I enjoy blogs by good
authors. Honestly, if more famous intellectuals and theorists maintained blogs
they would be a whole lot more interesting. Luckily there are a few who do, and
I enjoy much of what they write. Paul Krugman, Thomas Ricks, and Stephan Walt
are some of my favorites. One recent post by the IR theorist Stephan Walt
included a mention about the US Foreign Service, and I disagreed with most of
what he said.
“We are
so afraid that our career diplomats will "go native" or develop
"localitis," that we discourage them from developing deep regional
expertise and instead rotate them around the globe on a frequent basis. There
is something to be said for gaining a global perspective, of course, but it
also means that unlike some of our rivals, we won't have many diplomats with
deep linguistic expertise or lots of in-depth experience in the societies in
which they are operating. Yet we then expect them to hold their own against
their local counterparts, or against diplomats from other countries whose
knowledge and training in particular areas is more extensive.”[1]
First, it is important to remember that Foreign Service
Officers are not simply responsible for their own country, but also that
country’s relations with the entire world. Most Foreign Service Officers know
multiple languages not because they are constantly moved around, but rather
because they are responsible for more than just their own country.
Beyond that, from my experience in
the Department of State, I have not found his views to be correct. The men and
women of the Foreign Service are experts, and while they might move around
every three years, they often stay in the same region and build expertise. Many
in Germany have never been stationed outside of Europe, and the Foreign Service
uses its employees where it needs them.
If someone doesn’t speak the language or know the culture, it is
unlikely they will be stationed there.
The biggest impression my time at
the Embassy is how much each person knows and has done. Each person has stories
that could easily fill a book. Sadly, public relations miss out on some of
these stories due to the nature of the job. They are all amazing, fun,
brilliant people whom I have been given the honor to serve with. While I look
forward to going home and having all the benefits that come with it, I will be
sad when I leave.
I don't think that "going native" would be much of a problem if the emotional and psychological aspects of each foreign service officer were properly vetted periodically. I also do not think that rotating them within the same region is any better than leaving them in the same country.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people style themselves as "intellectuals" because they make their living writing for various publications. And, sometimes they run out of material or need something "newsworthy,' which causes them to write something that does not make much sense considering the relevant facts and circumstances. Thus, I am not too impressed by self-styled "intellectuals."
Paul Krugman is a great example. The stuff he wrote when he was an economist lead to a Nobel Prize. The stuff that he writes now as an op/ed columnist for the New York Times is, at best, ideological nonsense.
I blogged about this several years ago. While I do not agree with Walt's degrading terminology, I agree with his general point: http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2010/01/forming-region-centric-state-department.html
ReplyDelete