The Foreign Service Journal, November 2011

22 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 1 1 porting the processes of diplomacy and development and the people who perform these functions. (See the box on p. 26 for a complete listing of FAC member organizations.) Many indi- viduals and organizations assess the performances of Secretaries of State in their foreign policy role, but only the FAC analyzes them as institutional managers. Our objective is to focus Secretaries of State on man- agement issues by publicly highlighting their shortcom- ings, as well as achievements, in this aspect of their work. Now past, current and future Secretaries know that they will be judged by contemporaries and by history on the ef- fectiveness of their management of the nation’s foreign af- fairs institutions. The Reinvention Imperative In the private sector, it is axiomatic that companies must periodically reinvent themselves to deal with new realities — or perish. Among iconic corporations of the 20th cen- tury, RCA has disappeared, Kodak and Xerox are strug- gling to adapt, and IBM has successfully converted itself into a new and thriving enterprise. After a decade of close observation of the management approaches of Secretaries of State Colin Powell, Con- doleezza Rice and Hillary Rodham Clinton, we believe that all three have recognized that the “adapt or disappear” imperative applies to the foreign affairs agencies, and have responded in a variety of positive ways. Sec. Powell es- tablished the Reconstruction and Stabilization Bureau and function and its attendant Civilian Reserve Corps. Sec. Rice reorganized the U.S. Agency for International De- velopment and called for “transformational” diplomacy. And Sec. Clinton has emphasized the defense-diplomacy-development triad, which she coupled with publica- tion of the first Quadrennial Diplo- macy and Development Review. These actions and follow-on initiatives should all be seen in the context of reinvention. The characteristics of the new in- ternational environment driving rein- vention of the foreign affairs agencies and their operations are, no doubt, all too familiar to readers of the Foreign Service Journal . An illustrative list would include dealing with failed states, terrorism as an element of asymmetric warfare, the dark side of globalization (pandemics, inter- national crime, etc.), the growth of non-state actors (both vicious and benign), and new networking and communi- cations media. We would add another element to this daunting list. Historically, war has meant the suspension of diplomacy between the parties to the conflict. A war was declared (or begun), diplomats were recalled, and the militaries fought it out. After the fighting ended, diplomacy even- tually resumed. Today the United States is conducting wars, engaging in diplomacy and pursuing development, all in the same lim- ited geographic space and at the same time in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some version of this new norm of war (or major violence)-cum-diplomacy-cum-development will likely exist in various locales into the future. Because the 19th-century Westphalian/Congress of Vi- enna construct is not geared to deal with this new reality, recent Secretaries of State have had to shape and change foreign affairs agencies to be effective in the new context. Against the backdrop of institutional reinvention, two fundamental imperatives have absorbed most of the man- agement energies of the last three Secretaries. First, there is the absolute requirement to have enough appropriately trained personnel to achieve mission objec- tives. Without adequate diplomatic and development per- sonnel, all else fails. Second, there was (and is) the need to settle how the development–reconstruction–stabiliza- tion functions should be organized and managed, either to support U.S. troops in combat or to prevent situations from developing that require a kinetic U.S. response. With all that in mind, this article is a selective summary of the FAC’s assessment of Secretary Clinton’s perform- C OVER S TORY Our objective is to focus Secretaries of State on management issues by publicly evaluating their performance. Thomas D. Boyatt, an FSO from 1959 until 1985, served as ambassador to Colombia and to Upper Volta (now Burkino Faso) and chargé d’affaires in Chile, among many other postings. Currently the treasurer of AFSA’s political action committee, AFSA-PAC, he has been in the past been AFSA’s president, vice president and treasurer, as well as serving as a retiree representative on the Governing Board. He is currently president of the Foreign Affairs Council, chairs the Academy of American Diplomacy’s “Foreign Af- fairs Budget for the Future” project, and continues to lec- ture, teach and consult.