Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that he was going to subsume the Department for International Development (DFID), into the Foreign Office. His rationale was that he wanted to bring the UK’s foreign policy objectives in better sync with each other, and that this will now be led from within the newly formed Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
One of the Prime Minister’s key reasons behind this latest shift was that DFID has not best served the interests of the UK taxpayer or UK industry. Both of these, he believes, have too often been side-lined when it comes to providing UK-funded support abroad.
Although many do not agree with this argument, and believe that DFID should remain in its current capacity as both a life-saving tool for millions around the world, as well as a leading part of the UK’s soft power strategy abroad, the stated objectives of bringing coherence to foreign objectives makes sense. But this change will not meet that objective.
The Department for International Trade was founded by Theresa May in July of 2016, with the objective of striking new trade agreements with non-EU partners in the wake of the Brexit vote. Since then the role of DIT has expanded with specific sections dedicated to working with DFID, No10, the FCO and almost any other government department you can think of. It has become a department responsible for securing a prosperous and free-trading UK with country and sector specialists spread throughout the London and regional offices as well as in each Embassy and High Commission overseas.
The work of the DIT is incredibly important for the long-term health of the UK economy, as well as Britain’s standing in the world and for all the negativity surrounding it in the press, its work and aims should be applauded.
However, the fact that the DIT remains an independent entity whilst DFID is subsumed into the newly formed “FCDO” undermines the idea that this is a matter of policy and priority alignment. If this move were really about ensuring that everyone with major foreign policy objectives and responsibilities were completely aligned, then the logical move would be to take the DIT in house.
The practicalities of doing so are not nearly as complicated as many would like to imagine. The government already has an overarching strategy for almost all overseas interaction called the “prosperity agenda”. The focus of this is to place a numerical value on work being done, whether this is the prospective value of an agreement signed between governments or the value of supporting a UK business as it develops trade links abroad.
Since the Brexit vote in 2016 there has not been a visit from a foreign leader to the UK that has not touched on trade and inward investment. In my own, relatively short time in DIT, I met several hundred business leaders, travelling all over the world with senior Cabinet Ministers and accompanying business delegations, as the UK looks to break into new markets. The success was undeniable with billions of pounds worth of deals being signed.
Yet, none of this took place in isolation. Behind every headline was an army of civil servants from across departments working to make it happen, without undermining previous objectives. The FCO and DIT have differing sets of experts, but experts none the less, with many people having extensive knowledge and experience of the markets in which they operate.
And yet in the last few years, the DIT has undergone huge restructuring multiple times, first to align it more with the FCO — and then align it less with the FCO and more with its own priorities. Back and forth, ad infinitum. This constant shifting of structures and alignment only makes it harder for the trade teams to do their job, as they constantly change position, losing much of their expertise and many of the vital relationships they had developed at home and overseas.
The FCO is structured to keep expertise embedded in everything they do, with country specialised desks being an integral part of the system. If we want to present a unified foreign policy, one that ensures the best value for the UK taxpayer, then the obvious solution would be to ensure that each one of these specialist desks includes trade and aid experts. With all of these essential parts of our foreign policy embedded in one team, alignment would not just easier, but inevitable.
"do it" - Google News
June 17, 2020 at 04:35PM
https://ift.tt/2zCzzw6
If you're going to reform foreign policy, do it properly - TheArticle
"do it" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2zLpFrJ
https://ift.tt/3feNbO7
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "If you're going to reform foreign policy, do it properly - TheArticle"
Post a Comment