European ambassadors feared Iranian lock-in

WikiLeaks exposes officials’ worries of being trapped at Ahmadinejad’s inauguration.

It appears that tactically thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions is not the only concern on the mind of state representatives in managing relations with the Persian nation. A document from the WikiLeaks batch of US cables, dated July 2009, exposes the back-room politics of EU diplomats as they prepared to attend the inauguration of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Although prepared to send ambassadors to the ceremony in the Iranian parliament, member states had reportedly agreed to a secret caveat that would see them walk out if the leader crossed the "Durban Red Lines". Any denial of the Holocaust or threats against the State of Israel would trigger leaders' exit from the ceremony.

Despite their best intentions, the leak exposes the concern of members regarding the plan's practicality. Never having entered the building in Tehran where the event was to take place, attendants feared that their lack of territorial knowledge might prevent them from staging a successful escape.

Though threatened by seating layouts, floor plans and aisle widths, diplomats' greatest fear is said to have been the danger that the Iranians would simply lock them in:

They are not sure how they will stage their walkout, logistically, should they need to do so. They are worried that the doors may be locked.

Officials presumably felt that Iran might take its cue from China, who used the "locked-door" tactic to great effect in 2005. After facing hostile questions at a Beijing news conference, President George W Bush attempted to make a hasty exit from the room, only to find his way blocked. His shock and embarrassment at being held awkwardly in the conference has been replayed millions of times online.

The threat of viral videos exposing a stalled diplomatic stampede at the doors of the Iranian parliament would be enough to scare even the most seasoned ambassador. International relations can be a dangerous battlefield, and it is the responsibility of any serious professional to plan not only his strategies, but also his exits.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.