The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2016

10 JULY-AUGUST 2016 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL tion” of the uniformedmilitary with the civilians of the Pentagon. The U.S. Foreign Service and the State Department Civil Service work together to realize the international goals of the United States. But they are distinct personnel systems operating within indi- vidual legislative and regulatory frame- works, each with different missions. This is not easy to administer, but each is in need of more coherent personnel management, career development and professional training (see the American Academy of Diplomacy report, “American Diplomacy at Risk”). Eachmerits respect. And eachmust be better protected from political abuse. General Powell’s actions were well- intentioned in a misunderstood context of political correctness. But his policy encouraged a dysfunctional drive to attempt the amalgamation of disparate personnel systems. And, sadly, this has led to the cur- rent State Department aberration of “disappearing” the Foreign Service of the United States, of pretending that the Congress did not create a professional diplomatic service of commissioned officers confirmed by the Senate and supported by competent Foreign Service specialists—in fact, of suppressing the very title “Foreign Service Officer” and even avoiding, whenever possible, the proud name “Foreign Service.” I imagine Colin Powell would regret the role he played in this outcome, which we must hope will be short-lived. Like other modern nations, the United States needs a disciplined professional diplomatic ser- vice, nowmore than ever. The Rogers Act of 1924, reinforced by the Foreign Service Acts of 1946 and 1980, established one. Bill Harrop FSO, retired Bethesda, Maryland Foreign Service Day and the Foreign Service Act Colin Powell came to the State Department as Secretary in 2001 and was concerned that he found an apparently divided workforce—a Foreign Service and a somehow less prestigious Civil Service. This troubled him. He sensed an elitism that sappedmorale and probably impaired productivity. Foreign Service Day had existed for half a century as an opportunity for Foreign Service retirees to return each year to Washington to reminisce with old friends and be briefed on current devel- opments in foreign policy and diplo- macy. It had nothing to do with the Civil Service; its members lived in Washington already. The Foreign Service Lounge was a sort of sanctuary, where Foreign Service staff returning fromoverseas could have an address where their mail would be held, and where they could find a typewriter (later a computer), telephone directories and telephones to re-establish contact with old friends and work through the sometimes confusing experience of repatriation to a changing America. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Civil Service or political appointees in the State Department. Without exploring the facts or the background, Secretary Powell disrup- tively set out to correct a problem that did not exist. He asked, “What about Civil Service Day?” He wanted to “level the personnel playing field,” and so he renamed these institutions Foreign Affairs Day and the Employee Services Center, respectively, as part of a policy to eradicate perceived elitism. Poorly advised, he did not grasp the distinctive nature of a professional diplo- matic service grounded in law. He would never have promoted the “homogeniza-