The main reason the European colonial powers of the 18th and 19th Century were (arguably) successful in international politics was because their diplomats were selected on the basis of--and encouraged to seek--understanding of world affairs by virtue of having lived in--and having been in close contact with people from--different parts of world. British and French foreign services had "Arabists"; "East African specialists"; "Latin American specialists" in the true sense of the word and not only because a British or French officer had spent three years in the Arab World, East Africa or Latin America.
A true understanding of—and the ensuing effectiveness to work in—a foreign country comes only from a thorough knowledge of the culture that can only be attained if the individual has lived in, or traveled extensively--and has friends and possibly relatives-- in that country. Otherwise, the so called “expert” is no more than anecdotally “sitting at the bank of Geneva Lake, Seine, or Potomac and pontificating about the state of affairs in country A or B”. This expert may have a Ph.D in Middle Eastern studies, but will not be effective in conducting and implementing foreign policy in the Middle East unless he or she has lived in the region, and not only among our “friends” in Amman, Dubai, or Cairo but in some of the more “unfriendly” spots such as Iran, Afghanistan or Iraq—and I do not mean in enclosed compounds of the latter two either.
It is therefore important that naturalized US citizens—including and especially natives of “unfriendly” countries--be actively recruited to work for the US Government in Foreign Service and international development and related sensitive positions.
Well, this is where the problem arises. Strict security clearance requirements for otherwise highly qualified individuals present a major impediment to our ability to select the best and brightest, as well as the most qualified individuals, for our Foreign Service and International affairs positions.
A well versed and highly educated naturalized US citizen, who has visited relatives and friends in a “non-friendly” country, would have a very difficult time obtaining the required security clearance to work for the US Government (or some of the US Government contractors) in a position where she or he is much needed. In fact, often the only naturalized US citizen natives of “unfriendly” countries that can easily obtain security clearance are the ones who have not travelled to their “unfriendly” country in a long long time—long enough that they can qualify as “having severed all their ties” with the “unfriendly” country of birth. These individuals are often selected based on their “language” and “cultural” skills and not necessarily their education, analytical skills or being politically savvy.
The result of the author’s informal survey of several dozens of individuals selected for sensitive overseas position by US Government contractors reveals that most fall into one of two categories: a) naturalized US citizens with relatively low level of education and b) native US citizens with graduate or under-graduate degrees, the majority with little first-hand experience in the countries or regions they are selected for. Neither group is ideally suited for the positions they are intended for.
The best suited individuals, i.e., those with high level of education, research skills AND first hand knowledge of the countries based on their travel and family/relative ties, are not able to obtain security clearance required for such positions.
A friend, who is a naturalized US citizen, related the following as the best example of the points made above. He strongly believes that his step-son, born and raised in Middle America, with a B.A. degree in History and Political Science but with limited knowledge of foreign languages and very little travel experience to the Middle East, has a much higher chance of landing a job in international affairs/Foreign Service in the Middle East--as he would easily obtain the security clearance--than his US-born/US citizen daughter (therefore eligible to become the US president) with a degree in international politics from Georgetown School of Foreign Service, who speaks five languages—including Arabic and Dari--has travelled extensively (including to some “unfriendly” countries to visit ailing grandparents) and lived in many countries (including one “friendly” where her mother resides). With family and friends in other countries—some considered unfriendly by the US--she will have difficulty getting security clearance even though she has the perfect profile for US foreign service/international politics.
Ironically, everything else being equal, she—as half Latina—is given preference over her step-brother for getting a job in the United States based on her “being a member of minority!”
The decision between the need for higher security—brought to the forefront in the aftermath of September 11—and recruiting and retaining highly qualified individuals is the type that we, as citizens of a nation that values the rule of law and freedom, have been making in many other instances. For example, a delicate but acceptable balance is struck between the society’s right to safety versus the right of individuals to bear arms as protected under the second amendment. Another less-discussed but poignant example is the fact that the right of individuals to drive on US highways has not been restricted in face of an astonishing annual rate of more than 30,000 highway fatalities--equivalent to ten “September 11.”
