The Challenge of Transforming Organizations

In genetics, transformation means the modification of a cell by the uptake and incorporation of exogenous DNA, an act that changes the form or character or substance of something. Of course, unless it produces heritable change, it's not even considered true transformation.

This is a metaphor that I think fits well with organizational transformation, an initiative that so many seek but so few accomplished successfully. This is not your normal "let's change the way we do things here," this is transformation as fundamental change -- to the core of what we are, how we do things and where we will be in the future:

"a permanent rekindling of individual creativity and responsibility, a lasting transformation of an organization's internal and external relationships, an honest-to-God change in human behavior on the job. It is not incremental change. Its realizable goal is a discontinuous shift in organizational capability -- a resocialization so thorough that employees feel they are working for a different organization …"

(Changing the Way We Change, Harvard Business Review).

Slightly over two years ago, in a speech at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., Secretary Rice outlined her vision for changes in U.S. diplomacy that she referred to as "transformational diplomacy" to meet this 21st Century world (January 18, 2006 Speech). The new diplomacy elevates democracy-promotion activities inside countries. In a testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Rice states that the objective of transformational diplomacy is: "to work with our many partners around the world to build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system."

Six months after she delivered that speech, the State Department came out with the 2006 Report to Employees Advancing Transformational Diplomacy. Not once during this time have I heard a personal public address to the employees and their family members focusing on this initiative or what it means to them. Sure there were cables, but what is it they say about the spoken words? "Words matter," as has been so repeated during this campaign season. And that is true anywhere, whether at work or in politics, but most especially, in times of great chaos and challenges.

Transformational initiatives have a tendency of arriving from the "top-down," on a late Friday afternoon. Surgeons have to prep patients before the surgery, why should transformation efforts be any different? And yet, such is the case, especially in hierarchical organizations. And here lies the inherent problem – the top-down approach tends to lay down the burden of change on a few people. As such, the number of people at every level who makes the commitment and offer creative contributions, and those who invest their passions on such an enterprise, is quite small.

And yet, for such an initiative to work, we need the involvement of the widest number of people possible who can - not only make this work, but also have the power to make this change effort stick. The problem is, as Bob Waterman writes in The Renewal Factor, "We are so busy grandstanding with crisp decisions that we don't take time to involve those who have to make the decisions work.

Specific to the State Department, the Congressional Research Service last year reported:

"There have also been important criticisms of specific aspects of the transformational diplomacy plan and how it is being carried out. Observers believe that many of the criticisms could have been avoided if there had been greater transparency as well as inclusion of diplomats, Congress, and other stakeholders in the planning stages."

As John Kotter writes in The Heart of Change, "People change what they do less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings." The Foreign Service has some of the best and the brightest men and women this country has to offer. Most if not all, have their ears on the ground and recognizes the realities that require a revitalized diplomacy as a primary tool of foreign policy.

So, the challenge to the State leadership is this - how seriously does it want transformational diplomacy to work and take roots beyond the next 10 months, and beyond the front pages of the news rags. If serious enough, then it has to do a better job at understanding what people are feeling, and its needs to address the employees' anxieties and distrust as one of the primary components of this necessary journey.

And oh yes, I think it would also be helpful if it starts delivering messages directly to the employees instead of the news media first.

Answer Tips and Snap Shots Enabled

I just installed a couple of nice tools in this site that you hopefully will find useful. I enabled Answer Tips here so you can double click any word in this blog and you get back the entry match from Answers.com in a small pop-up window. You can either read more by clicking on the >> sign or you can click X to exit. Answer Tips works whether you are double clicking a word, a name or an encyclopedia entry. Snap Shots from Snap.com on the other hand enhances links with visual previews of the destination site. Hovering your mouse over the yellow Snap Shot icon brings up the preview window, which then displays interactive excerpts of Wikipedia articles, Amazon products, inline videos, stock charts and more. Sometimes Snap Shots bring you the information you need, without your having to leave this site, while other times it lets you "look ahead," before deciding if you want to follow a link or not. Should you decide that you don't want to see previews of the links provided here, just click the Options icon (looks like a gear) in the upper right hand corner of the Snap Shots window and opt-out. My brief experience with these new tools just bowled me over. To have an online dictionary "embedded in a blog" and triggered by a double click of a mouse is just super cool! I don't think either one works at 100% yet but both are doing refinements in their technologies. I'd say that 99% of the time, Answer Tips gives you back an accurate reply. For whatever reason, there is that 1% that is not on with the program. Every now and then when you click on an ordinary word like "behave," you get back the dictionary entry for "politics." Hmnnn.. is this trying to tell me something? With Snap Shots, you get the correct previews 95% of the time, but there is that 5%, too. You will notice that documents in secondary or tertiary layers within a website, normally takes on the preview look of the main page. Now, I think this is a more significant issue because if I have three links to three different pages in state.gov, I don't really want to see the same preview for all three pages - where's the fun in that?

Lessons From a Prior War and Carrier Pigeons

"Looking back, I deeply regret that I did not force a probing debate about whether it would ever be possible to forge a winning military effort on a foundation of political quicksand. It became clear then, and I believe it is clear today, that military force – specially when wielded by an outside power – just cannot bring order in a country that cannot govern itself."

That's Robert McNamara in p.261 of his book, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. In p.333, he writes: "External military force cannot substitute for the political order and stability that must be forged by the people for themselves." The book was published by Random House in 1995, eight years before our incursion into Iraq.

Mr. McNamara listed eleven major causes for our disaster in Vietnam; substitute Vietnam with Iraq and you get your pilomotor reflex really going. Absent a real combat experience in a war zone ("war" experience in politics does not count) I think this book should be required reading for anyone running for public office. In item #4 (p.322), he writes:

"Our misjudgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders. We might have made several misjudgments regarding the Soviets during our frequent confrontations – over Berlin, Cuba, the Middle East, for example – had we not had the advice of Tommy Thompson, Chip Bohlen, and George Kennan. These senior diplomats had spent decades studying the Soviet Union, its people and its leaders, why they behave as they did, and how they would react to our actions. Their advice proved invaluable in shaping our judgments and decision. No Southeast Asian counterparts existed for senior officials to consult when making decisions on Vietnam."

Rummy could not make the same claim when it comes to advisers on Iraq. Although this is often lost in the web of facts, there were senior diplomats who knew the region like the back of their hands in the tradition of the old Soviet experts. But I supposed their advice were not valued in a meaningful way or the blunders would not be this breathtaking. Last year in an article published in the Washington Post, Robin Wright writes:

"In late 2002, as the Bush administration prepared for war, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell tasked Ryan Crocker and Assistant Secretary of State William Burns with exploring the risks of military intervention. The result was a six-page memo they entitled "The Perfect Storm," according to an account in Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung's biography "Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell.

The memo bluntly predicted that toppling Hussein could unleash long-repressed sectarian and ethnic tensions, that the Sunni minority would not easily relinquish power, and that powerful neighbors such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia would try to move in to influence events. It also cautioned that the United States would have to start from scratch building a political and economic system because Iraq's infrastructure was in tatters."

Unlike "armchair diplomats," these officers did not just look into a glass bowl and predicted "a cake walk;" their insight came from years of experience in the region and I suspect, from a healthy respect for the area's history. Upon being asked about how changing administrations and changes within administrations impact the job of a diplomat, Ambassador Crocker gave the following reply:

"Each administration has its own priorities and style. The job of the career foreign service office is to offer his best advice … our elected leaders needs to have confidence that we will carry out policies to the best of our ability."

The best advice, even if it's not the one the leadership wants to hear…to the best of their abilities… even when supporting and defending actions/policies that they may personally disagree with. All Foreign Service professionals swear to this when they join the Service.

And here too, is an important lesson to learn – we don't know what we don't know; if elected leaders do not listen to the dedicated messengers who bring bad news, why, we might as well raise carrier pigeons (they were used in Baghdad as far back as the 12th century). As far as I know, pigeons deliver their messages almost without fail, and they have not yet been known to verbalize an opinion, good or otherwise.

Life in a Suitcase in an Unstable World

During the past six weeks, we have seen the military evacuation of the American Embassy in N’Djamena (Chad) due to civil unrest, the ordered departure of staff from the American Embassy in Belgrade (Serbia) due to Kosovo-related riots, the possible reduction of staff from the American Embassy in Minsk (Belarus) due to a diplomatic row and the authorized departure of non-essential personnel and family members from the American Embassy Sana’a in Yemen due to terrorism.

