The Foreign Service Journal, September 2009

that the increases in the military budget in recent years have been more than the entire State Depart- ment budget, that tells you some- thing. The Foreign Service not only needs more people, but it needs to offer a whole lot more training in for- eign languages and in economics and business affairs. In fact, when I asked General John Shalikashvili, who had just retired as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to identify the biggest problem the military faces, he replied, “We don’t have the rest of the gov- ernment organized and funded in a way where it can deal with the recon- struction of failed countries.” The problem has only grown since then, of course. While we’re begin- ning to put together a corps of people to address it, it’s going to take time and resources. And it’s going to take specialized skills from a lot of people throughout the government, in Agri- culture and Commerce and Health & Human Services and other agencies, under the guidance of our diplomatic corps. That’s going to be a huge chal- lenge. Frankly, on a scale from one to 10, we’re a long way from 10 in terms of our ability to meet it. FSJ: What advice would you give the Foreign Service about how it can present itself more effectively, both to Congress and to the American people? SN: The Foreign Service and the State Department urgently need to build a domestic constituency. Every other federal department I know of has that, but State doesn’t. There are foreign policy associations around the country that do a tremendous job, and we’ve got organizations that support the United Nations. But in terms of gaining public understanding and support, we’re a long way from that in this country. And that work will be the key to closing the funding and staffing gaps the Foreign Service faces in its ongoing efforts to head off as many catastrophes as possible and prevent as many wars as possible. Having more businesspeople tes- tify before Congress on how Foreign Service personnel have assisted them would help. Business leaders travel more often than most members of Congress. Having those people who really are spending significant time abroad come back and speak about their experiences to the Congress would be very helpful. I also think it would be helpful for the combatant commanders all over the world to testify every so often be- fore the Foreign Relations commit- tees in both houses, not just the Armed Services committees. Those people understand the importance of diplomacy, and appreciate the value of a State Department office to assist with the reconstruction of countries that have both security problems and development problems. We’ve got a number of those now, starting with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s more important than ever for members of Congress to get out and travel abroad, and to report back to their constituents. And in this con- nection, the news media have an obli- gation to distinguish between “junk- ets” and legitimate congressional trips, but they don’t usually do a very good job of that. Sometimes they do, though: Just this morning, I read an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about a trip Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., took to Africa. I was happy to see that the reporter treated it as a legitimate and important mission, which it is, of course. We need a lot more of that; but as it is, nearly every time a mem- ber of Congress takes an overseas trip, someone in the media takes potshots at them for it. The result is that sen- ators and representatives don’t travel as much as they used to — so not only are they not as well informed about foreign policy, but it’s harder for them to educate their constituents about those concerns. This constituency-building is a long-term project. But I hope that Secretary Clinton, who I know recog- nizes its importance, will take it on. Her staff can come up with innovative ways to involve the American people in understanding the role of diplo- macy. Perhaps the current conflicts our country is involved in will remind us of the importance of international cooperation. If you name the major issues we face — terrorism; prolifera- tion; disarmament; the environment; the global economic structure, partic- ularly in the financial sector; and global warming — progress on every one of them requires cooperation, and that requires some form of diplo- macy. And that, in turn, has to be based on understanding back home in America, and a sustainable commit- ment. This is the challenge of the era we’re in. FSJ: It’s still early, obviously, but are you encouraged by how the Obama administration has approach- ed U.S. foreign policy so far? SN: I think the early signs are very good. They’ve got a good team in place, and the president himself understands the importance of deal- ing with these issues on an interna- tional basis, through the use of diplo- macy and cooperation. I believe there will be continuity with some of the policies of the Bush administration that worked reasonably well, such as S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 9 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 45 “I think the Foreign Service does a superb job. These people are out there every day putting their lives on the line.”