U.S. Role in the World

I’ve noted before that the State Department is making use of Web 2.0 social networking tools and in this latest example they are using the Twitter service to promote public diplomacy:

For those of you on Twitter, you can experience public diplomacy in real-time as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Colleen Graffy, travels to Bucharest and twitters along the way. It is “International Education Week” in Romania, and she will be meeting with students, Fulbright scholars, conducting media interviews, visiting the University of Bucharest, and speaking at the Romanian Diplomatic Institute, among other things. Follow the details of Colleen Graffy’s trip here, and don’t forget, DipNote is also on Twitter.

I’ve been following DipNote on Twitter for a while now and I’m impressed with the State Department’s web savvy, they are making a real effort to bring diplomacy into the 21st Century. And, of course, you can also follow U.S. Role on Twitter.

You are president and confronted with a situation which tests your basic philosophy about diplomatic negotiation, your philosophy can be described as:

A. Talk with friends and ignore enemies.

B. Talk to friends and enemies.

This is the simplistic depiction of how diplomatic negotiation has been presented during the election and we can all acknowledge that reality is much more complex. The Progress Report blog offered a post today that examines the issue and explains why the Bush Administration has both vilified negotiating with enemies while pragmatically doing just that. I suspect that a McCain Administration would continue that tradition, while an Obama Administration would dispense entirely with the notion that enemies are not worthy of direct negotiation. The voters will soon decide which approach best reflects the American temperament.

The next president will have an opportunity to improve the image of the U.S. role in the world. A recent survey of international public opinion by the Washington-based Pew Research Center found that regard for the U.S. is quite low, even among our allies. This video report from NBC News highlights that survey and notes the challenge facing the next president in restoring trust in American leadership. If you were president, what would you do to reverse the trend and rebuild support for the U.S. role in the world?

Sometimes television advertising fails to reach even an interested consumer. I had no idea that CNN was going to convene a panel of past secretaries of state, if I had, I would have promoted that event here. The CNN special The Next President - A World of Challenges aired this past weekend, in which a panel of five former Secretaries of State were questioned by Christiane Amanpour and Frank Sesno about what advice they have for “The Next President.”  The program was blogged by CNN’s Anderson Cooper here. From the abbreviated version that I saw the general theme seemed to be realist in tone and stressed engagement with the world to rebuild U.S. prestige and influence.

Would the foreign policy of Barack Obama be dramatically different than that of President Bush? In this video, former Secretary of State and Obama advisor Madeleine Albright offers a to-do list for the next president (FORA.tv - Albright on the US Presidency’s Future):

Madeleine Albright discusses America’s current standing on the global stage, explaining the requirements that the new US president will face in “the world’s most stressful job.” She argues that we need to relinquish outdated foreign policy and tailor modern politics to a rapidly changing global power balance.

What strikes me as interesting about her vision for American foreign policy is that during her tenure at State she advocated a dynamic, even interventionist, foreign policy that rivaled anything Bush has been criticized for. It was on her watch that the U.S. officially adopted a policy of regime change for Iraq and joined with NATO allies to attack Serbia. A foreign policy guided by her advice will certainly be different, though the difference may be one of style rather than substance. Ok, that may sound a bit harsh, after all, she is not a neocon. And it may be a bit unfair to speculate about her future advice based on her past actions. So, please, take a look at her presentation and decide for yourself.

Perhaps reflecting on her impressive career and the historic candidacy of Barack Obama, Secretary Rice is questioning why the State Department isn’t more representative of the U.S. population (AFP - Rice laments lack of black diplomats):

“I want to see a Foreign Service that looks as if black Americans are part of this great country,” Rice told a gathering of black colleges and universities in Washington. “I have lamented that I can go into a meeting at the Department of State,” said Rice, the second black person to become secretary of state after her predecessor Colin Powell. “And, as a matter of fact, I can go into a whole day of meetings at the Department of State and actually rarely see somebody who looks like me, and that’s just not acceptable,” she added.

Rangel Fellowships are one method of increasing diversity at the State Department:

The program was founded and financed by federal funds secured by Congressman Rangel.  “Representing our country overseas as a Foreign Service Officer is one of the most exciting and distinguished careers I can think of,” said Cong. Rangel who established the program with the goal of increasing diversity in the nation’s representation abroad.  “With the prestige of the United States behind them, our diplomats have the opportunity to serve their nation while experiencing the variety of cultures, languages and ways of life which comprise our global community.

The next application deadline for college seniors or graduate students interested in pursuing careers in the State Department diplomatic corps is Jan. 23, 2009.

Have you read any good books lately? If you are looking for the next book (or three) to add to your reading list, the State Department has some suggestions (AFSA Reading List):

The Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and the President of the American Foreign Service Association have co-sponsored the creation of a Foreign Affairs Professional Reading List to serve as a resource for Foreign Service and Civil Service employees of the foreign affairs agencies. AFSA, the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, and the State Department’s Ralph J. Bunche Library, Office of the Historian, and Office of E-Diplomacy have compiled the list, with help from regional and functional bureaus. The list seeks to identify useful books and websites to serve as a point of departure for career-long, self-directed professional development.

The full list can be found here. Happy reading.

I’d like to make a modest proposal to banish the word “need” from U.S. policy statements about other countries. We have fallen into the habit of telling other countries what they need to do as if authoritatively defining their need makes it so. Take, for example, this recent statement by Secretary Rice (AFP - Russia must halt operations in Georgia):

“It is very important now that all parties cease fire. The Georgians have agreed to a cease-fire. The Russians need to stop their military operations, as they have apparently said that they will, but those military operations really do, now, need to stop because calm needs to be restored,” said Rice.

Of course, Russia has no real need to do this. No country has a need to do anything other than what they deem to be in their national interest. Our efforts to define their need only makes us look foolish if they don’t happen to share the same view of their needs.

This assertive use of the word “need” by the U.S. first gained momentum in the heady days after the end of the Cold War when a sense of American triumphalism infused every facet of American foreign policy. I’m confident that a content analysis of official statement by the Secretary of State will find that this use of the word “need” in this context peaked under Secretary Albright, declined a bit under Secretary Powell and staged a remarkable comeback with Secretary Rice. As an expression of American hegemony and exceptionalism, I can find no better symbol than the consistent use of the word “need” to tell other countries what to do. It would be far more diplomatic for the U.S. to simply state what we would like to see other countries do, what international treaties and laws obligate them to do, or what we believe is in their best interests to do. Let’s leave “need” out of it, especially if we lack the means to compel them to do what they “need” to do.  This may help advance the goal of improving the image of the U.S. in the world.

As I previously noted, the State Department is making a commendable effort to use new social networking services to reach out to the public and build support for U.S. foreign policy. The State Department now has a blog and is making use of the Twitter and Facebook social networks. In this report in The New York Times, Noam Cohen descrbes how the State Department is using an internal wiki to share information in a way that is changing the bureaucratic culture:

The decision to embrace wikis is part of a changing ethic at the department, from a “need to know culture” to a “need to share culture,” said Daniel Sheerin, deputy director of eDiplomacy, which was created in 2003. “This is a technological manifestation of a policy difference,” he said, a change he dated to when Colin L. Powell was secretary of state.

[…]

The advantage of Diplopedia, she said, isn’t necessarily the ease of creating new material, but the ease in finding information. “The political section used to keep biographies on political people, and the economics people kept biographies on economics people,” she said. “It was not always up to date. You didn’t always know what the other had.”

At a time when there is almost a universal sentiment that the U.S. needs to return to traditional diplomacy after having overemphasized the use of military power, any collaborative tool that can get timely information into the hands of diplomats in the field is a step in the right direction.

Did you know that the U.S. State Department has a blog? It’s called DipNote (short for diplomatic note) and according to the “About” page the blog, “offers the public an alternative source to mainstream media for U.S. foreign policy information. This blog offers the opportunity for participants to discuss important foreign policy issues with senior Department officials.” Two bloggers, an editor, and guest bloggers from various offices at State provide short breezy posts that highlight recent news and diplomatic initiatives. Recent posts noted the changing status of Kosovo, calls for the expansion of the G8, U.S. policy toward Iran, and a festive 4th of July photo gallery. Yes, I know what you’re thinking, it’s not the personal blog of Secretary Rice, but really, when would she have time to blog with her busy global travel schedule and high profile meetings, not to mention those early morning workouts. Still, for a large bureaucracy like the State Department, the blog is a welcome breath of fresh air and represents a serious attempt to engage with a public that all to often seems uninterested in foreign affairs.