The British and American Systems of Diplomatic Training in the Face of Globalization Shifts

The article deals with frameworks for studying diplomacy in the leading foreign countries, namely the United States and the United Kingdom. The methods of determining educational disciplines for mastering the principles of diplomatic work are explored. At the same time, as an example, attention is attached to the experience of the Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine in the preparation of diplomatic staff for Ukraine. The article is dedicated to institutional and human resource issues and stages of establishment of the US diplomatic service, including the current rotation model and advanced training system. The need for drastic changes in the system of foreign policy institutions and the advisability of reforming the US diplomatic service came to the forefront of American political and academic discourse in the mid-1990s. The events of September 11, 2001 served as a catalyst for rejuvenating the preparation and advanced training model as well as the personnel management model in the US foreign policy and made the topic discussed increasingly relevant. Historically, the US diplomatic service has been relatively small but the most competent, qualified and efficient part of the US foreign policy mechanism. It is the experience of the United States which is valuable and helpful for post-Soviet countries with respect to the use of the US experience, given its established traditions and prompt response to emerging threats and challenges of the globalized world of the 21st century in the context of the ongoing reform of the diplomatic service in Ukraine. The article covers the urgent issue of renovating the diplomatic training model in Ukraine based on the analysis of experience of its US counterpart. The US experience is important and useful for Ukraine in the context of government service reforms as well as for other post-Soviet countries within the framework of integration processes and globalization. Keywords: diplomatic training system, UK diplomatic service, US diplomatic service, foreign policy, diplomacy, diplomatic institutions, institutionalization, Ukraine.

Ambivalence in International Dialogue: Implications for Diplomatic Training

Diplomats are civil servants who represent their governments abroad. By the nature of their work, diplomats work in multicultural environments. Working in intercultural settings can involve grey areas, paradoxes, and a wide range of emotions. This article analyzes how diplomats construct their professional identity, how they approach intercultural diversity and how they manage ambivalence. Qualitative interviews with senior diplomats as well as a review of literature from multiple disciplines indicate that it is vital for diplomats to be highly skilled in self-management; in building and maintaining relationships; and in operating in intercultural environments. We argue that it is essential to include these emotional, social, and cultural competences in diplomatic training so that diplomats may become effective bridge-builders. This will be particularly relevant for a diplomat whose country is currently involved in a conflict with another country, as well as for diplomats who work in the context of a political conflict.

Diplomatic Training and the Challenges Facing the EEAS

Summary Following a difficult birth, the European External Action Service (EEAS) is now a much scrutinized reality. Much of the analysis has concentrated on its quasi-institutional nature, its relations with the principal external action actors in the European Union and beyond, as well as the question of its legal capacity. Relatively little attention, however, has been paid to the important training dimensions, which are critical to the smooth development of the Service, especially considering the disparate backgrounds of EEAS constituents. This article argues that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution to the training dilemma. Differentiation rather than standardization, within the constraints of a programme (rather than a full-blown European Diplomatic Academy), will be the salient features of the first years of training in the EEAS. It is also argued that training can be a key strategic tool for the Service’s development and, more generally, the external relations of the EU itself.