emboldened authoritarian leaders have stepped forward, posing a challenge to
democracies everywhere.
Look ahead, however, and further withdrawal is scarcely an attractive option. Global
threats will multiply, from pandemics to climate change to space weaponry. And in an
increasingly multipolar world, America cannot count on simply getting its way. It will
need to rely on the patient pursuit of its interests through persuasion, building
coalitions and working with allies. In short, it will have to rely on diplomacy.
This is by no means a dismal prospect. America retains great advantages even in the
more competitive geopolitical era ahead. It is still by far the mightiest military power
and the world’s biggest economy. In contrast to rivals such as China and Russia, it has
steady allies who can help amplify its influence. And at its best it is a champion of
human rights and freedoms that can inspire people everywhere.
Americans are right to want to limit the flexing of their military muscle. The strength of
America’s armed forces will always be a vital part of its ability to exert influence. Yet
since the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 the superpower’s foreign policy has
relied too much on force. It is time to put diplomacy first.
But just as the demand for sustained, sophisticated American diplomacy is rising, the
capacity of the country’s foreign service to supply it is dwindling. The State Department
is demoralised and suffering from a hollowing-out of talent. That will be hard to remedy
soon.
The troubles of the country’s oldest federal agency did not begin with the Trump
administration but they deepened dramatically under it. Mr Trump openly referred to
“the Deep State Department”, repeatedly (if unsuccessfully) proposed slashing its
budget and publicly attacked experienced diplomats, such as those involved with policy
towards Ukraine, whose only crime was to do their job. Career diplomats were virtually
shut out of senior policymaking roles, and the share of political appointees to
ambassadorial roles—their main qualification often being the size of their political
donations—reached new heights. American diplomacy is in crisis.
What can be done? Three times in the past century—after the first world war, after the
second world war and during the cold war—Congress passed legislation to shape a
foreign service fit for the future. Yet in recent decades Congress has focused on the
shape of America’s armed services and on the organisation of the country’s homeland
security, not on diplomacy. Whether lawmakers are capable of agreeing on a new
framework for the State Department is open to doubt. With or without a new act,
however, America must rethink its diplomacy for a more contested global landscape.
America, rediscover your Excellency
Plenty of people are starting to do just that, including a group, led by former
ambassadors at Harvard’s Kennedy School, who have prepared a road map. Some of
their suggestions involve changes to the way the State Department bureaucracy works.
It is notoriously inflexible and risk-averse. It badly needs to modernise its career
structure, including opening up to entry at all levels, not least to help it improve its
dismal record on diversity: among America’s ambassadors abroad, only three are