The Foreign Service Journal, June 2017

12 JUNE 2017 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Muslim-majority nations (later pared back to six) and suspending processing of all refugee applications worldwide. The fact that nearly every judge who heard legal challenges to that initial measure blocked its implementation, citing arguments similar to the ones these courageous dissenters adduced, would seem to suggest that they had solid grounds for speaking out. But Mr. Peccia assures us that they were motivated only by “risk-free self- aggrandizement, not an honest attempt to shift policy.” He also insinuates that they leaked their dissent to the media as part of their quest for glory. Yet unless he possesses telepathic and detective skills hitherto unknown to diplomacy, Mr. Peccia does not have any way of knowing whether either of those assertions is accurate. Equally troubling, Mr. Peccia declares: “Real dissent, requiring the timely response of the Secretary of State, should be the prerogative of the most proximate implementer, not of any of us who happen to have an opinion.” Leaving aside the reality that the State Department’s leadership has rarely responded to Dissent Channel messages with policy changes, I marvel at Mr. Pec- cia’s ability to compartmentalize profes- sional responsibility. To apply his axiom to this particular dissent, only consular officers and desk officers for the affected countries need concern themselves with the disturbing implications of the Trump policy. That can’t be right. But Mr. Peccia saves his pièce de résis- tance for last: “State might be the oldest Cabinet agency, but the height of our seat at the table is adjustable. It is incumbent on all of us to refrain fromweakening our position through well-meaning but poorly executed dissent.” News flash: Our many critics within the Trump administration and Congress already dislike and distrust the Foreign Service, precisely because we are loyal to the oath we took as professional public servants to uphold the Constitution—not any president or political party. Saluting and implementing policies that are harmful to the national interest, and quite possibly illegal or unconstitu- tional, to curry favor with the powers that be will not gain us respect, let alone a bet- ter seat at the table. It will simply confirm the canard that Foreign Service members are no more principled, courageous or honorable than political appointees. Apparently Mr. Peccia thinks that’s a deal worth making. I hope and pray that his active-duty colleagues disagree, and continue to dissent when necessary. Steven Alan Honley Former FSO Washington, D.C. Making Better Use of Opportunities and Resources With the change of administration we are presented with a rare opportunity to avail ourselves of the Senate confirmation process to secure a nominee’s commit- ment to address concerns in each of the foreign affairs agencies. To demonstrate how this could work, I approachedmy senator’s staff (TimKaine of Virginia) as a constituent, and then Sen. Kaine entered questions “For the Record” (which require a written response) on diplomatic security at the confirmation hearing of Mr. Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. The primary question dealt with the need for the Department of State to develop policy and procedures for risk management assessment involving all stakeholders, a recommendation set forth in a June 25, 2014, Government Account- ability Office report. Secretary Tillerson committed himself to undertake just such an effort. We must now follow up on this commitment. Further, we need to press on the need to develop a stakeholder-coordinated advance planned response—on a regional- and country-specific basis—to address the next attack on a diplomatic facility or personnel. Though this approach is proven to work, it is not clear that AFSAmanage- ment is prepared or willing to use it to advance this and other key issues con- fronting the Foreign Service. In early 2015, I attended a meeting arranged by AFSA with senior Diplomatic Security staff who denied that shortcom- ings such as those documented by GAO existed in their operations. Two years later, as Greg Starr retired from his position as assistant secretary for DS, he urged the adoption of a compre- hensive risk management framework—a GAO recommendation put forth under his watch in 2014 that has still not been closed by the GAO. In addition to the Senate confirma- tion hearing process option, AFSA can use its labor relations negotiating rights to pursue needed change. Under these rights, AFSA can negoti- ate on “work environment conditions” to address the adequacy of Diplomatic Secu- rity risk assessments and the shortcom- ings that pose a danger to Foreign Service members. One can only hope that AFSAmanage- ment will take a more aggressive approach to these longstanding issues. For a com- plete view of the issues cited by GAO that are still outstanding, please go to www. gao.gov and search “Diplomatic Security.” James (Jim) Meenan FSO, retired Fairfax, Virginia