Diplomacy as a Profession
Remarks to the American Foreign Service Association
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr., USFS (Ret.)
The Foreign Service Club,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
There's a door prize being given out today.
Finally, after great
struggles, the National Defense University Press has come forth with this book,
which is one of two books that I looked for back twenty-nine years ago when I
came in the Foreign Service, A Dictionary
of Quotations on Statecraft and Diplomacy.
The other book on the arts of
power in statecraft, I am also writing at present. In any event, I have this book here, and
since it's put out by GPO [Government Printing Office] and since all of you are
government officials, I can see, following my talk I
will be able to give you a copy of this book if you still want one.
But you will have to pay a
price. Not only do you have to listen to
me talk about the profession of diplomacy, but since I'm hoping this will
shortly be out in a commercial version, revised, you also have to undertake to
contribute your own favorite quotations to that next edition. So with that charge, that onerous expense, I
will be able to supply you with a copy of this book.
I am going to talk today about
diplomacy as a profession. Is it a
profession? Should it be a
profession? I think these are not empty
questions.
I'd like to start off by
drawing from my own book of quotations, quoting Abba Eban,
who, in 1983, observed that "The word 'ambassador' would normally have a
professional connotation but for the American tradition of 'political
appointees.' The bizarre notion that any
citizen, especially if he is rich, is fit for the representation of his country
abroad has taken some hard blows through empirical evidence, but it has not
been discarded, nor should the idea of diluting a rigid professionalism with
manpower from less detached sectors of society be dismissed out of hand. Nevertheless, when the strongest nation in
the world appoints a tycoon or a wealthy hostess to head an embassy, the
discredit and frustration is spread throughout the entire diplomatic corps in
the country concerned." That was in
1983.
Quite a bit before that,
about 130 years before that, demonstrating that this is indeed a lengthy
American tradition, the New York Herald Tribune observed,
"Diplomacy is the sewer through which flows the scum and refuse of the
political puddle. A man not fit to stay
at home is just the man to send abroad."
These American observations,
or observations about American diplomacy, contrast quite strikingly with the
views expressed by François de
Callières in 1716.
I'd like to quote from him before I get into the meat of my topic. He said, writing now almost three centuries
ago, "Diplomacy is a profession by itself, which deserves the same
preparation and assiduity of attention that men give to other recognized
professions. The qualities of the
diplomatist and the knowledge necessary to him cannot indeed all be
acquired. The diplomatic genius is born,
not made. But there are many qualities
which may be developed with practice, and the greater part of the necessary
knowledge can only be acquired by constant application to the subject.
"In this sense,
diplomacy is certainly a profession, itself capable of occupying a man's whole
career, and those who think to embark upon a diplomatic mission as a pleasant
diversion from their common task only prepare disappointment for themselves and
disaster for the cause that they serve.
The veriest fool would not entrust the command
of an army to a man whose sole badge of merit was his eloquence in a court of
law or his adroit practice of the courtier's art in the palace. All are agreed that military command must be
earned by long service in the army. In
the same manner, it must be regarded as folly to entrust the conduct of
negotiations to an untrained amateur."
Now, if that is, in fact, a
statement with which probably most in this room would agree, we have to ask
ourselves why it is that the learned professions of the clergy, the law,
medicine, and military science have emerged exempt from the practice of
political appointments to which diplomacy is still subjected.
I would submit that it's
worth going back for a moment and thinking what professions are. They have some common characteristics:
beginning with professed expertise in carrying out specialized functions. They have a specialized vocabulary; they use
a common ideology to analyze problems; they apply a common set of skills,
technical skills, to solving those problems; they have a self-administered code
of ethics or system of ethics.
The professions that I
cited--the clergy, the law, medicine, and the military--began in the eighteenth
century with entry into the profession being through a process of apprenticeship,
that is, on-the-job training. There were
no standards and there was no system of professional ethics in place. But over the succeeding two centuries, they
all developed professional schools, professional associations that would certify
the competence of the members of the profession, and they developed a
self-regulating system of ethics.
By the middle of the
nineteenth century, the systems were somewhat mixed. That is, apprenticeship coexisted with
professional education as a means of entering the profession. It was only about a decade ago that my home
state of
By the early twentieth
century, each of these professions had developed the degree of formality with
which we are familiar today. This is
when the divinity schools, the law schools, the medical schools, the military
academies, the staff colleges, the war colleges, reached their current state of
definition.
Why didn't this happen for
diplomacy? There are probably many
reasons for that, one being the transnational nature of the profession, which
makes it difficult for any one country to lead in the formation of a
professional doctrine and system. But in
any event, it didn't happen.
