Diplomacy & Crisis News

Le mur de séparation érigé par Israël devient chaque jour plus aliénant pour les Palestiniens. Plaçant les frontières où bon lui semble, l'occupant impose sa domination aux points de passage et par le biais d'innombrables barrages qui morcellent le territoire de la Cisjordanie. / Israël, Palestine, (...) / Israël, Palestine, Armée, Société, Technologie, Géographie, Palestine (Cisjordanie), Répression, Conflit israélo-palestinien, Frontières - 2015/09

Insight from Linda Basile and Pierangelo Isernia

Hardline Wahabis and Salafis are attracting new converts.

Not all election monitors were created equal.

Heads of State and Government met in London today at an international conference on Syria, with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon laying out three main objectives: raising $7 billion in immediate humanitarian aid, mustering long-term support, and protecting civilians.

The United Nations Postal Administration (UNPA) today unveiled a set of six commemorative stamps to promote UN Free & Equal &#8211 a global UN campaign for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality launched and led by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

A consecration ceremony of the Timbuktu mausoleums, last held in the 11th century, was celebrated today at the initiative of the local community, the final phase of the United Nations-backed cultural rebirth of the age-old Sahara city after the destruction wrought by radical Islamists in 2012.

The United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) reported today that it has identified seven new possible victims of sexual exploitation and abuse in the town of Bambari, just days after the UN revealed which countries&#39 troops have been accused of abusing minors.

Shelters, schools and health centres in Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan will benefit from $59 million donated by Saudi Arabia to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in the Near East under three agreements signed today.

The global Food Price Index, calculated by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on a monthly basis, fell in January, slipping 1.9 percent below its level in the last month of 2015, as prices of all the commodities it tracks dropped, sugar in particular.

A senior United Nations official has held talks with Somali leaders in Mogadishu, the capital, in a show of support for last month&#39s &#8220breakthrough&#8221 political achievement in selecting an electoral model to be used later this year in efforts to lead the Horn of Africa country out of decades of factional war.

“America’s Diplomats”, a one-hour documentary produced by the Foreign Policy Association, presents the story of an institution that, as former Secretary of State James Baker says, is not easy to understand.

Visually and narratively attractive, packed with little-known facts and eye-catching clips, the film paints a faithful portrait of the U.S. Foreign Service while fair-mindedly probing a range of issues.

The documentary also poses the crucial question of how the Foreign Service can meet the challenges of the 21st century. By not giving facile answers, the producers portray a difficult situation honestly.

The documentary opens with an account of dangers and hardships so frequently faced by Foreign Service Officers, with many first hand accounts of traumatic events. This review in itself is a valuable reminder.

The program then imposes a certain context, raising the under-examined problem of balancing our diplomats’ security against their need to be out and about in countries where they serve. Our increasingly fortress-like embassies isolate our representatives, while mingling can incur deadly risks.

A lively historical review of early American diplomacy recounts Benjamin Franklin’s securing of French support for the Revolution, and the diplomatic coup of the Louisiana Purchase.

It proceeds to describe deleterious effects of the growing use of diplomatic postings for patronage. This led to the establishment of today’s professional U.S. Foreign Service, in the 1924 Rogers Act.

The first of several descriptions of core Foreign Service duties follows. Ambassador Frank Wisner cites the “maintenance of stability … the preservation of the peace, the protection of American interests …” in a segue to the story of George Kennan and the Containment strategy.

Kennan, a Russia expert, gave an analysis of Soviet and Russian behavior in his 1946 Long Telegram from the U.S. embassy in Moscow. His recommendation was not to attempt to roll back the Soviets’ influence, but to contain their efforts to expand it, which by his view of Russian history would either lead the Soviets to moderate their exploits, or cause their collapse.

The documentary does not spell out, perhaps because many Foreign Service Officers only sensed implicitly, how the Containment doctrine shaped basic expectations for the whole Service. This reviewer saw this in 1988 in Trinidad and Tobago, when the DCM asked an Embassy staff meeting to “take a step back and talk about what we are really trying to do here.”

