The Foreign Service Journal, June 2008

J U N E 2 0 0 8 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 5 The focus of this month’s Foreign Service Journal is the future of the Foreign Service. While the details are yet unknown, it is already clear that current trends are not sustain- able. The burdens of service have increased while the re- wards have stagnated, and operating budgets have fallen behind mission requirements. Three times before, changes in the operational environment facing Ameri- ca’s diplomats have prompted the re- engineering of the Foreign Service. As America stepped onto the diplomatic world stage following World War I, the Foreign Service Act of 1924 created the unified, career Foreign Service and established pay and benefits to broaden staffing beyond the privileged elite. As America took on global responsibilities following World War II, the Foreign Service Act of 1946 instituted the “up- or-out” system and created the first hardship allowances. And as our per- sonnel system fell behind domestic soci- etal changes during the 1970s, the Foreign Service Act of 1980 mandated greater efforts to recruit a diverse work force and guaranteed employees the right to be represented by a union. Thus, on average, the Foreign Service personnel system has been re- engineered every 28 years—exactly the length of time since 1980. So what changes might a new Foreign Service Act make to adapt to today’s difficult operational environ- ment? • Pay and allowances: Foreign Service families face financial disincentives that must be fixed. Most crucially, the overseas pay gap must be closed. New programs must be created to help spouses find employment over- seas. Foreign Service members should be provided a housing allowance during domestic tours such as the military receives. War-zone pay should be tax- exempt for diplomats, just as it is for the military. And the government should pay for life insurance for diplomats in war zones, just as it does for the military. • Staffing and funding: Diplomats and development professionals are struggling to perform their missions, hampered by inadequate operating budgets and hollowed-out staffing. Some of this void is being filled by the military but, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned, that institu- tion is ill-suited to take on such bur- dens. Diplomatic and development tasks that have migrated by default to the better-resourced military must return to State and USAID — along with the resources to properly carry them out. Emulating the Goldwater- Nichols military reform, more Foreign Service positions are needed for inter- agency details. • Professional development: Ca- reer diplomats no longer have a monop- oly on the conduct of diplomacy. Other federal agencies are now undertaking diplomatic tasks, as are nongovernmen- tal organizations and the private sector. To remain relevant, the Foreign Service must strengthen the knowledge, skills and abilities that — taken together as a package — make career diplomats uniquely able to conduct foreign policy. These include: foreign language fluency, advanced area knowledge, leadership and management ability, negotiating skills, public diplomacy know-how and job-specific functional expertise. Just as the Foreign Service Act of 1946 imported the U.S. Navy’s “up-or- out” promotion system, the next re- engineering of our personnel system should import the military’s enormously successful commitment to training and professional education. In addition to setting career-long training require- ments, the law needs to establish a 15- percent training complement so em- ployees can actually take training. • The spoils system: As I noted in my last column, the practice of appoint- ing unqualified non-career ambassadors solely for their political loyalty is long overdue for reform. While some have served our nation well, in too many cases low-level political activists have been tapped for critical national securi- ty positions for which they are unquali- fied. The non-career portion of ambas- sadors should be reduced to a statutory maximum of 10 percent. Absent such reforms, the Foreign Service’s future rolemay be restricted to serving as housekeepers for the diplo- matic platform upon which others con- duct foreign engagement. P RESIDENT ’ S V IEWS The Foreign Service Act of 2010 B Y J OHN K. N ALAND John K. Naland is the president of the American Foreign Service Association.