GovernmentExecutive.com

Throughout its history, the State Department has demonstrated the ability to transform itself to meet its challenges. At the turn of the 20th century, it forged a foreign policy dedicated to expanding trade and freedom on the seas. During World War II, it restructured for a postwar world.

After the Cold War, State shifted resources from communist confrontation to coalition building, including exchanges with the former Soviet states and the international alliance that liberated Kuwait, and tackling global issues such as terrorism and the environment.

The fundamental assets of U.S. diplomacy, then and now, are the 50,000 State Department employees - American and foreign nationals alike - who advocate and advance U.S. interests abroad. Diplomacy is both offense and defense, protecting U.S. citizens and borders while helping to transform the world beyond.

Under the stewardship of Secretary Condoleezza Rice, the department is moving forward with what she calls "transformational diplomacy" to deal with terrorism, strengthen democracy, build prosperity and provide help to those who need it most. It seeks not only to manage problems but to solve them at their source.

Human rights and good governance are essential to peace, development and the defeat of terrorism. The Millennium Challenge Account, building toward $5 billion in development assistance per year, supports countries taking the right steps. President Bush says the account "will be devoted to projects in nations that govern justly, invest in people and encourage economic freedom."

W. Robert Pearson explores the adaptability of State Department employees in the Aug. 1 issue of Government Executive magazine. Read the full column here.

COMMENTS

• All good and well. Mr. Pearson clearly shows that the work of the Department of State is only done by the Foreign Service personnel, with no credit, and no responsibilities to the Civil Service employees. With comments like his, the treatment of civil service workers as "furniture" as taught at the Foreign Service Institute is a culturally accepted position. The military has realized that there is a total force concept that being active duty, reserves, guard, and civil service. What will it take for the Department of State to achieve such an understanding? As for Employee Profile Plus, it only tells the Department who has voluntarily notified of their capabilities. If the government paid for you to have a qualification in a language, and there is a desperate need for that language, it is only if you have self identified (and self certified) a capability that it can be used. Oh, and the Department is in total re-active mode. Once a disaster has happened, they will search to see if they have folks who can help. No pre-planning to see what may be needed, and prepare ahead of time. After the problem is here they will look to see if there may be a solution. Is this meeting the challenge? Or merely reacting to how the world events, including very predictable ones, pull our strings? GovExec.com reader Posted August 15, 2005 3:52 PM
• This is all well and good. As Director of Human Resources, Mr. Pearson should take a trip to Baghdad and meet with the Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs) who risk their lives every day to show up for work at the Embassy. Having lost two FSN friends, both of whom were targeted and killed because of their association with the United States, serves as an example of the danger these people encounter working on our behalf. I am sure there have been many FSNs taken hostage and/or killed in the same way. What has the State Department done to assuage the situation? While it would not be a difficult task to provide housing in the International Zone for FSNs who feel threatened, the State Department has done nothing. Some FSNs I have spoken to were even willing to pay for this housing, yet even this has not propelled the State Department into action. At a minimum, could we not provide specific badges for these folks allowing them to bypass the long lines and be searched more quickly at checkpoints, so they are not sitting ducks? People blatantly sit outside these checkpoints to watch who comes and goes. Last but not least, is it too much to ask that the families of slain FSNs be compensated in some way when the FSNs die in the line of duty or due to their association with us? All the great things we're doing in Iraq wouldn't be possible without these dedicated Iraqis. If the State doesn't realize this and adapt to the situation at hand, we run the risk of losing these dedicated FSNs. Why would the FSNs continue to risk their lives for us if we can't even acknowledge the problem, much less devise a solution? Nevertheless, I'm sure with the current conditions in Iraq, there are plenty of others willing to risk their lives for a good paying job. GovExec.com reader Posted August 12, 2005 2:39 PM