The last to know

Why it is that diplomats seem to be the last ones to know about political upheaval in the countries where they work is a question I have long pondered. For example, despite all the efforts the US government put in watching the Soviet Union, it was surprised when it collapsed. Dominqiue Moissi provides the best analysis of this problem that I have come across:

…Revolutionary ruptures upset diplomats’ familiar habits, both in terms of their personal contacts and, more importantly, in terms of their thinking. A fast-forward thrust into the unknown can be exhilarating, but it is also deeply frightening. In the name of “realism,” diplomats and foreign-policy strategists are naturally conservative…

But, beyond these mental habits lie more structural reasons for the conservatism of foreign policymakers and diplomats. By emphasizing the relations between states and governments over contacts with the opposition or civil societies (when they exist in an identifiable form), traditional diplomacy has created for itself a handicap that is difficult to overcome.

By requiring their diplomats to limit their contacts with “alternative” sources of information in a country, in order to avoid antagonizing despotic regimes, governments irremediably limit diplomats’ ability to see change coming, even when it is so close that nothing can be done.

Short version: it is difficult to get someone to see a problem when that person is paid not to see it.