As someone who has long advocated change and reform in Canada's diplomatic institutions, I was delighted to see the subject proposal-one of many thoughtful recommendations-highlighted in the CIC's Open Canada manifesto.

Attention to questions concerning the nature and future of Canada's foreign ministry is long overdue, and the well-being of that venerable organization should be of vital interest to all Canadians.

Instead, its very mention tends to bring to mind a range of emotions and images... perhaps most notably scorn, rebuke and ridicule.

That is too bad, because these institutions and issues do matter.

The re-naming of what is now the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will of course be the easy part. It's what goes on inside that counts. If the new department is to serve as a both a globalization entrepot and as a docking mechanism for the coordination and management of all aspects of Canada's international relations, then there will be much to do by way of redesign.

For starters, there will no longer be time for wasting scarce resources playing catch-up, or for fighting to defend turf that should happily be surrendered to others with more specialized expertise. Line departments have long been leading on a vast array of specific files and in various functional areas. The moment has arrived to terminate costly and counterproductive skirmishes over custody and to begin a phased and carefully planned withdrawal from day-to-day work on particularistic issues.

For this formula to produce results, the department's level of analytical engagement will need to be ratcheted up a couple of notches. In place of the existing acrimony and duplication, I would suggest a reconstitution of resources and redoubling of efforts at a generally higher level of analysis. This will mean identifying regional priorities and broad, thematic nodes where the foreign ministry brings comparative advantage and a unique perspective to the table, and letting the rest go.

A new department will need to focus on areas where it can both demonstrate domestic relevance and add real value to government operations. This will involve getting out of the weeds and committing to intellectual leadership and policy entrepreneurship in areas which are not someone else's job.

To fashion for itself an integrating role not played by others, significantly greater emphasis will need to be placed upon:

• Strategic planning and the assessment of cross-cutting, multi-dimensional policy clusters such as governance, sustainable development, the rule of law and the promotion of rights and democracy
• coordinating and cohering these issues across government
• rebuilding geographic expertise, which has suffered greatly as a result of recent re-organizations and cuts.

The last point deserves special attention. Success in this new enterprise will more than anything else flow directly from the understanding of, and connection to place, which is the major benefit associated with staffing and operating diplomatic missions abroad. When it comes to delivering on critical responsibilities such as the generation of foreign intelligence, this attribute represents the department's ace in the hole. Those people, that knowledge, and the global network are assets which could be leveraged accordingly.

A department of international affairs would be ideally positioned to mediate the constantly shifting balance between values, or that which is seen as important (such as human rights, social justice or democratic development), and interests, or that which is sought (such as prosperity, security, or the rule of law). Values and interests, as Open Canada rightly observes, are often closely related. The way in which interests are pursued often reflects values, for instance in a preference for negotiations over conflict. Similarly, the extent to which values are considered in decision-making often reflects interests, for example in the complex trade-offs between international environmental standards/stewardship and resource development/use, or commercial relations and human rights.

In terms of bureaucratic culture, this sort of re-engineering would imply an organization which is less hierarchic, risk averse and authoritarian; more supple, innovative and confident.

By pulling substantively out of areas that detract from the department's core international policy mission, or where the locus of operations and decision-making activity has already shifted, and by redeploying in support of demonstrable strengths, a department of international affairs could thrive. Nowhere else in government do we find the mandate or the capacity to actively manage globalization, to articulate and promote the Canadian brand, or to elaborate grand strategy.

That catalytic combination, I submit, is a pretty good formula for both job satisfaction and effectiveness in public policy and administration.

Daryl Copeland is an author, educator, and analyst specializing in diplomacy, international policy, global issues and public management. He is the author of Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations. From 1981-2009 Mr. Copeland served as a Canadian diplomat with postings in Thailand, Ethiopia, New Zealand and Malaysia. He is now Adjunct Professor and Senior Fellow at the University of Toronto's Munk School of International Studies and Research Fellow at the University of Southern California's Center on Public Diplomacy. Responsibility for the views expressed here is the author's alone. For more commentary and information, see: www.guerrilladiplomacy.com