Why no repercussions of assassinating the Secretary?
While extracting Ethan Hunt, unidentified assailants rain bullets on the car in which Ethan, William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) and the Secretary (IMF) are traveling. One of the bullets hits the Secretary in the head, killing him instantly.
I am puzzled, because killing a diplomat from another country would be usually considered an Act of Aggression or even worse, an Act of War against the diplomat's country. But in the movie there were no repercussions mentioned from the USA. Even though tensions were running high between the two nations due to the Kremlin bombing, it couldn't have been reason enough to massacre a diplomatic convoy.
Is this a simple plot hole which I'm reading too much into or is there some International Law in play that I am unaware of?
NOTE:
I am considering the Secretary as a diplomat as he mentions in the car that "yesterday I came to Moscow to accept the Order of Peace...". This indicates that he was on an official diplomatic mission.
The assailants though unidentified can be easily linked to the Russian police/military/special forces as the person who had detained Ethan in the hospital was later seen issuing orders to them.
Best Answer
The secretary was in Moscow for the official ceremony. But following that, his activities and meeting with Ethan Hunt was classified and secret.
- I'm guessing he was not supposed to be there in Kremlin. So if he was killed, then the Government would have to explain what he was still doing there.
- The assailants got rid of the body later on, which only made it nearly impossible to accuse or follow up on what had happened
- The entire IMF had just been disvowed. That meant that every IMF member was no longer on the official employee list. Hence no claims for anybody in IMF to be a diplomat.
- Russia had already declared the bombing as an act of war. With the primary suspicsion being on Ethan Hunt. Also, since Ghost Protocol had been activated, Ethan and his team were made responsible for the bombing. At such times, the IMF members were internationally wanted.
- Tensions in Russia also would have prevented pressure from the US Government about any sensitive issue.
Pictures about "Why no repercussions of assassinating the Secretary?"
\
More answers regarding why no repercussions of assassinating the Secretary?
Answer 2
I believe that the IMF (Impossible Missions Force, not the International Monetary Fund) had already been disavowed (by activating the Ghost Protocol) by the US government when the secretary was killed.
The Russians were operating under the belief that the IMF was responsible for the Kremlin bombing and, with the USA cutting the IMF off (which only served to confirm Russian suspicions), treated them as terrorists/spies/enemies of the state.
There were no public repercussions from the USA as they wanted to distance themselves from the IMF.
Sources: Stack Exchange - This article follows the attribution requirements of Stack Exchange and is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
Images: Ann H, Sora Shimazaki, PhotoMIX Company, Ono Kosuki