Looking back over decade since 9/11, what events and developments stand out globally? Among others:

• The ongoing Global War on Terror and associated Western military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• The hollowing out of the middle class, the financial crisis and the continuing Great Recession.

• The lost opportunities to support non-violent political reform during the Arab Spring.

9/11 changed everything, and the carnage and consequences engendered by that day haunt us still.

The Twin Towers episode was tragic, but not just on account of the mass fatalities. It provided the neoconservative ideologues in the Bush administration with the pretext they needed to seize control of the domestic and international agendas, and entrench the politics of fear. On their watch, human rights were systematically violated and torture legalized, while military and intelligence spending increased vastly. With this came not only Guantonamo Bay and Abu Ghraib; a network of “black” prisons and interrogation centres was established world-wide, and “extraordinary renditions” kept up the flow of detainees.  On the home front, taxes were cut, civil and constitutional rights were rolled back, and the national security and surveillance state constructed. Meanwhile, and as demonstrated indelibly during the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, the federal government’s program and service infrastructure was gutted.

For the USA, 9/11 was the trip wire which marked the beginning of the end of the unipolar moment. Its aftermath has bankrupted America’s economy, destroyed its reputation, squandered its global leadership, and ensured that the country remains the object of anger and resentment throughout the Arab and Islamic world.

Remarkably, some elements of this misguided response – the drone strikes, covert operations and targeted assassinations – have been ramped up under President Obama. Despite some new packaging, the past four years have seen more continuity than change in American policy.

For friends of the USA, that is worrisome.

Still reaching for the gun

Take, for instance, the Arab Spring. We have witnessed a convincing expression of the people’s thirst for reform. Moreover, that conviction has been expressed in an overwhelmingly secular manner, with the more extreme iterations of radical Islamism notable mainly for their absence. That observation, which not coincidentally relates directly back to the implications of 9/11, may represent the Arab Spring’s most enduring legacy. Either way, one would have thought that lending support to the forces of democratic progress, particularly in the face of concerns over violent Islamic extremism, would have been an obvious choice.

Instead, the West stood by as Tunisia and Egypt erupted, and chose to intervene militarily in the Libyan civil war. The result in most cases has been that beyond cosmetic changes in the top level leadership, very little of substance has really changed.  Labels notwithstanding, these uprisings are a far cry from revolution. And meanwhile, confronted by the stirrings in Jordan, revolts in Bahrain and Yemen, and a full scale rebellion in Syria, NATO’s response has been mute or incoherent.

There is a better way. In the age of globalization, development – long term, equitable, sustainable – has become the new basis for world security. At the level of grand strategy, that means that diplomacy must replace defence at the centre of international policy.

Until that lesson is taken to heart, the toll of 9/11 will continue to mount

True north in transition

How has 9/11 changed Canada? Profoundly, but – like so much else – in a manner mainly resembling a miniature replica of the USA..

Although the metamorphosis here began well before the change of government in 2006, the nature and orientation of contemporary Conservative foreign policy differs significantly from that of previous Liberal and Progressive Conservative  governments.

At the highest level of analysis, it could not be clearer that the overall international policy emphasis and mix associated with this country has shifted. Adulation of the military, and a general preference for the use of armed force has been placed front and centre, at the expense of both diplomacy and development assistance. Ten years ago the rallying cry for defence recruitment was “There’s no life like it”. Now, it’s “Fight”. Accordingly, there has been an acceleration in the transformation of the structure of the Canadian Forces, away from peacekeeping in favour of expeditionary war fighting. This redirection has been evident in both the prosecution of an ambitious – if ill-fated – counter-insurgency campaign in Kandahar, and in the enthusiastic participation in the NATO bombing and embargo in support of regime change in Libya.

At a speech in Trapani Italy delivered on September 1^st to members of the (Royal) Canadian Forces, Prime Minister Harper averred that “a handful of soldiers is better than a mouthful of arguments”. The following week in an interview he stated that “Islamicist” terrorism represents the foremost threat facing Canada.

So much for any kind of preference for nonviolent conflict resolution… not to mention according priority to the pressing need to address global issues such as climate change, diminishing biodiversity, nuclear proliferation, and environmental degradation. Unlike terrorism, any one of these threats could take down not just Canada, but large swathes of the world.

The Conservatives have emphasized Canada’s relations with the Americas – for the first four years at the expense of relations with China and India, which were ineptly managed. Free trade agreements have been pursued with a number of Latin American countries, while relations with African states have been marked by embassy closures and the concentration of aid expenditures on a more limited number of countries. A tilt towards the unconditional support for Israel has become the hallmark of Canadian policy on issues of Middle East politics and the regional peace process more broadly.

Under the Conservatives the foreign ministry (DFAIT) does not appear to enjoy the confidence, trust and respect which it once did. Once a leader in public diplomacy, the imposition of the – chillingly Orwellian – Message Event Proposal requirement means that the department’s staff cannot have an unscripted conversation outside the Pearson building and are now effectively gagged. There seems to be little appetite for the Department’s advice, and it is not being called upon to develop new international policy initiatives.

All of this may well have contributed to Canada’s shocking failure to win a seat on the UN Security Council.

Breaking with the past

The extent of the remaking of Canada’s role and place in the world becomes especially clear when the meagre international policy content of the last four years (under four foreign ministers) are compared, for instance, to the three and a half years of activist diplomacy in the late nineties under Lloyd Axworthy. During that period, with a lot of assistance from DFAIT, Canadian leadership helped to achieve a treaty to land mines, an International Criminal Court, and major initiatives on blood diamonds, children in conflict and humanitarian intervention (The Responsibility to Protect).

The contrast between the pursuit of the Human Security Agenda and the current level of inactivity is striking. Yet the post-9/11 departure from previous foreign policies has deeper roots.
Under PM Mulroney, Canada spearheaded the organization of the UN’s Rio Conference on Environment and Development, which produced the Framework Convention on Climate Change; the Statement of International Forestry Principles; the Biodiversity Convention, and; Agenda 21. Canada negotiated the FTA and NAFTA; it concluded treaties on acid rain and the protection of the ozone layer (Montreal Protocol), and; it worked within the Commonwealth to end apartheid in southern Africa.

These were significant diplomatic enterprises; the extent of the discontinuity with the present is unmistakable.

Grand strategy?

Moving forward, we are entering uncharted territory. As power and influence diffuse to other parts of the planet, the key challenge will be to manage the necessary accommodation more successfully in this century than was the case during the last, which was marked by two world wars and a Cold War.

Initial indications, however, are not encouraging.

There are few signs of any kind of grand strategy guiding Canada’s response to the re-emergence, after 400 years, of the Asia-Pacific region as the dynamic centre of the global political economy. Next year, in order to save $10 million, Canada will be alone among G-20 countries in its absence at  the Expo 2012 world’s fair in Yeosu, Korea. The theme of the Expo is “The Living Ocean and Coast” with sub themes of “Preservation and Sustainable Development of the Ocean and Coast,” “New Resources Technology,” and “Creative Marine Activities.”

Canada has the longest shoreline in the world, with frontage on three oceans…

Identity makeover

Over the course of the decade since 9/11, and more drastically over the past five years, Canada’s international image and reputation – our brand – have been fundamentally recast.  The once familiar helpful fixer, honest broker, generous aid donor and boy scout to the world has today become something quite different.

It would be in the interest of all Canadians – and perhaps even beyond – if the reconstruction of the Canadian brand were to be more widely acknowledged, debated and discussed.

I have been back in New Zealand, the enchanted Land of the Long White Cloud, since June 16. During that surpassingly enjoyable period I have been  reacquainting myself with various parts of the country – Auckland, Northland and the Coromandel peninsula, attending a conference on Science Diplomacy at Otago University’s 46th Foreign Policy School in Dunedin, condulting with colleagues at the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and  speaking at various branches of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs.

All of this has been most rich and rewarding, and some of the subject matter has even generated interest in the local press.

Before getting into any of that, however, here’s an instructive tale.

* * * * * * * * * *

You never know what lies around the next bend in the road…

I awoke very early the morning of June 24^th in delightful Coromandel town. I wanted to see the tip of the peninsula, and calculated that I would have just enough time, but first I had to repack to get all of my stuff for the flight from Auckland to Dunedin at 14:05 that afternoon. I also wanted to do my emails, have a look at the day’s press, and so on.

After a quick breakfast and several cups of  coffee, I was on my way by 8:00, heading north towards Port Charles.  It was a beautiful morning, I was in stunning natural surroundings with the windows down, the slightly edgy, sensuually delicious scent of the native New Zealand bush pouring in, a smile on my face, and not a care in the world.

The road from the village of Colville running south back towards Coromandel town is gravel, or as they say here, unsealed. I was ascending a steep hill not far past Kennedy Bay, and just entering a corkscrew turn when I heard the sound of something sliding on gravel.

I thought it might have been what new Zealander’s call a slip – a landslide.

I slowed almost to a stop. The next thing I saw was a car, out of control, in my lane, about 10 feet away.  On my left was a sheer drop, no guard rail, straight off into a ravine, perhaps 200 feet down through forest into a river.

On my right was a sheer cliff, cut into the side of the hill in order to construct the road.

Nowhere to go.

I hit the brakes, and braced for impact.

SMASH!!!

Head on.

No injuries.

Both cars badly damaged, if not wrecked.

I had been crashed into by 19 year old Richard Whale, a local lad working as a butcher’s apprentice in nearby Whitianga.  He immediately accepted responsibility and said that he was sorry.

But he is uninsured.

* * * * * * * * * *

Thanks to the good advice provided by my Wellington friend Tara Durdin, on my visit last year I had purchased an NZ cell phone…

I contacted the police, informed the rent a car company of the accident,  and provided a heads-up to Air NZ  to say that I didn’t think I could possibly make my flight at 14:05. I asked them to please pass a message along to the conference organizers to the effect that I regrettably would be unable to make the opening ceremonies – and the speech by NZ’s Foreign Minister, Murray McCully.

I was glad that everyone was unhurt, but slightly bummed because my plans had been undone, and the insurance on the rented car was $NZ 1000 deductible.

NZ Police Constable Andrew Grice arrived about 45 minutes later. In response to his question regarding how I came to be in the middle of nowhere,  I explained my situation,  told him that I was in the country as a guest of the NZ government’s foreign ministry, and that I was sad to be missing my flight and the evening engagement in Dunedin. It was 11:30.

He looked  at his watch and asked me how badly I wanted to make it to the airport and on to Dunedin.

I replied, “very”.

It was 11:30.

“OK”, he said, “get in my truck”. “We will yank the cars off the road with my chain, and leave them for towing later. I will look after the paperwork and other formalities tonight”.

He had a big 4WD,  we fastened our seatbelts, and  and we raced -  flew -  into town, with him working his cell phone and radio all the way. He was trying to find me, first, another rent-a-car, which was impossible because the one local place wouldn’t do a one way rental, and then, a taxi, of which there is only one in Coromandel.

And, Constable Andrew thought,  the service had just been established the week before.

When we arrived at the Coromandel police station we were met by the most affable Jane Warren, gassed up and ready to roll in her brand new cab. For $NZ 300 she daid that she would get me to the Auckland airport, hopefully in time to make the flight.

I was her very first customer.

We zoomed off.

She know every hill and corner all the way down the west coast of the peninsula.

Good thing.

* * * * * * * * * *

I had not been asked to produce my driver’s license, the car rental papers, or anything of that nature. Just some personal details and my signature on an accident report form.

Clearly there would be no time to stop at the car rental office.

Two hours later, at 13:50 I was at the airport, being whisked through security by Air NZ ground staff.  The airline reps said that they would try and get me on the flight, which they had very kindly held for a few minutes, but that my bags wouldn’t make it until later.

I didn’t think that would be a problem.

Then, an even more unexpected development. The security screener said that there was a knife in my jacket packet. My heart sank. It was my travelling Swiss Army knife. In all of the excitement,  I had completely forgotten about it.

I mumbled something about having had a bad morning, that I was sorry to lose it, but understood, and, and…

The man behind the X-ray machine said “It’s alright, mate”. He  handed the knife  back to me, and urged me to hurry.

I boarded the flight, and made it to the conference opening.

So did my luggage.

I was a few bucks poorer, but unspeakably happy.

Not to mention alive.

All quite incredible, really.

Another one for my already bulging file of NZ lore.

* * * * * * * * * *

And, might I add, it could only have happened here.

New Zealand is an unusually integrated, cohesive and, in important respects, intimate society. Help is there when you need it, but otherwise, most Kiwis are quite prepared to leave you alone and let you get about your business.

Never in your face.

Everything is highly personal.

Trust matters.

That means you can get things done in a fashion which is easy, uncomplicated.

Among other things, it makes for exceedingly happy travelling.

And, from the perspective of advancing New Zealand’s interests abroad, a very appealing national brand.

More on the meaning of all of this for diplomacy, the foreign ministry and the foreign service prospect in the next post.

Parts I and II of this series have examined the role and place – or lack thereof – of science and technology in diplomacy and international policy. How do those observations play out in reference to Canada, and, by extension, for members of the international community more generally?

The Canadian case brings many of these issues, and in particular the aspect of unfulfilled possibilities, into stark relief. Notwithstanding its humiliating electoral defeat at the UN, Canada retains a significant comparative advantage  vis-a-vis the global competition in terms of soft power.  A large part of this advantage may be attributed to default, that is, to the things which this country doesn’t  have or do, such as carry colonial baggage or harbor aggressive global ambitions. And however undeserved, Canada still enjoys a very positive international image and reputation. It’s brand was recently ranked the world’s best.

Unthreatening  and nice.

Cosmopolitan and approachable.

Open and welcoming.

The globalization nation.

Canada, moreover, has the capacity – educational, scientific and representational – necessary to make a substantial contribution to science diplomacy. Before that potential can be realized, however, significant reform will be required.

For instance, the Foreign Ministry, DFAIT, should be centrally placed as the Canada’s globalization entrepot, an international docking mechanism and whole-of-government catalyst for the high level management of cross-cutting, inter-sectoral issues. These issues could range from the promotion of human rights or the rule of law to the pursuit of international security. None would be the responsibility of any single line department; the management of globalization is nobody else’s job.

Yet is DFAIT moving to re-invent itself as a central agency for ensuring the coordination and coherence of all aspects of international policy?

No.

Instead, Foreign Ministry is being starved of resources and generally sidelined, marginalized and ignored.

Are diplomats being empowered  serve as  globalization managers, using their access to the Global Political Economy of Knowledge to address transnational issues? Again, no, despite the fact that engaging in S&T knowledge-based problem solving has become a critical diplomatic competence in the emerging heteropolar world.

Regrettably, science diplomacy is almost completely absent from the diplomatic mix, S&T knowledge is not considered a key competence in foreign service  recruitment. S&T partnerships – even basic S&T relationships – with universities, NGOs, think tanks and business are few to non-existent.

In other words, it is not just that the dots are not connected.

Typically, there are no dots.

What would be required to build bridges between the largely disconnected worlds of S&T and diplomacy?

Canada needs a grand strategy with a major S&T component. DFAIT needs to articulate a comprehensive international S&T policy, and establish a responsibility centre for the implementation of an action plan which will give legs (and performance benchmarks, and a time line) to the strategy and policy.

Clearly, some significant personnel and institutional changes will be necessary. As this is largely the stuff of public administration rather than international policy, I offer these recommendations in point form only:

Within DFAIT:

• Appoint an International S&T Advisor to Deputy Minister. Creation of such a position has been frequently recommended – the US and UK have long had such advisors – but never acted upon.
• Create new Bureau, under a Director General, for International S&T affairs. Unlike the current, trade-centred S&T enterprise, this larger entity would straddle both the international commerce and political sides of the Department, and a include robust policy development/analysis capability.
• Intensify ties with the International Development Research Centre; National Research Council; Industry Canada and other science-based departments and research councils; universities; think tanks; NGOs.
• Increase resident bench strength by bringing the outside in and turning inside out through a targeted program of secondments, exchanges, and internships.
• Enlarge S&T training and professional development opportunities.
• Add International S&T courses and learning modules to the curriculum of the Canadian Foreign Service Institute.
• Develop a Canadian International S&T strategy,  policy, and action plan, focusing on points where Canadian capacity, national interests and global needs intersect.

At the national level:

• Rescind the extraordinary controls on scientific and diplomatic communications (MEPs, etc.).
• Restore the position of Science Advisor to the Prime Minister and house that function  in the Privy Council Office (it was downgraded and moved to Industry Canada after the 2006 election).
• Consider re-creating a Ministry of State for Science and Technology as a stand alone entity with a mandate to improve linkages between those with S&T knowledge and those with responsibility for public policy, administration and management, and; to serve as a clearing house for S&T research and intelligence.

There is much to be done to equip Canada for the successful practice of science diplomacy. But if the will could be found to express Canada’s abundant soft power through imaginative policy-making and enlightened institutions vested with resource suffiency, then this country might once again be positioned to make a real difference in the world.

With the G8/G20 meetings about to begin, the attention of the international media will inevitably, if fleetingly, focus on Canada. What kind of impression might be conveyed?

