At first glance, David Cameron’s decision to pick south-east Asia as the destination for the first major prime ministerial visit of this parliament makes sense. It’s not only China or India that are rising fast, but also the nations of south-east Asia, so Britain must “grab opportunities” to trade with these “far-flung lands”, as Cameron is fond of saying.
Yet the prime minister’s whistlestop trade mission to Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam was not a trailblazing initiative, as Downing Street’s spin doctors would have us believe, but just another reminder of the contempt the government has for the normal instruments of diplomacy.
Throughout his crammed itinerary, Cameron said next to nothing about what Britain can do to help manage the region’s grave security concerns; instead, he simply told his hosts that they must buy more British products. His approach damages our country’s reputation worldwide and does next to nothing for overall British trade either.
Few public servants have had a rougher deal from the PM than our diplomats. The Foreign Office’s budget has been slashed in real terms every year since 2010. Less than 0.2% of total public spending now pays for the entire network of 268 posts in 168 countries and territories; the Foreign Office’s discretionary funds – money left after fixed costs are covered – is only double Britain’s aid assistance to Ethiopia. And at 13,600 employees, the Foreign Office’s entire staff is a quarter less than the payroll of Sheffield city council.
Despite this constant hammering, Britain’s diplomatic network has been re-targeted to Asia, and most of the manpower is first rate. Barbara Woodward, our ambassador in Beijing, is experienced in trade, human rights, Europe and Asia – all the critical elements in Britain’s relationship with China. And Scott Wightman, our man in Singapore, is an expert on regional security.
Yet none of what such people have to say seems to concern Cameron. Those who planned his Asian visit made it clear that his only objective is the “Prosperity Agenda”, a snazzy term for plain trade promotion. Suggestions from host governments that the prime minister should consider delivering substantial policy speeches were rebuffed. And questions from local journalists about Britain’s position on matters such as the territorial disputes in the South China Sea were fobbed off with irrelevant musings about the “danger of piracy” on the high seas.
Britain no longer appears to have anything to say about human rights or good governance either; the only substantive initiative Cameron unveiled came in a speech about the importance of fighting corruption. And that was delivered in Singapore, the least corrupt of all the visited countries.
Cameron’s carpetbagger approach to Asia is not only blinkered, but counter-productive. There is no evidence that his personal trade promotion is responsible for the substantial rise in Chinese financial inflows into the City of London.
Nor is there much chance that the appearance of a pink-faced, sweaty British PM, walking on a boiling-hot day through an Indonesian food market in a buttoned-up suit, will somehow persuade the world’s biggest Muslim nation to buy British. The claim that the Asian trip resulted in multibillion-pound trade agreements is bogus: the deals were concluded months before.
Cameron’s obsession with being cast as his country’s salesman-in-chief is also puzzling Britain’s allies. For decades, British diplomats chided their European colleagues for treating Asia as just a big market, while ignoring the security implications of China’s rise to global power status. Now, however, it is Britain’s turn to repeat the same mistake. It’s the Treasury rather than the Foreign Office that runs policy on China; American and European diplomats despair about the chance of getting any coherent political vision from Britain on China. And Japanese diplomats, who put a great deal of faith in a new “strategic” partnership with Britain, worry whether they made the right choice.
Leaders of Asian nations were too polite to tell Cameron what they really thought of his approach. But no British PM will gain their respect if his only message is that he is interested in selling goods. For although carpetbaggers have their uses, they are also just as liable to get the door slammed in their face.
Jonathan Eyal is international director at the Royal United Services Institute
