Why diplomacy

And when things go bad, whether an earthquake in Haiti or the desperate need to evacuate U. When evacuation is required, it may be the military that provides the transport, but it is the diplomats who organize the evacuation and are the last to leave—if they leave at all. Often their work goes on. When diplomacy fails and war comes, the diplomats often remain, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or other global hotspots, to put the pieces back together. They often work without military protection in countries from Nigeria to Tunisia, where terrorism must be confronted and friendly governments supported.

This work is not always safe or genteel. One hundred eighty-one diplomats have died abroad since the end of World War II, most the victims of violence. In my own career, I have been rocketed, mortared, threatened by assassination, had an embassy stormed by mobs, and narrowly missed a bomb in a restaurant where I was to have met a friendly foreign diplomat, himself working under the same conditions. A Proud Tradition Not all the work is dangerous.

Sometimes this is a matter of introducing small or new-to-market U. Sometimes it is a long-term, concentrated effort by the whole embassy team, led by the ambassador, to secure a major contract for a U. The vital connection to place is wilting on the vine. That is a poor substitute for first hand experience, and a formula for turning allegations about the irrelevance of the foreign service into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Substantial policy work has given way to the transactional. This has been expressed through the imposition of reorganizations, regulations, audits, performance and publications reviews, access to information and privacy requests, and so forth. The provision of travel advice and consular assistance has become a boom industry in the wake ever more Canadian nationals travelling and living abroad, as has crisis management SARS, BSE, H1N1, evacuations, natural disasters in our increasingly inter-connected world.

The need to maintain the physical and information technology infrastructure, with special attention to communications security, and to support the employees of other government departments has become a significant resource sink. And while there remains a skeleton crew devoted to policy work and the minimal maintenance of bilateral, multilateral and international legal obligations, today the centre of gravity has clearly shifted. It is not so much that the mainstay of the business — relationship management with states, international organizations and global civil society — has disappeared entirely, but rather that it is being lost in the contemporary mix.

Instead, local knowledge and regional expertise have been devalued. Resource reduction masquerading as reform is disingenuous, if not dishonest, and in my experience almost never generates positive change. Part of the responsibility must be borne by those who have held senior management positions. This group was apparently unaware of the need not only to stand up for their country abroad, but — when required — to stand up to their country at home.

DFAIT executives, for the good of all, must make their case to decision-makers. The wholesale retreat from public diplomacy PD is perhaps the most egregious example of the damage Canada is doing to itself internationally.

This almost Orwellian requirement is especially debilitating as regards to the use of social media platforms to connect directly with populations.

Not so in the Pearson Building. Clearly, something has been missed. Diplomacy can produce results by fostering genuine dialogue. When fed back into policy formulation and decision-making loops, the fruits of meaningful exchange can affect thinking and behaviour at both ends of the conversation.

So it is that differences are narrowed and problems solved. Without the capacity to engage unscripted dialogue, however, diplomacy cannot deliver, and its comparative advantage over competing international policy instruments is lost. I have seen no indication that this argument was forcefully put at a time when it might have made a difference. So, too, with the failure to articulate and advance a vision for the foreign ministry in the 21st century. Why not leave behind work on files better handled by specialized line departments in order to focus on the large, cross-cutting issues such as climate change, distributive justice and management of the global commons?

But that is not on the table. With so much of its budget fenced off or attached to specific programs, across the board reductions such as those contained in the March Federal Budget can only come from the operating funds. In a department already cut to the bone, this means amputating body parts — staff, missions, representational work, and the terms and conditions of service.

Quite apart from the fact that the economies are false, it is not a formula for engineering a supportive work environment, let alone for doing more and better diplomacy. The best have contacts, experience and a skill set which can add much to achievement of larger national objectives.

Two of the best bosses that I have ever worked with — David MacDonald and Stephen Lewis — were appointees, but both were very effective as advocates and able as public servants. They were not timid, had excellent personal networks at home and abroad, and — critically — knew both how the system worked and how to work the system.

They were never afraid to pull strings in order to get things done. Like so much else in diplomacy, the sensible and judicious use of such mechanisms is very much a matter of judgement and discretion. I found out — usually the hard way — that about half of the decisions that really count in terms of career aspirations and outcomes can be ascribed to factors perhaps best described as personal and situational — who knows whom and what is going on where. Another 30 per cent or so of what happens tends to turn on matters of chance, luck, and timing.

That means that typically only 20 per cent of decisions are taken primarily on the basis of objective circumstances or the strength of a business case. Meritocracy, while not unknown, is not necessarily the defining feature. A hierarchic structure and resistance to change were defining characteristics throughout my tenure. At a time of organizational flattening, there are today as many levels in the corporate structure as there were when I started out in In this rigid, cloistered environment, process inevitably dwarfs substance.

Dissent is discouraged — often with a vengeance — risk averted, unquestioning loyalty and faithful service rewarded. A focus on looking inward rather than looking out means that ideas are often judged more on their provenance than their quality. Unless very senior officials are involved, failure is not treated as a learning experience.

In contrast, blessing the received wisdom and running with the herd, often under the guise of team playing, leads reliably to advancement. The full story may never be told — with so many parties implicated there is no appetite for a searching retrospective — but it is clear that by any reasonable measure, the objectives of the mission were not achieved.

Books will never be written about the enduring legacy of the Kandahar PRT, or the innovative leadership displayed by Canada in pursuing alternatives to defence-dominated counterinsurgency and pacification. In such a militarized environment, insecurity thrived and diplomacy was near impossible.

International relations never occur in isolation. Whether you are in a boardroom working to establish ties between your organization and others around the world or you are in an embassy or consulate, your job will be a collaborative one. Diplomats, for example, collaborate with many agencies and learn how to assemble people with a variety of skills to accomplish international goals.

They work alongside colleagues from the military, intelligence services, commerce, trade, agricultural, law enforcement, science, and technology. To ensure alignment between a GSIR program and your career goals, seek one that offers a concentration in the field you are hoping to eventually work in.

The Master of Science in Global Studies and International Relations at Northeastern, for example, offers students four unique concentrations to choose from:. Additionally, the program offers students an opportunity to gain real-world, hands-on experience through the International Field Study Experience , a program in which students can serve as international consultants to help global organizations solve their current challenges. This is the type of experience that employers across industries are looking for.

Think this is the degree for you? Learn more about earning an MS in Global Studies and International Relations at Northeastern University, or download our guide to advancing your international relations career below.

Stay up to date on our latest posts and university events. Plus receive relevant career tips and grad school advice. Subscribe By providing us with your email, you agree to the terms of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. Return to Blog Homepage. DOWNLOAD NOW Now, more than ever, corporations and governments are seeking to hire individuals—skilled international relations and diplomacy professionals—who can help them meet the demands of this shift towards globalization.

What are International Relations and Diplomacy? Reasons to Study International Relations and Diplomacy 1. In addition to gaining specialized knowledge related to intercultural theory and approaches, students graduating from an international relations program will typically develop and refine the following skills: Research and analytical skills to help evaluate complex problems and synthesize data to tell compelling stories.