In a globalised, connected world, do we still need the Foreign Office?
|
Version 0 of 1. As one of the great departments of state, along with the Treasury and the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office labours under a reputation for size and extravagance, even though it now comes well down the pecking order in terms of staff numbers and budget. Singled out for cost cuts under the last government – Labour has never been a big friend of the Foreign Office – the diplomatic corps has had to watch the cash flow into the Department for International Development (DfiD), while its own coffers took a hit of about 5% a year. It seems absurd to imagine Britain without the Foreign Office. But might it not be time to consider whether foreign ministries have outlived their usefulness in today's globalised world? Practical moves in this direction have, in fact, been in train for a while. One of them concerns that shift in relative spending power from the FCO to DfiD reflects a philosophical trend that regards development assistance as a more effective and ethical way of exerting national influence than conventional diplomacy. It is no coincidence that DfiD's contributions in the field have been rebranded UKAid, along the lines of the American USAid. A second trend – long present, but now more marked – is the overlap between traditional foreign office responsibilities and those of other government departments. From the start, and slightly to the discomfort of the Liberal Democrats, not to mention many senior diplomats, David Cameron decreed that a prime purpose of Britain's embassies was to promote trade. In just the last year he has led three major trade missions – to the Gulf, to India and most recently to China – which the embassies in those capitals were expected to support. But this raises a basic question about the demarcation line between the FCO and Vince Cable's Department for Business. Do we need two departments doing essentially the same thing? Another area of overlap concerns visas. Until recently, a major function of embassies – or their consular arms – was to vet applicants and issue visas. But those functions have increasingly been outsourced to commercial agencies (not always satisfactorily), or, as immigration has become increasingly political, made a more direct responsibility of the Home Office. With universities and employers also being given more authority on visas, this function of British embassies has been further diminished. Meanwhile, the UK has conformed to the international trend for foreign policy to be conducted by the prime minister (or his equivalent) rather than the foreign minister. In Britain this crucial shift probably took place under Tony Blair, but it was continued by Gordon Brown, and Cameron increasingly hogs the foreign policy limelight. William Hague's now annual double-act with Angelina Jolie illustrates both the extremes to which the Foreign Office has to go to draw media attention and the blurring of the lines between the FCO's responsibilities and those of DfiD. Some will argue that old-style embassies must survive in order to provide crisis management, when needed. Modern communications may be instant, but actual help – in the event of natural disasters, kidnappings or accidents – takes much longer. It took almost two weeks for the UK to mount its aid effort after typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. More than 20 years ago the eminent British diplomat, Sir Nicholas Henderson (then just retired as ambassador in Paris), dared to question the need for the UK to maintain embassies in other European Union countries, given the growing tendency for government departments to deal directly with each other. The immediacy of today's communications and the availability of 24-hour news make that argument valid almost everywhere. While outright abolition of the Foreign Office may be too radical for a Conservative-led government, there could be much smaller representations abroad, run as trade and cultural showcases, with additional help called in as and when from aid agencies or the military, plus specialists seconded from thinktanks and academia. That the Foreign Office accounts for only a small fraction of public spending is no reason to preserve it, cash-strapped and uncertain, in its present form. Rethinking one of the great offices of state would convey the message, like nothing else, that the government is serious about structural reform. And a sudden dearth of UK embassy receptions in foreign capitals might give others time to consider whether socialising in foreign capitals is any longer the best way of putting their country on the global map. Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |