Modern Age - Fall 2014 - 49

WHAT U.S. FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS SHOULD KNOW

outright orchestrating these attacks. But the
U.S. government pretended that these gov-
ernments were not responsible for terrorism.
The immediate political reality, however,
is that every government is an expression of
the larger regime it represents-of the per-
sons who count the most within its territory.
In short, the distinction between prominent
people in any given country who are inside
formal governing structures and those
outside is more form than it is substance.
That is why, under international law and by
common sense, any and all governments are
responsible for the activities that emanate
from within their borders.
International relations transcend govern-
ment-to-government representation through
accredited diplomats. Diplomats themselves
cultivate contacts with as many sectors as
possible of the host society in order to pres-
ent and press their own government's points
of view through as many channels as pos-
sible. That is very much part of the job. Gov-
ernments and corporations hire lobbyists to
press for specific actions by the host govern-
ment. Washington, D.C., like other capitals,
is awash with foreign agents, registered and
unregistered. But governments sometimes
take their political case directly to foreign
peoples. Note well, however, that appealing
to foreign populations over the heads of their
governments is an inherently unfriendly act,
akin to and often part of war.
This does not pertain to cultural activities
such as those of the French government. No
one takes umbrage at the corps of young
Frenchmen who teach, from Peshawar to
Penambuco, the language they believe to be
the basis of civilization. But the U.S. Infor-
mation Agency libraries associated with U.S.
embassies and consulates, meant as reposi-
tories of information about the USA and
sometimes the best libraries available in their
respective area, have always played a more

problematic role because they have been asso-
ciated with a foreign policy of messianism, of
"we know better than thou because we are
better," and have been treated accordingly.
The U.S. government's representation of
America directly to foreign peoples began
in World War II and came of age in the
Cold War for the best of reasons: many of
the world's peoples were ruled first by Nazi
and then by Communist governments at
war with America. The U.S. government's
message to such peoples-that they and we
were really on the same side-was both true
and standard wartime practice since time
immemorial.
But direct representation to peoples
who live under governments with which
the U.S. is at peace is no different from
what Edmund Charles Genet, revolution-
ary France's ambassador, did to promote
France's causes with the American people
directly in 1792, which caused even Thomas
Jefferson, the most pro-France member of
George Washington's cabinet, to regard
him as troublesome to America's peace and
to expel him as persona non grata. In sum,
the FSO should never lose sight of the fact
that fostering opposition to a government
with which the U.S. is at peace blurs the line
between peace and war.

A

s executor and, at higher ranks, shaper
of foreign policy, the FSO should
understand the strength and limitations of
the tools in his kit: diplomacy, economic
suasion, subversion, and war. Recovery of
these fundamentals, now largely misunder-
stood, is essential.
Diplomacy is neither more nor less than a
medium for transmitting messages.
Its force is exclusively in the content of
the message. What is variously called the
"diplomatic process," or "talks," or "keep-
ing channels open" has zero value in and
49
Modern Age - Fall 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Modern Age - Fall 2014
