Diplomacy & Crisis News

Written by Jim Quirk

“America’s Diplomats”, a 2016 documentary produced by the Foreign Policy Association, may come at just the right time with just the right message.

In some ways, the hour-long film blends the literature of American diplomacy, such as Shuster’s The Strangling of Persia, Kennan’s Memoirs, and Holbrooke’s To End a War, with more recent insiders’ views, like Kopp and Gillespie’s Career Diplomacy, Morgan and Kennedy’s American Diplomats, and AFSA’s Inside a U.S. Embassy.

The film introduces the history of American diplomacy, well-known and less familiar personal stories, and challenges to the Foreign Service and its work. While much of the media attention on U.S. foreign policy and the Department of State today focuses on failures, scandals, or intra-agency turf battles, this film reminds us that the career personnel are talented, dedicated people whose commitment to public service and American interests includes considerable sacrifice.

“America’s Diplomats” begins with this focus on danger and sacrifice. The famous attacks on U.S. diplomats in Iran, Lebanon, Kenya and Tanzania, Benghazi and elsewhere are dramatic and tragic. But many diplomats and their relatives have also been lost to crime, disease, ship wrecks and other events in the course of their duties. The danger to diplomats has resulted in many changes to U.S. embassies and consulates, such as turning many into “fortresses” in the world’s capitals.

From here,”America’s Diplomats” begins its chronological and thematic sections. Benjamin Franklin went to France to help secure American independence. A quest for safety and prosperity, often through isolationism, characterized much of the diplomacy of the next hundred years.

Global changes in politics, technology, and economics in the last part of the 19th century and especially after World War I required changes to American diplomacy and to the American diplomatic corps. A key was the 1924 Rogers Act, which sought to introduce more professionalism and meritocracy to the State Department.

Kennan’s Long Telegram and Holbrooke’s shuttle diplomacy will be familiar to many viewers. But the consular side, which often touches Americans and others more directly than treaties or doctrines, is also highlighted.

The work of Hiram “Harry” Bingham, consular officer in Marseilles during World War II, alludes perhaps unintentionally to current issues. Bingham is credited with saving thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish refugees, issuing visas more generously than official policy allowed. It cost him his career.

Seven decades later, his story was revealed when hidden documents were found in his home. He was honored posthumously by organizations as diverse as the United Nations, Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem, the U.S. Episcopal Church, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Bingham was even put on a U.S. postage stamp, as a Distinguished American Diplomat.

“America’s Diplomats” then transitions to contemporary challenges, reflecting recent changes in global politics, technology, and economics. The expansion of global trade and finance since the 1980s called for an increase in economic diplomacy. The 1987 Montreal Protocol on ozone-damaging CFCs serves as a model, the film argues, for multilateralism and environmental diplomacy.

The IT revolution of the past 30 years, in particular the growth of the internet has called for new kinds of public diplomacy. The film concludes with concern over the increase in the number of political appointees to ambassador posts, but the benefits of attracting more diverse and mature Foreign Service Officers to meet the new challenges.

These new challenges are one area in which the film might have gone into more depth. The State Department tweets in 11 languages, and many embassies use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube in their local languages. How effective is this? How do we know?

More broadly, how is the Foreign Service dealing with the huge range of non-state actors that have become so important in recent decades? And how does it balance its promotion of democracy, religious freedom, and human development (economic, education, health, etc.) with more “realist” state-vs.-state views of national interest.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Review By Jim Quirk appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“America’s Diplomats”, the Foreign Policy Association latest production is a must-see documentary for anyone interested in the history of American diplomacy or considering a career in the Foreign Service. Indeed, it chronicles the evolution of American diplomacy over the decades, the motivation behind America’s Foreign Service Officers, and both the successes and failures of U.S. foreign policy.

The documentary is narrated by the rich, gravelly voice of the actress Kathleen Turner, an American film and stage actress and director (whose father was a consular officer, her mother serving alongside him), and draws on extensive interviews from such notable past and present diplomats as current Secretary of State John Kerry, the former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, former Secretary of State James Baker, and former ambassador to Kenya, Prudence Bushnell.

As we learn, the history of American diplomacy stretches as far back as the founding of the nation, when Benjamin Franklin became recognized as “America’s first diplomat”, and carried on over the years as diplomacy secured peace after World War II and met the challenge of Communism.

Yet these successes are quickly put aside at the beginning of the narrative to reveal the grave dangers faced by American diplomats today. Featured in full details are the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, the 1998 bombings at the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the death of the ambassador Christopher Stevens and three embassy staffers.

The 1979 Iran hostage crisis also figures prominently, and helps belie any criticism that this is merely a rose-colored recruiting video. The harsh reality viewers will take from the film is that the Foreign Service is not for the faint-hearted. Those afraid of succumbing to diseases like yellow fever and cholera, being shot at by snipers, bombed, or held hostage while overseas need not apply.

