Does the US State Department need reform?

This entry is meant to be a reflection of the article entitled "Rogue State Department" by Newt Gingrich in the July/August edition of Foreign Policy. Reading the article will help make sense of what's in this entry.

Mr. Gingrich starts the article with an attempt to blame the ill will faced by America on the international level on the US State Department. I do not believe this is true though. As an outsider, I encounter the opinions of non-Americans all the time. Granted, much of the criticism heaped on America is unjustified, and downright ignorant. Most commonly, I hear people say that they have nothing against America or its people per se, they are only peeved at the policies of the American government. Take for example, the relationship between Canada and the United States. In the past few years, Canada/US relations have been strained by a number of rows over trade and foreign policy. American farm subsidies, steel tariffs, the softwood lumber trade dispute, the ban on the import of Canadian beef have all earned the ire of Canadians in one way or another. Let's be honest, is there ANYTHING that the US State Department could possibly do to make these measures palatable to Canadians? The example of Canada/US relations is a microcosm for America's relationship with the rest of the world. Non-Americans view the rhetoric out of the Washington through the lens of their own interest. The role of the US State Department seems to be to foster and improve relations with other countries. To fulfill this role, the diplomats in the department need to be non-ideological. Dogmatic ideology tends to impede pleasant relations between countries. "Process, Politeness and Accomodation" are part and parcel to fulfilling the State Department's role.

For a great caricature of the State Department's role, watch the Simpson's episode Bart vs. Australia, in which Bart's prank call leads him to be forced, by the State Department, to apologise to Australia for his disrespectful actions. A comparison could be made between the administration and the Simpsons. When Bart is to be booted, Homer is shocked by the use of corporal punishment, while the State Department representative urges him to respect "Australia's cultural tradition". This really goes to the heart of Mr. Gingrich's criticism of the State Department, which in his opinion seems to value accommodation over principle. Of course, the problem on the Simpsons' side (and perhaps the side of the American administration) is ignorance and insensitivity, while the problem on the State Department's side is the willingness to sacrifice values.

In my opinion, the main source of anger against America is the administrations's insensitivity towards the interests of other countries. I don't blame the administration for doing what is in America's best interest; after all, that is why it is there. If the administration wishes to foster better relations with other countries though, it must take the interests of those countries (or at least the governments of those countries) into account. On the most part though, these relations do not matter, and there is no way to make the ill sentiments of outsiders impact the administration. Only the sentiments of Americans matter because they vote, and outsiders do not. Furthermore, marginal votes are worth more than non-marginal votes. With America divided 50/50 in the last presidential election, the votes of swing voters such as farmers, steelworkers and timberworkers become much more valuable. This is why the administration, and politicians in general, must pander to these groups. Do the French elect the US President? Of course not. That is why their opinion does not matter to the administration.

Of course, the real issue in Mr. Gingrich's article is that the State Department is out of synch with the rest of the administration, and that some serious inertia has set in. Mr. Gingrich is probably right in that other countries receive mixed messages from the US State Department's diplomats and from the mouth of the administration. He is also probably right in saying that there is some serious inertia in the department. Like most government bureaucracies, the bureaucrats themselves work to protect their own turf and interests. Change is usually not welcome. This in and of itself is a good argument for reforming the State Department, and for Mr. Gingrich's plan of cycling its bureaucrats through other parts of the administration to give them perspective.

In this post Cold-War era, the greatest check against American ideologicalness - the Soviet Union, no longer exists. During the Cold War, America was forced to cooperate with its allies in Europe , and its proxies elsewhere, to achieve a common defence against Communism. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, America could tolerate associating with unsavoury governments, and propping up tin-pot dictatorships. Without the spectre of a second superpower though, America's estwhile allies are much less useful. Is it any wonder that the ideologues are out in force in this administration? In some ways, the State Department is still stuck in Cold War mode. Mr. Gingrich makes a useful observation that with news available 24 hours a day, the nature of departmental communication needs to change to reflect the new environment. The ease and speed of information acquisition undoubtably introduces new challenges to the dissemination of policy statements by the administration and the State Department.

Would bringing the State Department more under the boot of the administration really help? Well, it would probably reduce the policy confusion between what it says, and what the administration says. On the other hand, it would be expected that the "new and improved" US State Department would mirror the ideological bent of the rest of the administration, much to the frustration of outsiders. Also, reforming the State Department would do nothing to eliminate the hypocracy of certain American policies that draw the ire of non-Americans.

In short, the State Department may need some significant reform, but not for the all the reasons that Mr. Gingrich states. He points to America's negative image abroad and blames it on State Department bungling. America's negative image is more a reflection of how far the differences between America and its allies are emphasised by critics, and how outsiders do not see common interest with the policies of the administration. The administration itself could use a hard dose of respect for the interests of other countries. Domestic interests too often (at least in the opinion of non-Americans) trump long-term foreign policy interests, which can result in policy confusion. Of course, what happens when one's foreign partners or enemies are ideological, such as Germany during the Iraq war controversy, or left-wing NGOs? Will any amount of reform in the State Department make a difference?

Perhaps, I can address this issue in more depth in future.