US DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

Historical Roots of the Foreign Service

In the United States of America, the first diplomatic institutions were created directly by representative bodies (which radically differs the model of their creation from England and most countries Western Europe). Moreover, for several years they were even directly subordinate to legislative rather than executive authorities. In January 1781, Congress (the legislative assembly of representatives of all colonies that declared their independence from England) established the Department of Foreign Affairs. This date is celebrated in the United States as the birthday of the central diplomatic department. Over the next eight years, a department composed of the legislators themselves supervised the foreign relations of the young state.

In 1789, in accordance with the US Constitution adopted in 1787, the department was transformed into the State Department and reassigned to the president of the country. The Constitution, having provided a general legal basis for the service of foreign relations, speaks about its organization in a very vague form: the limits of the competence of the executive and legislative branches, the role of the State Department in the system of foreign policy departments are not defined. The Secretary of State is directed to direct the affairs of the department as the President may direct from time to time. A number of presidential prerogatives written in the text of the constitution were subsequently interpreted in an expansive manner. Thus, the president’s right, fixed in the text, to appoint ambassadors (with the advice and consent of the Senate), envoys and consuls was transformed into the right to make any appointments in foreign policy institutions, create new posts and structures, and also control the work of the apparatus. The constitution says nothing about a professional foreign service. This legal lacuna will negatively affect the activities of American diplomatic institutions in the 20th century, when such a service is created.

During the formation of the new state (from 1775 to the 30s of the 19th century), through the efforts of talented politicians B. Franklin, T. Jefferson, J. Adams and many others, America - in the complete absence of specially trained diplomatic personnel at its disposal - managed solve the international problems facing it. Then mediocrity replaced talent, but American politicians still did not consider it necessary to create their own career diplomatic service. They motivated their position, first of all, by the fact that the monarchical diplomatic institutions and traditions of the Old World were unacceptable for the republican United States. Another argument against professionalization was the statement of President E. Jackson, popular since the 30s: “The duties of government employees are so simple that any reasonable person can perform them”1.

The idea found its concrete embodiment in the introduction of a system of appointments, including for diplomatic positions, on the principle of “reward to the winners.” The president who won the elections appointed his allies and friends to prestigious posts, “rewarding” them for their support. At the same time, their professional suitability may not have been taken into account (with such a system of appointments, things sometimes reached the point of absurdity - in 1869, President W. Grant appointed his friend E. Washburn as Secretary of State for a period of 12 days, so that he could briefly “enjoy the prestige of his stay” as head of the diplomatic department.As a result, corruption flourished in the state apparatus, including its diplomatic link, and work efficiency sharply decreased, which could not but have a very negative impact on the prestige of the United States in the world.

The transformation of the United States into a powerful industrial power, the claims of the country's financial-monopoly and political circles to full participation in solving international problems at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. They urgently demanded a change in attitude towards diplomacy and its main instrument - the diplomatic service. This was done. The country's political leaders, actively supported by business circles and universities, which existed at the expense of the former, readily discarded “democratic rhetoric” and declared their desire to turn to the diplomatic experience of Western Europe. In 1905-1916 a series of executive orders of Presidents T. Roosevelt and W. Taft, as well as laws of Congress, introduced a competitive criterion for admission to the diplomatic and consular service, proclaimed the principle of career advancement based on knowledge, qualifications and length of service.

At the end of the First World War, the issue of completing the formation of a personnel diplomatic service came up on the agenda. It was created under the name "US Overseas Service" under the Rogers Act. The law prescribed the unification of personnel of the diplomatic and consular service into a single system, the procedure for admission to service in junior ranks exclusively through competitive examinations, etc. However, the integration of personnel of the State Department and the Foreign Service (the former were part of the Civil Service) was delayed and occurred only in 50 -s years.

At first " cold war"And largely due to the directives of its American inspirers towards more decisive and aggressive actions in international affairs, the diplomatic service. The Department of Defense, the CIA, and the National Security Council, created under the National Security Act, have become serious competitors to traditional diplomatic institutions in matters of foreign policy. Congress began to actively interfere in diplomatic affairs. As a result, as modern researchers note, “the State Department is becoming a bureaucratic pygmy among giants” both in terms of its financial position and its influence on the foreign policy process and diplomacy itself1. In embassies, representatives of military departments and intelligence officers pushed career diplomats into the background, sometimes even bypassing ambassadors. Let us add to the above that in the first half of the 50s, at the instigation of the ultra-reactionary Senator J. McCarthy, open persecution of professional diplomatic personnel began, which undermined their already weakened position in the state apparatus for many years.

Under President D. Kennedy, the authority of the State Department and American diplomatic staff abroad was increased. In May 1961, Kennedy granted US ambassadors the right to control the activities of all American institutions abroad (except military missions). On his direct orders, Secretary of State D. Raek called on operational diplomatic employees to increase their activity and “not be afraid to make decisions.”

In 1980, with the approval of the US Overseas Service Act by Congress, personnel diplomacy acquired a new and solid legal basis. Yet the main problem, namely, assigning a stable place in the apparatus to the career diplomatic service, was not resolved. The law recommended that the president make appointments to senior diplomatic posts primarily from personnel service personnel. But a year will pass, and President Reagan, ignoring this recommendation, will appoint almost half (44%) of the ambassadors he replaces from among his personal acquaintances. At the same time, several experienced diplomatic professionals whose career advancement had been blocked by presidential “appointees” were forced to leave service. In those years, the Foreign Service Association, which protects the interests of professional diplomats, noted in a special letter to Reagan that due to irresponsible appointments for political rather than business reasons, “respect for the United States in the world is falling.” Of course, many US presidents tend to rely more than Reagan on professional diplomats. However, in general, the status of the latter remains permanently unstable.

