Edward Elliott – BFPG – British Foreign Policy Group

NATO’s ‘brain-death’ linked to its members’ lack of foreign policy strategy

Edward Elliott – BFPG — Thu, 21 Nov 2019 10:24:56 +0000

Emmanuel Macron’s recent interview in the Economist stirred controversy when he declared NATO as “brain-dead” as America “turns its back on the European project”. Regardless of whether one agrees with his assessment, Macron has sparked an important conversation about the future of NATO’s leadership, and more strategic foreign policy from NATO’s member states.

If NATO is lacking strategic focus, it is primarily because its members are struggling with the same lack of direction when it comes to foreign policy. The UK, the US, and the EU are all facing similar challenges, which make it harder for them to take a leading role in ensuring NATO’s mission and purpose remains relevant in the years to come.

Under Donald Trump, the United States has pursued an erratic foreign policy, flip-flopping between positions to a varying degree of success. On November 15th Trump tweeted: “The US now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy … it is called, quite simply, America First!”. But this is not a strategy; at best it is an objective, at worst an empty slogan.

In Syria, Trump recently ordered the retreat of US troops, causing a huge media stir, but shortly after discreetly sent additional troops back in. Even some of these regular features of his foreign policy—unpredictability and disengagement—fail to offer much strategic coherence.

If the confusion around US foreign policy sounds familiar to the confusion in the UK, it is because we too have been caught in a trap of foreign policy by slogan rather than strategy. Back in March 2018 I wrote about the dangers of not backing up the foreign policy strapline “Global Britain” with substantial strategy. And whilst the government has brought out new, significant policies (Fusion Doctrine, the FCO’s Africa Strategy, and a Soft Power strategy in the works), the top-level strategy to explain the UK’s role in the world post-Brexit is still lacking.

Sure, Brexit has taken over so much political bandwidth, but that doesn’t make the need for a strategy any less important.

What next?

“Brain-dead” suggests a need to resuscitate rather than implying NATO is actually “dead”. This is an important distinction. In this power vacuum and strategic void, there is also opportunity.

Macron and the EU are keen to seize the chance. Their incoming High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Spaniard Josep Borell, praised Macron for addressing the “elephant in the room” in his Economist interview. This is in line with his approach to EU foreign policy and what he aims to bring to the role. His opening speech mentioned the need for a more “geopolitical Commission”, argued that the EU needed to “learn the language of power” and talked about an EU “world vision”. His rhetoric certainly suggests he doesn’t plan to shy away from this strategic challenge.

As ever though, turning concepts into strategy is not easy, in particular given the collection of interests within the EU. Encouragingly for the EU it is not just Macron and Borell making these claims. On the same day as Macron’s speech, Germany’s defence minister, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (or ‘AKK’), spoke at a different event. She emphasized “both the willingness and ability to do more than its fair share are dwindling in the United States. This is why we must step up in future, just like others who are defending a reliable, free and democratic order.” In much more controlled language, the German defence minister was also stating the need to “step up”, showing some degree of EU alignment on this issue.

The UK also has the chance to act and formulate a coherent, realistic, and appropriately-funded strategy for its future role in the world. If the strategy is for a truly “global Britain”, it could lead the way for the US and the EU, its two closest allies, and help provide some of the leadership that Western foreign policy as a whole appears to be lacking.

Whilst the upcoming general election will undoubtedly make significant changes impossible, the NATO leaders meeting in London this December will provide an opportunity for the UK to signal its intent to become more strategic in its foreign policy, specifically with regards to NATO. Failure to do so, however, could leave the UK lagging at a time where its role in the world could get further lost.

The post NATO’s ‘brain-death’ linked to its members’ lack of foreign policy strategy appeared first on British Foreign Policy Group.

The perfect match? On foreign policy there is more uniting the two leadership candidates than separating them

Edward Elliott – BFPG — Wed, 17 Jul 2019 08:27:45 +0000

As the two-man contest to become the next PM comes to a close, what might the UK’s foreign policy under their leadership look like? For a contest between a current and a former Foreign Secretary, foreign policy (Brexit aside) has been surprisingly absent for the most part from the contest to become the UK’s next Prime Minister.

When President Trump criticised the UK Ambassador to the US, Sir Kim Darroch, Johnson refused to condemn Trump whilst Hunt did. This propelled foreign policy to the forefront of the debate and showed a potential difference on approach to the US. It also showed how personality and style could play a role in defining their differences. But how else might their foreign policy vary?

Big Ideas – setting the tone in their maiden speeches

The substance of their foreign policy positions has been relatively similar; a realisation that the upcoming departure from the EU will affect the UK’s international standing, and a series of policy initiatives to counter that and keep the UK’s important role as a leading global nation. Their maiden speeches as Foreign Secretary show some of the differences in detail.

Johnson’s was the introduction to the world of ‘Global Britain’, an outward looking UK that is engaged internationally. There have been challenges providing the substance for such an ambitious yet vague goal, but there have also been clear outcomes in the FCO, not least the creation of a new cross-HMG Global Britain Board and a Global Britain Taskforce. As Prime Minister, Johnson would likely continue with this ambition for the UK’s foreign policy, which is primarily about re-branding the UK’s traditionally outward-looking foreign policy.

Hunt’s maiden speech as Foreign Secretary was about the “invisible chain” of the UK linking the world’s democracies. Soft power: the power of attraction from cultural, sporting, educational and other UK assets has been a central feature of Hunt’s tenure, with the Foreign Office’s newly created Soft Power Taskforce currently working on a Soft Power Strategy. It isn’t only on soft power that Hunt aims to be strategic on foreign policy, he has also repeatedly mentioned the need for a foreign policy strategy for the UK.

Departmental Structures and Funding

Over the past few years, the responsibility for the UK Government’s foreign policy has been shared out across a growing number of departments. The UK arguably has 4 key (primarily) foreign policy focussed departments: FCO, MOD, DIT, DfID – with Cabinet Office (largely through the NSC) taking on a growing foreign policy portfolio and DExEU inevitably having an important international angle.

The proliferation of foreign policy responsibilities across multiple departments has not been to the liking of all. Boris Johnson has not hidden his dislike of the current system in the past although it remains to be seen whether he would go forward with the sorts of changes that have been previously rumoured: when Mr Johnson was Foreign Secretary there was a push to merge DfID back to FCO, with the shared ministerial responsibilities between the two widely seen as a step towards that goal. He has also called for the definition of aid spending not to be tied so strictly to the OECD definition, allowing more of the UK’s 0.7% aid budget to be allocated to other areas of foreign policy such as peacekeeping.

One of the big challenges facing recent Foreign Secretaries has been securing sustainable funding for the Foreign Office. A recent BFPG report by Sam Goodman showed the historic decline in funding and the challenges of having an underfunded FCO. The Foreign Office has committed to increasing staff by 1,000 by 2020, initially as part of Johnson’s ‘Global Britain Boost’ and now being promoted by Hunt. Yet neither of them have made strong public calls for more funding for the FCO, despite the needed increases being relatively very small sums of money in terms of government spending.

Hunt, as foreign secretary, has instead been calling for a rise in defence expenditure from 2% of GDP to 2.5% (£15bn) over the next 5 years. Despite the importance he places on soft power, in practice Hunt has been more publicly keen to bolster UK hard power too.

Regional Focus

A comparison of the countries visited by Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt as Foreign Secretary (Blue = countries visited by Hunt only, Green = countries visited by Johnson only, Yellow = countries visited by Both)

As you can see from the map, both foreign secretaries visited our key allies in Europe – France and Germany. Hunt appears to have chosen strategic partners like China, the US, and growing African nations like Nigeria, Ghana and Ethiopia to visit. Johnson did visit key allies like Australia and New Zealand, but also seems to have opted to visit those parts of the world where we might want stronger ties post-Brexit, such as Thailand and Latin America. Johnson’s visit to Latin America was a significant one as it was the first time in 25 years a Foreign Secretary had been to Argentina and first time in 50 years that one had been to Peru.

