Barriers at the gate: Security vetting and its impact on regional diplomacy

Griffith Asia Insights
Barriers at the gate: Security vetting and its impact on regional diplomacy

SUSAN HARRIS RIMMER AND ELISE STEPHENSON  | 

In the Asia-Pacific, where rapid social and political changes intersect with longstanding traditions, diplomacy plays a pivotal role in fostering stability, economic growth, and regional collaboration. However, as global attention increasingly turns to diversity in representation, a critical question arises: How inclusive is the pathway to becoming a diplomat in this region?

Security vetting processes, as explored in “Bolstering the Boys’ Club: Security Vetting, Diversity and Diplomatic Gatekeeping”, are key to understanding this question. While these procedures aim to safeguard national security, they also act as cultural gatekeepers, shaping the diplomatic landscape. In the Asia-Pacific, where the interplay of traditional values and modern aspirations is complex, these processes may perpetuate gendered and racialised barriers, stymying inclusive growth in diplomacy.

Gendered barriers

Across the region, gender disparities in diplomatic representation mirror global trends. Despite progress in some nations, systemic biases linger:

• Australia: Women now make up 59 per cent of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), with gender parity in senior roles achieved in 2023. Yet, intersectional representation remains limited, with only one Indigenous woman ambassador in Australia’s history and few queer diplomats of colour.
• Southeast Asia: While countries like Indonesia and the Philippines have seen women in high-ranking foreign service roles, cultural and institutional barriers continue to limit broader gender equity in postings and leadership.
• Pacific islands: Traditional social structures and limited resources often restrict diverse representation in diplomatic careers, even as Pacific nations advocate for global action on climate and equity.

In all cases, security vetting reinforces these disparities by embedding subjective assessments of loyalty, trustworthiness, and “fit.” These criteria often align with patriarchal and ethnocentric norms, disadvantaging women and minorities.

Vetting and cultural norms

The article highlights how security vetting processes fail to adapt to changing societal values, a concern particularly relevant in the Asia-Pacific:

1. Cultural perceptions of gender: In many Asia-Pacific nations, societal expectations about women’s roles influence assessments of their “maturity” or “trustworthiness” in professional settings.
2. Intersectional barriers: Indigenous, LGBTQIA+, and other marginalised groups face compounded biases. For example, queer individuals may be deemed unsuitable for diplomatic roles due to perceptions of non-conformity to traditional values, as seen in both conservative and progressive states in the region.
3. Under-screened threats: Misogynistic beliefs, domestic violence histories, and discriminatory attitudes often escape scrutiny in vetting. Such oversight undermines workplace safety and perpetuates institutional bias, eroding trust in diplomatic institutions.

Reforming Asia-Pacific diplomacy: A path forward

To align the region’s diplomacy with its aspirations for inclusivity and progress, security vetting must evolve. The article’s recommendations resonate strongly in the Asia-Pacific context:

• Greater transparency: Nations like Japan, South Korea, and Australia, which are revisiting diversity in foreign service, can lead by demystifying their vetting processes and ensuring accountability.
• Inclusivity metrics: Incorporating metrics that evaluate the impact of security vetting on diversity, particularly in multilateral forums like ASEAN or APEC, can foster regional collaboration on inclusivity.
• Rethinking threat assessment: Screening for extremist gendered attitudes or discriminatory behaviours must be prioritised to ensure a diplomatic corps that upholds regional values of respect and equality.
• Building research frameworks: Collaborative research across Asia-Pacific academic institutions can address the transparency challenges of vetting, offering new methodologies for evaluating its impacts on diversity.

As the Asia-Pacific navigates its role in an evolving global order, its diplomatic institutions must embody the region’s rich diversity. Security vetting, though rooted in safeguarding nations, must not become a tool of exclusion. By addressing biases and reforming these processes, the region can create a diplomatic pipeline that reflects its modern aspirations and collective values.

The road to inclusive diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific requires bold reforms and collaborative efforts, ensuring that those who represent the region on the world stage reflect its multifaceted identity.

AUTHORS

Professor Susan Harris Rimmer is the Director of the Griffith University Policy Innovation Hub and a member of the Griffith Asia Institute. Dr Elise Stephenson is Deputy Director of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, the Australian National University and Adjunct Fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute.

This article is a synopsis of a journal article titled “Bolstering the Boys Club: Security Vetting, Diversity and Diplomatic Gatekeeping”, published in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, written by Susan Harris Rimmer and Elise Stephenson.

The post Barriers at the gate: Security vetting and its impact on regional diplomacy appeared first on Griffith Asia Insights.
Griffith Asia Institute