The Foreign Service Journal, May 2010

38 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 1 0 cers into various committees that eventually produced “Toward a Modern Diplomacy,” a compend- ium of recommendations on how to improve the department and the policy process. This internal reform effort was still a top-down exercise under the leadership of State’s senior manage- ment officers. However, it was rev- olutionary in the degree of partici- pation by members of the Foreign Service, and was cer- tainly a harbinger of future developments. The Breakthrough The next reformwas the game changer. Between 1969 and 1972 white-collar unions were established throughout the federal service by executive order. The story of how the Young Turks helped draft the order for the State De- partment, how they won for AFSA exclusive representa- tion of Foreign Service employees of all foreign affairs agencies, and how they began negotiating personnel poli- cies and procedures is thoroughly covered in the June 2003 issue of the Foreign Service Journal (available at www.afsa. org/fsj/2003.cfm). I won’t repeat it here. Suffice it to say that this reform changed forever the relationship between the employees of those agencies, their managements, and how reform could happen. It was no longer possible to impose reform from the top without consulting AFSA — and negotiating the detailed implementation of any reform with the association. This reality was reflected in the next reform, the For- eign Service Act of 1980. The Department of State and AFSA worked in concert to draft the act and obtain con- gressional approval of it. Over the next three decades, AFSA broadened and strengthened its public outreach and congressional oper- ations. Of equal importance, several other organizations were founded dedicated to furthering the processes of diplomacy and the interests of the personnel of the For- eign Service: the American Academy of Diplomacy, the Council of American Ambassadors, the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, the Association of Black American Ambassadors, and the Cox and Delevan Foun- dations. They were joined by such longstanding organiza- tions as Diplomats and Consular Officers, Retired; the Association of the American Foreign Service Worldwide; the Business Council for Interna- tional Understanding and the Pub- lic Members Association. In 1995 these organizations joined with AFSA to form an um- brella group called the Foreign Af- fairs Council. Secretary Powell called us his force multiplier; oth- ers see the FAC as the network. In my romantic moments I refer to it as “Cosa Nostra.” Where We Are Now There won’t be any latter-day “Wristons” imposing re- form from the top down. AFSA, with the support of the Foreign Affairs Council, has the capability to prevent such moves by using its bargaining rights and public and con- gressional influence. Future reformers, of course, have the opportunity (call it a requirement) to work with AFSA and the Council to develop reforms. I would go one step further. I think the evidence is ac- cumulating that the people of the foreign affairs agencies have themselves become the locus of reform. The most important and successful reform effort, as measured by re- sults, has been the ongoing “Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future” project. This process was conceived and exe- cuted by the American Academy of Diplomacy (and sup- ported by the Stimson Center). Major contributions were made by the other members of the FAC, particularly the Cox Foundation, which supplied $500,000 in funding, and AFSA, whose public and congressional outreach were crit- ical. The FAB was, in effect, a zero-based budget exercise that calculated human and financial resources required by the missions of the foreign affairs agencies and then built a budget thereon. The report recommended 4,735 above- attrition new positions for traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy, training, economic assistance, stabilization and reconstruction, and security assistance. (We did not ad- dress specialist positions needed for administrative sup- port.) As soon as the report was published, the FAB team mounted a major lobbying effort with the relevant com- mittees on the Hill and both presidential campaigns. As you might imagine, skeptics as to our chances of success were legion. In October 2008, members of the State De- partment transition team for the Obama administration F O C U S It is important to recognize that the debate over the substance of reform has taken place in the context of a changing structure.