For journalists prepared to eschew the backdrops, sound bites and briefing books and to venture beyond the sterile secure areas, there may be a few surprises.

Even the least intrepid would soon discover that in a world of well-established, pre-packaged national identities, this country is different.

That difference has little to do with beavers or moose, with the cold climate or the scenic attractions.

It is not the place. It’s the people.

No matter where you’re from, if Canada were a mirror, you would see your own face reflected.

And because everyone is here, no one stands out.

* * * * * * * * *

It is one thing to remark upon Canadian multiculturalism, but it is quite another to think through the larger implications. Immigration, buttressed by trade, travel, tourism and technology, has transformed Canada from a marginal remnant of rival empires into an open-ended possibility, a work in progress in which change and accommodation are constant.

After almost 150 years, Canada has become a state – of becoming.

* * * * * * * * *

There is something inherently exciting about looking forward rather than gazing back. Yet for some, and perhaps especially those with a lingering attachment to the notion of a bi-lingual, bi-cultural, “true north strong and free”, being part of an ongoing demographic experiment may seem a little unsettling. Be that as it may, the old verities, however comfortable, no longer fit.

It’s not just that over one half of Toronto residents, for instance, were born somewhere else. Recent public opinion research also suggests that coasting on an outdated reputation has begun to erode Canada’s credibility abroad. It is time to move on – or face the consequences.

That said, the risks of inaction pale in comparison to the possible gains on the upside. If some innovative thinking were harnessed in service of Canadian objectives in the high stakes world of international affairs, a coherent effort to project a more contemporary mix could pay handsome dividends.

Many countries have the coercive power associated with armed force, but that will never be Canada’s strong suit. Nor should it be. This country’s comparative advantage lies elsewhere – in the diverse make-up of its communities, in the souplesse of the social fabric, in an unthreatening demeanour and a willingness to be helpful.

In terms of trade and investment, this country has among its citizens people with the language skills, cross-cultural acumen and business savvy necessary to penetrate promising new markets of any description.

When it comes to the complex balancing and knowledge-based, problem solving skills required for mediation, negotiation and compromise in conflict resolution, Canada is similarly well-equipped.

With a generally benign image, little historical baggage and an open, approachable temperament, the prospects for successful engagement in genuine dialogue improve.

In other words, because the idea of Canada usually evokes a smile rather than a scowl, people will talk to us.

The same positive predisposition is not always displayed towards those with a colonial past or imperial present.

* * * * * * * * *

Even with a pretty good hand, however, branding a nation – which is to say, a country and its people – is immensely difficult. Nation brands are formed over time, and are best not based on postcard stereotypes.

Several years ago, the president of a leading New York PR firm screened a visually stunning slide show of mountains, lakes, forests and wheat fields at a branding seminar organized for Canadian Consuls-General in the USA.

“Canada sure looks nice, eh?” said the Madison Avenue guru.  Heads nodded sagely.

“Trouble is”, he continued,  “these are pictures of Wyoming…”

With a few exceptions – say, the Matterhorn or Percé Rock – the problem with an over-reliance on the great outdoors is that rocks and trees are largely generic.

An effective brand is not about what you look like, or say. It’s about what you do, who you are, and how you act.  That kind of brand is unique and differentiating. It conveys both emotional appeal and a clear value proposition.

Many countries rely mainly on exhortation, proclaiming support for values such as democracy and respect for human rights. When pronouncements and behaviour do not align, however, a perilous “say-do gap” can open like a yawning chasm. As more than a few major players have learned at some cost, even the best communications practices can never compensate for fundamentally flawed or contradictory policy.

Canada’s strength, and the source of such influence as might ever be exercised, emanates not from the loudness of our voice, the comeliness of our landscapes,  or the power of our weapons. Instead, this country’s appeal resides in the openness, generosity of spirit and outward orientation of Canadians.

That attraction is cultural, and it is embedded in the population rather than in politics or in public administration.

* * * * * * * * *

There has never been a coordinated, concerted attempt to construct or promote a distinctive Canadian brand; the branding potential associated with Canada’s wealth of human resources is almost completely untapped.

It is time to put the capacities and qualities of Canadians to work in the world.

To start the conversation, I would propose the elaboration of a nation branding strategy informed not by the beauty of our nature, but by the nature of our beauty. The framework could be christened Canada’s Six Cs : Creative; Competitive; Connected; Cosmopolitan; Civic, and; Caring.

These features are current. They are demonstrable. And their provenance is neither partisan nor corporate.

With vision, leadership and support as pre-requisites, the active management of Brand Canada could usefully become job one for Canadian international policy.

These should be heady days for diplomats. After a long stretch languishing in relative obscurity, the willingness to explore diplomatic alternatives to the use of armed force in the pursuit of international policy objectives has become suddenly, well, fashionable.

The arrival of the Obama administration, and especially Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, has unleashed a torrent of commentary on soft power, smart power, branding and public diplomacy. Harvard Professor Joseph Nye – the guru of soft, and now, in the vernacular of the moment, smart power – is becoming almost a household name. Special envoys have been appointed, difficult issues broached, executive orders signed and new directions indicated. Diplomatic studies specialists, long neglected by both the media and the mainstream, and rarely if ever consulted by decision-makers and opinion-leaders, are finding themselves surprisingly popular. Even within the sometimes rarified heights of international relations scholarship, diplomacy is receiving unprecedented attention.

The short road from heresy to liturgy is getting even shorter.

Foreign ministries and diplomats everywhere will welcome the attention; they have been through a rough patch and now have their work cut out for them, doing things like assisting with broad-based development, supporting democracy and human rights, and building bridges to civil society. Moreover, practitioners have rarely been better positioned to address pressing professional issues, to burnish the tools of the trade and to engage publics abroad through dialogue and partnership. In much of the world, the image and reputation of the West in general, and the USA in particular, has huge potential on the upside.

In short, statecraft is on a roll, and the timing could scarcely be better.

For those accustomed to toiling unnoticed in the diplomatic wilderness, all of this is giving rise to something akin to an out of body experience.

Carpe diem.

What might be said of this promising trend? How might the diplomatic difficulties of the past few decades be explained? And where to now – can smart power deliver as advertised? In this calculus I see both change, and possibly a disconcerting hint of continuity.

Some observations. Firstly, the new political leadership in the USA appears to have re-discovered that diplomacy per se matters. In the face of a profusion of unresolved conflicts and unaddressed global threats and challenges, many rooted in science and driven by technology, a fresh willingness is in evidence to give negotiation, compromise and meaningful exchange an overdue test drive. But the machinery and its operators have been idling on the sidelines in recent years. A major tune-up, if not a complete re-build will be necessary.

Secondly, and in that regard, the delivery of something broadly similar to the core of former Secretary Rice’s program for transformational diplomacy – representational reform, the retooling of organizational structure and bureaucratic process, and enlargement of the resource base – will be imperative. The implementation of this strategy will not in itself, however, suffice if talking is to triumph over fighting as the international policy instrument of choice. The dominant world view, too, needs a complete refit.

Thirdly, then, and perhaps most fundamentally, it seems to me that diplomacy reached this critical impasse as a result of the imposition of a particular ideological perspective which conditioned, if not determined the political and intellectual environment in which the foreign ministry and foreign service have had to operate.

Let me deal summarily with the first two points:

1. Over the long history of delivering international policy results for states, diplomats have had to manage issues such as territorial disputes, treaty and legal problems, and ideological competition. In the early 21st century, these sorts of challenges, to which might be added terrorism, migration and criminality, are still out there, but have been joined by a daunting set of S&T based issues: climate change and pandemic disease; resource scarcity and environmental collapse; weapons of mass destruction and genomics, to name a few. Most serving diplomats are not equipped, in terms of background, knowledge and experience, to handle successfully these types of files.

2. The prescription for transformational diplomacy recognizes that diplomacy needs to be re-invented from the bottom up, and that this will involve a complete rethinking of the diplomatic business model and reimagining of the essential skill set of the diplomatic person. I am convinced completely of the need to reconstruct the foreign ministry. In OECD countries especially, these tend to be among the oldest of central government institutions. Westphalian conventions are profoundly embedded, and the culture tradition-laden, hierarchic and risk averse. Placing adequate emphasis on overcoming these internal obstacles will be crucial.

Globalization has radically altered the role and place of states in the international system diplomats, diplomacy and the foreign ministry have not adapted well The main diplomatic institutions must accordingly be reconsidered fundamentally or face irrelevance, if not oblivion. Success at this game of catch-up will require vision and dexterity. Which brings me to the third point. Foreign ministries and diplomats have their shortcomings, but are their other reasons that performance has faltered? Might this affect the ability of the apparent diplomatic surge to endure?