The British Foreign Office has instructed government officials to stop using the label enemy state when referring to Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. This shift in language follows a broader decision shaped by London’s caution around potentially provoking Beijing, a stance described by observers familiar with the policy changes. Officials were told to eliminate the term from formal documents as well as internal communications among colleagues and ministers, with the guidance applied to emails and to messaging platforms such as WhatsApp that are used for official purposes. The aim is not to rewrite history but to change how the language of diplomacy frames complex relationships between states in the modern era.
One insider described the change to The Times as reflecting a view that states themselves are not inherently hostile; rather, it is the actions of states that carry risks and create tensions. The core idea, according to this perspective, is to distinguish between national identities and the actions that may be taken by governments, helping officials focus on concrete behaviors rather than broad characterizations. The policy advocates for precise terminology that more accurately communicates security concerns without labeling an entire country as an adversary by default. Cited: The Times.
The article notes that the primary motivation behind the language update is to foster more productive diplomatic engagement with China, while acknowledging that the same approach will also apply to other nations, including Russia and Iran. In diplomatic circles, the choice of words is seen as a practical tool to reduce friction in official channels, particularly at sensitive moments in negotiations or when reporting on state actions. The change is expected to influence how ministries draft cables, briefings, and internal correspondence, shifting away from blanket descriptors toward identifiers tied to specific policies, incidents, or verifiable actions. Cited: The Times.
Officials have also been instructed to review and, where needed, revise documents produced under previous administrations. The new terminology replaces the phrase enemy states with enemy actors, and rewrites references to hostile activities as state threats rather than enemy state activities. This recasting aims to keep the focus on observable conduct and the implications for international security while reducing blanket judgments about entire countries. The approach signals a broader trend toward more nuanced language in government communications and public messaging. Cited: The Times.
A spokesperson familiar with the policy indicated that the Foreign Office’s decision stems from concerns about legal ambiguity surrounding the term enemy state. Officials argued that the phrase could be misinterpreted or trigger unintended diplomatic consequences, making it harder to manage sensitive conversations with partners and allies. Nevertheless, many staff members are reported to be perplexed by the change, with some noting that it complicates routine reporting and internal discussions that previously relied on established terminology. The shift appears to demand a period of adjustment as civil servants acclimate to the new framework for describing state behavior and risk. Cited: The Times.
Background notes suggest that the policy change sits within a broader conversation about how language shapes international relations and risk assessment. The Canadian and American readers may observe echoes of similar debates in their own governments about how to characterize state actions and alliances without inadvertently narrowing the scope of possible diplomatic channels. The broader context includes ongoing conversations about how to balance candid assessment of security threats with the practical needs of diplomacy, intelligence sharing, and multilateral cooperation. The Times also recapped a separate development: China’s proposal for BRICS to position their group as a counterweight alongside, and potentially in competition with, the G7, a suggestion that adds another layer to the strategic calculus behind language choices in London. Cited: The Times.