U.S. Diplomacy

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.

A new poll conducted for the BBC World Service by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the international polling firm GlobeScan shows that for the first time since 2005, global views of the United States have improved.

But they’re still not what you would call “good.”

From the study’s report: “While views of US influence in the world are still predominantly negative, they have improved in 11 of the 23 countries the BBC polled a year ago, while worsening in just three countries.

The average percentage saying that the is having a positive influence has increased from 31 per cent a year ago to 35 per cent today while the view that it is having a negative influence has declined from 52 per cent to 47 per cent.

Looking just at the countries that have been polled in each of the last four years, positive views of the US eroded from 2005 (38% on average), to 2006 (32%), and to 2007 (28%); recovering for the first time this year to 32 per cent.”

It’s hard to believe that slightly less than a global majority thinking the US is having a negative influence in the world constitutes good news. But  hey, at this point we’ll take whatever we can get.

To view more detailed information about views of the US, methodology of the survey, etc. visit: WorldPublicOpinion.org.

How does the US compare to the rest of the world? This poll asked respondents in 34 different countries (respondents in 23 of these countries had been asked this question since 2005) to rate whether 14 key international players/countries are having a “mainly postitive” or “mainly negative” influence in the world. 

Drum roll….

We’re Number Ten (out of 14)! Or does this sound more triumphant: We’re Fifth least-liked!

This also an improvement from last year, when only Israel, Iran and North Korea (two-thirds of the “Axis of Evil)” were less popular than  the US. This year our key military ally Pakistan has joined us in being top-five least popular. And we wonder why we have trouble recruiting new allies in the global war on terror? 

Even though views of the US are warming, it is clrealy not time to rest on our laurels and let the world change their own minds about us. There is so much work to be done.

But the US Presidential candidates are sending good messages to voters about the future of US global leadership under their presidency (maybe the global public listened to them too…?). Let’s hope the upswing in positivity can continue throughout–at least–the next four years.

The current issue of American Interest has a fascinating article lauding China’s “smart policy” compared to the United States. The author, Kishore Mahbubani, is dean of the National University of Singapore. Mahbubani’s article predominantly deals with China, however I have teased out several indictments on US actions, as interpreted by a foreign observer.

Concerning the policy discourse within the United States, Mahbubani states, “no country can match America’s conceptual output in volume. The story is different when it comes to quality, however…The typical time horizon in Washington hovers somewhere between the daily spin for the evening talk shows and the next elections cycle. In Beijing the clear focus is on where China wants to be in fifty years in order to avoid a repetition of the two centuries emerging as a modern power.”

Mahbubani’s right to point that the media’s drive for 24 hour news cycles has an infected the public’s perspective when considering long-term subjects. However, I doubt policymaker are factoring in the evening talks shows. It is job of the communication officials to maintain talking points, and that should not be confused with political appointee’s and cabinet members who largely engage in the policy process.

It is not surprising that a nation on the rise and likely to become a superpower would be more likely to engage in policy discourse in long-term strategic terms. Likewise, the United States is the current superpower and must consider the benefits and costs of their short-term actions as much as their long-term strategic interests.

The Association of Southeast Asian Neighbors (ASEAN), created by the Untied States with the intention to contain the Soviet Union’s influence, is now neglected by the U.S. to their detriment, in the eyes of Mahbubani:

“Yet, when ASEAN held a summit to celebrate its fortieth anniversary in November 2007, it was China that sent its Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao, to attend the celebrations. Neither George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, nor Condoleezza Rice turned up. Indeed, two months earlier, Bush had suddenly canceled a U.S.-ASEASN Summit set for September 2007 so that he could make another secret stopover in Baghdad. Similarly, Rice had failed to turn up at the regular ASEAN Ministerial Meetings in 2005 and 2007. (Her predecessor wisely never missed one.)”

The State Department should send high-level representatives in addition to Condoleezza Rice to ASEAN summits. The United States should take advantage of these opportunities to listen to the concerns of Asian nations, as well as explain policy initiatives.

Mahbubani then compares the warm relationship between China and other Asian states to that of the U.S. and its Latin America neighbors. “Today, public opinion surveys show strong anti-Americanism in Latin American states, Brazil and Argentina, have swung leftward and now keep a politically useful distance from the United States.” While states in South America may occasionally publicly chide the United States, none would argue the United States does not continue to wield considerable influence in the region. Additionally, the United States is looking to include more Latin American countries in trade agreements.

