The Foreign Service Journal, September 2013

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | SEPTEMBER 2013 59 observers, including senior diplomatic and military leaders, have called repeatedly for an enhanced diplomatic capacity to meet the multiplicity of challenges our nation faces, from terrorism to climate change to health pandemics. The trend, however, has been in the opposite direction. Top leadership positions at the Department of State, defined as those at the assistant secretary level and above, have grown from 18 in 1975 to 33 today. The percentage of such slots filled by career Foreign Service officers has decreased from 61 percent (11 positions) in 1975 to 24 percent (eight positions) at the end of 2012. In 2012, the last full year for which we have figures, Foreign Service officers occupied just 59 percent of the 121 encum- bered deputy assistant secretary and DAS-equivalent posi- tions. Even when one adds those positions to the count, the career Foreign Service held just 48.5 percent of leadership positions at the Department of State in 2012. (Our figures do not include the Civil Service, which is a separate category.) At USAID the situation needs study. There is currently just one FSO serving in the agency’s 11 Senate-confirmed positions. However, USAID has recently created a handful of equivalently senior positions that do not require Senate confirmation, and most of those are generally filled by career FSOs. The balance needs examination, but we are not suffi- ciently knowledgeable to make a judgment. Besides the preponderance of political appointees at senior leadership levels, the growing number of such appointments at increasingly lower levels at State and USAID adversely affects the development of the Foreign Service as a profes- sional service. Foreign Service officers need access to domes- tic positions at those levels in which they would learn how to balance domestic and foreign policy imperatives in decision- making. Limiting the number of officers who gain extensive bureaucratic experience to match their field experience ulti- mately results in a smaller pool of officers competent to serve at the higher levels. There will always be a place for talented outsiders, but having too many short-termers in top positions erodes the institution’s ability to focus on the long-term requirements of developing the Foreign Service needed to conduct 21st- century diplomacy. Though there is a great deal that is new in today’s diplomatic challenges, it is important to remember that there is little a 19th-century diplomat had to do that the Foreign Service is no longer responsible for today. Methods change and new tasks are added, but the traditional require- ments for conducting state-to-state relations endure. The Foreign Service and Functional Policy Bureaus… While the number of Foreign Service personnel in domes- tic positions in most regional bureaus in Washington has declined over the years, the Foreign Service now has only a minimal presence in the functional policy bureaus. For the Service to regain its traditional primary role in conducting foreign policy, especially in leading the interagency team at overseas missions, officers need to gain experience early on by taking on some of the jobs they tend to shun in the functional policy bureaus. Regional bureaus lacking Foreign Service personnel with functional policy, as well as technical expertise, are at a distinct disadvantage in the growing num- ber of fields where such competence affects policy choices. This is not to suggest changing or diluting the key role that experienced civil servants play in technical areas. But it is to point out that more and more jobs in the functional policy bureaus (and functional positions in regional bureaus) have been converted to Civil Service positions because Foreign Service personnel did not see them as career-enhancing. This is an example of a problem that needs to be tackled in multiple ways: by encouraging Foreign Service officers to understand the importance of this work; changing promo- tion precepts to make clear such assignments are not a drag on promotion prospects; offering more educational oppor- tunities; and, if necessary, by imposing a measure of Service discipline. In a larger sense, this situation symbolizes how the assign- ments process itself needs to be treated as a more active part of long-term career development—one that goes beyond the focus on lining up the next job, and prioritizing assignments that enhance the chances of promotion, to acquiring the By virtue of its deep knowledge of international relations and the intricacies of operating overseas, the Foreign Service should have a leading role in the management of foreign policy.