As often happens in staff meetings, a hodge-podge of facts and concerns was bandied about. Then one officer piped up: “all the Caribbean islands could sink and no one in Washington would care, but there are Russians and Cubans competing with us for influence, and we have to win that competition.” No one had actually been told that officially, hence the prior hemming and hawing. But discussion ended, because everyone knew that Containment defined our overriding mission.

Kennan’s influence marked a high point in Foreign Service history. Former Under Secretary Thomas Pickering calls the story the “best known example” of a Foreign Service Officer “setting the course” for foreign policy. In fact Containment was the last systemic guidance U.S. foreign policy has had. Its comprehensive purpose disappeared with the U.S.S.R., and nothing has replaced it.

The documentary goes on to review the Foreign Service’s ongoing duties, with many fascinating vignettes. Regarding diplomacy in foreign policy, it describes Richard Holbrooke’s signal achievement, shaping the Dayton Accords that ended fighting in the former Yugoslavia.

An overview of the consular function features Fiorello LaGuardia—who knew he was a consular officer?—and Hiram Bingham, who flouted regulations in issuing visas to refugees fleeing the Nazis.

Accounts of diplomats’ business promotion efforts are punctuated by James Baker’s assertion that U.S. power is based on our economy, implying another core function for the Service. Baker then names one more “main responsibility” of our embassies: public diplomacy, the media, cultural, and other direct presentation of America to host country populations.

Those activities are described, along with the story of Edward Perkins, an African-American officer appointed as Ambassador to apartheid South Africa. A section on global issues includes discussion of terrorist and environmental issues.

The question of political appointees, a longstanding complaint of career officers, gets pointed attention. Two differing perspectives come out. Former Under Secretary Nicholas Burns says there are too many political appointees, citing career officers’ lifelong efforts. Secretary Baker points out that political Ambassadors’ familiarity with political leaders can make them particularly effective representatives.

This backdrop supports the documentary’s assertion that the Service’s challenges deserve better attention. Retired senior diplomat Linda Thomas-Greenfield says that the Service has to “do a better job … letting Americans know what we do …” But the problem may not lie in the telling. Since the Cold War, it is hard to say what the nation actually asks of its diplomats.

The review of Foreign Service duties shows officers handling consequential matters, but, in its straightforward portrait, it captures the sense that the various functions each have their own internal logic, and relatively little to do with each other. The role of the Foreign Service seems as diffuse as foreign policy itself.

The future promises to make the difficulties harder. Secretary John Kerry describes today’s volatility and new challenges, and Ambassador Prudence Bushnell observes that the Service must adapt to a global 21st century. Issues of diversity and training are discussed. Viewers certainly know how overwhelming the post-modern era’s complexities can be. The documentary itself portrays experts naming at least three undifferentiated ‘core’ duties of the Service.

Fittingly, the program does not present any comprehensive answers: none have been proposed. The Foreign Policy Association producers offer something unusual in public discourse: informing the viewer well, and leaving them facing an uncomfortable reality.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Review by George F. Paik appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Written by Jim Quirk

“America’s Diplomats”, a 2016 documentary produced by the Foreign Policy Association, may come at just the right time with just the right message.

In some ways, the hour-long film blends the literature of American diplomacy, such as Shuster’s The Strangling of Persia, Kennan’s Memoirs, and Holbrooke’s To End a War, with more recent insiders’ views, like Kopp and Gillespie’s Career Diplomacy, Morgan and Kennedy’s American Diplomats, and AFSA’s Inside a U.S. Embassy.

The film introduces the history of American diplomacy, well-known and less familiar personal stories, and challenges to the Foreign Service and its work. While much of the media attention on U.S. foreign policy and the Department of State today focuses on failures, scandals, or intra-agency turf battles, this film reminds us that the career personnel are talented, dedicated people whose commitment to public service and American interests includes considerable sacrifice.

