The Sad Reality Behind The Diplomat

I’ve been watching the new show on Netflix called “The Diplomat” for the past week, and it's a good show. It's getting high ratings and many people seemed to be enjoying it. What struck me about the show is the setting of the story, diplomacy and the US State Department. I can’t remember the last time I saw a film or TV show, of this quality, that features a Foreign Service Officer of the State Department as a protagonist. Even if I count “Madam Secretary”, which was a show about a former CIA analyst appointed to Secretary of State, that's like, 2 shows.

For such a long time, we have been bombarded with fantastical stories about the military and intelligence agencies, about soldiers and spies and tailors. So it got me thinking, why aren’t there more films and shows about the State Department and diplomats in popular culture? The reason can’t be that working at the State Department in real life is boring. Real life soldiering is 99% doing boring things, like mowing the grass, taking inventory, picking up spent brass casings at the range or cigarette butts around the base. And yet we have an abundance of stories about the military, even about how boring it can be.

So why is the State Department, and its diplomats, absent in the public imagination? Perhaps it's because the State Department and diplomacy in American politics have been neglected, sidelined, and sometimes downright abused for more than 20 years, and the public entertainment landscape is reflective of this reality.

The debates about the problems facing the State Department are quite intense, and there are many issues people talk about. I thought I would share with you some of the bigger problems facing the State Department that I found, so that we can understand a part of the real story: the gradual decline of the State Department.

One of the most interesting things when talking about the State Department in American politics is that the most outspoken defenders of the State Department are high ranking military officials from the Department of Defense.

In 2017, when President Trump contemplated cutting 30% of the State Department’s budget and overall $54 billion in non-defense spending that goes to foreign aid and assistance, over 120 retired generals and admirals wrote a letter to Congress in protest.

“We know from our service in uniform that many of the crises our nation faces do not have military solutions alone – from confronting violent extremist groups like ISIS in the Middle East and North Africa to preventing pandemics like Ebola and stabilizing weak and fragile states that can lead to greater instability…

The State Department, USAID, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Peace Corps and other development agencies are critical to preventing conflict and reducing the need to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way.”

The current Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, and former secretary of defense James “Mad dog” Mattis, along with 20 other retired generals and admirals went to Congress in 2013 to promote the importance of the State Department and foreign assistance programs to members of Congress.

During that event, “Mad dog” Mattis famously said,

“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”

Former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, continues to promote the importance of the State Department to this day, writing an article in the Washington Post as recently as April of this year.

The American military establishment has a strong, proud tradition of not interfering with domestic politics. So, when they do speak out, especially to protect the State Department and diplomacy, it's admirable but its also telling that something is seriously wrong.

So, let’s first talk about the budget. It's always about the money first.

This is a 2017 graph from an article written by Michael Flynn at the Quantitative Peace. No, not that Michael Flynn. I also got confused. The State Department spending is in dark blue. Can you see it?

Nope, that is light blue, which is agriculture.

The State Department budget is almost negligible relative to the overall federal spending. Even if we look at the entire international affairs account, which includes international economic and military aid, the State Department, USAID, Peace Corps, and so on, the percentage of the entire international affairs account is on average around 1% of the total federal spending. Usually, it's even less than 1%.

But the 1% is not the problem. Whether that is too little or too much or just the right amount, is not a judgment I can nor should make. It's up to those in the field, working at these agencies, to determine how much resources they would need to accomplish their objectives, and it’s the job of Congress to oversee the funding process.

What we need to be worried about as members of the general public is this:

When average Americans were asked to “guess what percentage of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid?”, the average of the guesses was 25%. Most Americans grossly overestimate how much the US spends on foreign aid alone. It's no wonder, that in the same survey, 56% of Americans believed that the US spends too much on foreign aid. Which would be understandable, if it really was 25%, and not 1%.

The public's misperception is the problem. Because, politicians at Congress look at surveys to inform them of what their constituents care or not care about. Such data don’t determine their behavior, but it does inform them of what would be popular or unpopular. If the data suggests that the public either don’t care at all about the State Department or believe that the government spends too much on foreign aid, the politicians are more likely to target the international affairs account when considering budget cuts, which happens frequently.

And that’s how you get to the point where retired generals and Defense Secretaries are trying to protect funding for the State Department and international aid programs.

When the agency that you work for is frequently targeted for budget cuts, you might start feeling unappreciated. The State Department is said to suffer from chronic morale problems, and you can start to see why.

It's hard to pinpoint when this downward trend for the State Department began.

Some people, such as former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, see the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s as the starting point for the marginalization of the State Department. The explanation is that the US recognized itself as the only superpower left in the world, and began to rely more on military solutions over diplomatic ones, because why bother with diplomacy when you are the most powerful nation in the world?

For reasons I won’t go into now because it would take too long, I find that argument not entirely convincing. But his point that the neglect of diplomacy and the State Department is a long standing problem is important to keep in mind. Because now, we are going to talk about what happened to the State Department under President Trump.

Trump was not the cause for the decline of the State Department in American politics. But he sure tried to do his best to make things worse.

If you are a Trump supporter, you can’t be mad at me for saying Trump made things worse for the State Department. I’m saying Trump was actually very good at it.

He really took the “whole of government” approach to destroying the State Department. The 30% budget cut proposal in 2017 was merely one example.

The first Secretary of State that Trump appointed was Rex Tillerson, whom I refer to by his nickname, “T-rex”. T-rex was literally an oil man, which is ironic given his nickname. Now, bringing someone in from outside the government is not necessarily a bad thing. They can bring fresh perspectives. And reportedly, state officials were hopeful in the beginning.

T-rex wanted to reform the State Department, to improve “efficiency”.

T-rex got rid of some redundant diplomatic posts. State officials thought that was good. But then the T-rex didn’t stop. He ordered a general freeze on new hires and drastically reduced promotions, halting the personnel pipelines for State and USAID. When concerned US senators, including the late senator John Mccain, wrote a letter to T-rex asking “why?”, T-rex refused to explain.

T-rex also kept the State Department in the dark, relying instead on outside consultants such as those from Deloitte, in crafting and implementing his “reform”. T-rex spent $12 million on consulting fees alone. His reform failed miserably.

Remember the morale issue at the State Department before Trump?

What little morale and hope that were left at the State Department were now gone. In the first year of Trump’s presidency,

• 60% of career ambassadors (equivalent to 4 star generals),

• 42% of career ministers (3 star generals),

• and 14% of minister counselors (2 star generals),

had left the State Department. Some called this a “decapitation of the State Department”.

The number of applicants for the Foreign service officer test in 2017 was half that of 2015. Foreign Service officers, or FSOs, are career diplomats.

When asked about the vacancies in the State Department, President Trump replied, “I'm the only one that matters”. Donald Trump is truly one of the leaders of all time.

The lack of diplomats presents a long term strategic problem. As Senator Shaheen points out in a subcommittee hearing:

“Just last month before the Chinese Parliament, Beijing presented a budget for 2019 that would increase foreign affairs spending by another 7.4 percent. American diplomats are already outnumbered five to one by Chinese diplomats doing economic and commercial work in Africa and elsewhere, and we hear from ambassadors of many of these countries who say to members of Congress, they would rather do business with the U.S., but they can't find us.”

Eventually, T-rex was fired and replaced by Mike Pompeo in 2018. Pompeo promised to “bring back swagger” to the State Department. He did not.

One FSO who worked with both secretaries described the difference between T-rex and Mike “swagger” Pompeo thusly:

“Tillerson’s problem was function, Pompeo’s was deliberate.”

Another FSO said this of Pompeo:

“Pompeo was a dick.”

Mike “swagger” Pompeo seemed to care more about partisan politics than actually running the State Department and bringing back swagger. One really damaging incident was President Trump’s first impeachment trial, which embroiled the whole State Department into a useless and damaging political scandal, which Mike “swagger” Pompeo actively encouraged to support Trump.

The State Department, much like the Department of Defense, had a long standing tradition of not becoming involved in domestic politics. It is a good tradition. People in other nations can only look on with jealousy at American agencies and institutions that keep civil government civil. Mike “swagger” Pompeo apparently did not give a shit. In fact, he threw the State Department under the bus during Trump’s first impeachment trial, which included a smear campaign by Guiliani and friends against then U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who was exonerated from all allegations of wrong-doing but not before the damage was done. The US had lost yet another seasoned diplomat.

