Mary Dejevsky: We invite trouble with the way we run our embassies
Iran shows that 'local hires' can have unwelcome consequences
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
No one should be in any doubt. The way the Iranian authorities have singled out Iranian employees of the British embassy for their hostile attentions shows that they have identified a vulnerability in Britain's defences that is entirely of our own making. So-called "local hires" have become more and more the norm in our embassies, not just in Iran, but in many other countries, and this has consequences, many of them unwelcome.
It was, for instance, Russian employees who bore the brunt of Britain's stand-off with Moscow over the British Council two years ago. It was they who were called in to explain their tax affairs to the Russian authorities in the early hours of the morning; they who were harassed on their way to and from work. The Iranians are capitalising on the same weakness.
The advantage of recruiting locally is clear: to put it bluntly, local hires are cheaper than Britons. They are already there, they do not need air fares for themselves and their families, nor school fees for their children, nor the whole expensive ex-pat package. And their wages, while respectable by local standards, will be lower than those of British employees.
Other reasons will be cited in favour of recruiting locals, including their familiarity with the language and culture of the country. And it appears that at least some of those at the Tehran embassy, including several of those singled out by the Iranian authorities, were in the political section, working as analysts and translators. Lack of sufficient British expertise in these areas may be used to justify such recruitment.
There was a time, though, when foreign nationals were taken on only for relatively menial duties, mainly housekeeping and maintenance, not for what might be called "white-collar" jobs. And while there are plenty of instances of maids and others moonlighting for their home security services in Eastern bloc embassies during the Cold War years, there was, or seemed to be, a very clear division between the sort of jobs open to "local hires" and diplomatic, consular and analytical posts that were not.
That distinction seems to have been progressively lost. I am sometimes amazed to find nationals of the country concerned working, say, in the consular section, checking applications from their compatriots for visas, or in highly responsible analytical posts, essentially assessing their own country for the benefit of a foreign power. And I have often wondered, first, how far this reflects a lack of home-grown British expertise and, second, whether it is a particularly good idea, even when the recruits are from fellow EU countries. If, Britain is as sensitive about its sovereignty as it is, should we be relying on others to conduct analysis that is in our national interest?
But there is another aspect, too. Our reliance on local recruits has implications for these individuals, too, and it can be extremely unpleasant, as the experience of the Russia employees of the British Council and now the embassy staff in Iran shows.
Their motives in joining a British government concern may be various: decent pay and conditions, contact with Westerners and an outlet to another world; the chance to use their qualifications or improve their English. But if diplomatic relations deteriorate, they can all too easily be accused of being in the pay of the enemy, working for a hostile power.
From their home country's perspective, that is no distortion: this is precisely what they are doing. Nor do the difficulties stop there. When relations become seriously fraught, as they have done with Iran in the aftermath of its disputed election, not only do locally recruited staff find their loyalties divided – between their country and their paymaster – but Britain's interests are directly jeopardised.
First of all, and understandably, local staff may not turn up to work. Where the local staff outnumber Britons by three to one, as they appear to in the Tehran embassy, this must seriously affect its work, and the effectiveness of British diplomacy. Second, Britain finds itself effectively saddled with hostages taken by proxy. Those concerned are not British citizens and they do not enjoy diplomatic immunity. So Iran – or Russia – can harass or detain them with impunity. But they surely impose a moral obligation. They also expose an enormous vulnerability that was just lurking there, ready to be exploited.
Maybe we wanted to punch above our weight in diplomacy, but we are asking other people's citizens to help us do so. The result is both their loss, and ours.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Yes exactly. I wonder what sort of vetting they had to undergo to ensure the were "suitable".
the service that we brits receive is disgraceful. On the few occasions I have visited the place I have been in a room along with other people. The counter has a bullet proof glass screen into which all verbal communication is conducted via a microphone so all the people waiting in the room can hear all your business. At no point have I ever seen or heared a british national employee at this place. Three months ago I applied for a spouses visa for my wife (we have been married 3 years) The fee is 550-00 GBP non returnable. On the form it states 3 months to process and deliver. it is now 2 weeks past this deadline and still no visa.
Might you share with me have that letter and any other papers? I'd be interested to see it as an example of the genre.
Charles Crawford (Formerly HM Ambassador in Sarajevo, Belgrade and Warsaw)
www.charlescrawford.biz
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).
He was thrown out of a Blair cabinet as it became clear he has been taking enormous cash sums to help him buy property in London. He was buying the property to play the rich and famous game with London elites. He was not wealthy enough at that time to buy a plush London semi detached house. As you will remember, the man was repeatedly thrown out of government for dishonesty. Mandelson then becomes EU Trade Commissioner. In that position he rubbed shoulders with Russian oligarchs, amongst others. One such oligarch is a huge importer of aluminium into the EU. Unsurprisingly the large EU import duty on Russian aluminium (governed by the EU Trade Commission that Mandelson was in charge of) was then removed. Mandelson is now described as being a millionaire, despite having never worked in commerce between being thrown out by Blair and being employed by the EU and then returning to the Brown government. This is the Brown who himself usurped the position of Prime Minister, paying cleaners with expense money in houses that he never lived in, and presiding over the most corrupt parliament in history. Mandelson also managed to extract a Lordship for his greed; it seems he has a penchant for dressing in brightly coloured costumes.
As the country is run my petty (and not so petty) criminals, no one should be surprised that every level of government and officialdom is on the take. Perhaps at some point the media will wake up and start informing the public about the inner machinations of the political mafia. However it seems that the concentration of media ownership in fewer hands has allowed the corruption of information flows. Does no one remember the unelected Kinnock? He managed to get a job in the EU for himself and his wife and for his son working for the state in Russia. Both Kinnock and his wife are like Mandelson, elevated to the status of Lords. Like Mandelson the wife of Kinnock is now another unelected Minister. It is almost parody that Labour attacked the UK constitution to destroy the House of Lords, only to appoint each other to seats in the Lords themselves. It is illegal to sell seats in the Lords but it seems entirely normal to appoint ones friend a seat in the Lords for political bribes, favours or largesse. Does no one see the connection?
Democracy is useless if the electorate is intentionally misinformed, persistently undereducated and is diluted with partisan immigrants who are just happy for the chance to exploit a benefits system.
In my view misfeasance in office (which should include embezzling taxpayers money for cleaners in houses that you do not inhabit and appointing friends to the first the Lords and then Cabinet) should incur a mandatory life sentence in prison. Perhaps then we might see less corruption in high places. The fact that the acting deputy prime minister is an acknowledged criminal is a disgrace to the entire electorate. The fact that the country is run by a usurper who has never been tested in general election or leadership election is a disgrace to our unwritten constitution. The fact that the wife of a former Labour leader who also failed to get elected (though at least he tried) is, via nepotism, an unelected Minister makes a mockery of the entire UK Political system.
Both the Prime Minister and the Acting Deputy Prime Minister are unfit for purpose and are both morally vacuous, this is why the entire system of UK governance is collapsing. The Labour party is the UK Political equivalent of the Sicilian Cosa Nostra. If you vote Labour you are part of the fraud, so d not complain.
As expected, the Guardian Council Monday dismissed complaints of irregularities in the June 12 vote raised by two defeated candidates, Mirhossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi. A senior hardline Iranian cleric Tuesday demanded an end to protests over the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president after Iran's top legislative body slammed shut the last door for a legal challenge.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
Lynn Truss should now produce a book about the misuse of hyphens!
Ex-expat