“New cultural and political perspectives are entering the complex chessboard, most Western commentators expected (with good reason) that the Western powers would continue to be the shrewdest and most adept geopolitical actors. Instead, they have floundered; the Europeans because they are introspective to a fault, and the Americans arguably because they are not introspective enough. Western incompetence has provided significant opportunities that China has been able to exploit without paying any serious political price.”

The balancing act of remaining introspective to assess one’s capabilities, in order to complement the understanding of one’s rival’s intentions and capabilities is an issue often raised by Madeline Albright, and interestingly reminiscent of Sun Tzu’s words. This is fair criticism. Again, it is likely that China and other significant powers will act in such a manner. While it can be viewed in negative terms, and should be, it also infers that the United States remains the strongest actor, or else the soft-balancing would cease.

Unfortunately, the online edition of American Interest requires a subscription, but I highly recommend purchasing the latest issue. For further information on U.S.-China relations, particularly trade issues, check out our colleague’s blog.

From April 11^th to April 17th, 1971 a group of Americans were invited to play ping pong in China. Dubbed ping pong diplomacy, it helped improve U.S.-China relations. In fact, on April 14^th of that year the United States announced it would end it’s trade embargo with China. One year later Nixon made his infamous trip to China. In another attempt to utilize American soft power, the New York Philharmonic orchestra arrived in Pyongyang yesterday. The orchestra played on Tuesday night (which due to the time difference has already ended) and was broadcasted on North Korea’s state-run TV and radio.

Playing a concert may seem ho-hum here, however in North Korea one can be thrown in jail for listening to a foreign broadcast. What’s more, North Koreans are now more likely to hear foreign broadcasts as a result of trade with China:

“Activists working to improve human rights in North Korea largely agree that there is a unique window of opportunity at this time.

One reason is the growing availability of radios. The short-wave radios sold in North Korea are relatively expensive, come fixed to state-run stations, and must be registered with the authorities. However, thanks to a growing cross-border trade with China, much of it unofficial, cheap AM radios are proliferating in North Korea — along with used videotape players that Chinese seek to sell when they upgrade to DVD players.

There’s anecdotal evidence that one-third or more of the population has access to AM radios that can be freely tuned to nongovernment stations, according to Mr. Lefkowitz, an estimate confirmed by other North Korea watchers. The Chinese radios are also small, which means that they are easier to hide.”

While it is too soon to infer what influence the New York Philharmonic orchestra had, Musical Director Lorin Maazel can point to it’s influence in the past. “It [the New York Philharmonic orchestra] showed Soviet citizens that they could have relations with foreign organizations and these organizations could come in the country freely,’ he said. ‘But what the Soviets didn’t realize was, this was a two-edged sword.’

‘By allowing interactions between people from outside the country with people inside, eventually the people found themselves out of power.”

In an op-ed, Maazel wrote, “I have always believed that the arts, per se, and their exponents, artists, have a broader role to play in the public arena. But it must be totally apolitical, nonpartisan and free of issue-specific agendas. It is a role of the highest possible order: bringing peoples and their cultures together on common ground, where the roots of peaceful interchange can imperceptibly but irrevocably take hold. If all goes well, the presence of the New York Philharmonic in Pyongyang might gently influence the perception of our country there. If we are gradually to improve U.S.-Korean relations, such events have the potential to nudge open a door that has been closed too long.”

The New York Philharmonic orchestra may be just the first round of a new musical diplomacy. Indeed, the Guardian is reporting today that Eric Clapton has been invited to play in North Korea. As a great classic rock band once wrote, “Whoa, we got to let the music play.”

The United Nations has asked the United States for $265 million for humanitarian relief to Iraqis. The aid would be allocated towards food, health, education, water and sanitation, housing and shelter, and protection.

“Nearly five years of war have badly worsened chronic problems in Iraq. UNAMI said an estimated 4 million people need basic food assistance. And at least 2.4 million people inside Iraq are believed to have been displaced from their homes.”

On a related note, Angelina Jolie, long known for her refugee work in Darfur, has recently focused her attention upon Iraqi refugees and humanitarian relief.
“The US embassy said Jolie traveled to Baghdad with Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky ‘to discuss US humanitarian relief efforts for internally displaced persons and conflict victims.’

The trip, a statement said, is a follow-up to a visit by Jolie to the region six months ago and marks a ‘mission to support and implement joint solutions to assist Iraqi’s displaced population.’

Jolie also met Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and Immigration and Refugees Minister Abdel Samad Rahman Sultan.

She had lunch with American troops serving in Iraq after earlier meeting their top commander, General David Petraeus.

The actress also held talks in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone with UN head of mission Staffan di Mistura and met a group of internally displaced people.”

Does Jolie have any influence and are her meetings with al-Maliki, Petraeus, and UN officials newsworthy? Perhaps they were answering a question posed by Dan Drezner in the National Interest, “Who would you rather sit next to at your next Council on Foreign Relations roundtable: Henry Kissinger or Angelina Jolie?”

Her star power can potentially draw attention to issues citizens in the United States and other countries might gloss over if it were a State Department official conducting a press conference. Jolie’s recent trip to Iraq was not her first. In 2007, she met with 1,200 Iraqis outside the border with Syria. Following the meeting, Jolie launched a $150 million appeal by UNICEF to help educate one million children affected by war.

I’ve yet to read if Jolie’s meetings in Iraq last week were in connection to the recent UN request, however this blogger wouldn’t be surprised if they were.

UPDATE: A reader, Carol, points out that Jolie’s trip to Iraq was part of a State Department mission. See Carol’s comment below for more.

On Wednesday of last week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard the testimony of three of President Bush’s nominees seeking confirmation to hold State Department positions in the bureau of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.  The first to testify was James K. Glassman, whose nomination for Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy was previously discussed in this blog here. A transcript of his prepared testimony can be found here. 

It appears that Glassman has been doing his homework. Toward the end of his testimony he summarizes what he took away from some discussions he had with experts in on global public opinion of the U.S.:  

“1. Animosity toward the United States is real, and it must concern us. 

2. Different countries have different views of the United States. In Africa, Japan, and India, for example, most people favorably disposed toward the United States. In much of Western Europe and nearly all the Arab and Muslim world, they are not.  3. Much of the animosity is not deep. Even people who say they dislike us want to have strong bilateral relations with us, and attitudes are not set in stone. As Secretary Rice said last year, The United States is “still the place where people like to send their kids to school, where people want to start a new life. Sometimes we overstate the degree to which America is not popular, even if sometimes our policies are not.” 

4. The animosity of foreigners has three sources:

a. They understand that we are a powerful nation and will ultimately set policies with our own interests in mind, but they believe we do not listen to them, do not act as a reliable partner, and do not respectfully take their views into account.

b. In the Arab and Muslim world, especially, they have major misconceptions about America, our aims, and our policies. Remember the examples I cited before, such as a belief that we want to supplant Islam with Christianity in the Middle East. c. They disagree with our policies, especially our presence in Iraq and what they see as our bias in the matter of Israel and the Palestinians.

The first two sources of animosity, I believe, we can address effectively through public diplomacy. We can listen better and more respectfully and through exchanges, information programs, and ideological engagement, we can address and rectify the lies and misconceptions. 

As for policy: Edward R. Murrow, when he was USIA director, famously said that public diplomacy should be in on the takeoffs, not just the crash landings. In other words, public diplomacy should have a place at the table, to advise policymakers of the potential reaction of foreign publics to policies. But never, in my view, should global public opinion polls determine the foreign policy of the United States. Can we do a better job explaining our policies? Yes. Will those policies be universally embraced? No. In the early 1980s, the U.S. and our allies agreed on the placement of cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe. It was a decision that was aggressively opposed by much of Europe’s public opinion, but it was a policy that helped bring down communism…” 

News reports on his testimony focused on Glassman’s purported plan to counter Islamic extremism’s detrimental effects on the US image abroad with digital media. From the Voice of America:  “Glassman, who has a background in print and electronic media, says he will use the year or so before the end of the Bush administration to focus on leading a war of ideas using new technologies…”  

Glassman says the perception that the US is trying to undermine Islam, which he cites as widespread in the Muslim world, “come[s] directly from what he calls doctrine at the foundation of al-Qaida, and must be fought using the Internet, U.S. government-funded international broadcasting, and educational and cultural exchange programs.”  CNN and others picked up on Glassman’s comment that “our enemies are eating our lunch in terms of getting their messages communicated using ‘digital technology.’” He continued: “It is just plain embarrassing that al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.” 

Diane Farsetta, Senior Researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy also discussed Glassman’s focus on digital technologies as a public diplomacy tool in a piece for Alternet. 

VOA reports that Glassman fielded some pointed questions from the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked Glassman to comment on criticism the bureau of Public Diplomacy has received for “having a weak communications strategy which obviously raises questions about its ability to meet its important mission.” Glassman responded that “U.S. efforts have suffered from a lack of coordination among government agencies. He pledged to help rebuild a public diplomacy structure [the US Information Agency, or USIA] he says was largely dismantled amid what he calls a bipartisan period of neglect in the 1990s.”  

Also testifying was Goli Ameri, President Bush’s nominee to hold the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). Ameri would replace Dina Habib Powell, who held the position from 2005 until December 2007, when she left the Department to become the Director of Global Corporate Engagement for the Goldman Sachs Group.

   Ameri (seated on the far right), formerly the Department’s Public Delegate to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, spoke of her upbringing in Iran and the impact of her move to the U.S. study at Stanford University. In her testimony she called herself “an American by choice.” 

“[While studying in the US] I learned…the value of freedom and democracy, the fundamentals of critical thinking, the questioning of ideas and a profound sense of empowerment. I learned that in America, there are no constraints to one’s desire to achieve. That it’s ok to be a woman, it’s ok to be an immigrant and most importantly its ok to be a dreamer Where else in the world, would an immigrant, a woman of Iranian heritage be nominated as an Assistant Secretary and have the privilege to sit in front of this distinguished panel?”

In 2004, Ameri ran for Congress in Oregon on the Republican ticket, but lost to Congressman David Wu by a narrow margin.   If confirmed, Ameri pledged to “expand our ‘people to people exchanges’ [diplomatic speak for directly engaging citizens of two different countries in an attempt to build positive relations between the two nations and introduce: (1) More opportunities for engagement with key countries like Iran and North Korea where we seek to better relations between our citizens and (2) Reach out to the more disadvantaged segments of the population around the world. I will encourage more women and girls, to participate in our exchange programs and I would like to make sure that we institutionalize successful and powerful programs like the Middle East Breast Cancer Initiative and the Fortune Women’s Mentorship program.”   Ameri’s nomination caused a negative reaction from some Iran-watchers (see here and here ), but then again so did the nomination of the past Assistant Secretary for ECA, Dina Habib Powell, an Egyptian-American, prompting, among other reactions, this letter to the Washington Post by Arab-American institute President James Zogby. 

The hearing’s final testimony came from David J. Kramer, nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DLR), the bureau that leads U.S. efforts to “promote democracy, protect human rights and international religious freedom, and advance labor rights globally.”  Kramer, currently Deputy Assistant Secretary for Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova, will be replacing Jonathan D. Farrar who held the position since 2005.  If confirmed, Kramer pledged to “continue to concentrate DRL’s diplomacy and programs on the core components of democracy that must be present in countries around the globe if human rights are to be effectively exercised and protected: (1) free and fair electoral processes, with a level playing field to ensure genuine competition; (2) good governance, with representative, transparent and accountable institutions operating under the rule of law, including independent legislatures and judiciaries; and (3) robust civil societies, including independent media and labor unions.”

A 2006 assessment of the State Department’s Public Diplomacy (PD) program conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, a Cabinet-level office run out the White House) ranks the program’s overall performance “adequate,” (as opposed to “effective, moderately effective, or ineffective”). The more abbreviated “assessment summary” can be found here.

The State Department describes the key functions of Public Diplomacy and its foreign officers as “indispensable” to the conduct of foreign policy. Accordingly, PD’s key activities, as outlined in the assessment’s “program performance measures,” amount to no small feat for PD officers.

According to the assessment, the program’s main goal is generating an “audience with an improved or increased understanding of U.S. policies, society and values.” Some of the ‘softer’ goals listed in the assessment include reaching key foreign audiences through State Department-sponsored exchange programs and increasing the user satisfaction scores of the US Embassy Web sites.

The more public relations-type functions (to give a less cynical depiction) include generating “accurate/favorable portrayals” of U.S. policies in key foreign media outlets and engineering editorial and opinion commentary support by foreign audiences for U.S. policies and positions.

