The Foreign Service Journal, February 2006

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 6 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 5 “Transformation- al diplomacy.” Sec- retary Rice’s new term penetrated my consciousness last summer. I began trying to find out what it meant upon arriving at AFSA after Labor Day. No one was quite sure. Everyone knew it was important and that the focus was on promoting democracy in theMiddle East. Beyond that, though, it seemed quite vague. Slowly during the fall, various ele- ments of the State Department tried to flesh out the concept. Less observing, analyzing, and reporting; more per- suading, advocating, and effecting change. Focus on eliminating poverty, reducing disease, promoting democra- cy. Where have they been, I won- dered? These changes began two decades ago and became mainstream practice after the end of the Cold War. The era of reporting for its own sake died in the early 1990s. “We don’t need it; we watch CNN and use the Internet instead.” “Economic reform? Let the international financial institutions and private banks analyze that.” At that point, transformational diplomacy seemed just a new name for established practice, raising the ques- tion if those promoting it were really in touch with what the Foreign Service has actually been doing overseas the past 20 years. For officers doing politi- cal, economic, or public diplomacy work not directly related to democracy promotion, as well as consular and management officers carrying out vital tasks, the concept created major issues of raison d’etre and angst over whether they were included in the new para- digm. USAID officers, particularly those doing democracy/governance work, wondered if the leaders at State were aware of them. People working at embassies in developed countries and in existing Third World democracies saw themselves relegated to the periph- ery of the Secretary’s agenda. They’ve been enlisting support of their host gov- ernments for U.S. policies all along. What about all the other important work they do? Given the widely-dis- cussed exercise to review global staffing and shift positions from the European Bureau to large developing and other transitional countries, transformational diplomacy seemed more based on where one works than what one does. Some coherence was needed. A little-noticed speech by Secretary Rice on Nov. 8, 2005, provided more definition. Key new elements included the shouldering by the U.S. of huge responsibilities for post-conflict recov- ery and subsequent nationbuilding, much greater focus by embassies on areas outside capital cities, more emphasis on public diplomacy, and a level of involvement in the day-to-day workings of other governments (“It’s kind of hands-on diplomacy”) that rais- es some fundamental issues. Perhaps the three biggest are: How do we get sovereign governments to buy into our agenda and permit this? And, if they do, what are the resource implications and where will the money come from? Last month I outlined our bleak budgetary outlook. Congress passed a FY 06 international affairs budget that was $2 billion below the administra- tion’s request. The latter’s modest pro- posal for FY 07 reflects acquiescence to the view that these expenditures for the necessary programs, personnel, and operating expenses are NOT central to our national security. Unless our trans- formational agenda has the necessary resources behind it, it won’t amount to much more than empty rhetoric. Sec. Rice has captured the attention and earned the admiration of many with her new approach. But to succeed she must find a way to reconcile trans- formational diplomacy with our endur- ing penchant to try to be a superpower on a shoestring. For it to work, trans- formational diplomacy must trump the eternal tension between our short-term domestic political imperatives and the inherently long-termnature of the solu- tions to the problems it is meant to address. But regardless of how this process to define the term and recon- cile its inherent tenets with fiscal and policy realities concludes, one thing is clear. The Foreign Service is both cen- tral and indispensable to Secretary Rice and her team of appointees in achiev- ing her goals. n P RESIDENT ’ S V IEWS Transformational Diplomacy Takes Shape, but Basic Questions Remain B Y J. A NTHONY H OLMES J. Anthony Holmes is the president of the American Foreign Service Association. Unless our agenda has the necessary resources behind it, it won’t amount to more than empty rhetoric.