“The attrition rate that they’re looking at is going to hit missions abroad pretty hard,” said Pam Isfeld, a career diplomat and president of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers.
“I just don’t think that things have really been thought through,” she said.
“It’s a structural mismatch to be saying we’re going to be active and engaged in this ambitious foreign policy — G7 presidency legacy, Indo-Pacific stuff, Africa stuff, Ukraine stuff, climate finance, now all kinds of Arctic stuff, co-operation with the Nordics,” she said.
“You just cut the entire cadre of most experienced, most specialized people,” she said. “Your influence doesn’t come really from your press releases in Ottawa.”
The article missed the most important part. What diplomatic assignements were cut? Any embasy closures in non priority countries aren’t great, but not so terrible considering the other critical and long overdue investments. A reader is just left guessing if this is ultimately a positive shift, in line with the generally approved of Carney plan or just more embarassing blind penny pinching leaving gaping holes the government hopes no one notices.
How much money you think we’re saving by cutting diplomatic jobs and leaving those people jobless versus taxing the rich even just a little bit more aggressively?
This government would rather shutdown a children’s hospital than make a rich person even a dollar poorer and it’s insane that we’re putting up with it.
Good point, bad example. Health care screw ups are provincial governments.
I am aware, it is to make a point.