The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2008

Forgetting History The April Cybernotes item, “Koso- vo: A Risky Gambit,” correctly cites the potential negative consequences of our support for Kosovo’s indepen- dence. In addition to helping create those risks, U.S. policy failed to recog- nize 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 move- ment of Albanians into Kosovo and forced emigration of Serbs. From 1945 to 1980, Tito conducted a general anti-Serb policy that includ- ed turning the Kosovo/Metohiya auto- nomous area over to the local Albanian communists, who continued to encour- age, 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. Ser- bia’s rejection of anything approaching the independence of Kosovo was total- ly predictable, as was Russia’s readi- ness to veto any U.N. Security Council resolution to that effect. Thomas Niles FSO, retired Scarsdale, N.Y. Bearing Arms AFSA has repeatedly made refer- ences 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 self- defense), it would at least give our col- leagues overseas a fighting chance in 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 Depart- ment, I understood there would be some restriction on my rights. De- spite 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 Amend- ment 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 serv- ing in active war zones? Before diplomats deploy to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, they get firearms training along with combat lifesaver and Humvee rollover train- ing. They should be allowed to keep and bear arms if they so choose; oth- erwise, the firearms training is worth- less. 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 per- sonnel’s duty-free imports. The prob- lem 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 ser- vants.” 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 represent- ing their government in other coun- tries 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 post- al 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 AFSA- recognized dissent draws outside criti- cism, as does outright vociferous refusal to accept a transfer to a dan- gerous 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 pro- pose 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 pol- icy formulators. It could also help to define an ideal embassy for every situ- ation. 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 8 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 0 8 L E T T E R S u