To the editors:
Upon opening up the February edition of the Washington Diplomat in search of Larry Luxner’s article about the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, I was greatly disappointed by the disparaging characterization of my country in the blaing headline: “Turkish Cypriots Celebrate 30th Anniversary of Fictitious TRNC.”
That precious ink was devoted to tired, old rhetoric from Greek Cypriot officials in Washington and a hysterical rant from one of its fellow travelers was equally dis-quieting. (I would like to believe that Greek Cypriot representative George Chacalli was misquoted when he told Mr. Luxner he had no desire to meet me, as his leader and mine are currently talking with one another in United Nations-sanctioned peace negotiations.)
I had also hoped that Mr. Luxner, an experienced journalist from a great nation championing democracy, human rights, and open trade would have devoted ample time to the concerns of Turkish Cypriots, a people methodically and ruthlessly per-secuted within three years of Cyprus becoming independent in 1960. And since we became an independent and democratic nation in 1983, our Greek Cypriot neigh-bors have tried to make our lives miserable by denying us the opportunity to trade with the outside world or travel freely. Our athletes aren’t even permitted to take part in international competitions.
And yet, Turkish Cypriots still desire a permanent solution to the 50-year old Cy-prus problem, one that will be based on a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation, with political equality, as set out in relevant U.N. Security Council Resolutions and other agreements. In order to make this happen, we seek a commitment from Mr. Chacalli and his administration that they will quit the incessant stall tactics and move forward on finding a peaceful and lasting settlement. The past several years have been frustrating for the Turkish Cypriot people. For example, in 2004 we en-dorsed then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s peace plan, one containing pain-ful compromises, only to see the Greek Cypriot side reject it.
Accordingly, we hope that the latest round of negotiations, begun in early Febru-ary, will result in a comprehensive and lasting agreement for the benefit of future generations of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, as well as all of the peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean, who stand to benefit from the peaceful exploration and ex-traction of the region’s abundant natural resources.
Representative of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
Reply from the author:
Dear Mr. Erdengiz:
Thank you for your letter. Please understand that reporting about emotional, sensitive political topics is never easy — and that any attempt by a journalist to be objective when it comes to the Cyprus issue is bound to offend one side or the other.
We’re sorry that the tone of my article offended you, but it would be irresponsible of us to have profiled the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) without speaking to officials at the Embassy of Cyprus and devoting “precious ink” to their views as well.
We used the term “fictitious” in the headline because from an international perspective, the TRNC enjoys recognition from no one save Turkey. That, however, does not mean we favor the Greek position over the Turkish position.
In fact, from a historical perspective, we strived to be fair to both sides and devoted three paragraphs to the curtailment of the rights of the island’s Turkish-speaking minority in the 1960s, which led to the expulsion of Turks from northern Cyprus, the intervention of U.N. peacekeeping troops and, finally, the Turkish military occupation.
Finally, we do share your hope that the latest round of negotiations will bear fruit, leading, as you write, to a “comprehensive and lasting agreement for the benefit of future generations of Greek and Turkish Cypriots.”
News Editor – The Washington Diplomat
To the Editor:
Thanks to Martin Austermuhle and The Washington Diplomat for bringing attention to the challenges the U.S. Department of State is facing in this period of reduced hiring (Hiring Slowdown at State Leaves Candidates in Limbo) as well as the challenges for the candidates themselves.
The Department’s highly competitive hiring process is designed to attract the most talented individuals from all across the United States, and we have no doubt that those who make it through the rigorous process will represent our nation very well. The candidates described in the article (Michael and Sam) are not alone. Despite our efforts to match the flow of candidates on the hiring registers with projected hiring, there are many variables that are unpredictable.
There have been suggestions that we stop offering the Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT) and hire those who are already on the register. We believe the best solution for American diplomacy is constant recruitment and testing of new candidates so that we are bringing in the United States’ best stream of new diplomatic talent. The hiring register is dynamic, with the top-scoring candidates (including bonuses for veteran’s status and/or language skills) ranked highest, no matter how long they have been on the register.
Prior to 2007, the FSOT was offered just once a year, and the length of time between initial testing and hiring often stretched to 18 months or longer. A 2007 study conducted by a consulting firm suggested that by offering the FSOT three times a year, the assessment-to-hiring cycle could be compressed. The more frequent testing also allows candidates from all backgrounds more timely options for launching a candidacy.
Also beginning in 2007, the Department refined the assessment process. The Qualifications Evaluation Panel (QEP) was added to further evaluate all FSOT passers for a “total candidate” review, and those candidates are rank-ordered by career track (Political, Economic, Public Diplomacy, Management, Consular). The QEP is also used to regulate the flow of candidates to the orals, based on projected hiring. As our projected hiring decreases, we invite fewer candidates to the oral assessment, thus limiting the over-supply of candidates on the register.
Since 2007, we have been able to keep the percentage of candidates who “time off” the register to about 20% per year. While we do not like to see anyone go through our demanding process for naught, it is in the Department’s interest to ensure a supply of the most highly qualified, ready-to-hire candidates when the hiring authorization is approved.
I would note that the article indicated that candidates who convert to the Foreign Service from the Civil Service (via the Mustang Program) or from Foreign Service Specialist positions are able to enter non-competitively. In fact, those who apply for these conversion programs also pass through a QEP process and sit for the same oral assessment that others face. These programs, which allow conversion candidates who pass the oral assessment to join the next entry class of Foreign Service employees, provide career mobility opportunities to Department employees in recognition of their skills and past service.
It is important to recognize the dedication of the thousands who pursue a candidacy for the Foreign Service. Many government agencies and private corporations consider the Department of State’s assessment process as the “gold standard” for competitive hiring, but, like any assessment process, it is certainly not perfect. We constantly evaluate and revise our process to make sure it continues to meet the needs of the Department as well as give opportunities to the broadest segment of U.S. citizens. Those of us who interact with candidates — from recruiters and Diplomats in Residence (DIRs), to officers conducting the QEP and oral assessment — are constantly impressed by the talent, creativity, dedication and perseverance of our candidates. Via our www.careers.state.gov website, we offer various ways to engage with candidates, from contact with the DIRs to a real-time exchange of information on the Forums.
Director of the Office of Recruitment, Examination and Employment
Bureau of Human Resources
U.S. Department of State