The Foreign Service Journal, June 2004

lessons are committed to memory and put into prac- tice.” Other Training Division courses in Foreign Service life skills — such as protocol, health, employment and cross-cultural challenges — are similarly unavailable to MOHs. Managers at the Transition Center made it clear to the Journal that they wish they could do more. Schofield says, “We were delighted when the MOH policy came out, because we could embrace a more open policy.” Adds Ray Leki, director of the Transition Center, “We try to make every accommodation we possibly can, but we can’t violate the rules of the Foreign Service Act. We do a lot of ad hoc counseling of peo- ple.” The FSI facility most open to MOHs is the Overseas Briefing Center, which has a diverse collec- tion of information about foreign posts and countries. MOHs are able to attend informal orientations given at the briefing center, as well as examine materials there. M E M B E R S O F H O U S E H O L D 20 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U N E 2 0 0 4 I supported the development of the MOH policy for several reasons: • People will bring family members to post whether or not the department so recognizes them, in the same way that people bring along both personal employees and pets. (Think of an MOH as a human pet, and it’s easy to understand.) That’s not going to change. • It is inappropriate for individual FS personnel to be negotiating private deals with the host government to allow their family members to remain legally with them in the host country. That prospect has many negative impli- cations for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. • While such actions as diplomatic privileges and immunities require U.S. domestic and/or international legal changes that always follow, rather than precede, social changes, U.S. foreign policy can most effectively be implemented if all family members actually present at post are under the chief of mission’s authority. • The essential element of the MOH policy is that the embassy, rather than the individual employee, is the party requesting a visa to allow the MOH to remain legally in the host country, thus bringing the MOHs under COM authority. I would also like to pass along the following observa- tions about the implementation of the MOH policy made to me by a Housing Board member at an EUR post (who wishes to remain anonymous): “My official responsibility is to apply law, regulations, policy and common sense in order to support U.S. for- eign policy most effectively. I take my oath of office seri- ously; as I recall, there’s something about ‘without par- tiality or prejudice’ in it. … While the major impetus for the MOH policy was unmarried partners (mostly of the same sex), I have been surprised to note that the most significant beneficiaries, in my experience as an EUR Housing Board member, are post-college adult daughters (rather than sons). I have also read some media cover- age of the phenomenon in the U.S. “I have suggested that our post housing question- naire be amended to ask about MOHs to ensure that the Housing Board has all relevant information that the incoming employee chooses to provide. (We already ask about pets.) The maximum space allocation for a single person and a couple without children is the same, so unmarried partners are not an issue here. But within the maximum space allocation, apartment con- figurations (e.g., numbers of bedrooms) can be relevant when an adult son or daughter MOH is living at post. I imagine that similar considerations exist for other MOHs, though I have not encountered any such situa- tions here. “The fact remains that our lives overseas are not the same as our lives in the U.S. and it is essential that each member of the (extended) official American community treat every other with dignity and respect. You can still choose your friends, but you must accept that your per- sonal and official social circles are different when you are overseas.” Karl Olson U.S. Delegation to OSCE Vienna A Sensible Policy