Indeed, the documentary not only covers the physical threats but the intellectual challenges in diplomacy —for example the primary challenge of trying to convince a foreign population that you are not occupiers seeking to overturn their government, but rather a helpful presence intended to bring positive American values to the citizenry.

Oftentimes, the population is not convinced, and tragedy sets in, as portrayed during the aforementioned Iran hostage crisis, when 52 American diplomats and citizens were held hostage by a mob, who claimed that the embassy was a “den of espionage….plotting against the Iranian people.” The hostages were released only after a long captivity of 444 days.  Other times diplomacy succeeds, as shown in the film’s portrayal of the extensive efforts of Richard Holbrooke in bringing an end to Bosnia’s bloody civil war.

The documentary also covers the history of the foreign service, and the influence of the Rogers Act of 1924, which instituted series of competitive entrance exams bringing meritocracy to the corps.

Unfortunately, as the film dutifully points out, the influence of money, privilege and political influence “depreciates the process”, particularly with the appointment of prominent political donors to ambassadorships in some of the better postings like London and Paris. Roughly 30% of ambassadors since the Kennedy administration have been political appointees and not career foreign service officers, which can undermine morale.

Foreign Service Officers have also increasingly played an important role in the support of American commerce, largely since the Reagan years. The film features diplomats supporting such U.S. companies as McDonald’s and Starbucks, although it fails to mention that, in some countries, both U.S. companies have become negative symbols of American influence, despite their products being hungrily consumed by the local population

The role of the consular officers in approving visa requests for those wishing to come to the U.S. is also featured prominently, and raises important questions as to how this “nation of immigrants” should treat those refugees currently fleeing Syria and Iraq.

The film includes an interesting portrayal of such diplomats as Fiorello La Guardia, a consular officer who eventually became the mayor or New York. La Guardia was instrumental in getting shipping lines to implement health checks on immigrant families before they got on a boat, to help ensure families stay together.

Hiram Bingham, another consular officer in Marseilles, France, helped 2,500 Jews in ten months reach the U.S. during the Hitler years, defying orders from Washington and eventually costing him his career in the foreign service.

America’s role in public diplomacy has also grown since the 1960s, and is sometimes referred to as the “soft power” of American principles and values. One such highlighted example documents the role of Ed Perkins, U.S. ambassador to apartheid South Africa, and the challenges he faced as a black American in attempting to promote American values in a hostile environment.

What motivates an Ed Perkins or anyone to serve in the foreign service?  Certainly not the pay, which is far below what many of these highly talented Americans can earn in the private sector. Indeed they are driven by other motivations.  John Kerry believes “it’s done because people love the concept of serving their country, and they love the idea of taking American ideals abroad.”

Which raises the question, why does America get involved in the convoluted conflicts of foreign nations, far from home?  Why is the United States “the undisputed leader on the world stage”?

A foreign policy of isolationism has long been debated in American foreign policy—despite the American Revolution having almost been lost without diplomacy and despite the fact that “the United States would not have existed, without the French support.” In the early years of the nation, Americans really didn’t like the “European ideas” of diplomacy and having ambassadors in foreign countries.

Yet today, following the failures of the war in Vietnam, and limited success in Iraq and Afghanistan, debates over isolationism and America’s leading role in diplomacy are again back in the spotlight, especially among this year’s presidential candidates.

Some diplomats argue for intervention only when we have “a dog in this fight,” or when American interests are threatened at home. As the documentary illuminates, these are difficult decisions to make, with constantly changing parameters, often resulting in devastating consequences, including the death of diplomats.  

If there is one shortcoming of “America’s Diplomats,” it is the failure to examine the question of when and under what conditions America should go to war, and to address the argument in favor of isolationism.  Instead, the film takes it for granted that American involvement is necessary, and has been necessary, given that other nations “look to the United States for leadership.”

Where the documentary shines is in its history of American diplomacy and its well-deserved tribute to those courageous American heroes who are on the front lines of American diplomacy everyday, including the 12 whom Bill Clinton posthumously honored after the 1998 bombing by Al-Qaeda in Nairobi, Kenya, “Far from home, they endure hardships, often at great risk”.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Gary Sands appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“America’s Diplomats”, a new television special produced by the Foreign Policy Association, seeks to explain the world of professional diplomats to average citizens, people who, through no fault of their own, have little occasion to interact with Foreign Service Officers or to discuss the inner workings of the Department of State.

As is fitting of the Foreign Policy Association—and in keeping with reality—it offers a positive and hopeful message. A number of themes are woven in and out of the narrative. Among these are the tasks that diplomats actually undertake, popular American attitudes toward diplomacy, the evolution and professionalization of the field in the United States, and the need to balance our diplomats’ need for personal security with their need to accomplish their mission. Allow me to touch upon a few of these themes without repeating the details of the program.

Americans have long had a disdainful attitude toward diplomacy and diplomats, seeing the whole endeavor as something elitist, foreign, expensive, and possibly deceitful.

Ambrose Bierce, the author of The Devil’s Dictionary (1906), defined diplomacy at “the patriotic art of lying for one’s country” and a consul as “a person who having failed to secure an office from the people is given one by the Administration on the condition that he leave the country.”

