Discussed in FP recently was how much in the hole the Department of State is right now- which directly relates to the deployment of envoys. The point they focus heavily on is the militarization of diplomacy and foreign policy in general, and the serious implications of that. As the article hints, there are some advocating the end of our foremost diplomatic institution, which, huh, is kind of a big deal. Most would agree that on the ground people understanding the countries and people we interact with will never cease being a necessity- and that can't be done effectively through the Pentagon or special envoys, and people know that. They are hiring twice as many FSOs as they did last year and injecting more money, and there is re-concerted effort in understanding how we conduct our foreign policy. We don't have much of a choice - in the 20th century and the Cold War, being 'America' was enough in diplomacy. Now we actually have to work at it, and we can't afford to fail miserably--bureaucratic messes and inefficiency isn't going to cut it. Some would argue that the slowing of American preeminence in a increasingly multi-polar world makes good diplomacy a definite necessity. Can special envoys do that?
Sorry, the link wasn't working....
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/11/hitting_bottom_in_foggy_bottom
Ahh the Kennedy Center...while not the traditional symbol of foreign policy does put on the occassional Russian ballet or Japanese jazz ensemble with defined grace...come to think of it, maybe this IS where we should be making some of our more important diplomatic negotiations ;)
ReplyDelete