The Foreign Service Journal, January 2010

in stabilizing the fragile bilateral relationship, going so far as to influence the content and timing of official U.S. demarches that might otherwise have brought the bilateral relationship to the breaking point. The Mexican undersecretary for for- eign affairs is reported as confirming that had it not been for Daniels’ vital role in this regard, his government would have cut off diplomatic relations with the United States. Certainly Daniels’ friendship with FDR enhanced his clout with his counterparts. But had it not been for his adeptness at explaining the position of each country to the other, always bearing in mind the historically emotional background, U.S.- Mexican relations might well have evolved differently. Only Connect Finally, an ambassador’s style may add an important layer of confidence to the bilateral relations with another country in times of unpredictable change. Samuel Lewis became U.S. ambassador to Israel in 1977, just as the Likud Party under MenachemBegin came to power, following 29 years of Labor Party rule. Ambassador Lewis’s engaging personality, his un- derstanding of the Israeli political system, and his unique sen- sitivity towards the Israeli public all made him a singularly admired figure in Israel. This standing, in turn, had positive repercussions for the entire bilateral relationship at a sensitive juncture. Today, successful diplomats still cultivate personal rela- tionships with various persons of influence in the country to which they are accredited. These connections can then be nurtured to the benefit of their government. In skillful hands, modern technology is a tool toward this end, allowing the diplomat to become a patient forger of valuable relationships, a meticulous observer of political and social phenomena, a shaper of images through the force of personality, and a de- finer of conceptual frameworks. This dimension of a diplomat’s work also applies to those working in a foreign ministry. The cumulative wisdom of the professional who handles a specific geographical area or func- tional issue on a daily basis for years represents a unique con- tribution to the decision-making process. Another example comes from diplomats involved in policy planning. The new technological developments in communi- cations have hardly affected the significance of this particular aspect of diplomatic work. If such work is, from time to time, belittled by policymakers, this has precious little to do with the way new technology has evolved. By all means, the role of the diplomat has to be considered anew. However, this has to be done not with the goal of un- dercutting the irreplaceable function of the diplomat abroad and at home, or confining it principally to commercial activity, but with the aimof enhancing it intellectually and politically. ■ J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 0 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 31