The following article was written by Tom Cargill, BFPG Executive Chair, for the Centre for Public Impact. You can find the original piece here. 

The UK continues to face massive political upheaval brought about by the 2016 referendum decision to leave the European Union. The British Foreign Policy Group (BFPG) was established later that same year in the belief that the referendum result was not only the cause, but a symptom of some far more profound changes playing themselves out in how the public engages with policy – with foreign and international policy a central and yet often overlooked aspect of that.

Like CPI, we see this as a real challenge for UK government legitimacy and have been on a listening project of our own since we were founded to better understand what key communities of influence want from all aspects of the UK’s foreign policy, whether trade, diplomacy, security or other issues.

Three years later, we have developed a number of tentative conclusions about how the UK landscape is changing on international issues, and some of the trends that Brexit has revealed or accelerated.

It’s clear from our work that cities, regions and devolved nations of the UK enjoy complex and varied links around the world that seem not to be systematically mapped at a national level, or routinely factored into national policy making. Examples range from Manchester’s growing links with cities in India and China, to Plymouth’s initiative with Dutch and US counterparts to celebrate 400 years since the sailing of the Mayflower, and the emergence of south Wales as a global hub for the cyber-security industry.

There are literally hundreds of other connections and initiatives going on around the UK at various levels with significant relevance for the UK’s place in the world, but which are not known about or appreciated centrally. This leads to a real challenge for policy coherence and impact for the UK.

Brexit has accelerated the ambitions of cities, regions and nations of the UK to build their own links and international initiatives distinct from the plans of central government.

Not only that, but many of these cities and regions are competing with each other for the same trade and investment opportunities globally. The result is an increasing strain on the UK as regions and nations begin to push and pull in different directions.

Whitehall itself has undergone considerable change since the Brexit vote, with a recognition that those parts dealing with international issues need to improve the way in which they understand and engage with the rest of the UK. Including through a partnership with the British Foreign Policy Group, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has initiated an event series to better understand and engage with audiences around the UK.

Other departments such as DIT, DFID and MOD are considering similar initiatives, and these are increasingly coordinated by a government focus on ‘fusion’ bringing all departments together to deliver more effectively on national priorities. The challenge is keeping up with the accelerating complexity of the UK’s international links, whilst formulating and then implementing policy solutions that anticipate these changes instead of responding to challenges that have already moved on.

BFPG’s listening tour has revealed growing ambition, self confidence and urgency on the part of the UK’s nations, cities and regions to build their own international links. With a little more coordination and understanding from Whitehall, this could prove a great strength to a very different UK that is emerging into a very different international environment from even just a few years ago.

Perhaps surprisingly, a major route to addressing the challenge is a far more engaged conversation about the UK’s soft power – the myriad cultural, business, sporting, education, civil society and other relationships the UK benefits from. The FCO is leading on the development of a government led soft power strategy for the UK, but as – if not more – important is a non-governmental conversation around the stories we tell to the world about our cities, regions, nations and the country as a whole.

The British Foreign Policy Group has collaborated with the British Council and a number of other organisations to establish a UK Soft Power Group to pursue this. The challenge is less abstract and more practical than it may at first appear. A key theme in all our events has been the story that cities and regions project to the world about what makes them distinct and attractive as a place to do business in and with.

The challenge was perhaps most succinctly put by a speaker at our event in Coventry who said:

“As a city and region, [Coventry has] a huge amount we can contribute globally and a huge amount that we want from the world… However we struggle to articulate who we are and want to be in 2018, and until we can confidently tell a modern story about ourselves today, with all of its diversity and innovation, we will struggle to fulfil our global potential.”

This seems a good summary of the challenge facing many parts of the UK, if not for the UK as a whole. Through our events, research and partnerships, the BFPG is seeking to catalyse some of the practical solutions to address this – and we know that sharing power across regions, levels of government, and with affected communities is absolutely essential to this.

It is early days, but despite the scale of the challenge and the risks ahead, we can at least claim some real progress is being made to re-position the UK for a very different world, and a very different set of challenges that will impact us all, wherever we live.

 

This article was first published on: https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/grassroots-foreign-policy-answer-post-brexit-uk/

When we think of front-line services protecting and serving the British public, we rarely think of diplomats. But that is what they often are, scattered across over 120 countries, often in small embassies of just 1 or 2 UK staff, albeit supported by hardworking locals. From these far flung offices, British influence is still projected with far more impact than many imagine in support of our safety and prosperity back here in the UK, and indeed around the world. Much of this work takes place with little of the glamour or fanfare you might expect from popular depictions of diplomats riding in limousines to champagne receptions. Quite the reverse. Our new report on the impact of long term funding constraints on the Foreign Office reveals a department of committed but increasingly over stretched professionals struggling to meet the sky high expectations we place on them. Events around Kim Darroch’s resignation are a good illustration of this. In both the leaking of the internal reports, and some of the reaction to the fallout, including President Trump’s comments, influential people in the UK have demonstrated a casual disregard for the value and importance of diplomacy whilst at the same time taking for granted the global profile and access British diplomacy provides them.

How has this come about? Our report for the first time trawls back through government spending data, combined with in-depth interviews with experts and former diplomats. It reveals a department that for decades has been maintaining a façade of grandeur and even detachment from the rest of Whitehall, whilst behind the scenes trimming wafer thin budgets and digging ever deeper into long nurtured reserves of capital, influence and good will. Pay and conditions have failed to keep up with other departments, and additional demands expected of staff who are overwhelmingly committed to helping their country.