Johnson also made a trip to Africa, visiting the Gambia, Ghana, Somalia and Ethiopia. Unlike Hunt, he also visited Eastern and Central Europe including Kosovo, Serbia, Czech Republic, Turkey, Greece, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine and Cyprus. Johnson also visited Pakistan, Afghanistan and India in central and southern Asia, which Hunt did not visit. Instead, Hunt seems to have favoured visits to the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iran, Oman and Yemen and Asian countries including Singapore and Malaysia.

Of course, the extent to which this can inform us about which countries Hunt and Johnson prioritise or see as strategically important is limited – visits could be determined by long-term plans, current crises (as in the cases of Iran, Yemen, Libya and Burma), or multilateral events hosted in one country (as in the case of one of Hunt’s trips to France and Luxembourg). Equally, Johnson was Foreign Secretary for a longer period of time, and therefore was able to visit more countries. Still, the map does provide us with an interesting visualisation as to the different international trips the two foreign secretaries made.

Iran, Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia

Johnson and Hunt have largely similar stances on China, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Hunt has recently appeared slightly more bullish on Hong Kong – refusing to rule out sanctions on China and the expulsion of diplomats following recent protests in Hong Kong – and Iran – sending a second Royal Navy warship to the Gulf this week, and claiming that Middle Eastern states acquiring nuclear weapons posed ‘an existential threat to mankind’. However, this stance can largely be explained by the crises Hunt is currently facing as foreign secretary (in Hong Kong and Iran). When Johnson was Foreign Secretary, for example, he criticized Saudi Arabia for engaging in proxy wars in the Middle East (a comment which led to him being rebuked by Downing Street). Both Hunt and Johnson allowed UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia to continue during their tenures as Foreign Secretary, despite the country’s military campaign in Yemen. It is worth noting that Johnson has said he would not support the US in military strikes against Iran, stressing the need for diplomatic solutions instead.

On Russia, both Hunt and Johnson have been firm. Hunt has perhaps appeared slightly more so, pledging to increase funding to defence as Prime Minister, saying that the UK will play a ‘leading global role in deterring aggressive Russian activity on Europe’s shores’. Johnson has not opted for such confrontational language, although he did say that Putin will be ‘proved wrong by history’ after Putin suggested Western liberalism was ‘obsolete’.

The US

Until the recent episode surrounding Trump’s criticism of Sir Kim Darroch, and the Ambassador’s subsequent resignation, it could be argued that there was not a big difference in the approach to the US between the candidates. Both candidates have been playing nice to Trump and talking up the special relationship over the course of the last few months. Hunt said he agreed 150% with a Trump retweet of Katie Hopkins attacking the Mayor of London, whilst Boris has stated that he would travel to the US very soon after starting the job to secure a trade deal. Trump himself has previously supported both candidates, “Yup, I like him” (Hunt) and saying that Johnson was “a very good guy, very talented”.

For Boris, the Sir Kim Darroch episode was an opportunity to show himself as a true Trump ally, perhaps thinking ahead to his relationship with the US president rather than how to appeal to Conservative party voters. In contrast, as Mayor of London he had previously not hesitated to call out his “quite stupefying ignorance that makes him, frankly, unfit to hold the office of president of the United States”. Since then, when asked to comment about President Trump’s comments to fellow US citizen congresswomen to “go back and fix their countries, both candidates reverted to a more traditional stance: firmly but diplomatically criticising Trump’s choice of language whilst reaffirming the importance of the US-UK relationship.

Style and Rhetoric

Regardless of the policy area, Johnson and Hunt have a different rhetoric and different style. When it comes to foreign policy Johnson is frequently associated with Brexit and a rhetoric that harks back to Britain’s past as a “strong independent country”. But whilst it is true that he has recently tended towards adopting Churchillian language in his speeches and comments, this has not always been the case.

A soon to be published extensive discourse analysis of Johnson’s speeches and article carried out by leading UK foreign policy academic, Victoria Honeyman shows that as Mayor of London, MP, and Cabinet Minister Johnson did not talk about the UK’s international position in this manner. This was despite the fact that the media often suggesting of their own accord that he did. However, since he left his post as Foreign Secretary and started preparing his campaign this changed.

This is potentially significant because it could indicate that whilst his current rhetoric on foreign policy has spun away from the more traditional pragmatic, liberal approach, this is very much an anomaly when one looks at his whole career. There is a strong case to be made that this is just campaign rhetoric and that as PM he would revert to his default.

Immigration

Last but not least, an area often seen as domestic policy, but ultimately one of the decisive factors when dealing with other countries: immigration. Whilst the details of their immigration plans remain to be seen, they both have said they will scrap Theresa May’s net immigration target of 100,000 – realising the obstacles this places on promoting the UK internationally as an open country.

Conclusion

It is true therefore that there could be small differences in substance and style between the two. Hunt could pursue a traditionally diplomatic yet innovatively strategic approach to UK foreign policy. Yet, aside from on defence it remains to be seen how he might fund such an approach. Under Johnson expect to hear more of Global Britain but it is worth also looking out for a potential change in rhetoric back towards a more traditional, liberal approach to UK foreign policy.

Yet on most issues there is consensus, reflective of wider common consensus on foreign policy in the UK – it is rarely a decisive element in elections for example. With Johnson the favourite to become the next Prime Minister, and a striking similarity between the substance of their foreign policy ideas, there is a strong likelihood that Johnson could keep Hunt in an international-facing role and work productively together towards shared goals and objectives.

Ultimately though their primary concern as PM will be delivering Brexit, a significant foreign policy challenge in itself. The extent to which they are able to achieve this, and the nature of the resulting deal or no-deal, will be an indicator of the extent to which they are able to put their stamp on the UK’s role in the world.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the BFPG. The BFPG is an independent not for profit organisation that encourages constructive, informed and considered opinions without taking an institutional position on any issue.

The post The perfect match? On foreign policy there is more uniting the two leadership candidates than separating them appeared first on British Foreign Policy Group.

Feeling Disengaged from UK Foreign Policy: the Gender Divide

Edward Elliott – BFPG — Tue, 02 Jul 2019 09:35:21 +0000

Recent polling carried out by BMG Research on behalf of the BFPG suggests that women in the UK feel notably less engaged on foreign policy than men, one of the more striking divides on foreign policy in Britain. ‘Engagement’ in this case is defined as the combination of active interest and self-reported knowledge on UK foreign policy.

A lot of the conversations taking place in the UK policy world around gender and foreign policy focus on what the UK can be doing to empower women internationally. The Department for International Development for example has a relatively new “Strategic Vision for Gender Equality” which focuses on supporting the poorest women and girls internationally. But this survey shows that when it comes to foreign policy, there is a serious disconnect around engaging women right here in the UK.

The Data

British women are 9% less likely than men to be actively interested and 19% less likely to feel informed on UK foreign policy.

When we compare the levels of self-reported knowledge with those from similar polling carried out in 2017, there is a notable overall increase of 5%. This increase only applied to men though, who are 11% more likely to feel more informed whilst women are actually 1% less likely to feel informed.

Women are also less likely to take a position on UK foreign policy issues, especially ones supporting an outward looking approach. Instead, there is a significant percentage of women that, unlike men, responded ‘don’t know’ to questions. There is a correlation between self-reported lack of knowledge and lack of support for the UK’s international ambitions, which leads to a notable difference between the results for men and women due to the striking difference on levels of perceived knowledge.

This correlation can be seen throughout the survey. Women were consistently less likely to support staying in any of the organisations polled. For example, only 48% of women want the UK to remain in the World Bank, with a surprisingly large number (32%) saying they didn’t know (those who hadn’t heard of the organisation were 11%). Women are 7% less likely than men to want the UK to spend more money on foreign policy, but they are also less likely to want to reduce spending (3%), with almost 1 in 5 women in our survey simply saying they don’t know.

Why does this matter?

This reported difference in engagement between men and women in the UK matters for two key reasons. The first is that the self-reported knowledge gap between men and women negatively affects women in the UK. This gap perpetuates the inaccessibility of foreign policy, which in turn can result in a feeling of disconnect, in particular for women. Addressing this gap is a beneficial move for Government, who currently lose out from a less engaged female audience that are in turn less likely to support their international policy.

