Future diplomats
phil of the future
It used to be that diplomats had real jobs in that distant from home they
represented the views of their government. Distance meant that they often
had to act on their own. Indeed Ben Franklin's time in France has been
described as 'The Great Improvisation'. Today though, for good or ill,
modern communications makes diplomats all but redundant.
Is there really any role - barring interstellar time lags - for diplomats
in the age of satellite video communications and jet travel?
OBSF: Retief.
Mike Ash
Even with instantaneous communication, there's still a great usefulness
to be had simply in delegation. The top leader doesn't have time to deal
with everybody individually. For example, even in a company which
occupies a single building and has phones for every worker, the top boss
doesn't run everything himself, just because there isn't enough of him
to go around.
And there are still many advantages to having someone be physically
present, whether it's having a better view of what's really happening in
that country, or just attending boring ceremonies.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Matthias Warkus
> Is there really any role - barring interstellar time lags - for
> diplomats in the age of satellite video communications and jet travel?
Of course there is. You need experts on certain regions of the world,
with expert staffs, and when you've got those, you can as well place
them directly inside those regions, better to mingle with the natives.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Dirk van den Boom
Diplomacy is more than being a mouthpiece. It is gathering first hand
information, without the bias of an interlocutor, it is being present
and be able to represent, it is developing and maintaining expertise for
specific countries, regions, planets, star-clusters, it is supporting
citizens of your own country who are in the diaspora and may need help,
it is managing migration, it is providing cover for intelligence, and
much more. Communication is just a tool, you still need experts to use
the tool well.
f'up rasfw
William December Starr
Matthias Warkus <mawa...@googlemail.com> said:
> Of course there is. You need experts on certain regions of the
> world, with expert staffs, and when you've got those, you can as
> well place them directly inside those regions, better to mingle
> with the natives.
And in addition to all those people, you've also got the ambassador.
-- wds
phil of the future
"Mike Ash" <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote in message
news:mike-187BC1.0...@reserved-multicast-range-NOT-delegated.example.com...
> In article <gr169e$7q3$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> "phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
>
>> It used to be that diplomats had real jobs in that distant from home
>> they
>> represented the views of their government. Distance meant that they often
>> had to act on their own. Indeed Ben Franklin's time in France has been
>> described as 'The Great Improvisation'. Today though, for good or ill,
>> modern communications makes diplomats all but redundant.
>>
>> Is there really any role - barring interstellar time lags - for
>> diplomats
>> in the age of satellite video communications and jet travel?
>
> Even with instantaneous communication, there's still a great usefulness
> to be had simply in delegation. The top leader doesn't have time to deal
> with everybody individually. For example, even in a company which
> occupies a single building and has phones for every worker, the top boss
> doesn't run everything himself, just because there isn't enough of him
> to go around.
True enpugh. Perhaps I overstated to say that 'diplomats' might be passe. I
was not think of having no Foriegn Affairs Ministry or State Department. I
was thinking of the need for an ambassdorial type of position.
> And there are still many advantages to having someone be physically
> present, whether it's having a better view of what's really happening in
> that country, or just attending boring ceremonies.
Some use I'll allow. But I think the need and usefulness is much
diminished. OTOH there is less chance for the ambassador to muck up the
message [see US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie circa 1990]. OTGH there is
more opportunity for the leader to do so.
Mike Ash
"phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
> "Mike Ash" <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote in message
> news:mike-187BC1.0...@reserved-multicast-range-NOT-delegated.example
> .com...
> > In article <gr169e$7q3$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> > "phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
> >
> >> It used to be that diplomats had real jobs in that distant from home
> >> they
> >> represented the views of their government. Distance meant that they often
> >> had to act on their own. Indeed Ben Franklin's time in France has been
> >> described as 'The Great Improvisation'. Today though, for good or ill,
> >> modern communications makes diplomats all but redundant.
> >>
> >> Is there really any role - barring interstellar time lags - for
> >> diplomats
> >> in the age of satellite video communications and jet travel?
> >
> > Even with instantaneous communication, there's still a great usefulness
> > to be had simply in delegation. The top leader doesn't have time to deal
> > with everybody individually. For example, even in a company which
> > occupies a single building and has phones for every worker, the top boss
> > doesn't run everything himself, just because there isn't enough of him
> > to go around.
>
> True enpugh. Perhaps I overstated to say that 'diplomats' might be passe. I
> was not think of having no Foriegn Affairs Ministry or State Department. I
> was thinking of the need for an ambassdorial type of position.
I imagine that even in a very modern State Department, there would still
be divisions for each country, and the head of each country's division
might as well be called Ambassador, even if his job looks somewhat
different. And still, being a delegate does mean making decisions on
your own, it's just that in the modern era you can say "let me check
with my boss and get back to you tomorrow" instead of being on your own
for *any* matter that requires less than a few months to answer, no
matter how important.
> > And there are still many advantages to having someone be physically
> > present, whether it's having a better view of what's really happening in
> > that country, or just attending boring ceremonies.
>
> Some use I'll allow. But I think the need and usefulness is much
> diminished. OTOH there is less chance for the ambassador to muck up the
> message [see US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie circa 1990]. OTGH there is
> more opportunity for the leader to do so.
Still plenty of opportunities for screwups, I'm sure.
Interesting about Glaspie. I had heard of that before, but forgot the
specifics. I enjoy this quote given by another top US diplomat on the
incident:
> You would not have said, "Mr. President, if you really are considering
> invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces
> and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed." She wouldn't say that, nor
> would I. Neither would any diplomat.
My goodness, imagine actually using truth and direct statements in
diplomacy, why, that simply cannot be allowed!