The Foreign Service Journal, December 2008

establishing the so-called “F” process to manage foreign assistance and bol- stering the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, are admirable. But they constitute incremental change at best. More than a mere case of long-over- due bureaucratic reform, this problem goes to the very heart of American power in a changing and increasingly challenging world. Every international problem confronting the United States includes more variables than ever before. This is an age of stakeholder proliferation — from the private sector and powerful nongovernmental organizations to rising powers, and from criminal and terrorist networks to workers in the global supply chain. To have any chance of shaping world events, Washington must be alert to this panoply of actors and engaged at many levels in the intri- cate dynamics that determine political trends and policy decisions around the globe. Accordingly, the essential aim of any effort to strengthen the U.S. civilian agencies must be to extend our lines of communication and cooperation to reach those on whom future peace and prosperity hinge. In the same way that globalizing trends have broken down inter- national barriers for information and business, the United States must break down communication barriers to understand others’ concerns, by expanding ties further beyond the confines of officialdom in national capitals, and by responding more diligently and creatively to emerging problems. But we won’t be able to do this without more effective — and better resourced — civil- ian agencies. Just as we need to invest in education and science to ensure that the American work force can com- pete and thrive in the globalizing world, we must likewise transform our government to be competitive in the effort to sustain America’s global power in the 21st century. How to Lose Friends and Alienate People There is not much to add to what has already been said about America’s strained relations with the rest of the world or the events that led to the current state of affairs. The distressing opinion research showing America’s international unpopularity has been widely discussed. The United States confronts a great deal of skepticism and mistrust as it pursues its national interests around the world today, even when those interests overlap manifest- ly with the interests of other nations. Given that most, if not all, of the hard- est issues America faces — from coun- terterrorism and nonproliferation to global warming — require extensive international cooperation, skepticism about American motives and compe- tence has real costs. During the fall campaign, both presidential candidates claimed they could rebuild America’s reputation around the world. President-elect Obama and his team now confront formidable policy challenges: How can we align ourselves more effectively with others and get them to join with us? How will we compete and cooperate with state and non-state actors? And how can we support positive developments and counter negative trends? A key misconception of the past eight years has been the belief that Washington could meaningfully wield influence merely by stating its expectations and demon- strating the willingness to flex its muscle. The lesson we have learned, simple as it may seem, is that even a super- power’s leverage is not simply a matter of available mili- tary assets. Effectively shaping global conditions requires the active and constant pursuit of desired outcomes using all elements of national power. If we are to be truly clear-eyed about the intensely interconnected world that has emerged, the U.S. must take a keen interest in the battle between the forces of integration and those of disintegration. As a global power with strong ideals and a central place in the international political, security and economic systems, the United States has an enormous stake in the vitality and relevance of the international order. In other words, a well-func- tioning international community — able to minimize armed conflict and maximize the spread of prosperity — provides the structural foundation upon which we can promote our interests and values. Yet it will be impossible to protect (and, as necessary, rebuild) the international system unless we redress the mismatch between this massive workload and our dimin- ished work force. At just the moment when U.S. rela- tions with the world are in a deep slump, our capacity to turn things around is also at a low point. Some elements of this challenge have received attention: post-conflict reconstruction, economic development and public diplo- macy. Yet these are merely pieces of a wider, systemic F O C U S D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 8 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 29 The Foreign Service has too few resources to bring to bear when facing challenges.