bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 4 (1986) — Winter 1986 // Hiver 1986, pp. 5–31
Let Herbert Norman Now Rest in Peace
Editor, bout de papier
Almost 30 years after his death Herbert Norman, career diplomat, historian, and writer, still cannot rest in peace.
American James Barros, a professor in the University of Toronto’s department of political science, is about to capitalize on a book rehashing the lies, half-truths, and ignorance concerning Norman’s supposed Communist loyalties, which hounded him to eventual suicide.
In his youth at Cambridge University Norman did take part in Marxist study groups and even for a time became a member of the Communist party; later, at Harvard, in scholarly interest he pursued these studies. It was through these that he became disillusioned with the Marxist theories and throughout maintained his loyalty to his own country, Canada, and its ideals.
I spoke to Norman in the Parliament Buildings after he worked with Lester Pearson on the Suez crisis just before he was to take up his new post as ambassador to Cairo. He was depressed at the persistent persecution by possessed but uninformed parties in the United States and hoped that his duties abroad would relegate the charges to the background
This did not turn out to be true. The false stories by Sen. Joe McCarthy and others followed him until one day, after a visit with a Swiss colleague in a Cairo office building, he jumped off the roof.
I was an officer with the Canadian Embassy in Washington in the ’50’s when the Communist invasion of Korea sired the Senate probe into internal security and near hysteria swept the land.
That was when McCarthy and his sidekick Roy Cohn (who was later disbarred as a lawyer and died of AIDS before he could face fraud and other charges) began investigations that threatened all levels of society. McCarthy fell into disgrace when he and a senior editor of the Times-Herald printed a fake picture showing a well-known anti-Communist shaking hands with a Communist leader. McCarthy was censured by the Senate and died an alcoholic leaving in his wake broken lives and careers of American leaders, writers, actors, and of course Canadian Herbert Norman.
Robert W. A. Dunn Ottawa
Picker-upper
Editor, bout de papier
My day is always made special when I receive a copy of your quarterly publication of bout de papier. It provides a jubilant perspicacious insight into past events of those golden years, as well as, present an illustrious account of current events. I always set it aside for my favorite read.
Murray Nadeau
Keep it up
Editor, bout de papier
Keep up the good work with bout de papier. We enjoy it.
Graham Rush
Appraisals Abuse?
Editor, bout de papier
Your recent editorial about “rating the raters” prompts this letter, which may serve to illustrate how our present appraisal system can be abused when a problematical senior manager, repeatedly kicked upstairs and apparently beyond any hierarchical control, reaches a level where he can seriously harm the careers of subordinates.
By way of background, I am serving out two years of involuntary LWOP in Paris, after a devastating appraisal in the second year of my last assignment led to its abrupt termination and an order to return to Ottawa “for operational reasons”. My spouse’s professional commitments here, assumed on the basis of a full tour, did not seem to move the department at all, and our decision to respect that commitment was seized upon as indicating I might wish to resign (take that, Pam McDougall!)
The appraisal and the reassignment were appealed at both levels. In spite of factual proof of bias and deliberate oversights, the department did not question a single substantive aspect of the appraisal.
It seems I fell into one of those awkward situations which dares not speak its name within the department, for fear of offending the Gods of biculturalism. From the outset, it was clear that my francophone supervisor had little personal esteem for me, something he made no effort to conceal from support staff or other Canadians. This attitude, which may have reflected an underlying discomfiture extending to most anglophones, was evidently aggravated if one spoke French without resorting to a franglais peppered with hockey and baseball imagery.
Having failed to heed to broad hints at the end of the first year that he would really be happier were I elsewhere, I became the object of force majeure in the second … multi page memos for having dared sign telegrams, or suggesting that a liaison trip to Canada might be useful.
These “incidents” were then trotted out at appraisal time as proof of my unsuitability for the task at hand. Quadrupling our Canadian Studies centres, overseeing on the Canadian government’s behalf a $2.5 million student residence project, or organizing smoothly run Ministerial visits were not deemed worthy of mention in the appraisal, either by the supervisor, or (something harder to understand) for departmental officials who subsequently examined (or claimed to) the dossier.
For two years, the supervisor’s impetuous, at times irrational approach to business, all too often translated into unscheduled and unexplained absences, hasty meetings at which he would then not appear, and a complete lack of consideration for subordinates, most of the time with their fingers stuck in the dike, covering for him at meetings, or, at the frantic behest of harried secretaries (he went through four during my two years) receiving visitors (generally Anglophone or French) whose appointments the supervisor seemed to have forgotten.
Alas, alack, I could not avoid indicating a certain amount of unhappiness with this kind of behaviour, to the supervisor directly, and to his hierarchical superiors (eg. in the case of the missing official car booked to transport a visiting DM, apparently commandeered to transport a TV to holidaying members of the supervisor’s family). This did not sit well with the supervisor, nor, I got the impression, with the superiors, who would have preferred not to know.
