20 DECEMBER 2024 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL The breakup of [the USSR] ushered in a period of American diplomatic exuberance that went overboard in treating the world as ours to mold. the outside, in this case from Congress, as was the case in the Rogers Act, or from the executive branch political leadership, if that leadership is committed to real change and has the political will and congressional support to make it happen. Unfortunately, I do not see the political stars aligning for that scenario anytime soon. Diplomacy in a Changed World Finally, I think it is evident that U.S. diplomats have not adjusted to the reality of a world that has so profoundly changed. Fundamentally, the United States is no longer, if it ever was, the omnipotent and all-knowing power that many U.S. diplomats seem to think it is. The age of America asserting that it can solve all the world’s problems is over. The Cold War, during which I entered the Service, imposed certain restrictions on U.S. diplomacy and diplomats, and we had a canny and powerful state to contend with in the USSR. The breakup of that entity ushered in a period of American diplomatic exuberance that went overboard in treating the world as ours to mold. The traditional skills of effective negotiation and diplomatic engagement were left to atrophy as our policymakers turned more and more to military force and righteous demands, relegating diplomacy to the back burner in dealing with the world’s knotty problems. We lost our sharpness, our desire to listen and to learn. The Service turned to proselytizing and striving to be “agents of change and transformation” in other countries, with predictably negative results. Diplomacy should uphold values in its application but not force other countries and societies to accept our worldview. Many officers, particularly those with a Peace Corps or missionary background, told me they joined the Service to change the world, to make it a better place, and I saw how disappointed they became when the world did not change as they wished. I, too, shared that feeling when I first joined the Service, but over time I saw that successful diplomacy requires a clear eye, abundant patience, understanding of the human psyche, and a willingness to seek compromise to advance, even incrementally, clear realistic national interests. Otherwise, we are truly sent abroad on a fool’s errand. In a world of competing interests, dangers, and violence, where the U.S. is not omnipotent, we need professional diplomats now more than ever—to understand the messy world we live in, to communicate effectively with governments whether we like their policies or not, and to provide sound policy advice grounded in experience and understanding of the real world beyond our borders. The Rogers Act addressed this need in the aftermath of World War I. Now, heading into 2025, with the world in turmoil around us, it is time to renew, reinforce, and reinvigorate the fundamental and historic mission, purpose, and discipline of the Foreign Service as the Rogers Act itself envisaged. n
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=