The diplomatic service and the modern US foreign policy system

In the United States of America, the State Department, as already mentioned, shares a number of foreign policy powers with other institutions - the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, Congress, the White House staff, and a large number of line ministries. All these bodies of power and control are not only capable of effectively influencing foreign policy decisions by the US President, but also determining the placement of personnel in the State Department itself and, especially, in foreign missions.

The role of career diplomats - the US Foreign Service - is incomparably lower than, for example, in the UK or some other European countries, and comes down to

with rare exceptions, to executive work of a routine nature. There is no equivalent in the State Department to the post of British career diplomat No. 1 - a permanent undersecretary who acts as a link between the political leaders of the Foreign Office and professional staff. Accordingly, it is almost impossible for the latter to “break through” with their recommendations to the top leadership of the State Department, not to mention the president. To do this, they need to overcome the thickness of the highest party and political authorities, since the leadership of the State Department is extremely ramified.

It includes the Secretary of State, his first deputy for general ministerial affairs (carries out general management of the State Department in the absence of the Secretary of State and control over administrative and personnel affairs), five first deputies (oversee the most important directions work, for example global problems), sixteen deputies (responsible for more private areas of work and for relations with individual regions), and more than ten director positions. Operational work is carried out in departments, each of which is headed by a deputy or director. It is these positions that are filled primarily by professional diplomatic personnel, although “outsiders” are not uncommon here either. As for higher positions, the latter predominate in them.

The State Department staffing is about 14 thousand employees, of which about a third are career diplomats. There are even fewer of them in foreign missions (15-25%). The United States maintains 260 diplomatic and consular offices in 160 countries (according to 1998 data), in which 28 US agencies, including the State Department, are represented by their personnel1.

Another feature is the overall number of embassy personnel (100-150 ranked employees in a number of countries, in other large states - three times less).

At the turn of the century, protectionism of the executive branch and the president personally in appointments to senior ambassadorial posts did not become a thing of the past. It comes to the point that some experienced professional ambassadors, returning to the country (for example, Ambassador to the Russian Federation Thomas Pickering in 1996) appeal to public opinion in order to convince the president that political protectionism, as well as recruitment of personnel into embassies, is not for business reasons, and in an effort to present the “image” of America abroad, actually leads to a decline in the quality and efficiency of work1. Pickering probably hoped that President Clinton, having been re-elected to a second term, would listen to his words. But this did not happen - when appointing new ambassadors, Clinton exceeded even the usual quota for presidential “appointees” (30-35%), appointing almost half of the ambassadors under patronage.

An unreasonably large number of employees appointed to embassies to maintain the “image” of America, personnel inflation and leapfrog, difficulties in management and coordination, uncertainty among career diplomats in their future (their career growth is blocked by political “appointees”), tensions in relations between representatives of various departments in embassies, endless reorganizations of recent decades (for example, the US Information Agency was removed from the State Department structure, then reintegrated into it), and, finally, the growth of international terrorism directed against US embassies and their employees - all these factors negatively affect the effectiveness of work embassies struggling to cope with an ever-increasing caseload (for example, in 1997, US consulates had to process more than 8 million visa applications from foreign citizens).

Due to the ongoing tensions between the President and Congress, the latter has been steadily cutting back on funding for diplomatic agencies, whose numbers and activities are increasing (40 new embassies and consulates have been opened since 1986). At the same time, according to Secretary of State W. Christopher (who resigned in early 1997), Congressional funding of foreign policy agencies decreased in real prices by 50%. “It’s also surprising,” said Christopher, “that decisions about financial cuts were made by congressmen even without any serious discussion of the essence of the matter.”

Diplomatic personnel: selection, training,promotion, ranking

In the United States, recruitment of professional diplomatic service personnel (US Foreign Service) is carried out through an open competition with entrance exams1. Recruitment, as defined by the U.S. Overseas Service Act of 1980, is on the basis of equal opportunity "without regard to political orientation, race, color, sex, religion, national origin, marital status" American law requires that all major social strata and ethnic groups of the country's population, as well as all its geographic regions, be represented in the ranks of the service.

For these purposes, a number of categories of applicants are provided with benefits when entering the service (for example, US citizens of Asian and Latin American origin, Indians and Eskimos are exempt from the written exam, submitting to the examination commission instead the grades they received upon graduation from a higher educational institution). There are quotas for black Americans in diplomatic institutions. These and a number of other measures carried out over the past 15-20 years as part of the federal program to ensure equal opportunities in employment have caused dissatisfaction among some career diplomats. The latter argued and continue to argue (the previously mentioned US Ambassador to the Russian Federation T. Pickering wrote about this) that the expansion of the social and ethnic composition of the service leads to a critical drop in its professional level and provokes psychological tension in diplomatic departments.

There is probably a problem here. It is possible that it was precisely to solve this problem that the procedure for promotion in the diplomatic service was tightened from the beginning of the 80s. The three highest internal ranks of the Foreign Service (Career Ambassador, Career Envoy and Career Advisor) are allocated to a special category - the service's management team { Senior For­ eign Service). The transition of diplomats to this category is subject to new conditions, in particular, the requirement that during their previous career they have mastered at least 2-3 regional and 1-2 functional areas of work. It has also become more difficult to advance through a career at the lower and middle levels - from VIII to I ranks (indicated by numbers, they are called classes in the USA and approximately correspond to positions from trainee (attaché) to 1st secretary). According to the 1980 Law, it was established maximum term, during which a diplomat can work without promotion. If he, in the opinion of the relevant commission, does not deserve promotion, then, as a rule, he must retire early. Enrollment of newly recruited diplomats into permanent positions is now carried out only after the expiration of a probationary period (3-4 years).

It was previously said that the connections between the leaders of British professional diplomacy and higher educational institutions are minimal and sporadic. In the United States, on the contrary, these ties - since the proclamation of the “new diplomacy” program by President John Kennedy - have been comprehensive, diverse and permanent1. The curricula of dozens of American universities and colleges are focused on the requirements of the diplomatic apparatus. A number of special disciplines related to diplomatic practice are already taught in student classrooms. Graduates of these educational institutions have a preferable chance of successfully passing the entrance exams for entry into the diplomatic service. The special training of diplomatic personnel is not limited to this. The State Department has its own training center, the US Foreign Service Institute.

Diplomats and diplomatic officials undergo training and retraining within the Institute, or at universities and research centers, as a rule, three times during their career. The first time - after being hired, the second - in mid-career, and the third - during an internship at a special seminar for senior diplomats. Advanced training of diplomatic personnel is provided for by the 1980 Law, which establishes the so-called “three out of fifteen” rule, according to which a career diplomat out of 15 years of his work must spend at least 3 years at home - in the State Department, on internships at the Institute of Foreign Service , in universities, academies, or in the private sector (large companies with significant international connections).

Initial training is compulsory for all diplomatic officers. It includes a “general orientation” course (familiarization with the organization and methods of diplomatic work, training in skills of working with documents, as well as new information technologies); one or more courses in professional skills (for example, economic methods, consular service, international negotiation techniques); studying a foreign language and the life of the country where the diplomat is supposed to be sent (the Institute of Foreign Service provides the study of approximately 60 languages).

All disciplines are taught using the method of complete “immersion” of students into the subject being studied. For this reason, the student moves on to studying a new course only after completing the previous one, i.e., in most cases, the method in which students simultaneously study several subjects at the same time is excluded.

To summarize, we note that, according to most experts, the US diplomatic service is relatively small (about 3.5 thousand people), but at the same time the most competent, qualified and effective part of the cumbersome US foreign policy mechanism. However, since the creation of the service in 1924, it has been almost continuously criticized, and sometimes even directly persecuted by populist politicians, presidential administrations, and ultra-reactionaries during the “McCarthyite” period of US history (the first half of the 50s years). Often, attacks on career diplomats and the State Department as a whole were inspired by other federal departments seeking to increase their share of the “foreign policy pie.” Unconstructive criticism of the activities of the Foreign Service continues to this day. The approval of the US Foreign Service Act in 1980 to a certain extent smoothed the severity of the issue. The Act is clear: “Congress believes that a career Foreign Service based on excellence serves the national interest and is necessary to assist the President and the Secretary of State in their conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.”

The high assessment of the activities of career diplomats is supported in the Law by granting them a number of specific rights, in particular, the right of the Foreign Service Association (a kind of diplomatic trade union) to challenge decisions of certification commissions in a specially created administrative court, to negotiate with the leadership of the State Department on issues of working conditions, appointments, dismissals , assignment of the next diplomatic classes. With all this, the Law, as already mentioned, did not and could not change the situation of state-political and legal uncertainty in which professional diplomatic personnel found themselves from the very beginning due to the practically unlimited powers available to the President of the United States in the field of personnel appointments to diplomatic positions. positions at all levels.

In the United States, official approaches to the role of diplomacy, to the methods of making foreign policy decisions and their implementation, to the formation of the composition of diplomatic and foreign policy departments in general are fundamentally different than, for example, in France or the UK. Diplomacy is interpreted in an expanded sense as a phenomenon generally identical to foreign policy. From this point of view, the personnel diplomatic service can be, and in fact is, only one of many instruments for implementing foreign policy.

Actors in American diplomacy include the US President and his administration, the US Congress, the National Security Council, the CIA, military and civilian federal agencies, quasi-governmental and non-governmental organizations, universities and research institutes, private business. A number of experts believe that even individual citizens can be subjects of diplomatic activity1. In fact, the influence of public groups and citizens on foreign policy activities in the United States is incomparably higher than in many European countries.

The US Foreign Service, of course, has its own specific and important niche of activity - traditional diplomatic work on the daily maintenance of political contacts with other states, the collection, synthesis and analysis of political and economic information, consular work and a number of other areas. With all this, in general, the share of career diplomats in US diplomatic institutions, as already mentioned, does not exceed 20-25%, and in the entire foreign policy structure - only a few percent of all employees.

Reorganizing their foreign policy mechanism after World War II in accordance with new domestic and international conditions, US leaders did not take the path of strengthening traditional diplomatic institutions, but along the path of creating new, complementary, and often duplicating structures. As a result, a rather cumbersome, difficult to manage, financially expensive structure was created. For this reason, the problems of improving management, structural and personnel planning, and the permanent lack of funds are the focus of attention of the heads of foreign policy departments. They were repeatedly heard in the speeches of US Secretaries of State W. Christopher (1993-1997) and M. Albright (1997-2001).

Instability, inconsistency, and at times unpredictability of the actions of American diplomacy, numerous foreign policy miscalculations can also largely be considered the result of the insignificant influence of professional personnel on the development and adoption of foreign policy decisions.

The “illnesses” of American diplomacy are fully understood by both politicians and researchers of this country. The problem is that these diseases are more organic than functional. And therefore they are difficult to cure, at least in the foreseeable future. To radically change the situation, the Americans believe, external amendments to the US Constitution are required, which would more clearly delimit the foreign policy prerogatives of various government bodies and institutions and determine the legal status of the professional diplomatic service. Competent specialists, however, see no prospects for changing the Constitution.

