Condi Declares War on State
by James Na ~ January 19th, 2006. Filed under: Uncategorized.[Update] More on the State Dept. “transformation” from the WaPo (h/t RCP).
[Original Entry]
Secretary Condi Rice has declared war on comfy Euro-oriented State Department careerism!
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that she will shift hundreds of Foreign Service positions from Europe and Washington to difficult assignments in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere as part of a broad restructuring of the diplomatic corps that she has dubbed “transformational diplomacy.”
Just as our military is undergoing “transformation,” so too must our diplomatic sector, which is mired in bureaucratic instransigence and old world thinking.
As part of the change in priorities, Rice announced that diplomats will not be promoted into the senior ranks unless they accept assignments in dangerous posts, gain expertise in at least two regions and are fluent in two foreign languages, citing Chinese, Urdu and Arabic as a few preferred examples.
And Rice is really cutting through to the matter. If you want to change the direction of an organization “for real,” you must, MUST change the promotion criteria. We don’t need more French-speakers who covet living in Brussels or Paris. We need Mandarin, Cantonese, Urdu, Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, Malay (you get the picture) speakers who understand where rubber meets the road in the 21st Century post-modern conflict zones.
Rice noted that the United States has nearly as many State Department personnel in Germany — which has 82 million people — as in India, with 1 billion people. As a first step, 100 jobs in Europe and Washington will be immediately shifted to expanded embassies in countries such as India, China and Lebanon. Many of these diplomats had been scheduled to rotate into coveted posts in European capitals this summer, and the sudden change in assignment has caused some distress, State Department officials said.
“Some distress” is an understatement. I’m sure many of these career types were looking to settle into a nice European lifestyle at one of these coveted cities and are just apoplectic over the proposed changes. But what use is a large contingent of diplomatic corps in polished Western European capitals to the U.S. foreign and security policy when the action is elsewhere?
And on the international aid front:
Anticipating such a change [merging USAID with State], some outside the government have warned that it could result in a greater politicization of foreign assistance. “We’re concerned that the same priority won’t be given to long-term development as resources are siphoned to support shorter-term diplomatic or military objectives,” said Jim Bishop, a senior officer of InterAction, the largest coalition of non-governmental U.S. aid groups.
Earth to Mr. Bishop. Earth to Mr. Bishop. Foreign aid is and should be a an extension of serving our political goals in the world. It doesn’t exist to make the bureaucrats feel good about themselves with our tax money.
Furthermore, it has been demonstrated time and time again that the traditional “black box” model of long-term foreign aid does little but breed a culture of dependence among those who receive it. Instead of wasting all the money down this black hole of corruption and dependence, we ought to use the valuable resources (again from our tax money) to sustain and support aid to improve our public diplomacy and strengthen/develop our allies outside Western Europe.
No doubt the career types and the aid types will launch a full-scale counterattack on Secretary Rice and this transformation, but we must proceed full steam ahead if we are to derive some use out of the bloated and often uselessly Euro-centric diplomatic bureaucracy.
[Cross-posted on Guns and Butter Blog]
January 21st, 2006 at 1:48 pm
If she had any sense, she would also attatch the conditions, “Must be able to empathise with foreigners” and “Must be able to accept that the ‘American way’ might be right for America, but it isn’t nesissarily what’s bet for the rest of the world”.
Somehow, I can’t see either of these happening, but it would sure save a lot of American lives (or at least American flags), if they were mandatory.
January 22nd, 2006 at 1:31 pm
I agree, the ability to empathize with people of other cultures is sorely lacking in this adminstration.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:12 am
I agree, the ability to empathize with people of other cultures is sorely lacking in this adminstration.
Nothing like a whopping, giant, sweeping generalization, eh?
One of my favorite lines from the Michale Mann film “Heat” with Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro:
Rat: “What about a little empathy, brother?”
Cop: “Empathy was yesterday. Today it’s what the *&^% can you do for me!”
In all seriousness, contrary to the lack of empathy assertions a lot of our diplomatic elite go native and start representing the views of the host countries to Washington rather than the other way around.
These folks will have to realize that they are 1) Americans and 2) thus represent the interests of America.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
I am afraid I must disagree, Mr. Na, specifically with your optimistic characterization of State’s acquisition of USAID.
Jim Bishop actually sounds like your below-average State department diplomat, and I do not aspire to his poltical bearings. He and I agree that a merger of USAID and State would be a undesirable, but we disagree as to “why”.
US Aid traditionally has an amicable, in some cases familial, relationship with the US Military. Folding it into the State Department may well draw USAID away from the military’s results-oriented approach, causing alot of friction with US Commanders who, given a the responsibility of providing and transporting short-term or seed logistical aid, need a wide purview to operate from. We also need a cooperative/trustworthy local partner who is already on the network (Sometimes, this excludes elements in the State Department).
Let me give you a real world example.
Let’s say that a disaster has hit an unknown archipelagic nation and that a military surveillance asset (P-3, ground component, Navy ship, whatever) has identified an area that is in clear need of aid on station; like - RIGHT NOW. The US Military would like some information such as the name of the local tribe-leaderr or a translator or some general information like port facilities and local law enforcement contacts.
But there’s a problem.
This area’s residents (or their leaders) are considered hostile to some powerful figures in the archipelagic nation’s capital, who would like nothing better than to see the natives suffer a little and reap poltical benefits in the backlash. Not only that, they also want to redirect as much foreign aid away from this province and into their own districts (and even their own coffers). So on and so forth.
Internal (read: under-the-table) wranglings result in an advisement to the US State Department to respect their sovereignty and to avoid intruding into this particular area. Translation? “Provide no Aid to this area.”
The State Department responds by fidgeting instead of fighting this condition (Remember, this is the State Dep/United Nations types we’re talking about), and upon receiving a formal request to USAID from the USS Abe’s Commander through his COMMO via 7th Fleet Command, State advises USAID to delay granting the military’s request for information and liaisons.
In a time-critical operation like disaster relief in which essential supplies (like potable water) must be given a go, this type of foot-draggin is a killer (literally).
If you don’t think this situation (and a million others like it)are extreme ie won’t happen, then you weren’t paying attention to last year’s tsunami when many of State’s diplomats and their UN colleagues (They don’t consider us their colleagues) were railing at our Commanders and our President for not “coordinating with the UN”, ie dragging their heels, positioning themselves to reap the largest amount aid charity, wasting our time by demanding “briefs” so they could show up for cameras and take credit, curry favors with local pols, etc, etc, etc.
BTW, whatever happened to all that lovely Aid money that these diplomats made such a big deal out of…
What are the details? Who reports to whom? Who controls the purse and acquisitions, salary, human resources management (hiring/firing), etc. Do the US Military have direct access to the USAID liason on the ground or do we have to go through someone in the State Department sitting in an AC room in Washington? Will State micromanage USAID to the point that USAID won’t even have manpower or assets promptly available?
Unfortunately, I don’t have all the details about this supposed merger (if it happens). But in no way should these plans be blindly applauded as a positive development. Morever, you are considering the absorption of the world’s most effective non-military Aid organization by the State Department, an outfit whose culture and personell are in marked contrast (often “opposition”) to the critical Aid organ that is USAID’s operational counterpart, the US Military.