The Foreign Service Journal, September 2006

S E P T EMB E R 2 0 0 6 / F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L 67 A F S A N E W S V.P. VOICE: STATE BY STEVE KASHKETT A Tale of Two Cultures O ne afternoon not long ago, I watched an old argument unfold between two close friends and valued State col- leagues of mine, one who happens to be in the Foreign Service and another who happens to be in the Civil Service. My ForeignService buddywas bemoaning the conversionof FSposi- tions toCivil Service jobs and theDG’s stated intention to expand overseas opportunities for the department’s Civil Service employees. My Civil Service buddy retorted that we FSOs are just pampered, spoiled brats who do nothing but protect our territorial privileges. The Department of State has always benefited — and suf- fered—fromthe uneasy coexistence of the professional Foreign Service and the professional Civil Service, working side-by-side throughout the halls and offices of Foggy Bottom. We have two different career tracks, two different sets of rules and two different workplace cultures, yet we collaborate daily on the tasks that are necessary to advance U.S. interests in the world and to make American diplomacy work. Our Civil Service colleagues play a vital role at State, providing expertise and conti- nuity on a multitude of issues. There are clearly advantages to having people concentrating on the same job over a period of time, acquiring vast background knowledge and institutional memory in a particular field. In bureaus such asNP, OES, IRMandPRM, Civil Service specialists furnish spe- cialized proficiency on a wide range of technical subjects that ForeignService employeesmight have troublemastering because they switch jobs every couple of years. Sowe can certainly under- stand the desire of Civil Service careerists to have opportunities for growth, increased salary potential and mobility. Nonetheless, the Foreign Servicemust remain the backbone of American diplomacy. Nothing can replace the insight and nuanced understanding that comes froma lifetime of living and working in foreign countries, speaking foreign languages, rep- resenting theUnitedStates to foreignaudiences anddealingdirect- ly with foreign governments. It is not a mistake that most desk officer-, countrydirector- anddeputy assistant secretary-level posi- tions at State are reserved for ForeignServicemembers. We need to keep the Foreign Service at the forefront of the decisionmak- ing process underpinning U.S. foreign policy. We have all seen the disastrous consequences that can result from ignoring the advice of America’s veteran career diplomats. Here at the department inWashington, there shouldbe plen- ty of room for both career services. Foreign Service employees need good jobs to come back to after spending two, three, four or more assignments overseas. The department should ensure that Civil Service employees have a fair chance at promotion to higher grades andmobility among challengingdomes- tic jobs at State. But we can certainly find a mutually beneficial balance between Foreign Service and Civil Service positions, as long as both sides are willing to be flexible and creative. Overseasmobility, however, is anothermatter entirely. The people of the Foreign Service rightly bristlewhen they hear Civil Service colleagues complain that they, too, want a shot at serv- ing inParis or Londonor Tokyo. Foreign Servicemembers have fewer and fewer of these choice assignments these days when a growingmajority of FS overseas positions are at hardship, dan- ger-pay and unaccompanied posts. Most people in the Foreign Service today aremore likely to spend the better part of their careers inplaces likeNiamey, Islamabad and Ashgabat, dragging their families from one tough spot to another and sometimes being forced to spend a year or more away from their families. They put up with the un- healthy conditions, the political violence, the threats of terrorism, the constant uprooting and the separation from loved ones. Foreign Servicemembers face the annual risk of being selected out of the Service because of the mandatory 5-percent low-ranking and the six-year window for senior pro- motion. The bottom line is: FS members pay dearly for a shot at a cushy First-World posting. There is already a well-established vehicle for giving Civil Service employees an overseas excursion tour: the hard-to-fill exercise. Under this program, hundreds of Civil Service employ- ees have served all over theworld in vitally important jobs, often helping to plug gaps in the Foreign Service staffing. There can be no doubt that they have contributed critically to the Iraqmis- sion, supplementing the hundreds of FSmemberswhohave vol- unteered to serve there over the past three years. When it comes to the overseas jobs that are not hard to fill — i.e., those increasingly rare and sought-after opportunities to serve inplaces like London, Paris, or Tokyo—there can be only one legitimate, equitable path. That path involves taking the Foreign Service exam, going through months of training, serv- ing an apprenticeship in a couple of “directed” entry-level posi- tions, preparing the family for a lifetime of dengue fever and gia- rdia and damaged household effects and limited school options, getting a few difficult postings under one’s belt…and then competing for the fewnon-hardship assignments alongwith the rest of us. We need to keep the Foreign Service in the forefront of the decision- making process underpinning U.S. foreign policy.