Publishing Institution: Council of American Ambassadors / Topic: Diplomacy

1. OSCE: American Diplomacy in the Heart of Europe

Author:: James S. Gilmore III
Publication Date:: 08-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: On a warm day in September 2019, I left the United States Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to travel to the historic “ring” in the center of Vienna, Austria, to attend the weekly Permanent Council meeting of that organization. Leaving the U.S. Mission, located in a modern high-rise office building overlooking a bridge over the Danube, I climbed into an armored SUV and was driven to the Hofburg Palace where OSCE convenes. That was my first meeting as U.S. Ambassador; in fact, it was the first meeting following the summer recess of OSCE. I got out of the car at the entrance to the Hofburg Palace, which once was the in-town residence of the Hapsburg monarchy. I was waived through the security checkpoint. Inside was a small elevator, built into a stone spiral staircase, typical of old Vienna. Then I moved through a large social space with table and chairs and into the meeting hall for the Permanent Council. The hall is very large, built out of a grand palace space. The ceilings are 40 feet high, with big video screens. The hall is arranged with adjoining tables assembled in a long rectangle, with the Chairman and Secretary General seated at one end, as well as seats on the sides for the 57 ambassadors representing the member countries of OSCE. Across the way from my seat sat the ambassador from Ukraine, and down the table on his side, the ambassador of the Russian Federation. To my right were the seats for Andorra, and then Armenia and Azerbaijan, two hostile countries, side by side, all in alphabetical order according to the country names in the French language. All the ambassadors were dressed in suits and business attire, because, after all, they represent their countries.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and OSCE
Political Geography:: Europe and United States of America

2. New Thinking on Democracy at Home and Abroad

Author:: Sarah E. Mendelson
Publication Date:: 03-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: The Joseph Biden Administration has rather famously committed to convene a Summit for Democracy, likely later in 2021 or early in 2022. The Summit has become, as some diplomats have suggested, “the talk of the town,” not only in Washington but also in multiple other national capitals. A cottage industry has sprung up debating the who, the what and the where. More focus is needed on the why — which, in turn, ought to shape the how. To my mind, albeit one preoccupied for over a quarter of a century with human rights and democracy, the why is rather straightforward. The alternatives — bending to the rise of authoritarians, or leaving unaddressed the weakened liberal international order that the United States originally helped create —are not in our or our allies’ national interest. Many democracies are experiencing intense challenges on multiple levels. Chief among these is the global pandemic, which revealed deep socioeconomic inequities in societies that have long been labeled “developed,” when in fact these democracies have not been delivering to many communities. Freedom House has now recorded 15 straight years of decline globally in democracy. The crises at home have been widely broadcast: the new Congress came under physical attack January 6 after a U.S. President attempted, as part of a protracted effort, to overturn the 2020 election and prohibit the peaceful transfer of power. How then the Summit for Democracy can help repair and revive democracy here and among our allies needs more consideration and detail. Numerous factors roll up to a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rethink and refresh exactly how we advance democracy at home and abroad. New approaches, themes and methods can help revitalize strategy and policy. Such new approaches need to connect and account for domestic shortcomings and link progress at home to efforts abroad. In doing so, post-pandemic democracy promotion needs to reflect a comprehensive focus on rights that includes socioeconomic issues and sustainable development (e.g., democracies must deliver dignity). The Biden Administration ought to consider labeling the Summit “Democracies Deliver Dignity and Development” or the 4Ds Summit. The Summit can provide the road map for these new approaches while being informed and shaped by extensive consultations at home and abroad. Finally, new methods should include data-driven, human-centered design shaping foreign assistance as well as elevating local voices. Internationally, that would be a significant change to the dominant modalities, largely Congress-driven, supporting specific types of institution building, such as central election commissions. Such work will undoubtedly continue, given support in Congress and among the U.S.-based NGOs that receive the funding (notwithstanding the damaged credibility of our democracy). At a minimum though, demonstrably demand-driven assistance ought to supplement this older business model in order to better deliver to populations, listening and responding to the multitude of needs.
Topic:: Development, Diplomacy, Authoritarianism, Democracy, and NGOs
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

3. A Solid Handoff in the U.S-India Relationship

Author:: Kenneth I. Juster
Publication Date:: 03-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: The conventional wisdom is that the foreign policy of Donald Trump’s Administration severely damaged relations with U.S. allies and partners. Commentators point to repeated criticism by the United States of friends in Europe and Asia, as well as the abrupt withdrawal from trade and other arrangements. But such critics overlook the U.S. relationship with India, which made significant advances and will be an area of substantial continuity in Joseph Biden’s Administration. The U.S.-India partnership has grown steadily since the turn of the century, with the past four years seeing major progress in diplomatic, defense, economic, energy and health cooperation. The strengthened bilateral relationship has become the backbone of an Indo-Pacific strategy designed to promote peace and prosperity in a dynamic and contested region. The longstanding U.S. commitment to the Indo-Pacific has underpinned the stability and remarkable economic rise of this region over the last 70 years. While the concept of the Indo-Pacific has been many years in the making, in the past four years the United States and India have turned it into a reality. For the United States, the Indo-Pacific agenda meant working with India to provide coordinated leadership in addressing the threat from an expansionist China, the need for more economic connectivity and other challenges in the region.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Hegemony
Political Geography:: China, India, Asia, North America, and United States of America

4. Cuba’s Unresolved Civil War

Author:: Richard N. Holwill
Publication Date:: 03-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: The U.S. policy of normalization toward Cuba in the Barack Obama Administration was reversed by President Donald Trump, largely because it failed to address an underlying issue. The Cuban “revolution,” though consolidated on the Island, was soundly rejected by the Cuban exile community who view their country as mired in an unresolved civil war. The importance of the Florida vote was sufficient to prompt President Trump to “cancel” President Obama’s efforts at normalization. Meaningful change will require a more comprehensive approach to the challenge of implementing an effective Cuba policy. In truth, there is no justification for overt hostility toward Cuba. The Cold War is over, and the role that Cuba played in that conflict – an alliance with the Soviets, exporting violent revolution and doctrinaire socialism – has ended, as well. Going forward, the Biden Administration must adjust policies to reflect the fact that Cuba is on the verge of becoming a failed state, which would have negative consequences for the United States.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Fragile/Failed State, Conflict, and Regionalism
Political Geography:: Cuba, Caribbean, North America, and United States of America

5. The Digital Technology Agenda at the Summit for Democracy

Author:: Eileen Donahoe
Publication Date:: 03-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: The United States plans to host a Summit for Democracy to advance President Joseph Biden’s stated priority for national security of revitalizing democracy. Digital technology must be a focal point of the Summit. The future of democracy depends, in large part, on the ability of democracies to confront the digital transformation of society – to address the challenges and to capitalize on its opportunities. Over the past decade, democracies have struggled to meet this test, while authoritarians have used technology to deepen repression and extend global influence. To combat the digital authoritarian threat, democracies must be rallied around a shared values-based vision of digital society and a joint strategic technology agenda. The Summit tech agenda should revolve around five core themes: 1) Democracies must get their own tech policy “houses” in order; 2) To win the normative battle, democracies must compete and win the technology battle; 3) Technological transformation necessitates governance innovation; 4) To win the geopolitical battle for the soul of 21st century digital society, democracies must band together; 5) Technology must be reclaimed for citizens and humanity.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Democracy, and Summit
Political Geography:: Global Focus

6. Outer Space and International Diplomacy

Author:: John M. Logsdon
Publication Date:: 03-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy proclaimed that “the new horizons of outer space must not be driven by the old bitter conflicts of imperialism and sovereign claims.” Kennedy announced that the United States would “urge proposals extending the United Nations Charter to the limits of man’s exploration of the universe, reserving outer space for peaceful use, prohibiting weapons of mass destruction in space or on celestial bodies, and opening the mysteries and benefits of space to every nation.”[1] Just over five years later, after several rounds of negotiations carried out primarily with the Soviet Union but within the framework of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), the “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activity of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” was opened for signature on January 27, 1967.[2] As of February 2021, 111 nation states, including all major space-faring countries, are party to that treaty; another 23 have signed the treaty but not yet ratified it. The principles set out in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, supplemented over the more than 50 years since 1967 by four implementing treaties and a number of non-binding statements of principles and multilateral agreements, constitute today’s international governance framework for space activities. It was Kennedy’s 1961 speech that started the process of creating that framework. President Joseph Biden has a similar opportunity, 60 years later, to take the lead in updating space governance for the 21st century.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Governance, and Space
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

7. A U.S. Strategy to Engage and Contain Putin's Russia

Author:: Michael McFaul
Publication Date:: 09-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: President-elect Joseph R. Biden has an opportunity to forge a bipartisan, sustained grand U.S. strategy for Russia. With decades of experience in foreign affairs, especially transatlantic relations, he knows Russia, he knows Vladimir Putin and, equally important, he knows the region. When I worked at the National Security Council during the Barack Obama administration, I traveled with then-Vice President Biden to Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Russia. Unlike his immediate predecessor, President Biden rightfully will not try to befriend Putin. He and his expert team of foreign policy advisors understand that the central objective in U.S. policy towards Russia today is to contain Putin’s belligerent behavior abroad. At the same time, the incoming Biden administration offers the U.S. a chance to develop a more predictable pattern of bilateral relations with the Russian government and Russian people, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. After relations with China, competing with Russia is the second-greatest foreign policy challenge of our time, complicated by the fact that China and Russia today are closer to each other now than they were during the Cold War. To successfully achieve American objectives will require the implementation of a comprehensive, sophisticated and nuanced strategy for containing Putin’s belligerent actions abroad and simultaneously cooperating with Moscow on a small set of issues of mutual benefit.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Conflict, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

