The Foreign Service Journal, June 2011

lawyers, doctors, journalists, academics andmilitary personnel, whomwe seem to be emulating in other respects), and uses that cachet to recruit new mem- bers. Or it continues the drift into be- coming just another set of jobs in the field of international affairs, complete with easier lateral movement into and through related lines of work: think- tanks, nongovernmental organizations, advocacy groups, political causes and international businesses. One could cite as evidence sup- porting the latter position the changes currently being implemented through transformational diplomacy — or the fact that public diplomacy practition- ers use the Internet and social media (very properly) in ways applicable to many organizations in today’s world, not just those led by the Department of State. Of course, State as an institu- tion could continue to try to lead and dominate its rivals — if it can. If we continue on our current path, that will at least relieve us of the need to defend diplomacy as a profession unique to State and the Foreign Serv- ice. But if we are serious about pre- serving the idea that members of the Foreign Service are indeed unique practitioners of an important set of skills and values, who promote the U.S. national interest in a way no other in- stitution or career can, then we need to act accordingly. Not for Everyone In the early 1980s the Foreign Serv- ice Journal published an article I wrote (co-signed by Hank Cohen) arguing that the up-or-out system, first intro- duced in the 1946 Foreign Service Act but greatly strengthened in the 1980 overhaul, was a mistake. I pointed out that the approach confused military priorities, such as physical vigor and the management of large groups of men and huge resources, with the pri- orities of diplomacy, which focuses on wisdom drawn from experience, pa- tience and an understanding of for- eigners helped by languages. Such qualities are all appropriate to diplo- macy’s different job in the world. My article was countered by one submitted by friends among AFSA’s “Young Turks” who argued, among other things, for the need to streamline the Foreign Service so that outstand- ing young officers could rise quickly to positions of leadership. Thirty years later, I still believe more than ever that we need to drastically re- duce or eliminate “up or out” precepts, while maintaining the older option of selection-out for habitually underper- forming officers. By all means, let us find a way to promote outstanding of- ficers faster —provided we know what they are outstanding at! Brainy but raw officers can be very good at writing policy papers, but less good at getting the policy to work in today’s compli- cated world. Of course, the Marine Corps is not for everyone. Perhaps neither is the Foreign Service. These days I teach diplomacy to young people from the United States, and from many other countries, in London. Many more non-Americans prize, even dream of, a diplomatic ca- reer (lifelong in most countries) than do Americans. This may be because Americans like and are offered more private-sector opportunities than most other nationalities. But it may also stem from the fact that so few of them know or even come into contact with diplomats and see what they do — as opposed to the large numbers of U.S. military personnel, businesspeople and employees of nongovernmental organ- izations who regularly go abroad. A Division of Labor Regrettably, I see little chance of broadening these American percep- tions, especially in this era of the Tea Party movement. Perhaps one answer is a degree of “de-Wristonization”: some redivision of the unified Foreign Service between those happier in, and better suited to, the policy wonk at- mosphere of Washington, and those more interested in acquiring the skills involved in interpreting the actions and values of foreigners and persuading them to support our policies. Much of the work done in Wash- ington, D.C., is, of course, handled by Civil Service employees in the State Department and other foreign affairs agencies. But perhaps there could be a separate cone for Foreign Service generalists who are drawn more strongly (and, one would hope, ex- pertly) to writing and negotiating with fellow Washington bureaucrats than with serving abroad and dealing with different kinds of foreigners. There is little doubt in my mind that the Foreign Service teaches its people how to deal with foreigners far better than any other government pro- 14 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 1 1 S P E A K I N G O U T Foreign Service members promote the U.S. national interest in a way that no one else can.