The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2006

J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 0 6 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 15 T he Foreign Service is cavort- ing about in apparent eager- ness to jump onto Secretary Rice’s transformational diplomacy bandwagon. But before we join the procession like good little lemmings, we would be wise to notice that there is a cliff ahead. Several, in fact. Take the Secretary’s Global Re- positioning Initiative. This is intended to realign our diplomatic staffing with our national interests by shifting Foreign Service positions away from comfortable European embassies to countries in the Middle East and South Asia on the front lines of the war on terror. Now, it is true that, at first glance, the disparity between the diplomatic staffing patterns for the U.S. government’s relationship with 80 million Germans and with a billion Indians is striking. But look again. Is the argument that we should staff our posts on the basis of the coun- try’s population? That would mean we should have over 40 times as many officers in China (population 1.3 bil- lion) as in Canada (32 million). Or perhaps we should readjust the ratio of FSOs stationed in Saudi Arabia (population 26 million) and Bangla- desh (144 million)? Even if one accepts the rationale behind repositioning (whatever it is) at face value, it is rather puzzling that the first round of the exercise left France totally untouched while Germany, Belgium and Italy lost a combined 12 slots. No restructuring process is ever perfect, of course, particularly one executed as suddenly as this one was. But I still have to wonder whether the main criterion for coming out a winner rather than a loser in the exercise is bureaucratic skill rather than substan- tive arguments. There also seems to be a rather insulting assumption at work here that our colleagues serving in the devel- oped world somehow are not pulling their weight, so their positions should be shifted to what appear to be more fallow (if perilous) fields. But is there any real evidence that U.S. objectives are better served by devoting resour- ces to, say, Uzbekistan that used to be applied within the U.K.? Assessment and analyses, please. It is also irrelevant whether there are 200 or 2,000 cities with at least one million inhabitants that lack a formal U.S. diplomatic presence. The point isn’t population but whether the diplo- matic equivalent of boots on the ground will provide commensurate value for expense and risk. One-Person Deathtraps Backers of transformational diplo- macy also advocate expanding the number of one-person offices, cur- rently known as “American Presence Posts.” In some ways, this concept is a natural outgrowth of the “honorary consul” mechanism, whereby a promi- nent local expatriate, host-country businessman, or sympathetic local national assumes some legal and rep- resentational responsibilities on behalf of the United States in a foreign city or province. (In fact, for most of our his- tory such individuals provided the only U.S. diplomatic representation many cities, and some countries, ever saw.) In its modern incarnation, an Ameri- can Presence Post allows us to cover more area with limited numbers, tak- ing advantage of hi-tech connectivity. But here is the dilemma. If we want to maximize the return on our investment in such posts, we should be opening them in the very places that we have traditionally ignored as marginal or inhospitable. So how do we effectively support such remote outposts? And what happens the first time that our man (or woman) in Carjackistan is seized, tortured and executed on global TV? And perhaps also the family as a bonus? At a mini- mum, that is likely to have a serious negative effect on recruitment across the board — and not just at American Presence Posts. Those who suggest that FSOs in such environments need to act like Special Forces officers should be reminded that when headed into harm’s way, the military sends fully equipped combat teams, not sitting ducks. Although less likely to have a san- guinary outcome, the “Virtual Pre- sence Post” has its own set of short- Run, Lemmings, Run B Y D AVID T. J ONES S PEAKING O UT The Foreign Service should look before it leaps onto the transformational diplomacy bandwagon.