Our diplomats and civil servants are up for grabs
When a British ambassador accepts a medal from a king whose government has been documented torturing citizens and revoking the citizenship of minorities, the gesture cannot be read as mere courtesy. Alastair Long's acceptance of the Order of Bahrain appears to breach explicit Foreign Office rules — rules that exist precisely to preserve the independence of diplomatic judgment. That this is the fourth such award to a British ambassador in Bahrain suggests the protocol has quietly ceased to function, raising a question older than any single posting: what does a rule mean when no one enforces it?
- A British ambassador accepted a foreign honour without the required government permission, in apparent violation of rules that explicitly forbid heads of mission from receiving such awards.
- This is not a first offence — four consecutive UK ambassadors to Bahrain have received the same medal, suggesting the breach has become routine and the rules effectively hollow.
- A Liberal Democrat peer has written to the Foreign Secretary warning that the pattern signals British diplomats are 'up for grabs,' while a Bahraini human rights activist called the ambassador 'morally compromised.'
- The stakes extend beyond procedure: Bahrain has been documented stripping Shia Muslims of citizenship, arbitrarily detaining dissidents, and a 32-year-old man died in custody bearing signs of torture just months ago.
- The Foreign Office has declined to comment, leaving unresolved whether the rules governing diplomatic conduct will be enforced or quietly abandoned.
Britain's ambassador to Bahrain, Alastair Long, accepted the Order of Bahrain from King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa this week — a gesture that has since become an accusation. Foreign Office policy explicitly prohibits heads of UK missions from accepting foreign awards during or after their posting, and the Bahraini government reportedly never sought the required permission to grant the honour.
What makes the incident harder to dismiss as an oversight is its repetition. Three of Long's predecessors — Iain Lindsay, Simon Martin, and Roderick Drummond — received the same award. Lord Scriven, a Liberal Democrat peer and former UK Middle East minister, wrote to Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper to flag what he described as a deliberate pattern of disregard for British diplomatic protocol. "Our diplomats and civil servants are up for grabs," he warned. Internal Foreign Office emails from 2023, obtained through freedom of information requests, show officials advising that if the award could not be declined, it should be accepted quietly "to avoid embarrassment" and kept "as a keepsake."
The procedural concern is inseparable from its context. Bahrain has been documented suppressing free speech, arbitrarily detaining political leaders, and revoking citizenship en masse from Shia Muslims, rendering them stateless. In March, a 32-year-old man named Sayed Mohamed Almosawi was forcibly disappeared and later died in custody bearing signs of torture. Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, a Bahraini activist and torture survivor living in exile, said Long had been "morally compromised" by accepting an honour from a ruler whose record he had publicly praised.
The episode connects to a broader pattern: a former UK Middle East minister was cleared in 2025 to take a paid advisory role linked to Bahrain's government, and British campaigners have raised concerns about Gulf states targeting dissidents on UK soil. The Foreign Office declined to comment. Whether the rules that are meant to govern diplomatic conduct still carry any weight — or have become, as Scriven suggested, merely ornamental — remains unanswered.
Alastair Long, Britain's ambassador to Bahrain, accepted a medal this week from King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa—a gesture of diplomatic courtesy that has now triggered accusations he violated the rules meant to govern his own conduct. The Order of Bahrain, presented in recognition of Long's tenure, appears to breach explicit Foreign Office policy: heads of UK missions are forbidden from accepting foreign awards during their posting, upon departure, or after they leave. The Bahraini government, according to sources, never sought the required permission to grant the honour in the first place.
This is not an isolated incident. Long's predecessors—Iain Lindsay, Simon Martin, and Roderick Drummond—received the same award. Four ambassadors, four medals, a pattern that suggests either carelessness or deliberate disregard. Lord Scriven, a Liberal Democrat peer and former UK Middle East minister, wrote to Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper this week to flag what he called a "recurring pattern wherein the Bahraini government deliberately disregards" British diplomatic protocol. "This sends a clear message: our diplomats and civil servants are up for grabs," Scriven wrote. The implication cuts deeper than procedural complaint—it raises questions about whether the UK government can enforce its own rules, and whether accepting honours from a state with a documented record of human rights abuses amounts to tacit endorsement.
