The Foreign Service Journal, June 2013

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JUNE 2013 7 he Sept. 11, 2012, attack on our mission in Benghazi has riveted the media once again, as politicians debate whether someone in the Obama administration tried to cover up what happened there and a host of related issues. The profes- sional concerns of the Foreign Service, however, are focused on a different template. In its report, the high-powered Pickering-Mullen Accountability Review Board identified “systemic failures and leadership andmanagement deficiencies at senior levels within the State Depart- ment,” and raised implicit questions about interagency coordination. In other words, Benghazi is a tragic and poignant example of institutional leadership dysfunction, one that should be taken as a wake-up call. Institutional dysfunction often besets several inextricably linked dimensions of an organic system, organization or institu- tion. The ARB zeroed in on leadership andmanagement within the Department of State, and highlighted the apparent dispersal of responsibility among bureaus and offices for handling a crisis that, in its judgment, could and should have been anticipated and handled better. Analysis of other dimensions of institu- tional weakness or dysfunction within the State Department and the For- eign Service has been the subject of many of my recent columns. In these columns, I have made a case for structural and institutional reformof the State Department and the Foreign Service, and raised some funda- mental questions. Is diplomacy a profession and, if so, what are its require- ments? Do we not need a strong, profes- sional career cadre for effective diplomacy in an increasingly complex world? And if so, what sort of professional development does it require tomeet the challenges of today and tomorrow? Does the State Department really no longer need a strong Foreign Service as the primary vehicle of American diplomacy? Must we choose between nurturing a cul- ture of professional excellence, values and esprit de corps, and just going along with political ad hoc-ism and acquiescence to a context that reduces the Foreign Service to a diminished sub-identity? My conclu- sion has been that to strengthen American diplomacy and the State Department, we need to strengthen the Foreign Service. With that inmind, my columns have addressed three sets of issues, start- ing with the preponderance of political appointments in leadership positions at the State Department and as ambassa- dors to important missions abroad. I have explained the debilitating impact of this practice on the Department of State and Foreign Service, and urged steps to arrest and reverse this trend. Second, I have outlined the difficult issues connected with adapting the Civil Service personnel system to the require- ments of diplomacy, for better complementarity and coordina- tion between it and the Foreign Service personnel systemwithin State. Third, I have called for reformof the Foreign Service to revitalize it professionally and enable it to grow a leadership bench with strategic vision that can deliver objective, non- partisan advice to political leaders and implement foreign policy effectively. For this purpose, the Foreign Service should revisit recruitment, assignment and evaluation policies, assess the long-term impact of the “cone” systemon leadership development and quality, and commit seriously to establishing “training capac- ity” and a professional education system that is appropriately integrated with career advancement. One possible way forward would be the establishment of a high-level commis- sion to study and recommend institutional reforms to best serve the demands of American diplomacy in the 21st century. Such a commission should include cur- rent and former members of the Foreign Service, as well as members of Congress, academics and eminent personalities with understanding of foreign policy and diplomatic practice. It is time once again to reaffirm the value of amerit-based, representative professional career Foreign Service to carry out American diplomacy. Secretary of State John Kerry possesses a unique association with, and understanding of, the Foreign Service. Drawing on his long experience with diplomacy and world affairs, he could leave an important legacy by revitalizing the Foreign Service and the practice of diplomacy, in the true spirit of the Foreign Service Acts of 1924, 1946 and 1980. I welcome your comments at johnson@ afsa.org. n Secretary Kerry’s Opportunity BY SUSAN R . JOHNSON PRESIDENT’S VIEWS T Susan R. Johnson is the president of the American Foreign Service Association.