Diplomatic postings: the case for non-professional appointees: John Collinge argues that non-career diplomats can be effective representatives and can coexist with their career counterparts.

AuthorCollinge, John

It is understandable that career diplomats might be less than enthusiastic at the appointment of non-career diplomats to key diplomatic posts. The Foreign Service Association of New Zealand in particular has over the years not been slow to belittle non-career diplomatic appointments, which are generally only made for key postings like London, Washington and Canberra. But non-career diplomats in fact often have skills and background that provide a good basis for representation, especially in key posts like London. There is no reason why career and non-career diplomats cannot co-exist. Their co-operation can add value to overseas posts.

**********

The hostility of career diplomats to political appointees in key capitals is both understandable and well known. Perhaps not so well known or publicised are the reasons for such appointments.

In New Zealand, non-career diplomatic appointments are generally made only to the key postings of London, Washington and Canberra, except in special circumstances or to accumulate diplomatic capital, such as the appointment of Sir Edmund Hillary as high commissioner to India.

To take London as an example, there are more than 50 Commonwealth countries competing for attention and more than 200 countries in total. Because of this, it is necessary for some form of order. There, politicians tend to speak to politicians, first secretaries to first secretaries, second to second, and so on. This is not rudeness--it is simply, of necessity, to ensure efficiency.

Of course, there is no hard and fast rule, but this divide operates quite comprehensively in practice. In London, I heard many complaints from second and third secretaries as to this 'barrier'. They were endeavouring to do their job well, but felt frustrated at the limitation.

As a result, political appointees become particularly involved when there are issues of broad policy. During my time there as high commissioner, issues of policy which cropped up included the anti-nuclear stance of New Zealand, whereas Britain and France (for defence reasons) were strongly committed to a nuclear deterrent. This was settled, after some debate and in spite of the UK media pressing the issue, as 'a disagreement between friends', in the words of Prime Minister John Major.

Then there was the BSE (mad cow disease) scare in Britain in relation to beef in particular, and the issue of New Zealand's role in relation thereto. Should New Zealand take advantage, or should it retain its...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT