CSS Forums - Language training farce at Foreign Office

ISLAMABAD, June 29: The Foreign Office is clearly lost in translation.
Every year, it imparts foreign language training, essential for effective diplomacy, to about 20 young diplomats but then forgets to post the trained officers in regions where that language is spoken. Instead they are sent to places where their language may even be irrelevant.

The result is not only loss of millions spent on the language training of those officers, but the country also loses an opportunity to properly understand what is being said around the globe and express its position on issues critical to it.

Let’s take a quick survey of the latest posting plan for third secretaries to get an idea of the confusion that is prevalent.

Afaq Ahmed, currently assistant director on Kashmir desk, had been trained in French language in addition to training at the United Nations in multilateral diplomacy. He has been posted to Colombo.

There were vacant positions both in Paris and Nairobi, Kenya, (a multilateral station). The Paris position, which was for a third secretary, was instead upgraded to accommodate Dr Ijaz, presently director personnel, as counsellor.

The personnel directorate is interestingly charged with working out both overseas and headquarters postings.

Besides Mr Ahmed, another officer trained in French language Amir Saeed, presently assistant director at the spokesperson’s office, was also available for posting in France.

Meanwhile, the Kenya slot went to Ahsan Mumtaz, an ex-cadre officer, who had no language or multilateral training and hasn’t served at a political desk in the Foreign Office. This is Mr Mumtaz’s second overseas posting, having previously served at Mauritius, something unusual for ex-cadre officers, who get only one foreign assignment.

Be it ambassadorial postings or officer level assignments, those serving in the personnel directorate, always get their way. Ali Haider Altaf, another director in the personnel directorate, has been posted to Berlin again on a position that had to be upgraded for him.

Mr Altaf, whose previous overseas assignment was in Brazil, has been trained in Japanese language.

But a young officer Muhammad Shakeb, now serving on South East Asia and Pacific desk as an assistant director and who had received training in German language, would go to Kazakhstan.

How German language would help Mr Shakeb in Kazakhstan or how Mr Altaf would overcome the German handicap while in Berlin is something for the personnel directorate and FO bosses to explain.

In yet another example, Shah Nazar Afridi, trained in Arabic, would serve in Kathmandu.

While most of the young officers are being sent to lesser stations, intriguingly ex-cadre officers are getting more important capitals. Just like Mr Mumtaz, posted to Kenya — an important African posting — another ex-cadre officer Nadeem Bhatti has been posted to Tokyo.

It appears as if the Foreign Office pays no attention to language skills and the purpose they can serve.

Locally hired staff in missions abroad no doubt provide valuable backup, but are no substitute for Pakistanis who could communicate in local language. Furthermore, by not having diplomats who could speak local language, gives impression to the hosts that we don’t take them seriously.

Therefore, clearly the problem is not with the policy. The problem is rather the way the FO handles the human resources, which has been indisputably the most inefficiently handled of the departments at the FO.

Ballpark figure of the amount the Foreign Office spends on oneyear language training of a young diplomat is Rs2 million to Rs2.5 million, which includes a monthly allowance of $1,700, an equal amount as rent ceiling for residential accommodation, course fee and travel expenditures.

The choice of language for training from a basket of about 10 languages is voluntary.

The world over foreign language training for diplomats is given pursuant to overseas assignments, which means they cannot get a foreign language training course until they are actually assigned to a language-designated job overseas.

Expecting someone to maintain their skills in a foreign language after at least five years — a three year stint at an unrelated station and a subsequent posting at the headquarters — is probably asking them a lot.

But at FO, where merit matters the least and patronage is the only route to prized postings, such a debate looks whimsical. To prove how patronage is important for an officer’s career, just remember a recently posted officer, who had not been allowed to join mission at the UN by the permanent representative because of attitude problems. But he was accommodated in Washington by creating an additional position.

[url=http://epaper.dawn.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=30_06_2011_014_012]Language training farce at Foreign Office[/url]