U.S. Diplomacy

A consistent theme running throughout this blog has been the Defense Department’s slow and steady encroachment on activities traditionally performed by our diplomatic bureau, the State Department.

A recent article from the USA Today reveals a new aspect of this phenomenon:

“The Pentagon is setting up a global network of foreign-language news websites, including an Arabic site for Iraqis, and hiring local journalists to write current events stories and other content that promote U.S. interests and counter insurgent messages.

The news sites are part of a Pentagon initiative to expand “Information Operations” on the Internet. Neither the initiative nor the Iraqi site, www.Mawtani.com, has been disclosed publicly. “

I highly recommend reading the full article, which discusses these programs in more detail and some of the history behind them.

Engaging foreign audiences is, of course, a laudable activity. But I have three major concerns with this new initiative.

First, and fundamentally, why is the Defense Department the government agency administering this program? What’s wrong with the State Department’s Public Diplomacy bureau? The Pentagon’s initiative clearly falls into one of this bureau’s specific goals: to “isolate and marginalize the violent extremists; confront their ideology of tyranny and hate. Undermine their efforts to portray the west as in conflict with Islam by empowering mainstream voices and demonstrating respect for Muslim cultures and contributions.”

Sure public diplomacy, as administered by State under the Bush administration’s direction, has taken criticism for not healing the US’ tarnished image or effectively combating violent extremism. But why would this activity work any better if the Defense Department does it? 

I see two plausible answers to my own question (and please chime in if you have other ideas). First, these programs will get more funding if they are placed under the control of the Defense Department—a much better-funded agency overall. State’s bare-boned budget makes it difficult enough to carry out its primary diplomatic functions, let alone shoulder the burden of new initiatives.

Second, in the age of the “global war on terror,” some forms of strategic international communication are coming to be categorized as “counter-terrorism” measures, severed from the larger portfolio of public diplomacy, and plugged in to more specialized agencies.

It appears that, after some key congressional testimonies by Defense (House Armed Services Committee 11/15/2007), State and intelligence officials alike, legislators have come to recognize that Islamic extremists are utilizing the Internet as a tool for recruitment and the transmission of ideology better than we can utilize it to counteract them. As the nominee for Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy James Glassman told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “Our enemies are eating our lunch in terms of getting the word out in digital technology,”

[A recently-released Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs report, which draws heavily from the testimony of key intelligence and defense officials, focuses specifically on “how violent Islamist terrorist groups like al-Qaeda are using the Internet to enlist followers into the global violent Islamist terrorist movement and to increase support for the movement, ranging from ideological support, to fundraising, and ultimately to planning and executing terrorist attacks.”]

Still, the State Department has its own counter-terrorism bureau, why not have that bureau partner with the bureau of Public Diplomacy to implement this strategy?

This leads me to the second of my three major concerns: there is something fundamentally wrong with the military assuming the responsibility of communicating internationally on behalf of the US. This is a civilian-lead country, people in other countries should deal with our civilian collective self.

I can see why Defense would want to cut out the “middle man.” This way, editorial decisions can go directly up the chain of command, and news reporting can take on a hard, rather than a soft, power tone. Call it military news bias, similar to its liberal and conservative incarnations. But let’s be honest, the US military is the last place we should look to produce objective news.

My third concern stems from my second. By paying local journalists to write flattering stories about the US in local news media the department is asking foreign journalists to violate their code of ethics. 

How would we like it if the Pakistani military were paying American journalists to write positive stories about Pakistan in our news media? An American journalist would say, ”no way, I am not taking money to write biased stories.” But if you were a struggling journalist living in a developing country–or even a failed state–with widespread violence  (just like the countries that Defense is targeting)-if you needed the money to feed your family I bet you’d sacrifice your journalistic integrity too.

Back in 2005 when the Defense Department contracted a PR firm to place favorable news stories in the Iraqi press, Members of Congress reportedly chastised the Pentagon, saying the practice could “erode the independence of Iraqi media” (Republican John Warner), and the Pentagon stopped the program. That might be a good idea–again.

In the end, do these programs really get to the root of the problem? Yes, the Internet makes it possible for extremist ideology to spread like wildfire. But it also poses the same opportunity for good news about the US to leap across borders.

Rather than pay off journalists to create some false sense of popularity among foreign audiences, why not put the emphasis on implementing real policies that help raise people’s standards of living, increase stability in their region, and, overall, give reporters some good news involving the US to write about?

