This is one of the measures of the reform of the senior civil service, announced several months ago by President Emmanuel Macron.
Sunday April 17 was formalized by publication in the Official Journal the end of the two diplomatic corps which constitute the hierarchy of the Quai d'Orsay.
Foreign affairs advisers and ministers plenipotentiary, i.e. some 800 senior civil servants including 182 ambassadors and 89 consuls, will be brought together from July 1 under a single status attributed to all senior civil servants, that of State administrator. .
For the French president, this reform, which includes the abolition of the National School of Administration (ENA) – replaced by a National Institute of Public Service (ISP) – aims to decompartmentalize the senior civil service to integrate more various, from the private sector or even from associations.
But within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, some denounce a measure which risks causing France to lose influence in the world and accuse Emmanuel Macron of wanting to take control of the appointments.
Critics taken up Monday by several opposition political figures, including Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Marine Le Pen or even Éric Ciotti.
Official journal: abolition of the diplomatic corps.
France saw its diplomatic network destroyed after several centuries.
The 2nd in the world.
Promo buddies will be able to be named.
Huge sadness.
— Jean-Luc Melenchon (@JLMelenchon) April 18, 2022
To take stock of this reform but also of the role of French diplomats and the burning issues they are facing today, France 24 spoke with Nicolas Normand, former French ambassador to Mali, Congo and Senegal.
France 24: With this reform, personalities and unions from the Quai d'Orsay as well as political figures have deplored the end of professional diplomacy. What is your opinion
?
Nicolas Normand:
I think that this reform has been caricatured a lot.
This is a measure that improves the management of the senior civil service by making it more transparent vis-à-vis public opinion and elected officials.
It certainly aims to broaden the profiles within the ministries, but that in no way prevents graduates who choose to pursue a career at the Quai d'Orsay from staying there.
All the other senior civil servants in the ministries already have a common status, which obviously does not mean that they are interchangeable.
A person who has passed the competition for the Eastern executive (Advisor / Foreign Affairs Advisor, NDRL) and who is therefore a specialist in a geographical area and a foreign language will of course keep his specialty.
The Quai d'Orsay would have no reason to do without his skills.
Moreover, the change of body within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, between that of Foreign Affairs advisers and that of Ministers Plenipotentiary, was until now subject to a discretionary and opaque procedure.
The abolition of these statutes could make it easier for Foreign Affairs advisers to progress in their careers.
Finally, for those who consider that this reform will allow "cronyism" appointments by the President, I remind you that it is already possible for him to choose a certain number of profiles who are not civil servants to represent France at the foreign.
Some critical voices deplore France's loss of influence on the international scene. Do you share this vision
?
This observation is a reality but it goes far beyond France.
From an economic, demographic or even military point of view, faced with the rise of new powers, Western countries have seen their dominant position wither, it is a fact.
Today, Europe is no longer an essential actor in the resolution of conflicts on the planet.
The example of the war in Ukraine, although very close, illustrates this difficulty for the EU to weigh against the militarist will of Vladimir Putin.
The UN Security Council, where France is the only permanent representative of the European Union, has lost its effectiveness, blocked by the disagreement between the United States on one side, and China and Russia on the 'other.
Of course, in addition to this evolution of the world, French diplomacy suffers from a certain number of problems on which it is necessary to work.
The role of the diplomatic corps is twofold: it consists, on the one hand, of influencing the authorities of foreign countries and, on the other hand, of analyzing the situation of these countries.
On the first aspect, a major change has occurred in recent years with the rise in power of civil societies through the Internet.
Ambassadors can no longer content themselves with exchanging only with the representatives of the State where they are posted, they must now inquire and contact personalities who are sometimes critical, whether they are artists, influencers or activists, to establish a dialogue and clear the ground.
On the issue of analysis, the Quai d'Orsay tends too much to operate in a vacuum when it should be working in concert with researchers specializing in these countries.
This is all the more important since the diplomats, who often stay only a few years in post in places, are sometimes not sufficiently specialized, and can make serious errors of assessment.
However, in a disorderly world, the work of ambassadors is more necessary than ever, both in terms of influence and analysis, to defend France's interests and defuse crises.
You have been ambassador to West Africa several times, notably to Mali from 2002 to 2006. How do you interpret the rise of anti-French sentiment in this region and the recent expulsion of the French ambassador to Bamako
?
In Africa, in general, we have a training problem.
Since the disappearance of the Ministry of Cooperation, which had replaced the competition for overseas administrators, established during the period of colonization, the African specialty is confined to a very small section of the competition for the executive of the East.
Moreover, in 2013, France made a manifest error during Operation Serval in Mali by allying with the separatists of the North, which was very badly perceived by Bamako.
This episode, today exploited by the military power which accuses Paris of wanting to achieve the partition of Mali, has favored the rejection of France in the country.
French military interventions in Côte d'Ivoire, Libya and Mali, as well as the maintenance of military bases, have also fueled suspicion towards France in this region.
Finally, the Quai d'Orsay's lack of interest in the issue of the CFA franc, left to the Ministry of Finance, is also another big mistake, because this currency is considered by many in Africa as a guardianship over their sovereignty.
Clearly, French diplomats did not sufficiently take into account the sensitivity of the former colonies on the question of respect for sovereignty, creating growing unease in Mali, Niger and Burkina.
Added to this is the instrumentalization of this issue by Russia, which stirs up anti-French sentiment.
With the military junta in Mali, France seems to have reached a point of no return.
But an improvement in relations may be possible later.
To do this, France must be more attentive to populations and leaders and learn discretion, even invisibility, to get out of its position of scapegoat.
The summary of the
France 24 week invites you to come back to the news that marked the week
I subscribe
Take international news everywhere with you!
Download the France 24 app
google-play-badge_FR