U.S. Diplomacy

Career Foreign Service Officer James DeHart discusses whether the diplomatic corps have become too militarized in an op-ed in the Washington Posttoday.

Noting the large numbers of diplomats who have volunteered for war-zone appointments in Afghanistan and Iraq, DeHart says:

“This surge in war-zone assignments is an extension of the “transformational diplomacy” for which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called in a 2006 speech at Georgetown UniversityShe said then that Foreign Service officers must learn to partner more directly with the military. True, no doubt, but as they have done so, these new ties have raised fears that diplomacy itself is becoming militarized.”

DeHart queries: “…While expertise in military affairs is a good thing, should it overshadow all else in a world of shifting challenges — climate change, energy security and the threat of global pandemics, to name just a few? As China buys up U.S. debt by the billions, let’s hope that some U.S. diplomats are reading the Financial Times and not just Sun Tzu.

Today, we’re seeing not only transformational diplomacy but also the transformation of diplomacy. Foreign Service officers emerging from war zones are in many cases being promoted ahead of their peers. This is understandable, but as they rise up the chain and gain a bigger say in future personnel decisions, the practitioners of more “traditional” diplomacy may find themselves relegated to an even slower track.”

He predicts: “As a bumper sticker, transformational diplomacy is bound to be peeled away by the next administration. But as a set of ideas, it’s here to stay. Foreign Service officers have always been the first to say that they can’t be cooped up in foreign ministries or fortress embassies — that they need to be out on the street, engaging with diverse communities.

Here’s a startling statistic: “In recent years, the number of Foreign Service assignments categorized as “unaccompanied” — that is, too dangerous for families — has surged from 200 to 900. If the trend continues, new recruits may no longer view the Foreign Service as a career but as something to do for a few years before settling down to real life — a bit like the Peace Corps, minus the peace. In a recent survey by the American Foreign Service Association, 44 percent of active Foreign Service officers said that “developments in the last few years” have made it less likely that they will remain in the Foreign Service for a full career.”

He concludes: “A Foreign Service that knows its strengths and conducts diplomacy without apology will be locked and loaded to advance America’s place in the world.”

Well said. It is important to recognize these transformations occurring in the nature of US’ diplomacy. I do hope DeHart is wrong in suggesting that the State Department might react to the upsurge in military posts by measuring new Foreign Service Officers against the military’s yard-stick. While the military and our diplomatic corps must work together, one needn’t morph into the other.

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.

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.

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.

Referring to the dissipating morale of the American cause, Thomas Paine wrote in the winter of 1776 that “these are the times that try men’s souls.” One might reflect today on Afghanistan as trying NATO’s soul. President Bush envisions a new mission for NATO through Afghanistan, while some see the fissure over troops in Afghanistan as a possible death knell for NATO.

This week President Bush embarks on his final NATO Summit, where he will attempt to persuade NATO allies to redouble their efforts in Afghanistan. His trip will include stops in Ukraine, Moscow, Croatia, and the summit in Bucharest.

The Bucharest summit will raise many issues other than Afghanistan, including the controversial missile defense proposal in Poland (and the alternative proposal in Czech Republic), Kosovo’s independence, and whether Georgia and Ukraine should be extended membership into NATO. All of these issues spark contrasts with Russia, which detests the old Soviet states enhancing their standing with the United States. As a diplomatic gesture, Putin and his successor Dmitry Medvedev were offered invitations to the summit.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili spoke with the Financial Times about the upcoming summit, and portrayed denial of Georgia into NATO as effectively providing Russia with a veto. He also suggested that Georgia could send their troops currently serving in Iraq to Afghanistan, in order to help relieve the troop strain on NATO.

France plans to announce the arrival of an additional 1,000 troops to Afghanistan. Coinciding with President Bush’s request for more troops, France will ask NATO members to “devote more resources to rebuilding Afghan society, bringing in judges, teachers, medical workers and civil administrators.”

France’s boost will help ease fears from Canada’s PM Steve Harper, who threatened to remove troops if other allies did not step-up. Additionally, the United States has slated 3,000 Marines for duty in Afghanistan. The strengthening alliance between France and the United States is just a small caveat amid a stronger notion of NATO members splitting over the troop issue in Afghanistan.

Richard Holbrooke writes today that “the conflict in Afghanistan will be far more costly and much, much longer than Americans realize. This war, already in its seventh year, will eventually become the longest in American history, surpassing even Vietnam.”

Any troop promises by NATO members other than France will signify a successful trip for President Bush. However, anything less (a likely prospect) will further the crisis.

The political winds have shifted in Pakistan, which leaves the question: How will the dynamics of Pakistan’s new political leaders play out with US policy goals in the region?

This Economist article provides some good context to recent and coming events in Pakistan. The article points out that that Administration’s key ally, Musharraf, faces a serious threat from Supreme Court justices possibly being reinstituted. He could be further weakened by a potential impeachment proceeding. This leaves little room for Musharraf to maneuver. In fact, his only available option to exert his influence is to declare emergency rule. “Mr. Musharraf could try to buy time by re-imposing a state of emergency. However, the army has made clear that it will not intervene unless serious instability looms.”

In another sign of abandonment, General Kayani relieved two of Mushraff’s top general this week. Without the army on board, Musharaff is in trouble. This sets the stage for recently elected Prime Minister Yusuf Gilani. The Economist article suggests Pakistan’s political crisis is not yet resolved and that in-fighting between the coalition’s two major parties, the PPP and PML (N) is likely. With Musharraf’s power waning, the United States must cultivate relationships with PM Gilani and coalition leaders, even through possible in-fighting.

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte is doing just that today during a meeting with PM Gilani.

“The prime minister made it clear that the new government would continue to fight terrorism in all its forms by using democratic, economic and strategic means. ‘It is also a matter of concern for us and we will confront it with complete determination.’

Mr Gilani said Pakistan accorded high priority to its strategic relationship with the US and desired to expand the relations in all fields. He said US President George W. Bush had called him and pledged full support to Pakistan in us spheres. The prime minister said economic empowerment of people living along the Afghan border was key to addressing the issue of extremism in the region.

He expressed confidence that the establishment of ‘reconstruction opportunity zones’ would help increase economic activities in the area and create new opportunities for improving the standard of life of the people.”

During his Middle East trip, Vice President Cheney offered several pragmatic remarks concerning the stalemate between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators:

“On Sunday, Cheney said the United States would continue to work toward the ‘long-overdue’ goal of creating a Palestinian state.

‘Achieving that vision will require tremendous effort at the negotiating table and painful concessions on both sides,’ Cheney said, adding that “it will also require a determination to defeat those who are committed to violence and who refuse to accept the basic right of the other side to exist.”

As Laura Rozen notes, Cheney’s urging for both sides to make painful concessions was right on par with what needed to be said, but surprising coming from the source.  While his comments regarding the peace-process may have given pause, he also provided expected assurances that the United States took notice of Iran’s threatening nature towards Israel, and renewed America’s commitment to ensure Israel’s security.

“Before dinner with Mr. Olmert on Saturday night, Mr. Cheney offered robust support for Israel.

‘America’s commitment to Israel’s security is enduring and unshakable, as is our commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself always against terrorism, rocket attacks and other threats from forces dedicated to Israel’s destruction,’ Mr. Cheney said. The United States, he said, ‘will never pressure Israel to take steps that threaten its security.”

Addressing Arab-Israeli peace, the author of this Jerusalem Post editorial believes Arab states should “lead by example, rather than waiting for the divided and radicalized Palestinians to move first.”  The author might be pleased to read that Yemen’s plan to reconcile Fatah and Hamas has recently gained steam.  That said, Fatah negotiator Ahmed Qureia has begun to back-peddle from the agreement, stating that Abbas had not provided guidance on the proposal because he was hosting Vice President Cheney.

Based on Cheney’s statement’s today one might expect him to be unhappy with the reconciliation effort.  Cheney noted that “it is clearly a difficult situation, in part, because I think it’s true, there’s evidence, that Hamas is supported by Iran and Syria and that they’re doing everything they can to torpedo the peace process.”