Talk:United States Foreign Service

information about the foreign services exam

 * I think this article should contain some information about the foreign services exam. user:titaniumdreads


 * I concur. Either that or link to a good site that has info on the test. --24.59.12.203 22:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Just added some info on joining the Foreign Service and the exams. A link to the official State Department Careers site is also there.  Need anything else?

Information about the FSOT is readily available online and can be found with two seconds of Googling. Information on the specifics of the Oral Exam (Generalists) or the Board of Examiners (Specialists) is protected by a non-disclosure agreement.Kmhseo (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to the statement on US Foreign Service Agencies, the US Department of Commerce's Foreign Commercial Service; the US Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service and the USAID are not just "using the Foreign Service's personnel system" - these three agencies are part of the US Foreign Service, like the State Department. USAID is now part of the State Department.

The Foreign Service Act states unambiguously that these agencies are "authorized to use the FS personnel system" Please see the US Congress web site for the original text.

USAID is not part of the state department. Check http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/54734.htm for an organizational chart.

Can't put too much about the Foreign Service exam out in the public domain as it is an exam! You can't give away the answers!

This article needs some work. Calling the Foreign Service a "personnel system" is like calling the U.S. military and naval establishments "personnel systems". The Foreign Service is a commissioned service of the United States Government.

It is indeed a personnel system, one of several under which US Diplomats are assigned overseas. It is important to clarify this so as not to confuse the term "foreign service", with Diplomatic Service.

Only certain categories are promoted under the so-called "up or out" system. Medical personnel, technical staff, and others are not subject to those requirements.

This page does seem to read like an advertisement or brochure for the USFS. There could certainly be more done with history and the foreign service exam. As for not giving much away about the exam, for much of it there are no "right answers." Especially in the oral exam you are given questions such as "do you support American Foreign policy in Europe? Support your answer." and questions to that effect. It is certainly an article with plenty of information available to make it informative without sounding like a recruiting tool.


 * I improved and updated this page which had devolved into a poorly-written article. I added a section on the history of the Foreign Service as well us reverted back to using sub-sections as had been done previously.  As far as the complaints about article "reading like an advertisement", well, the Foreign Service is not engaged in "selling" anything, other than the foreign policy of the United States itself.  Presently a well written, verifiable article from a neutral point of view does not preclude the article from having the same reader appeal of an advertisement. SONORAMA 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about the article trying to "sell" the Foreign Service; anyone using wikipedia as a principal means of information about the FS is quite unlikely to ever pass the written exam, much less the oral!


 * Kopp's and Gillespie's book Career Diplomacy covers the exam with enough detail to alert future FSOs as to what they need to know, but gives nothing away in such detail that it spills the beans. Amustard (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the FSOT section has excessive detail and is State-centric. I do not believe a section on entering the FS should be longer or more detailed than the rest of the article. If there is demand for so much detail, I believe it should be its own article. Hakisalim (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Categories
There is considerable bias in this entry favoring fs 'officers' as opposed to other members of the service. FS 'personnel' also hold 'career' appointments, but the entry suggests that only 'officers' hold such appointments. Also, FSN's are by definition foreign nationals. this is stated in the law´ let us respect facts here.

eurodip23

Foreign Service as a "personnel system"
I recently edited the language to tone down the claim that the Foreign Service is a "personnel system". To use that terminology, outside of FS agencies, would unnescesarily confuse the reader as to the nature of the Foreign service.Rockford1963 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The FS is indeed a personnel system. To not include that fact is misleading because many US diplomats are not appointed or assigned under that (personnel) system. We should not lead the general public to believe that the term "foreign service" is equivalent to Diplomatic Service. Today's complex world needs diplomats from many fields and specialities. The FS personnel system cannot meet all of these needs and due to labor disputes within the Dept of State, more and more diplomats are being assigned abroad under systems other the the Foreign Service, as defined in the US Foreign Service Act.Statesman
 * I present the following from Harry Kopp and Charles Gillespie's "Career Diplomacy" (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2008, ISBN-13 978-1-58901-219-6) "The foreign service is the corps of more than twelve thousand professionals who represent the U.S. government in more than 260 missions abroad and carry out the nation's foreign policies... Like the army, the navy, the air force, and the marines, the U.S. Foreign Service is a true service. Its officers are commissioned by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution." (pp. 3-4)  I submit that calling the Foreign Service merely a "personnel system" is selling the Service short -- it is much, much more than just a personnel system, though of course the human resource specialists will tend to see it only through that prism.  Amustard (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * More on this subject from the AFSA website:
 * "The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), established in 1924, is the professional association of the United States Foreign Service. With close to 15,000 dues-paying members, AFSA represents over 28,000 active and retired Foreign Service employees of the Department of State and Agency for International Development (AID), as well as smaller groups in the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service (FCS), and International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB)."
 * I would argue that a personnel system per se is not likely to have its own professional association; a service comprising employees governed by that personnel system, however, may and in this case does. Amustard (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Foreign Service is but one of many personnel systems used for diplomatic assignments. The Act authorizes SecState to use the system for positions that require service abroad, and to designate positions that are to "normally" be occupied by members of the Service. But this article creates the impression that the FS is the only system used and that only members of the FS ("officers", "personnel", FSN, etc.) serve abroad as diplomats. This is not the way things work. Ask any customs officer how many Dip Passports pass through that are not held by FS members.


