Our National Devaluation of DiplomacyBy Thomas McNamara - August 1, 2022
A recent RAND Report on “The Foreign Service and American Public Opinion” (
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1845-1.html)
reveals how little the American public knows about diplomacy and
foreign affairs. For the report, which goes much deeper than most
foreign policy polls, RAND surveyed representative samples of Americans
over a two-year period (2020-2021). The results are not surprising, but
they are worrisome for anyone interested in national security policy and
prosperity.
This report and
conclusions highlight the deep ignorance of Americans about diplomacy,
its policies, and its practice. The “no opinion” responses in some
polls and the “I-never-knew-that” replies in some focus groups—even on
basics—can range from 25% to 50%.
From
my decades as a diplomat, I see three major factors behind this
national lack of understanding. These include the way in which diplomacy
has been devalued since the Cold War, the dumbing down of our media,
and our inability to explain foreign policy to the average American.
There
is, however, reason for hope, if those interested and involved in
foreign affairs (journalists, diplomats, industry and financial leaders,
academics) undertake, as a high priority, major efforts to inform the
public on international issues. The hope contained in RAND’s report lies
in more favorable responses once the facts and background were
explained to participants in the focus groups. Results strongly indicate
that telling Americans what diplomats do and why they do it brings
substantially more support for doing it and paying for it.
The Devaluation of Diplomacy
Foreign
affairs professionals know that, since the Cold War, foreign policy and
its primary tool, diplomacy, have been devalued in the minds of the
American public. These do not have the public support they had during
the Cold War. This is not a partisan problem, neither in its origins
nor in its eventual correction. It is a national problem. As the RAND
report shows, Americans simply do not understand diplomacy.
Americans’
understanding of diplomacy has never been very deep, even during the
Cold War. But during those 45 years, the public understood that
diplomacy was important in securing American interests. The public
certainly saw it as a more effective national defense than nuclear war.
Diplomats, therefore, were understood to play critical roles in
national security and defense. Indeed, diplomacy was central to that
Cold War success.
That
is far from the attitude of Americans today. Rarely, if ever, do
diplomats—“our service men and women not in uniform” —hear expressions
of gratitude from the public or national leaders for their efforts and
sacrifices. This is ironic because this generation is ending its careers
in which they have been killed by hostile action at rates far higher
than in prior generations.
Diplomacy is dismissed as a resource
drain whose objectives are obscure and whose successes are secondary or
tertiary. Although some members are supportive, Congress through word
and action consistently over many years reinforces this dismissive
attitude, especially when it comes to budget expenditures. Attitudes in
the Congress reflect those of the public, and representatives are
attuned to the electorate.
A good example, which is symptomatic
of the situation, is the following. The House Appropriations Committee
voted in 2011 to remove the foreign affairs agency budgets (the 150
Account) from the national security budget, where it had been since
there was a national security budget. That allowed members to claim to
fulfill an election promise to fully fund national security and allowed
them to cut the foreign affairs budgets, which they did.
This
delusion is institutionalized in the House of Representatives. Foreign
policy is beggared through budget cuts. The Committee’s benighted and
destructive action arose from a distorted vision of a central pillar of
national security—foreign policy and diplomacy. Congressional disregard
for diplomacy and fascination with force undermine national security.
The
foreign affairs community and our allies are not alone in recognizing
this serious weakening of national security. Several secretaries of
defense and multiple four-star military leaders have called attention to
it. They consider that it weakens not just diplomacy. It puts
additional burdens on the military, which has the money, but not the
mission or the expertise. Yet, the situation continues and, without
determined efforts, will not change.
The Decline of Press and Media
Topping
the list of reasons for the public’s lack of knowledge and devaluation
is the most difficult one to correct—the decline of American journalism.
It
shows in the crisis in the written press and in the failure of the
cable media to properly inform the citizenry, especially in the area of
foreign affairs. The economics of publishing newspapers outside of
major cities is disastrous. Even most city newspapers cannot afford to
report and print international news adequately. Suburban and rural
papers make no attempt. It is time to recognize that the backbone of
once proud American journalism is broken and needs fixing or the
knowledge base of citizens will decline further.
