Pop Quiz:
What is the Mission of the U.S. Department of State?
You have 10 minutes.
More Below the Fold, With Answers and a Report Card for Bush and Rice.
Recently I have posted criticism of the Administration’s reliance on military force:
We have another instance of knee-jerk reaction instead of comprehensive strategy. It extends to the intention to permanently increase the size of the military, too.
A comprehensive strategy would realize the key is to reduce our vulnerability to attack while we reduce the recruiting opportunities of desperate cells of people with nothing to lose.
What tools do we have?
We can set the objectives and actions of:
- Businesses based in democratic countries that are active in Muslim countries, particularly oil and resource companies; International business ethics laws with teeth, and enforcement.
- The CIA, both overt, covert, and the off-budget black ops spooks; This is tough because they have been self-funding and unaccountable for so long. How about some employees who speak the necessary languages?
- The World Bank, IMF, and other aid programs; Focus on capacity building and prevention of corruption, avoid crushing debt.
- The U.S. Dept of State and "western" diplomacy; Uh, gee. Whatever happened to "constructive engagement" with countries we have differences with?
- Law enforcement, trade and travel security; Permanently increase the capacity of these entities before you permanently increase the military.
- Military forces. Focus the mission on protection and drop the pre-emptive doctrine.
(Disclosure – supporting Wes Clark was my motivation for the statement above.)
I got to thinking about the mission of the State Department, so I went to look at the website. This is what I found – long, but worth reading:
State Department
Mission Statement
Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.
American diplomacy in the 21st century is based on fundamental beliefs: our freedom is best protected by ensuring that others are free; our prosperity depends on the prosperity of others; and our security relies on a global effort to secure the rights of all. The history of the American people is the chronicle of our efforts to live up to our ideals. In this moment in history, we recognize that the United States has an immense responsibility to use its power constructively to advance security, democracy, and prosperity around the globe. We will pursue these interests and remain faithful to our beliefs.
Globalization is compressing distances and creating new opportunities for economic growth. It is expanding the exchange of ideas, providing an impetus for political freedoms. Millions of the world’s poor, however, have not yet benefited from globalization, increasing their risk of alienation. Furthermore, transnational threats have emerged from globalization, enabling the creation of deadly global terror networks, spurring crime that reaches beyond borders, and spreading disease via the most mobile population in history. The spread of unconventional weapon technology risks giving tyrants and terrorists unprecedented power to harm the United States, our allies, and our friends. At the same time, famines and civil conflicts have erupted in countries steeped in poverty or constrained by autocratic rulers, creating waves of refugees and swelling the ranks of internally displaced populations. Traditional conflicts between and within states harm the innocent, with regional instabilities transmitting shock waves throughout our interconnected world.
In the coming years, the principal aims of the Department of State and USAID are clear. These aims are anchored in the President’s National Security Strategy and its three underlying and interdependent components - diplomacy, development, and defense.
First, we will strive to build and maintain strong bilateral and multilateral relationships in pursuit of our mission. There is the prospect for a durable peace among the great powers based on alignment against common threats. We will strive to strengthen traditional alliances and build new relationships to achieve a peace that brings security, but when necessary, we will act alone to face the challenges, provide assistance, and seize the opportunities of this era. U.S. leadership is essential for promoting this vision, but others must share the responsibility. The history of American foreign policy suggests that we will increase our chances of success abroad by exerting principled leadership while seeking to work with others to achieve our goals.
Second, we must protect our nation, our allies, and our friends against the transnational dangers and enduring threats arising from tyranny, poverty, and disease. Global terrorism, international crime, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction are new challenges born of traditional ambitions. Urban and rural poverty reflects the failure of statist policies, an absence of the rule of law, and poor governance. Radical ideologies are nurtured in societies deprived of the legitimate means of dissent, free markets, economic opportunity, and the free flow of ideas. A world in which half of humanity lives on less than $2 per day is neither just nor stable. HIV/AIDS is not simply a health issue. This pandemic is destroying precious lives, undermining economies, and threatening to destabilize entire regions. Environmental degradation and deforestation threaten human health and sustainable development. Confronting these threats effectively is beyond the means of any one country, and calls for principled American leadership aimed at achieving effective coalitions that magnify our efforts to respond to these critical challenges.
Third, in confronting the intersection of traditional and transnational challenges, we will combine our diplomatic skills and development assistance to act boldly to foster a more democratic and prosperous world integrated into the global economy. We will not waver in our belief that all human beings deserve lives of dignity and the opportunity to achieve their aspirations. We will promote freedom of speech, conscience, and religion, the rule of law, and economic freedom. In concert with civil society organizations, we will speak out against human rights abuses and the trafficking of human beings.
The Department and USAID will pursue these aims through coordinated approaches and complementary programs. In addition to bilateral and multilateral relationships, we will engage with citizens and civil society organizations at home and abroad. We will work with U.S. nongovernmental organizations, institutions of higher learning, and private sector partners who share our objectives and help leverage our resources. Providing vital links to the American people and to counterpart organizations and institutions overseas, our U.S. partners help represent the best in America’s technical, humanitarian, and management skills. We will support programs that encourage broad-based participation and civil society development as the foundation for democracy and good governance, economic growth and free enterprise, sound environmental stewardship, and quality education and healthcare.
So, how can we evaluate the words of this mission, and then the actual deeds of the Administration? I invite your help in this evaluation, since doing the subject justice is a huge task. Here are some starter points and the grades I would hand out.
First: nothing wrong with the Mission Statement. Results? Not so good. Maybe a D grade overall.
Second: "...our security relies on a global effort to secure the rights of all." Again, pretty good words. OK, so have we changed our tradition of creating "frankenpuppets" and siding with repressive strongmen? Have we reigned in our black ops spooks? Didn’t think so. Another D.
Third: "Urban and rural poverty reflects the failure of statist policies, an absence of the rule of law, and poor governance. Radical ideologies are nurtured in societies deprived of the legitimate means of dissent, free markets, economic opportunity, and the free flow of ideas." The words begin to get slippery here. There is a web of cause and effect behind "the failure of statist policies" isn’t there? See points 1, 2, and 3 of my original post. "Free markets" is a multi-layered concept, too, where human nature and class momentum intersect. Are they saying that al-qaeda has grown because, for example, the Taliban had no legitimate channel for political expression before they took power in Afghanistan, and no access to the marketplace? Hmmm. And whose law? The Taliban imposed a rule of law, did they not? The words here rate a "Needs Improvement." As for deeds, poverty has not been reduced as far as I can tell, although there has been some progress in the incidence of fair voting. I’ll be generous with a C on deeds.
A final comment and then you can jump in. The competence of the leadership staff of any organization makes or breaks its ability to advance its mission. Do they actually know what they are doing, with well grounded experience, or did they get the job out of patronage? I think we know the answer as to how the Administration staffs its departments. And the results show it. Continuing poverty, corruption, and violence born of desperation. An isolated U.S. I think I can't promote this bunch to the next grade level, they need remedial instruction.