In fact, there are competing
images of the diplomatic profession which are held even to this day. Back in 1959, Harold Nicholson observed,
"There are those who regard the Foreign Service as a kind of bird sanctuary
for elegant young men with the milk of Groton still wet upon their lips,
arrayed in striped pants, and spending most of their time handing sugar cookies
to ladies of high society in Europe and Latin America. Conversely, there are those who regard diplomatists
as an international gang of intriguers intent upon
ensnaring the Great White Soul of the
I expect this will continue
as long as diplomacy does not follow the course other learned professions have
followed. They have benefitted greatly
in terms of their competence and in terms of their standing from their formal
professionalization, so good diplomacy.
Some might see an effort to
achieve greater professionalization of diplomacy as merely a ploy. Jeffrey Jackson, in 1981, anticipated this
perhaps when he said, "Of survival, it has been said that the bird is
evolution's device for the perpetuation of the egg. Diplomacy, too, must sometimes appear to be
the diplomat's invention for the perpetuation of his profession. Hence, the legendary diplomat reposting to
the condescension of the generals that they would have no wars to fight were it
not for him."
Is diplomacy up to being
professionalized? Does it have within it
the aspects which would allow it to become a profession in the sense that the
law, the medicine, and the military have become? I'm quite sure that it does.
Let's go through a series of
questions related to this.
Do diplomats profess
expertise in a specialized set of functions?
Diplomats are agents, advocates, informants, and counselors of their
governments which look to them as the stewards of their nation's interests
abroad. There are, I believe, ten
unchanging principal functions of the profession of diplomacy. The international situation gives these content, but it doesn't alter their contours. Diplomats discharge these duties on their own
or sometimes in collaboration with members of the allied professions of arms
and espionage.
The major tasks of diplomats,
as I see them, are, first, linking their government's decision-makers to
foreign counterparts; second, advocacy of their government's policies and
views; third, negotiation on their government's behalf; fourth, commendation to
their government of ways to advance or defend its interests; fifth, promotion
of trade and investment; six, protection of compatriots; seven, management of
programs of cooperation between governments; eight, reporting and analysis of
relevant local developments and realities; ninth, establishment of facilitative
relationships with the officials and members of the elites who influence them;
and tenth, cultivation of an image for their nation which is favorable to its
interests.
These ten functions are
inseparably connected. I cite this
because inseparable connection of functions is at the heart of any
profession.
When decision-makers have
positive feelings toward a foreign nation, they're more receptive to approaches
from both its officials and businessmen.
They're also more inclined to give weight to its interests and
views.
When diplomats have access to
a wide range of influential people, their understanding of local trends and
developments is enhanced. So, then,
through their reporting is that of their government.
When programs of official
cooperation are well conducted, they facilitate access to those in authority
and predispose them to cooperate. When
diplomats' relations with such men and women are easy and informed by good
understanding of local affairs and mind-sets, they are better able to help
their citizens to do business and to protect those who fall afoul of local
custom and law.
When these tasks are properly
performed, diplomats have the insight necessary to draw plans of action to
further the interests of their country.
Their government will be well informed enough to be able to form its
policies wisely. That's no guarantee
that it will, but it will have the information necessary do so, should it
choose to heed it.
Diplomats will know how to
present their government's positions in terms that are appealing to local
interests and sensibilities. They will
be more able to persuade host government officials to conclude agreements
favorable to their country's interests.
They will know how to enable effective communication between their head
of government and members of his Cabinet and corresponding officials in their
country of assignment. They will be
equipped to provide uniquely valuable counsel and support to direct dialogue
between such officials.
I rest my case on the
connection between all of these functions.
Do diplomats have a
specialized vocabulary? Well, back in
the early nineteenth century, Ludwig Boerne, who was a German diplomat of some
renown at the time, said, "Diplomacy is to speak French, to say nothing,
and to speak falsehoods." I
wouldn't go quite that far, but I think over the years many have observed that
diplomats do use language in peculiar ways.
John Kenneth Galbraith, in 1969, observed, just by way of example,
"There are few ironclad rules of diplomacy, but to one there is no
exception: when an official reports that talks were useful, it can be safely
concluded that nothing was accomplished."
I think we don't need to go
on about this. Clearly we have a
specialized vocabulary in the diplomatic profession. We use ordinary words in extraordinary ways. Of course, we use extraordinary words in
incomprehensible ways as well.
Do diplomats have a common
ideology of problem-solving? Arthur
Goldberg once observed, "Diplomats approach all problems with an open
mouth." This is not an unfair
comment, since, as A. Whitney Griswald pointed out
back in 1960, "Diplomacy is supposed to keep things in a negotiable
state." Of course, we all know that
some diplomatic professionals, those in the former
Do diplomats have a common
set of skills? I think that the basic
skills for diplomats to carry out the functions I've alluded to are the same in
all times and places. Some derive, as
François de Callières said, from natural talent, but
most, I believe, are acquired only through professional training and
experience. These skills are mutually
supportive, also, and they fall into five broad related categories: agency,
advocacy, reporting, counseling, and stewardship. I'll run through these very quickly and come
to a conclusion so we can eat.
As agents of their
governments, diplomats must cultivate, first, mastery of the arts of
negotiation. Second, a
demonstrated capacity to elicit prompt, authoritative responses from their own
government to the views of their host nation. Third, the ability to add at least the
appearance of conviction to the messages they communicate. Fourth, precision of
expression both in their own and in other languages. Fifth, a sophisticated
grounding in their own nation's history and culture.
As advocates of their
nation's policies and perspectives, diplomats must embody first the credibility
that comes from intelligent commitment to its interests in the policies that
derive from those interests; second, a gift for political calculation; third,
tact; fourth, the empathy and ability to help their host nation redefine its
interests to be compatible with those of their own government; fifth, fluency
in the dominant language of their host nation and the principal diplomatic
language of its capital; and sixth, affability and poise that shrugs at
adversity.
As reporters, diplomats must
personify acuity of observation and accuracy of memory; second, discretion;
third, graceful adaptability to life in alien cultures; fourth, ease of
fellowship with a wide range of individuals and groups, such that they readily
share confidences; and fifth, facility as tersely vivid but scrupulously
accurate writers.
As counselors of their own
governments, diplomats must cultivate a reputation for selfless dedication to
their own nation's interests; second, a knowledge of their host nation's
history, including a record of its relations with their own country; third, a
finely honed sense of how policy is made in their own government; fourth, the
acumen to judge when and how to present to their government recommendations for
altered courses of action or requests for new instructions; and fifth, the
knack of allowing others to take credit for notable policy innovation or
success.
As stewards of their people's
interests and reputations in foreign lands, diplomats must evidence, first,
concern about their compatriots and a dedication to serving them; second,
understanding of commerce and finance; third, an appreciation of the essentials
of military science; and fourth, knowledge of diplomatic practices and
international law.
These twenty-five basic
skills which I have outlined are born of training and experience. When diplomats come to possess them in
adequate measure, they are able to perform the tasks that their state expects
of them.
Are there professional ethics
to diplomacy? Well, Talleyrand, who was
one of the most famous diplomats of two centuries ago, once observed, "The
only good principle is to have none."
In fact, the common impression of the diplomatic profession is that it
is a tricky one.
But I would argue that, in
fact, there is a professional set of ethics inchoate, but very much known to
the practitioners of the profession.
Consider for a moment the emphasis on the protection of confidences; the
operation of collegiality between diplomats in a foreign capital or in a
multilateral setting; the sense of duty to one's own government; the limited
expectations that other diplomats will violate these rules; and the commitment,
finally, to the construction of an international system which facilitates
problem-solving by nonviolent means; attention not simply to reasons of state,
but also to reasons of system.
So I would conclude that
diplomacy does have all of the attributes of a profession, but that they remain
in inchoate form. I return to the
thought that François de Callières had, this from an
American, Herbert H.D. Pierce, in 1897, who said, "As we would not put a
ship into the hands of a commander ignorant of navigation, an army under the
control of a general without military training, so we should not put the
foreign affairs of our government into the hands of men without knowledge of
the various subjects which go to make up the diplomatic science."
The interesting thing about
that statement is that by 1840, it was unthinkable that a politician should be
appointed as a brigade commander in the U.S. Army, whereas it had been a common
practice in earlier years. By about that
time, it was unthinkable that someone who had received his medical training as
a barber and part-time butcher should be allowed to operate in a hospital, and
it was unthinkable that someone who could not demonstrate any intimate
familiarity with the principles of the law should be admitted to practice in
court. So it is not a trivial statement
that de Callières and Pierce are making.
In conclusion, let me again cite
de Callières, who I think is probably the greatest
writer on the profession of diplomacy. He
observes, "Even in those cases where success has attended the efforts of
an amateur diplomatist, the example must be regarded as an exception, for it is
a commonplace of human experience that skilled work requires a skilled
workman."
The point here is that not
only must the workmen and the workwomen know their skills, but they must be
seen as possessing those skills in unique measure. What is at stake in the subject I'm
addressing is the question of whether popular and political support can be
gained for the rather self-evident proposition that de Callières
stated, that skilled work requires a skilled person.
As I said at the outset,
diplomacy is, if anything, a transnational profession
not unique to any country, and yet if it is to be professionalized, as I
believe it should be, there must be leadership from some quarter. I note in this regard that the professionalization
of the clergy, of the medical profession, and of the military first emerged in
the
Thank you.