The decisions that emerge from diplomatic negotiations differ all too often from what the majority of people would have preferred if they had had their say. Imagine if the people had been consulted with regard to major foreign policy decisions in the past. Imagine if the British people themselves had decided whether or not Blair’s findings warranted an invasion of Iraq, for example. One could imagine a very different outcome. In fact generally speaking, almost any decision to initiate war stems from the concentration of power, and would be rejected by the majority. In most situations, people would rather we just minded our own business.
The vast majority of diplomatic duties, being negotiations about peacekeeping, business and trade links and energy deals, international treaties, foreign embassies, visas and tourism etc, are almost entirely in the hands of specialist ambassadors and their teams of diplomats.
Diplomats collect and report information about the foreign country in which they are posted and give advice to the home country on how best to set foreign policy. They are then tasked with conveying the views of their home country’s government, in the best way possible, so that the host country might act in ways that please the home country’s interests. Without a doubt, diplomats are highly trained and highly skilled individuals. Over many years they have honed their diplomatic style and long term strategy, and the combination of knowledge and experience gives them unique capabilities in their job that should by no means be belittled.
However, even with such highly respected ‘experts’ at the helm, much of our foreign policy even nowadays is contrary to common sense, and would be significantly different if the majority of people had their say in the matter. You don’t need to be a specialist in Persian studies to realise that trying to gently persuade the Ayatollahs into quitting Iran’s nuclear ambitions is a waste of time, though it took the government long enough to come to its senses. You don’t need to have done extensive research about Israeli and Palestinian relations to understand that if Israel is in the UN, then Palestine should be too, regardless of whether or not negotiations are ongoing or if conflict will continue, which it inevitably will. You don’t need to be a tri-lingual European historian nor a Colonial and Commonwealth specialist to realise that in today’s globally interlinked economy, Britain has closer ties with Canada, Australia and India than it does with Germany, Italy and Poland, and that spending a lot of time, money and effort on EU integration might just be a bit narrow-minded.
In fact, the high specialisation and specific expertise that these diplomats possess, and the fact that they spend so much time abroad and in the company of other diplomats, may actually impair their understanding of Britain’s true interests. Even in today’s twenty first century, with internet and TV allowing millions of people to take part in worldwide debates, our foreign policy is frequently misunderstood. So what changes need to be made to better align foreign policy decisions with public opinion?
The commonly held but unspoken view of high ranking government diplomats is that ‘ordinary people’ do not possess the background knowledge or the expertise to make informed decisions with regard to foreign policy. This of course is very true. But politicians then take this truth to a next level by asserting that their proximity to the arguments and knowledge of the subjects at hand gives them better judgement than the people. This is not true. Given the facts and the history behind a certain decision, everyone is capable of making their own conclusions and, though they may not want to, should be given their say in the decisions that affect them.
Our system of representative democracy has great potential to really work effectively in this regard. If our elected representatives are collectively charged with evaluating the information and voting on foreign policy decisions, this would ensure that diplomats cannot strike deals in our name that contradict our interests.
Diplomats fear populism, which many of us would call democracy, in that they don’t want to be told what to do by the public, or by parliament, as they believe we are under-qualified to make the decisions. However, the right to make decisions should not be at the discretion of the diplomat, but rather the discretion of parliament, meaning that the ability to make decisions on behalf of the people, without consulting them beforehand, should be an extraordinary privilege. If it is in fact believed that the opinion of the people is the wrong one, then those closest to the facts should have to explain to parliament why the people are unqualified to make a particular decision, instead of soliciting the opinion of the people on the rare occasion that suits the political agenda.
Consider, for example, Sir Jon Cunliffe, recently appointed by David Cameron as Britain's senior diplomatic representative in Brussels (the head of UKRep). Over the past thirty or so years we have seen the UK move steadily towards a system of EU economic and political governance, spending vast sums of money in the process. What assurances do we have that Cunliffe will speak for the people, and not for a half-hearted diplomatic compromise between EU interests and senior UK civil servant interests? Cunliffe worked previously at the Treasury before becoming senior UK negotiator at organisations such as the G20. There can be no doubt that the man is a highly skilled individual and trusted amongst the elites in government. Nonetheless, he is only one man, a senior civil servant that has risen through the ranks of the government bureaucracy, and has not been democratically elected for the job. Generally, those who rise to the top civil servant positions are the people who do not contend the established policy or challenge the wisdom of the seniority. These kinds of top-down hierarchical structures tend to have institutionalised outdated strategies and policies that are out-of-touch with public opinion. And in no way are Cunliffe and his team directly accountable to the people for whom they negotiate. So what mechanisms can we install to insure that our top diplomats truly represent us?
It would be wise to release powers vested in the head of state for appointing heads of commissions and ambassadors etc. to parliament. Currently the prime minister can appoint ambassadors without parliamentary approval. In this day and age, we could quite feasibly have public televised parliamentary confirmation hearings for our senior diplomats before they get the job. Candidates would have to explain their qualifications, priorities and ambitions to the parliament, and through parliament to the electorate. This would ensure that our chief negotiators are only hired if they can convince the people of their commitment to representing our interests. It would introduce accountability to the people, as diplomats would henceforth understand that making deals contrary to public opinion would be unacceptable, and they would lose their job.
