Note: I usually try to flesh out my ideas before putting them up. This is a concept that I’ve been thinking about lately; it isn’t coherent yet, but I’m putting it out now because I’d love some feedback.
The puritans called it a “city upon a hill.” The founders called it “the great experiment.” Wilson called it “missionary diplomacy.” These are all variations on the concept that America was the first democratic republic, and that it has a mission to spread independence, democracy, and self-determination throughout the world. By the turn of the century, sixty percent of independent countries were democracies. There are no more empires, no more colonies (well, except maybe French Guiana), and only five communist states. Ironically, the US has achieved what it has desired for centuries, and yet we’ve squandered the time since the cold war.
A Foreign Policy Structure for the Twentieth Century
US foreign policy excels at dealing with traditional governments. We’ve been criticized in the past because we establish military bases in states run by dictators. Our embassies are designed to liaise with the executive branches of other countries, our military deals with their militaries, we speak to select reporters and newspaper editors. The only US government officials that are tasked with dealing with average people from other countries are our consular officers (that by law are going to offend a certain percentage of the population) and our immigration officials (who frankly aren’t even very nice to other Americans, and were recently voted the rudest in the world).
Others are Taking Advantage
Terrorism is the democratization of war. Politics no longer stops at the water’s edge anywhere. Anti-base activists in Korea communicate with those from Germany to counter our policies. Our policies toward Israel are largely determined by lobbyists. The Arab street is the new Peoria. Our enemies promote images of hurt civilians and dead soldiers to sway domestic opinion.
We Do Try
The State Department has a Facebook page, a YouTube account, and a blog. We’re busily engaged in trying to create “virtual presence posts” for important cities that lack a US diplomatic presence. Still, I can’t help but feel like we’re not getting it. There’s just too much bureaucracy to make the kind of personal contact needed for social media. We’re just too McCain and not enough Obama. Secretary Clinton just wrote her first blog post, meanwhile David Miliband writes almost every day in his personal blog, and multiple other diplomats have personal, public blogs.
Some Things I Think We Can Do
- Hire lobbyists in important countries, if legislatures are going to make decisions, we should be there to affect them. I think we can do this openly in most western democracies, and we can work with expatriate communities as needed. In time, this could be an internal part of the Foreign Service, but I suspect locals will always be more effective at it.
- Encourage online activities among Foreign Service Officers. Complicated clearance procedures and a culture that developed when there was a firm line between domestic and foreign audiences mean this sort of thing is frowned upon. I know of several bloggers-turned-FSOs who received quiet suggestions that they cut it out.
- We have to increase our interaction with average citizens. Visa issues can’t be the defining relationship between everyday people and the official US government. Congress has frequently chastised the Foreign Service for not creating someone in the PAS sections of embassies to work with every-day people. They’re right to do so. Peace Corps and people-to-people positions should be increased.
Conclusion
Like I said, this isn’t a coherent vision yet. What do you think? Am I off base about democratization? Are we doing better than I realize? Are there other, more important things we could do to cope with this trend? I’d love to get some opinions. Let me know, and thanks!
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Management Officers, GSOs IMOs and others also deal with the general public, though not to the same degree as consular officers. And don’t forget PD officers! A lot of ordinary citizens use the libraries and attend functions at American centers, and some lucky ones get travel grants to visit the US.
The thing is, is that face to face interactions matter much less in this world. With skype and chatrooms, FSOs aren’t the only ones who can talk to foreign audiences.
Either way, when free speech in the West is greatly threatened, how can we convey American ideals without offending others?
I think that we asked for democracy spread around the world, and don’t know what to do with it now that we’ve got it.
We brought democracy to Palestinians, hooray, but whoops, they voted for the “wrong” people. It’s not enough anymore to make agreements with governments or to oust governments — individuals feel entitled to their say, their thoughts, their opinions. Getting rid of every Al Qaeda leader is a waste of time while individuals still believe in those ideals, and feel empowered to act on them.
In order to really know and influence what’s going on in a country or region, we need to be dealing with the individuals, which to me means access to education and the media.
We kind of had the right approach with trying to topple the Soviet Union from within — anti-propaganda, guerrilla short-wave radio broadcasts, etc. Individual citizens had to change their minds about what they wanted, what was acceptable, and what they would do about it. Then we turn around and go into Iraq thinking we’ll storm in, plant our flag in Baghdad, and be done with it. It’s really hard for me to accept that people in government don’t understand that.
I think generally speaking, you are on the right track. Elizabeth is right–people need education and access to media. We need to build more bridges. I think that’s where we are falling short, because we are not having personal contact with a wide enough range of people. Populations are a lot larger than they were 100 years ago, and diplomacy needs to react to that by finding a way to reach a broader audience in a personal way. Facebook is great. . .but if foreign nationals don’t have access to it, or it’s not available in their language, or it’s not a culturally acceptible means of communication in a particular area, it’s not going to work.
A lot of interesting ideas here.
I think your comparison to State and Mccain is accurate. Using web 2.0 and p2p technologies with a top down approach will not lead to the same Obamesque movements that we saw in the election. But I think for such a top down organization, State is doing better than most. I even received an ad on Facebook inviting me to be in the Foreign Service, after I had just finished the FSOT.
I do have to agree with you on how US embassies deal with ‘average people from other countries’. I’m a US expat living in the Czech Republic and can tell you that you are right; most contact that Czechs had with the US Embassy (until Czech Republic joined the ranks of the visa waiver program counties) was a dehumanizing personal interview, which very often culminated in a denial of their visa application by a consular officer tasked with adjudicating visa applications (please don’t think I’m criticizing the hard working men and women staffing our embassies overseas, just some the policies they have to abide by). I often caught flack from Czech friends and colleagues, whom I consider to be ‘average’ people about our visa and immigration policies. 9/11 was just not a sufficient excuse anymore.
