bout de papier, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1991) — Spring 1991 // Printemps 1991, p. 2
Beginnings
In this issue, bout de papier enters a new phase with a new editor and a new year. Similarly, the world of the foreign service and the practice of international diplomacy are changing dramatically. bout will focus ever more closely on these changes in the coming months, with the objective of looking ahead to a new century and a new era of foreign service.
The way ahead is far from clear, both for the profession and the department. We look to our readers to provide their own ideas and views on fundamental issues such as: What is a modern diplomat, and has the shine gone off this noble profession? Is the practice of diplomacy a true profession? Is there a need for international diplomacy, or has the media pre-empted this role? What should the priorities of a foreign ministry be in the 21st century? What should the trade role be? Is there a future for External Affairs? Why join the foreign service?
I am not as optimistic as I used to be about the future role of this department in the conduct of foreign policy or in its hegemony abroad. I am less positive about our ability to continue to function as a distinct profession. Change is in the wind, brought about not only by the government’s desire to decrease the deficit, but also by the department’s desire to reorient the working practices of this organization. What this has largely meant to date has been the “rust out” of both our headquarters and missions operations, and the de-professionalization of the FS stream as officers take on yet more support functions. With the de-streaming of the EX(FS) group down to the EX-1 level, and with the proposed expansion of levels in the FS group, presumably there will no longer be a foreign service component in the EX group. In time there will also be an inevitable de-streaming of the FS group.
The result of this de-streaming will be a re-streaming process whereby the organization decides to have “economic officers”, or “international lawyers”, or “multilateral negotiators”,, for example, as opposed to political officers or trade officers. This may well be welcome news for those who have training in these areas, and could lead to the development of other recognized areas of expertise. It could also lead to greater career enrichment and broader job opportunities for non-rotational officers in the department. However, it could result in a greater erosion of the FS role, or even the demise of the FS group as a distinct Public Service job classification. In this latter scenario, an economic analyst would become an ES; an international lawyer would become an LA; a trade expert would become a CO…. The career issue probably would then be governmentwide, and would shift to the arena of the officer’s rotationality in each job category such as now exists with the CR, AS, and SCY groups. Thus a wider range of occupational groups would be split into rotational and non-rotational positions.
What would these changes mean for members of the FS group? Will we go the way of the dodo, or can we adapt to take advantage of this new environment? What should our role be vis-à-vis other government departments — particularly their international branches? Should we insist, as the Department of Justice does, that External Affairs has the mandate to conduct all international relations, and therefore to staff their international branches with FS officers? This stance would ensure that inward and outward secondment from the Pearson Building takes place, and that the value of the work done while on outward secondments is given due weight in annual appraisals. It would also enhance outplacement of officers who wish to leave the rotational foreign service. Finally, it could provide FS officers with more opportunity to develop and maintain their expertise and obtain additional training through the process of regular secondments to other government departments. Thus, a wide range of alternate career options would emerge.
It is not evident, however, that any intensive analysis of our priorities is taking place. The External Affairs Act, which has not been amended since it was enacted in 1982, sets out the mandate of the department. But senior management does not hold our activities up to this mirror and question their relevance to furthering this mandate. The Act does not designate the department as a printing centre, yet we print sixty million pages a year; it does not set out that transportation is our raison d’être, yet we transport thousands of kilos in hundreds of vehicles both in Ottawa and abroad; we are not designated as being in the real property business, yet we fit-up and decorate (even renovate) hundreds of housing units and chanceries around the world. To what end? Do these activities significantly enhance the department’s ability to get the job done? Or rather, do they tend to deflect the department from its fundamental objective of representing Canada’s interests abroad?
It is becoming apparent that certain decisions have already been taken. Presumably, some unknown individual determined at some unknown date somewhere in the department that it is of limited relevance to do political analysis; trade and immigration are the priorities on most days. On certain high holidays and feast days, the aid component is seen to have some bearing on our international relations. This is re-inforced by the posting cycles of different streams, whereby the trade, immigration and aid streams spend most of their time abroad (eight-to twelve-year stretches), and the political stream spends most of its time in Ottawa. Assignments abroad for junior officers continue to be eliminated — a further erosion of the career foreign service. We keep hearing that morale in this department is the lowest throughout the entire public service. How can we change this?
This edition of bout begins the examination of our role and future with Absence of Justice, a provocative article by Daryl Copeland on the FS promotion system. Canada’s role in assisting India to attain nuclear capability is examined by Iris Lonergan in her fascinating article entitled, Canada and India: The Negotiations for the Supply of the NRX. My own piece, A Tale of Two Canadians, was written before I became editor, and focuses on books by two well-known spouses about their experiences while on posting in the USA.
Ottawa, 7 January 1991
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1991) — Spring 1991 // Printemps 1991, p. 2. Read the rest of this issue →