Then there’s the granddaddy of them all: reducing the level of anti-American sentiment among key foreign audiences. This goal is commonly referred to as “winning hearts and minds,” a campaign the US first launched during the Vietnam war, and now commonly refers to US efforts at improving relations with the “Muslim” world. Given the rise in anti-American sentiment across the Middle East and beyond, this particular performance measurement may drag down PD’s overall ranking for a good time to come.

With such far-reaching and invasive goals set out, it is no wonder PD’s lowest-scoring is the “Program Results” assessment section: “Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals? Answer: No” (the assessment sites as evidence polling from Pew Global Attitudes Project, Pew’s 2007 polling on global views of the US is shown below).

Relative to other US government programs assessed by OMB, PD’s “adequate” ranking puts it on the lower end of the performance spectrum. The State Department as a whole performs about as well as other government agencies (27 “effective” programs, 12 “moderately effective,” 13 “adequate,” 0 “inadequate”), such as Defense, (19, 19, 10, 0), Homeland Security (9, 18, 6, 0). Based on OMB’s most recent assessments, 22% of Federal programs are “not performing,” or are considered ineffective. To view an explanation of the ranking criteria, click here.

Though the ExpectMore.gov site has been criticized for the “shallowness of its content,” the 2006 assessment does a good job of conveying exactly what State’s PD program attempts to achieve (or, as the case may be, not achieve).

Three cheers for transparency… But by tasking this relatively small bureau with challenging goals such as “changing the hearts and minds” of vast, increasingly antagonistic foreign audiences—especially without necessarily pairing that goal with the implementation of effective and agreeable foreign policies—we will continue to “ExpectMore” out of State’s PD program.

Soft balancing against the United States is on the rise and the next President will face a myriad of challenges in asserting American influence, so argues Parag Khanna. His article in the New York Time Magazine this week encapsulates a vast swath of recent history and developments in geopolitics, particularly across the second world.

In the future he sees a security and soft power competition among three major powers, the United States, China, and the European Union. His prescription for the coming battle over influence, create a diplomatic industrial complex.

“Pentagonize the State Department…Diplomacy, too, requires the equivalent of geographic commands — with top-notch assistant secretaries of state to manage relations in each key region without worrying about getting on the daily agenda of the secretary of state for menial approvals. Then we’ll be ready to coordinate within distant areas.”

“Regional institutions are thriving in the second world — think Mercosur(the South American common market), the Association of Southeast Asian Naitons (Asean), the Gulf Cooperation Council in the Persian Gulf. We need high-level ambassadors at those organizations too.”

“Condoleezza Rice’s ‘transformational diplomacy’ is a myth: we don’t have enough diplomats for core assignments, let alone solo hardship missions. We need a Peace Corps 10 times its present size, plus student exchanges, English-teaching programs and hands-on job training overseas — with corporate sponsorship.”

In tackling public diplomacy, Khanna unleashes his “secret weapon,” the American citizenry. “American foundations and charities, not least the Gates and Ford Foundations, dwarf European counterparts in their humanitarian giving; if such private groups independently send more and more American volunteers armed with cash, good will and local knowledge to perform ‘diplomacy of the deed,’ then the public diplomacy will take care of itself.”

While his plan is fresh and bold, it ignores the current state of affairs among the diplomatic corps. As my fellow blogger eloquently pointed out the State Department is facing cuts across the board, the opposite direction Khanna suggests we should be headed. That said, the ills at the State Department can be remedied by assurances from the next President. Until State receives word of the next President’s priorities, I would advise a degree of caution in Khanna’s comparison to that of the military-industrial complex. It did not happen overnight; likewise it would truly be a diplomatic revolution were it to be realized in the coming decade(s).

Go check out his thought-provoking article and anyone interested might want to purchase his forthcoming book, due out in March.

Jay Lefkowitz, the US Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights, spoke at AEI last week of a renewed debate within the administration over its restrained diplomacy track with North Korea. Indeed, he offered three concrete steps for future engagement:

“1. We should now shift our focus from a short to a longer time frame. It is increasingly likely that North Korea will have the same nuclear status one year from now that it has today.

2. Policy should rest on assumptions that correlate with recent facts and events. It is evident that South Korea and China will not exert significant pressure on North Korea if they think it might lead to its collapse.

