I have previously written here about the FCO’s approach to ‘consular’ work (ie helping British nationals overseas). See eg here:

The media love to pounce on allegations of FCO staff being unkind or inefficient when they find British citizens overseas who have hit trouble. For every hundred people who write in to you with profuse letters of thanks, there are a number who complain – sometimes fairly, sometimes not – to the media.

It makes no sense to pander to the ensuing synthetic media tantrum.

Next time the media attack FCO consular staff doing their best, go on the offensive. Say bluntly that it is not realistic to expect the government to respond in a perfect way to suit every traveller who has a problem overseas, any more than it can be expected to sort out every problem at home.

And add that just as there are a proportion of people who abuse social services at home, there are a number of British travellers who through their own folly or carelessness get into trouble overseas, then selfishly expect the taxpayer to bail them out.

The FCO team does what it can to help within the limited resources paid in to this work by Parliament, but not everyone will be happy, and not everyone who complains will have a fair case.

Anyway, the latest phoney furore about the FCO’s blundering in getting British citizens out of Libya prompts me to devote a chunk of my Saturday afternoon to telling the world about what the issues in an emergency like this really are.

Let’s go.

First, basic facts.

British nationals travel all over the place. They are under no obligation to tell anyone (let alone the nearest British diplomatic mission) where they are or what they are doing. Most of them don’t.

If they are living overseas, especially in a country which might get ‘tricky’, some of them will register their contact details with the Embassy. Not all of them will then let the Embassy know when those details change.

So the FCO has at best a fitful knowledge of which Brits at any one time are on each mission’s consular territory. And if the emergency itself cuts telephone and internet lines, systematically contacting even those people may become almost impossible.

Second, emergency situations vary enormously. Think about just how different the following situations are:

  • a nuclear power-station somewhere in the region blows up
  • a BA plane crashes
  • a football stadium collapses during a game involving a British team
  • Brits are caught up in a mass ferry-sinking disaster
  • a terrorist incident
  • devastating floods
  • an earthquake

In each case, the emergency is more or less unexpected and ‘unpredicted’ if not in principle unpredictable. So there will always be scope for retrospective moaning that an Embassy was ‘unprepared’.

Each mission makes a reasonable effort to have in place arrangements for dealing with consular emergencies. These include spare telephone capacity in case a local hot-line is needed, software for managing details of possibly missing persons when anxious relatives telephone, plus eg reserve laptops and other bits of kit for travelling/communicating up-country

It is easy to see that any one of these dramas will have its own management problems depending on where/how it happens – a crisis in the national capital is one thing, a crisis far up-country or across a wide area (eg the Asian tsunami) is quite another.

So training and preparation only cover the basics. Quite right too. The rest is left to the mission’s initiative and dedication, plus (if appropriate) a consular support hit-squad sent out fast from London to give back-up on the ground.

Third, most emergencies happen in mainly benign circumstances, ie where the local authorities are doing their best to help or at least are not actively hampering/sabotaging consular work. Host governments have a duty to help distressed foreigners as well as their own people, and it is quite step by them to steer deliberately away from that.

Which is why one key issue in consular work is keeping in with the local authorities, and not second-guessing them or being busy-body interfering in the way they are handling things.

A fine balance is needed here between being firm but fair (eg to insist on access to a hospital or police-station to look for injured Brits) and being disrespectful/annoying. Get the tone of that wrong (even inadvertently) and all sorts of new problems may emerge as the locals withdraw cooperation.

However, some emergencies happen in malign circumstances where the local authorities either are the core of problem and/or are disintegrating and/or dislike us – as now in Libya.

This is far harder to deal with, since almost any significant consular action in such a place requires minimal consent from the local authorities to be done safely (eg getting landing rights for evacuation aircraft): what if consent is refused and/or otherwise unobtainable?

Evacuation is not always the best response in an emergency. Why should it be? The very act of massing Brits to get them out might be seen as provocative by local warring factions or give handy opportunities for mass hostage taking. Often lying low and waiting for things to blow over is quite a safe way to proceed.

Government is not the salvation. The main responsibility for your safety overseas lies with YOU, not with other taxpayers. Have you taken sensible precautions? Is your travel insurance up-to-date? What is your company or travel agency likely to do if you get stuck or in danger? Don’t rely on an Embassy to help – use your own judgement as there may be better options.

So much for background. How did the FCO do in Libya? See next post.