8. Prudence or Folly: A Case for Extending the New START Treaty

Author:: Thomas Graham
Publication Date:: 09-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: During the depths of the 45-year-long Cold War in the early years, neither side believed it had an understanding of what the other side was doing. Both sides feared a sudden bolt from the blue in which nuclear weapons would lay waste to their societies. The threat was indeed beyond rational description. One U.S. B-52 bomber in those days carried more explosive power than all the bombs dropped by all the sides in World War II. The Soviet Union deployed an intercontinental ballistic missile with a 25-kiloton warhead that could strike the United States with only a few minutes of advanced warning, perhaps 20 minutes. One way of thinking about the explosive capability of just one megaton is to contemplate a freight train loaded with dynamite stretching from New York to California. Just one Soviet missile had 25 times this capability, and the Soviet Union had hundreds of such weapons. The bombs on the U.S. strategic bombers were of the same destructive force. And the U.S. ultimately built a missile force that had a destructive capability that was at least three or four times greater than the Soviet force. The two nations were like two strong men fighting each other to the death in a pitch-black room with long knives. The principal difference was that one of the men would eventually win and emerge victorious from the darkroom; yet in nuclear war, there would be no winners, only losers—and both contestants would be effectively destroyed.
Topic:: Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, United States, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

9. Rethinking Public Diplomacy

Author:: Mike Pryor
Publication Date:: 09-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: As this paper went to press, Americans were in their fourth agonizing day of waiting for the final results of the 2020 U.S. presidential elections. No matter who the victor turns out to be, restoring America’s tarnished image abroad should be a central task for the next U.S. President. Public diplomacy (PD) will no doubt be a big part of any such effort, and a number of prominent U.S. foreign policy experts have already called for increased funding and resources for our State Department’s PD programs. As a Foreign Service Officer and PD practitioner for over a decade, I certainly echo these calls. But the truth is that simply doing more public diplomacy is unlikely to achieve the desired outcome. Rather, we need to do more effective public diplomacy. And to be more effective, we need to get real about what PD can and can’t do. What PD can’t do, as the past two decades have shown us, is overcome bad foreign policies through “messaging,” or achieve large-scale development outcomes through small-scale grant programs. What PD can do is use programs such as exchanges, traveling speakers, English teaching and cultural events to build relationships and affinity for U.S. values that provide for sustained U.S. access and influence in important sectors of foreign societies. This access has benefits for the United States at the short- term, the intermediate-term, and the long-term levels. This approach, more realistic than others, acknowledges that while we as a nation can’t direct policy outcomes in foreign countries, we can shape those outcomes at critical moments by leveraging influence built up through relationships over time. The truth is, all diplomacy is about relationship building, and PD activities are best understood as delivery mechanisms for relationships. The main reason this obvious truth is not more widely accepted is because PD has historically struggled to connect the dots between its programs, the long-term relationships the programs create, and the impact those relationships have on the achievement of foreign policy goals. Thus, the task of rethinking public diplomacy begins with creating a framework to contextualize relationships over time. One way to do this is to situate all activities within the concept of the “ladder of engagement.” The ladder model shows how relationship-building activities complement and build on each other over the course of years or even decades in order to bring targeted foreign audiences closer to the U.S. orbit. The ladder is widest at its base, enabling the maximum number of people to climb on. As the engagement deepens, the ladder narrows. At the top, engagement is most profound with a relatively small number of the most influential audience members.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Public Opinion, and Public Diplomacy
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

10. American Diplomacy and the Fight Against Authoritarianism

Author:: Benjamin Press
Publication Date:: 09-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Resurgent authoritarians are putting to the test the old adage that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Autocrats recognize that they have been losing battles on governance for decades. Liberal countries like the United States have aggressively invested in pro-democracy programming, strengthening civil society, political parties and the rule of law in countries across the world in an attempt to erect barriers against authoritarianism. Moreover, democracies have hammered autocrats on issues ranging from human rights to corruption, lending legitimacy to domestic dissidents and, to a certain extent, discrediting them on the global stage. But that paradigm is beginning to shift. As authoritarian powers—especially Russia and China—have become increasingly assertive in international affairs, they have aimed to legitimize their own governance models and bolster autocrats abroad. And as shown by recent data on the rise of so-called “autocratization,” their approach may be working. The support for authoritarianism abroad embodies a new type of governance strategy: autocracy promotion. In an inversion of traditional democracy promotion, autocracy promotion entails both rhetorical and concrete support for other authoritarians. From Russia offering to send in soldiers to put down protesters in Belarus to China weakening global human rights frameworks, autocracy promoters are seeking to tip the governance landscape in autocrats’ favor. Their direct mechanism for doing so is by helping weaker autocrats by bolstering their legitimacy and expanding their capacity to coerce and coopt domestic actors. By shifting narratives and providing material support, autocracy promoters ultimately aim to “make the world safe for autocracy.”
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Authoritarianism, and Conflict
Political Geography:: Global Focus

11. Nuclear Security, Arms Control and the U.S.-Russia Relationship

Author:: Steven Pifer
Publication Date:: 03-2019
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: For nearly five decades, Washington and Moscow have engaged in negotiations to manage their nuclear competition. Those negotiations produced a string of acronyms—SALT, INF, START—for arms control agreements that strengthened strategic stability, reduced bloated nuclear arsenals and had a positive impact on the broader bilateral relationship. That is changing. The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty is headed for demise. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) has less than two years to run, and the administration of Donald Trump has yet to engage on Russian suggestions to extend it. Bilateral strategic stability talks have not been held in 18 months. On its current path, the U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control regime likely will come to an end in 2021. That will make for a strategic relationship that is less stable, less secure and less predictable and will further complicate an already troubled bilateral relationship.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Nuclear Power, Deterrence, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:: Russia, United States, Europe, and North America

12. After Hanoi: Where do Trump and Kim Go from Here?

Author:: Victor D. Cha
Publication Date:: 03-2019
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: There were high expectations at the second meeting of American and North Korean leaders in Vietnam last month after the absence of progress on denuclearization commitments made at the first summit in Singapore last summer. Yet at Hanoi, not only were the two leaders unable to deliver an agreement with tangible steps on denuclearization, but they also dispensed with the joint statement signing, cancelled the ceremonial lunch and skipped the joint press conference. In a solo presser, President Donald Trump said that sometimes you “have to walk, and this was just one of those times.”[2] The President indeed may have avoided getting entrapped into a bad deal at Hanoi. What North Korea put on the table in terms of the Yongbyon nuclear complex addresses a fraction of its growing nuclear program that does not even break the surface of its underlying arsenal and stockpiles of fissile materials, not to mention missile bases and delivery systems. And what North Korea sought in return, in terms of major sanctions relief on five UN Security Council resolutions that target 90 percent of North Korea’s trade, would have removed one of the primary sources of leverage, albeit imperfect, on the regime. In this instance, no deal was better than a bad deal for the United States. Nevertheless, the Hanoi summit has left the United States with no clear diplomatic road ahead on this challenging security problem, a trail of puzzled allies in Asia and the promise of no more made-for-television summit meetings for the foreseeable future. The question remains, where do we go from here? When leaders’ summits fail to reach agreement, diplomacy by definition has reached the end of its rope. President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo put on the best face they could in Hanoi, talking about closer understanding and continued good relations between the two sides as a result of the meetings, but the failed summit leaves a great deal of uncertainty going forward. South Koreans will frantically seek meetings with Washington and Pyongyang to pick up the pieces. The North Koreans already have sent an envoy to China to chart next steps. While I do not think this will mean a return to the “Fire and Fury” days of 2017 when armed conflict was possible, we have learned numerous lessons from Hanoi for going forward.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Deterrence, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:: United States, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

13. To Understand Iranian Foreign Policy, Look at Iran's Politics at Home

Author:: Alex Vatanka
Publication Date:: 03-2019
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a cleric who will turn 80 in July 2019 and has ruled over Iran since 1989, has made a political career out of demonizing the United States. And yet, he knows full well that at some point—whether in his lifetime or after—Tehran has to turn the page and look for ways to end the bad blood that started with the birth of the Islamic Republic in 1979. But Khamenei’s efforts to make the United States a strawman are not easily undone in present-day Tehran, where anti-Americanism is the top political football, as the two main factions inside the regime—the hardliners versus the so-called reformists—battle it out for the future of Iran. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” on Iran has made it all but impossible for Khamenei to meet Washington half-way. Accordingly, the best Khamenei can do for now is to wait out the Trump White House. There will be no Khamenei-Trump summits. That much is abundantly clear if one listens to the chatter from Tehran. But the issue of possible relations with post-Trump America is still hotly contested in the Islamic Republic. In the meantime, with Trump’s re-imposition of sanctions from November 2018, Tehran’s hope in the short term is that Europe, together with Iran’s more traditional supporters in Moscow and Beijing, can give Iran enough incentive so that it can ride out the next few years as its economy comes under unprecedented pressure.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Sanctions, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:: United States, Iran, Middle East, and Israel

