The Foreign Service Journal, January 2013

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JANUARY 2013 41 Because consensus is paramount. Neumann also tells us about a diplomat who joked that he and his col- leagues “never fell out with one another, for they might end up as the only two Norwegian civil servants posted to Abidjan.” Neumann sees himself as having done “field research” in Oslo and reports his findings with all the accoutrements of the academic tribe. On the other hand, whether intentional or not, the satire behind his observations can be biting. Seeing oneself with an outsider’s eyes can be quite illuminating, but when Neumann’s reflections about Norwegian diplomats will certainly resonate with FSOs. that (quoting Hedley Bull) is about “the current situation and how it is likely to develop...[deriving] from day-to-day personal dealings with the leading political strata.” Such information, however, is just raw data, “one of the many inputs into the production of authoritative documents.” What does a foreign affairs ministry do with that information? It often produces mind-numbingly bland reports that essentially maintain the status quo. But, the author argues, that is what they are supposed to do. Using examples of speechwriting from his days on the Norway MFA’s policy and planning staff, Neumann asks why most talks sound the same, seeming only incidentally to take their audiences into account. He answers that such considerations are secondary to the perennial primary goal: a foreign policy apparatus that sings in harmony. In his view, “speechwriting is first and foremost a question of ministe- rial identity-building. Information and argumentation are important, but the organization’s self-confirmation and the confirmation of working relations among all parts of the organization are of greater importance. When the entire ministry can stand behind a speech, it is because the speech is the ministry.” Obtaining clearances to produce such consensus-driven statements takes time. As Neumann notes about one project: “The writing job itself—the thinking and writing up—took less than two hours, but everything else took 10. Counting input, reading, annotation, secretarial aid, translation, etc., it must have taken the ministry more than 30 hours to produce that 20-minute lun- cheon speech.” But to a diplomat, such time is “a totally reasonable and respect- able allocation of resources.” Why? that outsider also has inside experience, the view can be really critical. From observations on family life to the increasing numbers of women in diplomacy, from turf battles to diplo- matic stereotypes (the pinstriped wine sipper), Neumann’s reflections will certainly resonate with FSOs who have “been there, done that.” John M. Grondelski is an FSO currently studying Chinese at the American Institute in Taiwan. He previously served in London, Warsaw, Bern and Washington, D.C.