The Foreign Service Journal, January 2012

unless, of course, technology finds a way to make it infinite. Another issue I think will be around for a long time to come is human rights. Some colleagues from my generation were not at all comfortable with “inter- fering in the internal affairs of other countries,” and some saw it as a pecu- liarly Latin American or Soviet bloc issue. But now human rights are a rec- ognized part of the international agenda, and there’s no shortage of cases requiring international cooperation and leadership — leadership the United States is uniquely qualified to provide. The Limits of Power So there will always be work for the Foreign Service. But one thing I will predict: it will not be an “expeditionary” Service. The United States has done its share of nationbuilding following mili- tary conflicts; some of it was very suc- cessful (Germany, Japan), some of it much less so. But the idea that provin- cial civilian-military teams are some sort of new norm for the Service is sim- ply nonsense. Our country has wielded great in- fluence around the globe, and will con- tinue to do so. But look at Egypt, Libya or Syria, if you want to see the limits of American power in 2011. Look at Bur- ma or Tibet. And in our own hemi- sphere, consider Venezuela and Cuba. I’m not saying that we will lose our ability to affect events. But, as David Remnick has written, “A calculated modesty can augment a nation’s true in- fluence.” I believe the United States can continue to lead throughout the next 50 years, because of our continued significant (but not monopolistic) power and, I hope, because of our continued moral authority. I happen to think that the United States on the whole did pretty well as the world’s policeman — with the painful exceptions of Afghanistan and Iraq — during the 60 years or so that there was no one else around willing or able to fill that role. But staying on in that job would require both a contin- ued acquiescence on the part of other major countries and a continued will- ingness on the part of the American people to pay the very considerable cost in money and lives. I see both of those as steadily diminishing over the next 50 years. But there will be no decrease in the number of crises around the world where foreign intervention is needed — whether humanitarian, as in the Horn of Africa, or economic, as in Greece, or even military. So who, or what, gradually replaces the United States as the Lone Ranger? Multinational cooperation, as in Libya. In 2061 we may — may — still be primus inter pares, leading the organi- zation of international efforts, con- tributing substantially to their funding, negotiating the objectives and terms of the intervention. But multinational agreement will not just be decorative icing on the cake. It will be the cake. What does this mean for the For- eign Service? It means that those who seek international organization experi- ence will have a leg up. The number of alphabet soup international agencies today may be mind-boggling, but it is going to increase exponentially over the next 50 years. Regional organizations such as the African Union, for instance, will grow stronger and more active. The United States will need to be represented at virtually every single one of these international fora in some way. And all U.S. diplomats will need tech- nical specializations more than ever: fi- nancial, economic, scientific and in areas one can’t even imagine today. Specialization Needed Does that mean the Foreign Serv- ice generalist is going the way of the despatch and the airgram? (If those are unfamiliar terms, please consult your nearest doddering retiree.) Yes and no. In the sense of officers with good judgment, good people skills and the ability to lead and manage, no; they will always be needed. The old adage about not putting a scientist at the head of a scientific institution is still true. But for officers who try to make up with charm alone for their lack of area, language and technical skills: yes, I see little future for them. One critical area of specialization that will be required in the years ahead is Islamic studies. It doesn’t take a crys- tal ball to see that a largely stagnant part of the world is waking up and changing before our eyes — but into what ex- actly? What is clear is that there are 1.6 billionMuslims who are going to play a much more important part in world politics than they have in the last 50 years, and that we as a country and as a Service know very little about them. This is partly because, as Americans, we are not very comfortable talking about religion or relating to people as I believe we will eventually abandon the unfortunate aspiration to have an embassy in every sovereign country. 14 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 2 S P E A K I N G O U T