bout de papier, Vol. 6, No. 4 (1989), p. 13
Accuse a diplomat of being primarily a social gadfly and only secondarily a working public servant and the fires of righteous indignation will be well and truly lit.
The grease that turns the wheels of international intercourse and commerce is the browsweat of a nation’s foreign service. The front line is its diplomatic corps.
Embedded inextricably in the workings of diplomacy is the role of the social function. Social functions allow for easy access to the representatives of other countries in informal surroundings. In addition to access, a social setting also allows for assessment, information exchange and subtle (or not) sparring outside official channels.
Diplomats of all countries, regardless of their location, are almost always strangers in a strange land. Giving and receiving hospitality with the host country and other diplomatic representatives is the fastest way to learn how to achieve one’s country’s objectives. It also allows diplomats to arrange appropriate introductions and occasions for visiting officials from the home country.
Social functions are part of the activities required to carry out Canada’s diplomatic role overseas. This representational facet of diplomacy is one with which the Canadian government is uncomfortable. It is expensive, it is sometimes ostentatious, it is difficult to defend because the benefits accrue far down the road and it is not understood by many elected officials.
The diplomatic corps, with its plentitude of national pride and cultural ditterences, makes it necessary to adhere to a more formal and mutually accepted form for social occasions. Hence the adherence to protocol which allows everyone to know the rules and avoid embarassment, but which creates a necessity for more formal hospitality.
The style, setting and trappings of diplomatic events attract the limelight and often the attention of the social editor. The result is apparent confirmation that a diplomat’s work is to socialize at public expense.
Since these are occasions both to show off the best that Canada has to offer and to honour one’s foreign guests, there are certain requirements for space, equipment, consumables and ambiance. These requirements, seen as a perquisite and defended as a necessity, often create jealousies within and without the foreign service.
The fundamental principle used to determine guidelines for the overseas benefit package has always been that an employee posted abroad should neither gain nor lose by virtue of belonging to a rotational service. Fortunately, it was realized that circumstances abroad differed from those in Ottawa and the concept of equality has so far been balanced by that of equity.
The representational responsibilities of some positions create an appearance of preferential treatment in terms of housing, allowances and general lifestyle. The resulting resentment has been most pronounced between the program and non-program personnel although it can exist between different officer ranks as well, including the head of mission if he/she usurps an undue portion of the hospitality budget.
In addition to the complaints from specific groups, other trends are developing – the cost of representational standard housing is increasing, servants and casual household help are more expensive, more spouses are working outside the home and more public facilities are being used as venues for official hospitality.
Factors such as these are being used to validate a movement toward the appearance of both a vertically and laterally egalitarian public service. There seems to be a reluctance to recognize that differentials exist within the system, to be more specific, to recognize that some positions have more responsibility than others and justify commensurate treatment.
One perception currently making its rounds is that most spouses are working so that hospitality is mainly being done outside the home and, therefore, representational quality accommodation is not required for most officer positions.
Whether or not spouses work outside the home is irrelevant and to cite them as a causitive factor in any evaluation of representational requirements for housing and allowances is spurious. Firstly, there are many countries in which official hospitality outside the home would be unavailable and/ or inappropriate. Secondly, if it needs to be done, it is the responsibility of the employee and will be done with or without a spouse’s assistance.
Lastly, one must remember that Canadian diplomats abroad are not private citizens, they are Canada. What they say and do, where and how they live, represents all Canadians to the world. A language barrier often makes it difficult to draw the fine distinction between righteous monetary austerity and ordinary monetary cheapness.
It is the head of mission’s duty to see that official hospitality at the post is carried out appropriately; it is the department’s responsibility to see that it can be done with quality.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 6, No. 4 (1989), p. 13. Read the rest of this issue →
