The successful mobilization of the American public consciousness by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can be accounted for by the many fundamental differences between them and U.S. diplomats. The first difference is the method by which each organization recruits and accepts its members. Foreign Service officers are required to complete a multi-step selection process which includes the Foreign Service exam, an interview, and a background screening. Only individuals who successfully complete this battery of requirements are able to become U.S. diplomats. Becoming a member of an NGO is a more informal process. Since an NGO is “any group of people relating to each other regularly in some formal manner and engaging in collective action, provided that the activities are non-commercial, non-violent, and are not on behalf of a government” . There are no tests or interviews needed to become a member of an NGO. The only requirement for membership is that an individual feel passionately about a particular issue, such as the environment, which matches the focus of the NGO, Greenpeace. The accessibility to NGO membership attracts people from all professions, ages, and socio-economic backgrounds. This diverse range of members allows the organization to have greater access to the general American public than the Foreign Service but this informality and lack of screening process has the potential to backfire. Since anyone can become a member of an NGO, undesirable characters with criminal history could become members and ruin the reputation built by the organization.
Another major difference between NGOs and U.S. Foreign Service officers is the association with the U.S. government. Members of the U.S. Foreign Service are responsible for implementing and explaining U.S. foreign policy created by the President and his advisors on the international stage. Typically, diplomats working in embassies abroad do not have a voice in the creation of U.S. foreign policy but must support the official position taken by the State Department on issues such as human rights in China and the War in Iraq. If a diplomat has objections to a certain policy, he or she faces two decisions: keep their opinions to themselves or resign from the Foreign Service. John Brady Kiesling, a former career Foreign Service Officer, chose to resign his post in because of his objection to the Iraq War. In his resignation letter published in the New York Times on February 27, 2003, Kiesling stated that he was resigning “because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration” With no avenue for dissent in the Foreign Service, diplomats cannot help reform policies which are not practical or consistent with the U.S. image in the international community.
Unlike members of the U.S. diplomatic corps, members of NGOs are not employees of the U.S. government and have no obligation to agree with policy decisions made in the White House. Because of their independence from official U.S. foreign policy, NGO members have more success in mobilizing the American public than many diplomats. NGOs are able to publicly disagree with and challenge any aspect of U.S. foreign policy because they are not responsible for explaining or defending these policies to the international community. Like diplomats, NGOs do not have a role in the initial creation and design of U.S. foreign policy but they are able to campaign for changes in the policies they feel are incorrect or misguided. Human Rights Watch (HRW) is a well-known NGO which utilizes the publication of their fact-finding investigations as an opportunity to challenge human rights abuses and change U.S. foreign policy toward offending countries. “Human Rights Watch then publishes those findings in dozens of books and reports every year, generating extensive coverage in local and international media. This publicity helps to embarrass abusive governments in the eyes of their citizens and the world. Human Rights Watch then meets with government officials to urge changes in policy and practice -- at the United Nations, the European Union, in Washington and in capitals around the world” . The publicity generated by HRW reports also provides an incentive for the U.S. government to change their policies toward offending governments. If the U.S. government continues to maintain favorable policies toward states which abuse human rights, there will be a backlash against them in the American media. The potential for bad publicity provides an incentive for the U.S. government to change their foreign policy. Since the HRW publications are made available in print and on the Internet for the general public, U.S. government officials could find themselves without a job if they do not cater to the demands of informed constituents.
Along with their ability to publicly shame the U.S. and foreign governments, NGO members have the ability to become truly proficient in their chosen field. U.S. diplomats are quite limited in their ability to specialize and become experts in their chosen field because they rotate their posts about every two years. Although there are some diplomats who specialize in a particular region such as the Middle East, the majority of career Foreign Service officers are sent wherever there is a need for their services. Diplomats lack to opportunity that NGO members have to specialize and become experts about a certain region or issue. Along with their lack of human expertise, the U.S. State Department is also underfunded which makes it difficult for diplomats to perform their jobs well and for the State Department to recruit the best people. “The 2007 International Affairs Budget for the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other foreign affairs agencies totals $ 35.1 billion with Foreign Operations receiving $23.7 billion, State Operations getting $9.3 billion, Food Aid and Famine Assistance receiving $1.3 billion, International Broadcasting getting $672 million, and $93 million allocated to other programs . In comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the budget for the Iraq War alone is $290 billion. With such a high priority placed on Defense Department spending, it does not take a genius to figure out why U.S. diplomats are not successful in mobilizing the American public to take notice of international affairs.
