Undiplomatic diplomats
It is usually considered part of the job of an ambassador to give, privately, a frank and accurate account to the government he or she represents of what is going on in the country to which he or she is accredited.
It is because countries have long recognised that such honest but not open communication is usually in the long-term interests of both countries that diplomatic communications have a special level of privacy and immunity.
Whether or not you agree with the opinions of Britain's ambassador to the USA, Sir Kim Darroch, about the Trump administration, it was part of his job to tell the government what he thinks.
And if every ambassador who wrote an honest and unflattering opinion of the government to which he was accredited was the target of a similar leak and had to resign there would be no diplomats left in Moscow, Bejing, Ankara, Tehran, or a number of other capitals we can all easily think of.
However, the leak of those opinions where they were unflattering was always going to be harmful to relations with any government, and all the more so where the government concerned is headed by someone like Donald Trump. Where the relationship concerned is Britain's single most important international relationship such a leak is an absolute calamity.
If evidence should emerge identifying a British politician or official as being responsible for the leak they should be both sacked and prosecuted for having damaged Britain's interests.
There are, however, at least two foreign governments which run legions of highly sophisticated hackers and IT intelligence operations and which might find it useful to damage relations between the UK and the USA. I would not rule out the possibility that the leak of the communications between Ambassador Kim Darrow and the government came from a hostile foreign power which had hacked our communications and released stolen information to the press with the intention of damaging Britain's most important diplomatic relationship - in which they have succeeded.
I hope the leak inquiry will include a review of cyber security of British diplomatic communications.
It is because countries have long recognised that such honest but not open communication is usually in the long-term interests of both countries that diplomatic communications have a special level of privacy and immunity.
Whether or not you agree with the opinions of Britain's ambassador to the USA, Sir Kim Darroch, about the Trump administration, it was part of his job to tell the government what he thinks.
And if every ambassador who wrote an honest and unflattering opinion of the government to which he was accredited was the target of a similar leak and had to resign there would be no diplomats left in Moscow, Bejing, Ankara, Tehran, or a number of other capitals we can all easily think of.
However, the leak of those opinions where they were unflattering was always going to be harmful to relations with any government, and all the more so where the government concerned is headed by someone like Donald Trump. Where the relationship concerned is Britain's single most important international relationship such a leak is an absolute calamity.
If evidence should emerge identifying a British politician or official as being responsible for the leak they should be both sacked and prosecuted for having damaged Britain's interests.
There are, however, at least two foreign governments which run legions of highly sophisticated hackers and IT intelligence operations and which might find it useful to damage relations between the UK and the USA. I would not rule out the possibility that the leak of the communications between Ambassador Kim Darrow and the government came from a hostile foreign power which had hacked our communications and released stolen information to the press with the intention of damaging Britain's most important diplomatic relationship - in which they have succeeded.
I hope the leak inquiry will include a review of cyber security of British diplomatic communications.
Comments