LONDON — It’s never comfortable having your frank assessments of foreign governments leaked in a way designed to cause the maximum embarrassment.
I should know. When I was the British ambassador in Rome in 2004, I attended a conference held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that comments can be quoted but not attributed. My description of the then-U.S. President George W. Bush as “Al Qaeda’s best recruiting sergeant” made international headlines and caused a certain frisson between the U.K. and U.S.
Like Kim Darroch — the British ambassador to the U.S. whose frank assessments of President Donald Trump were leaked this week — I found myself in an unpleasant situation, under fire at home and abroad for having spoken the truth in a context I thought was confidential.
There are three important differences, however, between my situation and my colleague’s in the U.S.
The first, most important, difference regards the context in which our remarks were made.
Kim Darroch, British ambassador to the U.S. | Riccardo Savi/Capitol File Magazine via Getty Images
The Foreign Office distanced themselves from my comments. When I pointed out that they had been made under what I understood to be privileged circumstances, I was told that I was being naïve: “Whatever the rule, you should expect, if you say something newsworthy, that it will become news.”
Darroch was not speaking at a gathering with others present. He was sending his considered assessments by confidential Foreign Office telegrams. He was not being naïve. He was doing precisely what he is paid to do, to give an unvarnished, frank assessment of his hosts and informed political advice to his government.
The second important difference is the domestic context back home.
It is increasingly clear that the leak of Darroch’s confidential communication is part of the Brexit game, designed to harm him for his alleged Europhilia. Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage was first out of the traps in his criticism of Darroch, describing him as “totally unsuitable for the job and the sooner he is gone the better.”
When I pointed out that they had been made under what I understood to be privileged circumstances, I was told that I was being naïve.
The two men have a certain history. Darroch was British ambassador to the European Union while Farage has long been Britain’s most high-profile anti-EU MEP. When they were both in Brussels, their mutual dislike was well known. Farage believed Darroch was a Europhile — not a crime at a halcyon time before the Brexit referendum when the British government’s policy was to support the EU from within.
Farage’s criticism of him (and the leaker’s likely motive) reflect the fact that Brexiteers believe Darroch is an unreconstructed Remainer, like most of the U.K. civil service doing their level best to frustrate Brexit.
There is not a shred of evidence for this, but it has become part of the Brexiteers’ narrative and forms part of their attack on the impartiality of the civil service (something they weirdly share with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn) as well as the judiciary, the BBC and of course the House of Commons itself, which stubbornly refuses to facilitate a no-deal Brexit.
Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage addresses supporters from the stage at the party’s Big Vision Rally | Christopher Furlong via Getty Images
The third difference is the U.S. government’s reaction. Darroch’s commentary put him in Trump’s crosshairs. In a series of tweets Monday, the president played into the Brexiteers’ narrative, criticizing Prime Minister Theresa May’s handling of Brexit and concluding with the “good news” that the U.K. will soon have a new prime minister. Darroch, the president tweeted, “is not liked or well thought of within the U.S.” adding that, “We will no longer deal with him.”
In another series of tweets, Tuesday, Trump called Darroch “a very stupid guy” and “a pompous fool.” The ambassador has already been disinvited from one function at the White House.
For my part, I was not serving in Washington. So, a U.S. government decision to shun me would have had none or little impact, apart from perhaps a few desultory exchanges with my U.S. colleague in Rome.
If Trump doesn’t just mean that he personally will no longer deal with the ambassador, then it will be uncomfortable for Darroch to stay on for any substantial period of time. But it will not be impossible.
For Darroch, the pressure is much greater. If he is not able to, for instance, accompany visiting British ministers in calls on their opposite numbers or to speak to the U.S. secretary of state or national security adviser about the many key political and security questions that preoccupy both governments, he will have been made effectively a persona non grata, the legal diplomatic process by which a host government expels a foreign diplomat.
It is virtually unknown for this to happen between any Western allies. It hasn’t happened in the context of the special relationship since 1856, when the U.K. envoy resigned after being accused of trying to enlist U.S. recruits for the British army.
If Trump doesn’t just mean that he personally will no longer deal with the ambassador, then it will be uncomfortable for Darroch to stay on for any substantial period of time. But it will not be impossible.
It would be a great folly for whoever is the incoming U.K. prime minister to kowtow to a bullying U.S. president and withdraw Darroch before his natural time is up.
I came close to being declared persona non grata myself in another ambassadorial post, Belgrade, in the 1990s — when I was accused by the government of Slobodan Milošević of illegally importing, under diplomatic privilege, radio equipment and decoders to support the independent media who were very much under pressure from the regime.
“If you are here to represent your country, then you are welcome,” were Milošević’s words to me. “But if you are here to settle the affairs of Serbia, you are not.” Though he ultimately decided not to expel me, I had no access to him for five months at a time when we had key business to negotiate in the implementation of the Dayton peace accords which brought the Bosnian war to an end.
My advice to Darroch is to hang on while Trump’s mercurial temper subsides. It would be a great folly for whoever is the incoming U.K. prime minister to kowtow to a bullying U.S. president and withdraw Darroch before his natural time is up.
Ivor Roberts, a former British ambassador to Yugoslavia, Ireland and Italy, is the editor of the diplomatic handbook “Satow’s Diplomatic Practice.” He was president of Trinity College, Oxford from 2006 to 2017.