The Foreign Service Journal, November 2009

There is much talk about the weaknesses of the State Department: its eclipse by an ascendant Defense Depart- ment, a longstanding lack of money and people to do the job, confusion over what the job is , low morale, inadequate training, increased politicization, decreasing pro- fessionalism… The list goes on. Articles, investigations and reports abound analyzing the problems and proposing fixes, yet no clear path for- ward has been identified, much less agreed upon. Many compare the huge investment that we have made in our armed forces with the paltry funding for our civilian diplomatic and develop- ment agencies, and point to the need to devote significant resources to rebuild these neglected institutions. All of us support such efforts, of course. Yet it is strange how little has been said about the need for public recognition and appreciation of those who wield the instruments of soft power. Indeed, their image remains sadly out of focus and out of date. It is time to transform the archaic public perception of the diplomat as a striped pants-wearing cookie pusher hanging out at official receptions, and the demeaning stereotype of the USAID bureaucrat who is more con- cerned with “managing” the portfolios of fat-cat contrac- tors than bringing about real change on the ground. If we want buy-in from the American people and their elected representatives, we need to foster greater appreciation of the dangers and sacrifices that con- front thousands of dedicated Foreign Service members — whether from State, USAID, FCS, FAS or IBB — and their families each day in every cor- ner of the globe. Toward that end, here are two sim- ple proposals, the first of which would cost almost nothing. Both would be highly effective means to rebrand the Foreign Service. One place to start is in the speeches and testimony of the Secretary of State and the top political leadership, both in the White House and Congress. We regularly hear our president and elect- ed representatives and senators from both parties publicly acknowledge the service of our military colleagues, as well as the sacrifices their families make. That is as it should be, but could not the following words be added to such plaudits: “and that of our diplo- matic and civilian personnel deployed abroad”? Regular high-level recognition of all the ways in which civilian employees of foreign affairs agencies contribute to our national security would help focus public attention on the real Foreign Service. A second important initiative would be the construction of a public memo- rial to the hundreds of diplomats and development workers who have given their lives in service to their country. Since the earliest days of our nation, 231 civilian employees of the State De- partment and the other foreign affairs agencies have died in the line of duty. Two-thirds of them — 160, including seven ambassadors — have been killed since 1948, most in terrorist attacks. The AFSAMemorial Plaques in the CStreet lobby of the StateDepartment, established in 1933, already bear elo- quent witness to the sacrifices of these brave individuals. But that location also keeps them from achieving the visibil- ity they deserve. An outside memorial near State, ac- cessible to the public, would not only pay fitting tribute to this honor roll, but would also help inform and educate the American public about the nation’s diplomatic service. It would remind all who see it that there are thousands of unarmed federal employees around the world dedicated to promoting peace and development through civilized dis- course and compromise, rather than through violence and coercion. I welcome your thoughts on the pros and cons of these two suggestions, and ways to implement them. Please e-mail me at Johnson@afsa.org . ■ Susan R. Johnson is the president of the American Foreign Service Association. P RESIDENT ’ S V IEWS Rebranding the Foreign Service B Y S USAN R. J OHNSON N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 5