The Foreign Service Journal, September 2014

24 SEPTEMBER 2014 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL ambitions, passions and competition still powerfully shape history. And Robert Kaplan argues in The Revenge of Geog- raphy that while they do not determine future events, “the legacies of geography, history and culture really do set limits on what can be accomplished in any given place.” We have also been reminded by many astute observers not to get carried away with the power of social media to influ- ence statecraft and diplomacy, despite all the transformative possibilities of this new form of global interaction. Although we now are in an immediate and direct dialogue with people around the world, and the power of social media to organize is there for all to see, there are limits to the long-term com- mitments to action or enduring institutional connections social media can make. Finally, proponents of the “authoritarian capitalist” model have more talking points to use after the financial crisis of 2008-2009; they use them to try to call into question a new diplomacy’s belief in the inherent connection between pri- vate sector-fueled economic growth, globalization, and more tolerance and pluralism in society. These are all powerful arguments and warnings. But the need for pluralism to be both a guiding philosophy and a practical goal of American foreign policy remains. That is why, just as some seeking a framework for U.S. foreign policy after Iraq and Afghanistan have returned to Niebuhr’s writ- ings, others have also sought the wisdom of Isaiah Berlin. In his 2010 review of a new book of Berlin’s letters in the New York Review of Books , Nicholas Kristof highlights Berlin’s commitment to pluralism as a “pragmatic way of navigating an untidy world.” But this is not pragmatism devoid of values. As Kristof writes: “Finding the boundary between what can be tolerated with gritted teeth and what is morally intolerable may not be easy, but it does not mean that such a boundary does not exist.” This well describes the profound challenge faced every day by America’s diplomats. An Evolving Concept of Diplomacy How does a proponent of “new diplomacy,” faced with Putin, Assad, a “caliphate” declared by the murderous Islamic State and a rising China proceed? Part of any future for diplo- macy will, of course, be rooted in Niebuhr’s realism. But his views need to be combined with two other considerations: first, the commitment U.S. diplomats have to promote politi- cal and economic pluralism (to include practicing Track Two or “citizen’s diplomacy” where appropriate); and, second and related, the continuing need for policies based squarely on the belief that the United States has an important and often unique role to play in the modern world. This is no easy task today. As Robert Kagan has recently written: “American foreign policy may be moving away from the sense of global responsibility that equated American interests with the interests of many others around the world and back to a defense of narrower, more parochial national interests. … Unless Americans can...see again how their fate is entangled with the rest of the world, then the prospects for a peaceful 21st century in which Americans and American principles can thrive will be bleak.” I am not ready to give up the thought that an evolving con- cept of diplomacy can have a place in the future of our profes- sion. Even in the apparently “traditional” actions of Moscow in Crimea or Beijing in the South China Sea, the power of simultaneity is recognizable (the recent Ukraine crisis was sparked by the desire of many Ukrainians to join the Euro- pean Union—an economic entity profoundly connected to a transparent, rule-of-law-based, pluralistic way of life). If that observation is correct, we will need to use and respond to simultaneity as a key component of every future diplomatic plan, bringing to bear all the elements of national power to respond to today’s challenges. It is through this recognition of the power and necessity of simultaneity, and a “whole-of-government” approach, that one could imagine a synthesis of traditional diplomacy and a diplomacy of the future. There are important examples of this synthesis. Plan Colombia, conceived in the Clinton administration and pursued by subsequent presidents, was an early and explicit attempt to harness all of the levers of national power to sup- port Colombians in their fight to preserve their democracy. Trade, counternarcotics, counterterrorism and support for The need for pluralism to be both a guiding philosophy and a practical goal of American foreign policy remains.