On my recent lecture tour in Pakistan, I was lucky enough to spend some time in Karachi with Dr. Elizabeth Colton, a 65-year-old ex-journalist who has made her second career in the State Department working on public diplomacy for the United States.
This wasn’t the first time I’ve encountered Dr. Colton. Over the last eight years I’ve run into her in some of the world’s most dangerous hotspots. In Algeria during a particularly violent time, in Sudan, twice in Pakistan, and in Baghdad back when life there was even more dangerous than it is now, Dr. Colton has been working to win friends and make America’s case out in places where that is a difficult and dangerous thing to do. I’d never met Liz before I made a State Department sponsored lecture tour in Algeria where she managed things brilliantly. Since then I’ve come to see her as one of America’s most effective and brilliant (if often unconventional) diplomats and developed tremendous respect for who she is and what she does.
Elizabeth Colton, dedicated foreign service officer.
She does an incredible job, using contacts and connections she built during a lifetime in journalism to bring people into contact with the US who normally wouldn’t have anything to do with us. I’ve seen her work doggedly through the resistance of stiff anti-American bureaucrats to get American diplomats and speakers onto university campuses for free-wheeling debates in places where free speech isn’t normally allowed. I’ve seen her build circles of loyal friends in countries where too many American diplomats never get outside the security bubble. She’s responsible for reaching out to hundreds of journalists and students and persuading them to apply for programs that bring them to the US to see us for themselves — and to take those perceptions back home.
Colton is not your typical foreign service officer. In fact she’s a lousy bureaucrat who sometimes has a hard time working within the State Department system. Entering the foreign service as late as she did, she’s had less seniority than colleagues half her age — but it hasn’t fazed her. She’s taken some of the most dangerous and challenging assignments the government has: in Riyadh, Khartoum, Islamabad, Baghdad and Karachi. She had a long career in journalism before joining the State Department’s public diplomacy program late in life. Her doctorate comes from the London School of Economics; she was an Emmy Award winning producer at ABC News, she’s been Newsweek’s Cairo bureau chief, the Washington diplomatic correspondent for NPR, and covered Desert Storm for NBC radio. She’s edited a group of ten local newspapers in Virginia and covered the Middle East for ABC radio. Her Karachi connections run particularly deep; she’s known the Bhutto family from her time in London when she helped the newly exiled Bhuttos following the military coup that deposed, arrested and ultimately hanged Benazir Bhutto’s father. Given that the Bhutto’s party is now running the country (to the extent that anyone is), her connections, her journalistic skills and her deep knowledge of some of the key figures in Pakistani politics make her an invaluable public servant in a critical time in one of the world’s most important and troubled countries.
There’s more. Given the dangers and hardships of many diplomatic posts these days, some of the most crucial hotspots in the world are staffed by State Department officers on one-year tours. This makes sense from a human resources point of view: diplomats in countries like Pakistan, Iraq and many other places are threatened by the bad guys and their families cannot come with them. To ask foreign service officers to leave spouses and children for two and three years at a time is too much.
But for US diplomacy, it’s bad news. It means that our diplomatic presence in the most volatile and dangerous countries is much weaker than it should be. The embassy staff is always in transition as one-year veterans ship out and newbies step in. Add vacation schedules to that, and you have a recipe for steady chaos — in just those places where the United States most urgently needs people with intimate knowledge of local conditions and plenty of hands on experience. While it’s easy to understand why the State Department runs things this way, there’s no getting around the fact that our diplomatic presence is often the least effective where it’s most needed.
Dr. Colton is an exception to this rule. She not only volunteers for the most dangerous assignments in the hardest cases; she’s willing to extend her tours and serve double and triple terms in places where diplomats face constant, unremitting danger from well organized and well funded terror groups.
And so, naturally, the State Department bureaucracy wants to put her out to pasture — and to do it in the most inefficient and expensive way possible.
