The Measure of Diplomacy
Elected leaders professing ideas of right and wrong have replaced the career diplomats who had maintained the balance of power. But The Diplomats, edited by Gordon A. Craig and Francis L. Loewenheim, does not say whether their relative success in the Cold War years can continue.
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., is Albert Schweitzer Professor in the Humanities at The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York.
More than 40 years ago, Gordon Craig and Felix Gilbert edited a volume called The Diplomats: 1919-1939. In that still-valuable work, a group of historians and political scientists assessed the role diplomacy had played in the years between the two world wars. Those were years of gross diplomatic failure, years in which the great powers, having destroyed one international system in the First World War, failed to create a new one in time to avert the Second World War.
In this sequel, appropriately dedicated to the memory of Felix Gilbert, Craig and Francis Loewenheim assemble a (mostly) new team to assess the role of diplomacy in the 40 years after 1939. Diplomats II opens with a rapid glance at wartime diplomacy, less than one-twentieth of the book, and then devotes nearly 700 pages to the first 25 years of the Cold War. The latter were years of relative diplomatic success, years in which the great powers, despite bitter ideological differences, avoided a third world war and in which the democratic nations laid the foundation for their eventual victory.
The two volumes differ somewhat in coverage and approach. Diplomats I concentrated on Europe and the United States. Japan received only 1 of 21 chapters; China, India, the Middle East, Latin America, Canada, Australia and Africa, none at all. Diplomats II gives 6 of 23 chapters to Asia and the Middle East, though Latin America, Africa, Canada and Australia are still ignored.
Diplomats I was less interested in the political leaders who made foreign policy than in the diplomats who executed it, envoys in the field and officials in the chancelleries. The book contained chapters on Schulenberg and Dirksen rather than Hitler; on Rumbold, Henderson and Perth rather than Baldwin and Chamberlain; on Chicherin and Litvinov rather than Stalin; on Dodd, Bullitt and Kennedy rather than Roosevelt, not that these diplomats, especially the Americans and the Russians, were professionals in the traditional sense...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Related
For several years now disputes have rent the Atlantic Alliance. They have focused on such issues as nuclear strategy and control, the organization of Europe and the nature of an Atlantic Community. However, the most fundamental issue in Atlantic relationships is raised by two questions not unlike those which each Western society has had to deal with in its domestic affairs: How much unity do we want? How much pluralism can we stand? Too formalistic a conception of unity risks destroying the political will of the members of the Community. Too absolute an insistence on national particularity must lead to a fragmentation of the common effort.
Washington faces two enormous tasks in forming economic policy: it must preserve U.S. economic supremacy while defusing the bitter resentment that America's clout provokes abroad. A grand bargain with developing countries is badly needed. For starters, America should slash its trade barriers in agriculture and textiles in return for a global accord on intellectual-property rights.
After the Cold War, the demands on American leadership are no less stern than they were in Dean Acheson's day. Present again at the creation, U.S. diplomacy must pass a series of tests -- of vision, pragmatism, spine, and principle -- to build a foundation for a new world. This will mean encouraging democracy, stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, working to shore up the international financial system, engaging Beijing, and standing up to Baghdad and Belgrade. But America needs resources to lead, and Congress has foreign policy living hand-to-mouth. America cannot afford to abdicate its world role.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.