In his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom President Nelson Mandela wrote of his time as a prisoner on Robben Island. "We also had a radio, but one that received only local stations and not what we wanted, the BBC World Service." Mr Mandela respected the integrity of the World Service. He realised that while British governments of the time may have been wholly opposed to him (as Mrs "Thatcher was) the World Service would report on events in South Africa and elsewhere with impartiality.
The excellence, if not the impartiality, of the World Service may now be under threat. The BBC's director general, Mr John Birt, has decided that costs must be cut. Henceforth, the World Service will no longer have its own news operation for its output in English but will instead be supplied by the BBC's" domestic operations. Jobs will be lost and money will be saved. But the plan's critics argue that the World Service's international agenda will be virtually disregarded within a monolithic news operation which is primarily focussed on domestic priorities.
In the end, they say, the reputation of the service will inevitably suffer. To give an example, one day last week the World Service led its news bulletin on the meeting between President Yeltsin and Vice President, Gore, a meeting in which there was much interest because of Mr Yeltsin's unavailability the day before. BBC Radio 4, which is as serious about news as domestic BBC can be, led on the decision by the Princess of Wales to resign as patron to 100 charities. The World Service prides itself on being reliable and impartial and also on being unsensational.
In fairness to Mr Birt, he has worked some small miracles at the BBC. He has held the BBC's audience share, in contrast to public broadcasters elsewhere in Europe, and has got its charter renewed, thus guaranteeing the licence fee income. But Mr Birt's style irritates. He is abrasive and arrogant. He is also not much given to consultation. The managing director of the World Service was told of the changes hours before they were announced, as was Mr Birt's deputy. Mr Birt believes that divulging one's intentions gives time for opponents to harden their opposition. He may have logic on his side but it is not an approach which endears him to colleagues.
Mr Birt could shrug off his critics if the BBC paid for the running of the World Service, but it doesn't the British Government does, through the Foreign Office. Mr Birt says that cuts in Foreign Office allocations will open up a £10 million gap between the service's costs and its revenue. Hence the need for change.
With his proposals, Mr Birt has forged a sturdy alliance of opponents. They put up a strong case. The World Service works. It broadcasts 24 hours a day in English and in 43 other languages. Its listenership has risen by seven million to 140 million in the last year, despite reduced budgets. Mr Birt talks about the threat from digital broadcasting but the digital age will mean nothing to the vast majority of the service's listeners for a very long time. The World Service may be a leftover from the days of Empire but the years have not diminished its standing or the need for it. Hopefully, Mr Birt can be persuaded to identify ways `to increase its cost efficiency which do not threaten its effectiveness.