bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1985) — Winter 1985 // Hiver 1985, p. 5
“Here we go again,” I thought as tentacles of persecution wiggled their tips around in my mind. “Just once I wish they’d stick up for us.”
This self-indulgent outburst was occasioned by the brouhaha over Canadian membership in the Aberdeen Boat Club. As I understand it, access to the club was a result of debentures in the club, a financially sound arrangement worked out which gave, without regard to rank, membership in the club to Canadian personnel at the Hong Kong mission. Not unexpectedly, this tempest in a teapot was created by innuendo followed by overreaction.
When the facts were reviewed, it became clear that Hong Kong was not Ottawa and different circumstances existed. The superficial situation had been judged without all the information, and by Ottawa standards. Quelle surprise!!
No wonder we begin to develop a ghetto mentality. Sometimes I think foreign service life should not be undertaken by anyone who cannot live with the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dilemma.
If we live like diplomats, we are wasting public money. If we live like private citizens, we are failing to be sufficiently diplomatic. If we sympathize with the host country, we have lost our perspective. If we promote Canada’s interests too avidly, we are insensitive. If we go public, we are compromising security. If we keep silent, we are withholding information. If we advise elected officials, we are interfering. If we keep our own counsel, we are being uncooperative. If we advise action, we are overreacting. If we advise caution, we are old women. If we miss a trick, we are ignorant.
Above all, if we should be suspected of having acquired some of the privileges of the “upper classes” ’, we are reprimanded, held up to public criticism and cut off at the knees without so much as an opportunity to make our case. Even those who should know better are guilty of over reacting to the biased insinuations of the public press.
Last year’s dramatic increase in the shelter share is another case of a Canadian- Ottawa yardstick being applied to the overseas life of the foreign service. Statistics based on two income families do not apply to the majority of our families. In fact, they apply only to employee-couples as no other couple can count on the accompanying spouse being employed even at local salary scales.
Perhaps it is inevitable that the lives and work of rotational personnel are regulated nt by the whims of a nonagement and an elected super-structure. But when internal decisions and actions, taken after full consultation and consensus, can be so readily questioned and overturned, it is an insult to our integrity.
This situation probably accounts for more morale problems than any other single factor. It is immaterial whether any given decision is good or bad. It is the feeling of being haphazardly managed by those who have little empathy for, or understanding of, the realities of foreign service life that creates frustration.
[No apologies for the “royal we” Anything that affects family life in the foreign
The eleventh commandment of foreign service management seems to be, “They shall be treated as just another part of the civil service; neither receiving undue benefit, nor suffering any undue losses.” Fine – except that many people fail to consider that most foreign service people neither live nor work in Canada. When it is discovered that it costs more to live a Canadian lifestyle overseas, mental consternation and financial constipation set in.
At this point the superficial glamour, the temporarily inflated status and the exotic flavour of an overseas posting are thought to be adequate compensation for the disruption in our lives. The image is persuasive, and becomes the reality. In all fairness, we do little to disabuse the press and the politicians of this attitude. We hug our specialness to ourselves, and perpetuate the myths of our existence.
We show visitors the best of what our life can offer. We tell inspection teams only the easily quantifiable complaints. We answer reporters in smooth, non-controversial terms on obvious issues. To do otherwise would be perceived by the public, rightly or wrongly, as unjustified complaining.
The truth of the matter is, however, that we spend half our lives adjusting, living and working in unfamiliar surroundings, in unfamiliar cultures, with unfamiliar people. The isolation and hardship is camoflaged by the exotic environment. The loneliness is masked by the official life.
Under bizarre, outrageous conditions we defend, promote and interpret Ottawa’s positions and decisions to people who find us equally bizarre and outrageous.
We should not have to apologize for, or continually defend, our need for assistance, often financial, in establishing conditions of service that allow us to maintain a semblance of normality in our lives. There is a difference between a rotational career covering 35 years of one’s life, and one or two assignments which cover separate periods of several years. One is a whole lifestyle, the other are exciting adventures.
Yet to do the work, and to bring our children to competent adulthood, we must remain essentially Canadian in viewpoint and behaviour. We have to adapt to other cultural environments without becoming less a Canadian. For the good of our families, careers and country we cannot afford the more bizarre manifestations of prolonged and repeated relocation shock.
Assisted leave, family reunions, reciprocal working agreements, club memberships and tuition assistance are not perquisites, but needed cushions against the physical and emotional buffeting that is intrinsic in rotational careers.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1985) — Winter 1985 // Hiver 1985, p. 5. Read the rest of this issue →