“America’s Diplomats” begins with this focus on danger and sacrifice. The famous attacks on U.S. diplomats in Iran, Lebanon, Kenya and Tanzania, Benghazi and elsewhere are dramatic and tragic. But many diplomats and their relatives have also been lost to crime, disease, ship wrecks and other events in the course of their duties. The danger to diplomats has resulted in many changes to U.S. embassies and consulates, such as turning many into “fortresses” in the world’s capitals.

From here,”America’s Diplomats” begins its chronological and thematic sections. Benjamin Franklin went to France to help secure American independence. A quest for safety and prosperity, often through isolationism, characterized much of the diplomacy of the next hundred years.

Global changes in politics, technology, and economics in the last part of the 19th century and especially after World War I required changes to American diplomacy and to the American diplomatic corps. A key was the 1924 Rogers Act, which sought to introduce more professionalism and meritocracy to the State Department.

Kennan’s Long Telegram and Holbrooke’s shuttle diplomacy will be familiar to many viewers. But the consular side, which often touches Americans and others more directly than treaties or doctrines, is also highlighted.

The work of Hiram “Harry” Bingham, consular officer in Marseilles during World War II, alludes perhaps unintentionally to current issues. Bingham is credited with saving thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish refugees, issuing visas more generously than official policy allowed. It cost him his career.

Seven decades later, his story was revealed when hidden documents were found in his home. He was honored posthumously by organizations as diverse as the United Nations, Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem, the U.S. Episcopal Church, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Bingham was even put on a U.S. postage stamp, as a Distinguished American Diplomat.

“America’s Diplomats” then transitions to contemporary challenges, reflecting recent changes in global politics, technology, and economics. The expansion of global trade and finance since the 1980s called for an increase in economic diplomacy. The 1987 Montreal Protocol on ozone-damaging CFCs serves as a model, the film argues, for multilateralism and environmental diplomacy.

The IT revolution of the past 30 years, in particular the growth of the internet has called for new kinds of public diplomacy. The film concludes with concern over the increase in the number of political appointees to ambassador posts, but the benefits of attracting more diverse and mature Foreign Service Officers to meet the new challenges.

These new challenges are one area in which the film might have gone into more depth. The State Department tweets in 11 languages, and many embassies use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube in their local languages. How effective is this? How do we know?

More broadly, how is the Foreign Service dealing with the huge range of non-state actors that have become so important in recent decades? And how does it balance its promotion of democracy, religious freedom, and human development (economic, education, health, etc.) with more “realist” state-vs.-state views of national interest.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Review By Jim Quirk appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“America’s Diplomats”, the Foreign Policy Association latest production is a must-see documentary for anyone interested in the history of American diplomacy or considering a career in the Foreign Service. Indeed, it chronicles the evolution of American diplomacy over the decades, the motivation behind America’s Foreign Service Officers, and both the successes and failures of U.S. foreign policy.

The documentary is narrated by the rich, gravelly voice of the actress Kathleen Turner, an American film and stage actress and director (whose father was a consular officer, her mother serving alongside him), and draws on extensive interviews from such notable past and present diplomats as current Secretary of State John Kerry, the former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, former Secretary of State James Baker, and former ambassador to Kenya, Prudence Bushnell.

As we learn, the history of American diplomacy stretches as far back as the founding of the nation, when Benjamin Franklin became recognized as “America’s first diplomat”, and carried on over the years as diplomacy secured peace after World War II and met the challenge of Communism.

Yet these successes are quickly put aside at the beginning of the narrative to reveal the grave dangers faced by American diplomats today. Featured in full details are the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, the 1998 bombings at the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the death of the ambassador Christopher Stevens and three embassy staffers.

The 1979 Iran hostage crisis also figures prominently, and helps belie any criticism that this is merely a rose-colored recruiting video. The harsh reality viewers will take from the film is that the Foreign Service is not for the faint-hearted. Those afraid of succumbing to diseases like yellow fever and cholera, being shot at by snipers, bombed, or held hostage while overseas need not apply.

Indeed, the documentary not only covers the physical threats but the intellectual challenges in diplomacy —for example the primary challenge of trying to convince a foreign population that you are not occupiers seeking to overturn their government, but rather a helpful presence intended to bring positive American values to the citizenry.

