Diplomatic Incompetence

By Sam Huntington

Let us consider for a moment the most appropriate course of action: should the United States deny Egypt $1.5 billion in US taxpayer funds and possibly discourage Moslems from murdering Coptic Christians and other non-Moslems at will, or should the Obama administration grant the Moslem Brotherhood a human rights waiver in order to preserve the “long-standing relationship between Egypt and the United States,” and reward Egyptian Moslems for their murderous behavior?


Should anyone think the most appropriate course of action is granting a waiver, enabling murderous Moslem access to American taxpayer funds, they may qualify to work for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the State Department. On the other hand, if one thinks the United States has a moral obligation to conduct its affairs in consonance with our professed values —or happen to think murderous Moslems should never receive even one-thin-dime of US taxpayer money, then they are probably conservative with no business associating with anyone in the Obama administration.

For far too many years, the State Department has proven itself incapable of coherent foreign policy. Consequently, no one who endorses the concept of responsible stewardship is able to conclude American diplomats warrant our confidence. No wonder there is so much anger directed at the American people from around the world. They view us as insufferable because that is how the State Department portrays us. Our diplomats place all Americans in jeopardy.

The Obama administration wants us to believe our long-standing relationship with Egypt is at stake, but if this is true, why did President Obama conspire to oust long-standing ally Hosni Mubarak? If Mr. Obama wishes to appear impartial in our treatment of other nations, why has Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton granted human rights waivers to Egypt, while denying them to Libya?

President Washington admonished us to observe moral behavior in our dealings with other nations. He encouraged our new nation to maintain good faith and justice toward all men. He told us to avoid long-term relationships and rivalry, and he warned us that attachment to some and animosity toward others cannot help but lead to unnecessary conflict and failed foreign policy. These views were shared by Thomas Jefferson, our first Secretary of State. Mr. Jefferson understood the importance of neutrality and equality when dealing with other nations.

They were both correct —and this leads us to wonder why our leaders steadfastly ignored Mr. Washington’s advice, or Mr. Jefferson’s example. Our willingness to spend billions of dollars funding murderous behavior by Moslem extremists is immoral, but so too is providing extremists with technology and monetary resources that can be later used against our own interests. How can we achieve a peaceful world while rewarding extremist behavior?

American diplomacy is widely criticized because of our perceived arrogance and hypocrisy. Our detractors say that American diplomats lack vision, are manipulative, and not to be trusted. Frequently cited is America’s support of foreign dictators who abuse their own citizens and charges that we are too selective in condemning other countries for human rights violations. This is true.

Why must we interfere in the way other leaders run their countries?  When did we begin to think “international leadership” equates to global dictatorship? If we agree with Mr. Washington’s advice and Mr. Jefferson’s example, then there is no justification for a diplomatic double standard. To get around this, however, American politicians simply pretend it doesn’t exist. None of our officials is hesitant to pay bribes to foreign thugs from money extorted from American taxpayers, or borrowed from other tyrants.

Proof of our diplomatic failure is that American politicians are unable to articulate our foreign policy interests. As an example, if the Secretary of State and President of the United States lack coherence in explaining our military involvement in Afghanistan, then there is no American interest in Afghanistan —and this begs the question, “Then why are our troops dying in Afghanistan?” What interests does the United States have in nation building in a region that has never known civilized behavior?

We may attempt to explain away our diplomatic incompetence by evaluating those who have served as Secretary of State. Few since John Hay have a qualified resume to serve in that capacity. It may suffice to observe that diplomatic ineptitude is a likely consequence of our dreadful decision at the ballot box. We are made to suffer when our children die in war because our diplomats are incompetent.  Our diplomats are incompetent because we voters failed to exercise due diligence in choosing our president. It is why we must agree with the philosopher Joseph de Maistre: “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite.”