We are beginning the third phase of diplomacy: open diplomacy.
The first phase, which emerged from the 19th century’s nation-state-to-state diplomacy and great power competition in Europe, saw the ambassador and the representative of the head of state as the principal form of bilateral relations and treaty negotiation.
The second phase began after the Second World War with the creation of multilateral institutions led by the United States. This meant that nations would have to conduct diplomatic negotiations between themselves and through these new bodies that were designed to represent a more collective will to preserve peace and security.
Also during the second phase were the advent of other associations of nations such as the G7, the G20, the nonaligned movement and BRICs, which, while not formal multilateral organizations with a secretariat and staff, nonetheless amplified the role of multilateral engagement.
These organizations and institutions were still primarily governmental and staffed and supported by either diplomats or other foreign presidential sherpas and agency representatives.
Our frontline diplomats’ role is essential and needs to be appropriately valued and resourced. To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, if we do not support diplomacy we will have to buy more ammunition.
The problems we face today include everything from the climate crisis to global health pandemics, the rise of extremism, polarization and the question of competition in space, oceans and our planet, in addition to the volume of GDP that is a function of international trade. We are witnessing a move towards an open architecture of diplomacy in which government alone, however necessary, cannot solve the global challenges of the day.
In traditional diplomacy, phase one appears as a wheel, with the ambassadors at the hub with full responsibility and power to address primarily bilateral challenges that can be resolved through negotiations. A new decentralized approach is emerging. Diplomats are reimagining the wheel’s hub with spokes reaching out to new actors and sectors engaged by the coalitions and networks needed to address those challenges.
The key spokes include the private sector, sub-national actors such as governors and mayors, scientists and technology experts, cultural leaders, entrepreneurs and individuals who share a common interest and belief in preserving U.S. engagement and leadership worldwide.
Our foreign policy leaders recognize they must empower these new actors to support U.S. efforts and initiatives and allow them to act independently to achieve their organizational goals to help foster a more internationally collaborative and sustained diplomacy. This approach will also help preserve U.S. engagement and leadership worldwide, which has been vital.
This is important not only because many of the challenges are transnational but also because of the lack of strategic continuity in the United States in our foreign policy. Administrations come and go, and elected representatives, many of whom have not had international experience and increasingly favor nationalism and protectionism, must get ahead of the curve.
U.S. foreign policy is becoming permeated by the same partisanship that has affected domestic policy debates. This erodes trust and confidence in our decision-making. Allies and adversaries wait out shifting positions in American policy and exploit the visibility and our complicated governance and democratic processes. We enjoy these features as a representative democracy, but they are challenges to coherence, strategic long-term thinking and execution.
Private sector leaders and elected officials such as governors and mayors, who are vested in either solving problems or growing markets by necessity, can be pillars of continuity in relationships in which they share ideas and approaches under the stormy waves of national politics. The same is true for scientists and innovators who, unlike our adversaries, seek solutions and share them.
It is vital for the U.S. to maintain its leadership position in the world, not simply because of “American exceptionalism” or “America first,” but because our future national security and economic interests depend on it. It is a false choice to believe that there is a binary decision between being for America or for principled and effective American internationalism. The millions of veterans who defended and sacrificed for freedom and democracy understood this.
We are not perfect. However, as Winston Churchill said about democracies, we are the best alternative and continually evolve as a nation by correcting errors, improving social justice and economic opportunity and addressing inequality and other challenges.
We must fully fund and resource our State Department and diplomatic infrastructure. We need to maintain a strong defense and national security capability. We also need to accelerate the advent and evolution of open diplomacy by equipping critical sectors with the networks, skills and capabilities to function effectively internationally.
If we do this, we will create a force multiplier effect for U.S. diplomacy. We must understand our shared values and leverage the full range of American power, engagement, commerce and innovation at home and abroad.
We must do this as a unified nation.
Amb. Stuart Holliday served as United States ambassador for special political affairs at the United Nations (2003-2005) and is chief executive officer of Meridian International Center.