Mary Dejevsky: Our diplomats need a posting to the real world

They live in perpetual fear that their lifestyle will be 'exposed' as lavish - and in some places, it is

It must have been one of the most formidable concentrations of manners and brainpower this country has assembled. Some 150 ambassadors gathered in the Churchill auditorium at London's Queen Elizabeth II conference centre (where else?) to consider the future of British diplomacy.

At least, that is what I thought they were going to discuss, but for two reasons it is hard to be sure. The first is that the official PR-pitch was couched in that slightly American-business-school argot that says a lot about "focusing", "priorities" and "perceived" this and that, but not much about what should be focused upon or what the actual options are beyond getting "the best for Britain overseas".

The second, more practical, reason is that the media – ie this writer and her colleagues – were escorted rather firmly to the exit as soon as the Foreign Secretary had completed his introductory speech. Indeed, Mr Straw ascertained that the last lingerers among us had left the gallery before he even took his first question. So of the razor-sharp repartee, the elegant disquisitions on Britain's future role in the world and the visionary thinking of some of our finest minds, I can tell you not one jot.

What I am able to tell you, though, on excellent authority, is what this unprecedented gathering of British diplomats was not about. It was decidedly not about Iraq. And its purpose was certainly not to quash dissent in the diplomatic ranks about the wisdom of going to war. Of course, the subject of Iraq and a possible war just might arise. But that would be completely incidental.

Which takes us back to the real agenda and the opportunity that the Foreign Office has missed in staging this conference. For one of the themes of this two-day gathering was supposed to be "openness". "We have to be more open," said the head of the diplomatic service, Sir Michael Jay, before the meeting started. And diplomats probably have less to fear than most public servants from more public exposure, especially now. The Diplomatic Corps is intellectually more than capable of presenting its case. You have only to watch "our man" at the United Nations in action to receive a lesson in how professional diplomacy should be conducted and why it is necessary.

Yet the Dip Corps keeps its world far more closed than it needs to be. Diplomats live in perpetual fear that their lifestyle will be "exposed" as lavish – and in some places, it is. Elsewhere, though, conditions are barely adequate for the job. Diplomats gain expert knowledge about far-flung places that they seem reluctant to impart to non-diplomats, except confidentially and unattributably, and even then for a purpose.

The Dip Corps is sensitive about being seen as male, upper-class and Oxbridge. And the massed ranks of ambassadors, as seen yesterday from the gallery of the Churchill auditorium, presented a picture that was very far from diversity. There were precious few women, and I could not spot anyone from an ethnic minority. Even if the Dip Corps becomes visually more diverse, however, as current recruitment policies suggest that it should, there is no guarantee that this will make it more open or philosophically diverse. Its homogeneity may derive less from recruitment policies than from service ethos: even if it does not recruit in its image, it soon whips its new entrants into shape.

If it has to talk to outsiders, then the Dip Corps prefers to talk to those of like mind. Among the aspects of "external relations" on the conference agenda were relations with lobby organisations (such as Amnesty), but also with the media. The latest impetus for this discussion was the sharply critical press received by British diplomats after the Bali bombing. Families of the British victims could not understand why they managed to arrive in Bali from Britain before senior British diplomats who were based in the region and why, then, the consular effort was initially so ineffectual.

So who will be briefing the ambassadors today about relations between foreign embassies and the media? A senior BBC correspondent, the head of the BBC World Service and the UK edition editor of the Financial Times – a trio whose background and priorities closely resemble those of the diplomats themselves. Why not the Mirror, the Sun or ITV?

There may have been a time when the closed and homogeneous nature of the Foreign Office was a strength that translated into professionalism and esprit de corps. Now, though, with so much information available instantly from all over the world and so many chances for so many people to travel – not just the rich and the well-informed either – diplomacy has to be flexible and practical. It is no longer only about closed-door talks, back-channels and the subtle linguistic ambiguities that smooth away potential conflicts, although these are still part of the diplomat's stock in trade. Nor is it just about upholding the image of the home country abroad: British diplomats are good at this, even though the Britain they present may not be recognisable at home.

Perhaps, on reflection, what our diplomats most need is a short course on daily life in Britain in the information age. Two days of seminars in a conference centre guarded by the Metropolitan Police only encourages them in their siege mentality. Let them out.

m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk