Tag Archives: foreign policy

New Secretary of State; Thoughts on Christian Conscience and Diplomacy

 

John Kerry is now slated to head the Department of State, home for U.S. diplomacy.

The Cold WarAn age ago when the Cold War with the Soviet Union was at its height, a famous American diplomat made the following observations:

” . . . while Christian values often are involved in the issues of American conflict with the Soviet power, we cannot conclude that everything we want automatically reflects the purpose of God and everything the Russians want reflects the purposes of the devil. . . . We must concede the possibility that there might be some areas of conflict involved in this cold war which a Divine Power could contemplate only with a sense of pity and disgust for both parties, and others in which He might even consider us to be wrong.”

george f kennan bookThe diplomat, George F. Kennan, advocated that his beloved country take the high ground, that it develop its moral principles first and that military power only be used when absolutely necessary.

Further, he said:

“A government can pursue its purpose in a patient and conciliatory and understanding way, respecting the interests of others and infusing its behavior with a high standard of decency and honesty and humanity, or it can show itself petty, exacting, devious, and self-righteous. If it behaves badly, even the most worthy of its purposes will be apt to be polluted, whereas sheer good manners will bring some measure of redemption to even the most disastrous undertaking.”

These quotations are taken from “Foreign Policy and Christian Conscience” which The Atlantic Monthly published in May, 1959.

The U.S. never fought the Soviet Union directly in a war that may well have involved nuclear weapons. Kennan’s influence in no small part led the country to wait patiently. Eventually the Soviet Union caved from its own weaknesses, as Kennan had predicted.

Bring Back the Military Draft?

 

A friend of mine believes that America began to decline as a nation when the military draft was abolished in 1973. I don’t know that I agree. Plenty of experts, it must be said, don’t think the American nation has declined, but believe that much of the rest of the world is simply catching up with us. Others believe our ability to adapt and innovate is as strong as ever.

I can see my friend’s point, though. We no longer have a citizen army, with most young men bearing equal burdens to fight, if necessary, in the country’s conflicts. New recruits are not as likely to come from the class of richer young people, those with privilege, as from those of the less advantaged. The bodies brought back from Afghanistan tend to be grieved by families of lesser education and money.

In a democracy, reality trumps policy. During a time of recognized threat to this country, young people of all levels volunteer for military duty, but they don’t understand long conflicts where even people they are supposedly helping sometimes kill them.

When a significant percentage of American citizens don’t believe in sending troops to a conflict, a draft leads to protests like those during the Vietnam War. If we had a draft today, we might not have entered Iraq and might already have exited Afghanistan. Less advantaged young people would not carry the burden of dying while the richer ones attend college and find lucrative vocations.

What if we passed a law that forbids our country from committing ground troops to a conflict for longer than ninety days unless we first reinstate the draft?

Foreign Policy? You Mean Some Kind Of International Insurance?

 

The editor at the writing conference where I pitched a novel several years ago shook his head. “Stories with foreign themes don’t sell well.”

“Even with all the turmoil in the Middle East?” I asked.

“Even with that.” He didn’t offer to look at my one-sheet.

In the July/August 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs, Princeton Professor Robert O. Keohane reviewed a couple of books about the future of America’s place in the world. He discussed the disinterest of many Americans in international issues unless we are in a crisis situation. He mentioned the “intense domestic partisan conflict” that prevents problems from being resolved and that “constitutes a major threat” to our continued leadership abroad.

We seem unable to understand the opportunity we have for influence in the world. With the opportunity comes responsibility. How well we lead in the world depends on how well we govern at home. When our government appears dysfunctional, other countries tend to dismiss our advice to them about democracy and free elections. When we can’t work out compromises, as any democracy must, our efforts to defuse clashing Middle Eastern ethnic groups are ignored. We can’t keep our own house in order, so what right have we to advise other governments?

We will profit by an interest in the global happenings that influence us: the Euro currency crisis, the spread of Chinese commercial interests into Africa and South America, the Iranian nuclear crisis, and so on.

We are right to be concerned about domestic issues, but as Jesus said about the righteousness of the Pharisees: they were right to be concerned about such things as tithing, but they also should add justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

We need to add concern about issues beyond our shores to our domestic interests. If we don’t, the world will forget about us and our squabbles. They will look for leadership to a more internationally savvy nation, and who knows if that nation will be democratic and free?

Them and Us

President Obama gave a major speech on U.S. foreign policy this past week. He chose the U.S. State Department as the location for the address, because the State Department is headquarters for our country’s relationships with foreign countries. Our diplomats (Foreign Service officers) carry out our policies in well-known places like Baghdad, London, and Tokyo. They also serve the United States in cities and towns like Peshawar, Skopje, Ulan Bator, Djibouti, and Bridgetown.

Several protagonists in my stories work as Foreign Service officers. I have learned to introduce their jobs slowly, because few Americans, I have found, have any idea what diplomats do.

In my own fourteen-year stint as a Foreign Service officer, mostly in the Middle East, I issued passports to U.S. citizens living there, documented their children as American citizens, and interviewed foreigners who wanted to visit, study, work, or immigrate to the United States to determine their eligibility.

When an American citizen in my district died, usually in an accident but sometimes as a victim of a terrorist attack, I notified the family in the States and documented the death. If appropriate, we arranged for sending the body back to the U.S.

I visited American children living with a foreign parent from whom the absent American parent (usually the mother) was divorced. I reported on the child’s well being and development to the absent parent. We worked to secure visitation rights for the American parent to that child.

I visited U.S. citizens detained in foreign prisons, then updated the families in the States on their condition and passed messages back and forth.

Other colleagues carried out different functions: political, economic, administrative, development, commercial, agricultural, and related tasks to advance U.S. interests.

Even with our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans appear to have little interest in other cultures and our dealings with them. Unfortunately, such ignorance may lead to tragedies like September 11, 2001.