When British Prime Minister Theresa May visited Washington DC shortly after US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, her government had pitched the visit as an opportunity to revitalise the so-called special relationship.
While Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama had prioritised relations with other European nations such as Germany, the run-ins that the Trump administration had had with some on the continent seemed to provide the perfect opportunity for Britain to reinstate itself as one of Trump’s leading partners on the international scene.
That relationship is to face its first major challenge this week, as May is set to confront Trump over the leaking of information from US sources on the devastating attack on Manchester, which has killed 22 and injured over 100 people including young children. The first leak came on Tuesday after an unnamed US source told US broadcaster CBS the name of the Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi, despite earlier appeals by police in the UK to local media to not publish details on the person in order to aid the investigation.
Speaking on the BBC’s Today programme on Wednesday morning, Home Secretary Amber Rudd described the move as “irritating” and said they had been “very clear” with US officials that no more leaks of sensitive information should take place. When asked whether the revelation of Abedi’s name had compromised the investigation, she said that had not been the case.
Anger palpable
However, the leak of detailed photographs from the bomb scene from British forensic investigations to the New York Times has shifted the situation dramatically, with the anger palpable within Britain’s security and intelligence services. The BBC reported that police in Greater Manchester have taken the decision to stop sharing intelligence with US authorities on a temporary basis and only relating to this investigation.
May has said she would “make clear” to the US President the need to keep intelligence secure, at the NATO summit in Brussels on Thursday, while Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has raised the issue with the US Ambassador to the UK.
The US’ acting ambassador to the UK Lew Lukens told the BBC the leaks were “reprehensible” and that an investigation is under way in the US to determine their source. “We have had communication at the highest level of our government — we are determined to identify these leaks and to stop them.”
While Britain has arrangements to share intelligence with a number of countries across the world (Western intelligence security is traditionally said to centre around the ‘Five Eyes’ of the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Britain), the US has undoubtedly been its closest partner on this.
Information sharing has also caused tensions in the past. These include the leak of details on the July 2005 bombings in central London, which killed 52 people, and the decision by US authorities to act on intelligence from British intelligence on a plot to blow up airliners in 2006, sooner than the British had hoped for.
However, the latest leak is in a different league. “The leaking of pictures is unusual because that is not operationally sensitive but it is also emotionally very raw,” said Dr Jamie Gaskarth, senior lecturer in politics at Birmingham University, and an expert on Britain’s intelligence services.
Breach of trust
In a statement, the National Police Chief’s Council warned of the impact that such breaches of trust could have on the ability to defeat terror and protect the public. “It…undermines our investigations and the confidence of victims, witnesses and their families. The damage is even greater when it involves the unauthorised disclosure of potential evidence in the middle of a major counter terrorism investigation,” it said.
The New York Times , which did not specify the source of the leak, published images from the scene of the attack, including fragments of a blue Karrimor backpack the bomber was believed to have carried, metal nuts and screws and some of the damage inflicted on the area.
The strong institutional links in the intelligence cooperation between the two countries are likely to mean few major long term-implications for the bilateral partnership on these issues, said Dr Gaskarth.
However, with the issue of the leaking of intelligence already an issue for the US, following the allegations surrounding the sharing of sensitive information, some within Whitehall might “want to start thinking about a risk analysis of future intelligence cooperation,” he added.