Reader Responses to a Curriculum for Foreign Policy

Wow, I really hit a nerve with my article last week advocating for “A Curriculum for Foreign Policy Expertise.” The response from all of you was amazing. I received dozens of emails and I learned so much from your comments. My reading list has really ballooned as well.

In the spirit of accountability and collaboration, I wanted to share some of the most interesting comments below, which I think you all will appreciate.

A lot of folks were very focused on diplomatic history. The reading recommendations (which I’ll share in a few days) primarily focused on this topic:

• “I’ve been a diplomat for 22 years and at no point have I been offered a course on diplomatic history.”

• “The lack of knowledge of US history is a real problem. As you point out, the contrast with the advanced education at military schools is striking.”

• “Along with a required history and discussion of the US, new [Foreign Service] officers should also be required to read a good history of the Foreign Service itself.”

Some folks mentioned other gaps in the categories of curriculum I offered:

• “One of the overarching gaps is a basic conceptual understanding of the global political economy.”

• “I think one huge miss among many in our foreign policy is the absence of business knowledge/experience.”

• “I would add cross-cultural competence and foreign language skills as required categories for foreign policy expertise.”

• “Psychology. So much of what we do comes down to how we understand and interpret human behavior, for which the field of psychology offers useful insights.”

A couple of prominent historians I respect pushed back against the value of IR theory for the practice of foreign policy:

• “I’m not aware of any instance in which familiarity of ‘mid-level theory’ successfully influenced the design of an important foreign policy… The search for master generalizations is usually pernicious.”

• “I am skeptical about learning the practical work of making and executing policy through learning IR theories.”

One of my favorite comments seemed to offer a response to the historians who are skeptical of theory:

• “We really need to teach new diplomats the history of diplomacy and its theories, and how to distinguish between them.”

Some folks wondered whether everyone really requires all this expertise:

• “Should this core curriculum apply more broadly to a wider population at State? You appear to target your recommended core curriculum at “policymakers,” a choice that limits this core curriculum to a narrow band of State employees. Clearly not all State employees require exposure to a rigorous foreign policy core curriculum.”

• “It is extremely difficult for any one person to acquire expertise in any one of the four categories of US foreign policy expertise you’ve identified, and much harder for any one person to acquire expertise in all four of these categories.”

• “FSOs interested in making policy – beyond reporting from the field and understanding foreign systems – have to discover an informal apprentice system. This “system” requires a posting to the office of  a 7th floor principal where one can participate in the process and broaden one’s network. This system also depends on finding an effective 7th floor principal, which has gotten harder with more undersecretaries and State’s increased distance from key policymaking.”

Another reader clarifies State’s existing curriculum:

• “While I agree that State’s core curriculum is not rigorous or sufficient, one does, in fact, exist, which seems to require an update or correction to your post. The existing State core curriculum includes, according to https://fam.state.gov/Volumes/Details/13FAM, FSI courses on congressional relations, data literacy for managers, fundamentals of supervision, international negotiation, introduction to working in an embassy, managing foreign assistance awards, navigating the interagency, and presentation skills. Search https://sis.fsi.state.gov/MySISWeb/s/coursesearch using “core curriculum” as the search term... Also, State requires orientation training for all new employees (e.g. A100), and State has a mandatory core curriculum of annual or every-two-years training required for all employees, or required for some large subset of all employees, per https://fam.state.gov/FAM/13FAM/13FAM030102.html”

Finally, two separate folks working at the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute offered some good news regarding a core curriculum:

• “we are working on it, probably more intensively and strategically than ever in the past. We do great work here and have made great strides over these past 5 to 10 years, but there is always plenty of opportunity for improvement. Keep an eye out for some new developments in the works.”

Later this week, I’ll post an actual reading list. I think I received about 150 recommendations! I hope you have some time for reading this summer :)