THE EMBASSY AND CONSULATES

(Source: Chapter 8. – “Bilateral Diplomacy” by Kishan Rana)

In earlier times, some countries maintained two separate diplomatic services, one consisting of those who spent all their time abroad, working in the embassies, and another composed of those whose entire career was at headquarters. The Dutch were the last to operate such a system, up to some 30 years back, but today all foreign services see virtue in a unified system that rotates officials between home and abroad. The bulk of diplomatic missions are of a bilateral character, the exceptions being the missions accredited to multilateral agencies, like the UN Headquarters in New York, or WTO in Geneva, or the Disarmament Commission, or the UN specialized agencies that are located there. The same is true of Vienna, which is the seat of agencies like IAEA, and UNIDO. Then there is Brussels, both the capital of Belgium and the seat of the European Commission and NATO (most non-Western countries have a common mission there that handles all the work under multiple hats, while Western states have separate missions for each). What are the personnel needs in typical bilateral missions, in terms of duties at different levels, and the personal skills this entails?

The bilateral mission is the operational end of the diplomatic apparatus, with no direct policy-making role, but a significant policy advisory responsibility. It is the place where the roles of Promotion, Outreach, Feedback, and Servicing are played to the full, in relation to the single country of assignment (ignoring the situations where the mission may also handle a concurrent responsibility for representation in another country as well). I have argued elsewhere that because of the work overload at headquarters, and the multiplicity of contacts between nations, official and non-official, the bilateral mission has also gained a new role of “Management” of the bilateral relationship. This is simply because there is no other unit of government that has a near-total view of the relationship with a particular country that the mission commands. With comes a capacity to identify cross-connections between disparate issues, which are available to the alert practitioner for leverage and relationship management.

Some diplomacy theorists have argued that the embassy has become a simple agency implementing the instructions of the foreign ministry, often left out of the information loop by the home authorities. They do not see it as a contributor to policy. True, heads of state carry out direct diplomacy often without even the knowledge of the MFA (Chapter 10). Such exchanges are a fact of life for the entire diplomatic system. But generally the alert mission abroad has local sources to track such direct contacts, such as the offices of the heads of state and government. The MFA and other home agencies can ill-afford to neglect the mission’s local contacts and ground knowledge. Further, the same instant communications that place the embassy constantly at the reach of the headquarters in real time, give it the possibility of being consulted at different stages of policy formulation. Intranet-based confidential email exchange systems enable the alert ambassador to keep in close touch with colleagues at the foreign ministry, to intervene judiciously, and in effect “write his own instructions”.[1]

Thus we see that increasing complexity in international relationships has actually given the bilateral mission an enhanced role and new capabilities. Far from confronting demise, the ambassador and his embassy colleagues emerged as a more active player in bilateral diplomacy. Of course, they are not an independent agents, and the task of relationship management is exercised jointly, and under the supervision, of the embassy’s principal partner at home, the territorial division at headquarters.

Junior Officers

Most countries send out new foreign service entrants on their first assignments abroad as third secretaries or attachés, usually “on probation”.[2] Their confirmation or permanent appointment depends on passing various internal examinations on regulations and financial procedures, as well as usually a “compulsory” foreign language that is assigned to them. This language becomes the basis of their initial regional specialization. But there are small diplomatic services that do not require foreign languages study as a precondition to confirmation. Generally, the rank of third secretary is a transitory stage for the official under training and promotion as second secretary comes on confirmation in the service. The trainees are placed under the special charge and oversight of the ambassador, and are rotated against different jobs in the mission, so as to broaden their experience.

Like the desk officer at headquarters, the first or second secretary in a mission is the workhorse of the diplomatic system. Promotion to the rank of first secretary may come after around 5 or 7 years of service, and the next step, as counselor comes after about 12 to 14 years of service.[3] Thus the rank of second or first secretary is usually held through more than one overseas appointment, and marks a significant stage in a career.

Reading through the memoirs of diplomats belonging to one’s own service as well as others, which cover their early diplomatic career, provides useful information on the service’s work parameters, even if the setting of these recollections seems dated to each generation of diplomats and out of touch with one’s own contemporary times. All too often, change is more apparent than real, and such books furnish valuable insight.

In a large mission there may be several first and second secretaries, while the small embassy may have only one, who also serves as deputy to the head of mission, become the chargé d’ affaires ad interim whenever the ambassador is away from the country. Consequently, the duties of the first or second secretary can be clear-cut in a large mission, or within the small mission he or she will become the jack-of-all-trades.

