The main reason the European colonial powers of the 18th and 19th Century were (arguably) successful in international politics was because their diplomats were selected on the basis of--and encouraged to seek--understanding of world affairs by virtue of having lived in--and having been in close contact with people from--different parts of world. British and French foreign services had "Arabists"; "East African specialists"; "Latin American specialists" in the true sense of the word and not only because a British or French officer had spent three years in the Arab World, East Africa or Latin America.
A true understanding of—and the ensuing effectiveness to work in—a foreign country comes only from a thorough knowledge of the culture that can only be attained if the individual has lived in, or traveled extensively--and has friends and possibly relatives-- in that country. Otherwise, the so called “expert” is no more than anecdotally “sitting at the bank of Geneva Lake, Seine, or Potomac and pontificating about the state of affairs in country A or B”. This expert may have a Ph.D in Middle Eastern studies, but will not be effective in conducting and implementing foreign policy in the Middle East unless he or she has lived in the region, and not only among our “friends” in Amman, Dubai, or Cairo but in some of the more “unfriendly” spots such as Iran, Afghanistan or Iraq—and I do not mean in enclosed compounds of the latter two either.
It is therefore important that naturalized US citizens—including and especially natives of “unfriendly” countries--be actively recruited to work for the US Government in Foreign Service and international development and related sensitive positions.
Well, this is where the problem arises. Strict security clearance requirements for otherwise highly qualified individuals present a major impediment to our ability to select the best and brightest, as well as the most qualified individuals, for our Foreign Service and International affairs positions.
A well versed and highly educated naturalized US citizen, who has visited relatives and friends in a “non-friendly” country, would have a very difficult time obtaining the required security clearance to work for the US Government (or some of the US Government contractors) in a position where she or he is much needed. In fact, often the only naturalized US citizen natives of “unfriendly” countries that can easily obtain security clearance are the ones who have not travelled to their “unfriendly” country in a long long time—long enough that they can qualify as “having severed all their ties” with the “unfriendly” country of birth. These individuals are often selected based on their “language” and “cultural” skills and not necessarily their education, analytical skills or being politically savvy.
The result of the author’s informal survey of several dozens of individuals selected for sensitive overseas position by US Government contractors reveals that most fall into one of two categories: a) naturalized US citizens with relatively low level of education and b) native US citizens with graduate or under-graduate degrees, the majority with little first-hand experience in the countries or regions they are selected for. Neither group is ideally suited for the positions they are intended for.
The best suited individuals, i.e., those with high level of education, research skills AND first hand knowledge of the countries based on their travel and family/relative ties, are not able to obtain security clearance required for such positions.
A friend, who is a naturalized US citizen, related the following as the best example of the points made above. He strongly believes that his step-son, born and raised in Middle America, with a B.A. degree in History and Political Science but with limited knowledge of foreign languages and very little travel experience to the Middle East, has a much higher chance of landing a job in international affairs/Foreign Service in the Middle East--as he would easily obtain the security clearance--than his US-born/US citizen daughter (therefore eligible to become the US president) with a degree in international politics from Georgetown School of Foreign Service, who speaks five languages—including Arabic and Dari--has travelled extensively (including to some “unfriendly” countries to visit ailing grandparents) and lived in many countries (including one “friendly” where her mother resides). With family and friends in other countries—some considered unfriendly by the US--she will have difficulty getting security clearance even though she has the perfect profile for US foreign service/international politics.
Ironically, everything else being equal, she—as half Latina—is given preference over her step-brother for getting a job in the United States based on her “being a member of minority!”
The decision between the need for higher security—brought to the forefront in the aftermath of September 11—and recruiting and retaining highly qualified individuals is the type that we, as citizens of a nation that values the rule of law and freedom, have been making in many other instances. For example, a delicate but acceptable balance is struck between the society’s right to safety versus the right of individuals to bear arms as protected under the second amendment. Another less-discussed but poignant example is the fact that the right of individuals to drive on US highways has not been restricted in face of an astonishing annual rate of more than 30,000 highway fatalities--equivalent to ten “September 11.”
Unless, we carefully balance the needs for, and consider the trade-offs of, recruiting and attracting the brightest and most qualified individuals versus our security requirements, we will continue to encounter pitfalls in our mission of conducting and implementing an effective foreign policy. Perhaps we should consider that our true national security lies in our ability to deal effectively with our international friends and enemies in furtherance of the US national interests.
Anonymous Special Collaboration
