Cadogan read me a lengthy ‘report’ submitted by the chief of the London police, where the latter admits that the raid did take place and that its form and extent were just as I had described them to Cadogan during my first visit to his office on 9 February. According to the chief of police, this is what happened. At about 4.30 a.m., 6 February, the duty policeman checked the ‘mark’ that he had made on the back door of the trade mission and found something wrong with it. It was obvious that someone had used the door during the night. In accordance with the existing rules, the policeman immediately reported his discovery to Scotland Yard. From there, also in accordance with routine procedure, two cars with police officers and detectives were sent out. Another two or three policemen joined them at the trade mission. Twelve or thirteen men in all. Such considerable forces were employed because the street where the trade mission is located has a bad reputation. It contains many jewellery shops, and there are frequent robberies, break-ins, etc. At first, the police tried to talk to the people located inside the building of the trade mission (with a fat lady in particular– must be Bugacheva, the office cleaner), but since those individuals did not speak English, the police decided not to enter the building, but to search the house from outside. The police officers and detectives climbed over the fence and up the fire escapes onto the roof. Nothing suspicious was found, and at about 5.30 a.m. the police detail retired.

That is how the chief of police presented the facts.

I expressed my doubts about the complete trustworthiness of this story, since the real issue in question relates to the motives for the raid, but since Cadogan apologized for the inconvenience caused to the trade mission I decided not to probe much further into the matter. But I did firmly condemn the actions of the police for infringing the diplomatic immunity of the trade mission. True, the first two floors of the building are not exterritorial, but the four upper floors have diplomatic immunity, while the police used the fire escape to get right up to the roof.

Cadogan then asked: do we find it undesirable for the police to appear in the trade mission under any circumstances? Even in the case of robbery? Or fire? If we did not wish the police to enter the building even in these circumstance, then he would inform the chief of police about it. The latter would hardly object, but would most likely consider himself freed of all responsibility for the protection of the trade mission.

I said I did not agree with Cadogan’s point of view. What I meant was that policemen could not enter the embassy building uninvited or, at the very least, without the ambassador’s consent, yet the police could still not disclaim responsibility for the embassy’s safety. We would like to have the same arrangements for the trade mission. The police cannot enter the building without the consent of the head of the trade mission or of his deputy, but remain responsible for its protection.

Cadogan tried to object, arguing that the ambassador actually lives in the embassy, while there is nobody at the trade mission at night except the watchman. But I couldn’t agree with him. So we failed to reach a compromise, each sticking to his guns.

Generally speaking, this whole incident of the raid remains a mystery to me. Who initiated it? Whom did it serve? The British government, and more specifically the Home Office? I doubt it. The British government is currently trying to expand Anglo-Soviet trade. Scotland Yard? Also doubtful. Of course Scotland Yard would like to know what is happening at the trade mission; but had the raid been engineered by them, one can be sure that the police officers and detectives would have found their way into the building. In the end, it was simply ridiculous: they came, nosed around, and scarpered, frightened off by Bugacheva, the office cleaner. What a blow to the prestige of Scotland Yard! Or maybe the raid was the product of excessive zeal on the part of an eager police officer, who, encountering unexpected resistance, did not risk taking more radical steps for fear of a scandal?

We shall see. Meanwhile, we must think about safeguarding the trade mission against the recurrence of similar incidents. The best thing would be to have the head of the trade mission or his deputy living in the building. If necessary, he could give the police access to the building under his supervision. After all, I recall a couple of instances in the life of the embassy when we had to summon the fire brigade after a fire and allow the police inside the embassy building. The same could happen to the trade mission.