A CRUEL QUIP a few years ago asked: “Should the Foreign Office be replaced by a fax?” In the age of e-mail, even this question is now superfluous.

Pity the poor diplomats. Few government departments have seen such a fall from glory as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Its power has been usurped by No 10. Its functions have been partly hived off elsewhere in Whitehall. Its historic residences have been sold off and its budget cut. Its very raison d’être has been called into question by endless reports, think-tanks, inquiries and commissions. Even its boss, Jack Straw, told Parliament yesterday that the Foreign Office had to change.

The problem, as every diplomat will bitterly concede, is one of image: the canapé-guzzling first secretary, his old school tie neatly offsetting his sober suit, is resented as the last hold-out of privilege. His elegantly phrased telegrams are superfluous, his attitudes chauvinist and his background elitist. No matter that the image is an absurd caricature: today’s diplomat — a woman, an Asian or a former factory worker — will be found in the thick of a crowd of demonstrators in Minsk, visiting prisoners in a Thai jail or bumping across the bush to resolve a standoff between rebels and aid workers. But the cliché is too useful to ditch: in the Whitehall dogfight for resources, the FCO is fair game.

Nevertheless, the Foreign Office deals with the world, and the world is changing faster than it predicted. Globalisation has hit diplomacy hard. India and China are rising as big powers, and Europe needs to adapt fast. The threat to our security comes not from the Cold War but from competition for resources, water shortages, booming populations and other destabilising trends. What are British embassies doing about climate change, global warming or stable oil supplies?

Not enough, Mr Straw says. As a result, not simply priorities but also delivery must change. Some of today’s challenges will continue: terrorism, nuclear proliferation, weapons of mass destruction. The need to work closely with allies, especially America, the UN and fellow EU members, will remain vital. But in three areas, Britain needs a completely different approach.

These new priorities are: migration, so that the huge flows of people seeking to enter the West do not overwhelm us; poverty reduction, so that the gulf between rich and poor does not lead to wars and violence; and consular services, so that the 65 million Britons travelling abroad each year can call on effective help if needed.

High-flying diplomats have traditionally looked down on lowly consular officials. That will have to change. Taxpayers care little for arcane analysis of tribal politics; but they do want someone to tell them what to do if their mother dies on holiday or their son is thrown into prison. In future all diplomats, including the high-flyers, will have to do a stint at the sharp end. Of course there must be limits: Britons abroad who demand consular intervention to sort out a hotel overbooking will get a dusty answer. But any diplomat who gives a dusty answer to those in real trouble risks the anger not only of the taxpayer but of the permanent under-secretary.

But are embassies still the right way of getting help where needed, or stemming illegal immigration? Already, the Foreign Office has begun setting up rapid reaction centres — places where aid workers, doctors, diplomats and communications specialists can preposition their expertise, ready to fly out at an hour’s notice to earthquake devastation, civil wars and riot zones.

And embassies in future may staff their posts from all over Whitehall: epidemiologists to counter the spread of Aids and TB, Home Office experts in asylum law, police liaison officers, serious crime squad investigators, specialists in the environment, climate and resources. Among them, the occasional diplomat will still be needed for his or her language skills, local knowledge and contacts. But Her Britannic Majesty’s Embassy will look and feel more like an outpost of GB Ltd.

Several will probably have to close. If Europe is a union, what should diplomats do in Denmark? Or consuls in Cannes? And with limited manpower — the FCO employs 6,000 Britons and 10,000 local staff in more than 250 posts abroad — any boost to missions in India and China will mean sacrifices in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific.

There will be plenty who will moan. Africa, they will argue, always loses out. Nostalgics wept when the doors closed for the last time on consulates in France and Italy. Others note that even a country as staid as Denmark sees some diplomatic excitement if a cartoonist is around. But Britain’s interests are surely better served by ensuring that Indians, Russians or Chinese get visas promptly than by keeping consuls in posts of faded glory.

Mr Straw’s revamp is intended to build on traditional strengths: regional expertise, negotiating, financial skills and exploiting the English language. But there are dangers. The first is the dwindling effectiveness of constantly changing strategic priorities. There was one only two years ago. There were dozens before that. Each time the message was different — focus on Europe, focus on the wider world; concentrate more on trade, hive trade off elsewhere. Diplomats, like Russian bureaucrats, may in the end simply nod and carry on as before.

The bigger danger is appeasement. Are these changes an attempt to keep the FCO “relevant” and resist the Treasury cuts? Is the Foreign Office looking for a function in a time of change? What about the old function — diplomacy? Isn’t that still needed? Or can it now be done by e-mail?

Times Recommends

• A dose of defeat is just the medicine
• Protecting ourselves from Eurocreep
• After the summer of LUV, it'll still hurt