The Foreign Service Journal, November 2003

During my posting to Cali, I took and passed the Foreign Service exam. After I passed, USIA sent me back to the same job in Cali at the same salary, but as an FSO with a new career track. Once in the “real” USIA Foreign Service, we learned the career- enhancing importance of looking up instead of down, from whence we came. But we still needed that second-class group, the Foreign Service staff officers, on the front lines running the binational centers, cultural centers, libraries and insti- tutes, who promoted English and influenced hearts and minds. Since then, USIA and now the Department of State seem to have forgotten the utility of those instruments and institutions and dissolved our former- ly organic relationship with them. Once we became FSOs, we learned that a second-class job did not lead to a first-class future in the Foreign Service. USIA did away with a cheap specialist corps, many of those former specialists gaining access to the regular Service. Then we changed the Foreign Service itself. We made the rank system homogenous with the Civil Service and military service. This incredible series of well-intentioned blunders led to the demise of what had been an effective, highly trained and experienced specialist corps. Now we have no USIA. We have separated ourselves from the most effective long-range foreign policy projection devices we had. The Foreign Service specialist corps today is different from the former Foreign Service staff officer corps. Yet upon reflection, it may not be such a bad thing to be second- class, if one knows one’s job and understands that one’s work is neces- sary and appreciated. A supportive role is just as important as a leader- ship one, as long as both understand and recognize the value and contribu- tion of the other. Most important of all is for members of our officer corps to look down as well as up. Sheldon Avenius USIA FSO, retired Arlington, Va. A Shortage of Conservatives Stephen Dujack laments the fact that conservative Republicans have tended to take a dim view of the State Department. (“For Professor Gingrich, A Little History Lesson,” September FSJ ). One reason may be the glaring shortage of conserva- tives or Republicans at State, parti- cularly among FSOs. Apart from political appointees, conservative Republicans at State are as numer- ous as butchers at a PETA conven- tion. I’d estimate that 80 percent of the FSO corps are Democrats (with a much lower percentage among FS specialists and civil servants), com- pared to around a third of the U.S. electorate. Even if we just take the results of the last election (50/50), it’s fairly obvious that ideological diversity at the State Department is woefully out of whack. The question, of course, is whether this tilt colors how FSOs implement the policies of a given administration. That is debatable. I do know that almost any reference by many FSOs to the Washington Times , Weekly Standard , Wall Street Journal , or virtually any elected Republican lawmaker is accompanied by such a display of eye-rolling and knowing snickers that I wonder whether to call for medical help. Let’s face it. As long as State is per- ceived as a place that is overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats, FSOs should profess no surprise when the institution they serve comes under attack by a branch of government that may have a better claim to looking like America. Richard G. Miles FSO Washington, D.C. No Polemics, Please The approach recommended by James Olsen in “Capitalism and the Mexican Poor” (July-August FSJ ) constitutes one useful tool in the devel- opment toolbox — but not a panacea. Yes, the ideas of economist Hernando de Soto have a place within the com- plex process known as “development,” as former USAID Administrator Brian Atwood recognized. But Olsen’s preaching to Mexico on what it needs to do, rather than analyzing what has actually happened when de Soto’s ideas have been applied over the past 17 years in the developing world, constitutes a polemic. An objective account of how de Soto’s ideas have played out in practice and evolved since the mid-1980s would have added more to our knowledge. Instead, Olsen’s final paragraph, contending that international agen- cies and bilateral donors (e.g., USAID) don’t know their partners, is an unfounded assertion and nowhere proven. And speaking of USAID, “Telling Their Own Stories” (in the same issue) seems to suggest that the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training’s oral history program covers the State Department exclu- sively. In fact, ADST’s compilation includes an extensive collection of oral histories contributed by retired USAID officers, prepared under the leadership of W. Haven North through a multi-year grant from USAID. I would like to see a similar article in the Journal highlighting the experiences of USAID Foreign Service staff. Michael S. Zak USAID FSO, retired Annandale, Va. The Ombudsman Office Ambassador Cohen’s article in the June issue about AFSA’s role as a professional organization and a labor 10 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 3 L E T T E R S