The Foreign Service Journal, September 2018

The Future of the Foreign Service— As Seen Through the Years From the FSJ Archive CAN STATE DELIVER? THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | SEPTEMBER 2018 47 Change As a Means to Improved Foreign Relations We must never forget that from the nation’s point of view the only thing that really matters is whether or not the foreign affairs job is performed ably and successfully. There is nothing sacred about either the department or the Foreign Service; they are administra- tive mechanisms to serve the national interest. They can and should be altered from time to time to remedy their deficien- cies and to improve their effectiveness. We cannot, then, logically object to change, provided that change is a means toward the objective of more effective con- duct of American foreign relations. We must assume, however, that even the most ardent administrative prestidigitators will sooner or later have to take morale factors into consideration. No administrative mechanism can be better than the people who staff it, and the devotion of these people to their duties. Over the long pull, changes cannot be so frequent or so drastic as to keep employees in a state of uncertainty and unrest. There needs to be enough stability through the years so that the for- eign affairs organization can consistently recruit topflight tal- ent, provide genuine career satisfactions, and keep its employ- ees working with maximum loyalty and devotion. What I do argue, however, is that we must adjust ourselves to the frustration of never being popular and never being fully recognized for our efforts and our achievements. It is no use to say that the department falls down on its public relations and doesn’t know how to tell its story effectively. In future years we may do a better job in this respect than we are doing now, but the problem is by its nature inherently not subject to a full solution. —Frank Snowden Hopkins, assistant director, Foreign Service Institute, from “The Future of the Foreign Service, ” FSJ , April 1950 A Broader Definition of the Diplomatic Calling The crisis confronting diplomacy in the 1980s can only be understood as part of the much larger crisis confronting the nation-state. Despite all the frenzied mani- festations of nationalism and the prolifera- tion of new nations, the basic reality to the latter part of the 20th century is that “One World” is rapidly becoming a fact. The steady and inexorable shrinkage of the planet to the dimensions of a global village, com- bined with quantum leaps in the advance of technology and the social and economic development of hitherto backward regions is daily making the nation-state more obsolete at every level of inter- national intercourse. As this process accelerates, the traditional modalities and instrumentalities have become too narrow and stereotyped to accommodate the traffic. If the State Department wants to assume primacy over the full range of official relationships binding the United States to other nations, its personnel will need to concentrate on non-govern- mental levels of host country societies to a greater extent than has hitherto been regarded as part of the diplomatic function. This can only be done by broadening the personal contacts of mission personnel to include youth, labor, intellectual and clerical circles at one end of the spectrum, and private finan- cial, business and celebrity circles at the other. Investment pat- terns and currency transactions are especially important. There is scarcely a society in the world where indicators of impending change are not visible in every comer—provided an embassy officer speaks the local language, keeps himself open to unofficial contacts, and spends some of his time with intel- ligent citizens instead of his bureaucratic counterparts. —Charles Maechling Jr., from “The Future of Diplomacy and Diplomats,” FSJ , January 1981 FOCUS