Yet diplomacy was essential to the birth of the United States. Washington’s forces would never have prevailed without the alliance with France. France not only provided finances, troops, and a fleet, but it also distracted Britain’s attention by threatening its holdings in far-flung corners of the world. (Remember, the British army abandoned the occupation of Philadelphia because they suddenly needed the troops to defend the West Indies.)

From the beginning, the young American republic cut corners when it came to diplomacy. Unwilling to pay the salary of “ambassadors,” the United States sent “ministers,” diplomats of a lower rank, to represent it in foreign capitals.

This not only reduced the status and influence of American diplomats, it also created a dilemma for other countries. Based on the rules of reciprocity, European powers would not send ambassadors to a country that sent them ministers, but they were hard-pressed to find qualified diplomats who would willingly cross the ocean and live in “the American wilderness” for a minister’s salary.

Relative isolation made it easy for the United States to neglect diplomacy for a while. After all, the U.S. was hidden behind large oceans. The oceans were controlled by the British fleet, and the British—after the War of 1812, at least—found that they already had enough enemies and that life would be easier if they could just keep the Americans on their side.

Most U.S. contact with the outside world consisted of trade. American businessmen resident in foreign ports were asked by the government to act as consuls, looking after U.S. interests, in their spare time. Still, the Consular Service, being business-oriented, was held in somewhat higher esteem by the public than the Diplomatic Service.

The two services interacted little with each other, and both suffered from low salaries, nonexistent benefits, and the consequences of a spoils system of appointments, a system that Teddy Roosevelt denounced as “wholly and unmixedly evil,” “emphatically un-American and undemocratic,” and something that no “intelligent man or ordinary decency” could endorse.

As the U.S. grew—and its contacts with the outside world multiplied in number and evolved in kind—a greater sense of professionalism had to be forced upon its diplomacy. The Consular Service forged a merit-based system in the early 1900s.

Leaders of the Diplomatic Service, on the other hand, preferred to rely on men of independent means and saw low salaries as a way to weed out undesirables. With the onset of World War I, the pressures to modernize came in accelerated form.

A key turning point finally came with the Foreign Service Act of 1924, also known as the Rogers Act. The Rogers Act merged the Diplomatic Service and the Consular Service into the new Foreign Service of the United States; established a meritocratic personnel system, including standardized entrance exams; and created or extended allowances and benefits. The Foreign Service School was also established in 1924, which was replaced by the Foreign Service Institute in 1947.

Still, even today, the system is not fully professionalized. “America’s Diplomats” suggests that perhaps 30% of ambassadors are political appointees (albeit supported by professional diplomats). Some of these, even if not professional Foreign Service Officers, are highly qualified. Others, such as some campaign donors, are potential embarrassments.

The question of diplomats’ personal security is a key theme in “America’s Diplomats,” both early in the show and toward the end. The focus is clearly influenced by the Benghazi controversy.

Yet it is not presented as a straight-forward question of protecting personnel, as it is often depicted in Washington. Rather it is a trade-off. The Foreign Service does not want to leave its people exposed to dangers unnecessarily, but it also views excessive security measures as obstacles that get in the way of doing its mission.

It resists measures that separate its diplomats from the government and society that they are supposed to be reporting on. Finding the balance is an endless task, and one that does not always end happily.

Although, as many politicians have said in the past few years, no U.S. ambassador had been killed in the line of duty in over 20 years, they picked that number consciously. American ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty in 1988, 1979, 1976, 1974, 1973, and 1968.

Other, lower-ranking diplomats have been killed since then. (The American Foreign Service Association lists 247 State Department personnel who have died in the line of duty since 1780, although most of the earlier cases were lost at sea or died in epidemics.)

None of this is to dismiss the tragedy of Benghazi but rather to question the politicization of the event when the previous cases were not politicized, and the consequences for the future of diplomacy.

“America’s Diplomats” is an interesting and informative introduction to the things that diplomats do. It strives to use information to overcome the lingering disdain that people may carry toward diplomats and diplomacy. I suspect the producers would also like to see the process of professionalization completed and the politicization of foreign policy overcome, but those are even taller orders.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Scott Monje appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On January 11, Iran announced that it had removed the core of its nuclear reactor at Arak, a major part of the terms it agreed to under an international agreement reached in July. A few days later, representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) submitted a report stating that Agency inspectors on the ground had verified that Iran had carried out all measures required by the agreement.

In an official statement UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon remarked: “This achievement demonstrates that international proliferation concerns are best addressed through dialogue and patient diplomacy.”

Although these events were reported in the media, they were top news stories. This is due to the lack of understanding of the importance and value of diplomacy.

An engrossing and informative new PBS documentary, American Diplomats, produced by the Foreign Policy Association, addresses these and other issues head on. As elaborated on during the program, diplomats have three primary responsibilities: to maintain stability, preserve peace and protect U.S. interests.

