The Foreign Service Journal, June 2014

scale tends to mean assuming more responsibility, faster. Many of my colleagues who joined the service at the same time as I, four years ago, are already serving as deputy chiefs of mission across the globe. To put it another way, we are larger parts of a smaller machine. This difference in perspective, combined with the values we share with our American peers, can make for many fruitful conversations between our diplomats in third countries. Foreign assistance is another case in point. The Finnish foreign aid agency was merged with the foreign ministry in the 1990s; since then, most Finnish diplomats can also expect to take part in development work at some point in their careers. Considering the fact that the State Department also controls the foreign aid budget, this is not such a big difference. But it does means that Finnish diplomats need to speak the language of the U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as that of State, if we hope to be truly effective in Washington. No Cones, No Line There is no formal “cone” system in the Finnish Foreign Service. Officers do specialize to some extent, but we’re still all expected to be jacks-of-all- trades, as well. To help balance this, the Finnish Foreign Ministry employs experts, much like the State Department’s many highly qualified and professional civil servants and contractors, for particular tasks that require more specialized skills. The clearance system, the mul- tiple layers of staffers and “the Line” are conspicuously absent from the Finnish Foreign Service. We do have equivalent arrange- ments, but our structure is much less formalized than State’s. My colleagues in SCA might make fun of me for saying this, but I actually enjoyed the clear- ance process at State (most of the time!). It makes collaboration the norm, and brings everyone up to speed on the department’s mul- 36 JUNE 2014 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL diplomatic work as representing Finland in foreign capitals and international institutions. Sound familiar? The most obvious difference between the Finnish Foreign Service and that of the United States is the scale of the opera- tion. Our foreign ministry employs about 2,500 individuals, of whom a thousand are local hires; just 570 or so are Foreign Service officers, about half of whom serve abroad at any given moment. The State Department is roughly 20 times larger, and manages more than 250 overseas posts, whereas the Finnish Foreign Ministry runs 93. That said, operating a small post requires many of the same ingredients as a larger one, rang- ing from administrative functions to the actual meat and bones of diplomacy. Benjamin Franklin may have kept a household in Paris, and John Adams originally lodged with a landlady in Amster- dam; yet both dealt with the high- est authorities in their respective host countries. A smaller scale can make it easier to set priorities: Rather than try to do or follow every- thing, we sharpen our focus. Yet even in a small and nimble service like Finland’s, it is easier said than done. Every function of a bureaucracy tends to find a way to justify its existence, often with very good arguments. Messages cannot go unanswered for long, and once we take on a challenge, we don’t just do an adequate job. We aspire to be exemplary. From an individual diplomat’s perspective, the difference in The Finnish foreign aid agency was merged with the foreign ministry in the 1990s. Aaretti Siitonen enjoying cherry blossom season in Washington, D.C. Ahu Yigit