Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 209)
WEDNESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2009
MR IVAN
LEWIS MP AND
MR JOHN
RANKIN
Q200 Chairman: Do you mean officially
watched or unofficially watched?
Mr Lewis: Probably both, Chairman.
To give a tangible example, the work that was done in the States—not
so much in Washington, but outside Washington—on trying
to influence states when the American Administration were very
negative about climate change, was massively important in terms
of some of those states providing leadership. Governor Schwarzenegger
is the most well known example, but there are others. That is
an example of where we clearly did have the resources and we clearly
did have reach and we clearly did influence policy in a very significant
way. We decided that, clearly, we were not going to shift the
Administration's position, so we needed to find other ways of
influencing American policy makers and American public opinion.To
turn the question on its head, one of the things we will have
to ask ourselves as we enter this very difficult period of financial
constraint is how we can be smarter and more strategic about how
we use our resources. You have already spoken about defence and
intelligence resources; the same applies to our use of soft power.
As we look at these difficult financial times, we will have to
become a lot more strategic and a lot smarter. To be fair to the
leadership of the Foreign Office, a tremendous amount of work
has already been done to achieve that in recent times. As you
said, it is not as if there is a lot of fat around the system
to start with. Like any Government Department, we will have difficult
decisions and choices to make. There is no way of ducking those
decisions.
Q201 Mr Hamilton: Two weeks ago,
Sir David Manning, our former ambassador in Washington, gave evidence
to this Committee and he said, "I was the ambassador who
had to preside over closing four posts in the United States and
I was very unhappy about doing that ... I think that a much greater
threat to our impact is to cut back on key people, particularly
those who are working in areas of real interest to the United
States—not just the political and military areas, but science,
crime and international terrorism. We have really got something
to offer. If we are forced to continue closing our network across
America, or cutting back in salami slices, so that it is almost
a virtual network, we will find it very much harder to influence
the Americans in the ways that we want". My first question
is: how damaging has the removal of the Overseas Price Mechanism
been to the work of our US network?
Mr Lewis: Well, it has had an
impact—there's no point in pretending otherwise. It has
an impact on that and on other elements of our work as well. First
of all, it is important that, when you have to make reductions,
you make those reductions in a strategic, considered way. You
do not just make them in the context of the short term; you plan
ahead for the challenges that you can see over the next decade
in terms of those strategic decisions. We have made difficult
choices and we will have to make further difficult choices in
the period ahead.
Q202 Mr Hamilton: The Foreign Office
is currently reviewing a strategic review of our US network, isn't
it? Can you tell us a bit about the rationale behind that, when
you think it will be completed and what sort of post closures
are being contemplated?[4]
Mr Lewis: No. There is no formal
strategic review under way as far as I am aware, specifically
in the US anyway. What I am referring to is—
Mr Hamilton: I am clearly misinformed
then.
Mr Lewis: Or I am misinformed.
One of us is.
Q203 Mr Hamilton: If there isn't,
there isn't. [Interruption.] Mr Rankin has confirmed that.
That is absolutely fine. If we had to cut back further on the
network—our presence in the US, including personnel—given
what you have said and given the reality of the situation, do
you think that that would have the effect of reducing our influence,
in Washington, on the US Administration?
Mr Lewis: That depends on the
decisions that were made. To an extent, we depend on our ambassador,
we depend on our senior management, we depend on the people who
work in the Foreign Office in London to advise us on making difficult
choices—how do you make those choices and do the least damage
to your capacity to exercise influence? That is the challenge
when you have to make difficult budgetary decisions. We cannot
look at our American mission or network in isolation from our
activities elsewhere in the international community. We have to
make considered and balanced judgments.
Q204 Mr Hamilton: The US is clearly
looking away from Europe, given demographic and economic shifts
in the world, and perhaps putting more of their resource in terms
of diplomacy into other parts of the world. Is there not an argument
that we should put more resource into our network in the US to
actually be able to shout louder and get their attention, given
that their attention is moving away from Europe quite dramatically?
Mr Lewis: There is an argument,
but which other part of our activities in the Foreign Office would
the Foreign Affairs Committee like to recommend we take those
resources from?
Mr Hamilton: I think we need to have
a bit of time and get back to you on that one. That is not a decision
for us to make.
Mr Lewis: That was not a churlish
response.
Chairman: We are not arguing for you
to have a smaller budget, we are arguing for you to have budgets
from some other Departments.
Mr Lewis: Absolutely. I hear what
you say, Mr Chair. Your contention is that in terms of the importance
of America and the nature of our relationship with America, it
should have a greater share of the overall budget.
Andrew Mackinlay: The scale and the fact
that it is federal—there are states.
Mr Lewis: It's not just about
Washington.
Mr Hamilton: And because their attention
is being diverted elsewhere, inevitably, because of the shifting
polarity of the world economically and politically.
Chairman: Have you finished?
Mr Hamilton: Yes, thank you very much,
Chairman.
Q205 Chairman: Can I ask you, finally,
how the Foreign Office tries to influence public opinion? We understand
that you have four priorities in the US: the global economy, which
you have already referred to; Afghanistan and Pakistan, which
you have touched on; the Middle East, which you have also mentioned;
and climate change. How do you measure, in terms of shifting the
debate or changing the decisions in the US system, how effective
you are with that public diplomacy in the US? Is there a way that
you rate your performance? Do you have those awful boxes with
red, amber and green and decide if you've met them or not?
Mr Lewis: I do not think that
it is as scientific as that. I am sorry to bore the Committee
by keeping on coming back to climate change, but that is the most
contemporary example of where clearly Britain has had significant
influence. Are you talking about public opinion?
Q206 Chairman: Well, it is think-tank
opinion as well. It is the US public opinion as well as informed
opinion.
Mr Lewis: We have done a lot of
work and made a lot of progress on climate change. I also think
another area is the Middle East peace process, where we have really
pushed and pushed the argument for the urgency of a two-state
solution. While we are all very concerned at the lack of progress
in recent times, the fact that in a sense it is now conventional
orthodoxy in America to believe that the only way forward is a
two-state solution, with a viable Palestinian state alongside
a secure state of Israel—that that is no longer a source
of debate and is the policy position of the mainstream majority—is
an important change. So I would say that climate change and the
Middle East are two examples of where I think we have significantly
affected public opinion, or certainly insider opinion-former opinion
as well.
Q207 Chairman: So if we get into
a position where locally engaged staff in the United States have
to go on unpaid leave, where you are drastically cutting your
entertainment budget and you are unable to host receptions at
the Embassy because you have run out of money, that would seriously
undermine the public diplomacy work of our Government in the USA.
Mr Lewis I am not sure that many
British people would say at a time of financial hardship that
cutting back on the odd reception is a bad thing for Governments
to do when ordinary people are having to make difficult choices
too. It is a difficult balancing act, but I take what you say
about staff. Of course it is regrettable that we have had to take
this course of action in terms of local staff. It is not something
that any employer should or would want to do.All I can say to
contextualise the matter without lessening its significance is
that it is fairly usual in America, when seeking to reduce spend,
to give staff unpaid leave. Culturally, in America that is not
as, maybe, bizarre as it would be in Britain or elsewhere in the
world, but that does not lessen the impact on the staff or the
service. Of course it is regrettable, but if we have budgetary,
fiscal responsibility, we must find ways of exercising that responsibility
and staying within the allocated budget. We ask people to make
difficult choices.
Q208 Chairman: Okay. Can I now take
us to the long-term? Over the years, we have tried to build up
networks, such as through the Marshall scholarships and the work
of the British Council. There is clearly an important relationship
between UK Universities, with which the British Council assists,
and partners, programmes, schools and so on. Is there not a need
to boost that in the US, because the demographics of the United
States are changing significantly with the large rise in the Spanish-speaking
population, and immigrants from all over the world? If we are
to retain this long-term relationship, we are no longer talking
about a relationship with the East coast and the Atlanticist view
of the world. We are now dealing with a country that looks more
and more to the Pacific—to Asia—and which internally
has a population with global connections rather than mainly European
connections.
Mr Lewis: We know that a number
of eminent people were part of the Marshall scholarship programme,
and that as a result of that they are often commentators in America
about the importance of the relationship between our two countries.
We also know that, interestingly, a high proportion of the new
Obama Administration studied in the United Kingdom. Therefore
the answer to your question must be yes. We must reflect, in our
educational relationships, the changing nature of America, as
well as of the world. I would like to see more investment in future,
but I must be frank. Those decisions would have to be taken in
the context of tough financial decisions, but strategically you
are making a very good point. It is a powerful way of cementing
and strengthening our relationship on a long-term basis, and it
should not be seen as a minor matter, or a side show.
Chairman: We have a final question.
Q209 Andrew Mackinlay: I do not want
to open up a new front at all, but when I first got elected to
the House of Commons, I was on the Transport Select Committee,
which was talking about open skies, and it is still apparently
talking about open skies. Although it is a matter primarily for
Lord Mandelson's Department, I guess, in that commercial area
there seems to be a major cultural and business difference between
us still, which we do not seem to have any influence over. Although
we have rightly focused on foreign policy, open skies is such
a big trade issue that it has a foreign policy dimension, doesn't
it?
Mr Lewis: Mr Mackinlay, you will
understand if I decide not to tread on Lord Mandelson's shoes.
I do not have a detailed response.
Chairman: Perhaps you can write to us.
Mr Lewis: I can write to the Committee
on that issue.[5]
Chairman: Minister and Mr Rankin, thank
you very much for coming along today. This has been a valuable
session, and we have covered a great deal of ground. Early in
the new year we will produce our report, so we found this session
extremely useful.I thank all the officials in your Department
who helped us with this inquiry, both those in the United States,
in Washington and New York, and the people we deal with daily
here in London. I wish them all a very happy Christmas.
Mr Lewis: May I return the favour,
and wish all Members of the Committee a very merry Christmas and
a happy new year?
4 Ev 151 Back
5
Ev 150 Back
| 
