re: "Marginally More Serious Fare"

The Diplogeek ("FSO Geekery") shared some of his life on "the line."

Money quote(s):

"So I’m aware that I don’t talk about the nitty-gritty of work all that often on this blog, beyond things like the vast numbers of applicants showing up in our waiting room and the fact that I work with a very cool group of people (well, cool in that slightly Type A, geeky way unique to quiz bowl teams and the Foreign Service). Part of this is because in all honesty, barring a uniquely awesome/not-remotely-awesome applicant, most days are kind of the same; I go to work, check my e-mail, sit at an interviewing window and interview people until there are no more people left to interview. The next day, I do it again. That’s not to hate on the job, by the way; it’s way more intellectually taxing than I would have initially thought. But short of detailing the stories of individual applicants, there’s not a ton to tell, and I’m not going to delve into particular applicants here because really, would I want some visa officer at the… I don’t know, Turkmeni Embassy laughing on the (very public) internets at my loser-ness? Probably not."

DG is a good (albeit new) officer. He's conscientious, self (and publicly) aware, and clearly maximizing the opportunities of his current assignment. He may go far in the (consular) business.

"(A)ccording to the law, we couldn’t issue. The applicant was understandably devastated and wept in the window for a good ten minutes. The whole thing was pretty horrible, and not what I would call one of my proudest moments, despite having followed the law, which is, after all, my job. This is, as one of my coworkers put it, why we get paid the big bucks."

This part sucks. Crying at the window. The U.S. does not, so far as I'm aware, intentionally hire heartless automatons to be vice consuls. Quite the opposite. But, as I've noted previously, we implement the law as it's written, not as we'd necessarily have written it ourselves. That is, indeed, why we get "paid the big bucks."

(An aside: in the current economy, the salary and benefits package for an FSO, at least when contrasted against unemployment benefits, may appear to be "big bucks." It's also, like all government salaries, currently frozen. And I haven't heard anybody on this side of the payroll actually complain about that. We all have family and friends who are not federal employees and we get it.

For actual "big bucks," however, one would do well to complete one's probationary period, be promoted into the mid-grade ranks, and, eventually, "cross the threshold" into the Senior Foreign Service.)

I used to tell my vice consuls, when they were a little depressed from having to deliver bad news like DG did, that they should expect to have someone cry at least once a week; and that at "visa mill" posts that would be daily. (More experienced officers will quickly learn about "crocodile tears.")

I also used to tell my vice consuls, when disappointed visa applicants threatened to complain to their supervisors, that dealing with complaints was part of my responsibility, why I got the "big bucks" and that if they were doing their jobs and applying immigration law correctly they didn't need to worry.

(Of course, if they weren't doing their jobs and were applying immigration law incorrectly, that was also my responsibility.)

Every visa refusal (plus a percentage of mostly randomly-selected issuances) gets reviewed by a more senior consular official. Daily. Them's the rules. Part of a consular managers job is to train line officers how to write their case notes so that it's clear to the reviewing official exactly what led them to make the refusal/issue decision they reached. If there's an error of law or if there's some additional or overlooked information about a decision that the manager thinks the adjudicator should consider, then the manager brings that to the line officer's attention. Ideally, it's a daily series of what I like to call "learnable moments."

(I find the term "teachable moment" to be annoying in the extreme.)

"(E)ven if I’m refusing someone a visa or telling them that I can’t give them what they want very badly, I can at least do so in a compassionate and respectful way. When you’re interviewing upwards of a hundred and fifty people a day, it’s easy to lose sight of that, I think, and get impatient and frustrated.

Anyway, that’s me processing. Clearly, it’s a good thing that it’s my visa adjudication that’s bringing in the (alleged) big bucks and not my Torah scholarship. And I promise more cheerful content next time, but I do think it’s worthwhile for anyone reading this who’s thinking of joining the Foreign Service to understand what it can mean, sometimes, agreeing to uphold these laws and interests of ours. Most of the time, the law and my feelings on a particular case coincide, but when they don’t, it can be a difficult thing to rationalize."

It's important to be professional in dealing with the public, even when "the public" is just one single individual on the other side of a bullet-resistant interview/transaction window. After all, on our side of the transaction window, we're the U.S. Embassy, the "G," in all its awful majesty. So courtesy is essential. Even when you're delivering bad news, you deliver it sincerely and respectfully.

(6/26)

re: "Pause"

Katie at Adventures in Good Countries ("Getting along in the Foreign Service")givens an impression from the field.

Money quote(s):

"I have often stopped myself from writing things on my blog because I was uncertain of the potential impact. That's been true from the beginning of my foreign service career, but more true since I've been stationed here. It's one thing to talk about funny visa stories; how can I talk about human rights issues in my host country?"

True that. As you begin to climb the ladder in the Foreign Service, your stories can become a lot less generic (as in, that story could have come from anywhere) and a lot more targeted (as in, this story can get someone hurt).

"(I)t's been hard to watch the wikileaks story. On the surface of it, what officer hasn't wanted to run screaming down a hallway with a cable in hand demanding that people consider an issue she or he thinks is being overlooked or lightly treated? I'm sure there are no small number of people secretly wishing that their cables DO get a mention -- that finally that particular issue they had championed and worked on and cried over would be exposed and people would take action. It's a hopeful viewpoint -- or maybe a frustrated viewpoint. We want our work to bring about change. Not later, not gradually, not patiently, but now."

"Civil liberties, legal protections, the right to defend yourself and your actions: these don't exist in so many places. So many places that you wouldn't guess. So many places that you might take a nice vacation to and look around and think "this seems like a pleasant enough country" and never give another thought to what's beneath the surface. Places where, to mention certain things, you have to do it in private. Where information is not a tool, but rather a weapon to be turned against people.

It is heart-wrenching to hear wikileaks demand to know who they have put in danger, and it's astounding to me that they can't get past the thrill of 'embarrassing' the United States to see that what they are doing is dangerous -- and that they will never hear about the people who are punished for it. The person who is whisked away in the night for "questioning" won't be mentioned online or in the papers... and now, might not even be mentioned in cables meant to inform our government and help stop abuses."

Thank you, Katie, for speaking one of those unspeakable truths which will be overlooked by the media in its wealth of wikileaks coverage.

&

"This is not whistle-blowing. It's just voyeurism. At best, I thought it might lead to the sort of informed discussion on the issues that cable writers so fervently dream of inspiring. It seems that people just aren't interested. More fun to poke at the American straw man you've constructed than to to think critically about the ramification of things.

And for the record, wikileaks isn't embarrassing the United States. None of us are embarrassed about doing our job."

Well said. And as has been noticed by no few in the punditry, U.S. diplomats are doing the jobs they're expected to do.

I'm not sure what they thought we really do, unless they really are trapped in those sixty-year-old stereotypes about striped pants, ivy league trust funds, and cocktail parties.

re: "WikiLeaks Shows the Skills of U.S. Diplomats"

Fareed Zakaria at TIME has some of the best writing I've seen in that magazine (since I stopped reading it years ago).

Money quote(s):

"A remarkably broad consensus has formed that WikiLeaks' latest data dump is a diplomatic disaster for the U.S. While there are debates over how the Obama Administration should respond, everyone agrees that the revelations have weakened America. But have they? I don't deny for a moment that many of the "wikicables" are intensely embarrassing, but the sum total of the output I have read is actually quite reassuring about the way Washington — or at least the State Department — works."

"The WikiLeaks documents.... show Washington pursuing privately pretty much the policies it has articulated publicly. Whether on Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or North Korea, the cables confirm what we know to be U.S. foreign policy. And often this foreign policy is concerned with broader regional security, not narrow American interests. Ambassadors are not caught pushing other countries in order to make deals secretly to strengthen the U.S., but rather to solve festering problems.

The cables also show an American diplomatic establishment that is pretty good at analysis."

&

"When foreigners encounter U.S. diplomats and listen to their bland recitation of policy, they would do well to keep in mind that behind the facade lie some very clever minds."

Go ahead and read the whole thing: it won't hurt you.

re: "Overpaid?"

Four Globetrotters ("The (most likely) incoherent ramblings of a sleep-deprived single mother living overseas with her trio of kiddos.") weighs in on the pay freeze and on what they couldn't pay you to do (you don't do some of the things consular officers have to do for the money).

Quote(s):

"A fringe benefit of the Wikileaks scandal is that Americans are getting to see first hand what we in the Foreign Service do.

I'm actually ok with this pay freeze. This is a tough time for all Americans, and I'm happy to do my part. And of course, I recognize that in this economy I'm extremely lucky to have a job I love, and one for which I am compensated adequately. But overpaid? Not by a long shot."

&

"(T)hose of you who are in the process of joining the Foreign Service deserve to have as complete a picture as possible about the job you are about to enter. You need to know what might one day be asked of you."

Read her story here.

This is why the Foreign Service is not, despite her phrasing, a job. It is a profession. FSOs are commissioned officers of the United States of America, albeit not military officers, charged by Congress and by the president with certain responsibilities and certain authorities so they may discharge their duties successfully. Moreover, the Foreign Service is more than a profession, just as being a professional military officer is more than a profession; it is a vocation or calling. If you don't hear the call, I can't tell you what it sounds like.

Many foreign service officers, particularly consular officers, can tell you similar stories to this one. I know I can. Mine isn't as horrific as hers, but I' m patient and know that I, or someone very much like me, will be there to do what needs to be done when the time comes to do it. And the time will come, as it always does, in some remote reach where no one ever thinks to see an American consular officer.

Don't worry, one will get there, as soon as one can be gotten there.

There are times where you can't make things better, not one bit; the best you can do is do the things that have to be done, the necessary things, and try to keep things from getting any worse than they already are.

So you do everything you can think of doing, you call everyone you can think of needing to call, and then you go home.

If you're lucky (and I was), you'll have someone at home who can just be there for you as you try to process and decompress enough to get on with the next things that need to be done, the very next day at work. Because they are our countrymen and countrywomen, our fellow Americans, and the whole reason they put us in all these out-of-the-way places and pay our salaries really isn't to interview all those visa applicants and issue all those passports.

Those are just the things you do to fill the time between gut-wrenching heartbreak and going to the morgue or the crash site. They're how you gain letter-perfect knowledge of the applicable laws, authorities, and regulations, so that when crunch time comes, you're ready to act confidently and with dispatch. They're how you make all those personal contacts and fill your Rolodex, so that when you need to reach out for a favor or a service, your call gets answered and your request is granted.

In the final analysis, that's why Hillary and Colin and every secretary of state going back to Ben Franklin has sent us abroad, to do the necessary things our countrymen need us to do, when they simply can't do them for themselves anymore.

Please go over to Four Globetrotters and tell her "Thank you."

_____

Hat tip to Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe").

Hey FSOs, Let's Get the Band Back Together

TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") took my suggestion and ran with it.

re: "Ambassador Nominees Get Richer, if Not More Professional"

TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") relays some rumor and speculation in the ambassadorial sweepstakes.

Money quote(s):

"(I)t's still possible that Obama will appoint no one but stone cold professional diplomats to fill all those vacancies created when the Bush administration's ambassadors were dismissed, just like his admirers in the foreign affairs community (such as here and here) expect he will."

I rather like the sound of that phrasing:

"stone cold professional diplomats."

It'd make a great name for a diploblog, or even for an in-house State Dept. rock band.