Its not all bad news. The UK as a whole retains unique assets and capabilities from which we derive considerable influence and benefit far beyond that of most if not all of our closest peers. And the Foreign Office is now so lean that the additional funding required to restore and enhance the UK’s diplomatic front line is not necessarily much.  Despite newspaper headlines to the contrary, the FCO as a whole is highly motivated to seize the opportunities and minimise the risks emerging for the UK as we leave the EU. Recent discussions with over 50 heads of mission with business occurred as part of ‘Leadership week’, when most UK Ambassadors & High Commissioners from around the UK come back to London annually for conferences and workshops. These discussions underscored the energy with which most diplomats are motivated to maximise our national influence and relationships in a changing world, and the real opportunities they see for us.  Yet as we prepare to leave the European Union and embrace a new and very different global role, our report finds we are under-equipped to seize these opportunities, or even in some cases maintain the capabilities we have assumed in the past. Perhaps most worryingly in the words of former head of the FCO Sir Simon Fraser, the report finds that whilst the UK appears to have used membership of the European Union as a ‘crutch’ to arrest declining influence, our German & French counterparts have used their membership as a ‘springboard’ and now threaten to surpass the UK in their global reach in some critical regions.

 

Diplomacy cannot and need not compete with the like of health or education for scarce taxpayers’ money. However we all need to recognise that diplomats, in their own way, are often as much front line staff as teachers or doctors in ensuring British citizens remain able to focus on our domestic concerns secure in the knowledge that the growing storm of international events around our small islands is being understood and influenced in our favour.  Diplomacy, short of violence, is the best tool we have to secure the friends and deter the foes we need to navigate such a world. Against the backdrop of the ongoing political uncertainty we face here at home as well as abroad,  investing just a little more in this under recognised front line service for the UK seems a good deal right now.

That includes valuing and respecting the role of diplomats themselves. The worrying spectacle of senior politicians failing to demonstrate support for Kim Darroch does a disservice not only to our political culture, but to the values the UK depends upon for its influence, prosperity and security. It is to be hoped that once the dust settles from the leadership campaign settles, a strong signal of support from the winner will be sent to the effect that these little recognised front line workers are both valued and respected in providing a unique and often highly challenging service on behalf of all of us across the UK.

On Monday the Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt gave a speech at the Mansion House in London on the UK after Brexit. The speech was noted in particular for straying beyond the traditional limits of foreign policy into defence and domestic issues. But whilst it is no secret that Mr Hunt is one of the many contenders to be the next Conservative leader, and perhaps Prime Minister, the speech was perhaps more valuable in signposting the growing recognition that the UK’s international and domestic prosperity and security priorities are intimately bound up with each other. Whilst the top level political disfunction of the UK continues, there is an important paradigm shift taking place inside government. Whilst Brexit and the political fallout is somewhat of a catalyst, the trends driving this have been emerging for some time, including the successes & failures of globalisation, technology and social changes. This now includes an increasingly widely accessed but confused and atomised information environment, especially vulnerable to insurgent, extreme and malign agendas.

Through this prism, the three areas of focus for Jeremy Hunt’s speech on the UK’s prospects for national renewal – the economy, hard power and democratic renewal – have more of an international focus than a pure focus on his leadership ambitions might suggest.

This may have some significant implications for the shape of the domestic economy at home, and where possible should be leveraged to invest into those very communities that have felt alienated. This is all the more important because it is these communities who are particularly vulnerable to populist or subversive messaging. But quality jobs and economic investment, though critical, are not enough. More respect for and engagement with perspectives from across the UK in discussion of critical national issues, including foreign policy issues, will become increasingly key for viable and sustainable policy making. This is important if our democracy is to become robust enough to resist the siren calls, particularly of foreign powers and private interests seeking to weaken the UK at home and its support for the rules-based order abroad.

The consolation, and perhaps irony, is that despite the top line political chaos, the UK sits in an enviable geopolitical position across a series of islands off an overall remarkably benign, stable and likeminded continent. On the other side of the ocean are other close friends and partners. The great strategic challenger to the biggest of our partners is China. The UK can afford to play the role of constructive, principled and robust broker alongside others as the world responds to this. The most immediate military threat to the UK is from a declining and unstable Russia, still possessed of some formidable and advanced military capability.

It is here that the UK requires the most investment in hard power, but there are opportunities too. The UK will soon be in possession of two of the most advanced aircraft carriers in the world that with right investment at home in advanced robotics, artificial intelligence and other technologies, could provide platforms for a formidable combination of air, sea and subsurface capabilities. With scaled up defence investment, in partnership with regional allies such as Norway and Canada, the UK could preserve its global reach, but focus on securing the North Atlantic and Western Hemisphere of the Arctic. Not only would this save the US tens of billions of dollars to be redirected to the Pacific and elsewhere, but it would secure for the UK a sphere of unilateral capability around the UK homeland unknown for decades.

The UK cannot and should not isolate itself completely from the dramatic changes unfolding around the world. Indeed the UK, for its own and global benefit, needs to remain an active champion of an open, interconnected and rules based international system. However, to ensure it can continue to do so from a position of strength and security we require responses that cut across the traditional divisions between domestic and foreign policy. Whatever Mr Hunt’s motivations in making such a cross cutting speech at the Mansion House, his reference to the interplay between our economy, hard power and democratic culture points to the fact that consideration of the implications of this are being considered elsewhere in government. Despite the turmoil at the top, we should prepare for some potentially significant changes in how the UK domestically is organised to meet the wider global challenges we are facing in years to come.