Currently, many international treaties can be approved without passing through the House of Commons. The signature of the Foreign Secretary, acting on behalf of the country, is all that is required. We could solve this problem by constitutionalising the parliamentary approval of international treaties. This would not only further ensure accountability but it would also give ambassadors a stronger diplomatic hand in negotiations, being able to say that the British people will have to sign off on the final deal. On the principle that no parliament may bind its successor, we could also legislate the approval and review of international treaties in Parliament on an annual basis, to assess whether or not they still reflect our national interest.
One of the main issues surrounding diplomatic relations is the importance of history. In the absence of direct accountability of the diplomats themselves, it is generally the prime minister that takes on the responsibility for diplomatic relations and major decisions are sold to the public with simplified explanations and reasoning about why the decision was taken, often without a proper appreciation of how the situation arose in the first place. The lack of understanding of the common man concerning international politics can be utilised by politicians in order to make people accept foreign policy decisions that they would otherwise reject given a full understanding of the issue.
For example consider our actions in the Middle East. Militarily, many of our actions in this region are directly a result of the USA’s actions. But had a full debate occurred in both the US and the UK, a long time ago before we began to intervene in the region in a military fashion, or had parliament (and the US congress) been entrusted with the task of weighing up the possible consequences of our past interventions in the region, such as the overthrowing of the Iraninan leader Mohammad Mosaddegh, and the supply of weapons and intelligence to Saddam Hussein, then arguably the situation in the Middle East would not have escalated to the tense state of affairs we now find ourselves in. There is so much speculation circulating about when the US is going to bomb Iran, or when is Israel going to bomb Iran, or when will Iran bomb Israel etc etc but few people really have all the information necessary to make good foreign policy decisions. It is essential to understand the whole saga, the origins of the disputes, the events leading up to today's situation and how it is all perceived by the Iranian government and the Iranian people. However we got to this stage, we need to take a breath, step back and think.
Diplomats collect and report information about the foreign country in which they are posted and give advice to the home country on how best to set foreign policy. They are then tasked with conveying the views of their home country’s government, in the best way possible, so that the host country might act in ways that please the home country’s interests. Without a doubt, diplomats are highly trained and highly skilled individuals. Over many years they have honed their diplomatic style and long term strategy, and the combination of knowledge and experience gives them unique capabilities in their job that should by no means be belittled.
However, even with such highly respected ‘experts’ at the helm, much of our foreign policy even nowadays is contrary to common sense, and would be significantly different if the majority of people had their say in the matter. You don’t need to be a specialist in Persian studies to realise that trying to gently persuade the Ayatollahs into quitting Iran’s nuclear ambitions is a waste of time, though it took the government long enough to come to its senses. You don’t need to have done extensive research about Israeli and Palestinian relations to understand that if Israel is in the UN, then Palestine should be too, regardless of whether or not negotiations are ongoing or if conflict will continue, which it inevitably will. You don’t need to be a tri-lingual European historian nor a Colonial and Commonwealth specialist to realise that in today’s globally interlinked economy, Britain has closer ties with Canada, Australia and India than it does with Germany, Italy and Poland, and that spending a lot of time, money and effort on EU integration might just be a bit narrow-minded.
In fact, the high specialisation and specific expertise that these diplomats possess, and the fact that they spend so much time abroad and in the company of other diplomats, may actually impair their understanding of Britain’s true interests. Even in today’s twenty first century, with internet and TV allowing millions of people to take part in worldwide debates, our foreign policy is frequently misunderstood. So what changes need to be made to better align foreign policy decisions with public opinion?
* * *
The commonly held but unspoken view of high ranking government diplomats is that ‘ordinary people’ do not possess the background knowledge or the expertise to make informed decisions with regard to foreign policy. This of course is very true. But politicians then take this truth to a next level by asserting that their proximity to the arguments and knowledge of the subjects at hand gives them better judgement than the people. This is not true. Given the facts and the history behind a certain decision, everyone is capable of making their own conclusions and, though they may not want to, should be given their say in the decisions that affect them.
Our system of representative democracy has great potential to really work effectively in this regard. If our elected representatives are collectively charged with evaluating the information and voting on foreign policy decisions, this would ensure that diplomats cannot strike deals in our name that contradict our interests.
Diplomats fear populism, which many of us would call democracy, in that they don’t want to be told what to do by the public, or by parliament, as they believe we are under-qualified to make the decisions. However, the right to make decisions should not be at the discretion of the diplomat, but rather the discretion of parliament, meaning that the ability to make decisions on behalf of the people, without consulting them beforehand, should be an extraordinary privilege. If it is in fact believed that the opinion of the people is the wrong one, then those closest to the facts should have to explain to parliament why the people are unqualified to make a particular decision, instead of soliciting the opinion of the people on the rare occasion that suits the political agenda.
 |
| Sir Jon Cunliffe |
It would be wise to release powers vested in the head of state for appointing heads of commissions and ambassadors etc. to parliament. Currently the prime minister can appoint ambassadors without parliamentary approval. In this day and age, we could quite feasibly have public televised parliamentary confirmation hearings for our senior diplomats before they get the job. Candidates would have to explain their qualifications, priorities and ambitions to the parliament, and through parliament to the electorate. This would ensure that our chief negotiators are only hired if they can convince the people of their commitment to representing our interests. It would introduce accountability to the people, as diplomats would henceforth understand that making deals contrary to public opinion would be unacceptable, and they would lose their job.
Currently, many international treaties can be approved without passing through the House of Commons. The signature of the Foreign Secretary, acting on behalf of the country, is all that is required. We could solve this problem by constitutionalising the parliamentary approval of international treaties. This would not only further ensure accountability but it would also give ambassadors a stronger diplomatic hand in negotiations, being able to say that the British people will have to sign off on the final deal. On the principle that no parliament may bind its successor, we could also legislate the approval and review of international treaties in Parliament on an annual basis, to assess whether or not they still reflect our national interest.
* * *
One of the main issues surrounding diplomatic relations is the importance of history. In the absence of direct accountability of the diplomats themselves, it is generally the prime minister that takes on the responsibility for diplomatic relations and major decisions are sold to the public with simplified explanations and reasoning about why the decision was taken, often without a proper appreciation of how the situation arose in the first place. The lack of understanding of the common man concerning international politics can be utilised by politicians in order to make people accept foreign policy decisions that they would otherwise reject given a full understanding of the issue.
For example consider our actions in the Middle East. Militarily, many of our actions in this region are directly a result of the USA’s actions. But had a full debate occurred in both the US and the UK, a long time ago before we began to intervene in the region in a military fashion, or had parliament (and the US congress) been entrusted with the task of weighing up the possible consequences of our past interventions in the region, such as the overthrowing of the Iraninan leader Mohammad Mosaddegh, and the supply of weapons and intelligence to Saddam Hussein, then arguably the situation in the Middle East would not have escalated to the tense state of affairs we now find ourselves in. There is so much speculation circulating about when the US is going to bomb Iran, or when is Israel going to bomb Iran, or when will Iran bomb Israel etc etc but few people really have all the information necessary to make good foreign policy decisions. It is essential to understand the whole saga, the origins of the disputes, the events leading up to today's situation and how it is all perceived by the Iranian government and the Iranian people. However we got to this stage, we need to take a breath, step back and think.
The danger seems to be a lack of understanding of what other countries really want and how our actions affect them; diplomacy gets lost in translation. Without an understanding of the historical events that lead up to an action, offensive actions by other countries are all too often taken out of context and people are left asking questions like “why do these people hate us for no reason?” Are there really people that hate other people for no reason? When another country reacts in an offensive or threatening way, it may appear to be unprovoked or overly-hostile in the eyes of some, thereby provoking an another perceived overreaction by the other party, when in fact it is just a lack of consideration for the other country’s interests and the historical and contextual background surrounding the issue. In other words, nobody really wants war, and if decisions were always taken by a majority in an open debate with reliable information, it should always be avoidable.
Now obviously this goes equally for the decisions made by other countries, on which our decisions are dependent upon. Many countries in the Middle East do not have an open democracy, and in such circumstances the concentration of power and the control of information can cause hostile decisions to be taken purely when they suit the agenda of a small aristocracy, perhaps giving way to a genuine case for intervention. However it cannot be denied that the more we intervene, the more enemies we create. Everyone knows that ultimately these disputes cannot be solved with war.
Whether you like it or not, we should all pay attention to what is happening in the United States right now, because US foreign policy directly affects us all.
Below is a video of the foreign policy section of the latest Republican primary candidate debate. It is definitely worth watching. This was the last debate before the primary elections begin in January and it is quite likely that one of these candidates will be president of the United States in 2012. The fate of millions of people could potentially rest on the decision making of one of these individuals, yet notice how on the issue of Iran they cannot even agree on what the facts are..
Now obviously this goes equally for the decisions made by other countries, on which our decisions are dependent upon. Many countries in the Middle East do not have an open democracy, and in such circumstances the concentration of power and the control of information can cause hostile decisions to be taken purely when they suit the agenda of a small aristocracy, perhaps giving way to a genuine case for intervention. However it cannot be denied that the more we intervene, the more enemies we create. Everyone knows that ultimately these disputes cannot be solved with war.
Whether you like it or not, we should all pay attention to what is happening in the United States right now, because US foreign policy directly affects us all.
Below is a video of the foreign policy section of the latest Republican primary candidate debate. It is definitely worth watching. This was the last debate before the primary elections begin in January and it is quite likely that one of these candidates will be president of the United States in 2012. The fate of millions of people could potentially rest on the decision making of one of these individuals, yet notice how on the issue of Iran they cannot even agree on what the facts are..
No comments:
Post a Comment