Ideally, every junior official should be given some exposure to economic work and to information duties, regardless of designation, because together with political functions, these three areas lie at the center of diplomacy. Handling some jobs in all the three sectors, even in a supplementary capacity, enriches and rounds out the young official’s skill development. It prepares them for senior assignments where each of these skills is viewed in holistic fashion, and woven into the actual task in hand. It also enables the official to understand the interconnections between the core diplomatic tasks. This is the essence of “integrated” diplomacy.

Work Guidelines

Diplomatic service manuals, when these exist, usually outline the duties of first secretaries in a rather simple fashion. In one such compilation a brief reference to the first secretary simply declares that he should perform the assigned political, commercial, administrative, protocol or information work; supervise the local staff, draft reports, and deliver talks to appropriate audiences. Perhaps one reason for the sparseness of the advice is that the actual work is too varied to be listed. Formal guidelines cannot tell the complete story, but an illustrative, practical listing might cover the following:

a) Promotion and Outreach. In the same principal tasks of the mission, reaching out and building productive contacts, also fully engage the first secretary. The actual range of individuals and institutions that he cultivates depend on the work handled, but in diplomacy this is never restricted or confined to an exclusive sector. Whatever the work assignment, the diplomat also pursues targets of opportunity to add to the embassy’s wide contact base. The goal is to harness the relations established to gather information, to persuade, and to create new opportunities for advancing interests. One instance of junior diplomats playing a crucial role was during the Cultural Revolution in China in 1966–69, when these language specialists, networking among themselves, became the principal information sources on the hand-written “wall newspapers” (through which different groups of activists propelled the events of the time). An everyday example is the relaxed, informal relations that these officials are usually able to establish with counterpart officials of the host country, often getting wind of new developments, or details of local thinking, that higher officials are unable to access.

b) Reportage. The junior official drafts, and in some cases finalizes on his own responsibility, a sizable portion of the mission’s correspondence, periodic reports, and special dispatches. The first secretary is generally not involved in the drafting or writing of the cipher messages, mainly handled by the HOM and the deputy chief of mission, but usually gets to see the outgoing and the incoming messages, and needs to absorb from these some of the skills and techniques that are involved.[4] Indeed, reading through the “float copies” of dispatches and correspondence is a vital learning, and an internal communication method within the embassy, as also within the division or department at headquarters. It is good practice to send out special dispatches written by junior officials over their own signature, with a covering communication from the ambassador or DCM as suitable. This motivates the official to give his or her best, and deepens personal commitment.

c) Management. The job of head of “chancery” or administration is usually held by one of the first secretaries. In all but the very largest of embassies (where the total number of staff, home-based and local may exceed 50 or more) it is not appropriate to have this handled as a full-time assignment, if only because the embassy then runs the risk of being “over-administered”.[5] The embassy and the ambassador should keep administrative tasks in perspective. It is important to follow the stipulated regulations, but a mission that is engaged primarily in administration is in effect chasing its own tail. It is far better to have a first secretary handle the chancery job as a sideline. Example: in Germany, our 70-strong embassy had a first secretary (political) supervised the chancery (and the work of the administration attaché) on a concurrent basis, with no loss of efficiency. But practices vary and in British missions, “head of chancery” is an honored designation, with some broader internal coordination responsibility as well.

d) Servicing. The official handling consular affairs handles this set of tasks, as also by the commercial secretary, both of who interface with “customers” approaching the embassy for services. The information secretary, involved in wide public contacts, also performs this function. Such tasks place the diplomat in wide public interaction and call for “people skills”, plus sensitivity to human problems. More and more countries use a “citizen charter” formula to improve service delivery and to overcome mindsets of bureaucracy.

Senior Officials & DCM

The ranks of counselor and the minister–counselor are customarily regarded as senior, with the latter designated simply as “minister” in some systems Most countries have also now adopted the US practice of designating, at least in large mission, the embassy’s second-ranking official as “deputy chief of mission” (DCM). Typically these senior officials in the bilateral mission handle tasks that parallel those of the first secretary, but with greater autonomy, often supervising the junior officials as well. As experienced diplomats they function as valuable team members, independently handling projects and special tasks — like media outreach, links with ethnic communities, cultural projection, or economic promotion. In large mission they act as the departmental heads, carrying out independent correspondence, locally and with home agencies, but always under the overall supervision of the ambassador.

The DCM in a large mission handles the day-to-day management, and may also supervise some departments on behalf of the ambassador. In many diplomatic systems he would have served earlier as an ambassador, heading a small mission, and should have demonstrated leadership skills. The DCM’s relationship with his own ambassador is of a special character, and demands accommodation and flexibility by both, where autonomy of function for the DCM is traded for basic discipline and loyalty to the ambassador. In practice, this often does not work as well as intended, and situations of friction, even conflict within the mission, are often traceable to problems within this particular equation.[6] In extreme cases, the breakdown in their working relationship may lead to an early transfer for the DCM, but long before this happens, the embassy will have suffered in efficient performance. This is one instance where ease of communication, especially through telephone calls to the foreign ministry colleagues, accentuates such problems of indiscipline.

The larger the mission, the greater the presence of officials from other agencies, ranging from specialists from line ministries that have a sizable stake in the country (covering agriculture, education, immigration, science & technology or the like), to defense attachés and “undeclared” intelligence officials with “cover” assignments. Welding them all into a united team is a major responsibility for the ambassador and the DCM. Since the days of President Eisenhower 1950s, every US president has made it a practice to address a directive to all official agencies, designating the ambassador as the head of the “country team” in the foreign state. He has the real power to send back any official whose presence is judged by the ambassador as inimical to US interests, as. This contributes to discipline, a perennial problem with internal heterogeneity. But despite these powers, the US blue-ribbon independent task force headed by Frank C Carlucci (former Defense Secretary and National Security Adviser) reported to the US Secretary of State in January 2001: “Ambassadors lack authority to coordinate and oversee the resources and personnel deployed to their missions by other agencies and departments”.[7] In other countries where even theoretical power to send back offending team members do not exist, the management problems are more acute.

Sometimes the presence of a significant contingent of non-diplomatic service personnel leads to an “us-and-them” situation. What works in welding together a team is the quality of leadership provided by the ambassador, not set formulas of formal control. For instance, in the Indian system the best teamwork has been performed where the HOM demonstrates through personal example that each official is valued for the contribution made, regardless of the agency to which the official belongs.

HR Management

Management of human resources in the diplomatic service is related to public services in general in the country, even if working conditions are exceptional. Some of the issues that arise are:

q Does every competent member of the service have fair chance to become an ambassador? This is the case with most well-run services, especially if the definition of the top job is stretched to include also the consuls general. For example this is true of France, Japan and Germany that have large services, but not possible in the US, where the many do not go beyond the position of DCM. Inevitably this poses morale problems.

q Is the system of postings transparent and fair? It is impossible to expect officials to serve with efficiency and enthusiasm in places as different as Madrid and Mogadishu, unless an equitable system of rotation is practiced, responding to genuine needs of officials and their family commitments. In many systems this is a shortcoming.

q Is grievance redress effective? The German Foreign Office has an official who receives complaints from personnel at all levels and has high level interface, including access to the Minister. Others have their own systems, similar in part. Because of the problems of isolation abroad, it is important to handle this well.

q Does the service practice a rule of the system, or is it a rule of individuals, variable in application. This is one of the problems in many developing countries, also affecting morale and performance.

The Ambassador

More than anyone else, the head of mission (HOM) shapes the embassy through his or her example, work style and personality. Like the captain of a ship, he has overall responsibility as well as latent power, as the personal representative of the head of state, and the leader of the entire “country team” in the nation of assignment. He is ultimately accountable for the mission’s performance, taking the credit as well as the blame for particular events, and in terms of overall performance. And even in an age of instant communication, he faces the challenges of command. These include functional and mental isolation, personal responsibility for the wellbeing of all the home-based personnel in the mission (plus to a lesser extent for the local officials as well), and a frequent need to depend on his own resources.

The skills and experience accumulated over the years reach their fruition at this stage. This is but one of the reasons that career diplomats abhor the notion that those belonging to other walks of life can be parachuted into ambassadorial assignments through acts of political patronage. Such non-career appointments are customary with countries like the US or Latin America or Africa, and almost unknown in classic diplomacy countries like France, Japan, Germany and UK.[8] Objectively speaking, there are very few situations where a non-career ambassador offers something unique for the advancement of national interest that a career official deliver. The exceptions hinge on special circumstances when the political appointee either enjoys special acceptability in the country of assignment, or has personal influence to get things done at home, or both. But the problem with “political” influence is that it is transitory; changes in government at either end can end it abruptly, at considerable embarrassment to the sending and the receiving state.

The US system of appointment of distinguished figures from public service as envoys dates from the earliest days of its Independence — after all five of the first eight US presidents headed US diplomatic legations abroad before assuming the highest office.[9] But soon thereafter it became part of the spoils system of political appointments, in effect available to anyone, regardless of merit, that had made a sizable financial contribution to the incumbent president. Of the 160-odd US ambassadorial appointments abroad (including permanent missions to multilateral organizations), between 25 to 35% go to people outside the foreign service — especially the high profile ones in major capitals. Some among them are respected figures that have achieved prominence in diverse fields, such as business, academics and public life, unconnected to the president in any way other than affinity in political values. The US is also unique in placing the appointments under the ambit of confirmation by the Senate — no other country has a like procedure. Consequently, reform of the system has often been considered, but there is no consensus on a formula that would eliminate the abuse, and retain the positive aspects of the system, including the right of the president to choose his own team in a constitutional system of delicate power balance.

A corollary to the US system is that all ambassadors offer their resignations when a new president assumes office in Washington DC, including the career appointees, who are generally not moved out immediately. Most of the political appointees are replaced as a matter of course, though a few may exceptionally continue in office, at the pleasure of the new president. For the receiving state, one merit of getting a political-appointee US ambassador is that he is likely to have direct access, outside the State Department, to others that exercise a good deal of influence on the unusually collegial policy-making process in that country. If they are lucky, he may even have a pipeline to the White House, or the next best thing, to the National Security Council. Rather few career-appointees can match this.

A final word on the ambassador’s bilateral relationship management role that was outlined at the beginning of this chapter. It demands balanced judgment that comes with experience and skill. The envoy learns on the job, starting with a small mission that he may head in a country of relatively low or modest importance as seen from his home capital. There he hones skills and accumulate knowledge. Major appointments naturally come towards the end of the career. In the meantime there are also the opportunities to serve in the foreign ministry, at increasingly senior levels, building up understanding of one’s own system of governance, beyond the foreign ministry, that is also connected with a major mandate abroad. The ambassador needs a combination of knowledge and comprehension, innovation and caution, courage and discretion, resourcefulness and the ability to delegate, and above all personal integrity. In a way his entire career has been an apprenticeship for this role.

Consulates

Countries with the strongest tradition of emigration have the largest number of consulates abroad (these are Italy, France, Portugal, Greece and Spain). The raison d’etrê of a consulate general or a consulate (the two are identical in function, but the former ranks higher in the diplomatic hierarchy, and is usually headed by a more senior official)[10] is consular work, protection and services for its own nationals living in that territory, and delivery of visas and other related services to foreign nationals. They typically function under the jurisdiction of an embassy, though it is possible to have a consulate even if there is no embassy. This can happen if an existing embassy is closed, for political reasons or on grounds of economy. Even suspension of diplomatic relations does not automatically end consular relations. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1961 is the international legal framework for these entities, setting out the working conditions, as well as privileges and immunities.[11]

In practice consulates carry out almost the full range of diplomatic work, except that their political interface is with the provincial or regional administration of the receiving country, and they do not directly contact the MFA of the receiving state, or other central or federal government entities. But they carry out the work of promotion, outreach, feedback and servicing in full measure. Their management responsibilities are limited in comparison with embassies.

Non-career appointees, often nationals of the receiving country, head honorary consulates. These appointments require the approval of the receiving country, which may place some conditions on the jurisdiction or even rank.[12] Some are purely honorific titles, where the appointed individual gives limited local help to the country that appoints him, and “flies the flag”, with no financial reimbursement.[13] In other cases the honorary consul may carry out limited consular work, including issue of visas, for which he may be reimbursed. For the appointing country it is a device to get the help of well-connected individuals, at places where it is not viable to station home-based officials. The crux of the challenge lies in the choice of the appointee, since at many places there are individuals interested only in the social status that goes with it, and has little interest in the work. As often in life, those who actively seek to become honorary consuls are just the kind that should not be appointed, and the ones that would handle the tasks well often have to be persuaded to take it up![14]

Personal Characteristics

The quality that mission officials, including the ambassador, need most of all is a capacity for teamwork, because solo brilliance is not nearly as effective as joint effort. The junior official is the foot soldier of the mission, sent off to any assignment that needs to be done, regardless of formal work allocation. At the more senior levels, experience and skills are deployed in sectors where there is need for supervision, as well as autonomous functioning.

How do the qualities needed in a mission differ fundamentally from those needed at headquarters? In a word, the role of promotion or “outreach” dominates work abroad, far more than at home. Each mission official is in effect a proactive salesman for his country. As for any salesman, this demands intimacy with conditions at home, and zeal to convey this, in realistic and positive terms.

a) A winning personality and genuine engagement in personal outreach. For the junior official, contacts with local officials can often be among the most productive for the mission. At the local foreign office he can treat desk officers as equals, and gather information on attitudes and impending developments through the personal relationships that he establishes. The same applies to any other ministry or agency that belongs to his direct charge. In some respects he has no equal in these contact-building and information-gathering roles, because he is well placed to win confidence and gather material on issues of detail and nuance that more senior colleagues may find hard to access. The effectiveness with which the mission’s “outreach” role is performed at all levels depends on the networking and interpersonal skills of the diplomats. The ambassador is the one whose personal example inspires all the rest, but officials at all ranks have to be encouraged and groomed to become valuable mission resources.

b) The diplomat has a similar role within the diplomatic corps, also hinging on personal relationships. In each capital there are usually diverse informal groups of embassy officials, usually “lunch clubs” where commercial or media specialists and other of like rank meet, exchange information and engage in professional interchanges (this sense of fraternity is particularly solid among the military attachés). Sometimes there is potential for creating a group of like-minded officials of one’s own, with the right kinds of contacts. (Example: in the 1960s at Beijing I was involved in the creation of a lunch group composed exclusively of second and third secretaries that my own HOM came to call as the “Tails of Missions” lunch club. Now sub-divided into specialist segments – political, economic, etc. — it survives to the present!)

c) At all levels, when abroad, he has time to build up specialist knowledge. The host country is his first target, together with the local language, if this is the local requirement. For the diplomat, language is the tool for access and communication, not the end in itself. Besides the normal knowledge building task of specialization, he also needs an extensive spread of interests because diplomatic work encompasses ever-wider subjects. This is the attitude of constant learning.

d) Building social and representational skills is another opportunity. Knowledge of wines and fine foods can help, but this is not the end objective, pleasant as it may be. The professional skill lies more in a winning way with people and an ability to use social contacts in a non-obvious manner, for professional purposes. The junior diplomat is the HOM’s special responsibility in the development of these abilities, starting with social confidence building.

e) Writing ability is a career-long preoccupation, together with drafting and summarizing skills. These are obvious assets in multilateral diplomacy, where the person that can produce on demand a phrase or other construction of words that bridges divergent ideas is an instant success in drafting groups. The same skill at building compromise and safeguarding one’s own interest is no less needed in bilateral work. It is built through observation, and practice.

f) A special project becomes a tremendous learning opportunity for the mission team. Examples are a special dispatch of importance, or a local market study on a product of export interest to one’s country, or a scheme to streamline consular work, or even a new way to transform the library and periodicals section as a “resource center”. Any of these provide an opportunity for creative thinking and independent action. The HOM should take care to give credit to his colleagues for the work, and of course guide them as needed.

g) Technology developments should be an obvious focus area for the young and the senior official, gaining personal familiarity with the information and communications technology used, or potentially usable, by the embassy. One should seek insights into technology developments in the host country, as a means of remaining well informed on futuristic subjects.

h) The embassy official should guard his sources, especially in written reports, if it might conceivably embarrass the source if it is traced back. I learn the hard way that an urge to establish one’s own credibility with details of the source, worked fine until someone at headquarters was indiscreet enough to name the source to his own foreign interlocutor, and the story got back to the original source via his foreign ministry! Practical experience generally shows that besides to one’s own HOM, one should hold back on sensitive detail.

When a mission official has an opportunity to officiate as the Chargé d’ Affaires, this is an invaluable learning experience, even if the times are tranquil and there are no major developments, bilateral or local. He has the opportunity to mix with other heads of missions, many with vast experience, and even if he is unlikely to be taken too seriously by them, he can learn much simply through observation and a passive listening role in dialogue. He may also gain some insight into the psychological loneliness of the head of mission, who has none to advise on the way he should act, or react, to opportunities and developments as they occur, even in this age of instant communications. He might understand too that the mission is both a branch of the headquarters, and at the same time a distinct unit in a local environment —an environment that is not fully understood from headquarters. These are factors in the complex relationship that he has to sustain with colleagues at home. He then begins to understand the complete responsibility he must bear for own actions.

Bibliography

1. Eban, Abba, Diplomacy for the Next Century (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1998).

2. Locke, Mary and Yost, Casimir A eds. Who Needs Embassies? How US Missions Abroad Help Shape Our World (Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, Washington DC, 1997).

3. Rana, Kishan S, Inside Diplomacy (Manas Publications, New Delhi, 2000) Chapter 14 pp. 311–42.

4. Wolfe, Robert, ed. Diplomatic Missions: The Ambassador in Canadian Foreign Policy (McGill & Queens University Press, Ottawa, 1998).

Questions:

1. What are the tasks of junior officials in the mission?

2. What are the work areas to which all embassy officials need exposure and why?

3. How do the duties of the DCM differ from those of a counselor heading a department within the mission?

4. List the major responsibilities of the ambassador. Which one is the hardest of his tasks?

5. Which personal qualities are the most important for a diplomat serving in a bilateral mission?