The Foreign Service Journal, April 2008

A ll the talk within the Foreign Service these days seems to be about “transformational diplomacy” and “post-con- flict stabilization”work. The unique role thatU.S. diplo- mats have courageously takenon in the Iraq andAfghanistanwar zones, under extremelydifficult andunprecedentedcircumstances, has undoubtedly driven much of this interest in a new defini- tion for diplomacy. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s Feb. 11 speech at Georgetownandher recent budget presentations toCongresshave focusedon the changingnature of diplomacy, theneed to expand thenumberof StateDepartment advisers assigned tomilitaryunits, and the creationof aCivilianResponseCorps—an“expeditionary group”of diplomatswhocanbedeployedon short notice toassist countries undergoing conflict. The Secretary’s vision for the role of these civilian“first responder”diplomats extends beyondglob- al hot spots, however. At Georgetown, she explained that they could be “deployed in times of peace, to strengthen weak states and prevent their collapse in the future.” This is a tall order for the U.S. Foreign Service — or for the diplomatic corps of any country—and it represents a dramat- ic change in what we do. Tackling these lofty goals and trans- forming foreign countries will require a vastly larger, fully fund- ed, anddifferently trainedForeignService that is given far greater resources thanwe currently have at our disposal inorder to carry out “stabilization” operations. We applaud the Secretary for urg- ing Congress to authorize 1,100 new positions for State and to approve significant increases in the State budget. Regrettably, this initiative comesduring the final yearof her tenure, and itsprospects for passage by Congress are uncertain. Both Sec. Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates deserve credit for acknowledgingpublicly in recentmonths that our gov- ernment has neglected the needs of the diplomatic component of our foreign affairs for too long, and that the large chasm sep- aratingwildly disproportionate spending onmilitary operations from the pittance devoted to diplomatic activities is unaccept- able. Sec. Gates is absolutely right to declare that “soft power” is as important as military might in projecting American influ- ence around the world—and to admit that there is something wrong when DOD spends more on health care for its employ- ees than the entire State operating budget, and the Pentagonhas more lawyers than the United States has diplomats. But in the rush to embrace this newvisionof transformational diplomacy, let us not forget that “tradi- tional”diplomacywill always remain the central focus of thework performed by the U.S. Foreign Service in the vast majority of our 260 embassies and consulates. Regardless of the high-profile conflicts inplaces like Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, wewill still have important bilateral relationships tomanagewith more than 200 established governments around the world. Keeping these ties strong requires our diplomats to continue addressing disputes between governments, regional tensions, democratization and reform, human and civil rights, free trade and other aspects of basic foreign policy. In addition, we will always have complex multilateral issues to deal with all over the world, including global climate change, drug trafficking, refugees andHIV/AIDS prevention. Wemust continue to devote enormous energies and personnel to scruti- nizing those foreignnationalswhowant visas to enter theUnited States and looking after the needs of tens ofmillions of American citizens who live and travel overseas. We will still have stacks of congressionallymandated reports toprepare andhigh-level U.S. government delegations to manage. And we will still have the enormous challenge of explainingU.S. foreignpolicy tooverseas audiences and winning them over to our point of view. These tasks will continue to require most of the attention of theU.S. ForeignService, regardless of howmuch effort we begin todevote to“post-conflict stabilization” ina relatively small num- ber of hotspots. And we cannot accomplish themwith budget- strapped embassies and consulates that routinely suffer 20- to30- percent staffing gaps. Traditional diplomacywill remain the backbone of ourwork and the key to our success in an often hostile world. We should be careful not to frame the debate over funding solely in terms of transformational activities in conflict zones. V.P. VOICE: STATE BY STEVE KASHKETT In Defense of “Traditional” Diplomacy A P R I L 2 0 0 8 / F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L 53 A F S A N E W S Sec. Gates is absolutely right to declare that “soft power” is as important as military might in projecting American influence around the world.