Last week I spoke to members of the diplomatic course at the University of World Economy and Diplomacy about the British approach to protocol. I have twice worked in jobs directly responsible for protocol work – once when I revised the Foreign Office’s protocol guidance, to make it easier to read and to change things that were evidently out of date or didn’t make sense in the modern world; more recently when I was additional director (Olympics) in our Protocol Directorate, in charge of arrangements for Heads of State and Heads of Government attending the London Olympics. I also worked very closely with Protocol Directorate when in charge of the Pope’s visit in 2010. Protocol issues can seem arcane, but in practice protocol is very important in the smooth running of international relations – the oil in the diplomatic mechanism.
When I first worked in the Foreign Office, a very long time ago, all those going abroad for the first time were given a Handbook on diplomatic life abroad, which contained what the authors intended as useful advice. I particularly remember “Thank you letters are always appreciated, especially if they sound sincere”. The book advised on what a woman diplomat should do if her Ambassador (who is a gentleman) invites her to enter a room ahead of him (apparently she should find an excuse, such as a problem with her shoes, to allow him to enter first). It gave diagrams of placement of guests at the dinner table. It had a section on the correct use of visiting cards when calling on colleagues.
As young diplomats, we laughed at it, but from this distance I can see that most of the advice contained was very sensible. The kind of issues it addressed are ones I’ve been conscious of and needed to understand in a range of diplomatic positions, not least as Ambassador.
The key thing is that rules of behaviour, and such things as rules of precedence, provide a framework of consistency and predictability within which diplomatic business can be done. Otherwise there is a danger of confusion or misunderstanding. The English civil servant and diarist Samuel Pepys tells a story in the 1660s of a dispute over precedence between the French and Spanish Ambassadors in London that eventually led to the death of two of their footmen. And diplomatic folklore is full of stories on Ambassadors or senior dignitaries offended by being seated in the wrong place at table. That’s why there’s now a clear system of precedence for Ambassadors that depends on the date on which they present their credentials to the Head of State. If there’s a system that everyone understands, then no-one should feel they have been singled out for better or worse treatment.
Protocol is of course about a lot more than precedence. The Foreign Office’s Protocol Directorate is the docking point for Embassies and High Commissions in London for all kinds of practical questions; it organises visits of senior people – Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers and others – coming to the UK; and it is the link between the Foreign Office and the Households of The Queen and other senior members of the Royal Family. Arranging high level visits, State Visits above all, can involve years of preparation, most of which should, if all goes well, be invisible to the senior people involved.
Protocol also implies the understanding of other countries’ ways of doing things. The famous tragedy of the British envoys Stoddart and Conolly, who were executed by the Emir of Bukhara in 1842, seems to have begun with Stoddart’s failure to observe local protocol at his first meeting with the Emir. Diplomacy is based on establishing relationships of trust, and on understanding the views, policies, and approaches of the other side; on that basis one can work to find common positions, often through compromise, moving away from initial positions in support of a shared goal. All that’s made easier if there’s a system to help overcome the obstacles of ignorance and avoid misunderstandings.