Iranian boats 'tried to intercept British tanker' - BBC News

Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker near the Gulf - before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence has said.

HMS Montrose moved between the three boats and the tanker British Heritage before issuing verbal warnings to the Iranian vessels, a spokesman said.

He described the Iranians' actions as "contrary to international law".

Iran had threatened to retaliate for the seizure of one of its own tankers, but denied any attempted seizure.

Boats believed to belong to Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) approached the British Heritage tanker and tried to bring it to a halt as it was moving out of the Gulf into the Strait of Hormuz.

Guns on HMS Montrose, the British frigate escorting the tanker, were reportedly trained on the Iranian boats as they were ordered to back off. They heeded the warning and no shots were fired.

The BBC has been told British Heritage was near the island of Abu Musa when it was approached and harassed by the Iranian boats.

Although the island is in disputed territorial waters, HMS Montrose remained in international waters throughout.

A UK government spokesman said: "Contrary to international law, three Iranian vessels attempted to impede the passage of a commercial vessel, British Heritage, through the Strait of Hormuz.

"We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region."

What does Iran say?

Quoting the public relations office of the IRGC's Navy, the Fars news agency said, in a tweet, the IRGC "denies claims by American sources" that it tried to seize British Heritage.

"There has been no confrontation in the last 24 hours with any foreign vessels, including British ones," the IRGC added, according to the AFP news agency.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the UK made the claims "for creating tension".

"These claims have no value," Mr Zarif added, according to Fars.

Why are UK-Iran tensions escalating?

The relationship between the UK and Iran has become increasingly strained, after Britain said the Iranian regime was "almost certainly" responsible for the attacks on two oil tankers in June.

Last week, British Royal Marines helped the authorities in Gibraltar seize an Iranian oil tanker because of evidence it was heading to Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

In response, an Iranian official said a British oil tanker should be seized if its detained ship was not released.

Iran also summoned the British ambassador in Tehran to complain about what it said was a "form of piracy".

On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani mocked the UK, calling it "scared" and "hopeless" for using Royal Navy warships to shadow a British tanker in the Gulf.

HMS Montrose had shadowed British tanker the Pacific Voyager for some of the way through the Strait of Hormuz, but that journey had passed without incident.

"You, Britain, are the initiator of insecurity and you will realise the consequences later," Mr Rouhani said.

The UK has also been pressing Iran to release British-Iranian mother Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe who was jailed for five years in 2016 after being convicted for spying, which she denies.

Could things get worse?

Iran appears to have been attempting to make good on its threat against British-flagged vessels in the wake of the seizure of an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar.

But though this incident has a specifically bilateral dimension, it is also a powerful reminder that the tensions in the Gulf have not gone away.

And with every sign that the dispute over the nuclear agreement with Iran is set to continue, things may only get worse.

The episode may add some impetus to US-brokered efforts to muster an international naval force in the Gulf to protect international shipping.

But most worrying of all, it shows that elements within the Iranian system - the Revolutionary Guard Corps's naval arm, or whatever - are intent on stoking the pressure.

This inevitably plays into President Trump's hands as Britain and its key European partners struggle to keep the nuclear agreement alive.

What about US-Iran relations?

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The US has blamed Iran for attacks on six oil tankers in May and June.

The chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff said, on Wednesday, it wants to create an multi-national military coalition to safeguard waters around Iran and Yemen.

The Trump administration - which has pulled out of an international agreement on Tehran's nuclear programme - has reinforced punishing sanctions against Iran.

Its European allies, including the UK, have not followed suit.

Iran's ambassador to the UN has insisted Europeans must do more to compensate Tehran for economic losses inflicted by US sanctions - otherwise Iranians will continue to exceed limits on their nuclear fuel production.

• Iran-US tensions: What's going on?
• Trumplomacy: What's the US endgame in Iran?

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48946051

2019-07-11 07:05:16Z
CBMiJGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy91ay00ODk0NjA1MdIBKGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvdWstNDg5NDYwNTE

Iranian boats 'tried to intercept British tanker' - BBC News

Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker near the Gulf - before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence has said.

HMS Montrose moved between the three boats and the tanker British Heritage before issuing verbal warnings to the Iranian vessels, a spokesman said.

