World Service reprieve the latest step in FCO’s rehabilitation
David Blackburn 7:16pm
The BBC World Service has been reprieved. An additional £2.2m will be spent to
preserve the Arabic service, in line with some of the wishes of Foreign Affairs Select Committee Chairman Richard Ottaway and Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC and occasional consigliere to
David Cameron.
I don't share the Foreign Office’s sometime view that this is a ‘massive u-turn’, but it is a significant development. Opposition to cuts to the World Service budget came from across the House; but it originated from Tory backbenchers, who were very confident that they would secure a concession. The subsequent climb down suggests that Downing Street is prepared to consult with and act upon the wishes of the often recalcitrant Right.
Away from Westminster, the decision to preserve the Arabic service specifically is clearly a response to al-Jazeera’s dominant coverage of the Arab Spring, which has come at the World Service’s expense.
Al Jazeera’s triumph was symptomatic of an acute British foreign policy failure on Arab Street. Last year, substantial resources were apparently invested in a ‘conflict avoidance team’ for the FCO’s North Africa desk; and in February 2010, Vincent Fean, Britain’s ambassador to Tripoli, urged businessmen to invest in the stable Gaddafi regime. It’s little surprise, then, that the Foreign Office tripped into chaos when the revolts broke earlier this year. The FCO has striven to rectify the situation ever since, to which the salvation of the Arabic service attests.
And the government won’t stop here. Whatever the motivations behind the spat between Downing Street and the MoD, it is plain that Britain still has global ambitions beyond flogging Rollers to the Calcuttan nouveau riche, and that there are different ways to achieve them. William Hague has admitted that DfID’s ever inflating budget might be used to fund the World Service (and presumably other instruments that spread democratic and liberal ideals). It may be that this is the start of a ‘massive u-turn’ to make controversial international development work in Britain's favour; or at least more obviously than it does now.
PS: For its part, the BBC Trust has reallocated £9m to ensure that the World Service’s short-range operations in Hindi and Somali are preserved for the time being.
Previous
Dennis Churchill
June 22nd, 2011 7:52pm Report this comment“It may be that this is the start of a ‘massive u-turn’ to make controversial international development work in Britain's favour; or at least more obviously than it does now.”
More like Cameron realises how unpopular the increase in Foreign Aid was and is now looking at a way of selling it to the electorate.
This type of thing will keep happening while our political class remain so culturally detached from the majority’s values.
Rhoda Klapp
June 22nd, 2011 8:13pm Report this commentI'm sure the world is breathing a sigh of relief. How shall we manage the leap in international popularity it will engender?
David Lindsay
June 22nd, 2011 9:05pm Report this commentA reprieve for the BBC World Service after all. Jolly good, although I hope that it will not preclude people from also tuning in to Russia Today, Al Jazeera and Press TV.
In cases such as this, the question should always be, "Would you do this to the Americans, or to the Israelis?" If the answer to that is No, then the answer to this must also be No. It looks as if it might have been after all.
So, what and where next? When it comes to things like financial aid to our industry, the question should always be, "Would you refuse this to the Americans, or to the Israelis?" If the answer to that is No, then the answer to this must also be No.
And when it comes to military action involving either or both of America and Israel, the question should always be, "Would you do this for anyone else?" If the answer to that is No, then the answer to this must also be No.
But instead, we are ruled by those who have retained from their Powellite or their sectarian Leftist roots an ignorance of and contempt for the Commonwealth and the instruments of British "soft power" (a phrase which I greatly dislike), but not a recognition of and aversion to the American imperium (which is itself contrary to the Constitution of the United States) and the Zionist project.
Or are we? We certainly used to be. But are we still? After today, I am daring to begin to wonder. May we look forward to co-productions with Russia Today, Al Jazeera and Press TV?
Verity
June 22nd, 2011 9:24pm Report this commentThere is no sane reason for the World Service to exist. Every country, and many towns, all over the world have their own radio stations and subscribe to wire services, and citizens all over the world also have the option of getting their news off the internet.
The World Service, invaluable during WWII is a passenger, a parasite and, indeed, a negative and its role has been redundant for decades.
The entire BBC is a pointless bloodsucker, but if only one part of it has its subsistence stopped at source, it is the god awful World Service.
disenfranchised
June 22nd, 2011 9:40pm Report this commentwell of course the bbc would find an additional £2.2 million for this service, and £9 million the trust has "reallocated" for those other services.
backbenchers are concerned about our standing in the world.
this country is now stony broke, yet these people carry on as if we were still a wealthy, philanthropic nation, with an image that needed to be protected.
what a shock these bbc types and concerned backbenchers would get if they were ever to ask license payers where they'd like their money spent.....
David Taylor
June 23rd, 2011 2:38am Report this commentMaybe the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will donate the £2m per year required to the BBC from their budgets?
Patrick
June 23rd, 2011 5:24am Report this commentHave Rhoda Klapp and Verity ever lived outside the UK and in countries where the BBC World Service radio service is seen as the only reliable form of news reporting? Judging from their sour comments, I think not. This reprieve is more than welcome.
Rhoda Klapp
June 23rd, 2011 7:59am Report this commentHave I ever lived abrioad? Yes. Have I had to huddle over a crystal set listening to Alvar Liddell under a blanket waiting foe a knock on the door? No, and nor does anyone else nowadays. The issue is not whether it is a comfort to expats or to dissidents elsewhere, it is what value do we get for the money.
Axstane
June 23rd, 2011 8:55am Report this commentPatrick
I think that you will find that Verity has hardly ever lived in the UK. She tells us endlessly of her pride in Mexico, where she now lives, about her expertise on and knowledge of the USA. She has a very detailed knowledge of both the French and Singaporean health systems.
Apart from that her only hobby is to scream hysterically about the appearance of, and clothing worn by, David and Samantha Cameron - usually several times a day. So, we can presume that she is a fashionista over in Ciudad Mexico.
Oh, and she likes Eric Pickles and wants him to be Prime Minister.
Publius
June 23rd, 2011 10:54am Report this commentBBC World Service news used to be good once, but as with the rest of the BBC, it has been taken over by faddist self-deluded Guardianistas.
The news coverage incomparably worse than it used to be, is biased to the point of hilarity, frequently attacks Britain and the West in the usual Leftist libtard self-hating terms, adopts that bizarre BBC "objectivity" that refuses to recognise evil when it sees it, and is often delivered in incomprehensible English -- so often, in fact, that one can only assume that the abysmal quality of the broadcast voices is deliberate policy.
Jeremy
June 23rd, 2011 12:01pm Report this commentIt is not the World Service which is outdated, but rather Verity's and Rhoda Clapp's absurd and uninformed view of it.
The reprieve is very welcome.
Rhoda Klapp
June 23rd, 2011 5:50pm Report this commentYes, Jeremy. But is it value for money? Or can you explain just what is so good about it? Or why my view is uninformed, when I really do not have a view of all of its output, how could I as much is in laguages I do not speak? A view formed from the english output is that it is the boring bits of radio 4 spiced with a leftish slant of the news. But what goos is it? How is the UK taxpayer better off for having the money borrowed in his name? Oh, in the interest of full disclosure, what's your part in it? Listener? Contributor? BBC person? FCO denizen? I can't recall you as a regular contributor here, but maybe my memory is at fault.
Cogito Ergosum
June 24th, 2011 7:59pm Report this commentWho needs the BBC World Service in this Internet Age?
Back to top