The Foreign Service Journal, December 2009

D E C 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 57 A F S A N E W S V.P. VOICE: FAS ■ BYHENRYS. SCHMICK Been There, Done That — No FAS Assimilation into State, Please C oupling the year’s end with the holiday season offers a window for reflection. Foremost in my mind is appreciation for the many individuals who offer their time and talents tomake our organization function at a high level. I know firsthand that AFSA profes- sional staff members are committed to serving our members to the best of their ability. That goal became quite chal- lenging when the majority of our staff operatedwithout any office space for the first several months of the year. But the staff put their shoulders to the wheel and pressed on. To their great credit, our level of service remained strong and we hadmany successes this year. Ourmem- bers deserve — and receive — the very real dedication of our staff. This year also brought to an end the tenure of an excellent AFSA Governing Board led by John Naland, and ushered in a vibrant new board under the first- rate leadership and energy of Susan Johnson. I am grateful for the opportu- nity to take direction fromsuch fine pro- fessionals, whether on boards past or present. The high level of personal en- gagement of Governing Boardmembers is a great example to me and keeps me on my toes, as it should. That spirit of commitment and volunteerism extends to the many standing committees of AFSA, such as: Finance and Audits, Scholarships, Elections, Awards and Plaques, and the Foreign Service Journal Editorial Board. Finally, allow me to shine a spotlight on our association’s vigorous Foreign Service retiree community. The support of this segment of AFSA’s family is wide- ranging and touches the organization on many levels. We would be but a fraction of our current strength without our re- tirees. I thank them for their generous support. Best wishes from AFSA to all mem- bers in 2010! ❏ A Year-End Message from Executive Director Ian Houston A bout every 10 years, someone (usually from a high-powered think-tank) floats the idea of consolidating all foreign affairs agencies into one “Super State”— perhaps a “Department of International Relations.” Usually that bad idea dies a natural death, as it should this time around, as well. The reasons for advocating consolidation seem appealingly obvious. Unfor- tunately, most appealingly obvious ideas don’t turn out well in the long run. The theory is that having all the foreign affairs agencies (the Agency for International Development, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Foreign Commercial Service and the International Broadcasting Bureau) under the thumb of the State De- partment would reduce purported disarray, improve command and control of U.S. foreign policy objectives, and bring “Super State”more attention and fund- ing. This was done to the U.S. Information Agency a decade ago. However, does anyone still think (especially after reading the October issue of the Foreign Serv- ice Journal ) that our public diplomacy efforts were improved by the elimination of USIA? Meanwhile, the ongoing process of “death by open senior-level posi- tions” is eliminating the role and effectiveness of USAID. Mike Henning, my USAID AFSA colleague, explains: “When a smaller or- ganization is more closely lashed to a larger one, generally that leads to the smaller organization’s funding, unique perspective, knowledge and culture fading and being subsumed by the larger.” So, with apologies to Star Trek fans, resistance must not be futile; assimilation must not be permitted. In fact, we’ve been there and done that already. The Foreign Agricultural Service was established in 1930 as an office in the Department of Agriculture to oversee a small network of agricultural officers sta- tioned in key markets. In the run-up toWorldWar II, over the strong objections of USDA Secretary (later Vice President) Henry A. Wallace, President Roosevelt folded the overseas attachés of FAS (and FCS) into State. At first, the forced assimilation seemed to work, as the existing agricultural of- ficers maintained their links back to USDA. But as the ag attaché work force ro- tated and new officers came in, those close ties to USDA were lost. The U.S. agribusiness community was not amused as the quality of agricultural reporting, marketing efforts and trade policy support dropped (see note above regarding loss of “unique perspective, knowledge and culture”). So in the late 1940s and early 1950s the agribusiness community stormed the Hill and, in 1954, Congress brought the agricultural attachés back to USDA and resurrected the ForeignAgri- cultural Service. Today FAS has a presence in 98 countries, supports a wide range of USDA and U.S. foreign policy objectives and works with our private-sector partners to keep annual U.S. agricultural exports above the $100-billion level. Despite noble-sounding arguments in various reports, we remember the past. Let’s not be condemned to repeat it. ❏