The Foreign Service Journal, October 2007

positions reached us in February 2006, and included two public diplo- macy positions in Brussels identified as “on hold.” We were informed we could not bid on them. The two positions became the Media Hub Director (assigned to a Civil Service excursionist and contested by AFSA) and an FS-2 position at the hub that was filled in the summer of 2007. One Brussels PD position was eliminated — the one for which I had a handshake — and one was created — the hub director. Yet my CDO told me there was no “one-for-one swap” between the two. PD budgets and personnel are managed separately from the rest of State, and rank does not factor into overseas headcount costs. Would it have been possible to create the media hub position in Brussels with- out eliminating another PD position there? The Civil Service employee pre- viously held a position in the USNATO Information Office. Has any explanation been provided for why the hub needed to be in Belgium, a country with a Muslim population of about 400,000? I recently learned that “my” USNATO position, eliminated in January 2006, was recreated and re- advertised only six months later. The USNATO deputy PAO position was eliminated instead. This kind of smoke and mirrors brought benefits for a handful of personnel with good connections, leaving those of us serving in Iraq out in the cold. For me, the true unfairness was that my sacrifice for the good of global repositioning was an illusion. My greatest reward from serving in Iraq has always been the service itself. Rachel Schneller FSO Washington, D.C. Nonproliferation Road Map Most readers probably agree with Jim Goodby’s desire for a world eventually freed from the risks of nuclear terrorism if not annihilation, and he provides a valuable road map for at least part of the way there (July- August Journal ). Christopher Ford argues effectively in the same issue that unilateral and multilateral efforts by the Bush administration have moved in the same direction, though he overlooks Goodby’s warning that short-term fixes of this sort can work against the long-term progress that most relevant NGOs also demand, as Mark Fitzpatrick notes in his article. It is obvious, however, as the two other articles on North Korea and Russia indicate, that regional politics are crucial in determining progress on this issue. A key fly in the ointment of Goodby’s plea for a change in U.S. policy has to be Israel’s determination to keep a nuclear deterrent in a regional context where it can be out- numbered and conceivably over- whelmed by a potential combination of regional enemies. Israel’s security has become a bedrock of U.S. policy. Objectively, Iran has no security interest in attacking Israel. The anti- Israel ravings of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are intend- ed to overcome the historic Arab- Persian and Sunni-Shia divides and gain legitimacy and support from strong regional groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. Thus, the maintenance of nonproliferation becomes one more hostage to the Arab-Israeli con- frontation both in Palestine and more broadly. Only an eventual agreement, and years of proven security following it, are likely to persuade Israel to drop its ultimate deterrent. The Libyan example might pro- vide an opening for nonproliferation in the Middle East. Like Libya, Iran is not directly involved in the territorial and other conflicts sur- rounding Israel. Several of Israel’s Arab (Sunni) neighbors have signed peace treaties with her, and none has actively contemplated obtaining nu- clear arms as a reaction to Israel’s. This de facto equilibrium risks being upset if Iran continues to seek its own deterrent against threats it perceives as coming primarily from the U.S. A solution to the nonproliferation problem in that region, and more broadly, is therefore within U.S. reach, if Washington chooses to make it the priority it deserves to be. It would be nice to see some indication that policymakers within the State Department, the NSC and elsewhere read (or at least are briefed on) such excellent Foreign Service Journal material more regularly. Per- haps the AFSA Governing Board can summarize and submit such pointed briefings to policymakers on a regu- lar basis. George B. Lambrakis FSO, retired London, England Honoring Excellence Recently, while exiting the Main State cafeteria (on the escalator side), I noticed two small wooden plaques with brass name plates. The plaques honor annual winners of “The Secre- tary of the Year Award” and the “Dir- ector General’s Award for Reporting.” Unfortunately, the nameplates ended with the honorees for 1999. After checking with AFSA, I was informed that these plaques were the responsibility of the director general and that AFSA had brought their outdated nature to the DG’s attention, to no avail. It would surely be appropriate for the incoming director general to commission new, updated plaques O C T O B E R 2 0 0 7 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 7 L E T T E R S