The Foreign Service Journal, January-February 2015

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JANUARY FEBRUARY 2015 31 by states to manage international order. Like the humble zipper, diplomacy is a modest everyday tool with a signi cant function. It is a permanent dialogue conducted on a daily basis by American representatives with their foreign counterparts. We take it for granted when diplo- macy succeeds in protecting and advancing our national interests, as it should; and we pay the price when, by abuse, neglect or ignorance, the profession fails in its responsibility. Academics: Think Velcro For academics teaching diplomacy, the zipper conveys an image of classical interstate diplo- macy, but it does not capture the complexity of diplomacy in today’s mixed-actor global environ- ment. Diplomatic studies scholars continue to see diplomacy as a recognized international institu- tion de ned by international conventions and laws that must be learned. Yet, because they are interested in teaching how systems change, they look beyond the o cial diplomatic corps to bring the tumult of international societies, and civil society acting transnationally, into sharper relief. The changes brought by globalization and technology affect the practice of diplomacy itself. e hand of the State Depart- ment no longer controls the little handle on a zipper that binds separated entities one to another. e national interest is harder to determine and harder to pursue because corporations, NGOs and individuals work their politics across sovereign borders when necessary to achieve their objectives. ey even carry their concerns to the United Nations and other multilateral institu- tions directly when thwarted domestically. Because of this power di usion within and among states, the international policy environment has experienced a sharp increase in participation by global actors who are not states; o cials who are experts in matters other than diplomacy based outside of foreign ministries; and private citizens acting trans- nationally. Overlap, not separation, sets the context for modern diplomatic engagement. Multiple policy venues, parallel bodies and agreements, and thousands of international institutions create unending choice, if not chaos. ese conditions require a “hairier,” more intricate diplomatic process that resembles fastening the many hooks and loops of Velcro to get agreement rather than zipping together the official, sovereign teeth of old. Some scholars, like e George Washington University’s Bruce Gregory, believe that diplomacy’s public dimension has so intensi ed that public diplomacy is no longer a distinct func- tion. He would merge the two roles to more e ectively conduct a “new diplomacy” better adapted for the times. Because of their attention to the public dimension, the work of diplomacy studies scholars is well represented in the syllabi of practitioners teach- ing public diplomacy courses in American universities, as it is in those taught by a liated academics. Academics teach about multilateralism and conference diplomacy with actors whose expertise is not diplomacy. ey highlight the diplomatic practices of small states and middle powers that approach the world as a collection of challenges that only a worldwide cooperative process can address. In their classrooms, academics note the whole-of-government global engagement that is shrinking the traditional primary role of foreign ministries around the world. ey explore the expanding missions of domestic government agencies migrating abroad in response to complex problems that know no sovereign boundar- ies. eir courses also address the boundaries between global governance and diplomacy, asking pointedly who is a diplomat in today’s world. As one would expect, diplomatic studies scholars do teach Donna Oglesby speaks at the Nov. 12, 2013, forum, “U.S. Public Diplomacy: A Look to the Past, A Look to the Future,” held at the Department of State. Courtesy of Joe Johnson