The Foreign Service Journal, November 2005

V.P. VOICE: USAID n BY BILL CARTER Merger Rumors T he question askedmost often this summer by visitors fromoverseas missions was: “What do you hear about USAID’s merger with State?” They must think that I am privy to discussions in the lofty corridors of power. I am not. Even so, I have views and this space allows me to express them. I (first-person singular and not AFSA) do not believe that it would be in the best interest of long-term U.S. foreign policy if USAID were merged with State. There is still serious debate onwhether it waswise tohavemergedUSIAwithState back in1999. Some would argue that our public diplomacy function is far less potent and effective today than it was in the heady days when we were at the “end of history” and naively concluded we no longer needed “vestiges” of the ColdWar. One wonders, had USIA not beendisbanded, whether our image in the world would be better than it is. Dohealthy organizational tensions lead to better results? I contend they do. OnceUSIA officers were subsumed under the predomi- nant organization’spersonnel system, therewas no longer any reward for an opposing view. Future promotions and assignments couldbe jeopardized by nonconformity with per- ceived organizational orthodoxy. And so it would be with USAID. Something could be lost — something quite important. In the foreign policy debate, one of USAID’s primary roles is to advocate for long- termdevelopment goals. These often compete with short-termpolitical objectives. In practical terms, this couldplay out with theU.S. using its resources in a particular coun- try onan education strategy over several years versus a questionable infrastructure activ- ity designed to curry fleeting favor with the ruling elite. Sound familiar? Just as the U.S. Navy’smission is different fromthat of theU.S. Army, so isUSAID’smission dif- ferent from State’s. If a merger were to occur, I fear that the development rationale would be on the losing side in every debate. FEMAmelded intoHomelandSecurity andUSIA intoState becausemerger seemed like a good idea at the time and the cost-cutting advocates held sway. Does a similar fate awaitUSAID? Let’s ask those same cost-cutters in thewake ofOsama andKatrina, what costs were saved? There is another disturbing aspect to this merging, which puts USAID even deep- er behind walls. I am reminded of the two scheming fathers in the popular musical, “The Fantasticks.” The fathers buildawall between their twohouses, because they know it will bring their two children together in marriage rather than keep them apart. On Broadway, building a wall can accomplish the desired objective. But what works in the theater,more often thannot, fails in real life. Intuitively, we knowwalls don’t work. Merger or no merger, USAID’s retreat behind the walls of fortress-like embassies is not the answer. Yes, there are real security concerns, butUSAID, like thePeaceCorps, cannot achieve its objectives encased behindwalls. Instead, it needs desperately to find imaginativeways inwhich it canbreachandeliminate thewalls—or a “hostile takeover” will be the least of its worries. r 4 AFSA NEWS • NOVEMBER 2005 all his colleagues, I extend my heartfelt condolences to Mr. Sullivan’s family.” Sullivan served in the U.S. Marine Corps and as a U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman before joining Diplomatic Security in 2002. After service in the Miami Field Office, he was posted to Kabul in 2004, serving as an Assistant Regional Security Officer. Following his service in Kabul, he volunteered to go to Iraq as an assistant regional security offi- cer in 2005. Based in Baghdad, he was on temporary assignment as the acting regional security officer in Mosul when this tragedy occurred. AFSA recognizes that it is impossible anywhere to provide 100-percent protec- tion for our personnel who staff the front lines of American diplomacy. Since the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings in which 224 died (including 53 U.S. gov- ernment employees), progress has been made in bringing our overseas embassies, consulates and other missions up to acceptable security standards. However, much work remains to be done. We also recognize that Embassy Baghdad and the four consulates in Iraq are special cases and that security stan- dards for our colleagues there (and in Afghanistan) are judged differently than at other posts around the world. At every opportunity, AFSA urges the U.S. gov- ernment to continually review the secu- rity arrangements protecting our heroic colleagues and to provide them the fullest measure of resources and protection pos- sible. o If a merger were to occur, I fear that the development rationale would be on the losing side in every debate. Iraq • Continued from page 1 AFSA urges the U.S. government to continually review the security arrangements protecting our heroic colleagues and to provide them the fullest measure of resources and protection possible.