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 topicthe Foreign Service and the standards that were laid out by its founders. It gives a brief history of Americas 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). Kennans thesis throughout the essay is the Foreign Service is an important mechanism by which diplomacy is achievedbut in todays 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
Kennans central argument...
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 Kennans claims and arguments…
