The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2014

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JULY-AUGUST 2014 25 drafting officers. First and foremost, the unauthorized publication of such corre- spondence seriously dam- aged U.S. national security. Apart from premature revelations, the leaks exposed foreign sources of informa- tion to retribution, giving other potential interlocutors pause about the risks of engaging in dialogue with U.S. diplomats. It suddenly became harder to win or retain the trust of foreign contacts, and elliptical refer- ences to sources became more common (e.g., “a veteran party insider told us…”). The Foreign Service did win some new respect as the commentariat extolled the quality of its writing and report- ing. Some columnists even opined that the best missives had a literary quality to them. As Fareed Zakaria wrote in Time , “When foreigners encounter U.S. diplomats and listen to their bland recitation of policy, they would do well to keep in mind that behind the facade lie some very clever minds.” This should not have come as a surprise, of course. U.S. dip- lomats have enviable access, speak foreign languages fluently, and are steeped in local knowledge. They can also produce clear and purposeful prose. The Power of the Pen Reporting from the field, in whatever form it takes, is still the indispensable ingredient of any meaningful foreign policy discussion. Our diplomats’ deep understanding of foreign countries and cultures, and ability to discern political and economic trends that matter to the United States, constitute our comparative advantage in the U.S. foreign policymaking community. Even so, knowledge does not necessarily equal power. Foreign Service officers are called on to be versatile, and com- munication is only one of the six competencies evaluated for tenure and promotion. Written communication, in turn, is only one of five subcomponents of that particular precept. Washington readers are besieged by what Joseph Nye calls a “paradox of plenty,” such that “attention rather than infor- mation becomes the scarce resource.” It has probably long been true that the time one has to write or read cable traffic is inversely proportional to one’s decision-making authority. Nye suggests that in such an environment, “Editors and cue-givers become more in demand.” I recall a Foreign Service Institute instructor asserting that, anthropologically speak- ing, the Foreign Service is an oral culture. In that vein, the staff assistant regularly brief- ing a senior State principal has a distinct advantage over the drafting officer who per- formed the actual on-the-ground analysis. Upholding the Value of the Reporting Function During the 1992 presidential campaign, independent candidate Ross Perot suggested that ambassadors were relics, akin to “sailing ships,” and that Washington could accom- plish its foreign policy goals by simply communicating with foreign capitals by phone and fax. Friends of the Foreign Service rightly responded that there is no substitute for having diplomats on the spot who build relationships and advocate in person with foreign governments and publics. Somewhat lost in the debate was the fact that Perot’s com- ment ignored a vital function of U.S. diplomats abroad: con- veying to U.S. policymakers analysis of significant local events. A data systems entrepreneur from Texas can be forgiven for getting that wrong, but we would do well to remind ourselves of that important job from time to time. All Foreign Service work is vital, but the reporting function is truly fundamental to the success of U.S. foreign policy. It’s safe to say that the airgram is not coming back, not at a time when the Associated Press is asking its reporters to limit most of their stories to 300-500 words. The cable is still with us, but is becoming ever leaner. Email updates, BlackBerry- friendly digests and weekly roundups with cable links are all in the ascendancy. While the means of communication may change, the need for bankable reporting and analysis does not. This is true despite the fact that most writing we produce and see is decid- edly temporal. Still, the best Foreign Service reporting stands the test of time. Look again at Kennan’s Long Telegram: “At the bottom of the Kremlin’s neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity.” And then fast forward to recent press comments (no cable revelations here) by Presi- dent Obama: “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors—not out of strength, but out of weakness.” n The means of communication may change, but the need for bankable reporting and analysis does not.