Interview :

Sir Peter Westmacott:  The British contribution

by Bernard KENNEDY

Ankara has proved an eventful posting for British Ambassador Sir Peter Westmacott. His arrival in early 2002 was followed by detailed negotiations over Turkey’s military support for Afghanistan, and then the build-up to the Western intervention in Iraq – including the debate over Turkey’s role. Then in November 2003 came the bombing of the British Consulate in Istanbul - one of several co-ordinated terrorist attacks in the city which cost a total of over 50 lives including that of British Consul Roger Short. More agreeably, the Ambassador’s tour of duty has also coincided with the commencement of accession talks between Turkey and the EU – an event which occurred during the United Kingdom’s EU presidency. With a thirty-year Foreign Office career behind him, including postings in Tehran, Brussels, Paris, Ankara (1987-1990) and as Counsellor in the British Embassy in Washington, Ambassador Westmacott had plenty of experience to drawn on during these critical moments. Our conversation also turned to topics as diverse as UK foreign policy, the “clash of civilizations” and the ways in which the work of embassies has been changing.

Q  Britain's place in the world is rather unique and difficult to categorise. How would you put it?

A  I think it is a unique country because we have a rather remarkable history with what was once a big empire, and we live with the legacy of that.  It has left us with a lot of interests and also responsibilities. Although we come from a small set of islands offshore continental Europe, our interests are global. We are a member of more international organisations than any country in the world except for France. We are a member of the UN Security Council, the Commonwealth, NATO, the OECD, the European Union..  English, whether British or American, is increasingly the language of international and communication and business. So we have a lot of interests covering a large part of the globe, whether they be political and diplomatic or commercial and economic.

Q  How does this translate into foreign policy? What does Britain offer the world through its foreign policy?

A  We retain a global reach in our diplomatic network. Of course, our main task is to look after British interests but we believe in doing so in a safer and more prosperous international context. As diplomats, we take care of the interests of the British government and of visitors, residents and businessmen from our country. At the same time, we are trying to play a role where we can, on our own or with the host countries, to help resolve tensions or unresolved conflicts, gross human rights abuses or natural catastrophes.

Q  You have also held an important post in Washington. How does the so-called "special relationship" with the United States work?

A   Many in my profession are extremely wary of the term "special relationship". It suggests an exclusivity to which we do not aspire. It may also sound a little arrogant or imply that the US owes us something which it does not. We can be flattered when others use the term but we wouldn't choose to use it ourselves. Having said that, the relationship between the two countries goes back to the very origin of the United States. The USA remains for the most part an English-speaking country. There are huge British interests there: we have many residents, and more foreign investment in the United States than any other country. In addition, there are many common security and political interests. We try to find ways of solving difficulties when they arise. But the US looks after its own interests first and so do we; as you can tell when trade disputes arise.

Q  Are there differences between US and British policy in Iraq?

A  No, I don't think there are any differences. Iraq has been an extraordinarily difficult undertaking. We exchange views with the United States and indeed with Iraq and all the other players involved on a daily basis. We have had moments of tension on individual aspects of how to deal with Iraq. We are known to have a different view, for example, concerning the Guantanamo detention centre. However, we share the same objectives. We are just as determined to make a success of the military intervention there and help establish a society which will provide the Iraqi people with the freedom and democracy which, as all the polls show, they so desperately want.

Q  What is your personal view about the "war of civilisations". Is it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy?

A  I am not a good reader of crystal balls. I can't tell you what will happen. However, I am serving in a country with a population which is overwhelmingly Muslim and so I am very much aware of these issues between the mainly Christian West and the Muslim Middle East. Certainly we have been going though a period of considerable tension in recent months. It has happened before: some years ago, Salman Rushdie's book, published in the UK, aroused a lot of strong feelings in Iran and other Muslim countries, so this is not unheard of.

It is clear that there is resentment at the perceived policies of western countries on certain issues. Some believe it was wrong to intervene in Iraq to get rid of the dictator Saddam Hussein and try to improve the lot of the Iraqi people. But regardless of what people think of the original intervention, we are working hard to establish a consensus on how to make a success of the new Iraq.

I think that people are becoming very aware of the way in which these tensions can be exploited by those who do not show tolerance to those of other persuasions. We are all descendants of Abraham. All our faiths uphold tolerance and mutual respect.  It is important that we keep in mind those fundamental principles.

