why do we only hear of embassies, when they are being attacked?

With the situation in Iran, with the withdrawal of Embassy staff, the question arises ofwhat happens to the Embassy staff.

Do they still get paid and, as public sector workers, what happens to their pensions? A further question is what difference will it make by not having an ambassador? In fact, in a world where each country’s leaders and officials can communicate electronically, holding virtual face to face discussions, do we need any embassies? What exactly is the function of an embassy? As we are privatising and downsizing all other State funded functions, it would be interesting to know what the total cost of these establishments is? Most embassies are substantial buildings in prime sites in the World’s Capital’s and must represent a considerable convertible asset.

It would be interesting to have an estimate of how much could be realised by selling these properties off. If embassies do have some residual function, then a shared U.N. controlled establishment would possibly offer a cheaper, viable alternative. Sharing facilities is a widespread practice in the private sector, with cloud computing meaning that competitors can find their company secrets being securely held on shared computers and companies hiring the same hotels etc. for functions as they arise. At a time when essential domestic services are being pared to the bone, it seems logical to question other similar branches of Government, in terms of their cost and use to the Nation. Tradition should not be considered as a valid argument, after all, by definition, tradition simply means old-fashioned, or out-of-date. I suspect that, as Ambassadorial roles are sinecures in the gift of the resident P.M., there is little likelihood that these roles will be rationalised any time soon.