The Foreign Service Journal, October 2010

12 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I recently read Harold Nicolson’s classic 1939 study, Diplomacy , and President Barack Obama’s May 2010 National Security Strategy back to back. Though the two publications were produced seven decades apart and are unlikely to be paired for any- one’s monthly book club, they have more in common than one might ex- pect. Nicolson’s volume reflects its era. He never mentions female or minority diplomats, and some of his characteri- zations of national traits would be con- sidered politically incorrect today. Yet the work contains some lessons that today’s diplomats would do well to apply. In particular, consider Nicolson’s plea that people should be clear about the definition of his chosen topic: “This word ‘diplomacy’ is carelessly taken to denote several quite different things ... as a synonym for foreign policy or for negotiations or for the processes and machinery by which negotiation is car- ried out.” Nicolson turns to the Oxford Eng- lish Dictionary for the following defi- nition: “the management of inter- national relations by negotiation, fo- cused on official ambassadors and en- voys.” Some pages later, he expands his view by recognizing that diplomacy is also about “the ordered conduct of relations between one group of human beings and another group alien to themselves.” With that definition in mind, let us turn to the president’s National Secu- rity Strategy document, which contains its own descriptions of the purposes of diplomacy and is based on four themes that will define the jobs of today’s and tomorrow’s U.S. diplomats. First, the NSS recognizes the power of simultaneity. It highlights the fact that while the challenges and opportu- nities of the 21st century can each be observed and analyzed individually, none of them can be successfully ad- dressed without reference to the oth- ers. As Hans Binnendijk and Richard Kugler, both of National Defense Uni- versity, have put it, no single problem, danger or threat holds the key to the world’s future. What matters is their interaction and the coordination of our responses. Second, the NSS acknowledges that diplomacy is not the answer to every question. Maintaining the strongest possible defense and being ready and willing to use force (preferably with others, but alone if necessary) are es- sential to protecting national security. Third, just as diplomacy must be backed by the strongest possible de- fense, our capacity to influence events abroad requires a strong, resilient do- mestic foundation. Fourth, the strategy conveys the message that American diplomacy will not succeed unless our allies and friends around the world support it. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has written about European involvement in Afghanistan, “Don’t just show us the love; show us the money. Show us the troops. Show us the diplomatic effort.” Washington Post writer Anne Applebaum puts it this way: “Halfway through his presi- dency, George W. Bush found he had to drop unilateralism in favor of diplo- macy. Now one wonders: at some point in his presidency, will Obama find he has to drop diplomacy in favor of unilateralism?” Definitions Matter Reading Diplomacy, with its em- phasis on being clear about definitions, and the NSS together, I was reminded that while President Obama took office last year promising to engage the world by offering an open hand to America’s adversaries, his statements sometimes conveyed the idea that engagement Defining the Ideal Diplomat B Y M ARC G ROSSMAN S PEAKING O UT Once we craft a clear definition of what diplomacy encompasses, our profession will receive its due as a national security tool.