Skip to main content



commentary Commentary

Commentary: America has a chance to repair diplomacy. Don't squander it

Biden wants diplomacy at the centre of US foreign policy – but that requires a revamp of American institutions, say Anne-Marie Slaughter and Alexandra Stark.

Commentary: America has a chance to repair diplomacy. Don't squander it

President-elect Joe Biden walks from the podium with his face mask after speaking at The Queen theater, Wednesday, Nov. 25, 2020, in Wilmington, Del. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

WASHINGTON: US President-elect Joe Biden has made it clear that diplomacy will be at the centre of his administration’s foreign policy.

Biden has pledged to rejoin the Paris climate agreement on day one of his administration, recommit to NATO allies, return the United States to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, and convene a “Summit for Democracy” to “renew the spirit and shared purpose of the nations of the free world”.

As he wrote in Foreign Affairs in March, “diplomacy should be the first instrument of American power”.

Rebuilding America’s treaties and alliances will be a welcome development after four years of President Donald Trump’s transactional approach to the world.

Trump’s “America First” foreign policy has eroded the country’s relationships with its allies and impeded its ability to confront increasingly complex global challenges such as pandemics, climate change, nuclear proliferation, democratic backsliding, and inequitable trade practices.

READ: Commentary: Trump may be conceding but his scorched-earth antics are deeply troubling

READ: Commentary: Are we giving Trump less credit than he deserves?

But crafting a diplomacy-first foreign policy to address issues like these depends on more than the new administration’s policy choices in its first year, as important as they will be.

It requires fundamentally revamping the relevant US institutions to make diplomacy and development the permanent centre of foreign and national-security policy.


Such efforts should begin with a rethink of what security is and whom it is for.

FILE PHOTO: U.S. troops patrol at an Afghan National Army (ANA) base in Logar province, Afghanistan August 7, 2018. REUTERS/Omar Sobhani/File Photo

Practitioners and political scientists have traditionally defined security in the narrow sense of protecting a nation-state’s territorial integrity and political independence, which naturally leads to a focus on military capabilities.

But national security should actually mean protecting people from the threats – ranging from disease and violence to fire and floods – that affect their everyday lives.

The fact that these threats disrupt the most vulnerable communities the most is a result of policy, not chance. Security must therefore begin with developing a set of national and global tools to reduce the risks that these groups face.

READ: Commentary: COVID-19 will redefine the meaning of national security

Diplomacy, on this calculus, starts at home.

If pandemics threaten national security, for example, then the US will need to invest in a more robust health system while substantially ramping up its engagement in international institutions like the World Health Organization to prepare for the next virus

If political violence threatens Americans’ safety – and New America has shown that more Americans have died from right-wing terrorism than from extremist Islamic terrorism since the Sep 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the US – then the US will need to invest more in tracking tools at home and abroad.

READ: Commentary: Why Asia may not be immune to far-right terrorism


Americans must also invest in rebuilding trust in our democratic institutions, including our voting system, while working with partners around the world to counter democratic backsliding and fight the spread of disinformation.

Likewise, if unequal Internet access prevents some Americans from obtaining education and health care, as well as a growing number of government and private services, then the US government must focus on how to make digital connectivity as ubiquitous as electricity across the country.

FILE PHOTO: An instructional assistant helps a student as in-person learning resumes with restrictions in place to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) at Wilson Primary School in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S., August 17, 2020. REUTERS/Cheney Orr/File Photo

At the same time, it must work with other governments and international organisations to create a far more equal and accessible digital world.

A Biden administration should also devise a plan to reinvent the US State Department, starting with the Foreign Service.

As one of us recently argued in the journal Democracy, the 20th century conception of the Foreign Service as a corps of career officials “deprives the United States of the talent, connections, and agility (it) needs to advance national interests and address global challenges effectively in the twenty-first century”.

A service that welcomed the talents of professionals from NGOs, universities and faith-based groups, among others, would be better equipped to tackle complex transnational problems that demand personnel from diverse backgrounds with a wide range of experience and expertise.

READ: Commentary: How COVID-19 has forced employers to be more human – and rewards them in the process

READ: Commentary: Work appraisals can’t depend on what your boss thinks of you


Finally, a diplomacy-first US foreign policy would recognise a far greater role for development, which requires its own diplomacy.

Ideally, a Biden administration would work with Congress to overhaul the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act and establish a new cabinet-level department of global development.

Short of that, elevating the director of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to a cabinet-level position could signal that the US regards economic development as a critical tool in its efforts to increase global human welfare.

Other countries can similarly rethink their diplomatic strategies and how they define diplomacy and security. This will require their legislatures to play a role.

FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Capitol during a morning rainstorm on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 25, 2020. REUTERS/Tom Brenner/File Photo

In the US, Congress is responsible for deciding how much funding each federal agency and program gets.

In the 2019 fiscal year, defense accounted for about half of the federal government’s total discretionary spending, while the entire international affairs budget amounted to less than 4 per cent.

Congress can help to build America’s diplomatic capacity by devoting more resources to reforming and increasing funding to the State Department and USAID.

In addition, via its oversight role, it can prevent the executive from relying too much on military tools. At its most assertive, Congress can revoke its authorisations for the use of military force, block US arms sales, and restrict or place conditions on funding for security cooperation.

READ: Commentary: Biden needs to build bridges, literally, in the US

READ: Commentary: A US led by Joe Biden will focus on Asia and China

Faced with a global pandemic and climate change, political leaders around the world should re-examine exactly what makes their citizens more or less secure.

They will find that investing in domestic resilience and international diplomacy and development makes more sense than boosting military budgets.

As Biden prepares to take office, America needs a collective surge of new global diplomacy to enable greater cooperation in the face of common threats.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former director of policy planning in the US State Department (2009-11), is CEO of the think tank New America, Professor Emerita of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, and the author of Unfinished Business: Women Men Work Family. Alexandra Stark is a senior researcher at New America.


Also worth reading