To give the US Embassy its due, it does have an American Center, which offers lectures and meetings on US/Czech issues, but again, is this really geared for the average Czech person? I would argue that not, as most of the people who attend such gatherings are fairly well educated (at university at least, which is a much more exclusive club here than in the US) or extremely well-traveled (another luxury not afforded most average Czech people).
I think that America’s ‘Foreign Policy Structure for the Twentieth Century’ should include holding more meetings, forums, activities on the soil of the host country, not just at the embassy or at an American facility. Why not get more involved in the civics, government and geography classes in the host country’s middle and high schools and represent America in those types of venues? I would have loved to have had a guest speaker such as an ambassador or other embassy official speak about his/her country in my middle school geography/government class when I was growing up. I think we should not only focus on the ‘average’ adult person, but also on ‘average’ persons from a variety of age groups. Mind you, I’m not an expert on foreign policy or the finer nuances of how the wheels of US diplomacy turn; I guess you could take my comments as an ‘average’ person’s view of how America’s foreign policy is viewed by the Czech people I come into contact with on a daily basis.
Practice of Yoga Meditation can help to democratize the world population.
Yoga (Application) which was based on the control of the body physically and implied that
a perfect control over the body and the senses led to knowledge of the ultimate reality. A detailed anatomical knowledge of the human body was necessary to the advancement of yoga and therefore those practicing yoga had to keep in touch with medical knowledge. (Romila Thapar, A History of India, volume one).
I suggest : Mind and brain are two distinct things. Brain is anatomical entity whereas mind is functional entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system (ANS). It is claimed that mind can be brought under conscious control through the practice of meditation. But how? ANS is largely under hypothalamic control which is situated very close to optic chiasma (sixth chakra or ajna chakra). Protracted practice of concentration to meditate at this region brings functions of ANS say mind under one’s conscious control.
ANS is further divided into parasympathetic nervous system (PSNS) and sympathetic nervous system (SNS). On the basis of these facts I have discovered a mathematical relationship for spiritual quotient (S.Q.). Spiritual Quotient can be expressed mathematically as the ratio of Parasympathetic dominance to Sympathetic dominance. PSNS dominates during meditative calm and SNS dominates during stress. In this formula we assign numerical values to the physiological parameters activated or suppressed during autonomic mobilization and put in the formula to describe the state of mind of an individual and also infer his/her level of consciousness.
Meditation is the art of looking within and science of doing nothing. We don’t use anything in meditation. We just try to concentrate to meditate at some point in human anatomy known as ‘chakra’ in Indian System of Yoga. The current of mind is flowing outward through the senses and unconsciously. The mind comes at rest gradually through regular practice of meditation. Then comes self realization and enlightenment. Protracted practice of meditation under qualified guidance will help to manage all sort of psychological problems.
Emotional Quotient can also be expressed mathematically as the product of I.Q. and Wisdom Factor. E.Q. stands for Emotional Quotient. An intelligent person may not be wise. But a wise man will always be intelligent. An intelligent person having certain level of positive emotions can be said as wise. An intelligent person lacking wisdom will turn autocrat. A wise man will always be a democrat who respects others existence.
Some may raise doubt that how could be the Wisdom quantified? The answer is simple -if Mental Age of I.Q. can be quantified then Wisdom can also be quantified, of course, comparatively with more efforts. Wilhelm Stern had given the formula of I.Q.. It is, Mental Age/ Chronological Age x 100. Spiritual Quotient (S.Q.) leverages both E.Q. and I.Q.
Radha Soami Faith is a branch of Religion of Saints like Kabir, Nanak, Paltu, and others. Soamiji Maharaj is the founder of this Faith. You may call It like New Wine in Old Bottle.
Maslow has given Hierarchy of Needs. At the top of it is need for self-actualization or self-realization.
In our society we should learn To Live and Let Live and help to satisfy others need. When the lower order needs, physiological and sociological both, are satisfied then only a person think to satisfy need for self-realization in true sense. Else he/she may spend all his/her life to satisfy at the most the need for self-expression instead of self-realization.
It is, therefore, the duty of every responsible person of our society to give serious thought over it.
For the satisfaction of need for self-realization i.e. establishment of harmony of individual consciousness with that of universal consciousness we need following three things:
1. Mater or Guru (A Self-Realized Soul)
2. Secret of Levels of Universal Consciousness
3. Method for traversing the path.
This is a huge topic. In my personal opinion a combination of democratic political institutions and a “democratic political culture” are the foundational elements of democratic consolidation. In the case of the American founding, colonial repression by Brittain created the popular support for a revolution. The intellectual elites in America had read the classics (Thucydides, Plutarch, etc.) and the enlightenment political theorists (most importantly John Locke), and were strongly influenced thereby. Their commitment to republican governance was manifest in the Consitution and particularly well established in the Federalist Papers. We have these conditions to thank for our belief in the legitimacy of American democracy. How then do Americans impart a “democratic political culture” to a Somalia or a Russia (both very different cases; commonality is the lack of a “democratic political culture”)? Well, when I graduate I intend to teach English in Russia(or join the Peace Corps), learn the language and pursue higher education. I would like to believe that my interactions with Russians (if carried out on a larger scale over a significant period of time) would be an example of a way that democratic ideology can be imparted to other countries. I truly believe that self-determination and democratic governance are universally good concepts. I do not mean to sound arrogant or ethno-centric here, but the idea of self-governance implies the equality of all men, and should not be dismissed in the name of anti-Americanism. Democratically consolidated countries never go to war with each other. And while I do not think that wars will ever be eliminated, the spread of democracy will have a stabilizing effect on International Relations.