The Foreign Service Journal, September 2013

58 SEPTEMBER 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL implying that its members are snobbish, self-centered and uncaring. An emphasis on professional excellence deserves to be addressed on its merits. The question for America should be whether it needs a specialized, responsive and dedicated Foreign Service meriting the appellation “elite”—and whether it now has one. We believe that the answer to the first question is yes, but the answer to the second is far from clear. Congress certainly thought the United States needed a highly qualified and trained Foreign Service when it passed a series of Foreign Service Acts beginning in 1924, and con- tinuing through the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (amended in 1986). That legislation declares that “a career Foreign Service, characterized by excellence and professionalism, is essential in the national interest to assist the president and the Secre- tary of State in conducting the foreign affairs of the United States.” A few of the many reasons for this conclusion include: n The need to base policy on a sound understanding of risks and possibilities of success; an understanding that derives from knowledge of relevant cultures, history, languages, economics, attitudes, politics and personalities. n The requirement for political understanding that can only come with sustained interaction in other countries and with other languages. For instance, effectively managing the Arab Spring requires such knowledge; we need to know who the new political victors are in Egypt and what is happening to the Muslim Brotherhood. Clearly, these vital questions cannot be answered only by English speakers or what we see on TV. This example applies to many other regions of the world. n The need to cultivate personal contacts with senior foreign officials and persons of influence who can be regularly approached and persuaded of the usefulness and wisdom of American views. Even if such contacts do not change their views, it builds understanding of what we need to consider. n The ability to garner support for American citizens and businesses that goes beyond delivering formulaic talking points, and is based on real knowledge of how to operate in a foreign context. n The skills required to lead complex overseas missions staffed by dozens of federal agencies, keeping them coordinated and eliminating internal conflicts. n Perhaps most important, the need for unvarnished, clear advice from ambassadors and their missions, as well as from highly experienced Foreign Service officers with recent overseas experience, who can apply what they’ve learned at State, the National Security Council and elsewhere in Washington. Making the Foreign Service Truly Professional By virtue of its members’ deep knowledge of international relations and the intricacies of operating overseas, as well as their understanding of the American system of government and domestic political realities, the Foreign Service should have a leading role in the management of foreign policy. This should not be confused with the ultimate authority to make foreign policy decisions, which the Constitution assigns to the president and senior officials appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, both from the career and non-career streams. But to carry out that function effectively, executive branch policymakers need the recommendations and warnings that come from professional practitioners of diplomacy. Thus, the distinction is between the unquestionable prerogative of the political leadership to decide policy and the practice of making political appointments in an institution required to provide expert, non-partisan professional advice for policy decisions. One should also bear in mind that a great many day-to-day decisions, both in terms of policy formulation and implemen- tation, are made at levels below those of senior policymakers in the offices and bureaus of the State Department. We should also not ignore the fact that all of the world’s modern, historically successful diplomatic services have been professional. None have concluded that they could get by with consecutive groups of pulled together, ad hoc players. If one accepts the need for a professional Foreign Ser- vice, it then makes sense to examine whether the ways it is trained and used fit the purposes for which it is needed. The intent of Congress in passing the Foreign Service Act of 1980 was to strengthen the Service by: “Assuring, in accor- dance with merit principles, admission through impartial and rigorous examination, acquisition of career status only by those who have demonstrated their fitness through success- ful completion of probationary assignments, effective career development, advancement and retention of the ablest and separation of those who do not meet the requisite standards of performance.” Our contention is that even though it is more essential than ever to strengthen and professionalize the Foreign Service, we are falling short of meeting that goal. Some of the reasons are external: budget shortfalls and the attendant inability to educate and train as required at either the entry- or mid-levels. But other conditions need attention, as well. Many well-informed foreign affairs practitioners and