Guest Column
Unconventional Approaches to Diplomatic Theory
By Garrett Jones
March 30, 2007
In my years of government service, I have spent quite a bit of time as a
briefcase carrier and "go-fer" for some pretty capable and talented
diplomats in the U.S. Foreign Service. While being a diplomat was not my
primary job, I did pick up a few pointers from these diplomats on how
the game of international diplomacy is played between nations. It
appears either that these sorts of basic points did not make the criteria
for inclusion in Foreign Service training or that the State
Department's guardian of the "tribal memory" has retired.
Whatever one may think of current U.S. foreign policy in general, even
its supporters will admit to the appearance of clumsy execution, poorly
briefed officials and a focus on short-term spin vs. long-term
policy goals. In short, despite being a superpower, we have not won
many lately. North Korea and Iraq are the headliners in what seems to be
a widespread uncertainty of where the foreign policy ship of state is
headed next.
Most Foreign Service officers operate at a level far above their pay
grade, with little or no thanks from anyone. But despite their hard
work, there seems to be an ignorance of "street smarts for diplomats."
At the risk of being called "cheeky", here are a few things they might
not have covered when going through basic diplomat training in
Northern Virginia. If you already know this stuff, then make sure you pass
it on to the next generation. .
ENTHUSIASM vs. COMPETENCE.
Do not confuse the two concepts. Just because an
individual agrees with you on everything, they still may lack
competence. First, you have to get it done. Then you can explain at
length how your correct thinking deserves the credit. The corollary
to this is do not confuse ideology with competence. It is much easier to
live with a competent heretic than it is a witless zealot.
AID AND CHARITY ORGANIZATIONS LIE.
You cannot place much confidence in the reporting
of any U.S. government aid agency or international charity group
about what the conditions on the ground are at any location. They are
only human. They often work in terrible conditions with those who are
very needy. It is understandable that they often view their own clients
or situation as "the worst off." There are more in need than there is
money available to help. Your job as a U.S. diplomat is always to give
the policymakers in Washington accurate information on which to base a
rational decision. Another reason to be a little leery of situation
reports from the charity and aid folks is not mentioned in polite
company, but it is true. Careers are made, promotions are gained and
organizations expand when they can identify with a juicy disaster
(insert pitiful pictures of starving children here.) This is not most of
the folks you will run into, but such people are out there. A rough
guide is how many superlatives they use to describe the situation on the
ground. If they use more than half a dozen in a 15-minute conversation,
either the end is near or you need to take a firm grip on your wallet.
DICTATORSHIPS ARE PERSONAL.
In a dictatorship, there is no space between the
Supreme Leader and the government of the county. Criticizing the Big
Man's necktie will go over about the same as calling all the citizens
buffoons. In many places, it is far worse to impugn the omniscience
of the Great Leader than sending a nasty diplomatic note. He might never
know about the note, but someone will tell him the American called
him names. This rule also applies to de facto dictatorships, it does
not matter what the national constitution of the country says. If the
Padrone thinks he owns the government, then comments on the national
soccer side can be the moral equivalent to breaking diplomatic
relations. The inverse sometimes applies. "Wow" the Grand Jefe and
you can then get away with the diplomatic equivalent of larceny
with threats. If the Big Guy likes you, no one working for him is
going to throw too much of a fit. They understand the game, even if you do
not.
MONEY IS FUNGIBLE.
Even by giving aid to the victims it is abusing, you
are in fact supporting a repressive government. Money not spent on either
feeding or repressing its restive citizens is money available to the
regime. These funds are then used for corruption or other means of
propping up the government. This may not be what you want to do,
but understand your charity is in effect going into the
government's pocket.
GET OVER YOURSELF.
You were sent overseas to lie, steal, and cheat for your country. If you are uncomfortable with that, then you do not understand your job.
You are not there to do good; you are there to do
well while looking good. We hope that your being an advocate for the
U.S.'s interests will result in good things, but not always. Have you
considered hiring on with a charitable organization? Many of them do
"good work."
HIERARCHY OF NEEDS.
There are four basic levels of interest for a
sovereign country that are taught in academia and then one unspoken
interest that trumps everything else. In more or less descending order,
survival interest (preventing a nuclear attack, for instance); vital
interests (ensuring access to oil or water); national interest
(protecting a country's citizens and corporations); and general
interests - promotion of a country's ideals, etc. The one that
triumphs all other interests is the political survival of the
government in power. Long-term vital interests, citizens and everything
else will usually be sacrificed to permit a government to continue in
power. This is true for the U.S., as much as it is anywhere else.
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
All systems tend towards entropy, including
political systems. The longer a government or political party has
been in power, the greater the level of corruption and incompetence among
the people in charge. Individuals improve their skills and competency over
time; political administrations do not.
TALK TO ANYBODY.
I have often thought there should be a Deputy
Assistant Undersecretary of State in Charge of Talking to Anybody
Who Walks in the Door. Often the prohibition on talking to some
faction or government comes from the top, but it is almost always
wrong. Someone, at some level, should always talk to whoever will talk
to us, even if it is just to get an accurate copy of the abusive press
release. Interesting things can happen when dialogue is opened.
ENVY AND SPITE AS MOTIVES.
Never underestimate national envy and personal spite
as motives in international relations. Simply to be seen as opposing
the U.S. is good politics in some countries. Some societies view the U.S.
as a country of mixed breeds and are annoyed that it exists and continues
to be successful, despite having an "inferior" culture. More than a few
diplomats have been bested by the U.S.'s economic or military power, our
supposed allies included. Their egos are every bit as big as ours are.
We should also remember that modesty is not one of our cultural strong
points.
JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE CRAZY DOES NOT MEAN THEY AREN'T IN
CHARGE.
One of the more difficult things for many U.S.
diplomats to accept is that the intelligent, articulate, well-educated
person across the table from them can and will act in an irrational
manner on some subjects. On many occasions, I have read reports
where diplomats assure Washington that some country's leadership will
act in their country's best interest, only to watch the same country
doing the exact opposite. Sometimes, on some issues, the cultural
divide is not rational. Keep that in mind the next time you think
something is a slam dunk.
Having pointed out some concepts that may have been forgotten,
let me now presume to suggest some longstanding concepts that
desperately need a visit from the diplomatic version of "Extreme
Makeover".
THE POTTERY BARN RULE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
In the twentieth century, international law
operated on the basis of you break it, you own it. If your country
overthrows a government, then your country is responsible for creating
and establishing a replacement government. Unfortunately, in the
twenty-first century this rule is not working out very well (see the
Balkans, Iraq, Palestine, Somalia and other cases). This idea needs to
be rethought. The old model of conquering a country and then making
it a vassal state against the will of its citizens is well past its
expiration date. Some problems need to be eliminated by military force,
but subsequent rebuilding may be best left to someone other than the
original military organization.
MANY INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES ARE NOT REAL.
Sometimes, neither are the countries they
delineate. More governments than anyone would care to admit hold sway over
their capital cities and little else. While the international community
limits itself to the "recognized" government of the day, the people who
can actually affect the conditions on the ground are foisted off on
nongovernmental groups. While this may make shaky governments around
the world breathe easier, ignoring reality generally causes more
problems than it solves. The international community needs to come up
with a new designation or category, not quite a sovereign
government, but not to be ignored, either. The politically correct term
would be "legitimizing all the stakeholders."
AT SOME POINT, IT IS HISTORY.
At some point in time, every culture, ethnic group
or nationality has been done an injustice by some other group.
But squabbling about historical wrongs is almost never useful. The
international community needs to put a cap on how far back one can reach
to raise a legitimate grievance. A hundred years, two hundred
years? At some point, no matter how justified, the grievance is the
stuff of history books, not legitimate international discussion. It
will not stop the domestic scoundrels from exploiting the argument or
issue, but tying this principle to international aid and loans will
certainly slow it down.
CRY HAVOC! GET A GRIP ON THE LAWS OF WAR.
The laws of war clearly need to be reassessed and
brought up-to-date by new treaty language in the Geneva Convention.
Transnational and armed civilian militias have rendered many of the
old notions of "combatant" meaningless. Indeed, some groups make it part
of their strategy to use groups or locations protected by the Law
of War to further their ends. Unless modern definitions and the
responsibility for committing certain acts are brought up-to-date, the
current muddle will get worse, not better.
____________________________________________________
Garrett Jones is a senior fellow of FPRI. A 1993 graduate of the U.S.
Army War College, he served as a case officer with the CIA in Africa,
Europe, and the Middle East. He retired in 1997 and now lives in the
northwestern United States. His commentary is available on line at
www.fpri.org.
For further information or to inquire about
membership in FPRI, please contact Alan Luxenberg at
al@fpri.org or call (215) 732-3774 x105.
FPRI, 1528 Walnut Street, Suite 610, Philadelphia, PA 19102-3684. For
information, contact Alan Luxenberg at 215-732-3774, ext. 105 or email
fpri@fpri.org or visit us at
www.fpri.org
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed by HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com) without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)