He described the Iranians' actions as "contrary to international law".

Iran had threatened to retaliate for the seizure of one of its own tankers, but denied any attempted seizure.

Boats believed to belong to Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) approached the British Heritage tanker and tried to bring it to a halt as it was moving out of the Gulf into the Strait of Hormuz.

Guns on HMS Montrose, the British frigate escorting the tanker, were reportedly trained on the Iranian boats as they were ordered to back off. They heeded the warning and no shots were fired.

The BBC has been told British Heritage was near the island of Abu Musa when it was approached and harassed by the Iranian boats.

Although the island is in disputed territorial waters, HMS Montrose remained in international waters throughout.

A UK government spokesman said: "Contrary to international law, three Iranian vessels attempted to impede the passage of a commercial vessel, British Heritage, through the Strait of Hormuz.

"We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region."

What does Iran say?

Quoting the public relations office of the IRGC's Navy, the Fars news agency said, in a tweet, the IRGC "denies claims by American sources" that it tried to seize British Heritage.

"There has been no confrontation in the last 24 hours with any foreign vessels, including British ones," the IRGC added, according to the AFP news agency.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the UK made the claims "for creating tension".

"These claims have no value," Mr Zarif added, according to Fars.

Why are UK-Iran tensions escalating?

The relationship between the UK and Iran has become increasingly strained, after Britain said the Iranian regime was "almost certainly" responsible for the attacks on two oil tankers in June.

Last week, British Royal Marines helped the authorities in Gibraltar seize an Iranian oil tanker because of evidence it was heading to Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

In response, an Iranian official said a British oil tanker should be seized if its detained ship was not released.

Iran also summoned the British ambassador in Tehran to complain about what it said was a "form of piracy".

On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani mocked the UK, calling it "scared" and "hopeless" for using Royal Navy warships to shadow a British tanker in the Gulf.

HMS Montrose had shadowed British tanker the Pacific Voyager for some of the way through the Strait of Hormuz, but that journey had passed without incident.

"You, Britain, are the initiator of insecurity and you will realise the consequences later," Mr Rouhani said.

The UK has also been pressing Iran to release British-Iranian mother Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe who was jailed for five years in 2016 after being convicted for spying, which she denies.

Could things get worse?

Iran appears to have been attempting to make good on its threat against British-flagged vessels in the wake of the seizure of an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar.

But though this incident has a specifically bilateral dimension, it is also a powerful reminder that the tensions in the Gulf have not gone away.

And with every sign that the dispute over the nuclear agreement with Iran is set to continue, things may only get worse.

The episode may add some impetus to US-brokered efforts to muster an international naval force in the Gulf to protect international shipping.

But most worrying of all, it shows that elements within the Iranian system - the Revolutionary Guard Corps's naval arm, or whatever - are intent on stoking the pressure.

This inevitably plays into President Trump's hands as Britain and its key European partners struggle to keep the nuclear agreement alive.

What about US-Iran relations?

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The US has blamed Iran for attacks on six oil tankers in May and June.

The chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff said, on Wednesday, it wants to create an multi-national military coalition to safeguard waters around Iran and Yemen.

The Trump administration - which has pulled out of an international agreement on Tehran's nuclear programme - has reinforced punishing sanctions against Iran.

Its European allies, including the UK, have not followed suit.

Iran's ambassador to the UN has insisted Europeans must do more to compensate Tehran for economic losses inflicted by US sanctions - otherwise Iranians will continue to exceed limits on their nuclear fuel production.

• Iran-US tensions: What's going on?
• Trumplomacy: What's the US endgame in Iran?

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48946051

2019-07-11 07:02:18Z
CBMiJGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy91ay00ODk0NjA1MdIBKGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvdWstNDg5NDYwNTE

Britain's new $3.8 billion aircraft carrier just sprang a leak - CNN International

The $3.8 billion warship, the future flagship of the Royal Navy's fleet, had set out from Portsmouth last month for the trials.

"Following a minor issue with an internal system on HMS Queen Elizabeth, the ship's company were required to remove a small volume of water from the ship," a Royal Navy spokesperson said. "An investigation into the cause is underway."

Some reports in British media attributed the leak to a burst high-pressure sea water pipe that damaged a stairwell and split deck plates.

But the Royal Navy said the ship's hull was not damaged, and all the water was removed.

The 65,000-ton aircraft carrier would have been returning to its Portsmouth base later this week for planned maintenance this week anyway and the early return was just precautionary, the Royal Navy said.

The Queen Elizabeth had undergone an extensive inspection and had maintenance performed in a dry dock in May, according to a Royal Navy release.

"During her time out of the water, 284 hull valves were changed, both rudder blades were removed and cleaned, her sea inlet pipes were inspected, all sacrificial anodes were replaced and a renewed coat of anti-foul paint was applied to the ship's bottom," the release said.

That successful inspection meant another would not be needed for six years, the Royal Navy said.

The ship is scheduled to go to the United States later this year for trials with Britain's F-35B fighter jets, which will form the bulk of the ship's air wing when it becomes fully operational next year.

The Royal Navy calls the Queen Elizabeth, and its still-under-construction twin HMS Prince of Wales, "the largest and most advanced warships ever built for the Royal Navy."

CNN's Zoe Sottile contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/europe/britain-aircraft-carrier-leak-intl-hnk/index.html

2019-07-11 06:23:00Z
CBMiV2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAxOS8wNy8xMS9ldXJvcGUvYnJpdGFpbi1haXJjcmFmdC1jYXJyaWVyLWxlYWstaW50bC1obmsvaW5kZXguaHRtbNIBW2h0dHBzOi8vYW1wLmNubi5jb20vY25uLzIwMTkvMDcvMTEvZXVyb3BlL2JyaXRhaW4tYWlyY3JhZnQtY2Fycmllci1sZWFrLWludGwtaG5rL2luZGV4Lmh0bWw

Iranian boats attempted to seize British tanker - CNN

The British Heritage tanker was sailing out of the Persian Gulf and was crossing into the Strait of Hormuz area when it was approached by the Iranian boats. The Iranians ordered the tanker to change course and stop in nearby Iranian territorial waters, according to the officials. A US aircraft was overhead and recorded video of the incident, though CNN has not seen the footage.

The UK's Royal Navy frigate HMS Montrose had been escorting the tanker from the rear. It trained its deck guns on the Iranians and gave them a verbal warning to back away, which they did. Montrose is equipped on the deck with 30 mm guns specifically designed to drive off small boats. UK officials had previously confirmed that the Montrose was in the region performing a "maritime security role."

In a statement, the UK's Ministry of Defense said that "contrary to international law, three Iranian vessels attempted to impede the passage of a commercial vessel, British Heritage, through the Strait of Hormuz."

"HMS Montrose was forced to position herself between the Iranian vessels and British Heritage and issue verbal warnings to the Iranian vessels, which then turned away," the statement said. "We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region."

The incident is yet another flashpoint in a series of maritime episodes involving Iran, coming less than a week after British Royal Marines stormed an Iranian ship that was suspected of carrying oil to Syria. Just last month, tensions between the US and Iran escalated into a military standoff after an American drone was shot down by Iran over the Straight of Hormuz.

At the same time, concerns are rising in Europe and the United States after Iran began increasing uranium enrichment after saying it would no longer comply with the nuclear agreement it signed in 2015. The US pulled out of the nuclear deal in 2018 and reintroduced economic sanctions.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned earlier Wednesday that the UK "will see the consequences" after Gibraltar officials and UK Royal Marines seized an Iranian oil tanker bound for Syria last week, according to Rouhani's press office.

Rouhani, speaking in a cabinet session, said, "I tell the British that they are the initiator of insecurity and you will understand its consequences later."

US working to strengthen maritime security in region

US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford said Tuesday that the US and its allies were working to put together a coalition of countries to come up with a system to enforce freedom of navigation in the region amid what the US says are heightened threats from Iran.

"We had a discussion today, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and I and we are engaging now with a number of countries to see if we can put together a coalition that would ensure freedom of navigation both in the Straits of Hormuz and the Bab el Mandeb," Dunford said following an awards ceremony for his Finnish counterpart.

