Yesterday we told you that the International Crisis Group released a report on the state of Congo’s Eastern provinces as we approach November’s elections. In order to avoid widespread chaos, the ICG listed a number of ways to ensure stability on the ground. Their suggestions were on point and essential, and still we feel like the ICG list would be difficult to accomplish without a special envoy on the ground.

Over the last eight months we have joined 77 Congolese leaders, 35 Congressmen 16 Senators and over 24,000 of you in asking President Obama to appoint an envoy in order to end violence in Congo. But what does special envoy even mean?

Today we’re out to illuminate the envoy. What do they do? What do they look like? How do they dress? How are they different from resident diplomats? If we are all playing Monopoly is the envoy the hotdog or top hat?

We are caught up in the bustle of the Digital Age. Our world changes swiftly before our eyes. And, in the midst of the breakneck chaos it is easy to forget that America is a young nation, at first a small and unlikely dream, then a sovereign country teetering into the 20th century, bombarded by wars and economic downturns before it grew legs as a dominant global power. It is during these eras of uncertainty and times of global turmoil that our leaders rely on the expertise of the special envoy.

During the 18th and 19th centuries the envoy was employed to maintain US stability. During the height of the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin traveled to Paris as an envoy and sat down with King Louis XVI as the colonies struggled against the might of the British Empire. The French fleet the Bourbon king agreed to send proved instrumental in winning that war. In 1790, after America gained independence, George Washington appointed Gouverneur Morris as an envoy to England to resolve post-war tensions. In 1803 the Louisiana Purchase that gave us the American Midwest was negotiated by Thomas Jefferson’s envoy. During the Cold War, when our relationships abroad were strained, President Kennedy sent his brother Robert as an envoy around the world to strengthen friendships, and to secretly maintain negotiations with powers in Moscow.

As America grew comfortable as a global power, the envoy became less about business, and more about projecting American leadership. Today a US-appointed envoy explicitly creates the impression that our leaders are making an all-out effort to settle a crisis. Harry Hopkins, FDR’s envoy operating on the Nazi-dominated European Continent, negotiated the terms of our initial involvement in World War II. In 1983 Ronald Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld as an envoy to the Middle East which culminated in his famous handshake with Saddam Hussein. George J. Mitchell definitively negotiated a peace settlement after centuries of violence in Northern Ireland. Richard Holbrooke was the bullheaded official that demanded an end to ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. General Scott Gration orchestrated last year’s Referendum Vote in war-torn Sudan.

Envoys are not silver bullets, and their success depends on intangibles like timing, mandate, and direct, real-time access to the President. George Mitchell may not have seen success in Northern Ireland had he been appointed a decade earlier. The limited success General Gration experienced in Sudan came after a wave of failed envoy missions in the country. Still, these officials do have the ability to move standstill conflict toward constructive solution.

Could an envoy make the difference in Congo?

Unlike resident diplomats (ambassadors), envoys are not appointed to make friends. When the content is too sensitive for diplomats and too complex and time sensitive for the president to address, the envoy is the frictionless plane of conflict resolution.

When it comes to the Great Lakes, the division of responsibilities within the State Department is stovepiped by a web of bureaucratic turf battles and competing agendas. Here’s what the State Department’s chain of command looks like:

1) General responsibility for Congo flows through the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Central and Southern Africa.
2) Regional security issues, such as Lord’s Resistance Army, and Congolese democracy and human rights, runs through the Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Africa. (This position is currently vacant.)
3) The Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for regional economic issues (i.e. conflict minerals) hails from the West Africa division.

These three areas of interest could and SHOULD be coordinated by a single, empowered envoy reporting to an American executive.  Why? Because all of these tasks are inevitably interrelated. For example, we cannot consider Congolese security without considering conflict minerals. If we want the government to stop intimidating opposition parties –which is currently happening according to the ICG report— our envoy gets on the phone and says, “Hey, Mr. President of Congo. We provide your government with a huge portion of its annual budget. We will revoke this aid unless you stop this nonsense.” BAM.

We firmly believe that the right envoy could change the course of history. You don’t? Great! Ask questions now. Challenge us to educate better, because on October 3rd we are going to rattle the cage again. Stay tuned.

-Kate Morris