Diplomatic jobs are some of the most sought after appointments. They can be glamorous but also humdrum, gratifying but also thankless. One thing is clear, though. It must be a tough job being a diplomat, especially representing some of the powerful countries. It must be even more so for those who give them instructions, The job requires skills and abilities beyond the normal. The really good diplomats must have the ability to mute and unmute their senses as required. Be deaf and blind and unfeeling when that is what is called for. See something one moment and unsee it the next; hear it now and almost immediately forget you ever did. They must, when it suits them, be able to shut out the soul and so banish the conscience, and when it becomes necessary to be fully human again, usually after official hours, retrieve it. And, of course, they must also be trained in the art of maintaining a sense of normalcy and calm even when faced with inconvenient truths and ugly reality that they have constantly refused to acknowledge. How else can you explain the silence and inaction in the face of untold atrocities being committed in many parts of the world, often when they are present? And even when they admit these are happening, how are they not able to distinguish between perpetrator and victim or actually choose to reverse roles? It happened in Rwanda in 1994. No one should have been taken by surprise. The signs were everywhere. Many were warned and provided with evidence of impending genocide. The diplomats as usual reported to their capitals their assessment of the situation and presumably recommended a certain course of action. Their bosses at the United Nations and different capitals chose silence and inaction. We all know what happened. More than one million Tutsi were murdered in one hundred days in what has been called a ‘foreseeable genocide’. Some of those responsible for that inaction are long gone. But I wonder. Can they lie easy in their places of repose, or purgatory or wherever else they may be when they recall that period and their role in that genocide? Maybe not. Perhaps they carry those extraordinary diplomatic abilities even to the beyond. Similar events are now happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Reaction to the conflict in the east of the country is similar. As in Rwanda, blame falls on the victim while the aggressor is made to appear the innocent party. These thoughts on diplomats’ exceptional, perhaps even unusual, abilities but also their failures came to my mind on Thursday, January 17 via a diplomatic event in Kigali. That day, President Paul Kagame hosted diplomats accredited to Rwanda for a luncheon. I was not in the room but as I listened to a broadcast of the event, it occurred to me that: even people with extraordinary attributes, which may sometimes place them above ordinary mortals, especially the variety in the developing world, need reminding about their shortcomings, and that these others are equally human. I heard what the president told them. I was curious to know what they must have thought or felt when he told them things that they knew but pretend that they do not, whether they were comfortable being told truths that they know but always shut out. Was it like a child caught with his hand in a cookie jar and then swearing that he was looking for a lost pencil? Perhaps not. Embarrassment is not part of the exceptional diplomatic abilities. Shame perhaps? The superior never feels that. Sorry? Were any of them sufficiently moved by the truth to say: wait a minute, we’ve got it all wrong? That is an admission of wrong and not acceptable. It is not in the diplomatic lexicon. Did they report to their capitals all that the president told them? Of course, they did, but perhaps only selectively and with comments of their own and probably recommendations. Did they report accurately his resolve that Rwanda’s security can never be compromised? They might have reported it as a threat to a certain neighbour and regional peace and security. After the event, when they got home, did they feel any differently? Perhaps in the privacy of their homes, they retrieve their conscience and feel terrible about acting contrary to what is right and just. Maybe feel remorse and wish they could make amends. Or they rationalize and plead with their inner voice. Well, I was doing my duty, following instructions, serving the national interest. Nothing personal about my actions. Only the national interest. Maybe they will plead the same case when they meet their maker and have to account for their time on earth, for their actions or inaction that led to the death of millions of innocent people and massive destruction of property. The national interest again. But this time they might be asked questions about whether others do not have interests as well. I am not sure such pleas, characteristic diplomatic evasion or silence can make any impression on their maker?
