Rethinking of Britain’s role in the world has erupted again after senior diplomats, including former cabinet minister and national security adviser Mark Sedwill, published a pamphlet.

The World in 2040: Renewing the UK’s Approach to International Affairs was condemned for suggesting that the Foreign Office should change its name and downplay its majestic headquarters, built in 1868 at the height of the British empire.

The author believes that the lower image corresponds to the reality of our place in the world.

“The UK today finds itself in a changed role as a medium-sized ‘offshore’ nation,” the report claims, without explicitly mentioning Brexit.

“Our future has more in common with G20 countries like Japan and European countries like Norway and Switzerland, whose economies are closely linked to their major economic neighbours.”

The report believes that “Britain often tries to sell a ‘great’ image to the world, but this seems anachronistic today. We can be envied for the things we are good at rather than the things we say we are good at.”

This modest suggestion to “work with others to work on solving the challenges we all face” stands in stark contrast to the bold recommendations being made this week. foreign secretary david cameron He appeared on the world’s largest diplomatic stage, the United States, and made tough remarks on Ukraine and Gaza.

Lord Cameron is not one to think that now is the time to downplay the “greatness” of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.In this regard, currently Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer Agree with him.

Even Cameron’s critics admit that he looks like the image we would expect of Britain’s top representative abroad.New York Times Said the Foreign Secretary was “almost” the Prime Minister.

Donald Trump Of course, he wouldn’t invite him to dinner at Mar-a-Lago unless he thought he matched his high opinion of his own importance. Trump’s Republican aide, House Speaker Mike Johnson, pales in comparison because he is “too busy” to listen to Cameron’s arguments.

The British government says it’s important to connect with the man who could become the next U.S. president, but Cameron’s visit has had mixed results at best. The British are not the only status-conscious people. Mr Cameron was not even allowed to “pass by” or “drop in” President Joe Bidenperhaps because he did not warn the White House in advance that he would visit his opponent.

Is Britain’s US-centric approach, which is both self-righteous and sycophantic, good for Britain? As the report puts it, rather than trying to be a great power and “America’s junior partner”, as Cameron put it to me on his first Prime Ministerial visit to Washington, the UK should seek a wider network of partnerships. Proposals?

Britain was just a geographical description before it became a patriotic boast. Grete Britaigne, which dates back at least 800 years, is simply a larger space inhabited by most Britons, contrasting with the physically smaller Britanny. Compared.

Former Prime Minister Lord Cameron presided over the weaponization of the word “great”. A campaign launched by various departments within the Foreign Office in 2011 evolved innocuously into a series of posters for the 2012 London Olympics.

These celebrate the host nation’s assets, such as science, sports, or music, declaring each to be “great.”

Find out more about Sky News:
Loggerhead sea turtle washes ashore in UK thousands of miles from home
How the Scotland Ferries fiasco became a national scandal

This was before Mr. Trump’s “Make America Great Again”although it’s not the same campaign phrase Ronald Reagan used in 1980.

By 2015, “Britain Greatness” had become an official event across all government departments. It is still running and on display at official British outposts around the world.

‘Broken Britain’

In an article in the official Civil Service Quarterly, the Cabinet Office noted that it can make a difference even in times of economic stress, insisting that “you don’t need huge resources, but you do need enough enthusiasm” to get the message across. .

A lot has changed in the UK and the rest of the world since the 2012 London Olympics. The UK may not dispel the common perception of a “broken Britain”.

Despite dirty rivers, a struggling NHS, rising inequality, crumbling infrastructure, declining military capabilities and high taxes, we Brits like to tell each other that everything is “fantastic”.

There’s The Great British Bake Off and The Great Run North. Boris Johnson won the 2019 general election promising to make this the “greatest place on earth”.Government’s latest plans for UK Rail, Labor promises to deliver “Great Britain’s energy”.

Diplomats who wrote the report include Lord Sedwill, former ambassador and No. 10 foreign policy adviser Thomas Fletcher and former foreign minister Moazzam Malik.

They represent Britain abroad and to foreigners. They know you can’t always get what you want, and insisting you’re great can be tiresome.

It is easy for their domestic political masters to borrow the vocabulary of Boris Johnson to criticize the pessimists, doomsayers and naysayers, while doing nothing themselves to achieve better results in practice.

Britain may not be great because it is no longer a dominant world power like the United States or China, but treating it as a middle power is defeatist.

There are about 200 countries in the world. The report acknowledges that the UK is the sixth largest economy, possesses significant “soft power” and has world-class universities after the US.

The UK also ranks 21st in GDP per capita, is one of only five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, has an independent nuclear deterrent, is a major defense contributor to NATO, is a major promoter of the Commonwealth, and is The origin of the world’s language, English.

Even the colonial overtones of the empire, which the report wants to downplay, point to a global reach even as it ran into trouble. Britain should not boast, but there is no need to belittle itself.

It would be better to rename the currently cumbersome Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office the “Foreign Office” rather than apologetically rename it the “Department for International Affairs” – which would, in any case, trigger tabloid investigations into diplomatic job-hopping.

Whatever the stance of politicians and officials on these pressing issues, arguments over words, flags and what paintings to hang on the walls distract from what really matters to Britain’s future.

Lord Sedwill noted dryly in his report that “foreign influence arises from domestic political and economic success” rather than from how great we claim to be.