The Foreign Service Journal, March 2005

M A R C H 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 43 e all know Canadians. They are those mild-mannered, polite types to the north, who are “just like us” except for a few quaint customs and turns of phrase, eh? In many ways, that generalization holds true (perhaps more so than either side really cares to admit). Canadians and Yanks both hail from a high-tech, free-market society, and share an Anglo-Saxon historical base. And like the U.S., Canada is graced by a vibrant, multi-party democratic sys- tem committed to the rights, freedoms and liberties that we tend to think of as “American.” Finally, Canadians also think of themselves as “Americans” — but North Americans. In some important respects, however, that description does not fit reality. Thanks perhaps to its French heritage, Canada has generally placed a greater emphasis on evolving a multicultural/multiracial culture. Similarly, as a relatively small if wealthy nation, it has consistently endorsed the value of international cooperation over unilateral action. So it should come as no surprise that when U.S. diplo- mats undergo area training prior to a Canadian assignment, they are invariably cautioned not to characterize the rela- tionship as “You’re just like us,” for our neighbors to the north believe they are very different — and perhaps better. The same mix of similarities and distinctions also applies to Canadian diplomats. As of July 2004, the Canadian Foreign Service operated from a network of 164 missions accredited in 153 countries, with over 8,500 employees (including 4,890 local hires). For 2004, it projected hiring 75 individuals of “creativity, innovation and commitment to excellence” as trade commissioners, immigration officers, political/econ officers and management/consular affairs offi- cers. The target for future years is expected to be similar. Like U.S. Foreign Service personnel, Canadian diplo- mats are professional civil servants who operate within a labyrinth of bureaucratic rules and regulations. They even have comparable career frustrations: too many demands on their time; inadequate staffing; too few promotions. But in some important respects, they do diplomacy dif- ferently. One of the most obvious differences is the role of the union that represents Canadian diplomats, the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers. PAFSO is akin to AFSA in being both a professional associ- ation and the designated bargaining agent for diplomats, since 1968; however, unlike AFSA, AFGE and other unions representing U.S. federal employees, PAFSO has the authority to strike. In this regard, it reflects Canadian soci- ety, where a greater percentage of the work force, particu- larly public service workers, is unionized than in the United States. PAFSO can negotiate most professional issues except for pensions and staffing; most recently, its major concern was wages, and it led the first legal strike in Canadian diplomat- ic history last year. Because the Canadian government (unlike the NHL) cannot lock out its employees, its diplo- D OING D IPLOMACY D IFFERENTLY : T HE C ANADIAN F OREIGN S ERVICE O UR NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH HAS LONG PUNCHED ABOVE ITS DIPLOMATIC WEIGHT . B UT THERE ARE SIGNS THAT IT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CONTINUE DOING SO . B Y D AVID T. J ONES David T. Jones is a retired Senior Foreign Service officer and frequent contributor to the Journal . He served in Ottawa from 1992 to 1996, and continues to study and write about Canadian issues. W