The last to know

Why it is that diplomats seem to be the last ones to know about political upheaval in the countries where they work is a question I have long pondered. For example, despite all the efforts the US government put in watching the Soviet Union, it was surprised when it collapsed. Dominqiue Moissi provides the best analysis of this problem that I have come across:

…Revolutionary ruptures upset diplomats’ familiar habits, both in terms of their personal contacts and, more importantly, in terms of their thinking. A fast-forward thrust into the unknown can be exhilarating, but it is also deeply frightening. In the name of “realism,” diplomats and foreign-policy strategists are naturally conservative…

But, beyond these mental habits lie more structural reasons for the conservatism of foreign policymakers and diplomats. By emphasizing the relations between states and governments over contacts with the opposition or civil societies (when they exist in an identifiable form), traditional diplomacy has created for itself a handicap that is difficult to overcome.

By requiring their diplomats to limit their contacts with “alternative” sources of information in a country, in order to avoid antagonizing despotic regimes, governments irremediably limit diplomats’ ability to see change coming, even when it is so close that nothing can be done.

Short version: it is difficult to get someone to see a problem when that person is paid not to see it.

Not Much Has Changed in the Past 125 Years

“[Egypt] is too civilized and too closely connected with Europe to be able to fall back into the tranquil oriental barbarism of former days. But it is not civilized enough to walk by itself.” British Consul General Baring, 1886.

I wanted to make this a ‘Guess the Year’ contest for the quote, but realized that “oriental barbarism” might give it away (altho maybe not, with Biden as VP).  So instead, I’m gladly soliciting favorite quotes from international leaders with similar tone and message, if not similar language.

2010 in Review

Once again, we’ve spent the year expanding D&S.   We have new contributors, including David, Elizabeth and Imara, D&S is now on Facebook, we published the Spring 2010 issue, with the Fall issue on the way, the complete archives are now available, we added a page of special reports from the CDACS and DG staff and students and we continued to provide quality snark and commentary on foreign affairs and international development.

Here’s a brief review to ring out the old year.

Top Posts

On Facebook

• Federalism and Democracy Development
• I Can’t Believe these People Govern Us
• Human Rights, Media Manipulation and Technological Attacks
• Diplomacy and Development: Best Friends for Life
• Busted

On the Blog

Returning from last year, Why Do People Protest still lands in the Top 5 posts on the blog.  The other Top 5 posts are:

• The Simpsons Turn 20
• Here’s a Dumb Idea
• The ‘Africa Porn’ Problem
• Event: Emerging Leaders for Democracy

Most Commented

Another of last year’s posts (Obama Needs a Vision Check) continues to be one of the most commented posts.  The others include:

• Freedom of Religion and US Foreign Policy
• I Stand by My Post
• Our Long National Nightmare Is Over
• Economic Success & Regime Change

Thank You

We’d like to say thank you to all of our Fans, Friends and followers, and in particular, to the following for ReTweeting, linking, and generally loving our stuff!

• Gregg Wilhauck at the CIPE Development Blog
• John Brown’s Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review
• Everyone over at The Democratic Piece
• @SMSLegal @pcdnetwork @mmckone @NDItech @penelopeinparis @auerswald @viewfromthecave @USIP @elizabethcutler @demdigest @vargheseanand @amellionaire @Adamdougl @odonnellm @DavidJandura @SwahiliStreet @xrauscher_ @intljurist @Tobias_B @gerardtmccarthy @CIPEGlobal @iapss @msfsinfo @Grieboski @LisaofArabia @Snov @GUInstituteLSGS @electionguide @woodenbeirut @arenda @Tosk59 @GUConflictRes

Happy New Year from all of us at D&S and Georgetown CDACS!

Diplomacy & Development: Best Friends For Life (or BFFLs in government speak)

Best Friends For Life

As Republicans gear themselves up to take over the House, the debate around the States’ finances, and the terror of Government spending is starting anew.  Unsurprisingly, among the potential targets for cuts in funding is the area of development and foreign aid.  As Barak mentioned in a previous article, domestically we’ve a pretty mixed up opinion when it comes to issues of foreign spending, and this flawed understanding is something legislators don’t hesitate to take advantage of.

I definitely wouldn’t argue that we’re doing everything right where foreign aid is concerned, historically we’ve a pretty shaky record in the area of aid.  Yet the type of results we tend to expect in the amount of time we’re willing to commit also tends to be fairly absurd.  It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that what we need isn’t less spending, or even more spending, but more effective spending, unfortunately we have a hard time agreeing on just what that means.

A few days ago Secretary Clinton spoke on the release of the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review or in government terms “QDDR” (oh how I hate acronyms).  The review aims to shape future changes in US policy in the areas of development and diplomacy, by among other things utilizing “civilian power” and getting agencies like the Department of State and USAID to work cooperatively.  If successful in bringing about any actual policy change, QDDR could nip some of the foreign aid spending rhetoric in the bud before our incoming legislators have a chance to go too far in gutting funding.

China’s Internet Woes & the Cabletastrophy

Image courtesy of J.Anderson & The Tech Herald

James Glanz & John Markoff’s recent New York Times article on China’s discomfort with the internet is another in the recent string of articles discussing the WikiLeaks scandal and foreign policy.  I have to admit, on reading their article I found myself more than a little tickled at some of the issues brought up.  In light of the scandals, one could certainly argue that the government of China has been rather reasonable in fearing the dangers presented by the internet.  Given my appreciation of democracy as the preferred method of governance, of course I think China would be well served to loosen up, but in my own country the government’s reaction to the diplomatic cabletastrophy has been anything but forgiving.

I’m sure that there will be lots of news in the next few days regarding the accusation of Chinese “cyber attacks” on Google, but the issue I find interesting is one that seemed largely a side note.  On reading the article I was struck by the continued “misunderstanding” regarding China’s interpretation of the relationship between private organizations and the governments they exist in.  Earlier this year drama arose between the governments of China and Norway, over the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.  Along similar lines, in the recent diplomatic cable leak there are claims that Chinese officials put pressure on the United States government to censor Google Earth.

Warnings that the US would be responsible if terrorists used the information presented through Google to attack China, strike me as similar to the issues between China and Norway.  These incidents speak to a strange broader problem in China’s government either honestly or rhetorically failing to understand the separation between government and private institutions. In some ways I suspect WikiLeaks has a great deal more to fear from antagonizing the government of China, even collaterally, than it does the government of the United States.