Unless, we carefully balance the needs for, and consider the trade-offs of, recruiting and attracting the brightest and most qualified individuals versus our security requirements, we will continue to encounter pitfalls in our mission of conducting and implementing an effective foreign policy. Perhaps we should consider that our true national security lies in our ability to deal effectively with our international friends and enemies in furtherance of the US national interests.
Anonymous Special Collaboration
I agree with the author. What a pity that the greatest country in the World is failing with its International politics.
ResponderEliminarI personally do not believe in wars, and killing. Maybe the US should take a more peaceful approach. Gandhi won the war against the British with no blood shed. Violence generates more violence and is not the solution for peace.
So many precious lives are lost trying to stop the terrorists! This is not the way.
The US is a very bellicose country. It is a pity, because the great majority of its people do not believe in wars and that is exactly what makes this country great. Politician are playing and deceiving the US citizens making them relieve that they are protecting the US from the terrorists.
It is time we give peace a chance (J Lennon). It is time we start fighting the war inside ourselves. When we heal ourselves we bring peace to the World (Isha)
The wars the US is fighting are drastically different than how the Indians achieved independence. The problem is the majority of Americans weltanschauungs are limited and xenophobic. We fear that which is different from US. Even Daniel Inouye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Inouye) a WWII vet who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor and lost most of his right arm fighting the Germans was refused service in a San Francisco Barbershop after he had returned home from the war because the barber refused to cut "Jap" hair. The shooter at Fort Hood is the sum of all of our fears, a Muslim US army soldier killing American soldiers. However, it is illogical and incorrect to assume that all Muslims would do that. The actions of one individual cannot be attributed to the whole group. Now more than ever the US diplomatic corps needs to increase it's diversity and augment it's international "street cred." The business world is light years ahead of the government in doing this; if you make people money and ahve good contacts and can get things done you will have a job and get rewarded for it. Obviously, there must be some security checks, but it is better to have people who have seen what the situation in Iran or Cuba or North Korea is; rather than those who have only read about it. We must reorganize the government and create a meritocracy. We need people on the ground and in the area who know the current situation and how to work with people. If you read ghost wars you will see how having bureaucrats in Washington D.C. trying to create a coalition government in Afghanistan lead to the mess there today.
ResponderEliminarI agree with the article and also with you Kyle. The Weltanshaaung for the majority of Americans has been America-centered (both geographically and culturally) with the expectation that everyone should learn to communicate with us (in our language) and with a limited understanding of the rest of the world. Perhaps this goes back to a need to restructure the education curriculum in highschool/college requiring world geography classes. I myself, having come from a prestigious foreign service program was only required to take one map course of world geography.
ResponderEliminarThere are nevertheless tons of study abroad programs supported by the State Department such as the Fulbright Program and the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship Program. In fact
the Open Doors 2009 Survey shows an 8.5% increase in the last two years of overseas study by US Students (http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=150651). But what are the top destinations for the students? UK, Italy, Spain, France, China, Australia, Mexico,Germany, Ireland...
No predominantely Muslim-country places in the top 25 destinations-and these are the countries America has higher stakes in. Even so, studying abroad doesn't guarantee that one will fully immerse in the host country and gain cultural/linguistic understanding instead of keeping to mostly American friends and choosing to order American food and continue an American lifestyle as much as possible. As you point out Kyle,the US Diplomatic Corps needs to "augment its street cred" and for this we need to find a more realistic balance between hiring foreign service officers with this "street cred" and implementing security checks that would impede some of them from working with the State Department. The need for this is even more vital now that Obama has advocated increased diplomacy and multi-lateral decision making. Being such a diverse country, America needs to take better advantage of its human capital with cultural/linguistic wealth, putting them in the right position to achieve foreign policy goals.
