The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2011

J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 1 1 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 19 Secretary’s policy planning staff. Such messages cannot be stopped or altered by supervisors at any level, ambassadorial or otherwise. The director of policy planning is re- quired to provide a substantive re- sponse within 30 to 60 days. Formal and Informal Structures The Dissent Channel has been used to ventilate differing views on sensitive policy chal- lenges — from Vietnam, the Middle East and Cyprus in earlier times, to Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan more re- cently. Some of the hundreds of dissent messages sent over the decades have led, immediately or eventually, to policy changes. Perhaps most important, the dissent process has influ- enced the quotidian policy debate. Senior officers are more tolerant of differing views, more willing to discuss and debate rather than issue dicta. The permanent policy discussion is more open and vibrant because of the exis- tence of the Dissent Channel. Outside the official State/Foreign Service structure, the informal system has strongly supported those with dissenting views for even longer. In 1969 the American Foreign Service Association joined with the family of the recently deceased Ambassador William Rivkin to create the annual Rivkin Award. This award recognizes officers working constructively within the system to change pol- icy and performance for the better. An independent panel of judges makes the award, which includes public recognition at a reception in the State Department’s ele- gant Benjamin Franklin Room and a cash stipend. Since 1969, the Rivkin Award (for mid-level officers) has been joined by the Harriman (for junior officers), Herter (for senior officers) and Tex Harris (for specialists) awards. In a culture where peer regard is very highly prized, the AFSA awards for constructive dissent bestow extraordinary distinction. Moreover, most awardees have gone on to enter the Senior Foreign Service and to account for a much higher percentage of ambassadors than the Service as a whole. A Unique Process In addition to the informal and official dissent struc- tures, the unique aspects of the foreign policy process are also significant. First, policymaking is in a constant state of becoming; the struggle continues 24/7. It is never settled. From a micro perspective, U.S. ambassadors make representations virtually every day to the 190 coun- tries and institutions with which we have diplomatic relations. The re- actions to these démarches, duly re- ported, change the status quo and provide opportunities to discuss, consider and, perhaps, change American policy. From the macro perspective, every presidential or con- gressional election; every senior leadership change; major international events; and a host of other factors constantly bombard the policy process. The foreign policy debate is unending. Second, upon entering the Foreign Service and after each promotion, FSOs swear to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, for- eign and domestic.” We do not swear allegiance to a pres- ident or an administration. At least implicit in this oath is the requirement to “tell it like it is” and to give our best policy advice. Finally, it is important to understand that dissent is part of a continuum that begins with advocacy. The most ef- fective way to influence the permanent policy process is to convince superiors of the validity and utility of your views. Being right with some consistency helps. Being wrong is also an option. A certain humility on the part of policy advocates (and thus potential dissenters) is useful, as well. There is always the possibility, however remote, that superior officers — like parents — may be right from time to time. The Prime Directive Official and informal dissent structures and the unique aspects of the foreign policy process provide background and context. Important questions of when and how to dis- sent remain. Certainly, formal dissent is not to be under- taken lightly. The key element is that you must believe the national interest is threatened. This assertion leads to the prime directive. Dissent is about the national interest, not individual world views. You may object to the “war in ____” (fill in the blank). But if F O C U S There is always the possibility, however remote, that superior officers — like parents — may be right from time to time.