Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

And bloviating bureaucrats! Recently disclosed letters from UK diplomats to their home office in London reveal the contempt and exasperation they harbored for their foreign hosts. To their credit, the supercilious officials sniffed equally impatiently at cocktail parties and the "stuffiness" of their own ministry.

LONDON – It's not exactly diplomatic – details of what British ambassadors really think about their foreign hosts were disclosed Sunday following the release of a series of frank, and sometimes outright rude, letters to London from embassies around the world.

Canadians are deeply unimpressive, Nigerians are maddening, Nicaraguans often dishonest and the Thais commonly lewd, British diplomats claim in notes sent to Britain's Foreign Office over the past five decades.

The letters were disclosed to the BBC under Freedom of Information laws.

Lord Moran, high commissioner in Ottawa between 1981 and 1984, claimed Canadians had limited talents.

"Anyone who is even moderately good at what they do – in literature, the theatre, skiing or whatever – tends to become a national figure. And anyone who stands out at all from the crowd tends to be praised to the skies and given the Order of Canada at once," Moran wrote in his letter, according to files released to the BBC.

The letters also reveal how diplomats were bored by endless rounds of cocktail parties, and exasperated by the British government's failure to shake off its stuffy image overseas.

Until 2006, ambassadors retiring from their post or moving country traditionally sent a valedictory dispatch to London, offering their candid personal assessment of the country in which they had served.

In a 1967 memo, Roger Pinsent, Britain's outgoing ambassador to Nicaragua, was scathing in his criticism.

"There is, I fear, no question that the average Nicaraguan is one of the most dishonest, unreliable, violent and alcoholic of the Latin Americans," Pinsent wrote.

Two years later, David Hunt – then high commissioner to Nigeria – said the West African country's leaders had "a maddening habit of always choosing the course of action which will do the maximum damage to their own interests."

"Africans as a whole are not only not averse to cutting off their nose to spite their face; they regard such an operation as a triumph of cosmetic surgery," Hunt claimed in his letter.

Anthony Rumbold, Britain's ambassador to Thailand from 1965 to 1967, mocked his hosts for an apparent lack of culture. "They have no literature, no painting and only a very odd kind of music; their sculpture, ceramics and dancing are borrowed from others, and their architecture is monotonous and interior decoration hideous," Rumbold wrote.

"Nobody can deny that gambling and golf are the chief pleasures of the rich, and that licentiousness is the main pleasure of them all," he said.

Other diplomats used their letters to criticize British bureaucracy, and the sometimes dull world of international relations.

The rest of the diplomatic report card here.  I guess bureaucrats are  the same everywhere – always pompous and mostly contemptuous of what they are in charge of overseeing.  The Brits I suspect, are especially jaded.  Although Nicaragua, Nigeria (and other African countries) and Thailand bear the brunt of bitter and hostile criticism, I find the condescending assessment of Canada as a nation satisfied with utter mediocrity, a withering low blow.  Wonder if it will prompt Ottawa to opt out of the Commonwealth.

Posted in , ,

5 responses to “A Diplomatic Diary: Maddening Nigerians, Dishonest Nicaraguans, Lewd Thais, Unimpressive Canadians …”

  1. And the Brits are Snobs, the Americans are Ugly….every nation has its stereotypes. I wonder how much of this tendency to slot people and nationalities into unflattering pigeonholes is shared across the diplomatic community. Maybe it’s all-pervasive, but I suppose the British are the best at expressing it, being the Lords of the English language. I’ve no doubt that the Nigerians, Thai, Canadians and Nicaraguans have their own amusing discussion of the British diplomats stationed in their countries.

    Like

  2. D

    This form of stereotyping at least intuitively seems defensible to me – to interact with people of another culture (or indeed to make sense of notions like “another culture”) without being utterly clueless, or simply to avoid alienating them, it seems like you must have models of how they typically differ from your own people. I know I’ve had to spend time learning how upper-middle class Americans tend to differ from their Indian cohorts when I came to the US. An MBA who didn’t understand differences between how say Japanese and Texans approach negotiation would probably suck at various jobs. The trick, I suppose, is to be discreet with assessments that reflect poorly upon your host country!

    Like

  3. Sammy

    Sujatha is correct. Actually this disclosure by the britsh FCWO is nothing amusing. after many years in diplomatic service, i know what all things are reported in what type of language. the valedictory dispatches were often used to cover up shortfalls and faliures during a mission, as ambassadors and high commissioners are more often not career diplomats, but prominent political personalities. If the Indian Government will ever declassify its documents and include the weekly dispatches from heads of missions at UK, Thailand, Canada and Nigeria, I am sure it will be much more interesting reading than the present one. As regards the British bureaucracy – I would like to believe that their aggressive stereotyping of this sort cost them their great British Empire !

    Like

  4. There’s a difference between stereotyping and understanding social customs or cultural practices. I don’t think it’s just a positive/negative thing — it seems to me that there’s something different in the nature of (1) understanding how Japanese businessmen negotiate transactions, and (2) deciding that the Japanese are a dishonest — or the opposite: honest — people.

    Like

  5. D

    I don’t think demarcating between “Social customs or cultural practices” and stereotypes is straightforward, except that the former are appraised neutrally, which you say’s not the point. Take your example, ‘dishonest’, and the people it’s applied to, Nicaraguans. Look up global corruption indices, and you see Nicaragua is in fact very corrupt, more perhaps than might be expected by considering its politics alone or economics alone. Presumably diplomats need to know this, whether negotiating official contracts and agreements or just taking a cab somewhere. They need to know whether they’re likelier to be cheated, have agreements broken, successfully bribe or have bribes expected of them. Is “Nicaraguans are dishonest” a terrible way of describing a low-trust society? Obviously there are stupid reads of that sentence, like “Each Nicaraguan is more dishonest than every Briton”, but I don’t see that claimed. Indeed, nothing other than structural (about Nicaraguan society) is obviously implied, and presumably the Nicaraguans themselves wish it were otherwise.
    Travel guides do this sort of thing too, so if you vacation in Barcelona, you expect a fun, lively time but also know to be careful at night. Zurich brings up very different associations. I’d make a similar defense of the idea that awards are more devalued in some places than in others (in Canada, apparently). I need some way of knowing, say, that American military decorations are more freely handed out than the corresponding Indian ones…

    Like

Leave a reply to Sujatha Cancel reply