Is Diplomacy a Profession? Re-Inventing the Foreign Service By David Timmins Background The authors of this article are Peter Schmelk a West Point Graduate who entered the Foreign Service as a second career, having retired as a Major from the U.S. Army after twenty years service. He has been fascinated by the experience of learning an entirely new career culture. Schmelk is currently a Political Officer at the American Embassy in Bucharest. David Timmins had almost the mirror image of the Schmelk experience. He entered the Foreign Service second youngest in his class as his first professional work after graduate school, having been a Research Fellow at Harvard University while completing his PhD. During his Foreign Service years he served as a desk officer in the Office of European Political/Economic Affairs, Senior Economist in the Office of International Monetary Affairs (where he served on several Inter-Agency Task Forces, including one which revised the presentation of the U.S. Balance of Payments; one which made recommendations about SEC oversight of offshore mutual funds; and one which undertook the first study of overseas investment by U.S. corporations). During his later career he served as Deputy Director of the Office of Economic Research and Analysis, whose duties included periodic briefings of the Secretary and Under Secretary on significant Intelligence developments; and Acting Director of the Office of European Political/Economic Affairs, with responsibility for NATO, OECD, and EC policy matters. Timmins also had the experience, while convalescing from an accident, to serve as a Deputy Examiner in BEX for four months. He was also a popular speaker at Universities, Foreign Affairs Associations, and Chambers of Commerce for the Department's Speakers Bureau. Prior to retirement he was Charge at embassies in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and the Bureau of Latin American Affairs. Since retirement, after almost 28 years service, he has taught Finance & Economics and Comparative Political Systems at three American and two foreign universities. As with Schmelk, regarding the differences between the military and siplomatic culture, Timmins has been equally fascinated to observe the different career culture which prevails in academia. He presently lives in Bucharest where his wife, who is still active Foreign Service, is Systems Manager. Both authors have discussed the Foreign Service with American and foreign diplomatic professionals, as well as with former Career Ambassadors and Political-Appointee Ambassadors, seeking to determine whether the Foreign Service is indeed a true profession with its own qualifications -- or whether such thinking is merely a conceit of career diplomats. If diplomacy is a profession, what are its unique qualifications? And if such special qualifications are required, what has the U.S. State Department done in the way of identifying its most talented officers who possess these qualities, advancing their careers through training programs, and how might these measures be improved to further the success of U.S. diplomacy? While this paper has been written with career Foreign Service Officers particularly in mind, most of its analysis and recommendations applies with relatively little modification to all Foreign Service personnel, including specialists and secretaries. Diplomatic Skills/Qualifications While little exists in the literature, beyond several tomes on International Law and Protocol, to defend diplomacy as a distinct profession -- and other than a limited number of memoirs written by a number of retired diplomats, most notable among which is perhaps that written by Sir Harold Nicolson -- the opinion of both American and foreign diplomats with whom the authors have discussed the issue (with the exception of a handful of political-appointees) is that there do exist a number of distinguishing characteristics/qualifications required for a successful career in diplomacy. Reduced to writing, these are so self-evident that little discussion is necessary to defend their choice. While the following is not intended as a prescriptive listing, it should be sufficient to persuade most readers that diplomacy, at least at the working level, can indeed be characterized as a true profession. This is not to say that there is not room in the Service for individuals coming from other career backgrounds who possess such qualifications (often in abundance) who can make a valuable contribution to U.S. diplomacy -- either as a result of deliberate mid-career change and either lateral-entry, or entry through the normal examination process (which no longer has an upper age limit), or as a political appointee. Indeed, some of the nation's most distinguished and successful ambassadors have been political appointees, among them Benjamin Franklin, a printer and publicist; Thomas Jefferson, a planter and agriculturist; John Adams, who devoted virtually his entire life to politics; and more recently David Bruce, one of our most able ambassadors to the Court of St. James, to France, and to the USSR; Robert Neumann, who spent most of his career as a university professor before serving as Ambassador to Afghanistan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia; Clare Booth Luce (editor of a women's magazine) who was an able Ambassador to Italy; and former Senator Mike Mansfield, who was a distinguished Ambassador to Japan. It is generally agreed that among the essential qualifications required of anyone considering (or being considered for) a position as a diplomat are: 1. Broad knowledge of history, current events, and comparative political and economic systems 2. Superior skills in analysis and synthesis 3. Superior drafting skills 4. Familiarity with the detailed functioning of the political and economic systems of the country in which he/she is to serve 5. Language skills sufficient to operate in the country of assignment 6. An ability to prioritize - separating the significant from the important, and the important from the merely urgent 7. A high level of human relations/representational talent, including some measure of what may be called, for want of a better term, management skills (or what the military would designate "command presence". This latter talent has been notably neglected by the Foreign Service, to its detriment, a matter only recently being acknowledged). How Are Such Qualifications to be Identified? Since the Rogers Act of 1924 the Department of State has administered a written (and more latterly an oral examination) to each candidate for the Foreign Service. While these tests have changed somewhat over the years, some versions being perhaps more rigorous than others, the written tests, at least, have proved quite successful in paring down the large number of initial applicants (currently exceeding twenty thousand a year) to the couple of thousand which can be manageably assessed in depth by the oral examination process. The written exam has proved reasonably successful in assuring intake of candidates minimally qualified with respect to items 1, 2, and 3. Under all versions of the oral examination, the knowledge of candidates is further explored with respect to their capacities regarding items 1, 2, and 3, and some insight may be gained respecting items 6 and 7. Regrettably, while those possessing language skills were until the 1960s given a 5 point bonus on the written exam, this is no longer the case. And a recent letter to the Foreign Service Journal by a woman ungifted in languages bemoaned the fact that not even a minimal score on a Foreign Language Aptitude Test is required for the Foreign Service, a matter she has found a disadvantage as a result of a change of rules now making language competence a qualification for promotion as a secretary. In most Foreign Services, a sine qua non for admission is reasonable fluency in at least one world language. Both authors are aware of notable examples of individuals in the Senior Foreign Service with no command of any foreign language -- the Foreign Affairs Manual and Precepts to Promotion Boards to the contrary notwithstanding. We do not understand why at the very least a minimum score on a Foreign Language Aptitude Test cannot be made part of the written (or oral) exam as a wash-out threshold, as with the In-Basket Test -- and/or a five point bonus accorded to those passing a language reading test part of the written exam (and possibly a further five point bonus for those surviving an FSI oral language test as part of the oral examination process. Ten point bonus for a second foreign language?) In the military, one must qualify for consideration for promotion by achieving passing scores on a series of function-related written tests at various stages of one's career. In academia, when it comes time to consider one for promotion from Assistant to Associate -- or from Associate to Full Professor, one's publications record (and in many universities student and/or peer evaluations) are critical in the decision making process. While at present, Foreign Service Promotion Panels depend almost entirely on EERs to evaluate an officers current standing with relation to his peers with respect to items 1, 2, and 6, with some input from FSI regarding item 5, there is presently little in the way of objective input regarding these matters. The authors suggest that it would not be beyond the reach of wit to include in the promotion process a requirement for annual reports from end-users regarding the organization, analytic content, drafting clarity, and usefulness of the principle reports written by candidates for promotion, for inclusion in his personnel folder as the equivalents of an academic's publications record. (This used to be a part of the supplementary reports written by Foreign Service Inspectors during their periodic inspections. Regrettably, these reports, too, have been discontinued). And How Are Candidates for Promotion to be Evaluated? Until quite recently, every Board was required to evaluate every candidate for promotion in every class, every year. The burden was overwhelming. The possibility of giving close attention to distinguishing the good from the better, and the better from the best (taking for granted that in evaluating Foreign Service Officers, all are part of a select elite ), was daunting, particularly given the inflationary language used by many supervisors in describing the work of subordinates. Often, the reputation of the one writing the EER is almost as important to Boards as the content of the report itself -- making the assignment process perhaps more important than performance itself in the promotion process. To be sure, Boards now look at candidates for promotion only every third year -- a major improvement. But the authors have a suggestion, based on military and medical usage which we believe could further improve the situation. Suggestion for Improving the Promotion Process Institute a point system related to periodic, voluntary, in-service written exams. Medical doctors must sit for Boards if they wish to specialize as cardiologists, surgeons, internists, pediatricians, etc. At the time of coning, would it be inappropriate to require those wishing to specialize in political reporting/negotiations to sit an exam more advanced than that taken as a raw candidate for the Foreign Service to demonstrate a continued, and even deeper knowledge of current events, and world political systems -- perhaps offering a special examination in a region (or major country) where they have specialized knowledge? A candidate for the Economic cone could sit a similar examination in Comparative Economic Systems, Macro-Economics, International Trade, International Finance, etc. Consular Officers could sit exams in Citizenship Law and Services, Visa Law, Notarial Services, the Consular Section of the FAM, etc. etc. Indeed, every officer could be required to take a periodic examination in the FAM sections related to his area of specialization. Points could be assigned to each element considered a special qualification for appointment to the Foreign Service. For example, one could accumulate 5 points for an S-2, R-2 in a foreign language (10 points for S-3, R-3, and perhaps 15 for S-4, R-4. Bonus points could be accorded for "hard languages" -- or ones where there was a current shortage of language-qualified officers -- to attract volunteers for such language training). If, as the authors are persuaded, the Foreign Service is indeed a profession, competence in additional languages might be required to pass from Junior Officer, to Mid-Career, and from Mid-Career to Senior Foreign Service -- so a qualified Senior Officer would possess competence in at least four languages: his own, the language which qualified him for tenuring, the language which qualified him for advancement to Mid-Career rank, and the one which qualified him for advancement to the Senior Foreign Service. Similarly, one should be required to earn 5 points for the appropriate FAM examination which applies to his career specialization (as well as those relevant to all Foreign Service personnel, e.g. Travel, Education, Housing, Allowances -- bonus points for passing supplementary FAM exams, demonstrating broad career flexibility): plus another 5 points for each element of an advanced Economic/Political Affairs exam. Additional points could also be acquired as a result of superior end-user reports (possibly 1 or 2 points per report). Points would remain valid for up to five years. When one had accumulated, say, 20 points one could opt, on a voluntary basis, for consideration by that year's Panel. If looked like a slim year for promotions owing to low attrition or a limited budget, one might prefer to wait a year to take one's chances, though this might subject one to a larger panel of potential promotees, reducing one's chances of reaching the "cut off" and possible expiration of an accumulated point or two. This would, more or less, extend the current Open Assignments process to the promotion process, not an altogether negative consideration. Its main achievement, in addition to introducing a bit of personal control over the promotion process, as with the "open assignments process", would be to further reduce the evaluation load on the Panels, permitting more attention to be paid to distinguishing the best from the very good. And it would reduce (we believe measurably) the subjective element in EERs -- which are inevitably vulnerable to personal chemistry between evaluator and evaluee, to the luck of the assignment process, and to divining the extent of vocabulary inflation in a specific EER -- which all Panel members find it difficult to deal with. Inclusion of an annual confidential peer-evaluation (since the Confidential Section of the old OERs was eliminated) might also be a useful addition to keep Panels up-tp-date with respect to one's qualifications for promotion under item 7. This would somewhat reduce Panel reliance on the more subjective EER evaluation in this respect written by a single superior officer. As former Secretary of Defense McNamara has said, where there is something which can be counted and a number attached, it is always better to rely on this as an indicator rather than on purely subjective impressions. Regrettably, there is in the observation of the authors, all too much subjectivity in the current evaluation of officer performance. Recommendations Regarding In-Service Training and Objective Performance Evaluation The military rigorously requires advanced training at periodic stages to qualify one for advancement. The State Department for years had an A-100 Course for Junior Officers, a Mid-Career Course, and a Senior Seminar (or alternatively attendance at a similar-level military school). It is our understanding that the Mid-Career Course has been discontinued. To one of us who attended this course, this is lamentable. The officer in question had the experience of taking half a dozen in-service courses during his career: one offered by the Austrian Government to young officers of various foreign services to bring (an) American and some Western Europeans together with counterparts from several Iron Curtain countries (an interesting if not terribly useful experience); a course offered by the Department of Agriculture in Management (ditto); and a course in London given during the early days of terrorism (in fact, the writer in question learned more in a graduate seminar in the theory of revolution at the University of Utah than from any of the lecturers in London). The Mid-Career Course, on the other hand, was one of the more valuable training courses he took during his Foreign Service career. One Black lecturer provided more information regarding the origins of Black music -- from liberation spirituals which originated in the cotton fields as a means of maintaining moral and holding out the hope of eventual freedom, to the Blues -- which expressed the unemployed misery of post-Slavery Blacks in the Deep South, now without even the hope of coming freedom to sustain them -- to the origins of New Orleans jazz as funeral marches (based on West African traditions) held in honor of members of one or another Black Confraderies, to the outbursting joy of Chicago and New York jazz as Blacks moved north to enjoy both spiritual and economic freedom. This was one of the most instructive lectures in his educational experience, opening for him new chapters in American history and racial understanding. Similarly, a lecture by a University of Virginia Professor who had made a life time study of Thomas Jefferson opened new perspectives in the history of the early American South (including the Sally Hemmings myth), making his later assignment to Paris where Jefferson served, far more interesting (and he hopes successful) than might otherwise have been the case. A third lecturer opened his mind to the significance and importance of language in the process of human thought and progress to the various stages of civilization, providing the inspiration for the "term paper" required of every Mid-Career Course student. And the Course was an unparalleled opportunity to compare notes with classmates from several other government agencies regarding different agency cultures and how individual agency work related to the work of other agencies. This proved particularly relevant and valuable as he went on later to serve on several Inter-Agency Task Forces, on which he served with some former Mid-Course colleagues. Indeed, the Mid-Career truly laid the groundwork for the next ten years of his career. It is sad to thing that current Mid-Career FSOs are deprived of this exposure to Civil Service colleagues from other agencies and, after several years on the job -- probably most often abroad -- to an advanced refresher course in contemporary American history and thinking. How the N.F.A.C. Might be Employed as Part of the Promotion Process The authors are of the opinion that with the new National Foreign Affairs Center , the U.S. Government is finally on track for what has for so long been needed in terms of in-service training for foreign affairs specialists: adequate language training (with administration of a language aptitude test for Foreign Service candidates, and more determined in-service examinations at least every five years to qualify one for consideration by promotion panels); training in political and economic reporting; area and country specialization (with written tests administered at the end of each course to provide points for promotion qualification). With space and personnel now available, perhaps fresh thinking could be devoted to combining some of these offerings, together with some noted outside lecturers, to provide not only a Mid-Career Course, but possibly an intermediate Post-Tenuring Course offering specialized professional training in political or economic reporting (plus some "candy" lectures by visiting scholars on aspects of Americana), and a later Mid-Career Course. It is widely, if not universally, acknowledged that management can be learned by training -- else why the outstanding success of such schools as the University of Chicago and University of Pennsylvania Business Schools, Darmouth's Amos Tuck School of Management, and the Stanford and Harvard Business Schools). At Mid-Career, and certainly in the Senior Seminar, selected instructors from HBS, Tuck, SAIS, etc., should be invited to impart what can be taught regarding those aspects of Management as applied to running an Embassy or Departmental Bureau. A typical Foreign Service employee would thus go through at least three courses: A-100, post-tenuring specialization, Mid-Career, and, a select few, the Senior Seminar. There would, of course, also be the pre-overseas assignment area and language courses. Performance in each of these courses could, imaginatively employed, provide objective material for personnel folders and promotion panel consideration, reducing much of the subjectivity of the current promotion process.