14. The Art of Diplomacy

Author:: Bruce A. Heyman
Publication Date:: 03-2019
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Seeing the words “U.S.-Canada Trade War” in headlines is hard to imagine in any year, but to see them in 2018 was jarring. How is it possible that best friends and neighbors who have had the most successful trading relationship in the world now could have an association characterized by the word war? This is hard enough for the average American or Canadian to conceive of, but it was particularly hard for me to do so, as the U.S. Ambassador to Canada until January 20, 2017. When I left Ottawa, I was confident that the U.S.-Canada relationship was strong—indeed, perhaps never stronger. In March 2016, we had a state dinner in Washington for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the first in nearly 20 years. Then-President Barack Obama later repaid the favor and addressed the Canadian Parliament for the first time in more than 20 years. Our two-way trading relationship was valued at a huge $670 billion per year, and while no longer our largest, it was the most balanced, with the United States having a slight but rare trade surplus in goods and services. Through an integrated supply chain, our companies and citizens worked together. On average more than 400,000 people legally crossed our 5,525-mile non-militarized border daily for work and tourism. But the U.S.-Canada relationship was and is much larger than trade. Canadian and American troops have fought and died together from the beaches of Normandy to the mountains of Afghanistan, and our countries are founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)—a unique Canadian-American partnership—patrols the skies above our shared continent. Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies constantly exchange information on threats from terrorism, nuclear proliferation, espionage and complex crimes. Our two countries work together to protect the environment and provide stewardship of the magnificent Great Lakes, where cities such as Toronto and my own Chicago are located. This dense web of mutually beneficial cooperation is based on a shared set of values. Both our countries settled the vast North American continent, providing undreamt-of opportunities to millions of immigrants. Both our countries have an abiding commitment to democracy and the rule of law, and when we fall short, we make the needed changes. Beyond our countries’ being next-door neighbors, the largest number of Americans living abroad live in Canada and the largest number of Canadians living abroad live in the U.S. We are best friends, but more important, we are family.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Culture, Trade Wars, and Trade
Political Geography:: United States, Canada, and North America

15. Will Ethiopia Finally Achieve Its Potential?

Author:: Tibor P. Nagy
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Ethiopia, a key strategic partner of the United States in the Horn of Africa, is in the process of a remarkable turnaround. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and his “reform agenda,” the nation is transforming itself from a statist, authoritarian regime in a state of perpetual “no war, no peace” with its neighbor Eritrea to the north, to an example for the rest of Africa due to its strong economic growth, democratic governance and regional stability. It is a place where private investment is being welcomed, educational opportunities are flourishing and women are finally being seen as equal contributors to national development. In addition, the 20-year border conflict with Eritrea has ended, with Ethiopia accepting the final decision of a UN border demarcation commission that awarded most of the contested territory to Eritrea.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Economic Growth, and Investment
Political Geography:: Africa and Ethiopia

16. Reflections on a Summer of Discontent in Hong Kong

Author:: Kurt W. Tong
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: The summer of 2019, with all its compelling political drama, will certainly be remembered as a pivotal moment in the history of Hong Kong. In the end, however, will 2019 will be remembered as a tragic turning point, heralding Hong Kong’s increasing instability and irrelevancy in the coming years? Or, optimistically, will future historians see this year as a moment when Hong Kong’s key stakeholders, inside and outside the city, were sufficiently reminded of the city’s special value and characteristics to do what is necessary to keep its “one country, two systems” dream alive? The answers to this set of questions will have important implications for the national interests of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Social Movement, Political stability, and State Formation
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, Hong Kong, and United States of America

17. Japan and the United States: The Future of Global Partnership

Author:: H.E. Shinsuke J. Sugiyama
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: When I was appointed as Japan’s Ambassador to the United States in early 2018, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and other political leaders had very clear instructions to me: they told me to go outside of the Capital Beltway as often as possible to explore the many communities that make up the United States of America. Following this instruction, I have visited nearly 30 states so far. As a diplomat who has frequently interacted with the United States during my career, even I was surprised by the depth of my feelings during these visits. I am finding that this is truly the “United” States of America! In city after city, even as people express worries about the current state of the world, they also mention that the Japan-U.S. alliance and the ties between our people have become a stable constant in these unsettled times. I believe that this full maturation of the Japan-U.S. relationship into a global partnership will allow us to build a more peaceful and prosperous world together.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Partnerships, and Strategic Planning
Political Geography:: Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

18. Do Not Give Up on Turkey's Democracy Just Yet

Author:: Gonul Tol
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: For decades, Turkey’s conflict with its own Kurdish minority has hindered the country’s democratization. But neither Turkey’s democratization nor the Kurdish quest for political rights has occupied an important place in U.S. policy. Turkey’s democratic shortcomings have been ignored by U.S. administrations for the sake of greater geostrategic interests. In a similar fashion, Kurdish rights have been overlooked in the game of power politics. Today’s regional context, however, ties Turkish democracy and the peaceful resolution of the Kurdish question to the U.S. security interests in the region. The United States must therefore pay closer attention to both. There is no doubt that most freedoms under Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have been dramatically curtailed. Opposition leaders continue to face arrest and prosecution. Authorities use anti-terror laws broadly against those who are critical of the government. Thousands of people—including minors, journalists, foreign journalists, human rights activists, and social media users—who exercise their right to freedom of expression face criminal prosecutions on trumped-up terrorism charges. The mainstream media are largely controlled by the government and routinely carry identical headlines. Most concerning of all, however, is the ongoing conflict between the Turkish state and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). A string of clashes in the mainly Kurdish region between the PKK and Turkish security forces has killed thousands since the ceasefire broke down in 2015—including 464 civilians, 1,166 Turkish security personnel, and 2,544 PKK militants—and displaced 350,000 people[1]. Both the PKK and the Turkish state played a role in the destruction of major segments of Kurdish cities. The political ramifications of the fighting have been equally disastrous. The Turkish state response has largely criminalized Kurdish political expression. Hundreds of Kurdish news outlets have been shut down. Thousands of Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) activists and dozens of Kurdish co-mayors and HDP parliamentarians remain in prison. The Turkish government has removed elected mayors in Kurdish regions and installed government-appointed trustees in all but a few of the 102 HDP-controlled municipalities.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Democracy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:: Europe, Turkey, and Asia

19. Looking Back, Moving Forward: Public Diplomacy at 20

Author:: Wes Jeffers and Katherine Tarr
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: October 1, 2019, marks the 20th anniversary of the consolidation of the United States Information Agency (USIA) into the U.S. Department of State. USIA, formerly known as the United States Information Service (USIS) overseas, previously oversaw all public diplomacy functions for the U.S. Government from 1953 to 1999. We all know the story after that: USIA was folded into the U.S. Department of State, creating the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R) and making public diplomacy one of the five cones of the Foreign Service. Opinions remain divided about this decision, but the core objective of U.S. public diplomacy has remained the same: Public diplomacy “seeks to promote the national interest and national security of the United States through understanding, informing, and influencing foreign publics and broadening dialogue between American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad.” However, in the Foreign Service of today, we are still facing some significant challenges to the landscape of public diplomacy—some old and some new. There’s been no full-time R for 17 months and counting, and educational and cultural programming budgets are annually at risk. The Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R/PPR) is undertaking a massive effort to overhaul public diplomacy portfolios around the world and, thus, to overhaul the very structure of Public Affairs Sections overseas. The new Bureau of Global Public Affairs combines the skills of the former Bureau of International Information Programs and Bureau of Public Affairs to modernize the way we communicate to domestic and foreign audiences. Despite all of this change, one fact remains constant: if we want foreign policy to be effective, we (the U.S. Department of State) must effectively communicate with a variety of audiences through programs and media, as well as continue to invest in future global leaders. This means public diplomacy must be seamlessly integrated into foreign policy formation and implementation. All Foreign Service officers must have the same basic understanding of public diplomacy as they have of writing cables. This also means that public diplomacy must be both championed and defended by a strong leader who can easily communicate with colleagues in the Department of State, the Secretary of State, Congress and the White House. After 20 years, we have indeed come a long way. Where are we now? Where do we want to be in the next 20 years?
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Communications, and Transparency
Political Geography:: North America and United States of America

