A Values Based Foreign Policy

  

This week, the USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah hosted an All-Hands with Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg to showcase various initiatives and innovations going on in the Agency and address any employee concerns or questions.

The event began with the Shah giving an opening address where he said that the U.S. is a nation of values and USAID must serve as the face of America abroad.
That USAID's core is a "values based" foreign policy.  I thought this was an interesting perspective of the role of the US's humanitarian assistance and development assistance strategy.

This got me thinking to two things: one, what are the US's values, and two, how do US values relate to the efforts of USAID?

U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America's interests while improving lives in the developing world. USAID carries out U.S. foreign policy by promoting broad-scale human progress at the same time it expands stable, free societies, creates markets and trade partners for the United States, and fosters good will abroad." (USAID - Who We Are)

Late last year, Thomas Nides, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, wrote an opinion piece in Politico titled "Pursuing U.S. values and self-interest".  In this piece, he mentions various examples of the U.S. exercising a value based diplomacy with examples in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.  In Tunisia and Egypt, he explains how we work to support open governments that respect the rights and voices of its people as well as stability and conditions that may become economic and national security opportunities for the U.S.  And in Libya, he talks about how we provide support to local institutions and civil society groups in advocating for less corruption and free political speech. 

We don’t spend money on diplomacy and development just to feel good about ourselves. We fight hunger, stop oppression, prevent global pandemics and respond to crises abroad, because that is the most cost-effective way to enhance U.S. national security – to protect America and the American people – and to create jobs here at home. It has the additional benefit of also being the right thing to do. (Thomas Nides, Pursuing U.S. values and self-interest)

So an interesting exercise is to then try to understand what American values are and how those are conveyed in the programs that we do.  Really, foreign assistance is a very interesting strategy for implementing foreign policy.  It's not just helping others abroad, but providing real benefits to the U.S. while showcasing values of America.  Foreign assistance is such a useful instrument in foreign policy that traditional recipients of assistance are now moving to becoming donors to take advantage, as indicated by India working to setup its own foreign assistance agency.  Nides ends the piece stating that with foreign assistance, "Our national values, moral compass and self-interest are all perfectly aligned."

Besides just thoughts on the opening remarks at the All-Hands, presentations were given from various Bureaus on new alliances and initiatives they were working on.  Notably, there were several newer people to USAID that shared their experiences of being with the Agency so far and the importance of being proactive in taking on responsibilities and ownership in work, and not to be afraid to suggest new ways to do things or implement our programs.  It was a common theme to push through bureaucracy to bring about better ways of doing things as that will be the best way of bringing the Agency forward. 

One interesting question that Shah and Steinberg addressed was "when was the Agency going to stop adding additional initiatives so that the work could be actually done?"  They addressed the question saying that they don't see these as new initiatives or work, but rather see them as better or different ways of doing work and bringing a focus to specific programs versus being too spread out and diverse.

In terms of the Agency's current efforts to seek new ways of doing programs and to take every effort to ensure sustainability and capacity building, I really agree with Shah.  If we are truly influencing and changing conditions in the places we operate, it must be sustainable, and if the status-quo isn't working, let's find a different way.  And in terms of initiatives like Feed-the-Future or early child-care health, it's really just outlining the focus areas for where U.S. foreign policy is hoping to make an impact.  All programs can bring about meaningful benefits, but to really make a measurable contribution, we need to focus our efforts on specific objectives. 

I met with the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Asia a few weeks ago to discuss Indonesia and he mentioned how the Mission will soon be working to setup its strategy for the country.  He said to consider a way to think about the objectives in terms of leaving a legacy and what impact the U.S. would want to be able to take credit for and where we could make the most difference.  I think that's how we might really need to approach all of high-level strategic planning, when feasible.

Junior Officer Training

With my DC based assignment coming soon to a close, I'd like to reflect back and explain the training for new FSOs while in Washington.

New FSOs coming in can typically expect a timeline such as:

1. Orientation (5 weeks)
• USAID brings in new Officers in classes.  Classes are composed of a mixture of Officers of various functions (backstops) that the Agency is needing at that point in time.   
• During these 5 weeks, new employees complete administrative paperwork for in-processing and benefits; obtain mandatory briefing on various USAID policies; are introduced to USAID programs, operations, and structure; are briefed on career development and leadership; and are given the opportunity to network and bond with classmates.
• At the end of these 5 weeks, a ceremony is held to "graduate" from orientation.  This is a family and friend event and typically features the Administrator as the keynote speaker.  Before, they used to present overseas assignments at this time, but due to a backlog in the assignment process, that is no longer done.
2. Move to functional office (1 week)
• After the 5 week orientation, Officers spend a week in their home Office of their backstop.  During the time in DC, each new FSO will have a supervisor whom they will report to and work under to obtain on-the-job training (OJT) and familiarity with operations of DC.
3. Consolidated Training (1 week)
• A week away in their home office, the class is brought back together again to receive additional mandatory training.  This includes working across cultures, training on the Automated Directives System (ADS - internal policy and regulations of USAID), and others.
4. Functional Training (~10-16 weeks)

