Diplomacy - should it be uniform

[macsen rufus]

I think Rory has his finger right on the pulse (sorry, couldn't resist ) when he points out the differences between the Civil Service in UK and US. THAT is where we derive our long-term stability.

Our Foreign Secretary is advised by people who have been dealing with foreign affairs for decades, under administrations of every colour. I've always found the US system of political appointment to be somewhat suspect, where the advisors are put in place because of their political "correctness" to the appropriate party currently in power. This destroys stability, removes personal relationships and understanding built between individuals in different nations' administrations and just generally gums up the works while the foreign powers "measure up" the new guy. OK political level contact is important, but the real donkey work is done by civil servants, diplomats etc (are US diplomats politically appointed, too?)

But Lemur has a point, too. Governments express the will of the people (allegedly) so changes in policy are to be expected. BUT foreign affairs I believe are too sensitive, long-term and complex to be driven by the voters' "concern of the moment". The average Joe is likely to jump from one knee-jerk to the next without really comprehending all that's going on (as indeed can Ministers, which is why they need their advisors!) A t

Rather than making Secretary of State a 10-year appointment, a more professionalised and permanent civil service is IMHO a better route to take, but the point about it not being at the suffrance of the incumbent president is the crux of the issue. A week might be a long time in politics, but geopolitics needs a perspective of decades, if not centuries.

Of course, a less interventionist policy would also help to keep things on an even keel, less willingness to prop up the ugly buddy of the hour, or to bomb the bete-du-jour into the stone age. The USA is still a young country - that's where its energy and can-do attitude come from, but it can also lead to short-termism and an ignorance (or optimistic misreading) of consequences. Whereas of course the Old World is -- well old, tired, and cautious

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rule by bureacracy may well represent stability but it has its own draw-backs.

1. Structural Violence (Hannah Arendt's term, not mine) -- the inability of anyone interacting with/using the bureacracy to LOCATE someone to actually make a decision that isn't already formatted into the SOPs.

2. Bureacratic Politics -- bureacracies will often pursue their own political agendas completely regardless of the needs of those whom they were established to serve. How often will MI5 do something/allow something to happen just to spite MI6. I assure you that US bureacracies play this game, our CIA folks are often happy at the malf-ups of State and vice versa.

3. The general tendency for bureacracies to hope any non-standard problem and/or cirisis will go away -- do nothing-ism.

[macsen rufus]

@Seamus: I don't disagree about bureaucracies. But it will be a bureaucracy regardless of whether it's professionalised or politically appointed, and conflating intelligence services - which by their very nature are devious and double-dealing - with civil administrative bodies is not valid IMHO. Nonetheless you made my point for me - US bureaucracies, with their political appointees - still engage in in-fighting. I think it's more to do with a multiplicity of similar agencies with close, if not overlapping, bailliwicks all competing for "turf", which no doubt equates to influence and funding....

[Lord Winter]

Removing the presidential term limit would be an alternative to increasing the actual term of the president. That way the president would still have to face the voters every four years but still have a chance of guiding the U.S. over the long term and thus keeping its diplomacy and policy somewhat consistent?

I don't really see how increasing the appointment time of the secretary of state would help. Wouldn't it just serve to create more partisan politics, when the president that had made the appointment is replaced by a member of the opposite party? Surly the secretary of state would still be loyal to the first presidents party, or else they wouldn't have been appointed in the first place. Besides dose the secretary of state have any real power? Are they not there to advise and carry out the policy of the president?

[IrishArmenian]

I think the U.S.'s new diplomatic goal is to stay in good favor with the U.K. (government, not the people). That seems all that they are concerned about.

[Pannonian]

I think the U.S.'s new diplomatic goal is to stay in good favor with the U.K. (government, not the people). That seems all that they are concerned about.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[KafirChobee]

Thank you, all. Or, as i would normally say it, Thanx y'all.

Two things that stuck out were the extention of Presidenial terms - from 4 years to 6 (I seriously doubt Mr. Bush43 could make a second term under those conditions .... gah, 2 more years?), and that the Secratary of State be given a minimum of 10 years - why not make a committee of say 7 for life?

Most that answered this post responded responsably, and with enough insight to realize that America is a drift. America has no clue what it will do from one Prez to the next - dplomatically. Does it care? Maybe, but most Americans are content with a knee-jerk reactation. Which is the reason that a consistant and more appropriate form of directing the diplomatic path of a great (SUPER POWER) nation is needed.

Or, we can continue to change our path every four years .. and lose. ULTIMATELY.

Call out the Crusaders! Er, I mean we must defend ouselves against .... "insurt enemy name here".