F OCUS - American Foreign Service Association

Forgetting History
The April Cybernotes item, “Kosovo:
A Risky Gambit,” correctly cites
the potential negative consequences
of our support for Kosovo’s independence.
In addition to helping create
those risks, U.S. policy failed to recognize
that the history of Serbian-
Albanian relations there did not begin
with Milosevic’s repression of the
Albanian population in 1989.
The Albanization of Kosovo goes
back to the “greater Albania” policy
pursued by the Nazis during World
War II, which led to significant movement
of Albanians into Kosovo and
forced emigration of Serbs.
From 1945 to 1980, Tito conducted
a general anti-Serb policy that included
turning the Kosovo/Metohiya autonomous
area over to the local Albanian
communists, who continued to encourage,
less brutally than the Nazis to be
sure, the departure of the Serbs. This
explains why the Serbian population in
Kosovo fell to less than 10 percent.
By ignoring that history, we fell into
the error of believing that Serbia,
because of Milosevic’s crimes, had
essentially no rights in Kosovo. Serbia’s
rejection of anything approaching
the independence of Kosovo was totally
predictable, as was Russia’s readiness
to veto any U.N. Security Council
resolution to that effect.
Thomas Niles
FSO, retired
Scarsdale, N.Y.
Bearing Arms
AFSA has repeatedly made references
to unarmed diplomats being
sent to war zones, presumably a bad
thing. Because the State Department
is going to continue sending diplomats
into harm’s way, AFSA should call for
letting them be voluntarily armed.
While controversial (to utopians who
do not believe in the right to selfdefense),
it would at least give our colleagues
overseas a fighting chance in
8 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/JULY-AUGUST 2008
L ETTERS
case they were kidnapped by terrorists
or criminals.
I cannot understand why otherwise
intelligent people would be against
this idea. After all, enshrined in the
Second Amendment is the “right of
the people to keep and bear arms.”
When I joined the State Department,
I understood there would be
some restriction on my rights. Despite
the First Amendment, I cannot
publicly disagree with administration
policy, but the department cannot
totally prohibit me from expressing
my opinions.
Before the regional security officer
can search my sleeping quarters for
illegal guns, he’ll need a warrant. Or
am I deprived of my Fourth Amendment
rights, as well, when overseas?
In some places, like Jamaica for
example, certain personnel can keep a
firearm in their sleeping quarters.
Why isn’t the same true for those serving
in active war zones?
Before diplomats deploy to places
like Iraq and Afghanistan, they get
firearms training along with combat
lifesaver and Humvee rollover training.
They should be allowed to keep
and bear arms if they so choose; otherwise,
the firearms training is worthless.
John Higi
FSO
Embassy Kuwait
The Ambassador and
His Servants
My first post was Lagos in 1965. At
that time, the Nigerian government
was taking a hard look at embassy personnel’s
duty-free imports. The problem
was quickly and amicably solved,
but in the process I consulted the 1961
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, and then the 1815 Vienna
Conventions, where reference was
made to the ambassador “and his servants.”
This seemed to refer to his retinue
and his domestic servants. Anyway, it
was all academic, because the 1961
convention clarified the reciprocal
rights that the Foreign Service lives
under today.
American FS personnel representing
their government in other countries
are doing many of the same
things they always did. Much of it is
mundane and of no interest to our fans
back home. Who is interested in postal
rates, shipping, etc.? FS employees
today are not servants, but they are
doing jobs authorized and funded by
the U.S. Congress.
This is why the notion of AFSArecognized
dissent draws outside criticism,
as does outright vociferous
refusal to accept a transfer to a dangerous
post. I think much of the
blame for the current problem lies in
the whining, defensive attitude that
some Foreign Service members have
exhibited about these issues.
Recent well-written articles in the
Journal have covered a wide range of
problems. But despite this, there still
seems to be a lack of awareness about
the day-to-day mission of the Foreign
Service.
To rectify this, I would like to propose
the development of an AFSA
Working Charter to refocus staff
efforts and impress the U.S. Congress,
the most important of all FS clientele.
A charter could offer goals, reinforce
good personnel policies and practices,
and offer expert staffing advice to policy
formulators. It could also help to
define an ideal embassy for every situation.
Above all, a charter could outline
the collective will of the membership
of the Foreign Service.
Of course, such a document would
not have legal or administrative status
but would simply reflect the goals of
AFSA.
John Wellington Macdonald
USAID FSO, retired
Austin, Texas