Restoration of the Foreign Service to Its Original Standards

Diplomacy without Diplomats

Introduction

George Kennan was an American diplomat who spent years in the Foreign Service and served as Ambassador to the Soviet Union and to Yugoslavia. In “Diplomacy without Diplomats,” he focuses on the important need of a Foreign Service that is operated by the State Department with the sole aim of using diplomacy to cultivate relationships with foreign nations. He laments the fact that the State Department has been undercut by the rise of various special interest groups and congressional committees that now outnumber officials from the State Department in ambassadorial premises of the US in foreign capitals.

Structure

The essay is structured in the following manner: it begins with an introduction of the topic—the Foreign Service and the standards that were laid out by its founders. It gives a brief history of America’s diplomatic and consular services, their merger under the Rogers Act, and an explanation for why the Foreign Service has failed to live up to the standards envisioned for it. Kennan describes how, one by one, each of the standards that was meant to guide the Foreign Service was ignored or abused, beginning with the standard that one enter the Service “only at the bottom and by examination” (Kennan, p. 201). Kennan’s thesis throughout the essay is the Foreign Service is an important mechanism by which diplomacy is achieved—but in today’s environment there are too many bureaucrats and special interest group representatives acting on behalf of the US without deference to the State Department, which used to be tasked with shaping foreign policy. What this means is that foreign policy in the US is shaped more by congressional committees and special interests than by the diplomats. Moreover, Kennan concludes his essay by saying that not only has diplomacy changed in the US but the whole world has changed, and the manner in which nations communicate has changed, thanks to the arrival of new advances in technology. Kennan leaves the reader in somewhat of a haze at the end, suggesting that no one knows what the future will bring.

Main Argument

Kennan’s central argument is that the diplomats of the old days were instrumental in developing relationships between the US and other nations for the State Department, but that today diplomats are missing: they have been marginalized and outnumbered in embassies by others from other departments, agencies, groups and committees, who have no role in the State Department, but who have taken upon themselves the tasks formerly held by diplomats. As Kennan notes, “many international questions today are addressed in multilateral forums of one sort or another. To such multilateral deliberations the president or his entourage often sends representatives, persons without a diplomatic background and not always reporting to, or through, the State Department. It is at such gatherings, it will be argued, that the United States now has most of its dealings with any particular government, rather than through the resident ambassador in that country” (p. 207). This has led to a fragmentation of orientation. There is no diplomatic center, cohesion, wholeness or continuity. An envoy at a forum is unlikely to understand or be able to explain the full extent of the nature and motivations of the government: he has only a tiny bit of information to go on. He does not carry within his person the full weight and responsibility of an American diplomat; he is more like a mere cog, passing on a message but doing nothing in the way of actual engagement. A diplomat on the other hand would be skilled and trained in the art of engagement; he would be able to discuss the nature and motivations of his government because he would have an intimate knowledge of them; he would not be a mere representative at a forum but rather he would be there to talk on behalf of the US. Today, that honor is lost.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The strength of the essay is that Kennan is writing from the background of experience. He worked for the Foreign Service during and after World War 2 at a time when diplomacy was of the utmost importance for the US. He saw how essential forming and developing relationships with other nations was at a time when much of the world was or had been at war. He played an instrumental role for the US in addressing the challenges that America faced with the Soviet Union during the time of the Cold War, when diplomacy was vital to preventing nuclear war.

All of Kennan’s claims and arguments are rooted in his experiences and perspective. He provides some background on the Foreign Service and why it was established, and how it was meant to serve the US in the shaping of foreign policy. This claim is justified from a historical perspective; it is rational and logical and proceeds in a coherent manner. When he argues that today’s system of sending envoys to forums fails to represent the standards of the Foreign Service, he is arguing not from his own beliefs and feelings but from the standpoint of what the Foreign Service was supposed to be, according to the standards set out by its founders. He is simply showing what the Foreign Service was, and why and how it has failed to live up to the model under which it originated.

He justly places blame on the rising influence of special interest groups, other agencies, and congressional committees in Washington for usurping the honor and integrity that the Foreign Service was supposed to represent. He explains why this is detrimental to the aims of the US. By indicating why diplomacy is vital to relationship-building, he is able to make a case for why today’s approach is inferior, as it lacks any real diplomacy.

The main weakness of the essay, however, is that it concludes in somewhat of a muddled fashion. Kennan refers to the changes that have taken place around the globe in terms of technological communications. He seems to suggest that he understands why today’s government uses envoys as representatives at forums, and why the fragmentation of the Service has occurred. While he does not agree with this, he does seem to suggest that perhaps this is the best that America can do given the circumstances. It feels for all intents and purposes as a bit of a cop-out: rather than argue to the end for a restoration of the Foreign Service as envisioned by its founders, he gives the impression that the changes the world over have given rise to an unstable, fragmented environment in which there is no real alternative but to engage in diplomacy without diplomats. Why this should be so, however, is never fully articulated. One has the impression that Kennan prefers to see a return of the professional diplomat—yet the conclusion of the essay is wistful only and attempts to look forward to what may come with head held high. It is not a particularly strong closing, and it undermines the power of his argument that is evident early on in the essay.

Thus, while Kennan substantiates his arguments by his own analysis and experience, and does provide a convincing analysis of the problem, he fails to convict based on the manner in which the essay concludes with little to no apparent sense of direction. What should have been a call for a return to diplomacy ends up feeling like a hijacked conclusion in which the various agencies, interest groups and congressional committees butt their way into the argument and suggest that perhaps this is, after all, for the best.