 * Possession of a diplomatic passport does not necessarily indicate the bearer is a diplomat. Dependents, some contractors, Marine Security Guards, and technicians of many stripes (DEA Special Agents, FBI Special Agents, etc.) bear diplomatic passports when they are assigned to a diplomatic or consular mission.  This does not make them diplomats as they do not have the nature of a public minister empowered to represent the government as a whole.  Rather, such bearers of diplomatic passports may represent only a single government agency, such as CBP, ATF, or the FBI.  189.216.114.114 (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, this is a very controversial issue at State. The Dept is giving better benefits to those it assigns as FS but many are assigned abroad as "GS" (the General Schedule) in the Competitive or Excepted Services. And do not forget USDA, DOC, Customs, Treasury, and all the other agencies that assign diplomats abroad. Todays Diplomatic Service is much, much more than one personnel system and this should be reflected objectively in a reference work of this nature.

I would prefer to see an entry "Diplomatic Service", with FS as a subsection, but cannot figure out how to edit the title. I took the liberty of editing the body to reflect what I believe is a more accurate description of the US Diplomatic Service.

Gaikoukan Retired US Diplomat not of the Foreign Service —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaikoukan (talk • contribs) 08:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "And do not forget USDA, DOC, Customs, Treasury, and all the other agencies that assign diplomats abroad." Huh?  USDA and DOC are specifically included in the FS Act of 1980, and USDA and Commercial officers abroad are FSOs.  Just ask AFSA, which collects dues from them.  Amustard (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Directed Assignments
I propose a new section entitled "Directed Assignments". Although rare in the history of the Foreign Service there have been periods of large numbers of directed assignments (e.g U.S. Embassy in Saigon, Vietnam). Recent reports of directed assignments to Iraq should be covered as well.74.167.31.67 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Correct Nomenclature
I've made a few minor edits to one section of this article. There seems to be ongoing confusion as to some Foreign Service specific terminology and systems. While this all may seem rather arcane, those who work in diplomacy know that the right words can make all the difference. I advise others to verify with the official websites careers.state.gov or www.state.gov before editing or changing the terms in this article.

For the record the incorrect statements removed were: ''Increasingly, diplomats are being appointed and assigned under other personnel systems. For example, in addition to FSNs, who are members of the Foreign Service, foreign citizens are hired as "Locally Employed Staff", or LES. In some cases Americans living overseas are employed as "LES".''

'''No -- LES and FSNs are not appointed as diplomats, and diplomats other than political appointees are not appointed under any other personnel system. "Diplomats" here refers to Commisioned Officers of the Foreign Service, ie Generalists.'''

''' Yes indeed -- US Diplomats serve under a numerous personnel systems. The FS is one of those systems, but by no means the only system under which diplomats are assigned. To suggest that only FS members, or only generalists are diplomats is totally misleading. It was precisely due to those comments that "Foreign Service Day" was renamed "Foreign Affairs Day". That was to make sure that the term "Foreign Service", meaning service abroad was not confused with the Foreign Service personnel system as defined in the Foreign Service Act.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsbrat (talk • contribs) 07:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, please use a colon to indent your replies.  It makes it easier to read responses from multiple parties if they are each indented.  Now, to address your reply - there is no definition of "diplomat" within a USG personnel system that I'm aware of.  The Vienna Convention, which the US has ratified, refers to "diplomatic staff" and "administrative and technical staff" which roughly correspond to generalist and specialist.  The dictionary defintion of "diplomat" -- "one appointed to represent his government in its relations with foreign governments" also corresponds to Commisioned Officers, ie the FS Generalist career path, and not to those who may be, say, working in an overseas Social Security office.  And we certainly don't refer to host-country citizens as "diplomats", even though they work in an Embassy.   So, in this article, we will keep a distinction between the work of diplomacy and the work of others in service to the US Government.  SONORAMA (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion. I will use a colon to indent. I agree that there is no definition of diplomat within USG personnel systems but can state for a fact, that the State Department appoints diplomats to represent the government and help manage relations with foreign countries under various personnel systems, not just under the Foreign Service. For example, there are diplomats sent as Excepted Service members under the GS (general schedule). These are also full-fledged diplomats, but not members of the FS personnel system. The FS has a very powerful labor union known as AFSA that is trying to portray its members as the only "real" diplomats, but there is no legal basis for this assertion.

Regarding host country citizens, they are defined as "members of the Service" in the Foreign Service Act. I agree that membership in the FS does not automatically mean that a person is a diplomat. fsbrat 12:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, many US diplomats are appointed and posted abroad under non_FS personnel systems. And political appointees ARE usually appointed as members of the Foreign Service, although usually on limited appointments. Regarding "specialists", the correct term as defined in the Foreign Service Act is "FS personnel". There is no restriction on the types of specialists that may be recruited - this is at the Secretary's discretion and based on the needs of US diplomacy. We should make it clear that the terms "diplomat" and "foreign service member" are not synonymous. There are plenty of diplomats who are not part of the Foreign Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, the FS could create a specialist career path for lawyers, economists, or zookeepers for that matter -- but it hasn't! All Foreign Service specialist career paths are listed on the official careers.state.gov web site.  Let's keep the article focused on actual specialist career paths rather than fictional ones. SONORAMA (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

''Foreign Service Personnel perform unique services in support of the Service. Examples of specialists include Medical Doctor, Health Practitioner, Technicians, Lawyers, Economists, Linguists, Law Enforcement Officers, Agricultural experts from the USDA, Information Resource Management, Office Management Specialist, and Regional Security Officer...'''

'''No -- "Lawyer" and "Economist" are not specialist career paths as reflected on the State Department's official careers website. "Agricultural experts from the USDA" refers presumably to the Foreign Agricultural Service, which is part of the Foreign Service, and this is explained better elsewhere in the article. SONORAMA (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the FS and interested party, I thought that tracking the Foreign Service Act, the law passed by Congress which created the FS personnel system as we know it today, was proper and helpful. My edit was reverted and somebody wrote that I was a "sock puppet". I know that there is controversy about categories of FS personnel, and about other categories that exist within our Diplomatic Service. That was not mean to be insulting and if it is considered offensive I apologize. If I am mistaken, please correct me. There are many many US diplomats assigned around the world under different systems and they do not all think alike. FS Brat 0948 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct term is "Diplomatic Service". Not all US diplomats are assigned under the "foreign service" personnel system. For example, some of our diplomats sent to the most difficult places are assigned under the "general schedule", some are assigned as "foreign service personnel" and some are assigned as "foreign service officers". The latter 2 categories are members of the foreign service as defined in the Foreign Service Act of 1980, but the first category is not. It is cheaper for the USG to use non-FS categories because the FS offers additional special bonuses. Certain special interest groups, including the labor union for the foreign service would like to create the impression that only diplomats assigned under the foreign service system are "true" diplomats, but that is not true. If one reads the Presidential messages each year for "Foreign Affairs Day" (changes from "foreign service day" in the 90s) it will become obvious that the correct term is "Diplomatic Service", and that the foreign service, while important, is not a semantic equivalent.

Anonymous diplomat at the U.S. Department of State —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I made some edits to the part about "members of the Service" based on a careful reading of the Foreign Service Act. There is no category called "foreign service specialist" in the statue. Furthermore,FSNs are clearly defined as "foreign nationals". It is important to be objective and accurate if we are talking about definitions so as not to give an unbalanced view. There are many conflicting views on the relative importantc of "officers" vs "personnel", or "foreign" service vs "Excepted". "competitive", or other services. These could be in separate paragraphs, but not cited as defined in the FS Act. I made that edit yesterday, but it was promptly deleted without explanation, so I redid it today, with an edit summary describing the changes. Hopefully, if another reader does not agree and/or deletes my edit, he/she will have the courtesy to describe the reason for doing so, as I have done here

Sirigaru (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The State Department's own web site refers to "Specilaists" repeatedly, there is even a wikipedia article for Specialsits. Common sense would tell anyone that to call a specific category of employees simply "personnel" would lead to mass confusion, since aren't all employees personnel?  Also, anyone working in the State Department will refer to this category of employees as "Specialist".  Specialists call themselves specialists, not "personnel",  FSOs call specialists specilaists, not anyhting else.  These are commonly understood facts.Rockford1963 (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We should use the correct nomenclature - what is stated in the law. "FS Personnel" are full members of the Service and include many categories, such as medical doctors, legal experts, and those on non-career appointments. While a certain group of FS "officers" may not like the fact that "personnel" are members of the Service, and even try to exclude certain categories from assignment opportunities, that is not a valid reason to attempt to change the wording of the Foreign Service Act on Wikipedia. There is a common misconception created by the FS labor union - that "FSOs" are the only true diplomats serving overseas and that other categories are somehow in a support position. The labor union has even tried to exclude members of the Service who were appointed as "personnel" by the Secretary and converted from other civil service personnel systems. In view of all of these sensitivities, I urge the editors of this site to look at the wording of the Foreign Service Act for accuracy and not to other websites.

Specialistgirl (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Service career system
I think we need to develop this section of the article in a more accessible and comprehensible manner. Perhaps some rewording and a more in depth explanation of the similarity of the FS "rank in person" system (rather than the GS system where rank is tied to position) and the military rank and promotion system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kollaborator (talk • contribs) 03:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"foreign" service VS Diplomatic Service
For what its worth, I have seen many cases of US diplomats assigned abroad under systems other than the FS personnel system. It is well known within the State Department that the FS system offers superior benefits but that increasingly employees are being sent under alternate systems, which saves money and provides more flexibility. And indeed, one hears the term "diplomatic service" more and more these days as not only the State Department, but increasingly other agencies make diplomatic postings. These include the Department of Treasury, DEA, FBI, for example. And Commerce, Agriculture, State, are "authorized" to use the FS system for positions that require service abroad, but not "required" to do so. Another trend is increasing reliance on "LES" locally engaged staff. This also saves Uncle Sam money as there are far less benefits needed to be paid out, no housing is provided, etc. Perhaps that biggest difference and main motivation for moving away from the FS system is the huge cost of language bonuses - up to 15 percent salary bonuses are paid to FS diplomats if they test at the "professional level" in so-called "hard languages". And that is after they receive 2 or 3 years of free language training, on full salary, including at least one year overseas, with a benefit package comparable to what private sector expatriates receive, ie. free schooling for children, housing, etc. Non FS diplomats do not get these perks, even when serving in "hardship" posts, or dangerous locations. Given the increased use of alternate systems, there are those who say that it is only a question of time before the State Department moves to a unitary personnel system that would eliminate, or at least equalize these benefits.

Sirigaru (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Sirigaru

Foreign Service Officer Test
The joining section should be redone to reflect the new Foreign Service Officer Test and not the old written exam. Mikebar (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Content
This article suffers from two serious issues. First, it is very State-centric. I have added some verbiage on the other three foreign affairs agencies (USAID, Commerce, and Agriculture, in order of the sizes of their respective Foreign Services). Second, quite frankly (speaking as an FSO), it has a rather condescending tone toward the non-FSO contingents in the Department of State, and by extension, the other foreign affairs agencies. I think I have fixed that as well. Hence, it a) if returned by one of the other authors to its previous state, will continue to be incomplete in its coverage of the U.S. Foreign Service, and b) will lack an objective point of view. Given that FSOs of USAID, Commerce and Agriculture regularly serve as acting DCMs and charges d'affaires, and are appointed to ambassadorships, just like State officers from the pol, econ, consular, mgmt and now pa cones, not to mention a few SES officials of State, excluding them from this article seems just a bit, well, overweening. Amustard (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also added information on the Foreign Service Act of 1946, which the article previously omitted. The 1946 Act set the stage for the Foreign Service of the Cold War period and thus deserves at least some coverage. Amustard (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your edits, great job! Bevinbell (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

One third, not ten percent
I changed the incorrect 10% figure of how many people pass the written exam:


 * Those who pass the Foreign Service Written Exam (about 25 to 30 percent of candidates)
 * proceed to the Foreign Service Oral Assessment, which is administered in person in Washington, D.C. and other major cities throughout the United States. Passage rates for the Oral Assessment were less than 10%.
 * proceed to the Foreign Service Oral Assessment, which is administered in person in Washington, D.C. and other major cities throughout the United States. Passage rates for the Oral Assessment were less than 10%.

The information about passage rates was completely removed from the foreign service site in 2007.


 * http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://careers.state.gov/officer/faqs.html

But even then, it said "one third of takers" passed the test, not the incorrect 10%.

I also removed this unreferenced sentence:


 * The result is that of the nearly 20,000 annual test-takers, only about 400 are ultimately offered an appointment as a Foreign Service Officer career candidate.

Odessaukrain (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

20% oral passage rate
An editor removed a reference and added 20% to the oral passage rate on 17 January 2008.

This deleted document is dated, but it states that:
 * In 1996, only a little more than 2,600 of those who passed the written exam went on to compete in the oral assessment; in 1998, the number came down to around 2,400. Of these 856 got through, a pass rate of 35.6 percent. (emphasis my own).

Odessaukrain (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Clean up
I have undertaken a large clean up, to remove BLP issues (unfounded allegations of honeypot), OR (lots of uncited "facts"), undue weight (lots of extraneous material), POV (particularly regarding DS), etc. Mostly reverting back to where edits were in June of 2009. It still seems lengthy, but I am not sure what else to take out before solid material disappears. Bevinbell (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

First, if you look closely at the alleged "outing", you will find that I did not use Bevinbell's last name. I just used his first name. I have read the rules after my blocking and there are cases where the use of a first name is allowed in the Wikipedia Community. Second, looking at Bevinbell's personal page it is clear that he is an active Foreign Service Officer. Now, here is the issue I have with all of this. Bevinbell is a FSO. If an FSO wants to talk and explain about the Foreign Service, he/she can ask to work on the development of www.state.gov. If you look closely at my edits you will hopefully understand what I was trying to do. I have spoken with many individuals who have entered the Foreign Service as innocents. They did not understand all of what they were getting into. If you look at what I wrote, which is the truth backed up with cited sources, it provides a realistic assessment of what it is to be a Foreign Service Officer. There are good an bad things about being a Foreign Service Officer. Unfortunately, Bebinbell has decided to take up the role of the Truth Police, to quote Orwell. I think Wikipedia is the domain of those that do not have vested interest in putting being a United States Foreign Service Officer in the best possible light. Also, let's examine Bevinbell's involvement in this. Is Bevinbell doing this at the orders of the State Department or is he doing this on his own? Also, is Bevinbell following the editing of this Wikipedia entry and reporting back to Diplomatic Security on who is saying what? I have no problems with retired FSO's or academics working on the "United States Foreign Service" Wikipedia page. There are ton's of retired FSO that could make excellent contributions. Active FSOs should work on www.state.gov and not Wikipedia. I have not done original research, which Bevinbell has done. I have cited everything I have written. If you guys have a problem with me, why don't you delete the entire article and put up "See www.state.gov because Wikipedia's opinion is exactly the same as the Department of State."Bf20204 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2009 (EST)

