bout de papier, Vol. 13, No. 1 (1996) — Spring 1996 // Printemps 1996, pp. 44–46
TRUE BRITS: INSIDE THE FOREIGN OFFICE
by Ruth Dudley Edwards. London. BBC
Books. 1994. 256 pp. $42.99 hardcover
in Canada [£16.99 in the U.K.]
Some readers will be familiar with True Brits, a six-part television series on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The initiative for this project came from the BBC in 1983, but it was nearly ten years before filming began. By then, the prospect of massive public expenditure cuts and the awareness that it had few friends inside or outside Whitehall prompted the FCO to overcome its instinctive aversion to public scrutiny and to permit camera crews to invade its collective privacy. The result was a remarkable look behind the veil that has traditionally shrouded Britain’s Diplomatic Service.
Whether or not it accomplished the fundamental objectives of the BBC and/or the FCO, the series certainly provided viewers with a more varied, and ultimately therefore a more positive, portrait of the FCO and of its staff, especially those posted abroad. Though not a ratings threat to Pride and Prejudice, Match of the Day or Coronation Street, we are informed that the programmes attracted a respectable, if not necessarily a respectful, audience when first telecast over a year ago.
True Brits, the book, has been adapted and restructured to take account of the cine and different medium, but its perspective and tone are consistent with its progenitor. Ruth Dudley Edwards conveys in the introduction and throughout the text a profound sympathy for the members of the Diplomatic Service and for their work. Even when there is specific criticism, it takes place within a generally favourable context which mixes national pride, élitism and appreciation for the virtues of a beleaguered institution, not unlike the way the BBC itself would like to be depicted. Mercifully for the FCO and its inmates, the author seems more inclined to debunk the myth of the idle, high-living and arrogant diplomat than to raise probing questions about the value and purpose of the Diplomatic Service in the modern era. When such negative thoughts infect the commentary, it is usually as a foil or counterpoint to an episode or exposition which sweeps such doubts aside. Similarly, foreign experience is employed for comparative purposes — often to show how each country’s diplomatic service reflects some historical tendency or national character — but these references are usually brief and superficial.
The book has certain advantages over the series: it is not so dependent on visual images (though it is profusely and effectively illustrated); it does not have to be as episodic or anecdotal in approach; and, it is possible to develop themes which would test the attentiveness of even the most dedicated viewer. Chapters correspond to topics rather than to locations. Of course, some remarks made casually or hastily before the cameras acquire an unwelcome permanence in print, while others display shadings more obviously on re-reading, as with a few of the carefully phrased tributes to Sir David Hannay on page 157. The delightfully impertinent minutes reproduced on pages 167 and 168 demonstrate one of the distinct pleasures of the written word, which it is difficult to convey on television. Moments of pathos or drama lose impact, but that is not always a bad thing. Accents are missing, though many are familiar or easily imagined. For better or worse, the qualities and personalities of the members of the Diplomatic Service are vivid in both media.
Indeed, there are times when Edwards rivals the denizens of the FCO in her estimation of their talents and of Britain’s place in the world. For example, the discussion of permanent seats on the Security Council — why the United Kingdom deserves one and Japan does not — strikes a foreign reader as remarkably insular, arrogant, complacent and uncritical. Moreover, the harsh tone of the comments on Japan stands in stark contrast to the silence about the qualifications of another claimant, Britain’s fellow European, Germany. The patronizing references to American diplomats and to the political context in which they must work are neither original nor informative. Foreign assessments of the FCO and its work — or even views from another part of Whitehall or from British commentators — are conspicuously missing.
For a Canadian reader, especially one familiar with PAFSO and its preoccupations, a number of the concerns expressed about recruitment, promotion, working conditions and treatment of spouses, will strike a responsive chord. True Brits is at its best when it contrasts the perceptions of the Diplomatic Service by others with the conditions at posts. Though complaints from the diplomats are sometimes bluntly expressed, especially in the anonymous interviews which are a feature of the book rather than the television series, the FCO is most often accused of indifference or misunderstanding, with the harshest barbs reserved for the ignorant and parsimonious Treasury. An exception to that rule is the palpable resentment surrounding the division by the FCO of the Diplomatic Service into two streams — delicately labelled “fast” and “main” (formerly “executive” and “administrative”) which roughly correspond to two social classes. As the labels suggest, these groups are divided in recruitment, assignments and promotion. A simple table which Edwards reproduces on page 91 conveys starkly the chronic under-representation of women and over-representation of Oxbridge graduates in the “fast stream.” These biases are even more pronounced in the top four grades of the Diplomatic Service. One is left wondering, however, how the FCO compares to other British government departments, as comparative statistics are not provided.
Overall, then, the book and the series present a favourable portrait of the FCO and especially of the Diplomatic Service. From that perspective, the FCO’s commitment to the project was justified. It may be too soon to tell whether this televisual revisionism has had an impact on the public perception of British diplomats and the budget of the FCO, but it has certainly attracted attention from other foreign ministries, including our own. Without any precise information about what may or may not have been proposed here — why should this subject be different from any other? — it may still be possible to raise relevant questions or comments about whether True Brits provides a model for Fake Brits: the Sequel or Virtuous Canucks.
The book is coy about funding — there are references to travel and hospitality but not to production costs — which must surely be a crucial consideration in the current fiscal context. Any major commitment in this realm by a foreign ministry today would justifiably be controversial. For such a project to be worthwhile for a film company or broadcaster, there would have to be an attractive combination of access and editorial freedom, as well as a perceived story-line and audience — all of which may make it more difficult to influence or control the outcome. There have been powerful documentaries recently in Canada — including notorious ones on controversial subjects — with the study of the break between the United Auto Workers and the Canadian Auto Workers as an especially vivid example of what remarkable results can be achieved when a camera crew witnesses unexpected developments. But these films have most often been studies of events which illuminate people, values and institutions, rather than straightforward presentations.
It is also unlikely that the peculiar relationship between the BBC and the FCO as mutually sympathetic institutions could be reproduced in Canada. Moreover, as recent reports and commentaries on public broadcasting in this country have stressed, the audience for film and television here is very different from that in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the best outcome would be a variation on the theme from True Brits, with the equivalent of one programme dealing with a specific topic or episode to evaluate the viability of a more comprehensive scheme. But the interests and objectives for each institutional participant should be clearly understood beforehand and the respective commitments of time, resources and funds should be defensible, not only within the Department but also to taxpayers.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 13, No. 1 (1996) — Spring 1996 // Printemps 1996, pp. 44–46. Read the rest of this issue →
