The Foreign Service Journal, April 2011

A P R I L 2 0 1 1 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 5 Shortly after the crisis in Egypt began to unfold, News- week magazine asserted that President Barack Obama had blown it, alienating President Hosni Mubarak and his sup- porters on one side and the Egyptian people on the other, espe- cially the dissatisfied and restive youth. Other analysts hailed him as astute for maintaining a balanced position and not trying — or appearing — to take credit for change that belongs entirely to the Egyptians themselves. These two opposing assessments exemplify how severely revolutionary situations test American diplomacy. There were times when popular up- risings against colonial occupation of- fered a clear choice — side with the colonial power or support national as- pirations for freedom and self-determi- nation. The moral position was unequivocal. As a country itself born of revolution, the United States wel- comed decolonization. But when peo- ple rise against authoritarian or dicta- torial systems now, the choice is often less clear, and more controversial. Many countries, including Russia, China, India, Brazil and some Euro- pean states, take the easy way out, maintaining that these are internal mat- ters and invoking the principle of non- interference in the internal affairs of other countries. But American foreign policy aspires to be proactive, and Americans expect diplomacy, the primary tool of foreign pol- icy, to be equally dynamic and transformational. The overarching consider- ations for U.S. diplomacy must always be our values and our interests, but these are sometimes in conflict. So it is crucial to balance the two elements properly. An increasingly important question is how intrusive to be in promoting democracy and human rights, especially in countries that are not democracies, whether friendly to us or not. Can we overstep longstanding diplomatic norms that proscribe inter- ference in the internal affairs of other countries and emphasize respect for sovereignty? And should we encourage destabilizing forces in the name of our values? There are no simple answers to these questions. This dilemma becomes sharper in times of crisis, when the arguments for an interventionist approach gain strength, as the debate over the Libyan situation demonstrates. We have al- ready pushed successfully for United Nations sanctions, but what next? Even if we ultimately favor a military measure such as a no-fly zone, it will have to be preceded by diplomacy to garner international support — the ap- proach President George H.W. Bush pursued so skillfully before launching Operation Desert Storm during the first Persian Gulf War 20 years ago. But military interventions must remain the option of last resort. Given the dilemma intrinsic to the divergent pulls of the values we es- pouse, the interests we protect and the various international constraints under which we operate, the controversy over the American approach to the Egypt- ian crisis, and now the Libyan one, is understandable. So is the challenge and test that our diplomacy faces. Surely, whether in “normal” circum- stances or during crises, we cannot abandon balance and sensitivity to in- ternational norms in our diplomatic practice. Yet from a broader perspec- tive, our diplomacy must not stray from our core values, which remain the essence of the American vision and our global role. This should be the lode- stone for our diplomacy in a fast-chang- ing world where the rules of inter- national conduct are also undergoing a definite, albeit slow, change. Take, for example, the principle of national sovereignty. There is dimin- ishing international tolerance for mas- sacres of civilians, and the issue of intervention in such situations is the subject of ongoing discussions in inter- national fora. The very concept of sov- ereignty itself is evolving under the pressures of globalization, information flows, democratic aspirations and sup- port for human rights. I invite your contributions and com- ments at president@afsa.org . P RESIDENT ’ S V IEWS Revolutions Test Diplomacy B Y S USAN R. J OHNSON