Last week, we finished the first series on our podcast. It was a pleasure to get the opportunity to speak to people across the diplomatic spectrum – from former ambassadors with decades of experience to a new generation cutting their teeth on the issues of the day to those who attempt to bridge international relations in their own way. While we work on bringing you the next season, we thought we’d take a moment to reflect on some of the lessons from the series:
The Importance of the Public
Politics, at its core, is the gathering of people to achieve or secure some sort of undertaking. It allows us to achieve together that which we are unable to achieve by ourselves. Policy is the practical instrument of this and for it to be effective, it requires communicators to explain to the polis why resources are being gathered and deployed and to what end they are aimed at.
One of the striking points from almost all of the podcasts was that foreign policy is hampered by the disconnect between domestic publics and their country’s actions abroad. Besides crisis moments or questions of moral weight, people largely ignore what their representatives are up to abroad. Most of the time, this doesn’t matter. There are professionals grappling with the gritty details and life has enough demands to not stress about the wider world.
The downside is that this limits the boldness and nuance of an attempted foreign policy. Boldness, because the demands of a policy that are often intangible and only realised at points of crisis are too high for a public that has daily challenges to deal with. Nuance, because the decisions made as part of enacting foreign policy grapple with uncertain futures as much as they do realised presents and do so with limited information.
Foreign policy makers struggle to engage with domestic media as much as any other branch of politics, if not more so. Nonetheless, if thought could be given to how foreign affairs and foreign policy could communicated with the public; if vision and direction and commitments could be explained and made relevant to the public then perhaps there is some space for a more invigorated approach to world politics.
Imperial Legacy
It has been written often enough that one of the tendencies of the British public is to see itself as a great power. The trappings of empire remain between our position on the UN Security Council as one of the Permanent Five as well as our leadership of the vague and misunderstood Commonwealth.
Our conversations with John and Berk highlight the opportunities and challenges that face a post-imperial Britain. Berk’s insight into the imperial legacy found in Cyprus is one that demands further scrutiny into the responsibility of a country that has left another so devastated. It requires a committed engagement to the improvement and recovery of a country without imposing an idea of what that improvement should be – nurturing the organic so-to-speak. Doing this while balancing the competing interests of different parties such as Greece and Türkiye on top of our own interests in the region is tricky but must nonetheless be attempted. In a sense, this imperial legacy creates a distinction between responsibility and mandate – the UK does not have a right to interfere, but it does have a responsibility to support when such support is invited.
The first conversation with John complements and contrasts this message in equal measure. On the one hand, the leftover fruits of Empire such as the Commonwealth are not some rotten waste to be discarded but rather still a tool to cynically maintain influence and optimistically provide a forum for states in need of a place to voice their concerns. An emphatic point in the conversation was that such a forum benefits from its historical ethos; it is a demonstration of enduring commitment even if this commitment was once to successful domination.
The history of the empire is just that – history. Too often, it is a history that goes unnoticed and therefore dismissed by a public that is unsure of what acknowledging such history really entails. But the story of the Commonwealth is still being written and offers the UK the opportunity to approach its international commitments with a focus on responsible collaboration
Diplo-cracy
Almost all of the guests shared their thoughts on the role of the common person in diplomacy. Whether that relates to the public in general or, in the case of both Berk and Neville, individuals like you and I, there is a part to be played by those not formally involved in diplomacy. We all shape and contribute to the environment that, scaled up, becomes the world of international affairs. Yet, it is important to not overstate how much influence a normal person can have without the backing of a state.
Diplomacy is an ancient profession for a reason. Harold Nicolson traces the roots of the profession to Ancient Greece, the Byzantines, the Romans, and onwards. The profession requires an understanding of politics and economics, but it also requires an ability to sense what a people are thinking and what the other individuals in the negotiating room are thinking. There are subtleties and nuances that are not easily communicated, and the profession is a testament and commitment from a state to understand such subtleties.
Such nuance is evident in our conversations with John and Peter, but it was our conversation with Britt that makes it clear. To hear everyone out, to make sure that everyone feels like they might be able to achieve something at the table, to think through complicated and sensitive issues is an effort that above all requires time. Time the public or an individual simply does not have. Diplomacy is not, therefore, something that the public can easily tinker with to good effect.
Final Thoughts
Looking to the future, the UK has to face the challenge of understanding itself better. Policy can only be generated and communicated when there is enough sense of self to create a clarity about the goals and aspirations a state might have. This means improving the relationship between the public and foreign policy, and navigating the tangle of British media. It also means coming to terms with its imperial history so that our convictions and commitments can be earnest and convincing – as in the case of the Commonwealth – while our actions and work is appreciative of the scarred legacy to be found in various countries – as in the case of Cyprus.
Diplomacy is neither a simple nor an easy mission; it is one that runs parallel to defence and war but with the ultimate aim of persuading and collaborating instead of compelling other actors toward an end. As Peter pointed out, the demands of security cannot be ignored but there is something lacking in the fact that the budget for diplomacy is a “rounding error” by comparison to that of defence.
With that in mind, the British Institute of Global Affairs is excited to announce that our next season will focus on the topic of Security, Strategy, and Defence.