Oftentimes, the population is not convinced, and tragedy sets in, as portrayed during the aforementioned Iran hostage crisis, when 52 American diplomats and citizens were held hostage by a mob, who claimed that the embassy was a “den of espionage….plotting against the Iranian people.” The hostages were released only after a long captivity of 444 days.  Other times diplomacy succeeds, as shown in the film’s portrayal of the extensive efforts of Richard Holbrooke in bringing an end to Bosnia’s bloody civil war.

The documentary also covers the history of the foreign service, and the influence of the Rogers Act of 1924, which instituted series of competitive entrance exams bringing meritocracy to the corps.

Unfortunately, as the film dutifully points out, the influence of money, privilege and political influence “depreciates the process”, particularly with the appointment of prominent political donors to ambassadorships in some of the better postings like London and Paris. Roughly 30% of ambassadors since the Kennedy administration have been political appointees and not career foreign service officers, which can undermine morale.

Foreign Service Officers have also increasingly played an important role in the support of American commerce, largely since the Reagan years. The film features diplomats supporting such U.S. companies as McDonald’s and Starbucks, although it fails to mention that, in some countries, both U.S. companies have become negative symbols of American influence, despite their products being hungrily consumed by the local population

The role of the consular officers in approving visa requests for those wishing to come to the U.S. is also featured prominently, and raises important questions as to how this “nation of immigrants” should treat those refugees currently fleeing Syria and Iraq.

The film includes an interesting portrayal of such diplomats as Fiorello La Guardia, a consular officer who eventually became the mayor or New York. La Guardia was instrumental in getting shipping lines to implement health checks on immigrant families before they got on a boat, to help ensure families stay together.

Hiram Bingham, another consular officer in Marseilles, France, helped 2,500 Jews in ten months reach the U.S. during the Hitler years, defying orders from Washington and eventually costing him his career in the foreign service.

America’s role in public diplomacy has also grown since the 1960s, and is sometimes referred to as the “soft power” of American principles and values. One such highlighted example documents the role of Ed Perkins, U.S. ambassador to apartheid South Africa, and the challenges he faced as a black American in attempting to promote American values in a hostile environment.

What motivates an Ed Perkins or anyone to serve in the foreign service?  Certainly not the pay, which is far below what many of these highly talented Americans can earn in the private sector. Indeed they are driven by other motivations.  John Kerry believes “it’s done because people love the concept of serving their country, and they love the idea of taking American ideals abroad.”

Which raises the question, why does America get involved in the convoluted conflicts of foreign nations, far from home?  Why is the United States “the undisputed leader on the world stage”?

A foreign policy of isolationism has long been debated in American foreign policy—despite the American Revolution having almost been lost without diplomacy and despite the fact that “the United States would not have existed, without the French support.” In the early years of the nation, Americans really didn’t like the “European ideas” of diplomacy and having ambassadors in foreign countries.

Yet today, following the failures of the war in Vietnam, and limited success in Iraq and Afghanistan, debates over isolationism and America’s leading role in diplomacy are again back in the spotlight, especially among this year’s presidential candidates.

Some diplomats argue for intervention only when we have “a dog in this fight,” or when American interests are threatened at home. As the documentary illuminates, these are difficult decisions to make, with constantly changing parameters, often resulting in devastating consequences, including the death of diplomats.  

If there is one shortcoming of “America’s Diplomats,” it is the failure to examine the question of when and under what conditions America should go to war, and to address the argument in favor of isolationism.  Instead, the film takes it for granted that American involvement is necessary, and has been necessary, given that other nations “look to the United States for leadership.”

Where the documentary shines is in its history of American diplomacy and its well-deserved tribute to those courageous American heroes who are on the front lines of American diplomacy everyday, including the 12 whom Bill Clinton posthumously honored after the 1998 bombing by Al-Qaeda in Nairobi, Kenya, “Far from home, they endure hardships, often at great risk”.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Gary Sands appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“America’s Diplomats”, a new television special produced by the Foreign Policy Association, seeks to explain the world of professional diplomats to average citizens, people who, through no fault of their own, have little occasion to interact with Foreign Service Officers or to discuss the inner workings of the Department of State.