3. All negotiations with North Korea should firmly link human rights, economic support, and security issues.”

State Dept. spokesman Sean McCormack was quick to distance the administration from Lefkowitz’s comments. “He [Lefkowitz] is not, however, somebody who speaks authoritatively about the six-party talks. His comments certainly don’t represent the views of the administration.” However, North Korea policy likely falls along the usual fault lines within the Administration. The Vice President’s office arguing for a tougher stance, whereas the State Department maintains diplomatic tenets, working with the most recent agreement made during six-party talks.

Another possibility is at play here, and seems to be consistent with our policy and rhetoric towards Iran. Sending out ripples of a tougher stance towards North Korea might be a useful diplomatic tool. Articulating stronger costs for not acting, could push North Korea to meet future deadlines, which they have already shown a penchant to delay or miss.

Perhaps sensing the debate brewing at the White House, John Bolton penned an op-ed arguing for the United States to abandon the agreement reached last year. Bolton has long held animosity towards any deal with North Korea lacking tough measures for failure to comply.

Bolton sees a window of opportunity for President Bush. “Given the recent South Korean presidential election results, Mr. Bush will soon have a willing ally in Lee Myung-bak, who will be inaugurated on Feb. 25. After 10 years, a realist will once again occupy Seoul’s Blue House, one who will support a tougher American line rather than oppose it.”

As Timothy Savage of North Korea zone notes, a shift in the diplomatic track with North Korea could be announced during the upcoming state of the union address. We will certainly be listening here and report back any significant changes, if they’re mentioned.

Here’s the bad news. The Washington Post reports that the State Department will be cutting 10 percent of diplomatic posts next year.

Veteran diplomatic correspondent Karen DeYoung reports:   “Nearly one-quarter of all diplomatic posts are vacant after hundreds of Foreign Service officers were sent to embassies in Baghdad and Kabul, and Congress has not provided funding for new hires… The size of the foreign service, about 6,500 diplomats, increased by approximately 300 positions a year between 2001 and 2004, but since then Congress has rejected requests for additional hiring for all but consular and security positions.” 

This is bad news on many levels:  

–First the cuts make painfully apparent the reality that the State Department is starved of resources. At a time when global opinion of theUnited States is at an all time low, the overseas presence of our diplomatic corps is shrinking. The cuts seem especially drastic when one considers that throughout its history the State Department, relative to its mandate, has been chronically under funded.

A rigorous 2003 Task Force report published by an umbrella organization of US diplomatic groups recommends that Congress appropriate a full 30% increase in the State Department budget. That’s not a plea for more office supplies. It reminds me of Oliver Twist’s weary cry “please sir may I have some more…”  

Let’s think about how the effects of these budget cuts might play out. Next year the US Foreign Service will be 10 percent less able to negotiate hot-button issues with other leaders, report on developments from afar, promote US values to unfamiliar audiences, maintain constructive relationships with our allies, monitor and respond to the actions of our enemies, and protect our embassies and traveling countrymen, among many other essential activities. It’s a difficult picture to paint because the State Department’s activities are embedded in so many foreign interactions essential to our domestic livelihood.   

–But more importantly the budget cuts reflect a continuing emphasis on military capabilities rather than diplomatic capabilities in US federal budgeting priorities. In 2007 the defense budget totaled $439.3 billion for regular department spending, not including money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In 2008 its budget will increase 44 billion to $483 billion. Ironically enough that’s a 9% increase in the Defense Department budget…  

Defense’s bountiful budget allows it to even take on some activities traditionally left to State. The State Department’s office of Public Diplomacy attempts to win the “battle of ideas” by improving the US’ image abroad. That office enjoys an annual budget of $900 million. On the other side of the river, Secretary Gates last year created a new position called the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy, to spearhead the military’s strategic communications and run their “countering ideological support to terrorism” program.

According to the US National Defense Strategy, part of this program entails: “helping change Muslim misperceptions of the United States and the West; and reinforcing the message that the Global War on Terrorism is not a war against Islam, but rather is an outgrowth of a civil war within Islam between extremists and those who oppose them.” 

 The State Department has a large Public Diplomacy bureau that handles those very tasks, along with strategic communications in general. Of course we are all better off for having the largest number of and most effective strategists assigned to this daunting and vital task. Still, “Defense department” and “soft power” don’t logically go hand in hand. Furthermore, it would be understandable that a global public weary of American unilateralism might not trust the “spin” coming out of the military establishment. 

In short, when diplomatic activities start being transferred to the military branch, everyone suffers—not just the starving State Department.