Leading Article: More openness, please, Mr Cook

THE LETTER that Sandline International's lawyers sent to the Foreign Secretary a fortnight ago, and now in the public domain, seems to suggest that the official contacts with this firm of "military consultants" were much more extensive than was previously thought. Tony Lloyd, the Foreign Office minister, has "points to correct" in his evidence to MPs about the Government's role. All this raises once again the way that ministers have handled the Sierra Leone issue. Naturally any firm judgement on the behaviour of ministers and officials must await the various inquiries now under way. But we can at this stage say that even if those involved were complicit, they need not feel that they are defenceless.

Politically complex, the moral questions posed by events in Sierra Leone are straightforward: the democratically-elected government was ousted by a military dictator, and Britain appears to have covertly assisted the legitimate government in returning to power. The problem was the wording of a United Nations resolution imposing sanctions on the African country as an expression of the world's disapproval. The effect was to prevent aid going to the ousted President, Ahmad Tejan Kabbah.

If Britain is to run an ethical foreign policy, it should include helping restore legitimate democratic rulers where possible. But preferably without subterfuge. Mr Cook should in future try to ensure that the UN's kneejerk reaction - an arms embargo - is tempered by the need for flexibility when dealing with genocidal, illegal regimes. He should also try more openness in his approach.