 

On 26^th March the BFPG co-hosted an event with the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce on the city and region’s international links and ambitions with around 80 people from across the region’s business and cultural communities. We were very grateful for the support and input of UBS as well as of Sheffield City Council, and grateful to the FCO for supporting this event and the national engagement work of the BFPG.

The panel included:

Dean Turner, UBS

Paul Brummell, Head of Soft Power and External Affairs Department, FCO

Kate Skarsten, Economic Counsellor, The U.S Embassy

Richard Wright, Director of Policy & Representation, Sheffield Chamber of Commerce

The panel started with an overview of the current global economic context from Dean Turner. He emphasized that the UK as a whole, and Brexit in particular, is in relative terms, just one small element in a complex and evolving international economic picture. This is an important reason why the UK, its regions, and individual businesses, have a strong incentive to encourage some sort of way forward on Brexit in order to focus on the wider challenges facing the world. Paul Brummell from the FCO offered a wider context to this, whilst also explaining how Sheffield’s traditions and global links offered particular incentives and opportunities to build on its rich international heritage for local, national and international benefit. Kate Skarsten from the US Embassy echoed the message about the scale of future opportunities for the UK and particular cities such as Sheffield; especially through new economic partnerships as is being proposed between the UK & UK post Brexit. The role of sub-state actors was emphasised too as individual cities, regions (and States in the US) and others are increasingly pioneering their own global links. This is important and welcome if coherence and coordination on a national level is maintained. Richard Wright concluded by reflecting on how effectively Sheffield had positioned itself to date. He made the key point that small and medium sized business in particular are important targets for encouraging greater exports, and yet currently we lack sufficient tools for bringing them into these conversations. Audience discussion continued this theme, but also raised the issue of infrastructure and the lack of sufficient connectivity between the city, region and world supporting exports and investment. Points were also raised about ensuring central government was best positioned to respond to the regions international priorities, as well as how Sheffield is integrated within the Northern Powerhouse, and relationships with other cities in the region.

 

The second panel was Chaired by Head of UK Regions Kathy McArdle. Taking Sheffield’s current international plans as a starting point, the session considered what more needs to be done and how the UK government might more effectively support the city and regions ambitions in years to come.

The panel included:

Dan Bates, CEO, Sheffield Theatres

Gordon Macrae, Gripple Ltd

Neil Cleverley, Twinkl

Caroline Cooper Charles, Film Producer and Strategic Development Executive, Screen Yorkshire

Edward Highfield, Director of City Growth, Sheffield City Council

 

The conversation here revolved around the relationship between the values the city and region projects and the business relationships and reputation it enjoys. Dan Bates fed back insights he had developed working with theatres in South East Asia, including building links with Sheffield. Culture, connectivity and building deeper cross-cultural understanding were key to understanding and opening new market opportunities. These themes were echoed by other panelists, though with the point being made that the city and region itself need to concentrate on what makes it different to competitors, and focus on making the most of this advantage. Gordon Macrae also made the point that for this strategy to succeed, regional business needs to become far better at exploiting opportunities to generate commercial advantage. Too often innovations from the region are capitalised upon business overseas. Caroline Cooper Charles built on this by pointing out that even within the UK film production is disproportionately clustered around London, meaning that what is claimed to be a national success story really doesn’t serve the interests of much of the UK. Overall there was a recognition that the limited capacity and attention span available for regional concerns from central government, made even more extreme due to Brexit, meant that Sheffield and the region would increasingly need to show leadership and identify bespoke strategies and routes to pursuing their international ambitions. This risks fragmentation and so coordination through the Northern Powerhouse as well as other regional and national structures where possible is key.  However crucially, it is clear that whilst Sheffield has no shortage of skills or capacity to embrace and pursue a bold international strategy, it needs confidence and a strong sense of identity to succeed fully. Nurturing this is as much a cultural as a commercial priority, and a good reason for combining the efforts of both.

It may seem impossible to see through the Brexit fog, but the rest of the world continues to present significant challenges and opportunities for the UK in 2019. Many of the top ten countdowns over the New Year focused on risks – and they remain considerable. But, despite everything, the UK will remain one of the world’s largest and most advanced economies with deeper and more complex trading, security, diplomatic and cultural ‘soft power’ links globally than almost any country in the world. Brexit makes it even more important that we proactively use the year ahead to defend and further advance these links and the international rules and security which underpin them. So in the BFPG spirit of constructive engagement here are ten suggested opportunities for the UK in 2019 to coherently advance some critical interests.

1. Use the 2019 Cricket World Cup as an opportunity for UK Soft Power

From May 30^th until 14^th July the UK will be hosting the Cricket World Cup for the first time since 1999. The UK excels at hosting major sporting events, which are increasingly important for the UK’s wider prosperity and influence as a critical aspect of the UK’s ‘soft power; the ability to build the global relationships and appeal that support our wider interests. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office is leading the development of a ‘UK Soft Power Strategy’, and the ability to host and impress some of our key international partners at events such as these is of particular value to the UK right now. This is not without risks, as soft power risks crumbling when government gets involved. Yet the Cricket World Cup is a real opportunity to test out and develop the UK’s experimentation in this space as other nations accelerate their own efforts, and could lay the groundwork for greater innovation in the future.

2. Develop more strategy and substance behind the UK’s ambitions in Asia Pacific

This year the UK will be opening a new dedicated Mission in Jakarta to ASEAN- Association of South East Asian Nations – an important practical step towards building links with an increasingly important region for the UK. The move is more timely as Indonesia, which hosts the secretariat, has just taken up its place as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for the coming year, a move which will provide added energy to the ASEAN Summit due to take place in Jakarta in June 22^nd. With the G20 taking place the following week, the ASEAN summit will be a good opportunity for the UK to use the novelty of its Mission to test out, and build profile and support for its growing regional ambitions, whilst addressing regional concerns that it lacks the capacity and long-term commitment to follow through. In addition, three new high commissions are to be opened in the Pacific, new defence arrangements in the region with Australia and Japan are developing and the important Five Power Defence Arrangement with Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand is receiving fresh focus. The announcement of a new British military base in the region could be positive if potential partners are better consulted in advance. Finally; with India becoming perhaps our closest bilateral partner in years to come, the UK is further strengthening diplomatic links and investment, including establishing a new tech-hub in Delhi this year. In total; 2019 will mark an important milestone in the UK’s growing ambitions and define regional expectations of the UK over coming years.

3. Build on the success of the London Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

Despite falling victim to Brexit reductionism, the Commonwealth remains an increasingly important, and strangely modern, networking group for the UK and other members. The UK’s hosting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting last year was widely considered highly successful and constructive by participants, demonstrating the ongoing utility of the Commonwealth to its members, as well as the value of the UK’s, and especially the Royal Family’s, leadership role within it. This year brings the opportunity to build on the good will and access that CHOGM created for the UK, along with the announcement that ten new High Commissions will be opened during 2019. Much of the value of Commonwealth relationships comes from a focus on no-political aspects, such as youth, sport and the environment. Central aspects of UK initiatives across these issues as set out below have major relevance for the Commonwealth. Yet trade, security and diplomatic links are increasingly important and on issues from piracy and modern slavery to supporting the rules based international system, 2019 could see the UK begin to push a more strategic effort to build common positions on major issues amongst Commonwealth partners.

4. Re-calibrate and refresh relations with the USA

Fallout from the Trump Presidency is beginning to have a noticeable impact on UK policy discussions of the trans-Atlantic relationship, with growing talk of the need to reassess the UK’s particularly close links with the US on a number of levels. At present much discussion is vague or ill-focused, but, together with Brexit, it represents an opportunity to rethink what the UK and the US want from each other, and whether and how both countries might refresh a relationship that often, for better or worse, appeared to run on auto-pilot. At a cultural level this might include building more civil society links, including with the massive number of Americans with British links and heritage in the US, as well as the probably under recognised American diaspora in the UK.  Another emerging focus is on building sub-national regional links between US states and UK regions and devolved nations. Away from the scratchiness of bilateral ties at leadership level  the parallels being drawn between Brexit and cultural changes in the US, offer an opportunity to engage on many different levels with a key ally in 2019.

5. Begin redefining and rebuilding bilateral relationships across Europe

Whatever happens on March 29^th, there will be much to do in the years ahead in rebuilding trust and relationships between the UK and key EU member states. What had been a deeply integrated and effective set of long term personal and institutional networks across the EU that the UK relied upon to pursue its interests has been severely compromised. Many aspects of it, such as well-disposed UK staff at think tanks and other bodies feeding into European, not just EU, decision-making are unlikely to be rebuilt. Alternative networks will take time to develop, and whilst the FCO have begun this work, 2019 will be key in setting the direction post Brexit and in considering how to use this as an opportunity to rethink how the UK engages informally and semi-formally with its most important partners.

6. Forge more domestic consensus on UK engagement with China

UK engagement with China has seesawed wildly from the close commercial embrace of what some close observers termed ‘Operation KowTow’ during the Cameron premiership, to a far warier relationship under Theresa May. Large Chinese investments have been blocked and Chinese technology companies such as Huawei have been publicly identified as posing a potential security threat to the UK by senior defence and intelligence officials. There is a logic in both approaches, yet little sense of a coherent discussion between UK business, defence, diplomatic and other stakeholders, about developing a consensus on an approach to China which recognises the need to engage China commercially and diplomatically whilst maintaining our national security. Businesses are increasingly unclear and frustrated by lack of clarity, particularly as the UK government continues to promote the Belt & Road initiative as an opportunity for UK companies.  A more balanced approach, if it could be developed with sufficient cross-party consensus, would allow a long-term strategic engagement that would work in both countries’ interests by providing a clearer and more reliable roadmap for future investment, trade, diplomatic and security arrangements. Neither China nor particular interests in the UK will likely be completely satisfied by the result, but it would at least demonstrate the UK as being open and consistent, and help businesses in both countries identify and follow up with greater confidence on the significant opportunities there are for mutual economic benefit.

7. Use the G20 Summit in Osaka to build an alliance for international governance reform

The UK was one of the major architects of the network of global governance structures that, however imperfectly, promote good governance, the consistent application of rules, and fair process around the world. After 70 years, many of the institutions and rules deserve review, but some governments and factions use this as an excuse to undermine the entire principle of a rules based international order. The UK now stands as one of a strong cohort of global and medium sized powers who understand that our interests lie in promoting and defending fair and consistent international rules. Yet more coordination and mutual support amongst this group would be timely to begin advancing a fair reform agenda. Japan has stated the rules based international system will be a focus for its G20 summit in Osaka on June 28^th-29^th . The UK could proactively support this agenda alongside other G20 peers such as India, Australia, South Korea, Indonesia, Canada, Argentina, as well as European colleagues, to address some of the root causes of both popular discontent, as well as the more legitimate concerns from the super powers and smaller states about inadequacies of the system as it stands.

8. Focus international attention on the Sustainable Development Goals

This year the UK is one of around 40 countries due to report back on its progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals at the High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development to be held from 9^th – 18^th July in New York. This is an important opportunity for the UK to show leadership by demonstrating what it has achieved in recent years across 17 areas in areas ranging global poverty reduction and the provision of clean water to preventing climate change and tackling gender equality. With some important exceptions, the UK has a strong record to report on, but the urgency of the challenges facing the world, and the UK, are growing.  The UK could usefully use the High-Level Political Forum as an opportunity to rally support for more ambitious action on targets to be championed at the UN General Assembly Meeting in September, and then at the UN Climate Change Conference to be hosted by Peru from the 11^th November, particularly working with like-minded fellow global powers and others at national and sub-national level to accelerate progress.

9. Further trade and diplomatic links across Africa

In the latter part of the year the UK is due to follow through on the pledge made by Prime Minister Theresa May during her Africa visit last year to host a UK-Africa Investment summit in 2019. This summit will provide a rare opportunity to the UK to build on the relationships and progress forged during the visit last year and at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting earlier in the year. African states are increasingly being recognised as strategically vital to the future stability and prosperity of the UK and the world. They also offer significant opportunity to the UK as trading partners as well as allies in support of particular common objectives given African states make up almost one third of the UN General Assembly. The UK has already begun to recalibrate its regional engagement Africa via an innovative new 20 year ‘Strategic Approach’ developed by the FCO and led by the National Security Council, which integrates policies focused on inclusive growth, stability & security, climate change and demography across the continent. This investment summit provides an invaluable platform to demonstrate specific progress through new trade initiatives and partnerships in support of shared interests and prosperity at a critical time for both the UK, and many African states.

10. Embrace NATO’s 70^th Anniversary to Renew Support for Collective Security

Throughout 2019 the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will be marking 70 years since it was founded to provide mutual security guarantees between the democracies of North America and Western Europe in the face of Soviet aggression. Since then the alliance has expanded to include states formerly dominated by the Soviet Union, and remains a vital if increasingly tested organisation as Russia seeks to undermine its neighbours and carve out regions of influence to suits its own interests. Renewed instability in the Western Balkans in particular offer new threats to European stability, with Russia playing a provocatory role. President Trump’s increasingly aggressive positioning in relation to other members’ failure to pay their share of the costs of protection, alongside the emergence of a generation who risk taking for granted the European peace and stability of recent decades, threaten the alliance. As a leading member, the UK has the opportunity at this summit to build consensus on a way forward. In addition, the UK has an opportunity to restate the case for collective security and support for the rules based international system at a time of deep uncertainty across Europe and North America. This might include building on the support and momentum the UK benefited from in the aftermath of the chemical attack in Salisbury last year and the focus it developed as a result on strengthening the mandate of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, and using it to track down the perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Initiatives such as this, as well as a continuing focus on the prevention of sexual violence against women in conflict, can generate wider public support for actions in support of common security, and the UK is well placed to pursue these further in 2019.

---

 

There are many other opportunities that might be included here, as well as challenges. The crisis in Yemen and Syria for instance remain deeply alarming but with no clear entry point for the UK, or indeed possibly others to take new unilateral initiatives on top of the steady diplomacy being undertaken already.  But these ten areas hopefully give an indication of the practical steps the UK can take towards defending and advancing its interests in 2019. Many if not all of these are already programmed into various grids across government. A particular challenge over years ahead will be building internal UK government coherence so that, for instance, announcements on initiatives by the Defence Secretary are coordinated effectively with other government departments. Yet it is outside government where perhaps the starkest challenge remains for the UK. The Brexit vote and subsequent events are ever more clear signals that the division between domestic and foreign policy is breaking down. Key communities of interest, critical stakeholders, regions and others are playing ever more vocal and influential roles in aspects of UK foreign, trade and even security policy. Foreign states themselves are now asking the UK if there is sufficient domestic consensus behind particular initiatives such as the possibility of joining the Trans Pacific Partnership. Such concerns are only likely to grow over coming years. The UK does not have a tradition of expressing a particularly strategic global outlook, but this approach appears increasingly unsustainable when communities increasingly question why they should support, whether through taxes, votes or other means, the UK’s diplomats and others to pursue their work around the world. More effectively articulating a foreign policy strategy rooted in engagement with people across the UK is the real opportunity, and necessity of 2019.

The British Foreign Policy Group has now for two years hosted events and engaged with communities around the UK on our international links and ambitions. Our most recent event was in Coventry, talking to people from business, local authority and civil society, along with the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and others, on what communities in the city and wider West Midlands want from our foreign policy as it relates to trade, influence, security and other issues.

This event in particular was indicative of how strong the UK offer is, and how rightly proud communities across the UK are about the advanced industries, technologies and skills that different regions and devolved nations are offering around the world. In common with our other events Brexit, and particularly the uncertainty around it, was discussed, often as presenting significant challenges – particularly in the short term. However there is little sign of the slightly hysterical tone of the debate in London. Instead most parts of the UK seem prepared to face the politics and possible disruption ahead with a practiced resilience developed over decades of feeling slightly peripheral to many key international policy discussions. Indeed, while there are many concerns about the impact of Brexit on regional economies, there is a contradictory sense occasionally that the vote was a rare moment when the voices of some communities outside London and the South East were seen to matter as much or even more than those within the capital city on a major foreign policy issue.

What Brexit has certainly accelerated is a growing sense of determination in different parts of the UK to develop their own international strategies, links and capacities at a time when national politics seems ever more distracted and Whitehall capacity under pressure. Whether it is Scotland opening up offices abroad, Manchester’s ambitious internationalisation strategy, or the Midlands’ Foreign Investment Hub in Birmingham, different parts of the UK are moving ahead ever more quickly with their own plans, conscious that the years ahead are going to see fierce competition for investment, skills and industries, both globally, but also within the UK post-Brexit. These regional initiatives are coinciding with more profound changes in how communities and individuals see themselves relating to international issues via social media and specialisation of news media, with stronger opinions and sense of influence in relation to particular foreign policy issues – whether climate change, Israel/Palestine, Russia or Brexit itself. Alongside this is a more focused consideration by large UK based organisations of how they deploy their ‘soft power’, that is the cultural resonance, influence and relationships generated by bodies as diverse as the British Council, Premier League, British Standards Institute, our major universities, or the City of London.

This all clearly presents challenges of coordination and risk of fragmentation. Yet there are good reasons for feeling positive about the innovation that is taking place in how the UK reaches out into the world if it can be accompanied by an evolution in how the FCO and others in Whitehall engage with these changes. This starts with developing a much more nuanced understanding of what is happening in the UK; work which we are developing alongside the FCO and others. It also means reaching out to and building new partnerships with some of the key emerging stakeholders in the UK’s international profile – whether they are regional actors such as Manchester, or organisations such as the Premier League. The third priority is for the FCO, DIT, MOD and other internationally facing departments to build greater links with the wider public on the UK’s place in the world, not to convert everybody to a particular way of thinking, but in order to be, and be seen to be, a part of the wider national conversation, interested, engaged and respectful of popular engagement on foreign policy issues.

This will of course require resources, but less than may be imagined. Our conversations around the UK suggest most if not all of the emerging stakeholders in the UK’s place in the world see the value and self interest in engaging each other and Whitehall more effectively, but they just lack the systems to do so strategically at present. Indeed, the FCO in particular will likely find many of these regional and other groupings to be welcome supporters of more strategic national investment in our engagement with the world in support of our collective interests. These actors will in turn provide new avenues of influence and international engagement from a trade and diplomatic perspective.

The UK clearly faces many challenges over coming years from both domestic and international changes. Our work thus far suggests the UK benefits from vast pools of expertise and influence that are only just beginning to feel their own power. The challenge for all of us is to ensure these changes supplement rather than undermine a coherent UK voice in the world, and that requires a common understanding and articulation of our shared identity and interests as a country today. In the current environment that may seem a challenge but our work suggests otherwise. There is, on the whole, a powerful desire to find common ground and contribute to the wider national success. Yet Brexit has come after many years of profound change for large parts of the UK. Memories of Empire and world war have receded largely into history. Mono cultural heavy industry has given way to diversity and innovation in many regions. Many of us are still struggling with the transition and proper relationship between our past, present and future as a 21^st century country.

Our event in Coventry juxtaposed the significant international economic advantages and links enjoyed by the city and region with the values and identity it wishes to project, as embodied positively in Coventry Cathedral and its active tradition of promoting international peace and reconciliation. One speaker expressed it well when he said. ‘As a city and region we have a huge amount we can contribute globally and a huge amount that we want from the world. All the pieces are there. We have great international reach, advanced manufacturing, and skills. However we struggle to articulate who we are and want to be in 2018, and until we can confidently tell a modern story about ourselves today, with all of its diversity and innovation, we will struggle to fulfil our global potential’. This seems apt for much of the UK, and underlines why a dialogue about our place in the world has to engage with our great artistic, cultural, standards setting, science, sport, educational and other such ‘soft power’ institutions. All of these have a role to help us understand who we are in the world in 2018. Yet business, diplomacy and even security perspectives are important too, as conversations about identity can’t be somehow ‘sandboxed’ away from real everyday priorities. Quite the reverse; our search for identity can only be practical in the context of our everyday needs and interactions with the world around us. So far from being a distraction, our conversation about our place in the world is absolutely central to defining who we are as a 21^st century country. In 2019 that objective will become even more important, and through our events, reports and other activities, the BFPG will continue to provide a platform for continuing an ever more urgent national discussion about our international position and choices.

Jeremy Hunt’s speech suggesting external appointments might be made to the FCO is important, and welcome, but it’s not new. The debate over the merits of external appointments to key diplomatic positions has gone back and forth within and around the FCO for some years. In many ways this struggle has represented a far wider generational tension between more ‘traditional’ diplomats who were born and joined the FCO during the long afterglow of World War 2 & Empire, and a younger generation whose cultural references points are for the most part rooted in the very different Britain and world of the late 1970s and 80s. This latter group tend on the whole to have a more flexible and open view of how diplomacy, and diplomats should function. So the fact that this idea has worked its way up through the system to become a new Ministerial announcement represents something of a step change in a generational and world view shift within the FCO that may herald far wider changes ahead for how the UK engages with the world.

Although stories in Prospect magazine and elsewhere about the drift and despondency in the FCO have some truth, in actual fact the picture is more nuanced, and hopeful, than the headlines would suggest. Much criticism from Brexiteers has been focussed on a belief that the FCO was and remains anti-Brexit. Viewed from a senior level, the Brexit decision indeed represented a very visible and deadly blow to a position in the UK and the world. The consequent stripping out of DIT & DExEu into separate departments has furthered a sense of both a department and a country in decline. But for an emerging leadership generation of diplomats, whilst Brexit personally for the most part was a great personal wrench, it also represents both a career, and an organisationally redefining opportunity. For many amongst this group there is a sense that Brexit merely exposed the long crisis of direction the FCO has been facing for years, if not decades. In doing so it has emboldened an emerging leadership generation to push for an ambitious rethink of how the UK engages internationally, and the role of the FCO within that. And although the FCO remains in many respects distinctly cautious and somewhat aloof from much wider Whitehall and UK life, there are important indications that this may be beginning to change.

While much of this new thinking is internal, not yet fully developed and not particularly visible, there are two areas where it has begun to emerge.

The first is regional, in the shape of the new ‘Strategic approach to Africa’. This new initiative, owned by the NSC and represented by a DFID senior official, but driven largely from within FCO (Even its name represents a tension in that the officials shy away from naming it simply a ‘strategy’), is a significant departure for a department that is not famed for embracing strategies of this kind. First it is 20 years in duration – far longer than any comparable regional foreign policy initiative for the UK. Secondly it is the result of a genuinely iterative and evidence-based process involving all of Whitehall – an approach that is perhaps less common than it should be. It also demonstrates a new level of coherence of approach and cross departmental working in execution, with separate but mutually reinforcing streams on inclusive growth, stability & security, climate change and demography. If approaches of this type were utilised for other regions, it would begin to work towards a level of coherence in UK foreign policy that would be genuinely new.

The second area of innovation is regarding soft power and domestic engagement within the UK. During his first few days as Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt flagged promoting UK soft power as a priority area for him, unsurprising given that he was Culture Secretary at the time of the 2012 London Olympics – a moment of national unity and self confidence that seems almost painful to look back on at present. However, the current iteration of FCO thinking on soft power predates Jeremy Hunt, and has gone hand in hand with some new thinking on how the FCO engages with the wider UK audiences, including actors that pursue significant international engagements. While much of this work is still being developed, the appointment of a number of officials tasked with engaging more proactively with diasporas is an important and new recognition of the need to engage in this direction. In fact, the generational shift again is apparent in an increasing recognition that the FCO needs to do more to reflect and show it understands the diversity of the country it represents, both regionally, but also socially. The publication recently of an FCO report ‘Black Skin, Whitehall’, which frankly addressed the past shortcomings of the department in dealing with non-white applicants, and the support the report received at the most senior level in the FCO, was in many ways a watershed moment.

The FCO continues to face significant challenges, not least stemming from the slow starvation of resources that has left it facing almost impossible choices in the face of expectations that the UK should remain a tier 1 global power. Yet amidst this, Brexit has actually catalysed much needed internal discussion, as well as fresh thinking and openness to innovation, which in time may yet be seen to be instrumental in positioning the UK for the flexibility and resourcefulness it will surely need in the uncertain years ahead.

Despite challenges, the idea of bringing in external expertise to bolster and refresh UK diplomacy has much to recommend it. However, the most significant change may yet come from within the FCO itself.

The appointment of Jeremy Hunt comes amidst turmoil on many fronts for the U.K. Almost eclipsed by the ongoing struggle over our future relationship with Europe, a woman in Wiltshire has died apparently at the hands of a Russian nerve agent. At the same time a critical NATO summit is taking place this week that may decide our wider capacity to confront wider Renewed Russian aggression. President Trump himself has just arrived in the UK, along with all the volatility that has accompanied his presidency so far, and one result of this, a global trade war embracing the world’s largest economies, is kicking off. The world is not in a good place, and the U.K. and its people are in many respects, on the front line more than we might realise.

Where to start? Mr Hunt is fortunate that, despite decades of cuts, the Foreign Office retains considerable policy expertise to brief him on options for addressing all of these challenges and more. What may surprise him is the sheer scale of the difference in level of resources available to him, moving from the second largest spending government department, to almost the smallest. The FCO fills both the ‘first responder’, ‘urgent’, ‘planned’ and ‘rehabilitative’ role in most interactions between the UK and the world on running costs of around £1 Billion – less than 1% of the NHS budget. From this money the Foreign Office staffs nearly 270 embassies and offices around the world with over 14,000 people. That the organisation is able to continue to wield UK influence in the face of the rising tide of challenges globally and the volatility in leadership over recent years is a huge testament to the teamwork, sheer commitment and hard work of the FCO’s staff.

The other aspect that may strike him is the lack of any real national public engagement with or awareness of the work of his new department. In many ways the FCO has been at best semi-detached from the country it serves, with very little of the public warmth of feeling or familiarity which embraces and sometimes encumbers the NHS. Of course, the new Secretary of State may understandably find this refreshing after some years of being under the intense spotlight. Yet he might reflect that, despite all the irritations it can cause, that huge reservoir of public support for the purpose , if not always the methods, of the NHS, is something British diplomacy could benefit from. This is even more the case given the emergence of a multiplicity of new international actors, in the UK and around the world – whether cities, devolved administrations, large public bodies, charities, media groups or diaspora groups, all interacting and competing in an ever more complex global ecosystem. For democratic and open societies this ‘soft power’ is of huge benefit – drawing in credibility and relationships of trust that the ‘hard power’ institutions of officialdom cannot hope to match.

Now is a propitious time to be thinking about this ‘soft power’. Today, Portland PR launched the latest iteration of it’s influential ‘Soft Power 30’ index ranking those countries with the most potent soft power globally. Yesterday, the British Council, City of London and British Foreign Policy Group hosted a meeting at the Guildhall of some of the UK’s most significant soft power actors to discuss the UK’s Government’s proposed ‘Soft Power Strategy’ and what it means. Soft power is usually discussed as a mechanism for external projection into the world. Less remarked is its ability to reach inward and connect local communities to international issues. This is particularly important for the UK at such a volatile time when certain communities may understandably see ‘the foreign’ largely as a source of threat. For a country such as the UK so economically and security dependent on remaining engaged and open internationally, engaging with and addressing these concerns is just as valuable for our cities, regions and other major institutions as engaging outwards into the world.

The new Secretary of State is well placed to draw on his experience engaging with those restless, combative but passionate communities of support around the NHS, and how, for all its faults it has delivered a very British source of influence. International diplomacy will likely never yield the passion or immediacy of the NHS, but it is arguably as important if not more so to our health and wellbeing. As Mr Hunt well knows, such a diverse and impassioned set of communities of interest provide real headaches for politicians and civil servants. However the alternative may be less attractive still, for without innovation in the way the UK defines and pursues its national interests, the traditional Whitehall centric model risks diminishment in a rising tide of diverse national ‘soft power’ voices and interests that could end up pulling in dangerously different directions.

So to the surprise of some, including perhaps himself, Mr Hunt may just be one of the few politicians with the experience and expertise to understand how to manage a process of change whereby the FCO embeds itself more effectively as the link between the UK and the world. Managing a more effective engagement with the UK’s Soft Power is increasingly important to achieve that, and to building a renewed and strengthened 21st Century diplomacy that can take on the major challenges facing the UK, and the world.

Headlines ahead of Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Tom Tugendhat’s RUSI speech today trailed it as a controversial endorsement for Boris Johnson after months of talk of rivalry between two very different foreign policy styles. Yet although there was a nod to that gossip when he quipped ‘’We need to do something you might not expect me to say. We need to give Boris Johnson more power”, there was a far more substantive concern underlying that call. Tom Tugendhat was adding to growing warnings that the UK is entering uncharted and increasingly dangerous international waters without sufficient strategic investment, coordination or direction in our foreign policy. Not only that; but the frustration was palpable in his reminder that the UK has the tools to be a significant and positive global actor in its own and global interests. Tom referred to the UK’s globally recognised world class national assets when it comes to our insight, influence, trade, alliances and force –  the ‘five fingers of a foreign policy – a hand of friendship which can if necessary be clenched into a fist’. Yet to truly draw on those assets there needs to be nothing short of a ‘revolution’ at the heart of government, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) made the ‘strategic engine of our foreign policy’. This in turn requires a bringing together of all the international functions of government under the Foreign Secretary and coordinated by the FCO (though on defence he was tellingly ambiguous).

Tom Tugendhat is undeniably one of the most innovative thinkers in Parliament on foreign policy issues. But critics who say this is part of Tom Tugendhat’s campaign to be Foreign Secretary will inevitably accuse him of Empire building even before he has become Emperor. The call in particular to bring foreign aid under the purview of the FCO will be red rag to the highly influential international development advocacy lobby. They claim to be backed by public opinion in asserting aid is at its most effective when aimed purely at poverty alleviation, and it is undermined when used for wider UK advantage. His ideas for using Common Law as a ‘soft power’ tool of foreign policy may provoke similar concerns in the legal world.

Yet the need for a fundamental rethink of how and who delivers our foreign policy is a theme that is at the core of the work of the British Foreign Policy Group. Tom’s calls for a more strategic approach echoes previous BFPG reports, including a report he helped launch in Parliament last week arguing for greater investment in all the government departments delivering the ‘five fingers of foreign policy’ he refers to, as well as the “Rising Power” report published in November 2017, which makes the case for a foreign policy strategy that integrates trade, defence, and diplomacy.

One aspect that he only touched on is captured in his statement that foreign policy must start ‘…at home. Because a foreign policy that works for the British people is one that builds on their values and promotes their interests’. Here he is absolutely right. The BFPG has hosted events around the UK asking people from local and regional business, government, educational and other professional backgrounds what they want from our foreign policy. Tom would be heartened by the themes, which largely echo his own around values, practical delivery and ambition. But what he doesn’t mention is the frustration that these concerns seem largely ignored by a metropolitan London elite looking out for its own concerns at the expense of Britain beyond the M25.  Whether this perception is true misses the point of the real visceral resentment it kicks up, resentment that undermines not only our foreign policy, but our national solidarity at a time, as Tom points out, that we need it more than we have done for many years. To his credit he has offered to engage with audiences around the UK, and the Foreign Affairs Committee which he Chairs has begun to host sessions outside London. So perhaps for his next speech we can encourage him, and other influential foreign policy voices, to swap the policy world of the London thinktank scene for an audience in Cardiff, Glasgow or Manchester. Watch this space, for we may be seeing the birth of a quiet revolution in how the UK engages with itself, and with the world.

 

*Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament. 

To read the report click HERE or on the image below.

“The Price of Freedom? A 3% GDP Target for Securing UK International Interests” discusses whether our current spending (around 2.75% of our GDP in 2016/2017) is sufficient to protect and promote our interests and values internationally at a time of unprecedented change in our international circumstances. A growing body of evidence suggests the UK is not investing enough to maintain its relative security, prosperity or influence in the face of growing international volatility. This paper raises some of the issues and explores how additional resourcing might be innovatively deployed to modernise and extend on the considerable capacity the UK benefits from in pursuit of our international interests.

To read online click HERE or on the image below