Thirty Years On: Reflections on DFAIT and the Diplomatic Prospect – Part II

Editors’s Note: Abridged versions of the following retrospective have appeared recently in bout de papier (in print) and on the web site of the Canadian International Council.  The second instalment of the full, unedited text follows.

Greasing the skids…

DFAIT’s network of missions abroad should provide the foundation for the foreign ministry’s comparative advantage vis-à-vis other government departments. Instead, by running down the geographic divisions at headquarters and adopting the “international platform” model abroad, local knowledge and regional expertise have been devalued. The vital connection to place is wilting on the vine, while turf wars are being lost to line departments with functional responsibilities. One colleague commented to me recently that current approach looks like a plan for turning DFAIT’s facilities into a global door mat, and its personnel into a corps of overseas concierges, a slightly refined equivalent of the greeters at Walmart.

Read more…

Thirty Years On: Reflections on DFAIT and the Diplomatic Prospect – Part I

Editors’s Note: Abridged versions of the following retrospective appear today in bout de papier (in print) and on the web site of the Canadian International Council.  The first instalment of the full, unedited text follows.

A burning platform

London cabbies are a great source of received wisdom. Over the past several years I have had occasion to focus test dozens of drivers drawn from this select group. I queried them about the reputation of diplomacy in general, and their impressions of diplomats in particular.

Their verdict?

Reduced to its most essential iteration:

Dithering dandies, hopelessly lost in a haze of irrelevance somewhere between protocol and alcohol…

For diplomatic practitioners, exposure to the mainstream view of cartoon caricatures in pin stripes or pearls riding high at public expense serves as a sobering reminder that any vestigial prestige and mystique once associated with the profession has worn long since off.

More worrisome still, since at least Chamberlain’s ill-starred visit to Munich in 1938, diplomacy has come to be associated with weakness and appeasement, with caving in to power.

In other words, diplomacy’s debilitating image problems are matched by serious misunderstandings concerning the substance of the work. That said, however misleading the archetypes, popular perceptions of diplomacy are not entirely unfounded. Neither the profession nor its institutions have adjusted well to the exigencies of the globalization age.

Read more…