The Foreign Service Journal, May 2009

22 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 9 A Return to State? Might FAS and FCS be better positioned if they were returned to the State Department, where both once resided? In most cases, offi- cers say they are content where they are. Officers in both services glory in a can-do, practical culture that they say differs from the more cerebral one at State. “If they have a successful tour, nothing happens,” says one Com- mercial Service officer in Latin America of his State Department colleagues, with a laugh. “It’s a tremendous cultural dif- ference. I enjoy Commerce because it’s a little more freewheeling. We have a specific mission to deliver an advantage to U.S. companies.” Being part of the Commerce Department, commer- cial officers say, provides them with an entrée and cred- ibility with U.S. companies that a State Department affiliation would not provide. Foreign Agricultural Serv- ice officers feel similarly about their working relationship with U.S. farm groups and argue that their single-minded focus on agriculture would not be possible in the more generalist culture of State. “We work closely with the State Department here in Washington and overseas,” says Hale. But “by being part of the [Agriculture] Department, if we’ve got technical problems, we’re very well tied in to work with the tech- nical agencies.” The flip side of the coin, bluntly expressed by one Commercial Service officer in the Middle East, is the constant battle for resources and respect that Foreign Service officers must wage in a department dominated by civil servants. “We are a Foreign Service agency stuck in a hodgepodge department where the Foreign Service culture doesn’t mesh with the Civil Service,” he says. But old veterans of both agencies say the agricultural and commercial officers of yesteryear faced a similar problem inside State because of the different nature of their missions. Moving back to Foggy Bottom would amount to trading one cultural misfit for another, they say. One commercial officer in Europe says the best solu- tion would be to move the Commercial Service out of Commerce and combine it with other trade-related gov- ernment agencies to create a new Cabinet department. “If the U.S. government is really serious about being a stronger player in trade and investment, it really should put its experts in those areas to- gether in one building and give them the budget to match,” she said. Charles A. Ford, a former am- bassador to Honduras and Com- mercial Service veteran, thinks it may be time to start exploring en- tirely new management structures. The first step, he says, would be a re-evaluation of the Commercial Service’s mission. With that in place, he says, the agency might consider new management struc- tures by examining innovations in private-sector corpo- rate governance. Hope for the Future All the challenges and budget pressures aside, officers at both agencies remain hopeful. They say that the choice of former Washington state Governor Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack for Agriculture bodes well, since both have first- hand knowledge of the ways in which exports boost a state’s economy. And despite Pres. Obama’s skepticism about free trade, no one can doubt the enthusiasm he’s created for the United States abroad. “The best part of the job is that we market America,” says Anderson. “Having Obama as our president is a marketer’s dream.” The benefits of investing in export promotion are clear, officers say, something they hope the politicians who control the purse strings will eventually acknowl- edge. “As people understand how much agriculture is dependent on trade, they will spend more attention on it,” says Schmick. More foreboding is what would be lost if they fail to do so: U.S. competitiveness. By some estimates, the United States is now spending far less on the job of promoting exports than many other countries. “The very positive message is that we can bring home jobs,” says Curtis. “But you also have to remember that this is a global econ- omy. If you don’t compete internationally, then you will lose the domestic market, too.” ■ F O C U S The benefits of investing in export promotion are clear. But by some estimates, the United States is now spending far less on that than many other countries.