The Foreign Service Journal, May 2015

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MAY 2015 39 A Foreign Service spouse reflects on her experiences during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when struggles for independence from colonial rule exploded throughout the developing world. BY PATR I C I A B . NORLAND Editor’s Note: Patricia Bamman Norland passed away inMay 2014 at the age of 94 (her obituary appears in the September 2014 FSJ ) .Wife of the late Ambassador Donald Norland, she accompanied her husband to posts abroad for 30 years and is the mother of three children who gradu- ated fromGeorgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and them- selves became diplomats. This article is excerpted from an unpublished essay Mrs. Norland wrote in 1982 that her daughter Patricia (Kit), a career FSO presently serving in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, recently shared with the Journal . T he life of a Foreign Service spouse offers one of the more interesting and rewarding pursuits—not without moments of sheer horror to be sure, but satisfying and raptly absorbing. That remains true today, in 1982, as the Foreign Service undergoes a period of strain and change. Salaries, never excessive, have fallen behind in the upper grades; and, as always, many choice diplomatic posts go to non-career appointees. Faced with this prospect, a number of good officers in their middle years are reassessing their onward opportunities and the advisability of remaining indefinitely among the “genteel poor” as school tuition and other expenses mount. For wives, in particular, Foreign Service life presents new WomenWhoMake a Difference: Reflections of a Foreign Service Wife in 1982 FEATURE problems. Most young wives now are interested in careers of their own, both for their personal satisfaction and, increas- ingly, to supplement the family income. However, pursuing a career in law or biochemistry in Ouagadougou is not a simple matter. Moreover, some young wives are not interested in—or do not have time for—the social aspects of diplomatic life: the entertaining or the philanthropic projects which have long been considered valuable contributions to the U.S. image abroad. The question has even been tentatively broached as to whether the diplomatic social round is any longer truly effective. Perhaps the most dramatic change of all is in the physical danger that now lurks in many a foreign assignment; in the modern world, diplomats and their families are on the firing line. Few will soon forget the national trauma of the seizure of American hostages in Iran. During these years of change and upheaval abroad, hundreds of Americans have been evacuated from besieged embassies, and the list of U.S. diplomats killed in the line of duty is still growing: Ambassador Cleo Noel and his deputy, Curt Moore, in Khartoum; Ambassador Frank Meloy in Lebanon; Ambassador Adolf “Spike” Dubs in Afghanistan; and others in our far-flung missions. Young Foreign Service officers and their spouses are appar- ently thinking twice about serving in these areas, as well they might. The very value of the Foreign Service itself is being ques- tioned: Would skeleton staffs and electronic diplomacy suffice?