F OCUS - American Foreign Service Association

AFSA Issue Brief
Foreign Service Resource Needs:
Talking Points
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
staffing demands on the Foreign
Service have soared: 300 positions in
Iraq, 150 positions in Afghanistan, 40 positions
in the State Department’s office to
coordinate reconstruction efforts, 100-plus
training positions to increase the number
of Arabic speakers, and 280 new positions
in areas of emerging importance such as
China and India.
Despite those urgent staffing needs,
Congress since 2003 has turned down all
State Department requests for additional
positions (totaling 709 positions),
except those earmarked for consular
affairs and diplomatic security. As a result,
literally hundreds of Foreign Service slots
are vacant. Some 12 percent of overseas
Foreign Service positions (excluding those
in Iraq and Afghanistan) are now vacant,
as are 33 percent of domestic Foreign
Service positions. Furthermore, 19 percent
of the filled slots are held by employees
“stretched” into a position designated
for a more experienced person. To add
insult to injury, the dollar’s sharp decline
has left U.S. embassies and consulates
(whose expenses are in local currency)
limping along with insufficient operational
funding.
The State Department calculates that
the Foreign Service is short a total of about
2,100 positions — 1,015 positions for overseas
and domestic assignments and 1,079
for training and temporary needs. Current
total staffing is just 11,500. These shortfalls
in staffing and operating expenses are
reducing the effectiveness of U.S. diplomacy
in building and sustaining a more
democratic, secure and prosperous world
for the benefit of the American people and
international community. The diplomatic
staffing gaps stand in stark contrast to the
situation at the Department of Defense,
BY JOHN K. NALAND, AFSA PRESIDENT
which is proceeding to expand the armed
forces’ permanent rolls by 92,000 by 2011.
The State Department’s deficits amount to
little more than a rounding error when
compared to the additional resources being
dedicated to the Pentagon.
A growing chorus of voices is urging
that the administration and Congress act
to strengthen the diplomatic element of
national power. For example, Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates, in a Nov. 26, 2007,
speech at Kansas State University, said:
“The Department of Defense has taken on
many … burdens that might have been
assumed by civilian agencies in the past …
[The military has] done an admirable job
… but it is no replacement for the real thing
— civilian involvement and expertise …
Funding for non-military foreign-affairs
programs … remains disproportionately
small relative to what we spend on the military…
There is a need for a dramatic
increase in spending on the civilian instruments
of national security — diplomacy,
strategic communications, foreign assistance,
civic action, and economic reconstruction
and development… We must
focus our energies beyond the guns and
steel of the military… Indeed, having
robust civilian capabilities available could
make it less likely that military force will
have to be used in the first place, as local
problems might be dealt with before they
become crises.”
Despite all of that, the president’s Fiscal
Year 2009 budget request to narrow the
staffing gaps appears to be going nowhere
given the likelihood that Congress will defer
budget decisions to the next administration.
That is unfortunate. The next president
will undoubtedly want a strong diplomatic
corps to work hand-in-hand with
our nation’s strong military. Yet if
Congress misses the opportunity to boost
funding for diplomacy this year, it would
be 2010 before the first additional Foreign
Service new hires could finish their initial
training. Waiting two more years for diplomatic
reinforcements is too long in view
of the challenges facing America overseas.
Few people realize that two-thirds of the
Foreign Service is deployed overseas at all
times and that 70 percent of them are at
hardship posts (meaning locations with difficult
living conditions due to terrorist
threats, violent crime, harsh climate, or
other factors). Over half of the Foreign
Service has served at a hardship post within
the past five years. The number of posts
that are too dangerous to permit employees
to bring their families has quadrupled
since 2001 — to 905 such positions today.
Over 20 percent of Foreign Service members
have served in an unaccompanied
position within the past five years. As of
this summer, 15 percent had served in warzone
Iraq.
Yet incredibly, Foreign Service members
suffer from an ever-growing financial
disincentive to serve abroad. The pay disparity
caused by the exclusion of overseas
Foreign Service members from receiving
the “locality pay” salary adjustment given
to other federal employees now causes U.S.
diplomats to take a 20.89-percent cut in
base pay when transferring abroad. In
effect, Foreign Service members take a pay
cut to serve at all 20-percent-and-below
hardship differential posts — 183 of 268
overseas posts. Losing the equivalent of one
year’s salary for every five served abroad
has serious long-term financial consequences,
especially for families already suffering
the loss of income from a spouse
who cannot find employment overseas. It
also contributes to a growing feeling that
the Foreign Service has become less “family-friendly.”
❏
JULY-AUGUST 2008/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 71
A
F
S A
N E
W S