House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Twelfth Report

Establishment of FCO posts overseas

34. The Annual Report notes the changing establishments of Foreign Office posts across the world.[51] It shows that since 1997 the FCO has established 32 new posts (of which 13 had only locally-engaged staff), while in the same period only 8 were closed.[52] While the Committee maintains a close interest in all aspects of the changing pattern of UK representation overseas, the FCO's work in three geographical areas has caused us particular concern during the course of this inquiry: Central America, West Africa and the Central Asian Republics (particularly Kyrgyzstan).

Central America and West Africa

35. In March 2003, the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Committee informing it of his decision to "make some changes to our diplomatic representation in Central America," in response to "changes in our strategic priorities and in the pattern of British interests overseas."[53] He believed that the Foreign Office no longer needed a small embassy in each Central American state and, therefore, proposed to withdraw the resident British Ambassadors in San Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras. In each case alternative arrangements would be made to ensure a continued British presence in the country, either by the appointment of the senior DfID representative as a Chargé d'Affaires, or by the recognition of an honorary consul.[54] These changes have subsequently been made.[55]

36. Later in the same month, the Foreign Secretary informed us of a similar, though smaller-scale, re-organisation in West Africa, again in response to changes in "our strategic priorities."[56] The Embassy in Bamako, Mali, would be closed, a one-person office opened in Monrovia, Liberia, and the office in Conakry, Guinea, upgraded to an embassy.

37. During the oral evidence session with Sir Michael Jay, we raised our disappointment with him about the closure of the posts noted above and our wider concerns about the FCO's ability to represent UK interests overseas effectively without such missions. He told us that: "as we get increasing demands for opening new posts or strengthening posts in some parts of the world, then we are going to have to think of imaginative ways of ensuring that we have the global reach we need."[57] He also told us that:

To give a specific example, Sir Michael told us candidly that the Office would have preferred to have kept the Mali Embassy open, but that tough decisions and prioritisations had to be made.[59] There was, however, increasing scope for "flexible representation" across the world, which would extend the FCO's "range but in a cost-efficient way." This included basing offices in other countries' embassies, as will be done in the French Embassy in Niamey, Niger, later this year with a reciprocal arrangement for the French to have an office in the UK High Commission in Freetown, Sierra Leone.[60]

38. We conclude that the closure of a number of posts in Central America and West Africa is a deeply regrettable, retrograde step in promoting and protecting British interests overseas. We recommend that such closures be considered as the last resort when considering priorities for UK diplomatic representation overseas, and that all other viable alternatives be explored prior to such action being taken. We further recommend that, failing a decision to keep open a post, creative solutions be sought, including joint initiatives with one or more EU partners or with the EU Commission itself.

Central Asian States

39. In its Report on South Caucasus and Central Asia, our predecessor Committee in the last Parliament examined the role of the Foreign Office in "promoting British interests in, and relations with," the newly independent states of that region.[61] During the course of its inquiry, the Committee visited nearly all the countries of the region, including Kyrgyzstan (or the Kyrgyz Republic) and its capital Bishkek. As a result of the evidence it had taken, the Committee concluded that:

In its reply to that recommendation, the Government stated that it would:

We are disappointed to note, therefore, that there is still no British presence in Bishkek four years after our predecessor Committee's Report was published (apart from an Honorary Consul). The United Kingdom's interests in Kyrgyzstan are still being handled by the Embassy in Kazakhstan.

40. The Committee discussed its concerns about the United Kingdom's representation in Kyrgyzstan with Sir Michael Jay. We highlighted the negative impact the absence of a British post in Bishkek was causing to our interests in this regional beacon of democracy and how this continuing neglect might be interpreted by the Kyrgyz government. We also noted that the British Ambassador to Kazakhstan is already responsible for a country roughly five times the size of France and that it is difficult to see how he could devote sufficient time or resources to his responsibilities in Kyrgyzstan. Sir Michael told us that: "a year or so ago, we did intend to open an Embassy in Kyrgyzstan, but we have had to conclude that the resource constraints and the demands that there are for opening elsewhere do not at the moment permit us to do that."[64]

41. We conclude that it is wholly unacceptable that there is still no British Embassy in Kyrgyzstan, despite the clear damage this is doing to the United Kingdom's interests in that country and the region. We recommend that an Embassy be established in Bishkek as soon as possible.

Impact of developments in the EU

42. Something that will inevitably impact on decisions regarding the UK's diplomatic representation overseas, is the increasing role of the European Union in foreign policy matters. The European Commission already has 138 bilateral and 5 multilateral Commission delegations across the globe.[65] The forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC), which will examine the draft constitutional treaty prepared by the Convention on the Future of Europe, is widely expected to herald an increase in the Union's competence over Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) matters, with the appointment of a new "Union Minister for Foreign Affairs."[66] It is reasonable to suppose that this new office will increase the number of similar EU missions across the globe.

43. We have discussed the wider, political, implications of these developments elsewhere but they will also have an important practical impact on the Foreign Office's work.[67] Increased co-operation over premises and, possibly, personnel can be expected, with potentially significant savings. The Foreign Office will also need to consider how to gain the fullest benefits of closer co-operation with the UK's EU partners overseas, while retaining the ability to act independently when necessary. We recommend that a section be included in the next Annual Report setting out how the Foreign Office envisages greater EU cooperation on foreign policy matters working in practice.

51 Departmental Report, p 13 Back

52 For further details, see: Departmental Report 2003, p 13. Back

53 Ev 30. The changes were subsequently announced to the House in a Written Ministerial Statement (HC Deb, 21 March 2003, col 57 WS). Back

54 For further details, see: QQ 74-79. Back

55 Ev 37 and Ev 84 Back

56 Ev 35. Also see: HC Deb, 31March 2003, col 43WS. Back

57 Q 66 Back

58 Q 68 Back

59 Q 69 Back

60 Q 69 (Jay) and Ev 84. Back

61 Foreign Affairs Committee, Sixth Report of Session 1998-99, South Caucasus and Central Asia, HC 349, para 2 Back

62 Ibid., para 152 Back