Parting Shots

by Matthew Parris, Andrew Bryson

Up till 2006 a British Ambassador leaving his post was encouraged to write what was known as a valedictory despatch, to be circulated to a small number of influential people in government. This was the parting shot, an opportunity to offer a personal and frank view of the host country, the manners and morals of its people, their institutions, the state of their cooking and their drains. But it was also a chance to let rip at the Foreign Office itself and to look back on a career spent in the service of a sometimes ungrateful nation.

Combining gems from the archives with more recent despatches obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Parting Shots is a treasure trove of wit, venom and serious analysis. Astute and often gloriously non-politically, they shed light on Britain's place in the world, and reveal the curious cocktail of privilege and privation which make up the life of an ambassador.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, History, Biography, Humor

386 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2010

Reviews

[^ · Rating 4 out of 5]

On this book, I’m totally in agreement with the Financial Times (London, I presume), who intriguingly comment on the back cover “Fascinating, if sometimes uncomfortable reading.”

“Fascinating”; yes, absolutely and utterly. In the course of my reading I discovered so many varied gems and nuggets of interest. “Uncomfortable”, because much of the material within this book was written before the Freedom of Information Act 2000 enabled public requests for disclosure. Many of the Ambassadors, High Commissioners, Political Agents, etc whose confidential (at the time of their writing) reports are published here might very well not have written quite so helpfully and/or frankly, had the writers been aware that not so many years down the line (some of) their thoughtfully constructed and uncompromisingly honest valedictory communications would be made available to journalists and the general public. Bryson regrets that “… it may well be that the sort of entertaining indiscretion and refreshing honesty contained in some of these despatches is now going to disappear” (p.379). That reeks of well, if I hadn’t made an FOI request, then somebody else would have. Interesting too, to consider the difficulties of ensuring that standard criteria are applied to FOI requests received, before document release. Much may be gleaned from comparing how related documents from different sources have been treated by the censor.

Overall, I felt immensely proud of and thankful for the high intellect, sheer quality, zest and dedication of the diplomats (and their unpaid spouses) who have served, and who do serve, the United Kingdom & Northern Ireland. Personally, I found it helpful in reading this book to have reasonably sound general background knowledge of world affairs in the places during the periods covered. I do NOT guarantee accurate and complete my own list below, which I heartily wish the authors of this book could have usefully and helpfully provided themselves.

1955: Czechoslovakia.

1960: Mexico.
1963: Liberia.
1964: Trucial States.
1965: USA, Puerto Rico.
1967: Liberia, Bolivia, Thailand, Japan, Nicaragua, The Lebanon.
1969: Nigeria, Brazil, Uruguay.
1968: France (Paris).

1970: Austria, Netherlands, Iceland, Switzerland, Nicaragua, Cuba, Tunisia, Singapore.
1971: Morocco, Australia.
1972: Finland, Honduras, Poland, Saudi Arabia.
1973: Senegal, Argentina, Thailand, Vietnam (North), Barbados & the Eastern Caribbean. Soviet Union, Cambodia.

1974: Nepal, Vietnam (South), Canada, Czechoslovakia, China, Kuwait, Libya, Italy, Tanzania, Greece.

1975: Finland, Germany (FDR), Norway, Jordan, the Lebanon, Morocco.
1976: Jamaica.
1977: Mongolia, Uruguay, Bolivia.
1978: Switzerland, Indonesia, Vietnam, Tuvalu.
1979: Pakistan, Afghanistan, France (Paris), Nicaragua, Iran, Syria, USA, Egypt.

1982: India.
1983: China.
1984: Japan, Canada (2).
1985: Egypt.
1988: Germany (FDR), Soviet Union, Nigeria.

1991: China, Nigeria, Luxembourg.
1992: Russia, France (Paris).
1995: UN, Russia.
1996: Denmark.
1997: Germany.
1998: India, Barbados & the Eastern Caribbean (3).
1999: Mexico.

2000: Saudi Arabia.
2004: Portugal.
2006: Italy.
2007: Poland.

END

[Peter Ellwood · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found myself objecting initially to the superficiality of the approach. It’s true that the first section is headed ‘diplomacy as caricature’; but all the same, the editing smacked a little to me of schoolboys cutting and pasting all the naughty bits out of a book, and then smirking about them behind the bicycle sheds. True, those outgoing ambassadors really did say these dinosaur things: but come on, it was an entire generation ago in most cases, a working lifetime ago. Couldn’t the editors find anything more intelligent to assemble?

Well – yes, as it happens. As the book progressed I found myself forgetting my frustrations with the vapid blurb claims on the cover (“Undiplomatic diplomats – the ambassadors’ letters you were never meant to see”, “Unbuttoned, indiscreet and very funny”, “Gloriously non politically correct…”); and more and more ‘taken’ with the sheer quality of the ambassadors.

They are often at their worst when discussing their pay and general conditions. It is really quite difficult to feel much sympathy for people who spent their lives living like junior aristocrats, at tax payers’ expense! The argument that our foreign hosts wouldn’t respect us unless we put on a show of that sort is simply not correct in my own (37 year) experience of the same world.

And it was also quite striking how many major events – the escalation of the Viet Nam war, the Iranian revolution, the collapse of the Soviet Union – were not remotely anticipated by the outgoing Head of Mission.

But all the same. All the same, the sheer devotion to duty of the large bulk of the writers, the sense of service and of doing the work for almost-vocational reasons: comes through quite clearly. These were good men.

[Lucy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting and entertaining read which took the leaving dispatches of various British diplomatic officials. In essence they are no holds barred thoughts on the customs, practices and people around the globe.

Ranging from post-war to early 90s, the dispatches vary in style, substance and wit considerably; some are clearly written by ageing cantankerous imperialists whilst others are delightfully insightful ditties on life in the diplomatic core.

I thoroughly enjoyed many of the dispatches, especially that of those who may have been accused of "going native". The ones where the underrated and forgotten efforts of spouses were highlighted were also very good and often the most touching.

Others on the other hand, beggared belief as to how their authors had managed to obtain a role in the diplomatic service. Some dispatches were confidential and were not released under the argument of national security, having read some of the comments in the published excerpts I cannot begin to imagine what grizzly details inflammatory remarks are contained in the classified documents.

A thoroughly entertaining and eye-opening book which could have benefited from being 100 pages shorter, but then I suppose that would entail leaving out dispatches from a number of eminent members of the british foreign service, and one has to be diplomatic about these things.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the originally classified final despatches from outgoing British Ambassadors have been made public thanks to the Freedom of Information Act and the hard work of the editors of this book. What we learn from the despatches in this collection, ranging from the 1960s to 2007, is hardly shocking: that British ambassadors were from the most privileged backgrounds imaginable and their attitudes arrogant, sexist, racist, some eccentric, some downright bonkers. As recently as in 2000 an outgoing ambassador talked about "ethnics and homosexuals" and questioned whether it's wise for women to take on roles in the service as they naturally bear the brunt of childcare. There's some fascinating insights into changing geopolitical contexts - the end of the empire, entering the European community, fall of the Soviet Union - and between the lines often a sense of Britain and the Brits feeling a bit lost in the changing world. Unfortunately the editors of the book came across as belonging to the same elite club as the authors of the despatches, and I've had liked a more critical approach and analysis of the opinions and attitudes expressed in the despatches.

[Lemon drop · Rating 4 out of 5]

To enjoy this you need some knowledge of politics over the last 40 years, however just to dip into different countries and read the diplomats thoughts is a delight.

[Filipa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Um fascinante olhar sobre as várias capitais do mundo, o trabalho dos britânicos por lá, o modo como estes vêem o mundo e como são por ele (e pela pátria) vistos. Obviamente, os telegramas são muito bem escritos e têm ainda humor, e boas observações.
Para rir, para pensar em eventuais semelhanças, na evolução da história e no trabalho. Leitura aconselhada :)
Envoi: E também para pensar na vida, e nos seus luxos e privações.

[Edwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book, giving the candid views of diplomats on leaving their posts. As such it demonstrates the attitudes of the writers' times, from colonial arrogance to post-imperial angst, and the shifting focus of British foreign policy.

I think more than a few potential readers might be misled by Matthew Paris' reputation and the illustration on the cover - thinking that this will be a collection of comic extracts. It's not, so be aware! It's not heavy reading, but it's far from light!

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not as entertaining as I hoped: Gave up!

[David Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fun. Possibly a rare insight into the thoughts of people not accustomed to delivering the truth. One would like to think that this book was edited without the help of a PR firm.

[Honor · Rating 4 out of 5]

very funny in parts!a bit repetitive in others

[Ami · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very enjoyable (though better for dipping into than a continuous read). I liked both the funny and the serious aspects.

[Kathlyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very enjoyable read - from acerbic and entertaining humour to thought provoking commentary on both world politics and the views of the British government of the time.

[Paul Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and frank insight into Parris and those around him. Particularly liked the stories of his younger days before politics...different times

[Patrick Elsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting if outdated.

[Faisal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Insightful and interesting.

[Tony · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting snippets but nothing earth-shattering

[Jeroen Van de Crommenacker · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting and/or witty anecdotes. But overall it didn’t manage to hold my interest the way I thought it would.

[Ieva · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great read, which says more about British diplomacy and diplomats, rather than about the countries where they are serving. Worth your time if you are into looking few decades back and check what has changed in the world, and what has stayed.

[James Ingram · Rating 4 out of 5]

Parris romanticises the past. And yes, there's something laudable about duty to public service, and much erudite insight. But there's also superiority, a too slow realisation of Britain's forever changing or changed place in the world. And then there's also some outright racism. Bryson did most of the work, it seems, and they obtained a large number of no-doubt representative examples. Worth reading to better understand Britain's governance and diplomacy in the 20th century, but the past looks very much like a foreign country