Wednesday, 26 September 2012

Moosemilk and Cucumber Sandwiches? The Shared Anglo-Canadan embassy cocktail party...


There was a very interesting press release on the FCO website recently which reported on the visit by the Foreign Secretary to Canada for bilateral meetings. One of the outcomes has been a decision for the UK and Canada to investigate better shared use of embassy facilities across the globe, using each other’s diplomatic presence as a means of bolstering a wider presence across the world. The full text of the press release can be found HERE.

This is a really interesting and very positive development. The UK has over the years acquired a large global estate of diplomatic interests, which consist not only of FCO sites, but also representation from UK Trade & Industry, Department for International Development and also the British Council. Almost by accident the UK possesses one of the worlds largest global diplomatic networks, enabling access and presence across the globe. But, over recent years this network has shrunk as budgets have tightened and engagement priorities changed. By their very nature Embassies are expensive to run, and require a lot of funding, real estate and commitment to keep open. Both the UK and Canada have got to make reductions to funding of their Diplomatic Services over the next few years, and this represents an excellent way to continue representation instead of closing it down.

The suggestion that the UK may work with Canada to share facilities is a genuinely good news story. Both nations have a very long shared history, which is built on absolute trust and shared democratic values. Canada is a beacon of global standards; it shares a border with a vastly more powerful neighbour, yet is not in thrall to them. It has a history of peacekeeping, tolerance and willingness to absorb new cultures and create a better country, but when push comes to shove, is not afraid of using force to stand up for what it believes in.

Between 1945 and 1990 the UKs relationship with the three ‘old dominion’ nations (excluding South Africa) seemed to be destined to decline into near irrelevance. A UK focused on defending the Central Front, and withdrawn from the Far East and Asia Pacific region, was having far less to do with these countries. The end of the Cold War and the re-emergence of interventionary operations seems to have sparked a significant resurgence in co-operation between all four nations. If one looks at military operations conducted across the world, then for the last twenty years, and particularly since 2001, all four nations have worked closely together as a common alliance. Humphrey has had the honour of working alongside representatives from Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and it is clear that for all the jokes about sport, and national differences when it comes to beer, wine and winning cricket, there is a far deeper bond shared between us than practically any other country. There is an absolute trust, an absolute alignment of values, and a willingness to go to far off places and do dangerous things in order to do the right thing. This is not a colonial ‘Master / Servant’ relationship – all four countries seem to regard each other as equal partners, each bringing different skills and experience and areas of influence to the table.

The news that the UK may be lucky enough to share with Canada in Embassies sends a very positive message. Firstly it will allow both countries to share office space in order to represent themselves overseas – furthering the interests of both nations. While the author has absolutely no idea as to where the shared embassies may be located, it would seem logical that they will be in places where one country has no current representation. In the UKs case, this may be in the Asia Pacific region, which has seen a steady drawn down of representation in recent years.

Logistically the move benefits both nations, who will be able to draw on office space to allow them to work at a vastly reduced cost compared to running two embassies in the same location. It doesn’t mean that there will be shared office suites with colonial officer Brits telling the downtrodden Canadians what to do. Rather it’s likely to mean there being shared office buildings, with separate national areas and ambassadors doing their own work. This is in many ways no different to companies sharing office space, or in the case of operational theatres, nations sharing each others support facilities.

The most important thing though is the strong message this sends to other nations. By having a joint embassy site, both nations are able to send a strong message about our shared values and interests. We can show the world that jointly our nations hold some things so dear, and have a relationship built on such trust, that we are willing to work together in this way. That is a very powerful message to send, particularly as Canada takes on an ever more assertive role in the world stage. The days of Canada as a quiet peacekeeper, trying to make everybody play nicely have gone forever. The modern Canada is a confident and assertive nation, not afraid to stand up for what it believes are acceptable standards of behaviour – just look at their actions in Afghanistan and the closure of their embassy in Tehran.

By sharing these facilities, the UK and Canada will be able to expand their diplomatic presence, and influence across the globe. It benefits both nations, and sends a strong signal to others of the immense value that comes from working together in a mutually beneficial relationship. This could be a most significant development indeed.

9 comments:

  1. No mention of the fact that UK trade missions are completely powerless, since our trade policey is EU driven?
    Odd that Canada is having them though

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the main reasons for the recent Hague tour of SE Asia was to support the increase in Embassy attached trade missions.
      The government realised that it cannot depend entirely on trade with the EU. The last ONS report on trade showed that our exports outside the Eu have just tipped over the 50% mark after many years in the doldrums.

      Delete
    2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9410648/Britains-main-export-market-is-no-longer-the-EU.html

      With apologies to Sir Humphrey for the source

      Delete
  2. And from the other side of the pond at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"--with a Kabul angle:

    "Canadian Office in a British Embassy? No Big Deal"

    Mark
    Ottawa

    ReplyDelete
  3. I had an email a week prior to today from a colleague who was quite very frustrated at the decision, I think its more a case of anger at how this puts to question how much the Canadian Government values its 'sovereignity', and now they're coming back to the 'mother country's bosum... its also a "why canada?" question...surely it may have been wiser to cosey up to the Australians?

    I am unsure why, the roayalists/commonweath-ists in canada will welcome this, the more nationalists wont... its just like the re-instating of the 'Royal' titles to the CAF, will this just be another 'on paper only' thing? Or more deeper like the anglo-french treaty.

    I'm not so sure on the good news story you seem to think it is... but I welcome it, nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ahem, no mention of the Anglosphere.... Given current uncertainties the FCO should also be discussing (or is de-jure/de-facto) with a certain Republic to our west.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is really interesting and very positive development. The UK has over the years acquired a large global estate of diplomatic interests, which consist not only of FCO sites, but also representation from UK Trade and Industry, Department for International Development and also the British Council.

    Experience Days UK

    ReplyDelete
  6. The problem with sharing is it soon becomes dependance so I am not sure if this is as good news for either parties as you think.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have to agree with TD. This smacks of being driven primarily by cost saving measures rather then actual strategic politics.

    ReplyDelete