A lot of people have looked over the edge and seen that this is a dangerous phenomenon, and are now trying to work very hard to take us back to where we were before, and indeed to reach a better understanding than we had before. The British government for example, is working very hard to stage conferences and other events which bring together people of different backgrounds and religions - even civilisations - with a view to promoting mutual respect and understanding. .

Q  Turning to the European Union, there is a perception that Britain is half-in and half-out, and that it is reluctant to see closer integration at the expense of nation states. Is this a fair perception?

A  Not entirely! It is true that we are not a Schengen state and we are not part of  the Euro zone. However, I would say that the UK has been a major player in the process of European construction and integration, in proportion to the size of our economy and population. We take our obligations to the EU very seriously and comply with them to a high degree.

In foreign and security policy, we of course bring a great deal to the table. We are genuinely committed free traders. Much of the economic activity in the UK is owned by investors from other parts of the world. We have long been in favour of allowing market forces to determine what our competitive advantages are.

We are not in favour of the end of the nation state and its disappearance within a supranational body. But then neither are many of the other states in the EU, who are equally attached to their national heritage. I think the concept of subsidiarity, whereby decisions are taken at the most local level possible, is firmly embedded in European thinking.

A large part of British public opinion is eurosceptic. That is part of life. On the other hand, the British people voted quite clearly for membership of the Union when they were asked in a referendum, and we are there to stay.

Q  The UK is perceived in Turkey as a great supporter of Turkey's EU membership. Is this support shared by public opinion as well as the establishment?

A  The UK is in favour of Turkish membership at both the political level and the level of public opinion. Both the government and the opposition in the UK are firmly of the view that Turkey should be admitted to the EU provided it fulfills the membership criteria. There is hardly any EU country where public support for Turkish membership is higher than it is in Britain. We take the view that enlargement has been one of the successes of the EU, not only in terms of  an expanded single market, but also in terms of consolidating democracy in new member  states

In the case of Turkey, we believe that anchoring Turkey within the EU would be of great benefit for Turkey and the Turkish economy. For us it would be a great prize to have within the EU an overwhelmingly Muslim, secular country governed by the rule of law and with a market economy. In many EU countries, moreover, issues like migration, people smuggling, the narcotics trade and organised crime are major issues. These are all areas where Turkey is a major partner. Most of the heroin reaching Western Europe transits Turkey and so do about half of the undocumented migrants.  Turkey is just as much a victim as the rest of us and just as committed to dealing with the problem. So Turkey could provide real advantages to the Union in improving our performance on these issues. Turkey also has a lot to contribute to our foreign and security policy given its unique relations with its neighbours and ability to influence regional issues with its diplomatic and military clout. All these advantages will be there for the EU if Turkey achieves full membership..

Q  The EU accession process is long and open-ended, and the outcome may depend on referenda in EU member countries. So don't you think Turkey would be better setting its own course and tackling its own problems instead of waiting endlessly for EU membership?

A  That is a decision for the Turkish government and people to make. But almost two-thirds of the population as well as the elected government is firmly committed to the continuation of accession negotiations. I would argue that the process of getting to October 3 and the accession negotiations has been very useful in assisting the recovery of the economy and modernising laws and society. A lot has been done in these respects even in the past four years. And I think a continuing membership perspective will be valuable in keeping up this momentum.

Q  The United Kingdom held the EU presidency in the second half of last year. That must have meant a lot of extra work for the Embassy...

A  Yes, having the EU presidency does add to the workload of any embassy. It's a time of long hours and hard work. But we managed. From a Turkish perspective, it came at a very important time. Achieving the breakthrough to accession negotiations on October 3 was a goal which we had to work hard to achieve. It was a complicated situation. We had to finalise the Negotiating Framework and other texts and then settle on the opening statements for the conference which launched the accession negotiations.  But we got there in the end and since then we have made good progress with the screening process.  We are now close to opening the first formal chapters of the negotiations.

Q  Is there any chance that the Cyprus issue might upset the process, say, within the current year?

A  The Cyprus issue is a real problem for the accession process. There is no question about that, and the reasons are well known. It's a great source of sadness that it was just before the last enlargement that the problem came so close to a solution, only for the Greek Cypriot side to refuse it in a referendum. In the event, a divided island entered the EU as a member state and this has made achieving a settlement more difficult. It is a matter for the UN, not the EU, and it is a good sign that the Secretary General is becoming engaged with the issue again. I think it is important for those who are suffering from the status quo that there should be a credible settlement process.