The Washington Post’s job section ran a story this Sunday on tips for getting a job with the US Foreign Service. The author dispelled a few common myths about the FS. Here is an excerpt:

“Myth: The Foreign Service — the nation’s diplomatic corps — is made up exclusively of State Department staff.

Fact: The biggest branch of the Foreign Service indeed consists of State Department staff, said Marianne Myles, director of the State Department’s Office of Recruitment, Examination and Employment. But the Foreign Service also has branches with employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of Agriculture and Commerce.

Myth: You must have previous overseas experience to become a Foreign Service officer with the State Department. These workers advance U.S. interests abroad and manage embassies.

Fact: The State Department’s screening process for Foreign Service officers has long included a knowledge test called the Foreign Service Officer Test and a day-long Foreign Service Oral Assessment. But a third hurdle was recently added, Myles said: an in-depth review of professional, academic and extracurricular credentials.

This process considers all aspects of applicants’ backgrounds without requiring specific skills or types of experience, such as languages or overseas experience. Why? “Because someone with a totally different skill set can still make a successful diplomat,” Myles said. “The world is a complicated place; State needs multifaceted individuals with a wide range of skill sets.”

The process favors “generalists who are adaptable enough to go wide and deep,” and who represent all walks of life — including recent graduates and stay-at-home parents returning to work, Myles said.

Other agencies have their own processes.

Myth: All federal international jobs are filled by current feds — never by outsiders.

Fact: Federal recruiters say that outsiders regularly fill mid-level jobs as well as contract positions that may lead to permanent overseas work. In addition, outsiders fill recruitment programs for young professionals, including the Presidential Management Fellows Program, which places recent grads in two-year government assignments.

“A [fellow] may conduct a temporary duty assignment overseas at USAID as part of their training plans,” said Tom Davis, chief of outreach and marketing in USAID’s human resources office. “If they finish their fellowship satisfactorily, we will hire them into a permanent job.”

Myth: You must be a language virtuoso to work overseas.

Fact:Foreign language fluency is a plus but not a necessity. English is spoken in many countries, and many jobs provide language training, said James Ham, the country director for Cameroon. With 12 years of experience working in 11 French-speaking countries, Ham’s career has not been slowed by his accented French, despite his admitted tendency to elicit the response, “Votre Francais est tres American, monsieur.”"

Sold on a career in the foreign service? Click here to register for the exam.

This October, Georgetown University Press will publish a new “manual” on the Foreign Service titled Career Diplomacy. Authored by former Foreign Service Officer Harry Kopp and the recently-passed Charles “Tony” Gillespie, a former Ambassador to Colombia and Chile, the book serves as an A to Z guide on the Foreign Service and US diplomacy.

Here’s some acclaim for the book by Chester Crocker, a former diplomat and professor Georgetown University:

“This book is a gem, a one—stop shop for citizens, U.S. officials, foreign diplomats, and prospective American foreign service officers who want to understand how American diplomacy and foreign policy are organized and conducted. This carefully structured and well-written volume features rich and balanced insights into the foreign service, and sheds a clear light on its three core functions of representation, overseas operations, and policy. Essential reading on the culture and institutions of American diplomacy and on the ins and outs of working in a foreign service career.”

Full disclosure: I worked as a research assistant on the book, so I have a particular affection for it. It was actually modeled, in part, off of the Army Officer’s Guide, an unofficial publication now in its 49th edition. The authors sought to create a guide that could be useful to both the FS-curious–those who are thinking about joining the Foreign Service or preparing for the  foreign service exam, as well as and those already in the FS. 

The book is carefully researched and chocked full of interviews with FSOs past and present, a list of the many acronyms used by the FS, and much, much more. The narratives of life in the Green Zone in Iraq, or the window into the history of US diplomacy really makes you appreciate the State Department and its staff, past and present. It is, if I do say, a must-read for anyone seriously considering joining the FS.

Click here for a table of contents. For those interested in placing a pre-order for the book online, click here.

Diplomacy isn’t just an activity civil servants engage in. the average American (gasp!) can be a diplomat too. Whether it’s going th extra mile to be nice to foreigners you meet on the street, or trying your hardest to be a well-behaved international tourist, Americans themselves can together help to polish the US tarnished image abroad.

 One organization dedicated to this type of activity, called “citizen diplomacy,” is the Des Moines, Iowa-based-U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy. They have recently published a list of 10 things you and I can do to support the US’ public diplomacy efforts. Here they are:

1) Host a youth exchange student in your home - www.exchanges.state.gov/education/citizens/students

2) Urge your local school board to include foreign languages from grade school through high school- and encourage your children to study a foreign language, world history and international news - www.future.state.gov

3) Encourage your children to correspond with an electronic pen pal overseas (such as www.epals.com) and to participate in study abroad programs - www.exchanges.state.gov

4) Get actively involved with organizations that have international programs, such as a local World Affairs Council - www.worldaffairscouncil.org, or non-profit service organization with global outreach.

5) Welcome foreign visitors by supporting international visitor programs - www.exchanges.state.gov/education/ivp

6) Support international disaster relief programs and organizations that provide international medical assistance - www.interaction.org

7) Encourage people-to-people dialogue with other faiths through personal outreach or through your own church, synagogue, mosque or other faith-based institution.

Volunteer to serve on short-term assignments oversea with the USA Freedom Corps’ Volunteers for Prosperity program - www.volunteersforprosperity.gov or with the U.S. Peace Corps. - www.peacecorps.gov

9) Support cultural exchanges for artists, musicians and writers through your local arts institution and international cultural programs - www.exchanges.state.gov/education/citizens/culture; or others such as - www.meridian.org

10) Encourage your business or corporation to reach out in the countries where it has a presence, providing internships or supporting local schools and charities. To learn more about private sector outreach around the world or discuss potential partnerships email diplomacyupdate@state.gov.

To check out some more of the Center’s resources for citizen diplomats, click here.

According to Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler, the release of intelligence on the Syrian nuclear site at al-Kibar, has had adverse effects on the negotiations with North Korea. Unfortunately, this development came at time when significant progress was being made.

Blake Hounshell of FP Passport rightly points out evidence of North Korea actively aiding Syria while negotiating agreements with the United States, will provide ample evidence for lawmakers seeking a tougher stance with North Korea.
Back to Wright and Kessler’s article. Regarding the diplomatic track with Syria an unnamed administration official said,”‘You need to comply with your international obligations, stop aiding foreign fighters going into Iraq, stop disrupting the situation in Lebanon, stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, stop repressing your own people, and stop this nuclear activity.’ And telling them we would look at military options but we wanted to take the diplomatic track first. But all of our political discussions became moot when Israel acted.”

Let’s say Israel did not destroy the facility at al-Kibar, do actions in the above statement sound diplomatic? It seems to me that this administration official has diplomacy confused with demands. Successful diplomatic initiatives like the talks with North Korea involve a key element, concessions. Apparently, that is a point missed with the unnamed official. Apologies for the rant.

Harvard professor Joseph Nye and former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage
briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week on their Smart Power initiative.

Joe Nye has been writing about smart power and its earlier version soft power since … The “smart power” concept was first introduced to the Senate Foreign Relations committee by Admiral Leighton Smith and General Tony Zinni back in March. The purpose of this particular hearing was to give Congress an executable plan for “modernizing our civilian tools of national power and increase the emphasis of these tools in our global strategy.”

In a nutshell, they told the Senators, smart power is based on the three main principles:

-First, America’s standing in the world matters to our security and prosperity.

-Second, today’s challenges can only be addressed with capable and willing allies and partners.

-Third, civilian tools can increase the legitimacy, effectiveness, and sustainability of U.S. Government policies.

Nye and Armitage go on to explain: “Smart Power is a framework for guiding the development of an integrated strategy, resource base and tool kit to achieve U.S. objectives, drawing on both hard and soft power. It underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions at all levels to expand American influence and establish the legitimacy of American action.

The United States can become a smarter power by investing in the global good—providing services and polices that people and governments want but cannot attain in the absence of American leadership. This means support for international institutions, aligning our country with international development, promoting public health, increasing interactions of our civil society with others, maintaining an open international economy, and dealing seriously with climate change and energy insecurity.”

The pair emphasized that while the US military plays a vital role in implementing soft power, its civilian services do not have the resources to perform the functions vital to soft power.

“The U.S. Government is still struggling to develop its soft power instruments outside of the military. Civilian institutions are not staffed or resourced properly, especially for extraordinary missions. Civilian tools are neglected in part because of the difficulty of demonstrating their short-term impact on critical challenges. Stovepiped institutional cultures inhibit joint action… There is little capacity for making tradeoffs at a strategic level. The United States spends about 500 times more on the military than we do on broadcasting and exchanges. How would we know if this is the right proportion, and how would we go about making tradeoffs?”

