The Foreign Service Journal, December 2009

12 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 9 F or as long as I can remember, diplomacy has been synony- mous in popular culture with sipping cocktails at well-appointed re- ceptions. Its practitioners are either cowardly, effete snobs or huffy, indif- ferent bureaucrats (or both), in sharp contrast to our muscular, mission-fo- cused military colleagues. In reaction, leaders at the State De- partment and AFSA have often ex- horted the “troops” (if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em) to get the word out about what diplomats really do, by con- ducting public outreach and writing for outside publications. The logic of these exhortations is sound enough: If there is an image problem, seek to correct it; if informa- tion is lacking, provide it. Go forth and fill the vacuum! After all, we do have a story worth telling; the work we do is valuable; and the American public may actually be interested in hearing con- crete details about it from those of us in the trenches. As an occasional contributor to the Foreign Service Journal , I would love to see my byline on all sorts of wise, in- structive articles and essays toward this end. Preferably, these pieces would be targeted to outside audiences unfamil- iar with what we do and (in my experi- ence, at least) instinctively skeptical about its value. But it turns out it’s not that easy to get the word out — though it used to be. When I joined the Foreign Service in early 1994, the State Department still had an Office of Public Commu- nications within the Bureau of Public Affairs that was tasked with facilitating public outreach by Civil Service and Foreign Service personnel. The Way It Was One of PA/PC’s concrete responsi- bilities was to assist in clearing for out- side publication the extracurricular writings of department personnel on matters of professional interest — a critical link in a potentially sensitive process. In those days, one faxed the draft and followed up with a phone call to confirm receipt. Depending on its length or sensitivity, the text usually got the green light within a week, often sooner. During my first year as a diplo- mat, I placed several op-eds highlight- ing different aspects of the Foreign Service experience in the San Fran- cisco newspaper I had contributed to as a freelancer before joining the FS. It was fun, and maybe even useful. My interactions with PA/PC were overwhelmingly positive. A one-stop bureaucratic shop, it was responsive and efficient. The office staff seemed to understand that the goal was to fa- cilitate the flow of information to the outside world, while keeping an eye out for the potential unintended con- sequences of public release (which must have entailed a lot of behind-the- scenes work). The following year, things changed. It was the infamous era of “doing more with less.” In a face-off with Congress, the government closed for several days in 1995. The next year, despite dutiful calls by State’s leadership for stepped- up public outreach, the Office of Pub- lic Communications was permanently shuttered. (The inverse relationship between rhetoric and reality reflected in that moment now seems axiomatic of prevailing political practice in many places I’ve served.) Aspiring State Department writers were left on their own. The informal word was that “you now have to get your own clearances.” This was diffi- cult, in part because it was confusing: from whom and how did the final blessing come? It also left authors vul- nerable to the charge of doing “per- sonal” work on company time — not a good thing. I remember bringing sev- Restore State’s Office of Public Communications B Y A LEXIS L UDWIG S PEAKING O UT It turns out it’s not that easy to get the word out — though it used to be.