"I think what we'll do is, we certainly from the United States perspective would provide maritime domain awareness and surveillance," he said, adding that naval vessels would escort commercial ships that shared a country of origin, if required.

"Escorting in the normal course of events would be done by countries who have the same flag so a ship that is flagged by a particular country would be escorted by that country and I think what the United States can provide is domain awareness, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and then coordination and patrols for other ships that would be in the area would be largely coalition ships," Dunford said.

Heightened tensions

The alleged Iranian attempt to seize the British tanker comes amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Earlier on Wednesday President Donald Trump announced on Twitter that sanctions on Iran will "soon be increased, substantially!" following news that Iran was enriching uranium beyond the limits imposed by the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Last month Trump halted plans for a military strike against Iran in retaliation for the shooting down of a US drone, Trump said he found it hard to believe it had been an "intentional" act. "I think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid that did it," Trump said in the Oval Office on June 20.

The Trump administration has argued that the nuclear deal it abandoned in 2018, is inadequate as it doesn't cover Iran's ballistic missiles or regional activities.

Even though the International Atomic Energy Agency has found that Iran has complied with the deal, the US has re-imposed all sanctions in place before the deal and added new ones. Those actions have undermined the central concept of the deal -- that in exchange for controls on its nuclear program, Iran would see some economic relief.

Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted Wednesday that the US has no standing to raise issues pertaining to the multilateral deal, due to the Trump administration's earlier decision to exit he deal.

US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook told CNN Tuesday that the US is "looking for a new and better deal" to submit to the Senate as a treaty.

CNN's Nicole Gaouette contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/10/politics/iran-attempted-seize-british-tanker/index.html

2019-07-11 05:16:00Z
CBMiVmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAxOS8wNy8xMC9wb2xpdGljcy9pcmFuLWF0dGVtcHRlZC1zZWl6ZS1icml0aXNoLXRhbmtlci9pbmRleC5odG1s0gFaaHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAuY25uLmNvbS9jbm4vMjAxOS8wNy8xMC9wb2xpdGljcy9pcmFuLWF0dGVtcHRlZC1zZWl6ZS1icml0aXNoLXRhbmtlci9pbmRleC5odG1s

Kim Darroch, U.K. Ambassador, Resigns After Leak of Trump Memos - The New York Times

LONDON — Kim Darroch resigned on Wednesday as Britain’s ambassador to the United States after the leak of his candid observations on the Trump administration, a ferocious response from President Trump and the failure of the likely next prime minister, Boris Johnson, to support the British envoy.

Mr. Darroch submitted his resignation in a letter that said the situation was making it impossible for him to carry out his role. “Although my posting is not due to end until the end of this year, I believe in the current circumstances the responsible course is to allow the appointment of a new ambassador,” he wrote.

On Monday, Mr. Trump said the White House would no longer deal with Mr. Darroch after the leak of confidential emails written by the ambassador that had described the Trump administration as “clumsy and inept.” The president described the ambassador as “wacky,” a “very stupid guy” and a “pompous fool,” and called Prime Minister Theresa May “foolish” for ignoring his advice on Brexit.

The dispute has cast a shadow over ties between London and Washington and taken center stage in the Tory leadership contest to succeed Mrs. May as prime minister, which Mr. Johnson is heavily favored to win.

During a televised debate Tuesday night, Mr. Johnson, the former foreign secretary, ignited a firestorm by refusing several opportunities to say that he would keep Mr. Darroch in his post until a scheduled departure date in January. He also declined to criticize Mr. Trump, stressing his good relationship with the White House and playing down the rift.

Within hours, the ambassador had submitted his resignation.

Mr. Johnson’s failure to back the ambassador was met with withering criticism from opponents.

“The fact that Sir Kim has been bullied out of his job, because of Donald Trump’s tantrums and Boris Johnson’s pathetic lickspittle response, is something that shames our country,” said Emily Thornberry, the opposition Labour Party’s shadow foreign secretary. “It makes a laughingstock out of our government.”

She added: “Just imagine Churchill allowing this humiliating, servile, sycophantic indulgence of the American president’s ego to go unchallenged.”

Even Mr. Johnson’s rival in the leadership race, Jeremy Hunt, the current foreign secretary, described Mr. Trump’s comments as “unacceptable” and said during the debate that he would keep Mr. Darroch in his job.

Mr. Johnson said on Wednesday that he regretted Mr. Darroch’s departure, and that whoever leaked the ambassador’s messages should be “run down, caught and eviscerated.”

With Mr. Johnson intent on Britain leaving the European Union in October, the “special relationship” with Washington is of particular importance given that Mr. Tump has promised a trade agreement with Britain.

“I think the reality was that in light of the last few days his ability to be effective was probably limited,” Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, said Wednesday morning in Washington. “So it was probably the right course.”

The controversy surrounding Mr. Darroch’s assessments has struck some members of the diplomatic corps in Washington as a broader peril: As one of his fellow European ambassadors put it, there was little in his cables that could not be found in their own.

Mr. Darroch’s descriptions of the administration as inept and chaotic, of reversed decisions and a mystifying policymaking process, differ little from myriad daily news reports and the findings of the slew of books about Mr. Trump’s tenure.

But a senior American diplomat noted, before Mr. Darroch’s resignation was announced, that the publication of the WikiLeaks trove of 250,000 diplomatic cables in 2010 had a similar result, with the resignation of the United States ambassador to Mexico.

The entire episode has left British diplomats shocked. Simon McDonald, the head civil servant in the British Foreign Office, told a parliamentary committee that he could not think of another example in his 37-year-long diplomatic career of a head of state refusing to deal with a British ambassador. That applied even to countries hostile to Britain, he said.

Equally worrying for some has been the lack of support from Mr. Johnson, amid fears that pro-Brexit politicians want to undermine civil servants and blame them for the country’s failure to leave the European Union as scheduled. Mr. Darroch, who once served as Britain’s top diplomat in Brussels, was one of a number of officials viewed with suspicion by Brexit supporters.

In response to Mr. Darroch’s decision, Mrs. May paid tribute to him in Parliament and said that the whole cabinet had rightly given him its support.

“Good government depends on public servants being able to give full and frank advice. I want all our public servants to have the confidence to be able to do that, and I hope the house will reflect on the importance of defending our values and principles, particularly when they are under pressure,” she said.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour Party, said of Mr. Darroch, “the comments made about him are beyond unfair and wrong.”

During his tenure, Mr. Darroch was a constant whirlwind of intelligence collection, political analysis, and outreach to the administration and Congress. He organized lunches and dinners for the parade of British officials who move through Washington, from trade ministers to the chiefs of the British intelligence agencies.

Because he had served as Britain’s national security adviser, Mr. Darroch had especially close ties to the American national security apparatus, and frequently played a key role in coordination on matters involving Iran, Russia and Brexit.

His parties, especially an annual New Year’s party at the Embassy, which is decorated with art from Britain’s museum collections, were among Washington’s most sought-after social events. They sometimes included Trump administration officials, including Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the president’s daughter and son-in-law, both of whom are close advisers to the president.

Yet the ambassador’s access to the highest levels of government waned under Mr. Trump. In past administrations, American secretaries of state were often at the British Embassy.

But neither Rex W. Tillerson nor Mike Pompeo dealt as much with Mr. Darroch, and the National Security Council was not as welcoming a place, even to one of Washington’s most crucial ambassadors, as it had been in previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

The State Department had no immediate comment on Mr. Darroch’s resignation. On Tuesday, the department’s main spokeswoman, Morgan Ortagus, acknowledged that the controversy had implications for Britain’s internal politics.

“There’s clearly an election going on in the United Kingdom,” she said. “We’re going to stay out of that and we will, of course, let the White House speak for the president’s tweets.”

Ms. Ortagus stressed the importance of the relationship between the two nations.

“We have an incredibly special and strategic relationship with the United Kingdom,” she said. “That has gone on for quite a long time and it’s bigger than any individual; it’s bigger than any government. It’s something that has stood the test of time and will continue to do so.”

Mr. McDonald, the head civil servant in the British Foreign Office, said he had accepted the resignation “with deep personal regret.”

“Over the last few difficult days you have behaved as you have always behaved over a long and distinguished career, with dignity, professionalism and class. The prime minister, foreign secretary and whole of the public service have stood with you: you were the target of a malicious leak; you were simply doing your job.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/world/europe/kim-darroch-resigns.html

2019-07-10 14:34:57Z
52780329171254

Kim Darroch, U.K. Ambassador, Resigns After Leak of Trump Memos - The New York Times

LONDON — Kim Darroch resigned on Wednesday as Britain’s ambassador to the United States after the leak of his candid observations on the Trump administration, a ferocious response from President Trump and the failure of the likely next prime minister, Boris Johnson, to support the British envoy.

Mr. Darroch submitted his resignation in a letter that said the situation was making it impossible for him to carry out his role. “Although my posting is not due to end until the end of this year, I believe in the current circumstances the responsible course is to allow the appointment of a new ambassador,” he wrote.

On Monday, Mr. Trump said the White House would no longer deal with Mr. Darroch after the leak of confidential emails written by the ambassador that had described the Trump administration as “clumsy and inept.” The president described the ambassador as “wacky,” a “very stupid guy” and a “pompous fool,” and called Prime Minister Theresa May “foolish” for ignoring his advice on Brexit.

The dispute has cast a shadow over ties between London and Washington and taken center stage in the Tory leadership contest to succeed Mrs. May as prime minister, which Mr. Johnson is heavily favored to win.

During a televised debate Tuesday night, Mr. Johnson, the former foreign secretary, ignited a firestorm by refusing several opportunities to say that he would keep Mr. Darroch in his post until a scheduled departure date in January. He also declined to criticize Mr. Trump, stressing his good relationship with the White House and playing down the rift.

Within hours, the ambassador had submitted his resignation.

Mr. Johnson’s failure to back the ambassador was met with withering criticism from opponents.

“The fact that Sir Kim has been bullied out of his job, because of Donald Trump’s tantrums and Boris Johnson’s pathetic lickspittle response, is something that shames our country,” said Emily Thornberry, the opposition Labour Party’s shadow foreign secretary. “It makes a laughingstock out of our government.”

She added: “Just imagine Churchill allowing this humiliating, servile, sycophantic indulgence of the American president’s ego to go unchallenged.”

Even Mr. Johnson’s rival in the leadership race, Jeremy Hunt, the current foreign secretary, described Mr. Trump’s comments as “unacceptable” and said during the debate that he would keep Mr. Darroch in his job.

Mr. Johnson said on Wednesday that he regretted Mr. Darroch’s departure, and that whoever leaked the ambassador’s messages should be “run down, caught and eviscerated.”

With Mr. Johnson intent on Britain leaving the European Union in October, the “special relationship” with Washington is of particular importance given that Mr. Tump has promised a trade agreement with Britain.

“I think the reality was that in light of the last few days his ability to be effective was probably limited,” Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, said Wednesday morning in Washington. “So it was probably the right course.”

The controversy surrounding Mr. Darroch’s assessments has struck some members of the diplomatic corps in Washington as a broader peril: As one of his fellow European ambassadors put it, there was little in his cables that could not be found in their own.

Mr. Darroch’s descriptions of the administration as inept and chaotic, of reversed decisions and a mystifying policymaking process, differ little from myriad daily news reports and the findings of the slew of books about Mr. Trump’s tenure.

But a senior American diplomat noted, before Mr. Darroch’s resignation was announced, that the publication of the WikiLeaks trove of 250,000 diplomatic cables in 2010 had a similar result, with the resignation of the United States ambassador to Mexico.

The entire episode has left British diplomats shocked. Simon McDonald, the head civil servant in the British Foreign Office, told a parliamentary committee that he could not think of another example in his 37-year-long diplomatic career of a head of state refusing to deal with a British ambassador. That applied even to countries hostile to Britain, he said.

Equally worrying for some has been the lack of support from Mr. Johnson, amid fears that pro-Brexit politicians want to undermine civil servants and blame them for the country’s failure to leave the European Union as scheduled. Mr. Darroch, who once served as Britain’s top diplomat in Brussels, was one of a number of officials viewed with suspicion by Brexit supporters.

In response to Mr. Darroch’s decision, Mrs. May paid tribute to him in Parliament and said that the whole cabinet had rightly given him its support.

