Articles by mgedwards

Transformational Diplomacy

Reader Skobb77 wondered what I think of "Transformational Diplomacy," a new initiative in the State Department to shift diplomats from Washington, D.C. and Europe to other areas of the world, namely to developing countries, to conflict areas, and to highly strategic countries such as China and India.  The Washington Post recently published an article on transformational diplomacy explaining the concept in greater detail.  My own opinion doesn’t really matter, because I am not in a position to modify or change this initiative even if I wanted to do so.  But I’ll give you my thoughts, for what it’s worth.
 
Transformational diplomacy makes sense conceptually.  The Cold War is over, and the Department’s structure still largely reflects Cold War priorities.  Europe still has a disproportionate number of diplomats with respect to its population, and countries such as India and China with over one billion people have far fewer diplomats relative to their size.  For example, France, with 60 million people, has one U.S. Embassy and seven consulates, while Korea, with 48 million people, has just one U.S. Embassy in Seoul.  The State Department web site listing all embassies and consulates paints a visual picture of this discrepancy.  Global priorities have shifted dramatically in the past 16 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall to strategically important places such as the Far East and Middle East.  Since 2000, Latin America has become increasingly visible to the U.S. with events such as the Argentine financial crisis, the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia, and the rise of Brazil as an economy member of the BRIC (Brazil-Russia-India-China), a group of rising economic powers.  Africa may also benefit from transformational diplomacy.
 
In practice, it will be a difficult transition for many diplomats and their families.  Serving in France is generally more comfortable than serving in Korea or in any of the locations that will benefit numerically from transformational diplomacy.  With fewer France assignments available, more diplomatic families will have to serve at more difficult and dangerous posts.  While hardship pay for diplomats will increase, hardships and risk of danger increase as well.  Those who serve in very difficult places such as Iraq often look forward to serving in their follow-on assignment in countries such as France as a respite from the intensity of their current posting.  Now, far fewer non-hardship assignments will be available, and diplomats and their families will have to serve at more hardship and danger posts for longer periods of time.  Hardship includes not only physical discomfort related to climate or living standards.  It also encompasses the difficulties diplomatic families face trying to live relatively normal lives overseas.  For example, more diplomatic children will likely be sent away to boarding schools because there are no accredited schools available at some hardship posts.  More jobs will be unaccompanied; that is, diplomats will need to leave their spouses and children behind to serve alone at danger posts.  More families will be affected by evacuations and crises.  The torching of the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, Syria yesterday (in in Beirut today) remind me that transformational diplomacy asks diplomats to serve not only in more difficult assignments but dangerous ones as well.  At this moment, I’m certain that U.S. diplomats serving in Syria are working hard with European Union missions to help their Danish and Norwegian counterparts, and the entire diplomatic community in Damascus will be adversely impacted by this tragedy.  Enjoy your weekend watching the Superbowl while the diplomatic community in Syria handles this crisis.
 
Transformational diplomacy makes strategic sense, but it will be a difficult transition for some diplomats and their families.  The diplomatic life is not the glamorous life it is often feigned to be, and articles such as the recent one by Fred Gedrich and Paul Vallely in the Washington Times inaccurately portrays diplomats as a pampered, spoiled bunch (Gedrich and Vallely should try writing that article in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia in the frigid cold wearing a parka, or in Monrovia, Liberia, where the power frequently goes down.)  Some diplomats will lose jobs they thought they had that are now being shifted to other areas of the world.  It might be a good idea to add jobs outside of Europe and Washington rather than shift jobs away from Europe and Washington.  I can only second guess the reasons why the Department decided to move assignments rather than add new positions.  Perhaps the Department is limited by budget constraints.  I only hope that now that the decision has been made and there’s no turning back, history will prove that it was the right decision.  Skobb77, I hope that you get the call soon.  It’s very frustrating getting so close and waiting for an offer.  Good luck, and thanks for posting!  Stop by anytime.
 
Blog Notes:  Ron Borges of MSNBC has written the best Superbowl-related article I’ve read yet on why the Seattle Seahawks are being snubbed by the East Coast-centric sports media.  Amen, brother.  Not coincidentally, MSNBC is a joint venture co-owned by Microsoft, headquartered in Redmond, Washington.  In fact, Seahawks owner Paul Allen co-founded Microsoft with Bill Gates.  There may some connection between this fact and Borges’ positive coverage of the Seahawks.  It’s also interesting to note that ESPN analyst Scoop Jackson is rooting for the Steelers when his name is obviously connected to the late, great U.S. Senator from Washington State, Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson.  I imagine that in the 1970’s while playing football Scoop Jackson was given that nickname by fans for his outstanding wide receiver work.  He may have no idea that his name has a Seattle connection.

Who’s in charge at the Fed?

Last Tuesday, the markets were euphoric when the Federal Reserve signaled that it was adopting a neutral stance on future interest rate hikes.  It was Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s last hurrah as the most influential Federal Reserve chairman in U.S. history.  Incoming Chairman Ben Bernanke took over this week and will chair the March Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting.  Markets soared when investors thought that the Fed had finally decided it was close to a neutral bias on subsequent interest rate hikes. 
 