At the same time, they urge not to dramatize the situation: until now, conflicts in the foreign policy system “have never turned into a general war, confusion has not developed into chaos, individual disorders have not led to complete paralysis.”

On modern stage the coexistence of states is impossible without international relations, which are the foundation of diplomacy. Without this means of implementing state foreign policy political, economic and cultural integration is impossible. Diplomats - officials representing the interests of a particular state or international organization - help promote cooperation between countries. The professional requirements for these politicians varied significantly in different eras and states. But it is young American diplomacy that is leading in the world today, therefore, the study of its features is popular, modern and necessary, which determines the relevance of studying this issue.

The key goal of the article is to identify current features of US diplomacy.

The word "diplomacy" comes from the word "diploma" - as in ancient Greece called tablets with texts written on them, given to ambassadors to attest to their powers. This method of implementing foreign policy as an area public life, has existed since ancient times, however, to denote government activities this word begins to be used in Western Europe only from the end of the 18th century.

Various researchers and diplomats have defined diplomatic activity in different ways. As English diplomat Ernest Satow argues in his Guide to Diplomatic Practice, diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations. The German diplomat and lawyer Georg Martens believed that diplomacy is the science of foreign relations or foreign affairs of a state. According to most researchers, negotiations are the most important, but not the only significant technique in diplomacy. In our work, we are of the opinion that each country conducts its own foreign policy and carries out diplomatic activities. In Russia and many countries, diplomatic departments are called ministries of foreign affairs. However, in some countries these departments are called differently. For example, the State Department in the USA. Of course, this does not change their identical essence.

American diplomatic activity dates back only about a century and a half. At first, US diplomacy arose thanks to the English model, however, after the First World War, it began to acquire its own features, and was finally formed after the Second World War. We agree with the opinion of a number of researchers that the United States strives not only to show a friendly attitude towards all states, but also to defeat them in confrontation. It is an undeniable fact that Americans are more independent than anyone in making decisions, and their diplomatic tactics are a mixture of old and new traditions. American diplomats value confidential contacts, confidential meetings and work with the country's ruling elite. At the same time, etiquette is not the main method of diplomatic activity. Nowadays, politicians rarely wear tailcoats and tuxedos. Americans often take a tough line in negotiations. They are quite free to make final decisions. Their speech is also loud and relaxed. One of the State Department's main requirements for diplomats is the ability to analyze, mainly documents. They, undoubtedly, must be analytical and must rely on a large number of sources. The most important requirements are also brevity, compliance of the document with all diplomatic rules, detailed editing and accuracy. Politicians, and especially ambassadors, are highly qualified personnel. Each appointment of a US ambassador, according to the Constitution, must be approved by the Senate and its committee. However, we cannot always say this about financiers and businessmen involved in diplomatic activities. Often, Americans do not understand what they represent state power, thereby allowing himself free expression. So in the 70s of the XX century. Permanent Representative to the UN E. Yang was forced to resign due to carelessness in his statements.

However, in order to understand the current features of US diplomacy, we must trace the entire history of the state's diplomatic practice. The improvement of diplomatic relations led to the creation of various forms of diplomacy that were actively used in the United States. On December 2, 1823, the 5th American President James Monroe, in his annual message to Congress, spoke about the threat of intervention by the countries of the Holy Alliance (Austria, Prussia, Russia) in the former Spanish colonies. In addition, a controversial statement was made that the United States is a territory fundamentally different from Europe and is not subject to colonization by the latter. Any attempt to expand European influence into the United States was considered a threat to security and peace. In turn, the United States also proclaimed a policy of non-interference in European affairs. This doctrine was interpreted by the 26th American President T. Roosevelt as the basis for US intervention in the affairs of other American states (“Big Stick Diplomacy” or “Big Stick Diplomacy”). So in 1904, the United States supported Panama in the struggle for independence from Colombia, as a result of which it received a 16 km wide canal from Panama for eternal use.

Next key concept for our study is “dollar diplomacy”. It is generally accepted that this form of foreign policy activity is associated with the name of the 27th President of the United States, William Taft. According to this policy, the United States pledged to provide financial support to a particular region of the world in exchange for benefits to American entrepreneurs. Typically, dollar diplomacy was applied to underdeveloped countries Latin America(Nicaragua, Haiti, etc.) As a result, these states were unable to repay the debt, and US armed forces were stationed on their territories. In 1913, President William Wilson abandoned dollar diplomacy, which was associated with a dishonest international strategy for profit.

The history of the term “preventive diplomacy” is covered in detail on the pages modern books and manuals, for example, “Modern Foreign Policy of Russia” by S. Kortunov. This concept began to be widely used following the publication of the “Agenda for Peace” by UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali in 1992. Subsequently, this definition came into use, becoming a fundamental direction in the field of state security. The publication by Boutros Boutros Ghali states that preventive diplomacy is steps that are aimed at eliminating, and in case of failure, containing contradictions. This form of diplomacy was also popular in the United States. It was mainly associated with curbing the release of chemical, atomic and other types of weapons. A striking example here is American economic assistance to Pakistan, exactly until the moment the latter had the opportunity to create a nuclear bomb. Subsequently, trade with Pakistan was also stopped (the “Pressler Amendment”). Diplomatic successes also include mutual steps by the USSR and the USA, which were related to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Shuttle diplomacy is the next form of diplomacy in our study. As Mochenov A.V. writes: in the dictionary of modern jargon of Russian politicians: “shuttle diplomacy is mediation between warring countries or certain factions, which is carried out at a high diplomatic level by a third party.” Previously, this term referred only to the initiative of American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to restore peace in Vietnam and the Middle East. However, then the concept began to mean mediation in resolving disagreements. During the Vietnam War, this form of diplomacy was also called "quiet" diplomacy due to its confidentiality. The basis of this form of diplomacy is negotiation, which was contrary to American military diplomacy at the time, so secrecy was the most important condition conducting shuttle diplomacy. But it was this form of diplomacy that was able to prove that negotiations have enormous power in resolving disagreements, which cannot be said about war.

