U.S. Diplomacy

If you are a member of Senator McCain or Senator Obama’s cadre of campaign advisers, a former US Ambassador, or even a mere foreign policy expert, you are one busy guy/gal right now. Washington is brimming with events with titles like “US Foreign Policy in the Next Presidential Administration: What Will Go Down?” or “President McCain/Obama: What’s the Foreign Policy Plan, Stan?”

Here’s a list of a few examples:

Last week the Partnership for a Secure America, a Washington-based campaign dedicated to “recreating the bipartisan center in American national security and foreign policy” brought together some distinguished foreign policy practitioners/campaign adviser for an event titled “A Bipartisan Foreign Policy for January 2009.”

Former Ambassador Tom Pickering, for Regan adviser Bud Mcfarlane, and CSIS fellow Rick Barton came together to opine about the kinds of foreign policies the next president could enact with support from both sides of the aisle.

To watch all of the sections of the event, click here. Ambassador Pickering’s remarks, in which he enumerated the many foreign policy problems the next President will have to face, can be viewed below.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a center/left-leaning think tank in Washington, has launched an initiative dedicated to this issue, titled “Foreign Policy for the Next President.” The initiative includes a series of policy briefs and events that bringing out the usual suspects—presidential campaign advisers, former Ambassadors and the like.

To view an excellent event Carnegie hosted debating Senator MacCain’s dream of establishing a “League of Democracies” under his presidential watch, click here.

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think thank based in Washington, hosted a discussion of a new book on America can exercise its “Smart Power” in the next administration. One of the discussions I enjoyed attending was hosted by American University, WAMU (NPR’s Washington affiliate) and American Public Media back in April. It gathered a Clinton, Omaba and McCain adviser to speak about how the next President can improve the US’ image abroad.

Coming up on Monday, the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, will be hosting “McCain University.” This event discusses all aspects of the Senator’s campaign platform, with an afternoon session investigating his foreign policy ideas.

The US Global Leadership Campaign, a “broad based, nationwide coalition of businesses, NGOs, and community leaders that advocates for a strong U.S. International Affairs Budget,” will host an event focusing on foreign policy and the next Presidential administration in Washington in July. These are just a sampling of events I have come across. No doubt this issue is being discussed outside the beltway by a variety of different stakeholders. If you come across any events that you think we would be interested in learning about, please post them in the comments section.

Lastly, I thought I would point out a great online resource aimed at generating a global discussion about the foreign policies that can be implemented “On Day One” of the next presidential administration. The the On Day One campaign was launched by the Better World Fund, a campaign to strengthen US-UN relations.

President Bush began a five-country European tour on Monday, his last trip to Europe as President. The pre-take-off remarks he made to the Washington press corps on what he hopes to acheive there can be read here and watched here.

Bush kicked off the trip with an annual European Council summit in Slovenia. While the subject of the talks ranged from human rights, to climate change to European affairs, but Bush’s aim was squarely focused on pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear program.  A summary of the declaration passed at the summit can be read here.

The trip comes at a point where Europeans’ opinion of Bush are lower than that of Americans–despite efforts on the part of the President to reachout to European leaders. Many of these leaders already see Bush as a “lame duck,” and hope that the next President will usher in a new phase in transatlantic relations. 

But a recent International Herald Tribune article reminds:

“The one-day meeting will also show that many areas of friction will remain, no matter who is elected to the White House. “It will be easier to work with a new administration,” said one EU official who deals with trans-Atlantic relations speaking on condition of anonymity, “but the best way not to lose your illusions is not to have too many to start with.”

European newspaper editors told PRI’s The World radio program yesterday what issues they consider most desreving of Bush’s attention, and what they think Mr. Bush’s legacy will be.

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.

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.

The Kojo Nnamdi show, an NPR station based in Washington, DC, hosted a group of foreign policy experts and practitioners in a discussion about the future of the US Foreign Service (FS). (Listen to the show).

All of Kojo’s guests pointed out that the central barrier to a bright future for the FS was the perpetual lack of funding from Congress.

Steven Kashkett, Vice President of the American Foreign Service Association, a lobby organization and labor union for members of the FS, emphasized that the staffing authorizations from Congress failed to suit the needs of the Foreign Service. Because of the lack of funding, the State Department just doesn’t have the people to do the job they need to do. Kojo mentioned that there are less diplomats employed in the FS than there are musicians employed by the Department of Defense.

The guests pointed out that, even when President Bush says he wants to provide the funding to double size of diplomatic corps in the next 10 years, it takes pressure from the Administration on Congress to get those funds fully appropriated. This pressure has not been forcefully applied.