The documentary weaves these themes together by showing the impact diplomats have had on our nation’s history, foreign policy, and economic interests. Of note, the documentary does not down play the challenges and shortcomings of the profession and the need to keep improving and stay relevant.

Benjamin Franklin was our first diplomat and without his success in securing an alliance with France, the U.S. might not have won the revolutionary war.

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson, sent Robert Livingston to New Orleans, then part of territory owned by the French, to see if the U.S. could buy the city. Jefferson wanted to ensure U.S. farmers had access to that port city to export their goods.

To Livingston’s surprise the French asked if the U.S. would be interested in buying not just New Orleans but the entire territory. For a cost of $15 million, the U.S. territory overnight expanded as far west as the Rockies and as far north as Canada.

The nature of their jobs has also allowed diplomats to play an important role in the formulation of foreign policy. If you asked me what single book on foreign affairs and national security has had the most impact on me, George F. Kennan’s Memoirs 1925 – 1950 would be at the top of the list.

As World War II ended, the U.S. expected to maintain a successful working relationship with the Soviet Union. Kennan had been stationed in the Soviet Union during the war and had observed up close the aggressive nature and intentions of Stalin’s foreign policy.

Concerned that Washington seemed to be in the dark, he sent a now famous 8,000 work telegram in which he concluded: “the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”

Kennan’s advice was heeded and he is considered the architect of the Cold War strategy. Today’s diplomats are still expected to provide the kind of expert advice on the social, political, religious, and economic issues that helps set the policy course for the nation.

This leads to one of the challenges discussed during the program: patronage or the practice of appointing someone to top jobs because of contributions made to political campaigns.

Although, there have been some talented and successful political appointees’ many didn’t perform well because they could not speak the local language and were not knowledgeable about the history, political, social, religious, and economics of the countries they’re serving in.

Currently about 70% of the top positions in the Foreign Service are held by Foreign Service Officers and 30% by political appointees.

Another challenge discussed during the program is that the profession is misunderstood. It is not easy to understand the implications of battles won in the field of diplomacy as the earlier example of Iran’s nuclear program shows.

During the program several former State Department officials discussed the need to better advocate and let Americans know what they do. Americans must learn about the risks and sacrifices Foreign Service Officers endure while on the job.

Public attention is currently focused on the unfortunate events in Benghazi, but there has been many other instances. In 1998 al-Qaeda blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over 200 people. In 1983, terrorists crashed a truck bomb into our embassy in Beirut. The blast killed 63 and many others were wounded.

Foreign Service Officers do not just have to deal with the risks of being killed by terrorists but also the challenges of living in remote areas where needed medical emergency care for family members might not be available.

They also have to deal with frequent moves and family separation. In spite of the sometimes difficult challenges, the majority of Foreign Service Officers remain motivated and dedicated to serving their country.

In sum, I found “America’s Diplomats” to be an inspiring story and well worth the time.          

 To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Gail Harris appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

As someone who sat across the table from American diplomats, I must confess, I was reluctant to accept the invitation to write a review on the latest Foreign Policy Association, Great Decisions series documentary “America’s Diplomats.” It felt like one of those gifts that make one feel awkward.

After some consideration, and out of a general sense of curiosity, I watched the film. It was profoundly captivating, to say the least. Not because of my interest in  international relations, not because of the universally accepted collegiality that bonds diplomats and sometimes obliges certain courtesies, but because of the timeliness of the topic and its relevance to the challenges that diplomacy and international relations are facing today.

The film presents the viewer with portraits of men and women in the American Foreign Service who have helped shape history, yet in spite of that, whose services and achievements were seldom recognized and celebrated. It is a tour de force that captures defining moments immortalized in history—the jubilation of triumph and the agony of failure.

In dealing with the latter, one must bounce back and learn from past experiences: this resilience depends almost entirely on effectiveness of individual diplomats. The more informed the individual is on his or her diplomatic mission, the more effective he or she would be.

More importantly, the diplomat must be a strategic thinker who understands the difference between winning battles and winning wars; and that sometimes, what seems like losing could prove to be a winning outcome. In addition to genuine interest in serving one’s country and its national interest, diplomats must possess unwavering commitment to sustainable engagement.

Contrary to the ideological predisposition and rigidity that often restrain bureaucrats, effective diplomats prudently chart new territories and pave new ways.

The film highlights that in recent decades no diplomat has embodied these qualities better than Ambassador Richard Holbrooke who succeeded in the negotiation of the Dayton Peace Accord that ended Europe’s bloodiest conflict since the WWII and the Bosnian genocide.

Diplomacy is often associated with political interests, peace negotiation, commerce or economic advantage. “Diplomats today play a bigger role in advancing America’s economic interest overseas than it used to be” says former Secretary of State James Baker. “America’s power is based primarily…on our economy. As long as our economy has been in good shape…., (we’ve been) strong diplomatically, militarily and politically,” adds Secretary Baker. In the U.S., over ten million jobs are supported by international trade.