It is not enough to look at current positive overall trends and say that the UK public is adequately informed. The positive trajectory in perceived public understanding of foreign policy over the last two years has been among men and so seems to be inaccessible or unavailable for women. A concerted, proactive approach is needed to help women feel more informed on foreign policy.

What can be done?

Many potential solutions to help better engage women with foreign policy issues are not new, but that doesn’t make them any less urgent. Female representation, across all sectors, is something recognised as vitally important in promoting inclusivity and in providing a more accurate representation of society. When it comes to foreign policy these positive changes also impact the shaping of policy, all of which in turn can lead to more interest and knowledge on the issues at hand for women.

Greater equality in the workplace, even outside the foreign policy space, can also help empower women to be informed and supportive of UK foreign policy. The section of the BFPG’s Behind Global Britain report on mobility gives some clues as to how this can impact change. According to the polling in this report, British women are currently much less likely to travel for work, both within the UK and abroad. These limitations on mobility are shown to have a link to opinion on foreign policy, generally associated with a more inwards looking approach to foreign policy.

What about the impacts of the policies themselves? As shown by the briefing paper on “Making post-Brexit Trade Gender Sensitive”, international trade can often reinforce pre-existing inequalities, meaning that women aren’t able to obtain the same benefits as men from it, and are often also one of the disadvantaged groups. Adopting a feminist foreign policy that works on addressing these inequalities, not only around trade but around diplomacy and defence related issues too has the potential to make a big difference.

As the UK departs the EU and starts to re-evaluate and re-think its foreign policy and its role in the world it should use the opportunity to build engagement across the UK, with an added focus on women. Ensuring women feel engaged on UK foreign policy is a unique opportunity to bring about positive change whilst also building broader credibility to the UK as it pushes to position itself at the forefront of the global fight for gender equality.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the BFPG. The BFPG is an independent not for profit organisation that encourages constructive, informed and considered opinions without taking an institutional position on any issue.

The post Feeling Disengaged from UK Foreign Policy: the Gender Divide appeared first on British Foreign Policy Group.

UK Government Foreign Policy Ministers

Edward Elliott – BFPG — Mon, 13 May 2019 10:45:09 +0000

The UK Government has recently announced its new ministers, and the BFPG has, for your convenience, put all the foreign policy related ministers (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department for International Development, Department for International Trade, Ministry of Defence) in one place.

The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP -Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Harriet Baldwin MP – Minister of State for Africa at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (also DfID)

The Rt Hon Sir Alan Duncan KCMG MP – Minister of State for Europe and the Americas at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Dr Andrew Murrison MP – Minister of State for the Middle East at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (also DfID)

The Rt Hon Mark Field MP – Minister of State for Asia and the Pacific at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Lord Ahman of Wimbledon – Minister of State for the Commonwealth and the UN at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The Rt Hon Rory Stewart OBE MP -Secretary of State for International Development

Harriet Baldwin MP – Minister of State for International Development (also FCO)

Dr Andrew Murrison MP – Minister of State for International Development (also FCO)

Baroness Sugg CBE – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development

The Rt Hon Penny Mordaunt MP -Secretary of State for Defence

The Rt Hon Earl Howe – Minister of State for Defence

Mark Lancaster TD MP -Minister of State for the Armed Forces

The Rt Hon Tobias Ellwood MP – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Defence People and Veterans

Stuart Andrew MP- Minister for Defence Procurement

The Rt Hon Liam Fox MP -Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade

George Hollingberry MP– Minister of State for Trade Policy

Graham Stuart MP – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Investment).

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the BFPG. The BFPG is an independent not for profit organisation that encourages constructive, informed and considered opinions without taking an institutional position on any issue.

The post UK Government Foreign Policy Ministers appeared first on British Foreign Policy Group.

Behind Global Britain: Public Opinion on the UK’s Role in the World

Edward Elliott – BFPG — Tue, 30 Apr 2019 01:00:56 +0000

A new report from the British Foreign Policy Group’s Edward Elliott and social researcher Sophia Gaston shows Britons are deeply divided about Britain’s future role in the world. Despite the government having adopted the ‘Global Britain’ mantra championed by Brexit campaigners to guide its foreign policy strategy, the report finds that those who voted Leave in the EU Referendum are consistently the least likely to support an active international role.