They step back and make an important point about the bigger picture: “Distinguished Members of the Committee, we developed Smart Power in large part as a reaction to the global war on terror, a concept that we consider to be wrongheaded as an organizing premise of U.S. foreign policy. America is too great of a nation to allow our central narrative and purpose to be held captive to so narrow an idea as defeating al Qaeda. We were twice victimized by September 11—first by the attackers, and then by our own hands when we lost our national confidence and optimism and began to see the world only through the lens of terrorism.”

“…When our words do not match our actions, we demean our character and moral standing and diminish our influence. We cannot lecture others about democracy while we back dictators. We cannot denounce torture and waterboarding in other countries and condone it at home. We cannot allow Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib to become symbols of American power.”

They conclude with a ten-point implementation plan, some of whose highlights include: creating a cabinet-level position for global development, encouraging greater effectiveness for U.S. public diplomacy, and providing more training and professional development for civilian agencies. This testimony is an important call for reforming America’s approach to global leadership that I hope Members of Congress will heed.

Today is the sixteenth anniversary of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. As Ghosts of Alexander reminds us the United States finds itself battling the radical sentiment it helped proliferate to fight the Soviets.

Pakistan’s President Musharraf, addressing the 88^th National Management Course, noted the growing extremism , which he fears “the spread of Talibansation beyond the Tribal Areas.” The threat to the security of Afghanistan couldn’t be more evident than the assassination attempt on President Karzai earlier today.

All too often analysts, myself included, suggest the solution lies in convincing our allies to provide more troops. Recognizing the numerous difficulties Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates, and President Bush have encountered over this very issue leads one to conclude that solution is a pipe dream. Even if this delusion were to become reality, a significant stumbling block hampering the NATO effort stems from the lack of command control, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Such an assertion makes this blogger wonder why six years after the initial invasion there remain questions over authority. Without undisputed orders any “silver bullet” incorporating coalition support bears concern.

The Washington, DC-based Brookings Institute and the University of Bern’s Project on on Internal Displacement has released an interesting report focusing on how to fuse human rights with US foreign policy. The author is Roberta Cohen, who, among her impressive credentials in the field of human rights, was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights at the Department of State and Senior Adviser to US Delegation to the UN.

Here’s her main premise:  

“…What the United States is known and appreciated for around the world is not just its strong economy and military capability. It is its democratic way of life and commitment to the observance of human rights. Our nation defines itself by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the ending of slavery and segregation, the promotion of equal rights for women, the struggle to end racial and minority discrimination, and the defense of free speech, press, and civil liberties. In its dealings with foreign governments and countries, it must necessarily reflect this identity. Whether it is well expressed will depend upon the nature and strength of its human rights policy and the dedication and skill of its diplomatic corps in the implementation of this policy.”

Cohen identifies three challenges to injecting a regard for human rights into US foreign policy.

The first challenge is “how to address human rights and democracy without unduly straining relations with governments and undermining overall US foreign policy.” The US relationship with Pakistan is a prime example. The report queries: “Will the overthrow of Musharraf produce an extremist Islamic government hostile to the US as in Iran? Or will it lead to a more democratic alternative, as in Chile, the Philippines and South Korea?”

The second challenge is “dealing with competing priorities, that is, the political, military and economic interests that conflict with action on human rights.” More often than not, these types of interests override action on human rights. For example during the Reagan Administration, the author says “strategic interests overshadowed human rights concerns with South Africa, and a policy of ‘constructive engagement’ was introduced to gain South Africa’s cooperation in reducing Soviet and Cuban influence in southern Africa.” A more current example can be found in the use of torture to get intelligence that could be used to fight the war on terror.

Finally, Cohen notes that “the intelligence community often pursues policies at variance with a human rights policy.” In sum, there is a trade off between foreign policy implementation and prudent practice of human rights policy. Based on Cohen’s historical observations it doesn’t appear that any Presidential administration has quite hit the nail on the head in regards to human rights.

Jimmy Carter’s controversial visit with Hamas has yielded an unexpected offer to Israel. Hamas’ leading strategist, Khaled Meshaal has publicly announced a ten year “hudna” (truce), as recognition of Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Of course, this offer is met with cynicism here in the United States:

“It is pretty clear to us that there is no acceptance on the part of Hamas of any kind of negotiated settlement,” offered Deputy Spokesman of the State Department, Tom Casey.

