Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

– and this also means making mistakes. Humbleness, understanding and commitment
to the issue are important qualities in this regard.
Have you talked about these questions more informally with your heads of
department and other people?
I have had personal talks with some people, new ambassadors for example,
who were going to encounter these kinds of situations. Depending on which
countries they are to work in, I always try to raise these questions. I now
realise, however, that we have a huge gap to fill here – we should do more
and I have now been given some ideas.
HFJ: Heads of delegations sent to discuss issues of great strategic importance
and carry out dialogues on PRSPs are almost invariably people who
are skilled in international negotiations and who have a thorough knowledge
of the topics in question. In general and apart from the on-the-job
training they receive, all personnel who are posted to missions abroad and
who are responsible for development assistance have to go through a lengthy
training programme covering a wide range of topics that are relevant for
dealing with host country authorities.
As to the question whether we discuss these matters internally the answer
is yes. We sometimes discuss this when the cultural setting is very
different and the message is particularly delicate. It may sometimes be difficult
to get across messages pertaining to human rights and democratic development
when the points of departure differ a lot. Diplomatic skill is
needed to avoid giving offence and blocking further dialogue, although a
lot has changed in this area with the political reforms in so many countries
during the 90s. Personality, experience and formal training are all very important
when difficult messages are to be conveyed.
CT: We sent out a lot of staff to discuss different matters with counterparts.
My only expectation was that they would bring up the issues we had
been discussing at home and bring back our counterparts’ reactions. Final
discussions were never a matter for Sida personnel – it was a matter for the
government. My expectation from these final discussions was that the Swedish
position was made clear, but I never expected a counterpart to immediately
state that they would carry out things in the way we would like them
to. These kinds of issues were continuously discussed between Sida and the
foreign ministry.
I always had full trust in my collaborators. Most people higher up in our
hierarchy were very experienced and I do not think I could have added
much to their basic knowledge. There are no handbooks on how to implement
a dialogue. Long-term experience is the only way to learn how to
handle these discussions and I found that people with less experience most
often turned to more senior staff when they experienced difficulties. Of
course, you could always argue that we could do a better job with better
69