Good points both Kyle and Nicole-
ResponderEliminarWhen I see the figures like, "we have about 20 people in CIA speaking any Arabic with about 5 of them fluent..." this to me shows that there is a problem...Given that there are now 1.5 billion muslims in the world and about 25% of them in Arab countries.
The other related point is that: after 8 years we have not been able to capture Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Alzawaheri, or even Mullah Omar even though there is a $25 million bounty on their head--
This is mind boggling, as I always tell my muslim friends "with only a bit exageration only" that in the US people would turn in their brother for a mere $25,000!
In this "full leak" world of today (see Afghanistan's troops increase deliberation leaks) how the people surrounding Ben Laden and company have been able to keep their whereabouts secret even in the face of $25 million rewards! This to me shows we have not been able to make any in-roads into the Islamis societies and cultures ans our 2 worlds are still miles apart !
I agree with the author that Americans with native level fluency, especially in countries where the U.S. has national security interests are a national resource/treasure – that should be treasured and developed: “It is therefore important that naturalized US citizens—including and especially natives of “unfriendly” countries--be actively recruited to work for the US Government in Foreign Service and international development and related sensitive positions.” دا به ډیره کم عقلی وي چه امریکا تصمیم نیوونکی دا طبیعی منابعو دامریکا دخلکو دژبپوه تاوانی حس له نظر واچوی. (Pashto: “It is unreasonable for American decision makers to ignore this natural language resource of the American people.”)
ResponderEliminarI also agree with Nicole’s post that the American’s educational system has been limited in its world perspective and not put enough emphasis on knowledge of many other parts of the world: “The Weltanschauung for the majority of Americans has been America-centered (both geographically and culturally) with the expectation that everyone should learn to communicate with us (in our language) and with a limited understanding of the rest of the world.”
Coming from an academic background history in Middle East History, I would further suggest that there are so few persons with the aptitude and inclination for serious scholarship (or for competent Statecraft and diplomatic service) in regions like the Middle East, that all those individuals with ability and interest should be given an equal opportunity to earn a “place at the(academic/diplomatic) ‘table’.”
I believe one of the most damaging works on Middle East Area Studies was Edward Said’s "Orientalism." It created a divide between native scholarship and “Western” (Orientalist) scholarship. This is unfortunate. Truth based on good scholarship should be recognized as the contribution it is regardless of the ethnic back ground of the scholar.
Robert Irwin, a British Arabist has made a detailed rebuttal of Orientalism in his book "Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and its Discontents." And here he a general observation about what kind of work “Orientalists” participated (participate) in:“There is nothing so very exciting about pedants busily engaged in making philological comparisons between Arabic and Hebrew, or cataloging the coins of Fatimid Egypt, or establishing the basic chronology of Harun al-Rashid’s military campaigns against Byzantium. Scholarship used to place little emphasis on accessibility or on contemporary socio-political relevance. The key early Orientalist texts were written in learned Latin and therefore could only be read by an educated elite. Also there were then fewer pressures to publish and many translations and academic essays remained in manuscript. Pious bishop, worthy patrons, timid antiquarians, museum curators with time on their hand, bewigged and gowned dons pursued their recondite enquiries in dusty tomes. They managed to fin excitement in long-forgotten controversies regarding the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon or the correct manner of pronouncing Attic Greek. In their minds, they walked and talked with dead men (Robert Irwin, "Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and its Discontents," pp. 2).”
Much of academia is the pursuit of minutiae. But each small fact builds on the next. This is often difficult work. I believe good scholarship is hard enough to pursue regardless of one’s background; therefore, it should be widely encouraged and that if it is encouraged at a young age we may find competent American scholars emerging from a wide variety of backgrounds, especially those with connections to regions that have allowed them to learn to speak uncommon foreign languages in their fluently in their homes in America.
-Herodotus