The Government Accountability Office reports that during 2006 and 2007, the State Department evacuated 11 posts for various reasons, including civil unrest, elections that could lead to civil unrest, a coup attempt, a U.S. embassy bombing, a hurricane, and war. I had to pause when I read that. It’s only March and we already have four of these; aren’t these “departures” coming at a faster pace these days?

By law, an evacuation cannot last longer than 180 days, but whether it’s for six weeks or six months, it bears repeating what it means to the people impacted by it. Evacuation is a time of tremendous stress for Foreign Service employees and their families; it means interrupted schooling for kids, separation from loved ones and friends, anxiety for those left behind, grief and sense of loss over what was a familiar way of life, reverse culture shock and an emotional toll that I can only begin to imagine.

Although I have assisted in an evacuation a couple of times, I was anchored in one place then and did not have to leave (plus things did not get worse); and that is a different feeling than when you are leaving or when you don't know if you're coming back at all. Having been in for quite a while now, I know that it's not even a matter of being in a "low threat" or a "high threat" post anymore because these days -- things can change in a minute. Twenty years ago, except for the evacuations of Rangoon and Panama City for civil unrest, the rest of the world seemed like a Sunday park on a summer's day. Today, evacuations have become part and parcel of the "wear and tear" of this lifestyle that it's hard to think of any place as 100% evacuation-proof; I don't think that assignment exists anymore. But if there is such a place, I would love to know.

Solomon Atayi, a Foreign Service Officer evacuated out of Chad recently writes:

“Yes, I lost absolutely everything. Everything. And I am not the only one. We all lost everything except our life. …. When the rebels stopped the fight on Sunday to regroup, that's when the French troops came to the compound in armored trucks that looked like tanks and took us to their military base. The French sent a helicopter to the embassy to airlift our Ambassador, the marines and others who were at the embassy.”

Katherine McGifford, a DCM OMS recalling an evacuation from Addis Ababa for the Foreign Service Journal, writes about the emotional toll during evacuation:

"Despite our efforts to keep the children informed of the situation, yet mindful of not scaring them, our 6-year-old son somehow didn’t get the message that Daddy, the information program officer and an “essential” employee, was not going. “Hey, come on, Dad!” he called as we walked through Customs. I will never forget the look of shock and sadness that came over his face when it hit him that Daddy wasn’t coming. I believe now that he went into a state of shock, because our usually talkative and happy little boy literally didn’t speak for five days after we landed in Seattle."

Bruce K. Byers, recalling a prior evacuation from Kabul for the Foreign Service Journal writes:

"Meanwhile, kids in a new, strange school. Their Kabul friends scattered all around the country and at other overseas missions. No continuity. Local people can’t relate to what has happened to us. Have to explain to school principals and teachers children’s experiences and needs. Some empathy forthcoming. Search for a place to live while buying new clothing, household equipment, used car. Three months later the dog arrives; six months later, the car and some household goods. Much has been lost. Submit claims to private insurance company and wait for response. Meanwhile, spend more money to replace lost items."

You can read their full stories and similar more like these from the Foreign Service Journal archives here and here (both of these are pdf files). To learn more about evacuations, read Evacuations 101 (pdf file) by Mikkela Thompson; you can also check out the extensive collection of evacuation-related resources online here. To friends from our embassies in N'Djamena, Belgrade, Minsk and Sana'a - those left behind, and those gone to D.C. or elsewhere - our thoughts and prayers are with you. Take care and Godspeed!

The Public Servant and the Internet Beast

Right after the news of the passport breach at the State Department hit the web the night before last, conspiracy aficionados had a field day online. The Huffington Post did a brief news update on its site quoting an MSNBC news item and citing “Mora Hardy” as the person who was in charged of the passport office when the breaches occurred. There was not much on the report; it was approximately 250 words (it’s not online anymore and has now been replaced with this) but it did mention that “Mora Hardy” was am ambassador appointed during the Clinton administration and left readers to draw their own conclusions from what was still breaking news. And that they did, quite unfairly towards a dedicated public servant. Tsk! Tsk! Did not even bothered to fact-check her name.

One post alleged that Paraguay where Ambassador Harty was posted from 1997-1999 was a “prestige post” given to political contributors. According to the CIA World Factbook, Paraguay’s economy had rebounded between 2003-2007, but on “a per capita basis, real income has stagnated at 1980 levels and most observers attribute Paraguay's poor economic performance to political uncertainty, corruption, limited progress on structural reform, and deficient infrastructure.” Paraguay is far from Paris, and has a GDP of $4,000 but that’s not really relevant, is it? It is a foreign country that sounds exotic, it must be a prestigious post, never mind that it has a 10% hardship differential and a 10% cost of living allowance bundled with it. Another alleged that Ambassador Harty is a Clinton supporter and implied that she must be involved. After another post indicated that Ambassador Harty had retired in February, still one more poster, alleged that she must have seen this coming, that’s why she quit her job at 49!

I spent some time reading through the online posts and came away with the realization that the regular American public has no idea how the State Department works. I have never seen such ignorance and such great willingness to believe everything so quickly without any supporting facts. I understand that this is the price we pay for the 24/7 barrage of information that comes with technology but isn’t this quite disturbing? Do we think so lowly of our public servants that we cannot afford them the courtesy of waiting until the facts are in before drawing virtual blood? The feeding frenzy reminds me of sharks feeding, really!

Just for clarity - Ambassador Harty was a career Foreign Service Officer; she earned her “stripes” within a very competitive organization through hard work. You can read more information about her career in the State Department here and here.

Her impending retirement was announced in November last year, but her actual retirement did not occur until this past February. She was a career Ambassador, a rank equivalent to a General in the military. She was not only well-respected but also genuinely liked by the people who worked for her.

As for those “prestige” assignments given to political contributors – those are the non-career ambassadors, political appointees nominated by the White House and approved by the Senate. For historical context, I refer to U.S. Diplomacy which states:

“Until passage of the Rogers Act of 1924 all ambassadors (then generally called “ministers”) of the United States were non-career political appointees. However, since the Second World War the great majority of those positions have been filled by career FSOs. In recent years approximately 70% of U.S. ambassadors come from the ranks of the professional Foreign Service, while the other 30% are from the private sector. Nominations of non-career ambassadors are made by the White House. Career officers are nominated by the White House upon recommendation by the Department of State.”

Foreign Service Officers (our diplomats) are commissioned by the President of the United States. Since Ambassador Harty joined the State Department in 1981, she must have been commissioned by President Reagan. She continued her career within the State Department through the administrations of Bush I, Clinton and Bush 2. But there’s nothing odd about that; all our career professional and civil servants continue working for Uncle Sam regardless of which party occupies the White House.

I must also add that Foreign Service Officers like all Federal employees are precluded from engaging in political activities under the Hatch Act. Federal employees may not-

• be candidates for public office in partisan elections
• campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
• make campaign speeches
• collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
• distribute campaign material in partisan elections
• organize or manage political rallies or meetings
• hold office in political clubs or parties
• circulate nominating petitions
• work to register voters for one party only
• wear political buttons at work

The penalties can be a 30-day suspension or removal from office, so folks are extremely careful about that just as we are careful and mindful of all the rules and regulations that govern our lives inside and outside the office. If you are thinking about the Bill Clinton passport flap in 1992, please bear in mind that the culprits then were political appointees not career professionals.

More on the Belarus Dustup

News from Belarus reported that the U.S. Embassy in the capital city of Minsk has suspended visa operations temporarily. The Consular Service Notice was posted on its website: “The U.S. Government is in the process of reviewing the request made by the Belarusian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on March 17 that the U.S. Embassy in Minsk reduce its staffing. Therefore, visa processing has been temporarily suspended while our resources are engaged addressing other priorities. Some visa appointments have been postponed. Further information will be provided once the extent of the U.S. Embassy’s ability to provide visa services in Belarus has been determined. Services for American Citizens continue as usual.” That’s plain and clear enough. But the suspension of visa services had sparked a comment from Mikalai Charhinets, a senior member of the Belarusian National Assembly (and chairman of the upper chamber's Committee on International Affairs and National Security) who asked, “What priorities can be in the country of stay except for establishing and development of relations by means of visa support in travelling of citizens?” And told Interfax that “The staff of the Belarusian Embassy in Washington does not brief the local opposition or take part in anti-government actions by US citizens whereas they (US embassy officers – Interfax)] exceed the limits of accepted international rules on staying in a country. This means they have too many officials who have nothing to do here.” Obviously, Mr. Charhinets has a gap in his knowledge about how an embassy operates; too many officials with nothing to do? Dear me! The guy does not know what he is talking about; most of our folks never get home before 6 pm – whether in London or Abuja. We’d be lucky if diplomat Mom or diplomat Dad gets home in time for an occasional early dinner.

In any case, I supposed he could be forgiven for a minor ignorance like that. I do not know Mr. Charhinet from Adam but I presume that as a senior member of the Parliament, he was competent enough to be elected (and re-elected) and to sit in the upper chamber’s committee. But he must have missed International Relations 101 - “the role of a diplomatic mission is to protect in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; negotiating with the Government of the receiving State as directed by the sending State; ascertaining by lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State; promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.”

Diplomats talk to everyone, whether politicians in power or local oppositions – that’s a fact of diplomatic work to help them ascertain local conditions and development, so unless talking has been declared a crime in old Belarus … Mr. Charhinet, by the way, was also in world news last year for filing a 600-million-ruble libel suit against the private newspaper Novy Chas over a story that was run under the headline ‘Senator General Charhinets.’ Reports states that “Mr. Charhinets considers as libel the journalist Aliaksandr Tamkovich's remarks that he had been appointed the chairman of the ‘pro-governmental’ union of writers, the Union of Writers of Belarus, and that the seat on the Soviet of the Republic meant not only a good wage but also foreign trips to him.” Good gracious! I can’t imagine that this conception about freedom of expression and movement steams from total ignorance; could it be that the old Soviet view is hard to outgrow?

As to the question on priorities - how could anyone seriously think that visa processing is a priority when the folks who are processing visas could be asked to pack up and go shortly (the staff reduction demand did not indicate which staff to kick out, apparently)? The reduction of any diplomatic presence involves negotiation, for sure, but above all, it involves real people with real lives. The thing though is, diplomats like ordinary people have a tendency of collecting possessions, having spouses, having children and pets, and so on and so forth. Our families pitch tents and move homes every 2-4 years. Would it be too much to ask then that when an official demand for our removal is in place, that packing our household would take top priority over the host nationals’ travel plans? To our friends at AmEmbassy Minsk, take care and good luck!

Non-Portability of American Rights

In the November 2007 issue of Fast Company, Jonathan Green wrote “Nightmare in Boomtown,” an article that I think should be part of the reading fare for Americans intending to do business abroad. This piece is about Mark Siedenfeld, a married rabbi who originally went to Russia in 1991, became a telecom executive drawn to the post-Soviet boom, had a business partner murdered in broad daylight in Moscow, then went through a 19-month trudge through the post-Soviet justice system, including 11 months in a Siberian prison, and an extradition to Kazakhstan (where he was eventually declared not guilty for charges of embezzlement).

This is a cautionary tale, for sure. But there is also the misconception about the U.S. Government’s influence when something like this happens abroad. The article mentioned that Siedenfeld’s supporters (unnamed in the article) “had been stunned by the apparent reluctance of U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan John Ordway to help an American citizen in distress. The ambassador had met with the Kazakh general prosecutor, but nothing had come of it. Beyond that, he sent Seidenfeld a few magazines and some energy bars in prison.” In another part of the article, it says “As the months passed after his arrest, Siedenfeld came to the creeping realization that he’d been hung out to dry. The State Department had done next to nothing to get him sprung, despite pleas for help to the consulate.”

The notion that the U.S. Government by virtue of its power and influence can “sprung” anybody from a foreign jail is quite absurd. Let’s put this simply – let’s say we have a Kazakh national languishing in a Detroit jail for embezzlement (or it could be any other national, or any other crime, take your pick). How would you feel, if the Kazakh Ambassador to the U.S. demands that our Attorney General sprung this individual from our jail? Can you imagine the uproar that would make? From experience, more than a few of our nationals do expect American Ambassadors or American Consuls to spring them out of jail. Not only that, some Americans also expect that the U.S. Marines would come to extract them when they get into trouble overseas. Would you expect Kazakhtan’s military to send in their Marines to extract their Kazakh national from our jail? Absolutely not!

A note on the energy bars - U.S. Embassies normally do not have regular funds for something like energy bars for incarcerated Americans. There is, however, something called the Emergency Medical/Dietary Assistance (EMDA) under Public Law 95-45, which authorized the Department of State to provide, on a reimbursable basis when possible, medical and/or dietary assistance to U.S. citizens/nationals incarcerated abroad when private sources for this assistance are not otherwise available. You can read more about EMDA here.

