Mary Dejevsky: The US relies on experts – the British just ignore them

From this side of the Atlantic it is hard to believe, but there is a constituency of Americans who voted enthusiastically for President Obama that is disillusioned even before his first 100 days is up. They complain that he has moved too slowly on the economy, been too indulgent of the bankers, neglected the promised help for the poor, and let off CIA torturers too lightly. It is tempting to ask: how impatient do you have to be to be American?

In the British context the changes the new President has embarked on, if not yet actually wrought, are enormous. They amount to a reversal of almost everything the previous administration stood for – and, yes, this dramatic turnaround has been accomplished in his first 100 days. In recent British history, perhaps only Margaret Thatcher made so determined and radical a start, while grousing about obstructive civil servants.

Which is where, of course, a new US President has it both easier and more difficult. Easier, because it is up to him to staff the upper echelons of government departments with his appointees; more difficult, because finding qualified appointees is a big and distracting task, even when the transition period runs its full 10 weeks. Preparations for the G8 summit in London were said to be complicated by the number of administration posts still unfilled.

What cannot be disputed, though, is that, at least in Mr Obama's case, he has sought high and low for advice. The "listening" that he made the hallmark of his recent European tour is reproduced in every area of policy. This does not please everyone. Critics say that "listening" is becoming an excuse for not doing, and that his "eclectic" group of advisers is a recipe for discord down the line.

But there is a group of people it pleases a great deal. They are the academic experts in universities and think-tanks, as well as past practitioners, and they are revelling in the chance to make their voice, and their expertise, heard.

This includes the key area of Russia policy, where President Obama has made it a priority – in the words of his Vice-President, Joe Biden, two months ago – to "press the reset button". Talks on a new nuclear arms treaty have begun, and Russia will be the first foreign policy area to be tackled in US Congressional hearings.

Some of those who will testify have passed through London recently. And what is immediately apparent – envied would not be too strong a word to describe the response of their British counterparts – is the sense of mutual engagement in Washington. Efforts include a three-part working group, one element of which draws in all former US ambassadors to Russia and Russian ambassadors to the US. Just consider how much experience and specialist knowledge resides in such a group that would otherwise remain untapped.

Soliciting advice, of course, is not the same as heeding it. And it is important not to confuse the two. But there is continuing frustration among British academics that, in their view, their expertise is rarely prized. Middle East specialists are still smarting from what they see as the wilful disregard of their knowledge in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Responsibility for action, of course, rests with the political leaders. But not to call on such advice as exists is surely negligent. And even if the politicians choose to ignore it, they should at least be able to explain to the experts, and then the general public, why.

The lack of such engagement in Britain results in a class of academics that is not as good as it should be at communicating outside its own discipline – and politicians and government departments that keep to themselves. The usefulness of the US-style "revolving door" between differ-

ent walks of life can be exaggerated. Sceptics would argue that some US think-tanks are simply waiting rooms for cast-offs from previous administrations.

But the many British think-tanks that have sprung up in the past decade or so tend to illustrate how good the British are at adopting American forms without replicating the substance. US think-tanks exist to thrash out policies that match that institution's guiding principles. Without US-level endowments, ours often rely on single commissions from interested parties, including the Government, and so operate more like consultancies.

One of the starkest differences between the US\academic world and ours is its confidence in its own relevance. For many American scholars, it is part of the job to be at ease with politicians and be able to stand up (look presentable and make the technology work), speak up (set out an argument cogently to a non-specialist audience), and shut up (speak clearly and not over-run the allotted time).

This is a level of professionalism and real-world savvy that comes with being needed and respected outside the ivory tower. It is not to every academic's taste. But the degree of separation that is standard in Britain, especially in foreign policy, both hobbles our diplomacy and allows valuable expertise to go to waste.

m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk