Bob Seely: What’s wrong with the Foreign Office – and how to put it right
This deserves loud pushback.
Dr Robert Seely MBE is author of ‘The New Total War’, ConservativeHome’s foreign affairs columnist and a former Conservative MP.
As the worn cliché had it, within living memory the British civil service was a Rolls-Royce machine—so smooth and effective was its operation. The Foreign Office (currently called the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, FCDO), with its bowler-hatted mandarins, was the Silver Ghost of that machine: the best of the best.
Those days — at least for now — are gone. It’s a deep shame for many reasons, not least because a powerful Foreign Office capable of leading Britain’s worldwide engagement is more important than ever. So, what’s wrong with the Foreign Office, and how can it be put right? I spent a few years watching and interacting with it in various roles; soldier, MP and member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I’ve also read carefully what others have had to say, so here’s my take.
The Foreign Office’s problems have been caused by a decline in the quality of thinking, leading to questionable values, policies and decisions, made worse by poor management. None are terminal. All are fixable with the right mix of leadership, culture, and strategic clarity. There are still good people who want to make a difference. But they are being drowned out by mediocrity at an institutional and political level.
From the 1990s onwards, IMHO, Britain increasingly outsourced hard power — war — to the United States, and some soft power — especially trade — to the European Union. The Foreign Office’s role shifted from being a prime mover and thinker to that of a moderator, shaping others rather than outcomes. It became inward-facing and increasingly focused on process. At the same time, the PM’s office and Cabinet Office encroached on its functions as our system became increasingly semi-presidential.
Where it retained freedom of action, particularly in the developing world, too much of its work focused on a morally confused aid policy to alleviate left-wing post-imperial guilt — pointless given our wonderful Empire had already receded into history.
Worse, that aid policy was overwhelmingly economic. The result was to expend large sums, sometimes badly, on questionable projects, while undervaluing and underfunding two critical instruments of British global influence: the Armed Forces and the BBC World Service. The Armed Forces, with its long history of counter-insurgency operations and training newly independent states’ armed forces, have been uniquely effective at peacekeeping and military capacity-building, both essential foundations of stability. The BBC World Service, regardless of the obvious failings of the domestic BBC, remains a unique global force for free speech, and societal development depends as much on freedom of …
This deserves loud pushback.
Dr Robert Seely MBE is author of ‘The New Total War’, ConservativeHome’s foreign affairs columnist and a former Conservative MP.
As the worn cliché had it, within living memory the British civil service was a Rolls-Royce machine—so smooth and effective was its operation. The Foreign Office (currently called the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, FCDO), with its bowler-hatted mandarins, was the Silver Ghost of that machine: the best of the best.
Those days — at least for now — are gone. It’s a deep shame for many reasons, not least because a powerful Foreign Office capable of leading Britain’s worldwide engagement is more important than ever. So, what’s wrong with the Foreign Office, and how can it be put right? I spent a few years watching and interacting with it in various roles; soldier, MP and member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I’ve also read carefully what others have had to say, so here’s my take.
The Foreign Office’s problems have been caused by a decline in the quality of thinking, leading to questionable values, policies and decisions, made worse by poor management. None are terminal. All are fixable with the right mix of leadership, culture, and strategic clarity. There are still good people who want to make a difference. But they are being drowned out by mediocrity at an institutional and political level.
From the 1990s onwards, IMHO, Britain increasingly outsourced hard power — war — to the United States, and some soft power — especially trade — to the European Union. The Foreign Office’s role shifted from being a prime mover and thinker to that of a moderator, shaping others rather than outcomes. It became inward-facing and increasingly focused on process. At the same time, the PM’s office and Cabinet Office encroached on its functions as our system became increasingly semi-presidential.
Where it retained freedom of action, particularly in the developing world, too much of its work focused on a morally confused aid policy to alleviate left-wing post-imperial guilt — pointless given our wonderful Empire had already receded into history.
Worse, that aid policy was overwhelmingly economic. The result was to expend large sums, sometimes badly, on questionable projects, while undervaluing and underfunding two critical instruments of British global influence: the Armed Forces and the BBC World Service. The Armed Forces, with its long history of counter-insurgency operations and training newly independent states’ armed forces, have been uniquely effective at peacekeeping and military capacity-building, both essential foundations of stability. The BBC World Service, regardless of the obvious failings of the domestic BBC, remains a unique global force for free speech, and societal development depends as much on freedom of …
Bob Seely: What’s wrong with the Foreign Office – and how to put it right
This deserves loud pushback.
Dr Robert Seely MBE is author of ‘The New Total War’, ConservativeHome’s foreign affairs columnist and a former Conservative MP.
As the worn cliché had it, within living memory the British civil service was a Rolls-Royce machine—so smooth and effective was its operation. The Foreign Office (currently called the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, FCDO), with its bowler-hatted mandarins, was the Silver Ghost of that machine: the best of the best.
Those days — at least for now — are gone. It’s a deep shame for many reasons, not least because a powerful Foreign Office capable of leading Britain’s worldwide engagement is more important than ever. So, what’s wrong with the Foreign Office, and how can it be put right? I spent a few years watching and interacting with it in various roles; soldier, MP and member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I’ve also read carefully what others have had to say, so here’s my take.
The Foreign Office’s problems have been caused by a decline in the quality of thinking, leading to questionable values, policies and decisions, made worse by poor management. None are terminal. All are fixable with the right mix of leadership, culture, and strategic clarity. There are still good people who want to make a difference. But they are being drowned out by mediocrity at an institutional and political level.
From the 1990s onwards, IMHO, Britain increasingly outsourced hard power — war — to the United States, and some soft power — especially trade — to the European Union. The Foreign Office’s role shifted from being a prime mover and thinker to that of a moderator, shaping others rather than outcomes. It became inward-facing and increasingly focused on process. At the same time, the PM’s office and Cabinet Office encroached on its functions as our system became increasingly semi-presidential.
Where it retained freedom of action, particularly in the developing world, too much of its work focused on a morally confused aid policy to alleviate left-wing post-imperial guilt — pointless given our wonderful Empire had already receded into history.
Worse, that aid policy was overwhelmingly economic. The result was to expend large sums, sometimes badly, on questionable projects, while undervaluing and underfunding two critical instruments of British global influence: the Armed Forces and the BBC World Service. The Armed Forces, with its long history of counter-insurgency operations and training newly independent states’ armed forces, have been uniquely effective at peacekeeping and military capacity-building, both essential foundations of stability. The BBC World Service, regardless of the obvious failings of the domestic BBC, remains a unique global force for free speech, and societal development depends as much on freedom of …
0 Comments
0 Shares
41 Views
0 Reviews
