Most of this is a forlorn attempt to crank up an angle when there is not one.
All UK Embassies have had more ‘local’ staff than British for many years now. NB these may or may not be citizens of the host state – such staff may be British people living in that country or spouses of diplomats working in the mission or other ex-pats, depending on the place. This is far cheaper and in most respects more efficient, or at least efficient enough.
Local staff process visa applications but do not (I believe) without special clearance take the decisions. In some posts a local employee helps with political/economic analysis, ie doing some research tasks and general running around. But it is for the Ambassador and his UK-based team with their far superior access to key local opinion-formers to do the ‘highly responsible’ heavy lifting and advice-giving to London where it counts.
In Poland some LE Polish staff at the Embassy did and do have some significant operational input into our EU lobbying work. This has (mainly) been very successful, with a Polish colleague joining our full London delegation at an EU Summit to help liaise closely with the Polish delegation at the top level to help thwart the calamitous Working Time Directive – a huge success for the UK approach. Much harder to get this result by normal means. That said, the current government has scaled back our EU Embassies in UK staff terms significantly – arguably a serious miscalculation.
Of course Mary is right that thuggish local authorities can pick on local Embassy employees to make a point of some sort. But the point they make is that they are thuggish. Our relations with the thugs is no more problematic for that reason. They could easily be obnoxious to UK-based diplomats instead, and often are.
All of which is not to say that our Embassies are wonderful. The public presentation of what they do has declined in important respects in recent years, for many reasons (some good, some bad), as the comments below suggest. But the claim in the article that the wider use of local engaged staff is creating special new problems is unconvincing.
(Note: I served in the FCO for nearly thirty years, all in posts with more local than UK-based staff).
All UK Embassies have had more ‘local’ staff than British for many years now. NB these may or may not be citizens of the host state – such staff may be British people living in that country or spouses of diplomats working in the mission or other ex-pats, depending on the place. This is far cheaper and in most respects more efficient, or at least efficient enough.
Local staff process visa applications but do not (I believe) without special clearance take the decisions. In some posts a local employee helps with political/economic analysis, ie doing some research tasks and general running around. But it is for the Ambassador and his UK-based team with their far superior access to key local opinion-formers to do the ‘highly responsible’ heavy lifting and advice-giving to London where it counts.
In Poland some LE Polish staff at the Embassy did and do have some significant operational input into our EU lobbying work. This has (mainly) been very successful, with a Polish colleague joining our full London delegation at an EU Summit to help liaise closely with the Polish delegation at the top level to help thwart the calamitous Working Time Directive – a huge success for the UK approach. Much harder to get this result by normal means. That said, the current government has scaled back our EU Embassies in UK staff terms significantly – arguably a serious miscalculation.
Of course Mary is right that thuggish local authorities can pick on local Embassy employees to make a point of some sort. But the point they make is that they are thuggish. Our relations with the thugs is no more problematic for that reason. They could easily be obnoxious to UK-based diplomats instead, and often are.
All of which is not to say that our Embassies are wonderful. The public presentation of what they do has declined in important respects in recent years, for many reasons (some good, some bad), as the comments below suggest. But the claim in the article that the wider use of local engaged staff is creating special new problems is unconvincing.
(Note: I served in the FCO for nearly thirty years, all in posts with more local than UK-based staff).