GlocalNet

For the first time in history - the eyes of nations and cities are waking up and looking at one another.  I’m not just speaking about governments and businessmen - they have always seen each other from the market routes of the silk road to the emperors who would conquer the entire world.  What is different is, because of travel and internet we are all connected.  We all feel each other sneeze.  We are like a bunch of little kids at grandma’s house in bed together and when one rolls over - we all feel it. 

Because I’m a pastor, I’ve seen first hand how the church in the West in many ways is being left behind in terms of growth, influence, and impact as the church in the East and South is increasing.  As connected as we are, we don’t necessarily understand cultures and pluralism in a world of diversity.  Business is somewhat better because you have to see the bottom line.  But I would say we are in dire need of the “reengineering” of diplomacy and diplomats. 

No one should be more versed in global issues than diplomats.  But I would say just knowing foreign policy and nation-state issues is not enough.  If that’s all we know, then we are going to make many mistakes and they are going to be far more costly in this world that we live in.  Diplomats need to understand culture, religion, and life in the countries they serve.  The current philosophy is for a diplomat to serve somewhere 3 years and then move to a totally different part of the world.  They may be good for making sure you have people parrot your nations party line - but it’s horrible for building lasting peace and understanding between nations. 

If I were re-engineering diplomacy and diplomats - based on 17 years of working in Vietnam, and 10 years in the Middle-East I would do the following:

1.  Have a diplomat live in the country with the people a minimum of 6 months before they begin to serve.  They would read history, culture, hang out with the people, visit sporting events, art galleries, see the sights, get to know the people and hang out.  Most of our problems with Vietnam was a failure to understand culture and communication.  We swung in with a Western paradigm of philosophy and governance and not only was our language different but our culture as well - we were destined for conflict. 

2.  I would extend tours of duty to a minimum of 5 years, preferably more.  3 years is too too fast.  The first year you are only getting up to speed, the second year you are prioritizing, the third year you are wrapping up.  There have to be people that are there long enough to build relationships with that trust can be built.  If you don’t have that - when you’re in a crisis - you are destined to make bad decisions. 

3.  No ambassador would be appointed based on party affiliation or political payback for supporting various candidates.  The world is much bigger and far too important than allowing a person to be in a position based on who a person voted for President. 

4.  Each diplomat should be a regional “expert.”  In Southeast Asia - it would be good if countries were grouped in cultural similarities like Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, etc.  Each of those countries have nuances and are not the same in their cultures and philosophies, but are close enough that the learning curve isn’t as extreme.

5.  There should be a long-term team committed and dedicated to each nation who not only study foreign policy of the nation they are in but also know culture, history, etc.  These people should be the chief “educators” of the ambassador.

There is not a single institution in government as critical as a nations State Department.  No ministry has the potential to keep peace in the world and solve problems like Foreign Affairs.  These should be the ultimate peace makers and peace dealers.  But I’m convinced, the way global diplomacy is done - a system that has flourished since WWII - we are going to have more conflicts that are unnecessary because we don’t understand peoples and thereby we fail to communicate.