The ambassador: a matter of trust

To The Times

I have been both a diplomat and a political appointee, and from both points of view I deeply regret Sir Kim Darroch’s resignation as ambassador to Washington. His decision to resign is a demonstration of the decency of a man I have known for many decades. But the fact that he has felt the need to do so is a sign of the fundamental dysfunctionality of our political system at the moment, rather than the US system.

His confidential correspondence to the Foreign Office was harvested over a number of years and leaked to a Brexit supporter with a clear political agenda. This is one of a series of politically motivated attacks on the civil service by Brexiters.

Having been on both sides of this divide I can tell you that the existence of an independent civil service is a fundamental element of our unwritten constitutional order. If the attacks continue, they risk bringing that whole order crashing down. Jonathan Powell, Downing Street chief of staff (1997-2007)

To The Times

I am no fan of Donald Trump or Boris Johnson, but Johnson’s ambivalent position on Sir Kim Darroch regrettably makes sense. Trump’s intemperate and offensive tweets cannot disguise the fact that once the ages-old convention of a veil between the public, respectful behaviour of a diplomat and their private, candid briefings to their masters is breached, then the vital trust between them and their host country is fatally damaged. An ambassador can no longer perform the role once that trust is lost. Trump’s attack on Sir Kim is utterly distasteful, but no president could let such a critical analysis of his performance by a top diplomat go unchallenged. The difference is that, under a less bizarre incumbent of the White House, the impossible position Sir Kim was put in would have been addressed by his resignation, but in a measured way through diplomatic processes.

William Gubbins, Winchester, Hampshire