The British Foreign Office has directed government staff to stop using the label enemy state when referring to Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. This shift comes as London considers how language can influence diplomacy, especially with Beijing in mind. Officials were told to remove the term from formal documents and internal communications, including emails and messages on official platforms such as WhatsApp. The aim is not to erase history but to change how diplomatic language frames relations in the modern era.
An insider described the move as recognizing that states themselves are not inherently hostile; rather, it is the actions of governments that carry risks and create tensions. The guiding principle is to separate national identities from the conduct of specific governments, helping officials focus on verifiable behaviors rather than sweeping judgments. The policy calls for precise terms that reflect security concerns without labeling an entire country as an adversary by default.
The main motivation behind the language update is to enable more productive diplomatic engagement with China while applying the same approach to other nations such as Russia and Iran. In diplomatic circles, word choice is seen as a practical tool to reduce friction in official channels, especially during sensitive moments in negotiations or when reporting on state actions. The change is expected to shape how ministries draft cables, briefings, and internal correspondence, shifting away from blanket descriptors toward references tied to specific policies, incidents, or observable actions.
Officials have also been asked to review and revise documents created under previous administrations where necessary. The new terminology replaces the phrase enemy states with enemy actors and reframes hostile activities as threats stemming from states rather than enemy state actions. This reframing aims to keep the focus on observable conduct and its implications for international security while reducing blanket judgments about whole countries. The approach signals a broader move toward more nuanced language in government communications and public messaging.
A spokesperson noted that concerns about legal ambiguity surrounding the term enemy state prompted the change. Officials warned that the phrase could be misinterpreted or trigger unintended diplomatic consequences, complicating sensitive conversations with partners and allies. Yet many staff members are adjusting to the shift, with some finding that routine reporting and internal discussions become more demanding under the new framework for describing state behavior and risk. The transition appears to require a period of adjustment as civil servants acclimate to the updated language for describing actions and risk.
Background notes place the change within a wider conversation about how language shapes international relations and risk assessment. Canadian and American readers may see echoes of similar debates in their own governments about how to characterize state actions and alliances without narrowing the scope of possible diplomatic channels. The broader context includes ongoing discussions about balancing frank assessments of security threats with the practical needs of diplomacy, intelligence sharing, and multilateral cooperation. The discussion also touched on a separate development: a proposal by China for BRICS to position the group as a counterweight alongside, and potentially in competition with, the G7, a move that adds another layer to the strategic calculation behind language choices in London.