Sitting by the phone, waiting for him to call? The UK, France and telephone diplomacy

The tragic events in Syria over the last couple of days, where reported use of chemical weapons has sparked a major international crisis, has seen commentary on the manner that Presidents Trump and Macron have spoken regularly. There have been suggestions online that the way in which these two have spoken is in marked contrast to the UK Prime Minister and that this somehow reflects a lack of UK influence on the international response.

The role of the Prime Minister in Government is twofold – it is partly to set the leadership and direction for the Country during their time in office. They will provide an overall vision of what policy they wish HMG to deliver, with Ministers in Departments working to agreed strategies and goals to help meet this vision. They also serve as an influence instrument of last resort, able to intervene in a situation to persuade others to take courses of action to help meet wider Government goals.

The diary of a leader is incredibly busy – it is a 24/7 job that requires an extensive office staff working issues and all competing for the coveted reward of ‘diary time’ (e.g. getting the Prime Minister to carry out a meeting, call or commitment on their behalf). Every moment spent on that commitment is time that cannot be spent on other roles – hence the constant battle to balance the many demands on the diary.

Calls between senior leaders happen in a highly scripted manner – one only has to watch the scene in ‘A Very British Coup’ as the UK Prime Minister deviates from his carefully planned script during a call with the US President in order to discuss the football, to realise that they happen for specific reasons. It is rare, if not impossible, for leaders to ring up for ‘social chats’ or on the spur of the moment – these are set piece events that require significant co-ordination across Government to ensure they are effective.

During an international crisis there is a need for nations to work in close alignment and discuss policy options and ensure other nations not only understand their views, but that these are communicated between interlocuters and considered during policy planning sessions. Knowing that Country X feels strongly on specific issues but is prepared to do a specific course of action is essential if you are planning a combined response.

However the reality is that if you enjoy a genuinely close or ‘special’ relationship between countries, then you need very few senior calls between heads of state to happen to ensure that your policy positions are communicated. Instead the conversations have already happened at working level, been reflected in policy documents and senior decision makers such as Ministers or the Prime Minister or President are aware of how another state is thinking and will respond. The mark of a truly close alliance is when you don’t need to schedule repeated calls between heads of Government to set out your views on the situation because your civil servants and military officers have already communicated it to the right people in the system.

The UK enjoys an exceptionally close relationship with the US across a range of issues in Government, particularly in the field of Defence and International Security. It is common for many UK personnel to build lifelong friendships and close working relationships with their US counterparts (and Australian, Canadian and Kiwis too), built from a position of mutual trust and respect. This means that when a crisis hits, the bureaucracy is already able to liaise and share assessments, opinions and views on policy at working level.

By contrast scheduling several calls between Heads of State strongly implies that the working relationship and mutual trust at desk level does not exist. While there may be some bilateral exchanges, it implies that effective communication and sharing of information is not going on. More importantly it implies that you are having to wheel out the big guns to make asks of access and share views on the situation.

This may sound a minor point, but if in a crisis you need to speak twice in two days at head of state level to co-ordinate a response, then your two governments have a less than optimally close working relationship between officials. If they did, then the information would be in the system and there would be no need to lobby and exchange views.

Macron speaking to Trump twice does not suggest that Macron is more influential than May, rather it suggests that the French Government is being forced to rely on its biggest hitter to influence the US system to deliver requests and ensure the President is aware of their views. By contrast the UK/US relationship means that this sort of access is perhaps more of a given, without having to rely on the PM to do it.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

What Next?

Whatever response is considered as part of the planning for Syria, it is inevitable that there will be people who will see this as some kind of ‘influence war’ between the UK and France to see who is more important in Washington, and then use the internet to debate at length whether the Special Relationship is dead.

The reality is more straightforward. Military operations in coalitions are complex to organise, require a lot of deconfliction, co-ordination and effort to ensure that the right targets are struck, that the right ISTAR and logistics support is available and that there is minimal risk to friendly forces.

The UK has a range of assets that could be used – speculation has been focused on Storm Shadow and TLAM operations as one means of response. But this is not a willy waving contest to score points on the internet. Any operation will match available capabilities to the delivery of the desired effect. It could be that a proposed package does not require UK or French kinetic involvement. Or it could be that France provides kinetic support, whilst the UK provides critical logistics and ISTAR capability.

It is easy to predict now that if this happened, the internet would be alive with posters claiming that somehow the UK was ‘irrelevant’ – even if the missions could not go ahead without access to UK Air to Air Refuelling or access to airbases. You do not have to strike to be a critical player in a coalition.

One of the key challenges for NATO is persuading member states to invest in mutually complementary capabilities, not all focusing on having one cool thing in abundance.  The reality is that it takes a lot of different enablers to deliver kinetic effect, and that the UK is a world leader in many of these fields and has exceptional experience in working with allies in complex airspace to do this.

If the UK decides to support any form of retaliation, then the capabilities, access and wider diplomatic, political and influence enablers that it possesses will be critically important in assuring success in the campaign.

What Does All This Mean?

Despite what some may think, the UK is not suddenly adrift and friendless in Washington and nor is the Five Eyes community about to be superseded by the French. Not speaking to POTUS for 48hrs does not mean that London has no influence, on the contrary it is inevitable that the key decision takers and policy makers have been constantly speaking to their US (and other) allies for some time now.

International Relations may be seen in some corners of the internet as a kind of ranking contest, but in reality it is about being able to use the levers at your disposal to influence and inform the thinking and decision making process of other states. The UK is very well placed to enjoy outstanding access into the US system without having to wheel in the Prime Minister to speak to POTUS every time civil servants need to compare views with Washington opposite numbers. Very few other countries can claim likewise.

Similarly after nearly 75 years of working closely together on military operations all over the world, the UK and US are able to recognise that not every operation necessarily needs the UK to be front and centre. The potent force enablers, ISTAR, logistics and other supporting elements available in the event of a crisis will be just as vital, and just as (if not more) appreciated than a squadron of fast jet aircraft duplicating an already extant in theatre capability.

We sit on the verge of potentially very interesting times.  Let us not be distracted by a game of ‘top Trumps’ over who is speaking to Donald most frequently. Lets instead focus on ensuring that if called upon, the UK is able to help play an appropriate part in working with other civilised nations to tackle the nightmare of barbaric atrocities inflicted by other less civilised nations and their despotic allies.