Where Have All The Diplomats Gone?
or Why Diplomats are the Only Public Servants I Would Like More of
When I was a kid I remember the name Henry Kissinger referred to a man who whizzed around the world, acting as go between for countries that wouldn’t talk to each other directly. My vague recollection is that he wasn’t much liked, but he worked hard and he brokered some memorable “peace” deals by talking to people that, in theory, other heads of state were not supposed to be talking to. This is something that doesn’t happen these days, it seems.
I know Kissinger wasn’t the nicest of people; he said some very offensive things, and he appeared to be the sort of person who would flatter and suck up to people in power, if he thought it gave him some reflected “glory”. Not the sort of person you would want to share a sojourn in a Big Brother house with. But, would you tolerate him if he could prevent a serious conflict? By serious, I mean bigger than the Iraq conflict – far bigger.
This conflict is, of course, the looming military strike on Iran; so far, diplomatic efforts have consisted of stern tellings off by the headmaster (Europe), some veiled threats from the “authorities” (America) and some not-veiled threats from the vigilantes (Israel), as well as some neighbourly advice – even though the neighbours don’t get on (Saudi) as well cajoling by so-called “mates” – Russia. To me, this does not constitute diplomacy, not a la Kissinger, anyway. What we want is someone (but not Donald Rumsfeld) with authority to visit Iran, and then Israel, and try to find some common ground.
The trouble with sending envoys is that the concept has been polluted by self-serving idiots, such as George Galloway, who have done absolutely nothing to develop understanding and respect between conflicting cultures.
The other trouble is that leaders such as Tony Blair view a visit as something to be done to cement trade deals, and to demonstrate how grand and powerful they are. It needs someone who knows how to flatter, but who also can be forceful. It is a difficult mix, and no one springs to mind initially. However, the advert for the post could read: Wanted. Someone with the skill and diplomacy to save mankind from his own follies. Willingness to eat – and appear to enjoy – exotic foods a must. Objectivity an asset [which precludes our very own Foreign Office]. Understanding of history essential.
Now, this government has managed to hire upwards of 900,000 people while in office; what jobs they actually do is unclear, but wouldn’t it be good if, somewhere among the jobs in the Guardian, there was one for someone who can save the world.
Anyone who thinks this job is unnecessary should go here
When I was a kid I remember the name Henry Kissinger referred to a man who whizzed around the world, acting as go between for countries that wouldn’t talk to each other directly. My vague recollection is that he wasn’t much liked, but he worked hard and he brokered some memorable “peace” deals by talking to people that, in theory, other heads of state were not supposed to be talking to. This is something that doesn’t happen these days, it seems.
I know Kissinger wasn’t the nicest of people; he said some very offensive things, and he appeared to be the sort of person who would flatter and suck up to people in power, if he thought it gave him some reflected “glory”. Not the sort of person you would want to share a sojourn in a Big Brother house with. But, would you tolerate him if he could prevent a serious conflict? By serious, I mean bigger than the Iraq conflict – far bigger.
This conflict is, of course, the looming military strike on Iran; so far, diplomatic efforts have consisted of stern tellings off by the headmaster (Europe), some veiled threats from the “authorities” (America) and some not-veiled threats from the vigilantes (Israel), as well as some neighbourly advice – even though the neighbours don’t get on (Saudi) as well cajoling by so-called “mates” – Russia. To me, this does not constitute diplomacy, not a la Kissinger, anyway. What we want is someone (but not Donald Rumsfeld) with authority to visit Iran, and then Israel, and try to find some common ground.
The trouble with sending envoys is that the concept has been polluted by self-serving idiots, such as George Galloway, who have done absolutely nothing to develop understanding and respect between conflicting cultures.
The other trouble is that leaders such as Tony Blair view a visit as something to be done to cement trade deals, and to demonstrate how grand and powerful they are. It needs someone who knows how to flatter, but who also can be forceful. It is a difficult mix, and no one springs to mind initially. However, the advert for the post could read: Wanted. Someone with the skill and diplomacy to save mankind from his own follies. Willingness to eat – and appear to enjoy – exotic foods a must. Objectivity an asset [which precludes our very own Foreign Office]. Understanding of history essential.
Now, this government has managed to hire upwards of 900,000 people while in office; what jobs they actually do is unclear, but wouldn’t it be good if, somewhere among the jobs in the Guardian, there was one for someone who can save the world.
Anyone who thinks this job is unnecessary should go here
posted by Jambutty at 4:31 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home