“Good government depends on public servants being able to give full and frank advice. I want all our public servants to have the confidence to be able to do that, and I hope the house will reflect on the importance of defending our values and principles, particularly when they are under pressure,” she said.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour Party, said of Mr. Darroch, “the comments made about him are beyond unfair and wrong.”

During his tenure, Mr. Darroch was a constant whirlwind of intelligence collection, political analysis, and outreach to the administration and Congress. He organized lunches and dinners for the parade of British officials who move through Washington, from trade ministers to the chiefs of the British intelligence agencies.

Because he had served as Britain’s national security adviser, Mr. Darroch had especially close ties to the American national security apparatus, and frequently played a key role in coordination on matters involving Iran, Russia and Brexit.

His parties, especially an annual New Year’s party at the Embassy, which is decorated with art from Britain’s museum collections, were among Washington’s most sought-after social events. They sometimes included Trump administration officials, including Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the president’s daughter and son-in-law, both of whom are close advisers to the president.

Yet the ambassador’s access to the highest levels of government waned under Mr. Trump. In past administrations, American secretaries of state were often at the British Embassy.

But neither Rex W. Tillerson nor Mike Pompeo dealt as much with Mr. Darroch, and the National Security Council was not as welcoming a place, even to one of Washington’s most crucial ambassadors, as it had been in previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

The State Department had no immediate comment on Mr. Darroch’s resignation. On Tuesday, the department’s main spokeswoman, Morgan Ortagus, acknowledged that the controversy had implications for Britain’s internal politics.

“There’s clearly an election going on in the United Kingdom,” she said. “We’re going to stay out of that and we will, of course, let the White House speak for the president’s tweets.”

Ms. Ortagus stressed the importance of the relationship between the two nations.

“We have an incredibly special and strategic relationship with the United Kingdom,” she said. “That has gone on for quite a long time and it’s bigger than any individual; it’s bigger than any government. It’s something that has stood the test of time and will continue to do so.”

Mr. McDonald, the head civil servant in the British Foreign Office, said he had accepted the resignation “with deep personal regret.”

“Over the last few difficult days you have behaved as you have always behaved over a long and distinguished career, with dignity, professionalism and class. The prime minister, foreign secretary and whole of the public service have stood with you: you were the target of a malicious leak; you were simply doing your job.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/world/europe/kim-darroch-resigns.html

2019-07-10 12:57:51Z
CAIiEOw-RSVV1Pf2MvFXfBJ99aYqFwgEKg8IACoHCAowjuuKAzCWrzwwt4QY

Kim Darroch, U.K. Ambassador to U.S., Resigns After Leak - The New York Times

LONDON — Kim Darroch submitted his resignation on Wednesday as Britain’s ambassador to the United States, following the leak of his candid observations about the Trump administration and the subsequent fierce criticism of him and the British government from President Trump.

“Since the leak of official documents from this embassy there has been a great deal of speculation surrounding my position and the duration of my remaining term as ambassador,” Mr. Darroch said in his resignation letter. “I want to put an end to that speculation. The current situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like.”

“Although my posting is not due to end until the end of this year, I believe in the current circumstances the responsible course is to allow the appointment of a new ambassador,” Mr. Darroch wrote.

On Monday, Mr. Trump said the White House would no longer deal with Mr. Darroch after the leak of confidential emails written by the ambassador that had described the Trump administration as “clumsy and inept.”

Mr. Trump also accused Prime Minister Theresa May of ignoring his advice and mismanaging Britain’s tortured efforts to leave the European Union, a departure now delayed at least until the end of October. As for Mr. Darroch, the president described him as “wacky,” a “very stupid guy,” and a “pompous fool.”

The dispute has cast a shadow over ties between London and Washington and has taken center stage in the contest to succeed Mrs. May as prime minister.

During a TV debate Tuesday night, Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary and favorite to succeed Mrs. May, refused several opportunities to say that he would keep Mr. Darroch in his post until a scheduled departure date in January. He also declined to criticize Mr. Trump and played down the rift.

His comments probably made Mr. Darroch’s position untenable, given that Mr. Johnson is the clear front-runner in the contest and is likely to become prime minister later this month.

