The Foreign Service Journal, May 2007

those jobs less important, because we are less able to accomplish our goals. The department’s current empha- sis on the degree of crisis in determin- ing staffing priorities fails to address many promising diplomatic opportu- nities. For example, according to a recent message from the director gen- eral, “priority” posts like Algeria, the Central African Republic and Burun- di were 100-percent filled in the pre- season. Are any of these countries even close to India or China in terms of importance to U.S. interests? Let me hasten to add that in no way do I wish to disparage my fine colleagues elsewhere in Africa with that comment. However, “danger” or “hardship” criteria writ large are hin- dering rational decisions by both bid- ders and the department’s leadership. Opportunities for Growth Excellent diplomatic opportunities exist in many countries for Foreign Service personnel in all skill codes and at all levels. Even though those of us here in Madagascar are not anywhere near Washington’s radar screen, let alone on it, throughout my two years here I have enjoyed a range of unique professional challenges. For example, Madagascar signed the very first com- pact with the Millennium Challenge Corporation, making it a prime labo- ratory for testing the usefulness of the Millennium Challenge experiment that should yield valuable lessons for other countries moving toward partic- ipation. My two years in Hong Kong were among the safest in my life, yet my colleagues and I had a unique vantage point from which to engage China. We also promoted the Container Security Initiative at a port that sends more containers to the United States than any other. Or, drawing from a colleague’s experience, a country of modest strategic importance may rise on our list of priorities if it assumes leadership of a major regional bloc, like the European Union. Equating importance with danger in the assignments process has impli- cations above and beyond the deci- sions made every two to four years about who goes where. Morale, re- cognition and advancement are all warped in a system where good work in successful countries is undervalued. The ability to manage crises is unde- niably important, but it is certainly not the only professional skill needed to conduct a sound foreign policy. I have spent half of my career at 25-percent hardship posts — I cut my teeth in the war-ravaged Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1998 to 2000 — and I expect to bid mostly on hardship posts later this year. But I am growing tired of the messages dutifully forwarded by my career development officer reporting on the department’s success in deploying our top people to dangerous postings. Even as I sit at a hardship post, it is frustrating to think we are deliberate- ly choosing not to send our best peo- ple to relatively safe posts where criti- cal diplomatic work is being done. Of course, one can reasonably ar- gue that we should not close our mis- sions in critical-needs countries just because it is dangerous to be there. I think we all understand that the path to victory is strewn with obstacles. To leave the field of play would be to admit failure and surrender the world to the forces of chaos and evil. Yet the opportunity cost of equat- ing importance with danger decreases our diplomatic effectiveness in the rest of the world. It also implies that relative safety is relatively unimpor- tant. Our relations with many strate- gically important, “safe” countries are less likely to remain strong, given a reduced investment of diplomatic capital. M A Y 2 0 0 7 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 13 S P E A K I N G O U T