Let’s move on to the ambassadors, or the lack thereof.

The vacancies that were created during the first year of Trump’s presidency were slowly filled throughout the rest of his term, though not completely. Once again, the lack of ambassadors was a problem before Trump, but it was worse during Trump.

A tragic example is the Jamal Kashoggi incident.

Jamal Khashoggi, a columnist for the Washington Post, was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Turkey in 2018 at the orders of Saudi crown prince Mister Bone Saw. The US had embassies in both Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as it should because the US is a NATO ally to Turkey and it has an important relationship with Saudi Arabia. But there were no ambassadors for the US embassies in both countries in 2018.

They only had acting ambassadors, a responsibility usually given to the most senior FSO such as the deputy chief of mission, but when your strategic partner in the middle east murders and dismembers a US residing columnist for the Washington Post at a consulate based out of your NATO ally, wouldn’t you want seasoned ambassadors to help the US government navigate this delicate diplomatic situation. Is that such an unreasonable expectation?

In the US, candidates for ambassadorship are nominated by the president and then confirmed by the senate. It's usually the senate confirmations that really slow down the appointment of ambassadors. Which is not surprising because the senate takes forever to do anything.

The really weird thing about US ambassadors compared to most nations is that non-career diplomats can become ambassadors, called political appointees. Anyone can become a US ambassador, and by anyone I naturally mean big campaign donors and not plebs like us.

Before Trump, about 30% of US ambassadors were political appointees. During Trump, it was 42%.

Political appointees as ambassadors have always been controversial. It's not necessarily bad, because the ties that political appointees appear to have with the president could be a useful asset for the State Department. But you don’t want to overdo it with political appointees because that would make career diplomats feel, yet again, unappreciated for their years of dedication to honing their diplomatic expertise. If the US does not want to get rid of politically appointed ambassadors, then it's up to the president to maintain a delicate balance. I can only imagine how delicately Trump handled this balance.

It's not just the presidents and state secretaries that are at fault here. Congress is also not guilt free from neglecting the State Department.

US Federal Agencies such as the Department of Defense and the State Department, require annual authorization bills from the house and senate. The department of defense has the National Defense Authorization Act. which you probably heard of many times before. Authorization acts such as the NDAA allow Congress to “to provide funding, authorize programs, and conduct oversight”. It's how Congress exerts its constitutional power and responsibility. The NDAA for the department of defense has passed annually for 62 years without fail. The Authorization act for the State Department is called the “Foreign Relations Authorization Act”, and the last time it was passed in Congress was in 2002, 21 years ago.

“Without a reauthorization bill, Congress exerts ad hoc power over State [Department]: appropriators can specify funding for different agencies and attach restrictions to the money; lawmakers also find other routes to push their foreign-policy agendas, like inserting provisions into the Pentagon authorization.”

Danny Vinik

It would be a big step forward if Congress would regularly pass the Foreign relations Authorization act. So why doesn’t Congress pass the authorization act for the State Department?

“...reticence among some Members to vote multiple times to support overseas spending that may be unpopular with constituents.”

Of course, because the majority of Americans erroneously believe that around 25% of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid.

There are so many other issues that still plague the State Department and the American diplomatic corps, even under President Biden. We haven’t even talked about internal problems within the State Department bureaucracy. Undoing the damage left by the Trump administration is just another problem that the State Department will have to deal with for decades to come, because it takes decades to train seasoned diplomats to replace those who left.

If there is a weird small spark of hope after decades of hardship for the State Department, I think it's the Netflix show “The Diplomat”.

Yes, the show is not that realistic, from the lack of senate confirmations for the ambassador to diplomacy that is more CIA than State, and using the ambassadorship to incubate a future vice president. And no, a Netflix show is not going to fix institutional issues directly.

But what the diplomat accomplishes, I hope, is that for the first time in many years, the idea of the State Department and diplomacy have entered the public imagination. And maybe, just maybe, the American public would give its real diplomats more attention than before. More public interest in the State Department could also incentivize members of Congress to actually help the State Department.

If you don’t believe me that a TV show like the diplomat can have such an impact on the public, ask yourself, would you have clicked on something about the boring problems of the State Department were it not for “The Diplomat”?