The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2010

Americans’ trust in their own admin- istration stood at a record low. My service allowedme to observe experienced career diplomats having to uphold policies with which they did not necessarily agree, and doing so with professionalism and loyalty to their government. Despite the widespread perception that the U.S. serves as the world’s policeman, I have seen very little arrogance, if any, in my daily interaction with the men and women who actually conduct U.S. diplomacy. At the same time, I have often been surprised at how my otherwise amiable American colleagues have difficulty taking “no” for an answer when pursuing foreign policy goals. I have also had the opportunity to directly observe American idealism and pragmatism— two interwoven, but also often contradictory, strands in U.S. diplomacy. As someone born and raised in Europe, where diplo- macy is primarily a behind-the-scenes occupation, I’ve also been repeatedly amazed by the U.S. Foreign Service’s strong emphasis on public diplomacy. As a global super- power, America feels confident in speaking up, and it has been fascinating — if not at times disconcerting to my Eu- ropean eyes — to see how our mission has so boldly used public diplomacy as a key policy tool. Not Just an Ordinary Job I am often asked by former journalist colleagues how it feels to be a foreigner at a U.S. embassy. Doesn’t the pro- tocol-conscious, bureaucratic environment feel restrictive compared to the more casual and relatively free media world? The honest answer is that working at an American embassy is not always easy. All the challenges of an ordinary job, such as communication with co-workers, career devel- opment, motivation and workplace safety, are amplified by intercultural differences, political sensitivities, security is- sues and the specifics of diplomatic work. When passing through the embassy gate, local employ- ees give their loyalty, in effect, to a foreign government, and this especially applies to political and public affairs FSNs with advisory functions. Some local employees pay a high price for working for America; at some high-threat posts, they literally risk their lives. So it is important that loyalty work both ways, and that the local staff know their advice and effort are valued by their American colleagues. Interpersonal communication between the local staff and FSOs is also a challenge. This is a delicate area that requires tact and patience on both sides. Be- cause of the classified nature of diplomatic assignments, FSNs often work on projects with no correspond- ing access to the final product or feedback on their input. For the local employee, there is no full infor- mation cycle. In most political sections, FSNs and FSOs are physically separated due to concerns related to infor- mation security. Yet in some cases, being an FSN is an advantage. Some- times FSOs prefer to stick to the safest approach to a sen- sitive political issue, telling mission leaders what they want to hear. I have often seen ambassadors look to FSNs for an unvarnished view. Trust and Loyalty The formula for a successful relationship between FSN and FSO is, in a word, “trust.” Although the work stan- dards and the nature of the FSN-FSO relationship may vary from post to post depending on political and cultural issues, there should be a clear understanding of each other’s functions. Some (in my experience, most) diplomats see the local staff as an inseparable part of embassy operations, while others regard FSNs as second-class employees. It is vital, however, for diplomats arriving at a new post to ap- proach their local colleagues with open minds. It is also up to the FSNs to prove they are full-fledged members of the embassy team, performing up to the highest American standards of excellence and professional ethics. The relationship between FSNs and junior officers is trickier. It is delicate to have to educate your supervisor, yet this is what many FSNs are required to do. “Managing up” requires tact on the part of the FSN and the right atti- tude on the part of the officer, who sometimes comes to post with little idea about the local staff’s role. Career advancement is another challenge. It is a key el- ement of diplomatic service and a vital motivating factor for FSOs. For FSNs, however, there is an “iron” ceiling beyond which they cannot advance. There must be strong motivation and a concerted effort on both sides to keep the local staff challenged. I have had bosses who, aware of this, have gone out of their way to assist the local staff’s professional development, at times resorting to innovation. For example, one of my political-economic chiefs permitted FSNs to accompany high-level delegations to the United States on U.S. gov- 20 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 1 0 F O C U S Interpersonal communication between the local staff and FSOs is also a challenge.