When Carter first announced his intentions to meet with Hamas, he was criticized around the world and in the United States for being naïve. Although the naïve accusation seems unwarranted after Meshal’s truce offer, as always, there are signs to undermine notions of peace. Hamas spokesman, Abu Jandal suggested that an escalation of hostilities between Hamas and Israel is near. “Abu Jandal described the recent attacks as a walk in the park and said upcoming attacks would be harsher.” Could it be that Abu Jandal was speaking without knowledge of or prior to Meshaal’s announcement? It is possible, but Hamas has a record of doublespeak.

Retired Israeli General Danny Rothschild senses “a rise in the capabilities of Hamas and a rise in the motivation.” In addition, he expects “an increase in the level of assistance that Hamas is getting from Iran and Hezbollah.”

With this muddled context, it is hard to expect Meshaal’s offer to make any headway amongst Israeli and American leaders, especially when acknowledging that his offer is nothing new:

“Khaled Meshaal, the political leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas, said Wednesday that a long-term truce with Israel would be possible, if it accepted conditions including a return to its 1967 borders.” – February 8, 2006

Just as the brand new US Embassy in Iraq has finally been cleared to open for business, bad news from HR.

“The State Department is warning U.S. diplomats they may be forced to serve in Iraq next year and says it will soon start identifying prime candidates for jobs at the Baghdad embassy and outlying provinces, according to a cable obtained by The Associated Press.

‘We face a growing challenge of supply and demand in the 2009 staffing cycle,’ the cable said, noting that more than 20 percent of the nearly 12,000 foreign service officers have already worked in the two major hardship posts — Iraq and Afghanistan — and a growing number have done tours in both countries.

As a result, the unclassified April 8 cable says, ‘the prime candidate exercise will be repeated’ next year, meaning the State Department will begin identifying U.S. diplomats qualified to serve in Iraq and who could be forced to work there if they don’t volunteer—”The Associated Press.

This is déjà vu all over again for most Foreign Services Officers, as the Department warned this past fall that diplomats would be forced to take up the hardship post if not enough volunteered to fill the required slots. The Associated Press described a “town hall meeting” held last fall among several hundred foreign service officers to discuss the Department’s mandated service order. Some questioned the ethics of sending people against their will to a war zone, with one calling the forced assignments a “potential death sentence” to loud applause. In the end, enough officers leapt to the cause and all the slots were filled.

If only Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice could only win her battle with Congress to appropriate more funds to hire the 1,110 new diplomats she’s requesting for FY 2009, the already strained Foreign Service might not get further squeezed by the largest US embassy ever, that just built in Baghdad.

The US embassy in Baghdad itself is the center of controversy. First is the sheer size of the complex. About 104 acres, the embassy is roughly the same size as the Vacation City in Rome, six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the size of Washington, DC’s National Mall. It will provide working and living quarters for more than 1,000 U.S. diplomats and military personnel and includes a shopping complex, cinema, gym and “extensive” sporting facilities.

The second point of controversy is the embassy’s cost. The complex began costing $592 dollars to construct. That’s a lot of money considering how starved this particular government agency is for funding. But, as one would expect of the embassy of the future, poor construction resulted in serious infrastructure problems, which pushed the cost up by an additional $144 million.

Then there’s the symbolic repercussions. The International Crisis Group, a European-based conflict prevention group, argues that: “The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country.”

Another AP dispatch points out that: “The complex quickly could become a white elephant if the U.S. scales back its presence and ambitions in Iraq. Although the U.S. probably will have forces in Iraq for years to come, it is not clear how much of the traditional work of diplomacy can proceed amid the violence and what the future holds for Iraq’s government.

Edward Peck, a former top U.S. diplomat in Iraq, explained to the AP: “What you have is a situation in which they are building an embassy without really thinking about what its functions are. What kind of embassy is it when everybody lives inside and it’s blast-proof, and people are running around with helmets and crouching behind sandbags?”

And the embassy is, in fact, a giant, uber expensive, sitting duck. Embassy officials ordered its staff to wear flak jackets and helmets while outdoors or in unprotected buildings. In this field of dreams off the Tigris, “if you build it” the diplomats will come—with enough wrangling, hardship pay, and body armor.