• Each backstop has a plethora courses and training that are specific to them.  Plus, there are additional mandatory trainings on things like Programming Foreign Affairs, Environmental Compliance, etc. that all Officers must take.
5. Language Training (~24 weeks)
• Depending on if you have language ability that can be tested at the required level at the Foreign Service Institute to make tenure and if you are going to language designated position for your assignment, then most Officers spend some time here.  
• I found language training to be a pretty enjoyable experience.  It's great meeting people from all different Agencies and language learning, if one is so inclined, can be fun.
6. OJT/Rotations (It depends but perhaps about 2-4 months)
• Between functional training and before/after language training, then new Officers work in their home offices practicing their trade.  Some people have a mixed experience here depending on their supervisor and the work going on at the time.  It's difficult for the supervisors because if an Officer schedules training so they are gone every other week, then they really can't provide substantial responsibility to be completed and then some DC based personnel view incoming FSOs as too transient to give responsibility.
• Generally, I think it was important plan out trainings to be well spaced apart to give adequate time to integrate to the team and demonstrate capability.  Additionally, this is also the opportunity for Officers to rotate to whichever Bureaus they feel would be beneficial to their experience.  So one could work as an assistant to the desk officer of your assignment country, spend a month learning how to award contracts or grants, or work with one of the bureaus on new program design.
7. Temporary Duty Assignments (TDY)
• In additional to all this, there are also various opportunities for new Officers to take details to different Missions for assignments.  These range from assisting Missions in developing their new long-term strategies, evaluating cooperating countries' financial systems, or reviewing portfolios and compliance of Missions.  Mainly, these assignments must be unique opportunities that could not be obtained in Washington or your onward assignment.  That and budget, of course.  But these opportunities tend to arise more often than one thinks.

The average time most people spend in Washington is probably about a year if they need language training.  But there are some cases where individuals move to their overseas assignment almost immediately.  For me, it will be about a year and a half, but the last few months are mainly just working in Washington until I can replace the person in my onward position.

I feel fortunate that I had a pretty good team to work with in Washington and anticipate being fairly capable when I move on, though I still tend to learn something new every day!  There are also many different people to meet around the home office and you never know when that network could help in the future.

Protocol and U.S. Representation Abroad

Spent my Saturday attending a course at the Foreign Service Institute on the basics of protocol and representation.  It was an interesting class with near 40 people giving up their Saturday.  The majority of the class was made up of representatives from State but there were also a handful of other agencies represented.  I was the only officer there from USAID, as it is a recommended but not mandatory class.

The "protocol" portion is defined as the "set of rules prescribing good manners and customs internationally recognized by diplomats".  Diplomatic protocol, it seems, came about during the Congress of Vienna in 1815 where diplomatic titles were agreed upon as well as general guidelines of protocol (ex. addressing others, introductions, hierarchy, formal entertaining/representational events).  This included fun exercises such as a coffee reception exercise where each person had the objective of making contact with a designated person they did not know; practice introducing another person; and arranging seating for a formal dinner. 

Diplomatic Titles Established by the Congress of Vienna in Use Today

Diplomatic Ranks	Consular Ranks
Ambassador	Consul General
Minister	Consul
Minister-Counselor	Vice Consul
Counselor
Attache (military and civilian)
First Secretary
Second Secretary
Third Secretary

The U.S. Representation portion basically meant the emphasis of good etiquette and the importance of appearance for U.S. officials abroad.  This included basics such as dining etiquette (very much mirroring business dining etiquette) and entertaining others.  I felt some great refreshers were with business card etiquette, RSVPing (always within 48 hours!), working representational events, and the importance of appearance (dress appropriately, be confident).

I felt the class was a pretty good use of time.  It was a good reminder of good etiquette at the very least and I think would be a useful class for anyone, going abroad or not.

As a sidenote, USAID just put up their new website which looks pretty sharp.

Motivation

It's interesting to hear others' stories of how they came to join the foreign service.

Generally, for the USAID foreign service, common motivations I hear are some combination of the following:

Compensation/Benefits/Perks ·         Monetary benefits ·         Living overseas ·         Government job ·         Family benefits

Contribution to the big picture ·         Advancing US policy and interests ·         Improve the lives of others throughout the world ·         Representational responsibilities as Foreign Service Office, Consular Officer, and Secretary in the Diplomatic Service

Personal/Other ·         The specific type of work and assignments ·         The camaraderie and interaction with colleagues or counterparts ·         The change, the challenges, and the diversity of problems

For most companies, the story is often very typical being it's a well-known company, benefits are good, or they applied to jobs and this fit their field of work.  While the foreign service has those same motivations, it's unique in the mission of the organization in forwarding US foreign policy and representing the US government overseas.

Like most, my path to this career is a mix of all the categories.  The compensation is competitive, working overseas has been an interest since college, and it's nice having the security and backing of the US government as an employer.  The change in assignment typically every 4 years (exception for initial 2 year assignment and 1 year Critical Priority Country assignments) is nice and will keep work consistently interesting.  International affairs has long been an interest and the idea of serving and representing the country seems prestigious and worth responsibility.  And the USAID focus of making efforts to make a real difference through our work in the countries in which we are stationed is very fulfilling.

I would guess about 50% or more of USAID FSOs served in the Peace Corps.  I didn't take the opportunity to join (though I did apply and considered it) but instead thought I would work in business overseas.  But after studying a Masters and having a spouse working internationally, I was pretty much set for the past few years to eventually lead to this work. 

In human resources, compensation/benefits is key to attract and retain talent.  Intrinsic interest in the work and assignment is also important.  Additionally, most HR studies will indicate the shared commitment to a common goal or mission is essential to get the highest productivity and involvement.  I think the FS really has the possibility to easily have all these traits.

*Note, the job is not all roses and there are definitely downsides in a FS career to consider, top ones that come to my mind are: distance from friends/family, spousal employment/life for spouses, less control over one's life, and separations from family/spouse/children.