The Future of Diplomacy

By Jerrold D. Green

Jerrold Green, a Middle East expert associated with RAND, is president and chief executive officer of the Pacific Council on International Policy.

When we think of embassies, we typically think of majestic buildings that house ambassadors and the diplomatic corps around the globe. But in an era dominated by the Internet, cellular telephones, videoconferencing, and better global airline connections, policymakers need to reassess whether retaining many traditional in-country functions of embassies still makes sense.

Embassies are, in fact, vestiges of a bygone era. They are vulnerable, expensive, and cumbersome. And at a time when cultural knowledge is as crucial as it ever has been to the United States, policymakers need to consider whether the antiquated embassy-based model we now use helps or hinders us in achieving this crucial goal.

In the future, much of the transactional and administrative work of embassies could be “off-shored” or directed to a home office where it could be accomplished better, more quickly, and at less cost than is the case today. Take the following examples.

Aspiring visitors need to apply for visas? Go to the online visa application center, which would provide a video link to Washington, D.C., so that interviews could be conducted and identities checked through biometrics.

Diplomats need to convene meetings with local officials? They could fly in as needed. This already happens, because many countries cannot afford embassies in every capital and thus have ambassadors who are responsible for several countries at a time. Indeed, the United Kingdom is experimenting with “laptop diplomats,” who transcend single countries and operate outside traditional embassies.

In short, with some imagination, many embassy-based functions could be effectively conducted on a need-to-be-in-situ basis. Of course, some diplomats will always be stationed overseas to handle particularly sensitive, specialized, or high-level tasks. But their number will be far fewer than today and their office spaces more practical, low key, and less vulnerable than are traditional embassies.

AP IMAGES  A portion of the new U.S. embassy under construction is seen from across the Tigris River in Baghdad on May 19, 2007. The embassy occupies a chunk of prime Baghdad real estate two-thirds the size of Washington’s National Mall, with desk space for about 1,000 people behind high, blast-resistant walls.

What will remain — and what should be appreciably improved — is an in-country presence that is sharper, more focused, and infinitely more effective than is currently the case. This, after all, is what representation is supposed to achieve in the first place. Although globalization is promoting homogenization in some sectors, significant cultural, language, political, and societal factors still make each country unique. Our need to understand these countries in their true complexity is increasing, not diminishing.

Unfortunately, as currently configured, embassies are impediments to gaining these valuable insights because they seclude and “immunize” their personnel from local life rather than immersing them in it. As evidence, all citizens should experience first-hand the security gauntlet that places all American diplomatic legations virtually off limits to all but those who work in them.

To be effective, embassies need to function as integrators, not island fortresses. When they function as the latter, as they now do everywhere, they negate the very mission they are expected to accomplish. Diplomacy and foreign affairs need to bring together the key players of globalization — the diplomatic community, the business community, the information and communications professionals, the cultural experts, and the military commanders — and not keep them at arm’s length, as is the practice today.