The discourse on challenges facing diplomacy in a world that is becoming increasingly volatile has been raging. In the U.S., due to the Benghazi tragedy that left an Ambassador and three other Americans dead, opinions came in the form of partisan rants and raves that have continuously deteriorated during the country’s current election cycle.

All in all, the film offers an insightful tour lead by seasoned diplomats and experts to whom diplomacy is “the first line of defense” and a powerful tool to learn about the dynamics that impact political relationships in a rapidly changing world.

The diplomat is a portrait of his or her nation. He or she is the image projected out to the world, often accepted as the values and aspirations of the country that one represents. There are many ways to enhance that image, and one of the most effective ways is what is known as digital diplomacy, or to employ social media to interact, to clarify misconceptions, and cultivate new relationships.

Ever since 9/11, counterterrorism has permeated U.S. foreign policy and often undermines diplomacy and opportunities to build a long-term relationship between states. Throughout the world, American embassies have turned into fortresses, though diplomacy does not function in seclusion.

Nevertheless, American diplomats remain at risk, especially in the Middle East and Africa where the U.S. foreign policy is in a downward spiral. Diplomats have no better protection than a sound foreign policy.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Abukar Arman appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The latest documentary in the Foreign Policy Association’s Great Decisions series is “America’s Diplomats.” It aims at shedding light on the vitally important but little understood role of diplomacy—representing the ideals and policies of the United States abroad.

While not easily definable, the actions and efforts of the US’ diplomatic corps—today, the State Department’s Foreign Service Officers—maintain U.S. relations with virtually every country on the planet.

As the documentary rightly points out, the dangerous situations in which diplomats are often placed only come to the forefront when something terrible happens. The storming of the U.S. embassy in Iran and the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi made national headlines.

Yet, every day diplomats put themselves in harms way and work tirelessly to advance American interests and strengthen ties between the U.S. and other governments as well as the local population—which is just as, if not more, important.

“America’s Diplomats” presents a brief history of American diplomacy, starting when the Continental Congress sent Benjamin Franklin to France in order to secure their support of the revolution. Major milestones of American diplomatic successes are presented, from negotiating the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon, to U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke’s efforts to establish peace in the Balkans, culminating in the 1995 Dayton Accords.

The film also discusses how U.S. diplomats have also taken on a larger role in developing American economic and trade presence abroad, as well as fostering cooperation on transnational issues such as protecting the environment.

Of particular interest is the coverage of how diplomacy today is changing, especially with regard to technology and the availability of instant communication. Imagine how the Cuban Missile Crisis might have unfolded differently in the era of constant and immediate communication. While diplomats are trying to adapt and utilize technology to provide better support, there seems to be more questions in this area than answers.

Hopefully “America’s Diplomats” will make more people aware of vital role diplomats play in “delivering” America to the rest of the world.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Scott Bleiweis appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

America’s Diplomats is a one hour documentary film from the Foreign Policy Association (FPA), part of its Great Decision series on PBS. The FPA’s flagship educational series is meant to bring to its viewers discussions, analyses and debates on issues of concern to U.S. policy-makers, and America’s Diplomats is no exception.

The documentary spends much of its time exploring the historical roles diplomats have played in shaping America, weaving in and out of past and present as it discusses the achievements of past generations and the challenging job of U.S. diplomats today, who confront challenges such as climate change, terrorism and the promotion of US economic interests abroad in a rocky global market.

This story is engagingly told by Kathleen Turner, who huskily narrates her way through a series of American officials from the 18th century onwards who have served their country. The stellar cast of interviewees who appear in the film ranges from former and serving U.S. diplomats and ambassadors, to top level officials.

Politicians making an appearance include Secretary of State John Kerry, UN Ambassador Samantha Powers, and James Baker, who served under Presidents Reagan and Bush Senior. The interviewees talk candidly about their work, the struggles and dramas they have faced, and how the service has evolved in the 21st century.

Particularly poignant are the moments when the documentary touches on the losses suffered by Foreign Service Officers and their families. The topic of terrorism features heavily in these, but we also hear of the less high profile risks faced by diplomats as part of their work. One man talks about the death of his son from illness, because top-quality medical care, which could have saved the boy in America, was unavailable in the host country in which he was serving.

Even diplomats cited in the documentary are not immune. Richard Holbrooke, who brought peace to war-torn Bosnia by crafting the 1995 Dayton Agreement, suffered the loss of three close members of his team.

Parts of the documentary touch on the gradual professionalization of American diplomacy until the creation of the Foreign Service under the 1924 Rogers Act, its diversification more recently, and how it remains misunderstood. Many of the diplomats interviewed seem to feel they do a better job of representing America abroad than they do of representing the diplomatic profession to their fellow Americans back home.

A great deal of time is spent covering the various aspects of the work undertaken by American Foreign Service members, such as their support of American companies and brands abroad, screening of visa applicants for terrorists and criminals, and their work with local communities wherever American diplomats are posted.

