Europe

Some excellent and informative comments today in response to Simon Jenkins Guardian piece on the British Council’s problems with the Russian authorities .

The first makes exactly the point I was about to -the blatant nepotism of it all – and it’s something the BBC in particular seems to think unworthy of notice:

magnolia

January 18, 2008 9:12 AM

In amongst all this diplomatic palarva, it just struck me that isn’t it nice that that nice Stephen Kinnock is the Head of the British Council in St Petersburg and his dad, that nice Neil Kinnock is actually the Head of the British Council and of course, isn’t it also nice that his dad used to also be the nice Head of the British Labour Party and isn’t particularly it very very nice that he also was once Head of something very very big in the EU and isn’t extremely nice that his nice wife also has a nice job as an MEP in Europe for the nice British Labour Party.

It’s always nice to see an honest to goodness working class family thriving together.

Quite.

What is the British Council all about now, after ten years of New Labour? Is it still the stuffy, elitist, worthy soft diplomatic institution many of us remember? What does it do, now, exactly?

musubi

January 18, 2008 7:57 AM

Surely the British Council got itself into this mess because (as explained already by John JT) it has been trying to have it both ways. I.e. it’s been trying to be an arm of the British diplomatic presence in the rest of the world, spreading British language and culture as PR for Britain, AND it’s been trying to get a commercial return for doing this. This paradox has arisen because of the mania (since Thatcherism) of making everything pay its own way in bits and pieces instead of being funded by those who are supposedly benefiting from it (i.e. the British people). Wouldn’t it be fun if core diplomats, military attaches etc. all had to pay their own way by generating income in the land to which they are sent! But being commercialised, the BC must also be expected to honour the income tax laws in the host country. Isn’t it just that that the Russian authorities have been saying? I’ve seen no precise rational counter-arguments to this since the matter came up some months ago, just pathetic neo-coldwarism and anti-Russianism.

If the BC can’t make enough money while honouring the relevant tax laws then it should file for bankruptcy, like any other business. Or it could/should go back to being a fully funded public institution like it was many years ago, and provide cultural services in the interests of the British stake in international understanding. Or it could be an NPO with grants from various sources including the British government and British businesses which have an interest in promoting British cultural activities in areas where they operate. Which is it to be?

Exactly.

Is the British Council in Russia an unaccountable, profit-making language school and marketing bureau that evades taxes while providing safe and well-remunerated berths for out of work, but well-connected children of superannuated New Labour hacks – or is it a legitimate diplomatic mission?

Seems to me the Russians may have a point – and as much as my first, jingoistic inclination is to point to their Stalinist tactics and demand that Johnny Foreigner be taught a lesson so let’s kick a few Rusiian billionaires out of Kenisngton, it’s a point Uk.gov needs to address.

But although it may well have a case against the British Council, it is as nothing to ours against Russia itself, which brought its internal business to our shores, conspiring and enabling the murder of one Russian agent by another with radioactive poison, thereby puttiing the innocent public at risk – and which then compoundied the offence by harbouring and protecting the murderer, by now an elected politician.

That makes a bit of ambiguity on taxes and a dose of nepotism look like very small potatoes.