Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation

The job of an ambassador

This article is more than 13 years old
What does a British diplomat overseas actually do? Everything from organising WCs for VIPs to passing on secret messages ...

When I wrote about the problem of Britain's blogging ambassadors a few days ago, a reader in the discussion thread challenged me to write "a new article, about the induction process of diplomats and ambassadors ... things like 'dos and don'ts' lists ... what type of scripts they need to follow, and what sort of training they attend to keep them on the narrow and straight."

First, a caveat. I had a full career as a professional diplomat but I retired nearly 15 years ago, so my views are only worth considering by those who think there is something called "diplomacy" that is not subject to fundamental change very quickly.

Anyway, there is no penny catechism to guide you as a diplomat. There is training, to be sure. Apart from language training, which is a special case, I recall courses on security (which in the cold war mainly meant protecting oneself against hostile intelligence services), Europe, economics, communist theory and many semi-specialist subjects.

But training is not the key. After a long course in economics at the Civil Service College, I was called to the headmaster's study to explain why I had ticked a box in the feedback questionnaire to say that I expected what I had learned to be totally irrelevant to my next job. My explanation that I was going to Aden in the middle of the emergency was accepted (and the economics I learned was, of course, of great use later on, even if the economic doctrines of the 1960s were later replaced by opposite doctrines).

In a recent book, Sir Christopher Meyer, former British ambassador in Washington, lists the qualities a diplomat needs: insatiable curiosity about other countries, an abiding interest in foreign policy, willingness to spend half your working life outside the UK, and profound knowledge and understanding of some foreign countries.

You must be able to negotiate, to win the confidence of the powerful and influence them, to understand what makes a foreign society tick, to analyse information and report it accurately and quickly, including what your own government does not want to hear; you need "a quick mind, a hard head, a strong stomach, a warm smile and a cold eye".

I would add to this list scrupulous regard for truth, not a quality always associated with diplomats. Some have listed other qualities such as good horsemanship, good looks and a good head for alcohol. The more qualities you add, the less it looks like the specification of a good diplomat and the more like a combination of King Solomon and Jeeves.

Diplomacy has changed. Probably the biggest single change was the introduction of the telegraph in the middle of the 19th century, which meant that ambassadors were no longer truly "plenipotentiary", as they are still formally described, since they were within range of instructions and no longer had the necessity or the authority to stand in place of their sovereigns.

Nevertheless, the job is still recognisably the same as the one performed by Sir Jeremy Bowes, the ambassador sent by Queen Elizabeth I to the court of Ivan the Terrible. His task began by asserting the authority of his queen as the equal of the tsar, and ended by obtaining important commercial advantages for British merchants in Russia and establishing a commercial office in Vologda, as well as freeing a British widow whose Dutch husband had been roasted to death.

The British system of recruiting people into the diplomatic service closely follows the system of recruitment into the home civil service, recognising that both need many similar qualities: a balance between prudence and can-do; between leadership and scrupulous respect of the democratic process; above all, versatility in facing intractable problems.

When I worked in Belfast, I was warned by a home civil service colleague not to "trust" the Irish government. It made me think about diplomacy. Do we or should we trust the American or French governments? Should they trust us? It's the wrong question. One of the arts of diplomacy is to find solutions to problems that depend not on trust but on interest.

I am not a fan of the style that has been adopted recently by the Foreign Office, memorably described by the former ambassador in Rome, Sir Ivor Roberts, as bullshit bingo:

"Wall Street management-speak … discredited by the time it is introduced. Synergies, best practice, benchmarking … roll out, stakeholder … fit for purpose, are all prime candidates for a game of bullshit bingo, a substitute for clarity and succinctness."
Foreign Office website

I can, however, make an exception for some of the material on the website about "who we are" and "what we do". The section called A day in the life ... can be recommended to anyone who is interested in what British diplomats actually do, and therefore what qualities are needed.

What I would call the Ferrero Rocher side of diplomacy, though sometimes glamorous, can be excruciatingly dull. At the risk of overdramatisation, I will quote a few examples (from a career that was probably less varied than most) where I feel I earned my wages, some from earlier experience at a junior level and some more senior ...

Persuading the local government in eastern Yemen (then a British protectorate) to install WCs in preparation for a visit by some UN VIPs.

Passing a secret message from the Luxembourg monetary authority to the Bank of England about the need for tighter regulation of the BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International), which collapsed soon afterwards.

Interceding with a Saudi prince to get a British lorry driver's sentence to flogging commuted.

Obtaining the release of a CIA double agent's British sidekick who had been tortured by the Libyan revolutionary committees.

Leading a seminar on export promotion in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations immediately after the end of the Soviet Union.

Nobbling the Greek minister of foreign affairs in the middle of the night to urge restraint in a military confrontation with Turkey that looked like ending in shooting.

It's worth mentioning that of these examples, only the Luxembourg business was done mainly in English. I was dismayed to learn recently that neither the Middle East director in the Foreign Office nor two of our ambassadors in important Gulf countries speak Arabic.

Most viewed

Most viewed