Additionally, Bevinbell. I would hope that your security training has taught you not to use the same username on all your different accounts on the internet for the rest of your life. It was very easy to use the internet, Yahoo and Google to detect that you use your same login for everything under the sun. Here's an idea. Why don't you go to the Regional Security Officer and have him/her drill the following into your brain, "The internet is a dangerous place and you can be identified. Use different user names and a strong password, IDIOT!"Bf20204 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2009 (EST)

Also, Lastly Bevinbell. I'm surprised that you feel "violated." You know where I got your name? The Congressional Record that has your nomination that had to be ok'd by Congress. Do you feel "violated" that you are in the Congressional Record? I thought that was considered an honor? I guess you just feel "violated" on certain things. Bf20204 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ba20204 (talk

What is valid regarding "Foreign Service Life"
I can see that there is a battle going on concerning what "Foreign Service Life" means. People, like Bevinbell, seek to make the definition very limited to the life of a Foreign Service Officer, omitting the fact that FSOs interact with tons of people at the Embassy who are not Foreign Service Officers. I don't understand why these facts should be omitted. Issues like the security contractors at Embassy Kabul that ran amok as well as the issue of the COS who was date raping local women in Algeria are valid to the life of a Foreign Service Officer. FSOs discuss this stuff at the water cooler all the time. Also, the idea of employing local help is something that is of great impact to the life of an FSO. Unless the FSO's come from the richest 5% of the USA, most FSOs are not used to employing domestic help. Why should the idea of domestic help be omitted? I don't understand.Bf20204 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2009 (EST)

Need to avoid blurring essential distinctions
We need to make it clear to the general public that only FSOs are true diplomats. In essence. FSOs are the Foreign Service. Other people who happen to be working at Embassies are simply civil servants on excursion tours, who must leave as soon as any FSO becomes available for the position. I leave it to the editors to find a better way of stating this but please be on guard against misguided efforts to blur the distinction between FSOs, who are selected by rigourous examinations and subject to the up or out system, and civil servants who can stay at their desk jobs as long as they want. Additional guidance can be found at www.afsa.org, the professional organization of worldwide FSOs. vacationingFSO, posted on december 31, 2009, New Years Eve
 * It appears you are not aware of some basics: FSO (meaning Generalists) are not the only regular FS members overseas (e.g. Specialists).  True, some positions are set up for preferential filling by FSOs, thus possibly supplanting certain types of specialists, yet other positions are always filled by regualr FS specialists and never by FSOs. Rockford1963 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is misleading in that it creates the impression that US Diplomats are all members of the FS personnel system. In fact, US diplomats are increasingly posted under non-FS personnel systems, to save Uncle Sam money, to avoid labor union issues (specifically AFSA, which tries to limit the best jobs to "FSO" only), and to give more flexibility, such as extended assignments in the same region, which according to some, is not allowed under the Foreign Service Act, Thus, a more correct heading would be "U.S. Diplomatic Service". At a minimum, we need to make it clear that the "foreign service" is just one category of American diplomatic personnel, and part of the "Excepted Service" under which other categories of diplomats also serve.

Dippieman (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I hate to break my silence, but is anyone going to talk about the 800 pound guerilla that no one has yet mentioned in this article? I'm sure all of you know what I mean. Rockford's quote "We need to make it clear to the general public that only FSOs are true diplomats" isn't totally correct. Now, what I'm saying isn't classified. In fact, I was told of the 800 pound guerrilla issue in an unclassified NFATC class called "Introduction to Working in a US Embassy" that was almost exclusively attended by FSN's Actually, when the subject came up, most of the FSn's laughed because they had known about the 800 pound guerilla for years. I'm a bit afraid to start making edits about the 800 pound guerilla, but could someone who has the stones to do so please make the edit. Thanks. Bf20204 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the Foriegn Commercial Service? They are pretty small, but are generally FSO officers.  169.253.4.21 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Need to avoid blurring essential distinctions- Only FS officer are entitled to take FS positions
Historic Ruling of October 31 2000 Urgent Call to Action: DCM Case awaits Secretary Albright's Decision

Please pass this urgent message to all Foreign Service employees (active or retired). AFSA Reps are asked to poll members at post.

1. Summary:  AFSA has won its legal fight to overturn the State Department's assignment of a non-Foreign Service employee to a Deputy Chief of Mission job. On October 31, the Foreign Service Grievance Board (FSGB) reaffirmed its earlier decision that the assignment violated the Department's regulations and the Board recommended to Secretary Albright that she curtail the improperly-assigned employee effective next July.

2. It is now up to the Department to implement that decision unless the Secretary takes the historically unprecedented step of certifying in writing that implementing the FSGB decision would adversely affect the "foreign policy or national security of the United States." While no Secretary of State has ever rejected a FSGB decision in this manner, AFSA understands that some Department officials would like the Secretary to issue such a certification in this case. This message provides additional background and urges members to make their views known (see final para for action request). End of Summary.

Background --

3. This case will impact the future of the Foreign Service. To understand why, we need to recall the history of the Service. At the start of our Republic, there was no professional Foreign Service. Diplomatic and consular jobs were filled by political appointees who literally changed with each new Administration. Efforts to replace this inefficient "spoils system" with a professional career Foreign Service gathered steam following President Theodore Roosevelt's 1906 Executive Order requiring that the consular service be administered in a nonpartisan manner. Then, America's increasing involvement in Europe through World War I convinced Congress and the Executive that a professional diplomatic service was essential. The Rogers Act in 1924 established a unified Foreign Service, separate from other government services, with the mission of representing America's interests abroad. It is not a coincidence that our predecessors founded the American Foreign Service Association that same year.

4. The Foreign Service Acts of 1946 and 1980 further defined the Foreign Service by adding features that clearly distinguished it from civil service employment. The 1980 Act (current law) specifies that Foreign Service positions (which, by definition, exclude Chiefs of Mission) must "normally" be filled by Foreign Service employees. The legislative history explains that Congress inserted the word "normally" to provide limited flexibility "recognizing that the necessary Foreign Service practice of setting specified tours of duty may make it impossible to observe this policy [of only assigning Foreign Service employees to Foreign Service positions] at all times." In other words, Foreign Service bidders may not always be available (i.e., "hard to fill" positions).

5. A controversy in the early 1980s led the State Department to further define and limit the circumstances under which it could assign people from outside of the Service to fill Foreign Service positions. In 1981, Secretary Alexander Haig's State Department assigned a political appointee to be Consul General in Hamilton, Bermuda. AFSA protested this assignment to no avail (to this day, the Hamilton CG position remains a quasi-Chief of Mission position held by a political appointee). However, in 1983 Secretary George P. Shultz's State Department signed an agreement with AFSA that insulated the Department and the Service from political poaching. It required that Foreign Service members fill Foreign Service positions unless the Director General certified that there was no one available in the Service who could do the job. It was that 1983 agreement (which was renewed by Secretary Albright's State Department in 1996) on which the FSGB based its August 18, 2000 ruling that the Department violated its own regulations when it assigned someone from outside of the Foreign Service to be the Deputy Chief of Mission at a U.S. Embassy in Latin America.

The Director General and the Secretary --

6. The FSGB's definitive ruling last August 18 would have ended this matter had the Department not gone ahead and sent the non-Foreign Service employee to Post before the FSGB ruled. As the FSGB sternly notes in its October 31 ruling:

"The Department, and [the employee], were fully aware that AFSA had challenged the assignment, and had asked the Department to defer sending [the employee] to [post] before the Board issued its decision. The Department, at least, knew we had promised to treat the matter as quickly as possible, consistent with the significance and complexity of the dispute.  In fact, our decision was issued slightly more than one month after [the employee's] departure.  A curtailment is required to bring the Department into compliance 'with law, regulation, and negotiated agreements in filling the position,' as we stated in our Decision."

7. It is now up to Secretary Albright to decide whether she will accept or reject the FSGB's curtailment recommendation. No Secretary in the 25- year history of the FSGB has rejected a FSGB recommendation on foreign policy or national security grounds. AFSA will ask the Director General of the Foreign Service to recommend in this case that the Secretary accept the recommendation. Rejecting the FSGB recommendation could have a chilling effect on the authority of the FSGB, seriously weakening the dispute resolution process.

8. We again cite congressional intent regarding the relevant legislation. The legislative history of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 states that "the Committee intends that [the] disapproval authority [on foreign policy and national security grounds] be used only in the most exceptional cases." In the words of a co- author of the 1980 Act, "the agency head should, except in rare cases, adopt and implement the decision of the Grievance Board ... What has to be conveyed to agency heads is congressional will that the decision of the Board be implemented."

9. AFSA does not believe that the case at hand comes remotely close to representing the exceptional circumstances that the framers of the 1980 Act had in mind. It is probable that the Department could find a replacement DCM next summer with more experience in host country affairs, higher proficiency in Spanish, and more experience in managing an embassy. There were 12 qualified Foreign Service bidders for the position last summer and will likely be at least as many when the vacancy is posted again. Given an eight-month lead-time, the Department could easily arrange for a substantial overlap between the current occupant and the successor. U.S. policy in any country simply does not hinge on the continued presence of one individual. If it did, the Department would not routinely leave so many of its positions (including Ambassador and DCM) vacant for months, even years, at a time.

The Future of the Foreign Service Career

10. If senior managers of the Department convince Secretary Albright to reject the curtailment of this employee, it will severely undermine an already beleaguered Foreign Service. Furthermore, Department officials have indicated that they intend to abrogate the 1983/1996 agreement on filling Foreign Service jobs (see para 5 above) as soon as it comes up for (heretofore automatic) renewal next year. This would open all "non-bargaining unit positions" to being filled from outside of the Service. Those positions include DCMs, Principal Officers, Administrative Counselors, and Human Resources Officers. Abrogating this agreement, which has insulated the Department and the Service from political poaching for nearly two decades, would grant license to future White House personnel offices to direct the Department to fill DCM and other management positions with political appointees. Those appointees, in turn, could select Office Managers from outside the Foreign Service. That would severely truncate individual Foreign Service careers by further limiting opportunities for promotion and for receiving increased responsibility. This would inflict a grievous defeat in the Department's so-called "War for Talent."

11. Finally, members should consider some very worrying trends in Foreign Service staffing. According to data published in State Magazine in April 1998, Foreign Service staffing declined from 66.4 to 60.8 percent of State employment from 1988 to 1998 (Foreign Service employees fell by 1508 while civil service employees rose by 300). The Department has not published updated data, but they have told us that they permanently converted another 59 Foreign Service domestic positions to civil service over the past two years and that the deficit of Foreign Service employees to positions now exceeds 350. As a result, there are currently 225 civil service employees serving overseas under the "hard to fill" staffing program. While AFSA certainly values the contributions of our civil service colleagues both domestically and in "hard to fill" overseas positions, we are concerned that a stealth decimation of Foreign Service positions has taken place during the past decade. This decimation of the professional Foreign Service is not in the national interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

What is a diplomat?
2601:647:4C01:2B5E:789D:D7FF:14B7:B47C (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC) many diplomats are not true FSO's in the strict legal sense of the term - they are simply civil servants taking FSO positions until the Department is able to find qualified members to assign.

I am not a State employee, but want to chime in here. The constant misinformation being spread about our diplomats is harmful and misleading. Not all diplomats are "foreign service" and certainly so called "FS officers" are not the only diplomats. There are many categories and we need to present an unbiased picture here. It is well known that a certain labor union is harping the idea that "FSO" are the elite special or even only group that matters, but there is much more to our Diplomatic Service than FSO types. Please be aware that "specialists" or "FS personnel" as defined in the FS Act are equal members of the FS system, and that many diplomatic assignments are made using other personnel systems, especially non State employees.

I am sorry for not signing up, but wanted to comment here, having stumbled on this site by accident while searching for a foreign exchange site. Bill Peterson


 * Let's start with definitions. These definitions come from Article 1 of the [Vienna Convention of 1961]:


 * ''(d) The “members of the diplomatic staff” are the members of the staff of the mission having diplomatic rank;
 * ''(e) A “diplomatic agent” is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission;
 * (f) The “members of the administrative and technical staff” are the members of the staff of the mission employed in the administrative and technical service of the mission;


 * That is, a technician or administrative employee (a communicator, personnelist, security officer, or "Secretary/Archivist", for example) accredited as such by the host country is not a diplomat by definition. This includes many categories of staff and varies by country (at posts in some hostile countries, everybody is at least an attaché and thus is on the diplomatic list).  Hence, status as a diplomat is subject to some interpretation.  That said, diplomats by convention are those diplomatic representatives accredited to foreign countries for the purpose of representing their own governments as defined in Article 3 of the Vienna Convention:


 * ''1.The functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in:
 * ''(a) Representing the sending State in the receiving State;
 * ''(b) Protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law;
 * ''(c) Negotiating with the Government of the receiving State;
 * ''(d) Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State;
 * (e) Promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.


 * It is a stretch to assert that technical staff of a diplomatic mission perform these functions, which is why there is a distinction in the U.S. Foreign Service between Foreign Service Officers (generalists) and Foreign Service Specialists. This does not mean the work of Foreign Service Specialists is less valuable (I like to have my vouchers handled promptly and for my workplace to be secure from external threats as much as anybody else), but it is different.   Amustard (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * More from Kopp and Gillespie, this time footnote 8 to chapter 3, on p. 224:


 * The word attaché defines an official assigned to an embassy to perform a specific task.


 * Wikipedia itself defines an attaché thus:


 * The term normally denotes an official, under the authority of an Ambassador or other head of a diplomatic mission, who serves either as a diplomat or as a member of the support staff.


 * In other words, Foreign Service Specialists, while by law clearly members of the Foreign Service, are not, strictly speaking, diplomats, though they travel on diplomatic passports and enjoy the same immunities afforded by the Vienna Convention. Furthermore, non-foreign affairs agency staff posted abroad as attachés fall into a gray area ill-defined by custom and regulation.  Where do we draw the line?  Is the DEA or FBI special agent accredited as an attaché a diplomat empowered to represent the U.S. Government as a whole, or technical staff assigned to perform narrow and specific functions related to her/his employing agency?  Will s/he ever be considered for service as chargé d'affaires ad interim?  Comments are solicited! Amustard (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Should Active Department of State Employees Edit Wikipedia?
In short, here is my argument against having active FSOs edit Wikipedia. If an FSO wants to work on getting their view of what it is to be an FSO, they should work on www.state.gov or careers.state.gov. I firmly believe that they should not work on Wikipedia. The reason behind this is that, throughout my history of working on this article, FSOs have deleted things in the article that are critical of the Foreign Service. If you look at the history of "United States Foreign Service" you will see that this happened a lot. Additionally, many of my critical edits that constituted original research were deleted while edits made by Bevinbell were kept. Also, I have a request to the Department of State. If the Department of State must make edits on wikipedia, then I request that one person from the Office of Public Affairs be delegated to doing this. FSOs could then submit edits and changes to this person and then they could make the changes. This would also let the general public know that the Department of State is editing wikipedia and make their own judgment as to whether or not the information is biased or not.Bf20204 (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2009 (EST) contribs)
 * I'm not an FSO, don't know anything about it, and haven't even looked at this article until the recent controversy, but I'll tell you my attitude. On one hand, having active FSOs edit the article creates a potential conflict of interest that must be handled with care.  But on the other hand, the material you have been trying to insert violates NPOV much more severely than anything that was previously in the article, so I'm reluctant to give you any support.  If I saw you trying to make the article more neutral rather than trying to hammer the FSO in any way you can, it would be a different story.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've decided that I'm through with making any further updated to this entry. If anyone thinks that the edits that I've made are applicable, then I invite them to try to get them reinserted. Again, if you can make a case using cited facts then does that really destroy the idea of NPOV? Do you want to have a product that gives the pros and cons of the Foreign Service, especially the life of a Foreign Service Officer, in an unbiased manner or do you just want to create a duplicate of careers.state.gov? All of the things that I added that were cited with applicable links are do not violate the NPOV. Finally, if this entry is going to solely be the domain of active FSOs then just delete the entire entry and put "See careers.state.gov" I'm through with this farce. Bf20204 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2009 (EST)

See WP:COI. Employees of the Department of State should feel free to contribute to the wikipedia project, just as any employee anywhere may have an interest and knowledge of a much wider range of topics than just their employer, as long as they do so in a manner which is consistent with improving the encyclopedia as a volunteer to the wikipedia project, and in a manner which is open and sensitive to the danger of an appearance of conflict of interest. This would also be true for, say, an employee of any private business, or a member of a rock band, editing articles about topics for which they may have a vested interest, or worse, a job assignment to manage the public image. It should be made very clear that in cases in the past where edits to wikipedia have come from government agency ISP accounts, the media has taken a keen interest in any impropriety. In the past this has occurred mainly at the level of municipal mayor's offices or city councils and the like, but something fishy coming from the US State Department would be very likely to trigger more blowback then benefit. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Response
Hi - I am an editor who happens to be an active Foreign Service Officer - this fact has been disclosed on my user page since August of 2008. I am no means a single purpose account as can be shown by my edits nor am I some sort of secret shill for the State Department who reports back to Diplomatic Security on my edits. There are plenty of well sourced negative things to say about the US Foreign Service and they deserve a place in the article. Original research, POV, uncited information, and extraneous information about other agencies or contractors that are not members Foreign Service don't belong in this article - maybe there is a place in other articles (e.g. Department of State, Embassy Kabul, CIA, etc.). Your issue with current members of an organization editing articles having to do with that organization is an old one - thousands of articles are edited by members of the groups every day - people sometimes edit articles that they have personal interest and expertise in, nothing unusual. Would it be wrong for a Catholic to edit the Catholic Church entry, would it be wrong for a US soldier to edit the US Army entry or maybe his unit entry, or a member of the LDS church editing the Mormon Church entry?

I think with the disclosing of affiliations on user pages and careful NPOV editing and community consensus/review, there is little conflict of interest. Editor Bf20204 (aka Ba20204) who has raised these concerns has failed to disclose his affiliations and employment history with the Department of State - something that by his own logic would call into question his POV edits pushed on this article.

Thanks for moving on to other projects and I hope you take some of what you have learned here to improve your editing approach.  Bevin  bell 14:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am an FSO who happens to work for a non-State agency, FAS to be specific, and do not see a conflict of interest between that status and my contributions to this article, or to the articles on the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Senior Foreign Service, or the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services. These are areas of expertise for me and Wikipedia is supposed to be about sharing of expertise.  By that same logic I do not see necessarily that State (or USAID or FCS) FSOs contributing to the Wikipedia article on the foreign service suffer a conflict of interest.  Some may, most won't, and we can handle the ones with a biased POV (I have had a few things to say about this, see above).


 * I do think that some of the contributions to this article could have been better written, but that's not a POV issue. Amustard (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bevinbel. You state that I have not disclosed my affiliation and employment history with the Department of State. Would you like me to disclose my employment history with the Department of State on wikipedia? I'm totally up for doing it if you would like me to. Maybe we can talk about exactly happened during my employment with the Department of State. Perhaps we could also talk about what happened to INR Analyst John Kokal. Perhaps we could talk about the double standard of the Department of State when it comes to issues such as security and medical clearances. I'm tired of sitting on the side lines while you edit this entry. Also, I must state that a lot of my original edits have been kept. I await your reply.Bf20204 (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Spies/Agents?
I just watched an interview with alleged ex-CIA agent "Barry Eisler", who said that his cover was working in this department. The host made a joke saying that anytime he hears of someone from this department from now on, he'll assume they're an agent. Eisler responded by saying that for a certain percentage, they'd be correct.

Anyone have any information/sources about this potential aspect of the department? It doesn't seem totally wild or unprecedented to me, the UK Foreigh Office is often said to do a similar thing.

Here is the video link for anyone interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE9J26NiOyU

Forkhandles (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on United States Foreign Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100831212917/http://careers.state.gov:80/general/about-us.html to http://careers.state.gov/general/about-us.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)