US and the World

Administration's policy makes it hard for our diplomats to do their job

Here's a real good perspective on the problems presented our foreign diplomats by Bush policies. It was sent to me with this note:

I participated in the study group on US foreign policy that you facilitated for THE SECOND HALF at UMD a little while ago.

My brother Bill is a retired foreign service officer who now lives in the Charleston, SC area. He has written a commentary, which I think is excellent, on our current administration's foreign policy. It appeared in yesterday's, 7/21, Charleston POST & COURIER and is copied below. Would you post it If you are still involved with the interactive web site on foreign affairs?

Bill is also the author of "A TEETERING BALANCE An American Diplomat's Career and Family."

Pete Boudreau

Thanks Pete!

Administration's policy makes it hard for our diplomats to do their job

The role of a diplomat is to serve as a representative in other countries for his/her own country and its citizens. For American diplomats, this means being loyal to the foreign policies of the ultimate official elected by the people. These are policies enunciated by the president of the United States with input from the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and other officials. Regardless of the political party in control of the White House, diplomats continue their work pursuing the president's agenda.

Diplomats achieve countless successes daily across the globe without fanfare, as they faithfully look after American interests. This could involve such activities as looking after the welfare of an American citizen abroad, assisting an American businessman in establishing contacts, inserting American viewpoints on issues in the local media, discussing American policy with the host government, negotiating a bilateral agreement, and many others.

There are instances when individual diplomats are at serious odds with some element of an administration's foreign policy. Several Foreign Service officers resigned in dissent with the Vietnam War. Some have departed over Iraq, and others have left over other issues.

Diplomatic successes do not occur in a vacuum. As a career Foreign Service officer, I realized early on that my effectiveness as a diplomat would depend on my ability to have people of the host country trust me. It is not only the image of American values that matters but also the integrity of the individual diplomat. If either the government or the individual is viewed as untrustworthy or unprincipled, the likelihood of diplomatic successes is greatly hampered.

The current state of affairs regarding American foreign policy is floundering. Diplomats are still carrying out their functions, but this is becoming increasingly more difficult in most countries. This is due to the popular negative perception of the current American administration. We used to have consumer-friendly embassies and consulates with easy access to the public; now we need fortresses to keep the public at bay.

The prestige of the United States has greatly diminished abroad and, along with that, the regard for American government representatives.

If the United States is not to be trusted because of inaccurate pronouncement or ill-conceived actions, diplomacy suffers. Among the presidents under whom I served, I had the good fortune of being in a position of responsibility overseas during Ronald Reagan's presidency. Reagan's credibility with other governments enhanced my effectiveness in dealing with a Marxist president, resulting with the latter altering his anti-American policies.

It is not our goal as diplomats to be loved by the people of other countries, but rather to be respected. This is what builds the atmosphere for success in the pursuit of American interests and in furthering the execution of foreign policy. This is what is lacking in large measure today.

Retired diplomats are speaking out in greater numbers in opposition to the unilateralism course presently in place, with our cherished American values being portrayed afflicted with warts. Many of these diplomats have had stellar careers serving both Republican and Democratic presidents. The cause of their anguish involves the very nature of diplomacy.

America cannot afford to be disliked and appear threatening across the globe. Terrorism is recognized universally as threatening international peace and security and efforts to combat it have legitimacy. However, the means to the end are in question. These diplomats have served their country honorably and are tormented to see what is occurring across the globe in response to American policies.

Through experience, it has been demonstrated that American interests are well-served when policy is more clearly aligned with those of our traditional allies. This should not be taken to mean that we need to cave in to the machinations of the French.

Diplomacy involves consulting and negotiating, and not dictating. The latter brings about suspicion, distrust and outright opposition. Joseph S. Nye Jr., the well-respected Dean of Harvard's School of Government, makes a cogent argument for the utility and need of "soft power" in the implementation of foreign policy. His recently published book, "Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics," does not dismiss the need for military power. However, Nye contends, and rightfully in my view, it must be balanced with what he calls "soft power," communications and getting the proper message out to specific audiences.

We have combined hard and soft power successfully in the past, as during the Cold War. American foreign policy is lacking this combination today.