Civilian assistance from NGOs has been helpful to mobilize public opinions when U.S. diplomats are not able to perform this task. At the end of the Cold War, another group of civilians, Hollywood celebrities, began to use their star power to draw attention to important international issues such as the AIDS pandemic in Africa, poverty, and genocide. The first genocide of the 21st century in Darfur has drawn more attention and action from Hollywood than it has from the U.S. government. The Bush administration hesitated to label this tragedy what it was, genocide, and did not push for a cessation to hostilities in the region. In the face of the inaction of the U.S. government, celebrities, such as George Clooney and Don Cheadle, began to give interviews to the American and international media to raise the profile of the genocide. In December 2006, the two actors along with two Olympic athletes, Joey Cheek and Tegla Loroupe, met with the leaders and foreign ministers in Egypt and China to press for changes in these countries’ policies toward Sudan. In an interview with NPR’s Michele Kelemen, Clooney revealed that the delegation had made some progress in Egypt. “Egypt's foreign minister met with us and offered to supply a large number of Egyptian doctors and humanitarians to help fill the void left by the aid workers that have been forced to leave” It begs the question why U.S. diplomats were not able to secure the same promises from the Egyptian foreign minister that George Clooney, a civilian, was able to.
Like George Clooney and Don Cheadle, other Hollywood celebrities have gotten involved in humanitarian causes and their actions bring attention to the plight of Third World nations. In 2001, Angelina Jolie became a UN Goodwill Ambassador following her visit to Sierra Leone after that country’s civil war. She visited with many refugees and decided to use her celebrity to draw attention to the plight of refugees around the globe. “As a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, Angelina uses her status as a superstar to generate media coverage about the plight of refugees and the conditions under which they live. She has traveled widely to remote refugee camps and receiving centers in countries including Tanzania, Namibia, Cambodia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Ecuador.” Jolie has also adopted two of her three children, Maddox and Zahara, from refugee camps in Cambodia and Namibia, respectively. Recently, Madonna adopted a Malawian child in her tour of the country to increase awareness of the affect of AIDS on the small country of Malawi.
Although these celebrities have used their notoriety to stop genocide in Darfur, raise awareness about the AIDS pandemic in Africa, and put faces to the plight of refugees around the globe, some critics of these actions argue that celebrities perform these good deeds in order to get more publicity for their work. Others argue that there is no guarantee that a celebrity will follow through on their promise to donate money to a cause or stay involved once their careers are over. While these concerns should be taken seriously, one cannot ignore the fact that celebrity involvement in certain causes, such as Darfur, increase in attention the American public gives to it. Because of his famous name, George Clooney and his father, Nick, were able to film and broadcast their own documentary about Darfur on AmericanLife Network. Celebrities have connections and channels within the entertainment business and politics that many other civilian organizations and NGOs do not have. These connections make it easier to create movies and television shows to educate these audiences about important international issues.
Because diplomats do not appear in movies or have independent monetary resources at their disposal, they seem to be losing out in the attempt to educate and mobilize the American population to support international causes. This does not have to be the normal situation if the State Department and U.S. federal government implement a few policy changes. First, there needs to be more monetary resources given to the State Department so it will be able to expand its operations to include educating the American public. An increased budget will also allow the Foreign Service to attract the best candidates to become diplomats who may have better salary offers elsewhere. Secondly, there needs to be a meaningful and productive channel through which diplomats can express their objections to certain foreign policy decisions made by the President and his advisors. If a diplomat disagrees with a policy, he or she should not have to chose between keeping silent or quitting their jobs. The diplomatic corps must have the opportunity to participate in the policy making decision. Finally, the State Department should use celebrities and NGOs who are experts in certain issues and regions as sources of information rather than dismiss their insights as unprofessional. If the State Department cooperates with NGOs and celebrities to educate the American public about international affairs, more people would sit up and pay attention to the events in the larger world.
i. Baylis, John and Steve Smith. The Globalization of World Politics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Pg.370.
ii. CommonDreams.org. "U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation." Newscenter. 31 Jan.
2007
iii. Human Rights Watch. About HRW. 31 Jan. 2007
iv. U.S. Department of State. "Fact Sheet." International Affairs. 29 Jan. 2007
v. Clooney, George. Interview with Michele Kelemen. All Things Considered. NPR News, Washington D.C. 16 Dec. 2006.
vi. United Nations. "What's Going On?" UN Works. 30 Jan. 2007
