The Foreign Service Journal, November 2016

10 NOVEMBER 2016 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL LETTERS We Are the Foreign Service Kudos to John Fer for his letter “Time to Be a ‘State’ Person” in the September issue of The Foreign Service Journal . John is quite right, none of us should feel beholden to political interests. Indeed, to serve the national interest our political leaders need (whether or not they always appreciate it at the time) our independent, professional advice and counsel. This is why the Rogers Act of 1924 was passed and the professional Foreign Service created. For that matter, none of us should feel beholden to any particular agency. As career Foreign Service officers, we are members of a professional cadre of com- missioned officers of the United States representing State, USAID, FCS, FAS, BBG and APHIS, as well as retirees from each. Our oath is to the Constitution. Like our Civil Service and political appointee colleagues, like uniformed and civilian members of the armed services, like doctors and lawyers and teachers and so many others, we are members of a distinct profession with stringent entry requirements that selects us to perform a distinct role that encumbers upon us a distinct ethical obligation. Certainly each individual agency needs to have its own initiatives to attend to internal matters. And to take ownership of the profession of diplo- macy, we certainly need joint initiatives together with our Civil Service and political-appointee colleagues, both within and across agencies. But to uphold our oath, fulfill our duty and properly serve the national interest, let’s make sure that these ini- tiatives speak clearly to the distinctive- ness of the Foreign Service, and educate and prepare us as commissioned offi- cers of all agencies for carrying out our special role and upholding our special ethical obligations. We, the undersigned, are Foreign Service officers, active-duty and retired, from State and other foreign affairs agencies: Marshall Adair Amb. James Bishop Anne Bodine Angela Dickey Robert Dry Mary Ellen T. Gilroy Eva Groening Timothy F. Haynes Amb. Dennis Hays Aaron Held Susan R. Johnson Stephanie Kinney Amb. Alphonse F. La Porta Amb. Michael Lemmon Amb. John Limbert Amb. Edward Marks Kiki Skagen Munshi Kit Norland Amb. David Passage Amb. Charles A. Ray Michael S. Ross Amb. Lange Schermerhorn Amb. Emil Skodon Edward G. Stafford Amb. Clyde Taylor September’s Dissent Coverage Profound, sincere congratulations for the September issue of the Journal , which presented the AFSA awards for constructive dissent in a manner and to an extent that was necessary, deserved and very well done. Ambassador Stephenson’s Presi- dent’s Views, Shawn Dorman’s Letter from the Editor, plus the Spotlight on Awards and the coverage of the awards ceremony should make a meaningful contribution to a necessary, expanded and more in-depth understanding of the purpose of AFSA’s dissent awards. They honor challenges to foreign policy as well as to management and person- nel policies, while the State Depart- ment’s Dissent Channel is exclusively directed at foreign policy issues. During the more than two decades I spent serving on the AFSA Awards Committee, I found that the key problem facing the dissent awards was the limited understanding of the significant difference between them and all the other awards given out by all organizations affiliated with the U.S. government: The AFSA dissent awards are not for superior per- formance of assigned duties. While superior performance fully merits the attention it receives, dissent comes from the dissenter, not from the job description. Retiree VP Tom Boyatt, who won two constructive dissent awards and was the author of a failed Dissent Channel effort described in his September column, provides meaningful illustrations of the what and how of that system, and underlines the separation. The Dissent Channel puts the issue in the hands of the administration, where there are rules and procedures. Constructive dissent leaves the pro- cess in the hands of the dissenters, to be dealt with as they decide. There may be a potential risk involved in making waves, but it is highly instructive to learn that winners of AFSA’s dissent awards, as a group, have had promotional success in the career at much higher rates than the rest of the individuals at their rank. That is a fact worth noting. Ed Peck Ambassador, retired Chevy Chase, Md.