20. The Sino-U.S. Phase One Trade Deal Is an Imperfect Painkiller. What's Next?

Author:: Jude Blanchette and Qiu Mingda
Publication Date:: 09-2019
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: After two days of intense talks with United States Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer, Chinese Vice Premier Liu He and his delegation crossed the street to the White House on the afternoon of October 11th to meet with President Donald Trump for the first time since the negotiations collapsed in May. The visit marked the 13th round of the bilateral trade talks and concluded with an announcement from the Oval Office of a “phase one” agreement. According to President Trump, this included China’s commitment to purchase $40-50 billion of U.S. agricultural products and a pledge to strengthen its intellectual property protection regime domestically. Moreover, Beijing would make still-unknown adjustments to how it manages its currency, the renminbi. For its part, the United States delayed a scheduled tariff hike on $250 billion of Chinese goods from 25% to 30% on October 15th. In addition, the Treasury Department would potentially review its previous decision to designate China a currency manipulator. All in all, it seemed to mark a turning point in the bilateral tensions. According to a tweet from President Trump two days later, this was the beginning of a larger deal that would be spread over three phases and that would benefit American farmers and potentially put an end to the trade hostilities between the two nations. In short, he tweeted, “the relationship with China is very good.” Though he acknowledged that the actual terms of any deal are still being worked out, the President repeatedly expressed optimism that he and Chinese leader Xi Jinping could ink a deal by mid-November during their meeting at the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Santiago, Chile. Unfortunately, such confidence is misplaced. The decided lack of details on the scope, timing and mechanics of the phase one announcement is an indication of just how preliminary the agreement is. Second, Beijing remains unwilling to make more substantive concessions on core structural issues, ranging from its preferential treatment of its state-owned enterprises to a credible commitment that it will protect the intellectual property of foreign companies. Finally, even if phase one comes to fruition, this won’t do much to reduce the uncertainty that likely will define the U.S.-China relationship for years to come, as both countries begin to openly acknowledge that they are entering a period of prolonged strategic rivalry.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:: China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

21. Representing American Values and Interests in China

Author:: Terry Branstad
Publication Date:: 03-2018
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: When I welcome visitors to the U.S. Ambassador’s Residence in Beijing, they often comment on a black-and-white photo of my first meeting with Xi Jinping. In the picture, the members of the 1985 Chinese agriculture delegation to Iowa stand calmly behind my desk, peering into the camera, as Xi Jinping stands unobtrusively to my right. Some visitors ask, “Ambassador Branstad, did you know this young man would become President of China?” Indeed, I did not—I treated him with the same Iowa hospitality with which I welcome all my guests. His importance as a rising leader of China, though, became increasingly apparent over the course of six gubernatorial visits I made to China during the subsequent 30 years. The same is true of U.S.-China relations. Today, I have the honor of representing the United States in the most consequential bilateral relationship in the world, one that we absolutely have to get right. During President Donald Trump’s November 2017 state visit to China, the President identified three priority tasks for the two nations’ relationship. First, work with the Chinese government to address the North Korean nuclear and missile threat. Second, seek a more balanced and reciprocal trade and investment relationship. And third, partner with Chinese authorities to reduce the flow of illicit opioids from China to the United States. Each task presents its own unique challenges and opportunities.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Nuclear Power, and Global Political Economy
Political Geography:: United States, China, Asia, and North Korea

22. Redefining Success for the Trump-Kim Summit

Author:: Richard N. Holwill
Publication Date:: 03-2018
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: A meeting between President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un (KJU), the Supreme Leader of the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK), can be a success even if it fails to achieve President Trump’s announced goal: an end to the DPRK nuclear weapons program. This meeting starts by giving KJU one of his long-sought goals. It will, in effect, be more than a meeting. It will be a “summit” and will confer on KJU the status of the leader of a legitimate government. President Trump would be wise to redefine success. He should not fall into the trap of saying that success will be defined by a “denuclearization agreement.” While that should be a long-term goal, it will not happen at this meeting. Still, the summit will be successful if it produces a process that can lead to a substantial reduction of tension on the Korean Peninsula. This is not to say that an agreement on denuclearization is off the table. Rather, it is to recognize that these talks could present a framework for negotiation that would be very valuable, even if they will fall short of a nuclear disarmament accord. To understand the difficulty of reaching a nuclear arms agreement, we need only look at the way the two leaders speak about denuclearization. Each appears to define it differently. President Trump applies the term to nuclear weapons in the DPRK. KJU speaks of it as applying to the entire Korean Peninsula. He will argue that, if he must allow a meaningful verification regime, so must U.S. forces in South Korea.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Deterrence, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:: United States, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

23. Twenty Years of Morocco’s Development

Author:: Edward M. Gabriel
Publication Date:: 03-2018
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Twenty years ago, I arrived in Morocco as the new U.S. Ambassador. It was the beginning of a close-up view of the changes going on in Morocco for the next two decades. During my first meeting with King Hassan II, shortly after my arrival, he wasted no time in addressing Morocco’s agenda with the United States, challenging me on our nation’s positions, especially in regard to his Kingdom’s existential issue regarding sovereignty over the Sahara. This unexpected candid and warm exchange set the tone for regular meetings throughout my tenure during which concerns and grievances were voiced in private, rather than aired publicly. King Mohammed VI would continue this practice with me after his father’s death. My first few months in the country also coincided with the beginning of the first government of Alternance, led by opposition leader Abderrahmane El Youssoufi—a watershed moment for Morocco that many political analysts mark as the beginning of significant democratic reform and economic liberalization in Morocco after years of a strong-armed approach to governing and limited civil rights. Abderrahmane El Youssoufi, whose political activities had previously resulted in two years in jail and then 15 years of exile, became Prime Minister after his party, the Socialist Union of Popular Forces (USFP), won the most seats in the November 1997 elections. Since then, the international community has confirmed Moroccan elections as occurring in a fair and transparent manner. In 1998, the unemployment rate in the country was 17 percent and growing, with youths making up a disproportionate percentage of the population. Women lacked equal rights with men. The percentage of the population living at or below the poverty line for lower middle-income countries was around 28 percent, and more than half of the entire adult population was illiterate, with rates among rural women much higher. Electricity in the country reached only around 60 percent of the population, and almost a quarter did not have access to potable water. Infant mortality rates were 23 percent higher than the regional average, and maternal mortality ratios were nearly double the regional average. Overall, the micro-economic picture was in dire shape. The economy was too dependent on agriculture, accounting for 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and heavily reliant on rainfall. Infrastructure was lacking throughout the country, and environmental degradation was widely apparent throughout the cities and the countryside, presenting a challenge to the growth of tourism. Of particular note, the northern part of Morocco was completely neglected after a series of militant actions created an irreparable rift between King Hassan and his citizens there. In contrast to the micro-economic indicators, by 1998 King Hassan had established a strong macro-economic climate: a low ratio of debt to GDP, a low budget deficit and an open, competitive economic system. He adopted International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank reforms that, had Morocco been a member of the European Union, would have qualified it for inclusion in the Monetary Union. Upon his death in 1999, King Hassan left the country unified, with a very strong nationalistic belief in country and King, a reasonably performing economy and, most important, with a solid commitment in its support for U.S. objectives regarding counterterrorism and economic openness, and in promoting peace in the Middle East. Twenty years later, where is Morocco today? Where is it headed tomorrow?
Topic:: Agriculture, Development, Diplomacy, Education, Democracy, Decentralization, and IMF
Political Geography:: Africa, United States, North Africa, and Morocco

24. Addressing Controversial Topics in Public Diplomacy

Author:: Shanna Dietz Surendra
Publication Date:: 03-2018
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: In my previous assignment in London, the U.S. Ambassador was so committed to public engagement that he reached as many as 30,000 students in 260 schools over the course of his three-and-a-half-year tenure. Through his outreach, he made a number of observations about British public opinion toward the United States, and he noted that there was one controversial question that emerged again and again when he met with the general public: Why is the American public so fixated on guns? It was evident that the British public struggled to understand this phenomenon and saw it as a major cultural and political difference between our two countries. Students in particular wanted an explanation for gun violence in the United States, and the topic stood as a hurdle in moving on to other positive areas of discussion. The Ambassador understood that if our embassy didn’t address the topic head on, the U.S. government’s overall credibility would be significantly hindered. And so, although he admitted he did not have “answers,” he tried his best to provide a historical, socio-cultural explanation for this vast dissimilarity between our two countries. Audience members may not have been convinced that his explanation was accurate. They may not have believed his statistics, and they might have thought he was trying to justify the unjustifiable. However, addressing the topic head-on allowed the discussion to move forward. His willingness to directly answer tough questions especially disarmed students of their “gotcha” questions, thereby creating space and time for other foreign policy-related questions. Most important, his honesty enhanced our embassy’s overall credibility and made the relationship—whether between audience and speaker or between our two countries’ publics—more open and more authentic. Addressing difficult topics directly and honestly is not always easy in public diplomacy. Foreign Service Officers are often nervous about deviating from official talking points and saying the “wrong thing” that could garner negative attention for their U.S. Embassy, the U.S. government, or—perhaps most terrifying—for the officers themselves. But in my modest nine years as a U.S. diplomat, I have seen colleagues deftly maneuver contentious topics, and their honesty and courage lays the foundation upon which U.S. foreign relations are built and sustained. Below, I summarize a handful of approaches I have observed as useful in addressing the most controversial topics.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Culture, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:: Global Focus

25. The United States and Colombia: A Special Relationship

Author:: Juan Carlos Pinzon
Publication Date:: 03-2017
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: The world has changed for Colombia. For the first time in more than 50 years, we are a nation building a lasting and stable peace. What has not changed is the special relationship Colombia shares with the United States. As the oldest and strongest democracies in the Western Hemisphere, the relationship between our two countries is deeply rooted in our steadfast commitment to the shared values of democracy, freedom and equality. It is an alliance built on a solid foundation of bipartisan support, and that too will not change. Successive Colombian governments have worked with Republican-led congresses and those controlled by Democrats, and we look forward to continuing to engage with the new Administration and Congress as we work to build sustainable peace. It was strong bipartisan support that made Plan Colombia the most successful U.S. bilateral initiative with a foreign nation—benefitting both countries and the entire region— and it is bipartisan support that will make the next phase of Plan Colombia—the Peace Colombia initiative—successful as well.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Democracy, Political stability, and Peace
Political Geography:: United States, Colombia, South America, and North America

