Reforming the Foreign Office
Changing the 'elitist' vibe might make a difference, but it isn't the main focus of the Fletcher, Malik and Sedwill report
If you read media descriptions of the recently released report The World in 2040: Renewing the UK’s Approach to International Affairs, you could reasonably conclude that its main message is about tackling a sense that the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is “elitist”. Foreign Office is ‘elitist and rooted in the past’ was the summary from The Guardian. Former diplomats lead call to replace 'elitist' department was the BBC’s characterisation. Meanwhile, The Times really got to the important issues with Foreign Office urged to modernise (and ditch the colonial art)
The report, authored by eminent former British diplomats Tom Fletcher, Moazzam Malik and (Lord) Mark Sedwill, is about how the UK can tackle the profound changes unfolding in our world. I should declare an interest - I know all three of them and whilst I would not claim to be close to any of them, I regard them all as impressive and thoughtful diplomats. Perhaps the first thing to observe is that, despite the media focus, this is not a report about elitism and the weight of history. Towards the end of the report, mention is made, briefly and fairly lightly, of the physical surroundings of the Foreign Office building and the culture of the institution, which might have an impact on its ability to reform and renew itself. The specific wording used is as follows:
A new brand would help signal a forward-looking ambition for the 21st century. The very name of the Foreign, Commonwealth (formerly ‘Colonial’) and Development Office is anchored in the past. A new Department for International Affairs (or Global Affairs UK) would signal a potentially quite different role. The physical surroundings on King Charles Street also hint at the Foreign Office’s identity: somewhat elitist and rooted in the past. Modernising premises – perhaps with fewer colonial era pictures on the walls – might help create a more open working culture and send a clear signal about Britain’s future?
In an 11-page document, which examines likely global transformations, both economic and demographic, over the next 15 years and which explores how Britain can respond to these, a single paragraph (quoted in full above) is devoted to its name, physical attributes and working culture. It’s baffling that the media, including the serious outlets such as The Guardian and the BBC, chose to make this the main area of focus, immediately pitching the wider debate into the tiresome tropes of culture war and wokeism. Unsurprisingly GBeebies pitched straight into this childish caricature.
But we shouldn’t ignore this part of the report completely, even if it’s not the main issue. For what it’s worth, I am not convinced that a building’s architecture is the defining influence on the culture under its roof: that is probably more a question of leadership and corporate values. To illustrate this in practical terms: Sweden has a grand and historic foreign ministry building and a history of progressive and sometimes radical foreign policies (for example its approach to apartheid-era South Africa).
By contrast, few would characterise Italy as pursuing a ‘woke’ agenda in foreign affairs, but its foreign ministry is a purpose-built, modernist building. Germany, which practises caution and conservatism in its foreign policy, also has a fairly modern foreign ministry building (albeit with a bizarre ‘paternoster’ lift, but that’s for another post).
I’m more sympathetic to the point about the art on the walls: whilst there could be no reason to remove every single work of art that hangs in the Foreign Office building on King Charles Street, it should be acknowledged that almost every work of art there at the moment is a large and antique portrait of a dead white man. Most importantly, almost nobody knows anything about the subjects of these portraits. This is not about hiding from our history; in most cases they are simply not a very significant element of it. We could keep portraits of the small number of truly significant past foreign secretaries (for example: Bevin, Eden, Carrington, Curzon, Grey, Salisbury, Palmerston, Liz Truss1) and there would still be acres of wall space for art or portraits that perhaps offer a better sense of modern Britain. As for the murals and statues that glorify imperial exploitation (of which there are more than a few) some of these are integral to the building itself. In which case, we should have some clear, contextual information that explains (not justifies), for example, the representation of subject peoples of the empire as savages wearing animal skins.
From style to substance
The main body of the report isn’t about buildings or artworks. It’s about how Britain chooses to position itself in a world in flux, no longer dominated by a single political or values system. The authors describe Britain as an ‘off-shore nation’, highly dependent on the economy of its major economic neighbour (in our case, the EU). But the report rightly identifies that a wider range of globally diverse middle powers (think of the members of the G20) are going to have ever greater influence and Britain needs to work harder to engage them diplomatically. One of the ways that it might do this is by spending more on its diplomacy and related international activities. Since this was a major point I made in my book on British foreign policy, you won’t be surprised to read that I agree wholeheartedly. Diplomats cost a fraction of warriors and can be good and reducing the need for the latter.
There are elements of the report that feel timid to this reader: a passage about multilateralism reads:
The continued legitimacy of multilateralism depends on it being more reflective of the world today. The UK could take a lead in renegotiating these relationships.
I agree with the broad terms of this statement, but to quote another part of the report, it would be good to “[s]how not tell in our international engagement”. What element does the UK want to renegotiate? The report offers no suggestions. I think a serious debate needs to be had about the UK’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Just as the UK conceded the inevitability of decolonisation, I believe that a 2024 middle-sized and declining former colonial power should concede that it no longer has the resources to command a veto in global security affairs. Of course, the UK doing this unilaterally would achieve very little, but starting with the principle that we accept that our veto will at some point be lost because we no longer have the resources to match its responsibilities would be a way of demonstrating seriousness in this debate. The failure of the UNSC to function is one of the features of the modern disordered world.
Similarly, the designation of the UK as an “off-shore” power without a serious discussion of our relationship with that shore (the EU) seems to be ducking the biggest question of all in British politics: our relationship with Europe. I can fully understand that a report which said “Britain’s diplomatic future is to rejoin the EU” would immediately risk its being consigned to a certain category of “remoaner” agitprop (I say this even as I think personally that Britain’s future should - even if it may fail to - be to rejoin the EU). But there is an essential difficulty that a country highly dependent on trade, geographically close to the world’s largest trading zone but currently suffering a series of self-imposed barriers with that trading zone needs to rationalise that as a matter of high priority. Any assessment of Britain’s foreign policies needs to have answers to that question almost before any other. This is all the more the case when we consider that Europe has also resumed its place as our primary security focus, whilst America is increasingly detached.
Read the report
These are points of positive engagement, not criticisms. I urge you to read the report which is substantial, but not lengthy. It’s worth your time and it is to the credit of its authors that they took the time to produce it.
Mysteriously, I have had pushback on the inclusion of Liz Truss in this list.
A well considered take Arthur.