The State Department doesn’t understand the purpose of diplomacy

.

The U.S. government is under a dangerous delusion: Our leaders in Washington don’t understand diplomacy.

They believe diplomacy is a gift, a little treat for sitting when America says, “Sit,” and surrendering a nuclear arsenal when America says, “Surrender your nuclear arsenal.” Diplomacy is conceived as a point to be reached, a privilege that can be bestowed on other states after they act in U.S. interests, a condition of relative stasis that may be enjoyed after Washington has gotten what it wants.

This is all wrong. Diplomacy is not the goal of foreign policy; peace is the foremost goal, and diplomacy should be our most-used tool in its achievement.

Confusion about the nature and purpose of diplomacy in U.S. foreign policy did not begin with the Trump administration, but several of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s recent remarks typify this muddle. In comments to the New York Post published Thursday, Pompeo accused the Chinese Consulate in New York City of being a center of communist espionage.

“They’re engaged in activities where they’re crossing the line from normal diplomacy to the kinds of things that would be more akin to what spies are doing,” he alleged. Pompeo compared the activity he says is happening in New York to that at Beijing’s former outpost in Houston, which was shut down this summer on State Department orders. “We closed it because they’re engaged in espionage,” he said, the apparent suggestion being that the New York facility, as well as the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco and the Chinese delegation to the United Nations in New York, may be similarly subjected to forced closure or stricter regulation. If that proceeds, Chinese retaliation is probable, most likely closure of a major American diplomatic outpost in China, as happened after the Houston shutdown.

Three days later, Pompeo notified the Iraqi government that he will shut down the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad unless Iraq better defends against Iran-linked Shiite militia attacks on convoy drivers and other local support personnel working for the United States. Whether this is a credible threat remains to be seen — the Trump administration has longstanding plans to withdraw some U.S. troops from Iraq this fall but no intent to end the U.S. occupation, which also serves as a base for ongoing U.S. military meddling in neighboring Syria and, per President Trump, a perch from which to “watch” Iran. It seems doubtful this large and incredibly costly facility would be shuttered while U.S. intervention in Iraq continues indefinitely.

But even if not intended seriously, the threat Pompeo chose is telling. Just as in his handling of Chinese diplomatic outposts, Pompeo here treats negotiations with the U.S. government not as a workaday instrument of American foreign policy but a prize other countries must earn: Stop spying or prevent more militia attacks, or you get the silent treatment.

Of course, less spying by China and fewer attacks on U.S.-connected personnel are good goals. Pompeo isn’t wrong to pursue these ends. But shutting diplomatic facilities would be worse than useless, harming the U.S. at least as much as China or Iraq. Consulate closures aren’t unprecedented, but neither should they be mentioned lightly.

And though modern communications technology means physical facilities aren’t required to maintain diplomatic access, it’s also true that symbolism, proximity, and working-level personal relationships matter in diplomacy and always will. A consulate shutdown might not literally preclude needful communications with another government as it would have in an earlier era, but that will be its functional result, and U.S. interests will suffer in consequence. This risk is especially grave when dealing with a nation like Iraq, where U.S. troops are actively in harm’s way, or with a fellow great power like China, whose economy and ambitions are so entwined with our own.

We must talk with Baghdad and Beijing — the former at least as long as this misbegotten war continues and the latter as long as China remains a powerful rival and sometime partner.

Washington can do better than counterproductive threats. A shrewder understanding of diplomacy and its uses would better defend the U.S.; advance our interests; encourage freedom, democratic governance, and prosperity abroad; and foster conditions conducive to peace. That requires learning to see diplomacy as a strategic asset for us to realign other countries’ interests and policies with ours rather than a reward bestowed on countries that comply with U.S. coercion.

Talking is a means, not an end. Cutting our own phone lines will never be wise.

Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities, contributing editor at the Week, and columnist at Christianity Today.

Related Content

Related Content