For the first time since 2003 – and the second time in its history – part of the staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was on strike, this Thursday, June 2, at the call of a group of 500 diplomats and several unions. A rally was notably planned on the Esplanade des Invalides, in front of the ministry. In Beijing, the largest French embassy in the world, a quarter of the workforce from the Quai d’Orsay was on strike. And on Twitter, support for the strikers has multiplied, around the hashtag #diplo2métier, including from serving and retired ambassadors.
The object of their wrath? The “extinction” wanted by Emmanuel Macron, from 2023, of two historical bodies of French diplomacy – plenipotentiary ministers (ambassadors) and foreign affairs advisers. And this, within the framework of a vast reform of the civil service aimed at encouraging mobility between the administrations. The senior civil servants concerned will be called upon to join a new body, that of “State administrators”, where graduates of the Public Service Institute (which replaced the ENA in January 2022) will be brought together. For Jean-Maurice Ripert, Ambassador of France, and former Ambassador to China and Russia, who spent 40 years at the Quai d’Orsay, this reform risks dangerously weakening French diplomacy.
L’Express: You have devoted your entire career to the Quai d’Orsay, does the abolition of the diplomatic corps worry you?
Jean-Maurice Ripert: Yes. I’m not against encouraging mobility in the civil service, replacing the ENA with another school: civil servants must be mixed up, there should be no corporatism. But some administrations have a specificity, which should not absolutely be preserved. Being a diplomat cannot be improvised. We cannot be operational in difficult countries, at war, in crisis, or with which we are in conflict, without a minimum of field experience. Beyond knowing the country, you have to know how to keep your cool, negotiate with opponents, come to the aid of French people who are victims of disasters, lead humanitarian action, provide development aid… It is a trade, a know-how, an accumulated experience. For my part, I would not have seen myself appointed hospital director overnight, and I am not sure that a hospital director can become an ambassador. Either way, that wouldn’t make much sense…
Then, a diplomat is not a career like the others. Choosing to be a diplomat is not choosing a profession, it is choosing a life, expatriating to countries at risk… Many agents fall ill, are injured, or even die in countries in crisis. It is believed that to be a diplomat is to eat petit fours in a palace in England, at the White House or in the Kremlin. But it is most often to serve in very difficult places. And sacrifice in many cases his family life.
Do you think this reform risks weakening French diplomacy?
Yes, there is no doubt. This is a new blow to the ability of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to represent France and defend its interests. In fact, that is what many of my colleagues currently in post in different parts of the world think. France, which has the third largest diplomacy in the world, is quite simply suppressing one of its great areas of expertise. Nobody understands what we are doing, it is completely incomprehensible.
READ ALSO >> With the war in Ukraine, France must opt in Europe for a diplomacy of humility
Not to mention that it will discourage young people. Because in the infernal machine that is being created, no one has the slightest idea what will become of the diplomats in office from 2023, which is supposed to be the date of entry into force of this single body . What will become of the Quai d’Orsay when there are no more diplomats?
This decision is part of a global reform of the public service, do you understand the spirit?
I do not dispute the need for reform. The public service needs renewal, more exchanges, mobility, recognition of talents. I am not against the fact that we organize mobility in both directions: that diplomats can have outlets in other administrations, and that we have a few ambassadors from outside bodies. But you have to know reason to keep, the proportions must be acceptable. If it is a question of saying that any official can exercise any position in the public service, this cannot apply to the Quai d’Orsay. People who enter the Quai d’Orsay must have the experience, the will, the know-how and the desire to commit themselves over several years.
More generally, wanting to permanently reduce the sail area is a fundamental mistake. The Quai d’Orsay has lost 50% of its workforce in thirty years; and 30% in the last ten years alone. There are 13,500 agents left at the Quai d’Orsay – compared to 52,000 agents in the city of Paris and 12,500 in Toulouse. Among them, 8,000 are contract employees. So we have drastically reduced the ability of our embassies and consulates to do their job (represent France, serve French communities abroad, etc.).
When you are a country that spends its time explaining that it is a world power, that it has a universal message, that it wants to intervene more abroad, all of this is completely contradictory! The Quai d’Orsay only costs the State 5.4 billion euros per year: that’s not much! Before making these kinds of reforms, we had better have a real debate on what diplomacy is. However, we have the feeling that the government has absolutely no idea where it is going. We are completely in the dark, the reform is extremely imprecise.
Can the appointment of Catherine Colonna, former ambassador, to the Quai d’Orsay, make it possible to reverse the abolition of the diplomatic corps?
Many diplomats hope, because she is an experienced career diplomat, that she will be keen to defend her home. Besides, choosing a Minister of Foreign Affairs who comes from the diplomatic corps when you are abolishing the diplomatic corps, that seems a bit contradictory, doesn’t it? It is in any case the recognition that there is a specificity of this profession!