There’s a mandatory retirement age for State Department foreign service officers of 65. It’s a hangover from the time when arbitrary retirement ages were common in the American economy; it may well be unconstitutional age discrimination. The policy only applies to career officials; political appointees (who usually hold the most powerful and best paid State Department jobs) are exempt. Exceptions to this shortsighted and inane policy can be made on a case by case basis, but the State Department, possibly because Dr. Colton has challenged the law in court, is refusing to extend her time in Karachi. (You can read about the story in this NPR account. There are more details and some additional references in this blogpost from Diplopundit.) The Near Eastern bureau has asked for Colton to be assigned to the Cairo embassy for a three year tour, but for obscure bureaucratic reasons the State Department is limiting the extension to one year.
Yes, friends. We have an experienced, savvy and dedicated diplomat in Karachi, Pakistan, the intellectual and media capital of the country on the front line of whatever this global conflict that we’re fighting is called who was willing to stay a second year in a post that most diplomats leave after one. And what does the State Department want to do? Take her out of Karachi where she’s built an extraordinary network and send her nonsensically on an artificially shortened one year assignment to Cairo (Diplopundit suspects the goal is to avoid trouble for the State Department from the judge hearing the age discrimination case). Dr. Colton will go to Cairo, I’m sure, and do a good job for the year that she’s there — but it’s a waste of human potential that the State Department can ill afford. If the State Department really hungers and thirsts to take this uniquely qualified diplomat out of Karachi at a critical time, it should at least send her to Egypt on a three year tour that would let her get something done.
Nobody has more respect for America’s diplomats and our State Department than I do. Over the last fifteen years I’ve visited US embassies all over the world and spent time with the remarkable people who represent this country in good times and bad, often at the daily risk of their lives.
But treating Dr. Colton in this thoughtless and cavalier way is insane. We do not have a surplus of well-connected, seasoned public diplomats who are as Colton was, ready, willing and able to spend years building relationships in the world’s most dangerous places. When we find people like this, we should honor and treasure them, not dump them when they pass an arbitrary age limit.
I can see some sense in an age limit. Older diplomats acquire a lot of seniority giving them advantages in bidding for posts, and human nature being what it is, I suspect that a good many boomer diplomats would like to go on pushing cookies and swanning around stately capital cities as long as they physically can. But that’s not what Colton wants: she wants to stay in a grim hardship post where her life is at risk every day. When officers are willing to remain in hardship posts for a second and third year, and when they are clearly willing and able to do the job, the State Department should routinely let them stay on. The advantage of having greater continuity and experience in difficult places is immense.
The Colton case points to some broader problems with State Department personnel policies. The State Department is a fiendishly difficult place to manage well. The Washington bureaucracy is large and is organized like other bureaucratic agencies. But the embassies overseas are much smaller, and the environments in which they operate are very different. Developing ways to manage hundreds of posts (embassies, consulates and representative offices working with international organizations) is hard — especially when many of the key officials in the system are political appointees who come and go without ever really understanding the institution in which they’ve been placed.
To make matters worse, the State Department’s personnel policies by and large reflect the realities of an earlier era: the rigid State Department system struggles with two career families and with people like Liz Colton who change careers. The shift in America’s diplomatic focus away from Europe towards sometimes more challenging Asian, African and Middle Eastern environments — not to mention the wars, security threats and strains associated with the War That Must Not Be Named — will ultimately have to transform the way the United States recruits, trains and manages its diplomats. The bureaucracy is going to have to get better at attracting talent from outside the system and develop much more flexible management methods. That would be tough in any case; since Congress takes a direct hand in State Department oversight, and writes many of its personnel policies into law, this is going to be hard and its going to take time.
But in the meantime, if Dr. Colton wanted a second or even a third year in Karachi — they should have let her stay there. We need more patriots like her making long-term commitments to hardship posts. That the Near Eastern bureau wants her in Cairo is a tribute to their judgment; she is looking forward to the assignment, and I’ve spent enough time in Egypt to know we can use her there. But that we have procedures that automatically rotate people out of critical assignments for which they are ideally suited is not a good thing. The system is broken and it needs to be fixed.
