Suited for the New Diplomacy?

Suited for the New Diplomacy? – washingtonpost.com

I am back from my holidays and catching up on my reading. First, I must say thank you, thank you, thank you Ireland. But getting back on topic, the article linked above caught my eye. It seems to reflect a sentiment that work in the field such as on PRTs in Afghanistan, however exciting, just is not what the State Department is about.

One of my U.S. Foreign Service colleagues has a great photo of himself from his time working with a Provincial Reconstruction Team in one of Afghanistans livelier provinces. He’s dressed in khaki, with an MP5 assault rifle slung over his shoulder. When I first saw it, I thought: Theres a lot to say about service like that. Its adventurous. Its courageous. Its patriotic.

But is it diplomacy?

Well, what is diplomacy? Says the author ‘… while expertise in military affairs is a good thing, should it overshadow all else in a world of shifting challenges — climate change, energy security and the threat of global pandemics, to name just a few? As China buys up U.S. debt by the billions, let’s hope that some U.S. diplomats are reading the Financial Times and not just Sun Tzu.’ But why do we need diplomats for these things either? Back in the old days when travel and communications were slow it made sense to have good generalists representing the interests of one’s nation in foreign places. Now, on the other hand, if its climate change talks then fly in your guys from the environment ministry, if its energy security then experts from that sector of government, if its pandemics then health, if its international finance then the real experts on finance. You see where I’m going.

I know this is crude and our diplomats do more than drain wineglasses and talk to other diplomats. Nonetheless it is the case that there is a great need for diplomats* of the type of the author’s friend who go also to the hot, dusty and dangerous places where they may have to defend themselves, or at least not get in the way of the troops accompanying them while they do. If the State Department doesn’t want to do this, then Defence will have to do it for itself. Maybe that’s the right course.

Incidentally, this is a great idea:

At the National Foreign Affairs Training Center, a new division has been created to prepare civilians for service in war zones, and diplomats can spend several weeks at Fort Bragg, N.C., learning how to be less of a liability to troops in the field. This is fine, as far as it goes. Diplomats cannot and should not be turned into Rambos, but they should be given every possible preparation for the unique challenge of working in war zones.

Does anyone know if Britain is doing this? We should be.

*Of course the appropriate term is probably not ‘diplomat’ but ‘colonial administrator’.