So much for the brief lovefest between the markets and the Federal Reserve.  On Friday, the monthly jobs report came in stronger than expected, and the unemployment rate dipped from 4.9% to 4.7%, signaling that the U.S. economy is stronger than expected.  With labor markets tightening and an increase in wages likely, an inflation spike could soon follow.  If that occurs, the Fed would then move to cool the economy by further raising interest rates.  Yesterday the markets tanked on positive economic news, fueled by fears among investors that the Fed will shed its neutral stance and continue to aggressively raise interest rates.  Investors already anticipate that the FOMC will raise rates in March, but the markets are hoping that Fed will soon end its incessant urge to raise rates by a quarter point each time it meets.
 
This is a critical time in the U.S. economy.  If the Fed overreacts, it could send the economy into recession.  If its response is too passive, it could fuel out-of-control inflation or even stagflation.  Although I’ve been critical of some of Greenspan’s policies, I appreciate that he has anticipated market dynamics that defy traditional economic models.  For example, he anticipated accelerated productivity gains fueled by technology advances in the 1990’s.  Productivity gains helped curb inflation in the mid-1990’s, and Greenspan rightfully opposed interest rate hikes that could have deflated the Internet boom.  His successor, Ben Bernanke, has a much different interest rate philosophy.  Bernanke is a well-known advocate of targeted interest rates who prefers to use formulas to determine what the optimal interest rate.  Both men’s philosophies have merit at different stages of the economic cycle, but only one is appropriate at this stage.
 
The primary question facing the Federal Reserve right now is this–given high energy prices, a strengthening economy, and flattening productivity curve, should interest rates be raised to dampen inflation?  If energy prices decrease, or productivity picks up, further interest rate increases might not be necessary.  Neither appears to be true, unfortunately.  Energy prices will stay high through at least 2006, and increased hiring and higher wages indicate that economic growth is outpacing productivity gains.  Still, is inflation inevitable in today’s economy?  Does the Fed need to continue raising rates to fight inflation that has not yet materialized?  If Bernanke has his way, the answer would likely be yes, because economic models presently favor more rate increases.  Under Greenspan, the response would be more innocuous.  Greenspan would likely favor continuing the Fed’s neutral bias and wait for further inflationary pressures to appear before adopting a more aggressive anti-inflationary stance.  Bernanke will likely stay the course, which I hope translates into a Greenspan-style approach in the near term.
 
Regardless of who is really in charge at the Federal Reserve right now, I hope that the Fed considers that the U.S. economy has been sluggish for awhile and agrees that it is better to let the economy strengthen before succumbing to inflation fears.  In the past five years, the U.S. economy has weathered a mild recession and remained somewhat sluggish, survived two major disasters (9/11 and Hurricane Katrina), suffered through a major stock market crash and the dot.com bust, and seesawed from deflationary fears to anxiety over high energy prices.  Yet through it all, inflation has remained in check.  The Fed needs to temper its inflation fears and give the U.S. economy room to move.  I hope whoever is in charge doesn’t put a brake on the economy too soon.

A Seoul traffic control suggestion

Koreans are notoriously aggressive drivers.  Although perhaps not as well known as Italians for bad driving and violating the rules of the road, Koreans nonetheless rank high on the list of bad drivers living in developed countries.  If the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development published a ranked list of OECD members’ driving records, I’m positive that Korea would rank in the top three out of 30 OECD nations for bad driving. 
 
One of the worst problems is the fact that Korean drivers pay little heed to a red light until about five seconds after it turns red.  After the light turns red, a handful of cars will still barrel through the light.  Cars whose light is green must wait until all cars have passed to start driving again, and their drivers must look both ways and hope they won’t be hit by a reckless oncoming driver.  Public busses and taxi cabs are especially culpable.  This morning on the way to work, I saw three city busses drive through the same red light, one after another.  Why shouldn’t they?  After all, they carry more people, so they deserve the right-of-way, correct?  They’re bigger than most cars and can get away with it, right?  Wrong.  Busses need to obey the rules like any other vehicle.  This problem is not as bad outside of Seoul, but it pervades the entire country.  Busan taxi cab drivers are the most notorious of all.
 
From time to time, for better or for worse, Korean authorities crack down on illegal practices in Korea.  The crackdowns come fast and furious, typically last a few months, result in multiple arrests and fines, and then subside like the end of an outbreak.  In 2004, the authorities targeted prostitution.  In 2005, they focused on catching English teachers teaching illegally in Korea.  In 2006, as befits a modern, developed society, Korea should target traffic violators.  The authorities could start by warning tour companies and the public transportation bureau that the drivers of busses caught speeding, cutting lanes, and running red lights will be subject to stringent fines, and then enforce the threat.  Likewise, they could warn the taxi companies that taxi drivers will pay heavy fines for violating traffic laws.  These two actions in and of itself would immensely improve driving in Korea.  Of course, other drivers should be ticketed too, but cracking down on salaried bus and taxi cab drivers would do wonders to improve traffic–and it would dramatically improve Korea’s image.