The report, BEHIND GLOBAL BRITAIN: PUBLIC OPINION ON THE UK’S ROLE IN THE WORLD is based on a new survey conducted with BMG Research. It reveals stark differences in preferences about the UK’s international role, based on age, education, geography and political affiliation – and highlights the role that inequalities in access to international opportunities play in shaping how Britons see the world.

To read online click HERE or on the image below

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the BFPG. The BFPG is an independent not for profit organisation that encourages constructive, informed and considered opinions without taking an institutional position on any issue.

The post Behind Global Britain: Public Opinion on the UK’s Role in the World appeared first on British Foreign Policy Group.

Manchester: Soft Power Entrepreneur

Edward Elliott – BFPG — Fri, 01 Mar 2019 09:00:15 +0000

The latest report from the BFPG “Manchester: Soft Power Entrepreneur” by David Adams, explains how Manchester has developed an enviable track record in building profile and relationships around the world. The report aims to help policy makers and others around the UK understand how and why Manchester has been particularly successful in its international outreach, and converting these into concrete outcomes with regards to jobs, investment and economic opportunities.

The foreword to this paper is written by Sir Howard Bernstein Strategic Advisor to Deloitte. He was formerly Chief Executive of Manchester City Council (1998-2017) and former Head of Paid Service for the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (2011-2017).

To read online click HERE or on the image below

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the BFPG. The BFPG is an independent not for profit organisation that encourages constructive, informed and considered opinions without taking an institutional position on any issue.

The post Manchester: Soft Power Entrepreneur appeared first on British Foreign Policy Group.

Revitalising UK-Latin America Engagement post-Brexit

Edward Elliott – BFPG — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:56:11 +0000

The latest British Foreign Policy Group report, “Revitalising UK-Latin America Engagement post-Brexit”, provides an extensive analysis of the UK’s foreign policy towards Latin America since 2010. In 2010, the UK announced a shift towards greater engagement with the region, called the Canning Agenda. This paper by Edward Elliott and Dr Thomas Mills highlights the successes and failures of the Canning Agenda in light of the 2018 G20 summit in Argentina, and the changes and impacts on UK foreign policy caused by Brexit. It builds on this analysis to provide innovative policy solutions for how best to maximise future engagement with a region that offers a great deal of potential to the UK, but is often ignored.

The foreword to this paper is written by Joanna Crellin, Her Majesty’s Trade Commissioner and Sao Paulo Consul-General,

To read online click HERE or on the image below

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the BFPG. The BFPG is an independent not for profit organisation that encourages constructive, informed and considered opinions without taking an institutional position on any issue.

The post Revitalising UK-Latin America Engagement post-Brexit appeared first on British Foreign Policy Group.

Announcement: The Rt Hon Gisela Stuart – new Honorary President of the British Foreign Policy Group

Edward Elliott – BFPG — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 11:02:51 +0000

We are pleased to announce that the Rt Hon Gisela Stuart will take up the role of Honorary President of the British Foreign Policy Group (BFPG), with immediate effect. Gisela is the second Honorary President to be appointed to the BFPG, with Sir Simon Fraser GCMG taking up the role last week.

Gisela has a wealth of experience in politics, with a particular concern to ensure UK foreign policy reflects and protects the interests of citizens across the UK. Gisela is Chair of Change Britain, an organisation set up to make a success of Britain’s exit of the EU. During the European Referendum campaign in 2016 she was Chair of the Vote Leave campaign. Previously she was the MP for Birmingham Edgbaston from 1997 until she stood down in 2017. As MP, amongst other things, she was on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Defence Select Committee, and Intelligence and Security Committee.

Tom Cargill, Executive Director of the BFPG said: “I’m very pleased Gisela has agreed to become our second Honorary President of the BFPG. Her tireless commitment to an effective, inclusive and genuinely national UK foreign policy conversation is at the heart of our work as the BFPG.

