How to Represent your Country When It’s in Crisis

At the end of the Cold War, when I joined the U.S. State Department, many American diplomats naively believed that our country’s gravest historical sins were long ago, remaining injustices were being rectified (if too slowly), and we would never find ourselves being castigated by foreign diplomats for democratic backsliding at home.

There was no course at the Foreign Service Institute entitled, “How to Represent Your Country When You Feel Ashamed.”

 *****

During my career, I frequently met with host country government officials to raise human rights abuses. Some reacted angrily. Others didn’t care (and knew their bosses didn’t), so barely took notes. A few, however, clearly struggled to reconcile professional duties with their own sense of regret or shame.

Fast forward a few decades, and America’s reputation is shredded. Even formerly close allies see our unprincipled foreign policy as a threat to international peace and our hate-filled, hyper-violent, dysfunctional governance as a democracy in its death throes.

In recent weeks, it’s become harder to argue to the contrary. For American diplomats, however, job responsibilities involve explaining America and its government as a force for good, whatever mistakes we’ve made.

How do they do that now?

How should a foreign service officer reconcile professional and personal ethics when U.S. Government actions, inaction, or rhetoric are not just mistaken but morally outrageous, or when social conditions or trends back home are disgraceful?

*****

Several clarifications:

First, I’m not talking about situations where someone is ordered to do something illegal or abhorrent. I’ve addressed that here (https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/14/how-to-be-a-loyal-state-department-bureaucrat-in-the-trump-administration-rex-tillerson/) and written about the Dissent Channel specifically here (https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/19/syria-obama-assad-state-department/).

Second, I don’t mean the everyday annoyances of working in a large organization or representing a big, complicated country. If ordered to deliver a demarche that is not illegal or gravely harmful, just stupid, an FSO should in most cases, deliver it (after arguing against it internally). Similarly, discrete events that occur in the United States and reflect poorly on Americans – common enough, among 330 million humans – cannot each be sufficient cause for resignation.

Third, while it seems that everything in current-era America is politicized, my advice is not applicable only to the current Administration. America’s greatest shames and deepest scars began before our founding, have endured throughout our history, and erupt volcanically and periodically. Chances are good that an American diplomat will disagree with every President or Secretary of State about something.

*****

When atrocious things happen and the U.S. government is culpable, however, what do American diplomats say and do? How to they talk to foreigners? How do they represent America honestly but well?

Here are a dozen suggestions:

1.     Think it through. Make sure you have sufficient unbiased information. Consider viewpoints different from your own. Being a foreign policy expert doesn’t automatically confer expertise in American political or social history or conditions.

2.     Don’t hide. Even if you would rather keep a low profile, engage more when things go wrong, not less. You’ll earn points for engagement and feel less beleaguered and inconsequent.

3.     Be honest. Baghdad Bob was an unconvincing figure of ridicule.

4.     Explain context, such as the historical origins of injustices, triggers of social strife, or weaknesses in governance. An explanation, done right, doesn’t have to sound like you are excusing the inexcusable.

5.     Ascribe responsibility, consistent with classification rules and respect for good-faith internal deliberations (e.g., “The President has directed…” or “The decision was made by the state attorney general, but there is a court challenge.”)

6.     Relay criticisms to Washington (and, when appropriate, tell foreign interlocutors you’ll do that). Whether they welcome the feedback or not, senior decision makers should receive it.  

7.     Elucidate the timeline (e.g., what decision points are approaching and when might they happen).

8.     Acknowledge the debate – again, consistent with classification rules and respect for good-faith internal deliberations (e.g., “You may have seen media coverage suggesting there was internal debate” or “The scale and heterogeneity of protests suggest broad popular outrage,” or “the Federal judiciary will have to resolve the dispute between the executive and legislative branches”).

9.     Suggest the potential for change. A background in American political and social history can help with analogies to self-reform from our past. Acknowledge structural obstacles where they exist (e.g., “accountability mechanisms for police forces are often negotiated between local authorities and unions, and disputes sometimes have to be adjudicated in court”). 

10. Explain personal views and express regret – carefully, if you want, and only if you think it useful – avoiding damage to your own (or your Mission’s) diplomatic credibility. 

11. If you are outraged by entrenched problems in America, exercise the political rights available to you as a citizen. To combat injustice, support reform movements and political efforts in your private life, consistent with Hatch Act obligations.

12. If you are outraged by government acts, policies, or statements within your purview, consult with like-minded people, including outside of the State Department, and fight for more principled positions (or accountability for bad actors).

*****

Patriotism is not blind, unthinking chauvinism. No one can really love America without acknowledging its sins. You will at times be gravely disappointed.

Posted in Africa in the early 1990s, I was ashamed we failed to respond to the Rwandan genocide. In Geneva in the mid-2000s, I was horrified by photos of torture in Abu Ghraib. Now retired, I sympathize with State Department colleagues who must answer difficult questions about police brutality and an authoritarian president.

Though no excuse for the cruelty in our history or immoral actions of our government, it’s worth reminding ourselves that America also has been a source of good in the world, and our democratic experiment contains mechanisms for self-improvement. An essential (if sometimes undervalued) trait for diplomatic success is clearheaded optimism – in other words, hope.

Sometimes, you will be heartsick about America. But your civic and professional responsibility is not just to be heartsick.