Ottawa mulls closing some embassies in Africa

[GAP]

Ottawa mulls closing some embassies in Africa
GEOFFREY YORK JOHANNESBURG— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Last updated Wednesday, Nov. 10, 2010
Article Link

ust weeks after losing a crucial vote for a seat on the United Nations Security Council, the Harper government is wrestling with a diplomatic move that could further damage its influence on the world stage.

The government is considering the closing of several Canadian embassies in Africa, a move that has triggered alarm among many foreign-policy activists. Up to four embassies – including those in Cameroon, Zambia and Tunisia – are said to be on the chopping block.

Since Canada has only 21 embassies in Africa today, the cuts would represent up to a fifth of its diplomatic posts on the continent. It would lead to accusations that the government is further neglecting Africa at a time of strained relations between Canada and Africa, especially after Ottawa failed to secure African votes in its bid for a Security Council seat.

If it happens, the closing of the embassies in Africa could be coupled with the opening of new embassies or trade offices in higher-priority regions such as Asia and Latin America. The Harper government has focused much of its attention on the emerging middle-income countries in those two regions, which are seen as more logical trading partners for Canada.
More on link

 

[Journeyman]

Well there's the snag right there.....

".....triggered alarm among many foreign-policy activists"  -- is in direct conflict with -- "as more logical trading partners for Canada."

Activism does not automatically include Logic


Having a particular hobby-horse does not always stand up to rational assessment of our best interests. In a time when budgets are increasingly constrained, the wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth, and wails of entitlement can become pretty dramatic.

 

[GAP]

Stephen Lewis, the former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations and former UN envoy on AIDS in Africa, said he’s not surprised by the possible closing of more embassies in Africa. “It will do further damage to Canada’s reputation,” he said. “But having lost the Security Council seat, Canada probably cares even less about what Africa may think.”

That's probably closer to the truth...

 

[Edward Campbell]

The primary function of most African missions is to provide OJT for junior diplomats. That function can be performed equally well in the Caribbean, Latin America and Eastern Europe.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

As they say in the real estate business its all about location, location, location. We already have embassies in Tunisia's neighbours Libya and Algeria, plus Egypt, Morocco and Mali. That's five embassies in North Africa alone. Cameroon is right beside Nigeria, so the two embassies there could be combined. The same for Zambia as it borders Zimbabwe where we have an embassy.

Logic would also dictate that we have embassies in those countries we do the most trade with. For example, bilateral trade between Canada and Tunisia is approximately $158 million dollars*. Compare that to Algeria where Canada exported over $151 million and imported over $3.7 BILLION dollars worth of goods. Bilateral trade between Canada and Cameroon is only $39 million and between Zambia and Canada its only $10 million. Compare that with South Africa where total bilateral trade is just over $1 billion dollars. Even little old Zimbabwe has about $11 million in trade with Canada, plus, Canada invests $30 million dollars in Zimbabwe.

Wasting money on embassies where we have very little trade doesn't make since. 

* All figures from 2009.

 

[Ex-SHAD]

Considering that the embassies which have been proposed for closure are located in nations that do not have any strategic importance to Canada, I see no problem with the proposed closures. In these tough economic times we need to make cuts, and when it comes down to it, unless any of the above African nations are providing us with crucial trade materials or creating a profit for Canadian Businesses, I see no reason in retaining them.

 

[JB 11 11]

The primary function of most African missions is to provide OJT for junior diplomats. That function can be performed equally well in the Caribbean, Latin America and Eastern Europe.

....um, What? LOL! That's not even remotely true! Some of DFAIT's most experienced staffers, not to mention CIC folk (Citizenship-Immigration Canada...Not to be confused with Cadet Instructor Cadre) work those postings. The main reason ANY junior DFAIT personnel go to Africa is simple....Money.

Between the hardship pay and FSD's one can make out quite well over a 2 year post. Add to that, cross-posting premiums into a hardship level of equal or greater level and one starts making out like a bandit....mind you, you live in Africa, but some people really enjoy it and are on their 3rd or 4th posting in Africa.

As for the closing of missions? It makes about as much sense as closing bases. Sure, there might be some need financially, but as soon as the Govt. changes.... as it has done constantly since the inception of our fair Country, they will open right back up.

The broader consequence of doing this is less and less presence globally. These are global times. The first round of closures hurt us... bad. Milan is a great example. Closed 3-4 years ago.... center of trade. To this day, everyone always asks.... why was it closed? Those first closures were political.... the Harper govt.'s way of saying "We're in charge now!" Meanwhile the same govt. is opening consulates for Immigration purposes elsewhere where we have a huge presence in the Capitol city at great expense..... so the whole budgetary/financial reasoning does not wash with me.

As Country we have the money... As for Trade and what countries we trade most with... Not all missions have a full compliment of DFAIT personnel. Some might only have Political officers, maybe just a head of mission and an MCO....depends. So the trade aspect isn't always handled by the mission directly, in so much as there is a dedicated Trade officer present.

Further, the great idea of loading other missions with taskings from neighbouring countries (due to a closure) sounds great on paper..... but speaking from experience, it can be a very slippery slope. Close one mission and the others that remain and are taking up the slack can often times become so ineffective due to overload (remember, there might not be a lot of staff)  that it is almost like you've closed even more missions.

Anyway... that's my :2c: for what its worth. Just disappointed and some what ashamed at Canada's foreign policy these days...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Fair enough, and I am happy to stand corrected. My snarky assertion about OJT was prompted by reading some recent diplomatic appointment notices (September?). I noted a very senior (former ADM), seasoned man going a major Asian post and an apparent lightweight ((Assistant) Director in a department other than DFAIT? as I recall) going to an African post, and I was struck by the contrast.

