The Foreign Service Journal, September 2014

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | SEPTEMBER 2014 23 But I confess that sometimes when I make a presentation about a vision for “21st-century” diplomacy, I wonder what is really new. Is this a “revolution in diplomacy” like the one in the mid-1400s described by Garrett Mattingly in his classic work, Renaissance Diplomacy ? Is it similar to the changes identified by Harold Nicolson in his often politically incor- rect, but still astute, Diplomacy, or those analyzed by Henry Kissinger in his monumental Diplomacy ? The world in which our diplomats work today is a kalei- doscope of opportunities and challenges, including violent non-state actors; global issues such as women’s empow- erment, energy and climate change; negotiation of trade agreements and managing financial crises; America’s need to maintain alliances and create new coalitions; the requirement to manage and further promote globalization; the impact individuals and groups of citizens now have on foreign policy; and a recognition of the important link between pluralism and economic freedom. It is a world that is also defined by the need to recognize the overriding reality of simultaneity: the political, economic, military, cultural, humanitarian and media spheres have merged. Our policies must be as multi- faceted as the challenges we face. The skeptic will say this is admirable, but will ask: What lessons are those who argue for a “new diplomacy” taking from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea and his continuing effort to destabilize eastern Ukraine? What relevance does a debate about what 21st-century diplomacy might be like have to the 150,000 thousand dead and nine million displaced in Syria’s civil war? What is 21st-century diplomacy’s answer to the “Islamic State”? And is Beijing’s political, psychological and military pressure on its neighbors in the South China Sea a reminder of the staying power of a more traditional, perhaps even timeless, diplomacy? Imagining a 21st-Century Diplomatic Philosophy Any vision for a 21st-century diplomacy that can meet new threats, grasp new opportunities and motivate new people is inherently optimistic. But it stands no chance of success unless it is grounded in a realistic assessment of the world as it is. To imagine a 21st-century diplomatic philosophy, we must start with an examination of first principles: What ideas and values do we bring to diplomacy? Here, briefly stated, are four principles that describe my approach to diplomacy. Optimism. Twenty-nine years in the U.S. Foreign Service and two more as a special representative for the State Depart- ment taught me that the best diplomats are optimists. They believe in the power of ideas. They believe that sustained effort can lead to progress. They believe that diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, can help nations and groups avoid bloodshed. A commitment to justice. Henry Kissinger rightly main- tains that international orders only last if they are just. He also emphasizes that this requirement for justice is connected to the domestic institutions of the nations that make up the international system. That is why, for U.S. diplomats, Ameri- ca’s commitment to political and economic justice at home, not just abroad, is crucial. Truth in dealing. It is dismaying to witness the periodic resurrection of the statement by Sir Henry Wotton that “an ambassador is an honest man, sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.” Wotton is wrong. I agree with Nicolson, who wrote in 1939: “My own practical experience, and the years of study which I have devoted to this subject, have left me with the profound conviction that ‘moral’ diplomacy is ultimately the most effective, and that ‘immoral’ diplomacy defeats its own purposes.” Realism tempered by a commitment to pluralism. It is not a coincidence that the search for foreign policy paradigms after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has led some observers back to the work of Reinhold Niebuhr. As Andrew Bacevich maintains in his introduction to a 2008 reissue of Niebuhr’s The Irony of American History , Niebuhr’s admonitions are hard for us to hear, especially warnings about “the persistent sin of American exceptionalism; the indecipherability of history; the false allure of simple solutions; and, finally, the imperative of appreciating the limits of power.” Niebuhr is not the only one to call on for a stock-taking of contemporary diplomacy. In The Return of History and the End of Dreams , Robert Kagan reminds us that “in most places, the nation-state remains as strong as ever” and that national What is 21st-century diplomacy’s answer to the “Islamic State”?