Robin Wilton's esoterica

Former British ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, is all over the headlines here at the moment, because of the publication and newspaper serialisation of his memoirs, which are apparently quite frank in some areas, notably when he describes the UK politicians who visited Washington while he was there as Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador and Plenipotentiary. I mention that last bit, the full form of address for an accredited ambassador, because to hear some of the ministerial comments about Sir Christopher, you might fail to get the impression that he was in Washington as the appointed representative of his monarch and his country's government. Head of post in Washington is traditionally seen as the pinnacle of a diplomatic career; so much so that it sometimes does not go to a career diplomat at all, but is awarded to a 'political appointee' by the government of the day. In the late 70s, Peter Jay was sent there by the then Labour Foreign Secretary James Callaghan, who died in March this year. Paul Barker of The Independent wrote:"His time as foreign secretary (1974-76) is best typified by a scandalous act of nepotism: appointing his son-in-law, Peter Jay, ambassador to Washington." But I digress. The Meyer memoirs, which I admit I have not read, have been described as 'gravely undermining the trust and confidence which must exist between civil servants and politicians'. And yet Sir Chiristopher submitted them to the Cabinet Office for approval before publication. Through the same process, Sir Jeremy Greenstock's memoir of his time at the UN has just been refused publication. So why did the Cabinet Office allow Meyer's book through unamended, if it is so unacceptable? I couldn't say. Presumably they either didin't object to it, or they thought its publication would benefit those criticised in some way which outweighs the embarrassment of being criticised. It seems unlikely that Sir Christopher didn't know what effect his book might have, or what the relevant code of conduct is. He served former Primer Minister John Major as the latter's Press Secretary. Some of the views reported by those who have read the book would clearly be uncongenial to current ministers, though. He is uncomplimentary in describing a number of serving politicians. He also asserts that Tony Blair could have done more to focus George W Bush's attention on the aftermath of the Iraq war, rather than the question of how to justify and prosecute it as quickly as possible. He also draws a causal link between link between Tony Blair's pro-war stance and the fostering of terrorist extremists in the UK. It is this which drew what I think is one of the most bizarre criticisms from the government: 'Local government minister David Miliband dismissed Sir Christopher's claim. "Christopher Meyer, I think I am right in saying, is an expert on foreign policy. He is not an expert on the domestic issues that are going on inside communities in this country." ' And yet, that is exactly what an ambassador is. Meyer was responsible for communicating UK policy to the US government, on matters of foreign relations, but also UK political issues relevant to what's going on in the world. Our government is very keen to portray the war against terror as one without frontiers, unless, it seems, what's at issue is home-grown terrorism. That said, Mayer does deserve some criticism on the basis of the effect his actions will have on those still serving as diplomats. Their life will be harder as a result; they will face a more restrictive code of conduct, and some ministers may indeed be more circumspect in what they reveal to their civil servants. I wonder if the droves of non-civil service 'political advisors' will be bound by any similar code of conduct.