Solving world problems requires a calibrated use of the
instruments of national power: diplomacy, military, information, and economics.
Presumptive Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama has been
focusing on these instruments as evidenced by his statements during his
recent visit to Afghanistan, Middle East, and Europe.
On his return to the US, he immediately consulted with his chief
economic advisers seeking ways to improve capital formation and
domestic production, promote trade, reduce oil dependency, and expand
financial markets. Resolving trade imbalance with China and other
countries is uppermost in his mind as he will certainly face
domestic protectionist pressure if he becomes president.
In a recent op-ed, Nicholas D. Kristof points to the paucity of
funds and Foreign Service officers in comparison to the abundance of
materiel and the proposed increase of military personnel for
Afghanistan ostensibly to preserve our national security.
Similarly, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been calling
for strengthening of our foreign service in order to handle the array
of diplomatic challenges and engage in preventive diplomacy. With
adequate staffing, skilled US diplomats and their intelligence colleagues
can probe and uncover indicators and flash points of unrest in foreign
countries, notwithstanding the CNN factor.
Diplomatic readiness and preventive diplomacy require the
deployment of adequate personnel to our embassies, consulates, and
other missions abroad. In fact, these diplomatic missions are
on the front line of our national security: vetting, denying or
issuing visas; reporting on political and economic developments;
promoting trade; explaining America; debunking falsehoods that are often
propagated against the US; engaging in academic exchanges; and facilitating
dialogue between our visiting officials and host country officials.
Showing the American flag and participating in representational events are also
essential responsibilities.
Our diplomatic effectiveness -- in an era where US prestige
has fallen -- will improve in foreign lands by establishing reading
rooms, showing films about the US, and promoting intellectual exchange
across small communities. By so doing, our diplomatic personnel will
have a far reach and a sense of the pulse of the people as our perspectives are
shared.
Senator Obama cites the JFK initiative of the Peace Corps as an
example of the kind of voluntarism and selflessness that had a positive
impact and effectively solidified relations between our volunteers and
their interlocutors at the local level. Trust and humility were key
elements of the relationship. Of course, this exchange was generally
free of arrogance and didactics.
Foreign influence makers and publics are keen observers of
the US actions in world affairs so tangible results from US volunteer presence
often went a long way.
Obama's recent visit overseas confirms his facility at
conveying the message of hope and respect for foreign countries. His
avowed admiration of the US military apparently struck a resonant
chord.
However, in order to give credence to his rhetoric he
must take active steps to promote our diplomatic corps so that they can
utilize aptly the tools at their disposal to influence
events by, for example, the use of incentives and disincentives as the
situation warrants. This will indeed mean speaking to adversaries from
a position of strength based on expertise, with a strong military backing
evident.
Calibrating the instruments of national power is
critical, as is refinement of diplomatic training to meet the
challenges of a rapidly changing world. Without adequate funding by
Congress diplomacy will suffer.
Obama seems to understand this imperative. Therefore he must
intensify his efforts in Congress for increased diplomatic funding
and presence if his earnest appeal for diplomacy is to prevail in current
conflicts.