As is fitting of the Foreign Policy Association—and in keeping with reality—it offers a positive and hopeful message. A number of themes are woven in and out of the narrative. Among these are the tasks that diplomats actually undertake, popular American attitudes toward diplomacy, the evolution and professionalization of the field in the United States, and the need to balance our diplomats’ need for personal security with their need to accomplish their mission. Allow me to touch upon a few of these themes without repeating the details of the program.

Americans have long had a disdainful attitude toward diplomacy and diplomats, seeing the whole endeavor as something elitist, foreign, expensive, and possibly deceitful.

Ambrose Bierce, the author of The Devil’s Dictionary (1906), defined diplomacy at “the patriotic art of lying for one’s country” and a consul as “a person who having failed to secure an office from the people is given one by the Administration on the condition that he leave the country.”

Yet diplomacy was essential to the birth of the United States. Washington’s forces would never have prevailed without the alliance with France. France not only provided finances, troops, and a fleet, but it also distracted Britain’s attention by threatening its holdings in far-flung corners of the world. (Remember, the British army abandoned the occupation of Philadelphia because they suddenly needed the troops to defend the West Indies.)

From the beginning, the young American republic cut corners when it came to diplomacy. Unwilling to pay the salary of “ambassadors,” the United States sent “ministers,” diplomats of a lower rank, to represent it in foreign capitals.

This not only reduced the status and influence of American diplomats, it also created a dilemma for other countries. Based on the rules of reciprocity, European powers would not send ambassadors to a country that sent them ministers, but they were hard-pressed to find qualified diplomats who would willingly cross the ocean and live in “the American wilderness” for a minister’s salary.

Relative isolation made it easy for the United States to neglect diplomacy for a while. After all, the U.S. was hidden behind large oceans. The oceans were controlled by the British fleet, and the British—after the War of 1812, at least—found that they already had enough enemies and that life would be easier if they could just keep the Americans on their side.

Most U.S. contact with the outside world consisted of trade. American businessmen resident in foreign ports were asked by the government to act as consuls, looking after U.S. interests, in their spare time. Still, the Consular Service, being business-oriented, was held in somewhat higher esteem by the public than the Diplomatic Service.

The two services interacted little with each other, and both suffered from low salaries, nonexistent benefits, and the consequences of a spoils system of appointments, a system that Teddy Roosevelt denounced as “wholly and unmixedly evil,” “emphatically un-American and undemocratic,” and something that no “intelligent man or ordinary decency” could endorse.

As the U.S. grew—and its contacts with the outside world multiplied in number and evolved in kind—a greater sense of professionalism had to be forced upon its diplomacy. The Consular Service forged a merit-based system in the early 1900s.

Leaders of the Diplomatic Service, on the other hand, preferred to rely on men of independent means and saw low salaries as a way to weed out undesirables. With the onset of World War I, the pressures to modernize came in accelerated form.

A key turning point finally came with the Foreign Service Act of 1924, also known as the Rogers Act. The Rogers Act merged the Diplomatic Service and the Consular Service into the new Foreign Service of the United States; established a meritocratic personnel system, including standardized entrance exams; and created or extended allowances and benefits. The Foreign Service School was also established in 1924, which was replaced by the Foreign Service Institute in 1947.

Still, even today, the system is not fully professionalized. “America’s Diplomats” suggests that perhaps 30% of ambassadors are political appointees (albeit supported by professional diplomats). Some of these, even if not professional Foreign Service Officers, are highly qualified. Others, such as some campaign donors, are potential embarrassments.

The question of diplomats’ personal security is a key theme in “America’s Diplomats,” both early in the show and toward the end. The focus is clearly influenced by the Benghazi controversy.

Yet it is not presented as a straight-forward question of protecting personnel, as it is often depicted in Washington. Rather it is a trade-off. The Foreign Service does not want to leave its people exposed to dangers unnecessarily, but it also views excessive security measures as obstacles that get in the way of doing its mission.

It resists measures that separate its diplomats from the government and society that they are supposed to be reporting on. Finding the balance is an endless task, and one that does not always end happily.

Although, as many politicians have said in the past few years, no U.S. ambassador had been killed in the line of duty in over 20 years, they picked that number consciously. American ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty in 1988, 1979, 1976, 1974, 1973, and 1968.

Other, lower-ranking diplomats have been killed since then. (The American Foreign Service Association lists 247 State Department personnel who have died in the line of duty since 1780, although most of the earlier cases were lost at sea or died in epidemics.)

None of this is to dismiss the tragedy of Benghazi but rather to question the politicization of the event when the previous cases were not politicized, and the consequences for the future of diplomacy.

“America’s Diplomats” is an interesting and informative introduction to the things that diplomats do. It strives to use information to overcome the lingering disdain that people may carry toward diplomats and diplomacy. I suspect the producers would also like to see the process of professionalization completed and the politicization of foreign policy overcome, but those are even taller orders.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Scott Monje appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On January 11, Iran announced that it had removed the core of its nuclear reactor at Arak, a major part of the terms it agreed to under an international agreement reached in July. A few days later, representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) submitted a report stating that Agency inspectors on the ground had verified that Iran had carried out all measures required by the agreement.

In an official statement UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon remarked: “This achievement demonstrates that international proliferation concerns are best addressed through dialogue and patient diplomacy.”

Although these events were reported in the media, they were top news stories. This is due to the lack of understanding of the importance and value of diplomacy.

An engrossing and informative new PBS documentary, American Diplomats, produced by the Foreign Policy Association, addresses these and other issues head on. As elaborated on during the program, diplomats have three primary responsibilities: to maintain stability, preserve peace and protect U.S. interests.

The documentary weaves these themes together by showing the impact diplomats have had on our nation’s history, foreign policy, and economic interests. Of note, the documentary does not down play the challenges and shortcomings of the profession and the need to keep improving and stay relevant.

Benjamin Franklin was our first diplomat and without his success in securing an alliance with France, the U.S. might not have won the revolutionary war.

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson, sent Robert Livingston to New Orleans, then part of territory owned by the French, to see if the U.S. could buy the city. Jefferson wanted to ensure U.S. farmers had access to that port city to export their goods.

To Livingston’s surprise the French asked if the U.S. would be interested in buying not just New Orleans but the entire territory. For a cost of $15 million, the U.S. territory overnight expanded as far west as the Rockies and as far north as Canada.

The nature of their jobs has also allowed diplomats to play an important role in the formulation of foreign policy. If you asked me what single book on foreign affairs and national security has had the most impact on me, George F. Kennan’s Memoirs 1925 – 1950 would be at the top of the list.

As World War II ended, the U.S. expected to maintain a successful working relationship with the Soviet Union. Kennan had been stationed in the Soviet Union during the war and had observed up close the aggressive nature and intentions of Stalin’s foreign policy.

Concerned that Washington seemed to be in the dark, he sent a now famous 8,000 work telegram in which he concluded: “the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”

Kennan’s advice was heeded and he is considered the architect of the Cold War strategy. Today’s diplomats are still expected to provide the kind of expert advice on the social, political, religious, and economic issues that helps set the policy course for the nation.

This leads to one of the challenges discussed during the program: patronage or the practice of appointing someone to top jobs because of contributions made to political campaigns.

Although, there have been some talented and successful political appointees’ many didn’t perform well because they could not speak the local language and were not knowledgeable about the history, political, social, religious, and economics of the countries they’re serving in.

Currently about 70% of the top positions in the Foreign Service are held by Foreign Service Officers and 30% by political appointees.

Another challenge discussed during the program is that the profession is misunderstood. It is not easy to understand the implications of battles won in the field of diplomacy as the earlier example of Iran’s nuclear program shows.

During the program several former State Department officials discussed the need to better advocate and let Americans know what they do. Americans must learn about the risks and sacrifices Foreign Service Officers endure while on the job.

Public attention is currently focused on the unfortunate events in Benghazi, but there has been many other instances. In 1998 al-Qaeda blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over 200 people. In 1983, terrorists crashed a truck bomb into our embassy in Beirut. The blast killed 63 and many others were wounded.

Foreign Service Officers do not just have to deal with the risks of being killed by terrorists but also the challenges of living in remote areas where needed medical emergency care for family members might not be available.

They also have to deal with frequent moves and family separation. In spite of the sometimes difficult challenges, the majority of Foreign Service Officers remain motivated and dedicated to serving their country.

In sum, I found “America’s Diplomats” to be an inspiring story and well worth the time.          

 To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Gail Harris appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

As someone who sat across the table from American diplomats, I must confess, I was reluctant to accept the invitation to write a review on the latest Foreign Policy Association, Great Decisions series documentary “America’s Diplomats.” It felt like one of those gifts that make one feel awkward.

After some consideration, and out of a general sense of curiosity, I watched the film. It was profoundly captivating, to say the least. Not because of my interest in  international relations, not because of the universally accepted collegiality that bonds diplomats and sometimes obliges certain courtesies, but because of the timeliness of the topic and its relevance to the challenges that diplomacy and international relations are facing today.

The film presents the viewer with portraits of men and women in the American Foreign Service who have helped shape history, yet in spite of that, whose services and achievements were seldom recognized and celebrated. It is a tour de force that captures defining moments immortalized in history—the jubilation of triumph and the agony of failure.

In dealing with the latter, one must bounce back and learn from past experiences: this resilience depends almost entirely on effectiveness of individual diplomats. The more informed the individual is on his or her diplomatic mission, the more effective he or she would be.

More importantly, the diplomat must be a strategic thinker who understands the difference between winning battles and winning wars; and that sometimes, what seems like losing could prove to be a winning outcome. In addition to genuine interest in serving one’s country and its national interest, diplomats must possess unwavering commitment to sustainable engagement.

Contrary to the ideological predisposition and rigidity that often restrain bureaucrats, effective diplomats prudently chart new territories and pave new ways.

The film highlights that in recent decades no diplomat has embodied these qualities better than Ambassador Richard Holbrooke who succeeded in the negotiation of the Dayton Peace Accord that ended Europe’s bloodiest conflict since the WWII and the Bosnian genocide.

Diplomacy is often associated with political interests, peace negotiation, commerce or economic advantage. “Diplomats today play a bigger role in advancing America’s economic interest overseas than it used to be” says former Secretary of State James Baker. “America’s power is based primarily…on our economy. As long as our economy has been in good shape…., (we’ve been) strong diplomatically, militarily and politically,” adds Secretary Baker. In the U.S., over ten million jobs are supported by international trade.

The discourse on challenges facing diplomacy in a world that is becoming increasingly volatile has been raging. In the U.S., due to the Benghazi tragedy that left an Ambassador and three other Americans dead, opinions came in the form of partisan rants and raves that have continuously deteriorated during the country’s current election cycle.

All in all, the film offers an insightful tour lead by seasoned diplomats and experts to whom diplomacy is “the first line of defense” and a powerful tool to learn about the dynamics that impact political relationships in a rapidly changing world.

The diplomat is a portrait of his or her nation. He or she is the image projected out to the world, often accepted as the values and aspirations of the country that one represents. There are many ways to enhance that image, and one of the most effective ways is what is known as digital diplomacy, or to employ social media to interact, to clarify misconceptions, and cultivate new relationships.

Ever since 9/11, counterterrorism has permeated U.S. foreign policy and often undermines diplomacy and opportunities to build a long-term relationship between states. Throughout the world, American embassies have turned into fortresses, though diplomacy does not function in seclusion.

Nevertheless, American diplomats remain at risk, especially in the Middle East and Africa where the U.S. foreign policy is in a downward spiral. Diplomats have no better protection than a sound foreign policy.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Abukar Arman appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.