Commercial diplomacy is one of the most relevant forms of modern diplomatic activity. According to most researchers, “commercial diplomacy is the use of diplomatic techniques in the implementation of foreign economic goals in the field of trade and investment.” This foreign policy vehicle also focuses on domestic policies: labor standards, environmental protection, industrial standards, security intellectual property. The USA as the hegemon has a large number of externally and internally economic goals currently being lobbied for. The main foreign economic goals of the United States: 1) liberalize trade, 2) promote international economic progress, 3) increase the percentage of the private sector in the world economy. But, of course, the United States also has internal economic goals, the main one of which is economic profit; to obtain it, the state pursued a policy of commercial diplomacy. There are many such cases in history. For example, the American “open door” policy towards China (1899-1949), which consisted of free trade and free penetration of capital into the Chinese market. The Bretton Woods agreement was also based on the principles of commercial diplomacy, it had a huge impact on world trade: the creation of the IMF and the GATT (WTO).

The next way to implement foreign policy is public diplomacy, which is more relevant than ever in the United States today. Public diplomacy is the purposeful informing of society in order to create a favorable assessment towards the United States, in addition to stabilizing ties with other countries in the field of culture and education. This form of foreign policy activity has been known in the United States since the 1940s. However, currently the state is using many methods public diplomacy to interact with foreign audiences. “We don’t plan to stop there! "- said K. Rice on the occasion of her confirmation to the post of US Secretary of State. She also added that the Middle East and CIS countries are the main targets of American influence. As expected, a special place in public diplomacy is occupied by information Agency USA (United States Information Agency). The agency traces its origins to the Committee on Public Information, founded during World War I and serving as leadership's contribution to foreign information activities. In 1942, the Voice of America radio station went on the air for the first time. And in 1953, the American news agency itself was created. Also a shining example The use of a public form of diplomacy is the creation of the Fulbright educational grant program, which is funded by the US State Department. This program was developed in 1946 by Senator D.W. Fulbright to maintain cultural and educational contacts with other states. Public diplomacy has been replaced by the definition of “soft power”, meaning “soft power” - the ability to achieve one’s goals through attraction rather than coercion.

Today in the international arena there are many independent countries forced to interact with each other through diplomacy, which is the basis of all international relations and contacts. However, in most cases, states cooperate for their own good. Cultural, political and other types of exchange between countries are supported by diplomats. Considering the features of American diplomacy, it is worth paying tribute to its politicians: their knowledge, skills and personal qualities have made a huge contribution to world diplomatic activity. Consequently, the youth of US diplomacy does not in any way prevent it from remaining leading in the world. Moreover, it was the Americans who were the founders of many of the forms of modern diplomacy that we discussed earlier. Based on all of the above, we can state that American diplomats successfully use the main element of diplomacy - negotiations. Perhaps this is due to the fact that politicians always have an open and tough position, while their behavior is natural and relaxed. It is interesting that by their mentality most Americans are analysts. Thus, in their work they can only rely on precedent. It is a common belief that the documents of US diplomats are always concise, correct, thoroughly checked and legally correct.

To summarize, it must be emphasized that American politicians prefer to pay more attention to business than to all the rules of diplomatic etiquette and dress code. We can often see Americans not only in tuxedos, but also in casual clothing. Despite different opinions on further development, it is obvious that the main state goal is prosperity. As a result of our research, we found that US diplomatic methods for this have changed over time and have become more conflict-free.

Scientific adviser: Kuznetsova Olga Vladimirovna,candidate philological sciences, associate professor, acting dean of the faculty foreign languages Institute of Philology, Foreign Languages ​​and Media Communications of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Irkutsk" State University", Irkutsk.

IN Lately The rhetoric of American representatives at various international platforms is striking in its anti-Russian tone, and quite aggressive at that.

On August 28, 2014, the US Permanent Representative to the OSCE, Daniel Baer, ​​accused the Russian government of organizing the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, military intervention and creating the causes for a humanitarian catastrophe. In addition, Baer called the humanitarian assistance provided by Russia a “Potemkin convoy” in order to divert the attention of the international community from Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine.

At the same time, it should be emphasized that the US Permanent Representative did not behave diplomatically at all, making unsubstantiated statements without supporting them with facts. I wonder if Mr. Baer realizes that the OSCE is considered a serious international platform where serious diplomats gather, and not a sandbox where children fight?!

No wonder American diplomacy is worried acute crisis. US Permanent Representative to the UN Samantha Power also suffers from the disease of aggression towards Russia. The 2003 Pulitzer Prize winner seems to forget about decorum and social culture during his speeches at UN meetings. Everyone knows the scandals associated with Power's statements regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Syrian crisis and the situation in Ukraine. It is impossible not to note her behavior during the UN discussion of the Crimean referendum, when she crossed the boundaries of what was permitted and attacked Russian permanent representative Vitaly Churkin.

Every day, international political scientists and analysts are outraged by the statements of US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, demonstrating her incompetence on various issues. Psaki also blames Russia, without evidence, for all the troubles that are currently happening in Ukraine. For example, on April 10 of this year, Psaki made a reservation that natural gas was supplied from Western Europe to Russia; on June 13, she announced that Russia used phosphorus bombs in Slavyansk, prohibited by international conventions, without providing any supporting information. It is also striking that on June 16, Psaki came to the defense of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Andrei Deshchytsia, who allowed himself offensive remarks about Russian President Vladimir Putin. And her expression about the “Belarusian shores” has already gone around the whole world and has become a joke. It's funny, but this level of American diplomatic workers only makes me want to cry.

Of course, we can make allowances for the fact that Jen Psaki is not a professional diplomat, she did not graduate from a specialized university, and is not even a regional specialist. True, it becomes unclear how Psaki was even able to occupy the position of official representative of the US State Department in such a turbulent time.

However, such a discount cannot be given to Daniel Baer and Samantha Power. Still, the US Permanent Representative to the OSCE is a professional diplomat and should know first-hand the rules of conduct in the diplomatic circle. The fact that Baer allowed himself to make aggressive unsubstantiated accusations against another country, while using a comparison of the Russian government with “thimble swindlers,” shows his ignorance and lack of education.

As Andrei Kelin, Russia's permanent representative to the OSCE, said, Daniel Baer is “still a young man who, apparently, needs to gain more political experience.” Undoubtedly, Jen Psaki and dozens of other American diplomats working on the front lines of the international arena still need to gain experience. In turn, Samantha Power, who has quite a wealth of experience in the field of international relations, would do well to remember the rules on which diplomacy is based.

Unfortunately, being one of the most developed countries in the world, the United States is experiencing a real shortage of personnel and a colossal shortage of specialists, especially those who understand Eastern Europe. Modern American diplomats work according to the principle: “when words fail, fists are used,” which is unacceptable and simply unacceptable for serious international political platforms such as the UN and OSCE.

Recently, the rhetoric of American representatives at various international platforms is striking in its anti-Russian tone, and quite aggressive at that.

On August 28, 2014, the US Permanent Representative to the OSCE, Daniel Baer, ​​accused the Russian government of organizing the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, military intervention and creating the causes for a humanitarian catastrophe. In addition, Baer called the humanitarian assistance provided by Russia a “Potemkin convoy” in order to divert international attention from Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine.

At the same time, it should be emphasized that the US Permanent Representative did not behave diplomatically at all, making unsubstantiated statements without supporting them with facts. I wonder if Mr. Baer realizes that the OSCE is considered a serious international platform where serious diplomats gather, and not a sandbox where children fight?!

It is not surprising that American diplomacy is experiencing an acute crisis. US Permanent Representative to the UN Samantha Power also suffers from the disease of aggression towards Russia. The 2003 Pulitzer Prize winner seems to forget about decorum and social culture during his speeches at UN meetings. Everyone knows the scandals associated with Power's statements regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Syrian crisis and the situation in Ukraine. It is impossible not to note her behavior during the UN discussion of the Crimean referendum, when she crossed the boundaries of what was permitted and attacked Russian permanent representative Vitaly Churkin.

Every day, international political scientists and analysts are outraged by the statements of US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, demonstrating her incompetence on various issues. Psaki also blames Russia, without evidence, for all the troubles that are currently happening in Ukraine. For example, on April 10 of this year, Psaki made a reservation that natural gas was supplied from Western Europe to Russia; on June 13, she announced that Russia used phosphorus bombs in Slavyansk, prohibited by international conventions, without providing any supporting information. It is also striking that on June 16, Psaki came to the defense of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Andrei Deshchytsia, who allowed himself offensive remarks about Russian President Vladimir Putin. And her expression about the “Belarusian shores” has already gone around the whole world and has become a joke. It's funny, but this level of American diplomatic workers only makes me want to cry.

Of course, we can make allowances for the fact that Jen Psaki is not a professional diplomat, she did not graduate from a specialized university, and is not even a regional specialist. The truth is that it becomes unclear how Psaki was even able to occupy the position of official representative of the US State Department in such a turbulent time.

However, such a discount cannot be given to Daniel Baer and Samantha Power. Still, the US Permanent Representative to the OSCE is a professional diplomat and should know first-hand the rules of conduct in the diplomatic circle. The fact that Baer allowed himself to make aggressive unsubstantiated accusations against another country, while using a comparison of the Russian government with “thimble swindlers,” shows his ignorance and lack of education.

As Andrei Kelin, Russia's permanent representative to the OSCE, said, Daniel Baer is “still a young man who, apparently, needs to gain more political experience.” Undoubtedly, Jen Psaki and dozens of other American diplomats working on the front lines of the international arena still need to gain experience. In turn, Samantha Power, who has quite a wealth of experience in the field of international relations, would do well to remember the rules on which diplomacy is based.

Unfortunately, being one of the most developed countries in the world, the United States is experiencing a real shortage of personnel and a colossal shortage of specialists, especially those who understand Eastern Europe. Modern American diplomats work according to the principle: “when words fail, fists are used,” which is unacceptable and simply unacceptable for serious international political platforms such as the UN and OSCE.

The United States has completely forgotten how to conduct diplomatic work. The main instrument of American foreign policy has become the threat of sanctions or the use of military force. At the same time, when Washington gets involved in another armed conflict, it does not think about what will happen after fighting will end. This situation is largely due to the degradation of the American diplomatic corps: while in most countries of the world high positions in foreign affairs agencies are occupied by professionals who have undergone serious training, in the United States these positions are given as a reward for Active participation in the election campaign of the winning party. This is discussed in the article “Diplomacy - a lost art?” published by the magazine “Russia in Global Affairs”. writes former diplomat and Pentagon official Chaz Freeman. Lenta.ru offers readers a shortened version of this article.

The essence of diplomacy is finding common ground by listening to what people are saying and not saying, and taking responsible action that follows. Diplomacy allows countries to advance their interests and resolve problems with foreigners with little or no resort to force. Diplomacy helps to find mutually acceptable options for achieving temporary but effective agreement between different cultures. Diplomacy is the translation of national strategy into a tactical plane to achieve political, economic and military advantages without the use of force. It is an outpost guarding national security and defense. The failure of a diplomatic mission can mean war with all its horrors.

But diplomacy is not just an alternative to war. It does not end once the war starts. When war becomes necessary, it is diplomacy that must translate the outcome of hostilities into agreements of cooperation to build new relationships and a new world. It is necessary that the defeated nations accept defeat and that the foundations of a new, more stable status quo be laid. Therefore, skillful diplomacy is vital to ensure the power, wealth and prosperity of a country. Diplomacy is a strategic activity that comes down to reviewing existing conditions, perceptions and parameters of international problems. It is necessary to adjust the national interests of other countries in such a way that they feel as if they are guarding their own interests. However, it should not appear as if they have capitulated to a foreign power.

Diplomacy is the art of forcing others to play your game by your rules. Judging by the complex post-Cold War environment, the United States has little understanding of diplomacy and has not mastered the art.

Intoxication with power and militarization of consciousness

Since the collapse of the USSR freed Americans from fear of nuclear Armageddon, the United States has relied almost exclusively on economic sanctions, military deterrence, and force in its foreign policy. These measures are by no means the only weapon in the arsenal of government. However, Americans no longer set out to gain the respect of other countries. by example or through polite persuasion. They do not strive to achieve the desired course from others, do not value their prestige, do not patronize weak countries, do not help them build state institutions and do not provide enough incentives for “good” behavior. In Washington, the threat of force has become the first, not the last, foreign policy tool.

For most of our political elite, overwhelming U.S. military and economic superiority justifies abandoning persuasion of recalcitrant foreigners in favor of coercing their obedience. We habitually rattle sabers in response to any challenges instead of initiating solutions to the problems that create these challenges. This approach reduces our level of security. By employing such tactics, we irritate allies without deterring adversaries, destabilizing entire regions, multiplying the number of enemies, and erecting a wall of alienation with friends.

Outside the country, virtually no one doubts the Americans' military prowess and their willingness to instill shock and awe. Yet we are still obsessed with proving to ourselves and others that we are “cool.”

In recent years, the US has killed many people in wars and attacks on terrorists using UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). aircraft) in Western Asia and North Africa. The blood of our soldiers was shed in these campaigns. These displays of American power have inflicted enormous pain and suffering on other nations, but have not made them obedient to our will. Interventions on land or air strikes have not provided more high level security for us or our allies.

It is precisely because of the militarization of consciousness and because we look at the world through the sights of missiles that the reaction of most of the American political elite to the repeatedly demonstrated ineffectiveness of force in resolving issues boils down to a statement that success would be guaranteed in the event of an even more massive use of force . But its use to resolve conflict situations does not stop dynamic changes in the global and regional distribution of economic, military and political power. There is no reason to believe that even greater belligerence would have produced better results. Most Americans understand this. Simple people They are skeptical about the desire of the military-industrial complex and aggressive congressmen to impose a neo-conservative agenda on the people. People do not want to make the future of the nation dependent on the rapidly collapsing status quo of the post-war world.

Edges of exclusivity

U.S. security policy is guided by unexamined prejudices drawn from our peculiar history. In general, such beliefs on a subconscious level form a doctrine that becomes a dogma. Today, legions of scientists earn their living by researching the practical application of this dogma for the Pentagon. They developed an entire intellectual superstructure for the military-industrial complex in the form of an endless variety of scenarios for the use of force.

Americans are right to consider their country exceptional. Among other things, our experience of armed conflict and our understanding of the relationship between force and diplomacy are unique—one might even say anomalous.

War is an extreme argument in relations between states. Sometimes its goal is to capture and subjugate the population of other countries. However, more often than not, war is a means of eliminating imagined threats, repelling aggression, restoring the balance of power, forcing agreement to change borders, or adjusting the behavior of the enemy. The war does not end until the vanquished admit defeat and come to terms with new circumstances. Wars usually end in negotiations aimed at translating the outcome of hostilities into agreed political agreements that introduce a new political order. But US wars are something special.

In our Civil War, the First and Second World Wars and the Cold War, the United States sought to achieve the “unconditional surrender” of the enemy, peace was imposed on the vanquished, but nothing was done for moral, political and economic recovery. The small wars of the 20th century did not free Americans from this strange rejection of other models of military operations with limited objectives. The Korean War ended in a draw, and the 1953 armistice has not yet been transformed into a lasting peace. We failed in Vietnam. In Grenada (1983), Panama (1989) and Iraq (2003), they achieved regime change, but did not agree on the conditions for ending the war and establishing peace.

The Americans have had no recent experience of ending wars through negotiations with defeated countries. We tend to consider it a success to inflict enough damage on the enemy so that, without risking anything, we can trample on his dignity by refusing to take him seriously or involve him in the peace process. Our wars are planned as campaigns for purely military purposes. As a rule, we do not specify the goals of the war or the negotiation plan in order to achieve acceptance by the defeated enemy of our terms for ending hostilities.

The lack of clearly defined objectives of a military campaign allows our politicians to change goals along the way. This almost inevitably leads to prolongation of hostilities. Because the conditions of victory are not clearly defined, our soldiers, marines, airmen, and ship captains cannot say with certainty when their mission is accomplished.

The habit of not setting specific political objectives for the army also means that in our case war is less about “continuing politics by other means” - and more about brutal punishment of enemies. While punishing them, we do not even have a clear idea of ​​how they will be able to learn lessons from the beating that we give them.

The armed forces are highly professional and extremely effective in the art of suppressing the enemy. But their hopes that policymakers will extract something from the enemy vulnerability they seek are almost never realized. Almost all current civilian politicians are non-professionals who received positions thanks to the support of the winning party. Their inexperience, the theories of coercive diplomacy they studied in college, the traditional alienation of American diplomats from military operations, and our current highly militarized political culture all contribute to diplomacy falling silent when it should be most active—after hostilities have ended.

Paradoxes of containment

The Cold War reduced diplomacy to the political equivalent of trench warfare, in which success is defined by standing still rather than by advantageous maneuvering. It taught Americans to contain conflict by threatening escalation that could lead to a deadly nuclear exchange. It has taught us to believe that it is often wiser to preserve the status quo to contain potential conflict than to spend time and effort looking for ways to mitigate or eliminate it.

We have to unlearn the habits acquired during the Cold War. We continue to respond to hostilities with threats of violence rather than with escalating diplomatic efforts to resolve conflict situation. We impose sanctions as a symbol of our dissatisfaction and to make our politicians feel like they are the tough guys, when in reality these actions may be irresponsible and worthless.

The intended purpose of sanctions is to force the submission of the country against which they are imposed. But once introduced, sanctions invariably become not a means, but a goal. Therefore, their success is measured by how much trouble and hardship we were able to cause with their help to the enemy, and not by how much they helped to change his behavior. I do not know of a single case where the threat or application of sanctions would help to establish cooperation without a negotiating process during which an acceptable offer would be made.

In many ways, sanctions are ricocheting back at us. They are creating something like a wall for the import of our products into the country against which sanctions are being imposed. This often stimulates the desire of these countries to be self-sufficient and contributes to the artificial prosperity of certain sectors of their economy. Sanctions harm some groups within the US and benefit others. Those who benefit have a vested interest in the endless extension of sanctions and are reluctant to enter into the negotiation process.

Sanctions often strengthen the political authority of the leaders of the country they are directed against, since they control the distribution of a dwindling list of goods and services. As the examples of North Korea, China under Mao and Cuba demonstrate, sanctions prolong the power of half-dead regimes that would otherwise be overthrown.

The harmful effects of sanctions are exacerbated by the American habit of combining them with diplomatic ostracism. Refusal to negotiate is a tactical ploy that allows you to gain time to actively improve your position and successful political bargaining. But holding meetings with the other side does not mean giving them concessions. Diplomatic contacts are not concessions to the enemy, but an opportunity to obtain information about his logic and intentions, better understand his interests, and also identify gaps in his political position, taking advantage of which, you can ultimately achieve concessions.

Professional decline

The United States is the only major power that has not put diplomacy on a professional footing. In other developed countries, diplomats are people who have a unique combination of specialized knowledge and methods, extensive experience in the field of international relations and constantly improve their skills through theoretical and practical study of the art of diplomacy. They acquire skills through exploration of interesting and visual historical examples, periodic training and tips from more experienced colleagues. They improve their knowledge and skills by critically analyzing past actions and mistakes.

Americans, on the contrary, believe that the development and implementation of foreign policy is best entrusted to self-promoted empty dreamers and theorists - amateurs and dilettantes, not burdened with special knowledge, practice and experience. The lower ranks of our diplomatic corps are highly respected abroad for their intelligence, knowledge and intercultural communication skills. But our ambassadors and senior foreign policy bureaucrats, with rare exceptions, do not receive enthusiastic responses. The contrast between them and the highly professional leadership of the US Military is stark.

Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a significant increase in the number of low-ranking officials who received positions for political reasons. They literally flooded the entire foreign policy establishment. Along with this, the staff of the National Security Council was inflated. This provoked a steady decline in the professionalism of diplomats at both the highest and lowest levels - both in Washington and in the embassies of different countries. The US military is increasingly forced to take on diplomatic missions for which they were not specifically trained. This leads to further militarization of foreign policy.

Unless the system of distribution of posts can be dramatically changed, the prospects for improving the quality of the diplomatic corps will be dismal. Ambassadors and high-ranking amateur diplomats are not capable of being professional mentors for young people. Until now, no fundamental course has been compiled that would cover the basics and clear examples of how diplomats protect state interests. There is no course that teaches young diplomats the art of negotiating, drafting analytical reports, and protecting Americans living abroad. A professional approach to the analysis and analysis of actions has not been developed. Because debriefing can be bad for the careers of those who receive positions for political favors or for the administration itself, the practice is not being developed. As a result, people who choose a career as a diplomat do not learn from the mistakes of the past. As such, diplomacy is not taught in US civilian schools.

We are entering an era of strategic fluidity, with no clear lines of defense to defend in the style of Cold War diplomacy. Our leadership is increasingly viewed with skepticism in a world where challenges are multiplying and cannot be answered militarily.

It is time to rediscover the deep diplomacy that creates circumstances in which other countries, in pursuit of their own interests, are inclined to make choices that are in our interests without being forced to do so by military means. It's time to remember the tools of nonviolent government to convince others that they can benefit from working with us rather than against us. Rid the foreign policy aspects of national security policy of the venality and incompetence represented by the distribution of positions in gratitude for participation in election campaigns. And begin to staff the diplomatic corps with the same well-trained, professional personnel as the army, and demand from them the best that they can give to their country.