Former Diplomats Propose Abolishing Elitist Foreign Office, Replacing it with a New Department for International Affairs
A group of former senior diplomats and officials have called for the abolition of the Foreign Office and its replacement with a new Department for International Affairs.
They argue that the Foreign Office is elitist, outdated, and unable to deliver a clear mandate.
The proposed new department would have a broader remit, focusing on promoting Britain's prosperity and security through better coordination of strategy on trade, aid, development, and climate change, in addition to traditional foreign policy.
The Foreign Office responded by stating that it has clearly defined priorities.
The authors of the text recommend that Parliament establish permanent objectives and mandates for a new international department to ensure long-term policy consistency, rather than short-term changes with each new minister.
They propose that the government commit to spending 1% of national income on the department's international priorities, similar to the current 2% spent on defense.
The authors, including former cabinet secretary Lord Sedwill, ex-Foreign Office director general Moazzam Malik, and Tom Fletcher, a former ambassador and foreign affairs adviser to several prime ministers, presented these recommendations in a pamphlet titled "The World in 2040: Renewing the UK's Approach to International Affairs." The ideas were developed during a two-day conference in Oxford involving former ministers, national security advisers, and senior civil servants.
The authors criticize the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) for its inability to deliver a clear mandate, prioritize, and allocate resources effectively.
They describe the FCDO as functioning like a private office for the foreign secretary, responding to their immediate concerns.
The merger between the FCDO and the Department for International Development was also unsuccessful.
The authors suggest renaming the department as the Department for International Affairs or Global Affairs to signify a new role and move away from its past, which they describe as elitist and rooted in the past.
The physical location of the Foreign Office on King Charles Street further reinforces this perception.
The text suggests that modernizing the Foreign Office, including removing colonial era decorations, could help create a more open working culture and signal Britain's future as a mid-sized power.
The Foreign Office, built in the 1860s, is a symbol of Britain's imperial past with many paintings depicting its history.
The authors argue that Britain needs to clarify its purpose, history, interests, and assets as a mid-sized power and form new partnerships with other middle powers, as it cannot solely rely on traditional alliances with the US and Europe.
The text suggests that Britain's future security and prosperity will depend on economic and social relationships with regional powers, particularly in Asia.
To build new partnerships, the UK should be open to sharing rights in multilateral institutions with emerging countries and accept new allies with less aligned interests.
The UK should adopt a more humble and respectful approach instead of projecting an outdated image of greatness.
The text also recommends learning from mid-sized powers like Norway, Canada, Switzerland, and Japan, who use their size and independence to influence the world stage.
The text discusses the proposal for a new international affairs department in the UK, which would be responsible for long-term strategy and policy, while implementation would be carried out by more autonomous agencies.
The proposal was met with disagreement from Downing Street, who defended the Foreign Office and its role in promoting UK interests.
The merger of diplomacy and development in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) was highlighted as a successful move to better address global challenges.
The FCDO also announced a review to ensure effective use of funds and policy work, and building capability for the future.
The prime minister did not agree that the Foreign Office was elitist, and defended the importance of being proud of the UK's history while looking forward.
The proposed new department would have a broader remit, focusing on promoting Britain's prosperity and security through better coordination of strategy on trade, aid, development, and climate change, in addition to traditional foreign policy.
The Foreign Office responded by stating that it has clearly defined priorities.
The authors of the text recommend that Parliament establish permanent objectives and mandates for a new international department to ensure long-term policy consistency, rather than short-term changes with each new minister.
They propose that the government commit to spending 1% of national income on the department's international priorities, similar to the current 2% spent on defense.
The authors, including former cabinet secretary Lord Sedwill, ex-Foreign Office director general Moazzam Malik, and Tom Fletcher, a former ambassador and foreign affairs adviser to several prime ministers, presented these recommendations in a pamphlet titled "The World in 2040: Renewing the UK's Approach to International Affairs." The ideas were developed during a two-day conference in Oxford involving former ministers, national security advisers, and senior civil servants.
The authors criticize the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) for its inability to deliver a clear mandate, prioritize, and allocate resources effectively.
They describe the FCDO as functioning like a private office for the foreign secretary, responding to their immediate concerns.
The merger between the FCDO and the Department for International Development was also unsuccessful.
The authors suggest renaming the department as the Department for International Affairs or Global Affairs to signify a new role and move away from its past, which they describe as elitist and rooted in the past.
The physical location of the Foreign Office on King Charles Street further reinforces this perception.
The text suggests that modernizing the Foreign Office, including removing colonial era decorations, could help create a more open working culture and signal Britain's future as a mid-sized power.
The Foreign Office, built in the 1860s, is a symbol of Britain's imperial past with many paintings depicting its history.
The authors argue that Britain needs to clarify its purpose, history, interests, and assets as a mid-sized power and form new partnerships with other middle powers, as it cannot solely rely on traditional alliances with the US and Europe.
The text suggests that Britain's future security and prosperity will depend on economic and social relationships with regional powers, particularly in Asia.
To build new partnerships, the UK should be open to sharing rights in multilateral institutions with emerging countries and accept new allies with less aligned interests.
The UK should adopt a more humble and respectful approach instead of projecting an outdated image of greatness.
The text also recommends learning from mid-sized powers like Norway, Canada, Switzerland, and Japan, who use their size and independence to influence the world stage.
The text discusses the proposal for a new international affairs department in the UK, which would be responsible for long-term strategy and policy, while implementation would be carried out by more autonomous agencies.
The proposal was met with disagreement from Downing Street, who defended the Foreign Office and its role in promoting UK interests.
The merger of diplomacy and development in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) was highlighted as a successful move to better address global challenges.
The FCDO also announced a review to ensure effective use of funds and policy work, and building capability for the future.
The prime minister did not agree that the Foreign Office was elitist, and defended the importance of being proud of the UK's history while looking forward.
Translation:
Translated by AI
