I salute Dr. Newton’s honest premonition that his editorial, which argues for the professionalizing of diplomatic corps, invites critique (censure in my opinion). Self confessed inadequacy is virtuous boding for aficionados of public commentary.
Reading Newton’s piece evoked keen recollection of Yogi Bear’s famed directions to a hapless inquiring traveler: “make a left turn at the one-way street ahead, after quarter mile the road becomes a Y, follow it”. Yogi’s directional ditty is an apt prism through which to view the issue at hand. At surface level, it suggests well intentioned directions may be so convoluted that one emerges more confused than before. Similarly, Dr. Newton (to his credit) re-posits an age old concern with robust cerebral energy; yet fails to provide directional clarity, and in the end is deficient in resolution content. At the sub terrain level, Yogi is also suggesting an intended objective may itself be unattainable- not only due to un-negotiable complexities; but also simply because such a destination does not exist as a practical reality- so that no amount of directions can get you there. Having failed at the surface level, it is small wonder Newton’s article ignores inherent sub terrain dimensions/complexities relevant to issue he takes on.
Left Turn
By failing to sufficiently reckon with the nature of the beast he engages, Dr. Newton turns left and goes south with his opinion. His primary failure is not accountably defining a de facto diplomat. The Left Handed Dictionary describes diplomats as people very good at saying come doggie, while looking around for a rock; or people good enough to make you believe who they say they are. Is it any wonder diplomatic practice is also referred to as foreign affairs (pun definitely intended)? In other words diplomats are amorphous creatures, individuals whose agendas forever remain in the left hand column or under the table- pursuing unilateral interests, while purporting notions of disinterest, mutuality and bilateralism. At best a diplomat is a disguise artist, versed in subterfuge; at worst espionage. One country was curiously denounced by the international community for ‘undiplomatic behavior’ when at the height of strained relations it accused another country’s embassy of being nothing but a nest of spies and host of liars. Diplomacy is a euphemism, all about foreign relations- the game of allowing countries to keep score on each other’s business under the guise or pretense of working together. Let’s be honest, even elite multi-lateral bodies with shimmering charters and open pretexts of egalitarianism, are not alien to covert disingenuous, capricious maneuvers that support sinister selfish agendas. A discussion on professionalizing diplomatic corps- with implications for their selection cannot ignore the nature and essence of the function. So how do you professionalize what ‘real diplomats’ do?
Following a Y
By following a Y! That is, by realizing there are sub terrain complexities- best left undefined and unspecified- that inform so called ‘diplomatic’ appointments. In other words one must begin by recognizing it’s not in a government’s best interest to have so called career diplomats (people truly versed and schooled in egalitarian multilateralism, mutual bilateralism, multiculturalism and such good sounding terms) represent the country abroad when its real development/growth objectives may be best served by pursuing hidden unilateral interests. For example, when country X seeks to appoint a ‘diplomat’ to country Y, the foremost question is not (as Dr. Newton would have us believe): who can best/rightly represent our country in that particular context, negotiating wisely and even handedly on our behalf? The predominant consideration is often who among us we can trust to engage country Y in serious side bar overtures and so called bilateral agreements without even once letting on what we are really after by way of borrowing, stealing or buying- and to what extent does that person know the what, when and how particulars of the primary clandestine interest/target? Pointedly, so called career diplomats seldom fit the real needs that ‘diplomatic’ postings seek to satisfy both in term of the friendship/trust factor as well as expertise cover in terms of hidden desired outcomes. A key way of analyzing diplomatic postings is to determine the degree to which they appear to make no sense. i.e the extent to which they seem to follow a Y. Typically this will suggest that deeply hidden unilateral interests are deemed necessary, over and above bilateral & multilateral goodwill & interests. These are the real world calculations that often pre-dominate diplomatic considerations.For diplomats to do what they do best, i.e. be who they’re not- does not require professionalizing in the manner Dr. Newton postulates. Perhaps he may wish to revisit his notions of professionalism in what is in fact dark and sinister territory; a world, that to me, is best left unspecified, undefined and unrevealed- surrendered to the inner sanctum of executive prerogative. In my reckoning, the overarching principle surrounding so called ‘diplomatic’ assignments resides in the people’s governmental trust- an issue duly settled and determined by elections. To seek to tell governments under what conditions they’re to make diplomatic appointments is to seek to frustrate the real purposes of those appointments.
Dr. Raymond S. Edwards
President/CEO, MOHDC
http://www.mohdc.com
Raymond Edwards, Ph.D. Organizational Psychologist & Minister of Religion: is an international development consultant and executive Leadership behavior specialist.
No comments:
Post a Comment