 |
| English: Loy W. Henderson (1892-06-28 – 1986-03-24) was a United States Foreign Service Officer and diplomat. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Nowadays, especially since the passage of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, professions and organizations around the world are paying
more attention to the need for ethical professionalism standards to guide their
activities. Research has shown that cheating has become more commonplace,
especially among young people, and while there is not enough data to indicate
whether or not this is a clear global trend, it is nonetheless worth being
concerned about.
What is inarguable is that any profession needs a
grounded ethical code to guide the activities of its members if it is to be
successful in our increasingly globalized world.
It’s worth thinking about just why this is so.
First; a clearly understood code of ethical behavior helps guide the individual
member of the profession in carrying out his or her responsibilities, and
protects the individual from outside pressure to ‘bend the rules.’ A sound code
is invaluable in explaining the profession to outsiders, and aids in
professional interactions with those within and outside the profession. More
importantly, for professions that serve the general public, a code establishes
the expectations that those being served have regarding that profession.
For 30 years, until I retired in September 2012, I
served in the US Foreign Service (and for 20 years before that in the US Army),
working at a number of American diplomatic posts both in the United States and
abroad. During my service as an American diplomat, I was often dismayed at the
lack of understanding most people outside the profession have of what diplomats
do. The most common phrase I heard throughout that time was, “a diplomat is
someone sent abroad to lie for his country.” From the inside, I knew this to be
false. Most of my colleagues were decent, dedicated individuals who operated
according to a strict ethical code, serving often in dangerous situations, and
performing heroic, but unheralded jobs in the service to their nation and its
people.
Why, then, did people fail to understand the
profession? There are probably a lot of reasons, but one that impressed me most
was the fact that, while there are reams of regulations concerning proper
ethical conduct, nowhere was there a clearly defined code of ethical conduct
easily accessible to diplomats or the outside world. Other than anecdotal
information, or the often distorted and inaccurate portrayals of bureaucratic
and snobbish diplomats in popular media, there was no easy to access and
understand code of ethical professional behavior that told anyone what the
profession of diplomacy is all about.
It became clear to me, therefore, that diplomacy, as
any other profession, would be best served if it was made accessible to the
general public. Diplomats would be more effective in carrying out their
important tasks if they knew, not just what they should avoid doing, but what
they are expected to do. Our current ethical regulations, though scattered
about dozens of volumes and almost requiring a law degree to fully understand,
effectively distinguish between right and wrong behavior, but they are useless
in helping professionals make the often hard choice between two courses of
action, both of which are ‘right,’ but one of which might be more appropriate
and effective. The individual is left to his or her own personal code of
behavior in making such decisions, and, while the right (or appropriate)
decision is made in most cases, it would be more effective if the individual
had aspirational guidelines to help in the decision making process.
Furthermore, such a code would help outsiders better understand the reasoning
behind the decisions made.
Like the US Military Code of Conduct, promulgated
after the Korean War and the unfortunate collaboration with the enemy by many
soldiers who had not been prepared for the propaganda employed against them, a
diplomatic code of conduct, introduced during the beginning of a career and
constantly reinforced throughout that career, would better prepare our
diplomats for the world in which they must operate today, where they must
contend not only with officials of the governments to whom they’re accredited,
but with the many nongovernmental groups and individuals who impact foreign
affairs in ways not thought of in the early days of international diplomacy.
No longer should
American diplomacy be burdened with the image of ‘someone sent abroad to lie
for his or her country.’ As the new US administration prepares to face the
challenges of the next four years, establishing a well-understood, respected,
professional corps of diplomats should be one of its top priorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment