One surprising thing about “The Lost Art of American Diplomacy: Can the State Department be Saved?” by William Burns, is that the author remembers a time when American diplomacy was anything but self-serving. This may be because I was born in 2000, but I don’t think I could come up with a first-hand account of the America that occupied the moral high ground in the aftermath of the Cold War. The article discusses the idea of “diplomatic disarmament”. That is a fascinating phrase if one really stops to think about it. Diplomacy is a weapon at our disposal the way a nuclear missile is? How many other things have had the word disarmament attached to them?
Upon reading further and thinking some on my own, I believe that, yes, diplomacy is that powerful. The key to diplomacy that holds this power is effective diplomacy. Take China, for example, particularly with its relationships with Middle Eastern and African countries. Predatory lending may be a go-to for China – a serious problem in its own right – but the true secret of its success is that it understands the immediate needs and desires of a given country. This phenomenon is not limited to less developed countries with struggling economies. China has been buying up Israeli kibbutzim and construction companies. Saudi Arabia and Iran joining BRICS would be no small event. On the other hand, you have American foreign policy, which, especially under Trump, can be summed up as “I have the biggest, baddest military in the world so listen to me or I’ll get really mad”. With “America first” isolationism skyrocketing, and even our less isolationist presidents like Obama refusing to join new multilateral systems such as the AIIB, is it any wonder America’s influence is waning?
The article made many useful suggestions, but the one that I think stood out was perhaps the most intuitive. The State Department should do reviews of policy, tactics, strategy, and spending the way the Defense Department does. If we assume the worst-case scenario and none of the next 5 presidents have any interest in responsible foreign policy, then the State Department must step up and inform the administration of best practices. Of course, the Secretary of State and their Department cannot willfully disobey the President, but how many conversations between Assistant Secretaries and agricultural attaches from African countries or even the Secretary of State and the Lebanese Ambassador does the President even normally know about? I believe the solution to the foreign policy dilemma will come in the form of a grassroots movement. Any sweeping reforms will likely be shut down by the isolationist block. What we need is for FSOs, CSOs, and think tanks to come up with smaller practical solutions and best practices to show the world that the USA is still very much interested in a relationship with the rest of the world.
One reply on “Week #2 – Yehuda”
Yehuda,
Perhaps it was inevitable that U.S. diplomacy would become sclerotic and resistant to change. A similar thing happened to the British Foreign Office when it was the global hegemonic power. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the U.S. Government had better “wake up and smell the coffee” because a new era has dawned, one in which we must compete for power and influence with the Chinese all over the world, and especially in Africa and Latin America. There is evidence that the message has gotten through, even at the State Department. Of course, it is also true that the Biden administration had a lot of damage to repair in both bilateral and multilateral relationships. –Professor Wallerstein