The mystery, of course, is how it is possible the aberration that was the appraisal in question to pass through the system, including two grievances, without raising the slightest question in anyone’s mind about its honesty or equitability, notwithstanding factual, non-judgmental arguments, statements clearly refuted, or major achievements simply unmentioned. It suggests to me an unhealthy and misplaced solidarity among senior officials (my pal right or wrong) or, worse, that officers brought into the department to shore up a deficient quota are, by definition, above reproach.
I trust the above will serve as a warning to my fellows who, if they cannot avoid falling into the orbit of someone like this, will at least have the sense, unlike myself, to avoid “lèse-majesté” when it concerns a member of a protected minority!
Maldwyn H. Jones.
ARFSO?
Editor, bout de papier
The time has probably come when serious consideration should be given to the establishment of ARFSO (Association of Retired Foreign Service Officers) as a logical corollary to PAFSO. With a maturing service and the number of retirees growing steadily, there would appear to be good reason for taking such a step. An Association could not only significantly contribute to morale, but could also serve as a useful vehicle for promoting and enhancing Foreign Service interests.
Foreign Service Officers who retire today simply walk out the door and to all intents and purposes become forgotten entities. Anyone who has ever tried to ascertain the whereabouts of a former colleague will know that even that seemingly simple task can frequently be difficult and time-consuming.
Members of the Foreign Service are justifiably proud of their profession. Admission to the career is highly selective. Demands are complex and heavy. Both at home and abroad Canadian diplomats over the years have been praised on many occasions for their effectiveness and the quality of their work. The nature of the profession is such that they interact much more with one another than is the case in other professions. It is therefore the more the pity that retirement usually leads to complete loss of contact with the department and with colleagues.
An Association of Retired Foreign Service Officers could fill the gap which exists, organising occasional reunions/ meetings and providing the means for ongoing communication.
The scope for Association activity extends well beyond the social realm. The Foreign Service is a collection of very talented individuals whose talents become no less significant on retirement. This is reflected in the way in which a growing number of Foreign Service Officers have distinguished themselves in their “second careers”
The Foreign Service has gone through many changes over the past decade and without doubt will face new and difficult challenges in the years to come. An Association could in this respect serve a useful purpose as a voice, first, expressing itself freely on matters of vital interest to the Service and, second, contributing through its members to the ongoing discussion of Canadian foreign policy.
There are, of course, a number of practical benefits which an Association might bring such as group insurance rates, access to any future PAFSO provisions, and so on. PAFSO for its part would presumably benefit through whatever incentive ARFSO might create for EX(FS)s to maintain their PAFSO ties, as well as through better group rates in certain areas deriving from a larger combined membership base.
Two principal ingredients are presumably needed. The first is the interest of PAFSO which has the infrastructure in place and the ability to catalyse the process leading to the setting up of the new organization. The second is sufficient interest on the part of retired officers themselves.
Bill Warden
Enjoying bout
I am very pleased to have the copy of bout de papier. I enjoyed Mr. Freifeld’s column and was delighted to see the record of the interview with Howard Green.
Heath Macquarrie Senator
FSO’s, the Media and Public
Editor, bout de papier
EF. obvious reasons, I shall not mention the date, location or any of the persons involved. But I shall recount an incident which made me wince as a Canadian because it was an incident which reflects not only upon Canada but, more seriously, upon the quality of our foreign service personnel.
The incident took place at one of those all too numerous occasions when a bit of pomp is in order. The incident involved a very senior Canadian diplomat who was the star attraction at the event. I was a guest and was seated with several other diplomatic representatives from invited governments. I was present as an academic guest.
The Canadian diplomat in question took the podium and proceeded to address the assembled guests in our two official languages and in the language of the host country. He droned on in all three languages and eventually, mercifully, he stuttered to something vaguely resembling a conclusion.
A diplomat from a very friendly other country turned to me and said, “My God, he’s incoherent in all three languages but worse, his English is atrocious and that’s his native tongue”.
I recently dined with a leading American economist at a meeting in New York and this person’s name came up in the course of the conversation. The American said, “Oh that guy, he’s bloody incompetent”. In subsequent discussion learned that the American had also witnessed the person’s public performances in the host country in three languages on more occasions than I and he asserted that his observations were widely shared by many leading business people in the host country.
I would not normally raise the issue but for two things. First, this person is a career officer and not one of the growing coterie of political appointees. In principle, by the way, I strongly oppose the ongoing politicisation of our foreign service and while I will concede that several political (Order-in- Council) appointments have resulted in very laudable results, I am still vexed by the undermining of the career service.
The second reason I’ve raised the issue here within the pages of bout de papier is because I think the issue is one which foreign service officers must grapple with themselves rather than have it imposed.
Over the past few years I have witnessed all too many examples of public performances by Canadian diplomatic personnel where one realizes very quickly that they are not being coy and diplomatic in their presentations but simply they are not doing a very good job of their public performance.
Since leaving the External Affairs Department many, many years ago I have spent over 15 years both teaching university and, more significantly for my point here, working in the media. I’ve held press conferences, attended press conferences, prepared scripts, produced television programs, been interviewed, conducted interviews, provided endless political commentaries and election analysis and written literally hundreds of newspaper columns. One learns through that process both technique and what to expect.
To watch a Canadian diplomat stumble through a press conference, deliver a mumbled speech, or hum- and haw- his or her way through an interview is an excruciating experience. As a Canadian citizen I frankly expect more of the people we send abroad because, in my modest opinion, they are recruited through one of the toughest processes currently employed in the world.
Yet, all the recruitment and all the experience do not necessarily equip our diplomatic personnel for the grueling rigors of the media. This becomes especially important when the media is foreign and the impressions are recorded on video-tape for foreign audiences to see and to evaluate.
Indeed, one has the impression periodically that many of our senior diplomats resent having to explain Canada to host state audiences. Sometimes I even detect a feeling that it is beneath their dignity to answer media questions or provide coherent addresses to audiences at public events.
I suppose I am a little old fashioned in this respect, but I do believe that accountability at home and abroad is crucial to the nature of Canada’s overseas image. That accountability can be much more effectively ensured by following some basic rules in dealing with the media and in delivering public speeches. I shall not enter into the subject here because think it really requires a much more structured approach than I can offer in comments in this brief discussion.
In a nutshell, however, would urge foreign service officers, especially early in their careers, to take courses in public speaking. These types of courses not only develop confidence but they force one to think systematically on one’s feet. Toastmasters Clubs, for example, are excellent places to learn how to speak in public.
Dealing with the media is much more complex but the speaking skill is a prerequisite. Learning to handle “loaded” questions while neither losing control or dignity is a skill which can be developed. Learning how to prepare press releases and to participate in public forums are all skills which can be honed. Indeed, even how to use television to your advantage could serve one’s career and Canada extremely well.
Generally my experience with Canadian diplomatic officers abroad has been very positive but it is often painful — torture, on occasion — to proudly attend an event where a Canadian diplomat comes across as a bumbling fool.
Lloyd Brown-John, PhD Professor, of Public Administration, Department of Political Science, University of Windsor, Windsor
PAFSO and the Foreign Service Prospect
Editor, bout de papier
Some years ago, a strategy of close cooperation with departmental management and Treasury Board made sense for Foreign Service Officers. The foreign service community was then tightly integrated, its esteem formidable, and the rewards obvious. The times, however, have changed, and the approach of those at the working level must be modified accordingly. In this era of slow non-existent promotions and constricted career opportunities, it is only through a commitment to activism that we may hope to better our lot.
The current elections may go some of the way toward providing the newly-constituted PAFSO executive with the legitimacy required to begin recovering lost ground. Indeed, PAFSO members have every reason to feel disturbed over the gradual deterioration of the position of the FS group vis-a-vis other professional groups in the Public Service. Although interesting jobs and occasional postings provide some solace, the general terms and conditions of employment have become, in many instances, unpalatable, particularly for Ottawa-based FS-1’s struggling to raise families on salaries lower than those enjoyed by, for example, bus drivers or policemen. For people with multiple university degrees, prior experience and proven abilities, having to deal with economic hardship for five to 10 years subsequent to recruitment is a difficult proposition.
In the course of the next year we will begin negotiations concerning both our contract and the FSD’s. When it comes to such bread-and-butter issues, disinterest or disdain cannot be allowed to substitute for firmness and resolve. Though there is still a place for collaboration, it is not at the bargaining table. Our concerns are real; they merit both forceful articulation and innovative remedial responses.
Acting through PAFSO, we could begin to advance the quality of our working lives by pursuing the following objectives:
1. Rapid movement towards pay parity with comparable professional groups within the Public Service (target levels to be based upon figures supplied by the Pay Research Bureau of the Public Service Commission)
2. Suitable remuneration, in terms of cash or compensatory time off, for work performed outside of regular hours Monday to Friday (as per that awarded other professional groups within the PSC)
3. Four weeks annual leave (six when on posting) after eight years’ service
4. Adoption of an optional “4 or 5” sabbatical program, whereby employees could elect to work for four years, take the fifth year off, and collect 4/5 of their salary each year.
5. Implementation of the ’PEG’ system, whereby managers would be evaluated by those whom they supervise.
6. Creation of a ’counselling out’ service, whereby those wishing to leave the department, particularly at more senior levels, would be actively assisted in exploring career alternatives.
7. Recognition of diplomacy as a professional specialty (like law), thus permitting the extension of the FS salary scale upwards without reference to the managerial content of work performed. In short, we need better compensation, enhanced mobility, and more control over our individual and collective destinies. Attainment of these goals would represent an important step towards the restoration of the foreign service prospect, which has become tarnished in the era of the “permanent underclass”. ’. Without a willingness to question the status quo, a determination to address that which is arbitrary or unfair, and the courage to take action, we stand every chance of continuing the slide into genteel oblivion.
D.S. Copeland, vice president,
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 4 (1986) — Winter 1986 // Hiver 1986, pp. 5–31. Read the rest of this issue →