Some interviewees also touch on the hardships of being separated from spouses or families for years at a time, often in difficult or dangerous countries. As one dryly observes to the camera, not every overseas posting is “Rome, Paris or London”.

Overall I found America’s Diplomats to be a gentle, earnest and intelligent look at the work of the US Foreign Service and the concerns many of its members have, such as the reappearance of patronage in the appointment of US ambassadors.

This is not a hard hitting piece of documentary journalism, but rather a segment produced by insiders who are proud of their service and wish to explain it further to the American public. It highlights the importance of their work, its often hidden nature, and the dangers and drawbacks that a career in the Foreign Service involves.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Neil Thompson appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Durant l'été 2015, des enfants du monde entier se sont retrouvés dans un village du Loir-et-Cher à l'initiative du Secours populaire. / France, Action humanitaire, Enfance, Jeunes, Loisirs, ONG, Solidarité, Associations, Droits de l'enfant - (...) / France, Action humanitaire, Enfance, Jeunes, Loisirs, ONG, Solidarité, Associations, Droits de l'enfant - 2015/11

Le Liban accueille 1,1 million de réfugiés syriens, l'équivalent d'un quart de sa population. Afin de désamorcer les tensions sur le terrain, les associations se mobilisent pour que les enfants ne reproduisent pas les préjugés de leurs parents. / Liban, Proche-Orient, Syrie, Action humanitaire, (...) / Liban, Proche-Orient, Syrie, Action humanitaire, Christianisme, Conflit, Immigrés, Islam, Jeunes, Migrations, ONG, Racisme, Réfugiés, Religion, Solidarité, Associations - 2015/11

L’hebdomadaire Réforme a récemment publié un article consacré aux primaires américaines, s’appuyant pour cela sur deux articles de Laurence Nardon : le premier, « Présidentielles américaines : ce que nous disent les primaires », paru dans le dernier numéro de Politique étrangère (4/2015) ; le second, « États-Unis : la démocratie est-elle soluble dans l’argent ? », publié dans le rapport annuel de l’Ifri, RAMSES 2016 .

« […] Dans un article publié dans la revue Politique étrangère et intitulé « Présidentielles américaines : ce que nous disent les primaires », Laurence Nardon, politologue à l’Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri), insiste sur la recherche d’« authenticité » des électeurs américains, qui explique en partie la popularité actuelle de Donald Trump et de Bernie Sanders. « Donald Trump, dans sa violence rhétorique, et Bernie Sanders, dans son idéalisme, refusent tout discours calculé », note la chercheuse, qui estime par ailleurs que la similitude entre ces deux candidats – tous deux se méfient des machines de campagnes, des déclarations soupesées et des donateurs qu’il faudra remercier – est révélatrice d’un « sentiment de fatigue » de l’électorat face à une politique perçue comme « trop prudente et calculatrice ». Cela dit, tant Trump que Sanders, si l’un ou l’autre était investi, peineraient à s’imposer face à un candidat plus centriste. Leur programme (pour Sanders) ou leur personnalité (pour Trump) leur assurent en effet l’inimitié d’une majorité de l’électorat. […] »

Pour lire l’article de Louis Fraysse en intégralité, cliquez ici.

(Own report) - Berlin is taking steps to possibly end sanctions against Russia. Today, almost one year after the signing of the Minsk II Agreement - whose full implementation is still considered as a prerequisite for ending the sanctions - the Bavarian Prime Minster, Horst Seehofer is expected to arrive in Moscow for talks on promoting the renewal of German-Russian business relations. Seehofer can build on decades of Bavarian-Russian cooperation. His visit to Moscow is closely coordinated with Germany's federal government. The EU and NATO are also involved in Berlin's cooperation efforts. Monday, Chancellor Angela Merkel also increased pressure on Ukraine's President, Petro Poroshenko to finally obtain approval from Kiev's parliament for the constitutional amendment providing Eastern Ukraine's special status, as agreed upon in the Minsk II Agreement. Until now, nationalists and fascists have prevented this measure.

The outlook for many BRICS nations does not look positive in 2016. With the exception of India, Brazil and Russia’s commodities-based economies will fail to grow significantly as China’s once resource hungry economy continues to slow.

The effect of the 2014-15 oil crash has had a negative effect on many oil exporting countries, and along with the BRICS, slow growth seems to have become the norm in much of Latin America and many other developing nations.

The 2008 Beijing Olympics was seen as China’s festival that marked its return as a major player on the world stage. The Olympic Games were there to flaunt around its economic success, despite it not having any measurable factor in China’s growth.

FIFA and the Olympic Committee sought to bring crowds into Brazil in 2014 and now in 2016. Since 2014, corruption and scandals have turned Brazil’s once claimed economic miracle into a mess. Corruption within its national oil company executives with links to Brazil’s governing party has turned popular opinion against the current elected government.

The FIFA World Cup highlighted the rift between internationally oriented elites and average Brazilians. Although essential economic and social issues continue to plague the country, the Rio Olympics are still on schedule to happen this year, to the detriment of Brazil’s deep economic recession.