By contrast, the rival candidate, Jeremy Hunt, the current foreign secretary, described Mr. Trump’s comments as “unacceptable” and said that he would keep Mr. Darroch in his job.

Mr. Johnson said on Wednesday that he regretted Mr. Darroch’s departure, and that whoever leaked the ambassador’s messages should be “run down, caught and eviscerated.”

Alan Duncan, a minister in the Foreign Office and a supporter of Mr. Hunt, dismissed Mr. Johnson’s statement as “insincere guff.” By failing to support the ambassador, and attempting to ingratiate himself with Mr. Trump, Mr. Johnson had “thrown Kim Darroch under the bus,” Mr. Duncan told the BBC.

With Mr. Johnson intent on Britain leaving the European Union in October, the “special relationship” with Washington is of particular importance given that Mr. Tump has promised a trade agreement with Britain.

“I think the reality was that in light of the last few days his ability to be effective was probably limited,” Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, said Wednesday morning in Washington. “So it was probably the right course.”

The controversy surrounding Mr. Darroch’s assessments has struck some members of the diplomatic corps in Washington as a broader peril: As one of his fellow European ambassadors put it, there was little in his cables that could not be found in their own.

Mr. Darroch’s candid descriptions of the administration as inept and chaotic, of reversed decisions and a mystifying policymaking process, closely mirror daily news reports and the findings of the slew of books about Mr. Trump’s tenure.

But a senior American diplomat noted, before Mr. Darroch’s resignation was announced, that the publication of the WikiLeaks trove of 250,000 diplomatic cables in 2010 had a similar result, with the resignation of the United States Ambassador to Mexico.

In response to Mr. Darroch’s decision, Mrs. May paid tribute to him in Parliament and said that the whole cabinet had rightly given him its support.

“Good government depends on public servants being able to give full and frank advice. I want all our public servants to have the confidence to be able to do that, and I hope the house will reflect on the importance of defending our values and principles, particularly when they are under pressure,” she said.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour Party, said of Mr. Darroch, “the comments made about him are beyond unfair and wrong.”

During his tenure, Mr. Darroch was a constant whirlwind of intelligence collection, political analysis, and outreach to the administration and Congress. He organized lunches and dinners for the parade of British officials who move through Washington, from trade ministers to the chiefs of the British intelligence agencies.

Because he had served as Britain’s national security adviser, Mr. Darroch had especially close ties to the American national security apparatus, and frequently played a key role in coordination on matters involving Iran, Russia and Brexit.

His parties, especially an annual New Year’s party at the Embassy, which is decorated with art from Britain’s museum collections, were among Washington’s most sought-after social events. They sometimes included Trump administration officials, including Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the president’s daughter and son-in-law, both of whom are close advisers to the president.

Yet the ambassador’s access to the highest levels of government waned under Mr. Trump. In past administrations, American secretaries of state were often at the British Embassy.

But neither Rex W. Tillerson nor Mike Pompeo dealt as much with Mr. Darroch, and the National Security Council was not as welcoming a place, even to one of Washington’s most crucial ambassadors, as it had been in previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

The State Department had no immediate comment on Mr. Darroch’s resignation. On Tuesday, the department’s main spokeswoman, Morgan Ortagus, acknowledged that the controversy had implications for Britain’s internal politics.

“There’s clearly an election going on in the United Kingdom,” she said. “We’re going to stay out of that and we will, of course, let the White House speak for the President’s tweets.”

Ms. Ortagus stressed the importance of the relationship between the two nations.

“We have an incredibly special and strategic relationship with the United Kingdom,” she said. “That has gone on for quite a long time and it’s bigger than any individual; it’s bigger than any government. It’s something that has stood the test of time and will continue to do so.”

Simon McDonald, the head civil servant in the British Foreign Office, said he had accepted the resignation “with deep personal regret.”

“Over the last few difficult days you have behaved as you have always behaved over a long and distinguished career, with dignity, professionalism and class. The prime minister, foreign secretary and whole of the public service have stood with you: you were the target of a malicious leak; you were simply doing your job.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/world/europe/kim-darroch-resigns.html

2019-07-10 12:39:09Z
52780329171254