But, sadly, although we are a G8 member and all that, foreign affairs is not a priority for Canadians and closing embassies - all those cocktail parties and first class air fares 'saved' - is popular when real spending may have to be cut, too.

There is merit in base closures - not, necessarily, in all of them but we have, regularly, closed bases and we have, usually, realized real, measurable savings - albeit not always as large as some would have wished. Thus, there may be merit in consolidating diplomatic posts - especially on a poor performing continent with 50+ countries. Do we really need more than 15 embassies in Africa when we only have less than 10 consulates and trade offices in India and even fewer in China?

I would like to argue for more diplomatic posts (and aid) almost everywhere, but in 2010 that argument will not fly. When (just if?) Canada can expand its foreign network again I hope our primary, second and even tertiary foci will be in Asia. Our fourth level expansion efforts should be in the USA and everything else should follow on the priority list with Africa, probably but sadly, bringing up the rear.


Edit: clarity

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I would like to argue for more diplomatic posts (and aid) almost everywhere, but in 2010 that argument will not fly. When (just if?) Canada can expand its foreign network again I hope our primary, second and even tertiary foci will be in Asia. Our fourth level expansion efforts should be in the USA and everything else should follow on the priority list with Africa, probably but sadly, bringing up the rear.

Agree with you whole heartedly. I'm just curious why you would delegate Europe to the rear of the bus? Are we not in the process of working out a free trade pact with the E.U.?

 

[Edward Campbell]

We are, but it will be anything but "free." The EU is the biggest and baddest protection racket in human history - yes, we will do a deal but it will not do much for anyone.

Now, free trade with India? Yes! Free trade with South Korea? Yes! Singapore (free trade in services)? Yes! And, above all, with China? YES! Indeed!

And Europe, and the rest? Sure, I guess, whenever, for what it's worth, maybe ...

 

[GAP]

Maybe some of these need to be closed down too......

Quebec’s duplicate diplomats cost $57M a year
By BRIAN DALY, QMI Agency
Article Link

MONTREAL — Quebec’s network of foreign offices is growing at an alarming rate despite the fact that federal departments, including Foreign Affairs, already offer many of the same services, a QMI investigation has found.

Data compiled by QMI and Quebec's third political party, the Action Democratique du Quebec, shows that the province will pour $57 million into its parallel foreign service in 2010-2011. That’s up from $44 million the previous fiscal year.

Quebec runs 37 duplicate diplomatic offices at the same time as it receives more than $8.5 billion in annual transfer payments from Canadians – money meant to help out “have-not” provinces.

The largest of Quebec’s foreign delegations is the $12 million office in central Paris, with 56 staffers.

The Hong Kong office, with just nine staff, cost more than $5 million to run last year. Quebec has people on the ground in most major U.S., European and Asian cities, all of which are already served by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Meanwhile, Ontario and Alberta spend a combined annual total of $19.5 million on foreign offices, all of which are located inside existing Canadian missions.

Smaller provinces such as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia tell QMI that they have no foreign offices whatsoever.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest fended off questions in the legislature about foreign spending on Wednesday. ADQ critic Francois Bonnardel demanded to know why costs were rising when the province, and the country, were still emerging from a damaging recession.
More on link

 

[Retired AF Guy]

We are, but it will be anything but "free." The EU is the biggest and baddest protection racket in human history - yes, we will do a deal but it will not do much for anyone.

Sign a treaty with some European countries and after the handshakes you check still got all your fingers. And speaking of closing embassies I counted approximately 30 Canadian embassies in Europe, including The Vatican, NATO and E.U. I'm sure if we looked really hard we could find that could closed/amalagated (e.g. Spain+Portugal; Norway+Sweden+Finland).

 

[Ex-SHAD]

I think it’s a lot more prudent to save money by cutting embassies in Africa, versus that of Europe. After all, from an economic standpoint, it’s a lot more profitable for Canadian business interests/Canadian Citizenry to be able to be able to engage in commerce in these nations, while on the other hand, our African contacts don’t really net us a lot of profit in the end.

Now obviously, we need diplomatic contacts in Africa, if we are to maintain any sort of prestige on the world’s stage, but we should focus on African nations that provide Canadians with the most opportunities for economic success, rather than focusing on nations which have little strategic or economic interest.

Now this may be a harsh stance to take, but when it comes to foreign policy, it’s much better to take an objective stance than that of a moralistic one.

 

[George Wallace]

I think it’s a lot more prudent to save money by cutting embassies in Africa, versus that of Europe. After all, from an economic standpoint, .........

I'll stop right there with that thought.  Closing an embassy in Africa compared to one in an industrialized country has wide economic differences.  The cost of closing isn't as important as the cost of reestablishing and reopening an embassy at a later date.  I am sure the cost to open an embassy up in an African nation will be only a fraction that of opening an embassy in any of the European nations.  Property values in large European capital cities are hundreds of times more than those in African capitals.

 

[JB 11 11]

err... not exactly. I know first hand what we pay for our realestate in Countries such as India compared to Europe...
I can tell you, just because it is a third world/developing nation does not mean operating costs are lower than they would be elsewhere. It costs us way more to operate in India than it does in Italy. That I can assure you. Granted the mission is bigger and we do more trade with India vs. Italy, but trust me.... what we pay for rent over there can far exceed what we pay for other places in Europe.

I think you have a point in some regards, but it is by no means applicable across the board. Each country has its own rules and regs, costs and considerations. If there is a large professional expat community, for example, you can be sure of over inflatted rent and operating costs.

:2c: