What criticisms can be levelled against modern diplomacy

As you read the text try to find the answers to the following questions.

1. What problems has American diplomacy confronted after the end of the Cold War?

2. What have been the traditional weaknesses of American di­plomacy from the author's point of view?

3. In what way has the international situation changed in the post Cold War period?

4. Why does the author assess Soviet diplomats as more pro­fessional than their American counterparts?

5. What role does the knowledge of a foreign language play in diplomatic work?

THE NEW FRONTIERS OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY

The loss of an enemy can be as disorienting as the loss of a friend. The collapse of communism has revealed a world that existed virtually unseen while the attention of Americans was riveted on the superpower confrontation. It is a world as unfa­miliar to generations schooled in the cold war as the universe revealed by Copernicus was to generations schooled to believe that the Earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe while other bodies in the Solar System revolved around it. And just asthe heliocentric universe of Copernicus transformed the science of astronomy, so the post-cold war world requires a new approach to international relations and diplomacy.

American diplomacy struggled to meet the needs of the old world. It will require drastic reform to meet those of the new. The United States may be the only remaining military super­power, but in its approach to diplomacy it too often looks like the only remaining banana republic. Ingenuous zeal replaces knowledge of the history and dynamics of other cultures; enthu­siasm and frenetic activity replace patience and intelligent skep­ticism; and the illusion that foreign affairs is a series of excellent adventures replaces the reality that it is a turbulent but flowing process of change and synthesis.

The world emerging from the cold war is characterized by ethnic and cultural nationalism, as well as by economic and so­cial transnationalism. One could add other examples of prob­lems that do not need passports to cross international borders: environmental pollution, including acid rain and depletion of the ozone layer, nuclear and conventional arms proliferation, the transmission of AIDS virus, international terrorism, and the drug trade are a few that come readily to mind. Many of these prob­lems will require states to work together in new ways, investing a large section of their sovereignty in existing or still-to-be-cre- ated international authorities that possess the skills, continuity, and scope to address problems unknown to traditional diploma­cy or unrecognized by it.

Professionalism is prized in the US in virtually all profes­sions except diplomacy. Our closest allies take diplomacy more seriously than we do. So do our adversaries. In its day, even the Soviet Union, not a state that relied on diplomacy if intimidation was an option, managed its foreign service less cavalierly than do most American administrations. In the training they gave their young diplomats, especially language training, the Soviets were light years ahead of us. Typically, promising candidates were identified in secondary school and, after passing their entry ex­aminations, spent five years in a diplomatic prep-school (the Moscow State Institute for International Relations).The orienta-

tion training of US Foreign Service officers, including language training, is less than a year.

Effective communication with foreigners requires, as it al­ways has, the ability to speak other languages, to understand other cultures, to see the world through other eyes. Although distinct from it, comprehension of a foreign culture is virtually impossi­ble to achieve without proficiency in the language. Communi­cating in his or her own tongue, the diplomat will always be on the outside of the culture looking in. Only by knowing what the world looks like from inside will diplomats be able to provide political superiors with a realistic interpretation of the motives of the other governments and a reasonably accurate forecast of their future conduct. There is nothing else that a diplomat does that could not be done by lawyers, businesspeople, or academ­ics, all of whom do, in fact, serve frequently as nonprofessional diplomats.

Notes:

1) Copernicus Nicholas (1473-1543) — a Polish astronomer;

2) banana republic — a small country in Central or South America that is industrially underdeveloped and dependent financially on support from abroad;

3) depletion — lessening of the amount, diminishing

Questions for discussion:

1. Do you think the author is biased or unbiased in his assess­ment of the US diplomats?

2. Why do you think professionalism in diplomacy is prized so low in the USA?

3. Must a diplomat be a professional from your point of view? Give your arguments for or against.

4. Who Can be considered a professional in diplomacy?

5. Why does the author differentiate between knowing a for­eign language and comprehending a foreign culture? What does comprehending a foreign culture mean from your point of view?

Monteagle Stearns is not the only person to criticize modern dip­lomats. Read an extract from an article by Adam Watson, who tackles the problem somewhat from another angle. Be ready to express your opinion about the extract.

WHAT CRITICISMS CAN BE LEVELLED AGAINST MODERN DIPLOMACY

Some criticisms of present — day diplomacy are worth con­sidering, and the debate about them is helping to change diplo­matic practice. The most familiar concerns secrecy. Many peo­ple feel that secret diplomacy leads to intrigue and war, and that in this democratic century the public has a right to know what is being said in its name.

The media have a vested interest in the maximum of disclo­sure, and much of the public favours it. Governments, and espe­cially professional diplomats, are less sure. Bargaining between governments, as between business corporations, needs a degree of discretion to succeed. The exploratory diplomacy that feels out the possibilities for a deal between states, or a resolution in the Security Council, has to take place in confidence if it is to realize its potential: especially when a broad package is under discussion, a number of options have to be examined on "what if' basis. In democracies, where every public offer will be criti­cized by the political opposition and the media, a bargain openly discussed will usually mean no bargain at all. Also, a govern­ment that discloses what other governments say to it in confi­dence will soon find itself excluded from the confidential diplo­matic dialogue, to its own serious loss. It is a question of where to draw the line between secrecy and disclosure.

A criticism similar to the distrust of secret diplomacy is that the international relations of a democracy should not be left in the hands of professional diplomats. A diplomatic service, it is argued, is unrepresentative: it is a self-perpetuating body that does its own recruiting. It forms an unelected elite that evolves and keeps alive ideas about "the national interest", as opposed to the wishes of the democracy, and persuades government minis-

ters, who come and go, to accept these ideas and allow the diplo­matic service to implement them. This criticism needs to be tak­en seriously. The argument that the demos does not know what is wise or prudent in foreign affairs, that it is misinformed by pro­paganda and the media, and that elected governments are often ignorant and ideologically prejudiced, is an argument against democracy itself. Democracy certainly comes at a price: and that price is mitigated in the foreign field by having a body of profes­sional experts, who determine the long-term national interest in much greater detail than ministers have time or training for, and submit their conclusions as one factor for ministers to take into account.

On the other hand there is a case for ensuring that not only the statesmen who determine and increasingly conduct the de­mocracy's diplomatic dialogue, but also the permanent envoys to some of the most important foreign capitals and international organizations, are political figures identified with the govern­ment of the day. The US practice of assigning ambassadorships to people who have contributed to election campaigns has obvi­ous disadvantages, but there is a real gain both to the Adminis­tration and to the host government to have an American ambas­sador who has easy access to the President and knows his mind. It can be argued that for the same reasons "non-career" Europe­an ambassadors at posts like Tokyo, Washington and the United Nations tend to be more effective politically than professional diplomats, provided they are supported by an adequate profes­sional staff. But each case needs to be judged on its merits: as so often in diplomacy, there is no hard and fast rule.

Questions for discussion:

1. What is your position concerning secrecy in diplomatic mat­ters? What should be open to public scrutiny and what should remain secret?

2. How valid from your point of view is the argument that dip­lomatic officers constitute an influential elite in modern so­ciety?

3. Should ambassadors be career or non-career diplomats? Should the choice depend on a country where this or that ambassador is assigned? Does a national envoy have to be a personality, an independent thinker or an obedient and dis­ciplined civil servant?

Read the article below once and try to find answers to the ques­tions that follow:

1. What does the present system of recruitment into the Diplo­matic Service in GB consist in?

2. Who wants to change the system of recruitment?

3. On what grounds is the present system criticized?

Поделиться:

Воспользуйтесь поиском по сайту: