Has the time come to scrap ambassadors and their embassies? In these days of instant communication and jet travel, how relevant are the expensive diplomatic missions that governments maintain? Shouldn’t EU member states at least scrap their bi-lateral embassies to other EU capitals?
We welcome readers’ comments on this, and would also recommend that they react to some of the points raised in articles in the current issue of Europe’s World by Carne Ross.
Has the time come to scrap ambassadors and their embassies? When leaving the German Ambassador position in Rome in 1936 to join Hitler's opposition, my granfather said that the airplane had made his post redundant. Since then, the number of ambassadors has mushroomed with the number of nations, and all of them have become "Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary" despite the explosion of communications. EU member states should abolish their embassies in all other EU countries and replace them with smaller information officies (incidentally, as the European Commission has done in every Member State upon accession). As regards Third Countries, one big EU embassy in most of them would be enough, with Ambassadors surrounded by a fair number of Ministers from different, most interested EU members (if necessary on a rotational basis). This would add weight to European diplomacy, help intra-European cooperation and transparency, and cut budgetary expenditure and waste. The biggest problems are political vanity and fewer top roles for promotions unless foreign service staff are cut as they should.
When leaving the German Ambassador position in Rome in 1936 to join Hitler's opposition, my granfather said that the airplane had made his post redundant. Since then, the number of ambassadors has mushroomed with the number of nations, and all of them have become "Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary" despite the explosion of communications. EU member states should abolish their embassies in all other EU countries and replace them with smaller information officies (incidentally, as the European Commission has done in every Member State upon accession). As regards Third Countries, one big EU embassy in most of them would be enough, with Ambassadors surrounded by a fair number of Ministers from different, most interested EU members (if necessary on a rotational basis). This would add weight to European diplomacy, help intra-European cooperation and transparency, and cut budgetary expenditure and waste. The biggest problems are political vanity and fewer top roles for promotions unless foreign service staff are cut as they should.
Re:Has the time come to scrap ambassadors and their embassies? With this sort of clear and pragmatic proposals, the EU citizen would recover the hope in a EU common project. Replacing expensive administrative setups for more efficient 21st century facilities giving better services to the peopel at the reasonble cost and using the same aproach that any other service provider, would transmit to the street peopel the idea that politicians are starting to think real, and perhaps may find the solutions people needs to think there is a better future.
With this sort of clear and pragmatic proposals, the EU citizen would recover the hope in a EU common project. Replacing expensive administrative setups for more efficient 21st century facilities giving better services to the peopel at the reasonble cost and using the same aproach that any other service provider, would transmit to the street peopel the idea that politicians are starting to think real, and perhaps may find the solutions people needs to think there is a better future.
What do YOU think? Please leave your comments at the end of the article
Over 150 think tanks and universities across Europe contribute authors and ideas to Europe’s World. This section showcases their own publications and reports and is also a bulletin board for their upcoming events.
What do YOU think are the key policy problems that Europe must resolve? What ideas need a Europe-wide airing? This section is open to your contributions.