The new frontiers of american diplomacy

The loss of an enemy can be as disorienting as the loss of a friend. The collapse of communism has revealed a world that existed virtually unseen while the attention of Americans was riveted on the superpower confrontation. It is a world as unfa­miliar to generations schooled in the cold war as the universe revealed by Copernicus was to generations schooled to believe that the Earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe while other bodies in the Solar System revolved around it. And just asthe heliocentric universe of Copernicus transformed the science of astronomy, so the post-cold war world requires a new approach to international relations and diplomacy.

American diplomacy struggled to meet the needs of the old world. It will require drastic reform to meet those of the new. The United States may be the only remaining military super­power, but in its approach to diplomacy it too often looks like the only remaining banana republic. Ingenuous zeal replaces knowledge of the history and dynamics of other cultures; enthu­siasm and frenetic activity replace patience and intelligent skep­ticism; and the illusion that foreign affairs is a series of excellent adventures replaces the reality that it is a turbulent but flowing process of change and synthesis.

The world emerging from the cold war is characterized by ethnic and cultural nationalism, as well as by economic and so­cial transnationalism. One could add other examples of prob­lems that do not need passports to cross international borders: environmental pollution, including acid rain and depletion of the ozone layer, nuclear and conventional arms proliferation, the transmission of AIDS virus, international terrorism, and the drug trade are a few that come readily to mind. Many of these prob­lems will require states to work together in new ways, investing a large section of their sovereignty in existing or still-to-be-cre- ated international authorities that possess the skills, continuity, and scope to address problems unknown to traditional diploma­cy or unrecognized by it.

Professionalism is prized in the US in virtually all profes­sions except diplomacy. Our closest allies take diplomacy more seriously than we do. So do our adversaries. In its day, even the Soviet Union, not a state that relied on diplomacy if intimidation was an option, managed its foreign service less cavalierly than do most American administrations. In the training they gave their young diplomats, especially language training, the Soviets were light years ahead of us. Typically, promising candidates were identified in secondary school and, after passing their entry ex­aminations, spent five years in a diplomatic prep-school (the Moscow State Institute for International Relations).The orienta-

tion training of US Foreign Service officers, including language training, is less than a year.

Effective communication with foreigners requires, as it al­ways has, the ability to speak other languages, to understand other cultures, to see the world through other eyes. Although distinct from it, comprehension of a foreign culture is virtually impossi­ble to achieve without proficiency in the language. Communi­cating in his or her own tongue, the diplomat will always be on the outside of the culture looking in. Only by knowing what the world looks like from inside will diplomats be able to provide political superiors with a realistic interpretation of the motives of the other governments and a reasonably accurate forecast of their future conduct. There is nothing else that a diplomat does that could not be done by lawyers, businesspeople, or academ­ics, all of whom do, in fact, serve frequently as nonprofessional diplomats.

Notes:

1. Copernicus Nicholas (1473-1543) — a Polish astronomer;

2. banana republic — a small country in Central or South America that is industrially underdeveloped and dependent financially on support from abroad;

3. depletion — lessening of the amount, diminishing

Questions for discussion:

1. Do you think the author is biased or unbiased in his assess­ment of the US diplomats?

2. Why do you think professionalism in diplomacy is prized so low in the USA?

3. Must a diplomat be a professional from your point of view? Give your arguments for or against.

4. Who Can be considered a professional in diplomacy?

5. Why does the author differentiate between knowing a for­eign language and comprehending a foreign culture? What does comprehending a foreign culture mean from your point of view?

Monteagle Stearns is not the only person to criticize modern dip­lomats. Read an extract from an article by Adam Watson, who tackles the problem somewhat from another angle. Be ready to express your opinion about the extract.