The main
instruments of decline, however, are the 24-hour news cycle and the
technology-driven social media that distort and displace news. There is
not 24 hours of news in any day, much less every day. This leads to
“info-tainment,” not news. One or two tragedies or major events are
rehashed for hours, displacing adequate reporting of other important
news. News from distant parts of the globe is rarely and poorly
covered. Panels of talking heads with video clips homogenize news and
opinion, blurring rather than clarifying them. Information tidbits
become “BREAKING NEWS.” Viewers jump from over-hyped info-tainment to
sports and other entertainment, uninformed by all three.
BBC is
an “all news” broadcaster that avoids info-tainment by having program
content focused by region. With different on-camera personnel, news and
information are carefully distinguished from opinion. CNN, Fox and
MSNBC., in contrast, have developed an easy, profitable way to capture
an audience, but not to inform it.
To further muddle the picture,
social media networks undermine humane discourse on social, political,
economic, and international topics. The computerized mass distribution
of unsubstantiated facts and opinions corrupts civic dialogue. This
corrosive social acid is distributed on the same networks as friendly
chatter and photos, as if they were identical. They are not. The
public is ill-served on airwaves and the internet, which should be
public service channels of communication.
Reaching the Right Audience
A
final observation relates to the mistake diplomats, the nation’s
international affairs community, and national leaders make in response
to this devaluation of diplomacy. Many of us in this arena give
speeches, attend conferences, serve on panels, and publish papers on
foreign policy and diplomacy for others in the community. We have called
foreign policy and diplomacy the nation’s first line of defense, or as
Walter Lippmann correctly called them, the “Shield of the Republic.” The
mistake is that we preach to the choir.
At times, we must speak
to the choir of course. But, in this situation, to continue the
metaphor, when the parishioners are losing their beliefs and leaving
pews empty, it is important to change course and proselytize. We need to
speak to a different audience. One we have failed, heretofore, to
address adequately. That audience is composed of the unbelievers, the
skeptics, the uninformed, and the misinformed among the American public.
Unfortunately, when it comes to diplomacy, that includes most
Americans. In this regard, we have been largely absent.
The
message we have is an excellent one. The history and practice of
American diplomacy is a success story. I have sometimes heard it said
that American diplomats are not equal to the task, and that they get
taken to the cleaners when they negotiate. That is nonsense. When
critics say that, they should be asked to explain how thirteen weak,
squabbling, disunited colonies on the eastern shore of a wilderness
continent in 1776 began an experiment in government, and 170 years later
in 1946 became the first ever global superpower. One of the central
reasons was skillful diplomacy, which created and took advantage of
opportunities to expand and strengthen the nation.
Within the
first 125 of those years when Teddy Roosevelt was president, we were
recognized as one of the world’s major powers. We gained that
recognition without a standing army—the only nation to become a major
power without such an army. Thus, we had to rely more heavily on our
diplomats to get to that milestone and to keep us there. Our diplomats
did not fail us. That success did not end in 1945 with superpower
status; it continued. The Cold War was first and foremost a diplomatic
success. Yet today, Congress’s persistent and consistent message to the
public is: military force counts; diplomacy is a waste of money.
To
make a difference, those involved in international affairs should tell
the story of American diplomacy to average Americans, especially our
youth. We explain U.S. policy and diplomacy to other nations with great
skill. We must do the same here at home. Foreign affairs
organizations need to cooperate in responding to this challenge. They
need to proselytize like missionaries to the unbelievers, not like
bishops to their flocks.
Ambassador
McNamara is Adjunct Professor at George Washington University’s Elliott
School of International Affairs. A career diplomat, he left
government in 1998, but returned after 9/11 as Senior Advisor to the
Secretary of State. He also served as Assistant Secretary of State;
Ambassador to Colombia; Special Assistant to the President; and
Ambassador for Counterterrorism. He was President of the Americas
Society, the Council of the Americas, and the Diplomacy Center
Foundation.