Organizing any sort of international event in the midst of corruption and economic troubles is an unacceptable decision that often leads to little benefit for the average citizens. While the Olympic Committee seeks to broaden its appeal and host events in developing nations, there is no justifiable or studied measure to plan or adjust the obligations on host nations that fall on bad economic times.

Brazilians do not ask for a party when the government is rapidly accumulating massive debt. If the political class and elites of a society seek such projects, it is a clear sign that international prestige takes precedence over local necessities.

No Olympics should be allowed to take place when local citizens lose their homes, their health care or their rights as citizens. If this basic moral obligation cannot be met by FIFA or the Olympic Committee, imposing costs locals while sending the benefits abroad, then the Olympic spirit may already be extinguished. The upcoming Rio 2016 Olympic Games makes this point excessively clear.

The post Meeting International Obligations at All Costs: Rio 2016 appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Les intellectuels français sont-ils « néoréacs » ? A-t-on encore le droit de débattre ? A intervalles réguliers, des journalistes et essayistes transforment ce genre de questions creuses en controverses nationales. A mesure qu'ils perdent leurs moyens d'informer sous l'effet des concentrations (...) / France, Audiovisuel, Idées, Idéologie, Intellectuels, Médias, Presse - 2015/11

Dans cette tribune, le président du Secours populaire français rappelle les dix droits essentiels des enfants défendus par son association. / France, Action humanitaire, Droit international, Enfance, Jeunes, Loisirs, ONG, Solidarité, Associations, Droits de l'enfant, Droit international humanitaire (...) / France, Action humanitaire, Droit international, Enfance, Jeunes, Loisirs, ONG, Solidarité, Associations, Droits de l'enfant, Droit international humanitaire - 2015/11

Hay cosas que el Gobierno y las FARC no podrían hacer por sí solos, y esto justifica la presencia de Naciones Unidas. Pero quedan preguntas y asuntos por resolver en los próximos días.

The month saw an intensification of Yemen’s war, amid heightened regional rivalries between Saudi Arabia and Iran complicating prospects for peace. Political tensions increased in Haiti, Guinea-Bissau and Moldova, where protests over endemic corruption and a lack of confidence in the government could escalate. In Africa, Boko Haram’s deadly attacks increased in northern Cameroon, and Burkina Faso was hit by an unprecedented terror attack. On the nuclear front, in East Asia, North Korea’s announcement that it had carried out a successful hydrogen bomb test was roundly condemned, while nuclear-related sanctions on Iran were rolled back in accordance with the July 2015 deal.

Iowa Caucuses open. Argentina to introduce settlement offer. U.S. economy slows. Nations of TPP sign pact. Peace efforts in Syria continue. All in this Week’s Risk Outlook.

Iowa Caucuses Open Official 9-Month U.S. Presidential Election Season

Today, Iowa voters will head to schools, churches, and homes to cast their votes for the Democratic and Republican presidential Iowa caucus. Being the first state in the United States to hold the nominating contest for the presidential election, Iowa has always had an outsize influence in presidential elections and candidates in both parties have aggressively courted Iowa voters.

Donald Trump and Secretary Hillary Clinton, the respective frontrunners of the Republican and Democratic Party nominations, are both under significant pressure to eke out a victory in today’s caucuses. Should either of them fall short, the upstart challengers for both candidates (Senators Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders) would gain a significant media boost ahead of next week’s New Hampshire primary on February 9 and subsequent South Carolina primary and Nevada caucus.

Most recent polls have shown Donald Trump ahead of Senator Cruz in Iowa (although Senator Marco Rubio has risen in the polls too), with more moderate candidates occupying the next slots down. On the Democratic side, polls have been mixed: some have seen support for Senator Sanders exceed that of Secretary Clinton, while others have shown that she continues to maintain an edge. After the Iowa caucuses, however, Senator Cruz and Sanders face divergent paths. Although Sanders is the odds-on favorite to win the New Hampshire primary, Senator Cruz does not appear to be polling particularly well in the state, which tends to favor more moderate Republican candidates.

Some of the big questions to watch for as election results come in: will any Republican candidates drop out of the race following a poor showing? Will Senator Sanders be able to pick up sufficient support beyond the largely white states of New Hampshire and Iowa to create a broad coalition to gain the Democratic nomination? How will Secretary Clinton and Trump respond to their respective showings in the caucuses, and will this dent momentum for either of them?

Argentina to Introduce Settlement Offer to Holdout Creditors

On Monday, Argentina’s Secretary of Finance Luis Caputo will present a settlement offer to the holdout creditors of Argentina’s defaulted 2001 debts to the New York mediator between the Argentine government and major New York hedge funds. The holdout creditors may deliver their own offer, but were miffed during the last meeting when the Argentine government refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement regarding the offers.

The offer by the Finance Ministry represents the first serious offer by the Argentine government to resolve this issue, following multiple failed attempts by the Kirchner administration to work around the U.S. court system to pay non-holdout creditors. Should the offer by the Argentine government be accepted or a compromise reached, Argentina will be able to access international credit that has been shut off since Judge Griesa’s order freezing market access until the holdout issue is resolved.

