Latest news with #BritishOfficial
BBC News
15-07-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Three key questions after Afghan data leak sparked unprecedented secret evacuation
It has been more than three years since a British official inadvertently leaked a dataset containing the names and contact details of thousands of people who were attempting to flee possible Taliban revenge April 2024, the government began relocating some of them to the UK - but we are only learning this now because extraordinary lengths were gone to in order to prevent the breach and subsequent response coming to the full picture is finally disclosed to the public, these are the questions still facing Britain's security establishment. What can be done about the danger of leaks? It has happened before and it will doubtless happen again. Think Wikileaks, Snowden and all the countless cyber-hacks and ransomware suffered by companies on an almost daily basis. Data leaks are not new but sometimes – and it is quite possible that this is one of those times – they can be life-threatening. The revelations that have come to light will have sent a chill down the spine of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Afghans who fear retribution by the Taliban. For those already spirited out to Britain, it means they can probably never go back home as long as the Taliban are in the 600 former Afghan government soldiers and their estimated 1,800 dependants still in Afghanistan, the news will mean they are unlikely to breathe easily until the UK delivers on its promise to get them safely out. It's important to bear in mind that all this was not the result of some deliberate, sophisticated cyber attack by a state-backed hacking group. It evolved from an unintentional mistake made by just one individual working for the Ministry of Defence. What does this say about Britain's moral responsibility? UK forces were deployed to Afghanistan, alongside US and Nato allies, over a period of almost 20 years, from October 2001 to August this time they worked closely with their Afghan government allies, relying heavily on their local knowledge and expertise. The most sensitive area was in Special Forces (SF), for whom the Taliban reserved a particular hatred. When Kabul and the rest of Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in the summer of 202, there was a realisation that those now-former Afghan SF soldiers and their families were a priority for relocation to safety. But thousands more Afghans also risked their lives to work with the British over those two decades. Many did it out of patriotism, believing they were working to secure a better did it for the money, some did it because they trusted Britain to safeguard their lives and their personal details. A data breach like this now threatens to undermine any future promises by a British official who says: "Trust us, your data is safe with us." Was there a cover-up? When this "unauthorised data breach" was finally discovered, a full 18 months after it occurred, the UK government obtained what is known as a super-injunction, preventing its publication by the media. A super-injunction is so draconian that it means you cannot even report the fact that you cannot report it. That measure has only just been lifted now, following an independent review. There is a logical case to be made that this measure was necessary to protect the lives of those affected by the data breach. However, questions are now being raised about whether the injunction - applied for by the previous, Conservative government - might also have been for political purposes. The High Court judge who lifted the super-injunction, Mr Justice Chamberlain, said that it had "had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability which operate in a democracy".
New York Times
08-05-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: President to Announce Trade Deal With U.K.
President Trump is expected to announce on Thursday that the United States will strike a 'comprehensive' trade agreement with Britain. Mr. Trump teased a new trade agreement in a social media post on Wednesday night, though he did not specify which nation was part of the deal. On Thursday, a senior British official confirmed that a deal with the United States had been reached. And on Thursday morning, Mr. Trump was back on social media to confirm that it was, in fact, a deal with the U.K. 'The agreement with the United Kingdom is a full and comprehensive one that will cement the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom for many years to come,' he wrote. 'Because of our long time history and allegiance together, it is a great honor to have the United Kingdom as our FIRST announcement. Many other deals, which are in serious stages of negotiation, to follow!' Mr. Trump is expected to announce the deal at 10 a.m. from the Oval Office. The British official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, did not offer details, beyond saying that the deal would be good for both Britain and the United States. The agreement would be the first deal announced since Mr. Trump imposed stiff tariffs on dozens of America's trading partners. He later paused those temporarily in order to allow other nations to reach agreements with the United States. A deal between the United States and Britain could be a significant win for both countries, which have long sought closer economic cooperation. Details of the agreement were not immediately clear. Both nations have discussed lowering British tariffs on U.S. cars and farm goods, as well as removing British taxes on U.S. technology companies. It also was not clear whether the agreement had actually been finalized. Timothy C. Brightbill, an international trade attorney at Wiley Rein, said the announcement would probably be 'just an agreement to start the negotiations, identifying a framework of issues to be discussed in the coming months.' 'We suspect that tariff rates, nontariff barriers and digital trade are all on the list — and there are difficult issues to address on all of these,' he added. The Trump administration has been trying to cajole other countries into reaching quick trade deals with the United States. The president imposed punishing tariffs on dozens of its trading partners on April 2, but quickly backtracked after panic ensued in the bond market. Mr. Trump paused most of those tariffs for 90 days so that the United States could negotiate trade deals with other nations. But he has left a 10 percent global tariff in place, including on Britain. Unlike other countries, Britain was not subjected to higher 'reciprocal' tariffs, because it buys more from the United States than it sells to it. Britain is also subject to a 25 percent tariff that Mr. Trump has placed on foreign steel, aluminum and automobiles, levies that British officials have been pushing their U.S. counterparts to lift. Mr. Trump's interest in striking a trade deal with Britain dates back to his first term, when his advisers negotiated with the country but didn't finalize an agreement. British officials have also been eyeing a trade agreement with the United States since Brexit, as a way to offset weaker relations with Europe. In the Biden administration, British officials continued to push for a deal with the United States but made little progress. For Britain's prime minister, Keir Starmer, the trade deal would offer vindication for his assiduous cultivation of Mr. Trump. During his visit to the Oval Office in February, Mr. Starmer turned up with an invitation from King Charles III for the president to make a rare second state visit to Britain. The Trump administration appears to be nearing deals with India and Israel, and is continuing to negotiate with South Korea, Japan, Vietnam and other nations. Still, Mr. Trump once again displayed his unpredictable approach to economic policy on Tuesday when he downplayed the prospect of trade deals, saying other countries needed such agreements more than the United States. 'Everyone says 'When, when, when are you going to sign deals?'' Mr. Trump said, at one point motioning toward Howard Lutnick, his commerce secretary. 'We don't have to sign deals. We could sign 25 deals right now, Howard, if we wanted to. We don't have to sign deals. They have to sign deals with us.' Trade experts have said that Mr. Trump may be intending to announce far more limited deals than traditional trade agreements, which cover most trade between countries and require congressional approval. Historically, free-trade agreements have taken the United States more than a year to negotiate. In his first term, Mr. Trump renegotiated several U.S. trade agreements, including a free-trade agreement with South Korea and NAFTA. But he also signed a series of more limited 'mini-deals' with countries in which they reduced tariffs on a few kinds of goods or agreed to talk about a few sectors. British officials have also been negotiating with the European Union, and on Tuesday agreed to a trade deal with India. The India deal would lower tariffs between the countries and secure more access for British firms to India's insurance and banking sectors, among other changes. The announcement followed nearly three years of negotiations. Mark Landler contributed reporting.