I must add here that I have seen consular officers bring dinners to incarcerated Americans during Thanksgiving. I have seen Foreign Service spouses who have cook meals for Americans in jails, and they're not even employed by the U.S. Government! We have Consular Sections with collection tubs for hotel give-aways like soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes, shampoos, etc. Our diplomats who frequently traveled are gently asked to bring back hotel give-aways so these can be distributed to Americans in jail or those in distress. Why? Uhm -- because our Embassies do not have money to pay for these basic necessities, and most foreign jails barely have money to feed their prisoners, much less provide these necessities. In any case, it is possible that Mr. Siedenberg’s energy bars were bought with EMDA funds, or were funded from contributions from American businesses operating in the area (I am speculating here) but it is also a good possibility that they came out of Ambassador Ordway or some nameless Consul’s personal funds.

Here’s the lowdown -- if you intend to do business abroad, be sure to conduct due diligence before diving head on and have a risk mitigation plan in place. Yeah, yeah, yeah, these can be a hassle but these hassles are minor compared to the prospect of navigating the justice system overseas, if you tumble. Take to heart what the State Department says about your American rights … “The rights an American enjoys in this country (the United States of America) do not travel abroad. Each country is sovereign and its laws apply to everyone who enters regardless of nationality. The U.S. government cannot get Americans released from foreign jails. However, a U.S. consul will insist on prompt access to an arrested American, provide a list of attorneys, and provide information on the host country’s legal system, offer to contact the arrested American’s family or friends, visit on a regular basis, protest mistreatment, monitor jail conditions, provide dietary supplements, if needed, and keep the State Department informed. You can read more here.

In short, your rights as an American citizen are non-portable; you cannot take them with you. When push comes to shove, you can proclaim, "I am an American," as loudly as you can but - when you are overseas, you are fully subject to the laws of your host country and at the mercy of a foreign justice system that may have little or no resemblance to our own.

Realities of Diplomatic Life

Reality #1: Going to lunch could cost an arm or a leg, or one snuffed light bulb, seriously.

I woke up last Sunday to news of another bombing in Islamabad, Pakistan. The initial reports indicate that some U.S. Embassy staffers were also wounded in the attack. The Luna Caprese restaurant where the bombing occurred is a well-known haunt for expatriates, notably diplomats, journalists, and aid agency officials according to reports.

I felt like I was holding my breath for hours until I heard later reports specifying a total of 12 people wounded - none life-threatening (the wounded included four FBI agents and an embassy staffer). This is one thing that folks back home do not always understand about life in the Foreign Service – that one could lose a limb or one’s life by simply going out to lunch or dinner while overseas. Sure, the same thing could happen in the U.S. just by driving a car but really - no one has yet been blown away while eating a Vegetable and Swiss Frittata.

In the Foreign Service, this is a dark cloud that is never too far away from our thoughts. I go through my normal day like a normal person back home, of course – go to work, send the kids to school, go grocery shopping, meet our contacts and friends, but all the while with fingers crossed - that today would be a good day, and our loved ones would return home, safe from harm. A bit dramatic you think? Perhaps, but no matter how you hash it, official Americans are moving targets whether they are in Prague or Amman. Lawrence Foley was shot as he walked to his car outside his home in Jordan. In 2006, David Foy died in a suicide car bomb attack outside the US consulate in Karachi.

Reality #2: Paranoia can grow like a weed – you learn to tend it

I can get paranoid at times, true, but it pays to have a healthy sense of paranoia when there are people who are trying to get us wherever and whenever they can. Most folks I know in the FS take their security seriously but we also learn to make adjustments to balance the security needs with living a “normal” life overseas; because I know that if I don’t, this weed can quickly grow wild. The Green Zone can be as real as the one in Iraq, or as real as any fortified house in the mind.

Reality #3: We’d like to think we’re in the driver’s seat, we’re not

The Associated Press reported yesterday that the Belarusian Foreign Ministry had summoned U.S. Charge d'Affaires Jonathan Moore to convey a "strong advice of the Belarusian side to cut the number of the U.S. Embassy personnel."

Apparently, President Alexander Lukashenko did not like the U.S. sanctions against Belarus' state-controlled oil-processing and chemicals company, Belneftekhim. The U.S. froze the company's assets and barred American companies from doing business with it since last year.

The Foreign Ministry reportedly did not specify what reductions it demanded but some diplomats and embassy staff (and their families) could be sent back home - for no other reason except that this despot disliked being called "Europe's last dictator.” So, although we may like to think that we’re in the driver’s seat (being in the diplomatic service and all), and that we have some control about where our life is going -- we really are more like backseat drivers – I am free to tell the Mothership where to turn, but it can just as easily tell me to zip it; we’re going on another trip.

I recently re-read the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocols, and Article 11 did state that “In the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having to circumstances and conditions in the receiving State, and to the needs of the particular mission.” Would Belarus use Article 11 to trim our diplomatic presence in Minsk?

I hope this is nothing more than posturing (after all the U.S. Ambassador has already gone back to DC for consultations) but if the Belarusian Government insists on this personnel cut, this could spiral into a tit for tat, with a reduction of the Belarusian Embassy presence in Washington, D.C. And caught in the midst of this are diplomatic families on both sides that could get separated, children pulled out of schools, jobs left at short notices, etc. etc. An unpopular policy, a slight, a row – it could be as huge an issue as an elephant or as tiny as an ant, we can still become pawns in a diplomatic game – such is life in the diplomatic corp ... I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm just saying ...

Retiring Soon? Contact Congress About Your Unused Sick Leave

On March 10, Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) sponsored a new bill that would allow federal employees to cash out part of their unused sick leave at retirement. H.R.5573 amends title 5 of the United States Code, "to provide for a lump-sum payment for certain Federal employees who retire with a substantial amount of unused sick leave for which they would not otherwise receive any compensation or benefit." The proposal applies to accrued sick leave in excess of 500 hours and is capped at $10,000. Employees covered under the old system (CSRS) have their unused sick leave converted into credits that increase their pension rates, however employees who joined the Feds under FERS (since 1983) do not have the same consideration. The WP's article cited an average of 13.5 hours more sick leave used annually by those who are near their retirement window. Congressman Moran is concerned that the "use-it-or-lose-it" policy is impacting productivity. I think, if approved, the proposal is also an excellent way of motivating FERS-enrolled employees to use their sick leave credits responsibly and rewarding those who do.

Considering that 60% of people in the federal workforce will be eligible to retire over the next 10 years, this is an issue that should resonate to a lot of people, hopefully, including you. Please contact your elected representative to request their support for H.R. 5573. Click here or here to write to your representative online. Click here for guidelines on writing to Congress. If you are not quite sure how laws are made, click here to learn about the process and why your support is needed on this.

You can read the entire text of the bill in PDF format here. H.R. 5573 is cosponsored by Rep Tom Davis (R-Va) and Rep Frank R. Wolf (R-Va) and has been referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on March 10.

Disclosures: I do not have any unused sick leave that I could cash in under this proposal, nor am I anywhere close to retirement. But I do have somebody dear to me who has over 1200 hours of unused sick leave who will be retiring in 2-3 years, as well as friends who are in the same retirement track.

Health Insurance Proposal - Contact Your Representatives

Stephen Barr's column of March 11 in The Washington Post talked about a government health insurance proposal sponsored by Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL) that would extend health coverage for children of federal employees from age 22 to 25.

"At a House hearing last week, Davis announced plans for legislation to change the age restriction in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. He said young adults are the fastest-growing age group among the uninsured, and that many 22-year-olds are in temporary positions and low-wage jobs and find it difficult to afford health care."

According to Barr's column, Davis who is chairman of the House federal workforce subcommittee said that raising the maximum age for dependent coverage "will increase worker morale" and helps create "a more family-friendly environment for federal employees."

Even if you have no children at this point, this is a proposal that deserves our support. One day, we may have young adult children ourselves, and health insurance would be one less thing to worry about especially at a time when these kids are starting out on their careers. If you are in the Foreign Service, this would be a much welcomed development, especially as young adult children often visit the employees at their overseas assignments.

You can read the entire text of H.R. 5550 here. Contact your representative today to request their support for this proposal. If you have never written to your elected representatives before, you can check this guide on how to write to Congress and this one on how to write effective letters to your representatives. Foreign Service employees might also want to read the writing tips from AFSA here.