The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2008

J U L Y - A UGU S T 2 0 0 8 / F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L 71 S ince the 2003 invasion of Iraq, staffing demands on the Foreign Service have soared: 300positions in Iraq, 150positions inAfghanistan, 40posi- tions in the State Department’s office to coordinate reconstruction efforts, 100-plus training positions to increase the number of Arabic speakers, and 280 newpositions in areas of emerging importance such as China and India. Despite those urgent staffing needs, Congress since 2003 has turned down all State Department requests for addition- al positions (totaling 709 positions), except those earmarked for consular affairs anddiplomatic security. As a result, literally hundreds of Foreign Service slots are vacant. Some 12 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions (excluding those in Iraq and Afghanistan) are now vacant, as are 33 percent of domestic Foreign Service positions. Furthermore, 19 per- cent of the filled slots are held by employ- ees “stretched” into a position designat- ed for amore experienced person. To add insult to injury, the dollar’s sharp decline has left U.S. embassies and consulates (whose expenses are in local currency) limping alongwith insufficient operational funding. The State Department calculates that the Foreign Service is short a total of about 2,100positions—1,015positions for over- seas and domestic assignments and 1,079 for training and temporaryneeds. Current total staffing is just 11,500. These short- falls in staffing and operating expenses are reducing the effectiveness of U.S. diplo- macy in building and sustaining a more democratic, secure and prosperous world for the benefit of theAmericanpeople and international community. The diplomatic staffing gaps stand in stark contrast to the situation at the Department of Defense, which is proceeding to expand the armed forces’ permanent rolls by 92,000 by 2011. The StateDepartment’s deficits amount to little more than a rounding error when compared to the additional resources being dedicated to the Pentagon. A growing chorus of voices is urging that the administration and Congress act to strengthen the diplomatic element of national power. For example, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in aNov. 26, 2007, speech at Kansas State University, said: “TheDepartment of Defense has takenon many … burdens that might have been assumedby civilian agencies in the past… [Themilitary has] done an admirable job …but it is no replacement for the real thing — civilian involvement and expertise … Funding for non-military foreign-affairs programs … remains disproportionately small relative towhat we spendon themil- itary… There is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instru- ments of national security—diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assis- tance, civic action, and economic recon- struction and development… We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military… Indeed, having robust civilian capabilities available could make it less likely that military force will have to be used in the first place, as local problems might be dealt with before they become crises.” Despite all of that, the president’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget request to narrow the staffing gaps appears to be going nowhere given the likelihood thatCongresswill defer budget decisions to the next administra- tion. That is unfortunate. The next pres- identwill undoubtedlywant a strongdiplo- matic corps to work hand-in-hand with our nation’s strong military. Yet if Congressmisses the opportunity to boost funding for diplomacy this year, it would be 2010 before the first additional Foreign Service new hires could finish their initial training. Waiting twomore years for diplo- matic reinforcements is too long in view of the challenges facingAmerica overseas. Fewpeople realize that two-thirds of the Foreign Service is deployed overseas at all times and that 70 percent of them are at hardshipposts (meaning locationswithdif- ficult living conditions due to terrorist threats, violent crime, harsh climate, or other factors). Over half of the Foreign Service has served at a hardship post with- in the past five years. The number of posts that are too dangerous to permit employ- ees to bring their families has quadrupled since 2001—to 905 such positions today. Over 20 percent of Foreign Servicemem- bers have served in an unaccompanied position within the past five years. As of this summer, 15percent had served inwar- zone Iraq. Yet incredibly, Foreign Service mem- bers suffer froman ever-growing financial disincentive to serve abroad. The pay dis- parity caused by the exclusion of overseas Foreign Service members from receiving the “locality pay” salary adjustment given toother federal employees nowcausesU.S. diplomats to take a 20.89-percent cut in base pay when transferring abroad. In effect, Foreign Servicemembers take a pay cut to serve at all 20-percent-and-below hardship differential posts — 183 of 268 overseas posts. Losing the equivalent of one year’s salary for every five served abroad has serious long-term financial conse- quences, especially for families already suf- fering the loss of income from a spouse who cannot find employment overseas. It also contributes to a growing feeling that the Foreign Service has become less “fam- ily-friendly.” o A F S A N E W S AFSA Issue Brief Foreign Service Resource Needs: Talking Points BY JOHN K. NALAND, AFSA PRESIDENT