A central issue to funding the FS is: How do you get Members of Congress to care about their needs? As Kashkett explained, “there is no natural constituency.”

Particularly damaging to funding requests is what the guests called a persistent image of US diplomats as “cookie-pushers,” or debutantes living a cushy life on the cocktail circuit. Kaskett emphasized: “Our diplomats have a hard life. Most of us don’t even own a tuxedo.”

Steven Kelly seconded that point. He pointed out that roughly 70% of US diplomats serving abroad are serving in what are called “hardship posts,” posts that present “unusually difficult or unhealthful conditions or severe physical hardships.” Kelly is now a member of the Senior Foreign Service, but when joined the FS in 1982 he said there were “no where near those numbers” of diplomats serving in hardship posts.On top of the lack of funding, former Ambassador and Brookings Institution Vice President Carlos Pascual pointed out that the tasks that the FS undertakes around the world have only gotten harder. Our increasingly interdependent world has changes in the nature of the threats we face. Pascual cited the example of the threats that emanate from failed states like Afghanistan, in addition to threats such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, narco-traffickers. To confront these threats diplomats need to be on the frontline, and this is no longer in state capitols, the traditional geographic targets of FS operations.

Increasing the demands on the FS is their boss’ own mandate. Condoleezza Rice began her tenure as Secretary of State by declaring the goal of the US diplomatic corps to be none other than “transformational diplomacy,” a term that has come to mean that the FS should come to play a role in the inner workings of foreign societies—transforming totalitarian states into democracies, impoverished nations into productive, healthy societies, etc. As one of the guests pointed out, this type of diplomacy requires different kind of diplomatic skill set.

(Rice gives her “transformational diplomacy” speech January 2006 at Georgetown University.)

In sum, the future of the FS looks grim if it can’t get the funding it needs to perform its vital role as America’s “first line of defense.” And if you believe what you read in The Economist, the future of American foreign policy as a whole looks even grimmer. This article published last month argues that a new US President, despite his or her campaign promises, will create little actual change in the conduct of US foreign policy.

Perhaps, as Kojo’s distinguished guests suggest, it isn’t so much the President that is the barrier to a fully-resourced FS, rather it is the Congress. But perhaps the Congress doesn’t have the will to fund the FS because the people the represent do not press for such expenditures. It seems like the American people must also call for a change if we are to ensure a brighter future for the US Foreign Service.

Former Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering tells the Independent the United States and Iran have been holding back channel talks over its nuclear program for several years.

Last month Pickering, along with William Leurs and James Walsh, authored an editorial in the International Herald Tribune regarding stagnation in the United States’ policy towards Iran. They note a “growing number of American leaders calling for direct talks with Iran.” However, the authors acknowledge “not one has yet made a concrete proposal on what to say to the Iranians other than to tell them to stop enrichment.”

In the absence of public officials discussing and working through such a proposal, Pickering and a number of other American “former diplomats and experts” are fleshing through details on “wide ranging issues” that could lead to an agreement between the two nations. The Iranian group includes “academics and policy advisors.” Two institutions have aided the group in its organization, the UN Association of the USA and the International Peace Research Institute.

It’s difficult to judge if the group’s work has any influence in discussions within the administration concerning a policy alternative. Pickering did mention, “the Bush administration ‘did not discourage us.’”

Despite this recent development, the United States raised its level of rhetoric against Iran. Regarding its influence in Iraq, Iranian analyst Nader Uskowi viewed General Patreaus’ comments during his Congressional testimony last week as evidence of the United States drawing a line, with potential consequences:

“Any assertion of tactical command role played by Iran in armed clashes, like what happened in Basra last week, could have immense consequences on US relations with Iran. It would renew concern that such assertions could be precursor to a military attack on Iran, even though the mathematics involving the availability of US troops to open a new front against Iran is highly questionable.”

Meanwhile, Iran recently installed 3,000 new centrifuges in Natanz.

FP Passport’s editor, Blake Hounshell, strongly criticizes President Bush for failing diplomacy 101, “a game of give-and-take in which trading away concessions allows you to get what you want on your top priorities.” Blake’s post articulates a number of policies the United States is pursuing and Russia stands against (of which we’ve mentioned on this blog earlier).

He points to President Bush’s comments declaring “no trade-offs” in regards to providing some breathing room for offering NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia. The purpose of which would be to gain on another issue, perhaps the missile defense proposal in Poland. While I agree with Blake, that our President is missing a useful tool in his diplomacy belt, it should be of no surprise.

The Bush doctrine is predicated on two key elements: the United States continues to operate in its unipolar moment and has a moral obligation to spread freedom to closed societies. Bush’s disdain towards concessions reflects upon the former. While NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine will have little impact on opening their societies, it will however slide them closer towards the United States at the expense of faux democratic Russia. Although we don’t, Bush does see a link between NATO enlargement and democracy, “NATO is an organization that’s peaceful. NATO is an organization that helps democracies flourish. And democracies are good things to have on your border.”

With the end of his Presidency creeping ever-closer, granting membership to Ukraine and Georgia would be viewed as a victory for Bush (in the face of likely failures; see Israel/Palestine). One might even expect him to dismiss tenants of diplomacy, for opportunities to sure up his legacy.

FPA’s Public Diplomacy blog published today a post about an author who was quite critical of the Bush administration’s conduct of foreign policy. Fred Kaplan gave the next US president advice on how to “undo the damage” done by the Bush administration.

This post reviews another article critical of President Bush’s diplomatic practices. Timothy Garton Ash, a British professor and a regular columnist for the Guardian newspaper penned an article this week titled “Europe owes a huge thank you to skilful, patient President George Bush.”

Ash states: “Future historians will record that Europe owes much to George Bush. With patient, accomplished statecraft, they will note, he played midwife to a historic unification of eastern and western Europe. His handling of Russia was little short of masterly. At the same time, he built an impressive international coalition to defeat Saddam Hussein.”

Once we get the image of the President dressed up as a midwife out of our heads we can deal with Ash’s argument. OK. Unification of Europe? Impressive coalition? “Masterly” diplomacy with Russia? One might ask what planet is Ash on?

But wait-he’s talking about Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush. In fact Ash’s article dishes out a scathing review of Bush Jr.’s diplomatic engagement with Europe, beginning with this remark: “It is painful to reflect how much the father did for Europe in four years and how little (to put it mildly) the son will have achieved in eight.”

(Ash depicted by the New York Review of Books).

He goes on to remark “In short, the W in George W stands for weak. For all the macho Texan swagger - “your man [Blair] has cojones” and so on - this Bush has been, on the things that really matter to the world, a weak president. Whereas the outwardly mild and preppy George Bush Sr was, on things that really mattered to the world, a strong president - that is, an effective practitioner of international statecraft.”

Ash spoke nostalgically of Bush Sr.’s success at unifying Germany in the 1990’s, and his “soft-talking” of Mikail Gorbachev into accepting that Germany should belong to NATO. Today Bush Jr. faces resistance from Germany and France over his proposal to fold Ukraine into NATO. Ash comments:

“Had Bush Jr taken a leaf out of his father’s book, or at least read Condi’s [book about Bush Sr.’s negotiations with Gorbachev]; had he done the intensive, private diplomacy with allies and with Moscow as well as the public diplomacy in Ukraine; called in yesterday’s favours; chosen his moment; worried less about form than about content; then the US could, over a number of years, have achieved the desired result in partnership with its European allies. Instead, he’s making yet another unilateral cod’s ear.”

It’s no wonder Ash is nostalgic for Bush senior when you consider how he predicts the world will be like under a Democratic President’s watch. Two years ago Ash played Nostradamus for his Guardian readers, writing a fake news story titled “The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton’s bombing of Iran in 2009: In retaliation, suicide bombers trained by Tehran massacred civilians in Tel Aviv, London and New York.”

In this doomsday scenario set in 2009 the US goes to war with Iran (with the help of the British military of course) after failing to even consider any diplomatic options. It may come as no surprise that Ash—albeit indirectly—attributes the resort to war in 2009 to lack and failure of diplomatic engagement by Bush Jr., along with France, Germany and Britain, respectively:

“With hindsight, it appears that the turning point [in the West’s relations with Iran] may have come in the spring of 2006. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, having proclaimed his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, announced that his country had already successfully enriched uranium and hinted that it had the superior P-2 centrifuge technology. Whether true or not, these claims effectively destroyed the last hopes of achieving a diplomatic solution through negotiations led by the so-called E3 - France, Germany and Britain.”

Luckily in the real world diplomatic options for engaging Iran are still open—although each US Presidential candidate, Clinton included, says that the military option for getting Iran to halt a nuclear weapons program remains “on the table.” [Here is an interesting analysis of the three candidates’ positions on engaging Iran]. But apparently, at least as Ash sees it, the next President’s approach to Iran and the war on terror won’t matter much, since Bush Jr. has already set the path for diplomatic failure.

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.