What qualifications does the 21st century diplomat need?

Many of the structural changes that we can discern in international relations today and which will be even more relevant for the future will require important changes in some of the traditional ideas associated with the ”art of diplomacy”:

- openness instead of secrecy; while this does not mean ”open covenants openly arrived at”, it does mean a sincere willingness to communicate with the interested public and explain positions and results achieved;

- in the age of general mobility of the citizen, diplomacy must also be seen as a ”service industry”, helping citizens in need for assistance and advice;

- to a very large extent networking and teamwork are replacing hierarchy; delegation of authority, and streamlining of administrative procedures and decision-making become essential;

- not the quantity or sheer speed but the quality of information counts;

- diplomacy needs gender equality and must promote equal career possibilities.

What then constitutes the ideal ”new age” diplomat? I think a thorough mixture of traditional and not so traditional characteristics:

- a pluridisciplinary education;

- linguistic skills;

- patience to listen and observe;

- proficiency in intercultural communication;

- sensitivity to socio-cultural differences;

- feeling comfortable with the latest communications technologies;

- ability to perform at ease in public;

- free of elitism;

- service orientation;

- a high level of tolerance;

- neither a ”softie” nor the ”elbow type”;

- readiness for life-long learning, mid career training;

- stress resistance, coolness in crises;

- management skills;

- ability to work in teams; collaborator instead of competitor;

- a keen interest in global issues.

Transcending these requirements is the often-posed question: should the diplomat be a generalist or specialist? The great George Kennan once confirmed the need for both the generalist and the specialist, adding that of the two the generalist will take the more essential and central position: without his leadership and the coordination over the activities of the experts, they would only produce chaos.

Let us look into this issue a bit more in detail: the modern diplomat must in the first instance be a coordination expert. He or she must be able to meet the demands posed by globalization and be able to draw the right conclusions and policy recommendations from international developments, which are more often than not interwoven and mutually supportive. The diplomat must be able, also in small teams, to motivate and show leadership. She or he must be a public relations expert and must have a sound knowledge in foreign policy issues in general as well as in global issues. In Europe, the diplomat must also – as a matter of course – be knowledgeable in European integration policy. And, it goes without saying, be well versed in languages. This ”generalist” will also need a sound background in economics and should be a seasoned negotiator in theory and practice. In short, our ”generalist” is a ”specialist” in the art of diplomacy

However, in particular in the case of smaller foreign services this will not suffice: If we want to recognize the dire reality of scarce resources of available personnel and funding, we must have our diplomacy specialist, also trained to be a true specialist in one particular domain: e.g. multilateral diplomacy, international law, economic integration, environmental issues or development cooperation. And he or she would expect over the course of the career to be able, more than once, to have a posting where this special knowledge can also be put to use.[42]

On the European (EU) level, the European Council of Sevilla earlier this year introduced some new developments, which are of relevance in the ”generalist versus specialist” context. Together with a considerable streamlining of the different ”council formations” (nine instead of sixteen), the General Affairs Council composed of Foreign Ministers has also been given the formal mandate for horizontal coordination. It is obvious that this reinforced role for Foreign Ministers will also result in increased coordination responsibilities for their staff, the integration departments in their ministries and beyond: a new, additional challenge for the ”generalist-specialist”.

Training of diplomats needs to correspond to these new requirements and challenges. It should be able to count on a pluridisciplinary university education as its base. The training, in addition to the obvious need of language training, should include both a thorough and academically founded program acquainting future diplomats with various instruments in the fields of economics, international relations, conflict and crisis management. Regardless of the age-old question whether human beings will ever be able to learn, from history, diplomats need to be well versed in Diplomatic History and have a sound knowledge of European and International Law including Human Rights Law and international trade regulations. Furthermore, given the increasing importance of the management of ”Global Public Goods” diplomats need a sound basis in development economics and development cooperation as well as in environmental and international climate issues and questions of sustainable development[45]. In addition the development of personal skills needs to be promoted (presentation skills, personal management, project management, presentation techniques, public performance etc.). Given the fast evolution in these areas and in international relations, any diplomatic service that does not provide continuous lifelong training for its diplomats will not meet the challenge of the future.

In a lecture he prepared for the meeting of Deans and Directors of Diplomatic Academies meeting at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna in 1979 the then Dean of the Fletcher School for Law and Diplomacy, Edmund Gullion, posed the question whether there still would be diplomats in the year 2000[48]. Today we know the answer. Gullion’s answer then was to say that while certainly the traditional diplomat cast in the Vienna mold of 1815 could well be on the way to extinction, the species diplomat per se, however, would survive and flourish, as long as it was able to adapt to changed circumstances, to a new climate and to the new environment in which the craft of diplomacy will have to be exerted.

”The year 2000 promises to be crowded and contentious. It will need a Service, which is a repository of the history of civilization; it will need wise and able negotiators and conciliators. It will need the diplomat on the spot, in danger or in calm, who can say what will or what will not work, who can foresee problems and solve them. Ideally, he is the man who is ”in control of the occasion” as Demosthenes described the Athenian diplomat, the man on whose wisdom, steadiness, good will, integrity and faithful account policy must rely.”

We can add nothing here, except that neither Demosthenes nor, apparently, Edmund Gullion foresaw the possibility of woman diplomats.

Поиск по сайту: