The Foreign Service Journal, September 2012

for FSOs to Stand Up for the Foreign Service.” I found it to be an excep- tionally well-reasoned case for a pro- fessional Foreign Service. I was in- deed sad to read about the “substan- tially diminished” role for the Foreign Service within the State Department. Speaking from the perspective of a management-coned generalist, I see the rise of the functional bureaus and the increased influence of Foreign Service specialists on the operations of the department as good developments. We are a better-managed organization today than we were 25 years ago, largely because of the dramatically in- creased number of Information Man- agement Officers, DS Special Agents, Financial Management Officers, Human Resources Officers, General Services Specialists, Facilities Man- agers and Office Managers. But if I’m not mistaken, there has been no corresponding increase in the number of Foreign Service generalists, other than the transition of U.S. Infor- mation Agency officers into the public diplomacy cone. I think that we still have only about 7,000 generalists, or roughly one generalist for every one million foreigners. With half of them overseas, a quarter in training, and more than a few assigned to liaise with the Department of Defense, that does not leave many FSOs to staff the State Department. It’s not just a matter of numbers, and Johnson’s article persuasively argues the unique value of a professional, ca- reer FSO. But numbers are a factor. Every great power in history, as far back as the Romans, has invested heavily in its diplomatic corps. That is even more important today, in the globally interdependent world of the 21st century. This is why I sincerely applaud the article and wish AFSA the best in its efforts on behalf of the For- eign Service. Michael S. Hoza FSO Embassy Moscow Career Ambassadors As usual, AFSA President Susan Johnson deserves praise for the ra- tional and cogent arguments in de- fense of career ambassadors in her April President’s Views column, “Pro- fessionalism versus Patronage and Elitism.” Sadly, her argument is doomed to be just one more cry in the wilderness. Any hope of changing the current practice of filling approximately one- third of our embassies with largely un- qualified and counterproductive poli- tical appointees is nowhere in sight. By openly violating the 1980 For- eign Service Act, the present system serves too well the desire to pay off po- litical supporters and cronies. Until diplomacy is recognized as a profes- sion, as it is in all other leading coun- tries, no change can be anticipated. It’s astonishing to see the propo- nents of a system that perpetuates the vestiges of an anachronistic 18th-cen- tury practice — rewarding what is truly a modern “elite,” almost an aris- tocracy — label our professional diplo- mats as “elitist.” Such a warped definition serves the interests of the ruling elite, not the truth. In an America that is currently ex- periencing one of the most oligarchic periods of its history, it is understand- ably the natural practice to sacrifice reality and coherence. Truly, America deserves better of its leadership: namely, leadership. Robert F. Illing FSO, retired Porto, Portugal Professionalism and Ethics I am so very pleased to see AFSA President Susan Johnson’s various messages about professionalism and ethics. I have been retired from the Foreign Service since 1996, following a 35-year career, but even then I could see that this was a real problem. So much more emphasis was put on “what the Foreign Service can do for me” than the other way around. Many of my colleagues saw only the downside of every assignment, and none of the benefits and geographical and cultural education of living abroad. Another problem I see is that so few people in the United States know about the Foreign Service, the lives employees lead, and the hardships they face. Most people I have en- countered since retirement believe employees get free housing, free cars, free furniture, free food and anything else they may want. I’ve tried educat- ing those I call friends, but it’s a hard row to hoe. I am also shocked by how few peo- ple know what an embassy can and cannot do for them when they are traveling. Most have said they would not consider calling the embassy in a real emergency. I have asked here at New Mexico State University if I could speak to students who might be traveling abroad to give them this in- formation. I hope we can get the word on the Foreign Service and all it stands for out to as many people as possible. I will continue to do what I can from New Mexico. Judy Chidester FSO, retired Las Cruces, N.M. An Embarrassment The letter to the editor in the June Foreign Service Journal from Ambas- sador Edward Peck and Russell J. Surber is an embarrassment to the Foreign Service. The letter, in a venomous tone, cas- tigated the Journal for printing, in the magazine’s monthly Cybernotes sec- tion, a public and quite justified com- ment by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding the April Russian and Chinese vetoes of a United Nations resolution on Syria. The authors of that letter stated that “[The Secretary’s] statement S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 9