26. U.S.-Ghana Relations Are Strong Following December 2016 Elections

Author:: Robert Jackson
Publication Date:: 03-2017
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Ghana is one of the leading democracies on the African continent, with multiple peaceful interparty transitions since the return of multi-party democracy in 1992; a good record on human rights; an apolitical military; and a lively, free media. Ghanaians often note that whenever the Republican Party wins the White House, Ghana’s New Patriotic Party (NPP) wins Jubilee House—a coincidental tradition that held true again in 2016. Ghana’s presidential and parliamentary elections were peaceful, transparent, and credible; U.S. engagement played a critical role in that success, as well as in the resulting peaceful transition of power.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Elections, Democracy, and Transition
Political Geography:: Africa, United States, North America, and Ghana

27. The United States and Namibia: Promoting Success in a Young African Democracy

Author:: Thomas F Daughton
Publication Date:: 03-2017
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Just 27 years old, the Republic of Namibia is among Africa’s youngest countries, but one that stands out on the continent for its functioning multiparty democracy, open market economy and history of peaceful transitions of presidential power. The reasons for Namibia’s success lie in the international process that created it and in the pragmatism of its people. That international process and the United States’ involvement in it have also complicated the U.S.-Namibia relationship in the last three decades. But the United States has long recognized that an investment in the success of a country like Namibia is a strategic long-term investment in our own security. With that in mind, the United States has invested heavily since Namibian independence in 1990 to help ensure that the young country succeeds. In many respects, Namibia is a country of extremes. It is both the driest African country south of the Sahara and, with an area twice the size of California’s and a population of just 2.4 million, the world’s second-least densely populated nation. Namibia is home to the desolate Skeleton Coast, to one of the world’s driest deserts and to the world’s oldest sand dunes, but also to lush, flood-prone forestland lying along some of Africa’s great rivers. Namibia is a major source of diamonds and uranium, but has one of the highest income inequality rates in the world. And Namibia’s people are a multiethnic, multiracial mix that encompasses everything from descendants of German colonists to the San, the world’s most ancient human population. Namibia’s colonial experience featured similar extremes. After one of the First World War’s early military campaigns ended 30 years of German colonial rule in 1915, the League of Nations placed the former German South West Africa under the mandate of the Union of South Africa. The successor Republic of South Africa later refused to surrender that mandate, instead imposing the full oppression of apartheid and seeking to incorporate South West Africa into its territory. The South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO), a Marxist liberation movement formed in 1960, carried on an insurgency against the apartheid regime for three decades as the United States and other Western nations sought a negotiated route to independence. In 1978 the United States co-sponsored United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 to establish a framework for Namibian independence, but an eight-year mediation begun by the Reagan administration in 1981 linked independence to the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. That linkage is still viewed by many Namibians as having delayed their country’s independence for a decade. Thirty years later, the United States continues to confront perceptions that Namibia would have achieved independence years earlier if not for Cold War concerns in the West about Communist influence and support to SWAPO from the old Eastern Bloc. Namibian independence in 1990 was the culmination of a unique negotiation and self-determination process administered by the United Nations pursuant to UNSCR 435. Nearly 25 years later, I presented my credentials as the tenth U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Namibia, just two days before general elections that would sweep the country’s third president, Dr. Hage Geingob, into office with 87 percent of the popular vote. No stranger to government, Dr. Geingob chaired the assembly that drafted the Namibian constitution in 1989 and served as the country’s first prime minister. Harkening back to the international effort that created what Namibia is today, President Geingob likes to say that his country is “a child of international solidarity, midwifed by the United Nations.” At independence, the SWAPO liberation movement became the popular political party that has ruled Namibia continuously since 1990. While the restyled Swapo Party put aside most of its Marxist principles when faced with the reality of governing, Namibia’s foreign policy has remained strongly shaped by gratitude to its erstwhile allies and adherence to its non-aligned, liberation-era ideals. At the same time, however, Namibia’s approach to its foreign development partners has generally been marked by pragmatism and a desire to be, as the country’s current president puts it, “friend to all and enemy to none.” The United States has sought since Namibia’s founding to support the new country in its building of a modern, democratic state. Even before the Namibian flag was raised for the first time, the United States offered major assistance in removing the explosive remnants of war—an intense effort that required more than a decade to complete. The Peace Corps answered a plea for help from Namibia’s new leaders in 1990 by sending a cadre of education volunteers. In the quarter-century since, Peace Corps has maintained and expanded its presence in Namibia. More than 1,600 volunteers have served in the country since 1991, offering their skills in education, health and community economic development. The Peace Corps was not the only U.S. government agency that lent a hand with education. A decision at independence by Namibia’s new leaders to make English the national language prompted a 15-year, USAID-administered assistance program to convert the national education system from Afrikaans, train the country’s teachers to instruct in English and improve school infrastructure. Namibians say theirs was the first country in the world to enshrine environmental protection in its constitution. Support provided by the United States through USAID in the 1990s helped establish Namibia’s internationally renowned, community-based conservation system. The country has a larger wildlife population now than at any time in the past century and is home to nearly half of the world’s remaining black rhinos and most of the world’s cheetahs. The Namibian conservation model built together with USAID created 82 registered communal conservancies that allow local communities to benefit from the sustainable use of wildlife through tourism and sport hunting. In 2013, the conservancies generated about $7 million in direct revenue and in-kind benefits. The success of the model has created a powerful incentive for those living within conservancies to protect wildlife and manage natural resources responsibly. Indeed, the conservancies are largely responsible for the rebound in Namibia’s elephant population from 7,500 in 1995 to more than 20,000 in 2016. In 2007, Namibia qualified for an assistance compact with the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). Negotiations on the details of the compact took more than 18 months, but ultimately produced a blueprint for spending $305 million on an array of infrastructure and other development projects focused on education, tourism and agriculture. The five-year compact, which ended in 2014 having met or exceeded all of its targets, was regarded by both the Namibians and the MCC as a signal success. As it was underway, Namibia also achieved upper-middle income (UMI) status according to the World Bank—one of the indirect effects the MCC compact was intended to achieve. Ironically, that success meant the country was not eligible for another compact. The crown jewel of U.S. government assistance to Namibia remains our support in fighting HIV/AIDS. When the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, better known as PEPFAR, began working with the Namibian government in 2004, the country had one of the highest HIV burdens in the world. More than 23 percent of the population was infected, and more than 15,000 Namibians were getting infected with HIV each year. More than 30 percent of babies born to HIV-positive mothers were infected with the virus, and nearly 10,000 Namibians were dying from AIDS every year—out of a population of just 2 million. Our success in working with the Namibian government to fight HIV/AIDS has been nothing short of remarkable. Last year, fewer than 8,000 Namibians were newly infected with HIV, less than 5 percent of babies born to HIV-positive mothers became infected and fewer than 3,200 patients died from HIV/AIDS. Currently, more than 70 percent of Namibians have been tested for HIV and know their status. Free antiretroviral treatment is widely available across the country; 67 percent of infected adults and 90 percent of infected children are on it. Most striking, an estimated 100,000 Namibian lives—nearly 5 percent of the country’s total population—have been saved. The United States has played an integral role in these achievements, and it has required a major investment. Of the more than $1.1 billion in foreign assistance the U.S. government has invested in Namibia since 2006, the majority has been dedicated to the fight against HIV/AIDS. But our investment has been dwarfed by the Namibian government’s own contribution to the fight. Namibia’s government directly funds two-thirds of the national HIV response, demonstrating to the world its leadership and commitment to its citizens. Our shared success in fighting HIV/AIDS has not come easily. Widely scattered populations, distances between health facilities, shortages of skilled health care providers, limited infrastructure and difficult terrain contribute to the reality that not all Namibians have access to the same health services. To meet the challenge, our work through PEPFAR in Namibia has required innovation and flexibility. It has also necessitated a model of government-to-government cooperation in which U.S. resources have supplemented and expanded upon the Namibian government’s efforts rather than leading them. Our support has helped move Namibia within realistic reach of achieving the UNAIDS 90/90/90 targets* for HIV epidemic control by 2020. This means Namibia has the potential to be among the first high-burden countries in Africa to reach the targets and, if the epidemiologists are right, to achieve an AIDS-free generation. As the size of Namibia’s younger population increases, so do their demands for education, social services and jobs. The country’s UMI status means that international development assistance once aimed at bolstering Namibia’s young democracy is now going to countries in greater need. And as Namibia’s liberation-heroes-turned-graying-politicians seek to respond to the demands of the younger population, they also face the inevitable reality of transition to a post-liberation-era generation of leaders. Navigating that transition is the most significant political challenge the country will face in the next decade. Cognizant of their legacy and committed to an enduring democracy, Namibia’s leaders are working to ensure that their country maintains its standing as a haven of peace and stability. It remains in the national interest of the United States to help them—and Namibia—succeed.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Environment, Post Colonialism, and Democracy
Political Geography:: Africa, United States, North America, Namibia, and Sahara

28. The Power of Rapid-Response Public Diplomacy: The IVLP On Demand

Author:: Monica Damberg-Ott
Publication Date:: 03-2017
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: The U.S. Department of State’s International Visitor Leadership Program, or IVLP, is often referred to as the “gold standard” of exchange programs within the public diplomacy community. The program celebrated its 75th anniversary in 2015, and more than 200,000 International Visitors have engaged with Americans through the IVLP, including more than 505 current or former Chiefs of State or Heads of Government,[1] since its inception in 1940. Margaret Thatcher, Hamid Karzai, and Indira Gandhi, to name just a few, are alumni. But with recent budget constraints and the need to demonstrate immediate, results-driven programming, the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) is placing greater emphasis on its most flexible rapid-response exchanges. Among those programs is the highly adaptable and policy-responsive option: the IVLP On Demand. So how does it differ from the original model, how does it compare, and how might it help show results more quickly? Each year, nearly 5,000 exchange participants come to the United States on the IVLP,[2] a foreign policy tool that helps strengthen U.S. engagement with countries around the world and cultivates lasting relationships. The program connects current and emerging foreign policy leaders with their American counterparts through short-term visits to the United States. Ambassadors often chair the rigorous, annual selection committees that embassies overseas use to nominate key contacts viewed as leaders in their respective fields to participate in the program. Each embassy fills its “IVLP slate” with nominees whose participation in the program helps to advance the mission’s key bilateral or multilateral goals. The majority of IVLP exchanges include visits to four U.S. communities over three weeks, although projects vary based on themes, embassy requests and other factors. From D.C. to St. Louis, from Kalamazoo to Seattle, and everywhere in between, participants meet with professional counterparts, visit U.S. public- and private-sector organizations related to the project theme and participate in cultural and social activities. (Baseball games are usually a big hit!) The program benefits the U.S. economy as well—a large portion of the funding goes back to the states in the form of visitors’ hotels, restaurants, transportation and tourism. The success of the program is in its diversity—regional, political, religious and thematic. As the Exchanges Coordinator for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I had the opportunity to meet and brief nearly 2,000 International Visitors from 2014-2016. Government officials, teachers, judges, law enforcement officers, human rights activists and other leaders from all over Asia participated in programs exploring topics ranging from judicial reform to cyber-security, from disability rights to maritime security, from food safety to trade regulation. For most participants, the program is transformational. I saw it firsthand in their excitement and gratitude in being selected. I witnessed it in the questions they asked and the discussions that ensued. I read it in the emails I received months later from participants who said the program changed their lives and inspired them to start a project, set up a conference or draft legislation.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Economy
Political Geography:: United States and North America

29. Back to the Basics of Growth and Diplomacy: Four Questions to Answer

Author:: Curtis Chin
Publication Date:: 09-2017
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: If American diplomacy is not to be about freedom and democracy, let it be about economic freedom and growth. And let the United States once again lead by example. In September 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump took to the world stage, addressing the United Nations General Assembly for his first time. It was also a week in which the United States marked the 230th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution—a document that continues to serve as an example for nations around the world. Trump began with words of appreciation to leaders of nations who had offered assistance and aid to the United States following hurricanes that had struck Texas and Florida. The U.S. president then continued with a few sentences about the state of the American economy. “The stock market is at an all-time high, a record,” he said. “Unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years, and because of our regulatory and other reforms, we have more people working in the United States today than ever before.” “Companies are moving back, creating job growth,” he added. Skeptics were plentiful on the cable television shows. But those would not be the words that captured global headlines and that would overtake social media posts around the world. Instead, it was Trump’s far-from-diplomatic language calling out the threat posed by North Korea, as well as the U.S. leader’s focus in part on Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, that dominated the news cycle and sent pundits—and some ambassadors—into a frenzy.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, United Nations, and Economic Policy
Political Geography:: United States and North America

30. Twenty Years of the U.S.-Romanian Strategic Partnership

Author:: Hans Kiemm
Publication Date:: 09-2017
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: When Bill Clinton came to Bucharest in 1997, he made history as the first U.S. President to visit Romania since the fall of communism. Speaking to the Romanian public, he announced, “Your President and I have agreed to establish a strategic partnership between our nations, a partnership important to America because Romania is important to America—important in your own right and important as a model in this difficult part of the world. Romania can show the people of this region and, indeed, people throughout the world that there is a better way than fighting and division and repression. It is cooperation and freedom and peace. Our friendship will endure the test of time. As long as you proceed down democracy’s road, America will walk by your side.” This year marks the 20th anniversary of that U.S.-Romania Strategic Partnership, which President Donald Trump, during a meeting with President Klaus Iohannis this past June in Washington, said is now “stronger than ever.” The Partnership is unique because it is not based upon any written agreement, treaty, or compact, but by mutual respect and understanding, strengthened continuously over time. It is a friendship based on shared values and aspirations, including democracy, freedom, respect for human rights, and the rule of law. While usually invoked when speaking of government-to-government bilateral relations, the Partnership extends to people-to-people ties as well. More than 90 percent of the Romanian public rates relations with the United States as good or very good, and overall, associations between the two countries expand far beyond diplomatic obligation.
Topic:: NATO, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Diaspora
Political Geography:: United States, Europe, Eastern Europe, Romania, and North America

31. A Case for Intercultural Communication Training

Author:: Jason Frohnmayer
Publication Date:: 09-2017
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: It is a heck of a time to be an American diplomat. The work of diplomacy is never boring, but recently it seems like we can barely make it through a cup of coffee before someone calls a meeting to deal with an issue no one has ever faced. Public Diplomacy officers have it particularly hard as we endeavor to explain the United States’ position on issues and work to strengthen people-to-people relationships with those of other countries. The State Department’s diplomatic training center, the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), was created with an understanding of the importance of developing intercultural communication skills. This article advocates for an even greater emphasis on this critical training as FSI examines its curriculum. Out of all five cones of Foreign Service Officer Generalists, Public Diplomacy (PD) officers are called upon most often to interact with people of another culture. The heart of our work is building cross-cultural relationships. Success requires a high level of intercultural communication competence (ICC). FSI offers several distance-learning courses on cross-cultural communication, including “Communicating Across Cultures” and “Culture and Its Effect on Communication,” as well as offering training on consideration of foreign audiences, which is a component of cultural affairs tradecraft required for Cultural Affairs Officers. If PD officers are going to build relationships with skeptical foreign audiences, they should be armed with the best tools, which should include a dedicated focus on intercultural communication theories.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Communications, Culture, and Military Affairs
Political Geography:: United States and North America