This could allow Argentina to avoid a slip into recession this year as President Macri moves quickly to reduce Argentina’s trade and tax barriers to advance investment and growth in the country. Key commodity prices (including soybeans) have fallen in value over the past 6 months and have constrained government finances and consumer spending. Additionally, Argentina’s two largest trade partners, Brazil and China, are both experiencing economic headwinds, further limiting Argentina’s growth potential. A deal with holdout creditors could bring Argentina back to sovereign debt markets and move South America’s third largest economy forward.

U.S. Data Could Dim Economic Prospects After Slow 4th Quarter Growth

On Monday, the U.S. Commerce Department will release consumer spending figures for households for December 2015, with many economists projecting a fall in growth momentum. This data will likely be paired with a further contraction in manufacturing in January for a third straight month, to be reported by the Institute for Supply Management.

Although a few world economies (including India and the UK) appear to be performing at or above economic expectations, the downwind forces affecting China, Brazil, Russia, Canada, and other major commodity producers has left the world economy in a relatively fragile position.

The strength of the U.S. economy is fundamentally important in preventing the world from descending into another major recession, making market reactions to such developments particularly important at this time. Stock markets have fallen precipitously over the past several months on continually falling oil prices and growth concerns in China.

Solid growth numbers (or at least numbers less pessimistic than estimates) could help bolster perceptions that the U.S. economy is improving following last week’s announcement that growth for the 4th quarter last year had been a disappointing 0.7%.

Otherwise, consumer spending and manufacturing statistics will support the argument that the world economy is slowing and may be headed for another recession.

Given the politically decisive timing (with presidential, congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative elections in November), poor economic figures could also have significant spillover effects into the U.S. political scene.

TPP Nations to Sign Pact, with Complex Ratification Path Ahead

On Thursday, representatives of the 12 countries that constitute the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) are slated to sign onto the accord in Auckland, New Zealand. Legislative ratification, however, could be a complex affair for many of the Pacific Rim countries.

Canada’s new government has not yet indicated whether it will fully support the agreement’s ratification. Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland has said the government would sign the agreement to move the process forward, but has been non-committal on ratification.

The United States has congressional elections in November, and most major candidates in both parties for President have come out against the trade pact.

Additionally, Peru is slated to have April presidential and Assembly elections and Japan’s upper house will have its own elections in June. Left-leaning political parties in New Zealand as well as Australia are pushing members to oppose ratification of the agreement, and Malaysia’s ruling government is undergoing an expanding corruption scandal.

Ultimately, this means 12 countries with extremely complex political and economic obstacles will need to ratify this agreement, although it may enter into force if a sufficient number of countries (85% of GDP, meaning at the very least Japan, the United States, and Canada) sign it first.

Negotiations on Syria Continue in Rome and Amsterdam

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Kerry, Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni and coalition partners will meet in Rome to discuss efforts to counter Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria. This will be followed by a meeting of EU foreign ministers on Friday in Amsterdam to discuss peace talks in Syria and Libya.

It is difficult to gauge whether any serious developments may unfold in the course of talks, particularly considering many major opposition groups are concerned that the United States and Russia may seek to impose peace terms on the rebels. Significant roadblocks in peace talks have hardened, while the humanitarian situation in Syria has gained significant international attention and criticism. The Assad government has received condemnation over the blockades of several rebel-held cities, which has led to widespread starvation and may be a sign of war crimes by the government.

This article was originally published by Global Risk Insights and written by GRI analyst Brian Daigle.

The post Weekly Risk Outlook appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

« La maison gothique où il vivait avec sa mère possédait plusieurs combles, et Joseph Skizzen avait décidé de consacrer l'un d'eux aux ouvrages et aux coupures de journaux qui composaient son autre passe-temps : le musée de l'Inhumanité. » Le musée de quoi ? Des rites barbares, des lynchages, des viols (...) / États-Unis, Culture, Idées, Littérature, Fiction - 2015/11

Le premier s'est éteint il y a vingt-cinq ans, mais son esprit demeure plus que jamais vivant. Comédien, metteur en scène, traducteur et pédagogue, directeur du Théâtre national de Chaillot puis administrateur de la Comédie-Française, homme d'intervention tant sur le plan théâtral que politique, (...) / Allemagne, France, Portugal, Culture, Idées, Personnalités, Théâtre - 2015/11

Nel corso dell’ultimo anno i movimenti estremisti violenti hanno ottenuto alcune impressionanti vittorie. Il gruppo Stato islamico (Is) ha consolidato il suo controllo su una larga porzione dell’Iraq e della Siria, attirando decine di migliaia di stranieri, affermandosi in altri territori ed effettuando attentati terroristici in Medio Oriente e altrove. Le succursali di Al Qaeda in luoghi come Yemen, Siria e Somalia si dimostrano resistenti e in certi casi più forti che mai.