Gisela Stuart said: “ Now is the time to reach out to communities across the UK and build a sense of national purpose and ambition in our foreign policy that engages with the radically changing world in which we are living. I’m delighted to take up this honorary role with BFPG which I believe has a significant role to play in changing the way our country develops its international relationships ’.

Gisela and Sir Simon Fraser will be joined by a third President with complementary backgrounds and skills.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the BFPG. The BFPG is an independent not for profit organisation that encourages constructive, informed and considered opinions without taking an institutional position on any issue.

The post Announcement: The Rt Hon Gisela Stuart – new Honorary President of the British Foreign Policy Group appeared first on British Foreign Policy Group.

Announcement: Sir Simon Fraser GCMG: new Honorary President of the British Foreign Policy Group

Edward Elliott – BFPG — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 12:32:42 +0000

We are pleased to announce that Sir Simon Fraser GCMG, Managing Partner of Flint Global, will take up the role of the first Honorary President of the British Foreign Policy Group (BFPG), with immediate effect.

Sir Simon brings to the role an unusual combination of private sector, diplomatic and not for profit expertise. He established Flint Global in 2015, a business advisory firm which has rapidly emerged as a highly respected source of practical expertise and support in many sectors. Sir Simon is also one of the founding trustees of the Patchwork Foundation, a newly established charity which works to promote and encourage the positive integration of under-represented, deprived and minority communities into British democracy and civil society. He is also Deputy Chairman of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House).

In his public service career, Sir Simon was the Head of the UK Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service, and before that he led the UK Department for Business and held a succession of senior roles in the British Government and the European Commission. He was the UK Civil Service Champion for Inclusion and Diversity.

Tom Cargill, Executive Director of the BFPG said: “The UK has rarely been so in need of a mature, inclusive national conversation about our place in the world and our international ambitions as a country. This is the purpose of the British Foreign Policy Group. Welcoming Simon as Honorary President will enable us to take our work to a new level through his extensive experience of business, diplomacy, public policy and inclusion.

Sir Simon Fraser said: “I’m delighted to take up this honorary role with BFPG. It is time for an open, realistic, evidence-led and genuinely diverse national debate about our place in the world and how we can flourish in changing circumstances. BFPG aims to reach beyond traditional policy circles, because we all have a stake and a voice in our national security, prosperity and influence. We want as many people as possible to contribute to seeking answers to the challenges we face and creating opportunities.’

Simon will subsequently be joined by two further Honorary Presidents with complementary backgrounds and skills.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the BFPG. The BFPG is an independent not for profit organisation that encourages constructive, informed and considered opinions without taking an institutional position on any issue.

The post Announcement: Sir Simon Fraser GCMG: new Honorary President of the British Foreign Policy Group appeared first on British Foreign Policy Group.

Job Opportunity: Internship

Edward Elliott – BFPG — Fri, 18 May 2018 15:08:28 +0000

*This role closed on 31st May 2018*

The BFPG is looking for an intern to join our small team based in London starting June 11th 2018. The intern will have a high level of responsibility and involvement.

The intern’s role would involve a range of different tasks including:

Administrative support
Assisting in the planning and running of BFPG events
Research for BFPG publications and articles
Assisting with BFPG Communications (website, social media)

The ideal candidate will meet the following requirements:

Educated to degree level or equivalent in a relevant subject
Excellent oral and written English
IT proficiency (including social media)
Capable of working both as part of a small team and independently
Highly motivated and committed to the aims of the BFPG

This internship is a paid internship (London Living Wage – £10.20 per hour) for a period of 3 months with the possibility of a full-time offer upon completion.

Closing Date/Interview Dates/Start Date

The final day for submitting an application is 31 May 2018. Interviews will take place in the week commencing 4th June 2018; the starting date for the internship is the 11th of June 2018.

Application Details

To apply, please email your CV and a cover letter (maximum of one page) explaining why you are interested in the role and why you are the right person for it with the subject line: “Internship Application 2018” to edward.elliott@bfpg.org.uk.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the BFPG. The BFPG is an independent not for profit organisation that encourages constructive, informed and considered opinions without taking an institutional position on any issue.

The post Job Opportunity: Internship appeared first on British Foreign Policy Group.