32. The United States and the European Union: Essential Partners in a Turbulent World

Author:: Anthony Luzzatto Gardner
Publication Date:: 03-2016
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Four years ago the European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize for the “over six decades [in which it has] contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy, and human rights in Europe.” How quickly the mood has changed. While it has become fashionable to charge that the European Union is on the verge of collapse in the face of dire current challenges, rumors of the European Union’s demise would appear premature. The successes achieved in 2015, as well as the potential future areas of good news, are frequently underappreciated. The United States is firmly committed to investing in its relationship with the European Union. This is a partnership that delivers, as it will bring dividends to both the United States and the European Union for the long term. The aphorism of Jean Monnet, the key Founding Father of the European Union, that “Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises” has proven to be correct. The serious strains put on the European Union during this past year because of multiple terrorist attacks—most recently in Brussels on March 22—and the unprecedented migrant flow is already resulting in significant pooling of sovereignty by member states, like in the fields of law enforcement and border protection. Europe’s unity has countered Russia’s violation of the post-War norm against changing borders by force, and the United States and the European Union are working intensively on many regional and global challenges. First and foremost, the United States and the European Union are focused on creating more economic opportunities on both sides of the Atlantic with a comprehensive trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The United States and the European Union already have a broad and deep economic partnership, the largest trade relationship in the world, accounting for almost one third of global trade and supporting about 14 million jobs. We have invested over $4 trillion in each other’s economies (which combined account for almost half of world GDP). TTIP is an opportunity to fine tune that relationship in a common-sense way to unlock opportunities to support jobs and fuel growth on both sides of the Atlantic, while maintaining our high standards for protection of health, safety, labor conditions, and the environment. Through TTIP, the United States and the European Union can strengthen our respective economies and extend our strategic influence if we choose to lead on global trade rather than be left on the sidelines. There really is no other choice. Since last Fall, we have exchanged second tariff-eliminating market access offers (removing all but three percent of tariffs) and proposals for services market access and government procurement. We have made significant progress in tabling text in almost all chapters and hope to have consolidated text for the entire agreement by July, which would line up the most difficult issues for negotiation and decision through the Fall. Despite some of the more pessimistic predictions, it remains an achievable goal to reach a high standard comprehensive agreement under the Obama administration (although ratification in Europe and passage into law in the United States would take place under the next US President). Working with member states, the European Commission has also made significant contributions to the creation of an integrated energy market—a requirement for healthy economies—in which gas and electricity flow more freely among the member states. The European Commission has also tabled its first proposals to deepen and broaden Europe’s capital markets and to stimulate investment in critical infrastructure. To address one of the Eurozone’s fundamental structural weaknesses, the Commission has nearly completed the creation of a banking union. And looking to the future, the European Commission has launched an ambitious Digital Single Market strategy aimed at reducing national barriers to the creation of a true single market for the delivery of digital services. We are supportive of all of these critical initiatives because they enhance European security and growth potential, as well as provide opportunities for transatlantic investment and collaboration. At the same time, we have made great strides to modernize and reform our relationship in other areas related to data, the most recent example being the conclusion of the US-EU Privacy Shield, which replaces the fifteen-year-old Safe Harbor framework with a new set of robust and enforceable protections for the personal data of EU individuals. The Privacy Shield provides transparency regarding how participating companies use personal data, strong US government oversight, and increased cooperation with EU data protection authorities (DPAs). While the United States and the European Union are working closely together to reinforce economic and commercial ties, coordination on political efforts is as robust—and as necessary—as ever. For example, the European Union played a vital role in close collaboration with US leaders to produce the historic agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the historic agreement in Paris on climate change. Moreover, the European Union quickly announced and repeatedly renewed, in close partnership with the United States, a set of extensive sanctions against Russia in response to Russia’s occupation and attempted illegal annexation of Crimea and aggression in the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine. Even a few years ago, few would have considered that possible because of the radically different historical perspectives and economic ties that the 28 member states have with Russia. Despite occasional talk of engaging Russia with conciliatory gestures, Europe has thus far resisted the Kremlin’s efforts to divide the member states or to split Europe from the United States. Like the United States, the European Union continues to support reformists in the Government of Ukraine and Ukrainian civil society. Our diplomatic missions in Kyiv and in Brussels cooperate closely on providing financial support, in-kind assistance and training, and exposing and countering disinformation. The United States and the European Union both support independent media and nongovernmental organizations; both support the aspiration of the Ukrainian people to live free in a stable, prosperous, and independent state governed by the rule of law rather than by lawless oligarchs. For over a year, challenges in developing a comprehensive European response to unprecedented, irregular refugee and migration flows have been the European Union’s most serious concern. The European Union is well aware that it must manage this issue in order to demonstrate its effectiveness and relevance. As a country of immigrants that has also taken in many refugees, the United States is supporting the European Union’s efforts by providing humanitarian assistance and sharing its experience in areas such as border control and the identification, resettlement, and integration of refugees. If Europe manages to support the integration of refugees and open its labor markets, the positive economic impact could prove substantial. The European Commission estimates that overall migrant inflows will add additional regional growth of 0.2 to 0.3 percent of GDP by 2020. According to the estimates, Germany could see an increase of GDP of about 0.4 percent in 2016 and 0.7 percent by 2020. Many economists believe that, if assimilated well, the refugee and migrant inflow could be a critical antidote to Europe’s looming demographic time bomb—a rapid inversion of the age pyramid whereby working age people are supporting greater numbers of retirees on pensions. By mid-century the ratio will have shrunk by half to 2:1, endangering the stability of social security systems. We are also collaborating closely on terrorism and countering violent extremism (CVE), including the fight against Daesh and the threat posed by foreign fighters who travel to and from Syria and Iraq. The United States welcomes the European Union’s development of a common EU Passenger Name Record system and looks forward to its approval in the European Parliament soon. The United States has engaged the European Union in helping border security officials get access to the information they need to prevent acts of terrorism by foreign terrorist fighters. As the United States has introduced new security enhancements in its Visa Waiver Program (VWP), a key counterterrorism tool, we are working closely with both the European Union and member states participating in VWP to insure that our travelers and citizens are safe from terrorist threats. Similarly, we have increased law enforcement cooperation with the European Union to enhance security and decrease crime for our citizens on both sides of the Atlantic. Far from weakening the European Union or transatlantic cooperation, the threat of terrorism has encouraged stepped-up joint CVE efforts. The March 22 attacks on the Brussels Airport and metro and the November 2015 attacks in Paris struck not only the residents of those cities, but also international victims and were carried out by multinational terrorists. Along with attacks in Denmark, Turkey, and other parts of Europe, they prompted greater intra-European and transatlantic law enforcement and security cooperation, and demonstrated starkly why such cooperation is essential. Whether sharing information on the movement and activities of suspected terrorists or combating illicit financial transactions by these and other criminals, we have a shared desire to protect our citizens and strengthen key institutions like Europol. In cases like rescuing children from child sexual exploitation rings, where it’s important to seek the shortest possible interval between discovering the crime and putting an end to it, we have seen good results. Operations that once took years to organize can now take mere months or less through the working relationship US law enforcement has developed with European authorities. After being forced by the Inquisition to recant his view that the earth rotates around the sun, Galileo Galilei allegedly whispered: “Eppur si muove” (and yet it moves). To many observers the European Union may appear immobile; and yet it moves. If it struggles to meet some of the challenges it currently faces, this is a reflection of the scope and number of those challenges, not the resilience of the Union. The United States stands shoulder to shoulder with the European Union as a partner, ready to face together the many regional and global challenges that we share. In preparing for future challenges, we continue to work together to ensure a better future for people on both continents (and elsewhere), whether in pursuing nuclear nonproliferation, combating climate change, terrorism, and military aggression, or in furthering trade rules that set high standards and rule of law for all. This is a partnership that delivers on a number of fronts; the European Union will continue to be an essential partner for the United States in an increasingly turbulent world.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, European Union, and Trade
Political Geography:: United States, Europe, and North America

33. Protecting the West’s Interests in Turkey

Author:: Ross Wilson
Publication Date:: 03-2016
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Turkey has recently come to look like a beat-up boy. At home, it seems to have regained the authoritarianism of its past. Abroad, its behavior looks rough edged and militaristic. It gets blamed for not doing enough, or the right things, on Syria, the problem of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and Europe’s migrant crisis. Some have concluded that this country, its regional policies in tatters and under the assault of an autocratic president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, can no longer be regarded as an ally. Much of the criticism is on target, some less so. Real issues exist in Turkey and in the relationships that the United States and European countries have with it. At a tough time for the region, concerted and effective strategies to protect the interests the United States and its allies have in and with this key European and Middle Eastern country are more important than ever.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Authoritarianism, and European Union
Political Geography:: United States, Europe, Turkey, Middle East, and Asia

34. The Untapped Potential of English Teaching

Author:: Megan Metrick
Publication Date:: 04-2016
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Public Diplomacy (PD) at the State Department shows signs of going through a serious rethink. The push to be more strategic in our programming has taken off. Public Diplomacy officers can rattle off the Integrated Country Strategy goals with the best of them. More rigorous program planning and evaluation may be coming to a cloud platform near you soon (see the excellent article by my colleague Carissa Gonzalez in the previous issue of The Ambassadors Review). Social media regulations are in the Foreign Affairs Manual. EducationUSA and American Spaces have slick branding, unified looks, and centralized websites. These new strategies and tools are great, and in many cases, long overdue. However, as we redesign Public Diplomacy for the 21st century (albeit we are already well into that century), we should go back to the basics for a moment, and remember why we’re here.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Education, and International Affairs
Political Geography:: Global Focus and United States of America

35. Expanding Ties and New Frontiers in United States-Republic of Korea Relations

Author:: Mark W. Lippert
Publication Date:: 09-2016
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: The relationship between the United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK) is often framed against the backdrop of our shared goals to deter and defend against the North Korean threat, something I saw first-hand in my previous positions at the White House and the Pentagon. Our shared commitment to a robust North Korea (DPRK) policy that aims, among other things, to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula through authentic and credible negotiations and ensure that the universal human rights of the people of North Korea are protected and promoted is a critical part of our relationship.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Peacekeeping, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:: America and North Korea

36. A Renewed Commitment to American Commercial Diplomacy

Author:: Charles A. Ford
Publication Date:: 09-2016
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: The United States is the world’s leading exporter, the world’s leading importer, and the world’s primary source and destination of funds for foreign investment. Our position as the best place in the world to do business—the most reliable in which to buy, the most lucrative in which to sell, and the safest and surest in which to invest or to raise capital—is the cause, not an effect of American global leadership. Protecting and expanding the US role as the world’s supplier and customer of choice for goods, services, ideas, capital, and entrepreneurial energy should be a foreign policy objective second only to securing the homeland.”
Topic:: International Relations, Diplomacy, International Political Economy, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:: America and Global Focus

37. The United States and Estonia: Partners for Peace and Prosperity

Author:: Jr. James D. Melville
Publication Date:: 09-2016
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: In August, Estonia marked 25 years since the end of Soviet occupation and the restoration of its national institutions. Estonia’s rapid reintegration with the West as a sovereign, stable, and prosperous democracy is nothing short of remarkable, and it serves as an inspiration to other nations. Theirs is a journey made possible through disciplined leadership, solid regulatory frameworks, strategic decisions, and a steadfast commitment to being a contributing member of European, transatlantic, and international alliances. Our partnership is one of allies with synchronized goals and values, a rare combination that gives both countries leverage to do even more.
Topic:: International Relations, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and International Affairs
Political Geography:: America and Estonia

38. “Caught Trying” in Denmark: The Case for Taking Risks in Using Non-Traditional US Diplomacy to Meet Global Challenges

Author:: Rufus Gifford
Publication Date:: 09-2016
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Denmark is one of America’s closest partners. Near the pinnacle of global indices of wealth, well-being, and democracy, Denmark is uniquely positioned to work alongside the United States in support of our shared approaches to addressing 21st century global challenges. It is the only Nordic country that is a member of all three vital multinational organizations: NATO, EU, and Arctic Council. Denmark very much reinforces President Obama’s now-famous foreign policy quote in the April 2016 edition of The Atlantic: “If only everyone could be like the Scandinavians, this would all be easy.”
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and International Affairs
Political Geography:: America and Denmark

39. The United States and Canada: The Strength of Partnership

Author:: Bruce A. Heyman
Publication Date:: 09-2016
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Canada is arguably our most important bilateral relationship. Our exceptional and unique ties are rooted in a common border that stretches for 5,525 miles, over 200 years of closely interwoven history and culture, our largest economic relationship worldwide, our similar values. We have amazingly intertwined supply chains; we work closely as NATO allies; and partner extensively to address global challenges. As President Obama put it during Prime Minister Trudeau’s visit to Washington in March 2016, “Of course, no two nations agree on everything...But in terms of our interests, our values, how we approach the world, few countries match up the way the United States and Canada do.”
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Political Economy, and International Affairs
Political Geography:: America and Canada

40. Innovation: Key to a 21st Century Alliance

Author:: John Berry
Publication Date:: 09-2016
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Over 200 years ago, one of our founding fathers Benjamin Franklin urged us to innovate, with the warning: “When you’re finished changing, you’re finished.” One of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, was not only a talented statesman, he was an inventor and tinkerer extraordinaire. Innovation lies at the very heart of what it means to be an American. From the beginning, our country was a grand experiment. We believed then—and now—that freedom plus hard work equals progress. Innovation, invention, and creativity help turn progress into success.
Topic:: Development, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and International Affairs
Political Geography:: America and Global Focus

41. Celebrating Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy

Author:: William J. vanden Heuvel
Publication Date:: 09-2016
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: On January 6, 1941, President Roosevelt came before the Congress and gave us a vision of the world that would be worthy of our civilization. He spoke—simply, eloquently—of a nation dedicated to the Four Freedom everywhere in the world
Topic:: International Relations, Diplomacy, and International Affairs
Political Geography:: America

42. Engaging the Swiss on Apprenticeships: Economic Diplomacy with Results Back Home

Author:: Susan G. LeVine
Publication Date:: 09-2015
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: One of the core priorities for the State Department and for the Obama administration overall is shared prosperity because, as Secretary Kerry frequently points out, “Economic policy is foreign policy.” The United States firmly believes that, by growing bilateral economic ties, the United States as well as the host country will prosper. The metrics around our economic relationship with Switzerland are a perfect example of that: Switzerland is one of the top ten foreign direct investors in the United States and number one in research and development; the United States has been the largest growth market for Swiss exports over the past five years; and Swiss companies generate almost half a million jobs in the United States—really great jobs with an average salary of $100,000 per year. With those ties in mind, I set out to meet with Swiss companies of all kinds to understand how they do business in Switzerland and how to deepen their investment in the United States. What I learned in the course of that exploration will, I believe, profoundly and positively affect both countries economically, and also have a positive effect on the world.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Economics, Economic Cooperation, and Job Creation
Political Geography:: United States, Europe, Switzerland, and North America

43. Conversations and Comments on the State of Public Diplomacy at State – A View from the Bottom Up

Author:: Nicholas J.C. Snyder
Publication Date:: 10-2012
Content Type:: Journal Article
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: What is Public Diplomacy? What does it mean to be a “Public Diplomacy officer?” Who should be doing Public Diplomacy in the US government and how is it best done? Why does Public Diplomacy (known far and wide as “PD”) still have a mixed record, despite years of effort and attention? How is the State Department addressing the many changes that new media have brought?
Topic:: Diplomacy
Political Geography:: United States

44. What I'm Talking About When I Talk About Strategic Public Diplomacy

Author:: Joe Mellott
Publication Date:: 04-2011
Content Type:: Journal Article
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: Diplomacy is traditionally the business of governments talking to governments. It's about delivering a message, clarifying a position, or making a stand. That model worked well in a world of one-way communications where people watched the dialogue and were told what had been said. Today, that world is history. In today's world the traditional model for diplomacy isn't gone, but it's only one part of what matters. Sure, governments still do and still must talk directly, both in public and behind closed doors, about their messages, their positions, and where they stand. But in today's communications world, the public isn't just a passive observer—the public is often a very active participant, with a stake, and a viewpoint, and a voice. Public diplomacy today has a direct and crucial role side-by-side with traditional diplomacy. So now we have to get public diplomacy right if we want to succeed.
Topic:: Diplomacy and Government

45. Public Diplomacy: At the Crossroads Between Practitioner and Theorist

Author:: Michelle A. Lee, Ph.D.
Publication Date:: 10-2011
Content Type:: Journal Article
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: “He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.” Many educators would bristle at least a little bit at this statement, originally penned by George Bernard Shaw in his work, Maxims for Revolutionists. While the divide between practitioners and theorists in various subjects is long-standing, it has never been more apparent in the field of public diplomacy than today. This is partly attributable to the fact that the formal academic study of public diplomacy is a relatively new undertaking. Increasingly in the past decade, academics, independent analysts, councils, and commissions dedicated to US public diplomacy have produced numerous articles, blogs, publications, and reports, often focusing on the weakness of American public diplomacy. Many include recommendations on ways to improve the US government's efforts to engage foreign publics around the world. The extent to which these analyses are read by actual practitioners of public diplomacy is unknown; anecdotally, I venture the guess that few active field practitioners have the time to read much of the published academic literature on the subject of public diplomacy.
Topic:: Diplomacy
Political Geography:: United States and America

46. A Half Century of Citizen Diplomacy: A Unique Public-Private Sector Partnership

Author:: Sherry Lee Mueller
Publication Date:: 10-2009
Content Type:: Journal Article
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: One of the most dramatic and best publicized examples of citizen diplomacy in action was celebrated in August—the 50th anniversary of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's visit to the Garst family farm in Coon Rapids, Iowa. The meeting of these unlikely friends was the result of what Roswell Garst called “full belly diplomacy.” He believed that people with a standard of living they wanted to protect would be less likely to go to war. Therefore, the United States had a vested interest in the success of Soviet agriculture. When Garst met a delegation of Soviet officials in Iowa touring farms in 1955, he realized that techniques he had developed on his 2,600-acre farm could improve productivity on large Soviet collective farms. When he applied for an export license for seed corn and agricultural equipment, he was met with skepticism by government officials who warned him he would not receive a warm welcome behind the Iron Curtain.
Topic:: Diplomacy
Political Geography:: United States

47. Positioning the State Department to Achieve the Obama Administration's Foreign Policy Goals

Author:: Jacob J. Lew
Publication Date:: 04-2009
Content Type:: Journal Article
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: In the face of daunting domestic needs, the Obama Administration has launched an ambitious foreign policy agenda, recognizing, as the President has said, that the challenges of our time will not wait for sequencing. His agenda is supported by a robust request for international affairs resources, reflecting the Administration's commitment to strengthen diplomatic and assistance tools to address challenges that impact the security of the United States. The request lays the foundation for a tenet of this Administration's foreign policy—that diplomacy and development return to the fore.
Topic:: Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
Political Geography:: United States

48. Key Points from "Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership"

Author:: Madeleine Albright
Publication Date:: 03-2008
Content Type:: Journal Article
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: America's next president will face an array of problems more daunting than any since the Vietnam era and will be constrained to do so with US assets—military, economic and political—under severe strain. Our new leader must therefore arrive in the Oval Office equipped not only with the right programs, but also the right temperament to handle the world's most challenging job. Qualifications include analytical skill, an understanding of global strategy, a willingness to recognize and correct mistakes, and a gift for persuading others to do—and even more important to want—what we want.
Topic:: International Relations, Security, Development, Diplomacy, and War
Political Geography:: America and Vietnam

49. A Common Vision for the Future: US-Dominican Relations in the 21st Century

Author:: P. Robert Fannin
Publication Date:: 03-2008
Content Type:: Journal Article
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: The United States of America's relationship with the Dominican Republic is based on shared goals and aspirations for greater economic prosperity, security and democracy. With an estimated one million Dominican Americans living in the United States, there is a natural constituency for close and collaborative relations between our two countries on the full spectrum of bilateral economic and political issues, and there is a long-term recognition of the need to support our friendship in times of plenty and in times of need. This relationship extends to a common fight to control the illicit trade in narcotics, to strengthening democratic institutions and fighting corruption, building the educational foundation for the Dominican Republic's next generation, and many other vital areas. Yet the true building block of the strength of our relationship starts with the cultural and social ties we share and cultivate.
Topic:: Conflict Prevention, Diplomacy, Markets, and War on Drugs
Political Geography:: United States, Caribbean, and Dominican Republic

50. The United States and Croatia: The Bilateral Relationship Since 1991

Author:: Thomas P. Melady, Ph.D.
Publication Date:: 03-2008
Content Type:: Journal Article
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: The period of 1991-2008 witnessed significant development in the bilateral relations between Croatia and the United States. Is this situation due to one person or several? Did events energize this change or was it the result of a series of well conceived strategies? Before proceeding with the diagnosis, it would be appropriate to examine briefly the history of Croatia.
Topic:: International Relations and Diplomacy
Political Geography:: United States, Balkans, and Croatia

Search

Search Constraints

Search Results

Refine your search

Topic

Political Geography

Content Type

Journal

Publishing Institution

Author

Publication Year

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS