The Foreign Service Journal, June 2012

those of many others, including Am- bassador Chris Ross today. During my mandate, the only issue on which there had been even a modicum of agree- ment was a truncated, extremely lim- ited program of confidence-building measures (one-way phone service and two-way mail service between the refugee camps and the communities of origin), usingMINURSO communica- tions and transport assets. FSJ: In October 2008 you assumed your current duties as director-general of the International Organization for Migration. What successes would you cite in that position? And what are the main challenges the IOM still faces? WLS: We have a paradoxical situa- tion in the migrant world today. There are more people on the move than at any other time in recorded history: about 215 million international and 740 million domestic migrants moving within their own territory. That means that about one out of every seven peo- ple in the world is on the move. You would think at a time like this that migration would be something that is very welcome. But instead, more and more industrialized nations are turning inward, borders are being closed, visa regimes are being tightened and there is less and less opportunity for migra- tion to occur on a legal basis. So a lot of people are being pushed into the hands of human traffickers. We at IOMbelieve that a major part of the problem is miscommunication or non-communication about the over- whelmingly positive contribution of mi- grants, historically and at present. So I try to ensure that our organization has a “voice in every conversation and a seat at every table” at which migration is discussed. I want to ensure that mi- gration, as a cross-cutting issue, is in- cluded in debates relating to develop- ment, climate change, health and vir- tually all other areas. FSJ: What changes do you think are needed to the FS personnel system to ensure that the Service has the abilities, outlooks and organizational structure to effectively discharge its role in the ac- tive promotion of U.S. interests abroad? WLS: I spent four years in the Per- sonnel Bureau at State, more than half of that as principal deputy assistant sec- retary under George S. Vest—who, for me, was our finest director general. Of course, that was 25 years ago. Since then, both the world and the profession of diplomacy have changed dramatically due to the end of the Cold War and the onset of globalization; the rise of non-state-sponsored terrorism; the digital revolution; climate change and other environmental concerns; the proliferation of U.S. agencies abroad; and a serious decline in public trust of government. Yet some fundamentals don’t change, and shouldn’t. The United States still requires a diplomatic serv- ice second to none: one that is disci- plined, voluntarily shares the burden, is passionate about its mandate and our national interests and calm in their advancement, and is committed to maintaining the highest professional standards and personal conduct. The Foreign Service must be truly repre- sentative in terms of gender and over- all profile, and its members must constantly strengthen and expand their skills. Toward this end, we must continue to recruit and develop those who are or can become the “whole person” — combining intellectual and operational ability with a commitment to excel- lence in performance and comport- ment, while also remaining compass- ionate “people persons” with the abil- ity to lead and inspire. Over the past two decades, security has assumed a disproportionate role in our lives. As a result, we have perhaps become too risk-averse. Foreign Serv- ice personnel need to spend more time on Capitol Hill, in board rooms, and engaged with civil society, even if it means spending less time in executive branch offices. FSJ: What do you see as the princi- pal challenges for U.S. diplomacy today? WLS: It seems self-evident that diplomatic resource requirements are in no way commensurate with the enormous stake our country has in the field of international affairs. The po- tential of “soft power” to advance our national interests has been traditionally underestimated, as have peacemaking, peacekeeping and nationbuilding. Moreover, as career diplomats we have not done enough to enable our lawmakers to help their constituents appreciate how diplomatic engagement — especially in the distant, little- known, crisis-prone countries in which I have served—protects and advances our national interests, as well as their own. FSJ: Are you optimistic about the future of diplomacy? WLS: My half-century “love affair” with diplomacy, Africa and societies in transition makes me a congenital opti- mist about the future of our profession. That, in turn, leads to several purely personal conclusions. First, I consider diplomacy an indis- pensable public service, a noble under- taking to which a privileged few are called. Second, diplomacy requires sustained engagement to succeed. And third, such a long-term process must be buttressed by a corresponding policy consensus, a commensurate constituency and adequate resource mobilization. FSJ: Thank you, Amb. Swing. J U N E 2 0 1 2 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 23 “Looking at the Congo and Haiti, it seems that everything is broken but the human spirit.”