S PEAKING O UT 12 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A Y 2 0 0 7 Morale, recognition and advancement are all warped in a system where good work in successful countries is undervalued.