The context matters. Bahrain has been documented by Human Rights Watch as continuing to suppress free speech, arbitrarily detaining political leaders and human rights defenders, and revoking citizenship en masse from Shia Muslims of Iranian heritage, rendering them stateless. In March, a 32-year-old man named Sayed Mohamed Almosawi was forcibly disappeared in Bahrain. He is said to have died in custody bearing signs of torture. Last year, the state granted amnesty to 630 prisoners—a gesture that, to critics, reads less as reform and more as management of an overcrowded system built on coercion.
Freedom of information requests obtained by human rights activists reveal internal Foreign Office emails from 2023, when Roderick Drummond held the ambassador post. Those emails advised declining the award but suggested, if necessary, accepting it politely "to avoid embarrassment" and keeping it "as a keepsake." Bahrain notified the British government of Drummond's award beforehand—a courtesy it apparently did not extend to his predecessors, suggesting either a shift in approach or an attempt to normalize the practice.
Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, a Bahraini human rights activist and torture survivor who fled persecution, said Long was "morally compromised" by accepting the honour. "It was clear to us that Ambassador Long would be rewarded by Bahrain's ruler after praising his 'visionary leadership' despite his brutal and dictatorial rule," Alwadaei said. He called on the foreign secretary to take a stand: "No British diplomat should accept an honour from a ruler at a time when infants are being stripped of their citizenship and rendered stateless, and a 32-year-old man has been tortured to death."
The episode sits within a larger pattern of concern. Tariq Ahmad, a former UK Middle East minister, was cleared in 2025 to take a paid advisory role with a centre linked to Bahrain's government—a decision Scriven described as "whitewashing." British campaigners have also accused Bahrain and other Gulf states of transnational repression on UK soil, targeting political dissidents and exiled human rights defenders. The Foreign Office declined to comment on the record about Long's acceptance of the award. What remains unresolved is whether the rules that govern diplomatic conduct will be enforced, or whether they have become, as Scriven suggested, merely ornamental.
Notable Quotes
This sends a clear message: our diplomats and civil servants are up for grabs.— Lord Scriven, Liberal Democrat peer, in letter to Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper
No British diplomat should accept an honour from a ruler at a time when infants are being stripped of their citizenship and rendered stateless, and a 32-year-old man has been tortured to death.— Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, Bahraini human rights activist and torture survivor
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that an ambassador accepted a medal? Isn't that just diplomacy?
Because the rules exist precisely to prevent this. When a diplomat accepts an award from a government without permission, it blurs the line between personal honour and state endorsement. In this case, Bahrain is a state documented as torturing people to death. Accepting the medal signals complicity.
But couldn't Long have simply declined it?
Yes. And the internal emails suggest the Foreign Office knew this was coming and discussed how to handle it. The fact that four ambassadors in a row accepted the same award suggests either the rules aren't being enforced or they're being bent deliberately.
What's the pattern Scriven is worried about?
That Bahrain keeps giving these awards without asking permission, and the UK keeps accepting them. It's a test of whether Britain can enforce its own diplomatic standards. If you can't say no to a medal, what else can you be pressured into?
Is there a human rights angle here?
That's the core of it. Bahrain has stripped citizenship from thousands of people, detained activists, and tortured prisoners to death. When a British ambassador accepts an honour from that government, it looks like Britain doesn't care about those abuses—or worse, that it's willing to overlook them.
What happens now?
That's unclear. The Foreign Office hasn't commented. The question is whether there will be any consequence for Long, or whether this becomes another precedent that makes it easier for the next ambassador to accept the next award.