The Obama administration promised to give us ‘smart diplomacy’. Smart diplomats would keep Dr. Colton on a job she does brilliantly, especially when times are as critical as they are.
Readers who agree can do three things.
First, you can send an email to Dr. Colton thanking her for her service and telling her that the folks back home appreciate and honor Americans willing to put their lives on the line to represent our country abroad. You can reach her at lizcolton@yahoo.com. Wish her a happy birthday and let her know she’s not alone.
Second, you tell the State Department what you think. You can send an email to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her to make sure Dr. Colton gets a three year tour in Cairo and that procedures are changed to make it easier for people like her to extend on hardship posts past 65; make yourself heard on the State Department’s Twitter and Facebook page. Let them know that American diplomats willing to stay on past retirement age in hardship posts deserve the country’s thanks and support — and if you think the retirement age should be the same for career officers as for political appointees, tell them that also.
Third, you can contact your elected senators and congresspeople to ask them to take an interest in this case. The State Department cares what Congress thinks. Senators and representatives care what you think — especially in the run up to elections.
It now seems inevitable that Dr. Colton will be ending her tour in Karachi on August 31, the end of the month in which she celebrated her 65th birthday. That will be a slap in the face to a real American hero, and a totally unnecessary blow to America’s front line diplomatic presence. But she’s going to do a great job in Cairo and, hopefully, the State Department will relent and allow her to stay long enough to learn the job and do it with her customary enthusiasm and skill.
I’ll keep you posted.
Isn’t an orchestrated campaign on Dr. Colton’s behalf that includes letters and e-mails to Secretary of State Clinton and members of Congress likely to infuriate the State Department bureaucracy even more and make Dr. Colton’s position worse not better?
This reminds me of the campaigns that you sometimes see on college campuses designed to pressure university tenure committees to grant tenure to candidates that they have turned down. These campaigns almost never work. But in light of the wonderful things WRM has said about Dr.Colton, I hope that I’m wrong.
You are right that not everyone will like this, but as a government agency the State Department has more experience with (and, necessarily, tolerance for) political campaigns. I wish that she could have stayed in Karachi, but the Cairo assignment is a great one and I know she’ll do well there. It also shows that there are people in the State Department who understand what an asset she is.
At this point it’s not so much about Dr. Colton personally (although I hope she can get a full three year assignment in Cairo) as about bureaucratic practice that doesn’t respond as well as it should to important facts on the ground. Routinely allowing talented foreign service officers to remain in hardship posts past 65 is a good first step; reviewing both the mandatory retirement policy and other ways the State Department changes its personnel system to take a changing world into account should be the long term focus.
Let Dr. Colton know that people back home support creative and dynamic diplomats by wishing her happy birthday; let the State Department know that the public cares about effective management of our diplomatic corps going forward.
I plan to post more about the importance of supporting our diplomats — including providing a better managed State Department with more resources.
Although you may have, and I share, a great deal of respect and admiration for many in the foreign service, surely this can not come as a surprise to you when you consider the State Department itself — especially as an entity that operates outside of electoral cycles.
Wigwag writes: “likely to infuriate the State Department bureaucracy even more and make Dr. Colton’s position worse not better?”
Are you suggesting the “diplomatic” approach to this issue or simply the “shut up and go along with it” approach?
“Nobody has more respect for America’s diplomats and our State Department than I do”
You’re kidding, right Mr. Mead?
The State Department has been one tremendous drag of U.S. national interest for many a year now.
Maybe if the place wasn’t so inbreed with Ivy League twits things would be different.
I’m sorry, but until the State Dept. finally starts to represent American interests instead of its own, its standing with the American people will continue to slide.
Peter, a great many American diplomats put their lives on the line every day and whatever their personal opinions may be, most of them do their level best to carry out the policies of the administrations elected by the American people.
If an ignorant or thoughtless person were to rant inaccurately about the shortcomings of our people in the military, you and I would both take offense. My suggestion to you is that you think about what kind of courage and dedication it takes to serve the United States in places like Yemen, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq before making more cheap comments about people whose honor and patriotism you evidently don’t know much about. These folks are, literally, risking their lives for their country; you seem to think it’s enough to feel superior and sneer.
Is that really the right way to go? Is it fair? Does it do anybody on the planet any good?
Mr. Mead: I would like to add my voice to your campaign on behalf of Dr. Colton, and the broader goal of being more flexible about mandatory retirement in the State Department.
However, having been downsized out of my career in private industry at age 49, being bluntly told I was too old, I just can not bring myself to help. America throws out millions of us like garbage. Only government and academia offer any protection against endemic ageism. (Please, no lectures about high cost of older employees: I offered to work at half salary – which would have been $40,000 per year in 2000 – but that employer, a global technical consultancy, wanted youth for image purposes. They spent a year trying to find someone with my specialized experience, personal networks, and skill sets, and failed. Being fired for no apparent reason tainted me. I went back to grad school to become a high school teacher of social studies, only to learn, after paying my own way and straight A’s, that being 50-something was equally undesirable in this idiocy we still call America. My professors all encouraged me to get my pHd to teach at university level, but I had the sense to decline that idea)
Best of luck to Dr. Colton.
Off topic, I just downloaded on my kindle a new book about the relationship of African Christians and Muslims; it’s a topic that WRM has posted on from time to time. The book is entitled “The Tenth Parallel” and its by Eliza Griswold who according the the New York Times book review is the daughter of a relatively progressive Episcopal prelate.
Here’s a link to the review that appeared in today’s New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/books/review/Robinson-t.html?_r=1&ref=books
In the book’s acknowlegement section Professor Mead is thanked but his name is spelled incorrectly; his last name is spelled as “Meade.” If you mention this to them Professor Mead, perhaps they can still fix this error at least in the kindle vesion of the book.
I am looking forward to reading it.
The State Department capable of doing a bone-headed bureaucratic thing? I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Remind me to tell you the story of Condi’s “transformational diplomacy” speech at Georgetown in January 2006, and its aftermath. (No, I did not write that one.) It mentions a lot of problems you discuss in this post. This story, which for now needs to remain out of public domain, really takes the cake.
Dear K2K,
I’m horrified by this story. We need dedicated and intelligent high school teachers, especially in the wilderness of social studies, and it’s a criminal waste that your talents aren’t being used. It sounds like your employer broke the law if they gave your age as the reason for getting rid of you. There has to be a way to get you in touch with the young people who need you — keep trying, please.
Best,
WRM
I just emailed the Sec’y of State. We need all the creativity and resourcefulness of a pro like Dr Colton we can possibly muster in a place as critical to our future as Pakistan. Seems like the political appointees have forgotten that we are in a war over there?
Keeping her in Karachi is a no-brainer.
As a resident of Karachi, as a Pakistani, as
someone with only about 45 years of experience in media and communications, including official media policy formulation and
oversight as Minister for Information and Media Development in 2 out of 3 tenures in Cabinets,
as a friend and as a critic of the USA, I fully endorse the pertinent and powerful comment by Dr Mead about the value that Liz Colton brings
to her challenging and difficult work in Karachi
at this time. With her unusual initiative,
experience, courage and charm, Liz Colton
has established a wide network of contacts
in a complex and volatile situation that help
bridge gaps and misperceptions. Her
departure in 2010 will deprive the USA of an
exceptionally effective presence in Karachi
and require wasteful efforts to re-build
personal contacts in a fluid and unpredictable
situation. No human is indispensable but in
certain situations where there is discretionary
opportunity available to extend tenure for a
larger cause, individual persons should be
retained and supported. Here’s to benevolent
Pakistani interference in the internal affairs of the US Government’s personnel policies !
Tell me, Mr. Mead, what do you say about this action by your beloved State Department?
“Our State Dept. is using undisclosed amounts of US tax dollars to build and renovate Islamic Mosques in 27 different countries. They do this under an ‘outreach’ program with the purpose of fostering ‘good will’ in Muslim countries. The state department will not reveal just how much they spend on overseas, foreign programs but a very reliable source told me most likely it is in the hundreds of billions.”
Peter, if you think for a nanosecond that the State Department is spending “hundreds of billions” building and renovating mosques abroad, there is a bridge in a borough very close to glamorous Queens that I think you might like to buy.
Mr. Mead,
Please. The critical point here is not whether the State Department is spending ‘hundred of billions’ to build mosques abroad; it is whether the State Department is spending ANYTHING on such projects.
Answer that honestly and we’ll be making progress in defining the U.S. State Department.
As for buying the Brooklyn Bridge, given the state of finances of NYC and NY State, the thing could well be up for sale soon. [Just kidding Mr. Mead. Just a little preppy humor to make your day.]
Dear Mr. Mead,
You claim that “Nobody has more respect for America’s diplomats and our State Department than I do” is belied by your slam two paragraphs later that foreign service officers are “cookie pushers” who swan around stately capitals.
Look, nobody has more respect for bloggers than I do, but when hacks who supported the invasion of Iraq (http://www.cfr.org/publication/5684/deadlier_than_war.html) start slamming my profession, I get a little annoyed.
Just kidding — I don’t think you’re a hack. But those little digs that esteemed writers toss out for grins tarnish the Foreign Service and make it very hard to us to get support for the resources we need to get the right people (and enough of them) trained and equipped, etc.
For the record, I know LIz, I greatly respect her work and her abilities, and I hope that she’ll be able to keep working for the State Department and for the American people.
[...] Another blogger, Diplopundit, highlighted the contrast between the Department’s treatment of Dr. Colton when she entered the State Department in 2000, at which time she was one of four new entrants featured in State Magazine, with the current circumstance. The article cited the wealth of experience Colton brought to State – as a journalist, university professor of international relations, Emmy-award winning television producer, magazine editor – which many supporters now feel State is too willing to toss aside. See thoughts from Walter Russell Mead of American Interest Online. [...]
I’m one of these adults — and there are [darn -ed] few of us, from what I can tell — who spent parts of his childhood overseas, first in London, in the late 1960s, and then in Hong Kong, in the early 1970s; as a college senior, I studied in Strasbourg, France, and lived with a family.
I was too young for this during my London days, because I was only six when we arrived, but what I learned from time in Hong Kong, and again in France, was that soft diplomacy is effective.
I can’t say I had this idea completely down by the time we left Hong Kong. But having attended British-run schools on the island and being surrounded by children from Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand, I learned the effectiveness of exchanging ideas and finding our common humanity. It’s far more effective than sending some high-profile diplomat overseas for a high-profile meeting.
Which isn’t meant as a knock on any secretary of state, president or ambassador.
It’s the people on the ground, the little people, that is, who make a difference.
If we want the Arab world and any other potential enemy to understand Americans and the United States, we need more cultural exchanges. More time talking with one another — even about little things, like sports — will bring us closer together than meetings between governments.
Because, in the final analysis, all governments are filled people.
If we can exchange ideas on the little things in life, like sports, or talk about our experiences in bringing up children, and day to day living, with people from other countries, then we’ll figure out solutions to the larger questions, like war and peace.
All of this is easier said than done. But we should never undervalue a connection and a bond that two people can form with one another — even if they come from opposite ends of the earth.
We have far more in common with our enemies than we think.
I hope Liz Colton is still overseas. She’s a far more effective diplomat than any ambassador.