There have been times when the lack of a Cyprus settlement has impinged on the process of negotiations [between Turkey and the EU]. But I also think it's important to keep these issues in proportion and to keep working with goodwill towards EU membership.

Q  What does the Embassy put most of its time and effort into under normal circumstances?

A  Well, as you can imagine, a whole host of things: reporting, looking after UK business interests by advising and lobbying, liaising with the Turkish authorities about the EU (we spend a lot of money on projects related to training and the preparation of civil society for EU membership and I think this is a particularly worthwhile part of our work). We are in continuous dialogue with Turkey about a wide range of issues such as Cyprus, European Security and Defence Policy, EU-NATO relations and regional issues like Iraq, the nuclear issue in Iran  and the so-called "frozen conflicts" in the Caucasus. We have to discuss Afghanistan and issues coming up at the UN. There is also a big bilateral agenda. Visa services and consular protection for British citizens who are visiting and increasingly residing in Turkey are another major part of our work. Parliament and public opinion in the United Kingdom rightly have high expectations of the services which we can provide in these areas. 

Q  In what ways have the workings of a British Embassy changed since you first entered the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

A  I think we have changed in a number of ways. I like to think we are less hierarchical and less formal - although a measure of hierarchy is inevitable because the Ambassador is ultimately answerable for what the Embassy does. Secondly, I think we are more focused on objectives. There is a Foreign Office Strategy, and priorities and objectives are set for each mission, which are reviewed thoroughly each year. We are increasingly trying to put resources not only into places where we have interests but also where we can make a difference.

Communications have changed: today, we are in constant real-time communication with everybody. This means we can turn things around very quickly when we have to. As a result we are often expected to meet very tight deadlines. This can be a healthy discipline but it can also mean that we have less time to reflect and consult before taking decisions.

Unfortunately the rise of international terrorism means that we have to spend much more time and effort on security than we did in the past. We have suffered from that especially in Turkey. I lost a number of my colleagues in the bomb attack on our Istanbul Consulate in November 2003. We are as well protected as we can be against this kind of attack. Not only our physical security but our working practices have had to be reviewed and constrained significantly.

We are probably even more focused than before on the delivery of services to the public. We have to provide rapid, professional visa services and efficient consular protection. This also means that we have to be ready to react very quickly to everything from terrorist threats to national disasters. We also aim to provide high quality services for British companies who wish to trade with or invest in this country and for Turkish companies who are interested in investing in the UK.  The more traditional parts of our work - diplomacy - have perhaps changed less, although they too have to adapt to growing demands and the developing international agenda.

Q  Does all this mean having more people on the ground or fewer?

A  The Foreign Office pay roll is smaller than it was.  In some cases we are doing more with fewer people. But the collapse of the Soviet Union created more countries which has led us to open   more posts. In some countries where our interests merit it, like China and India, we have got more people on the ground now than in the past, because so much is changing.   In other countries where communications are good and doing business is relatively easy, and to which it is easy to travel at short notice, we can manage with fewer staff. We are always reviewing what we do in the light of new technology and new ways of doing things, and of our evolving needs. 

Q  Do you think you made the right decision when you decided in 2002 to come to Turkey rather than taking a post in another country?

A  I served in Ankara for a couple of years in the 1980s, and I asked to come back here not only because it was a country which I was fond of but also because I thought it would be very rewarding professionally. It has certainly been a challenging time. A number of things have happened which I could not possibly have predicted at that time – not all of them positive. The terrorist attack is one example. Nevertheless, I am delighted that I came here. It has been very rewarding to be the representative of the government which has been the strongest supporter of Turkey's EU membership, at the time when the country has begun accession negotiations - something which I also strongly believe in personally. I have had the chance to work with the government and with other Turkish organisations in a very rewarding way.   My wife and I have made good friendships which I am sure will continue for the rest of our lives.  Above all, I am glad to have been here at a time when Turkey has made enormous   progress, and the UK has been able to make a positive contribution.

Q  I understand you are due to leave Turkey later this year. Have you had the time and ability to pursue any personal interests during your stay in Ankara?

A  It has been a very full period. Yes, I have played my tennis, played a little squash and done a little skiing. We have travelled around the country a bit, although we would have liked to do more. I haven't been able to speak Turkish as much as I would have liked; my wife now speaks it better than me, although she had not lived in Turkey before. I am not sure exactly when I will leave - the later the better as far as we are concerned!

( DIPLOMAT  -  March 2006  -  Ankara )